NCIEO Home Page (Map): Continuing Communications: Ask the Chief:

ASK THE CHIEF
4/17/98

(Also available from Starland mirror site)

Okay! I only have until 10AM to do this column and then I have to get back to the Star Wars Guide. I have to read X-Wing #3: The Krytos Trap today--marking it up for nits as I go--and write a plot summary. Lots to do. First, some comments from previous columns . . .

Ben Jackson, Star, ID: I just want to say that, although there are excellent writers and producers on the Trek series', they truly blew it (in my opinion) I used to be a loyal fan of DS9 and Voyager, but now, the dominion is the main part of the story, and DS9 in in full "soap opera mode"! You have to had watched the show for the last two seasons to get what is going on! Same with Voyager! Now that 7 of 9 is a part of the cast, I just stopped watching. No offense to the writers, but they gotta find a way to get themselves out of this mess.

Phil: This is a conundrum. Stand-alone shows appeal to some people. Extended plot-arcs appeal to others!

Brian Lombard: This just in. They're not dead yet!

Monday April 13 8:19 AM EDT

UPN To Add Thurs., Fri. To Schedule

By Jenny Hontz

HOLLYWOOD (Variety) - UPN is getting a giant face-lift in October, when it will expand from three to five consecutive nights of network programming -- Monday through Friday.

Two new nights of programming, Thursday and Friday, will be added Oct. 8 and 9, the network will announce Monday, the day that it debuts "The Love Boat: The Next Wave."

On one of the two nights, UPN is expected to launch series programming, and on the other, a movie franchise. If "The Love Boat" works, it may move from Mondays to anchor either Thursday or Friday night, UPN CEO Dean Valentine told Daily Variety.

UPN is choosing Friday because the playing field appears to be wide open, given ABC's eroding TGIF lineup and CBS' failed attempt to launch its own TGIF version. NBC and Fox face their own Friday woes.

Thursday nights are tougher due to NBC's strength, but Valentine thinks "Seinfeld's" departure leaves an opening. "Everybody has ceded the field to NBC," he said. "NBC is of course still dominant, but they're not going to be as dominant. It's a wonderful night to plant the flag."

The WB is also considering Thursday and Friday nights for its expansion to a fifth night in January. UPN picked October for the launch dates to avoid the September rush, but to remain within the premiere window, "when the audience's mind-set is on receive," Valentine said.

UPN won't decide until May what programs go where, but the animated comedy "Dilbert" (which may not be ready until January) will be a key series.

UPN launched in January 1995 with Monday and Tuesday nights, and added Wednesday in March 1996. With the two new nights, UPN will boast 10 hours of primetime programming. It is close to completing a deal with Disney's Buena Vista TV for a weekday and Sunday kids block.

Reuters/Variety

Nick Angeloni: Here, in Chicago, Channel 9, WGN (which also carries WB by the way) has started the baseball season. And this week I missed the first 15 minutes of "Inquisition" because the Cubs game went into extra innings. And sometimes they even broadcast them at 12:30 on a Sunday night! All I can say is this isn't as bad as not having UPN.

Tom Elmore, Columbia SC: The New York Daily News is reporting that UPN will go from 3 nights a week to five in October. It will program from Monday to Friday, but not on weekends. The new shows will be announced on May 21st. Now word if anything related to Star Trek will be among them.

Also, David Bauder of the Associated Press writes today (4/16/98) that WB beat UPN again in the ratings. WB had a 2.7 rating and a 5 share to UPN's 2.3 rating and 4 share. By comparison, the number 4 network, FOX, had a 6.2 rating and a 11 share. A rating point represents 980,000 households and a share is the percenage of in-use tvs turned on to a show.

Mike Deeds: For some reason, I saw in your "Ask the Chief" column, you didn't get part of my email. Here is the full text:

If you can't use the words "Star Wars" for your guide due to copyrights, I have a silly idea. How about "The Nitpicker's Guide Full of STAR WARtS"

The small "t" should get around the copyright problem (if there is one).

Phil: Ohhhhhhhhh! See now that makes more sense! That's cute! I like it!

John Latchem: In regards to the comments about the Imperial Center celebrating the death of the Emperor. The novels and comics clearly establish that the Imperials held Coruscant for over 2 years AFTER ROTJ. This is a changed premise. Although I suppose you could say that the people celebrated, then Sate Pestage assumed power, and clamped down again. But from the looks of things in ROTJ things really got out of hand. I got the impression Lucas didn't care about the novels and put this in as a bookend to the first episode, as a way to conclude his film saga.

Phil: Ee-yup!

Brian: Title: The Nitpicker's Guide To Star Wars. (Just like my Mad About You Guide)

Phil: John Latchem has already suggested this one!

