The use of the word “preemptive” always makes me think about Maquis.

Or you could have your political enemies lose a kid to the Bajoran foster system as a way to get one over them.

What part of it would be preemptive?

This sounds like the Kyrians wrote this.

Can I have my logic with some rice?

Kirk is not the horny starship captain you all make him out to be. He is far less horny than you think.

How would he have heard of it? Wouldn’t it take at least 6 years before that incident reaches Starfleet?

Okay, tell me when professional baseball becomes a thing in the U.K.

It’s called Mirror Universe.

But don’t we need to be treating the unemployed as criminals first?

The trouble? I can’t stop laughing.

A talking Moopsy? Lol, I saw someone at STLV last year who modified theirs to do just that.

Think positively. We all knew this had to come to an end eventually. This is a prequel that leads into TOS.

Seán Ferrick of TrekCulture has pointed out that Game of Thrones’ final season was six episodes, half which were longer length. So there is a possibility that these episodes will be longer.

EDIT: I misspelled Seán’s name earlier.

It looks like leather on Pike.

I believe there is a joke in The Office about Todd Packer being able to name all the extant species, because there are only two.

Especially with true crime, the way things are presented could alter how the content is perceived. For example, Making a Murder took time to walk the audience through the entire trial (I’m not going to debate the perception the film makers left out important facts that influence the narrative).

On the flip side a more recent series like This Is the Zodiac Speaking, only focused on one suspect, never questioned the testimony of the children as being faulty memories or fact checked well known details about the crimes mentioned. My point is, this documentary was on a subject that was better well known and didn’t aim to present the children as telling their own side of events; it straight up makes the assumption what they said must be true because they personally knew ALA. On top of this, they featured Robert Graysmith, the author of the book Zodiac which is well known for being factually inaccurate, and doesn’t challenge his research. And at the end, the film makers failed to get the DNA test results for a test they commissioned. What deadline existed that they couldn’t tell the viewer what the result was?

Sorry, that documentary in particular irritates me for how factually inaccurate and onesided it was. My overall point is that true crime in particular seems to just be looking for whatever will get views. Not a lot of the documentaries that have come out in this period have produced well made series or ethically honest content. Is it entertainment or is it bringing awareness to what occurred or the people affected?

The problem I have is the quality of the film making. Regardless of the content, if it isn’t well made, probably wouldn’t see through the whole thing.

Let me just embarrass a lot of people.

This is flag that represents Confederate States of America:

Hey, I am a janitor that struggles to open trash bags if I’m not wearing clean gloves. They refuse to open with bare hands or if my gloves are greasy.

Wow, this is exactly what someone who 1. doesn’t practice real Evangelical Christianity would say 2. would believe not having studied the most basic of United States history.

The separation of Church and State is exactly that. The Colonist came to North American because they didn’t like how the Church of England was being operated. In practice they might not have wanted other religious groups to have such freedom but if you try to take the Bill of Rights and Constitution at face value, then you as a person in the United States government have no reason to judge them for being a non-Christian. Much like how I much challenge you to prove you belong to a well regulated militia when you own a gun.