HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gberigan@cse.unl.edu (Life...)
Subject: Re: Picard is old! (Minor First Duty spoiler)
Organization: Ursa Minor Beta, 402-476-8047 @ 2400
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 20:15:20 GMT

pcg@panix.com (Paul Gallagher) writes:

>Picard says he's class of '27.  This makes the birthdate he's given in
>"Conundrum" likely: 13 July 2305.  Assuming the 5th season is 2369, 
>Picard's 64 (and Boothby's 106!)  

Using your figures, when Picard is 64, Boothby is 86, not 106.

In '27, Boothby was twice as old as Picard.

Picard was born in '05.  Thus in 27, Picard was 22.

If Picard was 22 in '27, then Boothby was 44 (and born in 2283).

If Picard is now 64, then he has aged 42 years between '27 and now.  So
would Boothby.

Therefore Boothby's age is 44 + 42 = 86, not 106.

--
  ///   ____   \\\       | CAUTION:
  | |/ /    \ \| |       | Avoid eye contact.  In case of contact, flush
   \\_|\____/|_//        | mind for 15 minutes.  See a psychiatrist if
       \_)\\/            | irritation persists.  Not to be taken
gberigan `-' cse.unl.edu | seriously.  Keep out of sight of children.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
From: rccarm00@mik.uky.edu (ron c carman)
Subject: Patrick Stewart article
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 01:39:02 GMT
X-Bytes: 

From an article in a local paper about Patrick Stewart, written by James
Brady.  Just a few quotes from him which are, I feel, worthy of comment:
My comments are enclosed in []...

   I casually had referred to Patrick Stewart and his crewmates on the
Enterprise as "Trekkies", and Mr. Stewart was swift to correct me.
"My colleagues resent being called Trekkies," he said, as crisp and in
command as if he were in uniform as Capt. Jean-Luc Picard. "Trekkies are
the audience. We are the actors."  

          [Don't people generally prefer the term 'Trekkers'?]
          [I know I do..]

   The scriptwriters seem to have a more lighthearted sense of humor
about the whole thing, [the Kirk Vs. Picard debate] said Stewart:
"In one episode, the name 'Kirk' comes up on the Enterprise computer,
and I go right by.  It doesn't mean a thing to me."
   Stewart and his crew [pardon me? whose crew?] make 26 episodes of
Star Trek: The Next Generation each year. "My day begins at 4:45 a.m.,"
he said.  "During the spring hiatus of 1991, I discovered this concept
of vacation.  I went off to Fiji for three weeks and found it not an
unpleasant thing.  I might go to Alaska this summer."

          [Never had a vacation 'til the age of 51?]
          [Talk about a work-aholic]

"I put on two performances of 'A Christmas Carol' there, and my friends
promised me an aerial tour so I can pick out a place to retire to."
   "Retire?" I asked.  "Well," he said, "my contract is up in 1993, and
I'm planning to do classical theater, 'Lear' and 'Macbeth'.  I'm the
right age now to play the heavies."  Does that mean au revoir to the 
Enterprise?  "I'd be balmy to do that," he said.  "But if we do a sixth
season, we might work something out."

          [If contracts expire in '93, that pretty much]
          [shoots down the rumors of a seventh season. ]

 
--
/=======================================================================\ 
|       chronos              || 'What you want is irrelevant.           |
|rccarm00@ukpr.uky.edu       ||  What you have chosen is at hand.'      |
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
From: v075q5fr@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Scott J Gorcey)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Kirk and Khan: Following Regulations (was re: Locarno = Kirk)
Date: 16 Apr 92 00:24:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Apr15.160919.6026@r-node.gts.org>, yung@r-node.gts.org (Amos Yung) writes...
>>>As far as Kahn was concerned?? Where is he ignoring all warnings??
>>
>>Ohhh, I don't know...completely ignoring standard (and *sensible*) regulations
>>involving ships that are coming towards you and silent running, not doing any-
>>thing to safeguard the ship until the Reliant's shields were up *and* weapons
>>were locked, and thus pummeling the ship.  You know, the error that caused 
>>the damage that in the end, drove Spock to sacrifice himself.  That error.
>>
>I keep seeing people bashing Kirk for "not following standard procedure" in
>TWOK. Yet I cannot found *any* evidence of such. Here is the entire exchange
>during the raise shield or not scene:
> 
><approaching by Reliant>
>Savvik (To Kirk): Sir, may I quote general order 12. On the approach of
>any vessels when communications has [have] not been established.....
>Spock (interrupted Savvik): Lieutantant, the admiral is well aware of the
>regulations.
>Savvik: Aye sir.
>Kirk(To Spock): Is that possible that their comm system [has] fair [failed]?
>Spock: It would explain a great many thing.[s]
>Some exchange in Reliant. Enterprise request communication, they refused.
>Kirk: This is damn peculiar. Yellow alert.

