HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: v115p8d6@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (she listens like her head's on fire..)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Re: Rascals: How did their clothes change size?
Date: 9 Nov 92 19:05:00 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Nov9.135147.17960@devildog.att.com>, smith@acpy01.att.com (Bob Smith (CXNIXPT1)) writes...
>How did the clothes change size when they became children and then adults?
>Was there n electronic tailor hiding in the background?
>When they showed how the plants had changed, the pots they were in didn't
>change size.
> 
>It would have been better to have the children characters materialize
>in the transporter with full-sized clothes hanging from their small frames.
>But then again, there were so many inconsistencies
>with this episode that one more shouldn't matter. ;')


hmm...the children *were* standing there with their clothes hanging off
their frames. That was the first thing I looked for when the episode was
aired because it didn't look like it in the previews, and that would also
be one of the more obvious mistakes they could have made. 
They got new uniforms so they wouldn't have to wander around the ship 
like that but you will notice that when they were sent back 
through the transporter, they were wearing their original uniforms.




> 
>Bob Smith
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
From: tjehl@sedona.intel.com (Timothy Jehl)
Subject: Re: Shatner Script
Originator: tjehl@sedona
Reply-To: tjehl@sedona.intel.com
Organization: Intel Corporation.
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 17:20:41 GMT


In article <69052@cup.portal.com>, DonD@cup.portal.com (Don Robert DeCosta) writes:
> 
> A BOLD NEW JOURNEY: Expect the next "Star Trek" movie to feature both the
> original cast and the headliners from "Star Trek: The Next Generation."
> Paramount brass have not as yet settled on a "ST VII" story -- there are
> several in contention including a WILLIAM SHATNER submission that focuses
> on a romance for his aging Capt. Kirk character and a young lovely.

   Having subjected myself to Mr. Shatner's writing on a couple of occasions,
I would have to state that nothing is more likely to kill a "ST VII" movie
than relying on Mr. Shatner to pen it.  Quite frankly, at least as an author,
he stinks.

TJ
-- 

"It really only matters to the people who care."
From: wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Patrick Chester)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Re: A Lament.  A big damned Lament.
Date: 10 Nov 92 10:39:02 GMT
Article-I.D.: ut-emx.83316
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

In article <1992Nov6.005917.126@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> dave@cs.arizona.edu (Dave Schaumann) writes:
>(Also -- why is it that a Ferengi can duck out of the way of a phaser
>shot, but Worf can't?!)

Simple. Worf is a bigger target. :)


I thought that was lame too. I could understand Worf stunning one of the
Ferengi and then getting hit by another Ferengi's shot, but not what they
did in the episode. 





-- 
Patrick Chester            |----------------------------------------------------
wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu |"The earth is too fragile a basket in which to keep
Politically Incorrect      |  all your eggs." Robert A. Heinlein
Future Lunar Colonist      |"The meek shall inherit the Earth. The rest of us
#^%$!! Militarist          |  are going to the stars." Anonymous
(Of the Sun Tzu mentality) |----------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
From: janet@indetech.com (Janet Christian)
Subject: Re: Rascals SPOILERS
Organization: Independence Technologies, Inc. Fremont, CA
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 02:37:47 GMT

>> SPOILERS!!!
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
The grown-up Guinan has no eyebrows. Did anyone notice if the young Guinan
also has no eyebrows? I heard in an interview once that Whoopi shaved off
her eyebrows to make herself look unusual and different. 

-- 
   Janet Christian             jchristian@indetech.com

My boss agrees with everything I say - well, actually, he thinks I'm working.  
"Never argue with a Scorpio - it's frustrating and you'll lose, anyway..."
From: bssbc3gsd@dct.ac.uk
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: And Redemption too......
Date: 11 Nov 92 15:28:42 GMT
Organization: Dundee Institute of Technology





and a synopsis of Redemption would be handy too!!!!!!!!


g.
From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Re: ** SPOILERS ** Rascals -- the new all-time trek low
Date: 11 Nov 92 23:31:37 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <BxKGo0.2I7@Novell.COM>, mwalker@novell.com (Mel Walker) writes:
> In article <1992Nov10.183044.1@vms.cis.pitt.edu> TJ Wood,

>>they wipe those "monkey-boys" off the face of the galaxy?  At least, will
>>the Klingons extradite them and make them stand trial for stealing
> Klingon
>>ships?

