TORRES' CHAT ABOUT NEW VOYAGER EPISODES
ps...@terminus.com
Okay guys here it is. These are the highlights of Roxann Dawson (Lt. Torres)
AOL chat about new Voyager episodes:
OnlineHost: Copyright 1996 Oldsmobile; licensed to America Online, Inc.
OnlineHost: Your host tonight is AOLiveMC2 (JonEdE.)
Question: What's on tap for your character this season? Any romance that
you know of?
RoxannDwsn: I think they want to spice up my character a bit...at least
that's what I'm told. Possibly somebody on the crew... but I'm not at
liberty to reveal that.
Question: Will "Q" be back to "Voyager?"
RoxannDwsn: Yes! I don't know what the plot will be...but I hear he wants
to co-create with the captain. Sorry...pro-create.
Question: Do you feel your character has become "less Klingon" than
originally envisioned?
RoxannDwsn: Yes and we're working on that. Because there are 9 characters
in our cast...at times it's hard to keep developing all of them at the same
time. And the Klingon side of B'Elanna...is a side, I think, we'll explore
much more this season.
Question: Any truth to the rumor that a major character gets killed this
season?
RoxannDwsn: That "TV Guide" article is making us all paranoid. If anybody
knows anything, please let me know.
Question: Will your character have any strong episodes this upcoming season?
RoxannDwsn: Yes. I just completed an episode called "Remember." The plot is
about...an old alien woman with telepathic ability...who gives the memories
of her life to me before she dies. I live these memories...in vivid dreams.
During which I'm actually living this woman's life. She gives me these
memories...to reveal that her species has committed a kind of holocaust.
A systematic extinction of another race. She wants me to know so
that the younger generation can be told...and will remember....so that this
won't happen again. This episode was amazing for me to work on. We've just
completed it...and I hope I can live up to the wonderful script.
Question: Robert Duncan McNeil told us at the June 1 convention in NY that
your character and his would be getting involved. Is that true?
RoxannDwsn: Oh, he's bad! Did he really reveal that? Well, I think it's
true...We're "flirting" with the idea.
Question: How is shooting going this season so far ?
RoxannDwsn: Great! I'm exhausted. But our shows are really exciting. As
we talk this evening...the majority of the cast is filming on location in
various Hollywood locations. That may sound strange...but it appears that
through some bizarre circumstances the cast of "Voyager" ends up in Hollywood
in 1996. We're having a ball!
If you want the whole transcript e-mail me and I'll forward it to you.
Londo Mollari
ps...@terminus.com post an AOL conference with Doxann Dawson:
[snip]
> RoxannDwsn: Yes. I just completed an episode called "Remember." The plot is
> about...an old alien woman with telepathic ability...who gives the memories
> of her life to me before she dies. I live these memories...in vivid dreams.
> During which I'm actually living this woman's life. She gives me these
> memories...to reveal that her species has committed a kind of holocaust.
> A systematic extinction of another race. She wants me to know so
> that the younger generation can be told...and will remember....so that this
> won't happen again. This episode was amazing for me to work on. We've just
> completed it...and I hope I can live up to the wonderful script.
[snip]
I think the lets show a life episodes have been done enough times recently:
TNG - "The Inner Light"
DS9 - "The Visitor"
DS9 - The one with O'Brien's prison stay
While I liked all of the three above, it is time to do something
else.
--
"When I wrote that book [_Fahrenheit_451_], I was trying
to _prevent_ a future, and by god it's arrived..."
- Ray Bradbury on TV, VR, and the lack of reading today
David E. Sluss
Roxann Biggs-Dawson said (on her AOL chat):
RBD>As we talk this evening...the majority of the cast is filming on location
RBD>in various Hollywood locations. That may sound strange...but it appears
RBD>that through some bizarre circumstances the cast of "Voyager" ends up in
RBD>Hollywood in 1996. We're having a ball!
sl...@vms.cis.pitt.edu (David E. Sluss) wrote:
DES>Sounds like the ship isn't going with the crew. Maybe we don't have to
DES>worry about non-use of the slingshot after all.
lo...@uoknor.edu (Londo Mollari) writes:
LM>As the person who started the "If VOY Goes to 1996 Earth" thread,
LM>this does address everything I orginally asked.
LM>
LM>I recognized the possiblity that they might not go without the ship.
LM>In this case, the question to ask is will they try to leave some
LM>kind of message that will activate itself at the right time, etc.
That depends on what type of message you mean. If you mean messages to
their families about the fact that they are lost in the Delta quadrant,
they should do it (and _have_ done it, in 'Eye of the Needle'). If you
mean a message that would prevent their departure in the first place, I
don't believe that will happen. It violates Starfleet's temporal
diplacement policy to deliberately change the timeline, for one thing.
Also, they declined a chance to do that very thing once before (in 'EotN').
--
_________________________________________________________________________
/ David E. Sluss \
\ "I shall not cause harm to any vehicle or the personal contents /
\ thereof, nor through inaction, let that vehicle or the /
\ personal contents thereof come to harm." /
\_________________________ The Repo Code ___________________________/
Londo Mollari
sl...@vms.cis.pitt.edu (David E. Sluss) wrote:
[snip]
> > RoxannDwsn: Great! I'm exhausted. But our shows are really exciting. As
> > we talk this evening...the majority of the cast is filming on location in
> > various Hollywood locations. That may sound strange...but it appears that
> > through some bizarre circumstances the cast of "Voyager" ends up in
Hollywood
> > in 1996. We're having a ball!
>
> Sounds like the ship isn't going with the crew. Maybe we don't have to worry
> about non-use of the slingshot after all.
As the person who started the "If VOY Goes to 1996 Earth" thread,
this does address everything I orginally asked.
I recognized the possiblity that they might not go without the ship.
In this case, the question to ask is will they try to leave some
kind of message that will activate itself at the right time, etc.
Mike
David E. Sluss
In article <321BA8...@terminus.com>, ps...@terminus.com writes:
> Okay guys here it is. These are the highlights of Roxann Dawson
> (Lt. Torres) AOL chat about new Voyager episodes:
[SNIPS]
> RoxannDwsn: Yes. I just completed an episode called "Remember." The plot is
> about...an old alien woman with telepathic ability...who gives the memories
> of her life to me before she dies. I live these memories...in vivid dreams.
> During which I'm actually living this woman's life.
Hmm. Sounds like a rip-off of 'The Inner Light.'
[SNIPS]
> RoxannDwsn: Great! I'm exhausted. But our shows are really exciting. As
> we talk this evening...the majority of the cast is filming on location in
> various Hollywood locations. That may sound strange...but it appears that
> through some bizarre circumstances the cast of "Voyager" ends up in Hollywood
> in 1996. We're having a ball!
Sounds like the ship isn't going with the crew. Maybe we don't have to worry
about non-use of the slingshot after all.
John Paulus
ps...@terminus.com wrote:
: Okay guys here it is. These are the highlights of Roxann Dawson (Lt. Torres)
: OnlineHost: Copyright 1996 Oldsmobile; licensed to America Online, Inc.
:
: Question: Will your character have any strong episodes this upcoming season?
: RoxannDwsn: Yes. I just completed an episode called "Remember." The plot is
: about...an old alien woman with telepathic ability...who gives the memories
: of her life to me before she dies. I live these memories...in vivid dreams.
: During which I'm actually living this woman's life. She gives me these
: memories...to reveal that her species has committed a kind of holocaust.
: A systematic extinction of another race. She wants me to know so
: that the younger generation can be told...and will remember....so that this
: won't happen again. This episode was amazing for me to work on. We've just
: completed it...and I hope I can live up to the wonderful script.
It sounds like more RECYCLING!!!!!
This time, the combination is "The Inner Light" (an excellent episode--where
Picard lives a lifetime on another world; it's good not only within the
hour, but Picard also picks up a musical talent which is seen in several
episodes), as well as "Jetrel" (which touched on the other WW2 tragedy, the
atomic bomb).
We'll see how good it is...if B'Elanna still has flashbacks in future
episodes, then it's a good show.
--jp--
--
j.p. paulus 4625 N. Kenmore Avenue #2
sha...@ripco.com Chicago IL 60640-5024
http://pages.ripco.com:8080/~shadowm/index.html 312/784-5640
********************** GO GOD!!!!! ************************
Jack M. Cooper
Oh, man!!! Just when Paul Ordover has me actually thinking
the new season might be pretty good, we find out that they are retreading
"The Inner Light" _YET AGAIN_!!!!!!!! Ok everybody, better get your
earplugs ready so the giant sucking sound coming out of UPN Wednesday
doesn't damage your hearing. The new season of Voyager will suck suck suck
suck SUCK!!!!
-Jack M. Cooper
Dave Miller
ps...@terminus.com typed:
>Question: What's on tap for your character this season? Any romance that
>you know of?
>
>RoxannDwsn: I think they want to spice up my character a bit...at least
>that's what I'm told. Possibly somebody on the crew... but I'm not at
>liberty to reveal that.
So, add a little sex, eh?
>Question: Will "Q" be back to "Voyager?"
>
>RoxannDwsn: Yes! I don't know what the plot will be...but I hear he wants
>to co-create with the captain. Sorry...pro-create.
No! Add a LOT of sex.
>Question: Will your character have any strong episodes this upcoming season?
>RoxannDwsn: Yes. I just completed an episode called "Remember." The plot is
>about...an old alien woman with telepathic ability...who gives the memories
>of her life to me before she dies. I live these memories...in vivid dreams.
>During which I'm actually living this woman's life. She gives me these
>memories...to reveal that her species has committed a kind of holocaust.
>A systematic extinction of another race. She wants me to know so
>that the younger generation can be told...and will remember....so that this
>won't happen again.
Sounds like the producers have decided to do their part to save the
environment by recycling ideas. :(
Dave Miller
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Nothing shocks me. I'm a scientist." -Henry Jones Jr.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Andrew Johnston
In article <DwKD3...@rci.ripco.com>, sha...@ripco.com (John Paulus) wrote:
eason?
>
> : RoxannDwsn: Yes. I just completed an episode called "Remember." The
plot is
> : about...an old alien woman with telepathic ability...who gives the memories
> : of her life to me before she dies. I live these memories...in vivid dreams.
> : During which I'm actually living this woman's life. She gives me these
> : memories...to reveal that her species has committed a kind of holocaust.
> : A systematic extinction of another race. She wants me to know so
> : that the younger generation can be told...and will remember....so that this
> : completed it...and I hope I can live up to the wonderful script.
>
> It sounds like more RECYCLING!!!!!
> This time, the combination is "The Inner Light" (an excellent episode--where
> Picard lives a lifetime on another world; it's good not only within the
> hour, but Picard also picks up a musical talent which is seen in several
> episodes), as well as "Jetrel" (which touched on the other WW2 tragedy, the
> atomic bomb).
Actually, what it sounds like to me is a rip-off of Orson Scott Card's
"Ender" books, moreso than anything else (because of the galactic genocide
angle). But it's not without it's resemblance to "Inner Light", "The
Visitor", etc.
Travers Naran
Londo Mollari (lo...@uoknor.edu) pontificated:
> > about...an old alien woman with telepathic ability...who gives the memories
> > of her life to me before she dies. I live these memories...in vivid dreams.
> > During which I'm actually living this woman's life. She gives me these
> > memories...to reveal that her species has committed a kind of holocaust.
> > A systematic extinction of another race. She wants me to know so
> > that the younger generation can be told...and will remember....so that this
> > won't happen again. This episode was amazing for me to work on. We've just
> > completed it...and I hope I can live up to the wonderful script.
>
> I think the lets show a life episodes have been done enough times recently:
>
> TNG - "The Inner Light"
> DS9 - "The Visitor"
> DS9 - The one with O'Brien's prison stay
>
> While I liked all of the three above, it is time to do something
> else.
The device remains the same, the purpose changes...
... Changes into Voyager trying to cash in on the
Lets-Remember-The-Holocaust craze gripping serious documentary makers
the world over. I wish I could believe that Voyager is doing this
because they think they can help remind people even more, but like the
Visitor, it usually turns into a case of manipulating the audience in
order to get them to like something without actually trying or putting
any passion into their scripts.
It would have been nice if maybe Torres had, like, an entire episode
to get to know this woman's life and the terrible secret she harbours.
You know, getting to know people by actually *talking* to them??
Having an episode that really lets us get to know the culture the
woman belongs to and why a society could want to do things like this?
If you want to see a good documentary, there is one PBS aired several
months ago about a documentary maker who went to visit Poland with a
former Polish Jew. By visiting the places and people *TODAY* and
having him remember the vibrant and thriving Jewish community that he
grew up in and then showing the scant traces of this community left.
And even talking with his old neighbours and trying to learn from them
how they could just turn a blind eye, or worse -- turn in hiding Jews
and the Poles who risked their lives to protect them. It was a creepy
film because by just watching the way people behaved, it made you
wonder if any of the people in that community had learned anything
from WWII.... If Voyager wants to borrow an idea, they should at
least borrow a good implementation of one...
I guess I am asking for some good writing on their part...
Why am I dissing an episode I haven't seen yet? Have I so little
faith? Yes, unfortunately....
Franklin Hummel
In article <19960823.F...@van-as-13a07.direct.ca>
>
>... Changes into Voyager trying to cash in on the
>Lets-Remember-The-Holocaust craze gripping serious documentary makers
>the world over. I wish I could believe that Voyager is doing this
>because they think they can help remind people even more, but like the
>Visitor, it usually turns into a case of manipulating the audience in
>order to get them to like something without actually trying or putting
>any passion into their scripts.
"social issues" for the last 30th years, this episode is further proof
they are without a clue.
But what has becoming increasing disappointing is that the
"issues" that STAR TREK deal with nowadays are -not- issues at all,
because, if fact, they are actually -safe- topics TREK can deal with
without raising the possibility of -real- controversy. It's not like
1960s TREK showing an interracial crew of the "Enterprise". Who is going
to complain about doing a Holocaust-rememberance episode: Nazis? Like
this might affect TREK's market-share and profits?
Meanwhile in many of the rec.startrek newsgroups, right now, the
debate rages on once again, as it continually has every few months for
years and years now, over why STAR TREK has not yet included openly gay
characters...
I guess some issues STAR TREK is just too scared too deal with
nowadays. Not when it might cost them a few dollars.
