HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: eaustin@ll.mit.edu (Eric J. Austin)
Subject: Re: What happens to BOSEMAN now in TNG-Time Line?
Originator: eaustin@ll.mit.edu (Eric J. Austin)
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory, Lexington MA
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 17:34:05 GMT


In article <53903@hydra.gatech.EDU>, ccoprdj@prism.gatech.EDU (Jorge Diaz) writes:
|> In article <1992Apr7.190817.415@cmkrnl.com> jeh@cmkrnl.com writes:
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> >time travel into the future need involve nothing more than suspended
|> >animation techniques and a very reliable, durable time capsule.
|> >Which is, in effect, what the Boseman became for her crew. 
|> 
|> How can you say time travel into the future causes no paradoxes? What if
|> they hadn't traveled into the future?  Those 400 or so crewmembers would
|> probably have had children, who would have had children.  Who knows, one of
|> them may have been an ancestor of Soong.  But now that they aren't there,
|> they can't have those children, effectively changing the past of the people
|> in TNG.
|> 
|> 
|> -- 
|> Jorge Diaz                       | If winning is not important, then Commander,
|> Georgia Institute of Technology  |    why keep score?
|> Office of Information Technology | 
|> ccoprdj@prism.gatech.edu         |                     - Worf -

Time travel into the future causes no paradoxes. Your "What if" question
is irrelevant. The crew of the Bozeman *did* travel into the future so they
*did not* have any more children in the past. The only paradox would come
from travel back into the past. In YE there were no paradoxes in the
Fed/Klingon war timeline. That timeline was completely consistent within
itself. The regular TNG timeline does have a paradox in that Tasha existed
as two people at once. But that is due to travel back in time, not forward.

You might as well say there is a paradox in our real time because things
did not happen the way they might have. Consistency is due to what did happen,
not to what might have happened. As long as the Bozeman stays in the current
TNG time there is no problem. They did not do anything in the past other
than what they had already done when they hit the time warp.

-- 
 Eric J. Austin                       EMAIL: eaustin@ll.mit.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
From: kyle@uunet.uu.net (Kyle Jones)
Subject: Re: Locarno = Kirk (Spoilers "First Duty"))
Organization: UUNET Technologies, Inc
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 23:38:56 GMT

kyle@uunet.uu.net (Kyle Jones) writes:
 > I admit we didn't see Kirk break down in TOS.  Yes, he did
 > indeed "put on a happy face" after many misadventures and
 > close calls.  _This is what men were supposed to do._

tlynch@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
 > Fine.  I consider that a character flaw.  Yes, it's a product
 > of the viewing times.  Does that somehow mean neither of us
 > can mention it?

No, but it does mean that you can't assume Kirk shook off
everything after those episodes because he didn't blubber and
grow despondent every time something went wrong.




Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
From: HADCDJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A)
Subject: Re: Lacarno = Kirk (Spoilers "1st Duty)
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 16:52:42 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <1992Apr8.025346.17951@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> apearlma@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu writes:

> In article <1992Apr07.120357.25839@orionsci> goodwin@orionsci.UUCP (Ben Goodwin) writes:
> >In article <1992Apr5.182703.14439@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> apearlma@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Andrew Pearlman) writes:
> 
> >>Kirk couldn't deal with the no-win scenario at that time and neither could
> >>Locarno.
> >>
> >>Andy Pearlman
> >
> >Um, what are you talking about?  Kirk reprogrammed the computer to let
> >him win, but he didn't expect to get away with it.  He was just angry
> >and decided that he was going to show the instructers that he wasn't
> >willing to accept the no-win scenario.  His reprogramming was very
> >clever and I would secretly commend him for it and then make sure nobody
> >ever found out what he had done.
> 
> His reprogramming violates the honor code, is breaking and entering,
> probably destruction of school property.  I find Kirk's action rather
> petty actually.  At least Locarno's action showed he was trying to be
> one of the best pilots ever.
> 
> 
> 
> >Your comparison between Kirk's reprogramming the Computer in Kobyashi
> >Maru and Locarno's foolish actions makes no sense. Locarno was not in
> >a no-win scenario.
>
 (assorted commentary deleted)

  What you both missed (and if someone has already mentioned it several replies
down I apologize for wasting bandwidth) was that what Kirk did, although 
cheating, etc., did not endanger any lives.  What Lacarno did WAS dangerous and
everbody knew it.

