HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: 910773f@axe.acadiau.ca (HEATHER LEE FYFFE)
Subject: Re: Calling Women "Sir"
Organization: Acadia University
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 21:11:20 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.165253.11494@mercury.cair.du.edu> aeckert@diana.cair.du.edu (AMY E. ECKERT) writes:
>From: aeckert@diana.cair.du.edu (AMY E. ECKERT)
>Subject: Re: Calling Women "Sir"
>Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 16:52:53 GMT

>In article <1993Jan08.133023.25802@watson.ibm.com> roy@trigger.watson.ibm.com writes:
>>In <C0Iqwx.CGr@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> dawn@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Dawn Owens-Nicholson) writes:
>>>I hate it when they call women "Sir" or "Mister."
>>>What it says to me is this: Positions of respect are
>>>reserved for men.  For women to gain these positions,
>>>they must become honorary or symbolic men.  They 
>>>must become "sirs" because "ma'ams" are not respectable.

>Me too!

>>Don't get me wrong.  I understand your point of view.  However,
>>ST has always been an advocate of equal rights, especially for
>>women, even before it was fashionable.

>I can appreciate the equality aspect of calling women "sir," but I don't
>see why women must be masculinized in order to be equal.


Do you know french?  In french, he is il, she is elle, but they is ils.  
This is traditional, a convention, done to eliminate the need to say `ils et 
elles', especially in cases where the genders of the people involved is 
unknown or irrelevant.  I don't see calling women `sir' as masculization of 
women, but since some obviously do, I would ask them what alternative they 
would use short of inventing a completely new word with no gender 
connotations at all?  It's already been pointed out that use of ma'am would 
offend some feminists, as well as leave the non-masculaine or -feminine 
entities out of the picture altogether...

My point is that _some_ word must be used as a gesture of respect to all 
people.  Other that inventing a new word, the use of the modernly-accepted 
`masculine' form is acceptable in accordance with human tradition... just 
because a word originally meant male, if it comes to mean anybody then the 
past gender reference is obliterated.  And as it has been pointed out, sir 
originally did mean anybody...



>>I can understand what you are saying, but please try to look
>>at it from a different light.  The use of 'sir' or 'mister'
>>in the 24th century is a military, gender inspecific term.

>Yes, but here in the 20th century, it has definite gender implications.  I
>would feel better if they had chosen a word which did not have such a gender-
>specific "past."

Like I said, _what_ `gender-specific past'?

Heather
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current,rec.arts.startrek.misc
From: zweers@csd.uwo.ca (Erik Zweers)
Subject: The Rank of O'Brien
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Western Ontario, London
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 22:04:28 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.234413.19210@husc3.harvard.edu> cstone@husc8.harvard.edu (christopher stone) writes:
>In article <C0pppz.EBA@vuse.vanderbilt.edu> muellerm@vuse.vanderbilt.edu (Marc Mueller) writes:
>
>The assumption you are making here is that Starfleet's rank system
>corresponds to the US Navy's.  IMHO, this is not a correct assumption,
>though some people will disagree with me.  A lot of lip-service is
>payed to "naval tradition" on Star Trek

I know this is refering to an old show but I do remember Riker asking
LaForge (sp?) if his report (refering to the the arival of the star
drive section of Big-E) was a formal report in Encounter at Farpoint.
What exactly is considered normal or tradition.  They still come to
attention when necessary.

>So, although "Chief" may be an enlisted title in the Navy,
>it need not be so for Starfleet (remember, *Lt.* Kyle was Transporter
>Chief in TOS).
>
Maybe you've just explained the term Chief.  Maybe he is refered to as
Chief simply because that is the name given to an officer in his
position.  (your example, I expect that that is a reliable example,
Lt. Kyle was Transporter Chief)
To the same extent, Cmdr. Riker's rank is Commander, why does picard
call him Number one (I know and don't bother replying about this
point) my point is, there is no rule that says that you MUST refer to
a officer buy his actual offical rank.

	Just my $0.02 worth, don't reply if your just out to bash me.

					Erik.


Xref: sparky rec.arts.startrek.current:23422 rec.arts.startrek:15137
From: rawdon@colby.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Rawdon)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current,rec.arts.startrek
Subject: Re: after finally seeing ds9
Date: 12 Jan 93 17:21:57 GMT
Reply-To: rawdon@colby.cs.wisc.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Dept., Madison, WI

In <C0pppz.EBA@vuse.vanderbilt.edu> muellerm@vuse.vanderbilt.edu (Marc Mueller) writes:
>The rank of chief has always been that of a noncommissioned officer.
>Traditionally it is a senior enlisted rank in which an enlisted person
>advances to a level where a crewman starts to take on some of the
>responsibilities designated for an officer. A chief is considered
>to have advanced to a level above that of normal enlisted and
>wears a uniform that resembles that of an officer.