-- Frank Hummel [ hum...@netcom.com ]
--
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
* NecronomiCon, 3rd Edition: The Cthulhu Mythos Convention *
August 15-17, 1997 - Providence, Rhode Island
For info: http://www.oneworld.net/sf/companies/necropress/necronomicon.html
Robin E. Cook
In <19960823.F...@van-as-13a07.direct.ca>
>Lets-Remember-The-Holocaust craze gripping serious documentary makers
>the world over. I wish I could believe that Voyager is doing this
>because they think they can help remind people even more, but like the
>Visitor, it usually turns into a case of manipulating the audience in
>order to get them to like something without actually trying or putting
>any passion into their scripts.
>
>to get to know this woman's life and the terrible secret she harbours.
>You know, getting to know people by actually *talking* to them??
>Having an episode that really lets us get to know the culture the
>woman belongs to and why a society could want to do things like this?
>
judgments.
Robin E. Cook
In <hummelDw...@netcom.com> hum...@netcom.com (Franklin Hummel)
writes:
>
>In article <19960823.F...@van-as-13a07.direct.ca>
>>
>>... Changes into Voyager trying to cash in on the
>>Lets-Remember-The-Holocaust craze gripping serious documentary makers
>>the world over. I wish I could believe that Voyager is doing this
>>because they think they can help remind people even more, but like
the
>>Visitor, it usually turns into a case of manipulating the audience in
>>order to get them to like something without actually trying or
putting
>>any passion into their scripts.
>
>
>"social issues" for the last 30th years, this episode is further proof
>they are without a clue.
Hey wait! Have you guys all won tickets to advance showings of these
episodes and we don't know about it?
>
> But what has becoming increasing disappointing is that the
>"issues" that STAR TREK deal with nowadays are -not- issues at all,
>because, if fact, they are actually -safe- topics TREK can deal with
>without raising the possibility of -real- controversy. It's not like
>1960s TREK showing an interracial crew of the "Enterprise". Who is
going
>to complain about doing a Holocaust-rememberance episode: Nazis? Like
>this might affect TREK's market-share and profits?
Hey, remember what the Cardassians did to the Bajorans? If that wasn't
a holocaust, I don't know what is.
FYI, by the time this episode takes place (24th century), the Nazi
holocaust would be just an entry in the history books. Torres would
presumably gain first-hand knowledge of a holocaust.
Mind you, the episode has not even been aired yet. Maybe you guys
should watch it and then come up with opinions.
>
> Meanwhile in many of the rec.startrek newsgroups, right now, the
>debate rages on once again, as it continually has every few months for
>years and years now, over why STAR TREK has not yet included openly
gay
>characters...
Good point, but why not write to the producers?
>
> I guess some issues STAR TREK is just too scared too deal with
>nowadays. Not when it might cost them a few dollars.
Sadly, "Rejoined" generated some angry male from all kinds of
neoconservative yahoos. Remember when Roseanne kissed Mariel
Hemingway? But yes, it would be good to see openly gay characters.
Gregg T. Allinson
Robin E. Cook (reco...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: > But what has becoming increasing disappointing is that the
: >"issues" that STAR TREK deal with nowadays are -not- issues at all,
: >because, if fact, they are actually -safe- topics TREK can deal with
: >without raising the possibility of -real- controversy. It's not like
: >1960s TREK showing an interracial crew of the "Enterprise". Who is
: going to complain about doing a Holocaust-rememberance episode: Nazis? Like
: >this might affect TREK's market-share and profits?
: Hey, remember what the Cardassians did to the Bajorans? If that wasn't
: a holocaust, I don't know what is.
It's called "fiction". And I don't know what the heck it has to do with
Frank Hummel saying that a show that does an allegory to the holocaust
probably won't shock or outrage anyone in the crowd except Nazis.
Frank's point is that doing a holocaust show is not in any way, shape, or
form "contraversial" or original. Yes, the holocaust was a horrible
event and a dark page in human history. Yes, we should remember it, least
we are condemned to repeat it. But at the same time, Frank was decrying the
fact that this is what Paramount and Trek considers "groundbreaking"
nowadays, and he'd also like to see something a bit more daring tried (like a
gay regular, for example).
: FYI, by the time this episode takes place (24th century), the Nazi
: holocaust would be just an entry in the history books.
But didn't the Bajoran people just suffer a Cardassian-engineered
holocaust? Sure the Nazi-engineered Jewish holocaust wouldn't be foremost in
her mind, but I'm sure the Cardassian one on Bajor would be, esp. considering
the fact that she was in an anti-Cardassian terrorist group.
: Torres would
: presumably gain first-hand knowledge of a holocaust.
There are these little things called "holodecks" in the Star Trek
universe. If B'lanna wanted to see what happened during the Nazi
holocaust, she could go there to see it "first-hand". That doesn't mean
it'd make for an original or groundbreaking episode though.
--
Au Bon Pain!,
Gregg "Dave" Allinson
Visit The Scrapyard ("The 'G' is for great!") @ http://miso.wwa.com/~roscoe
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Indeed, you won't die. However, living forever could be a hell if you're
beaten into a helpless pulp."
-Piccolo-San- Dragonball Z: Garlic Gains Eternal Life
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SAVE DOCTOR WHO! Write FOX at fox...@delphi.com and the BBC at P...@bbc.co.uk
and request a new season of Doctor Who!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robin E. Cook
In <4vmv5j$3...@kirin.wwa.com> ros...@wwa.com (Gregg T. Allinson)
writes:
And I mentioned that this was an interesting point.
>
>: FYI, by the time this episode takes place (24th century), the Nazi
>: holocaust would be just an entry in the history books.
>
>But didn't the Bajoran people just suffer a Cardassian-engineered
>holocaust? Sure the Nazi-engineered Jewish holocaust wouldn't be
foremost in
>her mind, but I'm sure the Cardassian one on Bajor would be, esp.
considering
>the fact that she was in an anti-Cardassian terrorist group.
>
>: Torres would
>: presumably gain first-hand knowledge of a holocaust.
>
>There are these little things called "holodecks" in the Star Trek
>universe. If B'lanna wanted to see what happened during the Nazi
>holocaust, she could go there to see it "first-hand". That doesn't
mean
>it'd make for an original or groundbreaking episode though.
>
You haven't seen the episode yet. Let's actually watch it and then
make a judgment.
>--
>Au Bon Pain!,
>Gregg "Dave" Allinson
>
>Visit The Scrapyard ("The 'G' is for great!") @
http://miso.wwa.com/~roscoe
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
>"Indeed, you won't die. However, living forever could be a hell if
you're
> beaten into a helpless pulp."
> -Piccolo-San- Dragonball Z: Garlic Gains Eternal
Life
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Travers Naran
Robin E. Cook (reco...@ix.netcom.com) pontificated:
>
> Mind you, the episode has not even been aired yet. Maybe you guys
> should watch it and then come up with opinions.
You mean watch the 37's before concluding it was a dumb ass episode?
Predicting how bad upcoming Voyager episodes has now evolved into
something higher than an Art and Science -- it has become an axiom.
If the premise sounds dumb-assed, history has shown us for the past
two seasons that it will be.
> > Meanwhile in many of the rec.startrek newsgroups, right now, the
> >debate rages on once again, as it continually has every few months for
>
> >years and years now, over why STAR TREK has not yet included openly
> gay
> >characters...
>
> Good point, but why not write to the producers?
Um, you do realise the *VOLUME* of letters the producers have gotten?
The volume is huge, but Paramount still ignores it. That is the
damned point.
Robin E. Cook
In <19960824.9...@van-as-11a02.direct.ca>
tna...@van-as-11a02.direct.ca (Travers Naran) writes:
>
>Robin E. Cook (reco...@ix.netcom.com) pontificated:
>>
>> Mind you, the episode has not even been aired yet. Maybe you guys
>> should watch it and then come up with opinions.
>
>You mean watch the 37's before concluding it was a dumb ass episode?
>Predicting how bad upcoming Voyager episodes has now evolved into
>something higher than an Art and Science -- it has become an axiom.
>If the premise sounds dumb-assed, history has shown us for the past
>two seasons that it will be.
From what I've read, the show will be revamped big-time in season 3.
Keep in mind that THIS IS ONLY A TV SHOW. Me, I'm willing to give it a
chance.
ps...@terminus.com
Franklin Hummel wrote:
> Meanwhile in many of the rec.startrek newsgroups, right now, the
> debate rages on once again, as it continually has every few months for
> years and years now, over why STAR TREK has not yet included openly gay
> characters...
I think there are no gays in Star Trek because gayness has been cured in
the 24th century. Today, scientists think that gayness is the result of
a defective gene. In the 24th century, scientists have probably cured
this defection.
Travers Naran
ps...@terminus.com pontificated:
HOOO BOY!
Man, that was a good troll. I had the same thought but decided to sit
on it. IMPO, homosexuality is not a 'disease' or a 'defect', but
simply an out of the ordinary expression of humanity. Being different
does *not* equal defectiveness or diseasedness.
Now, having said that -- your post alone will probably cause a minor
flame war. Maybe major.
Yousuf Khan
> For those folks who deny that STAR TREK has been dealing with
>"social issues" for the last 30th years, this episode is further proof
>they are without a clue.
>
> But what has becoming increasing disappointing is that the
>"issues" that STAR TREK deal with nowadays are -not- issues at all,
>because, if fact, they are actually -safe- topics TREK can deal with
>without raising the possibility of -real- controversy. It's not like
>1960s TREK showing an interracial crew of the "Enterprise". Who is going
>to complain about doing a Holocaust-rememberance episode: Nazis? Like
>this might affect TREK's market-share and profits?
Um, would having a racially mixed crew have affected Star Trek's
ratings even in the 1960's? Even back then it was a safe
politically correct topic. It was a topic with the backing of the
angels.
However, having a woman captain back then would've been pretty
controversial.
> Meanwhile in many of the rec.startrek newsgroups, right now, the
>debate rages on once again, as it continually has every few months for
>years and years now, over why STAR TREK has not yet included openly gay
>characters...
>
> I guess some issues STAR TREK is just too scared too deal with
>nowadays. Not when it might cost them a few dollars.
They've had enough episodes with it already, it's already passe.
They've been ranged from very subtle (TNG's The Outcast, 5th
season) to very graphic (DS9's Rejoined, 4th season).
If they really wanted to be controversial, then they'd take an
existing politically correct idea, and challenge it. Perhaps an
episode where killing innocent people was the only course of
action possible.
Yousuf Khan
--
Yousuf J. Khan
yk...@achilles.net
Ottawa, Ont, Canada
Nation's capital
Kevin Johnston
>> Meanwhile in many of the rec.startrek newsgroups, right now, the
>> debate rages on once again, as it continually has every few months for
>> years and years now, over why STAR TREK has not yet included openly gay
>> characters...
>
> I think there are no gays in Star Trek because gayness has been cured in
> the 24th century.
Yeah, I'm sure written right into the Star Trek writer's bible it says
"There will be no gay characters in Star Trek because gayness has been
'cured' in the 24th century."
> Today, scientists think that gayness is the result of
> a defective gene.
No they don't. Citation, please?
> In the 24th century, scientists have probably cured
> this defection.
"defection", yeah whatever. Anyway, pray tell, how are they going to
prevent people from CHOOSING to have same-sex sex partners?
Kevin
John Paulus
Travers Naran (tna...@van-as-11a02.direct.ca) wrote:
: Robin E. Cook (reco...@ix.netcom.com) pontificated:
: >
: > Mind you, the episode has not even been aired yet. Maybe you guys
: > should watch it and then come up with opinions.
: You mean watch the 37's before concluding it was a dumb ass episode?
: Predicting how bad upcoming Voyager episodes has now evolved into
: something higher than an Art and Science -- it has become an axiom.
: If the premise sounds dumb-assed, history has shown us for the past
: two seasons that it will be.
Actually, "Tuvix" wound up being a pretty decent episode, despite a VERY
dumb-sounding premise. Unlike the Torres episode, however, "Tuvix" had a
somewhat original episode (i.e. the OPPOSITE problem of "The Turnabout
Intruder" where Kirk is split in half).
Gregg T. Allinson
: writes:
: Frank's point is that doing a holocaust show is not in any way, shape,
: or form "contraversial" or original. Yes, the holocaust was a horrible
: event and a dark page in human history. Yes, we should remember it,
: least we are condemned to repeat it. But at the same time, Frank was
: decrying the fact that this is what Paramount and Trek considers
: "groundbreaking" nowadays, and he'd also like to see something a bit more
: daring tried (like a gay regular, for example).
: >And I mentioned that this was an interesting point.
Then why bring up the Bajor/Cardassian situation? It had nothing to do
with gays and you didn't tie it into Frank saying that Trek does
nothing contraversial anymore. The Bajor thing wasn't very contraversial
or groundbreaking, and you bought it up as if it were a real event. I
don't know about you, but comparing the deaths of a bunch of fictional
aliens to the deaths of *real people*, as if both had the same historical
importance, is a bit insulting to me.
: >There are these little things called "holodecks" in the Star Trek
: >universe. If B'lanna wanted to see what happened during the Nazi
: >holocaust, she could go there to see it "first-hand". That doesn't
: mean
: >it'd make for an original or groundbreaking episode though.
: >
: You haven't seen the episode yet. Let's actually watch it and then
: make a judgment.
Perhaps I can't make a fair evaluation of the quality of the
episode yet, but you do have to admit the premise does sound incredibly
unoriginal and certainly not at all groundbreaking or contraversial. For
all I know, it'll be a perfectly competent episode. I just don't think
it'll be anything all that original.
--
Au Bon Pain!,
Gregg "Dave" Allinson
Visit The Scrapyard ("The 'G' is for great!") @ http://miso.wwa.com/~roscoe
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Indeed, you won't die. However, living forever could be a hell if you're
beaten into a helpless pulp."
-Piccolo-San- Dragonball Z: Garlic Gains Eternal Life
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SAVE DOCTOR WHO! Write FOX at fox...@delphi.com and the BBC at P...@bbc.co.uk
and request a new season of Doctor Who!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gregg T. Allinson
ps...@terminus.com wrote:
: Franklin Hummel wrote:
: > Meanwhile in many of the rec.startrek newsgroups, right now, the
: > debate rages on once again, as it continually has every few months for
: > years and years now, over why STAR TREK has not yet included openly gay
: > characters...