Jammer Jim
aka Thevinen Salar, Captain, USS EXCALIBUR

"I just work here, dammit!" 
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
From: runyan@cup.hp.com (Mark Runyan)
Subject: Re: "The First Duty" **SPOILERS**
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 15:22:48 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: HP, Cupertino, CA, USA

>v075q5fr@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Scott J Gorcey) writes:
>>, iho@cac.washington.edu writes...
>> 
>>> Spoiler warning `First Duty':
 
>>Here's my problem (a very minor one) with the episode.  At the end,
>>Piccard says that Wesley won't advance with his classmates.  Huh?
>>Does Wesley get to take the same classes again and ace them again?
>>He wasn't having academic difficulties.  What's the point of holding
>>him back?
>> 
>
>     It's called punishment.

And a fairly effective one at that.  It is obviously on your record,
so when you graduate, it is an obvious point that your commander is
going to see.  Also, if the StarFleet Academy is anything like the
U.S. Air Force Academy, you *have* to take the courses again, even
though you ace them.  An academy isn't like a college or university
where you can skip class whenever you like.  You attend class and stay
alert even if you know the material, cause the instructor won't making
an example of you.  Sympathy will be rare for Wes.  And if the cadets
really did `worship' Nova squadron, then there is going to be some
pent up frustration with them for not having lived up to expectations.
And this frustration will almost certainly surface as practical jokes
or vicious insults.  Any problem that Wes lands in now, he will be
responsible for.

Picard was right.  It is going to be tough for Wes to stay on at the
academy.

Mark Runyan  {r.a.s. random rationalizer}
From: hermit@dastari.uucp (Mark Buda)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Re: Comment on Wesley's room (First Duty)
Date: 7 Apr 92 00:30:53 GMT
Reply-To: hermit%dastari.uucp@devon.lns.pa.us
Organization: Competitive Computer Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Apr6.074215.12501@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bn981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ryan Mathews) writes:
>The door had a doorknob, and it swung open.  Awfully low tech, dontcha
>think?

It wasn't low tech - it had a sound effect!
--
Mark Buda
"Here, with a compressed air drill, parsnips are harvested."
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
From: tlynch@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch)
Subject: Re: Locarno = Kirk (Spoilers "First Duty"))
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 19:44:03 GMT

kyle@uunet.uu.net (Kyle Jones) writes:

>kyle@uunet.uu.net (Kyle Jones) writes:
> > OK, assuming for a moment that you're right: give us an
> > example of Kirk taking on something that's way over his head,
> > ignoring all warnings, and just foolishly bulling ahead.
[and in a later message]
> > You'll understand if I don't accept examples taken from ST:TWOK,
> > since this was the movie that produced Kobiyashi and exposed
> > "failings" that I don't believe Kirk has.  

>tlynch@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
> > Then we can't reach agreement.  If you refuse to accept my
> > examples (and ST2 is the biggest and best of the lot), then
> > there's no point in my giving them, is there?

>C'mon, Tim.  If I wanted to prove that Kirk had such and such
>trait, wouldn't I write the script to back up my premise?  

Argue that with the people who insist the flaw is absent.  You're removing
the best examples and the best material from the argument, which to me 
removes much of the motivation for even having the discussion.  Sorry.

>It
>would be much more believable if there were good evidence from
>pre-TWOK Trek, which leaves one movie and TOS to work with.

I've seen some listed, "Where No Man..." and "Obsession" being a large 
fraction thereof.  I do not consider myself qualified to keep up that end
of the discussion very well, because I haven't seen much of TOS in a long 
time.

>I admit we didn't see Kirk break down in TOS.  Yes, he did indeed
>"put on a happy face" after many misadventures and close calls.
>_This is what men were supposed to do._  

Fine.  I consider that a character flaw.  Yes, it's a product of the viewing
times.  Does that somehow mean neither of us can mention it?

Tim Lynch
From: tlynch@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Re: Perhaps Picard didn't need to speak
Date: 9 Apr 92 16:07:02 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena

runyan@cup.hp.com (Mark Runyan) writes:

>Spoilers for "The First Duty"

>It seems that some people are of the opinion that if Wes hadn't spoken
>up, Picard would have told the Admiral.  

Raised hand here.  :-)  I think it's very likely, though also not entirely
relevant--more important, I think, is that if Wes hadn't spoken up, Picard
would have refused to acknowledge Wes's further existence.

