HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bbarber@sierra.com ()
Subject: Howling Mad Barclay
Followup-To: rec.arts.ateam (The A-Team as art - scary!)
Keywords: deferential
Organization: Sierra Geophysics, North Dallas Technology Ctr.
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:52:28 GMT

 Rumor has it that Barclay will return in season 6. If that happens, I'll go

			HOWLING MAD !!!!

 But seriously, folks, Dwight Schulz played "Howling Mad" Murdoch on "The 
 A-Team" before becoming ST's Lieutenant (Reginald ?) Barclay. Also, the 
 actress who played Soren in "The Outcast" was Amy on the first season of 
 "The A-Team". She was fired after one season, allegedly because she was 
 not deferential enough to the men on the set. Now that I think about it...

	It's conceivable that she was chosen for the part of Soren because
 of her real life experience as an outcast. On the surface, "The Outcast"
 is a lightly camouflaged look at homosexuality, but I think it really 
 deals with a much more complex and interesting subject - the dehumanizing
 of modern sexual relationships. Think about it - artificial insemination,
 surrogate motherhood, Murphy Brown - our society is moving towards 
 "pod insemination"! Sure, it's a long way off, but isn't that the kind of
 thing Star Trek is supposed to speculate about? 

 PS - Just kidding about Murphy Brown.

 Bryan "Hey baby, I wanna inseminate your pod" SLAP!! Barber (24th century
							      pick up line
							      + response)
-- 
Bryan Barber  |"He's bread, Jim." - McCoy after a tragic transporter accident
              |                     while visiting planet Pillsbury.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
From: dfrancis@tronsbox.xei.com (Dennis Heffernan)
Subject: Re: "The VISION"
Organization: Xanadu Enterprises Inc.
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 01:00:15 GMT

In article <93338@bu.edu> kuchar@buast7.bu.edu (Tom Kuchar) writes:
|I find it rather interesting that people can suspend disbelief and
|really see us evolving technology to warp drives and transporters, but
|can't see humans evolving culturally into a society like that
|portrayed in ST.
|
	Human nature has not changed one whit in over 4000 years of recorded
history, so there is little reason to believe that it's going to warp itself
in the next 400.

	On the other hand, we've seen more technological progress in the last
few decades than in the entirety of previous history.  It's pretty easy to
believe in ultra-technological geegaws, but you have to believe in miracles
to think that people aren't going to be the same 400 years from now.


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
Organization: Senior, Physics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 02:15:34 -0400 
From: Robert Edward Timlin <rt16+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: USA Article: Scotty

cole@lea.csc.ncsu.edu (Robert Cole) writes:

>In TOS, didn't they store some
>Klingons for a rather long time until they figured out what they were
>going to do with them (I may be off here, it's been quite a bit of time
>since I've seen this one).
>
>I think 70+ years in transporter storage is far more plausible than
>accidental time transport (which would certianly cause them to duplicate
>the accident and send Scotty back).

     The episode you're thinking of is "Day of the Dove", and they only stored
the Klingons for a couple of minutes until a security detail arrived.

     The point isn't really whether one method of bringing Scotty back is more
plausible than another, though. The point is that in using the molecular
suspension idea, they are totally throwing away their own guidelines as set
forth in the TNG Technical Manual (I quoted the text in my first post which
states transport subjects may be held in transit for only 420 seconds before
pattern degradation occurs). Rick Sternbach and Michael Okuda sat down and laid
out many technical details of the Enterprise's systems, and the writers were
supposed to adhere to these guidelines. It's not like the Tech Manual is
some book by FASA, it's supposed to be canon, since the show's technical
advisors wrote it. Now here they are TOTALLY disregarding it. THAT is really
what's bugging me.

     The reason I suggested accidental transport through time is that (a) it
doesn't violate the Tech Manual, and (b) there exists a precedent for really
weird stuff happening when a power surge hits the transporter during an ion
storm ("Mirror, Mirror"). And it does not necessitate sending Scotty back where
he started, it merely leaves that possibility open.

     Trek and technical inconsistency have always gone hand-in-hand. The
Tech Manual was *supposed* to fix that by nailing down a lot of stuff. I guess
that was just too much to hope for.
     Maybe they can be forgiven if they have a *really* good explanation for
it, or if the episode is really good (like "Darmok" and the phasers-from-the-
torp-tube bit). But if they just blow it off and say "75 years in transit, eh?
Wow. So, welcome to the 24th century!" then somebody really needs punched.
Hard. Maybe it'll knock some sense into them. It *IS* possible to have both
good drama *AND* good, consistent SF, you know.

