butenhof@orac.DEC (Dave Butenhof, VAX-11 RSX AME) (05/10/84)
Greetings, trivial people! I've been a silent `participant' in this newsgroup for a while, but I never bothered to speak up before. Now, out of frustration, I feel obliged to. Actually, I just feel like it, but anyway ... The emphasis of this group tends to trivia -- which I suppose is reasonable, considering there's relatively little else to discuss on a regular basis about a ~15 year deceased TV program and two feature movies from several years ago. However, there seems to be an amazing amount of inaccuracy in the trivia. Now, no-one can object to an ocassional wrong guess; but some of this has been stated as definite fact. Often, not only is it wrong, but it simply doesn't make sense -- which is even worse. At least apply some logic! Since I am unfortunately faced with the necessity to work (mostly) during the day, I tend to save up all my newsgroup mailings in files, print them out ocassionally, take the listings home, and peruse them over a period of several weeks (this is one of the reasons I rarely bother to respond: once I've read something, it's usually already been hashed over a hundred times). Some of the examples I'm about to site have already been hashed over, and the others probably will have been (probably in the files on my system which I still haven't printed!) by the time this gets out. Also, I'd like to point out that I'm refraining from flaming at anyone in specific, so don't get annoyed if your trivia is here -- unless of course I'm wrong, in which case please don't tell me, as I'll simply die of embarassment in front of everyone! :-) The first point that comes to mind is the controversy over the Vulcan salute. There have been sitings from Gerrold's books and even speeches claiming incorrect facts. It was in fact Nimoy, not Roddenberry who snuck a peek in Synagogue. I strongly doubt that Roddenberry ever claimed to have invented (discovered?) the Vulcan salute. The woman who played T'Pau was not able to make the Vulcan salute at will; nor was she assisted in making it: she could get her fingers in the proper formation, however, and they were capable of holding there. She formed the salute prior to starting a scene, and hid her hand until the proper moment. Next. I will not guarantee that McCoy's line in ``Friday's Child'' was ``I'm a doctor, not an escalator,'' (though it sounds right) but even the most elementary exercise of logic will help to conclude that it was not ``I'm a doctor, not a bricklayer.'' This phrase simply makes no sense in that context. Besides, I happen to know for a fact that McCoy was ``not a bricklayer'' as he applied thermal concrete to the Horta mother in ``Devil in the Dark.'' An interesting side question: to my knowledge, McCoy was never not the same thing twice (if that phrasing makes no sense, this is probably only appropriate). Does anyone have contrary evidence? On the ``Trek Teasers'' quiz -- I don't know who put that together, but I'm not impressed. The salt shakers, for example, were not ``twentieth-century kitchen utensils.'' They were in fact twenty-first century table utensils. They were developed for ``Mantrap'' (the salt monster!) but were determined to be too `futuristic' in appearance for the audience to identify them as salt shakers. When it was decided that McCoy should have some dandy palm-sized medical instruments, the abandoned salt shakers were pressed into service. Therefore while the question may be roughly correct, the phrasing is inexcusably misleading. By the way, I agree that anyone who looks up answers in a Trivia quiz book (shame shame!) or even in a standard reference such as blueprints, Concordance, or novels should be ``hauled away _as_ garbage!'' (if you don't recognise the line, you can consider it a trivial question). The Enterprize's identification number??? Come now, let's get something at least _mildly_ obscure here! Although it doesn't relate to the topic of this note, I'm just scanning through my latest net.startrek printout, so ... wasn't the Twilight Zone episode with Shatner and the ``gremlin'' called ``Nightmare at 20,000 feet?'' And by the way, Shatner played the character ever so much better than the guy in the movie ... OK, now I've ticked off a lot of innocent people, so I suppose I should be satisfied for now. This thing could be a lot of fun (it's obvious that some of the regulars are far more trivial than I on the subject of Startrek: I'm often amazed at the scraps of knowledge that shine through). Dave Butenhof Digital Equipment Corporation 110 Spitbrook Rd Nashua NH orac::butenhof (that's more like decwrl!rhea!orac!butenhof to youse guys) "I'm not a fan: I just read the stuff!" "Enterprise," says a male voice, "Uhura speaking." /dave Wed 9-May-1984 20:04 ORAC time
eric@whuxle.UUCP (05/10/84)
#R:decwrl:-2300:whuxle:30200001:000:982 whuxle!eric May 10 08:28:00 1984 > On the ``Trek Teasers'' quiz -- I don't know who put that together, but I'm > not impressed. The salt shakers, for example, were not ``twentieth-century > kitchen utensils.'' They were in fact twenty-first century table utensils. > They were developed for ``Mantrap'' (the salt monster!) but were determined > to be too `futuristic' in appearance for the audience to identify them as > salt shakers. When it was decided that McCoy should have some dandy > palm-sized medical instruments, the abandoned salt shakers were pressed into > service. Therefore while the question may be roughly correct, the phrasing > is inexcusably misleading. Sorry. If YOU got off YOUR soapbox and LOWERED yourself to READ a REFERENCE book, you will indeed discover that the salt shakers WERE 20th century table utensils, albeit from cultures different from our own. THEY ** WERE ** REAL SALT SHAKERS...... ARGHGRHGRH...... from the exam tired fingers of eric holtman
rjnoe@ihlts.UUCP (Roger Noe) (05/10/84)
Note: this whole article should be taken with a grain of :-) (or at least quadrotriticale!) Dave Butenhof comments on the contents of postings to this newsgroup: > there seems to be an amazing amount of inaccuracy in the trivia Absolutely! But then that's what gives us both job security so we can post articles like this. > There have been sitings from Gerrold's books and even speeches Sittings? Or maybe you mean "citings"? Certainly you can't expect to be picky and not be picked at. > An interesting side question: to my knowledge, McCoy was > never not the same thing twice. Does anyone have contrary evidence? Not me. > The salt shakers, for example, were not "twentieth-century kitchen > utensils." They were in fact twenty-first century table utensils. Oh, this really gets to me!! How can such a fool as you get away with posting such inaccurate and misleading information and pretend it's factual! [[:-)]] But to get to the point, Star Trek was never said to be set in the 21st century. They were vague during the series, saying "22nd or 23rd" if they said anything at all, but the first title in ST:TMP is "In the twenty-third century". Also, they were not TABLE utensils, but tray utensils, as in the one yeoman Rand was carrying to Kirk when she comes across the salt vampire in one of its other forms. > They were developed for "Mantrap" . . . > Dave Butenhof Well, it depends on how you mean "developed". Roddenberry sent out someone (I've forgotten exactly whom, but it was probably Feinberg) to find some real salt shakers that looked futuristic. Not one was designed or fabricated by the prop makers for Star Trek. However, they did adapt them somewhat for McCoy's instruments. By the way, I think I heard that the salt shakers (used as same in "Man Trap") actually came from the NBC commissary or some such place. Anyone know the details on that reference? If you're looking for something besides trivia to discuss here, I've been saving up some of the things I've been hearing about the upcoming movie. (Only 22 more days!) I'll post it in about a week in a spoiler article. Roger Noe ihnp4!ihlts!rjnoe