leeper@mtgzz.UUCP (m.r.leeper) (02/02/86)
For reasons of my own, I just saw the end of STAR TREK II: THE WRATH OF KHAN. That is the one that has Spocks's tear- filled eulogy by Capt. Kirk. It should have been one of the great sad slobbery moments of science fiction film, comperable in human terms only to the suicide death of the second monster in RODAN. But the content only confirms for me what I have known all along, that Kirk is and always has been (strike that, STAR TREK takes place in the future, make it "Kirk will be and will always be") the consumate jerk. It is a particularly insensitive thing to say about his friend who is only half human and has always been (will always be?) sensitive about his piebald origins. There is the implication that what the speaker is something that it is good to be. Kirk's eulogy goes with other odious phrases like "Mighty white of you!" and "You have behaved like a Christian." Anyone who knows anything about history knows that behaving like a Christian -- or someone of any persuasion -- covers a multitude of possible actions, some of which are now considered to be less than socially wholesome. Torquemada was a Christian and, at least he thought, a defender of the faith. There has been the prejudice through the whole STAR TREK series that being a human was the ideal and being a Vulcan was less than the ideal. Never mind that Spock was always 3/4 of the brains on the ship (Scotty had another 1/3, and the remaining -1/12 was made up of Kirk.) The script writers always sharpened their bigotry on the concept of human superiority to Vulcans. The human solution to problems always was made to sound better in the end, even though it probably would have gotten everyone killed if it wasn't Spock logically choosing the human solution. Working on a hunch as to the source of this prejudice, I checked the names of the people who worked on the scripts. As I suspected, they were overwhelmingly human names. Not a one had name like Sarak or Kalak or Pavak. The pro-human prejudice was an understandable problem, I suppose. No Vulcan wrote a script for STAR TREK. They were all too busy out exploring the stars.
jam@dcl-cs.UUCP (John A. Mariani) (02/04/86)
In article <1623@mtgzz.UUCP> leeper@mtgzz.UUCP writes: >For reasons of my own, I just saw the end of STAR TREK II: >THE WRATH OF KHAN. That is the one that has Spocks's tear- >filled eulogy by Capt. Kirk. >But the content only confirms for >me what I have known all along, that Kirk is and always has >been (strike that, STAR TREK takes place in the future, make >it "Kirk will be and will always be") the consumate jerk. >It is a particularly insensitive thing to say about his >friend who is only half human and has always been (will >always be?) sensitive about his piebald origins. > >Kirk's eulogy goes with other odious phrases like "Mighty >white of you!" and "You have behaved like a Christian." >There has been the prejudice through the whole STAR >TREK series that being a human was the ideal and being a >vulcan was less than the ideal. >The >script writers always sharpened their bigotry on the concept >of human superiority to Vulcans. The human solution to >problems always was made to sound better in the end, even >though it probably would have gotten everyone killed if it >wasn't Spock logically choosing the human solution. Can't say I disagree with that last paragraph but.... >The pro-human >prejudice was an understandable problem, I suppose. I think you've missed the point of Kirk's words (for what they are worth!) I think what he meant was that Spock, although an alien, was actually the most Human (in every good sense of that word -- if there are any left) being he had ever met i.e. he aspired to the greatness that humankind could reach (hey! I'm even beginning to sound like Kirk!) better than any actual human. -- "You see me now a veteran of a thousand psychic wars...." UUCP: ...!seismo!mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!jam DARPA: jam%lancs.comp@ucl-cs | Post: University of Lancaster, JANET: jam@uk.ac.lancs.comp | Department of Computing, Phone: +44 524 65201 ext 4467 | Bailrigg, Lancaster, LA1 4YR, UK.
