Diane Duane returns to Trek...
Timothy W. Lynch
This just in from Kevin Ryan at Pocket Books:
In the post-RA era, several authors who walked off Trek in the past are
returning.
Chief among them: Diane Duane. She is working on a TNG hardcover--no word
on content or on release date.
Welcome back, Diane.
In other news: while no formal "Captain Sulu" series of books seems underway,
at least one author (Peter David) has apparently expressed an interest in
doing such a novel. Sulu and the Excelsior are also likely to appear in
the TOS comic from DC.
Message Ends.
Tim Lynch
Daniel H. Drath
>This just in from Kevin Ryan at Pocket Books:
>
>In the post-RA era, several authors who walked off Trek in the past are
>returning.
>
>Chief among them: Diane Duane. She is working on a TNG hardcover--no word
>on content or on release date.
>
>Welcome back, Diane.
>
Now, if only Diane would start writing for TNG (the TV show)--
it would be great if we could get a cannonical reference to the
Rihannsu.
Dare to dream: Spock comes back from Romulus, wanting the first
step towards unification to be a history lesson in Rihan culture.
How can we ever make peace if we keep calling them the wrong
thing?
Come on, Diane--- show Rick Berman what _real_ writing is!
Jeff Sicherman
In article <1992Jan29....@cco.caltech.edu> tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>Followups set to r.a.s.current.
>
>This just in from Kevin Ryan at Pocket Books:
>
>In the post-RA era, several authors who walked off Trek in the past are
>returning.
In the post-GR era ....
>
>Chief among them: Diane Duane. She is working on a TNG hardcover--no word
>on content or on release date.
>
>Welcome back, Diane.
ANother author buddy ?
>
>In other news: while no formal "Captain Sulu" series of books seems underway,
>at least one author (Peter David) has apparently expressed an interest in
>doing such a novel. Sulu and the Excelsior are also likely to appear in
>the TOS comic from DC.
Possible explanation: Now that Licensing has most if not all control and
are clearly interested, on behalf of Paramount, on the money and not any
idealistic constraints, artistically justified or not, the locks are
possibly off on story themes and charactizations. hence, the authors can
write as they wish so long as they make money for the company doing it.
If that's what counts, fine. If the books are good, fine. If that makes
RA a bad guy for limiting that freedom to exploit GR's creations, and
acting on Gr's behalf with GR's approval, then your attention and
blaim-laying as implied by the RA reference in this post are misplaced;
again.
--
Jeff Sicherman
up the net without a .sig
Matt Hucke
>returning.
>
>Chief among them: Diane Duane. She is working on a TNG hardcover--no word
>on content or on release date.
>
>Welcome back, Diane.
Great! I've always liked her books best... especially her version of the
Romulans/Rihannsu. (Although she does make some mistakes with dates and
warp speeds...)
>In other news: while no formal "Captain Sulu" series of books seems underway,
>at least one author (Peter David) has apparently expressed an interest in
>doing such a novel. Sulu and the Excelsior are also likely to appear in
>the TOS comic from DC.
I'd certainly buy it... but I don't know if Paramount would approve something
with neither Kirk nor Picard, as there are too many "character-groupies",
compared to people who appreciate the Universe.
As for the comic: I'd certainly get it, no matter who the writers are, but
I don't expect anything extraordinary from their current staff.
--
Real Programmers Don't Eat Quiche.
hu...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
C++ forever, P*scal never!
Timothy W. Lynch
>ALternative explanation for the scenario-impaired:
>In article <1992Jan29....@cco.caltech.edu> tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>>In the post-RA era, several authors who walked off Trek in the past are
>>returning.
> In the post-GR era ....
Not in Diane Duane's case. Someone on FidoNet who saw more of her statements
when I did can no doubt shed more light on the subject than I, but what I have
seen written from DD makes it quite plain that she considered Richard the
root of her problems with the Star Trek Offices, and no one else. She made
that pretty clear from day one of her departure.
>>Welcome back, Diane.
> ANother author buddy ?
Nope. Never met her, never corresponded with her, haven't the slightest idea
who she is in real life. Just a talented writer I was sorry to see leave
Trek and am happy to see return.
Tim Lynch
Arnold Gill visiting astrophys phd std
>ALternative explanation for the scenario-impaired:
>In article <1992Jan29....@cco.caltech.edu> tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>>Followups set to r.a.s.current.
>>
>>This just in from Kevin Ryan at Pocket Books:
>>
>>In the post-RA era, several authors who walked off Trek in the past are
>>returning.
> In the post-GR era ....
>>Chief among them: Diane Duane. She is working on a TNG hardcover--no word
>>on content or on release date.
>>
>>Welcome back, Diane.
> ANother author buddy ?
It seems that we have a major conspiracy theory in progress here.
Anoything that Tim or David (amongst others) says is immediately
tossed out as nonsense by Mr. Sicherman.
Jeff, Diane Duane spends a lot of time on FIDONet from her home in
Ireland (calling long distance to get to a echo node) and has made
very clear what her objections were to Mr. Arnold. Her situation
is very similar to that of Peter David's, in that Richard Arnold
personally took a disliking to her writing and gave her instructions
on how to write novels. Eventually the harrassment from R'Nold got
to be so bad, that she quit writing Star Trek novels completely
several years ago. With his departure, it seems that she is willing
to put her love for Star Trek on the (consumer's) line again. I am
hoping for some brilliance to show up here, with so many ideas just
waiting to see the paper.
