HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hucke@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Matt Hucke)
Subject: Re: Lacarno-expected to succeed-
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 22:04:11 GMT

In article <1992Apr5.213852.11591@acsu.buffalo.edu> v128nkej@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Boggles the MIND) writes:
>3.  The boy that died (whats his name) is dead and it doesn't matter too much
>     that his name is mucked for the good of the team.

I thought so too, until I watched his father during the testimony... although
he didn't say much, that man can act.


-- 
        Real Programmers Don't Eat Quiche.
                      hucke@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
                      Gene Roddenberry 1921-1991
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
From: kyle@uunet.uu.net (Kyle Jones)
Subject: Re: more Kobiyashi
Organization: UUNET Technologies, Inc
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 19:25:23 GMT

 > Sorry, but there is a sort of example.  More to do with sex, though.
 > In REQUIEM FOR METHUSELAH Kirk is emotionally shattered because he lost
 > the robot bimbo to Methuselah (I know, sounds stupid if you haven't
 > seen it, but it isn't a bad episode).  Kirk moans and groans so much
 > Spock takes pity on him and uses a Vulcan mind-meld to make Kirk
 > forget the bimbo.  There was every indication Kirk was going to remember
 > the bimbo in the worst possible way into the next episode.

Good example, but lay off the "bimbo" bit.  Raina was attractiove
and intelligent, though a bit sheltered and naive.  She was no
more a bimbo than Lal (from "The Offspring") was.  In fact the
similarity in their deaths seems to close to be a coincidence.

Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
From: tlynch@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch)
Subject: Re: Lynch's Spoiler Review: "The First Duty"
Keywords: TNG, Wesley, Academy
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 17:36:54 GMT

kyle@uunet.uu.net (Kyle Jones) writes:
>wombat@eng.umd.edu (Jose Gonzalez) writes:

[Thanks for keeping the attributions intact, Kyle.  :-) ]

>>Okay, putting anything Nick said aside, Cito and Jean reluctantly agreed that
>>Josh may have been scared and somehow messed up.  

>tlynch@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:

>>And Nick pressured them into that statement rather vividly.

>What pressure?  

Pressure by force of personality.  Look at the scene, and look at the stares
Nick has to give them before they break down and agree.

And remember, there are good reasons *beyond* this for everyone to _wonder_
if Josh panicked.  Of course they're going to wonder, even if he was the 
best pilot they'd ever seen.  He's *dead*, and it's partly their fault; they're
going to unconsciously jump on whatever they can, distancing themselves from
the realization that it could well have been them, too.

Sure, it could have been pilot error.  Josh could also have had a sudden
heart attack or coronary and fallen unconscious.  (Hey, it's a reason he
couldn't beam out, right?)  We *don't know*, and to argue that "oh, well, it
was obviously Josh's fault and there's no reason for anyone else to suffer
for it" is to me an unconscionable line of "reasoning".

>Wesley had already stuck his neck out.  

And you've been arguing that Nick should have chopped it off, or at least that
Wes shouldn't have done so.  If you're arguing that on no information, imagine
the pressures Nick was unconsciously bringing to bear on the others who *did*
have such information.

Tim Lynch
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
From: steve@sep.Stanford.EDU (Steve Cole)
Subject: Re: those things on their belts
Organization: Stanford Exploration Project
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 22:52:02 GMT

In article <1992Apr16.222520.3503@uunet.uu.net>, kyle@uunet.uu.net (Kyle Jones) writes:
|> Seriously, it's interesting how many people have confused this
|> Touissant with Hamilton.  I knew it wasn't Hamilton (being a True
|> Linda Hamilton fan :>), but noted the resemblance and continued
|> to think I'd seen this woman before somewhere.  What other
|> movies/TV has she worked on?

This is posted more for humor value than as a serious reply to
your question, but the only other place I recall seeing her is
in some recent Jack-in-the-Box commercials.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Cole  (steve@sep.stanford.edu, apple!sep!steve)
Department of Geophysics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305
From: ptrudell@lonestar.utsa.edu (Peter J. Trudell)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Re: Starfleet Acadamy
Date: 9 Apr 92 23:51:12 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio


Did anyone notice the Klingon in the background during the inquiry hearings?

