Kes's reproductive cycle is sped up due to Voyager's intercounter with a swarm of space-dwelling life-forms.
Notes:Another held-over Episode and the first appearance of Ensign Wildman.
-Richie
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By NSetzer on Tuesday, November 17, 1998 - 6:18 am:

This is a very interesting episode. It explains the Okompa(sp?)'s reproductive cycle. There is only one thing wrong...

This "elogium" only happens once correct? And it takes _two_ Okompans(sp?) to have a child. So let's do the math: TWO produce ONE. That means that this race would _Never_ grow in population. That means they could never really exist for an extended period of time.

I am, of course, assuming that twins (or multiple births) are not common on this planet because they
never mentioned anything about it the episodes.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Omer on Tuesday, November 17, 1998 - 1:48 pm:

It was a bit of a sell out, but very funny and maybe the most digusting episode of TREK ever ( well... EXPLORERS excluded, of course)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
By BrianB on Friday, July 09, 1999 - 5:55 am:

Kes is nearly two years old. As Lorne Greene might say: "that's about 14 to you and me." Even at 14, that's too young to be having a child. Hope Neelix didn't leave the sickbay wearing holographic condoms!
So many procreation themes lumped together in this ep...
1. Chakotay witnessing indiscrete fraternization.
2. Kes getting hot flashes.
3. Neelix and Tuvok discussing fatherhood.
4. Space-dwelling lifeforms fighting for sexual dominance.
5. Ensign Wildman discovering she's pregnant.
What took her so long to find out? They've been lost in space since stardate 48308 and now it's 48921... Longer than the two weeks she'd be separated from her husband left behind on DS9. Maybe it's someone else's child.
GREAT LINES: Tuvok, "It appears we have lost our sex appeal."

------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Mark Swinton on Saturday, November 06, 1999 - 3:44 pm:

What a chortle-worthy episode. And how brilliant to be off that "will-we-get-home-this-week-or-not" kick that pervades the first two seasons.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Steve Wood on Saturday, November 06, 1999 - 10:43 pm:

BrianB - does have Kes have hot flashes or do you mean hot flushes?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
By George on Saturday, April 08, 2000 - 3:21 pm:

If the elogium happens only once, then where did Kes' uncle Elrem come from? Wouldn't this mean that no Ocampa would ever have any aunts or uncles, let alone siblings (aside from the occasional rare multiple birth)?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Anonymous on Saturday, April 08, 2000 - 3:44 pm:

The ipasaphor supposedly results in a six-day mating bond in which fertilization occurs. Perhaps Ocampa males are physiologically prepared for such an event, but it doesn't seem that way for others. Was Neelix really going to request six days off for this? Was he actually prepared to mate for six days straight (presumably this would exclude eating, sleeping, and going to the bathroom)?

In "Before And After," does it really seem likely that Tom Paris would have committed to this for six days? Or Harry? (Or was it different because Linnis was half-human?) Supposedly, every surviving crewmember counts, yet anyone involved with Kes would have to take six days off.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Chris Thomas on Saturday, April 08, 2000 - 11:42 pm:

Tom could have requested a leave of absence.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
By GCapp on Wednesday, January 31, 2001 - 10:20 pm:

Human (Terran) females have millions of immature ova; during child-bearing years, usually one ova matures each month so it can be fertilized by the husband. However, for Ocampan females, perhaps it is completely different. Try this on for size (and they just didn't bring it up in the episode because they didn't think straight to write it that way).

An Ocampan female entering elogium will mature several ova, and during that (six day! wow!) mating, the male's sperm will fertilize ALL of them, but only one, maybe two, at a time will actually continue with growth at that time. The rest stay dormant for a time.

This way, an Ocampan female could bear several children, but simply require fertilization once. Alternatively, the remaining fertilized ova wouldn't emerge from dormancy except on further occasions of mating.

Realistically, a population needs 2.1 children per couple to sustain its population.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
By smartaleck on Thursday, February 08, 2001 - 11:47 am:

But how do you get .1 of a child?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Alec from Infinity -- from the Phantom Tollbooth on Thursday, February 08, 2001 - 1:51 pm:

Actually, I'm .64 of a child.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Aaron Dotter on Wednesday, March 21, 2001 - 5:03 pm:

In the opening when Chakotay gets on the turbolift with Paris and Kes, he says "Deck 6", but then the next scene shows them walking into the Mess Hall, which is on Deck 2 if im not mistaken.(This isnt really a nit since they could have gone somewhere else, but did Chakotay tell Paris "hold this lift, ill only be a second?")

------------------------------------------------------------------------
By The Undesirable Element on Friday, March 23, 2001 - 2:22 pm:

"Voyager seems to have lost its sex appeal, Captain." -- Tuvok.

Hey! That's why they added Seven of Nine in Season Four.

TUE

------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Josh G. on Monday, April 23, 2001 - 3:13 pm:

In the teaser when Kes starts eating the beetles, I love the expression on her face when she realises what, exactly, she's shoveling into her mouth. She was eating them like popcorn! Later on we get the scene where she starts eating the flowers Neelix brings her. I don't know about the rest of you, but these are among the funniest scenes in any episode.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Keith Alan Morgan (Kmorgan) on Sunday, March 31, 2002 - 4:44 am:

Neelix discovers a Spawn Beetle on some of the lettuce, Kes picks it up and sets it down & leaves it. What did she set it on or in? Was it just wandering around the kitchen. Then she leaves without grabbing the thing. Maybe someone did have it in their salad?

Kes tells Neelix that, "I would want you to mate with me." Sooooooooooo, what have Neelix & Kes been doing all this time? Just a platonic relationship, or does Kes mean mate in the 'produce-a-child-with-me' sense & not the 'let's-take-a-roll-in-the-hay' sense?