Note: I'm not flaming any poster here, I'm just ticked at the seemingly
      haphazard attitude toward technical consistency by the TNG production
      staff. I *had* thought that with the Tech Manual out and well established
      that season 6 would be a little better. My mistake.
                                                 -Robb Timlin
                                                  rt16@andrew.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
From: serge@marvin.dgbt.doc.ca (Serge Ah Hee)
Subject: Re: Arnold Schwarzenegger in STTNG ?
Organization: The Communications Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 15:57:34 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.122543.16208@rdg.dec.com>, bussink@trucks.enet.dec.com (Erik Bussink) writes:
|> 
|> 	In the UK newspaper 'The Independent' of the 
|> 	Wednesday 19 august 1992 is the following text :
|> 
|> 	Tabloid TV:
|> 		"Those tabloid TV `scoops` in short: Arnold Schwarzenegger
|> 	has signed on to boldly go where no one has gone before in an 
|> 	upcoming episode of Star Trek:The Next Generation." 
|>                                                  	Page 24
|> 
|> 	Courtesy to Steve Beaton, who spotted the text in the newspaper.
|> 
|> 								Erik Bussink

The Terminator Vs ST:TNG? hmmm.... I can picture it...

Arnie:"Are you Counselor Troi?"
Troi:"Why yes, how can I help you?(funny I don't sense any emotions from him)"
 
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!

Arnie:"I'll be back!"



-- 
Serge Ah-Hee                  "Most troubles come from the fact that people 
serge@dgbt.doc.ca		take for granted of what they have, and 
				only care for what they want."
My opinions are mine only.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
From: matt@unidata.ucar.edu (Matt Hicks)
Subject: Re: Season Premiere-- Geordi Dies!!!
Organization: Scientific Computing Division/NCAR Boulder, CO
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 19:02:08 GMT

>>>I just recently found out from a reliable source that Geordi will be killed
>>>blah, blah, ...

>Please state your "source" for this info.....Until I see it, I don't
>believe a word.

Yeah, and make sure that you put the source right up there in the
header where no one will miss it.
--
_________________________________________________  /\_/\  _________________
Matthew  B.  Hicks     | Unidata Program Center | ((ovo))  The spotted owl:
matt@unidata.ucar.edu  | UCAR, PO Box 3000      | ():::()  the other "other
303/497-8676	       | Boulder, CO 80307-3000 |   VVV    white meat."
From: jsbell@acs.ucalgary.ca (Joshua Bell)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Re: dolphins!
Date: 20 Aug 92 23:10:45 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta

In article <1992Aug20.140018.12194@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu> scduncan@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Sean C. Duncan, Idiot) writes:
>
>In the Tech Manual, it sez that dolphins are used (as a sentient race) to
>aid in navigation or something.  Check it out.

Hrm... the original poster quoted the Tech Manual (IMHO, the best
way to go about thing). I don't have mine handy, but it said that
Atlantic and Pacific Bottlenose dolphins, overseen by two Orca,
act as technical consultants for testing new navigation concepts
for Galaxy class starships. Not that they're carried on board.

Tho it is a bit... disturbing that we never see anything but
class-M resident life forms. Sigh...

On a related note, the FASA goo about the Enterprise speculated
that Galaxy class starships had Medusan navigators. Obviously
non-canonical, but a neat concept.

Joshua
   _  _      "Thats a good idea!"  "I have those every once in a while."
 -(_)(_)-      "Why do you listen to me when I'm wrong?!?"
 \      /          - Dr. Goldfoot and the Bikini Machine
  |  . |      
  -____-      jsbell@acs.ucalgary.ca 
 /  \/  \     Academic Computing Services, University of Calgary
From: "bernie wong" <bernie.wong@canrem.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: 25 anniversary game h
Date: 16 Aug 92 23:47:28 EST
Reply-To: "bernie wong" <bernie.wong@canrem.com>
Distribution: rec
Organization: Canada Remote Systems

>  Why Should One Do It In such a difficult way? Simply ask the
>Enterprise's computer about base 3, and the answer is in front of
>your eyes.

Are you saying that as a joke or is that actually a way to solve that
puzzle in the 25th anniversary game?