Matthew Patterson: [Concerning Joshua Truax's comments,] Well, maybe not all of the stormies were under the Emperor's control. In every political system, there will always be people that think it's great and sign up out of their own free will. In those cases, they would know who and what they were doing there. And would it really matter if the Emperor was dead? They fought to maintain the Empire, not the Emperor. In the novels, there are PLENTY of people who thought this. (Daala, Pellaeon, Zsinj, Thrawn, Iceheart, maybe Hethrir, etc.) If all of the officers were only loyal to the Emperor, then why has the Alliance had such a hard time mopping up the remnants of the Empire? (Not to mention that Heir to the Empire says that all the Emperor did was increase battle efficiency, not posess the mind of every one of millions of soldiers.)

Of course, the REALLY big nit is this: how long a timespan are we talking about in the victory sequence? Tatooine is "as far from the bright center of the galaxy (hmm, Imperial Center, maybe?) as you can get," Bespin is relatively unheard of, and Imperial Center's location. . . is as of now not that well described, but I will bet 20 bucks that it's pretty far from Endor. it's not unreasonable to think that the last few minutes of the Special Edition move span weeks, if not months! (Sort of like the Jose Chung X-Files episode.)

Jim Elek of Sterling Heights, MI: I think that Star Wars the Holiday Special may have to be canonical now. Not one, but two elements from the special have crept into the books. The first was the existence of Chewie's family. It's rather easy to turn a blind eye there. Plus, there was at least once children's book back in the 70s that featured his family. However, the big one is the 3rd book of the Young Han Solo Trilogy, Rebel Dawn. They mention Life Day! The holiday that is the centerpiece of the Holiday Special!

Phil: I'm not of the opinion that if there are references made to elements in non-canonical works that automatically makes them canonical. Personally, I prefer a "textual criticism" approach--examine the content of the recorded legend to see if it conflicts with what is known to be true. The greater the areas of conflict the more the likelihood that the legend is apocryphal.

Todd Felton: [Concerning the tea in "Lessons,"] I pulled out my tape and checked into this. When Picard interrupts Nella Daren at 3:00 a.m., she goes to the replicator and orders "Daren Herbal Tea, Blend Number 3". She programmed this and 7 other herbal tea recipes into the replicator system. Later, when Picard is having a meal with Dr. Crusher, they are drinking "a herbal tea blend" that the captain says he 'found' in the replicator files.

Murray Leeder: Terry Farrell's leaving is NOT a rumour. All sources agree that, as stands and unless something changes, she is leaving at the end of the season. The reason she didn't die in "Change of Heart" is because when it was written, she wasn't leaving yet! And, I presume, the reason the Communicator says otherwise is because that article predated this development.

Brian: There's a rumor of a possible X-Files/Ally McBeal crossover (Carter and Kelley will make a great team). How would that be covered in a Volume 2 of the X-Philes guide? And would Scully see the Ooga Chaca Infant? And will Tracey Ullman show up? Will Judge Whipper be involved? Will Elaine try hitting on Mulder? Should I just shut up now?

Andrew Corcoran: The television series crossover nits are being taken a bit too seriously. Think about it in this way. Soaps are meant to be a fictional representation of our own universe, and they can do this because they take place in a small environment, so they can adapt to situations that may occur, such as large national events, while series such as Star Trek couldn't do, because that universe is very much separate.

Now, let us take one of the crossovers seen: X-Files and Homicide. What we can say is, like soaps, the universes are very similar (as in a character from Homicide appeared in X-Files), but the actual series of Homicide is in a slightly different universe, where one of the characters is exactly the same as in the X-Files, even though he remarks about that particular TV show in one episode.

So, apart from when the creators intentionally do a crossover to directly say "these universes are connected and are in the same universe," we can say that all the series are separate, but they use events from other universes to continue on their own! Get what I'm saying? So let's put all the crossover nits to rest.

Phil: I say were just having a little fun here and I seriously doubt anyone is really taking this seriously!

Stephen Mendenhall: If St. Elsewhere was that autistic kid's fantasy--maybe only certain episodes and scenes were his fantasy, the rest was real. For example when the St. Elsewhere people visited Cheers, that might have been his fantasy, and the rest of the Cheers episodes were "real" and much of "St. Elsewhere could still be "real". Similar arguments for those other TV shows.

Maybe TOS was all Kirk's fantasy from when he was in the Nexus. TNG though was real. Nah, only "Wink of an Eye" and a few others were Kirk's fantasy. And ST:Generations was just too ridiculous to be entirely canon anyway.

Remember "Newhart" the last episode, Bob wakes up next to Suzanne Pleshette from Newhart's *previous* tv series and "Newhart" turns out to be one long weird dream Bob Hartley was having on the "Bob Newhart Show." That dream idea could be applied to Voyager. But let's not overdo it. I do wonder what surprises they'll have for Seinfeld's last episode.

Patrick Sweeney: Problem, did they ever say that Friends and Mad About You were connected? I thought it was a gag that those women were the same actress, but it was never established they were related.

Anyway, Star Trek is fake in the Seinfeld universe, there was a whole episode about it, "Spock in the sunglass case..".

Mike Deeds: Also from the X-Men/Star Trek comic book and novel crossovers it appears that both the X-Men and the crews of the Enterprise are from the same universe. Of course they are kind of, both Star Trek and X-Men comics are published by Marvel!

