In the weeks since ENT ended I have absorbed myself with all the informed commentary (you know who you are) on the past season largely acknowledging success. The only possible pea in the mattress remains that temporal trick tucked in the end, there necessary as too much perfume, just another cursed and re-cursed reset button. This represents disillusionment with the optimistic promise a real "star trek" offers, vitiating our blossoming wonder with a lazy ad hoc cock-tease which more properly founded might otherwise boldly endure.

TOS brings that wonder home episode after episode. There our best representatives of spirit and determination make the trip while our venal side stays uninteresting. The underlying constant admission was that the real responsibilities of the mission were indelible, difficult if not impossible to redo. No reset buttons - dead red shirts stayed dead. (Anybody remind me of any obvious transgression worse than say, "The Naked Time.")

Anyway, TNG then brought in the mildly annoying Q with his bag of mildly annoying resets. At that point I consoled myself simply detesting the character so I'd rather not summon that same objection. Thus here's my new one: Resets sap dramatic tension from an otherwise good story, leaving what's left to float exclusively on strength of character(s). Fortunately the "Enterprise" characters are cool, and their aptitude capable of masking great deficiencies. Should they suffer however, clearly nothing remains for support.

Daniels died, then he didn't (is his first name Kenny? "They killed Daniels! The bastards!"); of course maybe we can kill him two or three more times before it wears out. Not! Forget this ephemeral narrative to feature the extraterrestrial challenge. Highlight our mutual hope that Archer's wind brings change in our favor, and that perseverance is best in the search for the actualization of our kind. No sense in fooling again that it's not.

Not all fooling is foolishness. Under certain circumstances humans definitely enjoy being fooled; many times they call it "entertainment." To make a point of it, aren't we all here together now [virtually] because of those several streams of images (read: illusions) featuring a bunch of gifted actors playing foolie aboard their "starship?"

Such a claim has limits, of course, just as each game has rules. The entertainer and the entertained understand tacitly that any material they exchange has value. The entertainer provides worthy accomplishment for the worthy consideration of the entertained. Positively or negatively, criticism becomes an undeniable emolument of accomplishment. Without that understanding little is achieved except a waste of time.