[009]
69.172.221.4
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Karma is not simply based on anyone dying, it\'s based on \'\'any\'\' kind of harm, especially to the innocent. River Song\'s actions caused the universe to break, and only \'\'after\'\' the Doctor married her did said universe get mended; she was perfectly willing to \'\'leave\'\' it broken, condemning countless others to untold suffering, had he not stopped it. I get that you want to defend your favorite character, but this is a page for pointing out tropes, not taking away examples you simply happen to dislike. As stated on the trope page for KarmaHoudini, \
to:
Karma is not simply based on anyone dying, it\\\'s based on \\\'\\\'any\\\'\\\' kind of harm, especially to the innocent. River Song\\\'s actions caused the universe to break, and only \\\'\\\'after\\\'\\\' the Doctor married her did said universe get mended; she was perfectly willing to \\\'\\\'leave\\\'\\\' it broken, condemning countless others to untold suffering, had he not stopped it. I get that you want to defend your favorite character, but this is a page for pointing out tropes, not taking away examples you simply happen to dislike. As stated on the trope page for KarmaHoudini, \\\"The character has done a number of things that deserve a karmic comeuppance, most importantly things that caused harm to the innocent.\\\" She \\\'\\\'did\\\'\\\' do this. Just because it was fixed, causing people to (mostly) forget the broken universe, does not mean it didn\\\'t happened - Amy even points out that she \\\'\\\'remembers\\\'\\\' killing someone and has guilt over it, despite said actions being \\\"undone\\\" (though she\\\'s thankfully able to move on from it, we haven\\\'t seen Madame Kovarian since, but I\\\'m sure we\\\'ll learn what happened to her one way or the other). Also, it\\\'s pointed out in the example that we don\\\'t know whether meeting the Doctor out of order or the Library is an example of karma (she does seem at peace at the end, as well), as we \\\'\\\'still\\\'\\\' don\\\'t know whether or not it was an example of RedemptionEqualsDeath or not, but it does leave it open s a possibility (\\\"Played straight and possibly subverted\\\").
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Karma is not simply based on anyone dying, it\'s based on \'\'any\'\' kind of harm, especially to the innocent. River Song\'s actions caused the universe to break, and only \'\'after\'\' the Doctor married her did said universe get mended; she was perfectly willing to \'\'leave\'\' it broken, condemning countless others to untold suffering, had he not stopped it. I get that you want to defend your favorite character, but this is a page for pointing out tropes, not taking away examples you simply happen to dislike. As stated on the trope page for KarmaHoudini, \
to:
Karma is not simply based on anyone dying, it\\\'s based on \\\'\\\'any\\\'\\\' kind of harm, especially to the innocent. River Song\\\'s actions caused the universe to break, and only \\\'\\\'after\\\'\\\' the Doctor married her did said universe get mended; she was perfectly willing to \\\'\\\'leave\\\'\\\' it broken, condemning countless others to untold suffering, had he not stopped it. I get that you want to defend your favorite character, but this is a page for pointing out tropes, not taking away examples you simply happen to dislike. As stated on the trope page for KarmaHoudini, \\\"The character has done a number of things that deserve a karmic comeuppance, most importantly things that caused harm to the innocent.\\\" She \\\'\\\'did\\\'\\\' do this. Just because it was fixed, causing people to (mostly) forget the broken universe, does not mean it didn\\\'t happened - Amy even points out that she \\\'\\\'remembers\\\'\\\' killing someone and has guilt over it, despite said actions being \\\"undone\\\" (though she\\\'s thankfully able to move on from it, we haven\\\'t seen Madame Kovarian since, but I\\\'m sure we\\\'ll learn what happened to her one way or the other).
