HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lennon@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Re: TOS & The Boseman in "Cause & Effect" (Spoilers)
Date: 13 Apr 92 15:34:27 GMT
Distribution: rec
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <RDUFF.92Apr8204509@arrirs04.uta.edu>, rduff@arrirs04.uta.edu (Robert Duff) writes:
> 
> I feel that this has been addressed already, so if it has, could
> someone send me what the consensus of the opinions was.
> 
> 
> Geordi remarks that the Soyuz class starship hasn't been in service in
> over 80 years.  I seem to remember that TNG is set approximately 78
> years after TOS.  If so, why, when Picard announced himself as captain
> of the "Enterprise", did the captain of the Boseman say, "Wait, you
> aren't the commander of the Enterprise, Captain/Admiral Kirk is, and
> your ship is definitely not the Enterprise."?
> 
> Wouldn't the Boseman be a contemporary of Kirk and the original
> Enterprise?  If so, why didn't they protest Picards introduction?
> 
> Just a thought, 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Robert Duff              |
> Automation and Robotics  |
> Research Institute - UTA |
> rduff@arri.uta.edu       |
> 
> --
> Robert Duff              |
> Automation and Robotics  |
> Research Institute - UTA |
> rduff@arri.uta.edu       |


First off, Geordi is a butthead. That aside, TNG occurs 80 years after STVI,
i.e. AFTER Kirk and the rest of the crew of the first, best enterprise have
moved on to greener pastures. Its is likely that Cap'n Fraser would not have
been a colleague of Kirk at the time he was Captain of Enterprise.
What he should have done, is protest that so ugly a ship could have been
called Enterprise (I am referring to NCC1701D) - but my personal opinion
is that he and First Officer Lillith along with Helmsman Norm and Science 
officer Cliff were all wasted.
 
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
From: bsb2u@helga6.acc.Virginia.EDU (Brian Samuel Bevins)
Subject: Re: Yet another opinion on "The First Duty"
Organization: University of Virginia Computer Science Department
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 17:00:12 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.111229.6007@doug.cae.wisc.edu> saunders@luther.che.wisc.edu (Brian E. Saunders) writes:
>In article <23187@life.ai.mit.edu> mary@fresh-and-fruity.ai.mit.edu (Mary S. Lee) writes:
>>*Spoilers* for "The First Duty"
>
>[about 30 lines down - sorry, my news server doesn't understand control-L]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>A few pluses and minuses:
>>
>>- I found it hard to believe Wesley and the others would have
>>  tried the maneuver in the first place.  Surely they would 
>>  have been severely punished by the Academy even if they'd
>>  succeeded?  If not, why not?  
>
>It does seem rather odd.

If they had succeded there would probably have been some slight
reprimand that would amout to no more than a slap on the wrist.  It
might not even have been put into their permanant files, and even if
it were it might impress a future commander more favorably than
negatively.

Why?  There is a certain bravado that exists at any college which is
*far* more pronounced at any military academy.  Even on the show there
are occasional references to "the trouble we got into at the academy
when *I* was a cadet" or "the things we used to get away with...."  A
measure of rebellion is expected and its absence might even be seen as
a lack of initiative.  The best officers always seem to be described
as having been involved in pranks and such while at the Academy.  It's
part of the image.  Bear in mind that even the officers in charge of
the Academy were once cadets themselves.  They would appreciate an
impressive stunt as much as the next guy, even though they would be
forced to officially "disapprove."  This was a particularly dangerous
stunt to pull, but if you think that's out of line with what I'm
describing then you should hear about some of the capers that really
*have* been pulled off.




>
>>- the two female cadets were too insipid
>
>Yeah - I guess they included them to show women cadets are just as talented
>(since that was supposedly the top "team"), but then they had them just
>stand around and let the 2 guys make all the decisions.  I sort of found
>this sexist, even more sexist than if there were no women on that team.
>

I think you're being silly at this point.  The female cadets made
their own decisions just as much as Wesley did.  They just didn't
decide the same things.  (After all, Wesley had to be the hero and
stand up for the truth at the end, didn't he?  Regardless of the
gender of the other background characters.  :)  How about if they had
had one male and one female pilot instead, and neither of them did
anything?  Would that have been politically acceptable?  :)


>-- 
>
>Brian E. Saunders			saunders@luther.che.wisc.edu


-- 

-Brian Bevins
bsb2u@virginia.edu
bevins@cebaf.gov
From: mlhb@mammoth.dr.att.com (54626-BonhamM(DR2020)214)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Re: Troi
Date: 14 Apr 92 00:11:53 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.223208.29515@cs.tulane.edu>, harwood@cs.tulane.edu (Doug Harwood) writes:
|>  
|>     I think Troi's butt is getting bigger.  This week, it was especially
|> large.
|>     On a similar note, why is Picard bald?  Wouldn't modern science provide
|> for baldness?  Maybe Steward didn't want to wear a wig?  *shrug*

Maybe big butts and baldness are "in" ;-) ;-)

|>     Too bad Elvis can't visit the Genesis Planet.  He was a great singer.

