Carriers in Star Trek

[Prometheus Unbound]

Are you autistic?

[WATCH-MAN]

Are you autistic?

An often used tactic of a person who is not able to deal with arguments - attacking the person who has made the argument as if this would refute the argument. I could now ask: Are you an imbecile using such an imbecile tactic? But I won't as this leads to nothing and as I am already convinced to know the answer to that question.

[Prometheus Unbound]

Are you autistic?

An often used tactic of a person who is not able to deal with arguments - attacking the person who has made the argument as if this would refute the argument. I could now ask: Are you an imbecile using such an imbecile tactic? But I won't as this leads to nothing and as I am already convinced to know the answer to that question.

Actually I was wondering if it was worth restructuring the argument as you don't seem to be understanding what everyone else is saying - something that happens in a lot of threads where you post.

So I was asking to see if there was a way it could be rephrased or something that might help.


But given this response, I'll not bother making an effort.



Also I've not had to "deal with arguments" nor attacked you to refute anything. In fact I think this is the first time this thread (certainly the last few pages - and I cba to check further back) I've directly addressed you. I've made no arguments for or against anything you've said - only asked if you have issues when discussing a subject with other people - because you seem to get very angry very quickly, and get condescending.



Which you clearly do - given your reply to me - you immediately jump to the assumption that Ive somehow lost an argument with you and you get all sarcastic in my face trying to show how I've not brought you down with "that old trick" when actually you and I were never arguing.

As someone else said to you - maybe you should bother reading entire posts and looking at context before you shout your mouth off.

[WATCH-MAN]

According to Wikipedia,

• • Stardates were revised for Star Trek: The Next Generation and all the subsequent shows and movies set in the same era. They were described as follows in Star Trek: The Next Generation Writer's/Director's Guide of March 23, 1987 (p. 13):
    
    • • A stardate is a five-digit number followed by a decimal point and one more digit. Example: "41254.7." The first two digits of the stardate are always "41." The 4 stands for 24th century, the 1 indicates first season. The additional three leading digits will progress unevenly during the course of the season from 000 to 999. The digit following the decimal point is generally regarded as a day counter.
    Stardates of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine began with 46379.1, corresponding to the sixth season of Star Trek: The Next Generation [...]. Star Trek: Voyager began with stardate 48315.6 [...], one season after TNG had finished its seventh and final season. As in TNG, the second digit would increase by one every season, while the initial two digits eventually rolled over from 49 to 50, despite [...] still being in the 24th century. Star Trek: Nemesis was set around stardate 56844.9.

If this is correct - as I do not have the Star Trek: The Next Generation Writer's/Director's Guide, I could not verify it but I'm inclined to believe that this is correct - there is no way to convert stardates into dates of the Gregorian calender.

And if they are using only stardates in the movies and shows and are not mentioning dates of the Gregorian calender, we have no way to know, at which date of the Gregorian calender something happened. All we have is the stardate.

From what Kirk said at the end of "Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country", ...

• • Captain's log, U.S.S. Enterprise, stardate 9529.1. This is the final cruise of the Starship Enterprise under my command. This ship and her history will shortly become the care of another crew. To them and their posterity will we commit our future. They will continue the voyages we have begun and journey to all the undiscovered countries, boldly going where no man, where no one, ...has gone before.

... we know that the battle of Khitomere happened around stardate 9529.1. But there is no way to convert this stardate into a date of the Gregorian calender and - as far as I know - no date of the Gregorian calender was mentioned in the movie or show.

And as far as I know, in the movie "Star Trek Generations", neither a stardate nor a date of the Gregorian calender was mentioned for the commissioning of the Enterprise B and nowhere else in Star Trek canon was ever mentioned when the Enterprise B was commissioned.

A dedication plaque is mentioned e.g. in Memory Alpha according to which the Enterprise-B was commissioned at stardate 9715.5. But Memory Alpha has neither a picture of this dedication plaque taken from a canon source nor is it giving any sources from which it has the information. And as I haven't seen this dedication plaque in the movie "Star Trek Generations", I have no way to verify what Memory Alpha claims. It could be an out-of-universe information coming from someone who worked on the movie, that was mistakenly treated as a canonical information and repeated so often that nobody has questioned its canonical status. But that nobody has questioned its canonical status doesn't mean that it is canon.