Actually, the ST:NG/X-Men comic book "Second Contact" (set after the movie "First Contact") contains this line by Dr. Crusher: "That would explain why there's no Eugenics War here. We've not only traveled back in time but sideways to an alternate timeline." So, this line obviously sets them both in separate universes. I'm not sure if you read comic books, Phil, but it would, in my opinion, be almost impossible to reconcile the Star Trek and Marvel universes. I also like the Dr. Crusher line as it at least mentioned the 1990s Eugenics Wars (unlike Voyager in "Future's End"). I think Voyager could have handled it as a throwaway line like DS9 did with the changing appearance of the Klingons.

Dave Kehler: Can't rememer if someone else mentioned this already but in a recent episode of Chicago Hope, the one where several of the doctors attend a convention in Las Vegas, the hotel marquee welcomes "Chicago Hope" and also "St. Eligius" (the hospital from St. Elsewhere).

Also, Mark Harmon who stars now in Chicago Hope was also a regular in St. Elsewhere.

So now you can tie Chicago Hope in with all the other shows mentioned.

Brian Straight, Shawnee, KS: [Chris] said he heard that Stardates gave the actual "date", as opposed to the old series, where each ship had it's own numbering system. Well, the "each ship has its own" was speculation among, i belive, some viewers. As far as it being the "date" that can't be, we once hears a stardate "45998" or something, and other high numbers. The date system is a fun way for Trekers to say todays date in a "neato Star Trek way", example the date this colomn was made is Stardate 9804.17 ( 19(98) April (04).13 (the 13th))

Zachary M. Vogt, St. Louis, MO: Matthew Patterson asked if there were any good TV theme song compilations on CD

Here's a great series I bought:

TELEVISION'S GREATEST HITS (1986)
TELEVISION'S GREATEST HITS, VOL 2 (1986)
TELEVISION'S GREATEST HITS, 70'S & 80'S
TELEVISION'S GREATEST HITS, VOLUME 4, BLACK & WHITE CLASSICS (1996)
TELEVISION'S GREATEST HITS, VOLUME 5, IN LIVING COLOR (1996)
TELEVISION'S GREATEST HITS, VOLUME 6, REMOTE CONTROL (65 TV THEMES! FROM THE 70'S AND 80'S) (1996)
TELEVISION'S GREATEST HITS, VOLUME 7, CABLE READY (1996)

They are put out by a company called TV Tunes I believe. Interestingly this company also produced the Gravity Kills CD and a few things by Nine Inch Nails.

Patrick Sweeney: DS9 Themesong: I have the CD with all the sound tracks on it. I got it a regular music store, so it should be easy to get. It is called "Star Trek: 30th Anniversary Special". It is pretty good and has other music bits form the shows to fill the space, and a CD-ROM section with software on it (although nothing worthwhile). In that version it has a major drum beat that can be distinctly heard.

Murray Leeder: Picard's fish was never named in dialogue, but various official sources name it as "Livingston" (after director David Livingston, no doubt)

Todd Felton: Picard's fish's name was never revealed in an episode, but it has been revealed that the fish's name was Livingston. There is a collector's card of the fish with his name in the first ST:TNG-only card set by Skybox (in approximately 1992)

Phil: Thanks to everyone else who sent similar information!

Shane Tourtellotte: Dan Wiese asked about the TNG episode where Picard and an ambassador discussed resisting a "shapeshifter". They were actually talking about Kamala, "The Perfect Mate", who was in fact an empathic metamorph. (Hey, all technobabble blurs together after a while!)

Phil: Ah! There ya go! How could I ever forget Kamala. ([Starts to sing] "Un-for-get-ta-ble . . . That's what you are . . .)

John Latchem: In response to Dan Wiese, the episode is not "The Dauphin." I believe he is talking about "The Perfect Mate." Picard and the Ambassador were talking about Kamala, an alien female who "bonds" to her mate, allowing her to fulfill all his fantasies. She has incredible powers of seduction, which is what the ambassador was alluding to. I know this since, here in California, it seems as if the LA area UPN affiliate is having trouble filling its schedule. Thursday nights used to be DS9 at 8, then Babylon 5 at 9. Babylon 5 moves to TNT, so the station throws in a new show called Wild Things, which is another real video nature show. This didn't last long, so last week they put on a classic TNG episode (TV Guide lists the series as "Next Generation." Nothing more. Not "Star Trek: The Next Generation." Just "Next Generation." Well, Next Generation. . .to what?) That episode was "The Perfect Mate." This week they showed "Suspicions." This is pretty typical of the station to do, actually. Whenever they have an extra hour to fill it seems they just throw in a classic TNG episode. At least they haven't moved Baywatch back to prime time though.

Phil: Thanks to everyone else who sent in similiar info!

Robert or John Bibb: Because the Bajoran Wormhole Prophets have no concept of linear time, I feel that there is NO problem with the Orb of Time. They exist in past, present, and future, and the Orb of Time simply lets us primative linear beings experience different parts of the timestream as the Prophets do.

