test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

STO: Age of Discovery - Excited YEAH/NAY

12426282930

Comments

  • legendarylycan#5411 legendarylycan Member Posts: 37,033 Arc User
    that was the ISS excelsior, though - the USS didn't carry any fighters​​
    Like special weapons from other Star Trek games? Wondering if they can be replicated in STO even a little bit? Check this out: https://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1262277/a-mostly-comprehensive-guide-to-star-trek-videogame-special-weapons-and-their-sto-equivalents

    #LegalizeAwoo

    A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
    An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
    A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
    A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"


    "It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."
    "We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
    Passion and Serenity are one.
    I gain power by understanding both.
    In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
    I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
    The Force is united within me.
  • artan42artan42 Member Posts: 10,450 Bug Hunter
    Bear with me here I'm struggling to see which bits are your replies.
    talonxv wrote: »
    Yes they are.

    I'll trust Trek Yards over you any day.

    And you're welcome to as they seem to share this idea with you there's a correct size for these ships to be rather than what we actually see and it's that the Conni is the odd duck out and DSC is working hard to correct that.
    talonxv wrote: »
    This is so wrong it hurts. Keep being wrong, it's laughable at this point.

    Wanna give it a little god and explain why? Or did you think off handedly dismissing actual evidence in favour of your feelings is a better way to conduct yourself?
    You have an imagined picture of something that has not been shown in the shows thus far. This is not opinion, this is fact. Your fantasy world is not something the producers of DSC need pay any attention to.
    talonxv wrote: »
    And here we go, why Retconn out when you simply could of used those uniforms?

    I remeber when TNG retconned the TWoK era uniforms cadet uniform (the one that Saavik wore) in favour of showing Picard in a enlisted uniforms. I remember when the recreation of the cadet that bullied Kirk wore a TOS era cadet uniform when he should have worn a Pilot era one. And now I remember when the Talosian recreation of Pike was accidentally put in the WNMHGB uniform instead of the correct DSC S2 uniform.
    talonxv wrote: »
    Atleast you admit a retconn.

    Wow! When have I ever not accepted retcons? So it's not just Star Trek that you have a fantasy model of in your head. It's other people as well.
    talonxv wrote: »
    Oh my dear god. This is just flat mental gynmastics here. Or is it that the writers in ENT wanted to keep CONTINUITY. You do realize the symbol of the federation(not the delta on the uniforms, but what's on the flag) has never changed since the inception of the Federation.

    Oh dear god. This is just flat mental gymnastics here. OR is it the writers of ENT (B&B) are lazy hacks who did what they did with VGR which was to reduce all original elements in favour of cloning TNG. Show me a nation that's had an identical flag for over 200 years. Just one please.

    Oh, and you're flat out wrong with the bit about the UFP insignia. ENT, TWoK and TNG. Oh and here's TOS for you

    Are the ENT and TNG ones different? Yes, different stars are highlighted. So what you actually meant to say was that in the brief 20 year timespan of TNG-NEM the insignia hasn't changed. Nice try though.
    talonxv wrote: »
    The mental gymnastics here. I swear.

    The outright lies and fantasy here. I swear...
    talonxv wrote: »
    You are literally having to bend over backwards to defend them instead of admitting stylistically they screwed up.

    You're having to out right make up a meta-fictional version of Star Trek in order to find things you assume DSC is out of step with.
    In your pathetic reply you've gone for quotes on my opinion ignoring all the ones with evidence in as that would require you to do some actual original thinking. Ignored anything you thought was to complicated and hoped it would go unnoticed. And flat out ignored bits that are answering you brain dribbles replies you make in your reply post.

    Try harder.
    Trusting Trek Yards on the matter of ship sizes is rather silly since the numbers they use for ship sizes are based off of Eaglemoss model data, and their argument that Eaglemoss is right is that CBS gave them the numbers, but CBS themselves have said nothing outside of the TV shows and movies is canon, and nowhere in the TV or movies do they actually state the size of the Enterprise, or Discovery, so by CBs's own word, none of the numbers they have given Eaglemoss are canon.

    Trek Yards are literally using made up numbers that aren't canon, and have basically admitted they don't care.

    Well to be fair to talonxv (in one of the few things he was sort of along the right track with my chart also uses Eaglemoss' sizes (except in cases where Eaglemoss is contradicted by onscreen evidence (such as with the Obereth).

