Enterprise explores gay storylines
The Girl Connor
By William Keck, USA TODAY
Rumors have run rampant for years of same-sex handholding in the corridors
of the Enterprise. "That was really the wishful thinking of some people who
were constantly at us," says Enterprise producer Rick Berman. "But we don't
see heterosexual couples holding hands on the show, so it would be somewhat
dishonest of us to see two gay men or lesbians holding hands."
But the Feb. 5 episode of the UPN series will allegorically explore
homosexual issues. On Stigma, T'Pol (Jolene Blalock) and her physician, Dr.
Phlox, reveal a secret: T'Pol has been infected with an incurable
degenerative Vulcan disease similar to HIV/AIDS and has kept her condition
secret to avoid associations with mind melders, the Vulcan minority
suffering from the disease.
Blalock, who has lost loved ones to AIDS, says, "Our generation has been
educated; now it's time to educate the next generation_ it's dangerous out
there! This is something I really believe in, so I was honored to be chosen
as the ill one."
Berman says: "By the end of the episode, we're left with some open story
elements. What we would most likely deal with is T'Pol's desire to educate
the Vulcan people and destroy this sense of prejudice held against (mind
melders)."
The opportunity to educate, he says, outweighed the risk of turning off
Enterprise fans. "In true Star Trek form, we're hoping the young people who
watch will have some degree of enlightenment about a situation they're not
all that aware of."
Connor
--
"Wait a minute. This sounds like rock and/or roll."
~Reverand Lovejoy, The Simpsons
The Girl Connor
By William Keck, USA TODAY
Rumors have run rampant for years of same-sex handholding in the corridors
of the Enterprise. "That was really the wishful thinking of some people who
were constantly at us," says Enterprise producer Rick Berman. "But we don't
see heterosexual couples holding hands on the show, so it would be somewhat
dishonest of us to see two gay men or lesbians holding hands."
s
p
o
i
l
e
r
s
p
a
c
e
.
.
.
.
Graeme
homosexual issues. On Stigma, T'Pol (Jolene Blalock) and her physician, Dr.
Phlox, reveal a secret: T'Pol has been infected with an incurable degenerative
Vulcan disease similar to HIV/AIDS
>>
Excellent! So, does this mean she's leaving the show? Or is this going to be
some phony balogna fatal disease that doesn't actually kill anyone, or which
gets neatly resolved in 60 minutes? Good message there...
>>and has kept her condition secret to avoid associations with mind melders,
the Vulcan minority suffering from the disease.
>>
Since when are mind melders some small Vulcan minority? Sounds like another
poorly conceived Rick Berman retcon, with no thought to the consequences.
>>Blalock, who has lost loved ones to AIDS, says, "Our generation has been
educated; now it's time to educate the next generation_ it's dangerous out
there! This is something I really believe in, so I was honored to be chosen as
the ill one."
>>
Yes, it's very important that young Americans know that it's dangerous to mind
meld. That can't be stressed too highly. Even though in future Trek we know
that Vulcans do it freely and without worry (they found the cure?)
>>Berman says: "By the end of the episode, we're left with some open story
elements. What we would most likely deal with is T'Pol's desire to educate the
Vulcan people and destroy this sense of prejudice held against (mind melders)."
>>
I can see it now. "Just because you can get an infectious, fatal, incurable
disease from mind-melding doesn't mean that there's anything dangerous about
it. And it doesn't mean you shouldn't mind-meld either. It means you SHOULD
mind-meld because it's the government's job to cure this disease, not yours."
The AIDS analogy starts to break down about here. You can say "You can't ask
people not to have sex, they'll do it anyway," but it becomes somewhat less
plausible to a 21st century human audience to say the same thing about
mind-melding. On the other hand, if they have a scene where T'Pol says that
mind-melding is perfectly safe as long as you wear a plastic bag over your
head, I'll definitely watch. Don't forget, there can't be any air holes!
>>The opportunity to educate, he says, outweighed the risk of turning off
Enterprise fans.
>>
Considering how few there are, the risk is minimal, I admit...
wri...@spamprotectwritemaster.com
pissing all over Gene Roddenberry's noble, imaginative vision for Star
Trek. Let me be clear, I have nothing against gay storylines --
ST:TNG had a great episode about that theme (I forget the title), with
the society that had no gender at all, and people who felt themselves
to be either male or female were viewed as perverts. It was a very
powerful episode. But if I understand correctly what I've read below,
it means that for all these years the Vulcans have regarded
mind-melding as some kind of perversion!? Give me a break.
Then again, this comes from the same "creative team" that suddenly
decided that Tasha Yar, instead of dying heroically on the
Enterprise-C, got prostituted by the Romulans; and the same "creative
team" that turned the Borg from being overwhelmingly powerful into
wimps; and the same "creative team" that bailed out on any genuine
conflict between the Starfleet Voyager crew and the Maki Voyager crew;
and the same "creative team" that just gave us yet another "it was all
a dream" transporter accident on the incredibly bland new (excuse me,
original) Enterprise; and the same "creative team"... never mind...
Steve O.
wri...@SPAMPROTECTwritemaster.com
David Johnston
>>>But the Feb. 5 episode of the UPN series will allegorically explore
>homosexual issues. On Stigma, T'Pol (Jolene Blalock) and her physician, Dr.
>Phlox, reveal a secret: T'Pol has been infected with an incurable degenerative
>Vulcan disease similar to HIV/AIDS
>>>
>
>Excellent! So, does this mean she's leaving the show? Or is this going to be
>some phony balogna fatal disease that doesn't actually kill anyone, or which
>gets neatly resolved in 60 minutes? Good message there...
Since the disease is modelled on AIDS but spread by mind melding, she
can have the disease forever and never actually get sick. At least
not in the course of the series.
>
>
>>>and has kept her condition secret to avoid associations with mind melders,
>the Vulcan minority suffering from the disease.
>>>
>
>Since when are mind melders some small Vulcan minority?
Since the previous episode where T'Pol was introduced to mind melding.
It makes a certain amount of sense. After all, the Vulcan mind meld
drops all the barriers between two minds. No longer is a facade of
emotionlessness enough to hide your feelings. If you have them,
the other participant in the meld will know.
Dead to Rights
>Berman, Brannon and Braga must get some remarkable satisfaction from
>pissing all over Gene Roddenberry's noble, imaginative vision for Star
>Trek
It's always so fun how idiots jump the gun in a matter of seconds after reading
*about* a show rather than waiting the requisite time that most adults do
before forming an opinion (i.e., after watching the show). Jump off a cliff.
__
Sole owner and proprietor of the pariah known as Billy J Dancefloor, to the
complete horror and anger of AGVX, November 17 - Present
rande...@aol.com
<click...@hotmail.comNOSPAM> wrote:
>'Enterprise' to explore gay story lines
>By William Keck, USA TODAY
>
>Rumors have run rampant for years of same-sex handholding in the corridors
>of the Enterprise. "That was really the wishful thinking of some people who
>were constantly at us," says Enterprise producer Rick Berman. "But we don't
>see heterosexual couples holding hands on the show, so it would be somewhat
>dishonest of us to see two gay men or lesbians holding hands."
>
>
>But the Feb. 5 episode of the UPN series will allegorically explore
>homosexual issues. On Stigma, T'Pol (Jolene Blalock) and her physician, Dr.
>Phlox, reveal a secret: T'Pol has been infected with an incurable
>degenerative Vulcan disease similar to HIV/AIDS and has kept her condition
>secret to avoid associations with mind melders, the Vulcan minority
>suffering from the disease.
>
>Blalock, who has lost loved ones to AIDS, says, "Our generation has been
>educated; now it's time to educate the next generation_ it's dangerous out
>there!
There goes one more nail in the Star Trek coffin. The whole idea of
Star Trek is that they live in a world when genetic flaws (presumably)
and disease have been conquered. Does anyone think any parent
will allow a gay child to be born that way once genetic engineering
allows them to eliminate whatever gene is responsible for the
predisposition? I'd no more discriminate against a gay person than
one who was crippled from birth, but no one would allow a person to
be born crippled if they could cure it prior to birth.
But, the "fatal disease" theme is usually a last-ditch effort to
develop sympathy (and ratings) for shows on life-support, and this
plot development does not surprise me at all.
-Rich
Kevin Johnston
Don't be silly, of course they might. Gay & bi people might, aside from
any other number of examples.
You're also assuming that the "cause" of homosexuality is strictly
genetic, or even if it is, strictly isolatable. I think that is far
from certain, and in fact unlikely.
Kevin
Charles Barber
marketing of individual characters, to the point of making them and their
character flaws the most important element of the show. Plots are custom
written to fit the flaws or characteristics into them, to the point that if
you removed that character, the actual background story was meaningless
fluff (ie the Doc in Voyager, running into a race of people who liked
singers, or Neelix having a last second encounter with a group of
Talaxians). They stick to this formula, they can please the fans of the
individual characters, and the ratings of the collective will support the
show.. Do they have the formula, so locked in that nothing original will
ever be seen again?
If the same writers could go back in time, and rewrite STOS episodes we
would likely get plots like...
Scotty races against time, to get the planet's Alcohol generators back
online. Enterprise visits a planet of Alcohol dependent aliens, whose
society will crumble, if Scotty is not successful. After fixing the
generators Scotty is offered a highly paid position, to remain, and keep
everything in working order (where he would be worshipped by those who
depend on the generators functioning properly) But Scotty of course decides
to remain on Enterprise, where Capt Kirk depends on him to keep the warp
drives running at peak efficiency.
<wri...@SPAMPROTECTwritemaster.com> wrote in message
news:3df151f5...@news.concentric.net...
Jeffrey Varnado
communicated through a mind-meld, and mind-melding is NOT an ability
that only a minority of Vulcans possess. THIS IS A SERIOUS BREECH of
Star Trek cannon (Gene Roddenberry is rolling over in his grave) and
fans should bombard Berman and Paramount and anyone else you can email
or write (snail-mail)...the intentions may be good and noble, but
REWRITING established Trek is a violation of Roddenberry's Prime
Directives for all of the series, the movies, etc. Not saying this is
the first or only time it has ever occured (but examples ARE FEW AND FAR
BETWEEN), but this is the MOST extreme departure from established Trek
that I am aware of. I have no problem with the gay analogy or an attempt
to introduce gays into Star Trek crews, JUST DON'T REWRITE ESTABLISHED
TREK TO DO IT.
David Johnston
>Berman, Brannon and Braga must get some remarkable satisfaction from
>pissing all over Gene Roddenberry's noble, imaginative vision for Star
>Trek. Let me be clear, I have nothing against gay storylines --
>ST:TNG had a great episode about that theme (I forget the title),
No it didn't. It had a _terrible_ episode about that theme. I
haven't seen Enterprise's take, but it will have to work hard to
match the lameness of that episode.
with
>the society that had no gender at all, and people who felt themselves
>to be either male or female were viewed as perverts. It was a very
>powerful episode.
Well, that depends. Did you, like me, wish that technology really
existed so that I could sign up for it, and instantly and painlessly
change my personality to one that worked better?
But if I understand correctly what I've read below,
>it means that for all these years the Vulcans have regarded
>mind-melding as some kind of perversion!? Give me a break.
What is the problem with that?
>
>Then again, this comes from the same "creative team" that suddenly
>decided that Tasha Yar, instead of dying heroically on the
>Enterprise-C, got prostituted by the Romulans;
Actually that was Denise Crosby's bright idea.
David Johnston
>There goes one more nail in the Star Trek coffin. The whole idea of
>Star Trek is that they live in a world when genetic flaws (presumably)
>and disease have been conquered.
Yes, that idea is one of the things that makes Star Trek stupid.
rande...@aol.com
Why? Do you think gay men appear because they all had
weak fathers or domineering mothers? Of course it's genetic.
-Rich
rande...@aol.com
Why? The research is happening right now. Where do you think
it will be in 400 years?
-Rich
Donna L. Bridges
<kevinj_sfbay-B031...@typhoon.sonic.net>, Kevin Johnston
<kevinj...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>rande...@aol.com wrote:
>> ... Does anyone think any parent
>> will allow a gay child to be born that way once genetic engineering
>> allows them to eliminate whatever gene is responsible for the
>> predisposition?