WARNING! SPOILER FOR A SEASON 7 EPISODE
Neelix asks Kes, "If you never had a baby, would you be terribly unhappy?" & Kes says, yes. Maybe that's why Kes was so pissed off in Fury? She never had a child.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Chris Booton (Cbooton) on Thursday, May 08, 2003 - 8:18 pm:

An Ocampan female entering elogium will mature several ova, and during that (six day! wow!) mating, the male's sperm will fertilize ALL of them, but only one, maybe two, at a time will actually continue with growth at that time. The rest stay dormant for a time.

This sounds plausable, in fact there are several species right here in Earth that breed in a fasion simular to this (ie delayed implantation of a fertilized egg in the wall of the females female part (I know the name, but want to keep it pg-13)). In fact most mustelids breed in this fashion, it often means that the females are for all intensive purposes, always pregnant.

I can certainly see a species which only goes into heat (for lack of a better term) breeding in this fashon.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Mr. Editer on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 5:25 am:

The expression is "all intents and purposes." Mr. Editer has no idea why.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Zarm Rkeeg on Thursday, September 18, 2003 - 3:03 pm:

When Kes sets up a forcefield in sickbay, why doesn't the doctor walk through it? He's demonstrated intangibility and walking through forcefield abillity before.

Also,when the creature hits Voyager, it's announced that 'structural integrity is at 84 (or 85?) percent.' A few moments later, when a plasma stream hits Voyager, it's announced that 'shields are at 64 percent.' how can they be losing hull integrity while they still have shields, especially considering that the jolts that shake them are minimal? You would think that losing 15 percent of hull integrity would throw a few people across the room, at least.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
By ScottN on Thursday, September 18, 2003 - 6:04 pm:

Structural Integrity in this situation refers to the Structural Integrity field, not hull integrity.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Jayson Spears on Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 6:48 pm:

What I learned from this episode:

1. Kes likes to eat dirt.
2. Neelix doesnt like mashed potatoes
3. Tuvok decides NOT to use the creatures for target practice.
4. Ens Wildman is not wild in nature

------------------------------------------------------------------------
By LUIGI NOVI on Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 7:59 am:

Neelix doesn't like mashed potatoes with dirt. I kinda agree with him.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Anonymous on Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 5:33 pm:

Maybe Wildman is wild in bed. (wink wink)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Chris Booton (Cbooton) on Monday, January 12, 2004 - 8:01 pm:

Neelix discovers a Spawn Beetle on some of the lettuce, Kes picks it up and sets it down & leaves it. What did she set it on or in? Was it just wandering around the kitchen. Then she leaves without grabbing the thing. Maybe someone did have it in their salad?

Why does that paragraph make me think of Dr Phlox?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
By John-Boy on Sunday, September 18, 2005 - 9:10 am:

This episode first aired on UPN 10 years ago today.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Mr Crusher on Wednesday, September 06, 2006 - 2:44 pm:

Who is Dr. Phlox?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Polls Voice on Wednesday, September 06, 2006 - 7:48 pm:

Mr. Crusher, please watch Star Trek: Enterprise

------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Mr Crusher on Wednesday, September 06, 2006 - 9:16 pm:

Why would I want to?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Torque, Son of Keplar on Wednesday, September 06, 2006 - 10:44 pm:

because you'd find out who Dr. Phlox is that way... or did I misinterpret your question?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Mr Crusher on Wednesday, September 06, 2006 - 11:14 pm:

If thats how id find out who Dr Phlox is then I don't want to know who he is.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Bajoran on Wednesday, September 06, 2006 - 11:26 pm:

Mr. Crusher, If you didn't want to know who Dr. Phlox is. Why did you ask the question? I find your posts more humerous than annoying because it's amazing to watch you post the character name instead of the actors real name.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
By LUIGI NOVI on Wednesday, September 06, 2006 - 11:31 pm:

Crusher: Who is Dr. Phlox?
Luigi Novi: The Doctor on Star Trek: Enterprise.

Bajoran: Mr. Crusher, If you didn't want to know who Dr. Phlox is. Why did you ask the question?
Luigi Novi: Why does asking who he is require him to watch the show? Isn't he asking precisely because he didn't watch it, and wanted someone here to simply inform him who Phlox was? Why didn't you and Torque just say, "The Doctor on Enterprise"?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Torque, Son of Keplar on Thursday, September 07, 2006 - 11:05 am:

My apologies Lord Luigi...

Given mr Crusher's posts in several of the Star Trek topics, I had assumed he also watched or had at least seen one episode of Enterprise.

- Dr. Phlox is the doctor of enterprise.
- He has a hibernation period.
- He's denubulan (no, I don't know how to spell his species, and I'm too tired to look it up.)
- Enterprise got an alien doctor because none of the hu-mons on had ever heard of a Klingon etc.
- He's part blowfish.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
By LUIGI NOVI on Thursday, September 07, 2006 - 12:12 pm:

And Crusher, for future reference, you can also go to places like this.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Mr Crusher on Thursday, September 07, 2006 - 12:49 pm:

Yes I have seen enought of Enterpise to know who Dr Phlox is, I was just being a smartas when I asked who he was.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
By No Bloody A, B, C, or D on Thursday, September 07, 2006 - 3:00 pm:

I thought Dr. Boice was the first doctor on the Enterprise.No bloody A B C or D or E

------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Mr Crusher on Thursday, September 07, 2006 - 3:03 pm:

He was but some people count Star Trek Enterprise as cannon, even though the creators themselves seemed to not care about continutiy with the other 4 Trek shows.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Torque, Son of Keplar on Thursday, September 07, 2006 - 4:35 pm:

its got continuity with the other treks, so long as you ignore season 3, and parts of season 1 and 2.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
By LUIGI NOVI on Thursday, September 07, 2006 - 10:42 pm:

Enterprise is not "counted" as canon by some people; It is canon, since it is regarded as such by Paramount.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Mr Crusher on Friday, September 08, 2006 - 5:41 pm:

Its not canon to me. Its garbage.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Polls Voice on Friday, September 08, 2006 - 9:05 pm:

Does that mean that there aren't nits in it?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
By mr crusher on Friday, September 08, 2006 - 9:16 pm:

Nitpick it all you want, I don't care

------------------------------------------------------------------------
By LUIGI NOVI on Saturday, September 09, 2006 - 11:06 am:

There's no such thing as "canon to me". Canon is determined by official Paramount policy, not by individual opinion.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Mr Crusher on Saturday, September 09, 2006 - 12:29 pm:

Sure there is Luigi. If I want to choose to ignore Enterprise there isn't anything Paramount can do about it. We've had this discussion before. Im done with it now.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Polls Voice on Saturday, September 09, 2006 - 1:48 pm:

This is not meant as picking a fight..

Seeing how you're not interested in having the discussion again, where is the previous discussion, I'd like to read it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Mr Crusher on Saturday, September 09, 2006 - 6:56 pm:

I don't recall, probaly somewhere in the Enterprise boards, but it was more of the same as here, with Luigi telling me I HAVE to except it as cannon because "Paramount says so", and me saying that I dont because I live in America where we have freedom of choice. (I think Luigi is from some other country where they dont have such freedoms and have to go alone with whatever some movie studio tells them they have to believe).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
By ME on Saturday, September 09, 2006 - 8:09 pm:

I think Luigi is from some other country where they dont have such freedoms and have to go alone with whatever some movie studio tells them they have to believe.

Yeah, its called the Eastern United States

------------------------------------------------------------------------
By LUIGI NOVI on Saturday, September 09, 2006 - 9:27 pm:

Crusher: Sure there is Luigi. If I want to choose to ignore Enterprise there isn't anything Paramount can do about it.
Luigi Novi: I didn't say otherwise.

I said that this has nothing to do with the word "canon", since canon is not determined by individual opinion or taste. The word canon doesn't mean "that which I like".

Crusher: I don't recall, probaly somewhere in the Enterprise boards, but it was more of the same as here, with Luigi telling me I HAVE to except it as cannon because "Paramount says so"...
Luigi Novi: A lie.

These were words that you deliberately put into my mouth on the Remember Me(TNG) board, despite my pointing out to you that I did not make them, as seen here:

Mr Crusher: Acually, it is in fact a big stretch. Coming right back from the teaser, Dulmer says something like, "ok captain, lets get too it, which Enterprise did you go back too". Seems pretty cut and dry to me that Sisko didn't say anything about "Federation Starship". Why would he have? No one had asked him yet which Enterprise they had went back too. And I'd say we do in fact "see all of the converstion", because as we rejoin the action, the three of them are just getting sat down in Siskos office. What other part of the conversation would there have been?

Its just further proof in my mind that "Enterpise" isn't cannon in the Star Trek Uninverse.

LUIGI NOVI: Agreed. "The Enterprise" was the closing line from the teaser. It's obvious that Dulmer's response in the opening shot of Act 1, "Be specific Captain..." is a response to that. (Disclaimer: I argue only that the NX-01 is a retcon or continuity problem; Not that the entire series isn't canon, since canon is determined by Paramount, and not individual opinion.)

Mr Crusher: Luigi>>I respect that you like Star Trek Enterprise, and I wasn't trying to diss it, but Paramount does not determine what is canon and what isn't in my mind, if you know what I mean.

LUIGI NOVI: Luigi Novi: No, it just determines canon. There is no such thing as "canon in my mind", because that's a contradiction in terms. The word refers specifically to official policy, not individual opinion.

Mr Crusher: Luigi>> If its my "individual opinion" that Enterprise isn't canon, then theres nothing that Paramount can do about it. I can chose to ignore it if I want. Its not a "contradiction in terms", its just my opinon, and im intitled to it as long as this is still America

LUIGI NOVI: I didn't say that there was anything Paramount can "do about it." I simply said that "canon" isn't determined by individual opinion, as the word refers to the accepted standard set by someone in a position of authority.

Mr Crusher: Yes but if I chose to ignore what Paramount considers canon, then thats my choice, and therefore would be "determined by individual opinion", mime!

ScottN: Yes, but this is NitCentral. And Phil's "Nitpicker's Prime Directive" is as follows: All nits picked shall derive form sources the creators consider canonical.

Mr Crusher: ScottN>> I never said the nits weren't vaild, where did i say that? In fact, why would I say the nits here wern't vaild, since the nits from Remember Me and Trials and Tribbleations proves there is a continuity error as far as these two episodes saying there were 5 (or 6 in Trials) starships Enterprise, and the Enterprise from Star Trek Enterprise are not counted in that count? That just goes to prove my point.

I was just saying that I ignore Star Trek Enterprise, I never said ANYTHING about nitcentral or anyone here doing so. Please do not put words in my mouth. You are bringing something in the the conversation that was never said by myself or anyone else. If you can point out anywhere where I said anything about nitpicking Enterprise, then I ask you to point it out.

LUIGI NOVI:

Crusher: Yes but if I chose to ignore what Paramount considers canon, then thats my choice, and therefore would be "determined by individual opinion", mime!

Luigi Novi: Your opinion is determined by individual opinion. What is canon is not. Again, the word canon refers specifically to an accepted standard.

dotter31: You can choose to ignore what is canon and what is not, but that does not change what is canon. Similarly, reading a book and ripping out the third chapter is your right, but that does not change the content of the book.

