Sure Wylde, all those department heads and Riker were just trying to make life hard for Jellico. Geordi was lying when he said his staff would have to work around the clock. Because that's what department heads assigned to the Federation's flag ship would do, right?
People can be lazy. Especially if they've really not been pushed to adjust and adapt as they need to for various situations. This happens in a lot of organizations, and if you've got a guy like Riker who's willing to bend to a lot of whining and moaning, then they'll do what works for them. It doesn't matter what their significant personnel problems are, what matters is that they have their orders. If they can't do their jobs, they should resign.
EDIT: I'm going to help you out here. If there were any issues with the way Jellico was commanding the mission, this wasn't one of them. As a former officer myself, I had an issue with him micromanaging a bit too much. It's still his prerogative, but at the same time it does come off a bit as though he's not confident in the crew, the ship, or the chances of success in the mission. While I can understand why he felt he had to take Data along to go help Geordi get the ship ready, because Riker can't be asked to do it and interfere with his nap, and he didn't have a whole lot of time to waste, it probably wasn't all conducive to the crew's confidence in the man. Nobody's perfect, of course, but Jellico would've fit right in with the modern military, and then some.
Really, it doesn't make sense that a Jellico could even rise up in the ranks with such a crappy attitude. None of the other Trek captains were anything like him, and for good reason.
Kirk was. So was Sisko. Janeway was a megalomaniacal lunatic and Archer was a drunken bum.
Kirk often got cross with a lot of people, including, of all people, Spock. Go watch the show.
I guess you didn't notice the look on Picard's face when Jellico handed him the book. The symbolism is there. Leaving the book behind was a way of assuring himself that he'd be back. Don't presume that you know how all men think.
Being a man, myself, and not a metrosexual, I don't care what look he had on his face. If this guy didn't get the hint that he was no longer in charge of the Enterprise anymore, then he's an idiot (I've called Picard a lot of things, but not that). There was no logical reason for him to even expect that this was at all temporary. Indeed, this was Starfleet jumping through their incompetent asses to deal with the Cardassian threat, and they were gambling with Picard's life here, not risking it. There's a difference. And at the beginning of this scene, Jellico reminds Picard that there's a good chance he won't be coming back from that mission. If Picard thought this was all temporary, Jellico would've likely thought so too, and wouldn't have bothered to decorate his ready room. This whole scene was for the audience's benefit, as I said.
I know you hate Jellico because he's a meanie. I know you'd love to think he wasn't, at all, a success, but he was. This whole episode was brilliant in that in all of this, Jellico was not a lunatic, or a power-mad idiot, or an obsessed and distraught officer like others who have commandeered the original Enterprise and the Enterprise-D. He was never wrong about anything! Everything he did was rational, reasonable, and logical. Even when he goes up to Riker to get him to fly the mission to lay mines amid the Cardassian fleet hiding in the nebula. He was the bigger man in that, going up against a child. You may not have liked his attitude or his style of command, but who cares? He accomplished the mission with flying colors, averted a war, and got back Captain Picard. If he had listened to Riker when he got insubordinate, the whole mission would've been lost. Indeed, if he had obeyed the crew's bitching, the whole mission would've been lost.
Understand this, sweetheart: You are able to sleep soundly in your bed at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on your behalf. They're not nice guys. They're warriors. They get the job done.
reply
share
RubyHypatia
7 years ago
Wylde, so all the department heads were just lazy? How does that make sense? You don't get to be a department head on the Federation's flagship by being lazy. Face it, Jellico was poorly written. You don't get ahead by alienating people. The Enterprise had been in worse situations, like BOBW, and no one thought it necessary to make such drastic changes. Picard was walking around his ship before the encounter with the Borg, not screaming about four shifts. And no, none of the captains were like Jellico.
Leaving his book behind was Picard's symbol of hope. Jellico was an a$$hole by making sure Picard took it with him.
The mission would not have been lost had they stayed with three shifts. I'm not saying Jellico has to take every suggestion he's given, but he needs to realize the crew wants the mission to be successful as well, and aren't trying to jeopardize it, or risk the crew's lives.
Don't call me, "sweetheart." It just reinforces the idea that you're a sexist jerk.
Are you saying police officers are like Jellico? I somehow doubt that. I don't come into contact with police officers very often, but the last one who helped me, recovered a wandering resident twice, was a nice guy, and I appreciated his service.
reply
share
WyldeGoose
7 years ago
Wylde, so all the department heads were just lazy? How does that make sense? You don't get to be a department head on the Federation's flagship by being lazy.
Yes; they were. It's just human nature. When you get used to a certain thing after so many years, without your boss changing things up from time to time like he's supposed to, given that this is a warship in spite of whatever Starfleet says it is, you're bound to complain too. I'm sure those "significant personnel problems" involved having an odd number of people in a shift, perhaps worried that they would not have it fully manned. But, that's not significant. It just means some people are going to have to spend a little longer on duty than they'd like. It may not be fair, but nobody ever said that military life was ever fair.
Leaving his book behind was Picard's symbol of hope.
Give me a break.
The mission would not have been lost had they stayed with three shifts.
Maybe it would've been. In fact, if Jellico had acceded to every bitch and moan and gripe that the Enterprise crew gave him, it most certainly would've cost them the mission. Why? Because it would've wasted time, it would not have gotten the ship ready, and if it came down to combat, chances are they would've been destroyed because they weren't ready to handle the situation.
Don't call me, "sweetheart." It just reinforces the idea that you're a sexist jerk.
Then stop behaving like a bitch.
Are you saying police officers are like Jellico? I somehow doubt that. I don't come into contact with police officers very often, but the last one who helped me, recovered a wandering resident twice, was a nice guy, and I appreciated his service.
You obviously haven't met too many good cops out there. Certainly not soldiers, sailors, airmen or marines, or coasties. To kill the enemy, you sometimes have to be a real jerk about it. I was.
reply
share
RubyHypatia
7 years ago
Nope. The department heads were not all lazy as that wouldn't make sense them being posted to the Federation's flagship. You don't keep those positions by being lazy. The Enterprise didn't have any problems before protecting themselves and the Federation, they certainly didn't need Jellico's anal leadership to defeat the Borg.
I'm sorry you don't get symbolism, but leaving the book behind was a symbol of Picard's hope that he would return.
As for soldiers overseas, I don't think those Muslim countries are a real threat to us. I think being, "real jerks" has caused more problems than it has solved.
reply
share
User_474
7 years ago
Basically all their complaints boiled down to "we can't do that because it would require us to work harder/longer". That's lazy no matter what external excuses you use.
reply
share
RubyHypatia
7 years ago
Basically all their complaints boiled down to "we can't do that because it would require us to work harder/longer". That's lazy no matter what external excuses you use.
Nope. It boiled down to, "We shouldn't make unnecessary changes that would cause significant personnel problems, especially while in a time of crisis."
At no time was it ever established that Enterprise department heads were lazy. It was established that Jellico was anal. Just compare him with the other Trek captains who were nothing like him.
reply
share
Nexus71
7 years ago
Really Ruby maybe you should look up things in real history about leadership because one of the most successful US generals was George C. Patton.A man not known for being popular with men under his command or being diplomatic in how to deal with those under his command(or his superiors for that matter).Patton was a tough s.o.b. and often demanded the impossible of his men but most of the times he achieved his objectives(and more)and he got there not by being nice to his men and asking them if it put too much strain on them or if they didn't get enough rest or sleep.Any good commander knows the objective comes before the man/men.
reply
share
RubyHypatia
7 years ago
Jellico is no Patton. Patton wouldn't make unnecessary changes that would cause personnel problems right before going into a potential battle situation. It's fine to be tough, it's not fine to make stupid decisions.
reply
share
Nexus71
7 years ago
But Patton would want to know how far he can push his men to be able to withstand any adversity that they may come across during a campaign.So his men would know how to improvise when things don't work out as they planned.Jellico does the same he's trying to push his crew to assure the fullest potential the crew of Enterprise has to offer.And a good commander is always able to adapt to the situation that is thrown at him ,Jellico does the same as soon as he has found out that Picard is captured he knows that a rescue is out of the question because he knows the Cardassians would most likely use him as bait for a trap and that would undermine the Federation's negotiating position.
reply
share
WyldeGoose
7 years ago
More than that, I would say, that Jellico didn't necessarily need to know, because he didn't have the time to find out. This was a chance for the crew and Riker himself to shine. It's as though Riker and the crew of the Enterprise did not really know how dire the situation was.
That, to me, is a greater indication of the grandiose incompetence of Starfleet itself. Because every military organization, as they would like to be known, knows that all the technology in the world doesn't matter if the people who have it are unwilling to put up with the amount of workload necessary to bring about a victory. This situation was, for all intents and purposes, a war, without the outright declaration. This should never have ever come up, to have to have Starfleet HQ jump through hoops to have Picard go out rather than anyone else who would be physically and mentally trained to do that kind of mission (like a SEAL team), not to mention having just any starship with a crew capable of handling the sheer workload necessary to be ready and willing to face the enemy when they, not so much themselves, meaning the crew, are ready.
War is about the unexpected. There are so many things to be prepared for, but at the least you need people to be able to stay awake at all hours for days on end, for them to be ready to do work as necessary for the accomplishment of the mission, whatever it may require, that it begs a lot of questions that should be asked and addressed at the highest levels. Jellico should rightly not have been necessary, but there he was. Ready and willing and able to do what was necessary to get the Enterprise ready for action. Why didn't Riker know that, or was ready to do what was necessary? Hard questions, indeed!
