From: tlynch@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch)
Subject: Re: Locarno = Kirk (Spoilers "First Duty"))
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 00:41:51 GMT

maj1@Ra.MsState.Edu (Mark "Beren" Jamison) writes:
>tlynch@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>>maj1@Ra.MsState.Edu (Mark "Beren" Jamison) writes:
>>>tlynch@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:

>>>>Letting Khan get in close enough to cripple the Enterprise in ST2?

>>>Where do these signify the "I will not fail" mentality?? 

>>You mean saying "there can't be anything wrong with the Reliant because I'm
>>James Kirk and invulnerable"?

>Come again?? His moves with the reliant may belie a sense of trust in all
>Federation people, not an "I can't lose" mentality.. 

I think there was some of each in there.  There's certainly an element of 
misplaced trust, but his dismissal of Saavik's warnings with an "I know 
regulations and I find it obvious that they're wrong and don't apply to me
here" attitude demonstrates some of the "I'm invulnerable" attitude as
well, IMO.

>>>As far as Kahn was concerned?? Where is he ignoring all warnings??

>>Ohh, I don't know...completely ignoring standard (and *sensible*) regulations
>>involving ships that are coming towards you and silent running, not doing 
>>anything 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.

>Well, I'll argue with you on that one.. 

Hey, join the crowd.

>See above.. 

Answered above.  :-)

>Now if you had pointed
>out his goading Kahn into a fight at the end, well that's another story,
>and that was what caused Spock's sacrifice..

No.  The goading I would maintain was a necessary strategic move; you don't
want Khan left on the loose.  And the goading did little to bring about Spock's
sacrifice; by that time, the odds were so even that you could argue the 
random chance of battle "caused" the sacrifice.  The contributing factor that
had the Enterprise so beaten that it *needed* to fight in the nebula and 
bring about Spock's death would have to be Kirk's blunder in letting Khan
get too close to begin with.

>>And as for the Locarno=Picard analogy [thought up by those getting extremely
>>defensive about the L/K connection, I might add], I've already pointed out
>>elsewhere that there's no evidence for either Locarno being a hell-raiser or
>>for Picard being outright *dishonest*.  We know Picard was troublesome and
>>perhaps disruptive; all appearances from TFD indicate that Locarno was viewed
>>very favorably by the Academy at large, faculty and students alike.  And
>>Picard's never been said to lie or cheat at the Academy in any form; Locarno
>>and Kirk have.

>Both Picard and Locarno have pulled "stunts".. 

We don't know that.  We have no idea what Picard actually *did* in the academy.
What stunts are you thinking of?

And as above, Picard's never been said to cover them up or cheat.

>Besides where did Kirk Lie??

Sigh.  Note the "or" in the "lie or cheat" above.  I don't know of any 
evidence that Kirk lied on regular basis in the academy.  I do know that he
cheated on an important test, and IMHO the person who was cheated most by 
his actions was Kirk himself.

>And Now for something completely similar but different too..

>From the vague stuff we learned from Boothby about Picard, doesn't that 
>speech he gave wesley seem a bit hypocritical?? 

Um...no.  I think I'd call it Picard learning from his mistakes, and a 
form of major dramatic irony.  Picard never came down on Wes for *trying*
the maneuver in the first place; it was the coverup and avoiding of 
responsibility that he condemned.

Tim Lynch (Cornell's first Astronomy B.A.; one of many Caltech grad students)
BITNET:  tlynch@citjuliet
INTERNET:  tlynch@juliet.caltech.edu
UUCP:  ...!ucbvax!tlynch%juliet.caltech.edu@hamlet.caltech.edu
R.I.P. Isaac Asimov, 1920-1992.  You will be missed.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current