An offer for Peter David....
Peter J. Orlando
I have heard the unfortunate news that Gene Roddenberry died today.
It is a shame since many have enjoyed the "world of Star Trek" he created.
I am curious what will happen to Star Trek: The Next Generation.
Maybe Peter David should takeover and help guide it with his literary style
and genius? Hmmm.... Just a thought.
Later,
Peter
P.S. Hey Gene, Live Long and Prosper in your new frontier.....
Gym Z. Quirk
>In article <1991Oct25.0...@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> orl...@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Peter J. Orlando) writes:
>>
>> I have heard the unfortunate news that Gene Roddenberry died today.
>>It is a shame since many have enjoyed the "world of Star Trek" he created.
>
Not here.
>Sorry, but with GR gone, I think that the show can't do anything but get better
>and better. Maybe some newer, fresher ideas will happen, without the auto-
>veto he and his assistant continually made.
I agree completely.
>Sure, he created the greatest broadcast SF empire in history, but now it's
>time for new blood.
Yes...however, I fear the there may still be enough "old blood" to
keep things stuffy for some time...:-/
>I can't say I'll particularly miss him. (Don't get me wrong. I love ST).
His time has come and gone. Let's look to the future and not dwell on
the past.
>Rev. Jim Cowling (First United Church of Kallisti (Victoria))
>Creative Writing Department, University of Victoria (opinions disassociated)
>Call me Ishmael...no, on second thought, Jim's easier to remember.
>"Women. Can't live with 'em, can't stuff 'em in a sack."
--
Capt. Gym Z. Quirk (Known to some as Taki Kogoma) tko...@triton.unm.edu
Nervous observer of the "Grand Startrek reorg" of Oct '91
R.I.P Gene Roddenberry. I may not have agreed with everything you
said, but you will be missed...
Stephen Dennison
>In article <1991Oct25.0...@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> orl...@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Peter J. Orlando) writes:
>>
>>It is a shame since many have enjoyed the "world of Star Trek" he created.
>
No, but time to make a plea.
>
>Sorry, but with GR gone, I think that the show can't do anything but get better
>and better. Maybe some newer, fresher ideas will happen, without the auto-
>veto he and his assistant continually made.
>
>Sure, he created the greatest broadcast SF empire in history, but now it's
>time for new blood.
>
>I can't say I'll particularly miss him. (Don't get me wrong. I love ST).
Fine, Rev., but can't you keep your opinion to yourself for one goddamn day ?
There will be time to express opinions on Gene's passing and its effect on
Trek's future. Today is not that time. Have a little respect for what he
did accomplish and grant him a day of silence, at least a day without
criticism.
And, if we can, let's can the .sigs for a day, at least the joke ones. I'm
not feeling too funny today.
HEACOCK, SARAH ELIZABETH
~and better. Maybe some newer, fresher ideas will happen, without the auto-
~veto he and his assistant continually made.
And perhaps we'll discover that Mr. Roddenberry hasn't been auto-vetoing -- that
it was someone further down. Time will tell. We don't have much choice now,
but to wait :(
Sarah seh...@summa.tamu.edu
sig dedicated to the memory of Gene Roddenberry "The Great Bird of the Galaxy"
Jim Cowling
>It is a shame since many have enjoyed the "world of Star Trek" he created.
Time to flame me.
Sorry, but with GR gone, I think that the show can't do anything but get better
and better. Maybe some newer, fresher ideas will happen, without the auto-
veto he and his assistant continually made.
Sure, he created the greatest broadcast SF empire in history, but now it's
time for new blood.
I can't say I'll particularly miss him. (Don't get me wrong. I love ST).
----------
Rev. Jim Cowling (First United Church of Kallisti (Victoria))
Creative Writing Department, University of Victoria (opinions disassociated)
Call me Ishmael...no, on second thought, Jim's easier to remember.
"Women. Can't live with 'em, can't stuff 'em in a sack."
----------
Capt. Frank A. Lauro
>In article <1991Oct25.0...@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> orl...@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Peter J. Orlando) writes:
>>
>> I have heard the unfortunate news that Gene Roddenberry died today.
>>It is a shame since many have enjoyed the "world of Star Trek" he created.
>Time to flame me.
>Sorry, but with GR gone, I think that the show can't do anything but get better
>and better. Maybe some newer, fresher ideas will happen, without the auto-
>veto he and his assistant continually made.
>Sure, he created the greatest broadcast SF empire in history, but now it's
>time for new blood.
>I can't say I'll particularly miss him. (Don't get me wrong. I love ST).
Folks, I've been reading several of these "now that GR's gone" posts in the
last 24 hours, and they're starting to annoy me. I, like many Trek fans,
have always been uncomfortable with the "auto-veto" you describe. I also
agree that the possibility of "new blood" in the series/movies could prove
enlightening. However, let'ws all remember that a person *died* yesterday.
All this focus on the future of what, in the long run, is a fictional world
is disturbing to me in its implied insensitivity. Saying "I can't say I'll
particularly miss him" proves my point.
The man created a wonderful escape route for those of us who require one.
His eventual attitude toward his creation may have been somewhat despotic,
but that's certainly no reason to dismiss his death as trivial--or, even
worse, some sort of blessing that will make the show get "better and better."
The man is dead, gang, and he won't be coming back as the son of a Romulan
Fleet Commander next season. Let's remember what's important here. His
work suggests to me that he would agree.
===========================================================================
Captain Frank A. Lauro fal2...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
Commanding Officer University of Illinois
USS ALEXA, NCC 1764-D at Champaign-Urbana
================QUOTE OF THE [INSERT TEMPORAL DESIGNATION]=================
"You go anywhere near my daughter and they won't be able to identify you
with dental records."
---Jedidiah Tucker Ward (Gene Hackman), CLASS ACTION, 1991
Conty
Just one request...
Please do not crosspost to rec.arts.comics. I'm not a fan of Star Trek, and
although I realize the impact that the late Mr. Roddenberry's creation had
on popular culture, I don't want to wade through yet another bazillion of
articles I have no interest in.
I'm sure any Star Trek fans that read rec.arts.comics can go over to
rec.arts.startrek and read whatever is posted there.
--
E n r i q u e C o n t y
jes...@ihlpl.att.com
"So be it"
Kyle Jones
> Folks, I've been reading several of these "now that GR's gone" posts in the
> last 24 hours, and they're starting to annoy me. I, like many Trek fans,
> have always been uncomfortable with the "auto-veto" you describe. I also
> agree that the possibility of "new blood" in the series/movies could prove
> enlightening. However, let'ws all remember that a person *died* yesterday.
> All this focus on the future of what, in the long run, is a fictional world
> is disturbing to me in its implied insensitivity. Saying "I can't say I'll
> particularly miss him" proves my point.
Indeed. I expect discussion about the reprecussions of GR's
death on Trekdom to generate lively discussion in r.a.s, but the
man just died _yesterday_... can't we hold off on the muckraking
and the dividing of the spoils at least until he's buried or whatever?
WildCard
>Maybe Peter David should takeover and help guide it with his literary style
>and genius? Hmmm.... Just a thought.
>
Yes!!!!! I second the nomination! I think Peter would do an *excellent*
job as the "guiding light" for TNG. Just look at VENDETTA and Q-IN-LAW to
see just how well he can handle the characters.
Now maybe we'll get some of those "not verbose enough" scripts produced!
--
_ __ _ __ Remember: The WildCard always stacks
' ) / // / / ) / the deck in his favor. Anyone care
/ / / o // __/ / __. __ __/ for a game of strip poker? My deal.
(_(_/ <_</_(_/ (__/ (_/|_/ (_(_/_ (wga...@cs.ulowell.edu)
Mitchell Maltenfort
>>
>> I have heard the unfortunate news that Gene Roddenberry died today.
>>It is a shame since many have enjoyed the "world of Star Trek" he created.
>
>Time to flame me.
This'll be my very first. More of a singing than a flame, but this
post was out of line.
>
>Sorry, but with GR gone, I think that the show can't do anything but get better
>and better. Maybe some newer, fresher ideas will happen, without the auto-
>veto he and his assistant continually made.
>
First: there's more than a little debate ove whether the auto-veto was
Gene Roddenberry or Richard Arnold. Second: the show was getting better and
better WITH Gene Roddenberry - maybe his staff can keep it going, but what
happens when it's time to make new production decisions?
>Sure, he created the greatest broadcast SF empire in history, but now it's
>time for new blood.
>
Are you volunteering yours? I'm assuming you're not using it, as your
heart doesn't seem to be beating. The man only died last night, and what
you're basically saying here is "What took him so long?"
>I can't say I'll particularly miss him. (Don't get me wrong. I love ST).
>
>
>----------
>Rev. Jim Cowling (First United Church of Kallisti (Victoria))
>Creative Writing Department, University of Victoria (opinions disassociated)
>Call me Ishmael...no, on second thought, Jim's easier to remember.
>"Women. Can't live with 'em, can't stuff 'em in a sack."
>----------
The prosecution rests.
Jim Cowling
>enlightening. However, let'ws all remember that a person *died* yesterday.
>All this focus on the future of what, in the long run, is a fictional world
>is disturbing to me in its implied insensitivity. Saying "I can't say I'll
>particularly miss him" proves my point.
>
Never met the guy. Never knew him personally. Hence, I honestly don't give
a shit whether he lives or dies, just like more than five billion other
people on this planet who I'm sure have made lasting contributions to the
lives of others.
Jim Cowling
>Fine, Rev., but can't you keep your opinion to yourself for one goddamn day ?
No. "It is an empty shell, please treat it as such." Dead is dead. The
dead are unworthy of continued adoration.
>
>And, if we can, let's can the .sigs for a day, at least the joke ones. I'm
>not feeling too funny today.
So stop reading the net. I'm not willing to personally change because you're
emotionally broke up about some guy dying who you never knew personally.
Janis Maria Cortese
>In article <1991Oct25.0...@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> orl...@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Peter J. Orlando) writes:
>>
>> I am curious what will happen to Star Trek: The Next Generation.
>>Maybe Peter David should takeover and help guide it with his literary style
>>and genius? Hmmm.... Just a thought.
>>
>
>Yes!!!!! I second the nomination! I think Peter would do an *excellent*
>job as the "guiding light" for TNG. Just look at VENDETTA and Q-IN-LAW to
>see just how well he can handle the characters.