Now would you control your accusations until you know what you are
talking about? Frothing from the mouth while the mind is going in
reverse won't make you any friends on usenet. At least make sure to
sprinkle your comments with a lot of IMHO.
--
Arnold Gill --- astrophysician trainee in exile gi...@physics.ubc.ca
Jeff Sicherman
>sich...@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:
>
>>ALternative explanation for the scenario-impaired:
>
>>In article <1992Jan29....@cco.caltech.edu> tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>>>Followups set to r.a.s.current.
>>>
>>>This just in from Kevin Ryan at Pocket Books:
>>>
>>>In the post-RA era, several authors who walked off Trek in the past are
>>>returning.
>
>> In the post-GR era ....
>
>>>Chief among them: Diane Duane. She is working on a TNG hardcover--no word
>>>on content or on release date.
>>>
>>>Welcome back, Diane.
>
>> ANother author buddy ?
>
> It seems that we have a major conspiracy theory in progress here.
> Anoything that Tim or David (amongst others) says is immediately
> tossed out as nonsense by Mr. Sicherman.
I do no such thing. But I plead guilty to the conspiracy theory accusation.
I felt the need of a break from the ongoing, permanent floating conspiracy
theory thread in r.a.s.fandom.
>
> Jeff, Diane Duane spends a lot of time on FIDONet from her home in
> Ireland (calling long distance to get to a echo node) and has made
> very clear what her objections were to Mr. Arnold. Her situation
> is very similar to that of Peter David's, in that Richard Arnold
> personally took a disliking to her writing and gave her instructions
> on how to write novels.
SO she says, I expect. Any independent verification ?
Eventually the harrassment from R'Nold got
> to be so bad, that she quit writing Star Trek novels completely
> several years ago.
To use her talent with characters and universes of her own mind-creation
instead of wanting to use those of others without constraint ?
With his departure, it seems that she is willing
> to put her love for Star Trek on the (consumer's) line again. I am
> hoping for some brilliance to show up here, with so many ideas just
> waiting to see the paper.
Possible translation: with his departure, she sees the potential
opportunity to exploit the ST universe for her own financial and
ego gain (nothing negative implied, that's a fair motivation for work)
without externally imposed story constraints of any significance.
>
> Now would you control your accusations until you know what you are
> talking about? Frothing from the mouth while the mind is going in
> reverse won't make you any friends on usenet. At least make sure to
> sprinkle your comments with a lot of IMHO.
Not accusations. Just questions and speculations to counter the
gleeful dancing going on over Richard Arnolds professional grave.
I sure hope that you don't think that insults are an example of
a forward going mind.
David Pipgras
YES!!!
Dave
David Pipgras
word
>on content or on release date.
>
>Welcome back, Diane.
>ANother author buddy ?
>
>In other news: while no formal "Captain Sulu" series of books seems
underway,
>at least one author (Peter David) has apparently expressed an interest in
>doing such a novel. Sulu and the Excelsior are also likely to appear in
>the TOS comic from DC.
|>Possible explanation: Now that Licensing has most if not all control and
|>are clearly interested, on behalf of Paramount, on the money and not any
|>idealistic constraints, artistically justified or not, the locks are
|>possibly off on story themes and charactizations. hence, the authors can
|>write as they wish so long as they make money for the company doing it.
|>If that's what counts, fine. If the books are good, fine. If that makes
|>RA a bad guy for limiting that freedom to exploit GR's creations, and
|>acting on Gr's behalf with GR's approval, then your attention and
|>blaim-laying as implied by the RA reference in this post are misplaced;
|>again.
Oooooohhhhhh Brother! Arrogance rears its ugly head. Again.
First, to Tim Lynch and Peter David: Since I am being accused of being a
denzine of yours, I was wondering how much the job pays? Seems I have not
received my first pay-off yet :) :)
Second, to Mr. Sicherman's comment on Diane Duane. This really goes to
prove your where you head is. And I don't mean on top of your shoulders!
Diane Duane is/was one of Trek's best writers. She is practically
responsible for creating everything that is accepted on the Romulans (yes,
belive it or not, people are very creative) and has done nothing but
excellent work from the first to the last. I will sure be happy to see here
return to the Trek scene, so that we have some more wonderful books, and,
heck, maybe even the Romulans will return to TNG.
To automatically insist that every writer who left do to Mr. Arnold's
arrogant and snotty behavior and disregard for anything that was not up to
his oh-so-low level of creativity, and now returns *AFTER* RA has been
*FIRED* from his job is a co-conspirator with Tim and Peter in the
buringing of RA, makes me wonder. Did you just wake up one day and decide
to support everyone who tried to destroy Trek, or is there another reason
for your unwillingness to listen to reason and, in your case unjustifible
and bias *FACTS*, about Arnold ???
|>RA a bad guy for limiting that freedom to exploit GR's creations, and
:|>acting on Gr's behalf with GR's approval, then your attention and
:|>blaim-laying as implied by the RA reference in this post are misplaced;
:|>again.
Oh yes! Here you are definately correct! It was wrong for Peter or the
other authors to even suggest doing quality stories, like giving Kirk a
love interest, or heaven forbid, doing something not already seen on film.
It is my personal opinion, that while RA had the position, officially
acting in Gene's behalf, that Gene did not know half of what was going on.
This can be attested to when Majel was at a convention and someone from the
audiance made point of RA's behavior, and she was amazed someone in the
Trek offices was doing this sort of crap.
