Voyager, trying to avoid the Vidiians, is duplicated.
Note from the Moderator: As i said before after the pilot this is my favorite episode.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Anonymous on Monday, November 09, 1998 - 1:02 am:
Once more we have 2 Voyagers. Why not kill Harry while we're at it?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Chris Thomas on Monday, November 09, 1998 - 5:35 am:
What has this guy got against Harry? Surely Neelix is the most annoying character?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Anonymous on Monday, November 09, 1998 - 12:32 pm:
I dont have anything against him, I just like seeing redshirt ensigns getting killed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Chris RC on Monday, November 09, 1998 - 12:36 pm:
How was the damaged Voyager able to repair itself at all? With all of that damage I would think that it was finished!
Also after all of the damage it takes before we switch to the 'not damaged' voyager and kes jumps through that portal the not damaged voyager is still bursting protons, so how did the damaged voayager survive that many shots until they stopped?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Ross Fertel on Tuesday, November 10, 1998 - 11:28 am:
Janeway is just that good! None of the conversations between both Janeways mention Kim prior to his switching universes. yet our captain manages to pick the one crewman who died on the other Voyager. She's just that good (or looked at Harry 'Kenny' Kim's record and amde a deduction)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Richie Vest on Tuesday, November 10, 1998 - 11:50 am:
Chris RC has a very intersting point. If they were at home maybe but in the DQ. Maybe Maybe Not
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Omer on Wednesday, November 11, 1998 - 7:19 am:
Great episode - truely cool.
Wasn't there a KMYF moment between Janeway and herself when Janeway and herself talked? they really seemed like they were gonna do something :-)
I think it's the only TREK episode that works not DESPITE, but BECAUSE Technobable.
BTW - y would something effect only Matter and not Anti matter? they're only diffrent in the electronic charge!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Charles Cabe on Wednesday, November 11, 1998 - 11:17 am:
"It must hve been your life long ambition."--Star Trek VI
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Johnny Veitch on Sunday, November 22, 1998 - 6:10 am:
At the end of the episode, Holodoc asks Harry if the doctor on Harry`s Voyager had a name. Harry responds that he forgot to ask. It`s his Voyager, he should know!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Cableface on Sunday, February 21, 1999 - 10:42 pm:
Here's a thought; For the main crew of a series, everybody in Voyager dies a hell of a lot.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Catherine on Sunday, January 31, 1999 - 1:57 pm:
This is my very favorite episode along with "Timeless". True, Harry does die, but the sequence of events is played out nicely.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Chris Booton on Tuesday, February 02, 1999 - 12:03 pm:
I was bothered by the fact that when Tores tells janeway the Harry is dead that she (janeway) barley even flinches. You'd think she'd react a little stronger then that especially considered her defiant position reguarding leaving the bridge.
I've always wondered that given the extreme damage they took and were still taking when we switch to the 'undamaged' voyager , how eere they able to survive that for the extra time they had to without any extra apparent damage?
I agree with everyone else though, dispite the nits this is definitly one of the best voyagers of all time.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Catherine on Thursday, February 04, 1999 - 7:16 pm:
Aononymous at the top- Harry doesn't wear a red shirt. Of course, that's pretty obvious.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Anonymous on Sunday, May 16, 1999 - 12:31 am:
Great Line: "We're Starfleet Officers, Weird Is Part Of The Job."- Kathy Janeway
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By BrianB on Friday, July 09, 1999 - 8:55 am:
Two plot-trickeries obviously motivated the creation of this ep.
1. What if we could engage the self-destruct sequence and not shut it off at the last second.
2. What if we killed off Kim & Naomi Wildman and at the end, say "Just kidding". Was this an April Fool's Day episode?
H'ray, Janeway kept her promise to use the deadliest force when the Vidiians harm her crew. See "The Phage".
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Commodore Z Peltra on Thursday, December 16, 1999 - 8:21 pm:
Someone said that the main crew certainly dies a lot. That could be true, but they never really "die."
Which brings me to my next point: for a ship stranded seventy years from home with only (at this time it was probably around 170) 170 people on board, the junior crewmembers on Voyager sure die a hell of a lot.
Why couldn't Voyager get a transporter lock on Harry when he was pulled into space?
And with a hole that big in the bulkhead, why wasn't Torres sucked out as well?
And (as in First Contact), why doesn't the self-destruct need confirmation from three senior officers?