Mr Crusher: dotter, i never said that what I chose to consider canon changes what is canon. Point out where I said this. You and Luigi are not reading my post all the way through before you respond, and therefore you both are putting words in my mouth. I said I CHOSE TO IGONORE Star Trek Enterprise and don't cosider it canon. That in no way said that it isn't canon to you guys or to Paramount. But since that show has not real bearing on what happened on the 5 Star Trek shows that came before it (or after it if you chose to look at it that way) then its very easy for me to ignore it, the same way that the creators ignored most of the continuite between it and the other 5 shows.

LUIGI NOVI:

Crusher: You and Luigi are not reading my post all the way through before you respond, and therefore you both are putting words in my mouth.

Luigi Novi: I find that an ironic accusation, given that it is you who actually seems to do this, given that seem to be consistently ignoring my statements about what the word means, never once responding to that point directly.

For my part, I did not respond before reading your post "all the way through."

Crusher: I said I CHOSE TO IGONORE Star Trek Enterprise and don't cosider it canon.

Luigi Novi: And one more time, I am pointing out to you that canon is not determined by individual consideration. It is determined by Paramount policy. There is no such thing as canon "to you guys." Canon is canon. The word canon refers to an accepted standard. Not individual opinion or consideration. I've stated this twice before, and you haven't responded to it.

Mr. Crusher: Yes Luigi I have responded to it, over and over and over, IF you would take the time to READ my posts. You don't know how silly you sound, telling me I HAVE to consider it canon. What if I don't want to? Are the canon police going to come and throw me in jail? What country are you from Luigi, because here in America, we are free to ignore whatever we want. I said NOTHING about what is canon "to you guys". Don't twist what I said friend. I have not ignored what you are saying canon means, but your definition of the word canon is not what the conversation is about here. Keep up!

Mr. Crusher: Hey Luigi, Canon refers to the "accecpted standard" I heard that somewhere. Interesting you use that term, since the creators of Enterprise seemed to have no standards as far as story or continuity. Lol

LUIGI NOVI:

Crusher: Yes Luigi I have responded to it, over and over and over, IF you would take the time to READ my posts.

Luigi Novi: No, you have not responded to it. You respond to my posts, but only indirectly, by explaining your point of view in general terms. You have not, however, responed to the point that the word canon does not refer to subjective opinions, but accepted standards.

You have not demonstrated that I have not read your posts. It is you who has demonstrated that you have not read mine (or at the very least, are continuing to ignore the central point of my response).

Crusher: You don't know how silly you sound, telling me I HAVE to consider it canon.
Luigi Novi: I didn't say you have to consider it canon. It is canon. Further demonstrating that you are deliberately ignoring the content of my posts, I never said you have to consider it canon precisely because canon isn't determined by individual considerations. Canon refers to official policy. Not individual opinions.

Crusher: What if I don't want to? Are the canon police going to come and throw me in jail? What country are you from Luigi, because here in America, we are free to ignore whatever we want.
Luigi Novi: Ignoring the definition of a word doesn't change that definition. What Paramount considers canon is a question of fact, not opinion. What you seem to be describing is an interpretation. Not canon.

Crusher: I said NOTHING about what is canon "to you guys".

Luigi Novi: Yes you did, in your July 3, 7:41pm post:

That in no way said that it isn't canon to you guys or to Paramount.

Your words. Not mine. Thus, there is no "twisting."

Crusher: I have not ignored what you are saying canon means, but your definition of the word canon is not what the conversation is about here.

Luigi Novi: There is no such thing as "your definition." There is only the definition. That is, the one found in dictionaries. And that definition refers to an accepted standard. As it pertains to Trek, canon is determined solely by official Paramount policy.

As far as what the conversation is about, when people disagree in discussions such as this, it is important for them to have an understanding of the terms they are using. Because this discussion is about what is and isn't canon, it therefore is necessary to be clear on what the term means. Thus, that becomes an important part of the conversation.

Thus, I never said that you “had to” do anything. I simply pointed out that you were using the word “canon” in a way that was not accurate, and pointed what the word really means. All you did was to repeat the same fallacy over and over again, never responding directly to my statement about the word’s meaning in order to refute it, preferring instead to pretend that this was “my” definition, rather than a referenced one, that I was not reading your posts (without illustrating that accusation, and despite the fact that I quoted all of your pertinent statements directly, and you did not, preferring instead to put words in my mouth that I did not state), and even accusing me of twisting your words when you claimed you didn’t say things that you certainly did, which I showed by pointing out where you did indeed say them.

A direct response to my statements might’ve started off with something akin to “No, Luigi, that’s not what the word means, because here in this dictionary I have it states…”, or “Luigi, what reference source did you use?”, or “Yes, you did indeed tell me what I have to accept, because here in this post you made on this date, and I’ll quote you directly…”, or “No, you haven’t really been reading my posts, because I made this statement over here, and you completely misquoted it, or overlooked one aspect of it whose deletion totally changed the passage’s meaning when you cut and pasted it over here…”, and so forth.

You did not do this. You instead pretended that I said things that I did not, pretended that the definition of the word that I cited was somehow one that I made up, and made false accusations regarding my reading and quoting of others’ posts. This is because you do not take care in reading and responding directly to people’s words, you do not exhibit care when choosing your words, you have little regard for diction and vocabulary, and do not possess the decency to actually check what people actual say before responding to them, or the honesty to refer to their words accurately after the fact. It took me just several minutes to do a search on the Enterprise, Voyager and NextGen boards before I found the above quoted thread.

Completely making up things that I did not say apparently took you none.

Crusher: Sure there is Luigi. If I want to choose to ignore Enterprise there isn't anything Paramount can do about it.
Luigi Novi: I didn't say otherwise.

