HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hucke@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Matt Hucke)
Subject: You are not Morg.
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 20:26:45 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.082324.54368@cc.usu.edu> sll28@cc.usu.edu (LORNA_PAYNE) writes:

>       ---------------------------------------------------------
>               Lorna Payne
>               Certified Math Geek and Grammarian
>       ---------------------------------------------------------
>         You are not Morg.  You are not Eymorg.  What are you?
>       ---------------------------------------------------------

Please don't remind us of that episode. :)


-- 
"What? Over? Did you say it's over? Nothing's over, till we decide it is! 
 Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!" --John Belushi
hucke@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu                        Gene Roddenberry 1921-1991
From: tgh3_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Timothy Gerald Harrnacker)
Subject: Re: ALL the "Enterprises"
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 21:10:51 GMT

In <1992Apr7.150054.2618@vax1.umkc.edu> en110a20@vax1.umkc.edu writes:

>In article <1992Mar25.144340.17791@meaddata.com>, gordon@meaddata.com (Gordon Edwards) writes:
>> 
>> Submarine?  The current USS Enterprise CVN-65 is an aircraft carrier.  At
>> the start of World War II there was an aircraft carrier named Enterprise.
>> I don't know if this ship survived the war or if one of the Essex class
>> carriers were named Enterprise. (In other words, there may have been two
>> distinct aircraft carriers named Enterprise in WWII.)  The only other
>> vessel named Enterprise is the space shuttle testbed.
>> 
>> CVN-65 was built in the 60's, is approximately 1100 feet long and is
>> powered by 8 nuclear reactors.  It carries a standard complement of about
>> 85 aircraft.
>> 
>> Does anyone know of ships named Enterprise prior to the early WWII carrier?
>> 
>> --
>There was only ONE Enterprise carrier in WWII, but there were two ships prior 
>to that; the first was a ship captured from the British by Colonial rebels
>during the Revolutionary War, and the second was an American warship during
>the War of 1812. At the last Trek convention I attended, there was a nice 
>poster of ALL the Enterprises, including another starship that pre-dated the 
>first NCC-1701. I don't know of any sources for this poster, other than a
>dealer at one of the "Cons" this summer. Hope this helps.

I want this poster!
I want this poster!
I WANT THIS POSTER!
Information about where to get it would be greatly appreciated.

O'thy



>       NCC-1701!
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
From: kyle@uunet.uu.net (Kyle Jones)
Subject: Re: Why 3 in "Cause and Effect?"
Organization: UUNET Technologies, Inc
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 19:27:43 GMT

hendrick@ctron.com (Jim Hendrick) writes:
 > Didn't anyone else see Data tapping three on his arm-sending-unit?
 > That is dot dot dot, not dot dot (binary 11).

Nay, he typed dot dot RETURN. :)

Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
From: gberigan@cse.unl.edu (Life...)
Subject: Re: What happens to BOSEMAN now in TNG-Time Line?
Organization: Ursa Minor Beta, 402-476-8047 @ 2400
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 09:20:25 GMT

So in short, if a ship arrives in the present through a temporal rift,
and the rift disappears, you don't need to send it back.  If a ship
arrives in the present through a temporal rift, and the rift sticks
around, you do need to send it back.

When the Boseman arrived, the rift didn't stick around.  Thus, no way
for Picard to send them back, even if he wanted to.  Same with
Rassmussen, when his stolen ship left without _him_.

--
  ///   ____   \\\       | 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: kyle@uunet.uu.net (Kyle Jones)
Subject: Re: Locarno = Kirk (Spoilers "First Duty"))
Organization: UUNET Technologies, Inc
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 02:23:02 GMT

tlynch@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
 > That's not an "I will not fail".  That's an "I will not give
 > up"; and I find that an admirable quality most of the time.
 > The "I will not fail" is adolescent arrogance at its worst.
 
kyle@uunet.uu.net (Kyle Jones) writes:
 > OK, assuming for a moment that you're right: give us an
 > example of Kirk taking on something that's way over his head,
 > ignoring all warnings, and just foolishly bulling ahead.

tlynch@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
 > Refusing to do a thing about Gary Mitchell until it was damn
 > near too late in "Where No Man Has Gone Before"?  Letting Khan
 > get in close enough to cripple the Enterprise in ST2?

