HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wcbulko@rapids.austin.ibm.com (Bill Bulko)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Time's Arrow II  (**spoilers**)
Date: 1 Oct 92 18:38:25 GMT
Distribution: rec
Organization: IBM AWD, Austin

Spoilers abound. . .

Let's suppose the universe behaves according to the "multiple time
lines" theory.  To summarize, this theory states that, if you go
back into the past and change something, this causes time to branch
into two lines:  the original time line, and a new one where your
change is effective.  (This adequately explains how someone can go
back into his own past, prevent his own birth, and yet continue to
exist, since his own time line still exists on a separate branch.)

Someone previously stated in this newsgroup that, according to this
theory, if you were to go back in time and change things, you'd be
stuck in a new time line where (possibly) none of your friends
existed. . .but your friends back in the "present" would still exist
in their own time line, and would probably never see you again since
you can't get back.

Now suppose you're Picard.  You've just learned that the aliens are
about to go back into your history and possibly change something.
Why should you care?  All they'll do is branch off a new time line
in which Picard doesn't exist. . .but your time line will go on
just fine, just like the situation above where your "friends" go
on living without you.  As a matter of fact, the aliens can't get back
to your (their original) time line, so they won't ever bother you again.

Looks to me like the aliens might have been stealing human life energy
from a time line that branched off from ours.

Any comments?

					Bill
===============================================================================
	     Artificial Intelligence:  the art of making computers
		      that behave like the ones in movies
Bill Bulko                                                      AUSVM1(WCBULKO)
AIX Communications                                wcbulko@rapids.austin.ibm.com
Austin, TX  C3C/905                                                  T/L 8-0703
===============================================================================
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
From: sali@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu (Sayf Ali)
Subject: Where can I get press releases?
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 01:49:41 GMT

Is there somewhere where I can FTP a file containing the press 
releases for all episodes of TNG?

Please E-mail if you know.

Thanx.
From: ref@merlin.eng-sun (Ron E. Fortin)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Re: Why is trek tech stooopid...
Date: 2 Oct 92 16:25:47 GMT
Article-I.D.: fripp.1992Oct2.162547.8744
Reply-To: ref@merlin.eng-sun
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.



I remember reading years ago that warp was defined as:
	warp X = C^(3*X)
---
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ronald E. Fortin                                           ref@cadre.com
    Corporate Systems Engineer

    Cadre Technologies Inc.                             Phone (401) 351-5950
    222 Richmond St. Suite 301                          FAX   (401) 351-7380
    Providence, RI 02903
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
From: schroede@bnlux1.bnl.gov (gary l. schroeder)
Subject: Re: Glaring Inconsistency (tm) (IMHO) in Time's Arrow Part One
Keywords: Data contraction inconsistency
Organization: Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY 11973
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1992 15:29:29 GMT

In article <1992Sep23.211319.6284@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> dave@cs.arizona.edu (Dave Schaumann) writes:
>In article <1992Sep23.135319.3442@bmerh85.bnr.ca>, hurd@bcrks128 (Scott Hurd) writes:

>>     I have always had great difficulty accepting the idea that Data is
>>incapable of using contractions.

>Its a contrivance, pure and simple.  Just like FTL travel, the transporter,
>time-travel, and a myriad of other examples treknology -- made pretty much
>out of whole cloth, with little or no support in today's technology.

>I think that in the grand scheme of things, an inconsistent portrayal of
>a feature of Data's make up that hasn't really been mentioned since the
>first season is a very minor nit, at best.


True.  Although, the issue of Data's lack of use of contractions has
been mentioned since season 1.  It was, in fact, a main point of focus
in the episode "The Offspring" (season 3?).  In the episode, Data points
out that, like human children, Lal had suceeded in surpassing the
abilities of her parent.  Namely, she was able to use contractions.  I
thought that it was silly to bring the contraction contrivance back up
again, but I saw the point they were trying to make.


