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.

BaronSFel001 wrote on Today, 02:20:

My President Trump has been subject to ALL kinds of libel;

Your comments appear to have a "who are you as an outsider to judge us, mind your own business" kind of tone. So setting aside for the moment that with "us", you are only speaking on behalf of a minority within your country, here is my retort.

The thing is that "your" President Trump has caused all kinds of turmoil that is having consequences for all of us around the world.

The whole current shitshow in the Middle East and resulting world-wide fuel crisis could have easily been avoided. But Trump foolishly let Netanyahu drag him into a completely unnecessary conflict.

Enjoy your $5 per gallon.

BaronSFel001 wrote on Today, 02:20:

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

The very same thing could be said about Mr. President. When he does nothing but stick his nose in everyone else's business, make preposterous statements and instigate disasters that affect everyone else, he is begging to be criticised and judged. As the saying goes, it tends to be the inept who are the most confident.

So far, Mamdani has done far less of any negative impact on the rest of the world than a certain man who still hasn't publicly acknowledged that he lost the election, except the few times he inadvertently implied that he knew it to be so. Now, why you felt you had to bring Mamdani (and then "your" president) into a conversation about Star Trek and mount a character assassination against him, when only a passing reference to 9-11 was made, is a bit of a mystery.

digger wrote on Yesterday, 21:39:

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.

Very well, I'll spell it out as dispassionately and factually as I can.

Besides the already mentioned Siraj Wahhaj (closely connected to several perpetrators of the 1993 WTC bombing, and the father of a convicted terrorist), there's also the illustrious Fadhel al-Sahlani, who's easy enough to look up. He's also raised his own conspiracy theories about 9/11, attempting to blame the US for the role of al-Awlaki. He's praised convicted terror financiers (the "Holy Land Five"). He repeatedly refused to condemn very deliberate calls for terrorist violence. He has a close political and personal relationship with a certain e-grifter (Hasan Piker), who's on record saying that "America deserved 9/11", supporting the IRGC, and having friendly public chit-chats with members of a militia whose official slogan says "Death to America" (Ansar Allah, aka Houthis). Finally, his actual behavior at the recent 9/11 memorial ceremony just now was the icing on the cake.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to other people close to him. All of the above are well-documented facts, easy to verify using neutral sources. Whenever he's actually bothered to comment on any of these things, his defense has been either (1) gaslighting, or (2) referring to those who point them out as - you guessed it - bigots.

As you point out, he's "Mayor of the economic capital of the world". That makes him a figure of power - deserving *more* scrutiny, rather than less.

digger wrote on Yesterday, 21:39:

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..."

Sorry, there's still far less evidence for xenophobia in this thread than there is for my appraisal of Mr. Mayor. It's absurd that I need to even point this out, but this has nothing to do with his religion as such. Many others of the same religion are in western countries because they've had to flee the exact sort of thing he's enabling, sometimes on pain of death, and are constantly telling us how horrified they are to see it follow them all the way there. Just this year, countless others who weren't able to flee decided to bravely make a stand, and were deliberately massacred in the tens of thousands over the course of two nights. Or have they been forgotten? I'll honor them sooner than I would many others from other backgrounds and/or religions.

And yes, that TNG quote is in fact deeply relevant. We may be well trained to recognize a certain type of chain being forged, but it's all the more important to avoid cultivating a blind spot for others. All too often, when people presenting their fact-based views are shouted down with some current code-word for "undesirables", that's just such a first link.

This is the third or so time in the last couple of months that I've foolishly waded into this type of discussion here on Vogons, despite the obvious risk of 'official sanction' that such threads tend to carry. But with what's been passing for discourse in today's world, and following the last three years in particular, shutting up is (regrettably) not always a viable choice anymore. When we're all trained to avoid pointing out that "there are four lights", all that unpleasantness of physical coercion may be unncessary, but we've been broken all the same.

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.

Out of the 79 episodes STOS i'd rate about 20 as being very good, about 30-40 being good enough to entertain and enjoy and the rest being sometimes a little tiresome or uninteresting

I'm not sure TNG has the same ratio, i have seen them all though, but i do remember sitting through a fair amount which just seemed like a series of meetings and some ensigns boring emotions, and then some real gems

digger wrote on Today, 09:35:

The thing is that "your" President Trump has caused all kinds of turmoil that is having consequences for all of us around the world.

Nice to know you hold those of your preferred ideological stripe to a different standard than those who are not. But again, I am not judging you for that because I believe in the freedom to have an opinion. You, however:

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

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

Am I really expected to subscribe to a particular narrow set of values in order to be worthy of enjoying a story like Star Trek? That its new generations of producers seem to believe exactly that and acting accordingly is no small part of the reason why the franchise has been going downhill ever since before the end of Enterprise. Those of us seeking escapist entertainment come from ALL walks of life, ALL kinds of sociopolitical leanings, and we SHOULD all know: Star Trek is fiction, NOT reality.

640K!enough wrote on Today, 11:01:

The very same thing could be said about Mr. President. When he does nothing but stick his nose in everyone else's business, make preposterous statements and instigate disasters that affect everyone else, he is begging to be criticised and judged. As the saying goes, it tends to be the inept who are the most confident.

I hear you: I just vote for the best I can with the options I have, but have precious little control of how things go from there until the next electoral term because that is the nature of our republican system of government (which, for MANY reasons, I favor over direct democracy ANY day). Your judgment of Trump is no phase against me; Lord knows he has taken things in directions that have given pause to those of us who support[ed] him. But what I DO insist is, if judgment is to be applied, that EVERYONE be held to the same standards.