Other than that, a pretty good episode.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Old Woman in the Shoe on Wednesday, April 19, 2000 - 9:24 pm:
If babies can be delivered by transporter, why don't they do it more often and save all that labor?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Jwb52z on Wednesday, April 19, 2000 - 10:49 pm:
Fetal transport is probably risky in itself, and is probably a last resort.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Anonymous on Monday, April 24, 2000 - 8:44 am:
Why didn't the Doctor just do a caesarian section -- remove Naomi from her mother's womb surgically? In fact, the Doctor probably should not have allowed Wildman to deliver vaginally in the first place, given the obvious risk of Naomi's Ktarian head catching on her mother's pelvis. Even in the 21st century, this risk would have been obvious to a competent obstetrician.
And although there are certainly risks to baby and mother from a c-section, at least there's no risk of transporter complications. Given the fact that people appear to recover from major surgery in a matter of hours or minutes in Star Trek, one wonders why the Doctor did not simply perform a necessary c-section -- either when Wildman went into labor, or at the first sign of distress.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Jwb52z on Monday, April 24, 2000 - 11:27 am:
::Why didn't the Doctor just do a caesarian section -- remove Naomi from her mother's womb surgically?:: Anonymous
Are you aware of the exact damage that can happen to the baby during a cesarian section? Transport would be safer than that, but not completely safe. The doctor probably deemed the tranport to be the quickest way of saving the baby.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Anonymous on Monday, April 24, 2000 - 11:35 am:
What is it you're saying would have happened to the baby (or any baby, it seems) during the caesarian? Birth is much more of an ordeal.
Having had one of each (c-section, delivery), I think I have some experience. Do you?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Jwb52z on Monday, April 24, 2000 - 12:15 pm:
::What is it you're saying would have happened to the baby (or any baby, it seems) during the caesarian? Birth is much more of an ordeal.
Having had one of each (c-section, delivery), I think I have some experience. Do you?:: Anonymous
All I was saying was that under the circumstances, a fetal transport would be safer than a cesarian section although not completely. I don't have to have had a cesarian section or be a woman to know what can happen during one.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By margie on Wednesday, April 26, 2000 - 11:43 am:
Since we're talking about the 24th century here, how can you tell that a c-section would be riskier than a fetal transport? By then the doctors will probably have made c-sections much safer, especially in cases where the child is half another race. Since transporting in itself carries risks, I wouldn't want to trust it to deliver my baby.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Jwb52z on Wednesday, April 26, 2000 - 12:09 pm:
Margie, anything done in a more primitive fashion from current technology would be riskier most of the time. In the 24th century, a c-section is a primitive procedure. Also, in "The Masterpiece Society," Geordi says that transporting is just about the safest way to travel.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By eb on Wednesday, April 26, 2000 - 12:16 pm:
Actually, the c-section is a 1st Century B.C. procedure (It's named after Julius Caesar). Since it's not a primitive procedure in the 21st century, why would it be a primitive procedure in the 24th century, Jwb52z?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Jwb52z on Wednesday, April 26, 2000 - 1:51 pm:
EB, you don't think that the c-section would become almost obsolete like using scalpels and sutures by the 24th century?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By margie on Wednesday, April 26, 2000 - 6:51 pm:
Actually, I think the c-section would be a more common procedure in the 24th century, particularly for women having children with people of other races who are physically different. Like Anonymous mentioned above, Naomi's Ktarian forehead could have caused her mom injury if she were born naturally. I would rather hace a c-section, which, by the 24th century, would probably be minor surgery, than have an experimental procedure done that may kill the baby. At least with the advances in surgical techniques and sterility, there should be few, if any, complications. I wouldn't have to worry about my baby's molecules getting scrambled, or if the transporter operator took some of my insides with the baby. (Ouch!)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Jwb52z on Wednesday, April 26, 2000 - 7:31 pm:
Margie, I wonder if the fetal transport was done because they were in such a hurry and it was the quickest way to save the baby? Think about it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By ScottN on Thursday, April 27, 2000 - 1:04 am:
Julius Caesar was probably not delivered by C-section. That's a myth. Unfortunately, I don't remember the documentation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By ScottN on Thursday, April 27, 2000 - 1:05 am:
Julius Caesar was probably not delivered by C-section. That's a myth. Unfortunately, I don't remember the documentation. However, given the state of medicine in the first century BCE, it's highly unlikely that his mother would have survived the procedure, and his mother was around for a while.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Anonymous on Thursday, April 27, 2000 - 7:02 am:
Can't you distinguish between the fact that the C-section may not really derive from Julius Caesar, and the fact that it is an ancient procedure that derives from the 1st Century B.C.E. (or probably many centuries earlier?)