: I think there are no gays in Star Trek because gayness has been cured in
: the 24th century. Today, scientists think that gayness is the result of
: a defective gene. In the 24th century, scientists have probably cured
: this defection.
Even if homosexuality is a genetic condition, only the most bigoted and
close-minded would argue that it should be "cured". What the hell has the
homosexual community done to offend so many people? *Exist*?!
Franklin Hummel
In article <3220AF...@terminus.com> ps...@terminus.com writes:
>
>I think there are no gays in Star Trek because gayness has been cured in
>the 24th century. Today, scientists think that gayness is the result of
>a defective gene. In the 24th century, scientists have probably cured
>this defection.
Like they cured baldness?
Gregg T. Allinson
Yousuf Khan (yk...@achilles.net) wrote:
: Um, would having a racially mixed crew have affected Star Trek's
: ratings even in the 1960's? Even back then it was a safe
: politically correct topic. It was a topic with the backing of the
: angels.
Well, first off, TOS was a ratings flop, due for cancellation and
only saved time and again by the efforts of dedicated fans. It was
unpopular in part due to the mixed crew and challenging topics, unlike the
really really white, really really trival, really really popular "Lost in
Space", which was running at the same time as Trek.
Secondly, the 1960s were *not* a time of racial peace and harmony. Black
civil rights leaders from both extremes, Martin Luther King Jr. and
Malcolm X, were killed. Civil rights marches were going on all the time.
I could be wrong, but I think NBC was against the racially mixed crew. If
they weren't, that was awfully forward-thinking of them.
: However, having a woman captain back then would've been pretty
: controversial.
You're damn straight. That's why they tried doing the series with a
female second-in-command (OK, not *quite* Captain, but damn close) and the
network killed the idea. You can't fault TOS for trying.
: They've had enough episodes with it already, it's already passe.
: They've been ranged from very subtle (TNG's The Outcast, 5th
: season) to very graphic (DS9's Rejoined, 4th season).
Oh...*great* episodes to represent the gay community. "The Outcast"'s
metaphor for homosexuality was "cured" because it was a "defect", and
"Rejoined" was, in essence, a relationship between a man and a woman. It
was also a cheap, tawdry ratings stunt and Dax was "gay" one week, and not
the next.
Sorry, I'd rather have a 3-dimensional, positively portrayed gay regular
or semiregular.
Gregg T. Allinson
Kevin Johnston (kjoh...@macromedia.com) wrote:
: Yeah, I'm sure written right into the Star Trek writer's bible it says
: "There will be no gay characters in Star Trek because gayness has been
: 'cured' in the 24th century."
Given the shit they pulled with "The Outcast", with an androgynous (read:
straight) person who started to indulge in a relationship that involved a
member of one specific sex and not another androgynous person (read: A
relationship that involed a member of the same sex and not another
straight person), but had to be "cured" because of its "problem" (read:
Had to be "cured" because of their "problem"), I wouldn't doubt it.
Robin E. Cook
in
>>the 24th century. Today, scientists think that gayness is the result
of
>>a defective gene. In the 24th century, scientists have probably
cured
>>this defection.
>
>
> Like they cured baldness?
>
>
the homophobic mail "Rejoined" generated.
Robin E. Cook
In <4vqvq7$2...@kirin.wwa.com> ros...@wwa.com (Gregg T. Allinson)
writes:
>
>Robin E. Cook (reco...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: In <4vmv5j$3...@kirin.wwa.com> ros...@wwa.com (Gregg T. Allinson)
>: writes:
>: Frank's point is that doing a holocaust show is not in any way,
shape,
>: or form "contraversial" or original. Yes, the holocaust was a
horrible
>: event and a dark page in human history. Yes, we should remember it,
>: least we are condemned to repeat it. But at the same time, Frank
was
>: decrying the fact that this is what Paramount and Trek considers
>: "groundbreaking" nowadays, and he'd also like to see something a bit
more
>: daring tried (like a gay regular, for example).
>
>: >And I mentioned that this was an interesting point.
>
>Then why bring up the Bajor/Cardassian situation? It had nothing to
do
>with gays and you didn't tie it into Frank saying that Trek does
>nothing contraversial anymore.
I pointed out that I agreed with him about gays on Trek. And since
there are still plenty of episodes to come from DS9 and Voyager, I am
reserving judgment. "Rejoined" did in fact generate controversy--and
that's perhaps the first and only time we've seen a homosexual
relationship on Trek.
Question: how many times have you actually seen homosexual characters
on TV in general.
If you feel so strongly, write to the producers.
The Bajor thing wasn't very contraversial
>or groundbreaking, and you bought it up as if it were a real event. I
>don't know about you, but comparing the deaths of a bunch of fictional
>aliens to the deaths of *real people*, as if both had the same
historical
>importance, is a bit insulting to me.
Um, you misunderstand me here. I pointed out simply that the theme of
holocaust had been addressed in Star Trek--albiet in allegorical terms.
I didn't mean to imply that we should look upon the Cardassian
occupation as a real event.
Arthur Levesque
ps...@terminus.com once again:
psf>I think there are no gays in Star Trek because gayness has been
psf>cured in the 24th century. Today, scientists think that gayness is
psf>the result of a defective gene.
You have your terminology incorrect. Gayness is not caused by a
"defective" gene any more than blondness, black skin, monobrows, etc.
Genetic differences != genetic defects.
psf>In the 24th century, scientists have probably cured this defection.
That's assuming that a cure is necessary. It's not Downs syndrome.
--
/\ Arthur Levesque <*> baks...@nicom.com =/\= Hoopla, Denton!
\B\ack The King of the Potato People [fnord?] Alicia's Homey Bunny
\S\lash "Despite all your rage, you're still just rats in a cage!!"
\/ (Karen taunting my ferrets) http://www.nicom.com/~bakslash
Arthur Levesque
Franklin Hummel (hum...@netcom.com) wrote:
FH>...what has becoming increasing disappointing is that the "issues"
FH>that STAR TREK deal with nowadays are -not- issues at all, because,
FH>if fact, they are actually -safe- topics TREK can deal with without
FH>raising the possibility of -real- controversy. It's not like 1960s
FH>TREK showing an interracial crew of the "Enterprise". Who is going
FH>to complain about doing a Holocaust-rememberance episode: Nazis?
FH>Like this might affect TREK's market-share and profits?
It does depend on how they approach the issue. For instance, let's
say Voyager did an episode about rape. Surely, no reasonable person
would disagree that rape is a horrible thing. However, if the episode
was done in an ultra-feminist "all men are rapists" way; then, yes, it
could cause some controversy. Didn't Voyager just do a holocaust
episode last year with Neelix and the cascade anyway?
I think the biggest difference, issues-wise, between TOS-era and
contemporary Trek is that TOS posed questions to make the viewers think,
and contemporary Trek shoves PC-answers (there's only one side/solution
to an issue, right?) down the viewers' throats.
Robin E. Cook (reco...@ix.netcom.com) pontificated:
RC>Mind you, the episode has not even been aired yet. Maybe you guys
RC>should watch it and then come up with opinions.
There's nothing wrong with judging an episode by commercials or
advance publicity, that's what they're there for! TPTB hope we'll see
the publicity and conclude "wow, looks cool, I have to see that!" but
that isn't always the case. We already know what the plot will be for
several episodes in season three, we can debate on what we already know.
If you're asking us why we don't have more faith, trust, and respect
for TPTB, Voyager, and their writers; remember, all of those things must
be EARNED, and they haven't done much with past episodes to earn our
confidence.
Londo Mollari
ros...@wwa.com (Gregg T. Allinson) wrote:
[snip]
> I could be wrong, but I think NBC was against the racially mixed crew. If
> they weren't, that was awfully forward-thinking of them.
[snip]
This comments are from an August 17, 1965 memo to Gene Roddenberry
from Mort Werner, an NBC vice president (Source: Solow and Justman,
_Inside_Star_Trek_):
...
I choose this statistic [1/8 of American and probally views are
not white] to call your attention once again to NBC's longstanding
policy of non-discriminiation....
...
NBC's employment policy has long dictated that there can be no
discrimination because of race, creed, religion or national
origin and this applies to all of our operations....
While this applies to all racial minorities, obviously the
principle reference is to the casting and depiction of
Negroes....
...
We urge producers to cast Negros, subject to their availability
and competence as performers, as people who are integral segment
of the population, as well as in those roles where the fact of
their minority status is of significance....
...
...in such popular programs as I SPY, THE ANDY WILLIAMS SHOW,
THE MAN FROM U.N.C.L.E., RUN FOR YOUR LIFE, and many other
presentations. While we have made noticible progress we can
do better, and I ask for your cooperation and help.
--
"When I wrote that book [_Fahrenheit_451_], I was trying
to _prevent_ a future, and by god it's arrived..."
- Ray Bradbury on TV, VR, and the lack of reading today
Tarchannon
ps...@terminus.com wrote:
> Franklin Hummel wrote:
> > Meanwhile in many of the rec.startrek newsgroups, right now, the
> > debate rages on once again, as it continually has every few months for
> > years and years now, over why STAR TREK has not yet included openly gay
> > characters...
>
> the 24th century.
Population genetics suggests that homosexuality is a stable feature of all
higher mammals. Given the strong selection pressure against this trait,
there must be *significant advantages* to this trait on a population level.
So why would you 'cure' a good thing?
> Today, scientists think that gayness is the result of
> a defective gene.
False. Scientists in general think that homosexuality is indeed genetic,
however the variation that is the cause may be essential (perhaps the same
genes that cause attraction to men in gays are essential for the same
attraction to men in females....). There is solid genetic evidence only in
the case of 30% of gay men, and nothing as yet for lesbians. It's a touchy
research subject.
> In the 24th century, scientists have probably cured
> this defection.
To the contrary, most genetic manipulation has been banned in bacteria and
plants (for oublic release). When technology progresses, there is very
strong reason to expect that eugenics will be banned as well. Such is the
case in the current ST universe.
Tarch
Michael Higby
> ps...@terminus.com writes:
>I think there are no gays in Star Trek because gayness has been cured in
>the 24th century. Today, scientists think that gayness is the result of
>a defective gene. In the 24th century, scientists have probably cured
>this defection.
Probably the same way they have cured the defective gene for intolerance, as
well.
-Michael (a happy heterosexual who is supportive, accepting, tolerant and not
threatened by gay people)
-----
Michael - MHi...@primenet.com
See The North Hollywood Pages!
http://www.primenet.com/~mhigby/noho.htm
-----
Jane Lee
Arthur Levesque wrote:
>
> ps...@terminus.com once again:
> psf>I think there are no gays in Star Trek because gayness has been
> psf>cured in the 24th century.
:That's assuming that a cure is necessary. It's not Downs syndrome.
Now what *was* that TNG episode.... Riker falls for the woman whose
culture forbids her to have sexual feelings? What was that - they had
to *cure* her for her own good.........I suppose psf12 agreed with them.
<Sigh>
THIAGO MACIEIRA
From: sha...@ripco.com (John Paulus)
JP>Travers Naran (tna...@van-as-11a02.direct.ca) wrote:
JP>: Robin E. Cook (reco...@ix.netcom.com) pontificated:
JP>: >
JP>: > Mind you, the episode has not even been aired yet. Maybe you guys
JP>: > should watch it and then come up with opinions.
JP>
JP>: You mean watch the 37's before concluding it was a dumb ass episode?
JP>: Predicting how bad upcoming Voyager episodes has now evolved into
JP>: something higher than an Art and Science -- it has become an axiom.
JP>: If the premise sounds dumb-assed, history has shown us for the past
JP>: two seasons that it will be.
JP>
JP>Actually, "Tuvix" wound up being a pretty decent episode, despite a VERY
JP>dumb-sounding premise. Unlike the Torres episode, however, "Tuvix" had a
JP>somewhat original episode (i.e. the OPPOSITE problem of "The Turnabout
JP>Intruder" where Kirk is split in half).
JP>
The episode you mention is not "Turnabout Intruder" but "The Enemy
Within". "Turnabout Intruder" was TOS last episode (#79) and Kirk's mind
was placed in Dr. Janice Lester's body, while her mind was placed in his
body, using a machine discovered at Camus II (remember anything referred
to this planet in "Legacy" [TNG]?)
In "The Enemy Within", a defective transporter splits Kirk in two
halves, a good and an evil one.
--
Thiago Macieira thiago....@mandic.com.br ta...@geocities.com
Can you read Portuguese? Visit one of my Star Trek pages:
http://www.mandic.com.br/galeria/stmain.htm
http://www.geocities.com/hollywood/9792
Gharlane of Eddore
>
Why? They've had two years to get it right, and haven't come
close YET.
Travers Naran (tna...@van-as-11a02.direct.ca) wrote:
>
> You mean watch the 37's before concluding it was a dumb ass episode?
> Predicting how bad upcoming Voyager episodes has now evolved into
> something higher than an Art and Science -- it has become an axiom.
> If the premise sounds dumb-assed, history has shown us for the past
> two seasons that it will be.
>
Abso-rildiflarging-lutely.
In <DwpyG...@rci.ripco.com> sha...@ripco.com (John Paulus) writes:
>
> Actually, "Tuvix" wound up being a pretty decent episode, despite a VERY
> dumb-sounding premise. Unlike the Torres episode, however, "Tuvix" had a
> somewhat original episode (i.e. the OPPOSITE problem of "The Turnabout
> Intruder" where Kirk is split in half).
>
Wrong, wrong, and WRONG.
"TUVIX" was a story about two guys getting killed in a transporter accident,
and a new guy accidentally being created.... and the captain deciding to
murder the new guy to bring back the other two.
The plot was stupid, the tech was stupid, and the ethics and conclusion
were completely indefensible. It was sloppy, unimaginative, and a
complete waste of film.
Incidentally, "TURNABOUT INTRUDER" was the O.S.T. episode about Kirk's
body being taken over by Dr. Janet Lester, the psychotic captain-wannabee.
Kirk got split in half in the FIRST season, not in the third; I believe
the title was "THE ENEMY WITHIN."
Victor
yk...@achilles.net (Yousuf Khan) wrote:
<snip>
>If they really wanted to be controversial, then they'd take an
>existing politically correct idea, and challenge it. Perhaps an
>episode where killing innocent people was the only course of
>action possible.
