From: kanamori@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Atsushi Kanamori)
Subject: Re: Bizarre standards (was Re: Grading scales)
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 14:44:00 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.012648.11509@cco.caltech.edu> tlynch@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>kanamori@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Atsushi Kanamori) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr9.173030.27081@cco.caltech.edu> tlynch@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>>>kanamori@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Atsushi Kanamori) writes:
>>>>In article <1992Apr7.210007.9081@bnlux1.bnl.gov> schroede@bnlux1.bnl.gov (gary l. schroeder) writes:
>>>>>In article <1992Apr4.192753.13425@cco.caltech.edu> tlynch@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>>>>>>kanamori@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Atsushi Kanamori) writes:
>
>[whew!]

Indeed. 


>>>>Fine. I, however, *do* hold TNG to be A Towering Pinnacle of Television
>>>>Drama (note I changed the phrase a bit, but the idea still holds I think.)
>>>
>>>In other words, you hold TNG to higher standards than the makers do.  It's
>>>no wonder you disagree with them; you're demanding perfection.
>
>>Wait a sec, you're equating "higher standards than the TNG makers" to
>>"perfection". That's a bit binary (no pun intended), don't you think?
>
>Look.  From the standpoint of any creative person worth his/her salt, 
>saying "this is the goal I set for myself and the best I can do" is success,
>pure and simple.  

It may be so from the standpoint of said creative person, but I'm
talking about success from *my* standpoint. And that the creator calls
it a success doesn't make it a success for *me*. I find that an extreme 
position which I disagree with. Are you willing to accept *any* goal a 
creative person sets for himself and call it a success if he achieves that? 
Did you consider Q-PID a success because it succeeded in giving Stewart 
and Hettrick a chance to lipmash on screen? DISASTER was an attempt to 
lampoon Irwin Allen and did pretty much that; I didn't hear you applauding. 

The other point of contention is that I don't think they've done the
best they can do regarding even their own stated goals, but it's old
news that we disagree on that.


>Demanding "you should have done more than you planned and
>better than you can" is making an unrealistic demand, pure and simple.  You
>are demanding TNG *not* live up to the goals of its creators and guiding
>influences, but instead be what YOU want it to be.  So no, it's not 
>perfection, really, but it's damned impolite.

Stating my disagreement on a public net is "damned impolite?" I don't
agree. I consider it perfectly appropriate to question the show's 
intentions and goals. And my "demands" are verbal opinions posted to
a net -- I'm hardly in a position to enforce those demands and you know it.
You're making way too much of that.



. .        .       .                .        
: : : :. : :  :....: : .  ::.: .  ..: :    ..     : :    .
::::::::::.: :::::::.:::::::::::.:::::: :?.:::::..::::.:.:
------------ -------------------------- --------------------------
TNG Lifelines: From "Yesterday's Enterprise" To "Cause & Effect" --
  "Captain, we are getting unusual readings 20,000 km off the
   starboard bow." -- Worf, Worf, Worf and Ensign Ro.

Xref: sparky rec.arts.startrek.misc:3075 rec.arts.sf.fandom:269 rec.arts.sf.misc:1312 rec.arts.sf.written:5577 talk.bizarre:10531