From: rawdon@colby.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Rawdon)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Re: TNG Grade Report: "Rescals"
Date: 10 Nov 92 23:10:47 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.rawdon.721437047
Reply-To: rawdon@colby.cs.wisc.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Dept., Madison, WI

In <BxIGnt.37C@cup.hp.com> runyan@cup.hp.com (Mark Runyan) writes:
>Michael Rawdon (rawdon@colby.cs.wisc.edu) wrote:
>>1) That the Klingons have "surplus" starships that renegade Ferengi can just
>>   go to buy (at their local K-Marts as blue light specials, maybe)?

>Consider the following points known from the show.
> 1) During the civil war, there were various factions that might have
>    been in need of money to improve their position.  While selling a
>    Prell class B.O.P.  doesn't make sense in a war, the concept of
>    "loan" and "honor" comes into play.

The concept of selling a ship doesn't make sense in a war when ships seem to
be at a premium.  Gowron's side was pressed for ships (heavily outnumbered),
while the Duras sisters were supported by the Romulans until the very end.
Selling ships doesn't make any sense, and it is hard for me to believe that
the Klingons would sell starships with Klingon technology to Ferengi (of
all creatures!).

>					  Some set of Klingons that were
>    on the wrong side could well have gotten a `loan' from the Ferengi
>    and, upon losing, have had to sell their ships.

Possibly, but then they wouldn't have been "surplus" ships.

> 2) The Ferengi have found ways to capture and refurbish Federation
>    ships (e.g. Stargazer)

Capture, yes.  Refurbish to the point of being able to take out a Galaxy-
class ship, no.

> 3) The Federation keeps a `boneyard' of ships (including an old D7,
>    if I remember the scene) from which we know several ships are now 
>    missing and we know the Ferengi were in that area.

I would have to see the exact scene (I presume you mean in "Yawnification"),
but I find it hard to believe that:

1) Any modern Klingon ship in Federation hands would be in that graveyard,
   and
2) That any older ship would have a chance in hell of overwhelming the
   Enterprise 1701-D.

>>2) That such ships would be able to overwhelm the Federation flagship in a
>>   matter of minutes?

> If the Federation ship is
>  1. Unprepared for an attack from allies,

Never mind that it has its shields up and that it usually doesn't take more
than 3 seconds to grok the concept "We are being attacked!"

>  2. Facing Klingon ships that have been "improved",

By whom?  How?  Why weren't we told of this?  This is, at best, gross
negligence on the part of the writers.

>  3. Is not prepared for hostile attack

Which explains the raised shields.  (Besides, shouldn't they be ready for
attack MOST of the time?  Space is a dangerous place!  And hardly peaceful.)

> The Enterprise was crippled much quicker in "Peak Performance" by a
> Ferengi attack craft.  It should come as no surprise that two Klingon
> ships overhauled with Ferengi weaponary could stop the Enterprise.

I can't accept that they were so "overhauled" (especially since the owners
were renegades with most likely few resources!) unless the writers said so.
At best, again, it's extremely sloppy writing.

>>3) That Riker is such an awful captain and the officers and crew so
>>   incompetent that in a pitched battle they are unable to get off more than
>>   one phaser shot at their assailants?  (I mean, I know TNG's philosophy
>>   is "all talk, no action", but this is ridiculous!)

> Yes, but he may have been thinking of the "Picard Maneuver" (i.e. these
> are our allies and when they finally stop shooting and ask for surrender,
> I will and *then* we'll find out what the hell is going on).

This is, even more so, something the writers MUST tell us.  Otherwise, Riker
just comes off looking stupid.

Besides, if I were Riker, I would prefer to negotiate from a position of
strength, not from a position of downed shields and injured crew.

>								Wrong thing
> to do in this instance, since it *wasn't* the Klingons doing the
> attacking.  Hindsight is wonderful, ain't it?

Hindsight is precisely what your rationalizations are based on.  "Well,
maybe the writers meant this..."  If they meant that, they should have SAID so.

> On the other hand, if they were Klingons, fighting back and winning may
> have been a bad idea.

Oh?  Why is that?

>>5) That the Ferengi would for some reason keep the children on the ship,
>>   rather than sending them down to the planet?  They could be as easily
>>   executed there, after all!

> 1) The intent was not to execute the children, it was to use them as
>    hostages to force the adults to work in the mines.

Irrelevant; this can be done just as easily with them on the planet.

> 2) Later, the children might be used to work the mines, but I doubt
>    the Ferengi knew what to do about them.  They mentioned they didn't
>    bring their young on space missions, implying they seem to have
>    a different viewpoint about young than humans.  Confining them to
>    the ship rather than forcing them into the primitive conditions
>    of a "profitable" mining camp might make sense from their alien
>    point of view.

Why is that?  Why was this not explained to us?  The Ferengi have not been
portrayed as being mysteriously "alien" since "The Last Outpost".  (And, in
fact, they were portrayed as fairly well-known even BEFORE that episode, in
"Encounter at Farpoint".)

>What, no complaint that the famous Ferengi power-whips weren't used? :-)

:-)

-- 
Michael Rawdon				 rawdon@colby.cs.wisc.edu
University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Department, Madison, WI

The Trekkie who doesn't own a VCR.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current