>
> Yousuf Khan
Interesting post, but I don't think that killing innocents is a notion
of PC, but a world-wide taboo. ST's "preaching" has been more of an
appeal to reason than an "in your face" desire for conflict.
Your post is cool because it invokes TOS's origins: disecting current
practice pursuant to acheiving social justice. I am always disappointed
by those people on this group that can't differentiate between
controversy in pursuit of social justice, and simply offending people.
I also include the guy who writes pc essays on why we must respect gays,
and then has a signature offensive to nuns. (Way to pick on a powerful
group, gutsy) ;-)
PC decisions that would be interesting to comment on:
1. Why is AIDS treated as a civil rights issue instead of a health
issue? The gay community would have benefitted more than any other group
if a screening had been performed, and quaranteen established, back in
'85. For the pc out there who admonish (even after all these years of
deaths) that HIV is soooo hard to aquire, I would point out that 40,000
people every year seem to be able to catch it.
I think the government's total inability to treat HIV as a health issue,
and the apparent desire of the pharmaceuticals to be blessed with the
assured market for "keep alive" drugs.
2. Why does everyone concede that poor kids are going to be dumber in
highschool, so we have to set entrance quotas in the Universities? This
is stage-five in the duh-factor.
->make the highschools better<-
Do what it takes. Send in the National Guard to secure the playground,
feed the kids breakfast, and hire fewer teacher-politicians and more
teachers. If anyone knows anything about charter schools, that's a great
solution.
3. What about a ST story involving a civilization where most of the
people are killing themselves trying to buy cd players and new cars, and
the other half are watching daytime talkshows and think Hardcopy is
news.
4. It would be great to see a ST story involving a leader that can't
tell the truth to save himself, but lies so well that even HE believes
it.
Victor M
Papaleonardos
In article <4vtg0v$c...@butch.lmsc.lockheed.com>,
yk...@achilles.net (Yousuf Khan) wrote:
>If they really wanted to be controversial, then they'd take an
>existing politically correct idea, and challenge it. Perhaps an
>episode where killing innocent people was the only course of
>action possible.
I thought that was the premise of "Tuvix".
;-)
Chris
Drazi
ros...@wwa.com (Gregg T. Allinson) wrote:
>Then why bring up the Bajor/Cardassian situation? It had nothing to do
>with gays and you didn't tie it into Frank saying that Trek does
>nothing contraversial anymore. The Bajor thing wasn't very contraversial
>or groundbreaking, and you bought it up as if it were a real event. I
>don't know about you, but comparing the deaths of a bunch of fictional
>aliens to the deaths of *real people*, as if both had the same historical
>importance, is a bit insulting to me.
Don't get your panites in a bunch, he was merely pointing out that, in
the context of the show, how lame it is for someone in the 24th C to
feel more empathy with a holocaust 300-400 yrs ago than one rather
more recent. You ARE correct one is horrible fact and the other is
lame fiction but he NEVER said that in the REAL world they are both
equilivant. His comments were made IN CONTEXT to the FICTIONAL ST
universe.
If your senseibilities are shocked why don't you write the ST people
who would trivalise such an event to score a few rating points on one
episode. What the hell does the holocaust have to do with ST anyway?
So you don't misunderstand I DO believe that the Holocaust was one of
the greatest EVILS of modern times, along with Stalin, Pol Pot, the
Cultural Revolution, invasion of Afganistan, slavery throughout the 17
& 1800's, Japan's war in China & Korea (& later all Asia), and
thousands other 'little' holocausts ...
Tarchannon
Sean Aschen wrote:
> >> > Meanwhile in many of the rec.startrek newsgroups, right now, the
> >> > debate rages on once again, as it continually has every few months for
> >> > years and years now, over why STAR TREK has not yet included openly gay
> >> > characters...
> >>
> >> the 24th century.
> >
> >Population genetics suggests that homosexuality is a stable feature of all
> >higher mammals. Given the strong selection pressure against this trait,
> >there must be *significant advantages* to this trait on a population level.
> >So why would you 'cure' a good thing?
>
Yes. That is the way the experts interpret the data. Please look the articles up
for yourself... you can find them easily on Medline.
> How is it better than heterosexuality?
I really don't know if that is the case. I certainly didn't say that.
> Are you
> bashing me?
?. Take it how you will. Please note two things: 1) This is not stated as my
opinion - it is what the cross-disciplinary scientific efforts on the subject
reveal (which anyone can verify if they choose); and 2) even if this was my
opinion, how could supporting homosexuality 'bash' or denigrate heterosexuals
(methinks you are confused).
> Anyway, maybe we should start a Pro-Gay propaganda
> machine in the Third World.
I really couldn't reply until I know what your talking about.
> Is this your idea of a "Good Thing"?
Accepting the natural diversity of humankind is a good thing. There is a a
cuople of obscure documents... perhaps the Declaration of Independence and the
US Constitution... that suggest that this is the case. Not to mention the
teachings of Jesus Christ (etc., ad nauseum along the religious line).
> >> Today, scientists think that gayness is the result of
> >> a defective gene.
> >False. Scientists in general think that homosexuality is indeed genetic,
> >however the variation that is the cause may be essential (perhaps the same
> >genes that cause attraction to men in gays are essential for the same
> >attraction to men in females....). There is solid genetic evidence only in
> >the case of 30% of gay men, and nothing as yet for lesbians. It's a touchy
> >research subject.
I'm glad you didn't snip this. Here it is again folks.
Tarch
Tarchannon
Joseph Franke Kolacinski wrote:
>
> On 26 Aug 1996, Gregg T. Allinson wrote:
>
> > Given the shit they pulled with "The Outcast", with an androgynous (read:
> > straight) person who started to indulge in a relationship that involved a
> > member of one specific sex and not another androgynous person (read: A
> > relationship that involed a member of the same sex and not another
> > straight person), but had to be "cured" because of its "problem" (read:
> > Had to be "cured" because of their "problem"), I wouldn't doubt it.
>
I doubt the Borg are unhappy after assimilation. They are just brain wiped.
Conforming to the norm (whatever that is) is always easier - but it is usually
impossible.
> I think the
> existance of a cure may have been the real intended message of that episode.
Did you watch the episode? The 'conversion' was plainly meant to be
*horrifying*. In press, the writers said the same thing.
Tarch
> ***********************************************************************
> Joseph Franke Kolacinski *
> j...@roswell.cs.miami.edu *
> http://www.cs.miami.edu:80/~jfk/ *
> ***********************************************************************
Joseph Franke Kolacinski
On 26 Aug 1996, Gregg T. Allinson wrote:
> Given the shit they pulled with "The Outcast", with an androgynous (read:
> straight) person who started to indulge in a relationship that involved a
> member of one specific sex and not another androgynous person (read: A
> relationship that involed a member of the same sex and not another
> straight person), but had to be "cured" because of its "problem" (read:
> Had to be "cured" because of their "problem"), I wouldn't doubt it.
But notice "she" seemed a lot happier after the procedure. I think the
existance of a cure may have been the real intended message of that episode.
***********************************************************************
Gregg T. Allinson
Jack M. Cooper (sd...@atl.mindspring.com) wrote:
: Oh, man!!! Just when Paul Ordover has me actually thinking
: the new season might be pretty good,
I could be catastophically wrong, but isn't that *John* Ordover?
Sean Aschen
On 27 Aug 1996 00:37:51 GMT, Victor <cot...@lmsc.lockheed.com> wrote:
>yk...@achilles.net (Yousuf Khan) wrote:
><snip>
>>If they really wanted to be controversial, then they'd take an
>>existing politically correct idea, and challenge it. Perhaps an
>>episode where killing innocent people was the only course of
>>action possible.
>>
Excellent ideas, but you forget one thing: The current Star Trek
universe _IS_ PC! Doing any of the stories you've suggested would be
like self destructive.
Ok, look: They've got a racially balanced crew, representative of the
racial mixture in the United States in the late 20th century (What a
coincidence!). Toss in one female Captain not afraid to express her
emotions, an old, bald Captain with an accent, and a single black man,
raising a son by himself. If you count up the lead characters, you
will find that (almost) always, there is a 50/50 male/female ratio.
The aliens (minorities) are portrayed in a good light, even if they
are enemies (The Klingons are Noble, the Cardassians were
mis-guided..)
The list goes on. Star Trek is an idealistic view of the future. Any
attempt to make it realistic is moving away from the basis of the Trek
universe. It also makes it inconsistent. Trying to take current
issues and applying them to the Star Trek universe just doesn't work!
Oh well.. people always got to complain...
Sean
"The time has come," the Tortoise said, "to talk of many things."
Greg Krehbiel
"your average straight male" wrote,
>Joseph Franke Kolacinski wrote:
>>
>> On 26 Aug 1996, Gregg T. Allinson wrote:
>>
>>>Given the shit they pulled with "The Outcast", with an androgynous
>>>(read: straight) person who started to indulge in a relationship that
>>>involved a member of one specific sex and not another androgynous
>>>person (read: A relationship that involed a member of the same sex
>>>and not another straight person), but had to be "cured" because of
>>>its "problem" (read: Had to be "cured" because of their "problem"), I
>>>wouldn't doubt it.
>
>>But notice "she" seemed a lot happier after the procedure. I think
>>the existance of a cure may have been the real intended message of
>>that episode.
>I have to step in. The "message" of the show, deals with the closed
>mindedness of the government and other "normal" people. Not, "Thank >god for a cure"
It's interesting that you think that was the message. As I remember the episode, it wasn't clear whether the androgynous character w=
ho wanted to be "female" was really sick, as the leaders on the planet suggested, or whether they had "cured" her/it merely by suppr=
essing her urges with drugs, or some kind of "therapy."
There are obvious parallels to discussions of human sexuality, but I thought the script ended up saying exactly nothing -- it merely=
raised the issue and then dodged it.
Greg
Sean Aschen
>> > Meanwhile in many of the rec.startrek newsgroups, right now, the
>> > debate rages on once again, as it continually has every few months for
>> > years and years now, over why STAR TREK has not yet included openly gay
>> > characters...
>>
>> I think there are no gays in Star Trek because gayness has been cured in
>> the 24th century.
>
>Population genetics suggests that homosexuality is a stable feature of all
>higher mammals. Given the strong selection pressure against this trait,
>there must be *significant advantages* to this trait on a population level.
>So why would you 'cure' a good thing?
A good thing, eh? How is it better than heterosexuality? Are you
bashing me? Anyway, maybe we should start a Pro-Gay propaganda
machine in the Third World. Is this your idea of a "Good Thing"?
jdwiseman
Joseph Franke Kolacinski wrote:
>
> On 26 Aug 1996, Gregg T. Allinson wrote:
>
> > Given the shit they pulled with "The Outcast", with an androgynous (read:
> > straight) person who started to indulge in a relationship that involved a
> > member of one specific sex and not another androgynous person (read: A
> > relationship that involed a member of the same sex and not another
> > straight person), but had to be "cured" because of its "problem" (read:
> > Had to be "cured" because of their "problem"), I wouldn't doubt it.
>
> But notice "she" seemed a lot happier after the procedure. I think the
> existance of a cure may have been the real intended message of that episode.
>
I have to step in. The "message" of the show, deals with the closed
mindedness of the government and other "normal" people. Not, "Thank god
for a cure"
signed
- your average straight male
Victor
pdelg...@pbs.org (Paul DG) wrote:
>> > ps...@terminus.com writes:
>>
>> >I think there are no gays in Star Trek because gayness has been cured in
>> >a defective gene. In the 24th century, scientists have probably cured
>> >this defection.
>
>Cameron of the religious right. Paul Cameron's work has been discredited
>by every reputable national science association in the country.
>
>The key is not to find the study that fits your myopia, but find one that
>is recognized as sound research by organizations that have a reputation
>for sound science. In other words, challenge yourself a little.
>
>While much still remains to be learned about the exact causes of sexual
>orientation, most reputable scientists now believe it is a combination of
>environmental and biological factors. Before you phobes jump with glee at
>the mention of "environmental," these same scientists believe sexual
>orientation is determined at a very early age around age 8 and is
>irreversible.
<snip>
>
>I suggest some of you Trek geeks, learn a little bit about real science
>and spend a little less time worrying about warp technology. You might
>actually learn something.
>
>--Paul
It is disappointing to observe that the "enlightened" attack as "disturbed" those who question their canon.
Actually scientific studies to date are inconclusive. To date no "gay gene" has been identified, and in fact there is a controversy =
as to whether there should be a search: the gays fear that identifying a gay gene will lead to parents "stopping" a fetus with the g=
ene.
Another way to look at that is that the gays agree with the right to "stop", EXCEPT if the fetus has the gaygene. I'd like to see th=
at one reconciled with NOW's position. <grin>
So if it's not a gene, then it's behavior, right? If this is true, and behavior is as transitory as the culture, who is to say that =
many gays wouldn't be that way if it (gayness) weren't so glamorized by the media? (Please think about this before flaming away.)
The "absence" of outward gays on ST could be explainable by a subtle suggestion that ST makes about the 24th century society: perhap=
s the society is advanced and mature enough to keep its intimicy *behind-closed-doors* where it belongs. Hey, remember when Picard a=
cted differently with that woman when crewmen were around? It would be the same principle.
I don't think that I have made any homophobic remarks, but I know that some people will be upset that I have introduced ideas that t=
hey don't like, so I will attempt to placate them by saying something about the hetero's: Paris' hyper-predatory perspective of wome=
n is IMHO not only as unwatchable violation of the 24th century intimicy notion, but is as unbelievable as highschool lockerroom bra=
ggarts (who we all know never really get any).
Victor M
flames tolerated
discussions preferred
CO...@maine.maine.edu
In article <3223c8a7...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, asc...@ix.netcom.com (Sean
Aschen) says:
>
>Ok, look: They've got a racially balanced crew, representative of the
>racial mixture in the United States in the late 20th century (What a
>coincidence!). Toss in one female Captain not afraid to express her
Yes, but if they were more realistic and tried to represent the racial
mixtures of the entire planet, about half the crew would be Asian, only
one or two would be white, and you'd have a bunch of idiots accusing
them of racism against whites.
>emotions, an old, bald Captain with an accent, and a single black man,
>raising a son by himself. If you count up the lead characters, you
>will find that (almost) always, there is a 50/50 male/female ratio.