My understanding is that O'Brien was called "chief" because he's the
transporter chief, much as the ship has a chief engineer, chief medical
officer, and chief of security.  Is this understanding incorrect?  What
episode can I go watch to check, if so?

-- 
Michael Rawdon				  rawdon@colby.cs.wisc.edu
University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Department,  Madison, WI

"...I guess I'd rather have mediocre Star Trek then none at all."
				- A friend, about the ST:TNG episode "Legacy"
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Re: David Warner on "Chain of Command"
From: ttullio@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 5 Jan 93 00:00:34 EST
Distribution: usa
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <1992Dec28.103028.21884@hemlock.cray.com>, kak1@birch02.cray.com (Kevin Kramer) writes:
> 
> I am nit sure, but is this the same guy that was on Tron?  (playing the meanie)
> I thought that I could recognise him, and the voice sounded the same, but I 
> just couldn't quite tell.
> 
> Kevin

Yes (as has been noted by others).

I'm impressed by how much mileage David Warner is getting out of Star Trek!

First, the human ambassador in STV:TFF
Then, the Klingon chancellor in STVI:TUC
And now a Cardassian!

He's steadily becoming the new Mark Lenard!!??
(Let's seem him TRY to play a Ferengi!)

    __
   / /\  
  / / / 2              
 / /  \                "Regard this simple silver salt cellar..."
/ / /\ \       * ======================================================== *    
\_\/\ \ \        Tom Tullio * TTULLIO@WILLET.WESLEYAN.EDU * Alumni Office  
     \_\/          ----------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
From: stud9j25@bcars243.UUCP (Steven Kostur)
Subject: Babylon 5 (was Re: Space Rangers Really Sucks Donkey)
Reply-To: stud9j25@bcars243.UUCP (Steven Kostur)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 15:54:05 GMT

In article <1igfnoINNr4m@network.ucsd.edu>, erwin@bend.ucsd.edu (Sean Erwin) writes:
>
>What a nasty yicky show.  Makes DS9 seem like a masterpiece.  It won't last
>long.  Next up:  Babylon 5....
>
>---Sean

Is Babylon 5 only going to be playing in the US? Being in Canada, I would like to 
know if I'll be able to get it!

Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
From: ten0772@eafs000.ca.boeing.com (Timothy E. Neto)
Subject: Re: Shuttle Craft Warp??
Organization: be41t
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 05:38:46 GMT

starride@silver.ksu.ksu.edu (David Chase) writes:

>mhampsch@boi.hp.com (Mark Hampsch) writes:


>>In Relics Scotty gets a shuttle craft to wander in.  Does it have warp abilities or is it going to take him forever and a year to get anywhere?
.
...
.
>	Limited warp of 2 from what I have been told. It is an interstellar 
>version of shuttle craft.

I would like to see a cameo of Captain Scott in another episode with his
suped (sp) up shuttle.  Face it, Montgomery not tinker with his shuttle...
NOT......  I would expect warp 6 at least.....

-- 
Indecision is the key to | Timothy E. Neto  (206) 237-5527              1   000
flexibility, & you can't | Of B & T's Gadget & Widget Works             1  0. .0
E-Mail God.              | Flight Systems Lab, Boeing Comm. Aircraft    1  0 _ 0
My ideas not Boeing's    | Internet: ten0772@aw2.fsl.ca.boeing.com      1   000
From: barrett@aminet.uucp (Keith Barrett)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Re: `Cheers woman
Date: 4 Jan 93 01:31:38 GMT
Reply-To: barrett%aminet@nuconvex.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: Waterbury USENET/UUCP
X-Copyright: (c) 1992 Keith Barrett; May be distributed freely, Not for sale
X-Disclaimer: Statements expressed are not representitive of any employer
X-NewsSoftware: XRN V6.17 Amiga UNIX SVR4

I'm surprised at the "low level" of knowledge on this subject --
you all ought to be ashamed.

Kirsti Alley played Savvik in the first movie (Wrath og Kahn)

Robin Curtis played Savvik in the second movie (Search for Spock)

They were NOT played by the same actress, so YES, The Girl from
Cheers did play a part in a ST movie.