akhtar@ccvaxa.UUCP (02/04/86)
re: "His was the most Human ... " Well I'm glad there is someone else thinks it was inappropriate. After trying to convince a few people that it was a very inappropriate and tasteless remark to make under the circumstances, and being given grief about concepts of humanity, I gave up. uiucdcs!ccvaxa!akhtar
rjnoe@riccb.UUCP (Roger J. Noe) (02/05/86)
In article <1623@mtgzz.UUCP> m.r.leeper writes of Kirk's eulogy of Spock: > It is a particularly insensitive thing to say about his > friend who is only half human and has always been (will > always be?) sensitive about his piebald origins. There is > the implication that what the speaker is something that it > is good to be. I can't quite parse the last sentence, but I think I understand the meaning. What surprises me most is that Leeper is usually a very good judge of movie character. Not this time. Since the first Star Trek motion picture, Spock has wholeheartedly accepted his human half and is proud of his unique origins. He is in no way "sensitive" to it. What Kirk is saying is that Spock, even though he was only half human, understood much more what it meant to BE human and that Kirk has learned something from Spock about that. > . . . There has been the prejudice through the whole STAR > TREK series that being a human was the ideal and being a > Vulcan was less than the ideal. I don't necessarily agree with that point, but it really doesn't matter. It's just entertainment, created by humans for the enjoyment of humans. I've never heard any non-humans complain about defamatory or even the most slightly misrepresentative treatment in "Star Trek". More seriously, consider the following two statements: > . . . Spock was always 3/4 of the brains on the ship . . . > The script writers always sharpened their bigotry on the concept > of human superiority to Vulcans. The two are contradictory! If Spock is made to appear so smart, it is due to the efforts of the writers. No, Kirk is not saying, "That's mighty white of you, green man!" He's saying that he (and we) could learn a lot about being human from Spock. Spock's actions were not wholly logical; they were also motivated by compassion. One can easily argue that altruism, especially when it means suicide, is not logical. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one?" Demonstrate that logically. I subscribe to the thought but only because I am human. My cat certainly doesn't believe it and cats seem to have adapted quite well to this world. :-) On a scale of -5 to +5, I'd have to rate m.r.'s article a -4: hit the 'n' key if you possibly can. :-) -- "It's only by NOT taking the human race seriously that I retain what fragments of my once considerable mental powers I still possess!" Roger Noe ihnp4!riccb!rjnoe
pmm1920@ritcv.UUCP (02/06/86)
> For reasons of my own, I just saw the end of STAR TREK II: > THE WRATH OF KHAN. That is the one that has Spocks's tear- > filled eulogy by Capt. Kirk. It should have been one of the > great sad slobbery moments of science fiction film, > comperable in human terms only to the suicide death of the > second monster in RODAN. But the content only confirms for > me what I have known all along, that Kirk is and always has > been (strike that, STAR TREK takes place in the future, make > it "Kirk will be and will always be") the consumate jerk. > ... > > There has been the prejudice through the whole STAR > TREK series that being a human was the ideal and being a > Vulcan was less than the ideal. Never mind that Spock was > always 3/4 of the brains on the ship (Scotty had another > 1/3, and the remaining -1/12 was made up of Kirk.) The > script writers always sharpened their bigotry on the concept > of human superiority to Vulcans. The human solution to > problems always was made to sound better in the end, even > though it probably would have gotten everyone killed if it > wasn't Spock logically choosing the human solution. > ... IF this was supposed to be sarcastic or funny or something like that... ignore this reply. Otherwise... WHO ARE YOU TO CRITICIZE STAR TREK ? ? ? If you don't like the way it was written/produced/developed/etc. then DON'T WATCH IT and DON'T BOTHER US WITH YOUR COMPLAINTS ! ! ! THANK YOU ! ! ! Paul M.
moriarty@fluke.UUCP (The Napoleon of Crime) (02/06/86)
I assume this is an early April Fool's joke on the part of Monsieur Leeper;
something akin to Kelvin Thompson movie reviews, though not as funny.
Equating the requium for Spock (I'd just love to hear a voice out of the
photon torpedo/coffin: "But I'm not dead yet!") to a racial slur like
"That's mighty white of you!" is, at least, a warped sense of degree. As to
whether Kirk is making a racial slur by saying he was "the most... human", I
guess it depends on 1) the way he said (is human a compliment) and 2) who
the audience of the film was. 1) is almost certainly a compliment to
humans, and as for 2), I didn't see any Vulcans hanging around the aisles in
my local theatre, popping licorice Juji-fruits and mind-melding with the
cute blond at the concession stand.
Really. Anyone who likes Star Trek and feels the characters are well
developed will realize what Kirk was trying to say. I found it quite
touching, myself, emotional sap that I am.
"I read a column by George Will that SCARFACE
should be rated X because parents were taking their
children to see it. So what? Why should the
motion-picture industry be responsible for our
morality?
Dad says to Mom, `SCARFACE is in town.'
`What's it about?'
`Human scum who kill each other over cocaine deals.'