Yeah, but can you imagine the number of 'ludes he'd need to get over the shock?
;-) ;-) ;-)

|>     Which is faster: The Enterprise-D or Battlestar Galactica?

The Enterprise, of course.  If you believe the current theory that objects
cannot reach warp 10, (i.e. space=time at that point), as brought up by the book,
Vendetta.  The Enterprise has gotten pretty close; I don't think Galactica ever
did.  Anyway, IMHO, that's like comparing TOS with Lost in Space or a 427 Cobra
with an Edsel. 

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margaret H. Bonham          | "Good tea.  Nice house." -- Lt. Cmdr Worf
mlhb@mammoth.dr.att.com     |----------------------------------------------
mlhb@drutx.ATT.COM          |  Disclaimer:  I'm not even an AT&T employee
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: david@xlnt.com (David Johnson)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Re: "The First Duty" **SPOILERS**
Date: 6 Apr 92 21:51:29 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: XLNT Designs, Inc (XDI)


Spoiler warning:










































I really enjoyed this episode.  I am glad it was not another "Wesley saves
the Enterprise" episode.  They have finally made an episode that makes
Wesley a credible character.  He was just too perfect before.  I actually
pittied Wesley when Picard expressed his dispointment in him and when it
seemed "the Great" one had fallen.  I especially felt sorry for him when it
seemed that he may lose all he had worked for and dreamed about all his life.

I also pittied the Nova Squadron leader.  I thought he was a bit of a
manipulative SOB but I hate to see someone's life ruined over one, though
very serious, incident.




-- 
David Johnson
XLNT Designs, Inc. (XDI)
david@xlnt.com
the hapa haole
(or more precisely the hakka haole)
(or even more precisely, the hapa hakka hapa haole, or h^4)
From: v075q5fr@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Scott J Gorcey)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Re: Locarno = Kirk (Spoilers "First Duty"))
Date: 5 Apr 92 23:18:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

Important Pieces of the Discussion After Spoiler:


>|>	It almost seems that Lacarno's character is modelled after James
>|>     Kirk.

>|     Agreed here.  That's why I'm having so much trouble seeing why
>|     a lot of posters are panning Locarno.  He's obviously the
>|     fly-by-the-seat-of-the-pants type that Kirk embodies and TNG's
>|     take on the character very clearly says, "This is what happens
>|     to these type's when something goes wrong."  

>	The main difference that I see between Kirk and Locarno is that
>Locarno had no sense of responsibility.  Yes, Kirk flew by the seat of his
>pants, but he was always willing to face the consequences of whatever he
>got into.  Look at Amok Time.  Kirk was willing to throw away his career
>for his friend, an act that he repeated in STIII.  He knew that he would
>be throwing away his career, and was willing to do so.  Locarno had
>no such sense of responsibility.  He wanted to cover his mistake.  Kirk
>never attempted to cover his tracks.  He was always ready to face the music.

     Is hiding on Vulcan for three months while being tried in absentia
     the act of a man willing to immediately face the music?

     And anyway, you are overlooking the point: Locarno is Kirk ^as a
     cadet,^  as a KID.  I sincerely doubt Kirk was hatched a fully formed
     Captain Horatio Hornblower.  Let's remember who cheated on the 
     Kobyashi Maru simulation.  

     In the end, Locarno lived up to his stated code of honor - put the
     team first, no matter what - by taking all the blame and being the
     only one expelled.  If you go back and look at the episode, you'll
     see that Locarno's every act was an attempt to safeguard THE TEAM
     as a whole.  

     Admittedly, they were the ^wrong^ acts, but he was a kid and he was
     scared to death.  