>I suggest that the actions of
>those sitting on the Board of Inquiry and the closing speech of the
>admiral's indicates that the Board already had reached the same 
>conclusion as Picard.  

I think a case could be made for that, but it's not particularly clear-cut.
In part, their reactions directly *after* Wes's confession didn't look to me
like a "ah, he's finally told us what we already know", but a "you did
WHAT?".  They probably *should* have reached the same conclusions, but not
necessarily.

>IMHO, the board was going to close allowing the
>team to `get away with' the lie and then work to wash the entire team
>out of the academy.  The admiral's final speech carried the implication
>that she knew that the team had lied, but couldn't prove it due to
>missing information regarding the final crash.  

Implication?  She SAID it in almost that phrasing.  :-)

>I doubt seriously that
>the Board couldn't have guessed what led to the final crash, since the
>had access to the same information that Picard did, and had access sooner.

I agree, but in the words of Brand herself, "we have no proof."

>Picard was not making a move to say anything as the trial was being closed.

I think he'd have said it privately at first; no need to drive the point home
quite *that* publicly, IMHO.

Tim Lynch
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
From: hucke@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Matt Hucke)
Subject: Re: (Spoilers First Duty)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 04:56:31 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.210111.17437@watserv1.waterloo.edu> jkramer@sunwise.UWaterloo.ca (Viscous Pig Dog) writes:
>
>A bully from Kirk's academy days shows up and starts harassing Kirk. The fact
>that he got picked on would suggest that his strength's were probably
>not in the areas which would not make one popular ie. he was probably
>a 'geek' as opposed to a football hero (or the academy equivalents). So
>I don't think he'd be the type to put people in danger while trying
>to impress the campus, he'd probably get into arguements with the profs
>trying to proof how well his latest battle strategy would work.

Additional support for this is provided by Gary Mitchell calling him 
"A stack of books with legs."  (book should probably read "disk", as 
COURT MARTIAL demonstrates that paper books are rare.)

I don't think Jim was as much of a "geek" as Weasley, though.  During TOS,
he was very physical, and most likely was like that during his Academy 
time.  And, unlike Crusher, he has a very strong personality.  He has also
shown a disregard for orders in the movies.  (I don't refer to his theft
of the E, but rather the endings of TMP and TUC, where he ignore orders
to return to base.)  Something like attempting an illegal maneuver would
be very much in character for JTK.



-- 
"What? Over? Did you say it's over? Nothing's over, till we decide it is! 
 Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!" --John Belushi
hucke@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu                        Gene Roddenberry 1921-1991
From: belgarath@vax1.mankato.msus.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Wesley and the Kobayashi Maru
Date: 17 Apr 92 06:15:30 GMT
Article-I.D.: vax1.1992Apr17.001530.1739
Organization: Mankato State University


	How `bout this for an interesting question...


What would/will Wesley do if/when he faces the Kobayashi Maru scenario???


	Or better yet, what would he face in the scenario??
	2 or 3 Borg cubes?
	2 or 3 trios of Romulan Warbirds?
	If I call it correctly, it won't be too long B4 he faces it..
	You make the call...



********************************************************************************
belgarath@vax1.mankato.msus.edu       	Jeremy Hallum


		"You are IRREVEVANT"  -the Borg "Vendetta"
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
From: gberigan@cse.unl.edu (Life...)
Subject: Re: Cause & Effect & Sex
Organization: Ursa Minor Beta, 402-476-8047 @ 2400
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 08:31:05 GMT

mas@aero.org (Marcus A.Shaw) writes:

>>>numbers soon to be announced on the bridge (18 killed in engineering from
>>>that last hit...   Anyone notice how often the number 18 comes up?) , and

>>Yes, I have!  When the Borg sliced a section out of the saucer in "Q
>>Who", 18 people were lost.  When the Yamato was in the early stages of
>>the Iconian computer virus ("Contagion"), an entire engineering team was
>>swept out into space and killed because the force field in the shuttle
>>bay switched off without warning.  Again, 18 people.
>>
>>I was going to say that 18 were killed in "The Best of Both Worlds"
>>(part 1) when the Borg cut into Engineering, but I wasn't sure, so I
>>checked my tape.  Data reports 11 dead, 8 more unaccounted for.  If one
>>of the missing people turned up alive and the other 7 were dead, that
>>would make 18.  But we don't know what the final tally was.

