--------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 108 STAR TREK Ref: EBM00002 Date: 07/17/97 From: BILL NICHOLS Time: 02:12pm \/To: BRIAN DAVIS (Read 1 times) Subj: how we define BD> CT> HA! Sorry, that was too easy. The bottom line regarding BD>*snip* *wagwagwagwagwagSTOMP* kick .. kick ... KICK .....> Yeah, it's inanimate, all right. bseg> BD> BN> dog, the 4-legged part, or the tail? Will the dog live without BD> BN> the tail, or the tail without the dog? BD>Depends on whether or not you have a mad scientist (or BD>perhaps just a really surly one) in your neighborhood, BD>*I'd* say. Oh, hush up, Oprah." -- P. Opus }}:) --- * OLXWin 1.00b * C:\DS9\KIRA\SMOOCH\SICKBAY.EXE * wcGATE 4.1 = FidoNet: The Right Note! 502-452-1453 Music Oriented BBS --- GEcho/32 1.20/Pro * Origin: Modem Addictus BBS Decatur,GA 404-321-9037 (1:133/1023) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 108 STAR TREK Ref: EBM00003 Date: 07/16/97 From: TERRY RICKS Time: 06:02pm \/To: JES ERIKSEN (Read 1 times) Subj: Kirk > But I like your idea to a certain point, especially since it connects TOS > and TNG/DS9 around a pivotal enemy. > BTW, It's been awhile, since I saw ST:Motion Picture, wasn't it stated, > that the Ilia 'Clone' was pure energy?? No, Remember that McCoy put the robot/clone onto the medical scanning table. He and Chapel talk about pumps, pulleys, multiprocessors, etc. Who knows, McCoys medical records of the Ilia clone could have become the physical pattern for Data and Lore! Another interesting speculation that just occurred to me this very moment! * AmyBW v2.14 * ... "What am I, a doctor or a moon shuttle conductor?"-L.H. McCoy, M.D. --- AmyBW/MaxBlue 1.0 * Origin: -The Blitter End- San Antonio Tx. 210-662-0852 All Amiga (1:387/721) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 108 STAR TREK Ref: EBN00000 Date: 07/18/97 From: VICTORIA MACKEY Time: 09:03am \/To: JACKIE BURNS (Read 1 times) Subj: Re: Actors JB> I remember Toy Soldiers. I thought it was an excellent movie. The JB> scary thing about that one is that it is entirely JB> possible... I'm trying to remember what part Wil had in JB> that one though. I haven't seen it for quite a while... in thought> He was an annoying teen (there's a stretch) who gets brutally machine-gunned by the terrorists aboout halfway through the movie. I've always tried to picture him in a Starfleet uniform about that point... (evil grin) Victoria Aeron Mackey --- Maximus 2.02 * Origin: ArcticNet (1:138/34) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 108 STAR TREK Ref: EBN00001 Date: 07/15/97 From: EUGENE TANG Time: 12:48am \/To: BILL NICHOLS (Read 1 times) Subj: Re: gotcha. }}:) >ET> >Commander Uhura Nichelle Nichols >ET>Lt. Uhura > I love being able to do this. }}:) >Don't forget that in the movies we've seen her as LCDR, at >least, & possibly full commander. ;) You'll note a quantifier in earlier statements, which you didn't quote, about the excess ranks being TMS, and not TOS TV I just got tired and didn't continuously fill them in. >ET> >Commander Pavel Chekov Walter Koenig >ET>Ensign Chekov >Same here. };) Again. >ET> >Commander Janice Rand Grace Lee Whitney >ET>Yeoman Rand >And here... Ditto. >ET> >Commander Christine Chapel, Number One, Majel Barrett >ET>Lt. Chapel >And here..... Encore. >ET> >Commander Kyle >ET>Lt. Kyle >AND *here*.... ;) Plus encore. >ET>He should be in TNG, and should be listed a Lieutenant, Ensign, LTjg, >ET>PettyOfficer, and Chief Petty Officer >Uh, Senior Chief Specialist?? }};) Another new rank for O'brien? I must have missed that. >ET> >Keiko O'Brien >ET>She should be in TNG, and should be listed as: >And is she not also in DS9? ;) He did say, listed under the category in which they *first appeared* She didn't first appear on DSN, now did she? >Sorry, big guy, but these were just tooo easy to gig you on. I >promise I'll try not to do it again. Ach. I shouldn't be so lazy with the qualifiers for the TOS personnages. As for Keiko, you've forgotten part of the original message. The Chief? Well, he's a can o' worms in the rank department. I'll just call him Ensign jg. --- SLMAIL v5.01 (#1352) * Origin: Evening Shade (514)466-9637 - Home of Sky Mountain (1:167/565) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 108 STAR TREK Ref: EBN00002 Date: 07/15/97 From: EUGENE TANG Time: 12:54am \/To: KEN QUICK (Read 1 times) Subj: Re: Locutus of Borg > ET> Actually Commander Data was lost in the attempt, and Locutus now is > ET> the