For me Star Trek was always the poor cousin of UFO (S.H.A.D.O). and Space 1999 (the first season, not tainted by American writers).

That said there were some brilliant episodes, especially in TNG. Like the superb The Inner Light, or Elementary, Dear Data.

But it's more statistics than intrinsic value. When you are airing hundreds of episodes, is pretty normal that you get some great ones.

BaronSFel001 wrote on 2026-09-12, 15:12:

Now, New York City is being run by characters openly in cahoots with the same sort who crashed those planes into those buildings.

Are you referring to the religious or cultural background of the current mayor of New York? If so, do you have any actual proof of those serious allegations, or are you just being a bigot?

This is not befitting of someone who calls himself a Star Trek fan.

digger wrote on 2026-09-12, 21:12:

If so, do you have any actual proof of those serious allegations, or are you just being a bigot?

As I said, they have some very serious lingering problems (that neither started nor ended with 9-11, but are likely at least somewhat related), and that fits in very well with my reasoning. I suspect the answers to your questions are no (evidence), and yes to the other one.

William Shatner was a WebTV spokesperson.
I think with today’s high speed internet
Its a great time to bring back the New improved
WebTV box which was a Microsoft company MSN

A MSN Box internet streamer with intelligence and A.I.

Link:
https://youtu.be/X5qvSBubeDM?is=NQWmeZVQ7YcZtY\\

digger wrote on 2026-09-12, 21:12:

BaronSFel001 wrote on 2026-09-12, 15:12:

Now, New York City is being run by characters openly in cahoots with the same sort who crashed those planes into those buildings.

Are you referring to the religious or cultural background of the current mayor of New York? If so, do you have any actual proof of those serious allegations, or are you just being a bigot?

This is not befitting of someone who calls himself a Star Trek fan.

Being a bigot would be looking at a person's religious or cultural background, and making a negative value judgment based solely on that, while ignoring anything else.

The other side of that is looking at a person's religious or cultural background, and based solely on that, deciding that they are never to be held accountable for what they say and do, and any evidence that may paint them in a less than favorable light is never to be consulted under any circumstances. Granted, that may feel better and fuzzy-wuzzier inside compared to being a bigot, but the results are no less disastrous.

In this particular case, I'd say that the evidence has piled up to such a degree (much more than a single person and his 'background') that the onus of 'proof' is on those who deliberately choose to ignore it. Not that it matters, because discussing these issues has long since become a fact-free zone - it's all about in-group validation, and soon devolves into condescending third-person psychoanalysis of what "they" are like. It's always "they" until one day it becomes *you*, but by then the cognitive dissonance is too strong to even comprehend what has happened.

'Someone who calls himself a Star Trek fan' would recognize that Roddenberry's utopian vision was never taken for granted, and the values it was based on were always presented as worth defending when called to do so. It's not as if Roddenberry's Klingons weren't a blatant (maybe *too* blatant) Soviet analogue. In later years, it also warned us about letting that instinct run off into paranoid delusions (see DS9 'Homefront'/'Paradise Lost'). Yet somehow, the Federation still failed to surrender to the Dominion the moment that the Changelings revealed their historical sob-story of how their entire species was once treated harshly by "the Solids". Go figure.

VileR wrote on Yesterday, 21:18:

In this particular case, I'd say that the evidence has piled up to such a degree (much more than a single person and his 'background') that the onus of 'proof' is on those who deliberately choose to ignore it.

OK, but can you mention or point out this evidence or proof? Because if you can't, you're just spreading hearsay, or even libel.

Again, extraordinary accusations require extraordinary proof. Let's have it. As hard as it is, people, let's try to leave subjective biases aside for a minute and come up with objective arguments or credible proof.

You accuse the current Mayor of the economic capital of the world of being "in cahoots" with Al-Qaeda. Back that up, or take it back, and just admit you simply dislike him. It's perfectly within your right to dislike him or disapprove of him, but it's not within your rights to spread libel. That is not covered by Freedom of Speech in any country.

In response to the apparent paranoia and xenophobia displayed by some people here, let me share another TNG quote here: "With the first link, the chain is forged..."

The Solutor wrote on 2026-09-12, 19:27:

For me Star Trek was always the poor cousin of UFO (S.H.A.D.O). and Space 1999 (the first season, not tainted by American writers).

That said there were some brilliant episodes, especially in TNG. Like the superb The Inner Light, or Elementary, Dear Data.

But it's more statistics than intrinsic value. When you are airing hundreds of episodes, is pretty normal that you get some great ones.

Yeah I really loved UFO, it seemed really well put together and thought through and had a sense of mystery and a tinge of horror, as well as the cool machinery... moonbase, skydiver (whether or not that really made sense), the interceptors, that breathing liquid...

I never gelled with Space 1999, not sure why... I didn't watch it when it was new and it just never engages me. Same with TNG onwards - some characters are entertaining though. I guess Red Dwarf is more my cup of tea (at least the first half dozen series).

At the moment I'm watching Dark Matter on Amazon, really enjoying that... feels like an updated Blakes Seven if you know that one...

digger wrote on Yesterday, 21:39:

You accuse the current Mayor of the economic capital of the world of being "in cahoots" with Al-Qaeda.

I said sort, not naming any names: words chosen carefully. In regards to Mamdani, the socioreligious associations he has made (Siraj Wahad for one) were more than enough to get many people to not wish him to be present at the 9/11 memorial, or to refuse to attend if he was there. I would not set foot in New York City today under any circumstance because I do not believe it a safe place these days, but I will take it from those who ARE living there.

digger wrote on Yesterday, 21:39:

That is not covered by Freedom of Speech in any country.

My President Trump has been subject to ALL kinds of libel; I have no use for a lecture from anyone else what freedoms people should or should not have, especially those who have not put as much blood, sweat or treasure towards the cause of liberty for peoples around the world as America has. Nor do I judge your country or anyone else's for not doing as much towards that end, but in turn I expect you to not presume yourself in a position to judge me. Granted I did not expect to trigger such a defense of someone who has done nothing to be worthy of the regard of having his reputation defended by someone from all the way across the ocean, and if I anticipated that I probably wouldn't have put it that way, but I meant what I said and do NOT take it back because I believe it correct and that I should make no apology for being correct.