If you insist on defending Mr. Arnold, go ahead, I mean there is no
competition for the job....
Dave
Arnold Gill visiting astrophys phd std
>In article <gill.69...@physics.ubc.ca> gi...@physics.ubc.ca (Arnold Gill visiting astrophys phd std) writes:
>>
>> Jeff, Diane Duane spends a lot of time on FIDONet from her home in
>> Ireland (calling long distance to get to a echo node) and has made
>> very clear what her objections were to Mr. Arnold. Her situation
>> is very similar to that of Peter David's, in that Richard Arnold
>> personally took a disliking to her writing and gave her instructions
>> on how to write novels.
> SO she says, I expect. Any independent verification ?
What would you like, secret tapes we can sell to CNN and the Enquirer?
Perhaps a chat with her dog, who I hear is actually quite intelligent?
I guess personal testimony/experience doesn't count for anything with
you.
> To use her talent with characters and universes of her own mind-creation
>instead of wanting to use those of others without constraint ?
You wonderfully left out the most important line from above. R'Nold
was giving an author instructions on how to write prose. Once R'Nold
has something published, then he can start giving some instructions.
He is not an editor, but was hired for continuity, which I understand
he did quite well. It was when he went beyond that that people got
mad at him.
> Not accusations. Just questions and speculations to counter the
>gleeful dancing going on over Richard Arnolds professional grave.
Speculations are fine, but I find there is something wrong when
speculations are being defended to the death in situations where
there is not a single shred of evidence to back them up *AND*
plentiful evidence exists that contradicts them in the first
place.
Perhaps you are playing devil's advocate and just seeing how much
sh*t you can stir up?
James K. Huggins
[context: was RA doing his job as continuity manager? what exactly
*is* the job of continuity manager?]
| And continuity can be whatever the office decided it was to be so long as
|they had the authority to impose that interpretation. My impression is that
|you just mean/want it to be a canon-enforcing activity. It would seem that
|GR had a more definitive and encompassing view of what he thought should be
|done with his creations. It seems your point-of-view lost.
The issue here is that some here believe that the view that won was
*not* GR's view (as you state above), but RA's view, and that due to GR's
ill-health, RA was imposing more of his own view upon the job than GR would
have approved of had GR been aware of such activity. And, of course,
that RA's view was detrimental to the world of Trek fiction.
This is completely speculatory, of course, since the only people who
know for sure are GR and RA, neither of whom are likely to comment on
the issue :-). But your statement that the view that won was GR's
view is precisely the issue here, and in light of some of the
"circumstantial" evidence being presented here (the mass exodus/return
of Trek authors), it is perhaps less of a certainty than it seems.
(Note: I don't consider the evidence "circumstantial", but there
are probably those here that do.)
(Disclaimer: I've read exactly 2 Star Trek novels in my life -- and thus
have no direct knowledge of RA's effects, for good or ill, on Trek fiction.)
--
Jim Huggins, Univ. of Michigan hug...@eecs.umich.edu
"You cannot pray to a personal computer no matter how user-friendly it is."
-- W. Bingham Hunter
John S. Novak III
>>>> Jeff, Diane Duane spends a lot of time on FIDONet from her home in
>>>> Ireland (calling long distance to get to a echo node) and has made
>>>> very clear what her objections were to Mr. Arnold. Her situation
>>>> is very similar to that of Peter David's, in that Richard Arnold
>>>> personally took a disliking to her writing and gave her instructions
>>>> on how to write novels.
>>> SO she says, I expect. Any independent verification ?
Well, yeah.
Basically, everything I've heard from every source other than
yourself and R'Nold.
> Sure it does. Everyone's does. Not just the people that you happen to like
>or who have produced works that you happen to like. That means that aso long
>as each is telling a story that they have a self-interest in, their point-of
>view, interpretations, remembrances, etc. are to be viewed with skepticism.
>They have a stake in the consequences of their statements. That produces
>all kinds of mental effects, intended or not.
As it won't do much good, I won't even bother discussing the
merits of overwhelming evidenace from three or more pretty much
independant sources.
Other people have tried.
Geez, Sicherman, the key words here are _reasonable_ _doubt_, not
a God-tablet of guilt.
>>> To use her talent with characters and universes of her own mind-creation
>>>instead of wanting to use those of others without constraint ?
>>
>> You wonderfully left out the most important line from above. R'Nold
>> was giving an author instructions on how to write prose. Once R'Nold
>> has something published, then he can start giving some instructions.
>> He is not an editor, but was hired for continuity, which I understand
>> he did quite well. It was when he went beyond that that people got
>> mad at him.
> Better tell all those drama and music critics out there in the real world
>(that newspapers and TV stations, etc. happen to hire and pay) that they
>can't make comment and judgements because they haven't had anything printed
>or produced or performed. Oh, and all those book editors who haven't had
>books published. You get the idea; I hope.
Editors are hired to edit. Continuity people are hired to keep
track of continuity.
There's also a massive deffierence (in the case of critics)
between criticizing, and telling/forcing changes down the throat
of an artist.
> And continuity can be whatever the office decided it was to be so long as
>they had the authority to impose that interpretation. My impression is that
>you just mean/want it to be a canon-enforcing activity. It would seem that
>GR had a more definitive and encompassing view of what he thought should be
>done with his creations. It seems your point-of-view lost.