This season, DS9 has had 2 female lead characters and 7 males. Real PC.
>The aliens (minorities) are portrayed in a good light, even if they
>are enemies (The Klingons are Noble, the Cardassians were
>mis-guided..)
And how have the Borg or the Kazon been portrayed in a good light?
SRipley366
As I have no canon about gay genes I can gratefully not contribute to this
issue.
I am a little curious about a statement made regarding the glamorization
of gays in the media. Glamor is in the eye of the beholder, I guess. One
might broaden one's horizons by sitting down and watching "The Celluloid
Closet", an excellent film that points out that in the media, most gay
characters during the past 70 or so years of film and t.v. have been
portrayed as sick or demented or unhappy. This is not "news" for any gay
person, of course, merely a well-documented pointer that confirms what we
have already observed. Unfortunately, shows like 'Roseanne' continue to
be the exception rather than the rule.
Jeri Taylor has been quoted on the subject of visibility of gay
characters, which apparently continues to confuse her. It confuses me,
too, though I think for different reasons. Questions of sexuality and
sexual hypocrisy that arise on Star Trek -- like Paris's (and for that
matter, Kim's) -- might actually be seen to put pro-gay and anti-gay
discussers on the same side. After all, what do you expect? Can you have
your cake and eat it too? A super-patriarchal value system that places
high moral judgments on gender choice questions can't be expected to be
that much less judgmental of women, now can it? So, the same people who
bring us "invisible" gay characters also makes a running gag out of a
couple of guys demeaning a never-seen pair of (one assumes) highly
pneumatic twins.
I'd love to be a spider under the table (Bejoran phrase <g>) during a
discussion of the subject between the male execs who run Star Trek,
wouldn't you? All we get out in oh-so-glamourous media land are the
cautious responses of JT, which end up managing to say nothing at all.
And the band plays on -- if ya know what I mean <g>. It would be kinda a
relief to see the real gauntlet, here -- at least we'd know where we
actually stand, eh?
S.
Aikane
On 26 Aug 1996, Gregg T. Allinson wrote:
[much interesting debate snipped]
> Oh...*great* episodes to represent the gay community. "The Outcast"'s
> metaphor for homosexuality was "cured" because it was a "defect", and
> "Rejoined" was, in essence, a relationship between a man and a woman. It
> was also a cheap, tawdry ratings stunt and Dax was "gay" one week, and not
> the next.
>
> Sorry, I'd rather have a 3-dimensional, positively portrayed gay regular
> or semiregular.
>
Frankly, I'd just like to have a 3-dimensional character,
regardless of sexual orientation. Let's face it, character development
has not been a particular strong point of the Piller/Berman era.
----------------
aik...@aloha.net
----------------
David E. Sluss
asc...@ix.netcom.com (Sean Aschen) says:
SA>The aliens (minorities) are portrayed in a good light, even if they
SA>are enemies (The Klingons are Noble, the Cardassians were
SA>mis-guided..)
<CO...@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> writes:
CO> And how have the Borg or the Kazon been portrayed in a good light?
Well, 'good light' may be a stretch, but both have been portrayed
simpathetically, the Borg in 'I, Borg,' the Kazon (sort of) in 'Alliances,'
which mentioned their victimization at the hands of the Trabe.
--
###############################################################################
## David E. Sluss ## 'You might know who we are, but ##
########################################## we KNOW who you are. Understand?' ##
## email: slu...@pitt.edu ## NTN: SLUGS ## Robert DeNiro, _GoodFellas_ ##
###############################################################################
Micheal Keane
In article <96241.19...@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>, <CO...@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> wrote:
>>The aliens (minorities) are portrayed in a good light, even if they
>
>And how have the Borg or the Kazon been portrayed in a good light?
Never seen "I, Borg", eh?
--
Micheal Keane(ae...@u.washington.edu)
Before sending unsolicited commercial email to this address, read the
agreement on my webpage: http://weber.u.washington.edu/~aexia/license.txt
Join the Church of Last Thursday of Queen Maeve the Cat and be saved!
gr.w...@student.canterbury.ac.nz
I'm extremly concerned to see Tarchannon saying that genetic enginneering
is banned. I carried out genetic engineering on bacteria for my
university genetics course. Should I go to jail now?
Micheal Keane
In article <Pine.ULT.3.91.960827...@cs.cs.miami.edu>,
>> straight) person who started to indulge in a relationship that involved a
>> member of one specific sex and not another androgynous person (read: A
>> relationship that involed a member of the same sex and not another
>> straight person), but had to be "cured" because of its "problem" (read:
>> Had to be "cured" because of their "problem"), I wouldn't doubt it.
>
>But notice "she" seemed a lot happier after the procedure. I think the
>existance of a cure may have been the real intended message of that episode.
People seem "happier" after a lobotomy as well. =-) Which was pretty much
what she went though. Her personality was pretty much reprogrammed from
what I could tell.
Tarchannon
I don't believe that is exactly what I said, but to clarify (as in a few
minutes I'm off to work to engineer some bacteria - as I do just about
every week): genetic engineering of bacteria OK in the lab, and in
specialized situations such as bioreactors, but they may no be relaeased into
the environment. There rules for plants are more complex, though I believe
that direct genetic manipulation is also banned in most cases (though I think
that a few manipulations are under review), leaving other techniques as
possibilities for manipulation. Most overt manipulation of animals is only
allowed in strictly regulated lab conditions.
Tarch
Tarchannon
This is not exactly true. There is some solid work done that provides strong
indications - off hand, in genetics and in neurobiology. Unfortunately, due to
bias over the issue funding is hard to come by regarding this topic.
> To date no "gay gene" has been identified,
A gene has no been identified, but a locus on the x-chromosome has been
identified that is very probably a gay-related factor (at least in 30% of gay
men, all of whom show an x-linked pattern of inheritance...). The work was
presented fairly recently in the Lilly Spealers Award Grant Talk for the Honors
Program At Michigan State University by Dr. Simon LeVay, who participated in the
work.
> and in fact there is a controversy as to whether there should
Not in the body of literature that I've read as a geneticist...
> Another way to look at that is that the gays agree with the right to "stop", EXCEPT if the fetus has the gaygene. I'd like to see that one reconciled with
NOW'
Old arguement. Abortion for genetic genineering is not as yet banned, but is
highly disapproved of - many doctors will not preform such abortions. When our
technology becomes great enough to do a great deal of testing such as this -
perhaps in ten or fifteen years with the information of the Human Genome
Project - eugenics legislation is a shoo in.
> So if it's not a gene, then it's behavior, right? If this is true, and behavior is as transitory as the culture, who is to say that many gays wouldn't
be that
Population genetics (as well as a good portion of the behavioral
literature) belies the idea. Let me know when you figure out why homosexuality
is a stable feature of all higher mammals, and can be found even in the absence
of most behaviour creating stimuli...
> The "absence" of outward gays on ST could be explainable by a subtle suggestion that ST makes about the 24th century society: perhaps the society is
advanced a
Sorry, Victor, but all of your post didn't come through. Shorten your line
length to 80...
BTW - there are gays in ST, as evidenced by the conversation between Kira and
Bashir in the DS9 episode "The Kiss".
> I don't think that I have made any homophobic remarks, but I know that some people will be upset that I have introduced ideas that they don't like, so I
will a
I don't think you are homophobic at all. I suggest reviewing the literature,
however.
Tarch
Tarchannon
The Ruiner wrote:
> In article <504nh2$5...@decaxp.harvard.edu>,
> sh...@husc7.harvard.edu (Shawn Hill) wrote:
> >Michael Higby (MHi...@Primenet.com) wrote:
> >: >I think there are no gays in Star Trek because gayness has been cured in
> >: >the 24th century. Today, scientists think that gayness is the result of
> >: >a defective gene. In the 24th century, scientists have probably cured
> >: >this defection.
> >
> >word as "defective."
Right. If it isn't lethal, is is good variation. Remember that sickle-cell anemia
also provides immunity to malaria...
> >"Different" maybe. Genetic variation, perhaps.
The latter certainly.
<<excuse the piggyback, but I want to lower the number of posts>>
> What's more, in the 24th century the idea of genetically perfect humans was
> absolutely rejected (in a TNG episode, I've forgotten the title, about the
> genetically engineered race that was against outside contact, whose planet was
> saved by Geordi and his "defective" eyes). That's just one example, I know,
> but the idea of "correcting" a "defective" gay gene is a little preposterous
> in the Star Trek universe.
As nature has shown (and science observed) over and over - variation is good, the
more the better.
Tarch
Dylan Winslow
In article <501usf$9...@news.cais.com>, Greg Krehbiel
<Greg_K...@thompson.com> wrote:
[snip]
>
> There are obvious parallels to discussions of human sexuality, but I
thought the script ended up saying exactly nothing -- it merely=
> raised the issue and then dodged it.
>
> Greg
I thought that "The Outcast" was a remarkable Trek story. It managed the
seemingly impossible feat of being both vague and heavy-handed at the same
time to almost no effect whatsoever.
--
Dylan Winslow (Pope John Paul George Ringo V)
dyl...@xmission.com
"Hello Seeker! Now, don't feel alone here in the New Age,
because there's a seeker born every minute."
Shawn Hill
Michael Higby (MHi...@Primenet.com) wrote:
: >I think there are no gays in Star Trek because gayness has been cured in
: >the 24th century. Today, scientists think that gayness is the result of
: >a defective gene. In the 24th century, scientists have probably cured
: >this defection.
I wonder if you'll find scientests actually using such a morally loaded
word as "defective." "Different" maybe. Genetic variation, perhaps.
Just as they think they may have located genes that lead to alcoholism or
excessive agression or arched feet. But will they really say, "Look, I've
found this here evil, or wrong, gene. It don't even look normal."
shawn
James Grady Ward
In article <96241.19...@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>, <CO...@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> writes:
>In article <3223c8a7...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, asc...@ix.netcom.com (Sean
>Aschen) says:
>>The aliens (minorities) are portrayed in a good light, even if they
>>are enemies (The Klingons are Noble, the Cardassians were
>>mis-guided..)
>
>And how have the Borg or the Kazon been portrayed in a good light?
well the borg are not really aliens, they represent exactly
what they are. technology run amuk and having taken over the
society. hmm maybe this should be in the technology is a curse
thread:)
--
buckysan: does anyone else like ani-mayhem?
http://www4.ncsu.edu/eos/users/j/jgward/WWW/animay.html
annapuma and unapumma in 96'
" the realization that the pursuit of knowledge can be an
end unto itself is the beginning and highest form of wisdom"
The Ruiner
What's more, in the 24th century the idea of genetically perfect humans was
James Grady Ward
umm aids was treated just like all of the other stds, the masses
want to ignore that people actually do sleep with each other.
name one sexually transmitted disease that is quaranteened?
and for the record name one that is screened for anywhere near
as much as aids is. most stds are not screened for at all
anymore. also aids is not the only std that cant really be
treated either.
>>
>>
>>2. Why does everyone concede that poor kids are going to be dumber in
>>highschool, so we have to set entrance quotas in the Universities? This
>>is stage-five in the duh-factor.
>> ->make the highschools better<-
>>Do what it takes. Send in the National Guard to secure the playground,
>>feed the kids breakfast, and hire fewer teacher-politicians and more
>>teachers. If anyone knows anything about charter schools, that's a great
>>solution.
there is nothing wrong with the high schools. the problem is that
you hear this statement "why did you( the teacher) fail my kid"
instead of "why did you( the student) not pass". fix that fundamental
attitude problem with education and you will see very significant
gains in educationally quality. right now the coffee mindset is used
with schools systems. the coffee mindset goes like this, the student
is responsible for showing up to class( this part can be debated since
if a student doesnt show up many schools will start calling around to
find them..) then the teacher pours information(coffee) into their heads
and now they know something. now tell me just where is the student
actively responsible for learning in this kind of mindset.
it is sad when teachers are afraid they will get fired if they fail
more than 2 or 3 kids in a class, like it can only be their fault
that they got a class with more than 10% that cant fairly pass the
class. not that i favor the reversed situation where a certain amount
of students have to fail, but it would be nice if students really
felt that failing a class was a real possiblity in high school.
right now unless you flat dont try or are a complete idiot you
will get a 70 and be passed along.
Richard Dietlein
Aikane wrote:
>
> On 26 Aug 1996, Gregg T. Allinson wrote:
>
I am DYING for a Berman (Piller's gone, ya know... he's outtathere)
episode with a three dimensional character! Right now I don't care if the
Voyager crew lives or dies. I could care about TNG, however, and TOS. Ah
the good old days.
Admiral Hudson
ck...@erinet.com
MHi...@Primenet.com (Michael Higby) wrote:
>> ps...@terminus.com writes:
>>I think there are no gays in Star Trek because gayness has been cured in
>>the 24th century
I know there are no fat people in the 24th century because they've
cured that too.
Rill Skye Kilaen
Tarchannon (sass...@pilot.msu.edu) wrote:
: BTW - there are gays in ST, as evidenced by the conversation between
: Kira and Bashir in the DS9 episode "The Kiss".
Not to mention the DS9 episode where the Ferengi woman dressed as a man
fell in love with Quark. She and Dax were talking, and Dax sympathetically
observed that it must be difficult working with Quark while having fallen
in love with him. The Ferengi then said "And I'm a woman." and Dax said
"WHAT? You're a woman?" The shock was from the revelation of the
disguise, not the romantic interest.
--Skye
--
Skye Kilaen
Ministress of Exploding Weasel Installations and Public Illumination
Five Times Blessed
Aaron Bergman
In article <32263A...@pilot.msu.edu>, Tarchannon
<sass...@pilot.msu.edu> wrote:
:
:Right. If it isn't lethal, is is good variation. Remember that
sickle-cell anemia
:also provides immunity to malaria...
The heterozygous phenotype (I probably just confused my biology terms
there. ah well.) actually is what conveys a partial malaria resistance.
That is the advantage of the gene.
Aaron
--
Aaron Bergman -- aber...@minerva.cis.yale.edu
<http://pantheon.yale.edu/~abergman/>
The quote left intentionally blank.
Dave Roy
I stepped out of my TARDIS to the sound of baks...@nicom.com (Arthur Levesque)
saying :
>could cause some controversy. Didn't Voyager just do a holocaust
>episode last year with Neelix and the cascade anyway?