    Though as there's no size given for the Conni in canon there's absolutely nothing stopping the TOS one being made up to ~400m.
    The size of the Crossfield is likely to be correct as it's scaled so animated people can move about through its windows. And we see people on the NX so that size is accurate (as the CGI modelers gave their scales to Eaglemoss).
    kyle223cat wrote: »
    The million gross tons always seemed a little high to me for a Constitution-class starship. I guess when I think of the idea that a Galaxy-class is only 4.5 times heavier than a Constitution and an Excelsior is only 2.3 times heavier than a Constitution, I just have a hard time believing it. I mean, an Intrepid was 700,000 tons and it's obviously bigger than a Constitution. I need to give a size comparison chart between the ships a look over again.

    Both charts are in scale with each other.
    FleetChart1.png?version=dd63d5fdffbbd3e53c4d23cf18f43fae

    FleetChart2.png?version=6546a5beafca0e62749f7bdd57147f4b

    They're only side views so judging volume is more difficult and mass even more so. But the Intrepid is wider, taller, longer, deeper, and in all ways, physically more massive than the Conni. Even than the ~400m DSC one.​​
    22762792376_ac7c992b7c_o.png
    Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
    JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.

    #TASforSTO


    '...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
    'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
    'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
    '...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
    'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
    '...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek

    Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
  • starswordcstarswordc Member Posts: 10,952 Arc User
    Guys... Really... Can we put an end to this? We're not even talking about how Discovery content will impact STO as we know it. I let go of my off-topic tangent for that reason, and now we're arguing about the scale of ships? In all fairness, it's a moot point for STO, as while Cryptic tries to go with a semi-accurate scale ratio between ships, as in this class is bigger or smaller than that class, their sizes never have been canonically accurate.

    Having said that, I am going to return to my original position that I am totally fine with them bringing the Discovery experience to STO, provided that it be its own experience. And I continue to maintain that doing this would establish a precedence for maintaining content in different eras or realities. They could have a full-blown Kelvin reality, the Pre-TOS era, the TOS-era using the assets and effects of the AoY expansion, the pre-TNG era which would encompass the TOS films and the gap between them and TNG. Then there would be the TNG era which would encompass TNG, DS9 and VOY and all the TNG films. And after that the post Nemesis era which the game launched in.

    Ships from later eras could not exist in earlier eras. Ships from Earlier eras could exist in later eras with an increasing price point for every later era. Any ships already owned would be grandfathered in. Want to fly those ships for free? Create a character in the era they belong in.

    Oh... and give era distinction in the Foundry, so authors can populate the eras in question with optional content.

    You're basically suggesting that Cryptic run six entire Star Trek games simultaneously. Do you have any comprehension of just how logistically impossible this proposal is for a company that size?

    If I had my druthers the game would have picked one era and stuck with it aside from the occasional time travel jaunt. And if it's the same 25th century era, it would contain no playable ships older than the Ambassador-class at the absolute earliest. But that ship sailed years ago.
    "Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
    — Sabaton, "Great War"
    VZ9ASdg.png

    Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
  • jonsillsjonsills Member Posts: 9,908 Arc User
    that was the ISS excelsior, though - the USS didn't carry any fighters​​
    You were a trained fighter pilot assigned to USS Excelsior. Ergo, she had ships that, according to filmed canon, weren't actually a thing yet.
    Lorna-Wing-sig.png
  • strathkinstrathkin Member Posts: 2,664 Bug Hunter
    edited August 2018
    I think it will be interesting only because at least most of it occurs in the past...

    Though from what I hear Captain Picard may be returning to Discovery somehow - cause it's supposed to take place many year's after what we saw in TNG. From the little that is written, apparently he'll be able to explore new dimensions to his character, possibly later in his career, or after his left Starfleet, and then took on more an Ambassador role? I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

    I'm not entirely sure how that is going to be fit in, unless there is some temporal anomaly, or something entirely different.

    http://time.com/5358198/patrick-stewart-star-treks-jean-luc-picard/

    0zxlclk.png
  • jonsillsjonsills Member Posts: 9,908 Arc User
    strathkin wrote: »
    I think it will be interesting only because at least most of it occurs in the past...