You'll understand if I don't accept examples taken from ST:TWOK,
since this was the movie that produced Kobiyashi and exposed
"failings" that I don't believe Kirk has.  It's all part of the
same big mistake they made with Kirk's characterization.

As for "Where No Man ...", Mitchell's humanity had to be weighed
against the opinion of a pretty cold-blooded Vulcan.  Also Gary
Mitchell was a close friend.  Kirk had to try to deal with him
humanely first, before just leaving him to die on the planet.
From: ccoprdj@prism.gatech.EDU (Jorge Diaz)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Re: Locarno = Kirk (Spoilers "First Duty"))
Date: 14 Apr 92 16:11:40 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In article <1992Apr13.214150.4350@cco.caltech.edu> tlynch@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:

>Few if any people here have been arguing the parallel is an exact one, or 
>that Kirk was as obviously venal a person as Locarno evidently was in some
>ways.  My own emphasis has been on the Kobayashi Maru incident and the 
>"I can't lose" attitude which the two share.

I don't think that the two share this "I can't lose" attititude, or at least
not the *same* "I can't lose" attititude.

Locarno's attitued seems to be "Hey, it's me, and I can't make a mistake, 
so I'm going to do this, and I'll succeed."

From the Kobayashi Maru incident that you're citing, Kirk's attitude would
be closer to "This is bullshit.  I'm being put into a situation that they
know I can't beat.  Well, I'll show them."

>And, presumably, to teach the student that just such situations exist.  Kirk
>gave the teachers all the reactions they wanted, presumably; but he never
>faced the crux of the test, it seems.  

But this is nuts, too.  No matter what, as long as he knows going into
that test that it's a simulation (which I assume he does), he's not going
to learn anything from it.  I play paintball all the time.  I've charged
a fort by myself against 5 of the opposing team, because I know that I'm
not going to die.

Would I make that same choice in real life?  Possibly.  I guess it depends
on what's at stake.

The point is that you can't *know* until you get there, and the Kobayashi
Maru isn't going to teach him about death any more than playing paintball
will.


-- 
Jorge Diaz                       | If winning is not important, then Commander,
Georgia Institute of Technology  |    why keep score?
Office of Information Technology | 
ccoprdj@prism.gatech.edu         |                     - Worf -
From: joe@polaris.async.vt.edu (Joeseph Cochran)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Re: Comment on Wesley's room (First Duty)
Date: 6 Apr 92 15:06:25 GMT
Organization: Escape from Blacksburg, VA

In article <1992Apr6.074215.12501@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bn981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ryan Mathews) writes:
>
>The door had a doorknob, and it swung open.  Awfully low tech, dontcha
>think?
>
>Either there's some point to this, or the average college dormitory in
>the 24th century is as old and unmodern as the ones today.  :-)
>

	Actually, the doorknob wasn't as interesting as the fact that in
one shot, out of focus in the foreground was the Pewter 25th Anniversary
Enterprise (tm) Model offered by Paramount.  I thought that this touch 
was just a bit presumptuous...
					*--Joe--*
					joe@polaris.async.vt.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
From: pip@pro-freedom.cts.com (David Pipgras)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Why not down ?
Date: 11 Apr 92 04:06:27 GMT
Article-I.D.: pro-free.1992Apr10.210627.361
Organization: ProLine [pro-freedom] AppleVan (Apple UG of Vancouver, WA)

How come the Enterprise - D crew never thought to go down instead of to the
side. Space is not restricted to sideways manuevers, so this constand
moving to the side is odd.

I have only ever seen this done in TWoK, when the Enterprise and Reliant
are going at it.

Think of it, the Big-E goes down, the Boseman misses the ship clear and eay
the first time....

