On Sunday, February 3, 2002 at 11:45:04 PM UTC, Alfred Aquino wrote:   
   > On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, Eric F wrote:   
   >    
   > > Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 06:18:44 GMT   
   > > From: Eric F    
   > > Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current   
   > > Subject: Dear Doctor was just WRONG! (Spoilers)   
   > >    
   > >         This show made me angry.  Much of it made no sense and   
   > > contradicted itself.  The more I think about it, the more angry I get.   
   > > I was thinking about doing  "Archer is a MURDER!" for a topic, but I   
   > > resisted. :)   
   > >         Ok, there is no Prime Directive. We know this.  They worked   
   > > this in in their not-so-subtle way, practically hammering us over the   
   > > head with it for the full episode.   
   > >        The Valakians were in need, Flox had a cure and held back, and   
   > > eventually the Capt. decided not to give it to them. Where is the   
   > > sense in this?  The society was already contaminated, they clearly   
   > > knew of other races and warp technology, so what would be the point in   
   > > NOT giving it to them? Because the Menk MIGHT only become dominant by   
   > > withholding a cure? In thousands of years? What the hell is that   
   > > about?   
   > >        Apparently Denobulan physicians  have no equivalent to the   
   > > Hippocratic oath.  This is what confuses me the most, that the Capt.   
   > > would go along with this.  This was no pre-industrial society.  The   
   > > argument should also have been made that since the relationship   
   > > between the Valakians and the Menks were symbiotic, the deaths of the   
   > > Valakians could destroy their whole ecosystem. But this was never   
   > > mentioned. There was no way to know what "could be" some 2000 years   
   > > down the line, but a cure NOW would make a difference.   
   > >        First they start the series showing how much "not" like Star   
   > > Trek "Enterprise" is, by having it be "raw" and "new".  Now they go   
   > > and do a "Prime Directive" show, without a Prime Directive existing   
   > > and I can't but help thinking to myself, "Kirk would have given them   
   > > the cure in a minute."   
   > >         Blech, where do they get their writers, out of a box of   
   > > Cracker-Jacks?   
   > >          
   > >    
   > >    
   > You forget the argument against providing the cure:   
   >    
   > What if, thousands of years ago someone gave the Neanderthals the   
   > evolutionary advantage?   
   >    
   > Would that have been a "violation" of the "Prime Directive"?   
   > If we today became a result of that act (if we decended from the   
   > Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens were wiped out) would we know the   
   > difference?   
   >    
   > Think about it.   
      
   And you've got to consider the fact that Kirk and his crew saved the Humpback   
   Whale species in the fourth Star Trek movie The Voyage Home from extinction   
   which in effect violated Archer's rule by the way to communicate with an alien   
   probe of unknown    
   origin in order to save all life on Earth possibly saving all life in the   
   entire galaxy from extinction.  Besides aren't the Menk caveman level?  And   
   the Valakian's nuclear level?  And isn't it a fact that the Neanderthals never   
   evolved past stone age    
   tech level?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)