`Sounds great! Let's take the kids!'"
-Ian Shoales
Moriarty, aka Jeff Meyer
ARPA: fluke!moriarty@uw-beaver.ARPA
UUCP: {uw-beaver, sun, allegra, sb6, lbl-csam}!fluke!moriarty
<*> DISCLAIMER: Do what you want with me, but leave my employers alone! <*>john@moncol.UUCP (John Ruschmeyer) (02/07/86)
In article <2669@colossus.fluke.UUCP> moriarty@fluke.UUCP (The Napoleon of Crime) writes: > ....As to >whether Kirk is making a racial slur by saying he was "the most... human", I >guess it depends on 1) the way he said (is human a compliment) and 2) who >the audience of the film was. 1) is almost certainly a compliment to >humans, and as for 2), I didn't see any Vulcans hanging around the aisles in >my local theatre, popping licorice Juji-fruits and mind-melding with the >cute blond at the concession stand. > >Really. Anyone who likes Star Trek and feels the characters are well >developed will realize what Kirk was trying to say. I found it quite >touching, myself, emotional sap that I am. I have to agree with you on the first point- that Kirk meant it as a compliment. As for the second point... The quality of being human is definately one of the major themes in STII. Recall Saavik's impression of Kirk's arrival on the Enterprise: "He's so... human." And Spock's reply: "Nobody's perfect, Saavik." Also, take a good close look at the eulogy scene. When Kirk utters his "most human" line, Saavik appears to wince. For her, this was obviously not the highest praise for Spock. Perhaps the real question is that of being human vs humanity. To Kirk, Spock embodied a great measure of humanity and it was this that he was praising. To Saavik and to Vulcans in general, being human is something else- it implies illogic, emotionality, etc. No wonder Kirk's sentiment is so controversial. -- Name: John Ruschmeyer US Mail: Monmouth College, W. Long Branch, NJ 07764 Phone: (201) 571-3451 UUCP: ...!vax135!petsd!moncol!john ...!princeton!moncol!john ...!pesnta!moncol!john Give an ape control of its environment and it will fill the world with bananas.
ins_akew@jhunix.UUCP (Montgomery Scott) (02/07/86)
> > For reasons of my own, I just saw the end of STAR TREK II: > > THE WRATH OF KHAN. That is the one that has Spocks's tear- > > filled eulogy by Capt. Kirk. It should have been one of the > > great sad slobbery moments of science fiction film, > > comperable in human terms only to the suicide death of the > > second monster in RODAN. But the content only confirms for > > me what I have known all along, that Kirk is and always has > > been (strike that, STAR TREK takes place in the future, make > > it "Kirk will be and will always be") the consumate jerk. > > ... > > There has been the prejudice through the whole STAR > > TREK series that being a human was the ideal and being a > > Vulcan was less than the ideal. Never mind that Spock was > > always 3/4 of the brains on the ship (Scotty had another > > 1/3, and the remaining -1/12 was made up of Kirk.) The > > script writers always sharpened their bigotry on the concept > > of human superiority to Vulcans. The human solution to > > problems always was made to sound better in the end, even > > though it probably would have gotten everyone killed if it > > wasn't Spock logically choosing the human solution. > > ... > IF this was supposed to be sarcastic or funny or something like that... > ignore this reply. Otherwise... > WHO ARE YOU TO CRITICIZE STAR TREK ? ? ? > If you don't like the way it was written/produced/developed/etc. then > DON'T WATCH IT and DON'T BOTHER US WITH YOUR COMPLAINTS ! ! ! > THANK YOU ! ! ! > Paul M. I agree totally with you, Paul... -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ...all opposed say nay...(a couple of nays)...OK, who let the horses 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
ugthomas@sunybcs.UUCP (Timothy Thomas) (02/09/86)
>It is a particularly insensitive thing to say about his >friend who is only half human and has always been (will >always be?) sensitive about his piebald origins. There is >the implication that what the speaker is something that it >is good to be. I dont know if I agree with that. I was always under the impression that Spock was indeed proud of his human half, but his vulcan half never wanted to admit it. Saying "of all the souls I have encountered, his was the most human" WOULD have made Spock feel good (although he would have said "I see no logical reason to stand here and be insulted"). -- ____________ ____/--\____ \______ ___) ( _ ____) "Damn it Jim!, __| |____/ / `--' I'm a programmer not a Doctor!" ) `|=(- \------------' Timothy D. Thomas SUNY/Buffalo Computer Science UUCP: [decvax,dual,rocksanne,watmath,rocksvax]!sunybcs!ugthomas CSnet: ugthomas@buffalo, ARPAnet: ugthomas%buffalo@CSNET-RELAY