A) Continuity means continuity to most of us.
B) Where's some corroborating evidence for what you think was
GR's idea of a coninuity editor?
> For the Nth time: this evidence is essentially all coming from those
>who have a self-interest or a prejudice with respect to the interpretation
>or the results. When persons of impartiality or disinterest are identified
>and tell their story there will be reason to draw definitive conclusions.
Ah, yes. Diane Duane and Peter David and company make so much
more money by writing in the Star Trek Arena rather than writing
of their own creations, where they answer to themselves, and get
more money.
And we all _know_ Tim Lynch is just frothing to have R'Nold's
job, so he's been spreading all these horrible lies. He even got
a hold of that neat Ferengi device that changes and influences
memories. Right.
Besides, don't you think that somehwere under that seething mass
of personality quirks, _you_ might have a bias or two? Not even
a little one?
>>
>> Perhaps you are playing devil's advocate and just seeing how much
>> sh*t you can stir up?
> If you want to call counteracting propoganda playing devil's advocate,
>then characterize it as you will. And it seems obvious that I have indeed
>stirred up such whether it was my intention or not.
>>"But this isn't an argument!"
>"Yes it is!"
"No it isn't!"
G. Host
> Article <1992Jan29....@cco.caltech.edu> From: tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch)
> In other news: while no formal "Captain Sulu" series of books seems underway,
> at least one author (Peter David) has apparently expressed an interest in
> doing such a novel. Sulu and the Excelsior are also likely to appear in
> the TOS comic from DC.
Best news I have heard - while I like Peter David's writing I think
he strays from characterization too much. Hopefully this will enable
him to write the characters he wants rather than writing the
Enterprise characters into the characters he wants.
Hopefully though he will talk to George Takei before he writes it;
if George Takei feels it is out of character I wont but it and will
encourage others not to too.
--
Glenn Host - Senior Systems Analyst (gh...@ra.nrl.navy.mil)
NRL Code 5800, 4555 Overlook Ave.; Washington, DC 20375 (202) 767-2046
12307 Tigers Eye Court ; Reston, VA 22091 (703) 620-1141
Arnold Gill visiting astrophys phd std
>In article <gill.69...@physics.ubc.ca> gi...@physics.ubc.ca (Arnold Gill visiting astrophys phd std) writes:
>> What would you like, secret tapes we can sell to CNN and the Enquirer?
>> Perhaps a chat with her dog, who I hear is actually quite intelligent?
> Good. Perhaps we can get it to post to the net and raise the quality of
>the discussion.
Only that from your end.
> And continuity can be whatever the office decided it was to be so long as
>they had the authority to impose that interpretation. My impression is that
>you just mean/want it to be a canon-enforcing activity. It would seem that
>GR had a more definitive and encompassing view of what he thought should be
>done with his creations. It seems your point-of-view lost.
This so-called editting/continuity included, as far as I remember, a
law laid down by R'Nold's office that only humanoid characters may
be introduced in a work of Star Trek fiction. One is even banned
from using a Horta. This is far more than editting. How about
taking the rights for the book away from the original author and
giving it to someone else for several sets of rewrites? This is
pure theft and the type of action that R'Nold regularly engaged in.
> For the Nth time: this evidence is essentially all coming from those
>who have a self-interest or a prejudice with respect to the interpretation
>or the results. When persons of impartiality or disinterest are identified
>and tell their story there will be reason to draw definitive conclusions.
Well, you go find such a person and get them to tell their story.
Until then, your accusation/suppositions/questions are based on
nothing.
BTW, if you were a member of the Flat Earth Society, this discussion
would be preceeding in exactly the same fashion. "It is in the so-called
astronauts and government's interest to have a spherical world. We need
some impartial and dis-interested observers to tell us the real story.
Even though I don't know any such people, you must still admit that I
have a perfectly valid theory with only biased evidence against it."
Arnold Gill visiting astrophys phd std
>(Disclaimer: I've read exactly 2 Star Trek novels in my life -- and thus
>have no direct knowledge of RA's effects, for good or ill, on Trek fiction.)
I don't think that anyone really does, except those that have the
original manuscript in front of them and can compare it to the
finished product.
Matt Hucke
>
> This so-called editting/continuity included, as far as I remember, a
> law laid down by R'Nold's office that only humanoid characters may
> be introduced in a work of Star Trek fiction. One is even banned
> from using a Horta. This is far more than editting. How about
If this is true, it is by far the STUPIDEST idea, and I am glad R'Nold got
what he deserved! Some of the most interesting nonregular characters have
been nonhumanoid, such as Lt Naraht, K't'lk, and the entire Sulamid race.
(Of course, these are Diane Duane's creations... I can see why she didn't
like him...)
Matt Hucke
>>(Disclaimer: I've read exactly 2 Star Trek novels in my life -- and thus
>>have no direct knowledge of RA's effects, for good or ill, on Trek fiction.)
>
> I don't think that anyone really does, except those that have the
> original manuscript in front of them and can compare it to the
> finished product.
Such as Peter David... of course, Jeff tells us he's biased, and therefore
his opinion means nothing... it's so convenient, really.
Jeff Sicherman
>sich...@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:
>
>>In article <gill.69...@physics.ubc.ca> gi...@physics.ubc.ca (Arnold Gill visiting astrophys phd std) writes:
>>>
>>> Jeff, Diane Duane spends a lot of time on FIDONet from her home in
>>> Ireland (calling long distance to get to a echo node) and has made
>>> very clear what her objections were to Mr. Arnold. Her situation
>>> is very similar to that of Peter David's, in that Richard Arnold
>>> personally took a disliking to her writing and gave her instructions
>>> on how to write novels.