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Karma is not simply based on anyone dying, it\'s based on \'\'any\'\' kind of harm, especially to the innocent. River Song\'s actions caused the universe to break, and only \'\'after\'\' the Doctor married her did said universe get mended; she was perfectly willing to \'\'leave\'\' it broken, condemning countless others to untold suffering, had he not stopped it. I get that you want to defend your favorite character, but this is a page for pointing out tropes, not taking away examples you simply happen to dislike. As stated on the trope page for KarmaHoudini, \
to:
Karma is not simply based on anyone dying, it\\\'s based on \\\'\\\'any\\\'\\\' kind of harm, especially to the innocent. River Song\\\'s actions caused the universe to break, and only \\\'\\\'after\\\'\\\' the Doctor married her did said universe get mended; she was perfectly willing to \\\'\\\'leave\\\'\\\' it broken, condemning countless others to untold suffering, had he not stopped it. I get that you want to defend your favorite character, but this is a page for pointing out tropes, not taking away examples you simply happen to dislike. As stated on the trope page for KarmaHoudini, \\\"The character has done a number of things that deserve a karmic comeuppance, most importantly things that caused harm to the innocent.\\\" She \\\'\\\'did\\\'\\\' do this. Just because it was fixed, causing people to (mostly) forget the broken universe, does not mean it didn\\\'t happened - Amy even points out that she \\\'\\\'remembers\\\'\\\' killing someone and has guilt over it, despite said actions being \\\"undone\\\" (though she\\\'s thankfully able to move on from it, we haven\\\'t seen Madame Kovarian since, bringing up the question as to whether or not she stayed dead).
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Karma is not simply based on anyone dying, it\'s based on harm caused by \'\'anything\'\'. River Song\'s actions caused the universe to break, and only \'\'after\'\' the Doctor married her did said universe get mended; she was perfectly willing to \'\'leave\'\' it broken, condemning countless others to untold suffering, had he not stopped it. I get that you want to defend your favorite character, but this is a page for pointing out tropes, not taking away examples you simply happen to dislike. As stated on the trope page for KarmaHoudini, \
to:
Karma is not simply based on anyone dying, it\\\'s based on \\\'\\\'any\\\'\\\' kind of harm, especially to the innocent. River Song\\\'s actions caused the universe to break, and only \\\'\\\'after\\\'\\\' the Doctor married her did said universe get mended; she was perfectly willing to \\\'\\\'leave\\\'\\\' it broken, condemning countless others to untold suffering, had he not stopped it. I get that you want to defend your favorite character, but this is a page for pointing out tropes, not taking away examples you simply happen to dislike. As stated on the trope page for KarmaHoudini, \\\"The character has done a number of things that deserve a karmic comeuppance, most importantly things that caused harm to the innocent.\\\" She \\\'\\\'did\\\'\\\' do this. Just because it was fixed, causing people to (mostly) forget the broken universe, does not mean it didn\\\'t happened - Amy even points out that she \\\'\\\'remembers\\\'\\\' killing someone and has guilt over it, despite said actions being \\\"undone\\\".
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Karma is not simply based on anyone dying, it\'s based on harm caused by \'\'anything\'\'. River Song\'s actions caused the universe to break, and only \'\'after\'\' the Doctor married her did said universe get mended; she was perfectly willing to \'\'leave\'\' it broken, condemning countless others to untold suffering, had he not stopped it. I get that you want to defend your favorite character, but this is a page for pointing out tropes, not taking away examples you simply happen to dislike.
to:
Karma is not simply based on anyone dying, it\\\'s based on harm caused by \\\'\\\'anything\\\'\\\'. River Song\\\'s actions caused the universe to break, and only \\\'\\\'after\\\'\\\' the Doctor married her did said universe get mended; she was perfectly willing to \\\'\\\'leave\\\'\\\' it broken, condemning countless others to untold suffering, had he not stopped it. I get that you want to defend your favorite character, but this is a page for pointing out tropes, not taking away examples you simply happen to dislike. As stated on the trope page for KarmaHoudini, \\\"The character has done a number of things that deserve a karmic comeuppance, most importantly things that caused harm to the innocent.\\\" She \\\'\\\'did\\\'\\\' do this. Just because it was fixed, causing people to (mostly) forget the broken universe, does not mean it didn\\\'t happened - Amy even points out that she \\\'\\\'remembers\\\'\\\' killing someone and has guilt over it, despite said actions being \\\"undone\\\".