Does it really matter who the procedure was named after? The point of the matter is, for at least 2100 years, children have been delivered this way during a crisis. Why would three hundred years more negate any mention of the procedure?
Further aspects of the obstetrical care were, frankly, puzzling. After the birth, Wildman #2 asks the Doctor's "permission" to breast-feed her child. He then explains to her that she won't be able to do this for long because of her child's development. While I'm sure that this little snippet's purpose was mostly just to let viewers know that Naomi would be growing up virtually overnight, most doctors educate women well in advance on the advantages of breastfeeding their children. Wildman's behavior suggested that she had never considered the idea.
Similarly, I've never seen competent prenatal care where it wasn't discussed with the patient "We need to tell you about some of the things that might go wrong during your delivery and discuss what measures you might want us to take." Wildman seemed to have no rights at all during childbirth -- just lie back and push -- the doctor will decide whether to subject your child to a dangerous procedure. That simply isn't the case in real life -- a competent obstetrician must inform her well in advance of childbirth that Naomi's facial structure could catch on her pelvis and discuss what measures would have to be taken. That's called informed consent to a medical procedure.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Jwb52z on Thursday, April 27, 2000 - 1:53 pm:
::Wildman's behavior suggested that she had never considered the idea.:: Anonymous
In a highly technological world, breast feeding may not be done much anymore in favor of something that may come along that is better or more convenient.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Jwb52z on Thursday, April 27, 2000 - 1:56 pm:
Anonymous, you're forgetting that someday things may not be the way they are or thought of as they are now even in childbirth.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Anonymous on Thursday, April 27, 2000 - 2:11 pm:
"Breastfeeding may not be done much anymore in favor of something that may come along that is better or more convenient."
Perhaps the same could be said of ejaculation?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By eb on Thursday, April 27, 2000 - 2:13 pm:
Something better than a breast? Like um, a bottle?
I don't think so.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Jwb52z on Thursday, April 27, 2000 - 5:21 pm:
::Something better than a breast? Like um, a bottle?
I don't think so.:: eb
I'm sure that eventually breast milk will be duplicated or improved to make feeding that way unnecessary.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By ScottN on Friday, April 28, 2000 - 5:19 pm:
I'm sure that eventually breast milk will be duplicated or improved to make feeding that way unnecessary.
Except for the fact that in addition to the physical benefits for the child (immunities, nutrition, etc...) it is also psychologically good for the child.
Darn it! Where's Lilith (from M*A*S*H boards) when you need her?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Jwb52z on Friday, April 28, 2000 - 7:05 pm:
ScottN
You would have to hold an infant to feed it like that anyway, so you would have the psychological effect as well.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By margie on Friday, April 28, 2000 - 8:48 pm:
Jwb - are you a man or a woman? You sound like a man, so I wouldn't expect you to understand the psychological benefits of breast feeding. It's definitely NOT the same as just holding the infant. There is a closeness that you can't get by holding. After all, anyone can hold a baby, but only a mom can breast feed. It's very hard to explain to someone who can never hope to (at least not in this century) experience it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Jwb52z on Friday, April 28, 2000 - 11:13 pm:
::Jwb - are you a man or a woman? You sound like a man, so I wouldn't expect you to understand the psychological benefits of breast feeding. It's definitely NOT the same as just holding the infant. There is a closeness that you can't get by holding. After all, anyone can hold a baby, but only a mom can breast feed. It's very hard to explain to someone who can never hope to (at least not in this century) experience it.:: Margie
By the way you describe it, I wonder if it is the mother who gets this feeling and not the baby.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By margie on Saturday, April 29, 2000 - 8:35 pm:
Actually, it's both.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By eb on Monday, May 01, 2000 - 7:24 am:
Jwb52z -- Here's a piece of Vulcan logic for you: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Why would the 21st century SEEK to replace breastfeeding with something else? I think you are merely playing the devil's advocate at this point.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Chris Thomas on Monday, May 01, 2000 - 9:38 am:
When Janeway (OK ship) goes back with Kes (damaged ship) to the Voyager that is falling apart, they both were special armbands that protect them from falling into a coma, as Kes did when she first went through.