     BTW, anyone notice the time frame for the ^last^ attempted Culvort
     Starburst (spelling?) -- 100 years ago.  Kirk himself?...
From: kuchar@buast7.bu.edu (Tom Kuchar)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Re: Trek Uniforms New and Old
Date: 12 Apr 92 20:00:09 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <1992Apr8.162712.29582@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> hucke@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Matt Hucke) writes:
>
>Uniform changes:
>(all dates are approximate)
>
>year     color         rank               notes                 source       
>2252     tan/blue      straight stripes                         THE CAGE
>2264     "             "                  very minor changes    WNMHGB


Both pilots had uniforms with three colors.  There was a light rose/pink
color, too.  It's a very subtle difference on TV compared to the tan, but
it is a third color.

Also there is a set of TOS uniforms that never made it to the air. They
looked liked the pilot uniforms, but with black colors.  They still had the
same styling, colors, rank stripes, and insignia as the pilot uniforms.
These mainly appeared in publicity stills (w/ Nimoy, Shatner, and Whitney).

-- 
Tom Kuchar			  | `Belay that nose-picking, Cadet Stimpy!'
kuchar@buast7.bu.edu		  |       - Cmdr. Hoek
Department of Astronomy		  |  
Boston Univerity		  |     `Oh Joy of joys!' - SJC
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
From: rduff@arrirs04.uta.edu (Robert Duff)
Subject: TOS & The Boseman in "Cause & Effect" (Spoilers)
Organization: Automation and Robotics Research Institute, U Texas @ Arlington
Distribution: rec
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 02:45:09 GMT


I feel that this has been addressed already, so if it has, could
someone send me what the consensus of the opinions was.


Geordi remarks that the Soyuz class starship hasn't been in service in
over 80 years.  I seem to remember that TNG is set approximately 78
years after TOS.  If so, why, when Picard announced himself as captain
of the "Enterprise", did the captain of the Boseman say, "Wait, you
aren't the commander of the Enterprise, Captain/Admiral Kirk is, and
your ship is definitely not the Enterprise."?

Wouldn't the Boseman be a contemporary of Kirk and the original
Enterprise?  If so, why didn't they protest Picards introduction?

Just a thought, 

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Duff              |
Automation and Robotics  |
Research Institute - UTA |
rduff@arri.uta.edu       |

--
Robert Duff              |
Automation and Robotics  |
Research Institute - UTA |
rduff@arri.uta.edu       |
From: cglover@lonestar.utsa.edu (Calvin G. Glover)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Re: Trek Uniforms New and Old (was:Bozeman Crew Not Stupid!)
Date: 8 Apr 92 17:57:13 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

In article <1992Apr8.162712.29582@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> hucke@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Matt Hucke) writes:
>In article <1992Apr7.170443.1223@bnlux1.bnl.gov> schroede@bnlux1.bnl.gov (gary l. schroeder) writes:
>>In article <mDsRiB5w164w@berry.Cary.NC.US> pat@berry.Cary.NC.US (Pat Berry) writes:
>>
>>No, I noticed it.  I thought it was an unecessary move to try and make
>>the uniforms look different from St movie uniforms.  You might have also
>>noticed that while the black belts were missing, the belt loopholes were
>>still on the uniforms!

    ok, maybe i'll sound really stupid for asking this, but...

    in st.tng what do the diff. colors of the uniform signify.  i.e.
    red, green, blue, yellow.

    i mean, is this a tribute to the opponent theory of color perception
    or what?

    i think green is for science officers, but didn't it used to be blue
    (ex. spock)

    i used to think red was for command officers but little wesley wears
    a red uniform (when he's not at the academy, being an accessory to
    negligent homicide)

    if anybody can explain i would appreciate it.

    --calvin--



-- 
    *  "i should not talk so much about myself if there were anybody else  *
    *   whom i knew as well.  Unfortunately, i am confined to this theme   *
    *   by the narrowness of my experience"  -- henry david thoreau        *
From: nathans@coos.dartmouth.edu (Nathan Shafer)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Re: Locarno = Kirk (Spoilers "First Duty"))
Date: 7 Apr 92 18:23:22 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <1992Apr5.221926.12208@acsu.buffalo.edu> v075q5fr@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Scott J Gorcey) writes:
>Important Pieces of the Discussion After Spoiler:
>     Is hiding on Vulcan for three months while being tried in absentia
>     the act of a man willing to immediately face the music?

    No, it's the act of a man who is waiting for his friend to recuperate,
and knows (wisely) that once things at home run their course, and tempers
cool, then the music he will face will likely be just and fair music, and
not an "Off with 'is 'head!" reaction.