But even if the stardate 9715.5 is assumed to be a canonical information, we still have not way to convert it into a date of the Gregorian calender.

We still wouldn't know how much time has passed between the stardates 9529.1 and 9715.5.



If there is anything wrong with this reasoning, feel free to explain what is wrong and why it is wrong.

[Prometheus Unbound]

If this is correct - as I do not have the Star Trek: The Next Generation Writer's/Director's Guide, I could not verify it but I'm inclined to believe that this is correct - there is no way to convert stardates into dates of the Gregorian calender.

Not for TOS, no - it's all over the place.

TNG onwards, it's 1000 stardates per solar year. This much is obvious if you look at the stardates said at the start of a season and at the end of a season. BOBW happened over a new year - it was 2366 in part 1 and 2367 in part 2. Same for other two-parters.

[WATCH-MAN]

Are you autistic?

An often used tactic of a person who is not able to deal with arguments - attacking the person who has made the argument as if this would refute the argument. I could now ask: Are you an imbecile using such an imbecile tactic? But I won't as this leads to nothing and as I am already convinced to know the answer to that question.

Actually I was wondering if it was worth restructuring the argument as you don't seem to be understanding what everyone else is saying - something that happens in a lot of threads where you post.

So I was asking to see if there was a way it could be rephrased or something that might help.

You are asking me if I am autistic and then you claim that all you did was wondering if it was worth restructuring the argument as you think that I do not understand what everyone else is saying.

Maybe I misunderstood the meaning of the word "autistic".

Also I've not had to "deal with arguments" nor attacked you to refute anything. In fact I think this is the first time this thread (certainly the last few pages - and I cba to check further back) I've directly addressed you.

And in your first post addressed at me, you are asking me if I am autistic? And this was not supposed to be an attack?

I've made no arguments for or against anything you've said - only asked if you have issues when discussing a subject with other people.

Why not asking exactly this if that is what you wanted to know?

Why asking if I'm autistic?

Is me possibly being autistic the only possible explanation or the most probably explanation for me supposedly having issues when discussing a subject with other people?

[WATCH-MAN]

• • - deleted -

[WATCH-MAN]

According to Wikipedia,

• • Stardates were revised for Star Trek: The Next Generation and all the subsequent shows and movies set in the same era. [...]

If this is correct - as I do not have the Star Trek: The Next Generation Writer's/Director's Guide, I could not verify it but I'm inclined to believe that this is correct - there is no way to convert stardates into dates of the Gregorian calender.

Not for TOS, no - it's all over the place.

Wonderful.

I talked only about the stardates revised for Star Trek: The Next Generation and all the subsequent shows and movies set in the same era. This excludes stardates for TOS.

And more important: If the stardates of TOS are all over the place, it doesn't change the fact that they can not be converted into dates of the Gregorian calender.

And you are claiming that I am the one who has a problem with understanding what everyone else is saying.

[WATCH-MAN]

TNG onwards, it's 1000 stardates per solar year. This much is obvious if you look at the stardates said at the start of a season and at the end of a season. BOBW happened over a new year - it was 2366 in part 1 and 2367 in part 2. Same for other two-parters.

Please provide evidence for this.

Please provide evidence that BOBW happened at 2366/2367 of the Gregorian Calender. Were these dates mentioned in the episodes?

Please provide evidence that a season in real time equals a year in Star Trek time. The events depicted in the episodes from one season could have happened in a time longer or shorter than one year.

[Prometheus Unbound]

Is me possibly being autistic the only possible explanation or the most probably explanation for me supposedly having issues when discussing a subject with other people?

No, you could just be an ass hole I suppose.

[Prometheus Unbound]

Please provide evidence that BOBW happened at 2366/2367 of the Gregorian Calender. Were these dates mentioned in the episodes?

Yes, Captain picard at the start of TBOBW wishes everyone a happy new year's eve and the party is interrupted by a Cube.

It's the published dates ... in books, the tech manual, the STTNG companion, Memory Alpha, Wiki...

7 seasons and 7 years... the start of a season is 4x000.x and the final episodes are 4x999.9. When Picard says he's been commanding the Enterprise for "over three years" in (I think) The Drumhead... he's been commanding the Enterprise for over three seasons...

It's not really a difficult leap to make.



If you are asking is there a direct quote where Janeway says "Hey Chakotay, a solar earth year on the gregorian calendar is 1000 stardates, right?" the answer is "no."