    Though from what I hear Captain Picard may be returning to Discovery somehow - cause it's supposed to take place many year's after what we saw in TNG. So I'm not entirely sure how that is going to be fit in unless there is some temporal anomaly or something entirely different.

    http://time.com/5358198/patrick-stewart-star-treks-jean-luc-picard/
    No, Picard won't be "returning to Discovery". For starters, he can't return to a show he was never on. For another, he's not going to be on ST:D - he's going to be on a completely separate show focusing on Jean-Luc Picard, about twenty years after TNG; the only connection between the two, besides both being Trek, is that they're both going to be on CBS All Access.
    Lorna-Wing-sig.png
  • crypticarmsmancrypticarmsman Member Posts: 3,950 Arc User
    .
    strathkin wrote: »
    I think it will be interesting only because at least most of it occurs in the past...

    Though from what I hear Captain Picard may be returning to Discovery somehow - cause it's supposed to take place many year's after what we saw in TNG. So I'm not entirely sure how that is going to be fit in unless there is some temporal anomaly or something entirely different.

    http://time.com/5358198/patrick-stewart-star-treks-jean-luc-picard/

    What makes you think they'd ever link/crossover the two shows in any way? They take place 140+ years apart.
    Formerly known as Armsman from June 2008 to June 20, 2012
    TOS_Connie_Sig_final9550Pop.jpg
    PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
  • aeieaeie Member Posts: 57 Arc User
    edited August 2018
    Am i excited, would have to say NO.

    Couldn't stand to even watch the series, even if it were easily available (which it wasnt) much less so that they decided to reinvent the wheel when it flat wasn't needed. I'm sorry a Drak (from Enemy Mine) + Klingon = Discovery Klingons, is not what people were hoping for in a "new" series. So i passed on it pretty much all together outside of the quick looks available publicly.

    Is more content / free stuff good? Sure.
    But at what price are we getting it, as I and many others, would likely agree that the price isn't worth it.
    (To be less subtle: the butchering of the story line / consistency is the cost, as that has been what was done with Discovery)

    We can only hope CBS and other parties actually do a decent job of moving the story forward in the Prime timeline.
    Frankly put, sometimes i think those involved with STO's story line and creation have a better grasp on all things Star Trek then anyone thats worried about a TV production.
  • aeieaeie Member Posts: 57 Arc User
    azrael605 wrote: »
    @aeie

    Thats the funniest thing I've read all week. First off, Discovery is Prime Timeline, whether you like it or not. Secondly, the people making Discovery are the same people making all the other upcoming Trek shows, and they have been given a directive to connect them all. Third, the people making Discovery, such as Kristen Beyer, know way more about Trek canon than anyone at Cryptic. Fourth, your utter ignorance of Discovery's story makes your supposed critique of it "lacking consistency" especially hilarious.

    Your correct, dont know, dont wanna know.
    Taking in TRIBBLE that some production company makes just because its cannon doesnt change the fact it is TRIBBLE.
    It has been, and always will be. Maybe if they actually listened to the fans it would have been something worth actually watching, instead of just trying to reinvent the wheel for no reason and adding things that just seemed so outa place for its time.

    They tried reaching, and was an honest a good shot, but it failed to me and many others. That's my opinion, don't like it, don't care. My point of the topic still stands, I'm not looking forward to it, cause i think canon is being rewritten on a whim, as they can, so long as it produces money. All else be $%$ if it makes money, regardless of what the fans think of it.

  • artan42artan42 Member Posts: 10,450 Bug Hunter
    aeie wrote: »
    azrael605 wrote: »
    @aeie

    Thats the funniest thing I've read all week. First off, Discovery is Prime Timeline, whether you like it or not. Secondly, the people making Discovery are the same people making all the other upcoming Trek shows, and they have been given a directive to connect them all. Third, the people making Discovery, such as Kristen Beyer, know way more about Trek canon than anyone at Cryptic. Fourth, your utter ignorance of Discovery's story makes your supposed critique of it "lacking consistency" especially hilarious.

    Your correct, dont know, dont wanna know.
    Taking in **** that some production company makes just because its cannon doesnt change the fact it is ****.
    It has been, and always will be. Maybe if they actually listened to the fans it would have been something worth actually watching, instead of just trying to reinvent the wheel for no reason and adding things that just seemed so outa place for its time.

    They tried reaching, and was an honest a good shot, but it failed to me and many others. That's my opinion, don't like it, don't care. My point of the topic still stands, I'm not looking forward to it, cause i think canon is being rewritten on a whim, as they can, so long as it produces money. All else be $%$ if it makes money, regardless of what the fans think of it.

    A cannon is a device for launching large metal or stone balls against enemy ships or fortresses utalising chemical propellent.

    And listening to fans is the single worst idea any production company can ever make. The fact you can't agree with @azrael605 (a single other fan) proves that any production company that asked for your opinion on making a show would immediately alienate him. Where do fans get the ridiculous idea that production companies owe them anything?

