HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Re: Locarno's actions (spoiler 1st duty)
From: lockharts@kscdl1.ksc.nasa.gov
Date: 10 Apr 92 09:26:30 EST
Reply-To: lockharts@kscdl3.ksc.nasa.gov
Organization: NASA, Kennedy Space Center, FL


>>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!...[STUFF DELETED]...
>>And what honor is there in letting down your friends?

>Amos Yung yung@r-node.gts.org writes:

>So, lets say, if I and a bunch of drunk friends ran you over in the middle
>of nowhere, it would be alright for us not to step forward since you are
>already dead?
>
>You, sir, are a very forgiving person.

This analogy is a totally different thing.  Let's say that you and a bunch of
drunk friends decide to do something really stupid and one of your group dies.
(i.e., no innocent non-participant dies)  Like all ideas, it seemed like a
good one at the time.  Then, if your group subsequently decides not to spill
your guts like a cheap abortion, what's the harm?  Your friend that died knew
what the risks were going in.  Besides, its not like Locarno, et al, LIED.  All
they did was *not* tell the whole story.

I agree...getting your friends busted for the death of Josh, yea, ruining your
career (and that's what would happen) for an error in judgement (albeit a
serious one) is not going to help.  Wesley is a whining little drone without
an ounce of loyalty.  (I know, I know.  You're going to say that people who
make serious errors in judgement don't belong in Starfleet, let alone in 
command, but these are *kids* for God's sake.  I doubt they'll *ever* make a
dumb mistake like that again.)

But that's just my opinion.

-- 
 +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
 |                     $ @disclaimer opinions are mine                        |
 +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
 | Susy Lockhart            |  " I like to think big.  If you're going to     |
 | EG & G Florida           |    be thinking anyway, you might as well        |
 | Kennedy Space Center     |    think big."                 Donald Trump     |
 +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
 |                  email:   lockhart@kscdl3.ksc.nasa.gov                     |
 +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: tittle@ics.uci.edu (the trek witch)
Subject: Re: those things on their belts
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Organization: ICS Dept., UC Irvine
Date: 16 Apr 92 21:50:59 GMT

In <1992Apr16.212353.21398@ux.acs.umn.edu> me308lab@ux.acs.umn.edu (Mechanical Eng consultant) writes:

>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.

This went around at the time the episode was aired.  The actor is NOT
Linda Hamilton, although there is a striking resemblence.  I forget
what her name was, that's not my department...  Where's Otto when you
need him? ;-)

--the trek witch


--
Cindy Tittle Moore

Internet: tittle@ics.uci.edu       | BITNET: cltittle@uci.bitnet
UUCP:     ...!ucbvax!ucivax!tittle | Usnail: PO Box 4188, Irvine CA, 92716
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
From: val@csulx.cs.weber.edu (Val Kartchner)
Subject: Spoiler: C&E; "Let's not start second-guessing ourselves."
Organization: Weber State University, Ogden Utah
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 07:16:16 GMT

     There is a flaw in the logic of "Let's not start second-guessing
ourselves."  The flaw is as follows (note: "knew" in the following statements
means that they had figured out to a high degree of probability that this was
actually the case):

     1) They knew that they were in a loop.
     2) They knew that a large explosion was the probable cause of the resetting
	of the loop.
     3) They should have known that the first time through the loop, the
	explosion had occured.  (The loop could have not occured in the first
	place without a first explosion.)
     4) Therefore: Do something that you wouldn't have done if you hadn't known
	that you were in a loop (as they hadn't the first time).  This thing
	could have been stopping dead as one of the crew members suggested.
-- 
|======================== The previous was my opinion =========///============|
| "AMIGA: The computer for the creative mind."(tm) Commodore  /// Weber State |
| "Macintosh: The computer for the rest of us." (tm) Apple\\\///  University  |
|=================== val@csulx.weber.edu ==================\///===============| 
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
From: gberigan@cse.unl.edu (Life...)
Subject: Re: "The First Duty" **SPOILERS**
Organization: Ursa Minor Beta, 402-476-8047 @ 2400
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 08:10:58 GMT

ottoh3@CFSMO.Honeywell.COM (Otto Heuer #3) writes:
>@ (Jeff) writes:

>>For Best Actor: ___________
>>(That's right folks, no winner. Sorry, but the only obvious choice going
>>into it, Botheby, was just not that well played, I thought.)