[WATCH-MAN]

Alone in the epsiodes from the first season, Enterprise D visited at least

• Deneb IV, Ligon II,
• the Delphi Ardu system,
• the Beta Renner system,
• the Edo system,
• the Xendi Sabu star system,
• the Sigma III system,
• the planet Beta Cassius, known as Haven,
• the planet Omicron Theta,
• the planet Angel I,
• the planet Tarsas III,
• the planet Bynaus,
• the planet Persephone V,
• the planet Mordan IV,
• the planet Aldea,
• the planet Velara III,
• the Pleiades Cluster,
• the planet Relva VII,
• the planet Minos in the Lorenze Cluster,
• the Delos system,
• the planet Ornara,
• the planet Vagra II,
• the planet Pegos Minor,
• the planet Dytallix B,
• Earth and
• the Neutral zone.

Is it plausible that all this has happened within one year?

[Prometheus Unbound]

Alone in the epsiodes from the first season, Enterprise D visited at least

• Deneb IV, Ligon II,
• the Delphi Ardu system,
• the Beta Renner system,
• the Edo system,
• the Xendi Sabu star system,
• the Sigma III system,
• the planet Beta Cassius, known as Haven,
• the planet Omicron Theta,
• the planet Angel I,
• the planet Tarsas III,
• the planet Bynaus,
• the planet Persephone V,
• the planet Mordan IV,
• the planet Aldea,
• the planet Velara III,
• the Pleiades Cluster,
• the planet Relva VII,
• the planet Minos in the Lorenze Cluster,
• the Delos system,
• the planet Ornara,
• the planet Vagra II,
• the planet Pegos Minor,
• the planet Dytallix B,
• Earth and
• the Neutral zone.

Is it plausible that all this has happened within one year?

Yup.

[WATCH-MAN]

Is me possibly being autistic the only possible explanation or the most probably explanation for me supposedly having issues when discussing a subject with other people?

No, you could just be an ass hole I suppose.

False dilemma - if you really think that this is the only alternative.

Or again an attack on my person while ignoring the argument.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Hey, Watch-Man, I thought you didn't accept Wikipedia etc as evidence, so why are you quoting them about stardates? I thought you only cared about cannonical evidence etc.

Anyways. The stardates given in Generations for the TNG-era part are 48xxx.x. Which implies it's the year after TNG's last season, which implies 2371. The film clearly states that the TNG part was "78 years" later than the E-B parts, which puts the E-B's first mission in 2293.

And honestly, Word of God (i.e., what the writers have stated) is acceptable enough for these minor details. We know from TUC that the E-A was to be decommissioned immediately afterwards, despite Kirk taking the scenic route home, so less than a year passing before the E-B being launched is reasonable.

[Lord Revan]

Hey, Watch-Man, I thought you didn't accept Wikipedia etc as evidence, so why are you quoting them about stardates? I thought you only cared about cannonical evidence etc.

Anyways. The stardates given in Generations for the TNG-era part are 48xxx.x. Which implies it's the year after TNG's last season, which implies 2371. The film clearly states that the TNG part was "78 years" later than the E-B parts, which puts the E-B's first mission in 2293.

And honestly, Word of God (i.e., what the writers have stated) is acceptable enough for these minor details. We know from TUC that the E-A was to be decommissioned immediately afterwards, despite Kirk taking the scenic route home, so less than a year passing before the E-B being launched is reasonable.

If there truly is "78 years after" tag in generations then it would mean that the combinied service time of E-B and E-C cannot be more then 71 years (more like likely 70) seeing as unless WATCH-MAN wan't to argue that TNG lasted less the 7 years in-universe. 35 years per ship seems reasonble enough, obviously that's average not an accurate estimate as for an accurate estimate we'd need to know the exact decommishing date of E-B and the exact launch date of E-C

[WATCH-MAN]

Hey, Watch-Man, I thought you didn't accept Wikipedia etc as evidence, so why are you quoting them about stardates? I thought you only cared about cannonical evidence etc.

Anyways. The stardates given in Generations for the TNG-era part are 48xxx.x. Which implies it's the year after TNG's last season, which implies 2371. The film clearly states that the TNG part was "78 years" later than the E-B parts, which puts the E-B's first mission in 2293.

