HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jwindley%asylum.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley)
Subject: Re: Navy in Star Trek
Date: 9 Sep 92 15:09:45 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

judson@watnxt2.ucr.edu (Michael Judson) writes:
>Why is it that Star Trek is part of the navy?  Did the army disappear?

Since the United States of America and most other political entities
we know and distrust today don't exist in the 24th century, a good
counter question might be "Whose navy?"

Gene Roddenberry chose to model his Starfleet partly after the US Navy
because it seemed to already have the organization necessary to manage
ships and men.

>Do battle ships carry Marine Corps soldiers?

Troi mentioned that the Enterprise can carry "6,000 troops."

>It makes sense that the federation should be a part of the navy since they
>call their vessels ships.  But is the navy really going to rule outer
>space?

I think you're a mite confused.  Starfleet is the paramilitary arm of
the United Federation of Planets, which is more of a confederacy of
independent states than a centralized government.  There might be
other armed services within the Federation, but we don't know about
them.
--------------------------------+---------------------------------------
Jay Windley                     | jwindley@asylum.cs.utah.edu
Department of Computer Science  +---------------------------------------
Univ. of Utah, Salt Lake City   | I was a rutabaga in a former life.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.misc
From: drw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (david.r.wells)
Subject: Re: Navy in Star Trek
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 21:09:18 GMT

In article <92Sep10.154822.26326@acs.ucalgary.ca> jsbell@acs.ucalgary.ca (Joshua Bell) writes:
>In article <37877@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> cmhayes@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Purple Hayes   ) writes:
>>history?  I believe the USS Entrpise (CVN-65) was commissioned about
>>the same time TOS began her own maind voyage.  The public could preceive it as

CVN-65 was commissioned in 1961 I believe.
>
>As a side query, how many Enterprises have there been so far? The
>19th Century battleship (?), the carrier (what class, by the
>way?), and the mock-Shuttle... anything else? (I'm not counting
>the Trek 5)

USS Enterprise CV-6 (1938-1959 RIP) was a Yorktown class carrier.
(about 19,800 tons empty). CV-6 was arguably the most successful warship
in history.

USS Enterprise CVN-65 (1961-present) is unique (therefore, Enterprise
class). She is the world's first nuclear carrier. She is powered by
8 reactors (modern carriers need only 2). She is still the world's
longest warship (1101.5 feet)

I know of no 19th century battleship Enterprise (and my information
is relatively good)

There was a British curiser HMS Enterprise built after WWI. It served
in WWII. Aparently, the British have used this name several times in the
past.
>
>>Now look at TNG.  They are using more ship names that the rest of
>>the world can relate to.  "Soyuz" (sp?),  "Berlin", "Melbourne"
>>(for the rest check out Mr. Carrington's list)  Remember Star Trek
>>is popular thoughtout the world now.  Wouldn't you want to make our
>>customers happy?
>
>I prefer 'em myself. Tho I would enjoy seeing the USS Nimtz,
>maybe an Excelsior class?

BUT STILL NO WARSPITE (after HMS Warspite, 1913-1956 RIP)

or New Jersey (after USS New Jersey, BB-62 1943-present)

Except for the Yamato, battleship names are rather underrepresented in
Star Fleet. (OK there was also the Kongo in TOS.)


		David R. Wells

DISCLAIMER: These are MY views, not AT&Ts.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.misc
From: Otto Heuer #3 <ottoh3@cfsmo.honeywell.com>
Subject: TREK RATE results (MOVIES)
To: rec.arts.startrek.misc
Posted-Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 00: 02:25 -0500
Organization: Honeywell Systems & Research Center
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 05:02:25 GMT
Received-Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 00: 01:53 CDT

This is one of seven periodic postings for ratings of Star Trek in all flavors:

TREK RATE ballot           - for sending in your votes!
TREK RATE results (TAS)    - what the USENET community thought of TAS eps
TREK RATE results (DS9)    - what the USENET community thought of DS9 eps
TREK RATE results (BOOKS)  - what the USENET community thought of the novels
TREK RATE results (MOVIES) - what the USENET community thought of the movies
TREK RATE results (TNG)    - what the USENET community thought of TNG eps
TREK RATE results (TOS)    - what the USENET community thought of TOS eps
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The first is the ballot for sending in your votes (see it for details).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The last five postings contain the average rating for  each episode, movie,
book, etc.  according to the Usenet population.  It is  useful for deciding
which books to read (weed out the one that NO one enjoyed), what episode of
TNG people thought was the best (or worst), etc.