>     And anyway, you are overlooking the point: Locarno is Kirk ^as a
>     cadet,^  as a KID.  I sincerely doubt Kirk was hatched a fully formed
>     Captain Horatio Hornblower.  Let's remember who cheated on the 
>     Kobyashi Maru simulation.  

    Cheating on the Kobyashi Maru simulation was not likely to get anyone
even hurt, much less killed. Therefore, it is a totally different issue.

>     In the end, Locarno lived up to his stated code of honor - put the
>     team first, no matter what - by taking all the blame and being the
>     only one expelled.  If you go back and look at the episode, you'll
>     see that Locarno's every act was an attempt to safeguard THE TEAM
>     as a whole.  

    Except for the one who got killed, eh?

    What Locarno did at the end was not some act of grand heroism...it was
only the decent thing to do, what I would expect of anyone in the situation.
Look at it this way: the truth was out, and he (Locarno), as team commander,
was going to get canned one way or the other. There was no way out of that.
So taking all the blame himself and trying to save the butts of the rest of
the group was not an act which held any risk for him.

Nathan Shafer
Dartmouth College, NH
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current,rec.arts.startrek.misc
From: tlynch@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch)
Subject: Bizarre standards (was Re: Grading scales)
Followup-To: rec.arts.startrek.misc
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 17:30:30 GMT

(Followups set to r.a.s.misc.)

kanamori@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Atsushi Kanamori) writes:
>In article <1992Apr7.210007.9081@bnlux1.bnl.gov> schroede@bnlux1.bnl.gov (gary l. schroeder) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr4.192753.13425@cco.caltech.edu> tlynch@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>>>kanamori@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Atsushi Kanamori) writes:

>>>>TNG, however, is frequently
>>>>lauded (both by third parties and itself) as Quality, Intelligent,
>>>>Thoughtful Television: a Holy Grail of broadcast TV. 
>>>
>>>Source, please.  

I note that, unless I've missed it somewhere, you have not yet given said
sources.

>>>I've seen a lot of the first three mentioned, but very
>>>rarely have I ever seen it implied that TNG somehow has a lock on quality
>>>or intelligence, and I don't think I've *ever* seen anybody I take 
>>>seriously give it the kind of "it's the best thing ever made for broadcast
>>>television" treatment your Grail comment implies.
>>
>>Atsushi, I don't mean to use Tim's post as a "gang up on you" source,
>>but after I read this one, I realized that Tim makes the same point that
>>I was about to: mainly, that I don't hold TNG to be the Absolute
>>Towering Pinnacle of Television Drama.  

>Fine. I, however, *do* hold TNG to be A Towering Pinnacle of Television
>Drama (note I changed the phrase a bit, but the idea still holds I think.)

In other words, you hold TNG to higher standards than the makers do.  It's
no wonder you disagree with them; you're demanding perfection.

>I've read comments by TNG staff in interviews and magazines and many
>of them are openly self-congratulatory of their product. If they publically
>applaud themselves, I will publically slap them down (when justified.)

Wait a second.  Being "openly self-congratulatory" could mean *anything*.
I've seen them talking about how they think TNG is, on the whole, a successful
and thoughtful SF series; that they think it's a worthy successor to TOS; 
they they strive for scientific accuracy [which *does* get pummeled on 
occasion]; and that they're very happy with what they've put together.

I've never seen ANYONE saying they consider it "a Towering Pinnacle of 
Television Drama", much less anyone connected to the series itself.  That
kind of hyperbole is even above Richard Arnold's most overblown posturings.

I think you're setting up strawmen; and since this argument appeared to have
been resolved last week, I'm at a complete loss as to why.

Tim Lynch
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
From: hucke@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Matt Hucke)
Subject: Rank.  
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 17:40:06 GMT

In article <53780@hydra.gatech.EDU> ccoprdj@prism.gatech.EDU (Jorge Diaz) writes:
>
>This is correct.  However, Data does have 3 pips.  Two are white, and one
>is black.  2 + 1 = 3.

No, according to modern naval traditions, that would be 2.5.  Saying that a
Lieutenant Commander has 3 pips is an insult to a real Commander, who 
*earned* his third pip.

>Ensign          - 1 white pip
>Lieutenant J.G. - 1 white, 1 black

Actually, they're gold, and the "black" ones are simply hollow rings 
(counting as 1/2 rather than 1).