>
>Don't be silly, of course they might. Gay & bi people might, aside from
>any other number of examples.
>
>You're also assuming that the "cause" of homosexuality is strictly
>genetic, or even if it is, strictly isolatable. I think that is far
>from certain, and in fact unlikely.
In a scifi/fantasy landscape they would traditionally have more of a
chance of being born & of living a full life. If not, then, you're in
the SF/F tradition where conformity is enforced to an oppressive point
causing a certain amount of the population to rebel & overcome the
oppression.
Besides the idea that same gender relationships would be less
desirable seems positively ludicrous when you expand past having just
humans. Surely there will be species that manage reproduction by
themselves, or that require a group for conception, or where people
'pair' off in 7s, or where reproduction is handled one way &
companionship & recreational sex another. Etc., etc.
However, it doesn't sound like a gay storyline to me.
--
DonnaB
"You can tell the ideals of a nation by its advertisements." - Norman
Douglas, _South Wind_ (1917) ch. 6
Kevin Johnston
You're being silly again. You're cute when you're silly!
> ... Of course it's genetic.
Only in the weak sense that everything is genetic. That doesn't address
the interaction of the genome and the environment (including cultural
upbringing). It doesn't address how inter-connected the trait is with
other traits, and whether there exists a silver bullet to remove it in a
desirable way.
What's silly about this conversation is that if this kind of genetic
engineering becomes possible, the human genome will almost certainly
become *more* diverse, not less.
Human nature being what is, and all.
Kevin
David Johnston
Probably about as advanced over now as it is now over 400 years ago.
And that doesn't mean completely finished.
David B.
>
> 'Enterprise' to explore gay story lines
> By William Keck, USA TODAY
>
> Rumors have run rampant for years of same-sex handholding in the corridors
> of the Enterprise. "That was really the wishful thinking of some people who
> were constantly at us," says Enterprise producer Rick Berman. "But we don't
> see heterosexual couples holding hands on the show, so it would be somewhat
> dishonest of us to see two gay men or lesbians holding hands."
They do show people in their underwear though.
David B.
>
> >
> >Berman, Brannon and Braga must get some remarkable satisfaction from
> >pissing all over Gene Roddenberry's noble, imaginative vision for Star
> >Trek
>
> It's always so fun how idiots jump the gun in a matter of seconds after reading
> *about* a show rather than waiting the requisite time that most adults do
> before forming an opinion (i.e., after watching the show). Jump off a cliff.
I agree. What a bunch of whiners.
rande...@aol.com
<kevinj...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Not so far as history has shown. In genetic manipulation, the
direction has been to narrow the species in terms of it's
characteristics. They may invent new characteristics by
hybridizing plants, to make them more resistent to the cold,
but the goal is still the same, a uniformly appearing and tasting
edible plant.
-Rich
rande...@aol.com
wrote:
What if they're right and the show is tanking because they are?
-Rich
Kevin Johnston
In article <57i4vuof221su09nt...@4ax.com>,
You have to be kidding me.
First you contradict yourself by talking about new characterists and
narrowing at the same time. Which is it?
Second of course our manipulations are mostly limited to hybridization
and enhancements of existing traits; that's the only tools we had until
recently.
Third you talk about the microscopic issue of individual species, but
the macroscopic history of human agriculture is that we have a far
greater variety of foodstuffs today than 5,000 years ago. How many
different kinds of apples are available at your local grocer? Why isn't
one sufficient? Will there NEVER be another new, popular apple variety?
Seems unlikely, don't you think?
People like variety. People like new things. People like cosmetics.
People like to improve themselves. Taken altogether, human psychology
makes genetic twiddling of the human genome virtually inevitable, even
for purely trivial cosmetic reasons. Why is this not obvious?
I don't know even know what to make of your implied claim that the human
race will willingly pursue a uniform feature set. How bizarre, and
unlikely (not to mention utterly dull; you'll have to quell the rebel
spirit of the entire race to achieve that). BTW who decides which traits
are undesirable? Are these decisions likely, in your opinion, to be
constant across all human cultures?
Kevin
William December Starr
resear...@webtv.net (Jeffrey Varnado) said:
> I'm sorry, but in the STAR TREK cannon, infectious disease cannot
> be communicated through a mind-meld, and mind-melding is NOT an
> ability that only a minority of Vulcans possess. THIS IS A SERIOUS
> BREECH of Star Trek cannon
"A breech of the cannon." I've gotta say, that's impressive.
-- William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
William December Starr
wri...@SPAMPROTECTwritemaster.com said:
> Then again, this comes from the same "creative team" that suddenly
> decided that Tasha Yar, instead of dying heroically on the
> Enterprise-C, got prostituted by the Romulans;
Actually, she got sex-slaved and brood-mared by the Romulans.
Almost, but not quite, the same thing.
rande...@aol.com
<kevinj...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Yes, they will be. Studies continue to show humans (no matter what
culture) tend to prefer very specific and narrow characteristics in
each other. They even have exact ratios of body measurements,
facial characteristics, the preference for symmetry, etc.
Same thing with animals which more or less proves it's
an instictive trait going back much farther than you might think.
-Rich
Kevin Johnston
rande...@aol.com wrote:
You again focus on the microscopic and miss the macroscopic. These
platonic ideals of form don't contradict the appeal of variety in the
broader range of human features. The simple fact of changing tastes
across human history shows this; Ruebeneque used to be the cultural
ideal, now it is not. Tans were only worn by the poor in the 19th
century (the ones who toiled outside).
> Same thing with animals which more or less proves it's
> an instictive trait going back much farther than you might think.
I don't know, I can think quite a bit.
But anyway, yeah, human males never fall for exotic women (or v.v.).
Your vision of the future is dull (which may not be the same thing as
"wrong"; I'm just sayin').
Kevin
David Johnston
> I'm sorry, but in the STAR TREK cannon, infectious disease cannot be
> communicated through a mind-meld,
Actually that isn't true. Tuvok had a potentially lethal condition that
could be transmitted through mind-melds.
> and mind-melding is NOT an ability
> that only a minority of Vulcans possess.
Uh-hunh. And you established this...how exactly?
Vladimir Estragon
spell "CANON."
>> I'm sorry, but in the STAR TREK cannon, infectious disease cannot
>> be communicated through a mind-meld, and mind-melding is NOT an
>> ability that only a minority of Vulcans possess. THIS IS A SERIOUS
>> BREECH of Star Trek cannon
>
>"A breech of the cannon." I've gotta say, that's impressive.
>
>-- William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
Greg H.
>could be transmitted through mind-melds.
And "Voyager" was overseen by B&B, same as "Enterprise". To paraphrase Data in
"Star Trek: First Contact", "To HELL with the canon!" At least that seems to
be the B&B creed these days. :(
rande...@aol.com
That's a tan, it's like clothing. Styles change, but basic
instinctive human preferences do not.
>
>> Same thing with animals which more or less proves it's
>> an instictive trait going back much farther than you might think.
>
>I don't know, I can think quite a bit.
>
>But anyway, yeah, human males never fall for exotic women (or v.v.).
>
>Your vision of the future is dull (which may not be the same thing as
>"wrong"; I'm just sayin').
>
>Kevin
The instinct (maybe) is to prevent the introduction of "bad" genetic
traits into a group of people or animals. It might very well be dull
it might even be a mistake, but there may be valid reasons behind
it we don't yet know.
-Rich
David Johnston
>>Actually that isn't true. Tuvok had a potentially lethal condition that
>>could be transmitted through mind-melds.
>
>And "Voyager" was overseen by B&B, same as "Enterprise".
Wait a second. Wasn't most of TNG overseen by them as as well,
apart from those crappy Gene Roddenberry seasons at the start?
Just what are you talking about when you say "canon"?
Greg H.
>
>Wait a second. Wasn't most of TNG overseen by them as as well,
>apart from those crappy Gene Roddenberry seasons at the start?
>
>Just what are you talking about when you say "canon"?
1canon \ka-nen\ n 1 : a regulation decreed by a church council; also : a
provision of canon law 2 : an official or authoritative list (as of the saints
or the books of the Bible) 3 : an accepted principle <the ~s of good taste> (C)
1995 Zane Publishing, Inc. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary (C) 1994 by
Merriam-Webster, Incorporated
David Johnston
So, nothing to do with Star Trek? I don't see the problem with discarding it,
then.
Brad Filippone
: In article <17816-3D...@storefull-2314.public.lawson.webtv.net>,
: resear...@webtv.net (Jeffrey Varnado) said:
It's got to be the best confusion of "canon" and "cannon" I've ever seen!
LOL!!
Brad
wri...@spamprotectwritemaster.com
>>decided that Tasha Yar, instead of dying heroically on the
>>Enterprise-C, got prostituted by the Romulans;
>
>Actually that was Denise Crosby's bright idea.
Really? Okay, so she's an actress, she wants, I don't fault her. Who
forced the producers to agree with her? If they had any respect for
the power and integrity of the story in Yesterday's Enterprise, they
never would have signed on for the followup script.
Thom Wilkerson
genetic engineering to provide various 'vanity' manipulations (just look
at what Wacko Jacko has gone thru to get his new nose and skin
color--don't you think that if he had the availability of genetic
engineering he wouldn't hesitate to genetically manipulate his 'dangling
kid' to suit his own desires?)
Ok, with the demand for Viagra, I can see a big genetic market for say,
increase in a manchild's, ahem, member, being a really 'big seller'.
Look at some of the trends in historically outrageous fashions over the
last several hundred yrs (especially in the 'upper classes' which in ST
universe includes everyone) and one can easily come up with all sorts of
truly bizarre genetic 'fads'.
How normally accepted now is the once totally bizarre 'goth' fashions
and simply extrapolate...
Future Trekkies or Trekkers if you insist, could vote for their kids to
have pointed Vulcan ears or elaborate Klingon head furrows or even blue
skin and Andorian anntenae.....
Does one truly believe that today's beauty norm will remain so when one
can do what one wishes genetically as easily as a change in style of
hairstyles or tatooes?
Charles Barber
(ie changimh species 8472 into humans)
<wri...@SPAMPROTECTwritemaster.com> wrote in message
news:3df3ad45....@news.concentric.net...
David Johnston
> >>Then again, this comes from the same "creative team" that suddenly
> >>decided that Tasha Yar, instead of dying heroically on the
> >>Enterprise-C, got prostituted by the Romulans;
> >
> >Actually that was Denise Crosby's bright idea.
>
> Really? Okay, so she's an actress, she wants, I don't fault her. Who
> forced the producers to agree with her?
Nothing. They just got softhearted.
Greg H.
>it,
>then.
>
You have to extrapolate. The original definition of CANON refers to church
law, which is usually rigid & inflexible. The Star Trek Canon should be
likewise rigid & inflexible. I'm sure B and/or B are trying their damndest to
find some justification for Archer and his crew to have a "face to face"
meeting with the Romulans. Such a meeting would clearly be a violation of the
Star Trek Canon, which is about as sacred to B&B as the Prime Directive was to
James T. Kirk!! ;)
JayZ755
Two questions:
Do you, in any other endeavor of life, subscribe to the notion of a rigid,
inflexible canon? Do you believe that James T. Kirk would have cared about
canon?
Jay
This space intentionally left blank.
David Levy
> Do you believe that James T. Kirk would have cared about canon?
You mean James R. Kirk? ;)
--
George W. Bush Quote of the Week for December 8-14, 2002:
"There's an old...saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, prob'ly
in Tennessee -- that says fool me once.....shame on.....shame on
you......Eh, fool me -- we can't get fooled again." - Sept. 17, 2002
[The above ellipses indicate pauses.]
David Johnston
>>So, nothing to do with Star Trek? I don't see the problem with discarding
>>it,
>>then.
>>
>
>You have to extrapolate. The original definition of CANON refers to church
>law, which is usually rigid & inflexible. The Star Trek Canon should be
>likewise rigid & inflexible.
And where in the Star Trek Canon was it said that most Vulcans
mindmeld, and further that they always did?