And honestly, Word of God (i.e., what the writers have stated) is acceptable enough for these minor details. We know from TUC that the E-A was to be decommissioned immediately afterwards, despite Kirk taking the scenic route home, so less than a year passing before the E-B being launched is reasonable.

A nearly useless post as quite obviously nothing of what was already argued was considered when writing this post. Replying to this post would only necessitate to to repeat what was already argued.

The only useful contribution to this debate is the allusion to the fact, that the battle of Veridian III and the events that resulted in it happened 78 years after the commissioning of the Enterprise-B.

[WATCH-MAN]

If there truly is "78 years after" tag in generations ...

Maybe you should watch Star Trek before participating in debates about it.

then it would mean that the combinied service time of E-B and E-C cannot be more then 71 years (more like likely 70) seeing as unless WATCH-MAN wan't to argue that TNG lasted less the 7 years in-universe. 35 years per ship seems reasonble enough, obviously that's average not an accurate estimate as for an accurate estimate we'd need to know the exact decommishing date of E-B and the exact launch date of E-C

As far as I know, we do not know what happened with the Enterprise-B. It is possible that the Enterprise-B was never decommissioned but destroyed, as the Enterprise-C and the Enterprise-D were not decommissioned but destroyed. It is possible that, as the Enterprise-D, both ships, the Enterpise-B and the Enterprise-C, never reached the age for which they were build. The Enterprise-D only lasted 7 to 8 years. And if one accepts the years mentioned in Memory Alpha - I do not - but you are - the Enterprise A was commissioned in 2286 and due to be retired in 2293. With other words - accepting this - the Enterprise-A was only 7 years old when it was decommissioned. Insofar I wouldn't call 35 years per ship "reasonable enough".

[Prometheus Unbound]

Hey, Watch-Man, I thought you didn't accept Wikipedia etc as evidence, so why are you quoting them about stardates? I thought you only cared about cannonical evidence etc.

Anyways. The stardates given in Generations for the TNG-era part are 48xxx.x. Which implies it's the year after TNG's last season, which implies 2371. The film clearly states that the TNG part was "78 years" later than the E-B parts, which puts the E-B's first mission in 2293.

And honestly, Word of God (i.e., what the writers have stated) is acceptable enough for these minor details. We know from TUC that the E-A was to be decommissioned immediately afterwards, despite Kirk taking the scenic route home, so less than a year passing before the E-B being launched is reasonable.

If there truly is "78 years after" tag in generations then it would mean that the combinied service time of E-B and E-C cannot be more then 71 years (more like likely 70) seeing as unless WATCH-MAN wan't to argue that TNG lasted less the 7 years in-universe. 35 years per ship seems reasonble enough, obviously that's average not an accurate estimate as for an accurate estimate we'd need to know the exact decommishing date of E-B and the exact launch date of E-C

Mmmmmmm

Thank you - you just reminded me about the 7 years.

"... Ferengi in a gorilla suit has to leave"
"What?"
"During the Farpoint mission. You made the joke. That was the punchline.
"Data that was... that was... seven years ago."
"I know! I just got it! Very! Funny!"


Enc @ Farpoint: Personal Log, Commander William Riker, Stardate 41153.7

All Good Things:
Picard: The Date, I need to know the exact date.
Troi: Stardate 47988...

Generations is set just after it...

Seven years, Seven seasons, with 7000 stardates apart, roughly.


A year is 1000 stardates. In TNG onwards.

[WATCH-MAN]

Mmmmmmm

Thank you - you just reminded me about the 7 years.

"... Ferengi in a gorilla suit has to leave"
"What?"
"During the Farpoint mission. You made the joke. That was the punchline.
"Data that was... that was... seven years ago."
"I know! I just got it! Very! Funny!"


Enc @ Farpoint: Personal Log, Commander William Riker, Stardate 41153.7

All Good Things:
Picard: The Date, I need to know the exact date.
Troi: Stardate 47988...

Generations is set just after it...

Seven years, Seven seasons, with 7000 stardates apart, roughly.


A year is 1000 stardates. In TNG onwards.