>
>Now maybe we'll get some of those "not verbose enough" scripts produced!
>
AAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGHHHH! Peter David? NOT!!! Try Diane Duane,
people!
Regards,
Janis C.
Janis Maria Cortese
>In article <1991Oct25.1...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> fal2...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Capt. Frank A. Lauro) writes:
>>enlightening. However, let'ws all remember that a person *died* yesterday.
>>All this focus on the future of what, in the long run, is a fictional world
>>is disturbing to me in its implied insensitivity. Saying "I can't say I'll
>>particularly miss him" proves my point.
>>
>
>Never met the guy. Never knew him personally. Hence, I honestly don't give
>a shit whether he lives or dies, just like more than five billion other
>people on this planet who I'm sure have made lasting contributions to the
>lives of others.
>
And of course, you're well aware that this goes for you, too, when you
kick off. Or not. But just wait until the first signs of mortality set
in, bud, and see if you can still be so insensitive.
>----------
>Rev. Jim Cowling (First United Church of Kallisti (Victoria))
>Creative Writing Department, University of Victoria (opinions disassociated)
>Call me Ishmael...no, on second thought, Jim's easier to remember.
>"Women. Can't live with 'em, can't stuff 'em in a sack."
"Jim Cowling. Can't live with him, can't kill him."
Not without some prison time, anyway.
Few regards, if any,
Janis C.
Mitchell Maltenfort
>In article <25OCT199...@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov> afd...@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (Stephen Dennison) writes:
>>Fine, Rev., but can't you keep your opinion to yourself for one goddamn day ?
>
>No. "It is an empty shell, please treat it as such." Dead is dead. The
>dead are unworthy of continued adoration.
But both dead and living deserve some respect. Roddenberry may no
longer be in a position to care, but a lot of people are very unhappy about
his death. If you want people to consider your ideas seriously, make a point
of taking their feelings seriously.
>>And, if we can, let's can the .sigs for a day, at least the joke ones. I'm
>>not feeling too funny today.
>
>So stop reading the net. I'm not willing to personally change because you're
>emotionally broke up about some guy dying who you never knew personally.
Which is a shame, because you need a change more than he does.
>
>
>----------
>Rev. Jim Cowling (First United Church of Kallisti (Victoria))
>Creative Writing Department, University of Victoria (opinions disassociated)
>Call me Ishmael...no, on second thought, Jim's easier to remember.
>"Women. Can't live with 'em, can't stuff 'em in a sack."
>----------
I assume you're on staff for computer maintenance or some such. No one
with so little affinity for people is ever going to make it as a writer.
Capt. Frank A. Lauro
>In article <25OCT199...@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov> afd...@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (Stephen Dennison) writes:
>>Fine, Rev., but can't you keep your opinion to yourself for one goddamn day ?
>No. "It is an empty shell, please treat it as such." Dead is dead. The
>dead are unworthy of continued adoration.
>>
>>And, if we can, let's can the .sigs for a day, at least the joke ones. I'm
>>not feeling too funny today.
>So stop reading the net. I'm not willing to personally change because you're
>emotionally broke up about some guy dying who you never knew personally.
Could you be, like, a little more of an insensitive asshole? "Reverend,"
indeed. Glad I'm an agnostic.
Jim Cowling
>>
> Are you volunteering yours? I'm assuming you're not using it, as your
>heart doesn't seem to be beating. The man only died last night, and what
>you're basically saying here is "What took him so long?"
>
So I'm a heartless bastard. He approved the line "it is an empty shell, please
treat it as such", so I doubt he'd mind terribly if he were alive (but he's
dead dead dead).
Jim Cowling
>
>And of course, you're well aware that this goes for you, too, when you
>kick off. Or not. But just wait until the first signs of mortality set
>in, bud, and see if you can still be so insensitive.
>
>"Jim Cowling. Can't live with him, can't kill him."
>
>Not without some prison time, anyway.
Ooh, zinger. Glad to see some worthy opinions here.
>Few regards, if any,
Charmed, I'm sure.
----------
Rev. Jim Cowling (First United Church of Kallisti (Victoria))
Creative Writing Department, University of Victoria (opinions disassociated)
Call me Ishmael...no, on second thought, Jim's easier to remember.
"Women. Can't live with 'em, can't stuff 'em in a sack."
----------
Jerry Michael Grimm
>Regards,
>Janis C.
No, no, Janis. You see, much of the Peter David stuff is coming from
rec.arts.comics, where his work with X-factor and the Hulk stands in good
stead, and is very innovative.
Some people on RAC tend to be a bit sycophantic in their unabashed praise
of Peter David. I think he does ok stuff with ST, but Diane Duane or
David Gerold or Melinda Snodgrass do much better.
Actually, in terms of writers of ST fiction, Peter David is one of the
best ('course, this isn't saying too much)
Mike Grimm
Jim Cowling
>indeed. Glad I'm an agnostic.
>===========================================================================
That's the beauty of starting one's own religion; one gets to makes up one's
own rules.
Back to the subject line...I think Mr. David would do an excellent job as the
new Creative Consultant...simply put, he's one of the more creative people
working in ST today (even if he makes some really bad mistakes like Q-In-Law
and Modala). Of course, the matter isn't up to vote, but them's my two cents.
>Captain Frank A. Lauro fal2...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
>Commanding Officer University of Illinois
>USS ALEXA, NCC 1764-D at Champaign-Urbana
It's too early in the morning to harass you about the above irrationality. I
like being vindictive, but today's not a good time.
Michael Rawdon
>In article <1991Oct25.2...@ulowell.ulowell.edu> wga...@cs.ulowell.edu (WildCard) writes:
>>In article <1991Oct25.0...@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> orl...@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Peter J. Orlando) writes:
>>> I am curious what will happen to Star Trek: The Next Generation.
>>>Maybe Peter David should takeover and help guide it with his literary style
>>>and genius? Hmmm.... Just a thought.
>AAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGHHHH! Peter David? NOT!!! Try Diane Duane,
>people!
Naw; all the stuff I've seen by Duane was mediocre at best. (And _The_Romulan_
_Way_ was flat-out bad.)
I have my doubts about Peter David, too, though.
--
Michael Rawdon raw...@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu
University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Department, Madison, WI
"I am a cat, and I keep my own counsel."
- "A Dream Of A Thousand Cats"
johnson scott andrew
>----------
>Rev. Jim Cowling (First United Church of Kallisti (Victoria))
>Creative Writing Department, University of Victoria (opinions disassociated)
>Call me Ishmael...no, on second thought, Jim's easier to remember.
>"Women. Can't live with 'em, can't stuff 'em in a sack."
>----------
Tell me. What the heck is the First United Church of Kallisti? Is it
Christian (in the traditional sense of the word) or some new-age religion?
Judging by Rev. Cowling's attitude towards death, it doesn't sound like any
Christian demonination I have heard of....
May Gene have godspeed on his final voyage.....
/sj/
Jim Cowling
>No, no, Janis. You see, much of the Peter David stuff is coming from
>rec.arts.comics, where his work with X-factor and the Hulk stands in good
>stead, and is very innovative.
>
>Some people on RAC tend to be a bit sycophantic in their unabashed praise
>of Peter David. I think he does ok stuff with ST, but Diane Duane or
>David Gerold or Melinda Snodgrass do much better.
>
Woody Bilyeu-Harper
> In article <1991Oct25.2...@ulowell.ulowell.edu> wga...@cs.ulowell.ed
> >In article <1991Oct25.0...@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> orl...@gn.ecn.purdue.
> >>
> >> I am curious what will happen to Star Trek: The Next Generation.
> >>Maybe Peter David should takeover and help guide it with his literary style
> >>and genius? Hmmm.... Just a thought.
> >>
>
> AAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGHHHH! Peter David? NOT!!! Try Diane Duane,
> people!
>
> Regards,
> Janis C.
Fuckin' vultures, let the man rest. His dynasty will not be carried on by
some hack writers (see P.S.) who cranked out a few production line Trek
novels. Gene anticipated his passing and assembled an excellent team to carry
his torch. Let's hope that he was a good judge of character and selected
people that care for his vision and still have the imagination to keep it
fresh.
P.S. To Peter David: I do not include you in the line "hack writers" and
I am not just saying that because you may see this. You are the only Trek
novel writer who I enjoy and I seek out your work.
I apologize in advance for my profanity, but I could not think of a more
eloquent way to express myself.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Memory Alpha BBS (memalph.UUCP), Phoenix, AZ +1 602 943 0287
Internet: system%memalp...@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
UUCP: ...!ncar!noao!asuvax!memalph!system
-= The Sum of All Knowledge =-
Woody Bilyeu-Harper
> In article <25OCT199...@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov> afd...@lims01.lerc.nasa.
> >Fine, Rev., but can't you keep your opinion to yourself for one goddamn day
>
> No. "It is an empty shell, please treat it as such." Dead is dead. The
> dead are unworthy of continued adoration.
>
> >
> >And, if we can, let's can the .sigs for a day, at least the joke ones. I'm
> >not feeling too funny today.
>
> So stop reading the net. I'm not willing to personally change because you're
> emotionally broke up about some guy dying who you never knew personally.
>
>
I did know him but I appreciate your opinion and support your right to
express it. So take a chill pill and knock the chip off your shoulder.
Woody Bilyeu-Harper
> In article <2908C1...@orion.oac.uci.edu> cor...@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis M
> >
> >And of course, you're well aware that this goes for you, too, when you
> >kick off. Or not. But just wait until the first signs of mortality set
> >in, bud, and see if you can still be so insensitive.
> >
> I have no intention of dying, but that's another story...
>
> >"Jim Cowling. Can't live with him, can't kill him."
> >
> >Not without some prison time, anyway.
>
> Ooh, zinger. Glad to see some worthy opinions here.
>
> >Few regards, if any,
>
> Charmed, I'm sure.
> ----------
> Rev. Jim Cowling (First United Church of Kallisti (Victoria))
> Creative Writing Department, University of Victoria (opinions disassociated)
> Call me Ishmael...no, on second thought, Jim's easier to remember.
> "Women. Can't live with 'em, can't stuff 'em in a sack."
