HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current

I agree that the Borg should be toast.  

No where in TA1 or 2 were we told that Davidia (sp?) was the home planet
for the aliens.  For all we know it could simply have been one of many 
outposts...so there is no proof that it was genocide is there?

Just as with the Borg ship that got waxed this could be a case where 
only a small group of aliens were killed.

************************************************
* Donald Boell - Hewlett Packard               *
*                                              *
* When you're chewing on life's gristle        *
* Don't grumble, give a whistle - Monty Python *
*                                 Life of Brian*
************************************************


Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
From: schroede@bnlux1.bnl.gov (gary l. schroeder)
Subject: Re: TA Are you kidding?
Organization: Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY 11973
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 15:01:33 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.144724.17967@ultb.isc.rit.edu> smt1179@ritvax.isc.rit.edu writes:
>IF you have seen Time's Arrow part one, this is not a spoiler.
>If you have not seen Times Arrow at all, yet
>SPOILER



>OK here it is.  You people are so concerned about Data's head, who was
>Jack, etc. that you have failed to notice what, IMHO, is a great big
>warty pimply oozing nauseating flaw about the plot:
>
>	The motive force behind the entire action is:
>	
>			Vampires.
>
>			(again)
>
>Just exactly how many vampires/life force eaters/invaders have we seen
>in Startrek?  I don't have episode guides, but I bet there's at least a
>dozen or more in which 
>	(a) creature takes over someone's mind
>	(b) creature feeds on life force energy (or hate or fear or whatever)
>	(c) creature actually eats someone
>	(d) Borg

You've just summarized the plot lines of many sci-fi/fantasy
novels/movies.  These scenarios are by no means restricted to Star Trek
(including the Borg idea which, as has been pointed out many times,
relates closely to the Berserker series).


>I mean, this is really the oldest fantasy plot around.  Plus the fact is
>that some of the TA II spoilers seem to suggest some pretty lame resolutions.
>If someone has TOS and TNG episode guides and would compile a list of shows
>in the general "Vampire" genre, I'd be interested in knowing just how many
>there are.

>Don't aliens have anything better to do?


It's called a "threat" device.  It gives the characters somebody to
twart.  Antagonists.  Every story needs one.  Personally, I'm glad that
we got an actual antagonistic set of aliens that was hell-bent on human
destruction.  It sure beats the usual TNG inter-personal conflict
story.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary L. Schroeder  		|  
schroede@bnlux1.bnl.gov         |             Boo. 
Brookhaven National Laboratory  | 
Xref: sparky rec.arts.startrek.current:14050 rec.arts.startrek.misc:9788
From: brown@vidiot.UUCP (Vidiot)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current,rec.arts.startrek.misc
Subject: Paramount Press Release - #228: Realm of Fear
Date: 28 Sep 92 07:13:19 GMT
Reply-To: brown@vidiot.UUCP (Vidiot)
Organization: Vidiot's Hangout


Due to a mailing error at the Paramount mailer, a wrong sheet was shipped.


Realm of Fear

Episode #228			uplink dates:  9/26/92,  9/27/92



                           _S_P_E_L_L_I_N_G_S

	[none]


				_C_A_S_T

	Captain Jean-Luc Picard			Patrick Stewart
	Commander William Riker			Jonathan Frakes
	Lieutenant Commander Data		Brent Spiner
	Dr. Beverly Crusher			Gates McFadden
	Counselor Deanna Troi			Marina Sirtis
	Lieutenant Commander Geordi LaForge	LeVar Burton
	Lieutenant Worf				Michael Dorn

	[guest cast not available]

	Teleplay by:				[not available]
	Story by:				[not available]
	Directed by:				[not available]



_P_R_O_G_R_A_M_ _H_I_G_H_L_I_G_H_T_S

	STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION: "Realm of Fear" -- A young Enterprise
	engineer is forced to confront his paralyzing fear of being transported.


_T_V_ _G_U_I_D_E_ _A_D_S

	TRANSPORT-PHOBIA!

	Will a crew member's fear of transporting threaten a mission?


