Episode talk page
Maintenance links
- MA files from this episode (0)
- Episode data module and titles check:
| |||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The flashback scene were the Doctor trys to save Ensign's Kim and Jetal is supposed to take place 18 months previously. The Doctor wasn't able to save both of them because Lieutenant Paris wouldn't know how. To me the answer seems simple! Ask Kes to help. If it was indeed 18 months before the events in the episodes, Kes would still be on the ship (because it is said Seven hadn't come on-board yet). Obviously Kes couldn't come back for that one scene but, to me this seems an interesting continuity error
- Sorry to put a hamper on your idea (And it's an interesting one at that), but there are other considerations. That includes the availabilty of Kes (she may have been busy, off-duty, on a mission, etc.). That, along with the fact that it was an extreme medical emergency, there probably wasn't enough time to call her. - Adm. Enzo Aquarius 04:31, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- Something I've wondered about is how supportive Kes would've been in the first place of changing the Doctor's program this drastically without his knowledge or consent? She was the one who pushed Captain Janeway in the first place to treat the Doctor more like a member of the crew rather than a piece of technology.Servo 21:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Janeway's bad grammar
"It's got" = "It has got". The opposite is "It hasn't got" which is "It has not got".
Therefore, Janeway's line, "almost as if it's got a mind of its own, but it doesn't" is grammatically incorrect - it should be "but it hasn't" at the end. "It doesn't got" doesn't make sense!
I know she probably meant "It doesn't have", but the verb was not stated after "doesn't", which means the previous verb is assumed - and the previous verb was "got". This implies a nonsensical phrase, "It doesn't got". Therefore, as I said, she should have said "almost as if it's got a mind of its own, but it hasn't" to be grammatically correct.
I'm putting this here, rather than on the article page, because it could be construed as a nitpick. I didn't think grammar errors would be welcomed in the actual article. Avengah 22:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)