bsa%Berkeley@ncoast.UUCP (08/09/84)
From: decvax!ncoast!bsa@Berkeley (Brandon Allbery)
How about John Ford's THE FINAL REFLECTION? It can't really conflict with
the ST universe becaue it revolves about a not-too-clearly-defined area of
Trek: the Klingon Empire. In fact, Vonda McIntyre uses some things from
it in the novelization of ST III ("Could it be that you believe the slander-
ous cant put about, that Kumburanya are in the ascendancy over Rumaiym?").
And it DOES clear up quite a bit about those funny-looking guys that grew
ridges when we weren't looking....
Brandon Allbery: decvax!cwruecmp{!atvax}!bsafw: R0176@CSUOHIO.BITNET
6504 Chestnut Road, Independence, OH 44131 <> (216) 524-1416
"The more they overthink the plumbin', the easier 'tis tae stop up the drain."Woods.pa@XEROX.ARPA (08/10/84)
From: Don Woods <Woods.pa@XEROX.ARPA>
To the moderator: I think you've been slipping lately with regard to
spoiler warnings. Whenever possible, of course, spoiler warnings should
be included by whoever sends the message, especially since I gather some
networks receive SFL directly rather than in Digest form. But those of
us who get the digests appreciate having the spoiler warnings inserted
by you when the submittors forget. Each of the last two digests I've
read has included at least one blatant spoiler for Star Trek III, with
absolutely no warning.
*** SPOILER WARNING ***
I'm about to mention what elements of Star Trek III got spoiled by
the aforementioned Digests. If you managed not to read those
spoilers and don't want to break your streak, skip this part!
The previous Digest (V9 #152, I guess; I no longer have a copy) listed
Star Trek in the "topics" section at the top, but the first Star Trek
message had a subject of "Naval Experimental". Thus, someone who hasn't
seen ST3 would not realise that this was a message about Star Trek and
might well keep reading, and within another couple sentences was
something that referred to "the next Enterprise" or something like that.
In the Digest I'm now reading (#153), the opening message is supposedly
about "Fuzzies and Other Sequels", and in the middle of an otherwise
general discussion about Star Trek being "nothing but a series of
sequels" the writer pops up with "Spock can't die; too many 14-year-olds
would jump off of bridges. So you bring the chap back from the dead."
No spoiler warning.
*** END SPOILER ***
PLEASE FOLKS!! Remember that not all of us see all these popular movies
within the first few weeks of their release, and we might want to have
what few surprises they hold left as surprises for when we do get around
to them. Don't get so caught up in your primary topic that you forget
to flag spoilers when they arise. And please, Mr. Moderator, if your
Digestifying method can accommodate it, please skim the messages with an
eye to inserting spoiler warnings when the authors have forgotten to do
so.
-- Don.Chapman.ES@XEROX.ARPA (08/10/84)
With reference to From: Rich Zellich <ZELLICH@SRI-NIC.ARPA> Subject: SF Cons list updated Closing remarks: Hope to see you all at L.A.Con II As the official typesetter of all this year's Worldcon publications, and in the way of providing some grist for the trivia mill (which fans often seem to revel in), the official typography for this year's Convention is L.A.con II This typography was voted on by the committee two years ago when we won the bid, and is, perversely, but consciously, different from L.A.Con I Cheryl Advance Publications Typesetter Head, GoH Relations L.A.con II (I wear two hats; fortunately for my stamina, one of them goes away before the Con starts.)