_T_V_ _L_O_G_ _L_I_S_T_I_N_G_S

	Crew member terrified of transport/STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION
-- 
      harvard\                          spool.cs.wisc.edu!astroatc!vidiot!brown
Vidiot  ucbvax!uwvax..........!astroatc!vidiot!brown
      rutgers/            INTERNET:vidiot!brown%astroatc.UUCP@spool.cs.wisc.edu
                                   brown@wi.extrel.com
From: shla@spf.trw.com (Sheila Wallace)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Re: Data and Pinocchio (some musings).
Date: 30 Sep 92 01:07:11 GMT
Organization: TRW Sensor Data Processing Center, Redondo Beach, CA

In article <1992Sep28.164645.6901@ncsu.edu> rhballan@eos.ncsu.edu (ROBERT HAMI BALLANTINE) writes:
>
>In article <1992Sep25.151803.19188@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, haney@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (HANEY PATRICIA J) writes
>|> 
>|> In article <1992Sep19.223005.2720@newshub.ccs.yorku.ca> tony@nexus.yorku.ca (Anthony Wallis) writes:

>


>|> Somebody quoted Brent Spiner as saying 'he would be without a head for 
>|> next season'. Is he written off? Do we get a new actor with a new face?
>|> My interpretation of this strange, dismaying quote is that Data goes
>|> without a head for 500 yrs then they pop his old head (the one sitting
>|> back in the Enterprise) back on when he catches up. He'll come back
>|> without a head (it's left in the cave) but they've got something to 
>|> reattach.....
>|> 
>|> Did anyone else remember this quote?
>
>Sounds like a joke to me.
>
>Rob
>
Yes, I remember this being a quote from Marina Sirtis, while at a
recent Star Trek convention.  You have to realize that Brent Spiner
is quite a joker, and I think he said this purely as a joke.

Sheila


-- 
Sheila Wallace		(shla@spf.trw.com)
TRW, One Space Park, R2/2162, Redondo Beach, CA 90278
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
From: matthews_k@cubldr.colorado.edu
Subject: Picard's Age (was: re: "Time's Arrow, possible spoilers")
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 23:14:24 GMT

In article <4DDsRB6w165w@ailanth.UUCP>, tallman%ailanth.uucp@wang.com (Robert Oliver) writes:

> Why is it hard to believe that Picard has technical skill? You don't get 
> to be the captain of a Galaxy class starship (the Enterprise at that) for 
> being an idiot. Picard is in his mid-60's and has been galloping around 
> space for about that last 40 years of his life. He probably learned at 
> least a few things in that time.
> 
Absolutely right!  And Picard has shown that he's familiar with binary code
before, in 1101011... or whatever string of numbers they used for the title
of that show.  However, he's in his mid-50's not his mid-60's.  Just because
he's bald don't assume he's older than he really is!  :-)

Kellie M-S
internet::matthews_k@cubldr.colorado.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
From: chil@fraser.sfu.ca (Keith Lim)
Subject: Re: The new race for DS9 & Realm of Fear
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 04:55:37 GMT

No spoilers (I think.)

jfreund@relleno.engr.ucdavis.edu (Jason Freund) writes:

>	Isn't there a new treat to the Federation in DS9?  Some new race that
>attacked the space station before the season will begin?

The Cardassians? They're aren't new. (Well, yes, to the ST universe, but
not to TNG.) They appeared in "Ensign Ro" and "The Wounded" (and a couple
of others, I think--maybe not.)

Yes, the scene where the admiral was telling Picard about the Cardassians
and stuff was pure foreshadowing/setup for DS9. Had nothing to do with
any of the plotlines in the episode "Realm of Fear."

-- 
Keith_Lim@sfu.ca   Simon Fraser University, Burnaby B.C., V5A 1S6, Canada
Hon Cog Sci; Min Psyc; Forum; Senate; CDSU; URC; ASC; FARSIDE; LEAD; CCCS
I officially represent each and every one of the above bodies--NOT!

"Perhaps you're just different. It's not a sin, you know--though you may
 have heard otherwise."                     --Tam Elbrun, ST:TNG "Tin Man"
From: z_clarkmj@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Re: Data's Head deterioration not affecting anything Explained!
Date: 28 Sep 92 15:27:09 GMT
Article-I.D.: ccsvax.1992Sep28.092709.1225
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University