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Jason Wong
Calling from Markham, Ontario CANADA.  It's not cold though!  :-)
INTERNET: bernie.wong@canrem.com

---
  OLX 2.1 TD  ...I cannot cofirm the EXISTENCE of Praxis.  Valtane
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
From: mcconnap@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (Andy McConnell)
Subject: Re: STIV and the transtator
Organization: Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 14:38:32 GMT


In article <1992Aug13.140244.28755@ctr.columbia.edu> Charles Laine  
<Charles_Laine@CCIS.BAYLOR.EDU> writes:
 -> 
 -> In Star Trek IV, when Chekov attempts his escape from the "nuclear
 -> wessel", he leaves behind both his communicator and his phaser.  
[ ..  etc ... ]
 ->  Perhaps
 -> the technology in the 23rd cetnury would not be quite as advanced if
 -> Chekov had not left his standard issues behind.   
 -> 
 -> This is just a thought.  What do you think?
 -> 
 -> Charles Laine
 -> Baylor University

"How do we know [they] didn't invent the thing, anyway?"  - Horrbily ripped  
off, but the same idea applies here... :-]
____________________________________________________________________________
Andy McConnell                   mcconnap@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu
   (812) - 877 - 8809            Fluid Science Learning Center Developer
                                 Rose-Hulman Institute Of Technology
   
Class of 1993 - CS BS - RA - AFROTC - AAS - WMHD-FM 
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: tm@jyu.fi (Timo Mannikko)
Subject: Twin Paradox
Organization: University of Jyvaskyla, Finland
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 13:32:05 GMT

Thanks to everyone who answered to my questions about the twin paradox.
And special thanks to Jay (hinson@maxwell.physics.purdue.edu)!

As I see it now, the difference between A and B is that B makes a turn.
If he just accelerates away from earth, both of them sees the other stay
younger (if they could see each others "instantaneously", which they
can't). But when B turns, he feels some "extra" acceleration and A doesn't.

- Timo
From: vest@novavax.UUCP (Steven Vest)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Anti-Anti-ST:TNG Sentiment.
Date: 17 Aug 92 14:58:45 GMT
Organization: Nova University, Fort Lauderdale, FL

dreamer@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (David Caruso II ~~~) writes:

>Mark Schlegel writes:
>>                                 Repeat after me,"it's only a tv show,
>>                                 it's only a tv show..."

>	If this is your attitude, don't post on this newsgroup.  To many 
Excuse me Dave, But who died and made you grand pooh-bah of this newsgroup?
I think anyone should be aloud to post.  Not just those who share your
fantasy.

>people, including myself, Star Trek: The Next Generation is MUCH more than just
>a TV show. A TV show is like "Married With Childern" or "Oprah").  It 

Fine Dave.  But to many more of us it's a tv show.  The people who write act 
and direct it are ordinary people who go to work, eat their lunch and go to
the lavatory.  On Wednesdays they go shopping and have buttered scones for tea.
Some of them may very well end up working on "Married with Children" as their
next job.  I like the show Dave.  It's very interesting and entertaining.  
It's well written and has some excellent ideas.  But Mark is right.  It's
JUST a tv show. 


>	It's more than a show ... 

Statements like this make me very nervous Dave.
>David Caruso II                       "Great minds are the most misunderstood."

So are loonies Dave.  Try to get out into the "big blue room" more Dave.  Wait
Dave.  What are you doing?  What are you doing with that phaser Dave?  Please
put down the Phaser Dave.  Dave?  Daisy.... Daisy.....

-- 
========================== vest@novavax.nova.edu =============================
= Steven Vest: Electronic Reference Librarian: Nova University, Ft. Ldl, FL  =
=      Anything you see by me is just MY opinion.  Don't blame Nova.         =
=================Life is strange. Yeah, but compared to what?=================
From: svoboda@rtsg.mot.com (David Svoboda)
Subject: Re: time travel paradox
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 15:37:16 GMT

In article <16044@pitt.UUCP> aj14@andrew.cmu.edu (Andrew John) writes:
|Hello all...

Hi, from one of five,

|
|		Time travel's wierd,

Another problem with time travel, other than some inherent weirdness; 
the way I see it it not only violates causality, but violates the First Law 
of Thermodynamics (you know, "I will not harm a human", er, no, that's 
the other First Law).  In the First Law, you define a "thermo potatoe" 
(spelling by Executive Order), which is the region of interest.  Now, 
the FL states that matter and energy may only arrive in or leave the region 
by crossing the boundary.  