Changed line(s) 7 from:
n
Starfleet hasn\'t been out of the solar system yet (and it has only been around for a couple of decades at most, as Archer mentioned considering cargo-hauling as a career when he was a young adult \'\'before\'\' Starfleet was commissioned). Surveying procedures are understandable in terms of inhabitable planets, but they have had no experience with away missions or first contact. Wouldn\'t it be a better idea to have the person actually going out and experiencing things for he first time to have carte blanche to do whatever is within the realms of necessity and common sense as long as they follow certain ethical guidelines - which Archer does seem to do - rather than to have guidelines developed by people who have quite literally no idea what any of these things are like and have no basis or evidence to work from (although obviously this doesn\'t include security and ship procedures, I\'m talking in terms of alien experience that would require first-hand knowledge of the dangers and hazards etc. to determine how to handle)? Archer and his crew are out there to gather such evidence and detail. The senior staff obviously have access to the Vulcan database and \'\'their\'\' guidelines to refer to if necessary, but otherwise depending on the person on the front line to act appropriately when you have nothing else to work with is probably one of the more \'\'sensible\'\' decisions Starfleet ever made. As for the Academy? It obviously doesn\'t exist yet as we know it as of TGN and DS9 considering there hasn\'t been anywhere to go until know (e.g. Travis only had two years of training at Starfleet academy before being commissioned as an ensign on Enterprise). As for destinations? Honestly, having Archer make a decision to go \
to:
Starfleet hasn\\\'t been out of the solar system yet (and it has only been around for a couple of decades at most, as Archer mentioned considering cargo-hauling as a career when he was a young adult \\\'\\\'before\\\'\\\' Starfleet was commissioned). Surveying procedures are understandable in terms of inhabitable planets, but they have had no experience with away missions or first contact. Wouldn\\\'t it be a better idea to have the person actually going out and experiencing things for he first time to have carte blanche to do whatever is within the realms of necessity and common sense as long as they follow certain ethical guidelines - which Archer does seem to do - rather than to have guidelines developed by people who have quite literally no idea what any of these things are like and have no basis or evidence to work from (although obviously this doesn\\\'t include security and ship procedures, I\\\'m talking in terms of alien experience that would require first-hand knowledge of the dangers and hazards etc. to determine how to handle)? Archer and his crew are out there to gather such evidence and detail. The senior staff obviously have access to the Vulcan database and \\\'\\\'their\\\'\\\' guidelines to refer to if necessary, but otherwise depending on the person on the front line to act appropriately when you have nothing else to work with is probably one of the more \\\'\\\'sensible\\\'\\\' decisions Starfleet ever made. As for the Academy? It obviously doesn\\\'t exist yet as we know it as of TGN and DS9 considering there hasn\\\'t been anywhere to go until know (e.g. Travis only had two years of training at Starfleet academy before being commissioned as an ensign on Enterprise, and by all accounts it was less an academy and more like an astronaut program, where the focus was on the spaceflight and not diplomatic contact). As for destinations? Honestly, having Archer make a decision to go \\\"somewhere that way\\\" rather than having someone else make a decision to go in a different direction based on the exact same basis (i.e. not much) doesn\\\'t make a difference - the point is to explore the Alpha quadrant and you have to start somewhere. If Starfleet has a list of civilizations they want to have Archer come in contact with based on the Vulcan database or specific aims to complete, then that would be a different matter. Even then there\\\'s nothing for us to say that they haven\\\'t given Archer a loose list of aims to complete or idea of places to go, but the idea of this entire mission \\\'\\\'is to explore a completely new territory that no human has ever encountered before.\\\'\\\' If you are going to use the Vulcan database as a guideline for everything, then why not let them determine where you go and who you should meet or do joint expeditions? It would amount to the same thing. A significant point of the Enterprise expedition is to throw off Vulcan guidance and show that humans are capable of figuring things out on their own \\\'\\\'without\\\'\\\' their help.