In article <1992Sep28.123642.149830@watson.ibm.com>, rrogers@watson.ibm.com (Ryan Rogers) writes:
> In  <1992Sep28.045209.17346@reed.edu>  odlin@reed.edu (Iain Odlin) writes:
>>
>>   The metal used in the metal bits of Data's head (the only parts, apparently,
>>   to deteriorate, unlike the plastics which must certainly make up the bulk
>>   of Data's head) acts very strangely when it decays:  It breaks down into
>>   several odd gases and common iron.  Data (having this info, of course) sim-
>>   ply misinterpreted his tricorder reading when he checked the deterioration
>>   percentage; the iron he detected was from the filing Picard had left, not
>>   from decay.  Hence, there was no trouble with Data's head but some dirt.
>>
>>   Okay:  Maybe not, but I thought I'd at least *try*. ;)
> 
>    Ok...here's the *REAL* question.  Why didn't Data see the iron filing
> when he was examining his head in the first place on TA I?  I just watched
> it again and he does have that flap in the back of his head open...there
> is simply NO WAY that Data (being 100% familiar with his own layout) should
> have missed it.
> 
> 
> Sincerely,
> Ryan Rogers
Alternate timelines! Maybe the first time around picard either wasn't around or
didn't put the iron filling in. But the second time, he did, hence Laforge saw
the filling in the 24th centure in data's head when picard etched it in  during
the 19th century.

But who knows?
From: h7l@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Realm of Fear was fun, okay???
Date: 6 Oct 92 20:45:25 EDT
Distribution: rec
Organization: Cornell University

Hello, this is my very first post to this group....

   I thought that Realm of Fear was a great episode, because it was about
something that is sooooo associated with Star Trek.  When you say Star Trek to
someone who isn't a big fan, they know about beaming...  So it was cool that
they explored the topic, even if the logistics weren't perfect...
   I have by no means seen all the episodes, but then again, neither have most
people.  So those of us who watch for fun and occasional enlightenment really
dug this episode.  It was funny, it was entertaining, topical, and certainly a
gorgeous visual treat.

Sarah
H7L@vax5.cit.cornell.edu 
Xref: sparky rec.arts.startrek.current:13976 rec.arts.startrek.misc:9761 rec.arts.sf.tv:3544
From: rossi@gvlf9-q.gvl.unisys.com (Pete Rossi)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current,rec.arts.startrek.misc,rec.arts.sf.tv
Subject: Re: Will we have to pay to see Star Trek?
Date: 28 Sep 92 17:46:31 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Paramax Systems Corp (A Unisys Company), Great Valley Labs, PA

In article <3750@ra.nrl.navy.mil> harris3@ra.nrl.navy.mil (Kevin Harris) writes:
>In article <90272@netnews.upenn.edu>, chaim@linc.cis.upenn.edu (Chaim R. Dworkin) writes:
>> 
>> Will we all have to pay to watch Star Trek in the future???
>
>My cable system carries the Sci-Fi channel on Basic Cable...meaning it is included with
>the basic channels, and so you don't have to pay extra for it.  I dunno about other cable
>systems out there.

But you have to *pay* for "Basic Cable" don't you?????   Or are you one of
those who ... ...        ;-)

I get the general idea that "Basic Cable" now runs about $250/year.

=================================================================
Pete Rossi - WA3NNA                  rossi@gvl.unisys.com

Paramax Systems Corporation - a Unisys Company
Electronic Systems - Valley Forge Labs - Paoli, Pennsylvania
=================================================================
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
From: "bernie wong" <bernie.wong@canrem.com>
Subject: time's arrow ii (spoi
Reply-To: "bernie wong" <bernie.wong@canrem.com>
Organization: Canada Remote Systems
Distribution: rec
Date: 28 Sep 92 20:39:41 EST

>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>I thought the two episodes entertaining, though seriously flawed in
>logic.  If Data's head was capable of activation, why didn't they just
>reactivate the thing and let it tell its story?  They've already had Data's
>head active by itself in a previous episode (the one where Picard is trapped
>in the turbo with the kids).

Ya, I agree.  Entertaining but seriously flawed.  I tried not to ponder
too hard about the inconsistencies and enjoyed the episode MUCH better!
Alas, whenever I read the net I end up hating ALL episodes...  You guys
have that power...  Sigh...

>The aliens turned out to be static characters, didn't they?  No why, what,
>where, when; just blow them out of existence.  Picard's dialog with the
>injured alien was a pathetic attempt to justify the ending.

About that dialogue...  Did he say "You're hunters.  You're killers." or
"You hunt us.  You kill us."

>The first episode showed a lot of promise, but the writers let us down in
>Part II.  All of the loose ends were neatly wrapped and stored away.

Yes, I agree.  They should've put more "500 year old" makeup on Data as
well when they put it back on.