>There is absolutely no mention one way or the order what "general order 12"
>demands. Maybe Kirk did follow that order by going to yellow alert.

     (If you're gonna quote it, at least quote it right... :) )

     No, I don't get that at all.  I think it's fairly obvious
     that Kirk is not following the regulations, even when he
     orders the "Yellow alert."  
     The point is supposed to be: Kirk has had 15 years of
     experience, he knows what he's doing.  In this case,
     he is proven wrong.

                ^She's My Cousin But Doesn't She^
                      ^Look Almost Exactly^
           ____________^Like Laura Palmer^____________
          ^Scott Gorcey, v075q5fr@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu^ 
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
From: prabal@pons.cis.ohio-state.edu (Prabal Acharyya)
Subject: Re: Another flaw in "Cause and Effect"?
Organization: The Ohio State University, Department of Computer and Information Science
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 06:32:11 GMT

In article <roqsgINNcd@agate.berkeley.edu> goldfarb@ocf.berkeley.edu (David Goldfarb) writes:
>the spoiler protections.
>
>
>
>
>	Can anyone rationalize the chronology here? Or is it just a slip,
>like the failure to show the tractor beam?

I think you are talking about the last iteration when Data executed
Riker's suggestion, Correct?   If not, I am sorry.

If so, isn't Data is higher rank than Worf, and can overrride the
tractor beam execution so that it does not interfere
anyway with the Shuttle Bay Depressurization.   So the Tractor beam
was not used in the last loop, and so was not shown. 

Prabal.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current,rec.arts.startrek.misc
From: wmorgan@stsci.edu (Windsor A. Morgan)
Subject: Re: Name for Kirk
Followup-To: rec.arts.startrek.misc
Keywords: a e i o and u
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 17:27:30 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.160450.27339@ll.mit.edu> eaustin@ll.mit.edu (Eric J. Austin) writes:
>
>In article <1992Apr10.140241.6709@watserv1.waterloo.edu>, jkramer@sunwise.UWaterloo.ca (Viscous Pig Dog) writes:
>|>             (Now that I think of it the hippies in the Search for Eden
>|> had the right name for Kirk, I just can't remember what it was.)
> Herbert. Named for a low level functionary known for his
>rigid way of thinking.

Wasn't 'Herbert' named after a 'Herbert' who was either at
Paramount/Desilu or at NBC?

-- 
'Verily, there be no leader as wise as the Vision!'
                         Windsor Morgan (wmorgan@stsci.edu OR NHT@PSUVM.BITNET)
                         Space Telescope Science Institute
                         Baltimore, MD   21218
From: hendrick@ctron.com (Jim Hendrick)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Re: Boothby Master of the Galaxy
Date: 16 Apr 92 13:33:06 GMT
	<1992Apr10.132056.19825@news.larc.nasa.gov>
Organization: Cabletron Systems Inc.
In-reply-to: ray@nmsb.larc.nasa.gov's message of 10 Apr 92 13:20:56 GMT

Uncle Martin !! a reference to a long past (and greatly missed) TV series
starring Ray Walston and Bill Bixby "My Favorite Martian". I don't know
what the "Matt Frewer episode" refers to.

--
###########################################################################
### Jim Hendrick (hendrick@ctron.com)	###				###
### Cabletron Systems Inc.		###   " My opinions, etc are    ###
### P. O. Box 5005			### exclusively the property	###
### Rochester, NH 03867-5005		### of nobody in particular."	###
### (603) 332-9400 x1457		### 				###
###########################################################################
From: cortese@hepxvt.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese)
Subject: Re: Locarno's actions.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 8 Apr 92 21:29:14 GMT

In article <1992Apr5.142206.3281@cs.mcgill.ca> doctor@cs.mcgill.ca (Howard PICAIZEN) writes:
>Spoilers for First Duty...

>
>To all those claiming that Mr. Locarno is an asshole for what he
>did... UP YOURS!  Forgive my strong words, but I sympathize with
>Locarno. He did what he did for the benefit of his friends . . . 

