Memory Alpha

Editing

Talk:Borg philosophy

2
  • This is a talk page. Please remember to sign your posts using four tildes (~~~~) or the signature button
  • The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit. If you are undoing an edit that is …
This is a talk page. Please remember to sign your posts using four tildes (~~~~) or the signature button
+
Latest revision Your text
Line 1: Line 1:
 
__TOC__
 
__TOC__
 
== Amorality? ==
 
== Amorality? ==
Hi. I was wondering if there should be a section mentioning that the Borg are amoral (as referenced by [[Arturis]]). That is, they are neither treacherous nor benevolent; they will kill only when necessary. Arturis didn't blame the Borg any more than he'd blame a "force of nature". [[Chakotay]] also tangentially referenced the amorality of the Borg when he told the story of the [[Parable|scorpion and the fox]]. He didn't think them capable of acting in a way outside "their (amoral) nature". Even an evil, say, Romulan would act cooperatively if it were in his best interest: The Borg could not. (They couldn't resist trying to assimilate the inconsequential ''Voyager'' even when they were losing billions of drones in their 8472 war, despite it being in their better interest to cooperate fully.)
+
Hi. I was wondering if there should be a section mentioning that the Borg are amoral (as referenced by [[Arturis]]). That is, they are neither treacherous nor benevolent; they will kill only when necessary. Arturis didn't blame the Borg any more than he'd blame a "force of nature". [[Chakotay]] also tangentially referenced the amorality of the Borg when he told the story of the [[Tale of the Scorpion|scorpion and the fox]]. He didn't think them capable of acting in a way outside "their (amoral) nature". Even an evil, say, Romulan would act cooperatively if it were in his best interest: The Borg could not. (They couldn't resist trying to assimilate the inconsequential ''Voyager'' even when they were losing billions of drones in their 8472 war, despite it being in their better interest to cooperate fully.)
   
 
The Borg wouldn't care to seek revenge, torture, or commit other "evil", immoral actions. But neither would they commit moral, "good" actions, such as helping others. They are just ''amoral''.
 
The Borg wouldn't care to seek revenge, torture, or commit other "evil", immoral actions. But neither would they commit moral, "good" actions, such as helping others. They are just ''amoral''.
Line 67: Line 67:
   
 
:I removed it as the citations as a whole look OK. If anyone objects to particular statements they can mention it here or add a [[:Template:incite|Citation needed]] tag.&ndash; [[User:Cleanse|Cleanse]] <small><sup>( [[User talk:Cleanse|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Cleanse|contribs]] )</sup></small> 03:16, October 12, 2010 (UTC)
 
:I removed it as the citations as a whole look OK. If anyone objects to particular statements they can mention it here or add a [[:Template:incite|Citation needed]] tag.&ndash; [[User:Cleanse|Cleanse]] <small><sup>( [[User talk:Cleanse|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Cleanse|contribs]] )</sup></small> 03:16, October 12, 2010 (UTC)
 
== Does this belong? ==
 
 
The following quote etc. from Q was left in from a much earlier version. I didn't see quite how it fits or its relevance, so I added background comments after it. I'm not sure either belong. Thoughts? Here it is:
 
 
 
When summarizing their worldview and its effects in a general terminology, the entity [[Q]] described the Borg as "the ultimate users," and their chosen targets for assimilation as things "they can consume." ({{TNG|Q Who}}); ({{film|8}})
 
 
{{bginfo|It is unclear what Q meant by "ultimate users". In addition, the Borg later seemed to change their goal of assimilating that which "they can consume" to a much more discriminating selection process. This could be explained by the time lag between the events in {{e|Q Who}} and {{e|Mortal Coil}} and a subsequent change in the Borg's philosophy and/or assimilation techniques.}}
 
 
 
Should we just remove all of it? Is it necessary?
 
 
--[[User:Cepstrum|Cepstrum]] 14:59, October 12, 2010 (UTC)
 
 
== For the Cause ==
 
I reckon that, in this article, we should include info from {{DS9|For the Cause}}, in which [[Michael Eddington]] says the following to {{Captain}} [[Benjamin Sisko|Sisko]]:
 
 
:"''Why is the Federation so obsessed about the Maquis? We've never harmed you, and yet we're constantly arrested and charged with terrorism. Starships chase us through the Badlands and our supporters are harassed and ridiculed. Why? Because we've left the Federation, and that's the one thing you can't accept. Nobody leaves paradise. Everyone should want to be in the Federation. Hell, you even want the Cardassians to join. You're only sending them replicators because one day they can take their rightful place on the Federation Council. You know, in some ways you're worse than the Borg. At least they tell you about their plans for assimilation. You're more insidious. You assimilate people and they don't even know it.''"
 