Dave
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
From: ij59@vaxb.acs.unt.edu
Subject: Time Paradox Creates 2nd Kirk (and he posts to UseNet!)
Organization: University of North Texas
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 02:49:37 GMT

In article <994@xlnt.COM>, david@xlnt.com (David Johnson) writes:

> I could not have been Kirk [...]
 ^^^

  Well, I should _hope_ not!  Star Trek has had enough trouble with time
paradoxes and relatives.

> -- 
> David Johnson
> XLNT Designs, Inc. (XDI)
> david@xlnt.com

Sorry, I just couldn't resist . . . :)

  ======================================================================
  | "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: kanamori@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Atsushi Kanamori)
Subject: Re: "The First Duty" **SPOILERS**
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 13:59:09 GMT

In article <9204062318.AA01180@tyrell.CFSMO.Honeywell.COM> ottoh3@CFSMO.Honeywell.COM (Otto Heuer #3) writes:
>
>Jeff writes:
>

Spoilers for "First Duty"



>> And now the acting awards. For Best Actress, the award winner had no 
>> challengers: Dr. Crusher. Her scene with Picard, when he told her of 
>> Wesley's
>> injuries, was fantastic. Her facial expressions, eyes, voice, everything 
>> was just as a worried mother (who lost her husband to space) would have had.
>
>I was going to say "worst acting" for her, but I'm  sure she  acted the way
>it was written for her (which had me rolling  my eyes).   So  I won't blame
>Gates (this time).
>
>If I had to pick a "best actress" I'd have to  go with  the Admiral Hitler.
>She seemed to be the perfect choice for  the part--weatherd  from years and
>years of  yelling  at little  boys.   Probably worse  that Picard's Betazed
>academic-dude, but   probably   not   quite   as  bad   as  Riker's  Vulcan
>academic-dude.

I'm with you here. What a dragon lady. Brr...


>> 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.)

For shame. Patrick Stewart. No contest -- no way, no where, no how.



>Best actor?    Maybe  Wes' commanding  officer.   They should  have had Val
>Kilmer reprise his role from "Real Genius" though.  :-)


Robert McNeill (Nicholas)? I think he did a subpar job. The role was a
tough one and required subtlety and the ability to project depth without
the use of lines, and it was clearly above his capabilities.



>
>> 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.  I was guessing that  a lot of
>people at SFA would start respecting Wes now.   

What??? He ratted on his team-members, he was part of a coverup, he
agreed originally to a prank that cost a cadet's life -- I think Wesley
will be a campus pariah for a long time to come.


>For this  reason, I thought
>Picard's line was waaaay out of character.

I thought it was right on the money.


. .        .       .                .        
: : : :. : :  :....: : .  ::.: .  ..: :    ..     : :    .
::::::::::.: :::::::.:::::::::::.:::::: :?.:::::..::::.:.:
------------ -------------------------- --------------------------
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.
From: tlynch@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Re: "The First Duty" **SPOILERS**
Date: 7 Apr 92 02:02:33 GMT
Article-I.D.: cco.1992Apr7.020233.16415
Distribution: usa
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena

Lesson for the day:  Spoilers merit a Ctrl-L for the first week of 
uplink.  Always.  Without fail.

Thank you.

cs201139@batman.acslab.umbc.edu (cs201139) writes:



>If you ask me Wesley came out looking like a real GEEK in that one. 

Why do I suspect you would have said that no matter *which* way he went?

>He's
>supposed to be so damn smart he should have known better. 

I know lots of people who are "smart" and have no common sense.  Don't
equate intelligence with wisdom.

>And then he gets
>punished for comming forward and telling the truth. If he would have kept his
>mouth shut all there would have been is a slap on the wrist. 

Utter nonsense.  If he'd kept his mouth shut, Picard would have talked.  Had
he been believed, they'd all have been tossed out without hesitation.  Had
he not quite been believed, they'd probably have kept a close eye on the team
anyway (so he'd have *no* freedom, basically), and Picard would have waged
a blackball campaign that kept Wes hundreds of light-years away from the
Enterprise.  Hardly the life a Mozart of starship design would want.