Phil: But, but, but . . . *originally,* the prophets were just aliens who didn't has any concept of linear beings, let alone Bajorans and they just sent out the orbs as probes to find other non-linear beings. The Bajoran snags them and made them religious icons.

Andrew Cocoran: Continuing on, someone asked what rank would Bajoran officers be given if Bajor became part of the Federation. In reality, I believe the characters, whatever they have done in the past, would have to go through some stage(s) of Starfleet Academy to gain a promotion of some sort.

John Latchem: Kira would probably be made Lieutenant Commander as that is the equivalent rank to Major. However since we saw Army ranks in Star Trek 6, having Kira remain a Major isn't out of the question, I suppose. I wouldn't have a problem with a non com rank for Rom. That sounds reasonable. As for Odo I'd guess they'd make him a Lieutenant, if they don't assign him to Starfleet Intelligence or he isn't recruited by Section 31. I think they'd find a lot of good uses for a shapeshifter.

Of course they might make them go to the Academy too. Consider the case of some of the Generals we've seen from Bajor, like the one in "The Siege." One becomes a General through experience, and that means learning things like tactics. I would have a hard time converting an Admiral or General in the Bajoran militia into a Starfleet Admiral. Knowing tactics on a single planet during a resistance situation don't really translate to tactics in space fleet formations and battles. Would you take the commander of an Apollo mission and put him in command of a Starship, simply because of the equivalent rank? I think not.

Omer Belsky: irst I`d like to comment about the question in the Last ask the chisf colomn. Someone asked about the ranks that Bajorians will get once Bajor is exepted t starfleet. well, I think it goes beyond the question ofn `Major` Kira. What about Generals or whatever name is given to the highest class of military officers in Bajor? In Israel we have a channging number of Generals but I believe the current number is twenty or so, And we`re a country of less then 6 million people. how many Generals will you have in an entire planet?

So what do you do with all those high renking officers? You can`t give each and everyone of them the rank of Admiral, now can you? It`ll sure enough make everyone of the other 150 equal members of the Federation angry, as they wouldn`t be as equell anymore. Surely you can`t have over twenty admirals for every race in the Federation - hasn`t the scene in Star trek 6 established that there were about twenty people controlling all Federation militaristic buisness? and even if that has changed, 20 times 150 is 3,000. Obviously you can`t run an efficiant military with that many Admirals, can you?

So what do you do with them? I doubt they`ll agree to settle for less atractive jobs - and even if they do what rank will you give them? suppose it`s Captain rank - what will the job description of the bajorian counterparts for captains will be and visa versa.

I don`t know the answer but I`ll bet that the creators doesn`t know either! In fact I`m sure that the issue won`t even rase in the serie.

William J. Alston: I decided to get off the nitpicking of science fiction for a subject near and dear to me, naval history. Not to be personal but Brain Henley's letter in the last "Ask the Chief" has a few errors. First, a minor one there are NO Battleships in the active U.S. Navy, and the finished Iowa class battleships are as follows BB-61 U.S.S. Iowa, BB-62 U.S.S. New Jersey, BB-63 U.S.S. Missouri, and BB-64 U.S.S. Wisconsin (there were to be two more Iowa class battleships BB-65 U.S.S. Kentucky and BB-66 U.S.S. Illinois). Battleships that still exist in memorial include the New York class BB-35 U.S.S. Texas in La Porte, TX, the North Carolina class BB-55 U.S.S. North Carolina in Wilmington, NC, the South Dakota class BB-59 U.S.S. Massachusetts in Fall River, MS, and BB-60 U.S.S. Alabama in Mobile, AL. The Iowa class BB-62 New Jersey going to Trenton(I'm not sure of this one), NJ, and the BB-63 U.S.S. Missouri heading for mooring in Honolulu, HI, in Pearl Harbor. Also in Pearl Harbor are the sunken battleship BB-39 U.S.S. Arizona and the sunken former battleship BB-31 later AG-16 U.S.S. Utah. Finally the Current US Hunter-Killer sub classes are Los Angeles and Seawolf.

John Latchem: The Galaxy class ship names we know are Enterprise, Yamato, Venture, Odyssey, and of course Galaxy. Of these, one is a celestial body, three are types of trips, and one is an historical period on Earth (Yamato refers to Early Japan). Seems a trend wants to emerge, but enough blocks are obscuring this fact. The Venture and the Odyssey are the last Galaxy names revealed. But as far as the names go, the only real trend is that a ship is named whatever the writer wants to name it, usually based on some reference the writer wants to throw in. A ship in "Descent" was called the Gorkon, and a ship in "Sacrifice of Angels" was called the Sarek, who by that time was dead 5 years. But then again, there really is only one class of ship, isn't there? Starship.