At the end of this, as successful as it was, heads should've been rolling. Necheyev probably would've gotten a medal and a promotion, but not so much for her own brilliance (dubious as it was), but because she got lucky and knowledgeable enough to appoint Jellico. Why didn't they give Jellico the Enterprise to begin with, rather than Picard? Hard question. Among others.
If I were a representative on the Federation Council, I'd have serious misgivings about Starfleet and its ability to defend the Federation on its own.
reply
share
RubyHypatia
7 years ago
Nexus, so Patton made unnecessary changes that caused his soldiers to be sleep deprived right before going into a potential battle situation? No, I don't think so.
reply
share
User_474
7 years ago
"We shouldn't make unnecessary changes that would cause significant personnel problems, especially while in a time of crisis."
That would mean it was unnecessary to make any changes to prepare for war while the ship was configured for scientific exploration. Officers are supposed to deal with personnel problems in more creative ways then just pointing out they would have to work harder to follow orders. And Jellico was sent to deal with the crisis.
Your own eyes and ears should have established the dept heads were being lazy by pointing out they didn't want to make changes because it would involve too much work.
reply
share
RubyHypatia
7 years ago
Tell me User, in BOBW, why didn't we see Picard switching from three shifts to four?
reply
share
User_474
7 years ago
I assume he knew Riker well enough to know that he couldn't handle the task. Or maybe it was because of the reason that Jellico gave Riker when he had to scold him like a child and remind him to do his job without whining.
reply
share
RubyHypatia
7 years ago
User, Riker accomplished something much greater than Jellico ever did, stopping the Borg from conquering Earth.
reply
share
User_474
7 years ago
By not ramming the cube so that Data could survive to defeat the Borg. So what, I didn't ram the cube either.
reply
share
RubyHypatia
7 years ago
User, it was Riker's command decisions that led to that Borg cube being destroyed, saving Earth from being borgified.
reply
share
RubyHypatia
7 years ago
It's not that Riker couldn't sort out a shift change, it's that the shift change was going to cause, "significant personnel problems," something that would not be good to have when going into a potential battle situation.
reply
share
RubyHypatia
7 years ago
BTW, why would Picard have a bunch of lazy people for department heads?
reply
share
User_474
7 years ago
BTW, why would Picard have a bunch of lazy people for department heads?
There you go asking stupid questions again. It's fiction, they can show characters spewing technobabble and reversing polarity with enthusiasm and then show those same characters whining and sulking because they have to do more than reverse polarity.
If you can't interpret the whining and sulking as lazy because another character would sack them if they did it around him then you're lost.
reply
share
User_474
7 years ago
Failing to make the change because he couldn't deal with the difficulties is the exact definition of not being able to sort it out.
reply
share
RubyHypatia
7 years ago
Expressing concern over, "significant personnel problems" is not whining and sulking. The department heads weren't lazy. Jellico was anal.
reply
share
RubyHypatia
7 years ago
User, the problem wasn't sorting it out, the problem was how dumb the change was.
reply
share
User_474
7 years ago
A shift change causes "significant personnel problems" so bad that the first officer and dept heads can't sort it out. That's a great crew, not lazy at all.
reply
share
RubyHypatia
7 years ago
No User, that's a crew concerned about problems caused by unnecessary changes. It was never established that Geordi or the other department heads were lazy. That's just BS made up to defend Jellico's anal decisions.
reply
share
User_474
7 years ago
You made up sleep deprivation, that's bs in an age that can resurrect the dead, sleep deprivation would be gone with a single hypo-spray. But let's go with your bs, every time the Enterprise had a crisis for more than a day or 2 it would be out of action from sleep deprivation.
Now go with what you think is BS to defend Jellico, what are the consequences of making the weapons more powerful? More powerful weapons, sounds good. A four shift rotation, buggered if I know what it does but it is a clerical job to get it into action so not so bad, the down side, um, "significant personnel problems", not likely to mean sleep deprivation, so what does it mean, were there not enough people to make it work, probably not because they did it, does it mean the ship would explode, no because they did it and the ship didn't explode, does it mean the mission would fail, no the mission succeeded. What could it mean besides your BS?
What exactly was "established"? At what point do you admit you're wrong?
reply
share
cjh8504
7 years ago
A 4 shift rotation would mean shorter hours. I'd take it.
RIP Gene Wilder. RIP Robert Vaughn. RIP Carrie Fisher. 2016 is the worst!
reply
share
Nexus71
7 years ago
Plus less exposure to stress and possible traumatic situations,which during a dangerous battle are likely to happen.Plus the attention span and level of concentration seems to drop rapidly during the last hours of a normal working day,and during a time of crisis you want to have a shift which are completely focused on the task ahead.
reply
share
RubyHypatia
7 years ago
Plus less exposure to stress and possible traumatic situations,which during a dangerous battle are likely to happen.Plus the attention span and level of concentration seems to drop rapidly during the last hours of a normal working day,and during a time of crisis you want to have a shift which are completely focused on the task ahead.
And yet Picard had three shifts, and never went to four leading up to the conflict with the Borg. There are people who work ten and twelve hour shifts, and do it well.
reply
share
RubyHypatia
7 years ago
Geordi said something about his staff having to work around the clock, and that would cause sleep deprivation, something Riker was concerned about in BOBW.
If your department heads say, "significant personnel problems," that doesn't sound like something you'd want to deal with when in a crisis situation.
There is no evidence that the department heads were just being lazy. It was established that Jellico is anal.
reply
share
Nexus71
7 years ago
The difference between Picard and Jellico was that Picard is a peace time captain with the emphasis on exploration,discovery and negotiation you don't need four shifts for that.Jellico on the other hand is a captain experienced in war,combat and battle what Jellico wanted to achieve is find out whether the crew of Enterprise would be able to perform under these conditions and could perform their duties under extreme(and less than optimal)conditions,the conditions you would expect when Enterprise would have had to engage (several)Cardassian warships of which each could match the Enterprise(a situation where Jellico would find himself in the numerical disadvantage).
There are people who work ten and twelve hour shifts, and do it well.
Work and battle are two very different things which can hardly be
compared.You don't get to experience the conditions where another party is trying to kill you and where you see co-workers get severely wounded or killed.And sure I worked 10-12 hours shift but I can tell you from personal experience the last four-five hours your minded looses concentration and you effectiveness drops,and during a battle alertness and a focused mind are essential it's the difference between killing your enemy or your own men(there have been numerous cases of "friendly fire"in several wars and you want to prevent that.)or surviving and getting killed.
reply
share
User_474
7 years ago
This conversation.
JELLICO: Power transfer levels need to be upgraded by twenty percent. The efficiency of your warp coils is also unsatisfactory.
LAFORGE: Coil efficiency is well within specifications, Captain.
JELLICO: I'm not interested in the specs, Geordi. The efficiency needs to be raised by at least fifteen percent.
LAFORGE: Fifteen percent. (Whiny, Should be working it out)
DATA: That is an attainable goal, but it will require realigning the warp coil and taking the secondary distribution grid offline. (not whiny, worked it out)
JELLICO: Very good, Data. That's exactly what I want you to do.
LAFORGE: If we take this grid offline, we're going to have to shut down exobiology, the astrophysics lab and geological research. (Lazy, excuses excuses)
JELLICO: We're not on a research mission. Get it done in two days.
DATA: I believe that is also an attainable goal. If we utilise the entire Engineering department, there should be sufficient manpower available to complete the task. (Not lazy, worked it out)
LAFORGE: Sure, if everybody works around the clock for the next two days. (Sulky, Lazy and Whiny, he knows it is possible, no reason to say anything here)
JELLICO: Then you'd better get to it, Geordi. It looks like you have some work to do. Data.
No mention of sleep deprivation, lots of whining and sulking.
reply
share
RubyHypatia
7 years ago
Working around the clock for two days would cause sleep deprivation. Also, there's this:
Geordi: "Yeah well, I don't mind making changes, and I don't mind hard work, but the man isn't giving me the time I need to do the work."
Was Geordi just lying? Geordi isn't known for being lazy, or why would Picard allow him to be chief engineer? But it was established that Jellico is anal.
Riker: "Well, I'll say this for him, he's sure of himself."
Deanna: "No, he's not."
I'd say Jellico has an OCD.
reply
share
User_474
7 years ago
Was Geordi just lying?
Well considering he could take time out to whine to Riker and try to get Picard involved I'd have to say yes. But then there's also the conversation where they establish it can be done but is going to take work. Lying and whining instead of just getting it done.
reply
share
cjh8504
7 years ago
Data is a machine. He can work around the clock without getting tired. Geordi cannot.
RIP Gene Wilder. RIP Robert Vaughn. RIP Carrie Fisher. RIP William Christopher. 2016 is the worst!
reply
share
RubyHypatia
7 years ago
The difference between Picard and Jellico was that Picard is a peace time captain with the emphasis on exploration,discovery and negotiation you don't need four shifts for that.Jellico on the other hand is a captain experienced in war,combat and battle what Jellico wanted to achieve is find out whether the crew of Enterprise would be able to perform under these conditions and could perform their duties under extreme(and less than optimal)conditions,the conditions you would expect when Enterprise would have had to engage (several)Cardassian warships of which each could match the Enterprise(a situation where Jellico would find himself in the numerical disadvantage).