> ----------
I'm bummed I responded to this thread a few messages back because I thought
this Jim Cowling guy was serious but after reading the thread he is just
trying to get attention by being contrary. I goofed and took this sap
seriously. Oh well, live and learn.
A. Yung
>>
>> I have heard the unfortunate news that Gene Roddenberry died today.
>>It is a shame since many have enjoyed the "world of Star Trek" he created.
>
>Time to flame me.
>
>Sorry, but with GR gone, I think that the show can't do anything but get better
>and better. Maybe some newer, fresher ideas will happen, without the auto-
>veto he and his assistant continually made.
Absolutely no flame, but I believe the exact opposite. There has always
been pressure for Star Trek to be more action-oriented, less controversial,
and get off the soap box about haromony in the future. Without a strong man
like Gene, who can prevent Star Trek from becoming Battlestar Galactica.
>
>I can't say I'll particularly miss him. (Don't get me wrong. I love ST).
I miss him.>
>
>----------
>Rev. Jim Cowling (First United Church of Kallisti (Victoria))
>Creative Writing Department, University of Victoria (opinions disassociated)
>Call me Ishmael...no, on second thought, Jim's easier to remember.
>"Women. Can't live with 'em, can't stuff 'em in a sack."
>----------
--
*****************************************************************************
*Amos Yung * *
*e-mail: * "If stupidity can get us into this mess, *
*yu...@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca * then why can't it get us out?" *
Jim Cowling
>
>I'm bummed I responded to this thread a few messages back because I thought
>this Jim Cowling guy was serious but after reading the thread he is just
>trying to get attention by being contrary. I goofed and took this sap
>seriously. Oh well, live and learn.
>
If you don't mind, I was under the impression that UseNet was a forum for
opinions, which by defintion may differ from individual to individual. I
think that the least you could do is sit back and shut up while I attempt to
defend myself from flames.
Now.
Take it to alt.flame. This has nothing to do with comics.
Oh yeah. "Attention by being contrary"? Because I don't think the man was
a genius or demigod, but rather something far less?
Hector K Lee
as to where I should send this thread, please send this thread to the
appropriate group. Legal? Rights? I am not sure
Mr. Lauro definitely has a point, although I don't think he made it very well.
Lack of respect by journalists toward others will eventually cause a backlash
similiar to the one that is happening here on r.a.c. Case in point is the
revealing of the alleged victim's name in the Smith/Kennedy rape trial. What
an abuse of Freedom of Speech! Getting back to the topic, Mr Roddenberry's
death, the point is, there should be some time delay in order to pay proper
respects before squabbling over the inheritance or worth of lifework. I
mourned Jim Henson's
passing before railing at him for not going to the hospital, which IMO, is
still a stupid thing to have not done. I, too, feel that
there is a need for some new blood in the Star Trek creative family, but to say
such things so soon after his death! Were you not brave enough to say such
things while he was alive? Was that the proper time or manner for such
posturing? By airing your (valid) opinion in such a public manner, you are
contributing to the chilling affect on freedom of speech. Refering to the S/K
trial again, no law prohibiting the naming of victims was really in existence
when the abuse by whatever newspaper occured.
Now lawmakers are considering one. By abusing one's rights by ignoring he
responsibilities that go with each right, one risks a chilling affect on those
rights to minimize the responsibility.
Hector Lee hk...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
feel free to e-mail me with questions or responses, as sometimes I ramble.
Capt. Frank A. Lauro
>Take it to alt.flame. This has nothing to do with comics.
We will when you will.
>Oh yeah. "Attention by being contrary"? Because I don't think the man was
>a genius or demigod, but rather something far less?
Why, no, you arrogant, foolish fuck---your opinion of Roddenberry's caliber
as a creator/monitor/despot is not the issue; in fact, on that point I
agree with you. The complaint that folks around here have with you is quite
simply your flippant and callous attitude toward the man's death.
Now, before you do anything else, read the above paragraph again; this way,
you might, *might* drop the "well-it's-my-opinion-and-only-trek-purist-geeks-
like-you-would-be-afraid-to-hear-it" bullshit and realize the reason for the
flames that you have received. It'll make things easier for all of us.
Incidentally, as to your comment that it's easy to be an agnostic because
then it is possible to "invent your own rules," I'm quite curious to know what
the "Church of Kallisti" is, and why the members of said sect would sleep
through their 8:00 Personal Taste 101 class and deign you "Reverend." The
local pool only has a few spots left open, and I can't decide between "society
that worships and misspells the name of the former leader of the Morlocks
from Paul Smith's X-MEN days" or "system of beliefs that vows to be insensi-
tive toward human concerns, while allowing plenty of room to invent its own
rules." Don't leave me hangin', here, Rev: there's ten bucks burning a hole
in my pocket, and the pool ends soon.
>----------
>Rev. Jim Cowling (First United Church of Kallisti (Victoria))
>Creative Writing Department, University of Victoria (opinions disassociated)
Ah, before I forget: given your obvious lack of humanity, I'd be willing to
bet that you couldn't write a shopping list. Just a little creative criticism
from one writer to another.
>Call me Ishmael...no, on second thought, Jim's easier to remember.
Come to think of it, third thought suggests that "asshole" is more fitting.
>"Women. Can't live with 'em, can't stuff 'em in a sack."
Gee, a sexist, too. Just no end to your good qualities, hmm?
ATTENTION REST OF THE NET:
I sincerely apologize to the rest of you for wasting bandwidth with something
that has absolutely *nothing* to do with comics. I also know that I am feed-
ing Mr. Cowling's obvious need for attention, as much as does the kindergarten]
teacher who loses his/her voice scolding the overactive five-year-old.
However, I've learned through experience that one can be shocked out of one's
asinine net.agitating by simply being shown the stupidity of such behavior.
Try not to hold it against me, okay?
Thank you.
===========================================================================
Captain Frank A. Lauro fal2...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
Commanding Officer University of Illinois
USS ALEXA, NCC 1764-D at Champaign-Urbana
Jim Cowling
>>Oh yeah. "Attention by being contrary"? Because I don't think the man was
>>a genius or demigod, but rather something far less?
>
>Why, no, you arrogant, foolish fuck---your opinion of Roddenberry's caliber
>as a creator/monitor/despot is not the issue; in fact, on that point I
>agree with you. The complaint that folks around here have with you is quite
>simply your flippant and callous attitude toward the man's death.
Millions die every year. I don't mourn them (at least, not individually).
>
>Now, before you do anything else, read the above paragraph again; this way,
>you might, *might* drop the "well-it's-my-opinion-and-only-trek-purist-geeks-
>like-you-would-be-afraid-to-hear-it" bullshit and realize the reason for the
>flames that you have received. It'll make things easier for all of us.
>
Yep. I did. Still looks like more "only an idiot is afraid to hear an opinion"
bullshit to me.
>from Paul Smith's X-MEN days" or "system of beliefs that vows to be insensi-
>tive toward human concerns, while allowing plenty of room to invent its own
>rules." Don't leave me hangin', here, Rev: there's ten bucks burning a hole
>in my pocket, and the pool ends soon.
I must've missed something here. Of course, being a rational, mature, person,
I stay away from such touchy subjects as religion when using a communication
medium as volatile as computer networking. Oh, hey -- check out the second
to most recent Scientific American. Has a couple of really good articles
about quality of electronic communication, flaming, stuff like that.
>Ah, before I forget: given your obvious lack of humanity, I'd be willing to
>bet that you couldn't write a shopping list. Just a little creative criticism
>from one writer to another.
That was creative? Hate to disappoint you, but I write (and read in public)
fairly well-received poetry...however, my major is journalism/publishing, and
I fail to see where the respect for a corpse will help me in that venue...
>
>>Call me Ishmael...no, on second thought, Jim's easier to remember.
>
>Come to think of it, third thought suggests that "asshole" is more fitting.
Jesus, you're hostile. I made a point of not sending you my essay on Star Trek
and the Fan Mentality after reading your tagline. Lighten up. Opinions are
opinions, and they're a dime a dozen. Mine, yours, everyone's. Why don't
you take them as opinions, rather than attacks on your rigid belief system?
>
>>"Women. Can't live with 'em, can't stuff 'em in a sack."
>
>Gee, a sexist, too. Just no end to your good qualities, hmm?
Looks like a quote to me. As I open my Bartlett's, on any given page I see
at least one quote (a quotable quote) which could be considered sexist by a
moderate-minded individual. If I quote one of those, am I a sexist? No. If
I create a sexist character in my fiction, am I a sexist? No.
Anyone out there care to identify this quote? It's from television, but that's
fairly self-evident.
>
>ATTENTION REST OF THE NET:
>
>I sincerely apologize to the rest of you for wasting bandwidth with something
>that has absolutely *nothing* to do with comics. I also know that I am feed-
>ing Mr. Cowling's obvious need for attention, as much as does the kindergarten]
>teacher who loses his/her voice scolding the overactive five-year-old.
>However, I've learned through experience that one can be shocked out of one's
>asinine net.agitating by simply being shown the stupidity of such behavior.
>Try not to hold it against me, okay?
Okay, let me get this straight...I hold an opinion which is contrary to the
views of many readers, so I'm looking for attention. If I said something
which was more along your lines of thinking, I wouldn't be, but I'd also be a
liar.
See, I've gotten more positive mail than negative, but more negative mail than
positive. It's interesting -- I learn more and more about electronic communi-
cation every day. There's a status quo, and many users are unwilling to cross
a certain line, but are quite willing to privately support an unpopular view
that they may share, as long as it's not public.
There are, I'm sure, many, say, pro-choice people who support activists
privately in, say, the Deep South, where fear of ostracisation keeps more
people from going public with their views. Does this make those activists
who are very public in their opinions "obviously in need of attention"? No,
they're brave enough to take an unpopular view and make it known to a
fairly hostile public.
And that's all this is. Ridicule me all you want, Frank. I've got tougher
skin than you can penetrate. And that's the biggest strength an activist or
a shit-disturber or an artist, or anyone who makes a living through communi-
cation can have; because after all, good art isn't always popular, and neither
is good advice, wisdom, or personal opinion.
----------
Rev. Jim Cowling (First United Church of Kallisti (Victoria))
Creative Writing Department, University of Victoria (opinions disassociated)
Call me Ishmael...no, on second thought, Jim's easier to remember.