>Boothby might get best supporting actor, but I think they could have done a
>LOT better considering the potential.

Side note:  Someone else who watched the second showing with me over
phone lines believed that it was Boothby that suggested the forbidden
stunt to the Nova Squadron, especially when he just stops before telling
Picard just what he was going to find out himself later.

Still, it was good to see that actor again.  (I had to comment, "Look!
It's `My Favorite Groundskeeper!'")

>>For the Line Most Fear-Provoking in a Trekker's Heart, the winner is:
>>Picard, to Wesley: "Staying at the Academy will be difficult..."

>Strange.  I was thinking the exact opposite.

It appeared to another friend that it was just a convenient way to keep
Wes from appearing as a regular again for another season.

>--Otto "HACK-MAN" Heuer    . . ... ... . .   ... ... ...
>ottoh@cfsmo.honeywell.com  :.: :.: :   ::  - :': :.: : :   Star Trek
>hackman@pnet51.orb.mn.org  ' ' ' ' ''' ' `   ' ' ' ' ' '  Apple IIgs

--
  ///   ____   \\\       | 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.
From: brown@vidiot.UUCP (Vidiot)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Re: Why 3 in "Cause and Effect?"
Date: 8 Apr 92 19:31:36 GMT
Reply-To: brown@vidiot.UUCP (Vidiot)
Distribution: rec
Organization: Vidiot's Hangout

In article <1992Apr6.062030.1@eagle.wesleyan.edu> ttullio@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes:
<In article <1992Mar31.001107.1007@morrow.stanford.edu>, steve@sep.Stanford.EDU (Steve Cole) writes:
<> Riker suggests decompressing the shuttle bay...
<> Data suggests using the tractor beam...
<> Picard thinks, "I know what the "three" message means, it means
<> I should go with the third suggestion. I'll wait for it."
<> Boom!
<> Picard's final thought: "Oops."
<
<Why didn't Data choose the "obvious" and send a message of "Riker"?!
<Same number of characters as "three", after all, and a lot less ambiguious!

That's "3", not "three".  Remember that it was previously determined that only
a few characters could be transmitted.  Five characters is more than a few (3).
-- 
      harvard\     att!nicmad\          spool.cs.wisc.edu!astroatc!vidiot!brown
Vidiot  ucbvax!uwvax..........!astroatc!vidiot!brown
      rutgers/            INTERNET:vidiot!brown%astroatc.UUCP@spool.cs.wisc.edu
                                   brown@wi.extrel.com
From: snoopy@brchh529.BNR.CA (Antonio Tello)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Losing Time in the Trek Universe.
Date: 7 Apr 92 13:38:35 GMT
Reply-To: snoopy@brchh529.BNR.CA (Antonio Tello)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.

In article <1992Mar30.171952.24836@stsci.edu>, rhudson@stsci.edu (Ronald
Hudson) writes:

|>
|>Another point to ponder... I wonder how many ships the trek universe
|>routinely loses to temporal distortions per year? Hmmmm.
|>                           

In _CLUES_ we se that Worm holes can cause discontinuity between ship time
and "real time"

=========================================================================
These thoughts are only the ramblings of an individual and  could
never reflect the thoughts or intents of the faceless corporation
that attempts to control my mind.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
I'll get you my pretty...  and your little dog too !
=========================================================================
From: kuchar@buast7.bu.edu (Tom Kuchar)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Re: THE BOSEMAN CREW IS NOT STUPID!!! (Cause & Effect Spoilers)
Date: 8 Apr 92 18:37:31 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

dascoser.bbs@cybernet.cse.fau.edu writes:

> What I'm curios about is how long the red uniforms lasted. I mean we see 
> them on the Boseman's crew from (at least) 80 years earlier, and we also 
> see them on the crew of the E-C from 20-odd years earlier. Considering 
> the relitive brevity of the TOS and TMP uniforms, that's a pretty long 
> time for one style of uniform.