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary L. Schroeder  		|  
schroede@bnlux1.bnl.gov         |             Boo. 
Brookhaven National Laboratory  | 
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
From: kanamori@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Atsushi Kanamori)
Subject: Re: promos for: time's ar
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Distribution: rec
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 16:34:33 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.3208.11448@dosgate> "bernie wong" <bernie.wong@canrem.com> writes:
>>Since the "cliffhanger" (especially with "Time's Arrow") is primarily
>>advertisement for the conclusion, I think it's perfectly fair
>>to "wate" for the conclusion before rating either one.
>
>Oh be quiet, so I made ONE little spelling error...  :-)  (Wate, wait,
>what's da difference?!)

One leaps off the screen, the other doesn't. You may think it's trivial,
but believe me, it *does* affect the way you come across on the net
and how seriously people will take you.


>>(Actually, I would have given TA1 a grade if I'd had any idea of
>>what that episode was trying to accomplish. I can't assign a grade
>>without knowing the damn premise.)
>
>Does every episode need a point?!??!  :-)

Note I said PREMISE, not "point". Not every (or even most) episodes need a
social engineering agenda. On the other hand, every story has some underlying
premise or objective, and I can't evaluate an episode without knowing what
that is.

Judging from Part II, it appears that "Time's Arrow" had very little purpose
indeed. It seemed mainly an excuse to spend a lot of time with Mark Twain
(I can't imagine why) and mix it up with a lot of routine action-adventure.
It accomplished both of those, all right, but it strikes me as a mighty
unambitious outing.


>Really, you're taking Trek so seriously that you can't even sit down and
>enjoy an episode without analyzing it to death.

Anything worth an hour per week of my time is worth taking seriously (and 
"analyzing it to death" is a large part of the fun). "Enjoying an episode"
for me, doesn't mean watching a bunch of actors run around on the screen,
engaging in lame comedy, and reenacting what Roger called "an Academy
exercise to get Data back from the past." I expect something a little
more challenging and colorful.


                       .        
 :....: : .  ::.: .  ..: :    ..     : :    .:   :.:
:::::::.:::::::::::.:::::: :?.:::::..::::.:.:: :.:::: :
-------------------------- -------------------.------ ------------------------
Kanamori's Episode Ratings: (last episode rated: "Time's Arrow Part II")
  "I keep telling you, there *is* no plot." -- Guinan.

Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
From: CXMP000 <CXMP@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA>
Subject: RE: Time's Arrow Paradox [spoilers]
Organization: McGill University
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 01:37:49 GMT

In article <1992Sep27.030335.26463@sol.UVic.CA> jcowling@ophelia.UVic.CA (Scowling Jim Cowling) writes:
>I just thought of something:  Twain's watch should not exist in the 24th Century
>as it would be infinitely old.  Think about it.  He picks up his watch in
>the future, where it is 500 years old, then leaves it in the cave.  Therefore,
>in the future it must be 1000 years old, then 1500 etc etc.  It's caught in
>a time loop where it has no existence after the 24th century, but must
>logically have infinite age at all points in its existence directly after
>Clemens' time-travel.
>
>In any case, it's a paradox without solution, and they screwed up.  What do
>y'all think?

Two things.  1) Someone posted an explanation of the time paradoxes in
this episode; the idea was that Jack London's writings probably didn't
have a lot of influence on future history so, originally, Data might
have been sent back in time and lost his head for a completely
different reason and, thus, the time loop had a beginning and, after
enough times through, we have a closed loop; if the same watch went
through the loop several times it would be very old but not infinitely
old.  2) Was it the same watch?  Clemens said "Oh, it's my watch!" when
he saw his watch.  This means that he already had the 19th century
version of the watch.  Supposedly, it was this watch that he puts in
the cave at the end.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                ! Address as above or use
Martin Phipps                   ! LOULA@hep.physics.mcgill.ca or simply
                                ! MUHEP::LOULA if you're on a VAX
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

***NOTE***
If any post of mine appears more than once, this is the fault of the
system here.  I do *not* repost!
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current

You saw it right, the one in the background is the oraginal and the one
in the forground is the the new one.

Mark
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
From:  ()
Subject: Time's Arrow II Question - Spoiler
Organization: Martin Marietta Astronautics, Denver
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 19:01:48 GMT

I haven't seen this asked yet:

Why didn't Data find the iron filing in TA I as he was testing out HIS HEAD????
Did I miss something??

