From: brad@cmptrc.lonestar.org (Brad Barton)
Subject: Re: DS9 was very BAD
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 16:23:42 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: CompuTrac Inc., Richardson TX

In article <6860@npri6.npri.com> murphy@npri6.npri.com (David P. Murphy) writes:
>
>>	Paralleling Gallileo (who actually studied his subject) to 
>>	the hack writers who write for ST (who, likely, have never 
>>	studied any more science than you get in your typical comic book) 
>>	is pretty pathetic.  These people aren't visionaries, they're
>>	deluded egomaniacs who can't be bothered with checking their work.
>>
>>rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
>
>may i point out that you are being unnecessarily insulting?  "these people"
>are TELEVISION WRITERS, and as such, their main goal is to *entertain*,
>not adhere to scientific accuracy.  obviously they are succeeding,
>since TNG and DS9 are getting high ratings.  calling them "deluded
>egomaniacs" is waaaayy out of line, and makes _you_ look rather petulant;
>they have to worry about *drama* and *plot* and *characterization* and
>*sets* and *lighting* and *which actors are available* and *fitting the
>whole she-bang into sixty minutes, carefully timed for commercials* and
>*getting the whole thing done by thursday* . . .  i very much doubt that
>these points you describe are of any great concern to either the producer,
>the director, or the writer in comparison to the points i just listed.
>so lay off, yamanari.
>
>sure, i wish they were better science-fiction writers, but apparently
>there's not much of a market for that on television :-)
>
Would I be out of line here to point out that it was Copernicus that said
the Earth revolved around the sun?  Actually, he didn't even say that,
exactly.  He said the Universe can be described to revolve around any
point, but it is simpler if you describe it as the Earth revolving around
the Sun (with Moon revolving around Earth) with the other planets and
that solar system revolving around some point in the Galaxy, etc.. but I
digress....

I must agree with the person above.  Star Trek isn't about Science any
more than Quantum Leap, Highlander, Space Rangers, V, Space 1999, Battlestar
Galactica, or even Star Wars is.  It's about the human condition.  It's
a message of hope or warning about what might be (or might not be).  If it
were about science, you wouldn't have to worry about suspending belief at
any time.  Star Trek has inconsistencies (for God's sake, I wonder what
some of you people would talk about if it weren't for that), sure.  But be
real, it's been running for 25 years.  Some things are bound to get retconned
once in a while.  Some people seem to have nothing else to do than to don 
a 'holier-than-thou' attitude about it and tear it down.

I've said it before, I like all the "Science-Fiction" shows/movies I mentioned
above and I refuse to be drug down into the "this one is better than that one"
wars as there is never a resolution to it.  Kinda like the "my computer is
better than yours" or farther back "my daddy can beat up your daddy".  If
you truely are a science fiction (or speculative fiction) fan, LET THEM
COEXIST.  That's the only way we will continue to get fresh ideas as well as
the old ones.  Ignore the cheesy episodes, once in a while you get a real
gem, and most of the time you'll be entertained (and that's what helps pay
for it).


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  Brad Barton - brad@cmptrc.lonestar.org  |  "Light the lamp, not the rat!"  |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------