-- 
-kgb

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
UUCP: nuconvex.com!aminet!barrett             Keep circulating the tapes - MST3k
DDN: barrett%aminet.uucp@decwrl.dec.com    // My life is my own - the prisoner
Alternate: barrett@pamsrc.enet.dec.com   \X/  Amiga 3000UX - The Next Generation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
From: brad@cmptrc.lonestar.org (Brad Barton)
Subject: Re: DS9's new doctor and Checov
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 15:33:17 GMT
Organization: CompuTrac Inc., Richardson TX

In article <16B4FE2DA.ALI00BAW@UNCCVM.UNCC.EDU> ALI00BAW@UNCCVM.UNCC.EDU writes:
>At least to me, a "Dr. Julian Bashir" who speaks English with a British
>accent seems to indicate a Palestinian or Lebanese Christian-- there ARE
>Arab Christians, you know--who got his training in London.  But I am sure
>that languages and cultures gotten even more 'muddled' by then than they
>are now.

After all, we have a French captain who speaks with a British accent...


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  Brad Barton - brad@cmptrc.lonestar.org  |  "Light the lamp, not the rat!"  |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: hyatt@cs.unc.edu (Brant Hyatt)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Why leave a commander in charge of DSN??
Date: 5 Jan 1993 11:30:17 -0500
Organization: The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
NNTP-Posting-Host: tsc.cs.unc.edu

Can someone explain why Starfleet has put a commander in
charge of a large space station that is going to be so important.
It just seems that a station would be under control of at 
least a captain.  Just wondering.


Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
From: michael@monitor.com (Michael Johnson)
Subject: Re: DS9's new doctor and Checov
Reply-To: michael@monitor.com (Michael Johnson)
Organization: Monitor Company / IE
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 20:44:01 GMT

In article <C0HKEH.31D@news.cso.uiuc.edu> mlj44080@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael  
Lee Jacobs) writes:
> Come on people we didnt see sisko and presume he was from the Ivory Coast
> did we?  *Ratzafraggin closed mind...*

Actually, I immediately presumed he was from Cote d'Ivoir :)

Seriously, is there any mention of where he was from?  I was too busy making  
fun of the new show to pay close attention.

P.S. "Come on people" and "ratzafraggin" are no longer accepted on r.a.s.c.  
as adequate flames.  Please be more devastating in the future, thank you :)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
From: spock@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Scott)
Subject: Re: Chief O'Brien's Rank!
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 00:32:25 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.154243.46301@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> gimble@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (David Caruso II) writes:
>I have a question that I hope someone can answer and agree with me.
>
>WHAT IS O'BRIEN'S RANK?
>-----------------------
>
>	I say it's Lt.  Anyone care to disagree?
>
>Paul.

	If I'm not mistaken, he was Chief Petty Officer on the E. That's one 
  reason why they called him Chief. As for his rank on DSN, I have no clue.
  In "Emissary" I noticed that O'Brian had a half pip while in his E uniform, 
  but while on TNG he had two. Then when he changed to his DSN uniform he had
  two. Anyone care to comment on this fact?
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Casting the Captain (was Re: Riker Takes Command!)
From: CHD@HERMES.ECE.ARIZONA.EDU (Chris De Young)
Date: 4 Jan 93 16:22:30 MST
Distribution: world,local
Organization: --
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.24

In <C0CMLz.LLH@ccu.umanitoba.ca> roholdr@ccu.umanitoba.ca writes:

> Somehow, I don't think we'd find it easy to accept Mr. Gibson as captain of
> the Enterprise 

Got to agree with you there....

>What about that actor that played Remington Steele?

Pierce Brosnan.  Maybe, though most things I've seen him in have him as
too much of a smart-ass.

> Or how about Sean Connery? 

Somehow I doubt he wants to work the hours for series television, especially
for Star Trek.  I guess you never know though....

> Is Rosanne Barr taking offers?

Ick.

How about Kirstie Alley?  Vulcans/Romulans are long lived, and she would
have moved up in rank by now.....

Anthony Hopkins?  Doubt he'd be interested though.  (Of course Kirstie Alley
probably isn't interested either.)

;-)

-Chris
chd@ece.arizona.edu
From: scottz@cc.usu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: BABYLON 5?
Date: 7 Jan 93 21:06:23 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

OKAY, I'VE HEARD HOW SOME PEOPLE THINK BABYLON 5 IS SO GREAT, BUT I'VE NOT
HEARD ANYTHING EVER ABOUT THIS SHOW.  IS IT JUST NOT SHOW IN MY AREA (MID WEST)
OR DO I JUST NOT WATCH ENOUGH TV?
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
From: S104374@UMRVMA.umr.edu
Subject: More on uniforms
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 22:09:43 GMT
Organization: Univ of MO - Rolla

Somewhere I recall hearing that green uniforms in TNG were for Starfleet
Marines.  However, I don't recall ever seeing one on the show, so this
may be entirely speculation.