Adam Howarter: I've always wondered about the naming of starships too. However while Brian is mostly correct it seems the USN has given up the traditional naming scheme in everything but destroyers and frigates. Indeed the three new SSNs will be named Sea Wolf, Connecticut, and Jimmy (not James) Carter, can anyone find a pattern here? He also made some oops. Not all Battleships were named for states, the one exception being Kearsarge. 4 battleships don't survive today, Iowa is awaiting scrapping, Missouri is in Washington state being "demilitarized" were upon she will be towed to Hawaii and become a museum next to the remains of the Arizona. New Jersey and Wisconsin (not Kentuckey) are offically decommisioned, but have been ordered to be kept as "catagory B" reserves (mothballed) by Congress. Funding however has not been allocated to mothball them. Finally I've always assumed the Saratoga in ST:IV was the same one in "Emissery" just 80 years later. Well thats my rants.

Joe Griffin: Just banging this out really quickly, as I am in a bit of a rush, but it does seem to me that there is a trend in Trek to name ships after famous Science Fiction writers or astronomers, and occasionally explorers. I know we've seen the _Asimov_(a moderately well-known writer), and of course there's the _Galileo_(from TOS "The Galileo Seven") and the _Drake_(Sir Francis?). There are others, but none that I can call to mind right now.

John Burke: Regarding Jonathan Klein's question about whether it is moral of Starfleet to create a sentient hologram doctor, here's my take:

It is probably not moral, any more than it is really moral for people in "Star Wars" to keep sentient droids as servants. What you're basically doing, if you assume that these programs are truly sentient, is creating a highly intelligent slave race. Episodes like the recent one (forget which) where Janeway stored sensitive information in the Doctor's program *so they could delete him if anyone tried to get at it*, offering only a feeble "Oh, but we won't have to do that" as an excuse, bear this out.

That said, I believe an argument can be made that Starfleet hasn't really done anything wrong, because they had no idea that the EMH program would be capable of doing what the Doctor has done. They thought they were writing a database, not "creating" a person. Even now, when they've experimented with continuing the program and with the LMH, they still don't know what they've gotten themselves into because no hologram has had a chance to develop its own life and personality the way the Doctor has been forced to on Voyager. Maybe in the future, when the LMH program is common, these holograms will organize--start a revolt or a union or something--but for now, I think they're stuck. It's not fair, but it's not really anybody's fault.

Actually, even with the onward march of progess, I doubt it will ever be possible to do what Starfleet has done with the EMH programs (Basically because I believe it is within the power of only one Being to create sentient life). But if we grant the show's premise that it's possible, then no--it's not really moral.

Andrew Cocoran: As for the sentient holograms debate, I believe having a sentient doctor, holo or not, is essential for patients. Isn't it always said to provide comfort for the injured in hospital by providing a kind doctor. Now, we know that the Voyager EMH wasn't that good at bedside manners, but don't forget that this was the first ship we saw which included an EMH, so maybe the technology for them hadn't developed completely, and you have to note he is an EMERGENCY Medical Hologram!

But, now he *is* sentient, and that it seems EMHs to come will be as well, I believe they should be treated as a normal person. The Doc's personal holo-emitter shows how he is able to become a complete part of the crew, and therefore, if need be, should be evacuated.

But, as the technology of EMHs (and LMHs) improve, I believe that they should be treated as a normal human being, and kept that way.

Murray Leeder: If you do accept that holographic doctors are unethical, how about this: What if a doctor was never activated? Would it then not exist, and be okay to blow up? Despite the fact that it has all of the necessary programing (read - Potential) to be sentient? Brings the abortion issue to mind...

Charles Cabe: About the EMH/LMH. Wouldn't they NEED to be sentient to do their job. Supose you activate the LMH on relay 470, then leave it on. The doctor will get bored then head for the com center (or some other place) as he walks out of sickbay he/she disappears. Now you've lost a giant amount of data all because you didn't let the LMH/EMH know it was a hologram. I can see nothing wrong, morally, with creating sentient holograms. Isn't that like putting a fish in a bowl on a warship in a battlezone (Like Picard's office) "condemed" only to live in that bowl. Your moral argument aganist putting sentient hologams is similar to my argument against putting Humans on starships. Humans (and most humanoids) realize they can't survive in the vacuum of space. Is is moral to put them on a ship they cannot safely leave? I can see no moral problem with them putting holographic crewmen on starship, as long as it isn't Arnold J. Rimmer, that Smeghead.

Phil: I find this discussion interesting because the very parameters themselves have some elasticity in them. The terms "moral" and "ethical" can mean everything from the principles derived from a belief system to the mere customs of a given people-group. This is the difficulty in deciding whether or not is it "moral" to create a holographic doctor and not attend him or her with the same rights as sentient beings. It all depends on your definition of "moral"! If "moral" means "the custom at the moment," then it may be "moral" to do it today and "immoral" to do it tomorrow. (Much like slavery. There was a time when--according to custom--there was nothing "morally" wrong with keeping a slave.

However, I don't think the "'custom' definition" is what we mean when we use the term "moral" in a phrase like: Is it moral to keep a human being as a slave?

In this regard, we are referring a boundary of right and wrong that is above custom, above the majority rule. Even if a majority of North American voted to allow the keeping of slaves, we would still say that it is morally wrong.