So why doesn't Harry and the newborn baby wear them when they go from the OK ship to the damaged ship, as well?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Jwb52z on Monday, May 01, 2000 - 12:02 pm:
::Jwb52z -- Here's a piece of Vulcan logic for you: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Why would the 21st century SEEK to replace breastfeeding with something else? I think you are merely playing the devil's advocate at this point.:: eb
Since nothing is perfect, wouldn't it be dumb to not keep looking for the next thing that is BETTER than what we already have? I don't play devil's advocate, go read the religous musings board for proof.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By eb on Monday, May 01, 2000 - 12:15 pm:
A mighty tempting offer but I think I'll pass.:-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By margie on Tuesday, May 02, 2000 - 11:32 am:
The original purpose of having sex was to make babies. Now we can do that in a test tube or petri dish. So, Jwb, according to your logic, we shouldn't have sex anymore, because there is another, newer, method to make babies.
To use another example: Dishwashers have been around for a few decades. They're a faster, more advanced way of cleaning dishes. Yet a lot of people still wash dishes by hand. Why? Because the old way still works!
Just because there may be another method in the future to create breast milk, or to give birth, doesn't mean everyone will do only that one.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Anonymous on Tuesday, May 02, 2000 - 12:17 pm:
I also noticed Seska offer her infant a breast the other night during, what was it, Basics II.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Jwb52z on Tuesday, May 02, 2000 - 12:21 pm:
::The original purpose of having sex was to make babies. Now we can do that in a test tube or petri dish. So, Jwb, according to your logic, we shouldn't have sex anymore, because there is another, newer, method to make babies.:: margie
No, but I would say that in a marriage, babies shouldn't be the major reason for sex.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Lawyer on Tuesday, May 02, 2000 - 1:03 pm:
Move to strike as non-responsive.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Jwb52z on Tuesday, May 02, 2000 - 3:25 pm:
Argumentative.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By margie on Tuesday, May 02, 2000 - 7:54 pm:
>No, but I would say that in a marriage, babies shouldn't be the major reason for sex. <
I'd respond, but I can't think of a way to phrase what I want to say to be able to post it on a board read by children, so I won't respond. It isn't a flame. It's just that sex topics have their place, and this board is not the place.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Sigmund Freud on Tuesday, May 02, 2000 - 11:43 pm:
But sex and reproduction is brought up in all the Trek series...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By the man with the child in his eyes on Thursday, May 04, 2000 - 12:47 pm:
heeheehee, you said "brought up".
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By She Who Must Know on Thursday, May 04, 2000 - 1:24 pm:
Save that for the Maneuvers ("How was Seska's child conceived?") board
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By the man with the child in his eyes on Saturday, May 06, 2000 - 5:15 pm:
Fine, I will.
(sticks out tongue and runs off)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Chris Booton (Cbooton) on Sunday, May 07, 2000 - 12:27 pm:
Jwb52z -- Here's a piece of Vulcan logic for you: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Why
would the 21st century SEEK to replace breastfeeding with something else? I think
you are merely playing the devil's advocate at this point.
A lot on woman don't do it today as for some it is painful and/or to hard on the mother and the baby may be allergic to it (which seems to happen a lot). Perhaps in the future we will come up with something that is actually better for the infant then breast feeding. Maybe we will even find a way to make breast milk 100 times better for the infant then it is. Who knows? Yes from a phycological point of view breast feeding may be better for the baby but it's not neccessary.
Also for things used as a diffrent purpose then what they were meant for. Breasts are meant to be for feeding the baby not as a symbol of sexuality but that's is what they have become in our society. (when did that start anyway?)