>And if one of the missing people lost half a leg along with both eyes,
>there still wouldn't be a pattern!  And if three missing died with one
>losing his sight, would the new visor that Geordi would have made have
>18 slits on the front?  Maybe 18 silver slits and 17 black ones (with
>a final black line on the back to account for 18?  And will future 
>aliens have 18 toes?  Come on, I like the idea of seeing how many 18's
>you can find as an exercise, but this "if" game is a real stretch.

Aw, c'mon.  TOS had a well-established relation ship of red == dead.  So
why can't people have fun with the theory that when you are in a group
of 18 people, you are more likely to die with that group in short order
than if you were with 17 or 19.  We're havin' fun, don't rain.

>Not to mention trying to place significance on it like the "666"="18"
>letter did....

Heh, that is interesting, but not as interesting as the fact that the
local religion cable channel here is on 18, with that 6+6+6
relationship.  Just something to chuckle about, like the inadvertant
relationship between "HAL" and "IBM".

>SHHHHHEEEEEESHHHHHHHHH!!

>ice

Careful with them flames, ice, you might melt down. :-)  We'd have ta
call ya "slush" then. :-)

--
  ///   ____   \\\       | CAUTION:
  | |/ /    \ \| |       | Avoid eye contact.  In case of contact, flush
   \\_|\____/|_//        | mind for 15 minutes.  See a psychiatrist if
       \_)\\/            | irritation persists.  Not to be taken
gberigan `-' cse.unl.edu | seriously.  Keep out of sight of children.
From: robert@revcan.rct.ca (Robert Presland)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Re: Lwaxana and computer
Date: 14 Apr 92 14:27:35 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Revenue Canada, Taxation; Office Communications Division

In article <1992Apr13.143540.913@news.larc.nasa.gov> ray@nmsb.larc.nasa.gov writes:
>I just got done watching 'Half a Life' and noticed that the computer's voice
>was not heard for the entire episode.  Can anyone confirm if this is typical
>of all the Lwaxana episodes (i.e. Lwaxana or computer, not both)?

I never noticed that before, but I do know that both parts are played
by Majel Barrett (remember Nurse Chapel?), also the wife of the late Gene
Roddenberry and probably the major creative force now.

My co-worker Chris sitting beside me says that he recalls a scene where Lwaxana uses the comm panel in which the computer may have responded.

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 "Live for the moment,                Internet: robert@revcan.rct.ca
  tomorrow will come soon enough."    FidoNet: Robert Presland (1:243/27.1)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current,rec.arts.startrek.misc
From: tlynch@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch)
Subject: Re: "The Naked Now" deserves a break
Followup-To: rec.arts.startrek.misc
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 22:04:25 GMT

Followups set to r.a.s.misc.

ec120wee@sdcc4.ucsd.edu (Anthony Minkoff) writes:

>I think TNN gets ripped far more than it deserves.  

I agree.  It wasn't fantastic, and I certainly don't feel about it the way 
Michael Rawdon does, but it was good fun.

>Its main flaw was that it came too early in the series,
>when we weren't comfortable enough with the characters to laugh at
>them.  

I couldn't agree more.  Had it been half a season later, and slightly
reworked to take advantage of that fact, it could have been wonderful.  As
it is, it was...okay.

>I think it was the best TNG comedy outside of "Deja Q."  Maybe even
>better than DQ.  

I wouldn't go that far; I'd probably put "Manhunt" in front of it for 
comedy.  But just saying "it was a successful TNG comedy" puts it in rare
enough company already!

Tim Lynch
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
From: jfrench@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Jason French)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Re: Why did the Glass Break! Cause and Effect
Date: 9 Apr 92 15:42:50 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

From ut-emx!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!psinntp!dg-rtp!salzo!berry!pat Thu Apr  9 10:23:07 CDT 1992

=O>nash@visus.com (Richard V. Nash) writes:

=O>> You would think that hundreds of years from now that material science would  
=O>> have advanced enough such that drinking glasses would not break when dropped 
=O>> from a height of two feet.

=O>I'm sure that unbreakable drinking glasses are available on board the
=O>Enterprise.  But if Dr. Crusher insists on asking the replicator for
=O>old-fashioned silica glass, that's her choice.