Jellico negotiated the Federation-Cardassian Armistice, there is no evidence that he had more battle experience than Picard.
Again, Jellico was making unnecessary changes because he's anal.
reply
share
Nexus71
7 years ago
Jellico negotiated the Federation-Cardassian Armistice, there is no evidence that he had more battle experience than Picard.
Jellico seems to know an awful lot about possible Cardassian tactics and was able to detect the trap Picard was when the Cardassians exposed his
capture.In my opinion Jellico has had far more and personal experiences with the Cardassians other than as a negotiator,in fact his knowledge and personal experiences would have made him the perfect man for the job probably because he knew every possible Cardassian trick.
Again, Jellico was making unnecessary changes because he's anal.
He tried to prepare the crew of Enterprise for the "worst case scenario" Ruby.And in a chain of command you obey the orders your superior gives you Ruby,it's not your job to question orders you obey them or at least try to obey them as closely as possible when you encounter set-backs or when you have valid reasons why you could not obey the orders you inform your superior and he will give you a new set of
orders.You can't question an order when there is a chain of command the whole hierarchical structure would collapse because it can only function through order and obedience it's not a commitee or The House Of Representatives for God's sakes.The Germans have a nice expresion about the chain of command Ruby "Befehl ist befehl".
And the only person who can relieve Jellico is Dr. Crusher /or the acting Chief medical officer and only on the basis of mental inability or other valid medical reasons.
reply
share
cjh8504
7 years ago
You'll never convince her, Nex. She just hates Jellico and loves Picard. Nothi g you say will change her mind.
RIP Gene Wilder. RIP Robert Vaughn. RIP Carrie Fisher. RIP William Christopher. 2016 is the worst!
reply
share
RubyHypatia
7 years ago
Well considering he could take time out to whine to Riker and try to get Picard involved I'd have to say yes. But then there's also the conversation where they establish it can be done but is going to take work. Lying and whining instead of just getting it done.
First Geordi's crew was expected to work around the clock for unnecessary changes, then Jellico takes a third of his crew away. What department head wouldn't have issues with such anal demands?
"I've been thinking about the first time I met Geordi LaForge. He was a young officer assigned to pilot me on an inspection tour. And I made some offhand remark about the shuttle's engine efficiency not being what it should, and the next morning I found that he had stayed up all night refitting the fusion initiators. Well, I knew then that I wanted to have him with me on my next command." Picard, The Next Phase
reply
share
User_474
7 years ago
First Geordi's crew was expected to work around the clock for unnecessary changes
Poor baby, but at least you admit that he was whining just because he had to work.
An offhand remark means he will work all night to suck up but he can't see his way to working to upgrade weapons for a battle without trying to get out of it. LAZY.
reply
share
cjh8504
7 years ago
You must hate Geordi, huh User?
RIP Gene Wilder. RIP Robert Vaughn. RIP Carrie Fisher. RIP William Christopher. 2016 is the worst!
reply
share
User_474
7 years ago
I have no real opinion of Geordie. As a fictional character he could save 16 orphans from drowning in a burning house and be a coward in the next episode. Ruby has a hard time understanding that previous observations do not mitigate the way he sulked and whined his way through Chain of Command.
reply
share
RubyHypatia
7 years ago
I don't hate Jellico, CJ. I just wouldn't want a captain that high strung that he puts everyone on edge in crisis situations. A captain should have a more calming effect on his crew.
reply
share
Nakitaakita-1
7 years ago
Your CO is there to get the mission done.
How you internalize your feelings regarding the CO, that is a personal issue.
One person may like his style, while another may not like his style.
It is not his job to be your friend.
As long as the order is a lawful order, it is supposed to be carried out.
No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed
reply
share
cjh8504
7 years ago
Nice, Nak.
RIP Gene Wilder. RIP Robert Vaughn. RIP Carrie Fisher. RIP William Christopher. 2016 is the worst!
reply
share
RubyHypatia
7 years ago
Nexus, Picard went on that mission because of his knowledge of theta-band carrier waves, Jellico was assigned to the Enterprise because of his experience NEGOTIATING with Cardassians. There is no reason to believe Jellico was some battle tested captain with more experience than Picard. Remember, the Enterprise is the Federation's flagship, and Picard commands it even through the war with the Dominion, not Jellico.
Oh, you can never question orders? Was Worf wrong in FC to question Picard? Good thing Lilly wasn't one of his crew, because she talked sense into Picard. Honestly, I was disappointed that Beverly didn't stand up to him. Even Picard once told Data, "However, the claim, "I was only following orders has been used to justify too many tragedies throughout history. Starfleet doesn't want officers who will blindly follow orders without analyzing the situation."
reply
share
Nakitaakita-1
7 years ago
Lilly was not part of his command structure. So bringing her up is irrelevant.
I'm not sure what FC is, but another officer can question an order under some circumstances.
1. In private
2. If there is available time and resources to do so
No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed
reply
share
Nexus71
7 years ago
And neither of these circumstances apply to the case of Jellico Riker didn't question the order in private but in front of other junior officers who seem to adopt the same behaviour.That is why in an organisation like Starfleet, which uses a military style hierarchical command structure,a chain of command is vital somebody has to set the objectives and others need to follow orders to reach those objectives.
And there was no time,Jellico needed all the time available to get the crew and the ship in the most optimum conditions he could get them with the imminent threat of a violent confrontation with several Cardassian warships and possibility of a Federation-Cardassian war.
reply
share
cjh8504
7 years ago
Plus, we're missing the most important thing. Ronny Cox is fantastic.
RIP Gene Wilder. RIP Robert Vaughn. RIP Carrie Fisher. RIP William Christopher. 2016 is the worst!
reply
share
RubyHypatia
7 years ago
User, Geordi wasn't whining and sulking, nor was he lazy. And neither were the other department heads, nor Riker, being lazy. That's just something you made up to justify Jellico's anal behavior. It was established by Deanna that the man was not sure of himself as Riker thought he was. People with OCD often engage in unnecessary behaviors in order to make themselves feel better. And their stress often makes others stressed out as well, which is why Riker told him he had everyone wound up so tightly.
reply
share
RubyHypatia
7 years ago
No one is saying a captain is there to be anyone's friend, Nak. But a good captain is inspirational, not anal.
reply
share
RubyHypatia
7 years ago
Nexus, what junior officers did Riker question Jellico's orders in front of? He only questioned his orders in front of Troi, and quite frankly, Jellico's attitude brought on the confrontation. Jellico had a prejudice against Riker since at least the moment in Ten Forward when he brought up the department heads' concerns. Jellico's attitude was that he didn't give a rat's ass about Picard's life.
reply
share
RubyHypatia
7 years ago
FC=Star Trek: First Contact. If my captain's actions were putting my entire home planet at great risk, I'd say something. Blindly following orders is bull$hit.
reply
share
cjh8504
7 years ago
So, you're saying the writing with Geordi was inconsistent? You're probably right about that. She must hate Jellico, then.
RIP Gene Wilder. RIP Robert Vaughn. RIP Carrie Fisher. RIP William Christopher. 2016 is the worst!
reply
share
cjh8504
7 years ago
That's what the army is though. Navy too.
RIP Gene Wilder. RIP Robert Vaughn. RIP Carrie Fisher. RIP William Christopher. 2016 is the worst!
reply
share
Nexus71
7 years ago
That is what I'm trying to explain her CJ that the army or the navy(and the air force for that matter) is not a democracy or some committee that there is a chain of command and that you have to obey the orders of your superior,image what war would be like with Riker in command? No sir we don't have the men for a night watch to guard against enemy infiltrations and actions.What? create more shifts but then we will be stretching the men sir and they are already overworked so let's not do that,sir.
Next morning The camp has been overrun by enemy scout units who killed 65% of the platoon just because two guys where too tired(and lazy) to have a night watch and determined it wiser to sleep than to take guard. (oh boy)
reply
share
RubyHypatia
7 years ago
Strawman argument, Nexus, as I've never said the military should be a democracy, just that leaders shouldn't be so rigid. If you make stupid, irrational decisions about how to run the ship, don't expect your crew to have much confidence in you. And don't compare Jellico to Patton, Patton was confident, Jellico wasn't.
reply
share
Nexus71
7 years ago
, just that leaders shouldn't be so rigid. If you make stupid, irrational decisions about how to run the ship, don't expect your crew to have much confidence in you.
But those commanders have orders as well and their leadership is judged by those above them not below them Ruby.And for those above the commanders(in the field) only one thing counts;
the objective comes first not the men.If the opposite had been the case the US would have dropped the tactics of "ïsland hopping" against Japan in WW II rather early on in the war.And not being in command you lack the information or overview to judge whether decisions are "stupid or irrational" since you don't know the full scope of the orders your superior was given.I can give you another example that despite "stupid and irrational"decisions or orders from high command or those in power the Vietnam war managed to last for over a decade or so(US involvement Vietnam actually started by the end of '45 but I am counting the years the US became a full blown participant in that conflict).
But I can give you dozens of examples of battles and wars that needlessly where prolonged(costing more needless loss of lives sometimes both military and civilian) because of bad decisions being made or that the objectives chosen where too far off and why because soldiers just follow orders plain and simple.Another example those in command in the German Wehrmacht knew by 1942/'43 that Germany would loose the war,but still they kept on fighting for two more years why ? Because of orders(only few tried to oppose e.g. von Stauffenberg and his group but they were a minority).