--Pete
-- 
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
From: yung@r-node.gts.org (Amos Yung)
Subject: Re: Lacarno-expected to succeed-
Organization: R-Node Public Access UNIX System (416-636-2026) - 24 hrs
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 1992 22:43:02 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.011937.26248@uunet.uu.net> kyle@uunet.uu.net (Kyle Jones) writes:
>
> > > > 3.  The boy that died (whats his name) is dead and it doesn't matter too much
> > > >     that his name is mucked for the good of the team.
> > 
> > That's crazy. Thats the same as the hit and run attitude! (he is dead, what
> > good will it do if I go to jail)
>
>Just because someone doesn't want to go to jail, that doesn't
>mean they don't feel any guilt.
How is that relevant to the situation?

>
>Furthermore, there's nothing wrong with guilty people wanting to
>stay out of jail.  There's nothing wrong with us wanting them to
>be in jail either.  But not wanting to go to jail doesn't make
>the crime any worse.
Wanting not to go to jail is not wrong. Acting on that wish, i.e. actively
seeking to avoid punishment for doing something you know that is wrong,
should be consider as a crime in itself.
 
Besides, avoiding punishment usually involves lying in court which IS a
crime in itself.
 



-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amos Yung          | Macintosh Jr.: The power to crush the other kid.
yung@r-node.gts.org| 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: me308lab@ux.acs.umn.edu (Mechanical Eng consultant)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Re: those things on their belts
Date: 16 Apr 92 21:23:53 GMT
Article-I.D.: ux.1992Apr16.212353.21398
Organization: University of Minnesota

In article <HENDRICK.92Apr16123516@marlins.ctron.com> hendrick@ctron.com (Jim Hendrick) writes:
>>    enterprise goes back to tasha's home planet, when tasha's sister was
>>    beaming down to the colony to help rescue the crewmen,  she had on a
>>    blue jumpsuit with matching blue phaser holster.  how nice, they must
>
>Who noticed the holster ???
>
>Sorry, just an avid Linda Hamilton fan. ;-)
>

Was that Linda Hamilton?  I wondered when I first saw the episode, but
she looked to young to be LH.

-- 
Tola H. Marts   \\\   ME at MN   \\\   email: TMARTS@VX.ACS.UMN.EDU

   "You'll be the mule, I'll be the plow, come harvest time,
    we'll work it out."- Nancy Griffith, _Troubled Fields_
From: dalisay@widget.seas.upenn.edu (Reynaldo S Dalisay)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Starfleet Academy question
Date: 6 Apr 92 16:47:17 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania


Just one question:


How long (in years, months, etc.) does it normally take to graduate
from the Starfleet Academy?



Reynaldo S. Dalisay
dalisay@eniac.seas.upenn.edu


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: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 22:22:51 GMT

v075q5fr@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Scott J Gorcey) writes:

>Important Pieces of the Discussion After Spoiler:



>     And anyway, you are overlooking the point: Locarno is Kirk ^as a
>     cadet,^  as a KID.  

Exactly.  I don't often agree with you all that much, Scott, but on elements
of this point you're dead on. (I think you may be giving Kirk a little bit
too little credit in a few places, but I'll deal with them separately.)  I
think there is a lot of Kirk in Locarno (as I said elsewhere, it's almost a 
cross between Kirk and Bill Clinton :-) ), and I think that analogy is hitting
a little hard for some.

>     In the end, Locarno lived up to his stated code of honor - put the
>     team first, no matter what - by taking all the blame and being the
>     only one expelled.  If you go back and look at the episode, you'll
>     see that Locarno's every act was an attempt to safeguard THE TEAM
>     as a whole.  

I'm not sure I'd agree with all of this.  I might have twelve hours after
seeing the show, but after thinking about it more I tend to favor the 
interpretation of his last act as face-saving more than anything else.  He 
was already going down for what he did, but doing this would probably get
him some sympathy back from most of the campus.

Tim Lynch
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
From: lschoen@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Lawrence Schoen)
Subject: Re: Boothby Master of the Galaxy
Summary: Tales of Martian Adventure 
Organization: Klingon Language Institute
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 17:23:56 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.131852.1263@wkuvx1.bitnet> charyma@wkuvx1.bitnet writes:
>It was a pleasure seeing Ray Walston (one of my favorite actors) on
>Star Trek.  I was hoping to see him pop antennae out the back of his
>head just as a sort of homage. (Sort of like the last line of the Matt
>Frewer episode.)  It then occurred to me, Boothby's incognito.  He plans
>to take over the academy for his Martian masters.  His plan is find promising
>academy students (such as Wesley and Picard) and influence them.