"Women. Can't live with 'em, can't stuff 'em in a sack."
----------
Steven Michael Maser
Withheld" author of that scathing artis/writer (or is it writer/artist)
brouhaha is *not* Rob Liefeld. Hmm. Who could it still be then?
Jim Starlin? George Perez? Erik Larsen? How many artist/writers
*are* there that have worked for the big two?
I'm confused now...
Steve Maser | "Thrill, Thrill, Thrill. Kill, Kill,
- another systems programmer at | Kill. Make The Scene. Bump Off The
ma...@caen.engin.umich.edu | Dean..." - The Sacred Cows
R o d Johnson
[Re Gene Roddenberry]
>>Never met the guy. Never knew him personally. Hence, I honestly don't give
>>a shit whether he lives or dies, just like more than five billion other
>>people on this planet who I'm sure have made lasting contributions to the
>>lives of others.
>And of course, you're well aware that this goes for you, too, when you
>kick off.
I imagine Jim's pretty clued in on this point, Janis. Most adults
are. Should I read you the obituaries in my local paper today so you
can emote about them for a while too? No? Is Roddenberry more
deserving in any absolute sense? Not in my opinion. I can certainly
think of a few jillion people whose loss I would mourn more.
>Or not. But just wait until the first signs of mortality set
>in, bud, and see if you can still be so insensitive.
I can't speak for Jim here, of course, but somehow I doubt if Usenet's
reaction to his death is a matter of consuming importance to him.
Personally, I know who would mourn me--my friends, my family--and
that's all I care about. I certainly wouldn't care if twenty zillion
denizens of a computer network would.
To say "I don't care about Gene Roddenberry" about this is *not* to be
an insensitive human being. People die every day; we all choose who
we mourn. Some of us simply don't find Roddenberry's death so
terribly, terribly important that all lightheartedness on Usenet must
cease--only someone with a really irritating lack of perspective on
life would even ask that (and so of course someone did). For you to
get all up on your high horse about a little irascibility on the
subject bespeaks a need to get a little perspective yourself, I think.
Followups to rec.arts.startrek, please.
--
Rod Johnson * rjoh...@vela.acs.oakland.edu * (313) 764 3130
"For there is no Height in which there are not flowers"
--Christopher Smart
Matt Telles
>>enlightening. However, let'ws all remember that a person *died* yesterday.
>>All this focus on the future of what, in the long run, is a fictional world
>>is disturbing to me in its implied insensitivity. Saying "I can't say I'll
>>particularly miss him" proves my point.
>>
>
>Never met the guy. Never knew him personally. Hence, I honestly don't give
>a shit whether he lives or dies, just like more than five billion other
>people on this planet who I'm sure have made lasting contributions to the
>lives of others.
>
Jim,
As I have made *quite* clear in the last few posts, you are entitled to your
opinion. However, as a society we need to co-exist with each other. Failure to
do this results in anarchy. In our society it is considered tactful not to
speak ill of the recent dead. I don't really care *why* you didn't like Mr.
Roddenberry, I just would rather not read it here. Upsets the stomach too early
in the morning.
Matt
--
==============================================================================
Matt Telles mat...@auto-trol.COM
{...}ncar!ico!auto-trol!mattel
Auto-trol Technology 12500 N Washington Denver, CO 80241-2404 (303)252-2874
Michael Rawdon
>Hmm. The latest issue of the Comics Buyers Guide says that the "Name
>Withheld" author of that scathing artis/writer (or is it writer/artist)
>brouhaha is *not* Rob Liefeld. Hmm. Who could it still be then?
>Jim Starlin? George Perez? Erik Larsen? How many artist/writers
>*are* there that have worked for the big two?
I doubt it's either Starlin or Perez, since both are doing more writing
than drawing these days. Could be Larsen; dunno. Giffen, maybe? Except
he's doing more writing than drawing these days, too.
Shrug.
R o d Johnson
[He's upset because people aren't being properly solemn and respectful
in the wake of Gene Roddenberry's death]
>There will be time to express opinions on Gene's passing and its effect on
>Trek's future. Today is not that time. Have a little respect for what he
>did accomplish and grant him a day of silence, at least a day without
>criticism.
>
>And, if we can, let's can the .sigs for a day, at least the joke ones. I'm
>not feeling too funny today.
But not everyone cares about Gene Roddenberry or Star Trek. I know I
don't. If you're feeling too fragile to be exposed to the net's usual
mix of attitudes, it's probably best if you just didn't read it today.
For me, Roddenberry's death means no more (or less) to me than that of
anyone else. I'm sure I'll get heartily sick of the inevitable
encomia (and flame wars) to come, though. My personal feeling about
Star Trek is that it sucks and always has, and has been a bad thing
for SF on the whole, and inasmuch as Roddenberry was responsible for
that, he wasn't exactly a favorite of mine. (No, this doesn't mean
I'm "glad" he's dead, but it does mean I'm not particularly moved to
be sad.) I realize that's a minority opinion, but still. . .you
Trekkies have your own newsgroup where you can mourn Roddenberry to
your heart's content; don't presume to dictate the mood of the rest of
the net, much of which presumably couldn't care less.
Peter_...@cup.portal.com
Number One--as well intentioned as the suggestion was--no one's going to hand
anything regarding "Star Trek" over to me. Nor would I want it.
Number Two--the general thrust and demeanor presented in this discussion
has got to be the most immmature, loutish string of invective, nastiness and
all-out mean-spiritedness--in the face of the death of a guy who was a major
influence on my life, if no one else--since my innocuous post from two years
ago about the San Francisco earthquake touched off a firestorm of debate
over my ostensible contempt for atheists.
I rarely give an opinion on the direction of a thread, but this one started
off with my name on it and therefore I feel some degree of association.
But I cannot ignore this--this is easily one of the most noxious discussions
I've ever seen.
I am disgustipated.
PAD
se...@spcc.uucp
> In article <1991Oct25....@sol.UVic.CA> jcow...@butterfly.UVic.CA (Jim Cowling) writes:
>>In article <1991Oct25.0...@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> orl...@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Peter J. Orlando) writes:
>>>
>>> I have heard the unfortunate news that Gene Roddenberry died today.
>>>It is a shame since many have enjoyed the "world of Star Trek" he created.
>>
>>Time to flame me.
>>
>>Sorry, but with GR gone, I think that the show can't do anything but get better
>>and better. Maybe some newer, fresher ideas will happen, without the auto-
>>veto he and his assistant continually made.
>
> Absolutely no flame, but I believe the exact opposite. There has always
> been pressure for Star Trek to be more action-oriented, less controversial,
> and get off the soap box about haromony in the future. Without a strong man
> like Gene, who can prevent Star Trek from becoming Battlestar Galactica.
Hey! I liked Battlestar Galactica!! (And Star Trek II rules...)
no...@umbc1.umbc.edu
"I used to be disgusted, now I try to be amused" --Elvis Costello
Stephen Dennison
>Okay, let me get this straight...I hold an opinion which is contrary to the
>views of many readers, so I'm looking for attention.
Jim, you seem to have missed our point. I took it to e-mail and got no
response, so I'm trying a rational approach here. Your opinion is *fine*
whether I agree with it or not. Common decency suggests that you take the
feelings of the majority of this group into consideration and perhaps wait
a day or two to post it. We may disagree with the sanctity of the memory of
Gene Roddenberry, but do we agree on the fine points of a little
consideration for the living ? Would you walk up to the mother of a
child recently killed in an auto accident and point out to her that her
child was driving over the speed limit, even if it was true ? It's simply a
matter of timing, Jim. Given the fact that your statements *could* have
been made a few days later without diminishing the content, and given the
fact that you are an intelligent being *apparently* capable of predicting
the anger and hurt they might generate so close on the heels of Gene's
death, is it any wonder that we all *assume* malicious intent on your part ?
Go ahead. Convince me otherwise if it was not. Let this drop and just
deflect the flames. Your lack of consideration for the majority of r.a.s
really earned them for you. Anything to stop this, but *please* don't
continue to insult me and many others that read this newsgroup with that
innocent first amendment rhetoric. It doesn't wash.
>See, I've gotten more positive mail than negative, but more negative mail than
>positive.
Sorry, I *had* to leave this one in. I just don't get it, unless you meant
to contrast public posts with private e-mail.
>And that's all this is. Ridicule me all you want, Frank. I've got tougher
>skin than you can penetrate.
I think the time for ridicule has ended. Consider my statements, Jim, and e
-mail me with your response please. Remember, I e-mailed you first.
>And that's the biggest strength an activist or a shit-disturber
Perhaps...
>or an artist,
It may be a necessary *defense* for an artist, Jim, but IMHO, an artist's
*biggest* strength, and most *necessary* attribute is compassion. The
ability to see into others and create things that improve the human
condition, and all else is spiteful malice trying to exist under the guise
of art. Remember, this is *my* opinion, cetainly not fact.
>or anyone who makes a living through communication can have;
I make *my* living through communication, Jim, and I *certainly* can be
wounded by the words of those I communicate with. Why ? Because that is the
*human* version of checks and balances. You would rather not have your
opinions watered-down by the effects they have on those around you ? I
personally find that reprehensible and morally bankrupt, but hey, opinions,
right ? For myself, I couldn't deal with developing and implementing my
opinions in a vacuum.
The day I make communication a one-way affair by developing that
thick-skin you refer to is the day I transcend communication and go
straight to monologue, and the day I move on to another line of work.
>because after all, good art isn't always popular,
No, but it's always responsible to the audience it is intended for. Good
art *can* make you angry, but not *all* that makes you angry is good art.
Stephen
Greg Martin
>afd...@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (Stephen Dennison) sez:
>
>[He's upset because people aren't being properly solemn and respectful
>in the wake of Gene Roddenberry's death]
>
>don't. If you're feeling too fragile to be exposed to the net's usual
> Rod Johnson * rjoh...@vela.acs.oakland.edu * (313) 764 3130
> "For there is no Height in which there are not flowers"
> --Christopher Smart
If you don't care about Star Trek or Gene Roddenberry, then why are you
posting in r.a.s?