 
I realize that much of this concerns the Maquis, but hopefully the Borg material can be used here(?) I'd include the info myself, if I was sure how to phrase it! --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 01:18, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
 
 
: Good catch, '''Defiant'''! I'd be happy to try to work that in. I was going to hold off editing the article for a day or two, just to give you et al. the chance to correct my stuff, add your own stuff, and to avoid the appearance of an "edit war". If you'd like to incorporate it, go ahead. Otherwise, let me know if you don't mind me trying in a day or two.
 
 
: Also, I wanted to change back ''just one'' of the many (helpful) edits you made. You changed the clarifying parenthetical state following Arturis's mention from "that is..." to "that ''was''...". I believe the former is correct. Initially I'd put "ie" but decided to spell it out. It needs to read "that ''is''" because it's a clarifying statement, not a past-tense POV thing. But I didn't want to immediately go in and change it (for obvious reasons).
 
 
: Plus, I'm an exclusive mobile user and am tied up trying to make CSS adjustments to the mobile skin. I don't know CSS, so when I change one portion to get a part of MA readable, I find then I've made another part unreadable! (right now I cannot really see the revision logs. So if you'd rather take over editing the article, feel free; I can go back to experimenting with CSS. Otherwise, I'll put an "in use" tag on it, edit it offline, and try to incorporate the very salient Eddington quote etc you noted. We need more than just a bunch of VOY references: a DS9 reference would be nice (I just happen to be most familiar with VOY). That way we'd have refs from TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT, and FC. Cool! Let me know what you'd prefer. --[[User:Cepstrum|Cepstrum]] 12:48, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
 
 
=== Finally added Eddington section ===
 
'''Defiant''' (et al.),
 
 
I added a section in the background wherein I tried to incorporate your good point about Michael Eddington's rather unfavorable comparison of the UFP's philosophy of "assimilating to that of the Borg.
 
 
I hope it's satisfactory! --[[User:Cepstrum|Cepstrum]] 00:34, October 15, 2010 (UTC)
 
 
== Arturis and "ie"/"that is"/"that was" ==
 
I changed the Arturis reference to past tense, because the article about him reads "Arturis is presumed to have been assimilated" - i.e., he did exist but likely does no longer. Furthermore, the stated opinion ''was'' his, during his encounter with ''Voyager''; even if he survived after the events of that episode, he may have revised his opinion. Therefore, it seems to make more sense for it to read "that was" rather than "that is". --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 09:02, October 14, 2010 (UTC)
 
 
: I see your point, though I just happen to disagree. ^_^ I think it's an idiomatic expression without respect to tense; the "destroyed" makes it clear it was in the past. The "that is" just explains that, to him, his people ''were destroyed'' (past tense).
 
 
: How about '''this''' for a compromise (it's how I had originally worded it):
 
 
:: ''(that is, destroyed)'',
 
 
: or better yet,
 
 
:: ''(that is, "destroyed")''?
 
 
: That way we remove a direct reference to ''his'' POV. Instead, it just clarifies &ndash; to the reader &ndash; that the mass assimilation of his people was essentially equivalent to their destruction. That was the reason I put it in there in the first place: to inform the reader that the assimilation of a species was really no different from their destruction (except, perhaps, from the POV of the Borg!). The phrase is complete without the parenthetical statement and I believe saying ''it either way'',
 
 
:: ''(that is/was, to him, destroyed)'',
 
 
: is too cumbersome. Furthermore, "that was" as a "past tense" of the device "ie/that is" is not used (or very seldom used) in English and is unclear. I'd prefer just a simple,
 
 
:: ''(that is, destroyed)''.
 
 
: '''Or even reword it entirely to note just a few tens of thousands survived and let ''the reader'' draw the obvious conclusion instead of explicitly stating it. That might be best.'''
 
 
: What do you think?
 