-- 
        Real Programmers Don't Eat Quiche.
                      hucke@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
                      Gene Roddenberry 1921-1991
From: intertxt@network.ucsd.edu (Jason Snell)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Re: Why did the Glass Break! Cause and Effect
Date: 16 Apr 1992 02:24:01 -0700
Organization: University of California, San Diego
NNTP-Posting-Host: network.ucsd.edu

In article <k987iB1w164w@berry.Cary.NC.US> pat@berry.Cary.NC.US (Pat Berry) writes:
>On board the NCC-1701-D?  No, I can't say that I ever did.  How about
>you?  Can you name one episode of ST:TNG in which an anti-grav unit is
>used, or even mentioned?

Yeah... "Hollow Pursuits." Happy now?

-jason

-- 
         Jason Snell / jsnell@ucsd.edu / Editor, InterText Magazine
   For subscription (ASCII/PostScript)/submission information, mail me!
  "I don't want you to think we're... _Video Watchdog_ people who worship
    obscure French sadomasochistic movies or anything." - Joel Hodgson
From: sll28@cc.usu.edu (LORNA_PAYNE)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Re: Asimov's cameo lost, too :-(
Date: 9 Apr 92 08:23:38 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

In article <1992Apr8.214909.13720@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, hucke@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Matt Hucke) writes:
> In article <1992Apr8.195420.20010@talon.ucs.orst.edu> stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley) writes:
>>
>>Acting? Makeup? Why?
>>
>>It's a damn holodeck. They can generate whatever and whomever they want.
>>They didn't need to zoom back to 19th century England to pick Moriarty,
>>they certainly wouldn't need to zoom back to 20th century USA to get
>>Asimov.
> 
> It's amazing that someone could miss the point so completely...
> 
> The reference was to a *real* actor, with *real* makeup, hired by Paramount
> to play the part of a holodeck image of Asimov...

Or maybe they encounter a strange probe that turns the entire crew into Asimovs
. . . :-).

[MST3K reference for those who don't get it]

       ---------------------------------------------------------
               Lorna Payne
               Certified Math Geek and Grammarian
       ---------------------------------------------------------
         You are not Morg.  You are not Eymorg.  What are you?
       ---------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
From: thogek@seismo.gps.caltech.edu (Thomas Kiefer)
Subject: Re: TNG: The Final Year. Episodes I'd (seriously!) like to see.
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 23:34:39 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.182024.11134@linus.mitre.org> wherndon@smiley.mitre.org (William Herndon) writes:
>    In that vein, I guess I'll throw out my ultimate fantasy episode to
>    be used as the finale of the sixth season.  Please keep in mind that
>    what follows is a without questions a product of my propensity for
>    *action* episodes.  ( Something similar to this is what I would have
>    loved to see as the final mission of James T. Kirk. )
>
>    For your consideration:
>

[long description of idea deleted, partiallly summarized by...]

>    ( You guessed it! ) THE ROMULANS ARE COMING!
>    
>    ( I know there are flaws, but what does it sound good? )
>

Sounds potentially AWESOME to me!!!!                                                   
                  +-----------------------------------+
                  |   thogek@seismo.gps.caltech.edu   |
                  +-----------------------------------+
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
From: kanamori@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Atsushi Kanamori)
Subject: Re: Lynch's Spoiler Review: "The First Duty"
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 13:53:33 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.230147.15614@desktalk.desktalk.com> rlg@desktalk.com writes:
>Spoilers ahead for 'The First Duty'.   Watch your sensors for a proximity 
>alert.



>
>I liked this episode a lot.  This and 'Cause and Effect' are for me two of
>TNG's best ever 

I wouldn't go *that* far. TFD may eventually make it into my top 20 (if it
isn't there already.) C&E will most certainly not -- I'm not much enamored
by that episode.


>(hopefully we haven't all unconsciously lowered our standards
>because of some of the drek trek offered this season.)

I haven't lowered my standards, just my ratings. :-)

I think Season 5-1992 is looking better than season 5-1991. The second
half has had at least a few episodes that I enjoyed sitting among a large 
number of stinkers -- IMO, a preferable situation to the first half
of the season which struck me as uniformly mediocre.



. .        .       .                .        
: : : :. : :  :....: : .  ::.: .  ..: :    ..     : :    .
::::::::::.: :::::::.:::::::::::.:::::: :?.:::::..::::.:.:
------------ -------------------------- --------------------------
TNG Lifelines: From "Yesterday's Enterprise" To "Cause & Effect" --
  "Captain, we are getting unusual readings 20,000 km off the
   starboard bow." -- Worf, Worf, Worf and Ensign Ro.