In the list below, RATE is the average rating on a scale of 0 to  1, NUM is
the number of votes  in the  database, and  EPISODE NAME  is (surprise) the
episode name with type  (A=TAS B=book D=DS9 M=movie N=TNG O=TOS)  in paren-
thesis.



 RATE NUM                     EPISODE NAME
----- --- ------------------------------------------------------------
0.312  78 STAR TREK V:  THE FINAL FRONTIER (M) 
0.493  81 STAR TREK:  THE MOTION PICTURE (M) 
0.646  79 STAR TREK III:  THE SEARCH FOR SPOCK (M) 
0.765  82 STAR TREK IV:  THE VOYAGE HOME (M) 
0.807  47 STAR TREK VI:  THE UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY (M) 
0.876  79 STAR TREK II:  THE WRATH OF KHAN (M) 
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.misc
From: obrien@netcom.com (Robert O'Brien)
Subject: Re: The truth(?) about Deep Space Nine and Babylon Five
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 92 07:58:15 GMT
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)

In article <920906.203345@3Mail.3Com.COM> Ric_Goldman_-C@hqops.3mail.3com.com writes:
>I was chatting on with a friend of mine who freelances for various 
>Hollywood 'zines including Starlog, and she had some interesting info on 
>the whole DS9/B5 phenomenon. 

[some stuff omitted]

>
>3) Here's the clincher.  DS9 MAY ACTUALLY BE A RIP-OFF OF B5!  
>   Apparently the B5 folk had submitted the idea to Paramount a while 

[more stuff omitted]

>Side note: to all the B5-not-on-ras*'ers - I think we may now have a 
>reason to keep B5 discussions here; it would B5 may actually be a ST-
>cousin (or vice versa).

[you get the idea..]

>Any comments?  Any questions?  Any answers?  Any one got a mint?


[finally, what *I* have to say:]

Yes, I have a comment.  I've heard the 'B5 ripped-off by DS9' from enough
sources to pretty much believe it, and I totally disagree with your
side note.  In fact, I think it makes a good case for DS9 not belonging
here either. But I'll be happy to wade through both types of postings
at least until I see the shows.  I'll also be grateful to all who
post about B5 and DS9 if their subject lines *always* start with those
characters (i.e.  "B5:"  "DS9:")
From: mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Mike Levis)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.misc
Subject: Troi and Starfleet (Re: Sexism and Plunging Necklines)
Date: 5 Sep 92 04:33:13 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

In article <3BDLqB2w164w@jab.tucson.az.us> uhs@jab.tucson.az.us (Rob Macomber) writes:
>
>No, she holds the rank of Lt. Commander. ("Disaster" and a few other 
>episodes)

Yes.  On the pilot (which I saw earlier this week, BTW) Troi
was refered to as Lt. Commander.  But I thought I read years
ago that the writers/producers changed their minds about the
character Troi being in Starfleet.  After the pilot, they decided
that she should be a civilian instead, which is why she does not
wear a StarFleet uniform (except in the pilot).  I remember
that they felt that Troi was not Starfleet-like, and reasoned
"why does she have to be in Starfleet, anyways?", then they
made her a civilian.  I thought that her rank was then assumed
to be "honorary" or something.

Whether Troi is/isn't in Starfleet is now unclear to me.  I've
been looking for that article from the local paper, but I cannot
find it.  :(  Maybe I misunderstood the article, but I don't
think I did...


-- 
==== Mike Levis   mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu ====
::   ftp syrinx.umd.edu  (128.8.2.114)  for   ::  .--.
::   Rush lyrics,  gifs,  and  information.   :: (OS/2)
:::: Get the Rush FAQL in dir /rush/special ::::  ~--~
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.misc
From: marcb@skatter.usask.ca
Subject: Q omnipotent? (was: STTNG sucks!!!!!!!!!)
Organization: University of Saskatchewan
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 23:37:39 GMT

From article <18lj3gINNqu@agate.berkeley.edu>, by ph111-bx@violet.berkeley.edu (;;;;7202):
> 
> Q's more powerful than the Organians.  Q even said he was omnipotent.

