Some interesting theories, especially the idea that, by visiting the Kaylon world, the Union pushed up the timetable for the Kaylons’ plans for them.

The Borg went to Earth only after the Federation had proved itself able to resist and even defeat the Borg in battle.

It seems that a customer at one of these places cannot be expected to know that the person from whom he is receiving a sex act is not a willing worker, but rather someone who has been trafficked.

You you correctly note that I overlooked the fleet of Kaylon ships that was accompanying the occupied Orville.

Wow! I did not see that! Those are two expert Star Trek writers; and they wrote what I consider to be the greatest thing that Star Trek ever did, the epic Voyager two-part episode “Equinox”. 

Woody Allen is a national treasure. His classic compendia of essays Without Feathers, Getting Even, and Side Effects are the funniest things I have ever read; and the latter-day follow-up volume Mere Anarchy is a worthy addition to his magnificent body of work. Anyone who reads these brilliant pieces will never look…

Very interesting. Maybe you’re right about the Kaylons’ desire to neutralise a big biological threat. (Though why don’t they go and fight the Krill?)

That is a good theory! Let’s see how things play out.

Thanks for pointing out the many other ships that the Kaylons launched.

Also, the idea that maybe this is some kind of test of the Union is an intriguing one.

Right!  They did have a whole fleet with them.  Thanks for the reminder.

First of all, kindly stop referring to Dr. Finn as “Dr. Claire”.

Honesty is a highly desirable trait in a partner, and is usually the best policy. Yet there is nevertheless such a thing as being honest to a fault.

Yes, I know. The early information that I read was inaccurate; so my conclusion based on that information was wrong. I have received several corrections.

You are right. I was mistaken. Thanks for the correction.

You’re right.  Thank you for the correction.

I made my initial comment on the basis of information that now turns out to have been inadequate. Based on more complete reports, it is clear that that comment was mistaken.

Thank you for the correction.

Yes, I see that it was in fact on a highway.  My initial comment was mistaken. Thank you for the correction.

You are right. My original comment was made on the basis of information that turned out to be wrong.

Thank you for the correction.

A report that I saw referred only to Thompson Road. Since then I have received several corrections informing me that it actually occurred on a highway. So I retract my original comment.

The report that I read referred only to the street name. Evidently it was really a highway, which would mean that Boeheim is not at fault.

Thanks for the clarificiation.  Please consider my comment retracted.