I think the change over can be narrowed even further.  In `Family' the
holographic image of Jack Crusher was wearing the Enterprise-C style
uniform with a NG communicator badge. In "Violations" we see Picard
wearing a 1st season uniform as he was leading Beverly to the morge.
Wesley must have been very young at the time, so the uniform change
occurred less than 18 years from the current NG date.


-- 
Tom Kuchar			  | `Belay that nose-picking, Cadet Stimpy!'
kuchar@buast7.bu.edu		  |       - Cmdr. Hoek
Department of Astronomy		  |  
Boston Univerity		  |     `Oh Joy of joys!' - SJC
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
From: gberigan@cse.unl.edu (Life...)
Subject: Re: Spoiler: C&E; "Let's not start second-guessing ourselves."
Organization: Ursa Minor Beta, 402-476-8047 @ 2400
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 09:02:54 GMT

val@csulx.cs.weber.edu (Val Kartchner) writes:

>     There is a flaw in the logic of "Let's not start second-guessing
>ourselves."  The flaw is as follows (note: "knew" in the following statements
>means that they had figured out to a high degree of probability that this was
>actually the case):

>1) They knew that they were in a loop.
>2) They knew that a large explosion was the probable cause of the resetting
>   of the loop.

Not "a" large explosion, but specifically the explosion which destroyed
the ship.

>3) They should have known that the first time through the loop, the
>   explosion had occured.  (The loop could have not occured in the first
>   place without a first explosion.)

I may be misparsing you, but it is shown that they didn't know an
explosion caused it all until the second-to-last pass.  Overall, this
bit makes no sense.

>4) Therefore: Do something that you wouldn't have done if you hadn't known
>   that you were in a loop (as they hadn't the first time).  This thing
>   could have been stopping dead as one of the crew members suggested.

But we don't know the nature of the temporal rift.  It may have been
attracted to the location of the warp field generators.  If so, it
wouldn't have made any difference if they stayed or immediately turned
around and headed at high warp away from the place.  Didn't they stop
dead when they had the episode with the second Picard?  Sure, it was a
loop of a different Picolor, but it didn't work.

>|=================== val@csulx.weber.edu ==================\///===============| 
Remember, they don't know whether something is going to work or not.
They'd rather have something that had better odds of working, and the
insertion of a m3ssag3 into th3 n3xt loop was th3 b3st guarant33 th3y
had.

--
  ///   ____   \\\       | 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: hucke@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Matt Hucke)
Subject: Re: Yet another opinion on "The First Duty"
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 16:05:58 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.170012.16190@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> bsb2u@helga6.acc.Virginia.EDU (Brian Samuel Bevins) writes:
> The best officers always seem to be described
>as having been involved in pranks and such while at the Academy.  It's
>part of the image.

Yeah, like whatsisname, the guy that reprogrammed the Kobayashi Maru,
uh, Tiberius something...

-- 
        Real Programmers Don't Eat Quiche.
                      hucke@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
                      Gene Roddenberry 1921-1991
From: crow@coos.dartmouth.edu (Preston F. Crow)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Re: A few comments THE FIRST DUTY brought up
Date: 7 Apr 92 22:28:19 GMT
Article-I.D.: dartvax.1992Apr7.222819.15352
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In <1992Apr7.153822.9688@cupnews0.cup.hp.com> runyan@cup.hp.com (Mark Runyan) writes:

>bbrown@willamette.edu (Brian Brown) writes:
[...]
>>2)	Why is Star Fleet Academy on Earth?  I always had the impression that
>>	it was in orbit somewhere...

>From the original Technical Manual, we have a diagram of the Star Fleet
>Academy and it is a space station, hence many of Star Trek Fans will think
>of the Academy as an orbital station.  However, the canonical response
>now appears to be that the Academy is on Earth.  Now, it might have been
>a branch of the Academy, but there was no indication that the orbital
>Academy actually exists, hence another piece of non-canonical information
>falls into dishonor.  <sigh>

Perhaps the S.F.A. was an orbiting space station, but has now moved to
Earth.  There are a number of possible explanations:

1.  The space station was destroyed in one of the movies (I or IV) or some
    other disaster, and it was relocated "for the time being" and became
    settled down at its new location.