We never did here of any limits to the Organians' power. Q can say he's
omnipotent, but can you really take his word for it? I mean, he did get
his powers taken away from him. Doesn't sound very potent to me.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.misc
From: kanamori@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Atsushi Kanamori)
Subject: Re: Was TOS really that bad? (Re: TOS actors)
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 20:45:27 GMT

In article <1992Sep7.193428.7745@cco.caltech.edu> tlynch@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>Followups set to r.a.s.misc.
>
>One point that a friend mentioned to me in email is that, particularly this
>past season, the really high points ("Darmok", "The Inner Light", etc.) were 
>so
>quiet and so understated that people sometimes weren't as quick to remember
>them, unlike the low points, which were not only awful, but took pride in 
>shoving themselves in our faces and *pointing out* how bad they were.  (Things
>like "Cost of Living", some of "Imaginary Friend", "Disaster", some of 
>"Ethics", and so forth.)  As a result, since the bad memories are perhaps more
>vivid than the good, people are coming away with a negative impression these
>days.

Not only that, but the low points fit a more obvious *pattern* than the
high points -- which gives you a *much* bigger hook to hang gripes on
than if they misfired at random. The "Cost of Living" preview leveraged on
previous lows to tick *everybody* off: by the time you take away the
Lwaxana-haters, the kid-haters, the superset of that who are 
Alexander-bashers and the ship-in-danger-while-someone-moans-about-parenting 
allergics, you don't have much left.

Add to that the recent _Cinefantastique_ issue, and the press tidbits
from Paramount which promise us *more* ship-in-danger subplots,
more Lwaxana Troi (in DS9 *and* TNG), more awful music, more artificial 
inflation of the regulars roles even if a guest star is the focus of the 
plot -- in effect, presenting all these bad points as *good*, it's no 
wonder TNG criticism is at an all-time high.

After five years, people get pretty set in their ways on how they want
"their" show to work, and if the producers have a different philosophy,
you're going to get angry fans. I've seen it happen before.

 
. .                .                .        
: : . :. . :  :....: : .  ::.: .  ..: :    ..     : :    .:   :.:
::::::::::.: :::::::.:::::::::::.:::::: :?.:::::..::::.:.:: :.:::?
------------ -------------------------- -------------------.------
Kanamori's Episode Ratings: (last episode rated: "Time's Arrow")
  "This season began with a turkey. I'm simply trying to see 
   that it doesn't end that way." -- fictitious Paramount writer
From: v115p8d6@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (I have a cunning plan...)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.misc
Subject: Re: Worf - proud warrior or wuss Klingon?
Date: 15 Sep 92 16:13:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Sep14.134643.1@camins.camosun.bc.ca>, alumni106@camins.camosun.bc.ca writes...
>In article <1992Sep10.133216.21869@crpmks.uucp>, billb@crpmks.uucp (Bill Bochnik (Info Systems)) writes:
> 

>Example #2: In the episode "Sins of the Father", FOR SOME REASON, Worf 
>WILLFULLY accepts discommendation! He had Duras and the Klingon Council 
>by the balls, BEGGING him for mercy, and he could have tightened the 
>noose at ANY TIME. And does he? NO! He instead reverses the whole 
>situation and takes the punishment upon himself.

Hmm.. I thought it was a very Klingon thing to do.
He put the Empire above his own interests.

> 
>+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>|Kup- "This reminds me of the time when my   +-> Kup- "You ever SEEN a Regulan|
>|      my platoon was stranded on Regulan IV;|         Metal Monger, lad?"    |
>|      there we were, only SEVEN HUNDRED of  |   Hot Rod- "Uh, no,..."        |
>|      US, against THREE WHOLE REGULAN METAL |   Kup- "TRUST me! We were      |
>|      Mongers!"                             |         outnumbered!           |
>|Hot Rod- "Seven HUNDRED of YOU? Against     +--------------------------------+
>|          THREE of THEM? Aw, come on, Kup!"-+ alumni106@camins.camosun.bc.ca |
>+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: ph111-bx@violet.berkeley.edu (;;;;7202)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.misc
Subject: Re: Sexism and Plunging Necklines (Was Re: What would you do ... )
Date: 5 Sep 1992 05:18:10 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: violet.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Sep4.174412.26736@adobe.com> choffman@adobe.com
(Charles Hoffman) writes:
>Sigh, here we go again.  From Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary 1976
>
>Sir <- sire <- senior : A person of higher standing or rank

sir \[nonascii diacritics]\ n [ME, fr. sire] (13c) 1 a : a man of rank
or position  b : a man entitled to be addressed as sir -- used as a title
before the given name of a knight or baronet and formerly sometimes
before the given name of a priest  2  a -- used as a usu. respectful
form of address  b cap -- used as a conventional form of address in the
salutation of a letter

-- Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary [1986]
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.misc,rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: rountree@cs.dal.ca (Eric Rountree)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.misc
Subject: TV Special hosted by Patrick Stewart
Summary: Need info on title and where to get a copy
Keywords: Star Trek, The Cage, Patrick Stewart, TV Special, Cast Interviews
Date: 14 Sep 92 00:23:16 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Academic Computing, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada


A year and a half to two years ago a special about Star Trek hosted by 
Patrick Stewart aired. It contained "The Cage" in its entirety and 
completely in colour, and also featured interview clips with the casts of 
the original and Next Generation series.

I would like to know the following:

a) Does anyone out there know the name of this special?

b) Does anyone out there have this special on tape?

c) Would any of those persons who have the special on tape be willing to
   make a copy of it?

I am posting this on behalf of someone who seems to have urgent need of this
particular special. Please respond via E-Mail, as I don't read the ol'
newsgroups as much as I used to.

Thanks very much.

Eric R. Rountree
System Manager
Business School Site
Academic Computing Services
Dalhousie University
Halifax, Nova Scotia
Canada

rountree@cs.dal.ca
rountree@ac.dal.ca
rountree@earth.sba.dal.ca
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.misc
From: ira2p@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (Iain Robert Asplin)
Subject: Re: TNG script guidelines (was Re: horse's stardates)
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 03:55:17 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.163228.11844@hellgate.utah.edu> jwindley%asylum.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley) writes:
>eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson) writes:
>>If you are thinking of submitting a script, they suggest these guidelines
>
>>-Stories with lots of exterior scenes.
>
>Translation: "We don't want to go on location."  This I can buy, since
>location shooting is PHENOMENALLY expensive compared to soundstage
>work.  That's why TOS built most of their "exteriors" on a stage.
>This also wreaks havoc on production schedules.  It takes longer to
>shoot on location than to shoot on a stage.  Since TNG is on such a
>tight production schedule, this seems like a reasonable guideline.
>

This is something that's always really bothered me, i.e. why is it
so expensive for Hollywood shows to go on location?
Location work is/(was) routine for "Doctor Who," a show which certainly
has never had near the same amount of money as ST:TNG does, yet
in most of the last fifteen years of the series, a viewer is hard
pressed to find a story where they didn't go on location for at least
a few scenes.
Now admittedly, often that location would be a quarry somewhere to
simulate an arid, desolate, alien landscape, and of course we all know
it's a quarry, but on TNG, we all know they're on a set too don't we?
Well, since the illusion is shattered in both cases, why not go for
the more realistic of the two and head out on location someday in a 
quarry somewhere?  

So why is it so much more expensive to film outdoors in America than
it is in the UK?
From: REBECCA@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (Rebecca Drayer)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.misc
Subject: Re: Riker/Troi relationship
Date: 14 Sep 92 00:51:03 GMT
Organization: Yale University

In article <1992Sep10.082503.14861@nntp.uoregon.edu>
eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson) writes:
 
>Other than the need to meet Fleet Standard Cleavage requirements, why *are*
>there Betazoids on star ships?  They can't catch spies or discover liars or
>much else of value.  Their primary purpose is stating the obvious.
 
 
I got the impression that most Betazoids (Troi's mother excluded) COULD do
more than just the obvious, since they were full telepaths instead of just
empaths.  Since Mrs. Troi enjoyed hanky-panky with humans, Troi got
short-changed in the mental abilities department.
 
 
*************************************************************************
Rebecca A. Drayer, EMT        |    Rebecca@Yalevm.Ycc.Yale.edu
P.O. Box 6349 Yale Station    |    Computing Assistant
New Haven, CT 06520           |    Silliman College, Yale University
 
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite
you.  This is the principal difference between a dog and a man."
                                                        -Mark Twain
*************************************************************************
From: Wedge@cup.portal.com (Craig Teruo Matsumoto)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.misc
Subject: TNG guest star in _Unforgiven_
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 92 12:15:37 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)


Sorry if this was discussed already, but:

In Clint Eastwood's _Unforgiven_, the guy who plays the writer...
isn't that the same actor who was the collector, who faked Data's death
so he could steal him for his collection?