I said that this has nothing to do with the word "canon", since canon is not determined by individual opinion or taste. The word canon doesn't mean "that which I like". I really like Peter David’s novels. But that doesn’t mean that Peter David’s are “canon to me,” because they’re not canon at all. Even he himself would say so. To do so would be to use the word incorrectly. If you don’t want to acknowledge certain series or episodes or whatever that’s fine, but why use a word to describe this lack of acknowledgement that is not accurate?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
By dotter31 on Saturday, September 09, 2006 - 9:33 pm:

You do have the freedom to accept whatever you want to and reject whatever you want to, but that does not change the meaning of the word canon. Paramount owns Star Trek so they have the right to say what is Star Trek and what is not. You can choose to accept or reject anything they deem to be Star Trek, but that does not change Paramount's view as the owner.

They say Enterprise is part of Star Trek, so it is canon. Our beliefs don't play a role, unless enough people who shared your views persuaded Paramount to change their mind. I can believe that Die Another Day is Star Trek canon, but that does not change the fact that it isn't.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
By dotter31 on Saturday, September 09, 2006 - 9:36 pm:

Moderator- perhaps my post should be removed.

I would like to also humbly suggest that this series of posts be moved to another location, since they don't have to do with this episode.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Mr Crusher on Monday, September 11, 2006 - 4:15 pm:

Luigi, nothing in your big ass post changes the fact that Enterprise is garbage and isn't canon to me!

------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Torque, Son of Keplar on Monday, September 11, 2006 - 7:26 pm:

Shut up Wesley!

------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Mr Crusher on Monday, September 11, 2006 - 8:52 pm:

Non Canon Garbage

------------------------------------------------------------------------
By LUIGI NOVI on Monday, September 11, 2006 - 10:43 pm:

Crusher: Luigi, nothing in your big ass post changes the fact that Enterprise is garbage and isn't canon to me!
Luigi Novi: And nothing in this quote by you changes the definition of the word in such a way that makes your use of it correct.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
By LUIGI NOVI on Monday, September 11, 2006 - 10:44 pm:

Or changes the fact that you lied.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Mr Crusher on Tuesday, September 12, 2006 - 6:27 am:

WHERE in that quote did I give my definition of the word in such a way that makes my use of it correct? I don't see a definition of ANY word at all.

Whos lied now?

Lier lier pants on fire!

By dotter31 on Tuesday, September 12, 2006 - 6:36 am:

You have given your definition of canon through the way you use it. Luigi has not lied.

You have said "Enterprise isn't canon to me." That suggests that you believe canon to mean "what I accept as part of Star Trek." If that is wrong, please correct me.

That is not what canon means. Canon "what the creators of Star Trek accept as part of Star Trek." What you or I believe is not relevant. You can certainly believe whatever you want to, but that does not change what Paramount considers canon.

It would be more accurate to say "I do not consider Enterprise to be part of Star Trek." or anything similar.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
By LUIGI NOVI on Tuesday, September 12, 2006 - 11:14 am:

Crusher: WHERE in that quote did I give my definition of the word in such a way that makes my use of it correct?
Luigi Novi: As Dotter pointed out, your use of it is wrong, as it implies a definition of it that it does not have. Why don't you simply repsond directly to the the reasoning I've employed in my posts, both in the prior thread, and this one? Why will you not respond to the actual arguments? Why instead do you keep bobbing and weaving around the specific points we keep putting to you? Can you explain what is at fault with the underlying logic of the statements Dotter and I have made? Do you dispute any of it?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Mr Crusher on Tuesday, September 12, 2006 - 1:00 pm:

And WHY didn't you answer my question? Because I didn't give a definition of any words in the post that you cut and pasted and colored and you just can't admit that you were ever wrong about anything! Thats ok, I forgive you!

------------------------------------------------------------------------
By dotter31 on Tuesday, September 12, 2006 - 1:32 pm:

And still you have not addressed his points. If you don't want to answer, just say so, instead of ducking the questions.

I have seen several instances where Luigi has admitted that he was incorrect about something or at least was willing to admit the possibility.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
By LUIGI NOVI on Tuesday, September 12, 2006 - 2:02 pm:

Crusher: And WHY didn't you answer my question? Because I didn't give a definition of any words in the post that you cut and pasted...
Luigi Novi: I didn't say that you did.

What I made clear is that your usage of the word was incorrect, because it assumed a definition of the word that it does not have. by asking where you "gave" a definition, it is clear that you are attempting to avoid admitting that you have no cogent position by splitting hairs. The fact of the matter is, you understood perfectly well what I said, and what that statement meant, and you seem to think that you can avoid having to concede this by pretending that my point can only be made if I can somehow prove that you gave a definition of the word explicity, which is obviously not true.

If we take this challenge by you as legitimate, then by the same reasoning, I can ask you "WHERE in that quote did I say that you "gave" a definition"?

The answer is simple: I didn't.

The fact of the matter is that I and others have been attempting to explain to you what the word means, and that your use of it is incorrect, and we have been doing so quite politely. Your response is to not respond at all to the arguments we present, preferring instead to focus on irrelevant aspects of the discussion, like how I format quotes in color, how I supposedly do not ever admit I'm wrong (for which there is plenty of evidence to the contrary), to lie about what other people say (repeatedly), and so forth. The fact that you continue to refuse to even respond to the assertion that your use of the word is wrong by telling us why it actually is, or to defend yourself against the evidence that you accused me of saying things that I clearly did not serves to underline this.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Mr. Crusher on Tuesday, September 12, 2006 - 2:44 pm:

I know what the correct use of the word is, Ive never said I didn't. What I said was that Enterprise isn't canon to me and all you ever come back with is "there is no canon to me". Yes there is. Ive never said that Enterprise isn't canon to Paramount and I dare you to find a place where I did say it. I said it wasnt canon TO ME. I can decide what is canon to me and what isn't, Paramount cannot tell me I have to acecpt it, and I really doubt that they care if I do or not, so why do you care so much? Oh I know why, because you always have to be RIGHT. Well you are not in this case. But just to make you happy, I will say it publicly:


ENTERPRISE IS CANON TO PARAMOUNT PICTURES BUT TO ME, MR CRUSHER, IT IS NON-CANON GARBAGE.