And don't compare Jellico to Patton, Patton was confident, Jellico wasn't.
I gave the example of Patton to illustrate the command-
style of Jellico,if I would compare Picard in the same fashion,Picard would be more like Omar Bradley.
reply
share
RubyHypatia
7 years ago
Nexus, I'm sure those above Jellico wouldn't want his crew tired out before a possible battle simply because he has an compulsive need to make unnecessary changes.
reply
share
User_474
7 years ago
That's just something you made up to justify Jellico's anal behavior.
You've got that backward. You're inventing things to justify Riker and co whining their way through the episodes. I can say that because Jellico's orders come before the whining.
It's ridiculous to try and say the writers by accident or design depicted Jellico being afflicted by OCD and try to back your stupidity with a half arsed attempt at listing symptoms that don't go anywhere near being OCD. The intention was to depict a by the book captain and the crew having to adjust.
Do you have anything besides nuh-uh because it has been explained to you by many people in many different ways. It was all onscreen, I watched it, you watched it but for some reason you want to make excuses as well as deny it happened. The best part was when Riker went to Picard and had to slink out before he sounded pathetic.
reply
share
RubyHypatia
7 years ago
User, Deanna pointed out to Riker that Jellico was not sure of himself. That would mean he was under a great deal of stress. Making all those changes was just a way for him to feel more in control.
reply
share
User_474
7 years ago
You can make that up but not notice the glaring unprofessional attitude of Riker and Geordie. And it's still a long way from being anything close to OCD. I think most people would feel better if the cruise liner they were taking into a hostile situation had some effort put into making it more combat effective.
reply
share
User_474
7 years ago
Geordi was consistently a hard worker, never lazy.
There was that episode where he was ordered to do something but muttered to himself that he would have to work around the clock to get out of it. Then he tried to get Riker to get Picard to get him out of it. The plan didn't work though because Picard was working around the clock at a much harder task to prepare for a much harder task. I don't recall if Geordie then actually did the work or died of exhaustion first.
reply
share
User_474
7 years ago
It's inconsistent to have a character work all night because of an offhand remark but then have that same character complain and try to go around the chain of command to get out of work ordered ahead of possible action.
reply
share
deem_bastille
7 years ago
idk... in reality life happens.
When you are younger you have more energy and more to prove. Later in life, your priorities probably change. I have worked with people who would stay very late at school, doing things in the classroom, setting up, grading papers when they were early on in their career. Then life happens. people get married, have kids... other things pop up... Priorities change.
I was very energetic when I first started teaching... to sometimes staying until 7 pm and with an hour's drive home... now, I just can't. not consistently, not any more. Life happens. People get older and their energy shifts.
Oh God. Fortune vomits on my eiderdown once more.
reply
share
RubyHypatia
7 years ago
Geordi wasn't trying to get out of doing hard work, he has no problem with hard work. This has been established with his character.
reply
share
deem_bastille
7 years ago
Geordi wasn't trying to get out of doing hard work, he has no problem with hard work. This has been established with his character.
Is this in response to me?
Oh God. Fortune vomits on my eiderdown once more.
reply
share
cjh8504
7 years ago
I'd hate to be your husband. Lol.
RIP Gene Wilder. RIP Robert Vaughn. RIP Carrie Fisher. RIP William Christopher. 2016 is the worst!
reply
share
RubyHypatia
7 years ago
That, "cruise liner" has been in plenty of battles and came out on top without having implemented any of Jellico's anal ideas. In fact, the Enterprise saved Earth from being borgified with only having three shifts. Imagine that. Riker saved more lives than Jellico could ever dream of, and Jellico had the audacity to look down on Riker for bringing up the concerns of the department heads? Unbelievable.
reply
share
cjh8504
7 years ago
Can you imagine be married to Ruby, User? A lot of arguments in that house hold. Lol.
RIP Gene Wilder. RIP Robert Vaughn. RIP Carrie Fisher. RIP William Christopher. 2016 is the worst!
reply
share
cjh8504
7 years ago
Her and User have been arguing about how lazy or not lazy Geordi has been.
RIP Gene Wilder. RIP Robert Vaughn. RIP Carrie Fisher. RIP William Christopher. 2016 is the worst!
reply
share
RubyHypatia
7 years ago
Jellico had no reason to question Riker's competency, yet he did to Picard, and Picard defended Riker, said he was decorated by Starfleet Command 5 times. Jellico obviously had some sort of prejudice against Riker, which caused a lot of trouble. Yes, Jellico was great when dealing with the Cardassians, but terrible dealing with the crew.
reply
share
cjh8504
7 years ago
Jellico said himself he didn't have time to get get buddy buddy with everyone. He had a singular mission to accomplish. That's why he was rough around the edges with the crew.
RIP Gene Wilder. RIP Robert Vaughn. RIP Carrie Fisher. RIP William Christopher. 2016 is the worst!
reply
share
deem_bastille
7 years ago
Thanks Ceej. I remembered Picard's first encounter with Geordi who was nowhere near lazy. and as people grow older their priorities and energy levels change.
also this Shelby was a douche.
Oh God. Fortune vomits on my eiderdown once more.
reply
share
RubyHypatia
7 years ago
People don't get lazy just because they get older. No where was it established that Geordi or any of the other department heads were just being lazy.
reply
share
cjh8504
7 years ago
Well, people slow down as the age, for sure.
RIP Gene Wilder. RIP Robert Vaughn. RIP Carrie Fisher. RIP William Christopher. 2016 is the worst!
reply
share
RubyHypatia
7 years ago
No one said Jellico had to get buddy buddy with everyone, he just shouldn't have been so anal and prejudiced against Riker. It made no sense that Jellico was questioning Riker's competence to Picard when Riker simply brought up concerns the department heads had. Riker, the guy who saved Earth from the Borg. It makes me think Jellico was jealous of Riker.
reply
share
deem_bastille
7 years ago
damn it, I didn't say they did, Ruby! lazy, no but they do lose energy and a certain amount of Gusto!
forgive me for bringing a dose of reality into a character based on a human being!
Oh God. Fortune vomits on my eiderdown once more.
reply
share
RubyHypatia
7 years ago
damn it, I didn't say they did, Ruby! lazy, no but they do lose energy and a certain amount of Gusto!
forgive me for bringing a dose of reality into a character based on a human being!
The argument is whether Geordi was lazy or not. I say there was no reason to believe he was.
reply
share
cjh8504
7 years ago
Except for his complaining.
RIP Gene Wilder. RIP Robert Vaughn. RIP Carrie Fisher. RIP William Christopher. 2016 is the worst!
reply
share
cjh8504
7 years ago
No. Lol. Jellico was a captain. Riker was only a Commander. What would Jellico be jealous of? He's of higher rank.
RIP Gene Wilder. RIP Robert Vaughn. RIP Carrie Fisher. RIP William Christopher. 2016 is the worst!
reply
share
RubyHypatia
7 years ago
No. Lol. Jellico was a captain. Riker was only a Commander. What would Jellico be jealous of? He's of higher rank.
Riker saved Earth from being borgified, Jellico had no accomplishments that even came close to that. Jellico doesn't even acknowledge that Riker saved Earth, but questions his competency to Picard. It's definitely an indication of prejudice.
reply
share
cjh8504
7 years ago
How do you know? Do you know everything about Jellico?
RIP Gene Wilder. RIP Robert Vaughn. RIP Carrie Fisher. RIP William Christopher. 2016 is the worst!
reply
share
User_474
7 years ago
He questioned Riker's competency because he gave him a simple directive and Riker didn't do it and didn't tell Jellico that he didn't do it.
reply
share
RubyHypatia
7 years ago
Riker wasn't incompetent when he brought up the department heads' concerns about, "significant personnel problems." Certainly Picard didn't see it as incompetent.
Picard: "Captain, I would just like you to know that Commander Riker..."
Jellico: "I've read your reports, Jean Luc, I know you think highly of him."
Picard: "Look, it's not just my opinion. He's been decorated by Starfleet Command five times, he's been offered his own ship more than once. I think if you'd just give him a chance, you'll find him an outstanding officer.
reply
share
User_474
7 years ago
Riker was incompetent when he ignored an order from above in favour of suggestions from below. That was when Jellico started being annoyed with him, no jealousy like in your delusion.
reply
share
deem_bastille
7 years ago
that wasn't incompetence that was insubordination. learn the difference.
Oh God. Fortune vomits on my eiderdown once more.
reply
share
cjh8504
7 years ago
You guys still going on about this? Some of you love Riker, and some of you hate him. We get it. Lets just all agree that Ronny Cox was wonderful in the part.
RIP Gene Wilder. RIP Robert Vaughn. RIP Carrie Fisher. RIP William Christopher. 2016 is the worst!
reply
share
cjh8504
7 years ago
Really, Number One. I've never seen anything like it.