Now, whether I approve of any of the answers that I gave or what I think of them is beside the point. However, the answers to the questions risen in this entry are very clearly given by the series, and here I am spending ten minutes putting them into words. (Although for the record I think Archer\\\'s common sense and tactical assessment could do with some \\\'\\\'definite\\\'\\\' fine tuning, and that Starfleet\\\'s confidence in his ability may be somewhat misplaced)
If someone wants to use the answers the series has given to the questions asked as proof of an IdiotPlot etc. then please go ahead. \\\'\\\'That\\\'\\\' would be a valid entry. E.g. The lack of training that the Academy supplied the crew with; humanity\\\'s persistence in not letting the Vulcans shape their guidelines and procedures.
Now, whether I approve of any of the answers that I gave or what I think of them is beside the point. However, the answers to the questions risen in this entry are very clearly given by the series, and here I am spending ten minutes putting them into words. (Although for the record I think Archer\\\'s common sense and tactical assessment could do with some \\\'\\\'definite\\\'\\\' fine tuning, and that Starfleet\\\'s confidence in his ability may be somewhat misplaced)
If someone wants to use the answers the series has given to the questions asked as proof of an IdiotPlot etc. then please go ahead. \\\'\\\'That\\\'\\\' would be a valid entry. E.g. The lack of training that the Academy supplied the crew with; humanity\\\'s persistence in not letting the Vulcans shape their guidelines and procedures.
Changed line(s) 7 from:
n
Starfleet hasn\'t been out of the solar system yet (and it has only been around for a couple of decades at most, as Archer mentioned considering cargo-hauling as a career when he was a young adult \'\'before\'\' Starfleet was commissioned). Surveying procedures are understandable in terms of inhabitable planets, but they have had no experience with away missions or first contact. Wouldn\'t it be a better idea to have the person actually going out and experiencing things for he first time to have carte blanche to do whatever is within the realms of necessity and common sense as long as they follow certain ethical guidelines - which Archer does seem to do - rather than to have guidelines developed by people who have quite literally no idea what any of these things are like and have no basis or evidence to work from? Archer and his crew are out there to gather such evidence and detail. The senior staff obviously have access to the Vulcan database and \'\'their\'\' guidelines to refer to if necessary, but otherwise depending on the person on the front line to act appropriately when you have nothing else to work with is probably one of the more \'\'sensible\'\' decisions Starfleet ever made. As for the Academy? It obviously doesn\'t exist yet as we know it as of TGN and DS9 considering there hasn\'t been anywhere to go until know (e.g. Travis only had two years of training at Starfleet academy before being commissioned as an ensign on Enterprise). As for destinations? Honestly, having Archer make a decision to go \
to:
Starfleet hasn\\\'t been out of the solar system yet (and it has only been around for a couple of decades at most, as Archer mentioned considering cargo-hauling as a career when he was a young adult \\\'\\\'before\\\'\\\' Starfleet was commissioned). Surveying procedures are understandable in terms of inhabitable planets, but they have had no experience with away missions or first contact. Wouldn\\\'t it be a better idea to have the person actually going out and experiencing things for he first time to have carte blanche to do whatever is within the realms of necessity and common sense as long as they follow certain ethical guidelines - which Archer