> They were surplus ships, probably refitted with Ferengi weaponry. _This_,
> at least, isn't a plot hole.

"Surplus" ships with "surplus" cloaking devices?  The Federation should just
buy "surplus" cloaking devices and not worry about making their own. ;-)

Terry
-- 
        INTERNET: tjw+@pitt.edu         BITNET: TJW@PITTVMS
"Laugh while you can, Monkey Boy!"                        - Lord "John" Warfin
"There can be only one!"                                  - The Highlander
"There should have been only one. I want my money back!"  - Terry
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
From: abick@sebastian.carleton.ca (Alan Bick)
Subject: Re: Blooper in Rascals? *minor SPOILERS*
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 05:02:08 GMT

In <1992Nov9.032436.23231@panix.com> oppedahl@panix.com (Carl Oppedahl) writes:

>In <1992Nov8.200657.8711@ac.dal.ca> 01lucas@ac.dal.ca writes:

>>When I was re-watching Rascals, I noticed that when the Ferengis take over the 
>>bridge and shoot Worf, Riker then dives away from nothing.  Maybe the phaser
>>beam was close enough for him to jump away, but it sounded to me like the other
>>Ferengi was firing.  Baybe he was firing at Riker, but the FX people forgot to
>>include the beam nearly hitting Riker.  Antway, it looked kind of funny to see
>>Riker jump away from nothing.

>Yes, I agree.  Riker otherwise has no excuse for throwing himself across
>the bridge.

I'm sorry but I don't need to be fire at to duck for cover! All I need is
to see a phaser being fired to know that standing up can be hazardous
for my health. You can say Riker wasn't courageous for ducking but you
certainly can't say he's stupid either! At least, not in that
PARTICULAR frame ;)

On a side note...Wouldn't it be nice...just once...for Worf to actually be
a competent security chief. I mean would it be asking to much for a
security chief to fire a phaser which hits an intruder and not get shot in
the chest/leg/arm etc... For gods sake, he's a kligon isn't he???

>Carl Oppedahl AA2KW  (intellectual property lawyer) 
>30 Rockefeller Plaza
>New York, NY  10112-0228
>voice 212-408-2578     fax 212-765-2519

Just my $0.02 on this so called fx blooper. I don't think it was one at all.

Alan Bick
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
From: g92n3258@giraffe.ru.ac.za (MR RL NICOL)
Subject: Need True Q.... Please!
Organization: Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 12:07:56 GMT

I've been collecting all to Tim Lynch's reviews since the end of the 5th 
season, but somehow missed this one.  If it is at all possible, could 
someone please post to me the review for "True Q".

Thanks.
All the best,
Ryan.

P.S.  If someone also has copies for the reviews of "Brothers", "Legacy" 
and "Darmok", I would really appreciate it if you could post me a copy.
From: azjohn@eagle.larc.nasa.gov (John Paul Phillips)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Re: Rascals closed-caption (micro-spoilers)
Date: 9 Nov 1992 22:14:59 GMT
Organization: NASA
Distribution: world
Reply-To: azjohn@eagle.larc.nasa.gov (John Paul Phillips)
NNTP-Posting-Host: b1300mac7.larc.nasa.gov

In article <BxDsyz.B3@access.digex.com>, tjones@access.digex.com (Tom Jones) 
writes:
> Having recently acquired a television equipped with closed captioning,
> (CC) I watched Rascals with it on.  One extremely handy feature is
> that one can get perhaps-canon spelling for any new term instantly.
> 
> More interestingly, it also seems that there are some things included
> in the captions that are not apparent in the soundtrack:
> 
> (I don't consider these to be spoilers since most people don't even
> know they exist.)
> 
> During the opening title sequence while the music is playing and the
> Enterprise is swooshing about the screen, CC states that the
> captioning is provided by Paramount, and Nissan cars, "It's time to
> expect more from a car."  
> 
> In Rascals, two scenes contained text that was apparently in the
> script but overdubbed by incidental music:
> 
> 1) When the two Ferengi are standing in Engineering, the following
> discussion takes place, leading into the heard version:
> 
> "And he never pays us on time."
> "I hate Daimon Lurin."
> "You should see his woman."
> "Is she ugly?"
> "Hideous."
> "She has this huge mole over her left eye.  It's so disgusting
> it makes me want to..."
> "TAG!" "YOU'RE IT!"
> 
> 2) At the very end, the conversation between Deanna and Guinan
> continues for a few more trivial sentences.
> 
> Interestingly, the previews for the upcoming episode are *not*
> captioned, which, with the secret conversation, IMO indicates that the
> captioning is done from a near-final version of the program, but
> before editing is complete.
> 
> Anybody else out there watch TNG with captions?
> 
> -tom jones
>  Paradisio Products

I do. However, I couldn't help you with the comparision between the captions 
and the soundtrack, as I'm profoundly deaf. (which was the inspiration for 
the closed-captioning concept, the deaf, I mean) I believe that you're right 
on about the captioning being between near-final and final editing. 