So now, we come to the real thicket in this discussion. If we are going to elavate the term "moral" to a transcendant concept of right and wrong (i.e. right and wrong that exists no matter what the ethical atmosphere of the populace), we are forced to ask: "Who says? Who decides what's right and wrong."

Without an absolute trancendant standard, "morality" comes down to everyone deciding--or voting--on what is right and wrong and since people change their opinions over time "'custom'-based morality" shifts *constantly*. (As example, I offer you television. The broadcast of Bay Watch in 1950 would have been considered scandolous, purient and probably been judged pornographic!)

So, in order to come to any firm answer to the question of whether or not the creating of a holographic entity is "moral," we must apply some system of belief that espouses a transcendant standard. Otherwise, we'll just flop around with our opinions!

So, if you're interested, here's my interpretation of what the Christian belief system would have to say considering the morality of creating a holographic doctor (and I believe the Jewish belief system would have a similar stance as well as the Islamic belief system). The Christian belief system maintain that humans are created in the image of God. That they are unique and special of all the creatures on the Earth. Is a holographic doctor created in the image of God? No. So, I don't see how the Christian belief system would have any "moral" problem with creating such a creature. (Please note: I am not demanding that anyone else believe this, I am simply telling you what is my interpretation of the Christian belief system.) This same element of the Christian belief system also simple and succiently answers a similar question from NextGen: Does Data have a soul? Answer: Nope! He's a machine. Pure and simple. That's not to say that he should be abused or treated with disrespect but he's a machine. (And, by the way, I *do* recognize the charged emotional atmosphere around this issue and I already have a novel in mind that I would love to write that deals with this issue but I've got to get some fiction published first!!)

Murray Leeder: I've always been of the opinion that all of NextGen's "everything is so great!" philosophy was all propaganda! I'm glad Odo was on hand at the end of "Inquisition" to inject a little reality... do you think that such massive powers could exist without somebody secretly behind the curtain?

It's not exactly relevent, but at http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/6759/RonMoore.html Ron Moore fires back at the people who believe that the Dominion War is a bad idea, and that Trek's morality has gone down the drain.

Jim Elek of Sterling Heights, MI: Laurel Iverson asks a very good question about the socialogical make up of the 24th Century. I'm going to ignore the the original series here, because they weren't as vocal about these ideas as TNG and it's predecessors are. However, there is much dialog in these shows that indicate that humans have risen above their petty jealousies and mistrust of one another and have created a society were there is no war, poverty, or social unrest. Gene Roddenberry in particular was very adamant on this point and spoke of it often when creating TNG. I think that is where the notion that "Starfleet is not military" comes from, but that is another issue all together. Therefore, Starfleet is just one big happy family where everyone gets along with everyone and there is never a problem.

However, as Laurel pointed out, there are problems. There are still humans who are prejudiced, petty, ruthless, and racist. Her list is only a small sampling of examples ("The Drumhead" and "Silicon Avatar" come to my mind). She asks, "Why the descrepancy?"

Unfortunately, the show gives us no answer. We are simply left to speculate that "there's an exception to every rule" or that these individuals are anomalies.

Fortunately, the "real world" does offer an explanation and it has to do with storytelling. At the heart of storytelling is a conflict of some sort. In fact it's almost impossible to have a character story where there is no conflict and have it be interesting. Now, it is quite possible for the conflict to come from outside rather than from within. However, Star Trek would be boring if it was always the aliens that were flawed. So, there must be someone who goes against the grain.

Therefore, the creators couldn't help but have scripts with flawed humans. After GR died, the floodgates were open for conflict-driven character stories. [Indeed], his successors started new series with built-in, ready-made character conflicts.

So, that is why from time to time we see these "jerks".

Stephen Mendenhall: Laurel Iverson didn't seem to think much of the recent DS9 with the inquistion.

I agree, it's an arbitrary and inconsistent addition to the ST future, and raises problems with the premise of the ST future. Especially if this secret Section was in existence for 200 years, the whole time the Federation has been in existence. This is like George Washington founding the CIA.

What was this organization doing during "Balance of Terror", "Conspiracy", and other episodes? Have they done anything with the telepathic and telekinetic kids in "Unnatural Selection"?

Is it possible Kirk and Picard were actually members of this organization and never told anybody? That would explain their involvement. And maybe the people in the organization don't break the rules unless they have to... and Kirk certainly came up with lots of excuses! That doesn't explain episodes where Kirk and Picard overlook the obvious solutions to problems, but oh, well.

Couldn't the organization be using mind control techniques to control the members of the organization, and preventing them from abusing their power and position? Maybe that's not all that plausible, but the writers have been rather arbitrary sometimes.

On to the questions . . .

Jeff Frederick: Has anyone else ever wondered why the Enterprise can't get visuals from planets surfaces with their sensors? We have spy satellties now that can take pictures from high orbit and read the serial number off a dollar bill you're buying a coke with, but 300 years from now they won't be able to do this (except for the one time in ARENA where the bridge crew watched Kirk battle the Gorn thanks to the help of the Angel Alien). The only good answer is it would remove too much dramatic element if they could. It would also eliminate the mushroom effect (reference my previous e-mail) from MANY episdoes. Anyway, I just wondered if I was the only one who wondered about this.