>
>> SO she says, I expect. Any independent verification ?
>
> What would you like, secret tapes we can sell to CNN and the Enquirer?
> Perhaps a chat with her dog, who I hear is actually quite intelligent?
Good. Perhaps we can get it to post to the net and raise the quality of
the discussion.
>
> I guess personal testimony/experience doesn't count for anything with
> you.
Sure it does. Everyone's does. Not just the people that you happen to like
or who have produced works that you happen to like. That means that aso long
as each is telling a story that they have a self-interest in, their point-of
view, interpretations, remembrances, etc. are to be viewed with skepticism.
They have a stake in the consequences of their statements. That produces
all kinds of mental effects, intended or not.
>> To use her talent with characters and universes of her own mind-creation
>>instead of wanting to use those of others without constraint ?
>
> You wonderfully left out the most important line from above. R'Nold
> was giving an author instructions on how to write prose. Once R'Nold
> has something published, then he can start giving some instructions.
> He is not an editor, but was hired for continuity, which I understand
> he did quite well. It was when he went beyond that that people got
> mad at him.
Better tell all those drama and music critics out there in the real world
(that newspapers and TV stations, etc. happen to hire and pay) that they
can't make comment and judgements because they haven't had anything printed
or produced or performed. Oh, and all those book editors who haven't had
books published. You get the idea; I hope.
And continuity can be whatever the office decided it was to be so long as
they had the authority to impose that interpretation. My impression is that
you just mean/want it to be a canon-enforcing activity. It would seem that
GR had a more definitive and encompassing view of what he thought should be
done with his creations. It seems your point-of-view lost.
>>> Not accusations. Just questions and speculations to counter the
>gleeful dancing going on over Richard Arnolds professional grave.
>
> Speculations are fine, but I find there is something wrong when
> speculations are being defended to the death in situations where
> there is not a single shred of evidence to back them up *AND*
> plentiful evidence exists that contradicts them in the first
> place.
For the Nth time: this evidence is essentially all coming from those
who have a self-interest or a prejudice with respect to the interpretation
or the results. When persons of impartiality or disinterest are identified
and tell their story there will be reason to draw definitive conclusions.
>
> Perhaps you are playing devil's advocate and just seeing how much
> sh*t you can stir up?
If you want to call counteracting propoganda playing devil's advocate,
then characterize it as you will. And it seems obvious that I have indeed
stirred up such whether it was my intention or not.
--
Jeff Sicherman
>sich...@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:
>
>>In article <gill.69...@physics.ubc.ca> gi...@physics.ubc.ca (Arnold Gill visiting astrophys phd std) writes:
>>> What would you like, secret tapes we can sell to CNN and the Enquirer?
>>> Perhaps a chat with her dog, who I hear is actually quite intelligent?
>
>> Good. Perhaps we can get it to post to the net and raise the quality of
>>the discussion.
>
> Only that from your end.
Perhaps this is true. It's probably overqualified for yours :-)
>
>> And continuity can be whatever the office decided it was to be so long as
>>they had the authority to impose that interpretation. My impression is that
>>you just mean/want it to be a canon-enforcing activity. It would seem that
>>GR had a more definitive and encompassing view of what he thought should be
>>done with his creations. It seems your point-of-view lost.
>
> This so-called editting/continuity included, as far as I remember, a
> law laid down by R'Nold's office that only humanoid characters may
> be introduced in a work of Star Trek fiction. One is even banned
> from using a Horta. This is far more than editting. How about
> taking the rights for the book away from the original author and
> giving it to someone else for several sets of rewrites? This is
> pure theft and the type of action that R'Nold regularly engaged in.
Clarification please: did the office take books away or did the book's
publisher ? I doubt that the office had any contractual or ownership
rights to do that while the publisher might. The office might have
had the right of approval, which is different and makes your accusation,
if so, irresponsible.
>
>> For the Nth time: this evidence is essentially all coming from those
>>who have a self-interest or a prejudice with respect to the interpretation
>>or the results. When persons of impartiality or disinterest are identified
>>and tell their story there will be reason to draw definitive conclusions.
>
> Well, you go find such a person and get them to tell their story.
> Until then, your accusation/suppositions/questions are based on
> nothing.
Nope, their based upon my healthy skepticism of the sources that the
existing information is coming from.
>
> BTW, if you were a member of the Flat Earth Society, this discussion
> would be preceeding in exactly the same fashion. "It is in the so-called
> astronauts and government's interest to have a spherical world. We need
> some impartial and dis-interested observers to tell us the real story.
> Even though I don't know any such people, you must still admit that I
> have a perfectly valid theory with only biased evidence against it."
Your education is obviously suffering from an inability to differentiate
between matters of scientific verifiability and those relating to opinions
and conflicts between people. SO sad.
Jeff Sicherman
>Jeff Sicherman writes:
>
>>>>> Jeff, Diane Duane spends a lot of time on FIDONet from her home in
>>>>> Ireland (calling long distance to get to a echo node) and has made
>>>>> very clear what her objections were to Mr. Arnold. Her situation
>>>>> is very similar to that of Peter David's, in that Richard Arnold
>>>>> personally took a disliking to her writing and gave her instructions
>>>>> on how to write novels.