EMDRoberts
>mindmeld, and further that they always did?
We do know they at least used it to pass on their katras.
Mandy
RIP Jonathan Harris
You can't spell SANcTimOniouS without Santos
Just say no to MSG
ANIM8Rfsk
<< I'm sure B and/or B are trying their damndest to
find some justification for Archer and his crew to have a "face to face"
meeting with the Romulans. >>
No real need. They've already met Romulans with advanced Birds of Prey, warp
capability, and cloaking devices. Not to mention it turns out 'Romulan' is
actually their own word for themselves, in their language. B&B have already
screwed it up beyond salvaging, unless they just hit the rest and erase Archer
from history.
Golden...@webtv.net
father thusly (REUNIFICATION 1 & 2, TNG), ALL Vulcans we encounter prior
to this new twist in ENTERPRISE... absolutely DID POSSESS mindmelding
capability. In SPECTER OF THE GUN (TOS) Spock used it to save Kirk,
Scotty, etc...and for the DIE-HARD TREKKIES out there, in some episode
Spock speaks of the mindmeld as a very personal, private Vulcan matter
and hesitates to use it for that reason ( he doesn't say, "Captain, this
is an ability only possessed by a small minority of Vulcans"). The whole
ideaa of the mindmeld being a MINORITY ability is ABSURD and I hope the
die-hard Trekkies really raise hell to Berman & anyone else associated
with ENTERPRISE...
David Johnston
>Sarek mindmelded with Picard and Spock was able to reconnect with his
>father thusly (REUNIFICATION 1 & 2, TNG), ALL Vulcans we encounter prior
>to this new twist in ENTERPRISE... absolutely DID POSSESS mindmelding
>capability. In SPECTER OF THE GUN (TOS) Spock used it to save Kirk,
>Scotty, etc...and for the DIE-HARD TREKKIES out there, in some episode
>Spock speaks of the mindmeld as a very personal, private Vulcan matter
>and hesitates to use it for that reason ( he doesn't say, "Captain, this
>is an ability only possessed by a small minority of Vulcans"). The whole
>ideaa of the mindmeld being a MINORITY ability is ABSURD
Actually what Enterprise is claiming is not that it is a minority
ability, but that it is a minority activity. There's a difference.
Nothing we've been told suggests that the average Vulcan
on Enterprise is incapable of mind melding, just that mind
melding violates a social taboo at that time during Vulcan
history.
Greg H.
>>law, which is usually rigid & inflexible. The Star Trek Canon should be
>>likewise rigid & inflexible.
>
>And where in the Star Trek Canon was it said that most Vulcans
>mindmeld, and further that they always did?
As with anything else, you must look at HOW elements previously unseen in ANY
Trek are introduced. For example, when Spock's parents came aboard the
Enterprise it was stated that Spock was an only child! They stretched it in
"Star Trek 5: Shatner Directs" by introducing a half-brother.
Bing
Wilkerson) wrote:
> Future Trekkies or Trekkers if you insist, could vote for their kids to
> have pointed Vulcan ears or elaborate Klingon head furrows or even blue
> skin and Andorian anntenae.....
Even the most irrational person, who might tattoo themselves
or get Spock ears and three arms, wouldn't wish their
children to start life with these "defects". Each and every
one would want their kids to start out perfect and then let
them change themselves later in life.
When it becomes possible, most parents will design a blond,
blue-eyed, straight son who is tall, athletic, smart and has
a big unit. Parents always want to start their kids with
as many advantages as possible.
> Does one truly believe that today's beauty norm will remain so when one
> can do what one wishes genetically as easily as a change in style of
> hairstyles or tatooes?
No one would wish a permanent "inferior" fashion change onto
their children.
-- Bing Monopoly Expansion Set
Visit us at http://www.paxentertainment.com
Kevin Johnston
pax...@yahoo.com (Bing) wrote:
> When it becomes possible, most parents will design a blond,
> blue-eyed, straight son who is tall, athletic, smart and has
> a big unit.
The idea that "most people" will want their children to look like
someone else's children, different from themselves or their mates (or
their grandparents, or the rest of their extended family) strikes me as
completely at odds with human nature.
Aisde from that, when everyone is blond and blue-eyed (including Chinese
and African peoples, I guess you are proposing), these features will
lose their allure. Like other people in this thread, you fail to
account for the appeal of the different.
Kevin
Kevin Johnston
> On Sun, 08 Dec 2002 00:35:19 GMT, Kevin Johnston
> <kevinj...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >I don't know even know what to make of your implied claim that the human
> >> >race will willingly pursue a uniform feature set. How bizarre, and
> >> >unlikely (not to mention utterly dull; you'll have to quell the rebel
> >> >spirit of the entire race to achieve that). BTW who decides which traits
> >> >are undesirable? Are these decisions likely, in your opinion, to be
> >> >constant across all human cultures?
> >> >
> >> >Kevin
> >>
> >> Yes, they will be. Studies continue to show humans (no matter what
> >> culture) tend to prefer very specific and narrow characteristics in
> >> each other. They even have exact ratios of body measurements,
> >> facial characteristics, the preference for symmetry, etc.
> >
> >You again focus on the microscopic and miss the macroscopic. These
> >platonic ideals of form don't contradict the appeal of variety in the
> >broader range of human features. The simple fact of changing tastes
> >across human history shows this; Ruebeneque used to be the cultural
> >ideal, now it is not. Tans were only worn by the poor in the 19th
> >century (the ones who toiled outside).
> >
>
> That's a tan, it's like clothing. Styles change, but basic
> instinctive human preferences do not.
You're repeating what I just said, and agreeing with me: styles change,
*regardless* of the existence of certain ideal traits.
I can readily conceive of genetic manipulations that fall into the
category of "style", so your beautiful theory doesn't preclude them from
becoming commonplace.
> >> Same thing with animals which more or less proves it's
> >> an instictive trait going back much farther than you might think.
> >
> >I don't know, I can think quite a bit.
> >
> >But anyway, yeah, human males never fall for exotic women (or v.v.).
> >
> >Your vision of the future is dull (which may not be the same thing as
> >"wrong"; I'm just sayin').
> >
> >Kevin
>
> The instinct (maybe) is to prevent the introduction of "bad" genetic
> traits into a group of people or animals.
While that trait can be identified between social groups or among
species, it is poorly representative of reality between individuals.
Genetic diversity is essential to long-term survival of a species. This
is non-controverisal, obvious even (it's why inbreeding is bad), and
your point about ideal forms does not contradict it, nor even address it.
> ... It might very well be dull
> it might even be a mistake, but there may be valid reasons behind
> it we don't yet know.
> -Rich
The exact same thing might be said about homosexuality, for exactly the
same reasons -- it might be an unexpected, yet straightforward
consequence of our evolution. But I expect you won't admit that.
Kevin
JayZ755
>same reasons -- it might be an unexpected, yet straightforward
>consequence of our evolution. But I expect you won't admit that.
>
>Kevin
>
Well, one could infer that since homosexuals exist, they serve an unobvious yet
necessary function socially or biologically. Their numbers are small enough,
percentage-wise, that the inability to reproduce naturally shouldn't be an
issue most of the time. And of course, they are just as capable of reproducing
physically should they choose to do so, and they still often do.
JayZ755
>or get Spock ears and three arms, wouldn't wish their
>children to start life with these "defects". Each and every
>one would want their kids to start out perfect and then let
>them change themselves later in life.
>
But everyone's idea of "perfection" is different, and some people hate
themselves and/or their kids. Many people don't give their children every
possible advantage now; I see no reason why that would apply to genetics.
ANIM8Rfsk
<< Even the most irrational person, who might tattoo themselves
or get Spock ears and three arms, wouldn't wish their
children to start life with these "defects". Each and every
one would want their kids to start out perfect and then let
them change themselves later in life. >>
Oh, I disagree with that. Remember the big flap in the deaf community a few
years ago about repairing baby's hearing, and the deaf activists insisting
there was nothing wrong with not being able to hear and that you should be
doing this?
Jim Gray
>Nothing. They just got softhearted.
You misspelled "soft-headed".
Bing
> and African peoples, I guess you are proposing), these features will
> lose their allure.
Never underestimate the drive to conform. Name any
passtime, social situation, or competition where
being different from the norm actually gets you
ahead (note: I'm not referring to "different" as
just being able to run faster or jump higher).
> Like other people in this thread, you fail to
> account for the appeal of the different.
Think back to your school days. No one likes to be different.
Some people who are different have managed to overcome the
differences and become successful--they are the exceptions.
Most people who start out with these differences never
overcome the social obstacles.
Bing
wrote:
> Oh, I disagree with that. Remember the big flap in the deaf community a few
> years ago about repairing baby's hearing, and the deaf activists insisting
> there was nothing wrong with not being able to hear and that you should be
> doing this?
And what was the outcome? Did the parents realize that
there was nothing wrong with being deaf and celebrate
the uniqueness of their child?
Or did the parents shoo away the activists and have
the child's hearing fixed?
ANIM8Rfsk
<< And what was the outcome? Did the parents realize that
there was nothing wrong with being deaf and celebrate
the uniqueness of their child?
Or did the parents shoo away the activists and have
the child's hearing fixed? >>
It wasn't a single instance; it was the activists trying to convince people in
general to leave their children deaf if there was a choice. Given that I
haven't heard about it in some time, I'd guess the idea didn't catch on.
Peter Hanson
graem...@aol.compost says...
> >>But the Feb. 5 episode of the UPN series will allegorically explore
> homosexual issues. On Stigma, T'Pol (Jolene Blalock) and her physician, Dr.
> Phlox, reveal a secret: T'Pol has been infected with an incurable degenerative
> Vulcan disease similar to HIV/AIDS
> >>
>
> Excellent! So, does this mean she's leaving the show?
Yeah, she's joining Firefly.
>
> >>and has kept her condition secret to avoid associations with mind melders,
> the Vulcan minority suffering from the disease.
> >>
>
> Since when are mind melders some small Vulcan minority? Sounds like another
> poorly conceived Rick Berman retcon, with no thought to the consequences.
Lets hope its the zap at Usa today who got it wrong.
> >>Blalock, who has lost loved ones to AIDS, says, "Our generation has been
> educated; now it's time to educate the next generation_ it's dangerous out
> there! This is something I really believe in, so I was honored to be chosen as
> the ill one."
> >>
>
> Yes, it's very important that young Americans know that it's dangerous to mind
> meld. That can't be stressed too highly. Even though in future Trek we know
> that Vulcans do it freely and without worry (they found the cure?)
I was about to suggest it would be safe with a plastic bag over your
head, but i see you beat me to it ;)
Peter Hanson
vla...@comcast.nospam.net says...
> Yeah, you'd think that SOMEONE that sure of HIMSELF would know how to
> spell "CANON."
Why? Does it affect his opinion?
And do quote properly.
Peter Hanson
says...
> Jeffrey Varnado wrote:
> > and mind-melding is NOT an ability
> > that only a minority of Vulcans possess.
>
> Uh-hunh. And you established this...how exactly?
By watching startrek presumably. That's what I would think as well. They
have never said only a minority could do that, and the impression i've
got was that everybody could - but the didn't do it all the time. Of
course perhaps is the idea that at the time of Archer they didn't all do
it yet.
Peter Hanson
rgo...@telusplanet.net says...
> On 08 Dec 2002 02:23:49 GMT, gre...@aol.comNOSPAM (Greg H.) wrote:
>
> >>Actually that isn't true. Tuvok had a potentially lethal condition that
> >>could be transmitted through mind-melds.
> >
> >And "Voyager" was overseen by B&B, same as "Enterprise".
>
> Wait a second. Wasn't most of TNG overseen by them as as well,
> apart from those crappy Gene Roddenberry seasons at the start?
No.
> Just what are you talking about when you say "canon"?
I don't know what he is talking about, but traditionally 'canon' is that
witch is "TrueTrek" (or for real for anyshow for that matter), in the
case of StarTrek it was the movies and the series, not the books for
instance(since a lot of the writers seem to be writing stories about
their ideas and universes and were stuck with having a spaceship called
Enterprise along for the ride) - on Babylon 5, the Cartoons (at least the
early ones - don't know if they still make them) were canon since JMS was
writing or plotting the stories there as well, so they related to the Tv
episodes.