2.  The space station had become obsolete, and it was simpler to relocate
    it on earth.  Perhaps the space station had been donated to the
    academy after serving some other purpose and the academy didn't
    have the resources to replace it.  (They have limited resources:
    Remember the doorknobs?)

3.  The space station is still used, but due to expansion, the main campus
    is now on earth.

Simply put, there's a lot of time between TOS and TNG--things change.

--PC

--
(9966269*48+1) | (2^9966269)-1
Over 3 million digits factored on a 386-20!
"Performance through programming"
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
From: gill@physics.ubc.ca (Arnold Gill visiting astrophys phd std)
Subject: Re: Shabang's First Duty rating.
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 21:20:58 GMT

morgans@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:

>Next Week:  Oh when IS the season going to end?

     June

--
Arnold Gill --- astrophysician trainee in exile             gill@physics.ubc.ca
From: pip@pro-freedom.cts.com (David Pipgras)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Re: A Data Comment (SPOILERS New Ground)
Date: 12 Apr 92 20:22:46 GMT
Article-I.D.: pro-free.1992Apr12.132246.423
Organization: ProLine [pro-freedom] AppleVan (Apple UG of Vancouver, WA)

>  Since when did one moment = one nanosecond ?? :-)

I *think* he ment that each event was a moment in history, not so much at a
percise measurement of time..... :)

Dave
From: whelan@sbphy.physics.ucsb.edu (John T. whelan)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Re: Locarno = Kirk (Spoilers "First Duty"))
Date: 6 Apr 92 19:39:24 GMT

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

>Important Pieces of the Discussion After Spoiler:


>     BTW, anyone notice the time frame for the ^last^ attempted Culvort
>     Starburst (spelling?) -- 100 years ago.  Kirk himself?...     

	Presumably not, since Picard said that all five pilots were
killed in that incident.
					John Whelan
--
--
Today's brain teaser:
	How is it possible to lose four hours of sleep
	over a one hour time change?
From: rslarsen@oregon.uoregon.edu (Ron Larsen)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Re: An oddity
Date: 10 Apr 92 00:00:05 GMT
Organization: University of Oregon

In article <11339@mindlink.bc.ca> Ken_Bell@mindlink.bc.ca (Ken Bell) writes:
>How come that when an away party is being beamed into a dangerous situation
>(i.e., into the middle of the Borg cube earlier this week) , they are never
>beamed in a crouching position with weapons drawn. Instead, it's always upright
>and they have to assume the position.

Good Question.  The answer, as far as I have been able to figure out, is 
that when an away beams into a 'situation', they have to get "straight" 
there -- hence no crouching.  It might also be too, that since StarFleet's 
primary mission is exploration, not military, that they beam their officers 
standing up for the same reason that Federation ships do not have cloaking 
devices -- so as not to appear overly hostile.

--
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ronald Larsen                    | BITNET: RSLARSEN@OREGON.UOREGON.EDU |
| Social Science Instructional Lab | Voice:  503 346 2547                |
| University of Oregon (Ory-gun)   | FAX:    503 687 0947                | 
| Eugene, Oregon 97403             | Personal:  HEY YOU!                 |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
From: ij59@vaxb.acs.unt.edu
Subject: Boseman and time travel
Organization: University of North Texas
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 02:32:25 GMT

In article <53903@hydra.gatech.EDU>, ccoprdj@prism.gatech.EDU (Jorge Diaz) writes:
>>time travel into
>>the future need involve nothing more than suspended animation techniques and a
>>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.

As was pointed out very clearly in the >> paragraph, time travel into future =
suspended animation, which certainly doesn't cause "paradoxes" anymore than any
other cause for a bunch of people to disappear for a while.  (Unless someone
from the future came back and MADE them disappear, but that was not the point
under discussion.)

Sorry if that was a little rough . . .