You just admitted that you haven't read what I had already written:

I already wrote here, not 8 hours ago:

• • In the TNG episode "Yesterday's Enterprise", the Enterprise-C was presumed destroyed more than twenty years previous. The TNG episode "Yesterday's Enterprise" was in the third season of TNG. In "Star Trek Generations", Data begins to laugh about a joke, that Geordi told Riker during the Farpoint mission (The clown can stay ... but the Ferengi in the gorilla suit has to go.) and Geordi responses that this was seven years ago. As the Enterprise D was nearly new when Picard took command after the Final systems completion and shakedown, we can conclude that Enterprise-D was a little bit about seven years old in "Star Trek Generations" - after 7 seasons - and that the Enterprise-D from the TNG episode "Yesterday's Enterprise" wasn't much older than that. That leaves round about 14 years between the destruction of the Enterprise-C and the commissioning of the Enterprise-D.

If you had read and contemplated this, you wouldn't have to be reminded.

That's the reason why we are going round in circles.

[Crazedwraith]

This thread is just the most bizarre set of tangents ever. What exactly are we arguing now?

I think it's pretty much proven from canon. When TNG was and when the E-B was commissioned. So what is under discussion? Can someone nail down the exact time TUC was set? I recall there's a clock prominent in a few scenes on the EA's bridge. Did it have a real date?

I don't see what the E-C has to do with anything? Is anyone disputing there wasn't a big gap between it's demise and the ED's commissioning?

[Lord Revan]

E-C is important in that its very existance sets a limit to how far into the future you can push generations before we hit the known launch date of E-D that said I haven't got faintest clue what WATCH-MAN is on about (again) but then that's not special.

[WATCH-MAN]

It started with EnterpriseSovereign saying: "The daft thing is, they didn't even need to destroy the E-D to make way for the Ent-E: in the previous film no less they decommissioned the Ent-A after it was shot up by the Klingons!"

I replied: "Maybe you should watch the movie again. At the end of "The Undiscovered Country", Kirk dictated: "Captain's log, U.S.S. Enterprise, stardate 9529.1. This is the final cruise of the Starship Enterprise under my command. This ship and her history will shortly become the care of another crew. To them and their posterity will we commit our future. They will continue the voyages we have begun and journey to all the undiscovered countries, boldly going where no man, where no one, ...has gone before. ""

To which EnterpriseSovereign replied: "As for the Ent-A, Following the Khitomer mission, the Enterprise was ordered by Starfleet Command to return to spacedock to be decommissioned. In spite of this, Captain Kirk ordered the ship on course to the "second star to the right, ...and straight on 'til morning."."

and Eternal_Freedom argued: "More pertinent to the E-A's immediate decommissioning is that the E-B was commissioned that same year (2293); TUC has a stardate given of 9521.6 while the E-B's dedication plaque in Generations gives 9715.5, so it took Starfleet at most eleven months to decommission A and commisdion B."

Answering to what EnterpriseSovereign wrote, I argued: ""We have two contrary statements. Uhura who said that they have orders from Starfleet Command, that they are to put back into Spacedock immediately, ...to be decommissioned. And Captain Kirk, who said that this ship will become the care of another crew and that this crew will continue the voyages and journey to all the undiscovered countries, boldly going where no man, where no one, ...has gone before. And at the beginning of the film, Kirk stated that this crew was due to stand down in three months? They have done their bit for King and Country. Insofar I always interpreted this as that not the ship was to be decommissioned but the crew. This impression was also caused as in the German translation in which they used the word "auszumustern".

And to what Eternal_Freedom wrote, I replied: "As far as I know, in the movie Generations it wasn't mentioned when the Enterprise B was commissioned and a dedication plaque wasn't shown. And I couldn't find an image from the dedication plaque of the Enterprise B. I have to ask you to provide evidence that the Enterprise B was commissioned at stardate 9715.5 and that there is a dedication plaque that shows this. And then please explain why the difference between stardate 9521.6 and stardate 9715.5 is supposed to be eleven months?"

The Simon_Jester intervened by writing: "When a new ship is commissioned, the old ship of that name is retired or renamed. Since literally every other Enterprise hull was built only after the previous one was destroyed or otherwise removed from service, it is reasonable to suppose that the Enterpise-A was decommissioned in 2293 prior to the commissioning of the Enterprise-B."

to which I replied: "Only if you can provide evidence that the Enterprise-B was commissioned in 2293 of the Gregorian calendar or that the ship was commissioned at stardate 9715.5 and that this stardate means year 2293 of the Gregorian calendar."