Peter Hanson
says...
> >
> > 1canon \ka-nen\ n 1 :
> So, nothing to do with Star Trek? I don't see the problem with discarding it,
> then.
Although you are probably trolling, what he should have quoted from the
dictionary is: "a sanctioned or accepted group or body of related works"
and "a body of principles, rules, standards, or norms"
Peter Hanson
rgo...@telusplanet.net says...
>
> Well, that depends. Did you, like me, wish that technology really
> existed so that I could sign up for it, and instantly and painlessly
> change my personality to one that worked better?
We'll, i'm sure we'd all like it if you signed up for a better
personality!
LOL :)
>
> But if I understand correctly what I've read below,
> >it means that for all these years the Vulcans have regarded
> >mind-melding as some kind of perversion!? Give me a break.
>
> What is the problem with that?
It doesn't seem overly credible based on what we have seen "since".
Peter Hanson
rande...@aol.com says...
> I'd no more discriminate against a gay person than
> one who was crippled from birth, but no one would allow a person to
> be born crippled if they could cure it prior to birth.
>
>
Excuse me? What planet are you living on? Today there are many people
with handicaps who protest against the possibility of genetic screening.
They feel its somehow demeans them that future generations might be born
without their handicap. (Or perhaps its called 'bodily challenged')
Peter Hanson
kevinj...@yahoo.com says...
> rande...@aol.com wrote:
> > On Fri, 6 Dec 2002 15:50:42 -0500, "The Girl Connor"
>
> You're also assuming that the "cause" of homosexuality is strictly
> genetic, or even if it is, strictly isolatable. I think that is far
> from certain, and in fact unlikely.
Well, there are gay animals - do you think they became that way because
of a tough childhood?
Peter Hanson
kevinj...@yahoo.com says...
>
> How many
> different kinds of apples are available at your local grocer? Why isn't
> one sufficient?
Because we haven't standardized peoples taste yet.
> People like variety. People like new things. People like cosmetics.
> People like to improve themselves. Taken altogether, human psychology
> makes genetic twiddling of the human genome virtually inevitable, even
> for purely trivial cosmetic reasons. Why is this not obvious?
Oh it is, isn't it also obvious that they will all want to look like the
fotomodels?
> I don't know even know what to make of your implied claim that the human
> race will willingly pursue a uniform feature set. How bizarre, and
> unlikely (not to mention utterly dull; you'll have to quell the rebel
> spirit of the entire race to achieve that).
I think he's right. People seem to be getting more and more alike
(especially they young) - countries are getting to look more and more
alike, television and magazines spread the same pictures ever where.
People like to fit in and end up looking rather a lot like each other -
sure there are always those who feel outside and end up looking really
weird. But if it became cheap to be acceptet.... oh i think they will.
Peter Hanson
kevinj...@yahoo.com says...
> In article <2b35vucuek00f7bcb...@4ax.com>,
> The simple fact of changing tastes
> across human history shows this; Ruebeneque used to be the cultural
> ideal, now it is not.
Oh I don't know, most guys i meet think the tv stars and models are too
damn skinny (as do I)
> Tans were only worn by the poor in the 19th century (the ones who toiled outside).
And it was cool to be pale - and if the ones who toiled outside could
have done something to have pale skin fairly quickly I'm sure they would
have.
What's Scally Watching?
Scally: It's rough in the wild. Some animals have to turn to male prostitution
to make ends meet.
What's Scally Watching's Golden Shower Site of the Month for December, 2002:
"Twin Towers at Ground Zero" (Creating family fun and fond memories that will
last a lifetime)
http://www.groundzerothemepark.com/
Happiness = Jack Daniels, Child Labour, Bite Sized Poo, Jism,
Catfree, Lobotomy, Free Hookers (2nd Amendment),
God-doesn't-exist Atheism, Trolling, Naked Hooker's Beauty,
Vegetablefree, Chain Smoking around non smokers, etc.
Kevin Johnston
Peter Hanson <nospam_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <kevinj_sfbay-2C62...@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> kevinj...@yahoo.com says...
> >
>
> > How many
> > different kinds of apples are available at your local grocer? Why isn't
> > one sufficient?
>
> Because we haven't standardized peoples taste yet.
When is that going to happen? It's been thousands of years. Who is
working on it? What businesses will benefit from it, as opposed to
setting themselves *apart* from their competition?
As I pointed out already, we are eating a far greater variety of
foodstuffs now than a few thousand years ago (actually, 100 years ago,
for most people). When is this trend going to reverse, which hasn't
reversed in thousands of years of human history? When is my grocery
store going to stop introducing dozens of new products every month?
Are you *seriously* suggesting that the Granny Smith and Red Delicious
(or something like them) will ever not both be available to the public?
What planet are you living on? Let me off!!
> > People like variety. People like new things. People like cosmetics.
> > People like to improve themselves. Taken altogether, human psychology
> > makes genetic twiddling of the human genome virtually inevitable, even
> > for purely trivial cosmetic reasons. Why is this not obvious?
>
> Oh it is, isn't it also obvious that they will all want to look like the
> fotomodels?
No that's not obvious to me. In another message *YOU* said that you
know a lot of guys that don't find supermodels attractive.
If it's so obvious, why hasn't it happened? We've been evolving for
millions of years. Why aren't we all alike *NOW*?
> > I don't know even know what to make of your implied claim that the human
> > race will willingly pursue a uniform feature set. How bizarre, and
> > unlikely (not to mention utterly dull; you'll have to quell the rebel
> > spirit of the entire race to achieve that).
>
> I think he's right. People seem to be getting more and more alike
> (especially they young)
Dang you're tired and old.
Since when are homies dressing like Ivy League fratboys? Since when are
goths starting to look like jocks? Goths and homies didn't *exist* 40
years ago. Kids looked a lot more alike 50 years ago when more schools
had dress codes, and when their parents picked their clothes. They
looked even more alike 100 years ago when only the rich bought anything
remotely stlyish for their kids. They looked even more alike 5,000
years ago when they were mostly naked.
> ... - countries are getting to look more and more
> alike, television and magazines spread the same pictures ever where.
That's globalization. Tribal mingling on a large scale. So what?
Everyone talking about conformance in this thread is doing so in a
shallow sense-- teenagers comforming to one another (among a good number
of niches, BTW). But teenagers NEVER want to look like their parents.
They may pick (and drop at a whim) similar styles among themselves, but
they are also constantly trying to break off from previous generations.
THIS is the engine of difference I'm talking about.
Anyway, lots of teenagers shed that herd instinct once they mature.
Lots don't. So what? The ones that do, become artists, scientists, and
leaders. Why would this trait ever die out, since it keeps the rest of
us entertained, warm, and safe?
> People like to fit in and end up looking rather a lot like each other -
> sure there are always those who feel outside and end up looking really
> weird.
Of those acting like sheep, and those spinning black sweaters for
themselves, which ones are the engines of creativity, discovery, and
leadership? Which ones brought us down out of the trees? Which ones
dream up our shared culture? Which ones made our civilization possible?
Which ones are indispensable? Which ones, without whom, does the race
cease to exist?
Given two human populations, one with a rebellious spirit and one
without, which one will still be around in 5,000 years?
Evolution *guarantees* a rebellious streak in the human race
indefinitely. You can't stop it, short of denying people free will.
(Mind you, there are any number of nightmare sci-fi scenarios where just
that happens. I think George Orwell wrote one.)
> But if it became cheap to be acceptet.... oh i think they will.
You should get to know some more artists, scientists, and explorers.
How do you make them stop? There's one born every minute.
Kevin
Kevin Johnston
No, I think it was the lavender dress their mommie made them wear when
they were bad. Why, do you think people are total slaves to their genes?
What I actually think is, it's unlikely that the cause is a singular
genetic trait that can be snipped out. Humans are highly social, highly
horny, and highly adaptive. Given this skein of traits, I can imagine a
homosexual sub-population being *unavoidable* short of denying people
free will.
People fall in love for "environmental" reasons all the time.
Classmates date, co-workers mate, neighbors cheat on each other. To
claim there are environmental factors in behavior is not to deny a
genetic cause. Genes allow for the behavior in the first place, guiding
(and responding to) social pressures. Who knows, homosexuality may be a
"safety valve" response to over-population. In which case, it's both
genetic in cause, and elicited in populations by the environment they
are in. Heredity and environment are not incompatible, they inform each
other.
Anyway, if you think no one chooses a homosexual partner, plenty of
lesbians disagree. God bless lesbians.
Kevin
Kevin Johnston
pax...@yahoo.com (Bing) wrote:
> > Aisde from that, when everyone is blond and blue-eyed (including Chinese
> > and African peoples, I guess you are proposing), these features will
> > lose their allure.
>
> Never underestimate the drive to conform.
Never overestimate it. In a world of identical blond blue-eyed
Nordickfolk, the sultry raven-haired Italian diva is queen, and the
males will fight to the death for her.
> .... Name any
> passtime, social situation, or competition where
> being different from the norm actually gets you
> ahead
Art, science, politics, business, and sex.
You're not actually thinking this through, are you?
> > Like other people in this thread, you fail to
> > account for the appeal of the different.
>
> Think back to your school days. No one likes to be different.
Bullshit. MANY people don't like to be different, but hardly every
single person. It doesn't matter if it's a minority (social dynamics
might well require it), it's an essential trait of the race. See my
reply to Peter.
Anyway, that's not what I meant in that statement. What I meant - to
put it crudely - is that guys like to fuck all kinds of different girls.
That doesn't mean they don't also want to be the high school
quarterback. What people want to be and what they want to experience
are not the same thing.
Kevin
aCultist
> from USA TODay
>
> http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/news/2002-12-06-enterprise_x.htm
"Rumors have run rampant for years of same-sex handholding in the
corridors of the Enterprise. "That was really the wishful thinking of
some people who were constantly at us," says Enterprise producer Rick
Berman. "But we don't see heterosexual couples holding hands on the
show, so it would be somewhat dishonest of us to see two gay men or
lesbians holding hands.""
Which of course is total, utter *BULLSHIT*. There were
heterosexual couples holding hands as far back as the original STAR
TREK series ("This Side of Paradise" is one example) and in THE NEXT
GENERATION we even saw Troi and a male lover in bed together (in "The
Price"). And what about all the many, many straight couples we have
seen getting it on in DS9 and VOYAGER. Gee, did Worf and Jadzia's
wedding in "You Are Cordially Invited..." never happen, Mr. Berman?
"But the Feb. 5 episode of the UPN series will allegorically explore
homosexual issues. On Stigma, T'Pol (Jolene Blalock) and her
physician, Dr. Phlox, reveal a secret: T'Pol has been infected with an
her condition secret to avoid associations with mind melders, the
Vulcan minority suffering from the disease."
falsehood that AIDS is mainly a "homosexual issue" when in fact the
vast majority of worldwide infections are *heterosexual*!
And of course there is NO mention of showing even ONE gay
character here, let alone a couple, in ENTERPRISE.
HEY, RICK BERMAN! YOU ARE COMPLETELY FULL OF SHIT! GO FUCK YOURSELF!
aCultist
>
> No one would wish a permanent "inferior" fashion change onto
> their children.
Wow, talk about clueless!!! Aren't you aware of some strange names
parents have given their kids?
I have encountered a boy whose first name is "Sir" and a young girl
whose first name is "Fe-Male". I know of a man whose full name is
"Battle Steele" and a woman whose name is "Faith Hope Charity".
How about being given the name "Victory Taste-Suite" by your parents?
OF COURSE parents will do =REALLY STUPID THINGS= to their children.
Because some parents ARE themselves =REALLY STUPID=.
Bing
<kevinj...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Never overestimate it. In a world of identical blond blue-eyed
> Nordickfolk, the sultry raven-haired Italian diva is queen, and the
> males will fight to the death for her.
Perhaps. But how hard would they fight for her and keep her
if she was REALLY different? Like maybe she had no arms
or had green scales. Yeah, guys would want a one-night stand
with her "just to see what it's like", but I doubt that
very many would want to have a long-term relationship or
children with a fish woman.