--Scott
From: rawdon@colby.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Rawdon)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Re: Oh my *GOD* .... is it.... *CONTINUITY*?!?!?!?! (Spoilers)
Date: 29 Sep 92 20:10:10 GMT
Reply-To: rawdon@colby.cs.wisc.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Dept., Madison, WI

In <29SEP199213162212@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov> afdenis@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (Stephen Dennison) writes:
>Here's one for those who haven't seen Time's Arrow II ...

>Ok, here's another one for those who haven't seen Booby Trap ...

>Ok, here's one more for all the people who agree with Rawdon ... oh, wait a 
>minute... that one would be wasted. :-)

Yeah, those people (of which there are quite a few this week for those of
you actually *reading* the group lately!) would probably have given up on
Dennison posts by now anyway!

:-) :-)

-- 
Michael Rawdon				 rawdon@colby.cs.wisc.edu
University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Department, Madison, WI

"Beauty... survives."
				- James T. Kirk, "That Which Survives"
From: an904@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Michael King)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Re: ST in Washington, D.C.
Date: 4 Oct 1992 01:45:11 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


Not sure on SF Channel, I moved away a while ago, but TNG is 
aired on WDCA (Channel 20) out of Washington and WBFF (Channel
45) out of Baltimore.  You can see both stations in most parts
of the DC Metro Area.

M (in the Steel City/Gary, IN)
-- 
As falls Wichita, so falls Wichita Falls....
	Pat Metheny
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
From: rrogers@watson.ibm.com (Ryan Rogers)
Subject: Re: ST: TNG movie ???
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 20:41:34 GMT
Distribution: rec.arts.startrek.current
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.14 by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: rrogers@watson.ibm.com (Ryan Rogers)
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In  <1992Sep24.203547.15698@cunews.carleton.ca>  cs304001@scs.carleton.ca (Chulaka Ailapperuma) writes:
>Does anyone think that someone will make a ST:TNG motion picture ?
                        ^^^^^^^

   Well, if anyone makes it, Paramount will :-)

   Seriously, I hope so.  Personally, I would *love* to see a move
which follows up on that first (or second???) season episode about
the little critters that were trying to take over the Federation
(remember, the *really* gross one).  That would be way cool :-).


Sincerely,
Ryan Rogers
From: jxh@math.ksu.edu (James C. Hu)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Re: Inconsistencies in "Time's Arrow II" (*SPOILERS*)
Date: 27 Sep 1992 15:51:15 -0500
Organization: Dept. of Mathematics, Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: hilbert.math.ksu.edu

rfd@po.CWRU.Edu (Richard F. Drushel) writes:


>	Spoilers for "Time's Arrow II":
>
>	One more for good measure:
>
[ ... ]

>	(9)  How come Picard defended the Crystalline Entity's
>right to feed off of the terror of dying humans as simple hunger,
>while the Soul Ghouls must be immediately destroyed for doing
>essentially the same thing?

[ ... ]

I keep seeing this come up.  I saw the episode twice, and the only
thing I know for certain is that Jean Luc wanted to destroy the cavern
on Devidia II.  This would disable it from being used as a time
traveling mechanism.  These aliens will then be forced to find a
substitute, presumably within their own time and phase.
-- 
James C. Hu (jxh@math.ksu.edu), 1804 Denholm Dr., Manhattan, KS 66502
I speak for me, the whole me, and nothing but for me.  So help me me.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
From: dave@admiral.uucp (Dave Litchman)
Subject: Re: Forward Time Travel?
Organization: The Admiral's Unix System & The Grid BBS
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 1992 07:19:55 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.000110.27244@morrow.stanford.edu> AT.MLM@forsythe.stanford.edu (Mark Miller) writes:
>With the recent airing of Time's Arrow, Parts I and II, a question
>popped into my head.  Between TNG and TOS, Trek has had no shortage
>of time travel episodes, where one or more members of the Enterprise
>go backward in time.  Or where someone else comes forward or
>backward in time, to the time wherein that particular Enterprise is
>residing.  Now, am I correct in concluding that no TOS or TNG
>episode has ever involved the Enterprise or one of its crew going
>*forward* in time?  I've been an avid watcher of Trek since TOS
>first aired, and for the life of me I can't recall anything like
>that.  If I am correct, is there some stated or unstated reason for
>this?  I don't mean in the technical sense of "Can one actually
>engage in time travel, whether it be forward or backward?"; I mean,
>have the writers and/or producers had a philosophical or dramatic
>aversion to doing such an episode?
>
>Any comments/suggestions?