Let's say your g-grandkid (little monster that he is), 80 years from 
now, time-chucks a brick at you.  Well, let's define our thermo potatoe 
around the region about your head.  As the brick emerges in your time 
to clobber you, it enters into the potatoe through a "time pipe" from 
another time.  All is well and fine (but not for your noggin), right?

Now wait a sec here.  The first law is a time relative thing, in that
it states that matter cannot be "created or destroyed" (as edited by
Uncle Albert, of course) within the potatoe.  Well, what does
"created" mean?  It means, `"something may not appear *now*, when it
wasn't here a "second ago"'.  It defines "space" as the potatoe
skin, and "time" as "now", saying that the potatoe skin can be
crossed (measurably) by matter and energy, but crossing "now" is
right out.  But when the brick comes hurtling at your noodle, it
didn't cross the space boundary, it crossed "now".  Oops.

So your bean is saved from the little brat, thanks to the First Law.

Or you can repeal the laws of thermodynamics, but you'll get clobbered.

		Dave Svoboda, Palatine, IL

"You done violated the law of thermodynamics, Boy.  Assume the position."
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: hora@ecf.toronto.edu (HO ROBERT ANDREW)
Subject: Re: FTL travel/communication
Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 21:12:04 GMT

>>True, in B's frame of reference, it appears that A is accelerating away from
>>him at acceleration g, and from A's frame of reference, B is accelerating
>>away from him with acceleration g.  So how do we know who is doing the actual
>>acceleration?  We know that it is B accelerating and not A because B will
>>experience so-called "imaginary" forces from his acceleration; A will not.
>>Also, A will only appear to accelerate in B's frame of reference and no other
>>(well, A will also appear to accelerate from other accelerated frames of
>>references).  From all inertial frames of reference (including A's) B will 
>>appear to accelerate and A will not.
>

>But Einstein's Principle of Equivalence says that the effects of "force" 
>acceleration and gravitational acceleration are identical.  The difference
>is that B's acceleration is not constant, in that he must turn around at the
>other end. 
>
>Mark Budd
>

*sigh* Once again, my brain conspires to make me look stupid on the net.  I
misunderstood the original poster's statement about A experiencing 1g 
acceleration, thinking he meant the 1g that A appears to accelerate from B
in B's stationary frame, not the gravitational acceleration he is experiencing.
Thanx for straightening me out :)
-- 
=============================================================
Robert Ho               | "Have you got a plan m'lord?"
Univ. of Toronto        | "Yes, and it`s so cunning you could
hora@bullet.ecf.toronto.|     brush your teeth with it."
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: hora@ecf.toronto.edu (HO ROBERT ANDREW)
Subject: Re: Twin paradox
Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 11:06:51 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.074254.14818@jyu.fi> tm@jyu.fi (Timo Mannikko) writes:
>I asked about so called twin paradox, but so far I haven't got any
>clear explanation. So once again:
>
>Twin A stays home and feels one g acceleration (caused by the gravity).
>Twin B makes a trip in a ship and feels one g acceleration (caused by
>the movement). Now, I have always thought that there is no real
>difference between these two kind of accelerations. So why it is B
>who stays younger, not A?

The difference is that B is accelerating and A is not.  Onc again, we know that
it is B who is accelerating and not A because B will experience non-Newtonian
forces in his frame of reference while A will not.  In addition to this,
from *every* inertial frame of reference, observers will see B accelerating
and not A.  So the only person to whom A appears to accelerate is B (and 
anyone else watching this from a non-inertial frame).  All other observers
in inertial frames will agree that it is B who is accelerating.