does seem to do - rather than to have guidelines developed by people who have quite literally no idea what any of these things are like and have no basis or evidence to work from (although obviously this doesn\\\'t include security and ship procedures, I\\\'m talking in terms of alien experience that would require first-hand knowledge of the dangers and hazards etc. to determine how to handle)? Archer and his crew are out there to gather such evidence and detail. The senior staff obviously have access to the Vulcan database and \\\'\\\'their\\\'\\\' guidelines to refer to if necessary, but otherwise depending on the person on the front line to act appropriately when you have nothing else to work with is probably one of the more \\\'\\\'sensible\\\'\\\' decisions Starfleet ever made. As for the Academy? It obviously doesn\\\'t exist yet as we know it as of TGN and DS9 considering there hasn\\\'t been anywhere to go until know (e.g. Travis only had two years of training at Starfleet academy before being commissioned as an ensign on Enterprise). As for destinations? Honestly, having Archer make a decision to go \\\"somewhere that way\\\" rather than having someone else make a decision to go in a different direction based on the exact same basis (i.e nothing) doesn\\\'t make a difference - the point is to explore the Alpha quadrant and you have to start somewhere. If Starfleet has a list of civilizations they want to have Archer come in contact with based on the Vulcan database or specific aims to complete, then that would be a different matter. Even then there\\\'s nothing for us to say that they haven\\\'t given Archer a loose list of aims to complete or idea of places to go, but the idea of this entire mission \\\'\\\'is to explore a completely new territory that no human has ever encountered before.\\\'\\\' If you are going to use the Vulcan database as a guideline for everything, then why not let them determine where you go and who you should meet or do joint expeditions? It would amount to the same thing. A significant point of the Enterprise expedition is to throw off Vulcan guidance and show that humans are capable of figuring things out on their own \\\'\\\'without\\\'\\\' their help.
Now, whether I approve of any of the answers that I gave or what I think of them is beside the point. However, the answers to the questions risen in this entry are very clearly given by the series, and here I am spending ten minutes putting them into words. (Although for the record I think Archer\\\'s common sense and tactical assessment could do with some \\\'\\\'definite\\\'\\\' fine tuning, and that Starfleet\\\'s confidence in his ability may be somewhat misplaced)
If someone wants to use the answers the series has given to the questions asked as proof of an IdiotPlot etc. then please go ahead. \\\'\\\'That\\\'\\\' would be a valid entry. E.g. The lack of training that the Academy supplied the crew with; humanity\\\'s persistence in not letting the Vulcans shape their guidelines and procedures.
Now, whether I approve of any of the answers that I gave or what I think of them is beside the point. However, the answers to the questions risen in this entry are very clearly given by the series, and here I am spending ten minutes putting them into words. (Although for the record I think Archer\\\'s common sense and tactical assessment could do with some \\\'\\\'definite\\\'\\\' fine tuning, and that Starfleet\\\'s confidence in his ability may be somewhat misplaced)
If someone wants to use the answers the series has given to the questions asked as proof of an IdiotPlot etc. then please go ahead. \\\'\\\'That\\\'\\\' would be a valid entry. E.g. The lack of training that the Academy supplied the crew with; humanity\\\'s persistence in not letting the Vulcans shape their guidelines and procedures.