You've missed the point.  Boothby (aka Uncle Martin) took the job at the
Academy only after he returned to Mars and discovered they'd all left
without him.  He's in shock, still morning the senseless death of his
adopted nephew, Tim O'Hara, a victim of some nasty gamma radiation.  Now,
if only Picard had shown up with some of Mrs. Brown's swell brownies, that
might have changed everything!

+---------------------------------------------------+
| Dr Lawrence M Schoen, lschoen@casbah.acns.nwu.edu |
|                                                   |
|          The Klingon Language Institute           |
|     25 Maplewood Road, Lake Forest, IL  60045     |
+---------------------------------------------------+

Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
From: runyan@cup.hp.com (Mark Runyan)
Subject: Re: Lacarno = Kirk (Spoilers "1st Duty)
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 18:24:45 GMT
Organization: HP, Cupertino, CA, USA

kyle@uunet.uu.net (Kyle Jones) writes:

>>>...  The benefits of keeping silent should have been weighed
>>>against the the benefits of coming forward with the truth.
>>Are you sure that they weren't?
>Pretty sure.  Wesley spilled his guts expecting to be expelled...
>He'd have cleared his own guilty conscience at the expense of three 
>others.  

Ah, but would he have cleared his guilty conscience by leaving three
possible hazards in Starfleet (remembering that their not upholding
"the first duty" makes them less than ideal command material)?

>If anyone suffered from delusions of godhood, it was Wesley, for
>deciding the fate of others.

This appears to be a no win situation.  If he didn't `decide' the fate
of the three, he would be `deciding' the fate of those who would serve
under them later, as they wouldn't be good command material (definition
of `good' based on Starfleet training, of course :-).

>Starfleet apparently teaches that it is good to tell the truth to
>folks who're on your side.  It's OK to deceive and lie to the
>enemy to protect  yourself and your comrades.

Yes, that does appear to be Starfleet tactics.  The problem that command
officers must solve is "who's the enemy".  It's that judgement that I
would think Starfleet (or any hierarchical organization) would worry
about.

>>If you threw people out every time they made bad decisions,
>>yes, there would be a problem.  Hence, they only throw them
>>when the decision is bad and isn't corrected ...
>... I think Starfleet is a bunch of hypocrites, making examples
>of those who break the rules and fail, and lauding those who
>break the rules and succeed.  

Hypocrites or pragmatist, eh?  It is a matter of perspective.  If one
breaks the rules and does the `right' thing, then perhaps the rules
need to be examined (the trouble with humans is that strict rules just
don't apply to them).  If one breaks the rules and does the `wrong'
thing, then one should see why the rules exist and should correct
one's behavior.  If the behavior isn't corrected, then an `example'
is made.

>I think Locarno showed good sense
>not to kowtow to them as the ultimate arbiter of justice.

One point of interest is that Locarno was simply expelled.  No mention
of a civil suite or criminal negligence trail or any other `jailable'
offense.  Nor was there mention of mental rehabilitation time.  Starfleet
did not judge Locarno to be an unfit human, dangerous, criminal, or
evil.  Starfleet merely determined that Locarno was not Starfleet material.
In other words, I don't believe Starfleet set themselves up as the
ultimate arbiter of justice.

Mark Runyan
From: tonyd@ssc60.sbwk.nj.us (Tony DeBari)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Re: What happens to BOSEMAN now in TNG-Time Line?
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 92 21:11:58 EDT
Organization: Lost In Space

ccoprdj@prism.gatech.EDU (Jorge Diaz) writes:

> In article <1992Apr7.190817.415@cmkrnl.com> jeh@cmkrnl.com writes:
>

> >time travel into
> >the future need involve nothing more than suspended animation techniques and
> >very reliable, durable time capsule.  WHich is, in effect, what the Boseman
> >became for her crew.
>
> How can you say time travel into the future causes no paradoxes?  What if
> they hadn't traveled into the future?  Those 400 or so crewmembers would
> probably have had children, who would have had children.  Who knows, one of
> them may have been an ancestor of Soong.  But now that they aren't there,
> they can't have those children, effectively changing the past of the people
> in TNG.

Surviving into the future (via suspended animation) and travel into the
future (via a "time machine") are very different.  In the former, the
traveler never leaves his time line; he just sleeps during the years
between his departure and destination.  In the latter, the traveler
actually jumps from one point on the time line to another, resulting in
a discontinuity that can change the history of the people in the future.