RIP Gene Wilder. RIP Robert Vaughn. RIP Carrie Fisher. RIP William Christopher. 2016 is the worst!
reply
share
RubyHypatia
7 years ago
Ronny Cox is a terrific actor, but the writing didn't make much sense. While Jellico was great dealing with the Cardassians, he was terrible dealing with the crew. Being so rigid and close minded, how did he get to be a captain?
reply
share
RubyHypatia
7 years ago
It was neither incompetence nor insubordination. It would be incompetent had Riker not brought up the concerns of the department heads. The captain needs to be informed of such matters as, "significant personnel problems."
reply
share
RubyHypatia
7 years ago
Nexus, Jellico was great at dealing with the Cardassians, but he was not an inspirational leader.
reply
share
Nexus71
7 years ago
His objective was not to be an inspirational leader his objective was to negotiate with/make a stand against the Cardassians and make sure Enterprise and her crew were up for that task.Under other circumstances Jellico might be an inspirational leader we just don't know because Jellico was given some tough orders and he lacked the time for niceties as he explained when he came on board.Riker's mistake was to underestimate the grave situation Enterprise would be moving into and failed to see that having Jellico run a tight ship would strengthen his negotiating position.And the problem with the four shifts or other orders by Jellico where not shared by all of the department heads Data saw no problems and followed orders even Troi complied to his order to wear "the regulated Starfleet uniform".But that doesn't really matter it is not their place to decide to follow up on orders or not that is not how a chain of command works. Orders go from the top down not the other way.
Besides he has valid reasons to be uptight and wound up he has a family at stake that might be in harms way if the Cardassians break through with Starfleet reïnforcements being days away.
reply
share
cjh8504
7 years ago
Nice, Nex.
RIP Gene Wilder. RIP Robert Vaughn. RIP Carrie Fisher. RIP William Christopher. 2016 is the worst!
reply
share
RubyHypatia
7 years ago
Patton was an inspirational leader, Nexus. Jellico was not. And yes, leaders should be inspirational.
reply
share
Nexus71
7 years ago
Do you find that every manager,CEO or department head you have ever met or worked for in every day life inspirational?
I'm taking a big leap of faith but my guess your answer will be no.
And just like every day life in the military chain of command there are good commanders and bad commanders.And since jellico was just obeying orders you can't judge him on one event like I previously said the circumstances were not right for Jellico to be inspirational the Enterprise crew needed a shock treatment to prepare for the difficult tasks ahead and shock is usually not accomplished by being nice to everybody and let them do their way of doing things.
You and Riker are being too emotional in this whole thing Riker is misguided by his friendship and loyalty to Picard,but he forgets to look at the bigger picture and that is why he is wrong.He puts the needs of the one or few above the needs of the many.
reply
share
Nakitaakita-1
7 years ago
Leaders should be inspirational!!!
ROTFLMAO!!
Where have you worked for all of your career???
I saw a couple of inspirational leaders in the Army, zero in the civilian sector.
I think your statement is absolutely ludicrous.
No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed
reply
share
cjh8504
7 years ago
Most of Ruby's comments are absolutely ludicrous.
RIP Gene Wilder. RIP Robert Vaughn. RIP Carrie Fisher. RIP William Christopher. 2016 is the worst!
reply
share
Nakitaakita-1
7 years ago
Yea, well if she thinks company leaders are supposed to be inspirational she lives in nut job world anyway.
No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed
reply
share
RubyHypatia
7 years ago
General Patton was an inspirational leader, so was George Washington. It's hard to get people to follow you if they don't believe in you, so you can't be making questionable decisions.
reply
share
Nexus71
7 years ago
In the army you don't need to follow leaders you just have to follow orders no matter how insane.I would recommend watching Kubrick's Paths Of Glory and you will probably understand the concept of following orders a little bit better.It deals with a rather dark chapter in French military history during WW I so much so that Kubrick's movie was banned from France during the largest part of Kubrick's life.
reply
share
cjh8504
7 years ago
So was Ghengis Khan.
RIP Gene Wilder. RIP Robert Vaughn. RIP Carrie Fisher. RIP William Christopher. 2016 is the worst!
reply
share
RubyHypatia
7 years ago
In the army you don't need to follow leaders you just have to follow orders no matter how insane.
And what was it Picard said? "However, the claim, "I was just following orders" has been used to justify too many tragedies in our history."
reply
share
Nakitaakita-1
7 years ago
---And what was it Picard said? "However, the claim, "I was just following orders" has been used to justify too many tragedies in our history."----
Yep, spoken like a true Liberal.
However, if it is not an illegal order, you have to follow it.
That's the way it is, sorry to break that to you.
So your OIC eye to take your weapon and secure the hill.
You don't sit and talk about it, you take your weapon and secure the hill. 🙄
No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed
reply
share
Nakitaakita-1
7 years ago
Hitler was an inspirational leader too.
No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed
reply
share
RubyHypatia
7 years ago
Hitler was an inspirational leader too.
And a great example of why not to blindly follow orders.
reply
share
Nakitaakita-1
7 years ago
I'm sure you can find people that think that same thing about George Washington and General Patton.
I think it's all perspective,
However we were talking about having charisma not following orders.
No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed
reply
share
cjh8504
7 years ago
You tell her, Nak. She'll disagree.
RIP Gene Wilder. RIP Robert Vaughn. RIP Carrie Fisher. RIP William Christopher. 2016 is the worst!
reply
share
RubyHypatia
7 years ago
---And what was it Picard said? "However, the claim, "I was just following orders" has been used to justify too many tragedies in our history."----
Yep, spoken like a true Liberal.
However, if it is not an illegal order, you have to follow it.
That's the way it is, sorry to break that to you.
So your OIC eye to take your weapon and secure the hill.
You don't sit and talk about it, you take your weapon and secure the hill.
Did you miss where I was responding to the statement from Nex:
In the army you don't need to follow leaders you just have to follow orders no matter how insane.
Do you agree with that Nak? What if your commanding officer tells you to target civilians?
reply
share
Nexus71
7 years ago
Watch Paths Of Glory,Ruby and you will understand through what lengths a military organisation will go through to maintain the chain of command no matter in which preposterous manner or how unfair it may seem to an outsider.In that movie it is made very clear that an order is not a choice but like a religious decree no matter how ridiculous or infeasable it might be it must be obbeyed.
reply
share
cjh8504
7 years ago
She loves to argue, that Rubester.
RIP Gene Wilder. RIP Robert Vaughn. RIP Carrie Fisher. RIP William Christopher. 2016 is the worst!
reply
share
deem_bastille
7 years ago
no, no, no... with this I HAVE to agree with Ruby! ONE person was able to coerce hundreds of thousands of people to join the 'DARK SIDE'???? how fvking mental were these germans??????
no wonder they lost the war.
TWICE!
Oh God. Fortune vomits on my eiderdown once more.
reply
share
RubyHypatia
7 years ago
no, no, no... with this I HAVE to agree with Ruby! ONE person was able to coerce hundreds of thousands of people to join the 'DARK SIDE'???? how fvking mental were these germans??????
They were like ready-made zombies.
reply
share
User_474
7 years ago
What if your commanding officer tells you to target civilians?
Do you mean civilians or non-combatants? Because technically ISIS and Al-Qaeda are civilians.
reply
share
cjh8504
7 years ago
Ruby doesn't get military things.
RIP Gene Wilder. RIP Robert Vaughn. RIP Carrie Fisher. RIP William Christopher. 2016 is the worst!
reply
share
User_474
7 years ago
History tends to record few personalities because there isn't enough room for everyone but Hitler was not the only person pushing the Nazi agenda.
reply
share
cjh8504
7 years ago
Can't wait to hear her reply to this one.
RIP Gene Wilder. RIP Robert Vaughn. RIP Carrie Fisher. RIP William Christopher. 2016 is the worst!
reply
share
cjh8504
7 years ago
He was just the main one.
RIP Gene Wilder. RIP Robert Vaughn. RIP Carrie Fisher. RIP William Christopher. 2016 is the worst!
reply
share
Nexus71
7 years ago
Do you agree with that Nak? What if your commanding officer tells you to target civilians?
You follow orders just like those Luftwaffe crews that dropped bombs on Guernica and Rotterdam or the bomber-crews that went out carpet bombing major cities in Germany during the daytime and nighttime or the crews that bombed Dresden or those USAF crews that where ordered to bomb Tokyo on march the 9th and 10th 1945 with incendiary bombs,or Hiroshima & Nagasaki?
reply
share
Nakitaakita-1
7 years ago
Sometimes while active duty you might not have access to information.
If the information you are given is that the people in that village are actually soldiers wearing civilian clothes,
Yep, they'd get killed/bombed whatever.
If it's a legal order, yep, it's going to get done.
No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed
reply
share
cjh8504
7 years ago
Rube doesn't get military things.
RIP Gene Wilder. RIP Robert Vaughn. RIP Carrie Fisher. RIP William Christopher. 2016 is the worst!
reply
share
cjh8504
7 years ago
Lol. She thinks everything is all sunshine and rainbows. If you are ordered to do something, you have to do it. It's not up for discussion in the military. Something she fails to understand.
RIP Gene Wilder. RIP Robert Vaughn. RIP Carrie Fisher. RIP William Christopher. 2016 is the worst!
reply
share
RubyHypatia
7 years ago
Funny how you have to change the scenario, Nak, in order to justify blindly following orders. When Hitler tells you to gas those Jews, well you better gas those Jews.
reply
share
User_474
7 years ago
You want to talk about changing scenarios. You've taken this from disobeying an order to change shift rotations to gassing Jews.
Nak has said a few times that LEGAL orders have to be followed. Killing civilians for no reason is not a legal order.
reply
share
Nakitaakita-1
7 years ago
I used to know a Vietnam era pilot. He dropped bombs on places.