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Greg Martin gma...@cs.umr.edu The opinions expressed above are mine *
* "I sing the hypotenuse, sweeping and only mine. *
* square of the other sides" - T'Vau, How Much For Just the Planet *
A Rae
>But I cannot ignore this--this is easily one of the most noxious discussions
>I've ever seen.
>I am disgustipated.
>PAD
Seconded.
Your constitution gives you the right to free speech. Fine, exercise
that all you want. If you say something that you know will be offensive
to someone somewhere, you can expect to get flamed for it. If you
respond to these flames, you will probably get flamed more. Inverse
square law, or something...
After a while of this, unless you're masochistic, the time comes to drop
the thread and go off and be offensive to someone else.
Get the point folks? Otherwise, you will get the prize for being more
sassenach than the English.
--
Angus G Rae ("Cathy" VoiceMail) | JANET: a...@uk.ac.ed.castle
c/o Archie Howitt, Room 1508, | ARPA: a...@castle.ed.ac.uk
JCMB, King's Buildings, | Nothing is ever as it seems,
Edinburgh | life can still shatter any dreams
David G Beals
>afd...@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (Stephen Dennison) sez:
>
>[He's upset because people aren't being properly solemn and respectful
>in the wake of Gene Roddenberry's death]
Lots of us are.
[majority of Mr. Johnson's exceptionally cruel post deleted for brevity]
>encomia (and flame wars) to come, though. My personal feeling about
>Star Trek is that it sucks and always has, and has been a bad thing
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^!!!!!^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^!!!!!!!!!
>for SF on the whole, and inasmuch as Roddenberry was responsible for
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>that, he wasn't exactly a favorite of mine. (No, this doesn't mean
Mr. Johnson, few would have the audacity to say what you just did. People
are entitled to have their own opinions about the show, but I doubt anyone
here would be STUPID enough to say that it was BAD for S.F. on the whole!
Mr. Johnson, you are an uncultured Philistine, and after that post you can
expect to be treated as one.
"Hailing frequencies closed."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 76256...@Compuserve.Com
David "Bealzebub" Beals * S051...@tethys.ucc.umass.edu
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ bbs.be...@doomsday.spies.com
"Don't assume I'm straight, and I won't assume you're gay..."
Mang Shing Chin
>afd...@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (Stephen Dennison) sez:
>
>[He's upset because people aren't being properly solemn and respectful
>in the wake of Gene Roddenberry's death]
>
>don't. If you're feeling too fragile to be exposed to the net's usual
>mix of attitudes, it's probably best if you just didn't read it today.
Makes sense...I didn't know Gene Roddenberry and I've never made
an effort to do so, so as far as I'm concerned, he's just another
person. I see no reason for people on the net to stop doing whatever
the hell they like to do because some people are upset that someone
died.
>
>For me, Roddenberry's death means no more (or less) to me than that of
>anyone else. I'm sure I'll get heartily sick of the inevitable
>encomia (and flame wars) to come, though. My personal feeling about
>Star Trek is that it sucks and always has, and has been a bad thing
>for SF on the whole, and inasmuch as Roddenberry was responsible for
>that, he wasn't exactly a favorite of mine. (No, this doesn't mean
>I'm "glad" he's dead, but it does mean I'm not particularly moved to
>be sad.) I realize that's a minority opinion, but still. . .you
>Trekkies have your own newsgroup where you can mourn Roddenberry to
>your heart's content; don't presume to dictate the mood of the rest of
>the net, much of which presumably couldn't care less.
I wouldn't go as far as to say Star Trek sucks, but the point remains...
all your flaming and complaining isn't going to bring him back so
do your mourning elsewhere and leave the rest of us to our reading comics.
>--
> Rod Johnson * rjoh...@vela.acs.oakland.edu * (313) 764 3130
> "For there is no Height in which there are not flowers"
> --Christopher Smart
(one of these days I'm going to understand what that quote means..."
MSC
--
"I have never understood why it should be necessary to become irrational
to show that you care...or why it should be necessary to prove at all."
-- Paul Darrow, "Avon"
-------...@rpi.edu------------------------------------------------
Tom Galloway
>In article <10...@vela.acs.oakland.edu>, rjoh...@vela.acs.oakland.edu (R o d Johnson) writes...
>>Star Trek is that it sucks and always has, and has been a bad thing
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^!!!!!^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^!!!!!!!!!
>>for SF on the whole, and inasmuch as Roddenberry was responsible for
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>that, he wasn't exactly a favorite of mine. (No, this doesn't mean
>
>Mr. Johnson, few would have the audacity to say what you just did. People
>are entitled to have their own opinions about the show, but I doubt anyone
>here would be STUPID enough to say that it was BAD for S.F. on the whole!
>
>Mr. Johnson, you are an uncultured Philistine, and after that post you can
>expect to be treated as one.
Gee, this is almost as good as when some dweeb accused Jerry Boyajian of
not knowing anything about comics.
Beals, *you* are the one who's being stupid here...as well as ignorant. Yes,
there is a distinction there. Ignorant is calling Rod an "uncultured
Philistine". Clearly you've not seen many, if any, other posts by Rod. Those
posts clearly indicate that such is not a valid description of him. I suggest
in particular your looking at Rod's posts in rec.arts.books. This is ignorance
which can be corrected by additional information/knowledge.
Stupid though is assuming that just because someone disagrees with your pet
beliefs that they are in fact stupid. While I can't be sure, I suspect that
what Rod meant by Star Trek being bad for sf is a belief that it popularized
the space opera aspects of sf rather than other aspects. Or perhaps that
Diane Duane wrote Star Trek novels for a while instead of working in her
own Tales of the Five universe. Or several other arguments. Now, I'm not
saying that I agree with this stance (or whatever Rod's actual arguments
are). At the very least, the popularity of Star Trek has had both good and
bad elements for sf as a whole (which elements are good and which are bad
depend on your viewpoint, as well as your knowledge and inferences of just
what the effects were/are). But your offhanded and complete dismissal of
someone who disagrees with you in terms which show that you can't even
conceive of why someone might take such a stance mark you as stupid, not him.
Or at least fanatical on this particular topic.
"If you could save a million starving children by sacrificing one of the major
TV networks, would you choose ABC, CBS, or NBC?" #100 The Book of Stupid
Questions, Tom Weller
tyg t...@caen.engin.umich.edu
J. Kurt Tappe
>AAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGHHHH! Peter David? NOT!!! Try Diane Duane,
>people!
Hardly. One thing Gene Roddenberry DID do well with the series
was to at least TRY to keep it consistent. Diane Duane is well known
for creating oodles of inconsistencies in the Trek universe. I'm
not the biggest "canon" advocate; far from it. But some of the things
Duane has done are really BAD.
I vote for D.C. Fontana. Dorothy has at least written a couple of
episodes for BOTH series and would not send Trek down the tubes.
>Janis C.
Kurt
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|| Kurt Tappe (215) 363-9485 || With. Without. And who'll ||
|| 184 W. Valley Hill Rd. (home) || deny it's what the fighting's ||
|| Malvern, PA 19355-2214 458-5000 || all about? - Pink Floyd ||
|| (work) --------------------------------||
|| tap...@infonode.ingr.com OR jkt...@psuvm.psu.edu QLink: KurtTappe ||
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Cowling
>
>>Okay, let me get this straight...I hold an opinion which is contrary to the
>>views of many readers, so I'm looking for attention.
>
>Jim, you seem to have missed our point. I took it to e-mail and got no
>response, so I'm trying a rational approach here. Your opinion is *fine*
I did not receive a message from you. Perhaps we have incompatible mailers.
>whether I agree with it or not. Common decency suggests that you take the
>feelings of the majority of this group into consideration and perhaps wait
>a day or two to post it. We may disagree with the sanctity of the memory of
ONE MORE TIME. I do NOT believe in COMMON decency. We ALL have DIFFERENT
moral and ethical VIEWS. This helps make us INDIVIDUALS.
>child recently killed in an auto accident and point out to her that her
>child was driving over the speed limit, even if it was true ? It's simply a
No. But no one here should have so little perspective that Roddenberry is as
important to him/her has offspring or close family.
>Go ahead. Convince me otherwise if it was not. Let this drop and just
>deflect the flames. Your lack of consideration for the majority of r.a.s
>really earned them for you. Anything to stop this, but *please* don't
>continue to insult me and many others that read this newsgroup with that
>innocent first amendment rhetoric. It doesn't wash.
I'm a Canadian. We don't have First Amendment rights, so you'll forgive me if
I exercise freedom of expression whenever possible. I honestly believe that
the lack of perspective here is frightening. I don't remember the last time
I was threatened with violence for holding and sharing an opinion, before this
latest fiasco. I could go into this as proof of a difference between Canadian
and American culture, but I already got credit for that course...
>>positive.
>
>Sorry, I *had* to leave this one in. I just don't get it, unless you meant
>to contrast public posts with private e-mail.
Mail is private, posts are public. I got more positive e-mail than negative;
in a previous post I pointed out that very few people are willing to make an
unpopular opinion heard. So far, only about six individuals have made similar
posts.
>
>>And that's all this is. Ridicule me all you want, Frank. I've got tougher
>>skin than you can penetrate.
>
>I think the time for ridicule has ended. Consider my statements, Jim, and e
>-mail me with your response please. Remember, I e-mailed you first.
The time for ridicule ended at the subject header; this is not alt.flame,
after all (and my system does not access the alt groups, so I can't move it
there). And, unfortunately, mailing me doesn't help if I don't receive it.
>*biggest* strength, and most *necessary* attribute is compassion. The
>ability to see into others and create things that improve the human
>condition, and all else is spiteful malice trying to exist under the guise
>of art. Remember, this is *my* opinion, cetainly not fact.
It's certainly not the opinion of the Faculty here, or, I'm sure, any Fine
Arts faculty in Canada.
Backtrack time. I've been labelled a discompassionate bastard, and I can agree
with that to some extent. But that doesn't necessarily mean that I don't care
about some things, people, or concepts. I'm big, I got multitudes.
------------
(ooh, new .sig!)
Rev. Jim Cowling (1st United Church of Kallisti -- if ya don't know, don't ask)
Creative Writing Department, University of Victoria (opinions disassociated)
"If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the
contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one
person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
-John Stuart Mill
------------
David G Beals
>In article <29OCT199...@deimos.ucc.umass.edu> s051...@deimos.ucc.umass.edu (David G Beals) writes:
>>In article <10...@vela.acs.oakland.edu>, rjoh...@vela.acs.oakland.edu (R o d Johnson) writes...