------------------------
       John Paul Phillips   
             "Azjohn"         
         NASA/Langley        
azjohn@eagle.larc.nasa.gov
From: thogek@cco.caltech.edu (Thomas G. Kiefer)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Alexander in Rascals
Date: 9 Nov 1992 20:30:49 GMT
Organization: Nope, just me.
NNTP-Posting-Host: coil.caltech.edu

*Tiny* "Rascals" spoiler below...


In <1992Nov5.211615.26911@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> kevin@csd-d-2.Stanford.EDU (Kevin Ernst Duckworth) writes:
>>     I dare anyone to find fault or annoyance in Alexander's character
>>in this episode.

In article <steph.721011765@pegasus.cs.uiuc.edu> steph@pegasus.cs.uiuc.edu (Dale Stephenson) writes:
>OK.  He apologized to the captain for hitting him with a toy.  A *Klingon*?
>Playing with *toys*?  And *apologizing*?  What a wimp.  (I guess that proves
>he really is Worf's son, after all :->)

Careful.  That sounded pretty racist to me...

Racially, Alexander is three-quarter Klingon, one-quarter human.

Socially, Alexander is a *child* who has NOT been raised as a (stereo)typical Klingon (as Worf angrily pointed out to K'Ehleyr -- "He knows *nothing* of
our ways!" -- in "Renuion").  Worf, even though he was raised by humans,
developed a strong desire to learn about and identify with "his people", and
did so, and now considers himself very Klingon (though perhaps not completely
-- as in "It is not *my* way" in "Redemption II").  Maybe someday Alexander
will also want to know about "being Klingon", but not much so far.  For
now, he's just a kid growing up on a Federation starship (where, I'm sure,
they do teach manners/respect).

Back to Kevin's original question here,...  Personally, I thought that this
was Alexander's first non-annoying role.  I thought he did just fine.  Of
course, all the rabid child-haters on r.a.s.c wouldn't notice if he had...
-- 
======================================================
====> Thomas Kiefer <===> thogek@cco.caltech.edu <====
======================================================
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current,rec.arts.startrek.misc
From: jeffb@audiolab.UWaterloo.ca (jeff bamford)
Subject: Re: Star Trek V
Followup-To: rec.arts.startrek.misc 
Originator: jeffb@audiolab.UWaterloo.ca
Organization: Audio Research Group, University of Waterloo
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 00:35:50 GMT

In article <16897336C.YANJUNA@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu> YANJUNA@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu writes:
>   Since people are cataloguing what they liked about STV, I might as well
>put in my two credits' worth:  I consider STV my least favorite of the
>movies as a whole, but there are parts which I liked:
> 
> 
>   What I hated:
>   1) Kirk as demi-God hero:  
>    2) Spock as an idiot:  
>    3) Uhura as a slut:  
>    4): Characters generally acting as a cartoon version of themselves: Scotty
>bumping his head on the column for instance.
>    6): Incompetent Klingon:  
> 
>    The entire movie felt like a parody of ST than ST.  The surfaces seemed
>right, but none of the characters were taken seriously,  Whereas STIV was
>funny because we had a deep understanding of the characters.  As far as
>the plot itself goes, well, it wasn't great, but it wasn't godawful either.
>It had some potential, but the actual script and the directing utterly failed
>to take advantage of it.
>      Junsok Yang
> [Various parts of the original article have been deleted] 

	Although not originally my opinion I follow the school of thought
that says that STV is mostly (from the beginning where they fall asleep 
in Yosemite until the end where they are back there again) is all a dream
of Kirk's.  The whole movie doesn't make much sense as to all the so-called
non-cannon things (Spock's half-brother for example, the number of decks 
which is far more than the Enterprise could possibly have) unless you just
consider most of the movie as a dream of Kirk's.  This also allows most
of the "non-cannon" things to remain non-cannon.  Re-watching the movie 
under this light does make seem better.  It is quite different from the 
other movie but is very much like the episodes.

