From: luther@i5160e.nrl.navy.mil (Luther)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.misc,rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Re: "Probe" and "Imzadi"
Date: 2 Oct 92 13:53:32 GMT
Organization: US Naval Research Laboratory, Acoustics Division

In article <67054@cup.portal.com> Peter_A_David@cup.portal.com writes:
>
>So when someone asks the net's opinion of a couple of books, the presumption
>that *I* am making is that the questioner wanted an opinion on the contents
>of the books.  That seemed the only logical inference.  So to post a reply
>that does nothing to address the contents does nothing to answer the
>question.
>
>Now...an *informed* response would have been, for example:
>
>"Probe"--a sequel to ST IV following up on the origins of the mysterious
>Probe (the one that kind of looked like a pecan log), the author herself
>has disowned the book, stating that it was thoroughly mutilated by
>numerous rewrites.  The final product has gotten mixed notices--some 
>people have said they enjoyed it, while others have been extremely 
>distracted and put off by the various abrupt switches in plot and pacing.
>The seams definitely show, particularly if you're looking for them.  The
>*original* manuscript, which author Margaret Bonano calls "Music of the
>Spheres," can be obtained directly from her.  Check with her at 
>conventions, or word can be gotten to her if you express your interest on
>Compuserv.
>

Yes, that is an *informed* response. However, an *opinion* would be,
"Probe sucks" or "Star Trek novels suck - don't read them" or
"Star Trek novels aren't worth hardback prices". So the posts of the
original people are no less valid. They weren't asked to give objective
reviews - they were asked to give *opinions*.

>Oh, by the way...having been on the net for about five years now, I can
>assure you I have made innumerable postings on all kinds of subjects,
>ranging from upcoming developments in Trek to answering straight
>information requests to "how do I break in" inquiries.  

Then I apologize for implying otherwise. I was wrong.

>How quickly all that is forgotten in the wake of one tongue-in-cheek 
>observation.

I've seen more than one "toungue-in-cheek" observation. If they are
truly just tongue-in-cheek observations, then a simple smiley-face :-)
at the end helps a great deal. It may seem silly, but with net posts,
there is no way to include facial expressions, tone of voice, etc. An
idiotic little :-) can change then entire meaning of a post. I think that
if you go back and take an objective look at your previous post, you'll
see that it can be interpreted as very patronizing and arrogant. Having
a :-) at then end would drastically change all that. I'm sorry to sound
like I'm lecturing on net etiquette - it's just a reminder. If it was
merely a wry comment, then again I apologize for my reaction.

>I haven't gotten this much flack since the guy who wrote that he wanted
>to know how to go about making "submitions," and I posted that the first
>thing he should do is learn to spell.  Sound advice, I thought, considering
>his post was full of misspellings...but boy, did people get cranky.

What's wrong with "submitions"?? :-)   (See how that smiley face changes
the entire complexion of the remark?)
>
>PAD

KHL
-----------------------------------------------------------
" 'Eureka' is Greek for 'This bath is too hot'. "
               Tom Baker / Doctor Who
Ken Luther, Mathematician Extraordinaire
NRL, Code 5162         | Washington, DC. 20375 | (202)767-3149
1667 S. Hayes St, Unit A | Arlington, VA 22202 | (703)521-6973
-----------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky rec.arts.startrek.misc:9910 rec.arts.startrek.tech:5177