Are you happy now? I doubt it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Polls Voice on Tuesday, September 12, 2006 - 4:20 pm:

That's like Luigi saying that George Bush isn't the president of the United States because he's not his president.

Whether or not Luigi thinks Bush to be Garbage does not negate the fact that he is the president.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
By dotter31 on Tuesday, September 12, 2006 - 6:45 pm:

Ive never said that Enterprise isn't canon to Paramount and I dare you to find a place where I did say it. I said it wasnt canon TO ME

No one has claimed that you said Enterprise was not canon to Paramount. There is no such thing as "canon to me". By definition things cannot be canon to an individual.


I can decide what is canon to me and what isn't

No, you can't. I can't either. Luigi can't. Only the creators can. That's what canon is.

Paramount cannot tell me I have to acecpt it, and I really doubt that they care if I do or not

You're correct on both counts. You can accept whatever you want. It is still canon regardless of what you think. It is regardless of what I think.

because you always have to be RIGHT

Luigi has never said that he has to be right, he is willing to listen to anyone who can back up their arguments with factual information. Luigi has facts to back up his arguments, but you are only responding with your view and nothing to support it.

No one has said that you can't consider Enterprise part of Star Trek. I'd be willing to bet that many people don't. There are people who don't consider anything after the Original Star Trek part of Star Trek. What is and is not canon, however, is not determined by us, the viewers. Otherwise the word would have no meaning.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
By LUIGI NOVI on Tuesday, September 12, 2006 - 6:50 pm:

Crusher: I know what the correct use of the word is, Ive never said I didn't.
Luigi Novi: If this is true, then why do you not directly address the definition that I cited in the prior thread, the content of which I pasted here? Again, why do you continue to bob and weave around this point indirectly? The word refers to an "accepted standard". Now what does that phrase mean? What do those words mean? In this context, a standard is an authorized model used to define something. Canon, therefore, refers to works that are judged according to a specific rule, principle or standard, usually as a measure of authenticity or validity. This definition, therefore, clearly excludes notions of personal taste or aesthetics, since standards are measurements used universally, not personally, and by those in some type of authority, not lay people. Thus, your continued insistence that there is any such thing as canon "to me" or "to you" or "to Paramount" is false, as it flies directly in the face of the definition of that word. Now if you wanted to refute this, you could do so by refuting the definitions of the words I've provided here, or citing a different one that you've found, or refuting the manner in which I illustrated that the definition applies to my usage and not yours.

But you have not done this.

Instead, you bring up irrelevant points and accuse others of saying things that they have not (now claiming, for example, that I somehow accused you of saying that Enterprise isn't canon to Paramount), you go off on tangents by splitting hairs over the meaning of my statements, as if you somehow can’t understand that ideas can be implied or otherwise necessitated by certain statements, even if they’re not explicitly made, and repeat the same initial statement over and over, none of which addresses my points or those of others head-on.

If you want to discuss this honestly and intelligently, then stop engaging in these continuously dishonest tactics, because they do nothing to illustrate your assertion, and merely serve to reveal you as intellectually dishonest.

Crusher: Ive never said that Enterprise isn't canon to Paramount and I dare you to find a place where I did say it.
Luigi Novi: No. We are not talking about this idea, as neither I nor anyone else here has ever accused you of saying this. The point is that your use of the word is incorrect, because it requires a definition of the word that it doesn’t have, and that you refuse to either admit this, or engage in disagreement over it with honesty and decency.

Crusher: I said it wasnt canon TO ME.
Luigi Novi: And as soon as you can provide a definition of the word that makes this use of it applicable, or show how it's applicable under the definition I provided, let us know.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Polls Voice on Tuesday, September 12, 2006 - 8:13 pm:

Even Star Trek 5 is canon despite Gene Roddenberry's opinion that it never happened. Thus, personal opinion from its creator does not negate canon-hood... canon-ness...

------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Mr Crusher on Tuesday, September 12, 2006 - 8:35 pm:

I don't have to find a definintion of the word that makes this use of it APPLICABLE to you because it is already applicable to me. What is it with you guys? Am I not allowed to have a differant opinon than you? I thought that this was an CIVIL website? You guys are acting like a bunch of bullys telling me what I have to accept and what I don't. Just who do you think you are? No wonder people stop posting here.

I find it very interesting what you guys pick and choose to quote me on too. Quote this: I don't care about you or what you think of me or what I choose to view as cannon or non cannon.

And why is Polls trying to bring Star Trek 5 into this?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Benn on Tuesday, September 12, 2006 - 9:52 pm:

From Dictionary.com:

"can-on1; /kan-uhn/

"–noun 1. an ecclesiastical rule or law enacted by a council or other competent authority and, in the Roman Catholic Church, approved by the pope.
2. the body of ecclesiastical law.
3. the body of rules, principles, or standards accepted as axiomatic and universally binding in a field of study or art: the neoclassical canon.
4. a fundamental principle or general rule: the canons of good behavior.
5. a standard; criterion: the canons of taste.
6. the books of the Bible recognized by any Christian church as genuine and inspired.
7. any officially recognized set of sacred books.
8. any comprehensive list of books within a field.
9. the works of an author that have been accepted as authentic: There are 37 plays in the Shakespeare canon. Compare apocrypha (def. 3).
10. a catalog or list, as of the saints acknowledged by the Church.
11. Liturgy. the part of the Mass between the Sanctus and the Communion.
12. Eastern Church. a liturgical sequence sung at matins, usually consisting of nine odes arranged in a fixed pattern.
13. Music. consistent, note-for-note imitation of one melodic line by another, in which the second line starts after the first.
14. Printing. a 48-point type.