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Jason Wong
Calling from Markham, Ontario CANADA.  It's not cold though!  :-)
INTERNET: bernie.wong@canrem.com


 * OLX 2.1 TD * The Jays better win it this year or else I'm an Expos fan
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
From: kuchar@buast7.bu.edu (Tom Kuchar)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Re: time-travel backwards possible? perhaps
Date: 28 Sep 92 19:53:45 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <g92n3258.22.717595816@giraffe.ru.ac.za> g92n3258@giraffe.ru.ac.za (MR RL NICOL) writes:
>
>[...] in the time-tree theory.  If you see time as having 
                        ^^^^^^ unscientific use of the word, speculation 
			       would be a better choice.

>many branches, you can travel backwards and kill yourself, thereby opening 
>up a new branch in which you never existed.  The old time line would 
>continue without you and you would exist in the new one without any way of 
>getting back to the old timeline except by going back in time to the point 
>that you killed yourself, kill the "you" that was about to kill the baby you 
>and then jump into the future to the point that you left.

This all begs the question originally posed.  You assume time travel
is possible (not yet proven) then explain the results of a hypothetical
situation.  I think the time-tree idea poses more of a paradox than
what was originally there.

Time travel (to the past) not only violates causality, it violates the
2nd law of thermodynamics (transferring information back over
timelines) and the conservation of energy (transporting yourself,
which is energy E=mc^2, over timelines).  If you can take causality
being violated (a big if here), then you need to rework about 90% of
the remainder of physics so that these other physical laws can be
violated, too.

-- 
Tom Kuchar			  
kuchar@buast7.bu.edu		  -or-                      kuchar@plh.af.mil
Department of Astronomy                              Phillips Laboratory/GPOB
Boston Univerity		                                  Hanscom AFB
From: hinson@bohr.physics.purdue.edu (Jason W. Hinson)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Re: the ongoing time travel debate
Date: 29 Sep 92 15:09:04 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Physics Department

jblum@hamlet.umd.edu (Hi ho -- Kermit the Frog here...) writes:
<In article <1992Sep25.154217.687@altair.selu.edu> scsd1005@altair.selu.edu (Terry Cooper) writes:
<>New technology based on new scientific discoveries may well
<>enable us to achieve FTL travel. If that happens, there's no
<>reason to believe that causality becomes subject to violation.
<>Not so with backward time travel.
<
<How, pray tell, do you define causality?  Considering that the reason
<that the "light barrier" exists is simply to maintain causality -- to
<prevent information about an effect reaching a point before information
<about its cause -- how can you say that FTL travel doesn't violate it?
<
<And if FTL doesn't violate it, then why does time travel violate it?
<
<I'm not a high-energy physicist myself, but I've taken a few courses
<relating to this field.  I know enough to know that with current
<views of the universe, both FTL and time travel are impossible.  I also
<know enough to know that there are still ways to get outside the current
<views of the universe.  And that's why I try not to dismiss anything
<out of hand.

There is only one argument that I have come up with (and others have
agreed with me on this) which allows faster than light travel without
violating causality.  It could only be done in one frame of reference,
and so that means the only way you could travel would be to warp ONE
particular field that has one frame of reference and permiates all 
space you wish to travel in. While moving in the warped field, one would
violate relativity, and that would have some interesting effects, but
it cannot be said that this is impossible.  After all, if such a warping
is done, who's to say what kind of physics will work in the warped
"universe" that is created?

The key is that the FTL travler always has the same frame of reference
as the special field, reguradless of how he inters the field and how
fast he moves in the field.

If anyone wants to see a longer agrument, E-mail me and I will send
one to you.

-Jay
From: cho@ucbeh.san.uc.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Re: About Barkley...
Date: 2 Oct 92 11:34:53 EST
Distribution: world
Organization: Univ. of Cincinnati

Regarding Barkley...

/In article <1992Oct1.000409.1466@cnsvax.uwec.edu>, harderaf@cnsvax.uwec.edu 
/writes:
/> In article <BvEutt.6pA@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu>, cssam@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Scott Minor) writes:
/>> 
/>> Does anyone else wonder if Lt. Barkley went to the academy on the Kevin
/>> Riley schlarship?
/>> 
/>> Heh, heh.
/> 
/> Dear Friends:
/> Did anyone notice that tonight it was a Barkley episode, e.g. everyone else had
/> the week off?  Maybe this is what happens when you have an ex-A-Team guest
/> star.  Next week George Pepard meets Mr. T as Warf's brother in "Cigars in the
/> Mist."
/> Stay Tuned! 
/> Love,
/> Ali Spaerk
/> 
> 

I'd like to know why Geordi and the gang are zapping Barkley down the
tube of possible no return, without Picard's knowledge, permission, or 
anything.  All of a sudden, Barkley has to find out what he saw, so it's
OK...ZAP.  
Then what's the deal with the mouth worm in the transporter.  How did Barkley
know to grab it....wasn't he scared to death of it in the first place?
Did it come up and say....Hi, I'm John...I'm a missing crew member off 
the other ship, if you would just hug me, that would be great.  I mean,
what's the deal?