>
>>>> SO she says, I expect. Any independent verification ?
>
>Well, yeah.
>Basically, everything I've heard from every source other than
>yourself and R'Nold.
Wait, let me get this answer staright in view of the question:
*Everything you have heard from every other source* is that
RA took a disliking to DD's writing and instructed her on
novel writing. Rather unbelieveable that those people didn't
have anything else to say and were all there when RA told her
all these things. Amazing.
>
>> Sure it does. Everyone's does. Not just the people that you happen to like
>>or who have produced works that you happen to like. That means that aso long
>>as each is telling a story that they have a self-interest in, their point-of
>>view, interpretations, remembrances, etc. are to be viewed with skepticism.
>>They have a stake in the consequences of their statements. That produces
>>all kinds of mental effects, intended or not.
>
>As it won't do much good, I won't even bother discussing the
>merits of overwhelming evidenace from three or more pretty much
>independant sources.
Some people are more easily overwhelmed by propoganda from interested
parties than others.
>
>Other people have tried.
This is true and have not succeeded because they are all still
coming up with the same kind of claims from people who are
personally involved and feel something to complain about.
>
>Geez, Sicherman, the key words here are _reasonable_ _doubt_, not
>a God-tablet of guilt.
True. I'm giving RA resonable doubt until I hear reasonable
accusations from sources who have *no reason* to have a beef
with the functions of the ST office.
>
>>>> To use her talent with characters and universes of her own mind-creation
>>>>instead of wanting to use those of others without constraint ?
>>>
>>> You wonderfully left out the most important line from above. R'Nold
>>> was giving an author instructions on how to write prose. Once R'Nold
>>> has something published, then he can start giving some instructions.
>>> He is not an editor, but was hired for continuity, which I understand
>>> he did quite well. It was when he went beyond that that people got
>>> mad at him.
>
>> Better tell all those drama and music critics out there in the real world
>>(that newspapers and TV stations, etc. happen to hire and pay) that they
>>can't make comment and judgements because they haven't had anything printed
>>or produced or performed. Oh, and all those book editors who haven't had
>>books published. You get the idea; I hope.
>
>Editors are hired to edit. Continuity people are hired to keep
>track of continuity.
So he got promoted by his boss who was satisfied with the
function he was performing and how he performed it.
>
>There's also a massive deffierence (in the case of critics)
>between criticizing, and telling/forcing changes down the throat
>of an artist.
Nobody forced things on them. They didn't have to write for
ST. It's not a form of involuntary sevitude. If you want to
do it; you do it under the prevailing terms.
>
>> And continuity can be whatever the office decided it was to be so long as
>>they had the authority to impose that interpretation. My impression is that
>>you just mean/want it to be a canon-enforcing activity. It would seem that
>>GR had a more definitive and encompassing view of what he thought should be
>>done with his creations. It seems your point-of-view lost.
>
>A) Continuity means continuity to most of us.
It would seem in this matter that 'most of you' don't count.
Apparently this is a majority of one type issue: GR's.
>
>B) Where's some corroborating evidence for what you think was
>GR's idea of a coninuity editor?
Whatever was done. IN the absence of some statement on the
matter by GR, what was done under his regime stands as an
implicit statement of his policy.
>
>> For the Nth time: this evidence is essentially all coming from those
>>who have a self-interest or a prejudice with respect to the interpretation
>>or the results. When persons of impartiality or disinterest are identified
>>and tell their story there will be reason to draw definitive conclusions.
>
>Ah, yes. Diane Duane and Peter David and company make so much
>more money by writing in the Star Trek Arena rather than writing
>of their own creations, where they answer to themselves, and get
>more money.
Clarification please: more money *total* or more money per book. ?
A higher ST sales wven with smaller per unit royalties could be
(a lot) more money. Just wondering.
>
>And we all _know_ Tim Lynch is just frothing to have R'Nold's
>job, so he's been spreading all these horrible lies. He even got
>a hold of that neat Ferengi device that changes and influences
>memories. Right.
He hasn't spread any lies that I know of. He did spread some
information that he claimed was virtually unquestionable truth,
but lacking credible evidence.
>
>Besides, don't you think that somehwere under that seething mass
>of personality quirks, _you_ might have a bias or two? Not even
>a little one?
Sure, plenty of them. As to personalty quirks, of what are you speaking?
The attitude that I don't accept claims by people with self-interests on
matters that affect that self-interest as pure gospel ? If that's a seething
mass of quirks, I'm glad to have it.
>
>>>
>>> Perhaps you are playing devil's advocate and just seeing how much
>>> sh*t you can stir up?
>
>> If you want to call counteracting propoganda playing devil's advocate,
>>then characterize it as you will. And it seems obvious that I have indeed
>>stirred up such whether it was my intention or not.
Arnold Gill visiting astrophys phd std
> Clarification please: did the office take books away or did the book's
>publisher ? I doubt that the office had any contractual or ownership
>rights to do that while the publisher might. The office might have
>had the right of approval, which is different and makes your accusation,
>if so, irresponsible.
From all that I have heard from Diane Duane, Peter David, Brad Ferguson
and Margaret Bonanno, the rewrite demands, etc all come from R'Nold's
office. Pocket seems to publish whatever is finally approved from
there. Someone correct me if I got that wrong.
>> Well, you go find such a person and get them to tell their story.