Changed line(s) 7 from:
n
Starfleet hasn\'t been out of the solar system yet (and it has only been around for a couple of decades at most, as Archer mentioned considering cargo-hauling as a career when he was a young adult \'\'before\'\' Starfleet was commissioned). Surveying procedures are understandable in terms of inhabitable planets, but they have had no experience with away missions or first contact. Wouldn\'t it be a better idea to have the person actually going out and experiencing things for he first time to have carte blanche to do whatever is within the realms of necessity and common sense as long as they follow certain ethical guidelines - which Archer does seem to do - rather than to have guidelines developed by people who have quite literally no idea what any of these things are like and have no basis or evidence to work from? Archer and his crew are out there to gather such evidence and detail. The senior staff obviously have access to the Vulcan database and \'\'their\'\' guidelines to refer to if necessary, but otherwise depending on the person on the front line to act appropriately when you have nothing else to work with is probably one of the more \'\'sensible\'\' decisions Starfleet ever made. As for the Academy? It obviously doesn\'t exist yet as we know it as of TGN and DS9 considering there hasn\'t been anywhere to go until know (e.g. Travis only had two years of training at Starfleet academy before being commissioned as an ensign on Enterprise). As for destinations? Honestly, having Archer make a decision to go \
to:
Starfleet hasn\\\'t been out of the solar system yet (and it has only been around for a couple of decades at most, as Archer mentioned considering cargo-hauling as a career when he was a young adult \\\'\\\'before\\\'\\\' Starfleet was commissioned). Surveying procedures are understandable in terms of inhabitable planets, but they have had no experience with away missions or first contact. Wouldn\\\'t it be a better idea to have the person actually going out and experiencing things for he first time to have carte blanche to do whatever is within the realms of necessity and common sense as long as they follow certain ethical guidelines - which Archer does seem to do - rather than to have guidelines developed by people who have quite literally no idea what any of these things are like and have no basis or evidence to work from? Archer and his crew are out there to gather such evidence and detail. The senior staff obviously have access to the Vulcan database and \\\'\\\'their\\\'\\\' guidelines to refer to if necessary, but otherwise depending on the person on the front line to act appropriately when you have nothing else to work with is probably one of the more \\\'\\\'sensible\\\'\\\' decisions Starfleet ever made. As for the Academy? It obviously doesn\\\'t exist yet as we know it as of TGN and DS9 considering there hasn\\\'t been anywhere to go until know (e.g. Travis only had two years of training at Starfleet academy before being commissioned as an ensign on Enterprise). As for destinations? Honestly, having Archer make a decision to go \\\"somewhere that way\\\" rather than having someone else make a decision to go in a different direction based on the exact same basis (i.e nothing) doesn\\\'t make a difference - the point is to explore the Alpha quadrant and you have to start somewhere. If Starfleet has a list of civilizations they want to have Archer come in contact with based on the Vulcan database or specific aims to complete, then that would be a different matter. Even then there\\\'s nothing for us to say that they haven\\\'t given Archer a loose list of aims to complete or idea of places to go, but the idea of this entire mission \\\'\\\'is to explore a completely new territory that no human has ever encountered before.\\\'\\\' If you are going to use the Vulcan database as a guideline for everything, then why not let them determine where you go and who you should meet or do joint expeditions? It would amount to the same thing. A significant point of the Enterprise expedition is to throw off Vulcan guidance and show that humans are capable of figuring things out on their own \\\'\\\'without\\\'\\\' their help.
Now, whether I approve of any of the answers that I gave or what I think of them is beside the point. However, the answers to the questions risen in this entry are very clearly given by the series, and here I am spending ten minutes putting them into words.
If someone wants to use the answers the series has given to the questions asked as proof of an IdiotPlot etc. then please go ahead. \\\'\\\'That\\\'\\\' would be a valid entry. E.g. The lack of training that the Academy supplied the crew with; humanity\\\'s persistence in not letting the Vulcans shape their guidelines and procedures.
Now, whether I approve of any of the answers that I gave or what I think of them is beside the point. However, the answers to the questions risen in this entry are very clearly given by the series, and here I am spending ten minutes putting them into words.
If someone wants to use the answers the series has given to the questions asked as proof of an IdiotPlot etc. then please go ahead. \\\'\\\'That\\\'\\\' would be a valid entry. E.g. The lack of training that the Academy supplied the crew with; humanity\\\'s persistence in not letting the Vulcans shape their guidelines and procedures.