Follow-ups should be sent to rec.art.startrek.misc as this is not very 
"current".



-- 
****************************************************************************
*   Jeff Bamford      jeffb@audiolab.uwaterloo.ca                          *
*  "Quantum Mechanics -- Stranger Than Friction"  --  M.A.MacKenzie        *
****************************************************************************
From: rem@btr.com (Robert E. Maas)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Rascals (spoiler)
Date: 5 Nov 92 13:34:02 GMT
Organization: BTR Public Access UNIX, MtnView CA. For info contact: info@BTR.COM

(If you didn't see the show yet, you might NOT want to see next page.)

One thing that impresses me (favorably) about the design of the
Enterprise and other starships is the large number of things about that
ship that the crew, or only the captain, know, and aliens don't even
suspect, that allow the legitimate crew to retake the ship etc. in
emergencies. Remember how in a previous episode the captain knew the
access code for taking over control of another starship remotely? Of
course the aliens have no idea that Jeffries tubes exist although the
crew take them for granted. And in this episode the Ferengi don't know
enough about the ship to realize that Riker is pulling the same kind of
trick on them that Geordi pulled on the Paklet, and they don't even
realize that accepting a transponder can permit the transporter to get
a lock on them and transport them from right on board the ship.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
From: charlet@hubcap.clemson.edu (Charles E "Rick" Taylor IV)
Subject: Re: Rascals: Kanamorites have missed the point again...
Organization: Clemson University
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 05:20:53 GMT

00bwanderson@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu writes:


>In article <1992Nov8.211949.13852@hubcap.clemson.edu>, charlet@hubcap.clemson.edu (Charles E "Rick" Taylor IV) writes:
>>>We were watching it in residence Friday night and we all LOVED it!
>>>It was FUNNY!! 
>> 
>> Right ... but that's about all it had going for it. ;-)
>> 
>>>Star Trek does not HAVE to be perfectly consistent and serious all the time -
>>>it is ENTERTAINMENT!
>> 
>> Yes, but don't you expect it to be *reasonably* thought out instead of using 
>> a very slight variation on one of ST:TAS's episodes?  (remember the one where
>> the crew got turned to children?)

>Ummmm...no, actually I don't.  Refresh my memory, please.  I'd thought I'd seen
>'em all, and read a good amount of literatur-I can recall a story where Kirk,
>Spock, and some Klingons were turned into women, but never children.  Hmmm...

TAS = The *Animated* series ... I seem to recall one where they hit some sort
of reverse-aging field and the crew started getting younger.

-- 
+ Rick __     + EMAIL:charlet@hubcap.clemson.edu +   //\          + /|\ It's +
|      /aylor | IRC  : Tomalek / The Romulan     | \X/--\miga 500 |  J rainy |
+-------------+----------------------------------+----------------+----------+
+ "Every Girl Already Has A Boyfriend" --- Murphy's Law Of Dating...         +
From: lmadison@nl.oracle.com (Linc Madison)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Deus ex machina (was Re: Amanda!)
Date: 5 Nov 92 16:12:37 GMT
Reply-To: lmadison@nl.oracle.com (Linc Madison)
Organization: Oracle Europe

In article <1992Nov2.171859.10060@hubcap.clemson.edu>
charlet@hubcap.clemson.edu (Charles E "Rick" Taylor IV) writes:
 >The only really *good* thing about the Q shows is that they're 
 >funny - you get to watch Q do to the cast some of the things that we'd like
 >to.  You lose all of that with a "good" Q.  There's enough deus ex machina 
 >in Trek as it is!                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Not any more!  They got *rid* of Wesley the omnipotent boy wonder.

I was watching old re-runs (all we get here in Ireland) and saw a bit of
the episode where the Enterprise finds the planet of the used-car salesman
selling the wonder weapon systems.  Geordi is in command of the stardrive
section, and the helmsman says, "I'm getting some instability in the
oscillating framizam [or whatever]"  Geordi says, "Can you compensate?"
The helmsman says, "Compensating."  Gee, if it was *that* trivial a
problem, why even mention it with such a note of panic in your voice?
Now *that* is the kind of deus-ex-machina that makes *me* puke.

Bring back Wesley!