> > .... Name any
> > passtime, social situation, or competition where
> > being different from the norm actually gets you
> > ahead
> Art, science, politics, business, and sex.
Art maybe. In science, being different often gets
you burned at the stake (in the old days) or, in
modern times, ostracized (e.g., human cloning,
radiating foods, genetic engineering).
It's rare that being different will help in politics.
Ask Ross Perot or Ralph Nader about that sometime.
When you conform to the party platform and join the
"old boys network", you get the money and win.
Business? Well, sometimes. More often, though, you
are expected to adhere to normal business practices.
If you don't, you are sued by stock holders and
investigated by OSHA, FDA, and the SEC. Sure, though,
if you can do something REALLY different and unique,
you can hit it big, but most money in the business
world is made by doing the same thing as everybody
else.
Sex? Ok, you've got a point.
> > Think back to your school days. No one likes to be different.
> Bullshit. MANY people don't like to be different, but hardly every
> single person.
Oh, some people embrace their differences, enhance them,
and flagrantly flaunt them, but deep down, they really
didn't want to be different in the first place.
> Anyway, that's not what I meant in that statement. What I meant - to
> put it crudely - is that guys like to fuck all kinds of different girls.
Sure. But when they want to marry and have kids, they won't
want to be with the freaks, they will want to be with a nice
normal girl.
The bearded woman will get many dates, but precious few
serious marriage proposals.
> What people want to be and what they want to experience
> are not the same thing.
Um, true. So, a person might want to hang out with freaks,
but he really doesn't want to be one himself.
Granted, there will always be a few that fool themselves
and really think they like being different.
Look at beer, for example. Most people will claim that
their favorite beer is this or that microbrew, but the
big brewers know that almost all of their profit will
come from "normal" beers like Bud, Miller, and Coors.
SOMEONE is drinking all that normal beer.
The microbreweries will never completely go away, but
they will always be outsold by the normal stuff.
Bing
<kevinj...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Because we haven't standardized peoples taste yet.
> When is that going to happen? What businesses will benefit
> from it
It already is happening. Take McDonald's for example.
They don't make food with the idea of getting people
to say, "Wow, this is great!" They design their food
to minimize the number of people who say, "This sucks!"
Notice how none of McDonald's food (or Wendy's or Burger
King's) is particularly spicy or exotically flavored.
That's because they don't want to offend anyone's taste
buds. Even when Wendy's makes and sells a "Spicy Chicken
Sandwich", and shows people sweating bullets when they
eat it, in reality, it's not really much spicier than
a shake or two of black peper.
> As I pointed out already, we are eating a far greater variety of
> foodstuffs now than a few thousand years ago
True. More is available. But, McDonald's still sells
about a couple of million times more hamburgers than
all the grocery stores sell "Ugli Fruit".
> When is my grocery
> store going to stop introducing dozens of new products every month?
No one will stop them from searching for the next big
thing. But, they do realize that they will make far
more money introducing something old, like "Chocolate
Chip Cookies with More Chips!" than they would by
introducing something new like, "Anchovy Chip Cookies".
> Are you *seriously* suggesting that the Granny Smith and Red Delicious
> (or something like them) will ever not both be available to the public?
That could happen after a while. Right now, it looks like a
70-25 split for selling Red Delicious apples. If Granny
Smith apples disappear from the shelves, no one will complain
for too long. Like if Royal Crown cola or Shasta disappear
from shelves. After a short while, people won't miss it.
Anyone care for a Tab, New Coke, or Lemon Pepsi? Think
you'll see Vanilla Coke a year from now?
> If it's so obvious, why hasn't it happened? We've been evolving for
> millions of years. Why aren't we all alike *NOW*?
It's really only been in the last 100 years that people
have been able to see how everyone else lives (globally)
and have been able to make changes in their lives to
conform.
Surely you are aware that the unique accents all around
this country are disappearing at an alarming rate as
children watch national TV.
> Since when are homies dressing like Ivy League fratboys? Since when are
> goths starting to look like jocks? Goths and homies didn't *exist* 40
> years ago.
And they won't exist 40 years from now, just like "Fonzies"
and flappers don't exist today.
> Kids looked a lot more alike 50 years ago when more schools
> had dress codes, and when their parents picked their clothes.
True. But, within any of these new social groups, the
members look almost identical. You really won't see
a homey wearing a sweater tied around his neck or
black lipstick. None of them want to look different
from their pack. That's a truism.
> Everyone talking about conformance in this thread is doing so in a
> shallow sense-- teenagers comforming to one another (among a good number
> of niches, BTW). But teenagers NEVER want to look like their parents.
Well, they don't WHEN they are teenagers, but when they grow
to be the same age as their parents, they will. Kids that
scoffed at Thanksgiving dinner will be cooking that same
dinner 15 years from now. Teenagers that hate driving the
SUV to school functions will be buying one when they have
kids of their own.
> Anyway, lots of teenagers shed that herd instinct once they mature.
> Lots don't. So what? The ones that do, become artists, scientists, and
> leaders. Why would this trait ever die out, since it keeps the rest of
> us entertained, warm, and safe?
Oh, it will never die out completely--just like hula hoops
and Rubick's cubes are still sold in stores today even
though those fads died out a long time ago.
When we say EVERYONE will conform, we obviviously mean
"almost everyone". There will be parents who specify
that their unborn child be given three arms and blue
skin, but the vast majority won't.
> Given two human populations, one with a rebellious spirit and one
> without, which one will still be around in 5,000 years?
Well, it depends. The "without" one will still be around,
essentially unchanged. The "with" one will not exist
anymore. Either they will have killed each other off
(where are those Huns and the Roman civilization today?)
or they will have evolved (or devolved) into something
completely different.
So, the answer to your question is "without".
> Evolution *guarantees* a rebellious streak in the human race
> indefinitely. You can't stop it, short of denying people free will.
True. But the rebels are usually not that way completely
by choice. They were often outsiders by some circumstance
beyond their control and just made the best of it.
> You should get to know some more artists, scientists, and explorers.
> How do you make them stop? There's one born every minute.
No one is discussing forcing other people to conform.
We are talking about people's innate desire to conform
and a society that encourages that.
Bing
<kevinj...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Given this skein of traits, I can imagine a
> homosexual sub-population being *unavoidable* short of denying people
> free will.
Well, I think that's exactly what started this discussion;
that people would genetically eliminate that trait (and
other traits) from their unborn children.
Seriously. Suppose a doctor came up and said, "Mr. and
Mrs. Smith, tests have shown your unborn child will be
born gay. We have a shot we can inject right now that
will eliminate that trait with no side effects.
It's only $5.00. Would you like us to do it?"
I'm quite confident that 99% of the parents would
pay the $5.00 (and that 75% of the remaining 1% will
regret it later on).
In theorectical discussions on the internet, we can
seriously debate differing views, but when the tires
meet the road, and it's your own family facing the
choice, there's no real question as to the answer.
Bing
<nospam_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Excuse me? What planet are you living on? Today there are many people
> with handicaps who protest against the possibility of genetic screening.
> They feel its somehow demeans them that future generations might be born
> without their handicap.
But, I never see cancer patients protest cancer screening
or cures. I never see Mothers Against Drunk Driving
campaign for more lenient drinking laws.
I don't think you want to hear what I think about
people who wish their own handicaps upon unborn
children.
Donna L. Bridges
>On Wed, 11 Dec 2002 03:01:53 +0100, Peter Hanson
><nospam_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Excuse me? What planet are you living on? Today there are many people
>> with handicaps who protest against the possibility of genetic screening.
>> They feel its somehow demeans them that future generations might be born
>> without their handicap.
>
>But, I never see cancer patients protest cancer screening
>or cures. I never see Mothers Against Drunk Driving
>campaign for more lenient drinking laws.
Cancer cures & more lenient laws against drunk drivers wouldn't in any
way be parallel with people defending a part of their identity that
someone else considered eugenics-worthy.
>I don't think you want to hear what I think about
>people who wish their own handicaps upon unborn
>children.
Want to hear anyone's fears about what we'll be doing to the gene pool
if we begin higgledy piggledy changing what gets to stay in & what
doesn't?
Mozart was probably manic depressive. Would you deprive the world of
future geniuses by rooting out that gene?
And, if Mozart doesn't do, how about Einstein, he was dyslexic.
We don't begin to know enough to know what the full effects are of
wiping out something like that.
--
DonnaB
"Christmas is for children. But it is for grownups too. Even if it is
a headache, a chore, and nightmare, it is a period of necessary
defrosting of chill and hide-bound hearts." - Lenora Mattingly Weber
(1895-1971)
Dylan Winslow
<aCul...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> HEY, RICK BERMAN! YOU ARE COMPLETELY FULL OF SHIT! GO FUCK YOURSELF!
Oh, he does. Repeatedly and often.
--
Dylan Winslow
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are
to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile,
but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt
Franklin Hummel
> > jrd...@aol.comDONTSPAM (JRD) wrote in message news:<20021210095928...@mb-md.aol.com>...
> > from USA TODay
> >
> > http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/news/2002-12-06-enterprise_x.htm
>
> "Rumors have run rampant for years of same-sex handholding in the
> corridors of the Enterprise. "That was really the wishful thinking of
> some people who were constantly at us," says Enterprise producer Rick
> Berman. "But we don't see heterosexual couples holding hands on the
> show, so it would be somewhat dishonest of us to see two gay men or
> lesbians holding hands.""
STAR TREK first aired over thirty-five years ago now.
It is now over a decade since The Gaylaxians' letter-writing campaign
to get openly gay characters in STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION.
And TREK's producers are *still* telling the same *lies*.
Once again, NO GAY CHARACTERS. Instead we get yet another
"whites-in-black-face" storyline which is suppose to be gay-friendly,
but instead in yet another demeaning and insulting slap-in-the-face
to gay people.
I feel both disgust and pity.
-- Franklin Hummel in Boston, MA
ANIM8Rfsk
<< Seriously. Suppose a doctor came up and said, "Mr. and
Mrs. Smith, tests have shown your unborn child will be
born gay. We have a shot we can inject right now that
will eliminate that trait with no side effects.
It's only $5.00. Would you like us to do it?"
I'm quite confident that 99% of the parents would
pay the $5.00 (and that 75% of the remaining 1% will
regret it later on). >>
Except in Berkeley, where they'll be paying $5 for the OPPOSITE shot.
David Johnston
<nospam_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> But if I understand correctly what I've read below,
>> >it means that for all these years the Vulcans have regarded
>> >mind-melding as some kind of perversion!? Give me a break.
>>
>> What is the problem with that?
>
>It doesn't seem overly credible based on what we have seen "since".
Does it seem credible that a century ago oral sex was a jailing
offense based on what we have seen since?
Arguments based on what we have seen "since" fall apart
given that we have no legitimate reason to think that over
the course of a century or more, Vulcan mores are unchangeable,
even when they've been through the cultural shock of becoming
part of a federation of different species. .
However, there is another consideration. What have we actually
seen since? Spock used the mind meld 4 or 5 times that I recall,
but of course Spock is not a representative Vulcan. Saavik used
the Vulcan mind meld as a part of pon farr, but that use can be
safely discounted since the association of anything with sex
is one of the most common reasons for it to be bordered
around with taboos. What does that leave? Tuvok.
What did Tuvok use the mind meld for?
Timo S Saloniemi
>> jrd...@aol.comDONTSPAM (JRD) wrote in message news:<20021210095928...@mb-md.aol.com>...
>> from USA TODay
>>
>> http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/news/2002-12-06-enterprise_x.htm
>
>"Rumors have run rampant for years of same-sex handholding in the
>corridors of the Enterprise. "That was really the wishful thinking of
>some people who were constantly at us," says Enterprise producer Rick
>Berman. "But we don't see heterosexual couples holding hands on the
>show, so it would be somewhat dishonest of us to see two gay men or
>lesbians holding hands.""