"can-on2; /kan-uhn/

–noun 1. one of a body of dignitaries or prebendaries attached to a cathedral or a collegiate church; a member of the chapter of a cathedral or a collegiate church.
2. Roman Catholic Church. one of the members (canons regular) of certain religious orders."

------------------------------------------------------------------------
By LUIGI NOVI on Tuesday, September 12, 2006 - 11:16 pm:

Crusher: I don't have to find a definintion of the word that makes this use of it APPLICABLE to you because it is already applicable to me.
Luigi Novi: But your application of that word is not consistent with its defintion. What does this "to me" or "to you" rationale mean? That you just make up a definition or usage for a term that's incorrect, and it somehow becomes correct if you just jolly well feel like it? Just out of curiosity, what do you believe the word to mean?

Crusher: Am I not allowed to have a differant opinon than you?
Luigi Novi: We're not talking about different opinions. We're talking about definitions of words. Having a different opinion has nothing to do with using words incorrectly. What the definition of a word is is a question of fact. Not opinion.

Crusher: I thought that this was an CIVIL website?
Luigi Novi: Civility is not mutually exclusive from pointing out when someone is using a word incorrectly.

Crusher: You guys are acting like a bunch of bullys telling me what I have to accept and what I don't.
Luigi Novi: One more time:

No one here has told you what you have to accept. What we've told you is that you are using the word "canon" incorrectly, because you insist on using it to denote personal taste, which is not what it means. Why is it so difficult for you to comprehend this? If you're right, and we're all wrong, then why do you constantly have to claim that we've said things that we haven't? What you accept and what is canon are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. I accept Peter David's novels as among the best Star Trek stories I've ever experienced, and I do not accept much of what I saw on Voyager and Enterprise as worthy of the Trek legacy (and I've heard some say the same about DS9). That's not the same thing as saying that those things "aren't canon". What is so difficult for you to understand about this? Again, if you disagree with the underlying logic in this passage, or if you feel the definition/word usage I cited is wrong, then why not respond to this passage on the basis of that?

As far as us telling you what you have to accept, well, to use one of your own m.o.'s...

I dare you to find a place where we said that.

Crusher: And why is Polls trying to bring Star Trek 5 into this?
Luigi Novi: I thought Polls made the relevance of that movie to this discussion quite clear.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Mr Crusher on Wednesday, September 13, 2006 - 12:23 am:

Luigi, please tell me what is the differance in you saying that you do not accept much of what you saw on Voyager and Enterprise as worthy of the Trek legacy and me saying that I don't consider it canon? I have stated IN CAPTIATAL LETTERS that I know that Paramonut Pictures says that its canon, but I also said that I do not. That is not saying that it isn't canon to them, just not to me. You are saying that you don't accept much of it as "worthy", whats the diffferance? It seems that we are mostly agreeing on this. Why do you want to fight with me? I know what canon means, Im just saying that I don't consider it as such. Maybe I should have said it like you did, but I didn't. But it means the same thing as far as I can tell. Am I wrong?

Im trying to explain to you my feelings about Enterprise and you are going on and on about the definintion of a word. I know the defininition but you seem to be ignoreing what im saying about my feelings about Enterprise. Am I wrong about that too?

I think we should agree to disagree about this, although in alot of ways it seems we agree about it. Im hold out an olive branch here.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
By KAM on Wednesday, September 13, 2006 - 2:07 am:

Mr. Crusher - What is it with you guys?
We are Nitpickers. This is NitCentral. When we see an error, or a word being used incorrectly, we point it out. Unfortunately you seem to interpret this as an attack & rather than learn from it you just lash out. (I feel sorry for any teacher that had you as a student.)

what is the differance in you saying that you do not accept much of what you saw on Voyager and Enterprise as worthy of the Trek legacy and me saying that I don't consider it canon?
Worthy & Canon are two separate words with different meanings.

There are episodes that are Canon that are not Worthy.

There are Novels/Comics/possibly even some Fanfics that are Worthy, but not Canon.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
By LUIGI NOVI on Wednesday, September 13, 2006 - 2:54 am:

Crusher: Luigi, please tell me what is the differance in you saying that you do not accept much of what you saw on Voyager and Enterprise as worthy of the Trek legacy and me saying that I don't consider it canon?
Luigi Novi: I'd be happy to. The reaction on my part that you refer to is not what the word "canon" means. Haven't I stated that many times so far?

Crusher: Why do you want to fight with me?
Luigi Novi: Well, I'm not sure what you mean by "fight". If by "fight" you mean "disagreement", well, the reason I'm disagreeing is because, as I said, I see you using a word incorrectly, and I'm merely trying to point that out to you.

Crusher:I know what canon means, Im just saying that I don't consider it as such.
Luigi Novi: And how many times do I have to explain to you that canon doesn't refer to personal considerations? The two halves of this quote by you are mutually exclusive. If you insist you know what it means, then why not answer my question and tell me, in your words, what it means, so that we can see how that definition matches up with your usage of it?

Crusher: Maybe I should have said it like you did, but I didn't. But it means the same thing as far as I can tell. Am I wrong?
Luigi Novi: Well yes, you were wrong in using the wrong word. Again, I think I've stated this numerous times.