640K!enough wrote on Today, 11:01:

So far, Mamdani has done far less of any negative impact on the rest of the world than a certain man who still hasn't publicly acknowledged that he lost the election, except the few times he inadvertently implied that he knew it to be so. Now, why you felt you had to bring Mamdani (and then "your" president) into a conversation about Star Trek and mount a character assassination against him, when only a passing reference to 9-11 was made, is a bit of a mystery.

Mamdani is a mayor, not a president: of course he is going to have less impact, positive or negative. The point is that he has consciously associated with the very people who attempt to excuse or even go so far as putting the 9/11 attacks in justifiable terms, and what image that projects (especially for 9/11 victims' families) about whether the country has learned the right lessons from that tragedy. Contrary to what your outside view may indicate (I have no way of knowing what sources you consult on these current events), it IS something we (at least on the Right; the American Left seems to instead be going plain NUTS these days) have been soul-searching about all the time since.

640K!enough wrote on Today, 11:01:

BaronSFel001 wrote on Today, 02:20:

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

The very same thing could be said about Mr. President. When he does nothing but stick his nose in everyone else's business, make preposterous statements and instigate disasters that affect everyone else, he is begging to be criticised and judged. As the saying goes, it tends to be the inept who are the most confident.

So far, Mamdani has done far less of any negative impact on the rest of the world than a certain man who still hasn't publicly acknowledged that he lost the election, except the few times he inadvertently implied that he knew it to be so. Now, why you felt you had to bring Mamdani (and then "your" president) into a conversation about Star Trek and mount a character assassination against him, when only a passing reference to 9-11 was made, is a bit of a mystery.

You have every right to criticize Trump . Just as people have every right to criticize anyone else. People can criticize policy, religions, and groups for what they do and say. I think people have every right to be critical when 3000 lives were lost and then 25 years later the same place is run by someone funded by people with similar beliefs to that of those who committed the act 25 years ago, and to have a wife who liked posts celebrating the oct 7 massacre.

We dont get a start trek utopia by including people like that in the future and we dont get there by calling people bigots and other silly names for questioning ideas, actions and motivations.

On a better note, I was happy to see Walmart had steelbook 4Ks of First Contact out and i grabbed one and noticed the 60 years sticker on it. Amazing. Makes me want to watch the movies that I do have and go back and watch TOS which I never watched much of because I was pretty young when reruns were on TV all the time. I did watch a lot of Next Generation though. I had a pretty hardcore trekky friend who had an outfit, a bunch of models of the different ships and a phaser.

I also have been wanting to watch Deep Space 9. The new trek though? no thanks.

Law212 wrote on Today, 13:46:

I also have been wanting to watch Deep Space 9.

I am eagerly awaiting DS9 & VOY getting the HD-BRD treatment, but stopped holding my breath some time ago because it seems the market demand for such a project simply does not exist.

Ironically, since then I have developed a greater appreciation of classic analog presentations of shows & movies in general (kind of like my preference to play retro games on original hardware) which decades-old DVD box sets are generally faithful to.

BaronSFel001 wrote on Today, 13:52:

Law212 wrote on Today, 13:46:

I also have been wanting to watch Deep Space 9.

I am eagerly awaiting DS9 & VOY getting the HD-BRD treatment, but stopped holding my breath some time ago because it seems the market demand for such a project simply does not exist.

Ironically, since then I have developed a greater appreciation of classic analog presentations of shows & movies in general (kind of like my preference to play retro games on original hardware) which decades-old DVD box sets are generally faithful to.

Absolutely. If you have trek on VHS or DVD give it a spin again. I think it will take you back to the 90s in an more authentic way. Also maybe its on streaming, but if you can find them on DVD id pick them up. I really love physical media over streaming

ratfink wrote on Yesterday, 22:34:

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.

Sure space 1999 was more star trekish than UFO, but still a good series but still you can smell that sense of being different provided by the Italian-British production. The second series was handed over to Americans and being the same series this make pretty evident the difference, recently the same thing happened to Doctor WHO, the effect is more or less the same.

The loss of miniskirts was also a big one 😀

I guess Red Dwarf is more my cup of tea (at least the first half dozen series).

I feel ashamed but this is the first time I hear of it, I'll try to fill that hole in my culture asap, thanks.

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

Yes I'm watching it as well, and it's entertaining. Given it's mechanics has potential to run forever, like Doctor WHO.

Speaking of it the, unrelated, Dark Matter from 2015 was watchable as well

These days I'm watching The Ark as well, nothing memorable, but like we say in our country "during a war every hole is a trench"

gerry wrote on Today, 12:36:

Out of the 79 episodes STOS i'd rate about 20 as being very good, about 30-40 being good enough to entertain and enjoy and the rest being sometimes a little tiresome or uninteresting

I'm not sure TNG has the same ratio, i have seen them all though, but i do remember sitting through a fair amount which just seemed like a series of meetings and some ensigns boring emotions, and then some real gems

Well it's just that I don't appreciate Hollywood cliches, in general, let alone the ones in SF Movies/Series

Say, how stupid can be to land in an unknown planet w/o a spacesuit at least for an initial exploration?

And even if a planet is "class M" how stupid can be to interact with locals like they were old friends? Native Americans were almost wiped out just because they interacted with Europeans, and with their unknown viruses and bacteria, well before they embraced guns. ON THE SAME PLANET.

How stupid can be to not have a seat belt on any spaceship, even during combats, emergency landings and so on.
Sure there are (fictional) devices meant to counteract G forces, but how comes they never fails? How come artificial gravity never fails as well? (It happened once in star trek III).

One can continue for a day describing such huge holes in the narration.

That is Star Trek is mostly a huge SF themed soap opera, with some brilliant episodes here and there.