                                           -=Road Warrior=-
From: major@shuksan (Mike Schmitt)
Subject: Re: Rank Structure (was Re: Uniform Colors...)
Organization: Man Machine Systems Technology
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 23:58:41 GMT

: I thought that Commodore was a position rather than a rank.  Reading Tom
: Clancy (and yes he is pretty damn accurate) it states that Commodore Mancuso
: has the rank of Captain (Rear Admiral designee).  Meaning that he's a captain
: who will become a Rear Admiral when a position opens up.  Commodore is a 
: position just like being Captain.  You don't have to be a Captain to 
: be the Captain of a ship.  For example, a Lt. Commander may have command
: of a small piss-ant ship and be called Captain.  Lt. Commander is his
: rank and Captain is his position...

  Used to be.  Not sure if it's true anymore.  The commander of a flotilla
  was often called the "Commodore" regardless of his rank.  It was a position.

  The Navy from time to time gets a lot of heat from the other services about
  the Rear Admiral rank deal.  Everybody else (Army, Air Force, Marines) goes
  from Colonel to One Star (Brigadier General) while the Navy leaps from
  Captain (Colonel) to **TWO STARS** - which by protocal immediatley outranks
  every One Star - (which immediatley pisses off all the one stars).  And
  it REALLY pisses off academy graduates when a previously 'underclassman'
  now outranks you.  

  Why the Navy can't make a Rear Admiral j.g. (junior grade) and give him
  one star is beyond me.  It's gotta be 'one-upman-ship'.  If they want to
  keep him in two stars - give him one little star and one big star (like
  Conferderate generals).  Or - a hollow star and a solid star - yeah, that's
  it.  (I knew I'd find a thread back to Star Trek.....)


  "Take her down to 50 fathoms."

  "Sir, this is destroyer not a submarine."

  "Belay that order!" 


  
-- 
Mike Schmitt - Disclaimer: These opinions are not my employer's.  My opinions 
are protected by the 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of
America.  No mission too difficult, no sacrifice too great.  Duty first. 

Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
From: abick@sebastian.carleton.ca (Alan Bick)
Subject: Re: Transporting thru shields? (The shields weren't up!)
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 22:26:33 GMT


After looking at the episode carefully, I really don't think the shields
were up! Putting aside the fact that Geordi & Scott probably lowered them.
When the Enterprise fired it's torpedoes, the hit the ship. There was no
impact hitting the shields. In fact, the shields weren't even visible like
when they were holding the doors open.
No matter how weak shields are, a photon torpedo always hits the shields
and shows a pattern (like when Data fired at the Romulans ships in
Redemption II) and in Relics, they didn't do it. My conclusion is that the
shields were down. I could be wrong though.

Alan Bick
From: cstone@husc8.harvard.edu (christopher stone)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Re: DS9 Uniforms
Date: 9 Jan 93 06:00:36 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <1993Jan6.221857.20331@cbnewsd.cb.att.com> gailj@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (gail.j.valentine) writes:
>In article <1993Jan6.182601.18244@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu> jclark@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu (J. Michael Clark) writes:
>>Has anyone explained why the uniforms on DS9 are different that the 
>>standard starfleet uniforms. I mean they are still starfleet officers
>>aren't they?
>
>I believe these are the same uniforms used at the Academy, in the Wesley
>episode...perhaps they are "stationary assignment" uniforms as opposed
>to "ship-board assignment"?  A space station should be more stationary
>than a starship...

That is one possibility, but we have seen other space station personnel
(Cmdr. Quinteros of the Binar episode, for example), who wear normal
uniforms.  However, perhaps the stationary uniforms were a recent
innovation, like the Captain's jacket.

There is one other possibility, though... the legitimacy of the Bajoran
Provisional Government was taking a beating due to the presence of the 
Federation, so Starfleet designed a uniform especially for DS9, one
that was distinctive from normal uniforms, in order to de-emphasize the
Federation presence.

Preferences?

Chris
From: yjc@po.CWRU.Edu (Y H J. Chan)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Did parts of DS9 dragged?!
Date: 8 Jan 1993 03:40:23 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: yjc@po.CWRU.Edu (Y H J. Chan)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc12.ins.cwru.edu


Is it my imagination or that the trip in the wormhole dragged a great deal?
The other parts were kind of alright ...