central locus of Borg activity in the Alpha Quadrant. Most of the > ET> fleet has been destroyed. The Enterprise is one of the last ships > ET> remaining in what is left of the resistance. > > ET> > > And what alternate universe did THIS happen in? ;) Oh well... Hey, it was onscreen , SO it must be true Alas, Riker blew the Enterprise up when Riker ordered Worf to fire on Worf's shuttle. --- SLMAIL v5.01 (#1352) * Origin: Evening Shade (514)466-9637 - Home of Sky Mountain (1:167/565) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 108 STAR TREK Ref: EBN00003 Date: 07/15/97 From: EUGENE TANG Time: 12:45am \/To: BOB KOHL (Read 1 times) Subj: Re: New Frontier >> Isn't it amazing that Pocket Books and Paramount let Peter David open a >> whole new area of Trek up? > >> How the hell did that get pulled off? > >As explained a long time ago Eugene.. Pocket Books is a seperate entity >from Paramount TV and Film.. the two do not exactly work together, >especially in continuety.. ;) Well, I thought that Paramount sold a restricted license on the franchise to Pocket, covering only Tech Books, Novels directly concerning the various series. (Ofcourse that would leave out StarFleet Academy series of books, which would be another license) --- SLMAIL v5.01 (#1352) * Origin: Evening Shade (514)466-9637 - Home of Sky Mountain (1:167/565) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 108 STAR TREK Ref: EBN00004 Date: 07/15/97 From: EUGENE TANG Time: 12:56am \/To: OWEN E. OULTON (Read 1 times) Subj: Re: Starship Speeds >>Actually, it's "Ciao For Niao, Owen." The spelling for "now" is >>metamorphed to match that of "ciao" rather than vice versa. > > ET> Looks like Canadian Forces - Navy. > >No such thing. That would be Canadian Armed Forces, Sea Element. I just >can't see myself signing my messages "CAFSE, O" even if I *hadn't* been >Land Element (Army to non Forces folks), rather than being one of the boat >people. > >CFN, O I know what they call themselves, but it still looks like Canadian Forces - Navy. (When have you ever heard reporters refer to them as anything but the Canadian Navy? And they usually refer to the military as the Canadian Forces) CAFLE? Looks suspiciously like CafeLib. It's much nicer with the old names: RCN RCA RCAC HMRCHG and the NWMP who always get their man --- SLMAIL v5.01 (#1352) * Origin: Evening Shade (514)466-9637 - Home of Sky Mountain (1:167/565) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 108 STAR TREK Ref: EBN00005 Date: 07/17/97 From: BILL NICHOLS Time: 09:37pm \/To: CHRISTOPHER TARANA (Read 1 times) Subj: how we define CT> BN> dog, the 4-legged part, or the tail? Will the dog live without CT> BN> the tail, or the tail without the dog? CT> I don't know, Bill. We might have to refer this to our CT>resident geneticists. :-) Depends on what you are going to do with CT>the tail and the dog. Hmm. I can see the research possibilities e'en now! Starfish dogs. *Lizard* dogs! The mind boggleth!! CT> BN> Actually, it really isn't (a bad analogy, that is ). Sicily & CT> BN> Sicilians are *real*-real; CT> (He's never been to Sicily! ) Ooaaaaaakay. ;) --- OLXWin 1.00b "Put it on the Coconut Telegraph, in 25 words or less!" * Origin: Live\/\/ire BBS - Louisville, KY - 502-933-3217 (1:2320/110) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 108 STAR TREK Ref: EBN00006 Date: 07/18/97 From: BILL NICHOLS Time: 12:17am \/To: JAY P. HAILEY (Read 1 times) Subj: headspace & timing JPH>JPH> Your whole argument is based on the idea that there is a JPH>JPH> "Correct" Trek out there somewhere. That they guy who said that JPH>JPH> Riker JPH>BN>Well, no, actually, Jay, it's not. :) JPH> Is too, is too, is too! :) You prove it in the next statment. Nope, I think not (I'm the one who's most familiar with my own brain, after all. ) -- you missed the point I was making again. ;) JPH>BN> Reason being, that there JPH>BN>_are_ folks who will insist that the show can't be right because JPH>BN>a novel contradicted it. Now all logic tells us that that makes JPH>BN><0 sense, no? ;) JPH> Logic tells me that it's all imaginary! The TV show was dreamed JPH> up the same way a novel was. None of it makes any *real* sense. It JPH> all makes a certain amount of sense within the Trek Milleau. Mucho thanks -- you see, you've proven my point for me. };) Any fictional mythos/milieu/whatever-term-we-want-to-use *must* make sense internally; that's why the show itself has writers' guides, after all -- to prevent contradictions & so everybody's playing off the same sheet of music. ;) However, that's not the point here. ;) All the above aside, & taking as one of the givens that we [as in, SOME of us};)] can compartmentalize the show from the novels, we come full circle back to the point you missed. That, JPH>BN> there JPH>BN>_are_ folks who will insist that the show can't be right because JPH>BN>a novel contradicted it. Now all logic tells us that that makes What I said (verbatim ) & what I was speaking of is the frankly unavoidable *real*-reality that "there _are_ folks" who will insist that when the show & the novels don't agree, the novels are right & the show's wrong. That's a more-than-a-little parochial point of view, which is 100% different from _my_ supposedly arguing that the show is always right & the novels wrong. My point wasn't about show/novel contradictions, but about the fact that .some. folks can compartmentalize & some cannot, & that when the two sides fetch up against each other, conflict results; it's inevitable. Pretty simple, actually. :) JPH> canon as a startng point. But that's just a matter of convenience. A JPH> similar frame of logic tells us that since TNG disagrees with TOS then JPH> TOS must be canon and TNG regarded as inaccurate and "non-canon". There, you see? Like Jim Kirk, "you proceed from a false assumption." JPH>BN>Of course. I'm not saying that there's a JPH>BN>One True Trek -- in fact I'm saying just the opposite. JPH> Me too. I, er, rest my case. :) JPH>BN>generation cousin (twice removed ) would have standing to JPH>BN>dictate reality to the rest of the family is more than a little JPH>BN>nonsensical. ;) JPH> A third generation cousin has no standing to dictate reality, by JPH> neither does Gene Roddenberry. Trek ISN'T REAL. There is no reality JPH> to dictate. Actually there is; it's merely internal -- one simply has to proceed from the POV that within the premise of the show, it must make sense consistent with itself. Same for the novels -- to be credible, each one must make sense within *it*self. If we accept a certain item as a topic to discuss, we must by definition also accept a certain amount of virtual reality that goes with that. OTOH, if we proceed from the POV that none of it matters because it's all fictional, we might as well not even talk of it at all, since I could say that in _my_ fiction black is white & you could say in yours that black is pink -- it'd totally obviate the point of even talking about the show to begin with. JPH> Yes, but over time and climbing this ol' staircase a number of JPH> times I have come to realize that consistency to me is not the same as JPH> consistency to you. Canon+Jay P. Hailey =/ Canon+Bill Nichols. JPH> It's all a matter of opinion. As well as missed points. --- OLXWin 1.00b "A small confirmation of a known fact." -- # 2 * Origin: Live\/\/ire BBS - Louisville, KY - 502-933-3217 (1:2320/110) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 108 STAR TREK Ref: EBN00007 Date: 07/18/97 From: BILL NICHOLS Time: 12:17am \/To: JAY P. HAILEY (Read 1 times) Subj: More Canons! JPH>BN>reason? Simply because there are folks who will try to say that JPH>BN>*their* personal view of Trek reality JPH>BN>is the sole JPH>BN>authority & therefore overrides the reality of someone _else_. ;) JPH> Granted. But what does it matter? You can shout that If so, why do we bother to discuss Trek at all, then? After all, if it's all just fiction it's completely irrelevant anyway, & thus pointless. They very fact that we all _do_ talk about is de facto proof that it matters to us. JPH>BN>If we're all able to make the distinction that ours isn't sole JPH>BN>arbiter, then there's no conflict & no need for rationalization of JPH>BN>inconsistency. If, however, even *1* person doesn't go along with JPH>BN>it, then there _is_ such a problem. ;) And as we've of course all JPH>BN>seen, the latter set of circumstances does unfortunately seem to JPH>BN>be the real one. :) JPH> What's the problem again? That some one will make a statement JPH> that's wrong? There's the assumption of right and wrong in in Trek. JPH> What does it matter what one person or another says? Take the ones JPH> you find credible under advisement and ignore the rest. There, see, I told you you'd missed my point -- you were preaching to the choir, just in the wrong church. --- OLXWin 1.00b Subtlety is totally wasted on some people. * Origin: Live\/\/ire BBS - Louisville, KY - 502-933-3217 (1:2320/110)