He received an order to drop bombs at coordinates c23x a12. That is where he dropped the bombs.
He didn't call someone in DC and ask them if there were civilians in the area.🙄
Jesus help me you people act so clueless.
No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed
reply
share
Nakitaakita-1
7 years ago
I'm not in not was I ever in the German Army. I was not alive in WWII.
I don't know rules of conduct or rules of conflict from WWII German army.
Did they have a paragraph about following legal orders?
I don't know if they did or not. Neither do you.
Still I have to ask myself how can people be so clueless?
No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed
reply
share
User_474
7 years ago
At the end of WW2 the allies put German soldiers on trial for war crimes and the defence was fairly consistently "we were following orders". That defence was rejected because the orders were not lawful. Basically murdering unarmed people in custody is frowned on no matter who tells you to do it.
reply
share
Nakitaakita-1
7 years ago
The put every German soldier on trial? Are the trials still going on?
Or did they put commanding officers on trial?
It's war, the command structure keeps things from the troops and further stuff happens.
Like I said above I knew a bomber pilot from the Vietnam war, he bombed places.
He was so high up he couldn't even see what he was bombing for the most part.
Did he bomb civilians, possibly, he felt that he very well could have.
He wasn't put on trial🤔Mm wonder why?
No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed
reply
share
User_474
7 years ago
They put anyone on trial that they had evidence against soldier or officer. They trials were still going recently but I am not sure if they are still going now.
reply
share
eddysl12
7 years ago
I read some time ago about this in the German Army during WW2. This doctrine of theirs was considered to be one of the major reasons their Army was so hard to beat, despite their smaller size.
If the top man in a unit, whether enlisted or officer, received an order from a superior and he couldn't help but see that order as stupid, ignorant, or idiotic, he had a duty to disobey that order. If he obeyed it and the disaster he predicted came true, he could and probably would face a court-martial from his superior's superiors.
The reasoning behind this is that his immediate superior, being located probably miles away from the area of this particular operation, cannot see all that the top man sees and therefore may not posses the knowledge to make intelligent decisions and thus intelligent orders in an immediate time-frame.
The top man there on the ground, knows whether he needs additional troops, air support, or if those things will only delay action that needs to be taken right at that moment.
There was an episode of Hogan's Heroes where Colonel Crittendon, being senior to Hogan, order the men to carry out an order of his the following day. They including Hogan himself are all in agreement that this order is stupid, that it will result in failure and the discovery of their operation, and in them all probably getting tortured for information regarding their underground contacts and then most likely all of them getting executed.
I think to be a good leader, a proper leader, you sometimes are going to have to stick your neck way out for the sake of your men and in this case your operation. Hogan probably should have told Crittendon, " No Sir, we are not going to do that. ".
I'm sure Crittendon would have told him, " I can get you all court-martialed for that, particularly you, Col Hogan. ". To which he should probably reply, " It wasn't their choice, it was mine, so if you want to court-martial me, fine, go ahead, in the mean-time I will do what I think is best for my men and my operation and this war effort. ". If memory serves Crittendon gets accidentally knocked out and so Hogan is back in charge and he cancels Crittendon's idiotic order.
With regard to Jellico, he had the backing of Starfleet Command so it wasn't just one man making decisions regarding changes to be made to the D, there was a consensus behind him.
The same thing with Hogan, there was a consensus from below including himself regarding Crittendon's order. There was no consensus from above regarding Crittendon's order, he ran it past no one else to see what they thought.
There may come a time when you have to disobey a direct order, but you should try to make sure it's for the right reason and you really have no other choice.
reply
share
cjh8504
7 years ago
I enjoy Hogan's Heroes.
RIP Gene Wilder. RIP Robert Vaughn. RIP Carrie Fisher. RIP William Christopher. 2016 is the worst!
reply
share
RubyHypatia
7 years ago
According to Picard, Starfleet didn't want officers to blindly follow orders.
reply
share
RubyHypatia
7 years ago
You want to talk about changing scenarios. You've taken this from disobeying an order to change shift rotations to gassing Jews.
You must have missed where Nexus said to obey orders no matter how insane.
reply
share
cjh8504
7 years ago
That's what they do in the army. As long as the order is legal, you have to follow it.
RIP Gene Wilder. RIP Robert Vaughn. RIP Carrie Fisher. RIP William Christopher. 2016 is the worst!
reply
share
Nexus71
7 years ago
The put every German soldier on trial? Are the trials still going on?
Or did they put commanding officers on trial?
Nope mostly those in command were put on trial in Nuremberg,and here is another point Ruby seems to forget is that those in command(i.e. those who give the orders) bear the sole responsibilities for their orders and those under their command.And Starfleet acts in the same fashion because the main reason that Kirk was convicted during the Klingon trial in ST VI The Undiscovered Country was because He as captain is responsible for the actions of his crew under his command(and Kirk was sentenced under Federation law).
It's war, the command structure keeps things from the troops and further stuff happens.
Those in command often know the implication of their commands.For example part of the purpose of carpet bombing on Germany was to inflict casualties under the civilian population with the intention that their suffering would lead to the population to rise up against their Nazi leaders(later they found out that it actually had the opposite effect).And when the USAF decided to bomb Tokyo with incendiary bombs those in command knew that 90% of the houses in Tokyo consisted mainly of the traditional Japanese wood and paper houses causing massive civilian casualties and the massive loss of residential areas.
Like I said above I knew a bomber pilot from the Vietnam war, he bombed places.
He was so high up he couldn't even see what he was bombing for the most part.
Did he bomb civilians, possibly, he felt that he very well could have.
He wasn't put on trial🤔Mm wonder why?
Did they put Col. Paul Tibbets on trial for dropping the bomb on Hiroshima? No even though the strategic importance of Hiroshima was neglectable and the bomb wasn't dropped above any military target of significant importance.Command probably knew by dropping the atom bomb above the heart of the city would cause significant civilian casualties although they never expected the number of casualties it actually caused.Tibbets later in life found out the implications of dropping the bomb through footage of the destruction and it's victims and lived out the rest of his life in guilt and questioning the morality of using such a weapon but he was never put on trial.
reply
share
cjh8504
7 years ago
You tell her, Nexy.
RIP Gene Wilder. RIP Robert Vaughn. RIP Carrie Fisher. RIP William Christopher. 2016 is the worst!
reply
share
User_474
7 years ago
Nope mostly those in command were put on trial in Nuremberg
I'm assuming you read a history book and closed it after you read about the Nuremburg trials. They went after as many people as they felt like right down to camp guards.
No even though the strategic importance of Hiroshima was neglectable
Also not true. There were military and strategic targets in the city.
reply
share
Nexus71
7 years ago
I'm assuming you read a history book and closed it after you read about the Nuremburg trials. They went after as many people as they felt like right down to camp guards.
Sure they went after those camp guards,because the severity of their crimes were so inhumane they could not have walked away with the reply of following orders their action so much superseded 'normal orders' that the blame cannot be solely put on those in command.But that happened after the big showcase trials at Nuremberg.And people tend to forget how brainwashed these criminals were by their regime a whole generation of youths were spoonfed from childhood on with the Hitlerjügend,boys were bred and trained to be good docile and obedient soldiers with the hammered in ideology of the superiority of the German Aryan race and the Fatherland.
Also not true. There were military and strategic targets in the city.
I didn't say that there weren't any but I said that their importance for the Japanese war effort was neglectable otherwise the USAF would have probably bombed Hiroshima in one of their earlier raids with normal bombs.Actually the use of the A-bomb had more of political than military reason,because the US and Japan had already been in secret negotiations for the Japanese surrender(via the USSR).The only thing that seemed an obstruction was the US wanted unconditional surrender and the Japanese wanted conditional surrender because they wanted to keep their emperor.
The reason why they choose to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was;
a)Since both Hiroshima and Nagasaki had not been bombed in force like many other Japanese cities they both presented an ideal proving ground to test the new weapon's destructive power.
b)To persuade Japan to unconditionally surrender.
c)To scare of the Russian who had invaded the most northern territories of Japan not to further invade Japan,the US didn't want another European situation in Japan.
reply
share
Nakitaakita-1
7 years ago
Pretty much saying what I said, but not typing on a phuking phone.
But I think why they didn't put the pilots from the Japanese bombings or the guy I knew.
Because it was the USA that was dropping the bombs.
If Japan had dropped bombs on L.A. We would have put someone in Japan on trial.
Just saying.
No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed
reply
share
cjh8504
7 years ago
With Trump at the helm, someone will be bombing us.
RIP Gene Wilder. RIP Robert Vaughn. RIP Carrie Fisher. RIP William Christopher. 2016 is the worst!
reply
share
Nexus71
7 years ago
what you mean like Mexican stealth bombers bombing Los angeles?
reply
share
cjh8504
7 years ago
Russia, ISIS, someone.
RIP Gene Wilder. RIP Robert Vaughn. RIP Carrie Fisher. RIP William Christopher. 2016 is the worst!
reply
share
User_474
7 years ago
Trump works for Russia and ISIS is doing their best to attack everyone already.
reply
share
RubyHypatia
7 years ago
Russia, ISIS, someone.