Even if one of them got killed.  Excuse me, but someone whose idea of
friendship includes risking my life to make himself look good can keep
his friendship to himself.

>Well, friendship cannot simply be discarded, even if it
>means having to hide the truth. What gain was there for anyone in
>revealing what really happened? It would not bring Josh back. The only
>benefits would be to honor and duty. And what honor is there in
>letting down your friends?

What honor is there in bulldozing people into pulling a stunt that could
get one of them killed?  *I* wouldn't want to serve under an officer who
regarded the lives of the people in his care so casually.

>As for performing the maneuver in the first place, I don't believe
>that he forced anyone to do anything. If they would not have wished to
>do it, as a good friend, he would have agreed. Wesley admitted that
>they ALL pressured Josh into doing it. It wasn't simply Locarno. I'm

In the military with which *I* am familiar, a superior is usually held
responsible for the actions of his subordinates.  He could have put a
stop to it and didn't.  

>sure a lot of you understand the feeling of peer pressure. Even if
>they weren't pushing him, he'd get the feeling that he was letting
>them down by refusing.
>
>Mr. Locarno, as well as the others, got in a bit over their heads. I'm
>sure everyone has done that in one way or another in their lives. They
>should not be shunned for making a mistake. Their crime was in
>performing the maneuver. Of that they are ALL guilty. So, if you wish
>to put the blame on someone, put it on all of them. Locarno does not
>deserve to be singled out. He did what he had to do for the safety of
>his crew. 

Like risking their lives?  Oh, how conscientious he was. 

>And THAT's the sign of a damn good commander.

I'd rather ship out under someone else.  A "good commander" doesn't lie
to the Admiralty to cover his ass.  Where is your "honor" then?

Regards,
Janis C.
From: wjmc@unix.brighton.ac.uk (-*_Spikey_Tribble_*-)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Re: Asimov's cameo lost, too : -(
Date: 8 Apr 92 16:29:08 GMT
Organization: Brighton Polytechnic, UK

dsturm@ducvax.auburn.edu writes:
> Shame on the TNG staff for not following thru on the script that
> had Data talking to a holographic Asimov on the holodeck...
> 
> No way to do that one now   :-(

 Could someone submit any good 'obituaries' which have been published over
in the States ? We had a very good one in our 'Times' newspaper ... perhaps
just a summary; or maybe someone could write a brief one ...

.
-- 
###########################################################################
#  Bill Crawford  aka  *Cuddly_Cactus*     |     wjmc@uk.ac.bton.unix     #
#  BSc (Hons) Computer Science Year One    |     wjmc@uk.ac.bton.vms      #
#  Have you read your Book In Basic Life Education today ? You should !!  #
#  Any views I express are not necessarily those of Brighton Polytechnic  #
###########################################################################
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Wednesday, 15 Apr 1992 21:19:38 CDT
From: John D. Talbot, Maverick Philosopher <U28802@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Re: Deep Space Nine Promo!
 <15APR199218465192@gergo.tamu.edu>

Anybody out there paged thru Okuda and Sternbach's TNG Technical Manual?
The manual (intended loosely as a guide for writers) sez that the 1701-D
is designed for an operational lifetime of approx. 100 years. I must admit
to still being somewhat skeptical about the prospects and content of DS9,
and would rather see a new set of missions for the next crew assigned to
1701-D. There's still a wealth of storylines the writers could come up with,
methinks. Comments, anybody?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
               /_\                               |John D. Talbot
             /_(0)_\                The          |u28802@uicvm.uic.edu
           /_I__I__I_\           *DISCOUNT*      |gis10r1@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu
     ILLUMINATI INTERNATIONAL    Conspiracy      |-----------------------
        /_I__I__I__I__I_\          People!       |"I am not a Marxist!"
      /_I__I__I__I__I__I__\                      |-Karl Marx, on his
    /__I__I__I__I__I__I__I__\                    | deathbed; 1883
-A wholly-owned subsidiary of Trilateral Commission Inc. 1311 Anno Lucia-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: tanski@inland.com
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Thank you Mr. Lynch
Date: 14 Apr 92 14:43:52 GMT
Organization: Inland Steel Company; East Chicago, IN

Hi Tim,

    Thanks for the synopsis and review.  I didn't want to bug you
directly, since you probably get lots of requests.  I'm posting my
thanks on the net as my mailer bounced my reply to you (it didn't
understand the address).  Thanks again.