 <snuff> (Flamethrower pilot extinguished)

  ======================================================================
  | "Sir, this chicken is still alive."               |  Mira-Sukotto  |
  | "Thank you, Mr. Spock.  Bones, give me a reading."| (Scott Miller) |
  | <Beep...beep...beep>                              |------------------
  | "It's raw, Jim!"                                  | ij59@           |
  | "Right, then, phasers on 'roast'."                | vaxb.acs.unt.edu|
  | Zzzaappp . . . <SQUAAAWK!>                        |==================
  |                                                   |
  |                  -- Tiny Toon Adventures          |
  =====================================================

Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
From: rll1@kepler.unh.edu (Robert L Lamothe)
Subject: Re: The mental faculties of SF officers - Spoilers for "Cause and Effect"
Organization: University of New Hampshire  -  Durham, NH
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 19:50:05 GMT

In article <1992Apr01.210630.16346@orionsci> goodwin@orionsci.UUCP (Ben Goodwin) writes:
>In article <2710007@hpindda.cup.hp.com> mears@hpindda.cup.hp.com (David Mears) writes:
>>
>>I agree as well.  My first assumption was that the rift was similar
>>to the one from YE and the Bozeman jumped ahead the ~80 years.  However,
>>this does lead to one gigantic question.  If the Ent-C jumping ahead by
>>~20 years caused such a dramatic change in `history' then why didn't we
>>see the same problem with the Bozeman?  While I recognize that the Ent-C
>>was in the midst of an important battle at the time, does the non-change
>>here mean that nothing the Bozeman (or descendants of its crew!) would
>>have done during the last 80 years was of any importance?  That's pretty
>>sad.  (Maybe this was a case where the right history was the loss of the
>>Bozeman, while the disappearance of the Ent-C wasn't the right history.)
>
>How can you say one history is right and the other is wrong.  If you go
>back in time and kill a butterfly, then the new history you create is the
>right one.  Remember Scotty and transparent Aluminum?  There's no right
>and wrong or moral implications associated with changing history IMO.
>
	Or maybe the Bozeman was meant to pass into the future and stay 
there,  the only reason Picard sent the E-C back through the loop was
an attempt to prevent a war that the Federation was losing, since we
saw no change in the timeline when the Bozeman appeared it is likely that
the events that took place are appropriate for the continuity of the time
line we tune into each week.  If the records on the Bozeman had been checked
they probably would have listed the ship as missing, and as such no time line
probs.
						-Bob
From: pip@pro-freedom.cts.com (David Pipgras)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: New TOS Book, "The Disinherited" info
Date: 11 Apr 92 04:08:38 GMT
Article-I.D.: pro-free.1992Apr10.210838.361
Organization: ProLine [pro-freedom] AppleVan (Apple UG of Vancouver, WA)

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....

Dave
From: intertxt@network.ucsd.edu (Jason Snell)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Re: Upcoming Episode News/Spoilers  ST:TNG and ST:DSN
Date: 12 Apr 92 09:38:56 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of California, San Diego
NNTP-Posting-Host: network.ucsd.edu

In article <1992Apr7.200654.16695@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> kanamori@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Atsushi Kanamori) writes:
>>*  We'll be seeing more of Michelle Forbes, as Ensign Ro Larren, next
>>   year.
>
>Another yawn. TNG may not be a 'soap in space', but they're sure starting
>to stoop to a lot of soap opera gimmicks.


Agreed completely. I lost all respect for TOS when they stooped to using
soap opera gimmicks by repeatedly using Mr. Kyle, bringing back Kevin Riley,
and all that. And TNG totally screwed up by expanding Colm Meaney's role,
too.

Any show that deviates from using the cast in the opening credits and
supernumeraries get a black mark in my book.


:) for the humor-impaired...


-- 
         Jason Snell / jsnell@ucsd.edu / Editor, InterText Magazine
   For subscription (ASCII/PostScript)/submission information, mail me!
  "I don't want you to think we're... _Video Watchdog_ people who worship
    obscure French sadomasochistic movies or anything." - Joel Hodgson
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek,rec.arts.startrek.misc,rec.games.trivia