>>>encomia (and flame wars) to come, though. My personal feeling about
>>>Star Trek is that it sucks and always has, and has been a bad thing
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^!!!!!^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^!!!!!!!!!
>>>for SF on the whole, and inasmuch as Roddenberry was responsible for
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>that, he wasn't exactly a favorite of mine. (No, this doesn't mean
>>
>>Mr. Johnson, few would have the audacity to say what you just did. People
>>are entitled to have their own opinions about the show, but I doubt anyone
>>here would be STUPID enough to say that it was BAD for S.F. on the whole!
>>
>>Mr. Johnson, you are an uncultured Philistine, and after that post you can
>>expect to be treated as one.
>
>Gee, this is almost as good as when some dweeb accused Jerry Boyajian of
>not knowing anything about comics.
>
>Beals, *you* are the one who's being stupid here...as well as ignorant. Yes,
Okay, interject yourself into this arguement if you will. I'm stupid for
defending a poster who got flamed by this loudmouthed self-important jerk. I'm
stupid for being naturally irritated by someone who just dismissed 25 years of
science fiction history, and apparently I'm stupid for thinking it's in bad
taste to criticize a man who called another poster the equivalent of a rabid
pitbull for being upset about the death of one of his childhood idols. You're
right, it's stupid to assume there's any civility left on this net at all.
>there is a distinction there. Ignorant is calling Rod an "uncultured
>Philistine". Clearly you've not seen many, if any, other posts by Rod. Those
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I see far too many of them on r.a.c. as is, you'll pardon me if I don't go
looking for more.
>posts clearly indicate that such is not a valid description of him. I suggest
>in particular your looking at Rod's posts in rec.arts.books. This is ignorance
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>which can be corrected by additional information/knowledge.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Do you know how many newsgroups I'm subscribed to? I'll tell you: eleven. Do
you know how much I have to use the catch-up feature? I'll tell you: OFTEN. I
am not omniscient, and I can't read some 1200-odd newsgroups every day and
cross-refrence them for future postings. Anyhow, that's BESIDE the point. This
ISN'T rec.arts.books, his posts about whatever-it-is-he-posts-on-in-that-group
are IRRELEVANT here, and when it comes to Gene Roddenbury, Rod IS ignorant. He
knows NOTHING of the significance of G.R.'s series, or how it influenced science
fiction for the next few decades. Star Trek has been a HUGE part of our culture,
and as the anniversary promos are fond of reminding us, Star Trek has even
found its way into the English language with words like "trekkie". In that
respect, Rod knows nothing of how Star Trek has influence our culture, and in
dismissing it in a snit he has shown himself to be UNCULTURED. UNCULTURED also
implies a lack of good manners, and Rod's post, on of all weeks the week when
Gene Roddebury died, shows an APPALING lack of courtesy to those of us who
take G.R.'s death very seriously.
Does Rod know about War and Peace, or the social implications of the reuni-
fication of Germany? I don't know. I don't CARE. The man has flagrantly shown
a disgusting lack of respect for a cultural icon just to get a little attention.
For that matter, I shouldn't even respond to your post because of the ludi-
cracy of dragging Rod's I.Q. into whether or not my post was valid. Yes, I
insulted him. I don't apply aptitude tests to those I insult to see if they
really are morons. Would you like to volunteer?
>Stupid though is assuming that just because someone disagrees with your pet
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>beliefs that they are in fact stupid. While I can't be sure, I suspect that
^^^^^^^
Have you been on vacation for a couple of days? I am FAR from the only one on
this net that's been defending Gene Roddenbury for the past few days. Reducing
my posting to a "pet belief" suggests a lack of forethought on your part. In
fact, if I were to define stupidity, I would say that STUPIDITY is ignoring
the OBVIOUS. Just like your friend Rod did.
>what Rod meant by Star Trek being bad for sf is a belief that it popularized
>the space opera aspects of sf rather than other aspects. Or perhaps that
Good science fiction doesn't rely on technology like a crutch. If by "space
opera", you mean that for the first time a person tried to develop a science
fiction program where the characters had actual, individual PERSONALITY and
DEPTH as opposed to anal-retentive technical accuracy, then yes, Roddenbury
is guilty as charged by Rod.
>Diane Duane wrote Star Trek novels for a while instead of working in her
>own Tales of the Five universe. Or several other arguments. Now, I'm not
Let's leave extraneous Star Trek staffers out of this. We're discussing
Roddenbury. That's who Rod called an insignificant blotch on science fiction,
that's who I'm defending in this post to your rather pointless attack on my
character.
>saying that I agree with this stance (or whatever Rod's actual arguments
>are). At the very least, the popularity of Star Trek has had both good and
>bad elements for sf as a whole (which elements are good and which are bad
>depend on your viewpoint, as well as your knowledge and inferences of just
>what the effects were/are). But your offhanded and complete dismissal of
>someone who disagrees with you in terms which show that you can't even
>conceive of why someone might take such a stance mark you as stupid, not him.
>Or at least fanatical on this particular topic.
Okay, okay, okay! (Sheesh I hate people who set themselves up as the standard
of academic purity for generations to come. I haven't read _Being_and_Nothing-
ness_, or _La_Marriage_du_Figaro_, but at least I've seen Star Trek...)
OFFICIAL STATEMENT IN WRITING TO ANYONE WHO HAS A PROBLEM WITH WHAT I WROTE:
I find Rod's statements INFLAMMATORY, INTENTIONALLY DISPARAGING, and not least
of all I believe that Rod stands behind them for no other reason than to merely
be controversial and get some attention.
By dragging yourself into this, and by supporting a statement that Rod made to
insult and put down the previous poster, you, too are trying to be inflammatory
and disparaging. The very language you disagree with in my post is the same
language that you employ in your post to refute my position. So what makes
your post any better than mine, or your position any stronger? Absolutely
nothing.
If I'm a Star Trek fanatic, so be it, but don't dismiss my arguements and my
intellect by reading more into this thread than is there.
And that, my dear sir, is why you will pardon me if I don't take your attack
on my character very seriously.
>
>"If you could save a million starving children by sacrificing one of the major
>TV networks, would you choose ABC, CBS, or NBC?" #100 The Book of Stupid
>Questions, Tom Weller
>tyg t...@caen.engin.umich.edu
Oh Gods, not another effete, stuck-up, anti-television snob...
[followups to this post to dev/null please]
soren--Ms. Jackson if you're nasty
>Mr. Johnson, you are an uncultured Philistine, and after that post you can
>expect to be treated as one.
R o d? As an uncultured Philistine, could you perhaps tell us how you
expect to be treated? I understand that the Aesthetically Challenged
have always had gotten a bad rep in this newsgroup, and I wouldn't want
to commit an embarassing social faux pas or anything.
--
"How could I dance with another/When I saw him standing there" --Tiffany
soren f petersen : i AM NOT
spet...@peruvian.utah.edu : THE university OF utah
Dang. Utah always gets everything first. -- Rod Johnson
R o d Johnson
This is very long; I'd urge you not to read it unless you're really
interested here. Most of us are tired of it and I'm sorry to prolong
it any more. In fact, I don't know who to apologize to more--r.a.s or
r.a.c. Good idea just to hit 'n' (or 'K') now and forget about it.
> and >>> are David Beals
>> is Tom Galloway
>>>> is me (think I've got all this right)
Now a while back, I said
>>>>encomia (and flame wars) to come, though. My personal feeling about
>>>>Star Trek is that it sucks and always has, and has been a bad thing
>>>>for SF on the whole, and inasmuch as Roddenberry was responsible for
>>>>that, he wasn't exactly a favorite of mine. (No, this doesn't mean
Now David didn't like this, and said so. In my defense on this one
point, let me only say that the point of my "audacious" statement was
merely that reasonable people can differ on whether Star Trek is any
good in the first place. Clearly, the mere fact of having said this
disqualifies me as "reasonable" in David's eye. That's OK.
>>>Mr. Johnson, few would have the audacity to say what you just did. People
>>>are entitled to have their own opinions about the show, but I doubt anyone
>>>here would be STUPID enough to say that it was BAD for S.F. on the whole!
>>>
>>>Mr. Johnson, you are an uncultured Philistine, and after that post you can
>>>expect to be treated as one.
Okeydoke. Whatever.
Now Tom Galloway leaps in, chivalrously defending my honor:
>>Gee, this is almost as good as when some dweeb accused Jerry Boyajian of
>>not knowing anything about comics.
(That's too flattering--comparisons to Jerry. What next?)
>>Beals, *you* are the one who's being stupid here...as well as ignorant. Yes,
>Okay, interject yourself into this arguement if you will. I'm stupid for
>defending a poster who got flamed by this loudmouthed self-important
>jerk.
Now I'm happy to let the record speak for itself. Look back at the
actual posting David is so apoplectic about and you'll see that I
wasn't *flaming* anyone. The way I saw it, an attitude of "you must
feel sorry about Gene Roddenberry's death" was being enforced in
rec.arts.comics--specifically Jim Cowling was being flamed to a crisp
over it. Whether you love Jim or hate him is immaterial--my point was
that no one *has* to revere or even respect Gene Roddenberry, as in
fact I don't. This in no way implies that I wanted him dead or am
glad he's dead or any of that crap, btw.
>I'm
>stupid for being naturally irritated by someone who just dismissed 25 years of
>science fiction history,
I really don't know *why* you're stupid. I've been reading SF for
longer than those 25 years, though, and I think I've earned the right
to have an opinion about them.
>and apparently I'm stupid for thinking it's in bad
>taste to criticize a man who called another poster the equivalent of a rabid
>pitbull for being upset about the death of one of his childhood
>idols.
If I've disentangled your pronouns aright, you're saying *I* called
another poster this? Let's check. In the article that David is
yelling about, I said:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
[I'm responding to afd...@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (Stephen Dennison)
here, who was upset about people seemingly trashing Roddenberry]
[Stephen:]
>>And, if we can, let's can the .sigs for a day, at least the joke ones. I'm
>>not feeling too funny today.