-- 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
     John Tanski                   ><  "Work.  Worry.  Consume.  Die.
     ISFPC - R & D Dept            ><   It's a wonderful life."
     (tanski@inland.com)           ><      Lippy (Bill Griffith)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
From: tlynch@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch)
Subject: Re: Locarno = Kirk (Spoilers "First Duty"))
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 22:47:42 GMT

kyle@uunet.uu.net (Kyle Jones) writes:
>ccmk@lure.latrobe.edu.au writes:
> > The emphasis is on the refusal to give in no matter the odds.

>tlynch@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
> > That's not an "I will not fail".  That's an "I will not give up"; and I 
> > find that an admirable quality most of the time.  The "I will not fail"
> > is adolescent arrogance at its worst.

>OK, assuming for a moment that you're right: give us an example
>of Kirk taking on something that's way over his head, ignoring
>all warnings, and just foolishly bulling ahead.

Refusing to do a thing about Gary Mitchell until it was damn near too late
in "Where No Man Has Gone Before"?  Letting Khan get in close enough to 
cripple the Enterprise in ST2?

I'm sure there are others, but I'm not as up on my TOS episodes as most, so
I'll leave it to them.

Tim Lynch
From: wjmc@unix.brighton.ac.uk (-*_Spikey_Tribble_*-)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Re: An oddity
Date: 14 Apr 92 16:55:42 GMT
Organization: Brighton Polytechnic, UK

hendrick@ctron.com (Jim Hendrick) writes:
> [...]
> Sure the PRIMARY mission is exploration. But if they beam into a known
> hostile situation??? I'm damn sure I wouldn't beam into the middle of a
> battle scene standing upright with my weapon lowered (or ON MY BELT???)
> More likely either the team would be put at strategic points surrounding
> the area (recall in 1001 or whatever the episode w/ the binars was, Riker
> and Picard entered the bridge at opposite corners to get an advantage.)
> or in a small circle facing outward crouching w/ weapons raised.
> [...]

 I'm sure I can remember a ST:TOS episode or two where they did just that,
transported in a circle ... ?
-- 
###########################################################################
#  Bill Crawford  aka  *Cuddly_Cactus*     |     wjmc@uk.ac.bton.unix     #
#  BSc (Hons) Computer Science Year One    |     wjmc@uk.ac.bton.vms      #
#  Have you read your Book In Basic Life Education today ? You should !!  #
#  Any views I express are not necessarily those of Brighton Polytechnic  #
###########################################################################
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
From: robert@revcan.rct.ca (Robert Presland)
Subject: Re: Wesley and Alexander
Organization: Revenue Canada, Taxation; Office Communications Division
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 17:30:40 GMT

In article <92105.103353AUJDW@ASUACAD.BITNET> <AUJDW@ASUACAD.BITNET> writes:
>I think that Wesley and Alexander should be both ejected into
>space

and you too ???

>I can't stand either of them, and I really wonder why the producers of
>TNG keep putting in these little snobby brats who think they can act.

There are not a lot fo children actors/actreses I am sure, they aren't
born from tress you know (to borrow a phrase and twist it).

>Wil Wheaton and who ever the hell plays Alexander belong on sesame
>street, and not on my favorite TV show, except mod
>MOnday night football, which I should then tape the show. . .
>
>I HATE WESLEY, and I HATE ALEXANDER, I want them DEAD!!!!
>
>if you are with me, please respond.  I hope I am not
>the only one out there who hates these pre-puberty,
>New Kids on the Block loving brats.

In case there was any doubt, I am against you.  A world without children
is a world without joy [did I say that???]


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 "Live for the moment,                Internet: robert@revcan.rct.ca
  tomorrow will come soon enough."    FidoNet: Robert Presland (1:243/27.1)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: v128r82w@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Ralph L d'Ambrosio)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Troi's mother and Alexandra
Date: 14 Apr 92 01:10:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

What is it do you people have against this two. First of all, I thing Troi's
mother is incredible funny who does make an episode very interesting. Now I
agree I was not two crazy about the last episode with Alexandra because I 
thought it was boring, but come on. The kid did not ruin it. Also, jow can 
people say that this episode is a cliche with Alexandra in it when
the kid has been in only 3 episodes.