If that's your idea of a slap on the wrist...

>I couldn't stand having to repeat an entire year of my life!!!

I really shouldn't, but...

I probably couldn't stand having to repeat a year of your life either.  ;-)

(Damn, I shouldn't have done that...)

Tim Lynch
Xref: sparky rec.arts.startrek.current:4779 rec.arts.startrek.tech:2597
From: jwindley%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current,rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: { Stardate Conversion }
Date: 9 Apr 92 08:06:11 GMT
Article-I.D.: hellgate.1992Apr9.020611.7147
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

comp138w142@camins.camosun.bc.ca (Tangent) writes:
>In article <1992Apr5.211534.26105@hellgate.utah.edu>, jwindley%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley) writes:
>>>	Has anyone come up with a neat little formulas for converting
>>>stardates to Earth years, and vice-versa?  If anyone has, please send them.

This wasn't my question.  I was answering it.  Just so this is clear.

>A friend of mine was working on the problem of converting stardates. He 
>went so far as to record almost all stardates mentioned in the old show, 
>the movies and TNG. He was unable to figure out any type of formula at all. 
>Last weekend he was able to talk with Data's stunt double at the Con in 
>Vancouver (I forget the name). It turns out that there is no formula. The 
>scriptwriters are just give rough boundries to work within.

There was absolutely no formula for TOS or for the movies.  There is a
formula of sorts for TNG which, as you said, gives a range of
stardates applicable to each episode.  If you ignore TOS and the
movies, you might come up with a "real life" formula that works for
TNG.  And when you do, post it.

--------------------------------+---------------------------------------
Jay Windley                     | jwindley@asylum.utah.edu
Department of Computer Science  +---------------------------------------
Univ. of Utah, Salt Lake City   | "I have detailed files."  -- T2
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Re: ALL the "Enterprises"
From: en110a20@vax1.umkc.edu
Date: 7 Apr 92 15:00:54 CST
Organization: University of Missouri-Kansas City

In article <1992Mar25.144340.17791@meaddata.com>, gordon@meaddata.com (Gordon Edwards) writes:
> 
> Submarine?  The current USS Enterprise CVN-65 is an aircraft carrier.  At
> the start of World War II there was an aircraft carrier named Enterprise.
> I don't know if this ship survived the war or if one of the Essex class
> carriers were named Enterprise. (In other words, there may have been two
> distinct aircraft carriers named Enterprise in WWII.)  The only other
> vessel named Enterprise is the space shuttle testbed.
> 
> CVN-65 was built in the 60's, is approximately 1100 feet long and is
> powered by 8 nuclear reactors.  It carries a standard complement of about
> 85 aircraft.
> 
> Does anyone know of ships named Enterprise prior to the early WWII carrier?
> 
> --
There was only ONE Enterprise carrier in WWII, but there were two ships prior 
to that; the first was a ship captured from the British by Colonial rebels
during the Revolutionary War, and the second was an American warship during
the War of 1812. At the last Trek convention I attended, there was a nice 
poster of ALL the Enterprises, including another starship that pre-dated the 
first NCC-1701. I don't know of any sources for this poster, other than a
dealer at one of the "Cons" this summer. Hope this helps.



       NCC-1701!
From: jjm3@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Jeffrey Joseph Martino)
Subject: First Duty - What about EM sensors? *SPOILERS*
Reply-To: jjm3@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Jeffrey Joseph Martino)
Organization: Columbia University
Distribution: USA
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 02:54:00 GMT

SPOLIERS




Is there any indication of how good StarFleet vessels' EM sensors are?

After seeing The First Duty, I wondered if:

Given:
 A. There are warp capable ships within the solar system in transit or
     on standby.
 B. At least some of these ships have excellent EM spectrum sensors.

What's wrong with this:

 A. News of the Nova Squadron incident reaches StarFleet quickly
 B. Within a couple of minutes StarFleet dispatches a ship or ships to
     warp to a distance a few light-minutes from the position of
     the accident and record the event, in the electromagnetic spectrum.

Would this seem to you a good standard procedure for such incidents, too?