In the case of the Bozeman, we know that the current time line for the
Enterprise crew was not affected.  No change in history (a la "Yesterday's
Enterprise") was shown when the Bozeman remained in the 24th century.
Therefore, in the history known to the E's crew, the Bozeman did disappear
in 2278.  No one on the Bozeman could have made any contribution *to* the
past because, with respect to the current time line, they weren't *in* the
past.


--
Tony DeBari          INET: tonyd@ssc60.sbwk.nj.us     CI$: 73117,452
                     UUCP: ...!uunet!ssc60!tonyd      *P*: GHRW14B

"First things first ... but not necessarily in that order" - The Doctor
From: runyan@cup.hp.com (Mark Runyan)
Subject: Re: Lacarno = Kirk (Spoilers "1st Duty)
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 18:49:13 GMT
Organization: HP, Cupertino, CA, USA

kyle@uunet.uu.net (Kyle Jones) writes:
>I'm talking about a larger world than that of
>Starfleet.  I'm talking about a world in which a young man or
>woman might want to get out into space, and could care less about
>Starfleet's stupid ideas about behavioral systems.

Then they shouldn't enter Starfleet.  (BTW, I don't agree that Starfleet's
ideas about behavioral systems are stupid)

>But should Starfleet's wishes be a cadet's only concern?  

Starfleet's rules, regulations, and duties should be a concern for a
cadet.

>Should Starfleet's wishes be an officer's only concern?  

Starfleet's rules, regulations, and duties shoube be a concern for an
officer.

>Is the system so wonderful that none of its rules deserve questioning?

The system is not so wonderful that none of its rules go without
questioning, hence there are numerous chances for the members of 
Starfleet to question.  However, once a ruling is given, it is expected
that Starfleet members will abide by it.

>It's just that I'm not particularly fond of
>Starfleet either, even though they do have neat looking uniforms.

Now that's interesting.  What about Starfleet are you displeased with?
The fact that it is a heirarchical command structure?  The fact that
it vaguely resembles a government or military?  It has a set of ideals
that it wants its members to live with (or up to).  What's wrong with
Starfleet saying that if you want to play with its toys you have to
play by their rules?

>Bad people are a lot easier to fix than bad organizations.

Actually, bad organizations can be fixed (I've seen it).  I think there
is still considerable debate about whether bad people can be fixed and/or
if we know how to do it.  Perhaps it should be: Bad people are a lot
easier be rid of than bad organizations.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
From: goodwin@orionsci (Ben Goodwin)
Subject: Re: Locarno = Kirk (Spoilers "First Duty"))
Reply-To: goodwin@orionsci.UUCP (Ben Goodwin)
Organization: Orion Scientific, Inc.
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 17:48:43 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.222919.11993@cco.caltech.edu> tlynch@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>
>So have I.  I find it interesting that you refuse to believe Kirk was, in
>some ways, up there right in that crowd.

Nope, its not that I refuse, its just that arguing from logic (something I
try not to do) you and others have based this opinion on almost 100% pure
speculation.  The *only* thing I remember ever hearing about Kirk's
academy days was the KM test.  You and others are trying to predict
(hum, not the right word, but it will do) Kirk's personality in 
the Academy based upon how you see him 15 years after the academy.  For
all you know he might have been a studious totally serious student
who spent all hist time trying to be number one in his class.  After he
made it he went on from there.

Its not that I refuse to see the link, its just that you are creating
a link on *very* little if any evidence.  Like I said, based on what
we know of Picard in his academy days, the Locarno = Picard(at academy)
is a more likely equation.  Also remember, Picard has had about 40
years to become the calm cool commander he is.

And finally, what do you mean you "find it interesting that I refuse to
believe Kirk was ..."  Spit it out.  No inuendo please. :)

>Tim Lynch (Cornell's first Astronomy B.A.; one of many Caltech grad students)


-- 
============================================================================
| uunet!orionsci!goodwin        | you with your hair that's always combed,
| Ben Goodwin                   | your suit is always white, your car is
| Washington DC (703) 524-0504  | always clean.  You I hate!!! -Great Race
============================================================================
From: hucke@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Matt Hucke)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Re: Trek Uniforms New and Old (was:Bozeman Crew Not Stupid!)
Date: 8 Apr 92 19:24:23 GMT
Article-I.D.: ux1.1992Apr8.192423.8898
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

In article <1992Apr8.175713.29465@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> cglover@lonestar.utsa.edu (Calvin G. Glover) writes:
>    in st.tng what do the diff. colors of the uniform signify.  i.e.
>    red, green, blue, yellow.