>
> Which of course is total, utter *BULLSHIT*. There were
> heterosexual couples holding hands as far back as the original STAR
> TREK series ("This Side of Paradise" is one example)
Umm, not a very good one, since the handholding there was supposed to
be the sign of a severe mental illness due to possession by alien
influences. :-)
The only instance of actual honest heterosexual handholding I can
remember would be from the first pilot, where two casually-clad
youngsters walked past Capt. Pike (apparently, starships were
infested by civilians even back then).
> and in THE NEXT GENERATION we even saw Troi and a male lover in bed
> together (in "The Price").
But they NEVER held hands in the corridors of the Enterprise. (Now,
Ten-Forward is a different thing, apparently...)
> And what about all the many, many straight couples we have
> seen getting it on in DS9 and VOYAGER. Gee, did Worf and Jadzia's
> wedding in "You Are Cordially Invited..." never happen, Mr. Berman?
Berman was making a very specific point here - that it would be
really gross to relay affectation by showing a couple holding hands
on a starship corridor, which sane hetero couples in Starfleet NEVER do,
as opposed to showing it by having them kiss or have sexual intercourse
or spank each other silly in a BDSM frenzy.
>"But the Feb. 5 episode of the UPN series will allegorically explore
>homosexual issues. On Stigma, T'Pol (Jolene Blalock) and her
>physician, Dr. Phlox, reveal a secret: T'Pol has been infected with an
>incurable degenerative Vulcan disease similar to HIV/AIDS and has kept
>her condition secret to avoid associations with mind melders, the
>Vulcan minority suffering from the disease."
> Oh, THANK YOU so much, Mr. Bergan, for AGAIN spreading the
> falsehood that AIDS is mainly a "homosexual issue" when in fact the
> vast majority of worldwide infections are *heterosexual*!
Indeed. And in any case, isn't this more of an allegory to drug
addicts anyway? I mean, homosexual sex is still just sex, which
everybody does - but mind melds apparently are something that *only*
mind melders do as a matter of their normal life.
> And of course there is NO mention of showing even ONE gay
> character here, let alone a couple, in ENTERPRISE.
Agreed. We're probably going to get an ambiguous allegory at best.
> HEY, RICK BERMAN! YOU ARE COMPLETELY FULL OF SHIT! GO FUCK YOURSELF!
Wouldn't that count as a homosexual relationship?
Timo Saloniemi
Timo S Saloniemi
>On Wed, 11 Dec 2002 02:58:42 +0100, Peter Hanson
><nospam_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>> But if I understand correctly what I've read below,
>>> >it means that for all these years the Vulcans have regarded
>>> >mind-melding as some kind of perversion!? Give me a break.
>>>
>>> What is the problem with that?
>>
>>It doesn't seem overly credible based on what we have seen "since".
>
>Does it seem credible that a century ago oral sex was a jailing
>offense based on what we have seen since?
Isn't it still, in some US states? Or is that just anti-American
propaganda?
>However, there is another consideration. What have we actually
>seen since? Spock used the mind meld 4 or 5 times that I recall,
>but of course Spock is not a representative Vulcan. Saavik used
>the Vulcan mind meld as a part of pon farr, but that use can be
>safely discounted since the association of anything with sex
>is one of the most common reasons for it to be bordered
>around with taboos. What does that leave? Tuvok.
>What did Tuvok use the mind meld for?
Everything. Including setting up conference calls. Oh, sometimes
he expressed some minor reservations about whether melding would
be ethical or safe. But certainly the act itself came naturally
to him, and he was open about it in the presence of other Vulcans
like that Vorik guy. For an example of how Vulcans behave when a
subject is a social taboo, see Tuvok and Vorik in "Blood Fever".
Nothing of the sort ever accompanied Tuvok's mind melds.
Of course, both Tuvok and Vorik could be part of a perverse
mind melder ring. Or there could have been a social upheaval
in the Vulcan culture, yet not an all-encompassing one, and
in some places the stigmata would remain. Hard to tell when
the Vulcan we observed was so effectively removed from his
native society.
Timo Saloniemi
David Johnston
wrote:
>In article <3df7e460....@news.telusplanet.net> rgo...@telusplanet.net (David Johnston) writes:
>>On Wed, 11 Dec 2002 02:58:42 +0100, Peter Hanson
>><nospam_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> But if I understand correctly what I've read below,
>>>> >it means that for all these years the Vulcans have regarded
>>>> >mind-melding as some kind of perversion!? Give me a break.
>>>>
>>>> What is the problem with that?
>>>
>>>It doesn't seem overly credible based on what we have seen "since".
>>
>>Does it seem credible that a century ago oral sex was a jailing
>>offense based on what we have seen since?
>
>Isn't it still, in some US states? Or is that just anti-American
>propaganda?
Yes and no. The laws are on the books but no longer enforced.
The taboo they represent has been pretty thoroughly wiped from
the culture.
>Everything. Including setting up conference calls. Oh, sometimes
>he expressed some minor reservations about whether melding would
>be ethical or safe. But certainly the act itself came naturally
>to him, and he was open about it in the presence of other Vulcans
>like that Vorik guy. For an example of how Vulcans behave when a
>subject is a social taboo, see Tuvok and Vorik in "Blood Fever".
>Nothing of the sort ever accompanied Tuvok's mind melds.
>
>Of course, both Tuvok and Vorik could be part of a perverse
>mind melder ring. Or there could have been a social upheaval
>in the Vulcan culture, yet not an all-encompassing one,
Or for that matter an all-encompassing one might very well
have occured. Probably the most likely alternative, all
things considered.
lazarus
Johnston) wrote:
>On 12 Dec 2002 09:24:43 GMT, tsal...@cc.hut.fi (Timo S Saloniemi)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <3df7e460....@news.telusplanet.net> rgo...@telusplanet.net (David Johnston) writes:
>>>On Wed, 11 Dec 2002 02:58:42 +0100, Peter Hanson
>>><nospam_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But if I understand correctly what I've read below,
>>>>> >it means that for all these years the Vulcans have regarded
>>>>> >mind-melding as some kind of perversion!? Give me a break.
>>>>>
>>>>> What is the problem with that?
>>>>
>>>>It doesn't seem overly credible based on what we have seen "since".
>>>
>>>Does it seem credible that a century ago oral sex was a jailing
>>>offense based on what we have seen since?
>>
>>Isn't it still, in some US states? Or is that just anti-American
>>propaganda?
>
>Yes and no. The laws are on the books but no longer enforced.
>The taboo they represent has been pretty thoroughly wiped from
>the culture.
Still have those charges brought (rarely, admittedly) in the military.
At least, in the 80s they were doing it.
And there's a sodomy case from Louisiana, I think, before the Supreme
Court right now.
--
lazarus
"Therefore, my Harry, Be it thy course to busy giddy minds with
foreign quarrels; that action, hence borne out, may waste the memory
of the former days." -- King Henry IV, Part ii Act 4, Scene 5
Donna L. Bridges
<sl3hvuc9qj0m4r339...@4ax.com>, lazarus
<lazaru...@cox.net> wrote:
>Still have those charges brought (rarely, admittedly) in the military.
>At least, in the 80s they were doing it.
>
>And there's a sodomy case from Louisiana, I think, before the Supreme
>Court right now.
Yes, indeed, and there are apparently a handful of states where the
laws are still on the books *and* they are enforced.
--
DonnaB
"Ever since Eve gave Adam the apple, there has been a misunderstanding
between the sexes about gifts." - Nan Robertson, NY Times Nov 28 1957
(about Christmas shopping)
Bing
> > No one would wish a permanent "inferior" fashion change onto
> > their children.
> Wow, talk about clueless!!! Aren't you aware of some strange names
> parents have given their kids?
Ah, you must have missed the word "permanent" that I
purposely added to my statement.
> I have encountered a boy whose first name is "Sir" and a young girl
> whose first name is "Fe-Male". I know of a man whose full name is
> "Battle Steele" and a woman whose name is "Faith Hope Charity".
Soon enough, those kids will adopt a nickname that they
like and, when they are old enough, they can legally
change their name to anything they want.
You really can't do that if your parents decided that it
would be fun for you to be born deaf or with green scales.
> OF COURSE parents will do =REALLY STUPID THINGS= to their children.
> Because some parents ARE themselves =REALLY STUPID=.
Alas, that is true. I guess in those cases, the parents
are doing things to their kids that will work to keep
them from procreating and passing along the "stupid"
genes that they got from their parents.
Bing
<shall...@rcn.com> wrote:
> Want to hear anyone's fears about what we'll be doing to the gene pool
> if we begin higgledy piggledy changing what gets to stay in & what
> doesn't?
"Fears" is the exactly correct word to use. Fear of the future
is what usually keeps science from actually moving forward.
So, what exactly do you think will happen if people can pick
and choose the traits of their children?
Before you answer, keep in mind that I'm not asking you to
postulate some horrific scenario where all parents suddenly
go insane and decide that their children should all be born
with hooves and then scientists suddenly forget how to make
children with regular feet.
I'm asking for what you really think WILL happen (as opposed
to simply describing your worst fears).
> Mozart was probably manic depressive. Would you deprive the world of
> future geniuses by rooting out that gene?
> And, if Mozart doesn't do, how about Einstein, he was dyslexic.
Are you seriously saying that you think Mozart made great
music BECAUSE he was manic? Or that Einstein thought up
great theories BECAUSE he was dyslexic?
Imagine how much greater Einstein might have been if
he DIDN'T have that handicap.
> We don't begin to know enough to know what the full effects are of
> wiping out something like that.
True. But then, no one ever has or ever will have 100%
information on the effects of doing something new.
When they invented the automobile, no one ever
anticipated the impact it would have 100 years later.
If they had been able to see into the crystal ball
and see the pollution and other problems, do you
think they'd just not invent the car?
Nope. Because the car has done more good than harm
for society.
So, even though we don't know the full, 100% effects
of eliminating dyslexia before birth, I think common
sense can safely say that the benefits will far
outweigh the adverse effects.
Donna L. Bridges
>On Wed, 11 Dec 2002 16:45:31 -0500, Donna L. Bridges
><shall...@rcn.com> wrote:
>
>> Want to hear anyone's fears about what we'll be doing to the gene pool
>> if we begin higgledy piggledy changing what gets to stay in & what
>> doesn't?
>
>"Fears" is the exactly correct word to use. Fear of the future
>is what usually keeps science from actually moving forward.
Hmm, I don't recall saying anything about impeding science. I think
that science needs to go forward in advancing their knowledge of genes
& their impact. The positive potential for disease cures alone is
enormous.
>So, what exactly do you think will happen if people can pick
>and choose the traits of their children?
That overall it will hurt society as we know it, that it could
possibly weaken the gene pool & whack the heck out of any natural
sense of proportionality, etc.
>Before you answer, keep in mind that I'm not asking you to
>postulate some horrific scenario where all parents suddenly
>go insane and decide that their children should all be born
>with hooves and then scientists suddenly forget how to make
>children with regular feet.
Scientists aren't responsible for making children with regular feet.
But, no, I had no reason to even think to go down this road. Sounds
like an odd thesis when there are so many regular ones that have been
debated by ethicists for years now.
>I'm asking for what you really think WILL happen (as opposed
>to simply describing your worst fears).
See above. I didn't describe my worst fears, as I'm sure you can tell.
For the purposes of this discussion I'm interested in realistic
scenarios.
>> Mozart was probably manic depressive. Would you deprive the world of
>> future geniuses by rooting out that gene?
>
>> And, if Mozart doesn't do, how about Einstein, he was dyslexic.
>
>Are you seriously saying that you think Mozart made great
>music BECAUSE he was manic?
Hmm, no, now I didn't say that, as I'm sure you can see for yourself.
But, now that you bring it up there is a particular line of thought
that wonders just how much connection there is between brilliance &
creativity & manic depression, it's true. But, that's not where I was
headed. That would seem to be another discussion.
>Or that Einstein thought up great theories BECAUSE he was dyslexic?
There is no question that we are all the sum of our genes, our
environments & of our particular experiences. No one knows how much
any famous person would have been changed by changing something in
their past, genetic or otherwise. But, most schools of thought do
think that major changes would, in fact, have that kind of impact on
results.
>Imagine how much greater Einstein might have been if
>he DIDN'T have that handicap.