I thought that was more about the Atomic Bomb...lots of the dialogue seemed
straight out of Oppenheimer's mouth.
Dave Roy
Gregg T. Allinson
ck...@erinet.com wrote:
: I know there are no fat people in the 24th century because they've
: cured that too.
What about Scotty?:)
--
Au Bon Pain!,
Gregg "Dave" Allinson
Visit The Scrapyard ("The 'G' is for great!") @ http://miso.wwa.com/~roscoe
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Indeed, you won't die. However, living forever could be a hell if you're
beaten into a helpless pulp."
-Piccolo-San- Dragonball Z: Garlic Gains Eternal Life
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SAVE DOCTOR WHO! Write FOX at fox...@delphi.com and the BBC at P...@bbc.co.uk
and request a new season of Doctor Who!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gregg T. Allinson
: > Given the shit they pulled with "The Outcast", with an androgynous (read:
: > straight) person who started to indulge in a relationship that involved a
: > member of one specific sex and not another androgynous person (read: A
: > relationship that involed a member of the same sex and not another
: > straight person), but had to be "cured" because of its "problem" (read:
: > Had to be "cured" because of their "problem"), I wouldn't doubt it.
: But notice "she" seemed a lot happier after the procedure. I think the
: existance of a cure may have been the real intended message of that episode.
You're totally missing the boat my friend. Soren was different in her
sexual preferences to the rest of her race. She was cured/brainwashed
into being androgynous again. So the obvious alligorical message of the
episode is that anyone who has different sexual preferences must be cured
to be "normal" and live a happy life, weather they like it or not (and
IIRC, Riker and Soren were against the idea). I don't know about you, but
I find this an offensive anti-gay message.
Franklin Hummel
In article <506snb$e...@kirin.wwa.com> ros...@wwa.com
>Joseph Franke Kolacinski (j...@cs.cs.miami.edu) wrote:
>: On 26 Aug 1996, Gregg T. Allinson wrote:
>: > Given the shit they pulled with "The Outcast", with an androgynous (read:
>: > straight) person who started to indulge in a relationship that involved a
>: > member of one specific sex and not another androgynous person (read: A
>: > relationship that involed a member of the same sex and not another
>: > straight person), but had to be "cured" because of its "problem" (read:
>: > Had to be "cured" because of their "problem"), I wouldn't doubt it.
>
>: But notice "she" seemed a lot happier after the procedure. I think the
>: existance of a cure may have been the real intended message of that episode.
>
>You're totally missing the boat my friend. Soren was different in her
>sexual preferences to the rest of her race. She was cured/brainwashed
>into being androgynous again. So the obvious alligorical message of the
>episode is that anyone who has different sexual preferences must be cured
>to be "normal" and live a happy life, weather they like it or not (and
>IIRC, Riker and Soren were against the idea). I don't know about you, but
>I find this an offensive anti-gay message.
was the ending, which while seeming to condemn the changing of one's
sexual orientation, also showed the character happier because of it.
The BIGGEST problem with "The Outcast" is that the damn thing
avoided showing even -one- openly gay character and never even mentioned
the word "homosexuality" or its existence once. What gay people have
wanted to see for years now is openly gay characters in STAR TREK and
that is what Gene Roddenberry promised viewers would see shortly before
he died. "The Outcast" completely and totally failed to do that -- and
STAR TREK continues to fail to fufill Roddenberry's promise to this day.
-- Frank Hummel [ hum...@netcom.com ]
--
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
* NecronomiCon, 3rd Edition: The Cthulhu Mythos Convention *
August 15-17, 1997 - Providence, Rhode Island
For info: http://www.oneworld.net/sf/companies/necropress/necronomicon.html
Merete
pdelg...@pbs.org (Paul DG) wrote:
>While much still remains to be learned about the exact causes of sexual
>orientation, most reputable scientists now believe it is a combination of
>environmental and biological factors. Before you phobes jump with glee at
>the mention of "environmental," these same scientists believe sexual
>orientation is determined at a very early age around age 8 and is
>irreversible.
>Dr. John Money of The Johns Hopkins University compares being gay to
>left-handedness. Both are a result of environmental and biological
>factors, both are determined at an early age, and both are irreversible.
>Money adds that you can force a left-handed person to write with his right
>hand, but he will always favor his left..
>--Paul
I don't understand this. I'm the oldest child in a family with two
right-handed parents. I'm left handed, and the only left-handed
person in my family. I don't even have an relatives in my generation,
or that of my parents who were left-handed. I will grant you, I know
nothing about how homosexuality , but how could environment play a
part in my being left-handed?
m
Arthur Levesque
Franklin Hummel (hum...@netcom.com) wrote:
FH>There were a LOT of problemns with "The Outcast", one of which was
FH>the ending, which while seeming to condemn the changing of one's
FH>sexual orientation, also showed the character happier because of it.
I don't think that's a problem at all; far from it, in fact...
It shows us that she's been well and truly brainwashed. Remember Winston
Smith at the end of "1984"? The last four words of the novel were "He
loved Big Brother." Far from detracting from the novel, it really could
have ended no other way and been true to the story.
FH>The BIGGEST problem with "The Outcast" is that the damn thing avoided
FH>showing even -one- openly gay character and never even mentioned the
FH>word "homosexuality" or its existence once.
There I have to agree with you. It was a cowardly way to pretend to
take a stand without actually doing so; Paramount walks around the issue
but has yet refused to face it. If they can't come out (so to speak) and
amke a statement, then they should be honest enough to just avoid the
subject. The halfway loophole-ridden metaphor maybe-we-mean-this
approach is just offensive. IOW, put up or shut up.
--
/\ Arthur Levesque <*> baks...@nicom.com =/\= Hoopla, Denton!
\B\ack The King of the Potato People [fnord?] Alicia's Homey Bunny
\S\lash "Despite all your rage, you're still just rats in a cage!!"
\/ (Karen taunting my ferrets) http://www.nicom.com/~bakslash
David H. Kime
In article <507bq9$r...@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>, baks...@nicom.com (Arthur
Levesque) wrote:
> There I have to agree with you. It was a cowardly way to pretend to
> take a stand without actually doing so; Paramount walks around the issue
> but has yet refused to face it. If they can't come out (so to speak) and
> amke a statement, then they should be honest enough to just avoid the
> subject. The halfway loophole-ridden metaphor maybe-we-mean-this
> approach is just offensive. IOW, put up or shut up.
And the TOS episode with the half white and black men wasn't a metaphor? I
believe that this is what trek has done for it's whole history.
--
David H. Kime
dh...@cornell.edu
Morgan Dhu
kav...@ainop.com (Merete) wrote:
>pdelg...@pbs.org (Paul DG) wrote:
>>Dr. John Money of The Johns Hopkins University compares being gay to
>>left-handedness. Both are a result of environmental and biological
>>factors, both are determined at an early age, and both are irreversible.
>>Money adds that you can force a left-handed person to write with his right
>>hand, but he will always favor his left..
> I don't understand this. I'm the oldest child in a family with two
>right-handed parents. I'm left handed, and the only left-handed
>person in my family. I don't even have an relatives in my generation,
>or that of my parents who were left-handed. I will grant you, I know
>nothing about how homosexuality , but how could environment play a
>part in my being left-handed?
Merete:
Medical biologists often use the word "environmental" to refer to
factors such as pre-natal and peri-natal experiences, as well as the
kinds of things we usually think of, such as family influences,
nutrition, and so on. There is some evidence that some cases of
left-handedness are connected with minor birth injuries, for instance.
Your lefthandedness could be the result of something which happened in
utero or during birth.
Alternately, while the genetics don't appear to follow strict
Mendellian proportions, it seems likely that the genetic componant of
left-handedness is recessive, which means that it could be passed
along without expressing itself for a number of generations. Your
parents' marriage may simply be the first union in either family for
quite some time where (1) both parents were heterozygous for
handedness, and (2) by chance, one of the offspring (you) got the
lefty allele from both parents.
ObST: This would probably suggest that the percentage of
left-handedness might be lower in the 24th century, because while the
genetic componant would likely remain, cases of lefthandedness due to
birth trauma would probably decrease.
--Morgan Dhu, a profound lefty (eye, ear, and foot as well as hand),
who does a lot of reading on theories of how she might have gotten
that way.
****************************************************************************
They came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't
a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I
wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up
because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I
didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by
that time there was no one left to speak up.
- attributed to Pastor Martin Niemoller
****************************************************************************
Franklin Hummel
In article <dhk1-300...@132.236.110.159> dh...@cornell.edu
original STAR TREK series, there -was- an interracial crew, whites,
blacks, asians (and even a very pale greenish, half-human Vulcan) on the
"Enterprise". That was the TRUE message, the TRUE metaphor of tolerance
that the original STAR TREK showed its fans each week. Then, TREK did
practice what it preached.
Imagine if "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" (which was the
name of the episode with half-black/half-white aliens) had been done on
a STAR TREK where the "Enterprise" crew was and had always been 100%
lily-white. No blacks. No asians. No one of a different color other
than * white *. The episode would have been a demonstration of the most
blatant hypocrisy, an absolutely insulting message of "Don't do as we do,
but do as we say." A slap-in-the-face metaphor of "Not in OUR neighbor-
hood" for NOT on the "Enterprise".
And * THAT * is exactly what "The Outcast" did with gay people.
Scott Brady
On Sun, 25 Aug 1996 ps...@terminus.com wrote:
> I think there are no gays in Star Trek because gayness has been cured in
> the 24th century. Today, scientists think that gayness is the result of
> a defective gene. In the 24th century, scientists have probably cured
> this defection.
No, scientists today think homosexuality _might_ be genetic, not
necessarily a defect (no moreso than blue eyes or left-handedness might be).
Scott
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Brady ds...@acpub.duke.edu
Duke University Class of 1996
Biomedical Engineering http://www.duke.edu/~dsb3
Franklin Hummel
In article <507bq9$r...@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com> baks...@nicom.com
>Franklin Hummel (hum...@netcom.com) wrote:
>FH>There were a LOT of problemns with "The Outcast", one of which was
>FH>the ending, which while seeming to condemn the changing of one's
>FH>sexual orientation, also showed the character happier because of it.
>
> I don't think that's a problem at all; far from it, in fact...
>It shows us that she's been well and truly brainwashed. Remember Winston
>Smith at the end of "1984"? The last four words of the novel were "He
>loved Big Brother." Far from detracting from the novel, it really could
>have ended no other way and been true to the story.
the slightest doubt that is the case. But I also have seen that some
fans did -not- understand that.
The fact is, "The Outcast" is certainly not on the same literary
level as 1984, its very quickly wrapped-up, reset button ending, and the
fact that there are a lot of Trekkies who are clueless lead some folks to
think that the character -was- truly happier and better off at the end.
(I've heard and read Trekkies who have actually comment this.)
And just presenting the idea that it might be -possible- to
change someone's sexual orientation was enough to make a lot of gay
people, including myself, -very- unhappy with the ending.
It was a weak, badly-written ending, reflecting the weakness and
stupidity of the entire episode's premise.
Ronald Freilinger
gr.w...@student.canterbury.ac.nz wrote:
>I'm extremly concerned to see Tarchannon saying that genetic enginneering
>is banned. I carried out genetic engineering on bacteria for my
>university genetics course. Should I go to jail now?
Either that, or ship yourself off to the island of Doctor Moreau. :-)
BTW, did you creat a new bioweapon that will wipe out humanity?
Gary Farber
Yousuf Khan (yk...@achilles.net) wrote:
<snip>
: Um, would having a racially mixed crew have affected Star Trek's
: ratings even in the 1960's? Even back then it was a safe
: politically correct topic. It was a topic with the backing of the
: angels.
<snip>
This is an astoundingly ignorant thing to say, given the number of people
dead from lynchings in the US in the Sixties. Not to mention those killed
and attacked by racist police. Not to mention those merely beaten or
forced to moved to another state. This is just an *appallingly* ignorant
comment.
I presume you simply are too young to recall the Sixties and have not read
much of anything on the topic nor seen any documentaries. These are tv
newsgroups, so I shouldn't suggest *reading*, should I? Try the EYES ON
THE PRIZE documentaries, the first series. Then slap yourself for saying
something so stupid over an issue so many people died for so recently.
I'm sure the names "Goodman, Schwerner, and Chaney" means nothing to you
but possibly a name of a law firm. Thanks for spitting on their grave.
--
-- Gary Farber gfa...@panix.com
Copyright (c) 1996 Brooklyn, NY, USA
dmcc...@pig.net
Shawn Hill wrote:
>
> Michael Higby (MHi...@Primenet.com) wrote:
>
> : >I think there are no gays in Star Trek because gayness has been cured in
> : >the 24th century. Today, scientists think that gayness is the result of
> : >a defective gene. In the 24th century, scientists have probably cured
> : >this defection.
>
> word as "defective." "Different" maybe. Genetic variation, perhaps.
> Just as they think they may have located genes that lead to alcoholism or
> excessive agression or arched feet. But will they really say, "Look, I've
> found this here evil, or wrong, gene. It don't even look normal."
>
they hit on you regularly or you like them yourself...
P.S. What are you Afraid of???
Tarchannon
Aaron Bergman wrote:
> In article <32263A...@pilot.msu.edu>, Tarchannon
> <sass...@pilot.msu.edu> wrote:
> :Right. If it isn't lethal, is is good variation. Remember that
> sickle-cell anemia
> :also provides immunity to malaria...
> The heterozygous phenotype (I probably just confused my biology terms
> there. ah well.) actually is what conveys a partial malaria resistance.
> That is the advantage of the gene.
I didn't what to go into too much detail - people tune out :(
I believe the homozygous condition is nearly always lethal, and the
heterozygous state provides some medical difficulties, especially in low
oxygen conditions. It is maintained in populations via the benefit of
resistence to malaria.
Tarch
David M. Sueme
Paul DG (pdelg...@pbs.org) wrote:
: While much still remains to be learned about the exact causes of sexual
: orientation, most reputable scientists now believe it is a combination of
: environmental and biological factors. Before you phobes jump with glee at
: the mention of "environmental," these same scientists believe sexual
: orientation is determined at a very early age around age 8 and is
: irreversible.
So What?
: I suggest some of you Trek geeks, learn a little bit about real science
: and spend a little less time worrying about warp technology. You might
: actually learn something.