--Jeff
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
From: HADCDJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A)
Subject: Re: Kobyashi and Kirk
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 17:51:22 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <1992Apr16.195303.9848@cco.caltech.edu> tlynch@cco.caltech.edu writes:

 (some commentary deleted)
> 
> >Given a truly unbeatable enemy Kirk would
> >back down as quickly as any man.  You didn't see him trying to
> >attack V'ger did you?
> 
> I saw him prepared to blow up his own ship in an attempt to save all and 
> go down the posthumous saviour of Earth.  Doesn't look like he thought V'ger
> was unbeatable to me, Kyle.
> 
> Tim Lynch

	I think Mr. Lynch is reaching a bit here.  There is a vast difference
between considering an opponent 'unbeatable' and making a last desparate attempt
to save your planet.  Part of Kirk's JOB was to defend the Federation, or die
trying.  Unbeatable is a relative term. "Unbeatable by the forces available" is 
not.  V'ger was unbeatable by the combat power of the Enterprise and Kirk knew
it.  Thus, the preparation for self-destruct as a last resort.

Jammer Jim
aka Captain Thevinen Salar, CO USS EXCALIBUR
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
From: ray@nmsb.larc.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: Boothby Master of the Galaxy
Originator: hazari@dagger.larc.nasa.gov
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA  USA
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 13:20:56 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.)
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Could you explain what line you are talking about and what it is
supposed to reference?

Thanks,
Ray Balister
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
From: tlynch@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch)
Subject: Re: Asimov's cameo lost, too : -(
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 01:42:36 GMT

cortese@hepxvt.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:
>In article <1992Apr8.195420.20010@talon.ucs.orst.edu> stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr08.070328.4537@edsi.plexus.COM> terry@edsi.plexus.COM (Terry Dawson) writes:
>>>dsturm@ducvax.auburn.edu writes:

>>>>Shame on the TNG staff for not following thru on the script that
>>>>had Data talking to a holographic Asimov on the holodeck...
>>>
>>>>No way to do that one now   :-(
>>>
>>>What?  Have they repealed acting and make-up?  Sure, they can do it.
>>>They just won't be able to use the real Asimov...
>>
>>Acting? Makeup? Why?

ACTORS, John, ACTORS.  Think 20th century filming of a *television
show*.

(And to think he once told me to get a life...:-) )

Tim Lynch
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
From: clin@eng.umd.edu (Charles Lin)
Subject: Re: What did Picard do?  (minor TFD spoiler)
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 92 21:23:58 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park
Originator: clin@coke.eng.umd.edu


In article <1992Apr5.204636.23645@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, rvc40592@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Bob Cadman) writes:
>I hope this works:
>


>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Something has really been annoying me about this episode:  What exactly
>is it that Picard did when he was at the academy?  I'm referring to the
>conversation where he thanked Boothby.
>
>Another thing ... did you notice how when Geordi told Picard about the
>valve (or whatever) being opened, Picard immediately knew exactly what
>it was they were doing?  Isn't that just a wee bit to convenient?  (I
>was also wondering if anyone remembered how long they said that 
>maneuver had been banned at the academy ... 100 years?)
>
>And does anyone think there could be a connection between these two
>questions?   :-)

   Yeah, I think it was 100 years.

   It was also quite convenient that Troi was missing.  This is always
the problem with having a Betazoid.  I mean they could have had a full
Betazoid there.  Obviously, this presents no problem with Starfleet
and the right to privacy since Picard mentioned having a full Betazoid
for superintendent.   Of course, this would have ruined the story so
they really had to keep Troi out of this episode.

--
   ______    __    __   ___  ____
  / ____ \  |  |  |__| |   \ |  |    Charles Lin
 | /    \_| |  |   __  |    \|  |    e-mail: clin@eng.umd.edu
 | |        |  |  |  | |  |\    |   
 | |     _  |  |  |__| |__| \___|    University of Maryland
 | \____/ | |  |____                 "I hate big sigs." -- Moo
  \______/  \_______|
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current