Crusher: Im trying to explain to you my feelings about Enterprise and you are going on and on about the definintion of a word.
Luigi Novi: Of course I'm going on about the definition of the word. I was merely pointing out that the feelings you describe about the show is not what that word means. If you want to opine that you didn't like that show, fine. But why use the wrong word to do this?

Crusher: I think we should agree to disagree about this, although in alot of ways it seems we agree about it. Im hold out an olive branch here.
Luigi Novi: I thank you for doing so. Yes, we agree at least partially with regard to the content of that show (though I feel that much of it was pretty good, especially compared to Voyager). My only point is that this is not what the word "canon" means.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Mr Crusher on Wednesday, September 13, 2006 - 6:40 am:

Fine thats not what the word canon means. Lets move on please!

I use to feel that the last few seasons of Voyager wern't worthy of the Star Trek Legacy, until I started watching Enterprise! lol

------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Jason555 on Wednesday, September 13, 2006 - 9:37 am:

Crusher, do you think it might be more correct to say you don't agree with Paramount that Enterprise should be considered cannon? Reading through this, I think that's what you were trying to say but it got confused and exploded into this discussion.

Or maybe you are just messing with these guys. Hard to tell...

------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Jason555 on Wednesday, September 13, 2006 - 9:38 am:

Uh Oh...I put two n's in canon up there. That's a whole new discussion, isn't it?

Sorry

------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Mr Crusher on Wednesday, September 13, 2006 - 11:43 am:

I don't agree or disagree with Paramount considering Enterpise canon. Why would I? They own the show, they can say what they want to about it. I was just trying to explain my feelings about the show.

Ok, this board should be about a third the size that it is.

Zarm already touched on this in '03, about structural integrity vs. shields, but when was Voyager able to raise it's shields to begin with?

Voyager was able to 'submit' to the other creature by rolling over, but weren't these things essentually round and really had no top or bottom? Obviously they recognized this action as a submition but should they have?

When Voyage approached this cloud I didn't see that huge one in there.

So this was a "false alarm" for Kes's elogium. Did it ever return in the series? (I've only seen seasons 1 & 4 with other eps here and there)

It never returned, although the third season episode Before and After (which I thought was a pretty cool "concept" episode), touched upon the morelogium, a different stage in the Ocampan life cycle. That was only episode, IMO, that actually did a good job of using her 9-year life span.

that is until Fury...

How exactly did Fury do this?

"IMO, that actually did a good job of using her 9-year life span." - Luigi

I simply meant they did a good job regarding keeping her life within 9 years... until Fury (I've not seen most of Voyager so there might have been other eps in between what you gave and that one which showed her as being older than 9 years...

It doesn't surprise me Kes's elogium never came up again, Neelix should have made up his mind a little faster so he could have had at least a few hours of playtime.

I think Harry said "somekida" four times in this ep.

Wow, that must be somekinda record.

Did anyone else hear Tuvok's voice when reading LUIGI NOVI's posts in discussion with Mr Crusher on this page?

It would be illogical to associate Tuvok with Luigi Novi given my knowledge of how Luigi responds in other posts/topics.

Worst line of this episode, after Kes asks Nelix to haves child with her and he gets cold feet and basicly thinks out loud about what kind of father he'll make and whether he'll be a good or bad father. Then Kes says to him "Nelix you're thinking of yourself". Now call me sexist but seriously you stewpid woman as the father it's as much his choice as yours I assume you will want him to be a part of it's upbringing so it's not like he can just donate and leave.

Re May 8, 2003 message,

it's hardly a violation of PG-13 to use the terms "womb" or "uterus". My children at five - we talked about where a baby grows.

I had a slight issue with Ocampa math.

Kes said that puberty happens to her species between the ages of 4 and 5. They also need a parent to massage the feet for the ritual. If the age of the child is 4 or 5, and the parent had them when they were 4 or 5, that would make the parent 9 or 10. They only live 9 years (or around 9). To me it just seems that only a small amount of people's parents are alive during their puberty to help. Just an odd observation.

This episode wasn't too bad, I thought. As I understood it, the "elogium" was the one period in an Ocampan female's life where she could become pregnant and have a child. Seeing as how the Ocampa only live nine years (there were exceptions, as we would see in "Cold Fire") and that they could only have one child at a time, that really made me wonder just how the species didn't die out, or at least be in some recognizable danger of going extinct.

Anyway, I remember a while ago somebody making up the acroynm PAL, which stood for Previews Always Lie. And they specified the one Trek Preview that seemed to be the most misleading one of all - the one for this episode, where it says "Kes is pregnant, and the question is: Who...Is...The...Father? as they flash on the screen the prominent men aboard the ship. The person who submitted PAL also added "If that doesn't imply that Kes is sleeping around, I don't know what does!" I thought that was funny.

However, as we know, Kes never *was* pregnant. (Well, except in "Before & After", but that was an alternate reality.) She only went through the process where the females of her species can *become* pregnant. There's a difference. And whoever came up with this episode's preview segment, sheesh, I sure do wonder what they were thinking!

Seeing as how the Ocampa only live nine years (there were exceptions, as we would see in "Cold Fire") and that they could only have one child at a time, that really made me wonder just how the species didn't die out

Is it specified that Ocampas have only one child at a time? All I remember is Kes saying that the elogium happens only once. A single child per elogium would quickly lead to the species extinction. It would make far more sense if Ocampa females had twins or triplets as a rule.

I can't believe this has never been posted on this episode, but the previous episode established that they have been in the Delta Quadrant for 6 months, and Ensign Wildman is just now discovering she's pregnant? Seems to me she would have known about this months ago, and definitely showing before now.

Well, it would depend on how being half Ktarian would affect the growth of the embryo/fetus, wouldn't it?