As for the comment on Men never being able to experience breast feeding, well I read that men used to be able to lactate (back in the cavepeople era) and men to still have the tissue (you know what I mean). So perhaps with enough hormone theropy it would be possible for men who wanted to experience this to experience it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Just Curious on Sunday, May 07, 2000 - 12:45 pm:
Jwb52z, just how old are you anyway?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Jwb52z on Sunday, May 07, 2000 - 12:57 pm:
I will turn 22 in September. Why? What does that have to do with it?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Chris Thomas on Sunday, May 07, 2000 - 5:40 pm:
Actually, some men do still occasionally lactate, in response to their partner's pregnancy, although it is rare.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Rene on Saturday, May 05, 2001 - 12:34 pm:
"well I read that men used to be able to lactate (back in the cavepeople era) and men to still have the tissue (you know what I mean)"
[rolls eyes] Did men used to get pregnant too?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By ScottN on Saturday, May 05, 2001 - 3:04 pm:
Darn it Rene, you should have waited two days for that! Then it would have been exactly a year later!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Rene on Saturday, May 05, 2001 - 3:15 pm:
Sorry I'll check next time.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Trike on Tuesday, April 09, 2002 - 12:10 am:
I wonder if Voyager ever swung around and picked up the other Harry's body?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Mr. Mistie on Friday, November 01, 2002 - 11:51 pm:
It occured to me the other night that "Ashes to Ashes" might have been a better episode had the resurrected crewmember been the dead Harry from "Deadlock".
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Stone Cold Steven Of None on Saturday, July 12, 2003 - 10:58 am:
That's what _I've_ been thinking lately too! Great minds DO think alike:-).
I'll give you better, though: The dead Ensign Kim is revived by the Kobali and hooks up with the undead Ensign Lyndsay Ballard.
Sure, the odds against such a thing happening are pretty long - but so were the odds of Voyager encountering Klingons in the Delta Quadrant.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Alexander Turner on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 9:25 am:
I have to say that this is my FAVORITE and in my opinion BEST-WRITTEN episode of Voyager ever.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Zarm Rkeeg on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 1:25 pm:
Don't know if I'd say BEST, but definetly in the top 10.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By John A. Lang on Saturday, May 22, 2004 - 9:09 pm:
I'm totally confused...how do we know that the surviving Voyager was truly "OUR Voyager"?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Chris Booton (Cbooton) on Friday, July 09, 2004 - 9:24 pm:
Some things I thought of.
They established that antimatter wasen't duplicated so both Voyagers were drawing antimatter from the same source.
The problem? I'm pretty sure that the autodestruct works by purposfully overloading the warp core to create a warp core breech. So, woulden't the Voyager left be left without Antimatter? If not, then how did the other one destroy itself by relasing the antimatter without also taking out both Voyagers?
Voyagers warp coils are badly damaged (I believe Tuvok said the coils were fused, which I take to mean that they were exposed to so much heat that it's as if they melted, and fused that way after they cooled down), so if the warp coils are damaged like this, then how can they go to warp?
They were still close to Viddian space at the end IIRC, so why don't any other Viddian ships invesitigate what happenes to the ship that went after Voyager?
When the undamaged Voyager is boarded, the Viddians apparently do it through a single tunnel. Why doesen't Janeway seal the area off with forcefields and create a vaccum arround their access point?
Why didn't they try to subdue the Viddians with that virus (or whatever it was) that Samantha Wildman developed a little while into their journey into the DQ? (ie the one we see in Fury)
Janeway orders a silent countdown for the autodestruct and the first thing the computer does is plays a loud altert and lets the entire ship (well, at least the bridge) know that autodestruct has been activated.
Speaking of the above, if the entire ship had been informed of it, why didn't the Viddians take note of it? Even if they didn't understand it from it not being translated for whatever reason, woulden't they wonder what the computer was saying that required an alert? (especially after Janeway's 'deadliest of force' line spoken to two Viddians that she let go).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Chris Booton (Cbooton) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 12:51 pm:
Something I thought of; if Voyager was duplicated and the duplicated was the one to survive, then...
(warning, spoiler for Year of Hell part one)
If Annorax had succeeded in erasing Voyager from history, he would in fact have removed the duplicate as the original Harry and Naiomi. In doing so, he'd create a timeline without Harry or Naiomi where there was no duplication in this episode and Voyager went along without a problem.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Nove Rockhoomer on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 11:42 am:
But wouldn't the original Voyager presumably follow the same path as the duplicate? Then Annorax would have to erase it after he erased the duplicate. He'd be wondering why he erased Voyager and it was still there, which would be interesting.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Biggy on Friday, March 25, 2005 - 6:08 am:
Even now, nine years after this episode aired, I still have no clue how the first Vidiian identified Tuvok as a Vulcan. Are there a lot of Vulcans flying around the Delta Quadrant?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Will on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 10:28 am:
Nobody wants to debate John A. Lang's post on May, 2004 whether or not we're still watchng 'our' or a different Voyager after this episode?