[Me:]
>But not everyone cares about Gene Roddenberry or Star Trek. I know I
>don't. If you're feeling too fragile to be exposed to the net's usual
>mix of attitudes, it's probably best if you just didn't read it today.
No pit bulls so far--just an (honestly concerned) suggestion to
Stephen that he was probably better off not reading the net. I've had
a very cordial conversation with Stephen since this, by the way, with
no rancor anywhere, and he seems to bear me no malice, but David seems
to feel it's necessary to defend him.
[Me:]
>For me, Roddenberry's death means no more (or less) to me than that of
>anyone else.
Note the "or less" here. Not exactly the unfeeling pig-dog David's
selective quotation portrays, am I?
>I'm sure I'll get heartily sick of the inevitable
>encomia (and flame wars) to come, though.
Called that one right! :( Now the offending sentence:
>My personal feeling about
>Star Trek is that it sucks and always has, and has been a bad thing
>for SF on the whole, and inasmuch as Roddenberry was responsible for
>that, he wasn't exactly a favorite of mine.
Not very diplomatic. *This* I apologze for, though the sentiments
expressed I have to admit to.
>(No, this doesn't mean
>I'm "glad" he's dead,
(This last bit another section David neglects to quote.)
>but it does mean I'm not particularly moved to
>be sad.) I realize that's a minority opinion, but still. . .you
>Trekkies have your own newsgroup where you can mourn Roddenberry to
>your heart's content; don't presume to dictate the mood of the rest of
>the net, much of which presumably couldn't care less.
And here is the point, which is the age-old rule of Usenet: you can
control what you read, but not what other people write.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
And that's *all* I wrote. I dunno about David, but this hardly seems
as Satanic as he claims.
>You're
>right, it's stupid to assume there's any civility left on this net at all.
Uh huh.
[Stuff about what newsgroups we all read and post to deleted]
>This
>ISN'T rec.arts.books, his posts about whatever-it-is-he-posts-on-in-that-group
>are IRRELEVANT here, and when it comes to Gene Roddenbury, Rod IS ignorant.
Maybe, but I can spell his name.
>He
>knows NOTHING of the significance of G.R.'s series, or how it influenced science
>fiction for the next few decades. Star Trek has been a HUGE part of our culture,
>and as the anniversary promos are fond of reminding us, Star Trek has even
>found its way into the English language with words like "trekkie". In that
>respect, Rod knows nothing of how Star Trek has influence our culture, and in
>dismissing it in a snit he has shown himself to be UNCULTURED.
Really. Couple points:
1. I've been reading SF since about 1961, 5 years before Star Trek
appeared. By the time ST premiered, I had developed tastes of my own,
favorite authors, and even some knowledge of the history of SF. Did
you? I saw almost every episode in the first run. Did you? I
thought it was OK, but not very "science-fictiony" according to my
fairly juvenile standards, and tired of the speechifying about
values--Roddenberry's special contribution. (Remember, this was the
sixties, and we thought we had to be cynical about some of the stuff
ST was espousing; things look rather different 25 years on.)
2. After ST, I continued to read SF, of course, but was increasingly
unhappy about the amount of energy being devoted to ST-like SF: giant
ships piloted by brave men zooming around in space, Vulcans, "beam me
up, Scotty". At the time, it seemed like space opera was something SF
needed to outgrow, and ST, though it tried to be thoughtful, at least,
seemed to me to be holding the field back. (Now, of course, I love
space opera, but still can't bring myself to like ST, which still
seems simplistic compared with "real" SF.) To be fair, most SF movies
and TV productions have been weak, in my opinion. None of these
opinions are unique to me, by the way--many long-time SF readers have
had some of the same thoughts.
3. Are you sure you know what "snit" means? I haven't had a snit in
years.
>UNCULTURED also
>implies a lack of good manners, and Rod's post, on of all weeks the week when
>Gene Roddebury died, shows an APPALING lack of courtesy to those of us who
>take G.R.'s death very seriously.
Actually, all I was asking was that you not tyrannize rec.arts.comics
with your seriousness. If the original message hadn't been
crossposted, and if the first few of us hadn't missed the
cross-posting, none of this would have happened.
>Does Rod know about War and Peace, or the social implications of the reuni-
>fication of Germany? I don't know. I don't CARE. The man has flagrantly shown
>a disgusting lack of respect for a cultural icon just to get a little
>attention.
A *cultural icon*?? Oh please. JFK was a cultural icon. Marilyn
Monroe was a cultural icon. Ronald McDonald is a cultural icon.
*Spock* is a cultural icon. Gene Roddenberry was a TV producer.
Outside Trekdom, few people even knew who he *was* before this week.
There's no disrespect to Roddenberry involved in saying this. He was
probably a great guy, he was successful at his life's work, lots of
people liked him. Who needs to be a cultural icon?
>>Stupid though is assuming that just because someone disagrees with your pet
>>beliefs that they are in fact stupid. While I can't be sure, I suspect that
>
>Have you been on vacation for a couple of days? I am FAR from the only one on
>this net that's been defending Gene Roddenbury for the past few days. Reducing
>my posting to a "pet belief" suggests a lack of forethought on your part. In
>fact, if I were to define stupidity, I would say that STUPIDITY is ignoring
>the OBVIOUS. Just like your friend Rod did.
What OBVIOUS is it that I ignored again?
>>what Rod meant by Star Trek being bad for sf is a belief that it popularized
>>the space opera aspects of sf rather than other aspects. Or perhaps that
That's a lot of it. Plus I think the general quality of the
imagination is, for the most part, rather low. The last time I
looked, it was still acceptable to hold this idea. I know Tom, for
instance, doesn't agree--he like Star Trek quite a bit, and I don't
think any the less of him for it. Hey, I'm posting from
rec.arts.comics, I have no room for snobbery about entertainment.
>Good science fiction doesn't rely on technology like a crutch. If by "space
>opera", you mean that for the first time a person tried to develop a science
>fiction program where the characters had actual, individual PERSONALITY and
>DEPTH as opposed to anal-retentive technical accuracy, then yes, Roddenbury
>is guilty as charged by Rod.
No, that's not what he means by "space opera"--your own ignorance of
SF is glaringly obvious here, David. In fact, the SF I was
advocating, as against the ST model, doesn't use technology as a
crutch at all. When ST fandom was flourishing, I was reading Disch,
Delany, Zelazny, LeGuin and Lafferty. Where's the technology in that?
>Let's leave extraneous Star Trek staffers out of this. We're discussing
>Roddenbury. That's who Rod called an insignificant blotch on science
>fiction,
I did? I think "significant blotch" is a better paraphrase of what I
wrote--who cares about insignificant blotches, they're
insignificant--except that "blotch" is waaay too strong.
>that's who I'm defending in this post to your rather pointless attack on my
>character.
>Okay, okay, okay! (Sheesh I hate people who set themselves up as the standard
>of academic purity for generations to come.
I *bet* you do, and with good reason.
>I haven't read _Being_and_Nothing-
>ness_, or _La_Marriage_du_Figaro_, but at least I've seen Star Trek...)
*Gosh* what a surprise.
>OFFICIAL STATEMENT IN WRITING TO ANYONE WHO HAS A PROBLEM WITH WHAT I WROTE:
>
>I find Rod's statements INFLAMMATORY, INTENTIONALLY DISPARAGING, and not least
>of all I believe that Rod stands behind them for no other reason than to merely
>be controversial and get some attention.
Guess what? You "find" wrong.
>By dragging yourself into this, and by supporting a statement that Rod made to
>insult and put down the previous poster, you, too are trying to be inflammatory
>and disparaging.
I only know Tom from the net, but I imagine that he's motivated here
by fairness. He's been flamed to cinders by a bonehead over imaginary
wrongs too, so I would guess he's acting out of charity because knows
how it feels. Don't let your rage at me spill over to him; he's a
good guy.
>>"If you could save a million starving children by sacrificing one of the major
>>TV networks, would you choose ABC, CBS, or NBC?" #100 The Book of Stupid
>>Questions, Tom Weller
>>tyg t...@caen.engin.umich.edu
>
>Oh Gods, not another effete, stuck-up, anti-television snob...
Good lord, he even flames *signatures*.
Followups to alt.flame (I won't read them, but maybe someone there
will get a kick out of all this).
--
Rod Johnson * r...@caen.engin.umich.edu * (313 764-3130
"In hell it is difficult to tell people from other people"
--Jack Spicer
R o d Johnson
>R o d? As an uncultured Philistine, could you perhaps tell us how you
>expect to be treated? I understand that the Aesthetically Challenged
>have always had gotten a bad rep in this newsgroup, and I wouldn't want
>to commit an embarassing social faux pas or anything.
Glad you asked, Soren.
Feel free to pick at details while ignoring the big picture, fail to
notice subtleties, never try to imagine figurative meanings when
literal meanings will suffice. Be deaf to humor, irony and sarcasm.
Make fun of my clothes. Don't believe I've ever read anything or had
any experiences beyond those required as a minimum to get by. Say
"Get a LIFE" frequently. Imagine me naked, looking very
uncomfortable, in a room full of healthy, bronzed people in expensive
clothes. Pretend my typos are actually habitual mispellings because I
don't know any better; alternativley, pretend I know better, but I
don't care. Call me a Marvel Zombie. Lose my Suicide Squid t-shirt
(but uh huh honey lay offa my shoes). Call me a "pencil neck". Get
me a subscription to CBG (no, wait, gotta draw the line somewhere).
Wait for me to say "Jeepers, Wally" and then make fun of my age. Pull
my leg and watch me not get it, repeatedly.
I think that's it. Any questions?
Kenneth B. Kirksey
>>encomia (and flame wars) to come, though. My personal feeling about
>>Star Trek is that it sucks and always has, and has been a bad thing
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^!!!!!^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^!!!!!!!!!
>>for SF on the whole, and inasmuch as Roddenberry was responsible for
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>that, he wasn't exactly a favorite of mine. (No, this doesn't mean
>Mr. Johnson, few would have the audacity to say what you just did. People
>are entitled to have their own opinions about the show, but I doubt anyone
>here would be STUPID enough to say that it was BAD for S.F. on the whole!
>
>Mr. Johnson, you are an uncultured Philistine, and after that post you can
>expect to be treated as one.