(This list is from memory and may contain a few minor errors...)

Dept.        TOS                  TWOK-TUC                   TNG
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Captain      Green (Kirk)         -                          Red & Grey (JLP)
Command      Gold (Kirk)          White (Kirk,Spock)         Red
Science      Blue (Spock)         Grey (?) (Beech)           Blue (xtras)
Engineering  Red (Scott)          Yellow (Scott)             Yellow (Geordi)
Medical      Blue (McCoy)         Green (McCoy)              Blue (Crusher)
Security     Red (xtras)          Black (?) (xtras)          Yellow (Worf)
Communicat.  Red (Uhura)          Grey (Uhura)               ------
Helm         Gold (Sulu)          Yellow (Sulu)              Red (Ro)
Nav          Gold (Chekov)        Grey (Chekov)              ------
Operations   -----                -------                    Yellow (Data)
Cadet        (never seen)         Red (Saavik)               black (Weasely)  

(TWOK-TUC colors are for the undershirt)
There have been a few inconsistencies, such as Valeris wearing red after
no longer being a cadet.  (She should have worn gold, being helmsman)
-- 
        Real Programmers Don't Eat Quiche.
                      hucke@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
                      Gene Roddenberry 1921-1991
From: simich@madrone.eecs.ucdavis.edu (Myron Simich)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Re: First Duty (Spoilers)
Date: 9 Apr 92 23:40:32 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: U.C. Davis - Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science

Well, after watching first duty I must say that I did not
like the episode for the simple reason that the writers
did not depict Starfleet Academy as an institution with
an honor code.  Maybe its just me: West Point established
the idea of the honor code "A cadet will not lie, cheat, or
steal, nor tolerate those that do".  

Of course during the era before the civil war when men
like Jefferson Davis, U.S. Grant, Sherman, Jackson and
the like went to West Point and found a drinking establishment
and went there against regulations, and sat in a circle 
facing outwards so that they could return to the academy
and say "I did not see anybody drinking" the idea of 
"quibbling" (sp?) was established.  Basically it said that
if you omitted the truth etc. you were just as guilty as if
you lied.

Somebody posted and said that they did not think that the    
student would be expelled for what they did; "quibbling".
However, there is a recent precedent which would indicate 
that they would have been expelled.  It seems that an Air
Force cadet quibbled to an instructor about an obstacle
course test, retook the test, and the quibbling was later
discovered.  The cadet was expelled.

Based upon this example of quibbling and of other such
examples of the honor code enforced at the various 
military academies really just caused me to be irratated
with the way the writers handled the whole situation
at the end.  They all would have most likely been
expelled.

 
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
From: iacovone@zeus.franklin.edu (Daniel R. Iacovone)
Subject: Re: Picard is old! (Minor First Duty spoiler)
Organization: Franklin University (Columbus, OH)
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 16:50:49 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.150832.29888@umbc3.umbc.edu> cs201139@umbc5.umbc.edu (cs201139) writes:
>>Wan't MCCoy a RETIRED admiral when he was in Encounter? Also, McCoy could barely walk.  I wouldn't say Picard is still young.  He might live to be a ripe old
>>age, but that doesn't mean he'll be usefull(in an active-duty Starfleet front
>>line type of way-no flames about old age meaning uselessness please).
>>By the way, if McCoy was supposed to be decommisioned in STVI, how could he be
>>a retired Admiral?
>
>Where do you get off saying that? They wanted to decommision the Enterprise,
>but what's stopping the officiers from going on to other parts of Starfleet.
>Nothing...McCoy could go be a teacher at the Adacemy or work for Starfleet
>Command. The Enterprise is not the only ship in Starfleet! Maybe Sulu would
>welcome McCoy on as CMO?

Perhaps you better review STVI:TUC. When McCoy was sentenced I believe
he said something like "Hust two more weeks until I retired."

This may not be a correct quote -- but there were several references to
him retiring.  In fact, all the chief officers of the E were ready to
retire.    
Kirk in the conference room:

"This CREW is ready to stand down in a few weeks."