Simon_Jester ignored my demand for evidence by accusing me to be a chatbot: "Are you a chatbot? That's the third time you've used almost exactly the same phrasing. It's not like your request wasn't clear the first time. The problem is that you are too stupid to recognize when others are making factual claims like "three plus four is seven" and mindlessly spam demands for 'evidence' as a way of dragging out the discussion unnecessarily."

I asked him since when it is a factual claim like "three plus four is seven", that the Battle of Khitomer happened in the year 2293.

He ignored this question.

Instead Prometheus Unbound asked me if I am autistic.

When I explained how the stardates used in TNG and after were created, ...

... he replied that this does not apply to TOS.

The rest you can read on this page.

[Crazedwraith]

So yeah a bizarre tangent. A summary would have sufficed, rather than a wall of links.

To pare it back to basics. There's no evidence the E-A was ever used after TUC. And there's only a contradiction between Uhura and Kirk if you assume Kirk was speaking 100% literally and accurately. He was basically meant the name and legacy of the Enterprise would go on with the E-B,C,D etc, not that the literal same hull was going to be re-staffed. Especially with the E-B reporter making it clear it's remarkable there's an Enterprise not commanded by Kirk.

Ir's canonically demonstrated when the E-B was commissioned so the only nail in the coffin left needed is a precise confirmation of when TUC took place.

[WATCH-MAN]

So yeah a bizarre tangent. A summary would have sufficed, rather than a wall of links.

Maybe you are right. But with providing links, you can read what exactly was said.

To pare it back to basics. There's no evidence the E-A was ever used after TUC. And there's only a contradiction between Uhura and Kirk if you assume Kirk was speaking 100% literally and accurately. He was basically meant the name and legacy of the Enterprise would go on with the E-B,C,D etc, not that the literal same hull was going to be re-staffed.

While this is quite possible, it is possible as well that Uhura wasn't speaking 100% literally and accurately.

Especially with the E-B reporter making it clear it's remarkable there's an Enterprise not commanded by Kirk.

We argued already about the reporter:

• • And yet we have a reporter comment 'this is the first starship Enterprise without James T. Kirk in command in 30 years' so I'd say the time that passed between TUC and GEN is at best...in need of further scrutiny.

    Captain Decker was Captain of the Enterprise in "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" and Spock was Captain of the Enterprise in "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan" while Admiral Kirk was only on an inspection and took command in both movies only because there was an emergency. As far as I know - we do not know how long he was already Admiral and had not the command of the Enterprise. He got it back only after he was demoted in "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home".
    
    As Khan explained to Captain Terrel in "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan", he and his crew were marooned on Ceti Alpha V fifteen years ago - although he may refer to Ceti Alpha V years and not Earth years.
    
    As far as I know, we do not know how old Kirk was, when he marooned Khan and his crew on Ceti Alpha V and - although we know that Kirk had his birthday shortly before the Enterprise started in "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan" - we don't know which birthday.
    
    If we assume that he took command of the Enterprise when he was round about 30 years old (the TOS epsode "Where No Man Has Gone Before" was filmed 1965; William Shatner was 34 years old then) and he marooned Khan and his crew on Ceti Alpha V five years later and that Khan meant Earth years, Kirk was round about 50 years old when "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan" happened. If 30 years passed since then, he would have been round about 90 years old when the Enterprise-B was commissioned.
    
    If it is correct, that the Enterprise-B was commissioned in the same year the battle against General Chang's ship took place, it means that Kirk was round about 90 years old then. And he was due to stand down in three months at the beginning of the movie "Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country".

    Alternatively, the reporter was just plain incorrect, which happens quite easily and quite often.
    
    Use Occam's Razor for a change!
    
    Which is more likely, a random thirty year time-skip between movies where the cast only ages three or four years between films? One in which the Enterprise command team all stay in charge of the same positions on the ship and do not leave...
    
    ...Or a reporter just plain being wrong about the idea that no Enterprise has ever been commanded by anyone but Kirk?
    
    Or for that matter, a reporter who knows everything but is speaking imprecisely, and simply means "this is the first starship Enterprise to enter active service, in thirty years, which has never at any time been commanded by Kirk" or some such?

Ir's canonically demonstrated when the E-B was commissioned so the only nail in the coffin left needed is a precise confirmation of when TUC took place.

It is not. If you watch "Star Trek Generations", you will see that not even a stardate is mentioned regarding the commission of the Enterprise B - while there is a stardate mentioned in the last log entry Kirk made in "Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country".