********************************************************************************
I always interject my opinions on things I have no concern over.
________________________________________________________________________________
Sir, flames can be detected off the starboard bow
Battle Stations, shields up
________________________________________________________________________________
Life long memember of the Kill Wesely Foundation
********************************************************************************
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
From: knauer@cs.uiuc.edu (Rob Knauerhase)
Subject: _Disinherited_ opinions (Re: New TOS Book ... info)
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 02:51:17 GMT

In <1992Apr10.210838.361@pro-freedom.cts.com> pip@pro-freedom.cts.com (David Pipgras) writes:
>The newest novel, #59 - Star Trek : The Disinherited is now available, and
>is written by the familiar cast of looneys: PETER DAVID, MICHAEL JAN
>FRIEDMAN, and ROBERT GREENBERGER.
>The book is worth the $5 just to read the little section about Checkov's
>nerves....

    If, last week, someone had told me that there would be a new Star Trek
novel whose co-author was Peter David, and that I'd enjoy the book, I'd have
laughed him off the planet.
    I'd have been wrong, though.

    As much as I hate the way Peter David brings a cheap comic-book flavor
with millions of gratuitous tie-ins to ST books, this book was pretty good.
Not stellar, but pretty good.  The character interaction was (as has been
said in a previous post) the high-point.  There wasn't a lot of character
development (except for Chekov), but good interaction between the characters
we know and love (and who are, perhaps, over-developed in some ways).

    I hated David's "action scenes" when Mrs. Troi was taking revenge on Q in
David's last book (they reeked of little balloons with "pow!" and "zot!" in
them), and I feared the action scenes (what?  A ST novel with action?  Almost
like the old days!) would be in the same vein.  I was wrong here, too -- while
the Enterprise took perhaps more of a beating than necessary, the beating was
reasonably well-done.

    Lastly, the book was a pleasant change from the TNG template of "What?
It's 9:50?  We'd better wrap this up quick!"  When the "main action" was over,
I expected the end of the book; instead, there was a good conclusion, not
rushed, with action all its own.

    I firmly believe that the ST novels (both TOS and TNG) have gone WAY
downhill since the departure of Diane Duane, Vonda McIntyre, and others.  _The
Disinherited_, however, was a refreshing change from the tripe that has been
ST novels for the past however long.  It's still not the caliber of the old
stuff, what what is these days.  I recommend it.

Rob
--
Rob Knauerhase           University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
knauer@cs.uiuc.edu       Dept. of Computer Science, Gigabit Study Group
"There's no place like $FC58!"
From: KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu (Kurt Ludwick)
Newsgroups: psu.club.trek,rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Please Help!!! Need info for a project
Date: 10 Apr 92 03:47:09 GMT
Organization: Wherever it lands, it stays 'til I need it

For my Speech Communications class final project, I plan to do a speech on
the Star Trek; in specific, its relevance and why it's remained so popular
for so long (and will continue to be for generations, in one form or another.)

The problem is, I have a lot to do, and too little time to do it (a week).
So, I'd appreciate if anyone would send me any information they have handy
(or, at least, refer me to some good sources) on the history of Star Trek,
or Gene Roddenberry's life (esp. leading up to the creation of Star Trek)
or anything else you think might be useful.

I've done this before; it turns out that the Internet can be a very valuable
source of information, and not just a huge waste of time... ;-)

------------
Kurt Ludwick
------------
From: cortese@hepxvt.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese)
Subject: Re: Please Help!!! Need info for a project
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 10 Apr 92 21:47:15 GMT

In article <92100.234709KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu (Kurt Ludwick) writes:
>For my Speech Communications class final project, I plan to do a speech on
>the Star Trek; in specific, its relevance and why it's remained so popular
>for so long (and will continue to be for generations, in one form or another.)
>
>The problem is, I have a lot to do, and too little time to do it (a week).
>So, I'd appreciate if anyone would send me any information they have handy
>(or, at least, refer me to some good sources) on the history of Star Trek,
>or Gene Roddenberry's life (esp. leading up to the creation of Star Trek)
>or anything else you think might be useful.
>
>I've done this before; it turns out that the Internet can be a very valuable
>source of information, and not just a huge waste of time... ;-)
>
>------------
>Kurt Ludwick
>------------

Translation:  I've waited until the very end of the semester to start in
on this project that I've known about for the last 14 weeks, and I don't
feel like going to Pattee to Look Stuff Up.  Could you please research
everything for me, and highlight the relevant parts?  I'll make sure you
don't get credit.

Sheesh.
Janis C.