Well, there was "Future Imperfect" in which Riker was led to believe that he
was 15 years into his future. It turns out to be untrue, however...

Mainly, the reason that they don't write future-travel stories is because such
a story would set up conditions for the future that MUST be met by subsequent
stories in the "present". Say, for instance, they write a story in which someone
travels two years into the E's future, and in that story, Picard is still
captain. Ok, all well and good, but what happens when Patrick Stewart wants to
leave the show at the end of the current season? Then, by the time that they
reach the actual timeframe of the future-travel episode, Picard will not longer
be the captain, and a huge inconsistency will result. 

Basically, the writers don't like confining themselves by pre-defining future
conditions until the events actually occur, at which time they are no longer
future conditions, they are present conditions, you see?


-- 
"Dammit Jim, I'm a free man, not a number!"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ray, when somebody asks you if you're a god, you say YES!" -- Winston Zeddmore
From: moss@agate.berkeley.edu (Rolling Stone)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Re: What did Picard say?
Date: 7 Oct 1992 01:44:12 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: fluorine.cchem.berkeley.edu
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Gerald George Marfoe (gmarfoe@eng.auburn.edu) wrote:
: In article 9035@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com, sabat@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com () writes:
: > Does anyone know what Picard says at the end of the episode (I think "The
: > Enemy") where Geordie and a Romulan are stranded on a planet and learn to
: > help each other barely making it back to the Enterprise at the end when the
: > big E and a Romulan warbird are about to blast each other.  It is something
: > like "_____manship is a dangerous game."  We have rewatched it several times
: > and cannot figure it out.  Thanks
: > 
: > Ted			Sabat@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com
: 
: "Brinksmanship is a dangerous game" - Brinksmanship is a term that evolved 
: during the Cold War. Basically, each adversary keeps building its forces to 
: deter the other and constantly challenges its opponent's moves to test its 
: strength and nerve. Thus, each side brings the other closer to the brink of 
: war. It's been a while since I had a political science course (the term is
: frequently seen in national security and military history courses), so if 
: any one else can offer a better definition of brinksmanship, feel free to 
: add your thoughts.
:
: Gerald G. Marfoe 
: InterNet: gmarfoe@eng.auburn.edu
: 
Actually, in its technical meaning, what Brinksmanship was was the tactic
in an East-West confrontation the required one side (usually the US) to 
make the confrontation Nuclear as soon as possible.  This was the preferred
US tactic (Re: Berlin, Cuba) since it was felt by US policy makers that 
the Soviets (and their allies) so out numbered us in conventional weapons
(particularly in Europe) that our only method of making the Soviets back 
down was to convince them of our willingness to use weapons of mass 
destruction.  The major drawback to this was that eventually the Soviets 
saw that we were mostly bluffing, and any US threat of Nuclear anihilation
was seen as being mostly empty (Re: the boy who cried "wolf").  Notice how 
frequently the tactic was used in early confrontations, to success usually,
and died out pretty much after the Cuban Missle Crisis.

David
From: rick.mcbride@the_matrix.com (Rick Mcbride) 
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Re: my beef with time's a
Date: 27 Sep 92 17:08:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: The MATRIX BBS - Birmingham, AL - 205-323-2016
Reply-To: rick.mcbride@the_matrix.com (Rick Mcbride) 

as William J. King muttered incoherently to All on 09-24-92  07:31...

 WJK> dave@cs.arizona.edu (Dave Schaumann) writes: >SPOILERS for TIME'S ARROW
 WJK> II follow! >What is Data building?  How will Twain react
 >to his knowledge of Data and Guinan's origins?

 WJK> Whatever Data was building, was never used, and probably
 WJK> wound up on the cutting room floor.