Russia would gain nothing and lose a lot, so that doesn't make sense. ISIS doesn't even have an air force.
reply
share
User_474
7 years ago
Al-Quaeda didn't have an airforce on 9/11 but that didn't seem to hold them back.
reply
share
RubyHypatia
7 years ago
And they had to hijack airplanes. How would they hijack fighter jets?
reply
share
User_474
7 years ago
I see, you're thinking there can only be one way to bomb someone and it's with an airforce of fighter jets. This is why people think you're an idiot.
reply
share
RubyHypatia
7 years ago
No one was talking about their little terrorist bombs like at the Boston Marathon.
reply
share
User_474
7 years ago
Terrorists use terrorist bombs. When normal people think "terrorist bombing" they don't dismiss the possibility because terrorists don't have an airforce. But I am sure it comforts everyone killed by a terrorist bomb to know they aren't really dead because the bomb was only a little terrorist bomb.
reply
share
cjh8504
7 years ago
Makes your head hurt, doesn't it, User? Reading her stuff?
RIP Gene Wilder. RIP Robert Vaughn. RIP Carrie Fisher. RIP William Christopher. 2016 is the worst!
reply
share
User_474
7 years ago
This is the oddest one yet. Al-Quaeda dropped 2 skyscrapers but pffft they had to hijack airliners so it doesn't count and ISIS can't do anything because they can't hijack military aircraft. I guess it makes her feel safer.
reply
share
cjh8504
7 years ago
Whatever helps her sleep at night.
RIP Gene Wilder. RIP Barbara Hale. You were great in Perry Mason. RIP William Christopher.
reply
share
RubyHypatia
7 years ago
CJ said:
With Trump at the helm, someone will be bombing us.
Russia, ISIS, someone.
Like ISIS is on par with Russia. It was a stupid statement anyway, but then CJ is pretty dumb.
Actually, I do feel pretty safe from terrorism. I'm more likely to die at the hands of a serial killer, or in a car accident. Certain things are always possible, but not likely so I don't spend my time worrying about it, just go on with my life as usual.
reply
share
User_474
7 years ago
How did you work out that serial killers and car accidents are more likely to kill you?
reply
share
cjh8504
7 years ago
And she says I'm pretty dumb. She's the dumbest person on here. And a staunch feminist. Freak.
RIP Gene Wilder. RIP Barbara Hale. You were great in Perry Mason. RIP William Christopher.
reply
share
Nakitaakita-1
7 years ago
I've been in a lot of car accidents.
I think you are more likely to be maimed than killed.
I have all sorts of stupid little things wrong with me because of accidents, still alive.
I have not been shot ever though or had my head cut off with an old kitchen knife.
I think most people don't think anything is going to happen to them.
If we thought that we would stay in bed all day every day.
Actually running into a serial killer though is very unlikely. I think more people are killed by terrorists in any Gorn year than by a serial killer.
No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed
reply
share
Nakitaakita-1
7 years ago
I've been in a lot of car accidents.
I think you are more likely to be maimed than killed.
I have all sorts of stupid little things wrong with me because of accidents, still alive.
I have not been shot ever though or had my head cut off with an old kitchen knife.
I think most people don't think anything is going to happen to them.
If we thought that we would stay in bed all day every day.
Actually running into a serial killer though is very unlikely. I think more people are killed by terrorists in any Gorn year than by a serial killer.
No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed
reply
share
cjh8504
7 years ago
Uh...why have your been in so many car accidents? Your insurance must be through the roof.
RIP Gene Wilder. RIP Barbara Hale. You were great in Perry Mason. RIP William Christopher.
reply
share
Nakitaakita-1
7 years ago
My insurance sucks.
But most of my accidents were caused by others running into me!
That's why my boyfriend bought me a motorcycle because he said he didn't want to be collateral damage from someone trying to get me.
I had a spectacular accident on one of my motorcycles where a car speeding in the right hand turn lane to pass people, ran into the back of me. Paid for college, bought a car, and built a porch on my house with that money!
No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed
reply
share
cjh8504
7 years ago
Wow. How much dough we talking here, Nak?
RIP Gene Wilder. RIP Barbara Hale. You were great in Perry Mason. RIP William Christopher.
reply
share
Nakitaakita-1
7 years ago
Not that much at all😟
No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed
reply
share
RubyHypatia
7 years ago
How did you work out that serial killers and car accidents are more likely to kill you?
People are way more likely to die in car accidents than die from a terrorist attack. Same with being murdered by a serial killer.
http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/myths-of-terrorism/Myth # 5: Terrorism is a deadly problem.
In comparison to homicides in America, deaths from terrorism are statistical noise, barely a blip on a graph compared to the 13,700 homicides a year. By comparison, after the 3,000 deaths on 9/11, the total number of people killed by terrorists in the 38 years before totals 340, and the number killed after 9/11 and including the Boston bombing is 33, and that includes the 13 soldiers killed in the Fort Hood massacre by Nidal Hasan in 2009.10 That’s a total of 373 killed, or 7.8 per year. Even if we include the 3,000 people who perished on 9/11, that brings the average annual total to 70.3, compared to that of the annual homicide rate of 13,700. No comparison.
reply
share
User_474
7 years ago
I thought you were going to say you regularly drink and drive and haunt active serial killer locations.
Do you actually need a lesson on statistics? You probably do so see if you get this. The people who died on 9/11 had less of a statistical chance of being killed by terrorists than you do right now.
reply
share
RubyHypatia
7 years ago
Do you actually need a lesson on statistics? You probably do so see if you get this. The people who died on 9/11 had less of a statistical chance of being killed by terrorists than you do right now.
No, it's you who needs the lesson on statistics. There are a hell of a lot more serial killers in the United States than terrorists. And funny how you're trying to change the argument. I said that I am more likely to be murdered by a serial killer than a terrorist. And I'm more likely to die in a car accident. Heck, I'm more likely to be struck by lightning.
http://reason.com/archives/2011/09/06/how-scared-of-terrorism-shouldTaking these figures into account, a rough calculation suggests that in the last five years, your chances of being killed by a terrorist are about one in 20 million. This compares annual risk of dying in a car accident of 1 in 19,000; drowning in a bathtub at 1 in 800,000; dying in a building fire at 1 in 99,000; or being struck by lightning at 1 in 5,500,000. In other words, in the last five years you were four times more likely to be struck by lightning than killed by a terrorist.
Don't change the argument, moron.
reply
share
User_474
7 years ago
Strange that you think this is an argument. You thought ISIS needed planes to bomb things, you were wrong. Then you used some safety blanket statements to try and make yourself feel safer and I thought that was funny.
Your counter was to use another safety blanket statement that you were more likely to be killed by a serial killer or car accident in much the same way that smokers claim that they could get hit by a bus tomorrow to explain their stupidity. Fair enough. it comforts you that you could be killed by a lunatic for one reason rather than another or could be ripped apart and/or burned in a car accident rather than a bomb. I especially enjoyed the little disclaimer that it could still happen as though there was no way for you to reduce the risks like a lamb to slaughter if the terrorists come for you.
I only asked how you worked it out because I figured it was from a bs source you looked up to make you feel better and you didn't disappoint.
Now if you want to argue about statistics then first learn to put "statistically" before statements that have not happened to show you at least understand that it's not a fact you are discussing. And remember there are three types of lies.
If I divided the population of the US by the number of boating deaths or skydiving deaths or anything else you never do then you'd have to be a complete idiot to believe that applies to you. But that's exactly what you're doing by accepting that everyone in the US shares the same risks of everything. There are more risk factors than occupying the same massive geographical location. It's not like a big finger comes out of the sky and assigns your cause of death regardless of what you do to get there.
Would you like to present some better targeted statistics and bet your life on any predicted outcome over the next 5 years? Or would you just like to add "statistically" to your statements and admit that statistics tell you the past and not the future.
reply
share
Nakitaakita-1
7 years ago
Would you like to present some better targeted statistics and bet your life on any predicted outcome over the next 5 years? Or would you just like to add "statistically" to your statements and admit that statistics tell you the past and not the future.
------
Well, Jesus will save some of us😀
No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed
reply
share
User_474
7 years ago
Well, Jesus will save some of us😀
That's the back up for when statistics fail.
reply
share
RubyHypatia
7 years ago
Fact: I am more likely to die in a car accident, by the hands of a serial killer, or by a lightning strike, than by terrorism. You're too stupid to realize that, User.
reply
share
User_474
7 years ago
That's a great safety blanket, you don't even need to stop and think about how you could be struck by lightning. Do you accept that you're also more likely to be a prostitute and die of a heroin overdose? Can the big finger in the sky make you into a drug addicted prostitute to satisfy statistics?
reply
share
RubyHypatia
7 years ago
I'm more likely to die in a car accident than a terrorist attack. I'm more likely to die by the hands of a serial killer than by a terrorist. These are facts, accept them. Moron.
reply
share
User_474
7 years ago
It's a statistical probability not a fact and it's a safety blanket because you believe it is a fact. It's also hilarious how you haven't even considered your personal situation because you could have just declared your circumstances put you out of harms way instead of clinging to your blankie.
I'll think of you as a drug addicted whore because there's statistical basis to do so.
reply
share
User_474
7 years ago
I honestly can't tell if you understand this or not. You do so much nuh-uh style arguing even when you are clearly wrong that it becomes hard to tell if you believe your own nonsense or not. In this case I'm actually starting to think you don't get it.