 
: Regards! --[[User:Cepstrum|Cepstrum]] 14:59, October 14, 2010 (UTC)
 
 
: '''PS: please let me know if you want me to try working the DS9/Eddington reference comparing the UFP to the Borg. If so, I'll put an "in-use" tag on it, add it offline, and release it sometime soon (I hope!)'''
 
 
=== Solution? ===
 
'''Defiant''' (et al.),
 
 
I changed the text in contention to this:
 
 
::: ''(in essence, wiped out)''
 
 
How does that sound? I think it solves ''my'' issue of using "that was" instead of "ie/that is" while '''also''' ensuring that a past tense POV is unmistakably preserved. You agree? (Not trying to say you should or have to, just hoping it's something that satisfies all. Feel free to improve it, of course!)
 
 
--[[User:Cepstrum|Cepstrum]] 01:26, October 15, 2010 (UTC)
 
 
:Personally, I like this method best. Good work, Cepstrum! :) --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 07:10, October 15, 2010 (UTC)
 
 
Few, what a relief! Thanks a lot for the '''positive feedback, Defiant.''' I need it. In fact, this represents my ''first'' "success" in coming to a solution on an article via dialogue on a talk page, which is something I've been ''very'' anxious to do! (I've only just begun making ''real'' additions/edits to a couple articles.)
 
 
[[User:Defiant | '''Defiant''']], you've made my day! I'm always thinking poorly of myself and edits; you have no idea what a nice statement like yours means to me. ^_^
 
 
I hope we (et al.) continue to have productive dialogue here to get this in good shape. I'd really like to polish this (admittedly obscure and low-importance) article up to a high standard.
 
 
I'm looking forward to hearing your feedback on my addition of Eddington's UFP-Borg philosophy comparison, as per your excellent suggestion, which has allowed the article to have references to ''all four'' Borg-containing series, as well as FC. (Please see the section I added about it on the article and on this talk page.) --[[User:Cepstrum|Cepstrum]] 12:29, October 15, 2010 (UTC)
 
 
== "Cramped references"? ==
 
 
It seems I managed to get this article into the ''very select'' club of "articles with cramped references" category. Apparently this automatically occurs when there is a line containing five or more references. By my count, this occurs twice. I can try to rectify this, but if someone can beat me to it or think s/he can do a more efficient job than I (after all, it was I who got the article this dubious distinction), then ''please'' feel free to "'''be bold'''" ^_^
 
 
Actually, I'm not sure why having five or six references warrants such a penalty. It must be something I missed in the guidelines. Hmm. Oh well: I want this article to succeed, so I or someone will have to pare down those refs. I've been editing it a lot recently, so I think I'll hold off to avoid the appearance of impropriety &ndash; I don't want to give the impression that I "''own''" the article! I should give others a chance to alter things. If, however, after a reasonable time has lapsed and it still needs fixing, I'll jump back in.
 
 
--[[User:Cepstrum|Cepstrum]] 02:04, October 15, 2010 (UTC)
 
 
PS
 
I'm getting no response from this, so I'll trying "bumping" it ''before'' broaching it again at the bottom of the talk page. (Perhaps people overlook this section because it's packed in the middle and "lost".) -[[User:Cepstrum|<span style="color:rgb(125,200,50);">'''Cepstrum'''</span>]] <sup>[[User Talk:Cepstrum|<span style="color:rgb(0,150,255);">(talk)</span>]]</sup> 14:14, October 29, 2010 (UTC)
 
 
== Resolving newly-added inline "citation needed" tag in Transhumanism section ==
 
 
[[User:Cleanse|'''Cleanse''']] added an inline "citation needed" tag in the "Parallels to Transhumanism" section. It's probably the correct thing to do &ndash; I'm not sure. The section and most of its text was already present by the time I came along to drastically revamp the article.
 
 
I'd be happy to fix this problem, but it's difficult for me to do so: I am unsure precisely what the point of contention is/what needs a citation. I hope someone, such as '''Cleanse''', can clarify for me. 
 
 
Thanks!
 
 
Best regards,
 
 
--[[User:Cepstrum|Cepstrum]] 14:58, October 21, 2010 (UTC)
 
PS I'm concerned about this because I ''really'' want to get this article in decent shape.
 
