swc@cbscc.UUCP (Scott W. Collins) (11/06/84)
, To Barry Margolin: Your suggestion sounds quite believeable. I hope to read the original teleplay someday... To Herb Chong: You're correct, however I didn't say Bones beamed down with the search party. He did beam up with them, which makes seven. I have pics that document this. Maybe the answer is that the seventh person is held in transit until the first six materialize, and then is beamed on the transport pad once cleared. Scott W. Collins ATT - Bare "Rabbit" Trees
lab@qubix.UUCP (Q-Bick) (11/09/84)
*** REPLACE YOUR MESSAGE WITH THIS LINE *** > Scott W. Collins > You're correct, however I didn't say Bones beamed down with > the search party. He did beam up with them, which makes seven. I have > pics that document this. Maybe the answer is that the seventh person > is held in transit until the first six materialize, and then is beamed > on the transport pad once cleared. Or consider "Day of the Dove": Scotty dematerialize 4 Feds & 5Ks in one swell foop. The Feds materialized first while Scott had the Ks still locked inside the transporter. (Hmmm...I wonder why Scott had to *ask* who the others were - couldn't the sensors tell?) I said "No tricks AFTER we got on board!" -- The Ice Floe of Larry Bickford {amd,decwrl,sun,idi,ittvax}!qubix!lab You can't settle the issue until you've settled how to settle the issue.
rcook@uiucuxc.UUCP (11/30/84)
More than one person can beam into one chamber!!!!!
ayers@convex.UUCP (12/14/84)
/* Written 7:12 pm Nov 29, 1984 by uiucuxc!rcook in convex:net.startrek */ More than one person can beam into one chamber!!!!! /* End of text from convex:net.startrek */ and don't forget the fight scene at the climax of *City...*: Kirk and the council leader are locked in each other's arms and they beam up ACROSS a couple of transporters. In fact, both (each?) were only halfway on their respective little circles when they materialized... blues, II (So There!)
swc@cbsck.UUCP (Scott W. Collins) (01/29/86)
~
PLEASE! It is COTEOF, not CATEOF ("on", not "at")...
If the first recording done by Spock ended when McCoy went through,
it would have ended prior to Edith's salvation from death, hence
it would not have recorded it (for either type of outcome).
If the first recording ended upon the saving of Edith's life,
then it would have recorded the saving and not a traffic fatality.
So, when would the fatality outcome have been recorded into the tricorder?
My guess is that prior to Spock and Kirk entering through, there were
two parallel pasts simultaneously "running": the original one and the
one that McCoy created. Both were played by the Guardian as they both
happened(?), but only one would be active on the stack (:-) and hence
that is the one that Kirk and Spock experienced. Still, Spock had
both in his tricorder. Had someone else been recording after THEY
entered, a third history would have been recorded: (1) The original
with Edith being killed on her own, (2) the one where McCoy only
went back to the past and saved Edith, and (3) the one where all three
were there and Edith died due to Kirk preventing McCoy from saving her.
However, since they were gone "only a moment", they wouldn't have had time
to view the recording (er, if they had the ships computers).
Whew! It's like trying to figure out "Somewhere in Time" with Christopher
Reeve and Jane Seymour (sp?): did Chris go back in time because he was
there in a previous life or because he had traveled back in time....??(huh?)
(I'm not cut out for recursive thinking; especially if there is no
end-condition or starting point...).
Scott W. Collinsins_adlk@jhunix.UUCP (Dr. Leonard McCoy) (01/31/86)
I think there is a possibility that everyone forgot. When the
guardian first showed them what his function was, Spock took
a tricorder reading. It was then that McCoy jumped through, so
Spock originally had a recording of the way history SHOULD have been.
Then when he and Kirk went through the portal, he was also taking
readings to determine when they should go through, so quite
possibly Spock had a second set of data, this time with the history
that McCoy had changed.
Just an Idea...