-- 
 The Evil Tofu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
From: drew@deathstar.dell.com (Drew Stephens)
Subject: Re: The Final Star Trek Movie?
Organization: Dell Computer Co
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 14:55:53 GMT

linley@netcom.com (Bruce James Robrert Linley) writes:

>>In article <C0Jqzx.161@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> rusbasan@expert.cc.purdue.edu  
>>(Bob Rusbasan) writes:
>>> 
>>> The final one, huh?  That can call it
>>> *** Star Trek VII: The Final Chapter -- Part III ***
>>> since part V and VI were also said to be the final movies.
>>
>My vote goes to........ STAR TREK VII: THE SENIOR TOUR

STAR TREK VII: I'VE FALLEN AND I CAN'T GET UP!
--
Drew Stephens
Dell Computer Corporation
drew_stephens@dell.com
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
From: bbs-aphelps@jwt.UUCP (Austin Phelps)
Subject: Re: DS9: Emissary (Spoilers)
Reply-To: bbs-aphelps@jwt.UUCP
Organization: The Matrix
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 07:29:44 GMT

rsvanc00@nx02.mik.uky.edu (Randolph S. Vance) writes:

Turn about and go to thy sector home for there might be spoilers ahead.





















> 
> The people that built the wormhole may have had previous contact with the
> Borg, as they did not question Sisko's actions in fighting them at Wolf 359.

Possible, but where is the Gamma Quardant located compared to where the 
Enterprise first found them?
> 
> Randolph S. Vance
> RSVANC00@mik.uky.edu (NeXT Mail)


Austin C. Phelps            pick a address: bbs-aphelps@jwt.UUCP
-> Tf3 <- elsewhere                         aphelps@vicstoy.oau.org
"Let history never forget the name          tf3@delphi.com
Apple II Forever! Alliance C373   Enterprise   AAWO 3303
From: hhtra@usho72.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Re: Vulcan Captain??? (Major Mistake!!!)
Date: 7 Jan 93 20:46:14 GMT
Organization: Chevron

In article <abick.726435057@cunews>, abick@sebastian.carleton.ca (Alan Bick) writes:
|> In <1ihv50INNeg1@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> holland@geop.ubc.ca (Stephen Holland) writes:
|> >In article 726386491@cunews, abick@sebastian.carleton.ca (Alan Bick) writes:
|> >>
|> >>Now how the hell did the captain die at Wolf 359 and then show up at the
|> >>Academy. I find it hard to believe that anyone escaped Wolf 359 (The Borg
|> >>were pretty thorough.) but Emissary made it pretty clear that the Vulcan
|> >>was dead. Have I overlooked anything?
|> >>
|> >Well... Spock died and then came back to life.  Perhaps the Vulcan captain
|> >did the old mind meld thing with one of the Saratoga's crew before he was blown
|> >into little pieces.  That crewmember escaped and managed to return to
|> >Star Fleet HQ.  Star Fleet then used the transporter trace to construct
|> >a new body for the Vulcan, took the crewmember and the new body to the
|> >Vulcan temple in Star Trek III, and voila!  Vulcan reincarnation!  
|> 
|> I would almost buy that (this is Science Fiction after all) except that the
|> Captain died VERY suddenly. (In mid-speech in fact.) Now if you were to say
|> that before Wolf 359, the Captain visited the planet where Roger Croby made
|> his robotic clones, made one of himself which either died at Wolf 359 or
|> ended up at the Academy then I'd accept that!
|> 
|> No I wouldn't!!! But it would at least be "possible". :)
|> 
|> Alan Bick

 But then that could mean that Spock's Daddy is really a Romulan commander
 who somehow escaped his ship's self-detruction and beat-feet back to 
 Vulcan.  Hey, that makes sense!  Cause he did say that, in another place
 and time, he and Kirk could have been friends and they were awfully 
 freindly in the ST movies.  Maybe Kirk's been hiding the real truth about
 that incident.  Maybe it's just like the plot of THE HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER
 and Kirk just MADE it look like the Romulan ship self-destructed!

 TRAVIS
From: ac999239@umbc3.umbc.edu (ac999239)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Re: Stolen From Outer Limits?
Date: 11 Jan 1993 16:50:51 -0500
Organization: University of Maryland, Baltimore County Campus
NNTP-Posting-Host: umbc8.umbc.edu

> Wolf-359, where the Borg battle was fought, just happens to be the
> title of an OUTER LIMITS episode (playing tonight on PBS chan 54 in
> the SF. Bay Area.)

Wolf-359, if I'm correct, is just a place like Alpha Centauri or whatever.
You can't copyright the useage of the name of a place like that. No one
would go bonkers if an episode was named after a country or something.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current