Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Re: Saturday Night Review - "Chain of Command Part II" SPOILERS!
From: Tony Bruno <BRUNO@NDSUVM1.BITNET>
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 22:37:38 CST
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computer Network

--Regarding the reply to my comments on COCII --

Hmm.  Your reply was both insulting and arrogant.  I like that
in a writer. :)

1.  I was not a soldier, nor was I a warrior.  I was a RAPCON Air
    Traffic Controller in (then) West Germany for 4 years.  Our exposure
    to the "narrow minded claptrap" that you call the military was
    limited to the necessary wartime readiness exercises.  Aside from
    the fact that I had to control traffic while wearing chemical
    warfare gear, my experience as a controller was not too terribly
    different from my FAA counterparts.  You comments indicate that
    your experience with the military is either limited or nil.
    We were proffesionals who accepted the fact that, AS MEMBERS OF
    AN ORGINIZATION THAT SOMETIMES HAD TO ACT IN THE DEFENSE OF THE
    U.S., we would be expected to to perform difficult and seemingly
    meaningless tasks.  If the dreaded 20th Century military person
    can handle that concept, then your "superior" 24th Century Starfleet
    Officer should have no problem with it.

2.  Ah, the old "this is the 24th Century!" argument.  What bunk.
    Ever read _Lysistrata_?  Ever read Plato's _The Apology of Socrates_?
    Ever read anything by Chaucer, Balsac, or Rabolet? (SP?)  Judging
    by your prose, I believe you have.  If so, you should recognize the
    remarkable similarity of humanity described in the above works to
    the mankind of today.  This is spanning nearly 2,000 years of
    literature, mind you.  If 2,000 hasn't made a significant
    difference, than another 300 certainly won't.  Gene L. Coon understood
    that humanity would expand into space, faults and all.  Gene Rodenberry
    was the one who touted our "growth beyond our failings."  Poppycock!
    It's our STRUGGLE with our failings that keeps us alive.  Expansion
    to the stars will not change those things.  They will always be within
    us.

    Besides, this *is* the 20th century, and TNG is a television show
    on for TODAY's audience.  Frankly the "new, improved" human race
    of TNG is boring.  I don't tune in to be preached at; I tune in
    to be entertained.  Not too surprisingly, TNG doesn't do EITHER well.

3.  I dismissed this season because it is, much like the entire series,
    forgetable.  I don't CARE how much the episodes cost.  I don't *care*
    if Patrick Stewart will win an Emmy for his performance or not (aside:
    I doubt he will).  I want to be entertained.  I find TNG dull.  The
    characters are sketchy and unconvincing, the action ludicrous and
    insulting, and the science (or disregard of the same) is abominable.
    As I stated in my post, I do NOT regularly watch the show because I
    have much better things to do with my time.  I was moved to post only
    because the character Jellico struck me as being TRUE, and I thought
    the attacks on the character were amusing and uncalled for.
    Even Riker's objections were weak.  Apparently, though, the thought
    of a well-defined captain character is frightening to most TNGers,
    so we won't be seeing anything that interesting for a long time,
    if ever.

    Oh, and as a brief aside;  ANY vessel is run as an autocracy, be it
    military or civilian.  Ask any Merchant Marine.  The board room
    concept of vessel operations is nice on paper, and even nicer when
    attempted, but it doesn't work.  The older method DOES.  Pardon the
    cliche', but sometimes there IS no messing with success.

    Perhaps I shouldn't have replied.  The tone of your rebuttal was
    certainly intense and committed.  Naw, I had to make my point clear,
    and point out your errors.  At least then I know I've returned the
    courtesy of your reply.

    I'm certain you can see the intelligence in that action.

Tony Bruno
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current