I don't care whether or not it's "your fault" or not - homosexuality amounts
to zero reproductive fitness. (a) What is really at stake here is my right
to determine - with my own reason - what is "good" (in Platonic terms, "successful"
in my own) and to choose to associate with the better and exclude the lesser
from my life and environment.
You might do some learning and thinking yourself. Read "Skinner v. Oklahoma"
(US Supreme Court, 1941 or 42) and then the eighth amendment. Think about
the logical implications of Douglas' assertion that anything pertaining to
"reproduction" is none of society's business. If I throw an empty plastic
bottle out my window the EPA can crucify me, but it I have 92 kids, each of
whom can toss hundreds of bottles, it is my business alone. Silly. And
the whole "right to privacy" line of cases (Griswold, Roe) is built on this
fuzzy reasoning.
The same "reasoning" that threatens to force me to associate with homosexuals
against my will may someday force you to hire a secretary who is no smarter
than is absolutely necessary to type. Your preference for clever people in
the office to exchange witty pleasantries with on "down time" will be deemed
a violation of the "Americans with Disabilities Act".
(a) If you are going to advance the "altruism toward relatives" argument,
please be prepared to document that nieces and nephews have EIGHT times as
many offspring as those of heterosexuals. Run the numbers. As to siblings,
the altruist is himself (YES! the generic male gender) a child. His (!)
influence is limited, and the best thing he (!) could do to enhance his (!)
siblings reproductive fitness would be to die.
--
________________________________________________________________________________
David M. Sueme ...it has not -so far- been possible in the
laboratory to convert a pure saprophyte (1)
ascii: dsu...@ripco.com into an habitual parasite.
(1) If the reader does not understand this word, it is too bad. Hans Zinsser,
_Rats, Lice and History_ (1934), p.41. Dr. Zinsser discovered the typhus "germ".
Matthew White
pdelg...@pbs.org writes:
>
> Dr. John Money of The Johns Hopkins University compares being gay to
> left-handedness. Both are a result of environmental and biological
> factors, both are determined at an early age, and both are irreversible.
> Money adds that you can force a left-handed person to write with his right
> hand, but he will always favor his left.
>
Slight correction: Left-handedness is 100% biological. An
accident crippled my left hand. I've learned to use my
right instead, but I'm still left-handed and always will be.
My right hand will never be as skilled as my left was.
Aside from that, good analogy. There was a time that
left-handed children were considered evil and forced to
switch. Medical technology as advanced as Trek's could
probably cure left-handedness (bounce the transporter signal
off a mirror or something), but a tolerant society would
never consider doing it. I'd hope that no civilized society would
allow eugenics for conditions which are basically harmless:
left-handedness, homosexuality, dark skin, red hair, etc.
Aaron Bergman
In article <50ana0$1...@newshost.tpnet.co.nz>, na...@tpnet.co.nz (MD and
Iras) wrote:
: Anyone who has to take a knife to another person's body to
:heal it isn't very advanced in the medical sense.
Oh please. And just how are we supposed to get to the internal organs?
Telekinesis?
: Everyone would
:*like* to believe that we are advanced, but we ain't.
'Advanced' is meaningless without a point of comparison.
Joyce Harmon
In article <Dx0on...@rci.ripco.com>, dsu...@ripco.com says...
>What is really at stake here is my right to determine - with my own
>reason - what is "good" (in Platonic terms, "successful" in my own) and
>to choose to associate with the better and exclude the lesser from my
>life and environment.
I see a problem here. You want to exclude what *You* determine to be
"less than good" not only from your life, but also from your
"environment". Hmm. Hitler had the same idea. He "determined, with his
own reason", that Jews were the lesser good, and he decided to exclude
them from his environment. Trouble was, his "environment" at the time
covered most of Europe.
>The same "reasoning" that threatens to force me to associate with
>homosexuals against my will may someday force you to hire a secretary who
>is no smarter than is absolutely necessary to type.
Where is all this fear coming from? Who is trying to force you to
"associate with homosexuals against your will"? And define "associate",
please! You sound like you think that government stormtroopers are going
to march into your house, shackle you and turn you over to Them Guys!
(Under the Equal Access To Nookie Act of 1997?)
Joyce
MD and Iras
Victor <cot...@lmsc.lockheed.com> wrote:
>It is disappointing to observe that the "enlightened" attack as "disturbed" those who question their canon.
>Actually scientific studies to date are inconclusive. To date no "gay gene" has been identified, and in fact there is a controversy =
>as to whether there should be a search: the gays fear that identifying a gay gene will lead to parents "stopping" a fetus with the g=
>ene.
However, if you *ask* a gay person how they "became" gay, most of us
will respond that we don't know. It's not like I woke up one morning
and was or that I was hit in the head to hard once. I was born this
way... and from my stand point, I'd say it's genetic. It is passed
down generation to generation, whether people like to know it or not.
As for medical science... it's a joke. We are still in the dark ages,
folks. Anyone who has to take a knife to another person's body to
heal it isn't very advanced in the medical sense. Everyone would
*like* to believe that we are advanced, but we ain't.
>Another way to look at that is that the gays agree with the right to "stop", EXCEPT if the fetus has the gaygene. I'd like to see th=
>at one reconciled with NOW's position. <grin>
No, that is *not* the point that I am trying to promote. I feel that
it is the person's right to choose what they want to do with their
body. If a woman feels that she *has* to have an abortion, then fine.
She isn't hurting me, she isn't hurting you... all she is doing is
perhaps hurting herself. What she does to her body is her choice...
not yours, not mine. That is the point at least *I* am trying to make
with this "Pro-Choice" stance I have. While if I were a female and I
were pregnant, I don't think I'd have an abortion, I can't say what is
right for everyone, just what is right for me.
>So if it's not a gene, then it's behavior, right? If this is true, and behavior is as transitory as the culture, who is to say that =
>many gays wouldn't be that way if it (gayness) weren't so glamorized by the media? (Please think about this before flaming away.)
I'm sorry, but I don't "behave" anyway. Homosexuality was not
glamourized by the media at any way, shape or form when I was a child.
Nor was it when my partner was a child. I think that this "truth" is
*way* out of line and out of hand and out of this world. I'm sorry if
it doesn't sit well with you, but i was born this way. Of my first
thoughts, most of them are gay. I wished that Luke Skywalker would
storm into my living room and take me away, not Leia (well, after I
found out that he and Leia were siblings, it made the case for him to
take me a lot stronger :) ) That isn't a behavior. That isn't a
glamourization made by the media. All I knew was that I was attracted
to men that were nice looking and all around a gentleman.
I don't call that a behaviour.
>The "absence" of outward gays on ST could be explainable by a subtle suggestion that ST makes about the 24th century society: perhap=
>s the society is advanced and mature enough to keep its intimicy *behind-closed-doors* where it belongs. Hey, remember when Picard a=
>cted differently with that woman when crewmen were around? It would be the same principle.
Well, people would have pointed the finger of "favoritism" at Picard
if he were to show that he and Neela (I believe her name was) were
public about their love for one another. Worf and Deanna kissing
outside her quarters (or going to) isn't exactly an "intimacy
*behind-closed-doors*" is it?
>I don't think that I have made any homophobic remarks, but I know that some people will be upset that I have introduced ideas that t=
>hey don't like, so I will attempt to placate them by saying something about the hetero's: Paris' hyper-predatory perspective of wome=
>n is IMHO not only as unwatchable violation of the 24th century intimicy notion, but is as unbelievable as highschool lockerroom bra=
>ggarts (who we all know never really get any).
I agree with you there. I don't care what Paris does with women...
he's a flirt. He's got bedroom eyes, etc. and, even in the 24th
Century, there *are* going to be some cassanovas. Either gay or
straight or bi, there will be some. I don't mind it, just as long as
we can see the shoe on the other foot :)
Anyway, while *modern* medicine can't find the "gay gene" it could
exist. There are a lot of things they don't know about the human
body, including how antibiotics effect the body (they just released
news from Australia that a "super-biotic" organism, one evolved from
misuse of antibiotics, may have pushed most antibiotics out the
door... as in, biotics are back in in a major way.) and how to cure
the common cold, cancer, etc. We're still rather archaic in our
medical practices. We all have to admit that.
What I do know for a fact is this: I am gay because I was born this
way. It's not my upbringing, or media-influence, or anything else. I
knew no gays or lesbians until I knew well and truly that I was gay.
Therefore, I'd assume that I am genetically written this way :)
Cheers,
Peace,
Iras
Diabolique
David M. Sueme wrote:
> I don't care whether or not it's "your fault" or not - homosexuality amounts
> to determine - with my own reason - what is "good" (in Platonic terms, "successful"
> in my own) and to choose to associate with the better and exclude the lesser
> from my life and environment.
Remember Hitler? He felt the same way. He determined - with his own
reason - that Jewish, physically disabled, mentally disabled, and gay
people weren't "good" (or in Platonic terms, "successful") and chose to
exclude them (the "lesser") from his life and environment!
As far as "zero reproductive fitness" goes - are you as frightened by
impotent straight men (who have "zero reproductive fitness") as you are
by virile gay men - who could and sometimes do have biological children?
> You might do some learning and thinking yourself. Read "Skinner v. Oklahoma"
> (US Supreme Court, 1941 or 42) and then the eighth amendment. Think about
> the logical implications of Douglas' assertion that anything pertaining to
> "reproduction" is none of society's business.
"Skinner vs. Oklahoma" for those who don't know was a case where
Oklahoma had passed a law giving the government the right to sterilize
any criminal convicted of more than one crime. Skinner was a guy who
stole some chickens then robbed two banks. He was thrown in jail and
sterilized!
Thank God the Supreme Court realized that giving the government the
right to sterilize chosen criminals at will is a really b-a-d idea - and
a cruel and unusual punishment (the 8th amendment) to say the least.
Are you saying that the government should be allowed to sterilize
people? What does this have to do with gay people anyway?
Are you a mad scientist?!
> If I throw an empty plastic
> bottle out my window the EPA can crucify me, but it I have 92 kids, each of
> whom can toss hundreds of bottles, it is my business alone. Silly. And
> the whole "right to privacy" line of cases (Griswold, Roe) is built on this
> fuzzy reasoning.
I see - so there should be a limit to the number of children people
have. Harming the environment and having children can be compared
logically. Uh-huh. Silly.
> The same "reasoning" that threatens to force me to associate with homosexuals
> against my will may someday force you to hire a secretary who is no smarter
> than is absolutely necessary to type. Your preference for clever people in
> the office to exchange witty pleasantries with on "down time" will be deemed
> a violation of the "Americans with Disabilities Act".
Don't worry dear I don't think anyone's about to "force" you to
associate with evil homosexuals!
Your logic is so twisted - there's never going to be a law saying that
stupid secretaries have to be hired despite their stupidity. That's
like saying there's gonna be a law that deaf & mute people have to be
hired as talk-show hosts. Its not gonna happen!
The point of laws like that is that being disabled, black or whatever
has nothing to do with job performance and therefore should not be
considered as a factor. Smartness and being able to type well and take
dictation DOES have something to do with job performance - so of course
it should be considered!
> (a) If you are going to advance the "altruism toward relatives" argument,
> please be prepared to document that nieces and nephews have EIGHT times as
> many offspring as those of heterosexuals. Run the numbers. As to siblings,
> the altruist is himself (YES! the generic male gender) a child. His (!)
> influence is limited, and the best thing he (!) could do to enhance his (!)
> siblings reproductive fitness would be to die.
I don't even know what you're talking about here. Does anyone? Is it
relevant?
> David M. Sueme ...it has not -so far- been possible in the
> laboratory to convert a pure saprophyte (1) >
>ascii: dsu...@ripco.com into an habitual parasite.
>(1) If the reader does not understand this word, it is too bad. Hans Zinsser,
>_Rats, Lice and History_ (1934), p.41. Dr. Zinsser discovered the typhus "germ".
Wow even your signature has this bizarre reference in it. I'm so
impressed - not only are you frightened by homos, but you're smart too!
--
Diabolique
The House of Diabolique
http://www.concentric.net/~suave
"Those who love her, fear her."
gr.w...@student.canterbury.ac.nz
rfre...@ncr.com (Ronald Freilinger) wrote:
>
>Either that, or ship yourself off to the island of Doctor Moreau. :-)
>
>BTW, did you creat a new bioweapon that will wipe out humanity?
>
contributions are graciously accepted. I had a lab demonstrator called Dr
Moreau, but I don't think he has a island. It would get a bit crowded
with the hundred or so people in my class anyway.
Curtis Kendall
Franklin Hummel wrote:
>
> In article <506snb$e...@kirin.wwa.com> ros...@wwa.com
> (Gregg T. Allinson) writes:
> >Joseph Franke Kolacinski (j...@cs.cs.miami.edu) wrote:
> >: On 26 Aug 1996, Gregg T. Allinson wrote:
> >: > Given the shit they pulled with "The Outcast", with an androgynous (read:
> >: > straight) person who started to indulge in a relationship that involved a
> >: > member of one specific sex and not another androgynous person (read: A
> >: > relationship that involed a member of the same sex and not another
> >: > straight person), but had to be "cured" because of its "problem" (read:
> >: > Had to be "cured" because of their "problem"), I wouldn't doubt it.
> >
> >: But notice "she" seemed a lot happier after the procedure. I think the
> >: existance of a cure may have been the real intended message of that episode.
> >
> >You're totally missing the boat my friend. Soren was different in her
> >sexual preferences to the rest of her race. She was cured/brainwashed
> >into being androgynous again. So the obvious alligorical message of the
> >episode is that anyone who has different sexual preferences must be cured
> >to be "normal" and live a happy life, weather they like it or not (and
> >IIRC, Riker and Soren were against the idea). I don't know about you, but
> >I find this an offensive anti-gay message.
>
>
intolerance then perhaps I might give your arguement more wieght.
However, treks tendancy has always been the other way, towards tolerance
and understanding. People seem to try to make this episode into some
'anti-homosexuality' stand because the protagonist end up 'seeming'
happy. The rest of the epsiode delt quite well with the idea of
tolerance (except of course on the part of the government). If the
protagonist had ended up a drooling zombie I'm sure alot of people would
have been pleased. (ie. by changing her, they had to make her miserable
or something). If our government took me, subjected me to intensive
brainwashing, and filled my sytem with drugs (or who know what other
kinds of therapies for a culture that technologically adavanced) I'm
sure I could believe I was happy sitting in a corner eating paint
chips. The point of the show, is that they changed her for no reason.