I've always wondered if we're just supposed to accept the 'other' Voyager in the same way we'd consider the evil Kirk from Enemy Within; the same, just split in two. My guess is the writers wouldn't want us to believe that 'our' Voyager didn't survive, so the damaged one is the one seen throughout the 7-year series, despite the fact she was literally falling to pieces before her copy helped her.
Is Janeway a 'close talker' (a la Seinfeld) ? She sure stands real close to her twin.
Wildman just lost her 'real baby, and she simply accepts this other one? I wouldn't have thought there'd be an element of rejection, as this Naiomi wasn't the one she carried all those months.
Did 'our' Harry really die? If the ship was divided into two parts, but are really the same ship, and not an alternate universe Voyager, doesn't that mean he didn't 'completely' die?
And speaking of which, I thought he told B'Lanna that they were above the bridge, just before he was blown out into space? Only he was shot out below his feet, like he was standing at the bottom of the ship.
"so how did the damaged voyager survive that many shots [proton bursts] until they stopped?" Chris
Probably the same way a sea-going ship can take on a lot of water and stay afloat, compartmentalize. Keep the area(s) that are breached sealed off, rerout systems until you have enough power to use vital equipment, and patch up what you can when you can.
"None of the conversations between both Janeways mention Kim prior to his switching universes. yet our captain manages to pick the one crewman who died on the other Voyager." Ross
Not only that, but when first talking to alt-Kes, it seemed Janeway was just getting a handle on the situation but she knew all about the other Voyager already.
"'The Masterpiece Society,' Geordi says that transporting is just about the safest way to travel. Jwb52z
I thought he said that in 'Realm of Fear;' or was it both?
Rapid-fire nits: Is there nobody else Neelix can ask to fix his kitchen equipment? Ensign Wildman is about to pop and hes got her kneeling in the galley. That breach on deck 15 should've been a bit more violent for BLT and that other guy. What took Janeway so long to send Paris to help the Doc? Kim should be the new cheif of security since he can duck-and-roll while Tuvok takes a shot in the chest.
Although it's done throughout Trek, photon torpedoes and phasers should be on seperate systems so that if one goes down you still have the other.
47 alert: BLT tried 47 different frequencies to reach the other Voyager.
Was the fact that Kim was not of that Voyager ever mentioned again in the series?
Wildman just lost her 'real baby, and she simply accepts this other one? I wouldn't have thought there'd be an element of rejection, as this Naiomi wasn't the one she carried all those months.
Sure she was. The split happened just before Naomi Wildman were born. So this Naomi isn't the one that died, but IS the same one her mother carried to term. Just like Harry isn't the same Harry that died, but he's the same Harry that existed previous to the duplication.
As for the question of whether it's the "real" Voyager that survived, I believe both Voyagers were the real Voyager. They called it a 'divergence' field, so I assumed that the original Voyager was split into two identical Voyagers, not that either one was a copy.
Does that make sense? Quantum mechanics give me a headache.
heck even Phil had issue with the reverse. After "Second Chances" (the one where Riker has a transporter duplicate.) He says that if they make a transporter duplicate whenever someone beams down (and save it in the buffer, like Scotty in Relics) they could save people who died on an away mission. The funny part is that Phil (who, I believe, is a pro-life conservative) but than they would have a whole issue with people arguing over if the stuff in the buffer was alive.
Just saw this again today.
When the VidiIans are boarding voyager, Tuvok and another security guy causally walk through a junction without even bothering to look left, then get killed. Does stRfleet do any shipboard combat training?
Hey! Four years since the last post, a thread record.
Chris Booton (Cbooton) on Friday, July 09, 2004 - 9:24 pm:
Some things I thought of.
They established that antimatter wasen't duplicated so both Voyagers were drawing antimatter from the same source.
The problem? I'm pretty sure that the autodestruct works by purposfully overloading the warp core to create a warp core breech. So, woulden't the Voyager left be left without Antimatter? If not, then how did the other one destroy itself by relasing the antimatter without also taking out both Voyagers?
They probably made do with the self destruct charges
New thread record - Six years, four months and ten days since the last post!
Unless you're a Doctor Who fan, you're really not going to get much out of this site anymore.
While the Doctor Who section continues to see activity almost on a daily basis, other sections, such as here, can go years between posts.
Of course, it helps that Doctor Who is still in production (the Christmas episode is just two days away), which the cameras stopped rolling on Voyager nearly two decades ago now. What else is there to say, this show is old news.