flynn@kcl-cs.UUCP (ZNAC429) (02/10/86)
In article <1623@mtgzz.UUCP> , "Paul M." writes: >IF this was supposed to be sarcastic or funny or something like that... > ignore this reply. Otherwise... > >WHO ARE YOU TO CRITICIZE STAR TREK ? ? ? > >If you don't like the way it was written/produced/developed/etc. then >DON'T WATCH IT and DON'T BOTHER US WITH YOUR COMPLAINTS ! ! ! > >THANK YOU ! ! ! > > Paul M. AND WHO ARE YOU TO DISMISS THE OPINIONS OF OTHERS SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY HOLD OPINIONS DIFFERENT TO YOUR OWN?? There is no "pre-requisite" to criticise "Star Trek"; it's just a tv program like any other. That some people find it necessary to elevate it to the status whereby criticism , implied or otherwise, is next to sacrilege is very sad. That is their own PROBLEM however, and has no place in "sf-lovers" where people are (or should be) able to express an opinion without having it shouted-down because others disagree. Comments anyone..? A.Flynn
mrgofor@mmm.UUCP (MKR) (02/10/86)
In article <2669@colossus.fluke.UUCP> moriarty@fluke.UUCP (The Napoleon of Crime) writes: >I assume this is an early April Fool's joke on the part of Monsieur Leeper; >something akin to Kelvin Thompson movie reviews, though not as funny. >Equating the requium for Spock (I'd just love to hear a voice out of the >photon torpedo/coffin: "But I'm not dead yet!") to a racial slur like >"That's mighty white of you!" is, at least, a warped sense of degree. As to >whether Kirk is making a racial slur by saying he was "the most... human", I >guess it depends on 1) the way he said (is human a compliment) and 2) who >the audience of the film was. 1) is almost certainly a compliment to >humans, and as for 2), I didn't see any Vulcans hanging around the aisles in >my local theatre, popping licorice Juji-fruits and mind-melding with the >cute blond at the concession stand. > > Moriarty, aka Jeff Meyer >ARPA: fluke!moriarty@uw-beaver.ARPA >UUCP: {uw-beaver, sun, allegra, sb6, lbl-csam}!fluke!moriarty ><*> DISCLAIMER: Do what you want with me, but leave my employers alone! <*> I'm afraid I have to agree with Mr. Leeper. I have always felt that this was one of the weakest parts of Star Trek - that human wild-hairs always work better than logic and reasoning. Bullshit... the only reason they do in ST is because it's MAKE-BELIEVE. In real life I would imagine that Vulcans would be Star Fleet's wet-dream captain of a star ship. As far as the quote goes, I thought it was the ultimate insult to Spock, considering how he was always trying to suppress his human side. I thought the "mighty white of you" analogy was perfect. You know, there are people who consider that to be quite a complement, too. Is it okay to say it if there are no non-whites around? That's what you imply by saying that there were no Vulcans in your theater. All the Vulcans in my theater left in a huff. In a related vein - I busted out laughing at the end of ST:TMP when Kirk went into one of his irrational tirades - saying something like: "There are times when we need to take that leap beyond logic and rationality blah blah blah." Star Trek is not as bad as Star Wars (Ewoks overpowering Imperial forces with rocks and sticks? gimme a break) or any of Spielberg's BS (there's an alien in that house. he's been there for a week. let's put a baggie over the house), but it is infused with an upsetting techno-phobia. --MKR
gcc@ssc-vax.UUCP (Greg C Croasdill) (02/10/86)
First a little article came out, making the point that the writers might think a little bit more or something. > > > For reasons of my own, I just saw the end of STAR TREK II: > > > THE WRATH OF KHAN. That is the one that has Spocks's tear- (more reasonable stuff) > > > problems always was made to sound better in the end, even > > > though it probably would have gotten everyone killed if it > > > wasn't Spock logically choosing the human solution. > > > ... Then 2 bozos (who think that Star Trek was shot on location) wrote back, because, their godhead had been besmurched (sp?) > > IF this was supposed to be sarcastic or funny or something like that... > > ignore this reply. Otherwise... > > WHO ARE YOU TO CRITICIZE STAR TREK ? ? ? > > If you don't like the way it was written/produced/developed/etc. then > > DON'T WATCH IT and DON'T BOTHER US WITH YOUR COMPLAINTS ! ! ! > > THANK YOU ! ! ! > > Paul M. > > I agree totally with you, Paul... > > -- *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MaSSAGE *** Watch out Jim these men are Klingon spies. Greg C. 'In criticism, we find growth' (_the book of common sense_)