 WJK> we'll get to see it in some 'cuts collection of TNG' some day.

err, actually, it was that triolic wave detector, and it was used, I'm
kinda curious as to what happened to it when the away team returned to
the 24th cen... did Data just leave it set up?

-=.\=-

... Sleep is an inadequate substitute for caffeine.
--- Blue Wave/QWK v2.10
                                                        
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
From: dfrancis@tronsbox.xei.com (Dennis Heffernan)
Subject: Re: The Enemy Within
Organization: Xanadu Enterprises Inc.
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 04:11:10 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.105028.1752@gserv1.dl.ac.uk> atb@gserv1.dl.ac.uk writes:
|Glad someone reads my posts!
|
|The answer is Sulu used a phaser to heat up a rock to act as a source of heat.

	That can't be right.  They also did it in "Spock's Brain" and "A
Private Little War", at the very least.

|
|OK Gary, what have I won :-)
|

	2.5 million flames complaining that this doesn't belong on .current.


dfrancis@tronsbox.xei.com   ...uunet!tronsbox!dfrancis     GEnie: D.HEFFERNAN1
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I don't understand why you make such a big deal out of everything...haven't
you learned; if it's not happenning to me it's not important?" -Murphy Brown
From: rawdon@colby.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Rawdon)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Re: TIMELINES--I don't think so.
Date: 5 Oct 92 23:13:01 GMT
Reply-To: rawdon@colby.cs.wisc.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Dept., Madison, WI

In <1992Sep30.194533.13248@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu> rlcollins@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Ryan 'Gozar' Collins) writes:
>     Well, after digging out my trusty TNG:Technical Manual, it says the
>orginal Enterprise was commisioned in 2245. First captain was Robert
>April, then Christopher Pike, and then Captain Kirk. It was destroyed in
>2284 while defending the Mutara sector against a Klingon excursion.
>(Star Trek III) The second Enterprise, NCC-1701-A, was commisioned in
>2286, which later played a vital role in the success of the Khitomer
>conference. (Star Trek VI. Interesting point, I got my copy of the
>Technical Manual before Star Trek VI was released)

>     Anyway, this puts the TOS (with Kirk) somewhere in between 2245 and at 
>least 2286.

Which fits quite nicely, actually (with one exception - see below).  If
ST II and II ake place in 2284, then "Space Seed" took place in 2269, thus
fitting with the 2264-2270 reference, give-or-take a few years.  (There's
about 3 years of leeway in there or so, which allows for differing
interpretations of Trek Classic stardates).

The one exception is that it seems unlikely that TWO YEARS would have passed
between Star Trek III and IV (or even III and V).

-- 
Michael Rawdon				 rawdon@colby.cs.wisc.edu
University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Department, Madison, WI

"It is a fool's prerogative to utter truths that no one else will speak."
				- Dream, "A Midsummer Night's Dream"
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
From: byrnes@cuug.ab.ca (Sheri Byrne 263-8649)
Subject: Guinan and her secrets
Organization: Calgary UNIX User's Group
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 21:14:48 GMT


After reading 200+ news messages I am wondering why no one has 
mentioned what I consider to be a glaring plot hole in TA II.
Guinan made a horrifically big deal about not telling
Riker what to do (with regards to photoning the Devidians (sp?)), 
because she doesn't want to alter the future.  Yet, she
has no qualms about summoning Picard and telling him he has to
be on the away mission, or they won't meet.  

Am I missing something here?

With regards to the landlady -- why go through the farce of 
making her a cast member in their "play" (to avoid the rent 
payment) when Data had money? That whole plot line was extremely 
contrived, and should have been dropped.

All in all, I was extremely disappointed.  Some of the loose ends
were so bad, even my 4-year old complained ("Where did the 
man who had the snake-thing go after Data's head came off, Mommy?")
I hope it will get better.

--  Sheri Byrne
(I'm new at this, so please humor me)

-- 
Sheri A. Byrne			byrnes@sun.cuug.ab.ca		(403) 263-8649
Gemini Learning Systems 	Calgary, Alberta Canada
-- One of the side-effects of having children and watching ST:TNG
   is the kids want to be Borgs for Halloween and assimilate candy . . .
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current