Well, it's certainly realistic to imagine that he'd have been a
different person. Since he was basically self-taught, since he had
such difficulty learning through traditional means, then, he likely
would have been more traditionally schooled & that in itself could be
a big change.
>> We don't begin to know enough to know what the full effects are of
>> wiping out something like that.
>
>True. But then, no one ever has or ever will have 100%
>information on the effects of doing something new.
Yes, but, this falls far short of that standard. Just because the
human genome has now been mapped does not mean that they know
*anything* about any combination results.
>When they invented the automobile, no one ever
>anticipated the impact it would have 100 years later.
>If they had been able to see into the crystal ball
>and see the pollution and other problems, do you
>think they'd just not invent the car?
No, I don't; I think they'd have invented the automobile but perhaps
would have made changes in its development. One would certainly like
to hope they would have. But, even though in a larger sense everything
is related to everything else, it's not quite the same thing, at all,
as not knowing the repercussions of changing the genetic makeup of
humans.
>So, even though we don't know the full, 100% effects
>of eliminating dyslexia before birth, I think common
>sense can safely say that the benefits will far
>outweigh the adverse effects.
Wouldn't be the first time or the last time that I wouldn't look to
common sense even if I agreed. As it is, I don't. I think common sense
would suggest that what people do & don't do to remove or manipulate
genes will continue to be something we need to have careful thought &
dialogue about, unfortunately, at least in the US, we are no good at
even beginning to do so when it comes to 'controversial' issues.
What's most dangerous of all probably is that some people already have
their minds made up.
--
DonnaB
HalleMoojah! Merry Christmas & Happy Moo Year!
A.G.Lindsay
got it wrong, and it probably is because he was sold the idea wrong.
"The Girl Connor" <click...@hotmail.comNOSPAM> wrote in message news:<h68I9.22631$5P3.1...@newsfeed.slurp.net>...
> 'Enterprise' to explore gay story lines
> By William Keck, USA TODAY
...
> But the Feb. 5 episode of the UPN series will allegorically explore
> homosexual issues. On Stigma, T'Pol (Jolene Blalock) and her physician, Dr.
> Phlox, reveal a secret: T'Pol has been infected with an incurable
> degenerative Vulcan disease similar to HIV/AIDS and has kept her condition
> secret to avoid associations with mind melders, the Vulcan minority
> suffering from the disease.
...
What they have mentioned is clearly an AIDS storyline. Calling a "gay"
one is misleading, and furthers an unfortunate stereotype.
We know nothing about how they are going to portray these mind melders.
Are they called "mind melders" because they communicate exclusively
with mind melding (as opposed to the Vulcan society at large which,
obviously uses language)? There could be other reasons for using that
term.
What it doesn't say (and, hopefully won't) is that this group are the
ONLY Vulcans that uses mind melding (which is what some of those
criticising it seem to think it will) or that they are the only ones
who are capable of it.
The Trek franchise hasn't used mind melding exclusively as a metaphor
for sex in the past (especially in TOS), I'm hoping they don't start here.
So, while I don't hold great hopes for this storyline, there is always
the possibility that it will not be as bad as people here seem to
think it must.
--lin
Kevin Johnston
pax...@yahoo.com (Bing) wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Dec 2002 09:15:11 GMT, Kevin Johnston
> <kevinj...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> Because we haven't standardized peoples taste yet.
>
> > When is that going to happen? What businesses will benefit
> > from it
>
> It already is happening. Take McDonald's for example.
Sure. Should be comical.
> They don't make food with the idea of getting people
> to say, "Wow, this is great!" They design their food
> to minimize the number of people who say, "This sucks!"
So they introduced Chicken McNuggets a couple decades ago... why
exactly? They sell several different burgers today... why exactly?
They have a "New Tastes" menu... why exactly?
So what anyway? You've described large corporations. They have a
profit incentive. They want to protect and expand their market share.
So what? They want to sell as much of a small number of products as
possible, to maximize profit. So what? When have companies ever NOT
behaved this way? It's not new at all.
What does the ability of corporations to capitalize on human needs and
desires, and specifically provide them affordably via mass production,
have to do with whether people want variety in their lives? What does
it have to do with whether other companies can continue to compete with
them? Why does Burger King successfully sell several slightly differnt
burgers? Why Wendy's? Why is In-n-Out Burger experiencing great growth
when all the large burger chains are stagnated? (Answer: "Wow, this is
great!") Why is Subway and the entire sandwich sector going
gangbusters? Are people going to stop eating pizza? Are they going to
stop taking their dates to nice restaurants? Are ALL restaurants going
to be Taco Bell in 500 years?
Why does Mcd's serve side dishes anyway? Why don't they serve one
product, McDonald's Nutrient McPaste[tm]?
Many new food businesses (most) will fail of course, some will
experience modest success, some will be bought by McDonald's, and one of
them might just well become the next McDonald's, given enough time.
And some -- not often, but not rarely either -- cause McDonald's to take
notice and do something a little different or new. THAT'S why they
introduced the Chicken McNugget. But that wasn't good enough for the
long haul, and now they're starting to introduce a non-processed chicken
strip product because other restaurants have done this and people have
seen how lame the McNugget is. OF COURSE they will introduce change
slowly, OF COURSE they will be conservative about phasing out old
things. So what? That's what big corporations do.
American car companies got very complacent in the 50's and 60's. The
Japanese handed them their heads in the 70's, and now the products from
both countries are significantly better.
When I was a kid, my family did a lot of its shopping at Sears and
Penneys. Much of this niche has been displaced by Walmart and Target.
Why did that happen? Because the market changed, and those older
companies failed to notice. Sears used to be the mail order king. If
they had been on the ball, they could be where Amazon is now.
Of course not every business sector sees that kind of upheaval, nor sees
it on a regular basis. So what? When did I say that every day we wake
up to a completely different world?
> Notice how none of McDonald's food (or Wendy's or Burger
> King's) is particularly spicy or exotically flavored.
> That's because they don't want to offend anyone's taste
> buds.
So you're saying different people have different tastes? How else would
you like to make my argument for me?
> ... Even when Wendy's makes and sells a "Spicy Chicken
> Sandwich", and shows people sweating bullets when they
> eat it, in reality, it's not really much spicier than
> a shake or two of black peper.
When did I say everyone wants to eat wildly exotic things all the time?
When did I say everyone wants to eat something completely different from
what everyone else is eating for every meal?
15 years ago, "spicy" anything didn't *exist* at the big fast food
chains. How else would you like to make my argument for me?
> > As I pointed out already, we are eating a far greater variety of
> > foodstuffs now than a few thousand years ago
>
> True. More is available. But, McDonald's still sells
> about a couple of million times more hamburgers than
> all the grocery stores sell "Ugli Fruit".
So what? (Esp. since you conceded the point?) Most people in China eat
a lot of rice. McD's does well because it's cheap, fast, and reliable
(same experience store to store). Where does the conclusion that people
only want to ever eat McDonald's come from? Is there some huge trend
towards people eating all their meals at McDonald's that I'm not aware
of?
> > When is my grocery
> > store going to stop introducing dozens of new products every month?
>
> No one will stop them from searching for the next big
> thing.
Of course not, because the point is there has always BEEN new big
things, and the trend shows no sign of stopping. People get bored, and
want new things. Ordinary human psychology. That doesn't mean they
suddenly give up all their favorite old things, but it does mean that
for every McDonald's there will be a Subway that comes along.
> ... But, they do realize that they will make far
> more money introducing something old, like "Chocolate
> Chip Cookies with More Chips!" than they would by
> introducing something new like, "Anchovy Chip Cookies".
So what? Minor differences add up to big differences over time.
> > Are you *seriously* suggesting that the Granny Smith and Red Delicious
> > (or something like them) will ever not both be available to the public?
>
> That could happen after a while. Right now, it looks like a
> 70-25 split for selling Red Delicious apples.
You're just talking out of your hat, right? There are typically five
varieties of apples at my local grocer, and 2 sometimes 3 of pears.
More in some seasons, and the occasional import. Several of these had
little to no market share ten years ago. Please tell me again where is
this trend towards one kind of apple?
> ... If Granny
> Smith apples disappear from the shelves, no one will complain
> for too long. Like if Royal Crown cola or Shasta disappear
> from shelves. After a short while, people won't miss it.
>
> Anyone care for a Tab, New Coke, or Lemon Pepsi? Think
> you'll see Vanilla Coke a year from now?
At which point did I say every new thing will be around forever? At
which point did I say there won't be classics that withstand the test of
time?
> > If it's so obvious, why hasn't it happened? We've been evolving for
> > millions of years. Why aren't we all alike *NOW*?
>
> It's really only been in the last 100 years that people
> have been able to see how everyone else lives (globally)
> and have been able to make changes in their lives to
> conform.
Several hundreds of thousands of years ago there were no global culture
differences to speak of, and everyone did more or less see how everyone
else lived. Why did we change then?
> Surely you are aware that the unique accents all around
> this country are disappearing at an alarming rate as
> children watch national TV.
Alarming? Why is it alarming that people are communicating with each
other effectively? There is a clear benefit to doing so. When did I
say nothing converges, ever?
BTW if this trend is so dire and obvious, why are paranoid legislators
trying to cease second-language instruction, and require public
institutions to use only English forms and signs? No, I'm not really
aware that inner city blacks are sounding more and more like Texas
ranchers every day.
> > Since when are homies dressing like Ivy League fratboys? Since when are
> > goths starting to look like jocks? Goths and homies didn't *exist* 40
> > years ago.
>
> And they won't exist 40 years from now, just like "Fonzies"
> and flappers don't exist today.
And something else will be in their place.
> > Kids looked a lot more alike 50 years ago when more schools
> > had dress codes, and when their parents picked their clothes.
>
> True. But, within any of these new social groups, the
> members look almost identical. You really won't see
> a homey wearing a sweater tied around his neck or
> black lipstick.
Why not? You're the one saying the everyone wants to look like everyone
else.
To some degree we're talking past each other. Sure, I recognize (and
participate in) pack behavior all the time. But that doesn't scale to
"everyone in leather" as the Gap would have a believe a few years ago.
> > Everyone talking about conformance in this thread is doing so in a
> > shallow sense-- teenagers comforming to one another (among a good number
> > of niches, BTW). But teenagers NEVER want to look like their parents.
>
> Well, they don't WHEN they are teenagers, but when they grow
> to be the same age as their parents, they will.
So kids today will listen to Led Zeppelin with fond memories when
they're older?
> ... Kids that
> scoffed at Thanksgiving dinner will be cooking that same
> dinner 15 years from now.
Holiday dinners at my family's features foods we didn't eat when I was a
kid, right alongside the classics.
> ... Teenagers that hate driving the
> SUV
You mean their father's Oldsmobile? Oh wait, Oldsmobile is dead... and
the SUV trend is, what, 15 years old?
I thought you were arguing that things never change?
> ... to school functions will be buying one when they have
> kids of their own.
>
> > Anyway, lots of teenagers shed that herd instinct once they mature.
> > Lots don't. So what? The ones that do, become artists, scientists, and
> > leaders. Why would this trait ever die out, since it keeps the rest of
> > us entertained, warm, and safe?
>
> Oh, it will never die out completely
Why are we having this conversation?
> When we say EVERYONE will conform, we obviviously mean
> "almost everyone".
That is not at all obvious. If you don't mean to make absolute
statements, then don't make them.
> > Given two human populations, one with a rebellious spirit and one
> > without, which one will still be around in 5,000 years?
>
> Well, it depends. The "without" one will still be around,
> essentially unchanged. The "with" one will not exist
> anymore. Either they will have killed each other off
> (where are those Huns and the Roman civilization today?)
> or they will have evolved (or devolved) into something
> completely different.
>
> So, the answer to your question is "without".
One point for creatively construing the question to avoid the issue (and
sure, I poorly worded it);
One point for acknowledging that populations evolve;
Minus one point for in fact avoiding the issue;
Minus one point for mentioning the Romans, since A. Western civilization
owes them quite a bit, and B. since the mighty Roman Empire fell, and
the Egyptians before them, and the British after them, one wonders why
on Earth you are so confident McDonald's will still be around in 500
years.