>> Until then, your accusation/suppositions/questions are based on
>> nothing.
> Nope, their based upon my healthy skepticism of the sources that the
>existing information is coming from.
Skepticism is fine, but blindly applying skepticism against the
evidence seems to smack of bias, if not outright prejudice, in
itself. Skepticism must have a basis other than itself.
>> BTW, if you were a member of the Flat Earth Society, this discussion
>> would be preceeding in exactly the same fashion. "It is in the so-called
>> astronauts and government's interest to have a spherical world. We need
>> some impartial and dis-interested observers to tell us the real story.
>> Even though I don't know any such people, you must still admit that I
>> have a perfectly valid theory with only biased evidence against it."
> Your education is obviously suffering from an inability to differentiate
>between matters of scientific verifiability and those relating to opinions
>and conflicts between people. SO sad.
Verification is independant of what is being verified. Sometimes it
is just more difficult than others. In my example, those in the
Flat Earth Society would be exceedingly skeptical of any information
that disagrees with their point of view. It is not a matter of
scientific verifiability for these people -- it is a matter of a biased
world view. Stylewise, I see no difference between their way of not
accepting scientific evidence and the manner in which you have been
tossing out all evidence which supports the theory that R'Nold
overplayed the power of his position and got canned for it.
I have no problem with your theory, it just has no evidence to back
it up. When/if that changes, it is time to review all theories.
Edward S. Chen
>
>> Clarification please: did the office take books away or did the book's
>>publisher ? I doubt that the office had any contractual or ownership
>>rights to do that while the publisher might. The office might have
>>had the right of approval, which is different and makes your accusation,
>>if so, irresponsible.
>
> From all that I have heard from Diane Duane, Peter David, Brad Ferguson
> and Margaret Bonanno, the rewrite demands, etc all come from R'Nold's
> office. Pocket seems to publish whatever is finally approved from
> there. Someone correct me if I got that wrong.
>
Precisely. Although Bjo Trimble, and at least one author have stated
some of the problems came from David Stern at Pocket. (Of course, using
Mr. Sicherman's razor edge of justice, we must discount Bjo's opinion as
biased, because she freely admitted being a "friend of Richard's who spent
many hours in his office.")
I *think* authors are paid for work they do (Perhaps Mr. David could clear
this up). That is, Irene Kress was paid something for writing "The War Virus",
or Ms. Bonano was paid something for her version of "Probe". So, I see the
process as being something like this.
Author submits idea
|
\ /
Pocket accepts idea
|
\ / No
Pocket sends idea to Paramount ----> Idea rejected, author not paid
|
| Yes
\ /
Author writes novel
|
\ /
Novel submitted to Pocket
|
|
\ / No
Novel sent to Paramount -------> Novel now property of Paramount.
May be discarded, or rw-written.
| Author paid for doing writing.
| Yes
\ /
Novel Published.
Author paid with royalties.
Of course, since Pocket is a wholly owned subsidiary of Paramount, this
makes the process listed above much simpler...
Incidentally, isn't it interesting how Jeff decided to discard my facts,
without trying to impose his own biases on them...
<ESC>
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
... Take us from the dark, out where we can see ...
--- Paul McCartney
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Sicherman
>In article <gill.69...@physics.ubc.ca> gi...@physics.ubc.ca (Arnold Gill visiting astrophys phd std) writes:
>>sich...@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:
>>
>>> Clarification please: did the office take books away or did the book's
>>>publisher ? I doubt that the office had any contractual or ownership
>>>rights to do that while the publisher might. The office might have
>>>had the right of approval, which is different and makes your accusation,
>>>if so, irresponsible.
>>
>> From all that I have heard from Diane Duane, Peter David, Brad Ferguson
>> and Margaret Bonanno, the rewrite demands, etc all come from R'Nold's
>> office. Pocket seems to publish whatever is finally approved from
>> there. Someone correct me if I got that wrong.
>>
>
>Precisely. Although Bjo Trimble, and at least one author have stated
>some of the problems came from David Stern at Pocket. (Of course, using
>Mr. Sicherman's razor edge of justice, we must discount Bjo's opinion as
>biased, because she freely admitted being a "friend of Richard's who spent
>many hours in his office.")
If by that you mean she shouldn't be considered an unquestioned source
of information or a completely objective source of conslusions, then you're
right. She's in the same pool as the other sharks. But I've never discounted
everything Peter David has said as a participant and wouldn't for any other
particular item or person. Accepting the totality of their poinbt-of-view
and conclusions is another matter, however.
{ publication process chart deleted - thanks for the clarification ]
>Of course, since Pocket is a wholly owned subsidiary of Paramount, this
>makes the process listed above much simpler...
>
>Incidentally, isn't it interesting how Jeff decided to discard my facts,
>without trying to impose his own biases on them...
I don't claim not to have biases. And I haven't presented any 'facts'
on the issue. I have no delusions or pretenses of perfection or innocence
about the matter. However, that doesn't mean I can't question the
presentations of others when they have clearly stated preconceptions or
identifiable self-interests which *might* preclude them from considering
alternative explanations for limited facts or affect the objectivity
with which they selected among them.
Suzanna Kennedy
in the shadows on this one for quite a while, and frankly, I wish you people
would drop it. No ONE person knows the whole story, and until someone does,
there is no point in continuing to beat a DEAD horse.