I'm reminded of the skit that William Shatner did on Saturday Night
Live a few years back, where he was at a Star Trek convention. At one
point he shouts out, "Get a Life!!! It was only a T.V. show!!"
Star Trek was not as bad for true SF as Star Wars was, but it really
didn`t to anything to forward the genre. You might want to read
Harlan Ellison's essays on Star Trek, most of which appear in the
book _Harlan Ellison's Watching_, for reasons why this is so.
Ellison also makes a few interesting points on Roddenberry's
writing ability.
And "uncultured Philistine" is redundant.
Ken
Kenneth B. Kirksey
>a disgusting lack of respect for a cultural icon just to get a little attention
I find that most cultural icons are, almost by definition, well deserving
any lack of respect that most people care to give them.
Ken
RD Francis
In <6yZ...@engin.umich.edu> ma...@caen.engin.umich.edu (Steven Michael Maser) writes:
>Hmm. The latest issue of the Comics Buyers Guide says that the "Name
>Withheld" author of that scathing artis/writer (or is it writer/artist)
>brouhaha is *not* Rob Liefeld. Hmm. Who could it still be then?
>Jim Starlin? George Perez? Erik Larsen? How many artist/writers
>*are* there that have worked for the big two?
I doubt it's either Starlin or Perez, since both are doing more writing
than drawing these days. Could be Larsen; dunno. Giffen, maybe? Except
he's doing more writing than drawing these days, too.
Well, if the person (was it in CBG or here) who said that one of the
characters in the list was created by good old "NW", then Larsen may
well be a candidate. I believe there was a reference to Shrapnel. I
think that that might have been the bad guy from Larsen's first DOOM
PATROL issue?
--
R David Francis fra...@cis.ohio-state.edu -or- rd...@osu.edu
Richard Barry Shrum
Yeah; hey who cuts yer hair?
;*}
Matt Telles
>Feel free to pick at details while ignoring the big picture, fail to
>notice subtleties, never try to imagine figurative meanings when
>literal meanings will suffice. Be deaf to humor, irony and sarcasm.
>Make fun of my clothes. Don't believe I've ever read anything or had
>any experiences beyond those required as a minimum to get by. Say
>"Get a LIFE" frequently. Imagine me naked, looking very
>uncomfortable, in a room full of healthy, bronzed people in expensive
>clothes. Pretend my typos are actually habitual mispellings because I
You misspelled it.
>don't know any better; alternativley, pretend I know better, but I
>don't care. Call me a Marvel Zombie. Lose my Suicide Squid t-shirt
>(but uh huh honey lay offa my shoes). Call me a "pencil neck". Get
>me a subscription to CBG (no, wait, gotta draw the line somewhere).
>Wait for me to say "Jeepers, Wally" and then make fun of my age. Pull
>my leg and watch me not get it, repeatedly.
>
>I think that's it. Any questions?
>
Nope. No questions, you pencil-necked geek! Why don't you get a life?
You're ugly and your mother dresses you funny. Your subscription to CBG
is in the mail, you young whippersnapper.
Geez, guys. Lighten up. It's only life.
ICSP...@asuacad.bitnet
newsgroup?
ryan m. dunlavey
Sorry I was too lazy to delete most of this but...
Has anyone thoght of Frank Miller? I have no idea what he's like, I've never
met him or read an interview on him. Dick Giordano described him to me as
being "reclusive", but that was it.
I haven't read the CBG article, but has anyone thought that maybe it was a
lesser-seem writer/artist such as Dave Stevens, Matt Wagner or Guy Davis?
I doubt any of these guys would write such a thing but hey...
Maybe it wasn't even a writer/artist at all that wrote it, but just a fan?
Just a thought... -Ryan
Jim Cowling
>I'm curious.... if you feel this way about startrek why are you monitoring this
>newsgroup?
I don't know who exactly you're talking to here, but note the Newsgroup header.
This thread originally began in r.a.c., and was crossposted by someone (I'm
not sure who). Everyone who has said anti-Roddenberry or anti-ST opinions
has posted them from the comics group.
Just to make it clear. Sorry if there was a misunderstanding.
R o d Johnson
>In article <11...@vela.acs.oakland.edu> rjoh...@vela.acs.oakland.edu (R o d Johnson) writes:
>>Pretend my typos are actually habitual mispellings because I
^^^^^^^^^^^
>You misspelled it.
Now I can't tell who's not getting the joke, me or Matt, or both, or
neither, I guess.
>Nope. No questions, you pencil-necked geek! Why don't you get a life?
That's "get a LIFE", OK?
Matt Telles
*sigh* Rod, If I told you I used to be a copy-editor for a newspaper would that
tell you who didn't get the joke?
Oh, and I apologize about the LIFE thing. I can never keep track of what proper
flame-etiquette is these days....
Richard Barry Shrum
"Rod Johnson". Now isn't that name redundant?
****Rick****
John Bickers
> Maybe it wasn't even a writer/artist at all that wrote it, but just a fan?
Or an editor.
> Just a thought... -Ryan
--
*** John Bickers, TAP, NZAmigaUG. jbic...@templar.actrix.gen.nz ***
* "Can you recognise the patterns that you find, stuck in your mind" Devo *
Tom Galloway
>Quoted from <1991Oct31.0...@rodan.acs.syr.edu> by rmdu...@rodan.acs.syr.edu (ryan m. dunlavey):
>> Maybe it wasn't even a writer/artist at all that wrote it, but just a fan?
>
> Or an editor.
No, it's been confirmed the CBG editors that it was a "writer"/artist who
wrote the letter.
"They laughed at Fulton, they laughed at Bell, they even laughed at Edison. But
this was genuine, heartfelt laughter...robust rolling waves of it, from deep
down...the kind where you know they really mean it." --Joe Martin
tyg t...@caen.engin.umich.edu
Subrata Sircar
>I vote for D.C. Fontana. Dorothy has at least written a couple of
>episodes for BOTH series and would not send Trek down the tubes.
Not. Her novel "Vulcan's Glory" was terrible, and if that's any indication
of her "take" on the series, I'd just as soon let anyone else do it.
--
Subrata Sircar |sksi...@phoenix.princeton.edu|Prophet & SPAMIT Charter Member
I don't speak for Princeton, and they don't speak for me.
/EARTH is 98% full. Please delete anyone you can.
"The voters have spoken, the bastards..."
Rich Carreiro
>similiar to the one that is happening here on r.a.c. Case in point is the
>revealing of the alleged victim's name in the Smith/Kennedy rape trial. What
>an abuse of Freedom of Speech! Getting back to the topic, Mr Roddenberry's
I think not. Considering Smith is innocent until proven guilty,
the alleged victim should NOT be given special treatment. Furthermore,
laws which prevent newpapers from publishing names of rape victims are
blatently unconstitutional, and thankfully, a county court in Fla has
ruled so on Fla's law. Hopefully that will stand up.
Next to go, hopefully, will be the laws which eat into the defendant's
right to face his accuser when the Right Crime(tm) is involved...
--
Rich Carreiro Home: (401)841-8514
galaxia.Newport.RI.US!animato!rlcarr UUCP: (401)841-8521
uunet!rayssd!galaxia!animato!rlcarr JITTLOV FOREVER!
The Napoleon of Crime
>speterse%peruvian...@cs.utah.edu (soren--Ms. Jackson if you're nasty) sez:
>
>>R o d? As an uncultured Philistine, could you perhaps tell us how you
>>expect to be treated? I understand that the Aesthetically Challenged
>>have always had gotten a bad rep in this newsgroup, and I wouldn't want
>>to commit an embarassing social faux pas or anything.
>
>Glad you asked, Soren.
>
>[Insightful Commentary]
>
>I think that's it. Any questions?
Yeah. Will this be on the final?
"Hey! Stupid umpires! Hey, who's buried in Grant's
Tomb?"
---
Moriarty, aka Jeff Meyer
INTERNET: mori...@tc.fluke.COM
Manual UUCP: {uunet, uw-beaver, sun, microsoft, hplsla}!fluke!moriarty
CREDO: You gotta be Cruel to be Kind...
<*> DISCLAIMER: Do what you want with me, but leave my employers alone! <*>
Sterling Udell
No more so than "Peter O'Toole". :)
String
--
Get up. Get back on your feet. You're the one they can't beat, and you know it.
- Styx
Sterling Udell, Big Dog Brewing Cooperative - Eastern Division
SU0...@maineiac.umcs.maine.edu, Ster...@gandalf.umcs.maine.edu, IO10676@MAINE
Stephen Dennison
>In article <mumble> ICSP...@ASUACAD.BITNET writes:
>|I'm curious.... if you feel this way about startrek why are you monitoring this
>|newsgroup?
>
This is your brain. This is your brain on Comic Books ... Any questions ?
>
>Anyone who complains about Trek traffic in this thread is almost
>certainly reading it from
>
>REC.ARTS.COMICS GODDAMMIT.
>
So I guess what you're saying here, Ben old buddy, is that regardless of
what I post, you're done with the thread, right ? Even if I, and all the
other r.a.s readers that find your post unnecessarily caustic, flame you
back into the stone age, you're gonna keep silent after this LAST TIME
GODDAMMIT, right ? Do I have this down ? Just curious. Don't consider this
a flame, Ben. Treat it as an example of how to get your point across
without resorting to 3rd grade tactics. Oh, and talk to the Rev. about
crossposting the thing in the first place. Perhaps *this* is where you
should vent your frustration, not at innocents that just happened to miss
the Newsgroups: line. It's not like spoilers which are discussed to death in
this group and therefore should not occur. You hardly *ever* hear references
made to the various lines in the message header, or how to edit and use
them properly.
Chill out.
Stephen
OH, and I *do* read comics, or rather I *used* to. When my dog ripped an
*original* Captain America #1 to shreds, it kinda took the fun out of
collecting for me. ...don't bother... I *know* how much it was worth!
"... sometimes I think this body's got a mind of its own."
-- Chris Rea
Ben Gamble
|newsgroup?
LAST TIME GODDAMMIT.
Anyone who complains about Trek traffic in this thread is almost
certainly reading it from
REC.ARTS.COMICS GODDAMMIT.
--
Ben Gamble
gam...@owlnet.rice.edu
Oh ye who go about saying unto each other: "Hello sailor":
Dost thou know the magnitude of thy sin before the gods?