I like Barkley though.  He's sort of a bumbling type, but you have to
have some imperfect people around.  The medical student mania was amusing,
but almost overdone.
Cheers,
-Pamela Cho-
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
From: kgatling@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Keith E Gatling)
Subject: Re: Will we have to pay to see Star Trek?
Organization: Syracuse University
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 19:47:42 EDT

In article <1992Sep26.161843.2684@wkuvx1.bitnet> kinnema@wkuvx1.bitnet (Mark
Kinney, Attorney at Chaos) writes:

>I suggest that you stop flaming other people for worrying not
>neccessarily that ST won't be on anymore, but this whole
>exclusive-righs thing that means some series might *never* be seen
>again if the SF Channel decided they're not bringing in enough
>revenue, but don't want to sell them off... (sure, it doesn't sound
>logical, but tell me that a rating system where none of several
>hundred thousand people can watch a show, but they did just because
>one family did...)

Okay, as usual, I may be wrong, but once upon a time I worked for a company
that sold rights to various movies, so I may just know what I'm talking
about.

As far as this exclusive rights stuff goes, first of all you have to realize
that the SciFi Channel (or any other cable service, for that matter) is not
buying *all* the rights, but only a tiny portion of them...the TV rights,
and it is the TV rights that they are looking for exclusivity on.  This
means that the movie, home video, non-theatrical, and other rights are still
available to be bought by someone else.

Secondly, unless things have changed a whole lot, you don't buy the rights
in perpetuity (unless, off course, you've bought the whole library lock,
stock, and barrel, in which case *you* can start selling the rights to
others), you buy them for a specific amount of time...more like a lease.  So
if after, say, five years the SFC isn't making enough money off of ST
episodes, they just don't negotiate a new contract for the rights, and the
show is back on the open market again.

Sometimes some programs are priced so high that only special cable services
can afford to bid on them.  Anyone remember what happened a few years back
when The Cosby Show first went into syndication?  Broadcast stations had to
pay more than they could make on advertising in that show under the
assumption that they'd make it back from the shows that Cosby was leading
into.  The Lawrence Welk Show (yes, that's right) is another example...
there've been requests for it on PBS stations, but it's real pricey and some
stations do a special donor drive just to support that show.

I have absolutely no problem with supporting a show I really think is great
by having to pay a cable service to get it.  When I think of how many other
shows I get to watch for that fee, it still works out to less than going to
the movies once a week.

And who knows...maybe in some way doing it this way is more fair than the
present way...cable stations can support niche markets much better than
broadcast outlets, and are more willing to.  Gee, I wonder if anyone's
thought of creating a cable service for balding African-American males who
like Elton John and The Captain and Tennille?
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
From: smt1179@ritvax.isc.rit.edu (Tom Thatcher)
Subject: TA Are you kidding?
Reply-To: smt1179@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1992 14:47:24 GMT

IF you have seen Time's Arrow part one, this is not a spoiler.
If you have not seen Times Arrow at all, yet
SPOILER
SPOILER
SPOILER
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
OK here it is.  You people are so concerned about Data's head, who was
Jack, etc. that you have failed to notice what, IMHO, is a great big
warty pimply oozing nauseating flaw about the plot:

	The motive force behind the entire action is:
	
			Vampires.

			(again)

Just exactly how many vampires/life force eaters/invaders have we seen
in Startrek?  I don't have episode guides, but I bet there's at least a
dozen or more in which 
	(a) creature takes over someone's mind
	(b) creature feeds on life force energy (or hate or fear or whatever)
	(c) creature actually eats someone
	(d) Borg

I mean, this is really the oldest fantasy plot around.  Plus the fact is
that some of the TA II spoilers seem to suggest some pretty lame resolutions.

If someone has TOS and TNG episode guides and would compile a list of shows
in the general "Vampire" genre, I'd be interested in knowing just how many
there are.

Don't aliens have anything better to do?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^ Q:  "What must I do to convince you people?"  ^  Tom Thatcher
^ WORF:   "Die."                                ^  University of Rochester
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current