From: thogek@cco.caltech.edu (Thomas G. Kiefer)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Re: The Official Dorm-Rec review of "Quality of Life"  (spoilers)
Date: 18 Nov 1992 18:09:34 GMT
Organization: Nope, just me.
NNTP-Posting-Host: yvonne.caltech.edu

In article <Bxw65s.5Ir@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> myempire@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Matt J. Martin) writes:
>In article <1ebu55INNcei@gap.caltech.edu> thogek@cco.caltech.edu (Thomas G. Kiefer) writes:
>>"Quality of Life" spoilers below...

>
>>(Refering to the Mining Doctor)
>>And I don't know how carreer-minded she was, but she was *very* into
>>and fascinated by her work, and she wanted to see it advanced and done.
>>Sounds like a dedicated (maybe a bit obsessed) scientist to me.
>>
>>So, she was a very work-oriented scientist, and very stubborn.  Would you
>>have called her "bitchy" and "evil" if the same character had been a man?
>>(Just a question -- but think about it before you answer.  :)
>
>  No, you're right, we would've called him an evil bastard.

Okay.  Just checking (as I said it was "Just a question").  :)

>  That fact of the matter is that she was a very poorly written character.  She
>placed herself in an adversarial role with whomever she happened to be speaking
>with.  Her consistenly defensive attitude betrayed a great deal of insecurity
>and shallowness.  Is it our fault that the writers made her female?  (Would you
>like us to refer to all annoying female characters as evil bastards?  That would
>be more politically correct.)

I just don't see how her character being mostly adversarial and defensive
toward others implies that she was a "poorly written character".  (I've met
plenty of real people who do this regularly.)  I tried to explain in my
previous post why I thought her bahavior could be completely reasonable in
a certain type of character (maybe you should have actually READ it before
responding to it) -- one who was very involved (consumed?) in her work, who
had just invented these fantastically useful tools that could help her
complete her work so much faster, and suddenly along come these Federation
officers, one of whom tells her that her tools are living beings and
shouldn't be used for labor.  She does not (want to?) believe this, but it
threatens her work, so OF COURSE she's defensive and insecure.  Many
people in that position, male or female, would be.

And I don't recall her being perpetually adversarial/defensive "with whomever
she happened to be speaking with."  She *was* somewhat defensive and insecure
whenever her own work and progress was being discussed (as some scientists/
researchers are), and increasingly so when her schedule or her use of the
exocomps was questioned.

And I don't care if you call 'em bastards or bitches -- same connotation.
As I said (twice now), I was just asking a question.


>>(Refering to Crusher)
>>I was amazed at her having spent time combatting with Worf's.  It took me a
>>moment to realize that was what they must have done, 'cause I wouldn't have
>>expected *any* of the medical officers particularly interested.
>
>  I haven't met too many pacifist physicians, especially in the military.

I didn't say that they were pacifist, just a little surprised that the Doc
would be interested in jumping right into Worf's (of all people's) workouts.
But then...

>>Question: were they using Worf's "calisthenics" program?  I've only seen it
>>twice, but that's what came to mind (after a confused moment), and it seemed
>>to fit the discussion and clothes.  But, if so, how come she got cut?  Or do
>>the holodeck safeguards allow such minor injuries?  (Hope it was on
>>beginner skill level!)
>
>  I don't think they were on the holodeck.  It makes more sense to assume
>that they were in the gym (or wherever that place is that Worf teaches his
>marial arts classes), and that Worf himself caused the injury.

...that makes sense, and it seems more believable that Crusher would try
this than jump into Worf's holodeck program.


>>(refering to the Mining Doctors suggestion to make the exocomps incapable of
>>controling their own actions)
>>Contradiction if you don't think about it.  She wanted to use the exocomps,
>>and they'd been having "problems" with the command pathways, and somebody
>>thought that they might be thinking and alive.  So, cut off the command
>>pathways!  Even if it's meaningless, it'll shut the bozos up and let her
>>use them.
>  
>  The contradiction lies in her suggesting a tactic that would only work if the
>exocomps were "alive", and then still insisting that they weren't.  If she did
>believe that the tactic would work then she obviously must have accepted the
>fact they were alive.  And if that's the case, then she's immoral as well as
>annoying.

Grr.  Did you read what I said above AT ALL?  You certainly didn't address it,
so why did you respond?  I'll try again.

It appeared that the only way to save Picard and LaForge was to send the
exocomps over on a "suicide" mission.  Data firmly objected to this, as they
were sentient beings, and would probably refuse to endanger themselves,
anyway.  Riker wasn't so sure about the sentience part, but insisted that
he'd rather risk the maybe-sentient exocomps than the two humans.  Riker did
agree that their possible resistance and/or command-path problems (sentient
or no) could be a problem.  The Doctor, frustrated at all this garbage about
her obviously non-sentient tools, said fine, we'll disconnect their command
pathways; will that make you happy?  She wasn't necessarily agreeing with
anyone on the sentience argument; she simply wanted to END the argument for
now so she could send her tools over to save Picard and LaForge.

The tactic "would only work if the exocomps were 'alive'", as you said.
The doctor ardently disbelieved that they could be alive, but also figured
that disconnecting the command pathways wouldn't hurt anything, and actually
might bypass the command-path problems they *had* been having, and it would
take care of the "what if they resist?" worry the others had.  She did not
suggest it because it would work, but because it would shut those damned
Federation officers up.

You might consider even that to be "immoral".  But the alternative was to
allow two human beings (no argument over their sentience) to die.  She chose
the tactic.


>  Frankly, Mr. Kiefer, I'm not too impressed by your countering our Holier-than-
>thou attitude with a holier-than-thou attitude of your own.  Fighting fire
>with fire really isn't all that creative.

Maybe you should actually try READING my posting before jumping all over it.
(Your posting above and your flaming e-mail suggest that you have not.)  You
might discover that not everyone fires away as you have.
-- 
======================================================
====> Thomas Kiefer <===> thogek@cco.caltech.edu <====
======================================================
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current