-- Linc Madison  ==  LMadison@ie.Oracle.Com  (Dublin, Ireland)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
From: warren@nscf.org (L3 Warren)
Subject: Re: Cloaking devices (Spoilers) Rascals
Organization: National Science Center Foundation
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 16:16:53 GMT

tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood) writes:

>Kirk also had possession of a Klingon ship in "The Voyage Home".

stuff deleted

>he and Ro Laren were "phased".  So one could conclude that the details of
>a cloaking device aren't classified or secret.

stuff deleted

>So it makes me wonder how the Federation could NOT possibly know how to
>construct one.  (OR AT LEAST DETECT ONE!)  The only reason I could see for
>NOT using a cloaking device is that a cloaking device is not "ethical" or
>"honorable".  And if you believe *that* would stop people in Government, I
>have a bridge in Brooklyn that you might be interested in too! ;-)

>They've had examples of Klingon and Romulan cloaking devices for 80 years
>and they can't make a copy?  Sheesh!  I'll bet Scotty has one in his shuttle!
>("It's the equvalent of a 20th Century Radar Jammer!" he once told me).

stuff deleted

>NOT having a cloaking device is getting harder and harder to explain.

I think there are probably several explanations. I think the Feds have known
about cloaking technology for quite some time, as you say. But several
factors should be working here.

First, possessing a cloak does not mean it is totally understood. I'm sure
major research programs have been set up to learn all they can. They probably
can and have cloaked Fed ships.

But, how many years lead do the Klingons and Romulans have on the Feds? How
likely is it that Klingon cloaks remain hard to detect while the Klingons
are capable of easily detecting cloaks built with inferior Federation cloak
knowledge?

Also, MOST of the ships that cloak are smaller ships. Perhaps the Federation
ships would all have to be built with special shielded electronics and all
sorts of other things the Federation simply does not find practical.

Also, perhaps if they are looking for it, decloaking ships are vulnerable.
Remember in Yesterday's Enterprise, the K'Vort class Battlecruisers saw
no reason to cloak. Perhaps it is inefficient in combat. The Feds can't
justify the expense of converting to a cloaked fleet and pouring tons of
resources and money into closing the technological gap.

There could be truckloads of reasons why the Feds don't cloak.


Warren.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
From: cs_d613@ceres (The Magpie Returns...)
Subject: Re: Data's Cat appearances
Keywords: Cat Spot Felus Catus
Organization: Kingston University
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 12:52:41 GMT



Contrary to what someone said about Data's cat appearing in 'Metamorphosis',
the cat named in the novel is called Mystery.  As we know from 'Schisms',
Data's cat is called Spot.



+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| "I do happen to have a human thing called an adrenal gland."              |
| "That is most inconvenient.  Have you ever considered having it removed?" |
|        Conversation between Lt.Bailey & Spock in 'The Corbomite Manoever' |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| "What am I? A doctor or a moon-shuttle conductor?" Dr.McCoy               |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| J.C.Doran             |  Also reachable at:                               |
|      USS Avian        |    Kingston University, ( BCS year 1)             |
|          NCC-713056   |     INTERNET: cs_d613@ceres.king.ac.uk            |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
From: glocke@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Gordon Locke  )
Subject: Re: I Borg{==}Vendetta
Organization: Memorial University of Newfoundland
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1992 01:00:25 GMT

delledg@uts.cc.wayne.edu (DeVaughn Elledge) writes:
>chuck@edsi.plexus.COM (Chuck Tomasi) writes:
>>bssbc3gsd@dct.ac.uk writes:
>
>>Vendetta would make one heck of a
>>movie IMHO, but it may be a little late for that at this point.  A lot
>>of things were "dated" in the book, but I suppose it could be brought up
>>to date without much problem.
>
> I hope they do this, the idea I recall has been tossed around on the next
>before so I'm not going to waste any more bandwith talking about it. If they
>chose to make a TNG movie I hope they choose this one and do it right.

	At the very least, they should get a decent writer to do the
script!  (case in point: Peter David)  Open question: have any of the
writers of ST:TNG books ever written / been invited to write episodes?
Some of the books are bad I know, but Vendetta is easily better than 90%
of the episodes we've been treated to.  Maybe Peter David should write
Star Trek VII: The Next Generation.  Though I'd rather see a Sulu movie.
-- 
   Gord Locke, a.k.a.    |    "I'm not an       | "The Universe is so big
glocke@morgan.ucs.mun.ca | Internet address ... | I get dizzy when I think
  Newfoundland, Canada   |   I'm a free man!"   |  about it" -Sugarcubes 
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current