DMF: ST:D is set ten years before TOS. It has Pike, Kirk, Spock etc. around the same period. It even has Sarek in the pilot and has retconned Michael as Spock's adoptive sister that Sarek feels emotional over. It is a total retconning for those of us who grew up on TOS.

Yup, after Lt Uhuru, Seven of Nine is the absolute horniest Trekkie chick to grace our screens.

However, despite Seven of Nine's enormous sex appeal, Lt Uhuru completely and totally is the most ultimate Trekkie chick there ever was ... or ever will be.  Mind you, Beverley Crusher was petty hot as well... not to mention one of my absolute Trekkie favourites, Whoopi Goldberg.  Guynan really did give me the horn excite me.

T'Pol is my favorite. She reminds me of an elf with those pointed ears and short bob.

Well shoot!  That ruins my concept of the ST:D universe.  That means that Spock or Kirk might show up in future episodes.  Fooey!

Makes me not so sad to miss the rest of it.

I've met Nichelle Nichols.  Very attractive woman.  Word is that she and Roddenberry were doing the nasty at the time and that had a lot to do with her casting.  The same can be said of Majel Barrett, who never did excite me.  I really did like her in her later, more effusive roles, though, especially as Troi's mum.

I liked jhadea dax.

Jadzia Dax - Terry Farrell.  I had quite forgotten about her.

Ah yes, thanks for remembering her.

Why is SHE called Michael??   

New Age parents.  This is what comes of it.

Oooh, and I'm SOOO green with envy... read JEALOUS as all buggery.  I mean, I've met Winston Churchill, Agatha Christie, Roger Moore and Prince Charles  I also went to school with Ginger Baker of Cream and Robert Plant of Led Zeppelin but none of them turned me on.  Not like Michelle Nichols does.

uuuuuuuuhhhh......       

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Zoe Saldana is just a hair more gorgeous than Michelle Nichols.

Quoting tetleytea, reply 38

uuuuuuuuhhhh......       

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Zoe Saldana is just a hair more gorgeous than Michelle Nichols.

Nope, not a chance.  Now   .

Nah, they're all gorgeous... it's just that Michelle Nichols is more gorgeouser than the others.  

I'd say that it depends on from which angle one is making one's evaluation.

Winston Churchill ??

Yeah, I met him in 1964 when I was at school in England.  I won a national essay competition on the causes of WWII and he presented the prize.  A true statesman and probably the only politician I ever really liked.

Now that is cool.  I'll trade you a Nichelle for a Winston.

I'm not as impressed with the last two episodes.  It's a step up from Enterprise, but big plot holes.   So...they corral this big man-eating beast which talks to spores, and that creates their navigation system.   And with that beast-run navigation system they warp to a mining colony, kill 4 Klingon vessels, and save the colony.   

Nope, no leap of logic there.

It is illogical to assume all things remain logical  Particularly with these latest versions of Star Trek. There is the TOS timeline and the Kelvin timeline. Who the heck is Kelvin and how did he manage to insinuate his view as to what the timeline should be?    

I can accept some illogical on Orville.  They are trying to be funny; I can reasonably expect them to defy logic from time-to-time.   ST:Discovery, though, not so much.   I think I'm liking Orville a little bit more than Discovery right now.

Plus, there's Discovery's opening sequence they play before every episode:   um...no shots of space???   It's Star Trek--I expect shots of SPACE in the opening sequence.  Look at Next Generation.  Space.  Lots of it.    ST:Enterprise had the same problem:   no space in their credits or their introduction, which makes no sense.

Yes, welcome to our side.

This week I liked both Discovery and Orville, but I have to give the edge to Discovery.  Jason Isaacs is seeing a lot of action.  I'm still bothered by the plot holes, though:  one minute, Captain Lorca is talking to the admiral.  The next, he is getting abducted by aliens.  When did he ever board a shuttle in the first place??

off screen?

Here:

(Admiral and Capt. Lorca having a holographic chat on board)

Admiral:   You are to reel in your use of the spore drive.

Lorca:   What?   We are at war, we rescued a colony under attack with it!   I was given discretion to use the Discovery vessel to wage war with the Klingons as I see fit!

Admiral:   We can't afford for the Klingons to know too much about our secret weapon.  You are to reel in your use of the spore drive.

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah     <===== HERE

Lorca:    Oh no!!!   I am on a space shuttle, and a Klingon vessel uncloaked and is abducting me with a tractor beam!!

Michael: "Before I was a mutineer I was a first officer in Starfleet. I'll never bear that rank or any other again. But it is who I am, and who I will always be. It is by the principles of the United Federation of Planets that I live. And by them I will most certainly die."

Lorca: "Universal law is for lackeys. Context is for kings."

Why did Michael join the crew after such disregard to her ideals? It is obvious that Lorca has his reasons - as he himself explains - for choosing Michael. The only compelling reason for Michael to join seems to be that maybe she could help fight the war she started?

Michael in the next scene: "[...] That's how I learned that the real world doesn't always adhere to logic. Sometimes down is up. Sometimes up is down. Sometimes when you're lost, you're found."

Is she saying that she's purposefully ignoring her better judgement and choosing the opposite on purpose even though it's completely illogical?

Edit: Another thought occurs. Does Michael intentionally lie in her support of the Starfleet ideals? We see in a later scene with Saruk that she has no problem lying to get what she wants even when it hurts her colleagues. Maybe Michael, who obviously knew she was being recruited, made a good speech to get out of her prison sentence? Of course it would have been a wild swing and miss since Lorca turned out to be the opposite - only Michael didn't know that yet.