Changed line(s) 7 from:
n
Starfleet hasn\'t been out of the solar system yet. Surveying procedures are understandable in terms of inhabitable planets, but they have had no experience with away missions or first contact. Wouldn\'t it be a better idea to have the person actually going out and experiencing things for he first time to have carte blanche to do whatever is within the realms of necessity and common sense as long as they follow certain ethical guidelines - which Archer does seem to do - rather than to have guidelines developed by people who have quite literally no idea what any of these things are like and have no basis or evidence to work from? Archer and his crew are out there to gather such evidence and detail. The senior staff obviously have access to the Vulcan database and \'\'their\'\' guidelines to refer to if necessary, but otherwise depending on the person on the front line to act appropriately when you have nothing else to work with is probably one of the more \'\'sensible\'\' decisions Starfleet ever made. As for the Academy? It obviously doesn\'t exist yet as we know it as of TGN and DS9 considering there hasn\'t been anywhere to go until know. As for destinations? Honestly, having Archer make a decision to go \
to:
Starfleet hasn\\\'t been out of the solar system yet (and it has only been around for a couple of decades at most, as Archer mentioned considering cargo-hauling as a career when he was a young adult \\\'\\\'before\\\'\\\' Starfleet was commissioned). Surveying procedures are understandable in terms of inhabitable planets, but they have had no experience with away missions or first contact. Wouldn\\\'t it be a better idea to have the person actually going out and experiencing things for he first time to have carte blanche to do whatever is within the realms of necessity and common sense as long as they follow certain ethical guidelines - which Archer does seem to do - rather than to have guidelines developed by people who have quite literally no idea what any of these things are like and have no basis or evidence to work from? Archer and his crew are out there to gather such evidence and detail. The senior staff obviously have access to the Vulcan database and \\\'\\\'their\\\'\\\' guidelines to refer to if necessary, but otherwise depending on the person on the front line to act appropriately when you have nothing else to work with is probably one of the more \\\'\\\'sensible\\\'\\\' decisions Starfleet ever made. As for the Academy? It obviously doesn\\\'t exist yet as we know it as of TGN and DS9 considering there hasn\\\'t been anywhere to go until know (e.g. Travis only had two years of training at Starfleet academy before being commissioned as an ensign on Enterprise). As for destinations? Honestly, having Archer make a decision to go \\\"somewhere that way\\\" rather than having someone else make a decision to go in a different direction based on the exact same basis (i.e nothing) doesn\\\'t make a difference - the point is to explore the Alpha quadrant and you have to start somewhere. If Starfleet has a list of civilizations they want to have Archer come in contact with based on the Vulcan database or specific aims to complete, then that would be a different matter. Even then there\\\'s nothing for us to say that they haven\\\'t given Archer a loose list of aims to complete or idea of places to go, but the idea of this entire mission \\\'\\\'is to explore a completely new territory that no human has ever encountered before.\\\'\\\' If you are going to use the Vulcan database as a guideline for everything, then why not let them determine where you go and who you should meet or do joint expeditions? It would amount to the same thing. A significant point of the Enterprise expedition is to throw off Vulcan guidance and show that humans are capable of figuring things out on their own \\\'\\\'without\\\'\\\' their help.
Now, whether I approve of any of the answers that I gave or what I think of them is beside the point. However, the answers to the questions risen in this entry are very clearly given by the series, and here I am spending ten minutes putting them into words.
If someone wants to use the answers the series has given to the questions asked as proof of an IdiotPlot etc. then please go ahead. \\\'\\\'That\\\'\\\' would be a valid entry. E.g. The lack of training that the Academy supplied the crew with; humanity\\\'s persistence in not letting the Vulcans shape their guidelines and procedures.
However, I\\\'m not bored enough to spend my time on it.
Now, whether I approve of any of the answers that I gave or what I think of them is beside the point. However, the answers to the questions risen in this entry are very clearly given by the series, and here I am spending ten minutes putting them into words.
If someone wants to use the answers the series has given to the questions asked as proof of an IdiotPlot etc. then please go ahead. \\\'\\\'That\\\'\\\' would be a valid entry. E.g. The lack of training that the Academy supplied the crew with; humanity\\\'s persistence in not letting the Vulcans shape their guidelines and procedures.
However, I\\\'m not bored enough to spend my time on it.