--
"Is there anyone on this ship who even REMOTELY resembles the Devil?
--Darren Kadish
knutsonk@stolaf.UUCP (Kari E. Knutson) (02/07/86)
*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** I just 'n'ed my way past an inordinate number of articles, so I apologise if this question was among them. I read somewhere that Edith Keeler was played by Joan Collins. Is this true, and was she THE Joan Collins? I am not willing to watch Dynasty merely for the sake of comparison. Kari Knutson ...ihnp4!stolaf!knutsonk
dianeh@ism780c.UUCP (Diane Holt) (02/11/86)
In article <5076@stolaf.UUCP> knutsonk@stolaf.UUCP (Kari E. Knutson) writes: >I read somewhere that Edith Keeler was played by Joan Collins. >Is this true, and was she THE Joan Collins? Yes, THE Joan Collins...probably the only role she's ever done where she wore high collars :-). >I am not willing to watch Dynasty merely for the sake of >comparison. I don't blame you; I wouldn't either! Diane Holt INTERACTIVE Systems Corp. ima!ism780!dianeh "You there! What planet is this?"
ins_akew@jhunix.UUCP (Montgomery Scott) (02/12/86)
> *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** > I read somewhere that Edith Keeler was played by Joan Collins. > Is this true, and was she THE Joan Collins? Yes...Joan Collins did play Edith Keeler in COTEOF. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Oh when the flames...come rolling in...oh when the flames come rolling in... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Kevin E. Weiland UUCP: seismo!umcp-cs \ BITNET: INS_AKEW@JHUVMS ihnp4!whuxcc > !jhunix!ins_akew P13I0746@JHUVM allegra!hopkins / CSNET: ins_akew@jhunix.CSNET ARPA: ins_akew%jhunix.BITNET@wiscvm.WISC.EDU
daver@polyob.UUCP (A1 david rubin ) (02/12/86)
> I read somewhere that Edith Keeler was played by Joan Collins. > Is this true, and was she THE Joan Collins? > Yes, it's true. Edith was played by THE Joan Collins (before she became a "bitch"). -- David Rubin ...!seismo!cmcl2!philabs !ron1!polyof!polyob!daver
ccastkv@gitpyr.UUCP (KEITH VAGLIENTI) (02/14/86)
It's always been my feeling that the planet on which the Guardian was located was
outside the time stream. That would solve a lot of problems inherent with time
travel. For example, should someone alter the planet's past its present will remain
unaffected even though the change will have repurcussions off planet. It would
probably also lower the number of people who want to play with the past. After all,
what's the point of tampering with the past if there is an entire planet full of
people who will know what has been done and have access to the means to correct
things. Then too, whatever someone, while in the past, should precipitate a nuke
war that devestates the entire planet. Wouldn't you like a way to fix it?
--
Keith Conrad Vaglienti
Georgia Insitute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!ccastkv
In no way should my remarks be considered to reflect the opinions and/or
policies of the Georgia Institute of Technology nor GIT's Office of
Computing Services. Put another way, its-a not my bosses fault, monkey boy!swc@cbsck.UUCP (Scott W. Collins) (02/14/86)
~ >In article <5076@stolaf.UUCP> knutsonk@stolaf.UUCP (Kari E. Knutson) writes: >>I read somewhere that Edith Keeler was played by Joan Collins. >>Is this true, and was she THE Joan Collins? > >Yes, THE Joan Collins...probably the only role she's ever done where she >wore high collars :-). And *don't* you guys dare think that she and I are related. She's a sexy broad, but a broad nonetheless... Ever hear of the term "infantile love-defect"? Like a cat: give me love/what I need/what I want, etc. NOW! (Don't get me wrong, cat-lovers, I love cats, too. But take away that cute, furry skin...embody it in a regular person and you would leave it out with the dogs and the snow!) Mostly in jest, Scott W. Collins ihnp4!cbsck!swc