Despite the fact the result was outwardly not terrible, it is still a
tragedy. They changed the person 'she' was fot no reason. Sort of like
the schools used to do to left handed children, beat them into using
their right hands 'cause of course left-handedness is wrong and evil.
Curtis Kendall
>
John Paulus
jdwiseman (jdwi...@yvv.com) wrote:
: Joseph Franke Kolacinski wrote:
: >
: > On 26 Aug 1996, Gregg T. Allinson wrote:
: >
: > > Given the shit they pulled with "The Outcast", with an androgynous (read:
: > > straight) person who started to indulge in a relationship that involved a
: > > member of one specific sex and not another androgynous person (read: A
: > > relationship that involed a member of the same sex and not another
: > > straight person), but had to be "cured" because of its "problem" (read:
: > > Had to be "cured" because of their "problem"), I wouldn't doubt it.
: >
: > But notice "she" seemed a lot happier after the procedure. I think the
: > existance of a cure may have been the real intended message of that episode.
: I have to step in. The "message" of the show, deals with the closed
: mindedness of the government and other "normal" people. Not, "Thank god
: for a cure"
: signed
: - your average straight male
The inadvertant message of that show also seemed to be that going against
what is biological normal (i.e. hetereosexuality for human beings) was
harmful and unnatural.
The whole show was just....blech. What is it about Riker that women would
be attracted to him? Too bad TNG ended...i'd like to see an episode where
Riker visits an alternate universe where all the women he's slept with
became pregnant, and they all formed a world populated by Riker progeny.
"Riker's Children"....They could easily populate a Galaxy class starship!
--jp--
--
j.p. paulus 4625 N. Kenmore Avenue #2
sha...@ripco.com Chicago IL 60640-5024
http://pages.ripco.com:8080/~shadowm/index.html 312/784-5640
********************** GO GOD!!!!! ************************
Tarchannon
David M. Sueme wrote:
> Paul DG (pdelg...@pbs.org) wrote:
> : While much still remains to be learned about the exact causes of sexual
> : orientation, most reputable scientists now believe it is a combination of
> : environmental and biological factors. Before you phobes jump with glee at
> : the mention of "environmental," these same scientists believe sexual
> : orientation is determined at a very early age around age 8 and is
> : irreversible.
> So What?
Perhaps that indicates that you missed something...
> I don't care whether or not it's "your fault" or not - homosexuality amounts
> to zero reproductive fitness.
False. Please pick up a clue about the subject that you are referring to.
>(a) What is really at stake here is my right
> to determine - with my own reason - what is "good" (in Platonic terms, "successful"
> in my own) and to choose to associate with the better and exclude the lesser
> from my life and environment.
Ah. But population genetics suggests that homosexuals are good... for the population
anyway.
> You might do some learning and thinking yourself. Read "Skinner v. Oklahoma"
> (US Supreme Court, 1941 or 42) and then the eighth amendment. Think about
> the logical implications of Douglas' assertion that anything pertaining to
> "reproduction" is none of society's business.
There are many different aspects here to consider, but overall, methinks you are
constructing a strawman.
> If I throw an empty plastic
> bottle out my window the EPA can crucify me, but it I have 92 kids, each of
> whom can toss hundreds of bottles, it is my business alone. Silly. And
> the whole "right to privacy" line of cases (Griswold, Roe) is built on this
> fuzzy reasoning.
What is so fuzzy about sensible laws? I'm afraid this complex world of ours just
doesn't fit into your nice little boxes.
> The same "reasoning" that threatens to force me to associate with homosexuals
> against my will
You gain the benefis of everyone being equal, you also pay the price. I'd say you are
on the better end of the arguement. Besides, no one forces you to do anything. It's
you choice.
> may someday force you to hire a secretary who is no smarter
> than is absolutely necessary to type. Your preference for clever people in
> the office to exchange witty pleasantries with on "down time" will be deemed
> a violation of the "Americans with Disabilities Act".
Interesting, but absurd.
> (a) If you are going to advance the "altruism toward relatives" argument,
> please be prepared to document that nieces and nephews have EIGHT times as
> many offspring as those of heterosexuals. Run the numbers. As to siblings,
> the altruist is himself (YES! the generic male gender) a child. His (!)
> influence is limited, and the best thing he (!) could do to enhance his (!)
> siblings reproductive fitness would be to die.
Hello! If you knew anything about the subject, you'd know that altruism is only
rarely detectible at that level, and population genetics has to be invoked to detect
the level of effect that is under discussion. Almost no one that would frequent this
group would have a clue what population genetics is, let alone have read the relevant
papers. There are a few of us that have though, so get you story straight before you
spout off.
Tarch
Rill Skye Kilaen
David M. Sueme wrote:
> I don't care whether or not it's "your fault" or not - homosexuality amounts
> to zero reproductive fitness.
(deletia)
> If I throw an empty plastic
> bottle out my window the EPA can crucify me, but it I have 92 kids, each of
> whom can toss hundreds of bottles, it is my business alone. Silly.
So gays are bad because they "can't" reproduce, but you're seriously
concerned about overpopulation. What a fascinating pair of ideas.
--Skye
--
Skye Kilaen
Ministress of Exploding Weasel Installations and Public Illumination
Five Times Blessed
Randall Lind
On 27 Aug 1996 13:49:25 GMT, pdelg...@pbs.org (Paul DG) wrote:
>> > ps...@terminus.com writes:
>>
>> >I think there are no gays in Star Trek because gayness has been cured in
>> >the 24th century. Today, scientists think that gayness is the result of
>> >a defective gene. In the 24th century, scientists have probably cured
>> >this defection.
>
>I think you are spending too much time reading the literature of Paul
>Cameron of the religious right. Paul Cameron's work has been discredited
>by every reputable national science association in the country.
>
>The key is not to find the study that fits your myopia, but find one that
>is recognized as sound research by organizations that have a reputation
>for sound science. In other words, challenge yourself a little.
>
>While much still remains to be learned about the exact causes of sexual
>orientation, most reputable scientists now believe it is a combination of
>environmental and biological factors. Before you phobes jump with glee at
>the mention of "environmental," these same scientists believe sexual
>orientation is determined at a very early age around age 8 and is
>irreversible.
>
>Dr. John Money of The Johns Hopkins University compares being gay to
>left-handedness. Both are a result of environmental and biological
>factors, both are determined at an early age, and both are irreversible.
>Money adds that you can force a left-handed person to write with his right
>hand, but he will always favor his left.
>
>I suggest some of you Trek geeks, learn a little bit about real science
>and spend a little less time worrying about warp technology. You might
>actually learn something.
>
>--Paul
Gay or non-Gay this is a TV show where you canescape form the real
world for at least a hour. Don't bring up a dum issue to ruin this
news group
Joseph Franke Kolacinski
On Wed, 28 Aug 1996, Tarchannon wrote:
> Joseph Franke Kolacinski wrote:
> > On 26 Aug 1996, Gregg T. Allinson wrote:
> > > Given the shit they pulled with "The Outcast", with an androgynous (read:
> > > straight) person who started to indulge in a relationship that involved a
> > > member of one specific sex and not another androgynous person (read: A
> > > relationship that involed a member of the same sex and not another
> > > straight person), but had to be "cured" because of its "problem" (read:
> > > Had to be "cured" because of their "problem"), I wouldn't doubt it.
> > But notice "she" seemed a lot happier after the procedure.
> I doubt the Borg are unhappy after assimilation. They are just brain wiped.
> Conforming to the norm (whatever that is) is always easier - but it is
> usually impossible.
Okay, let me get this straight... It's _easier_ to conform to the norm,
and it's usually _impossible_ ?!? Night is Day. Black is White.
Tomorrow is Yesterday. Double-Plus UNGOOD.
> > I think the
> > existance of a cure may have been the real intended message of that episode.
>
> Did you watch the episode? The 'conversion' was plainly meant to be
> *horrifying*. In press, the writers said the same thing.
Well, I did watch the episode. And I didn't get "horrifying". I did
however get "plainly meant to be horrifying", and that underscores the
whole problem with that episode. It was poorly done. It was _so_ heavy
handed that it was insulting. It was clear that the authors had an
obvious point to make, and they wrote a rather clumsy story around it.
That's never as good as writing a story that makes a point.
AND in the words of David Letterman, greatest living american, IT WAS A
JOKE FOR GOD'S SAKE. Parody. Satire. Reread some of the other garbage
that's been appearing all through the newsgroup, then reread my original
post. Think about it. Do you really think that anyone could watch "The
Outcast" and go; "Aaah. I see. The authors are trying to say
'homosexuality can be cured.'"!?!
Joseph
***********************************************************************
Joseph Franke Kolacinski *
j...@roswell.cs.miami.edu *
http://www.cs.miami.edu:80/~jfk/ *
***********************************************************************
Joseph Franke Kolacinski
On Wed, 28 Aug 1996, jdwiseman wrote:
> I have to step in. The "message" of the show, deals with the closed
> mindedness of the government and other "normal" people. Not, "Thank god
> for a cure"
>
> signed
> - your average straight male
Uh... thanks for straightening that out for me.
Arthur Levesque
Franklin Hummel (hum...@netcom.com) pontificated:
FH>There were a LOT of problemns with "The Outcast", one of which was
FH>the ending, which while seeming to condemn the changing of one's
FH>sexual orientation, also showed the character happier because of it.
Arthur Levesque (baks...@nicom.com) orated:
BS>...It shows us that she's been well and truly brainwashed. Remember
BS>Winston Smith at the end of "1984"? The last four words of the novel
BS>were "He loved Big Brother." Far from detracting from the novel, it
BS>really could have ended no other way and been true to the story.
FH>I agree with you that was the -intent- of the ending. I have not
FH>the slightest doubt that is the case. But I also have seen that some
FH>fans did -not- understand that.
True; but one cannot blame the story because some fans have (perhaps
willfully) misinterpreted it.
FH>The fact is, "The Outcast" is certainly not on the same literary
FH>level as 1984, its very quickly wrapped-up, reset button ending...
Believe me, I would *NEVER* imply that a TNG story was a literary
masterpiece. I was merely comparing the themes and conclusions, not the
levels of quality.
FH>...there are a lot of Trekkies who are clueless lead some folks to
FH>think that the character -was- truly happier and better off at the
FH>end. (I've heard and read Trekkies who have actually comment this.)
Yes, I've seen them recently as well. I abandoned the "gay guy"
threads once they degenerated into "no, I'm not a bigot, you are, neener
neener."
FH>And just presenting the idea that it might be -possible- to change
FH>someone's sexual orientation was enough to make a lot of gay people,
FH>including myself, -very- unhappy with the ending.
Hmmmm... Well, I haven't opened myself up for a major attack
lately, so let me just ask this: Currently, we still do not have an
absolute idea of what causes homosexuality. Not knowing the causes, how
can you state categorically that they cannot be reversed? There ARE
organizations that claim to turn gays straight.
DISCLAIMER NUMBER ONE: Please not that the above is a theoretical
question, and a statement that such organizations DO exist. It is NOT a
statement of MY opinions, nor a statement as to the validity of their
claims.
DISCLAIMER NUMBER TWO: For all the people who think "homosexuality
will be 'cured' by the 24th century", keep in mind that even if a "cure"
existed, how could governments ensure that everyone received it? Or, for
that matter, if sexual orientation can be changed one way, couldn't it
also be changed the other? I've known lesbians who were disappointed
that their kids turned out straight... Anyway, just imagine if some
fascist government was leading an all-out attempt to "fix" all
homosexuals... Can't you just imagine gay terrorists making their point
by applying the reverse treatment to straights? Hmmm, that could be an
interesting story...
FH>It was a weak, badly-written ending, reflecting the weakness and
FH>stupidity of the entire episode's premise.
IOW, a more-or-less typical TNG episode.
BS>...It was a cowardly way to pretend to take a stand without actually
BS>doing so; Paramount walks around the issue but has yet refused to
BS>face it. If they can't come out (so to speak) and make a statement,
BS>then they should be honest enough to just avoid the subject. The
BS>halfway loophole-ridden metaphor maybe-we-mean-this approach is just
BS>offensive. IOW, put up or shut up.
David H. Kime (dh...@cornell.edu) replied:
DK>And the TOS episode with the half white and black men wasn't a
DK>metaphor? I believe that this is what trek has done for it's whole
DK>history.
That episode wasn't afraid to call a spade a spade, if you'll
pardon the cliche. It was about people hating each other over a
superficial external characteristic. It wasn't the only time TOS dealt
with that issue; look at the racism Spock had to endure (especially in
"Balance of Terror", for instance).
Tarchannon
Joseph Franke Kolacinski wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Aug 1996, Tarchannon wrote:
> > Joseph Franke Kolacinski wrote:
> > > On 26 Aug 1996, Gregg T. Allinson wrote:
> > > > Given the shit they pulled with "The Outcast", with an androgynous (read:
> > > > straight) person who started to indulge in a relationship that involved a
> > > > member of one specific sex and not another androgynous person (read: A
> > > > relationship that involed a member of the same sex and not another
> > > > straight person), but had to be "cured" because of its "problem" (read:
> > > > Had to be "cured" because of their "problem"), I wouldn't doubt it.
>
> > > But notice "she" seemed a lot happier after the procedure.
>
> > I doubt the Borg are unhappy after assimilation. They are just brain wiped.
> > Conforming to the norm (whatever that is) is always easier - but it is
> > usually impossible.
>
> Okay, let me get this straight... It's _easier_ to conform to the norm,
> and it's usually _impossible_ ?!? Night is Day. Black is White.
> Tomorrow is Yesterday. Double-Plus UNGOOD.
Perhaps you should think about it. Thinking is *good*.
Maybe I'll rephrase it, so maybe you can wrap your mind about it better. It is often
much easier to live and survive in today's society by conforming to 'norm' (whatever
that is). However, most people find it impossible to change their nature to such an
extent.
Tarch
Ted Ambrose
>Joseph Franke Kolacinski (j...@roswell.cs.miami.edu) writes;
My god...are YOU guys in trouble. :-O
Ted!