leeper@mtgzz.UUCP (m.r.leeper) (02/11/86)
I resonded to this discussion in a single blanket comment, but since Moriarty and I have been friendly opponents before, I wanted to answer him in particular. >I assume this is an early April Fool's joke on the part of >Monsieur Leeper; something akin to Kelvin Thompson movie >reviews, though not as funny. It was a serious statement wrapped in some whimsey. >Equating the requium for >Spock (I'd just love to hear a voice out of the photon >torpedo/coffin: "But I'm not dead yet!") to a racial slur >like "That's mighty white of you!" is, at least, a warped >sense of degree. I am not sure what a warped sense of degree is. >As to whether Kirk is making a racial slur >by saying he was "the most... human", I guess it depends on >1) the way he said (is human a compliment) and The whole point is that it was intended as a compliment. It is as if the human side is better than the Vulcan side. It is as if the eulogizer of someone half white, half Indian said "he had the soul of a white man." When he had the strength to do so, right up to the end, Spock denied being human (he does so in ST3). It seems unfair to say that his soul is human after all. It would have been much better to say he represented the best that was human and the best that was Vulcan. >2) who the audience of the film was. How is that relevant? In the context of the story his audience is the group of people who are present at the funeral service. That includes, obviously, Saavik. If you get involved in the story, the audience should not matter. STAR TREK should be a world unto itself apart from who is sitting in the audience. >1) is almost certainly a >compliment to humans, and as for 2), I didn't see any >Vulcans hanging around the aisles in my local theatre, >popping licorice Juji-fruits and mind-melding with the cute >blond at the concession stand. The fact that it was a comment that Saavik would not have cared for and Spock, if he were alive, would have denied doesn't matter? Just so there are no real Vulcans. I wonder what your viewpoint would have been on ENEMY MINE. You probably wouldn't have taken sides as long as there were no aliens in the audience. Mark Leeper ...ihnp4!mtgzz!leeper
dianeh@ism780c.UUCP (Diane Holt) (02/11/86)
In article <9315@ritcv.UUCP> pmm1920@ritcv.UUCP writes: >WHO ARE YOU TO CRITICIZE STAR TREK ? ? ? To quote Capt. Kirk from "The Conscience of the King": Who do I *have* to be? To paraphrase: Who does he *have* to be? >If you don't like the way it was written/produced/developed/etc. then >DON'T WATCH IT and DON'T BOTHER US WITH YOUR COMPLAINTS ! ! ! If you *are* going to bother to watch it, at least try to learn something from it. > Paul M. Diane Holt INTERACTIVE Systems Corp. (east coast:) ihnp4!ima!ism780!dianeh (west coast:) decvax!vortex!ism780!dianeh "It's like nothing we've ever seen before."
thornton@kcl-cs.UUCP (ZNAC468) (02/11/86)
In article <624@neon.kcl-cs.UUCP> flynn@kcl-cs.UUCP (Anthony Flynn) writes: >In article <1623@mtgzz.UUCP> , "Paul M." writes: >> >>WHO ARE YOU TO CRITICIZE STAR TREK ? ? ? >>If you don't like the way it was written/produced/developed/etc. then >>DON'T WATCH IT and DON'T BOTHER US WITH YOUR COMPLAINTS ! ! ! >> Paul M. > > AND WHO ARE YOU TO DISMISS THE OPINIONS OF OTHERS SIMPLY BECAUSE >THEY HOLD OPINIONS DIFFERENT TO YOUR OWN?? > A.Flynn > I quite agree (with A.Flynn that is!). It is not in the spirit of IDIC to deny others their own opinions simply because they are not shared by a majority. Such judgements are subjective in the extreme. Anyone can criticize anything they wish (Governments allowing!). CRITICISM: Even though Star Trek is so popular etc,it is still loaded with errors as is any SF venture (if you look hard enough!). ITS STILL *GOOD* THOUGH!! Andy T. ("WHO ARE YOU TO SAY WHAT DAMAGE HAS BEEN DONE CAPTAIN!..") ("..WHO DO I HAVE TO BE ?..") T C of T K.