[things deleted]

=O>But in "Heart of Glory," one of the rogue Klingons was standing there,
=O>threatening to fire a weapon at the intermix column and, possibly,
=O>destroy the ship. Worf killed him with a phaser at close range.  The
=O>Klingon fell to the transparent floor, which shattered, allowing him to
=O>fall down to the next level -- where, fortunately, the floor was strong
=O>enough to stop him.

[things deleted]

=O>Pat Berry                    pat@berry.Cary.NC.US

I always thought that part in "Heart of Glory" was pretty stupid.  I just
assumed they did it just for dramitic affect.  About the glass, Dr. Crusher
might have the that particular drink replicated in a real glass.  Some drinks
taste funny in plastic (or other materials) containers and to get the full
effect she originally programmed the replicator that way.

+-------------------------------Jason French-------------------------------+
!                                                                          !
! "In this galaxy there is a mathematical probability of 3 million Earth   !
!  type planets.  And in all the universe, 3 million, million galaxies     !
!  like this.  And in all that, and perhaps more, only one of each of us.  !
!  Don't destroy the one named Kirk."                                      !
!                                        --  Doctor Leonard McCoy          !
!                                            Star Trek                     !
!                                           "Balance of Terror"            !
!                                                                          !
+-------------------------jfrench@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu-----------------------+
+------------------------csgx166@bongo.cc.utexas.edu-----------------------+
From: kyle@uunet.uu.net (Kyle Jones)
Subject: Re: SPOILING "Cause/Effect" [ltc]
Organization: UUNET Communications Services
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 00:35:08 GMT

ccoprdj@prism.gatech.EDU (Jorge Diaz) writes:
 > As near as I've been able to figure out from watching the episodes, this
 > is how the ranks/pips work:
 > 
 > Ensign          - 1 white pip
 > Lieutenant J.G. - 1 white, 1 black
 > Lieutenant      - 2 whites
 > Lt. Commander   - 2 whites, 1 black
 > Commander       - 3 whites
 > Captain         - 4 whites

Poor college kids... having to watch black and white TVs...
almost brings a tear to the eye, doesn't it? :-)

Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
From: kemnitz@netcom.com (Greg Kemnitz)
Subject: Re: Wesley and Alexander
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 23:02:40 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In article <92105.103353AUJDW@ASUACAD.BITNET> AUJDW@ASUACAD.BITNET writes:
>I think that Wesley and Alexander should be both ejected into
>space

Only after being tortured horribly for weeks on end.


>
>I can't stand either of them, and I really wonder why the producers of
>TNG keep putting in these little snobby brats who think they can act.

Because, there is an appeal to all the yuppiescum out there who like to
see Cute Small Children on their screens, in nice Family Situations.

>I HATE WESLEY, and I HATE ALEXANDER, I want them DEAD!!!!


Agreed.  Also, having some conflict on the show that is larger than 
that little bratoid whining "all you are about is your *honor.*  
Arrghhhh!!!!! I wanted to kill him with my bare hands!!  (To paraphrase
Captain--ahem--Lord Garth.   


>if you are with me, please respond.  I hope I am not
>the only one out there who hates these pre-puberty,
>New Kids on the Block loving brats.


That would be "pre-pubescent," but yes, I agree.  Kill them now, 
Terrel.  




		Jon Rhein
		jon@postgres.berkeley.edu
		from a friend's account


Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
From: goodwin@orionsci (Ben Goodwin)
Subject: Re: Lacarno = Kirk (Spoilers "1st Duty)
Reply-To: goodwin@orionsci.UUCP (Ben Goodwin)
Organization: Orion Scientific, Inc.
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1992 12:22:20 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.085229.15350@uunet.uu.net> kyle@uunet.uu.net (Kyle Jones) writes:
> > I agree that, a Kirk, would have never attempted to cover his
> > tracks but Locarno didn't have to get his team members of the
> > hook either. I would say he is responsible but he has a lot to
> > learn about Honor.
>
>Nay, I'd say Locarno has learned the lessons of life very well No
>need to take the heat for something when you don't have to,
>particularly if you can blame someone who is already dead, and
>mostly responsible for their own death anyway.  Wesley was naive,
>and he let Picard bully him into making a stupid confession.
>

Are you kidding?


-- 
============================================================================
| uunet!orionsci!goodwin        | you with your hair that's always combed,
| Ben Goodwin                   | your suit is always white, your car is
| Washington DC (703) 524-0504  | always clean.  You I hate!!! -Great Race
============================================================================