Anybody know the name of the actor (and the TNG character he played)?

(btw, this has been bugging me for *weeks*.  Watching _Unforgiven_, I kept
saying, "I know that guy, I've *seen* that guy"...it just came to me
yesterday!)

                                   -- Craig Matsumoto
                                      wedge@cup.portal.com
From: pat@berry.Cary.NC.US (Pat Berry)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.misc
Subject: Re: Jack Crusher
Keywords: monKEY, turKEY, donKEY, KEYboard
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 92 22:30:51 EDT
Organization: Berry Communications

v070p6nd@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Anthos) writes:

> 		Is there a ST:TNG episode which explains how Jack Crusher
>               died?

No.

-- 
Pat Berry - Cary, North Carolina, USA   | Dave Barry for President
pat@berry.Cary.NC.US                    |  "He Probably Won't Use
**** Happy user of OS/2 2.0 ****        |     Nuclear Weapons"
From: eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.misc
Subject: Re: Riker/Troi relationship
Summary: A miserable civilian...
Date: 15 Sep 92 09:20:14 GMT
Article-I.D.: nntp.1992Sep15.092014.21396
Organization: University of Oregon Campus Information Exchange

In article <r!ynq4j.obrien@netcom.com> obrien@netcom.com (Robert O'Brien) writes:
>eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson) is attributed to having written:
> 
>>Other than the need to meet Fleet Standard Cleavage requirements, why *are*
>>there Betazoids on star ships?  They can't catch spies or discover liars or
>>much else of value.  Their primary purpose is stating the obvious.
>
>
>somebody, please shoot me!  I'm about to defend Lawaxana Troi!   
>
>"..can't catch spies or discover liars.."
>
>She didn't have much trouble with Mick Fleetwood and his partner "fish creature"

Ah!  Yes, but that character is not a Starfleet officer, nor does she serve
aboard starships  (she just shows up to be a pain).  Deanna didn't notice
the problem at all.  
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.misc
From: obrien@netcom.com (Robert O'Brien)
Subject: Re: Worf - proud warrior or wuss Klingon?
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 04:06:15 GMT
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Summary: Raised by humans, perhaps he's still learning what a Klingon is.

In article <1992Sep14.134643.1@camins.camosun.bc.ca>,
alumni106@camins.camosun.bc.ca  makes a few good points about how Worf
often acts more human than Klingon, suggesting the influence of Captain Picard
as the main factor.

I would like to offer another possibility, as in my summary above.  Perhaps
Worf *wants to be* a true Klingon, but really does not yet know how.
Cultural and tradition information learned from a computer while being
raised by human parents on a human world?  How could he *really* prepare
himself for the kinds of decisions a "true" Klingon would make without
thinking?

Yes, I agree, as a Klingon, he's been a 'wuss' as you say.  But so much of
cultural behavior is learned *only* by experience, I'd like to give Worf the
benefit of the doubt.

This *is* probably influenced by the fact that Michael Dorn and I had a
very nice conversation at a convention once.  I didn't recognize him, and
he asked about some stuff I'd done. I concluded he was a nice guy with an
interest in SF and a real life(tm) too!
From: eric_gorr@coglab_psych.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr)
Subject: Re: STNG sucks!!!
Organization: University of Oregon Network Services
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 92 16:38:40 GMT

Try watching:  I, BORG, Yesterdays Enterprise, The Defector, The Inner
Light,
Cause and Effect for just a few which have those qualities you most admire
in
the old series.

(I could list A LOT more...)

In article <Sep06.052102.20138@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>,
mk568652@longs.LANCE.ColoState.EDU (Mitchell Kotler) writes:
> 
> Keywords: 	Listen all of you fags out there, there's only one real Star
> Trek and that's
> 	the original.  This New Generation shit has boring plots, just a lot of good
> 	special effects -  so what.  It's the script that counts and Shatner's
> portrayal
> 	of Kirk was perfect.  I've watched a few episodes and I don't see the
> suspense ,
> 	the action, or the wit of the "real" Star Trek.    Stop denying the
> truth to your-
> 	selves, STNG sucks!!!
> 
> 
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.misc