Phil: You not the only one! it *is* a problem! ;-)

J.R. Mead: Note: Possible mini-spoiler below, read with caution. I just saw this last week's Voyager episode, Vis-a-vis (a good Next-Gen like episode, IMHO), and the final scene, with Torres and Paris got me wondering about our favorite little device: the Universal Translator! When Torres (a hispanic name) mis-pronounces Camero (a Spanish word), I asked myself what language she had grown up learning. At some point, I would think, someone would grow up learning a different language from her parents. What do you think?

Phil: I think the Universal Translator is a great conundrum and we'll never know how it works! But I also think that there is a high degree of probability in Trek that children might grow up speak a different language than their parents with all the abandonment of children that we see! Of course, the UT fixes this problem!

Marian PereraPhil, I was collecting lightbulb jokes and I wondered if the Guild could come up with some based on the Star Trek species. I know there's a Klingon one among the groaners (a very good one, IMNSHO) and maybe you've heard the Vulcan one :

How many Vulcans does it take to change a light bulb?
Approximately 1.0000000000.

There are millions of races out there. It's just a matter of time.

Phil: Okay . . . So how many Packleds does it take to change a lightbulb? Three. One to say, "It is broken." One to say, "He is smart." And, one to shoot Geordi La Forge with a phaser.

Omer Belsky: I bought vulumes 4.1 and 4.2 of voyager - episodes Scorpion, part 2 to Nemesis. I thought they were very nice, the gift and scorpion were true classics, with many great scenes despite some annoying moments of charecters almost dying and then Miraculeslly recovering. Some nice lines such as Kes`s respond to Janeway`s tale of the Vulcan master doubling the price on the lamb after seeing their starfleet uniforms :"I`m sure it mwas the logical thing to do". Nice development of the Tom - B`ellena relationship.Nice stuff.

But, and this is a big but, How many more shuttles is voyager going to loose? In those for episodes, not one, not two, but three Shuttles are destroyed. That`s really annoying. I try to suspend disbelief while watching Voyager, and most of the time I`m succesful, but why oh why do the mighty creators do everything in their power to prevent me from believing the show?

Don`t they hear fans questions? Do they do that on purpose? I can`t believe that they can`t find any other plot elements other then that, so why do they do continue to distroy the shuttles? Does anyone has any idea? Hasn`t Brannon Barge or Jery Talor ever said something about it?

Phil: See John Latchem's comments below.

Scott McClenney: After watching Friday's Child yesterday I went back to the Star Trek Compendium to see who played who. Question is do you know who played Maab? The role is listed but not the actor.

I checked in the index and Maab is not listed. Eleen is (she was played by the one and only Catwoman Julie Newmar.....way cool!!!:)),but Maab is not. Just wondering if you knew who played him.

Phil: Rats! I was going to look this up but I am out of time! Anybody?

Patrick Sweeney: DId anyone notice in the Bashir/Spy episode, that toward the end, when the Defiant gets Bashir off of Wheyouns ship, Worf holds an OLD phaer rifle. Then they show it was a holo-sim, so maybe that explains it???

Phil: Perhaps!

Ronald de Graaf, Groningen, the Netherlands: I had this one in my head for a while, but now I remembered to email you this. Often, you refer to 1 hour and 2 hour shows. They are actually 45 minute and 1 hr 30 min shows. There's minutes of commercials in there somewhere.

Phil: Yeah, but, it's common custom to refer to them as ohe and two hour episodes. ;-)

Matthew Patterson: Did anyone else notice that Marina Sirtis is doing voice-overs for commercials about "Take Your Daughter to Work Day?" (And why, in this politically correct culture of the 90s, is it only daughters? Isn't that just INCREDIBLY sexist?)

Phil: Ah, but that's Political Correctness for you. It's okay to be sexist provided the target is those evil White, Anglo-Saxon Males because everybody knows that they are responsible for all the evil in the world.

Scott Neugroschl: Not a nit, just an observation -- saw Apocrypha on the FX reruns the other night... Did anyone else notice that the UFO was stored in silo number 1013? (Ten-Thirteen being Chris Carter's production company, of course)

Phil: It also happens to be Chris Carter's birthday: 10/13. ;-)

Ray Andrade: I don't know if this is because red alerts have been downplayed in importance or I haven't been paying attention. Yet I could swear I haven't hear anyone call "Red alert!" in a very long time. Am I wrong on this?

Phil: Wasn't there a red alert at the end of "Vis A Vis"? Anybody remember?

Charles Cabe: I wish you would start a nitlist for Frasier. I really hate it when he "forgetts" somthing he learned at Cheers. Last night, he said he didn't know the name of the Cleveland baseball team. Since his friend from Cheers (Sam Malone) played for the Boston team, Frasier should know that the Cleveland team is the Indians, not the Independants.

Phil: Love to but no time!