 
:A proper citation would be a reference to some interview, Making-Of feature etc. where someone who actually was in charge of developing the Borg states something along the lines of "Yes, we were basing the Borg on Transhumanist philosophies!". If such citation can not be provided, we could '''perhaps''' still allude to Transhumanism by having an external link, but should not present it as if that really was the thought process that had been going on. -- [[User:Cid Highwind|Cid Highwind]] 15:19, October 21, 2010 (UTC)
 
 
::To answer the questions on my talk page: 
 
 
::* I was thinking pretty much what Cid said. Without a citation, this is speculation and original research.
 
::* The incite covers both sentences. If a citation cannot be found both should be removed.
 
::* If you hover your mouse over an incite tag (or look at it in edit mode), there (may) be a comment stating what is required. This is a more recent feature, but most tags I add (like this one) have such a comment.
 
 
::Thanks. &ndash; [[User:Cleanse|Cleanse]] <small><sup>( [[User talk:Cleanse|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Cleanse|contribs]] )</sup></small> 22:42, October 21, 2010 (UTC)
 
 
::There we go; I found a citation. In ''[[Captains' Logs: The Unauthorized Complete Trek Voyages]]'', p. 179, [[Melinda Snodgrass]] states "''The Borg are in many ways Maurice Hurley's. It was his script and he was coping with creating this new villain. We kicked around a lot of different ideas and I realized that what we were really kind of describing was cyberpunk, so I talked a bit about that movement in science fiction, the idea of augmenting humanity.''"
 
 
::That last bit sounds like transhumanism to me. ;-)&ndash; [[User:Cleanse|Cleanse]] <small><sup>( [[User talk:Cleanse|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Cleanse|contribs]] )</sup></small> 03:04, October 22, 2010 (UTC)
 
 
Cool, '''Cleanse'''; great sleuthing! I was going to weigh-in again before you did this, but I think there's really only one remaining issue/question for me: AFAIK, "'''Transhumanism'''" did not exist as an explicit philosophy ''per se'' back when Hurley created the Borg. I'm "afraid" we might be guilty of employing an anachronistic analogy. Certainly ''now/today'' the Borg's philosophy has some commonalities with Transhumanism, but I highly doubt Hurley had Transhumanism in mind when he created the Borg.
 
 
And initially, IIRC, Hurley et al. had wanted the Borg to be a more insectisoidal-type race but had to eschew that because of budget reasons (reading about how hastily and haphazardly the first Borg were designed is quite interesting, especially compared to their change in appearance in FC and VOY.). One big difference is the idea of the "hive mind", though it's often referred to as a  "collective consciousness", which is ''clearly'' analogous to Transhumanism gone awry (ie, our networked minds losing autonomy and rendering us "drones" designed to serve an out-of-control AI). 
 
 
So how do you think we should handle this? Maybe it's not a problem at all (I'm not sure it is.). But I ''do'' believe Transhumanism was not technically on Hurley's mind. Then again, the Borg evolved over the course of ''Trek'' and were around towards the inchoate stages of Transhumanist philosophy. Should we at least insert a line noting the Borg concept anticipated Transhumanism (in only some ways, of course!)?
 
 
Thanks again, '''Cleanse'''. I'm excited about getting this article in decent shape. It's my first attempt to help do so, and thanks to you and some other great admins ('''Sulfur, Defiant, Cid'''), I believe (or hope) I'm learning to become a positive MA contributor through this.
 
 
Best regards, --[[User:Cepstrum|Cepstrum]] 13:19, October 22, 2010 (UTC)
 
'''PS I'm sorry I couldn't see your first citation-needed explanation: I'm forced to use a mobile device, so I have no mouse that can "hover" over the tag to reveal anything. *_*'''
 
 
Oops: sorry, '''Cleanse'''! After carefully reading your new text, I see you'd largely addressed the concerns I noted above. There is still the issue of whether Transhumanism deserves a mention ''in the context'' of the genesis of the Borg's creation. Also, I think it would be good and look "cleaner" if we made your notes under a sub-section (possibly on initial impetus and concepts that generated the Borg and their philosophy) to separate it from the text that immediately follows it. I also think we should swap the order of the last two paragraphs. I think ending with a brief sub-section that contains your text would improve the prose &ndash; it seems like a fitting conclusion to the Borg's philosophy. As it is, the very last paragraph seems a little out-of-place, especially considering your text is a big departure from the rest of the article as it shifts to discussing production notes and real-world parallels.
 