    And if you're so bothered about canon 'being rewritten on a whim' you'd have switched off as soon as Spock changed from a gold shirt to a blue shirt.​​
    22762792376_ac7c992b7c_o.png
    Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
    JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.

    #TASforSTO


    '...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
    'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
    'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
    '...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
    'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
    '...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek

    Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
  • aeieaeie Member Posts: 57 Arc User
    edited August 2018
    Thank you for the auto correct mistake being noted. Happens after playing a war game. /shurg

    You have your bias, and that's fine. I have mine too, we all do.
    I ignored the first poster for obvious reasons, i never said discovery was kelvin, never even entered my mind so i glossed over it.

    As to fans being bad and not worth listening? Not a fan of Axanar huh?
    Would i say every fan (this includes me) has it together? No, but there are some great ideas out there, some of which were well written and done with in the spirit of Trek as anything in recent memory. Shame some of those never got off the ground because of legal reasons. Personally i dont think "legal reason" for "canon" (fixed just for you) should be the only additions to the story.

    To each their own.
    And now i remember why i quit coming to the forums, 3 years ago and in 2013.
  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 35,231 Arc User
    artan42 wrote: »
    aeie wrote: »
    azrael605 wrote: »
    @aeie
    Thats the funniest thing I've read all week. First off, Discovery is Prime Timeline, whether you like it or not. Secondly, the people making Discovery are the same people making all the other upcoming Trek shows, and they have been given a directive to connect them all. Third, the people making Discovery, such as Kristen Beyer, know way more about Trek canon than anyone at Cryptic. Fourth, your utter ignorance of Discovery's story makes your supposed critique of it "lacking consistency" especially hilarious.
    Your correct, dont know, dont wanna know.
    Taking in **** that some production company makes just because its cannon doesnt change the fact it is ****.
    It has been, and always will be. Maybe if they actually listened to the fans it would have been something worth actually watching, instead of just trying to reinvent the wheel for no reason and adding things that just seemed so outa place for its time.

    They tried reaching, and was an honest a good shot, but it failed to me and many others. That's my opinion, don't like it, don't care. My point of the topic still stands, I'm not looking forward to it, cause i think canon is being rewritten on a whim, as they can, so long as it produces money. All else be $%$ if it makes money, regardless of what the fans think of it.
    A cannon is a device for launching large metal or stone balls against enemy ships or fortresses utalising chemical propellent.

    And listening to fans is the single worst idea any production company can ever make. The fact you can't agree with @azrael605 (a single other fan) proves that any production company that asked for your opinion on making a show would immediately alienate him. Where do fans get the ridiculous idea that production companies owe them anything?

    And if you're so bothered about canon 'being rewritten on a whim' you'd have switched off as soon as Spock changed from a gold shirt to a blue shirt.​​
    I would argue that Neville Page and Glenn Hetrick count as "Star Trek fans". :p Thus their redesigns should count as "letting fans design it". :p
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • artan42artan42 Member Posts: 10,450 Bug Hunter
    aeie wrote: »
    As to fans being bad and not worth listening? Not a fan of Axanar huh?

    What was there to be a fan of? They filmed one segment of a documentary type thing and a segment of two characters on Vulcan.
    Nothing special. It may have been a curiosity but fans manage to pack more references into their works than any writers do yet only the latter are admonished on it by fans.
    aeie wrote: »
    some of which were well written and done with in the spirit of Trek as anything in recent memory.

    There's also profesional productions well in line with that. The first was a series of three films (thus far) called the Kelvin Timeline and the second is a show only one series long so far with a second on the way called Discovery.
    aeie wrote: »
    And now i remember why i quit coming to the forums, 3 years ago and in 2013.

    Because it was okay for you to voice your opinion but as soon as its commented upon you run off?
    azrael605 wrote: »
    and they updated the visuals for Starfleet, which was going to happen no matter what as nobody was ever going to make a show in 2017 that looked like a show made in 1966.

    It's a good job they did or DSC wouldn't match the ENT, Kelvin, or the TMP eras.
    I would argue that Neville Page and Glenn Hetrick count as "Star Trek fans". :p Thus their redesigns should count as "letting fans design it". :p

    Ah, but obviously they aren't 'real fans TM' because they aren't making a version directly from the mind of the viewer.​​
    22762792376_ac7c992b7c_o.png
    Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
    JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.