> > Evolution *guarantees* a rebellious streak in the human race
> > indefinitely. You can't stop it, short of denying people free will.
>
> True. But the rebels are usually not that way completely
> by choice. They were often outsiders by some circumstance
> beyond their control and just made the best of it.
>
> > You should get to know some more artists, scientists, and explorers.
> > How do you make them stop? There's one born every minute.
>
> No one is discussing forcing other people to conform.
> We are talking about people's innate desire to conform
> and a society that encourages that.
Since those things have existed since life on earth began, tell me again
when life is going to stop diversifying?
Kevin
Kevin Johnston
pax...@yahoo.com (Bing) wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Dec 2002 09:16:05 GMT, Kevin Johnston
> <kevinj...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Given this skein of traits, I can imagine a
> > homosexual sub-population being *unavoidable* short of denying people
> > free will.
>
> Well, I think that's exactly what started this discussion;
> that people would genetically eliminate that trait (and
> other traits) from their unborn children.
Yes, that was the simplistic question asked, and yes you repeat it here:
> Seriously. Suppose a doctor came up and said, "Mr. and
> Mrs. Smith, tests have shown your unborn child will be
> born gay. We have a shot we can inject right now that
> will eliminate that trait with no side effects.
My point above which you are responsing too, and which this example does
not address, is what if there *is* no such thing as no side effects?
> It's only $5.00. Would you like us to do it?"
>
> I'm quite confident that 99% of the parents would
> pay the $5.00 (and that 75% of the remaining 1% will
> regret it later on).
At what point in the future are you predicting that a significant
majority of pregnancies throughout all of human culture will undergo
this kind of screening and repair/modification?
Bonus points for predicting when all the world's religions will
capitulate and endorse it.
> In theorectical discussions on the internet, we can
> seriously debate differing views, but when the tires
> meet the road, and it's your own family facing the
> choice, there's no real question as to the answer.
Sure there is. Per an example I already mentioned, I am sure many gays
and lesbians faced with the same reproductive scenario would disagree.
(And sure, I expect many wouldn't.)
Kevin
Kevin Johnston
pax...@yahoo.com (Bing) wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Dec 2002 09:16:35 GMT, Kevin Johnston
> <kevinj...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Never overestimate it. In a world of identical blond blue-eyed
> > Nordickfolk, the sultry raven-haired Italian diva is queen, and the
> > males will fight to the death for her.
>
> Perhaps. But how hard would they fight for her and keep her
> if she was REALLY different?
What does that have to do with what I wrote? Small differences add up
to big differences over time. Why is the human race so diverse RIGHT
NOW?
> > > .... Name any
> > > passtime, social situation, or competition where
> > > being different from the norm actually gets you
> > > ahead
>
> > Art, science, politics, business, and sex.
>
> Art maybe. In science, being different often gets
> you burned at the stake (in the old days) or, in
> modern times, ostracized (e.g., human cloning,
> radiating foods, genetic engineering).
So what? Who cares about failures, even often? You asked about getting
ahead, not losing, or staying in place. Where did I say people that
pursue difference always win everywhere instantly?
Here's how I characterize "winning" in science: people who win Nobel
prizes, have theories named after them, or whose name is recognized by
your average bright middle school kid. And thousands of great inventors
that conceived of useful products that no one else had before, either
wholly or in part, and retired rich or well-known because of it.
Are you seriously proposing that all great inventions and discoveries
came from scientists & engineers thinking exactly like their teachers
told them to, and cowering in fear of social ostracization? Of course
you aren't.
So what's your point? People resist change? Sure. They also embrace
it, when they're ready. Estabishing difference is not about "Ta da!
Check it homies, I win!" and I certainly didn't mean to imply it is.
Being different -- and establishing your difference to survive after you
are gone -- is a process. 70 years ago, if a black man asked a white
woman out on a date, he was likely to be lynched. But inter-racial
marriages wouldn't be happening today if those men and women didn't try
and fail in their time.
BTW, your paragraph above is humorously contradictory with other points
you are making. YOU'RE the one arguing that everyone everywhere is
abandoning their individual culture, and individual racial traits, in
favor of some global ideal. YOU'RE the one arguing that people are
migrating towards fewer and fewer engineered foods, and will happily
start engineering their kids towards a narrow norm. All these goals
REQUIRE that scientists eventually break through exactly the kind of
ostracization you mention above.
> It's rare that being different will help in politics.
Bullshit. Every single free election the world over is waged on
highlighting one's differences from the opponent. "Vote for me, I'm
better." [Or "He's worse."] People elect people that they feel are
better or different from the other people running, or because they
promise to do X because it's not being done today. It's ALL about
difference.
> Ask Ross Perot or Ralph Nader about that sometime.
Again with the failures. Who cares? I'd rather ask Ronald Reagan and
Bill Clinton, since they are both actual winners and both rode in on
great waves of popularity, with their platforms of change.
Too bad we can't ask Alexender the Great, Tutankahmen, Caesar, King
Henry, George Washington, or Winston Churchill. But then, I don't think
we have to. Or did you want to argue that they were all just "average
joes?"
> When you conform to the party platform and join the
> "old boys network", you get the money and win.
Until the network ossifies, falls out of touch, or into corruption, and
is swept away. You're talking about next year's elections. I'm talking
about the history of the human race, past and future.
> Business? Well, sometimes. More often, though, you
> are expected to adhere to normal business practices.
> If you don't, you are sued by stock holders and
> investigated by OSHA, FDA, and the SEC. Sure, though,
> if you can do something REALLY different and unique,
> you can hit it big, but most money in the business
> world is made by doing the same thing as everybody
> else.
Doing the same thing makes WHO money? The top few percent of the top
large corporations, and their few largest stockholders? Yay for them!
That's some comically bad advice for everyone else, though, meaning the
majority of us mooks. How do all the people working at small businesse
get ahead (that's a lot of people)? By differentiating themselves from
the competition, and most esp. from large companies by offering things
they don't. How do people working at large corporations, that aren't
VPs pulling down stock option millions, get ahead? By distinguishing
themselves from their co-workers, and getting to BE a vice president.
You mentioned McDonald's in another post. Counting the franchises, the
majority of McDonald's employees make minimum wage or a little better.
This is getting ahead? This is how people get all rich and successful?
Of course big companies stay the course, that's how they maximize
profits. They have an incentive to act that way, and to encourage the
culture to stand still. But strangely, the culture doesn't. Damn them!
Of course small businesses fail all the time. Many, many good new ideas
in business (and politics, and science, and art, and sex) are the
results of learning from failed experiments. Ask any businessperson
about their successful business, and you'll hear lots of stories about
the failures they had along the way.
Some ideas fail utterly. So what? If they didn't get tried, a lot of
good ideas wouldn't get tried either.
> Sex? Ok, you've got a point.
I love this, though-- you'd stand up in front of a science class, or a
business class, or a politics class (I'm guessing... do correct me if
I'm wrong) and tell all those kids that the best way for them to succeed
and get ahead is do what they're told, and do the same thing as
everybody else.
> -- Bing Monopoly Expansion Set
> Visit us at http://www.paxentertainment.com
What? Why on EARTH would anyone buy a Monopoly expansion set? What,
the existing Monopoly set is not good enough for everyone straight out
of the box?
So, what, you're a hypocrite?
Kevin
Peter Hanson
rgo...@telusplanet.net says...
> On Wed, 11 Dec 2002 02:58:42 +0100, Peter Hanson
> <nospam_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> >>
> >> But if I understand correctly what I've read below,
> >> >it means that for all these years the Vulcans have regarded
> >> >mind-melding as some kind of perversion!? Give me a break.
> >>
> >> What is the problem with that?
> >
> >It doesn't seem overly credible based on what we have seen "since".
>
> Does it seem credible that a century ago oral sex was a jailing
> offense based on what we have seen since?
Hm.. yes and no.
>
> Arguments based on what we have seen "since" fall apart
> given that we have no legitimate reason to think that over
> the course of a century or more, Vulcan mores are unchangeable,
> even when they've been through the cultural shock of becoming
> part of a federation of different species. .
Ok ok, to me it doesn't seem credible ;)
> What does that leave? Tuvok.
> What did Tuvok use the mind meld for?
Don't recall. Voyager is a blur (thankfully)
Peter Hanson
shall...@rcn.com says...
> Mozart was probably manic depressive. Would you deprive the world of
> future geniuses by rooting out that gene?
So your needs are bigger than someone elses suffering? I say screw the
worlds loss of music, if we had the ability to remove his suffering -
lets do it.
>
> And, if Mozart doesn't do, how about Einstein, he was dyslexic.
And as we know dyslexica is the road to Nobel prizes.
>
> We don't begin to know enough to know what the full effects are of
> wiping out something like that.
And if you see someone in pain, don't interfere there might be a greater
purpose to it all.
Peter Hanson
kevinj...@yahoo.com says...
>
> Peter Hanson <nospam_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article <kevinj_sfbay-B031...@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> > kevinj...@yahoo.com says...
> > > rande...@aol.com wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 6 Dec 2002 15:50:42 -0500, "The Girl Connor"
> > >
> > > You're also assuming that the "cause" of homosexuality is strictly
> > > genetic, or even if it is, strictly isolatable. I think that is far
> > > from certain, and in fact unlikely.
> >
> > Well, there are gay animals - do you think they became that way because
> > of a tough childhood?
>
> No, I think it was the lavender dress their mommie made them wear when
> they were bad. Why, do you think people are total slaves to their genes?
More so that they think yes.
>
> People fall in love for "environmental" reasons all the time.
> Classmates date, co-workers mate, neighbors cheat on each other.
I don't think its love, its just lust - and they don't know any better.
> Who knows, homosexuality may be a
> "safety valve" response to over-population.
Yet we never here about it in the overpopulated countries, do we?
> Anyway, if you think no one chooses a homosexual partner, plenty of
> lesbians disagree. God bless lesbians.
I don't understand your sentence? Naturally a homosexual would choose a
homosexual - what was your point?
Kevin Johnston
Peter Hanson <nospam_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <kevinj_sfbay-1BF5...@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> kevinj...@yahoo.com says...
> >
> > Peter Hanson <nospam_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > In article <kevinj_sfbay-B031...@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> > > kevinj...@yahoo.com says...
> > > > rande...@aol.com wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, 6 Dec 2002 15:50:42 -0500, "The Girl Connor"
> > > >
> > > > You're also assuming that the "cause" of homosexuality is strictly
> > > > genetic, or even if it is, strictly isolatable. I think that is far
> > > > from certain, and in fact unlikely.
> > >
> > > Well, there are gay animals - do you think they became that way because
> > > of a tough childhood?
> >
> > No, I think it was the lavender dress their mommie made them wear when
> > they were bad. Why, do you think people are total slaves to their genes?
>
> More so that they think yes.
>
> >
> > People fall in love for "environmental" reasons all the time.
> > Classmates date, co-workers mate, neighbors cheat on each other.
>
> I don't think its love, its just lust - and they don't know any better.
What are you talking about? People form life-long bonds in these
situations all the time. Common experiences are one of the strongest
foundations of strong emotional bonds. Most couple meet randomly
through social contacts in environments like the above.
> > Who knows, homosexuality may be a
> > "safety valve" response to over-population.
>
> Yet we never here about it in the overpopulated countries, do we?
Sure we do-- it's present throughout the human species, so we hear about
it there all the time, as well as elsewhere. Most humans live in heavy
concentrations where the struggle to maintain the population is gone
from the species, has been for ages.
> > Anyway, if you think no one chooses a homosexual partner, plenty of
> > lesbians disagree. God bless lesbians.
>
> I don't understand your sentence? Naturally a homosexual would choose a
> homosexual - what was your point?
Lesbians are more likely than gay men to claim they "chose" their female
partner over males.
Kevin
Peter Hanson
kevinj...@yahoo.com says...
>
Damn, you write a lot when you are threatened, eh?
So you disagree with my opinion, fine. Peace.
Peter Hanson
says...
> No one is discussing forcing other people to conform.
> We are talking about people's innate desire to conform
> and a society that encourages that.
>
Oh yes.