 
Would you (or anyone) object to such a move and sub-section creation? I'll "be bold" and do it myself, but not until I've given others a chance/time to object (and you can always revert it!). --[[User:Cepstrum|Cepstrum]] 13:33, October 22, 2010 (UTC)
 
 
::To address your concerns:
 
 
::* Note that it was [[Melinda Snodgrass]] who stated that she brought up that "''movement in science fiction, the idea of augmenting humanity''". While Hurley might not have thought of it in the first place, Snodgrass suggests it was brought to his attention in discussions among the writing staff.
 
::* I don't know much about the history of transhumanism, but according to Wikipedia it existed and had a name prior to 1989. Maybe it wasn't well-known generally, but it was certainly present in the cyberpunk genre of sci-fi Snodgrass cites. If you're really concerned about this point we could quote Snodgrass directly.
 
::* There's nothing inconsistent with being inspired by both insects and cyberpunk/"augmenting humanity" (according to Snodgrass they considered many ideas); the writers were most concerned with making a cool villain, and it seems to me they wanted to combine several different philosophies to achieve that goal. 
 
::* Sub-sections aren't really unnecessary in a background section that is only a few paragraphs. I like to keep statements that have citations above more observational/continuity notes. It's also a bit of a chronological conceit - the note I wrote discusses the creation of the Borg, whereas the other one discusses an inconsistency that arose later.
 
::* Background sections are meant to be a "big departure" from the rest of the article - they're real-world while the rest is in-universe.
 
::* Sorry, I was unaware the incite hover text didn't work on mobiles.
 
::* You don't have to put my or anyone else's name in bold. :-)
 
 
::Regards, [[User:Cleanse|Cleanse]] <small><sup>( [[User talk:Cleanse|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Cleanse|contribs]] )</sup></small> 01:46, October 23, 2010 (UTC)
 
 
[[User:Cleanse|Cleanse]],
 
 
Consider me mollified! I appreciate your thorough, point-by-point arguments. I'll weigh in:
 
* I think it'd be best ''not'' to mention the genesis of the Borg (insectoids-turned-humanoid for budget reasons) &ndash; that belongs in a ''Borg'' article, not a ''Borg philosophy'' one.
 
* I ''really'' wish we could put in sub-section headings to both make it look more organized and clearer to the reader (and for future expansion). But that's just my ''own'' preference; you're doubtless correct given your experience. I defer to your judgment. :)
 
* I think we should add the antecedent adjective "dystopian" before "cyberpunk". In the 1980s, aside from ''Trek'', it was almost all dystopian (cybernetics, augmentation, and AI) making a mess of things. I think it's clear the Borg reflected that. The external link to cyberpunk will make that clear, but it saves the reader trouble if we preface it with "dystopian", IMO.
 
* I think we must excise the word "restlessness". I've no idea what that could mean, and it wasn't in the quote you cited from Snodgrass.
 
* I still disagree with putting the Transhumanism paragraph before the final stuff, but again, that's just my ''personal'' preference: I have no doubt you are right in keeping the order (after all, this is really just the second article I've been involved in, and you're a veteran admin!)
 
* You didn't mention this, but I like how you removed extraneous discussion of Transhumanism vis-á-vis Borg assimilation-through-force. I ''highly'' doubt anyone would confuse the two and think the Transhumanists are going to start assimilating people against their will (though many are either skeptical from a scientific POV or simply afraid of Transhumanism, similar to how some are afraid of RFIDs, vaccines, fluoridation, etc.)
 
* Because Transhumanism ''per se'' wasn't referred to, and I highly doubt it was explicitly known to those folks (especially its more modern and common position since the computer/Internet revolution in the 1990s), could we instead say something like, "...dystopian cyberpunk and, indirectly, Transhumanist philosophy."  ???
 
* I have read a lot more background material on the creation of the Borg, such as from the artists responsible for creating the Borg design and who talked about Hurly's ideas. I could probably dig up some quotes from interviews, but that'd take time and likely not be worth it. Thoughts?
 
* About the "hovering" thing; that's funny. I'm having enough trouble customizing my mobile CSS (I don't know CSS markup), and for quite a while Wikia's constant changes made even ''reading'' MA essentially impossible. Things are improving now. I must use an iPod touch because of multiple life-threatening health issues that keep me in bed. I was rushed to the ER last Friday but got discharged a couple days ago. I'm facing a very long struggle with debilitating, life-threatening conditions. I wish I could use a real computer. (Editing on an iPod is a '''huge''' and laborious chore.)
 