If you count causes of death of other people to work out your risks then you're working out a statistical probability, it's a guess and a bad guess, it's not a fact. You're generating probabilities for causes of death that you are no risk of at all and if you change the area from the entire country to your state or city or street then the probabilities change without changing anything about you.
Most premature death is preventable in some way even if it isn't completely foreseeable. Someone has to make a decision and then do something to cause the death. It looks random if you only look at the results but it isn't random there are steps to get there. People get murdered for reasons, cars crash for reasons, accidents happen for reasons. There is no link between someone dying in a car crash on the other side of the country and your chances of dying in a car crash.
If you look at something that is completely random, say Powerball. The statistical probabilities of winning are calculated by working out how many different combinations of numbers are possible for each draw. The odds are in the tens of millions. People beat the odds. And the odds reset every draw but you have to actually enter to win.
Your method of working out statistical probability would count the number of players and/or winners and then assign the same statistical probability of winning to someone with 500 entries and someone who doesn't even play.
You're gullible in believing something just because it is presented as a statistic. There could be a spectacularly successful terrorist attack next year that throws the stats out without actually increasing your risks. And there is never going to be a massive reduction in car crashes that would mean you could safely drink and drive while speeding without a seat belt.
Is your feeling of safety only because you read the stats? Can you not make sensible risk assessments of your own circumstances?
reply
share
RubyHypatia
7 years ago
I'm more likely to be killed by a serial killer than a terrorist. True or false, which is it?
reply
share
Nakitaakita-1
7 years ago
Lol, either neither or both.
If it happens to you its 100% probability.
If it doesn't happen it is 0 % for that moment in time.
No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed
reply
share
User_474
7 years ago
You may need to direct her to a website for her to understand that.
reply
share
RubyHypatia
7 years ago
Lol, either neither or both.
If it happens to you its 100% probability.
If it doesn't happen it is 0 % for that moment in time.
I am more likely to be murdered by a serial killer than a terrorist. That's a fact.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-terrorism-statistics-every-american-needs-to-hear/5382818Calm Down … You Are Much More Likely to Be Killed By Boring, Mundane Things than Terrorism
Number of American civilians who died worldwide in terrorist attacks last year: 8 — Minimum number who died after being struck by lightning: 29.
The National Safety Council reports that more than 6,000 Americans die a year from falls … most of them involve people falling off their roof or ladder trying to clean their gutters, put up Christmas lights and the like. That means that you’re 353 times more likely to fall to your death doing something idiotic than die in a terrorist attack.
Toxoplasmosis is a brain-parasite. The CDC reports that more than 375 Americans die annually due to toxoplasmosis. In addition, 3 Americans died in 2011 after being exposed to a brain-eating amoeba. So you’re about 22 times more likely to die from a brain-eating zombie parasite than a terrorist.
Those are also facts. If you can't understand, then you're not too bright.
reply
share
User_474
7 years ago
I may as well ask. Do you know if you've pissed off a serial killer and he is standing next to you telling you he is going to kill you as soon as you admit statistics are just statistics and not a crystal ball?
reply
share
User_474
7 years ago
She would make an excellent politician User.
She'd make a good target for politicians for believing that such broad stats mean anything but it would be a brave polly that stood up and told you not to worry about being murdered because you're more likely to be raped.
reply
share
RubyHypatia
7 years ago
I may as well ask. Do you know if you've pissed off a serial killer and he is standing next to you telling you he is going to kill you as soon as you admit statistics are just statistics and not a crystal ball?
Don't have to have pissed off a serial killer.
I am more likely to be murdered by a serial killer than a terrorist, true or false? Which is it? Won't answer, huh? Because you know that statement is fact, and that I'm right.
reply
share
Nakitaakita-1
7 years ago
Statistically, am I more likely to get breast cancer or kidney cancer?
🤔😟😟😟😟
No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed
reply
share
User_474
7 years ago
That's supposed to comfort you Nak. Maybe it doesn't work as well when you put "statistically" in front.
reply
share
RubyHypatia
7 years ago
Nak, you are more likely to get breast cancer than kidney cancer. That's a true statement, no need for the word, "statistically."
reply
share
User_474
7 years ago
Nak, you are more likely to get breast cancer than kidney cancer. That's a true statement, no need for the word, "statistically."
If you're using statistics to work that out then you need to say "statistically" so everyone knows you're not an idiot.
reply
share
Nakitaakita-1
7 years ago
Using statistics I am more likely to get breast cancer.
On one site I looked at;
Breast cancer 246,660
Kidney/renal 23,050.
Yikes that a big difference.
Anyway. In 2013 I had Kidney cancer.
Statistics are pretty much useless in my opinion.
😟
No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed
reply
share
User_474
7 years ago
Statistics are pretty much useless in my opinion.
Statistics have their uses it's just that individual risk assessment isn't one of them. Statistics for cancer help with medical planning or to spot increases so that causes can be pinpointed and reduced.
reply
share
User_474
7 years ago
Now that you have Nak's medical history you know that she is more likely to have kidney cancer so your answer was wrong unless you add in statistically and then it's just meaningless.
Nobody does personal risk assessment by looking at national stats, nobody. Anyone who tells you that you should is an idiot or is deliberately trying to misdirect you. You got suckered so hard you can't even look at your own risk factors.
reply
share
WyldeGoose
7 years ago
As for soldiers overseas, I don't think those Muslim countries are a real threat to us. I think being, "real jerks" has caused more problems than it has solved.
Oh geez. You wanted to hit a real sore spot, eh? I was one of those guys who killed more than 1300 of those guys over there, if you consider what G2 said about me, let me tell you something, sugar...
The only reason why you're not raped and being stoned for it right now is because people like me stood up to people like them. There were Iraqis asking me, begging me, to conquer them and convert their asses over to Christianity, because Islam is not only a sham-cult, it's prone to gangsterism and it's being supported by the likes of Iran, Russia, and China. If they weren't, my Hellfires would never have touched T-55s, T-72s, and ZSU-23/4s. You are an idiot.
And you're alive for it, and no thanks to Obama and his council of idiots.
So, if you think we made things worse, it's only because we didn't do enough. They're raping people in Europe right now and they're coming over here. As of this writing, I don't know what President-Elect Trump will do, but if they continue on their course, they'll come right for YOU right where you live. Because, according to the election results, the only morons who voted for the continuance of this kind of thing live in the cities. They'll be coming for you, and you won't have the wolves to stop them.
reply
share
User_474
7 years ago
Did the war send you nuts or were you like this before?
reply
share
Nakitaakita-1
7 years ago
--Did the war send you nuts or were you like this before?--
I not sure exactly what you are trying to say, but Wylde is 1000% correct in what he said.
Everyone should go out and hug their nearest raghead because soon they will be killing and raping you and you loved ones in a town near you thanks to all of the ducking Libtards.
No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed
reply
share
User_474
7 years ago
Where do you stand on the catholic church raping children on an industrial scale?
reply
share
Nakitaakita-1
7 years ago
---Where do you stand on the catholic church raping children on an industrial scale?---
Lol. Proof please...........
No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed
reply
share
Nakitaakita-1
7 years ago
---Where do you stand on the catholic church raping children on an industrial scale?---
You wrote "raping children on an industrial scale"
Puuulleeees
I
If you want child rape on an industrial scal, how about on an institutional scale, look at the dirt political system of The USA's president's favorite people, the rag head Muslims.
That filthy pseudo religion propagates child rape.
You would be hard pressed to find anything anywhere close to that in the Catholic Church.
No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed
reply
share
User_474
7 years ago
So you have no problem with the abuse of children and cover up by the church, ok. Your opinion on anything else would be equally as worthless.
reply
share
cjh8504
7 years ago
You see that Spotlight movie, User?
RIP Gene Wilder. RIP Robert Vaughn. RIP Carrie Fisher. 2016 is the worst!
reply
share
WyldeGoose
7 years ago
Where do you stand on the catholic church raping children on an industrial scale?
Not nearly as industrial a scale as how public school teachers have been doing, and by the way, there is no teaching, doctrine, or dogma in the Church that supports that kind of activity. Which means there are problems in the Church that have more to do with politics and not with theology. On the other hand, Islam has no problem with rape. Indeed, for a Muslim woman to challenge any of her rapists with the crime of Rape, she needs four male witnesses. And if she doesn't produce them, there's a really good chance she'll be murdered through what is known as an "Honor Killing."
reply
share
User_474
7 years ago
It's strange that you read that question as "compare and contrast rape within Islam and rape within the Catholic Church". The correct answer of course would be to condemn it strongly and call for the heads of the people who did it and the people who covered it up.
Also. Did the war drive you nuts or were you like this before?
reply
share
cjh8504
7 years ago
He's been nuts as long as I've known him.
RIP Gene Wilder. RIP Barbara Hale. You were great in Perry Mason. RIP William Christopher
reply
share
RubyHypatia
7 years ago
Oh *beep* Wylde! You really think Muslims countries were going to invade America? Or maybe you think the terrorists were planning an invasion? You greatly overestimate them. Educate yourself, dumbass.
Myths of Terrorism
by Michael Shermer
http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/myths-of-terrorism/
reply
share
Nakitaakita-1
7 years ago
Like they haven't invaded:
Germany
Italy
France
Sweden
Denmark
And
Norway?
No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed
reply
share
Nakitaakita-1
7 years ago
Like they haven't invaded:
Germany
Italy
France
Sweden
Denmark
And
Norway?
No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed
reply
share