iannucci@sjuvax.UUCP (D. Iannucci) (02/13/86)
In article <9315@ritcv.UUCP> pmm1920@ritcv.UUCP writes: >WHO ARE YOU TO CRITICIZE STAR TREK ? ? ? > >If you don't like the way it was written/produced/developed/etc. then >DON'T WATCH IT and DON'T BOTHER US WITH YOUR COMPLAINTS ! ! ! > >THANK YOU ! ! ! > > Paul M. You oughta be ashamed of yourself. One of the purposes of this net is informed discussion and exchange of ideas and opinions. It just so happens that he has EVERY RIGHT to criticize something if he thinks it deserves criticism. WHO ARE YOU TO TELL HIM HE HAS TO KEEP HIS MOUTH SHUT ABOUT SOME- THING WHICH *YOU* THINK IS BEYOND REPROACH?? If you want a nice cozy little group of people who are never going to disagree with you, then start an exclusive mailing list. -- If I could walk THAT way... Dave Iannucci @ St. Joseph's University, Philadelphia [40 00' N 75 15' W] {{ihnp4 | ucbvax}!allegra | {psuvax1}!burdvax | astrovax}!sjuvax!iannucci
kalpin@utecfc.UUCP (Jordan E Kalpin) (02/13/86)
I would like to take this opportunity to ask a favour of all of you.
I like ST and I know that everyone else does too. I like to discuss ST
as does everyone else. If we all like ST and we all like to discuss ST
doesn't it seem logical that we are all probably the type of people that
get along well...Logical Eh?
So why the hell are we having obnoxious arguments on the NET. We are all
friends.......One big happy family......Who all go where no man has gone
before.......and all that jazz........
RELAX!!!!!!!
And keep your egos (is that how you spell it) to yourself; in the closet!!
".......he heard you, but he simply could not believe his ears!"
(Anyone know the speaker and the episode?)
Oh, by the way, for all of you trivia experts who think you know everything
about ST....here is a real hard question!!
What is written on the side of the Milk Truck in COTEOF?
Ha...Ha...Ha........Got ya!!!!!!
Jordan Kalpin
Mechanical Engineering
University of Toronto
kalpin@utecfc.UUCP
Yup...We sure do have lot's of snow up here!!
sma8465@ritcv.UUCP (Steve Abbott) (02/14/86)
In article <626@neon.kcl-cs.UUCP> thornton@kcl-cs.UUCP (znac468) writes: >In article <624@neon.kcl-cs.UUCP> flynn@kcl-cs.UUCP (Anthony Flynn) writes: >>In article <1623@mtgzz.UUCP> , "Paul M." writes: >>> >>>WHO ARE YOU TO CRITICIZE STAR TREK ? ? ? >>>If you don't like the way it was written/produced/developed/etc. then >>>DON'T WATCH IT and DON'T BOTHER US WITH YOUR COMPLAINTS ! ! ! >>> Paul M. >> >> AND WHO ARE YOU TO DISMISS THE OPINIONS OF OTHERS SIMPLY BECAUSE >>THEY HOLD OPINIONS DIFFERENT TO YOUR OWN?? >> A.Flynn >> > I quite agree (with A.Flynn that is!). It is not in the spirit of > IDIC to deny others their own opinions simply because they are not shared >by a majority. Such judgements are subjective in the extreme. > Anyone can criticize anything they wish (Governments allowing!). I just have one small question. Why is that all people seem to do on this (and other newsgroups) is to point out faults and criticize things (ie. programs, people, movies, the weather, ad nauseaum). I realize that this is something people like to do, but must it be done to this extent? I for one am tired of hearing how 'unrealistic' Star Trek is. As all of you continue to point out, it is ONLY a television show. You can't expect to much from a 1960's show on a limited budget. So, please stop pointing out how the t-shirts showed up under the actors shirts, or how the orbit around the planet look wrong, or how some number is obviously incorrect. Try to think about the ideals the show represented and continues to represent. Let's try to keep the complaining down just a bit. It would be to much to expect no complaining. After all, what am I doing with this article? Steve Abbott P.S. Same to you.