* I won't '''bold''' your name anymore if it causes offense; I was actually doing it out of politeness in an attempt to highlight your importance as a person instead of just a word. On the TrekBBS,  they usually do that. It also helps make it clearer which users I'm addressing. But I'll stop! Sorry.
 
 
I look forward to hearing your feedback on the few questions and things I'd like to change/add.
 
 
But I must reiterate: ''very cool job'' transforming a section I never really liked. (I retained it from the version of the article before I began my massive revamp attempt.)
 
 
I would like to continue improving the article, but there's just one remaining ''pressing'' issue: getting it out of ignominious "cramped references" category.
 
 
Thanks again!
 
 
Best regards,
 
--[[User:Cepstrum|Cepstrum]] 12:50, October 23, 2010 (UTC)
 
 
:Sorry, I missed your last comment until now.
 
 
:You're right that most of the "creation of the Borg" info belongs on their page, not here. I was merely rewriting the whole Transhumanism note because it was here in the first place. But since it does relate to their philosophy, I don't see the harm having it here. Any more info about their creation (e.g. their look etc.) can go on the [[Borg]] page and {{e|Q Who}} (both of which have a bit of info already, but more cited stuff is always good :-).
 
 
:You can add "dystopian" to "cyberpunk" you want, but it seems a bit redundant to me.
 
 
:The word I used was "relentlessness" rather than "restlessness". It is a real word ('the condition of being relentless'), and it was the word [[Maurice Hurley]] used in a quote from the same book which I paraphrased for the purposes of the page.
 
 
:No, I wasn't offended in the slightest by having my named in bold. It was just unnecessary. ;-)
 
 
:Good luck on the article, and I wish you the best of health. &ndash; [[User:Cleanse|Cleanse]] <small><sup>( [[User talk:Cleanse|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Cleanse|contribs]] )</sup></small> 00:56, October 30, 2010 (UTC)
 
 
== What in the ''world'' does this mean?! ==
 
 
Hi, again.
 
 
I'm really wanting to make this a good article (not so presumptuous to be a FA or even literal GA, just decent). I rewrote quite a bit, and several others (Sulfur, Defiant, Cleanse &ndash; sorry if I'm forgetting anyone) have made big improvements after my initial work.  Anyway, there is this "leftover" quote that existed before I started working on the article. I didn't remove it, for I assumed it must be in there for a good reason. I ''did'' add a background statement immediately after that obliquely expressed my puzzlement. But now I'm questioning whether it belongs at all. I have '''NO''' idea what it means, its purpose, or relevance to the article. Can someone either explain why it's useful or support my inclination to remove/rewrite it? Here it is:
 
 
:''When summarizing their worldview and its effects in a general terminology, the entity [[Q]] described the Borg as "the ultimate users," and their chosen targets for assimilation as things "they can consume."'' ({{TNG|Q Who}}; {{film|8}})
 
 
:{{bginfo|It is unclear what Q meant by "ultimate users". In addition, the Borg later seemed to change their goal of assimilating that which "they can consume" to a much more discriminating selection process. This could be explained by the time lag between the events in {{e|Q Who}} and {{e|Mortal Coil}} and a subsequent change in the Borg's philosophy and/or assimilation techniques.}}
 
 
Thanks, guys!
 
 
Best regards,
 
-[[User:Cepstrum|<span style="color:rgb(125,200,50);">'''Cepstrum'''</span>]] <sup>[[User Talk:Cepstrum|<span style="color:rgb(0,150,255);">(talk)</span>]]</sup> 14:10, October 29, 2010 (UTC)
 
 
==Seven and irrelevance==
 
I think it could be somewhat interesting to find out how many times [[Seven of Nine]] declares something "irrelevant". Most of the time it's in the middle of an argument or debate, and therefore not necessarily relevant to Borg philosophy on the whole, but perhaps being in the Collective so long influenced Seven's thinking process to consider viewpoints other than her own, or matters she hadn't considered, to be "irrelevant". Could such a list ever be placed somewhere on this site or would it be too "nitpicky"? [[Special:Contributions/75.112.55.167|75.112.55.167]] 17:23, April 24, 2017 (UTC)
 
  Loading editor