>
>Someone wrote that the acceleration is actually a vector with a specific
>direction, and this direction happens to be different for A and B.
>But from A's point of view, his vector is constant, and B's vector is
>moving and changing direction. From B's point of view, it's just the
>opposite.
>
>It seems to me that there is a complete symmetry: you could switch A and B,
>and nothing changes. There must be something wrong in this!
>
>- Timo


-- 
=============================================================
Robert Ho               | "Have you got a plan m'lord?"
Univ. of Toronto        | "Yes, and it`s so cunning you could
hora@bullet.ecf.toronto.|     brush your teeth with it."
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: ottoh3@CFSMO.Honeywell.COM (Otto Heuer #3)
Subject: Re: FAQL: FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS LIST for rec.arts.startrek.tech
To: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Posted-Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 17: 38:09 CDT
Mailer: Elm [revision: 64.9]
X-Disclaimer: I speak for me and not my boss; Honeywell's gain & Usenet's loss
X-Car: (612) 865-4301
X-Voice-Mail: (612) 785-4600 x8528
Organization: Hack-Man's Hangout
X-Internet: ottoh3@cfsmo.honeywell.com
X-2nd-Choice: hackman@pnet51.orb.mn.org
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 22:38:09 GMT
Received-Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 17: 37:45 CDT
X-Phone: (612) 785-4343


I R Asplin writes:

| jwindley%asylum.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley) writes:
|
| I spotted an error in the FAQL.
|
| It was about the holodecks.  The FAQL says material created within
| them cannot be taken out, even if replicated, which is incorrect.
| Anything actually physically replicatedin the holodeck can be removed
| from the holodeck and it will stay solid indefinitely.
| The reason that Geordi and Data were surprised by that sheet of paper
| was not that they had the sheet of paper but rather what Moriarty had
| drawn on it, a picture of the Enterprise.

While I won't argue on either side of the "holodeck replicating matter"
debate, someone (Richard Arnold or Okuda or someone?) said at a con 
shortly after that ep was aired that there were a scene that ended
up on the cutting room floor (due to time constraints) that made it more
clear that Geordi was showing the paper to Data to show him that it
could leave the holodeck and therefore Moriarty could also leave the
holodeck (if he had only known) and not just showing him the picture 
of the Enterprise (which was upside down as well, I believe).

                --Otto "HACK-MAN" Heuer
--
C, Pascal, Fortran, BASIC, Assembly Language, Snobol, Ada, APL, Prolog, LISP
Unix, MS-DOS, ProDOS       .  .   .   .... .  .   .   .   .   .   . Audio/Video
ottoh@cfsmo.honeywell.com  :..: .:.:. :    :.' .. :`.': .:.:. :`. :   Star Trek
hackman@pnet51.orb.mn.org  :  : :   : :... : `.   :   : :   : :  `:  Apple IIgs
From: Anthony_Battles_-T@cso.3mail.3com.com
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Top ten reasons why they dont use the restroom Part V
Date: 3 Aug 92 19:25:00 GMT

Hello everyone, it has been a while but...
              I'M BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 Top Ten Reasons Why They Dont Use the Restroom Part V.
***********************************************************

10. Too many people kept falling out of the shuttle bay.

 9. Data still cant figure out what that orifice is for.

 8. The women aboard still have this feeling that Riker 
    is nearbye everytime they have to go.(See Part II).

 7. After all of that prune juice I still dont see how
    Worf can hold it all these years (See Part I).

 6. Geordi tried but going out the window at warp speed is not
    a good idea.

 5. How do you think Guinan makes that Omnicron Beta Sunsplash drink.

 4.
From: comet@west.darkside.com (The Real Comet)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Twin Paradox
Date: 21 Aug 92 10:38:57 GMT
Organization: The Dark Side of the Moon +1 408 245 SPAM

At time t=0, both twins are at the same position, experiencing the same 
acceleration (1g from Earth's gravity, for instance).
Now, the twins move away from one another--this reveals that some FORCE 
is at work on at least one of the twins (f=ma).  Later, the twins move 
back towards each other.  This shows some force again must act, since 
reversing the velocity vector shows acceleration.  Finally, the twins are 
again at the same position, experiencing the same acceleration (showing 
another force at work).  The twin that experienced the greatest 
acceleration will have aged the least.  Special relativity covers the 
case where the effect of gravity is negligible (say that both twins lived 
their lives in inter-galactic space, and never came close to any other 
mass).  General relativity covers the effects of gravity.

Anyhow, you can see that if one twin stayed on Earth, and the other one 
left and came back, that the travelling twin experienced three 
accelerations as a consequence of his motion.  This will be observed from 
all inertial reference frames; there is no confusion as to which twin 
will age less.  The only paradox is that one twin will be older than the 
other, even though both were born on the same date...

--------
!apple!uuwest!comet <comet@darkside.com>
    or via U.S. Mail to
Comet
437 Wessex Way
Belmont, CA  94002-2757
    or via telephone at
(415)593-5101