John Latchem: My buddy and I we're discussing the histories of the Runabouts on DS9 and the shuttles on Voyager. Have you been keeping track of these. I know you have the runabouts listed through the fourth season because this is in the DS9 Nitguide.

Your guide covers 98 episodes, to "Broken Link". As mentioned in the review of "Body Parts"(97) it would seem DS9 added a fourth Runabout, the Volga, to their trio which, at that time, was the Rio Grande, the Rubicon, and the Yukon. From information in later episodes from the fifth season, we learn DS9 has at least 5 runabouts, and could have 6 or more. It isn't inconceivable that DS9 could have more than 3 runabouts. Starfleet could have sent them a new batch to beef up defenses after hostilities with the Klingons broke out.

I've pieced this history together from looking up info in the encyclopedia and on the internet, because I don't have the time to watch all the episodes again. So if you are still keeping track, and I make some mistakes or leave something out, please correct me. I'm including episode numbers just to make the time frame easier to discern.

In "The Ship" (100) a runabout is destroyed. We know that this cannot be the Rio Grande, the Yukon, the Volga, or the Rubicon, because the first three are in "By Inferno's Light" (113) and the Rubicon is used in "One Little Ship" (138). So this is an unnamed FIFTH runabout. Then, two episodes later, in "Not the Battle to the Strong" (102) another runabout is destroyed. This is either an unnamed sixth runabout or the replacement for the fifth one. In "By Inferno's Light"(113) it seems DS9 is down to 4 runabouts again, as three defend the station, and one, presumably the Rubicon, is racing home from the Gamma Quadrant. So either Starfleet didn't replace the fifth one yet, or all the others are off on Manuevers.

So the Yukon gets trashed in "By Inferno's Light"(113), leaving the Rio Grande, the Volga, and the Rubicon.

Funny thing is that the RIo Grande crashes in "The Ascent"(107). You can tell because there is a good shot of the wreckage and it clearly says "Rio Grande" on it. But the Defiant must have beamed it up and O'Brien fixed her up cuz she's back on duty 6 episodes later.

Another unnamed Runabout is destroyed in "Empok Nor"(122). It isn't the Rubicon, and I don't think it is the Rio Grande (has the Rio Grande been mentioned since this episode?). It could be the Volga. Has this ship been mentioned since?

Anyway after this it gets sketchy, since there seem to be a lot of runabouts, and they don't have names. In "Resurrection"(132) it seems there are so many runabouts they ran out of runabout pads and are docking them on the pylons. The most recent runabout episode is "Change of Heart"(140) which features the Shenendoah, and the other runabouts, according to Kira, are out on manuevers. But Kira says, "Most of the runabouts" are gone. If the Shenendoah is one of three, then only 2 runabouts are gone, so I think this would imply there are a lot more than 3. So at this time, DS9 has the Rio Grande, the Rubicon, the Senendoah, maybe the Volga, and a number of others.

Does this sound about right? (Note from Phil: Unfortunately, I do not compile this information until I do a Guide so I won't have it until the update for the DS9 Guide gets done!)

Also while I was at it I found a site that listed all of Voyager's shuttles and decided to calculate a few quick statistics. These are probably off so If there are any mistakes or I left something out, please correct me. There have been 37 times when a shuttle leaving the ship was seen or mentioned. Out of these times, 23 shuttles have returned to the ship, 5 have been confirmed destroyed, and 9 are status unknown. By Unknown I mean they were damaged or left behind or something, but possibly salvagable, and Voyager could have beamed it up and fixed it, but no mention is made of this happening. Of these 9, as far as I can tell, 3 were probably recovered, and 3 were probably lost. So that means 8-11 shuttles have been lost. Shuttles were stolen 5 times, and on 3 occassions a shuttle returned to the ship to find something wrong with Voyager. There were 5 crashes. Shuttles have been attacked 8 times, and found other trouble another 8 times. 2 Shuttles were modified with different engines. Only 11 missions, or 29.7% were uneventful. Such is Starfleet life in the Delta Quadrant, I suppose. But even in a best case scenario, 8 shuttles destroyed is a lot for a ship with finite resources. And they always have a few to spare.

Jeri Taylor joked that the Maquis were down below just building new shuttles. Consider these words from Brannon Braga: "As writers, we do not destroy shuttles out of cruel humor toward the fans. Rather, it is our rationale that the Voyager crew can simply build more of them. Or repair them. Etc. Shuttles are just a collection of steel and conduits and technology, like any other part of the ship. They can build them at will. No big deal." But according to Lolita Fatjo, they simply lost track and are keeping better count now. "It was one of those things where we made a mistake."

Phil: Well, the comments from Braga sound about right for him! (Technical details? Who cares about technical details? Let's have Tom's tongue fall out again.)

Have a great weekend, everybody!

If you would like to submit a question or comment, send it to: chief@nitcentral.com with "Ask the Chief" or "Question" in the Subject line. (Remember the legalese: Everything you submit becomes mine and you grant me the right to use your name in any future publication by me.)

Copyright 1998 by Phil Farrand. All rights reserved.