    #TASforSTO


    '...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
    'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
    'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
    '...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
    'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
    '...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek

    Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
  • ltminnsltminns Member Posts: 12,540 Arc User
    No, they must continue to use salt shakers as medical sensors and flip number clocks, otherwise I will rip my PC out and throw it out a ten story window!! That'll show them real good.

    #BringBackDesilu

    ;)
    'But to be logical is not to be right', and 'nothing' on God's earth could ever 'make it' right!'
    Judge Dan Haywood
    'As l speak now, the words are forming in my head.
    l don't know.
    l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
    That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
    Lt. Philip J. Minns
  • atroxvincentiusatroxvincentius Member Posts: 30 Arc User
    edited August 2018
    Discussion of moderation redacted in favor of gratuitous tribble.

    Quark-surrounded-by-Tribbles-tribbles-18313290-432-288.jpg

    Have a nice day. — StarSword-C
    Post edited by starswordc on
  • atroxvincentiusatroxvincentius Member Posts: 30 Arc User
    edited August 2018
    aeie wrote: »
    Thank you for the auto correct mistake being noted. Happens after playing a war game. /shurg

    You have your bias, and that's fine. I have mine too, we all do.
    I ignored the first poster for obvious reasons, i never said discovery was kelvin, never even entered my mind so i glossed over it.

    As to fans being bad and not worth listening? Not a fan of Axanar huh?
    Would i say every fan (this includes me) has it together? No, but there are some great ideas out there, some of which were well written and done with in the spirit of Trek as anything in recent memory. Shame some of those never got off the ground because of legal reasons. Personally i dont think "legal reason" for "canon" (fixed just for you) should be the only additions to the story.

    To each their own.
    And now i remember why i quit coming to the forums, 3 years ago and in 2013.

    Too bad about Axanar, that looked really promising certainly considering it could've fit right into the post-Enterprise Era and it could've fit into canon if we had seen the finished product, but we may never know at the rate it's moving.
  • jonsillsjonsills Member Posts: 9,908 Arc User
    It's not moving, atrox. And it never was. All that fundraising was for Peters' own private studio, not to make any Trek movies, and he was using the Star Trek IP to sell it - on everything from his movie that never even had a script, to T-shirts, to four varieties of coffee.
    Lorna-Wing-sig.png
  • meimeitoomeimeitoo Member Posts: 12,434 Arc User
    jonsills wrote: »
    It's not moving, atrox. And it never was. All that fundraising was for Peters' own private studio, not to make any Trek movies, and he was using the Star Trek IP to sell it - on everything from his movie that never even had a script, to T-shirts, to four varieties of coffee.


    That's bad; because it looked promising, and I likely would have watched it.
    ChCDpuh.jpg
  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 35,231 Arc User
    meimeitoo wrote: »
    jonsills wrote: »
    It's not moving, atrox. And it never was. All that fundraising was for Peters' own private studio, not to make any Trek movies, and he was using the Star Trek IP to sell it - on everything from his movie that never even had a script, to T-shirts, to four varieties of coffee.
    That's bad; because it looked promising, and I likely would have watched it.
    That's because Peters didn't really make Prelude and the guys who did jumped ship when they realized Peters had no intention of actually making Axanar.

    I still don't get why people liked it. To me it feels like the most grimdark interpretation of Star Trek yet. But you don't need ME to tell you what it was when you can watch it yourselves:
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • meimeitoomeimeitoo Member Posts: 12,434 Arc User
    meimeitoo wrote: »
    jonsills wrote: »
    It's not moving, atrox. And it never was. All that fundraising was for Peters' own private studio, not to make any Trek movies, and he was using the Star Trek IP to sell it - on everything from his movie that never even had a script, to T-shirts, to four varieties of coffee.
    That's bad; because it looked promising, and I likely would have watched it.
    That's because Peters didn't really make Prelude and the guys who did jumped ship when they realized Peters had no intention of actually making Axanar.

    I still don't get why people liked it. To me it feels like the most grimdark interpretation of Star Trek yet. But you don't need ME to tell you what it was when you can watch it yourselves:


    Still looks like the best Trek movie I would ever have seen. No Hur'q or Iconians who just suddenly call off the war, but an enemy you truly fear by the end of the trailer. All TRIBBLE fanbois should take a note: THOSE were the Klingons Trek was about, not the lethargic idiots in TRIBBLE.

    Sadly Peters was a total douche, and it all went nowhere. But it was sure promising.
    ChCDpuh.jpg
This discussion has been closed.