From: ian@ug.cs.dal.ca (Ian Littlewood)
Subject: Re: Shatner proposes and idea for STVII
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Distribution: dal
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 20:14:20 GMT

In <5935@npri6.npri.com> murphy@npri6.npri.com (David P. Murphy) writes:


> >>>if Star Trek VII DOES revolve around a romance between Jim Kirk and a
> >>>young woman, then what's the big deal? He's a normal, healthy human male;
> >>>because he's got a few grey hairs is no reason to think it silly that he 
> >>>can love someone. 
> >>>
> >>>ian@ug.cs.dal.ca (Ian Littlewood)

>>>because the relationships are not real; they never last; they do not convince.
>>>they're flimsy plotlines tossed in to stir up some conflict.  count the number
>>>of times we see the female return . . . half the time she dies or sacrificies
>>>herself in some permanent manner, the others we NEVER hear about her again.
>>>go ahead, count for me.
>>>
>>>me

> >and EVERY SINGLE ONE was in his younger days when he was sowing a few wild
> >oats... haven't you ever heard of settling down? I think you're one of those
> >Trekkers who came along once the movies started production because you like
> >the special effects... oh, and no, not all of them have been plot devices;
> >Jim has been serious about a woman more than once; Mirimanee, Carol Marcus,
> >Rayna Kapec,Edith Keeler, etc. 
> >  Mirimanee was stoned to death.
> >  Carol Marcus ASKED Jim to stay out of her life to protect David.
> >  Rayna Kapec was an android who couldn't handle human emotions.
> >  Edith Keeler was sacrificed by Jim to protect his reality.
> >
> >  I don't see a SINGLE self-sacrifice on the part of any of these women...
> >  You really should try to watch a few shows, you know...

>hello ian.  FLAME ON you are a moron FLAME OFF.

Your opinion... however, since you do not know me and since you are one of those
low-lifes who watches anything with special effects (i.e. you're not a true
Trekker/Trekkie - just someone who looks for special effects) it's basis in truth
seems rather shaky at best.

>i have seen all of the shows and all of the movies.

Yes, maybe you have SEEN them... but I really doubt that you've WATCHED them.

>you shoot yourself in the foot with your examples; for example, mirimanee
>_sacrificed_ herself to save "kirok".  did _you_ watch that show?  :-)

No - I don't consider Mirimanee to have sacrificed herself at all... if YOU had
watched the show, you'd have noticed that Jim placed HIMSELF between the stones
and Mirimanee. However, even if I conceded the point about Mirimanee (which I
have not done), you still haven't adequately accounted for your statements
about EVERY woman having sacrificed herself for Jim; none of them really have...
and if you had really watched all the episodes, you would have noticed that
nearly every woman who Jim was serious about and who he had left had been a
relationship from the PAST; Ruth (Shore Leave), Areel (Court Martial), Janice
(Turnabout Intruder), Carol (STII:TWOK & *MAYBE* the "little blonde lab
technician" mentioned by Gary in "Where No Man Has Gone Before")) - of the other
women, Jim was not really skirt chasing; if you'll recall that he had no real
choice with Elaan (Elaan of Troyius), Rayna could not deal with emotions, Edith
Keeler was sacrificed to save not only his universe, but the universe of everyone
everywhere in any way affected by the Federation, Mirimanee was the result of his
not knowing who he was; he loved her AND he was not about to abandon her - she
died and he found himself, Lenore Karidian (The Conscience of the King) he was
interested in, but I think more to get closer to her father than anything else.
The list goes on, but not ONCE has Juim either endangered his ship or crew;
as for starship captains being responsible... yes, just as today's sea captains
are responsible... that precludes their humanity; it does NOT require it's loss.
Obviously you've never any sea captains... they're not machines like you seem to 
think; how do I know? Well, for starters, my Dad is one, and secondly, several
years at sea. 

>my point was that kirk has gotten involved with a woman sooooo many times now
>that i for one am really tired of it; the relationship never lasts,
>therefore it is seldom convincing, therefore the plot fails to be interesting.
>yet another movie about kirk vs. some_woman stands little chance
>of being entertaining, and even less chance of being a good movie.

>and what's this nonsense about "sowing wild oats" in "his younger days"?
>almost every <encounter> we've seen has been about CAPTAIN james t kirk,
>a position of immense responsibility you might recall, not exactly the
>type of job for a skirt-chaser . . . i think your excuse of "oat-sowing"
>is ludicrous.

>ok

You say that as though you've made some kind of a point (!?) - I can back up 
ALL of my comments; so far all I've seen from you was maniacal rhetoric 
completely unsubstantiated in any way by fact. Either back up your comments or
stop wasting my time with your drivel. Thank you.

>dpm
>-- 
>murphy@npri6.npri.com 602 Cameron St. Alexandria, VA 22314 (703) 683-9090

>              When every one is dead the Great Game is finished.  Not before.
>                              --- Hurree Babu, "Kim"