So far, I've seen things from both sides I believe, but when this all began to
be a "Jeff's an idiot, Peter and Tim, et al. are loony" free for all, I lost
my appetite for it. Like my Momma (god rest her soul) used to say, "if you
kids can't play nice, then don't play at all". In other words, can we PLEASE
drop the flame wars, and if not, then put something in your dad-blasted
header to warn those of us who could care less for your opinions of one another!
Thanks.
S. Kennedy
Just another theatre geek.....
>So far, I've seen things from both sides I believe, but when this all began to
>be a "Jeff's an idiot, Peter and Tim, et al. are loony" free for all, I lost
>my appetite for it.
Hey! You forgot me!
--
Roger Tang gwan...@milton.u.washington.edu
Executive Producer Emeritus, Asian Theatre at the UW;
The definition of having balls is a non-singer who goes karaoke singing
with the cast of a musical revue.
Timothy W. Lynch
that's that stuff that has facts in it) and everybody goes berserk.
While there may still be room for discussion on the main RA thread in
r.a.s.fandom (I'm waiting for answers to a question or two myself), I see
*no* reason for the kind of inferno this appears to have generated.
Jeff, the reason I termed this return as "in the post-RA era" is because it
is true. Ms. Duane made it quite clear quite some time ago that she considered
RA the problem and not Gene, and she did not approach Pocket about the new
novel until after Richard's departure, not Gene's death.
Whether she was *right* in those beliefs is open to speculation, of course,
but it more than justifies my implied comment that it was Richard's departure
and not Gene's death that brought about DD's return to Trek writing.
That's it. That's the reason I phrased it as I did. Jeff, if you want to
claim I had other motives, feel free--but you're out of line. Completely.
As to those responding on the other side of the thread...while I sympathize
with the frustration you must be feeling about our unesteemed colleague
(*believe me*, I sympathize), there's no need for this kind of behaviour.
I've crossposted this to r.a.s.fandom and set followups there--if you
seriously want to continue this part of the discussion, that's where it makes
sense to go. The "current" part of this discussion died about two articles
into the thread.
And finally...
gi...@physics.ubc.ca (Arnold Gill visiting astrophys phd std) writes:
>hug...@z.eecs.umich.edu (James K. Huggins) writes:
>>(Disclaimer: I've read exactly 2 Star Trek novels in my life -- and thus
>>have no direct knowledge of RA's effects, for good or ill, on Trek fiction.)
> I don't think that anyone really does, except those that have the
> original manuscript in front of them and can compare it to the
> finished product.
Which is one reason I'll be very curious to see the published version of
_Probe_.
Tim Lynch
Just another theatre geek.....
>In article <1992Feb3.1...@milton.u.washington.edu> gwan...@milton.u.washington.edu (Just another theatre geek.....) writes:
>>In article <1992Feb3.1...@engr.uark.edu> sk...@engr.uark.edu (Suzanna Kennedy) writes:
>>>So far, I've seen things from both sides I believe, but when this all began to
>>>be a "Jeff's an idiot, Peter and Tim, et al. are loony" free for all, I lost
>>>my appetite for it.
>> Hey! You forgot me!
>Well, I don't think I've seen you pull your usual "So?" response in
>recent weeks. You've just been *too* quiet, my friend. ;-)
Oh.
Well, I've been off trying to get a life. Or chasing pretty, nubile,
young actresses. Same thing.
Hades
> For the Nth time: this evidence is essentially all coming from those
>who have a self-interest or a prejudice with respect to the interpretation
>or the results. When persons of impartiality or disinterest are identified
>and tell their story there will be reason to draw definitive conclusions.
Well, I was staying out of this discussion as I was content to
sit back and watch, but I just had to point this out ;->.
How is it possible for a disinterested or impartial person to
have a story to tell? Anyone with information about this subject
would have to have been interested at some point, otherwise they
would have had a tough time getting the information.
--
-Hades (Brian V. Hughes) | "You're built too low! The fast ones go
ha...@Coos.Dartmouth.Edu | right over your head!"
Mac Database Developer | -- Foghorn Leghorn
Dartmouth Medical School |
Jeff Sicherman
>sich...@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:
>
>> For the Nth time: this evidence is essentially all coming from those
>>who have a self-interest or a prejudice with respect to the interpretation
>>or the results. When persons of impartiality or disinterest are identified
>>and tell their story there will be reason to draw definitive conclusions.
>
> Well, I was staying out of this discussion as I was content to
>sit back and watch, but I just had to point this out ;->.
>
> How is it possible for a disinterested or impartial person to
>have a story to tell? Anyone with information about this subject
>would have to have been interested at some point, otherwise they
>would have had a tough time getting the information.
For the semantically-impaired/dictionary-deprived:
disinterested: free from selfish motives; impartial; fair.
It is *not* the same as UNinterested, which is what you seem to be
assuming.
System Smof
Originally posted by Diane Duane, former Star Trek novelist, FidoNet
1:104/424.5 on 01 Feb 91. Posted on FidoNet TREK echo conference:
-----
Let me give you a shortened, *much* shortened version. (I really must put up
a long version so that Marshall can post it at intervals.)
Once upon a time, a writer could submit an outline for a Trek novel, get it
OK'd, write the novel, turn it in, and be paid; and sometimes -- often --
there would even be a thank-you note from the editors.
That was in the golden age, when I started doing these, about six or seven
years ago. Now, the thank-you notes have not stopped. (I have no trouble
with the lads at Pocket, who have always been gentlemanly with me and have
gone to bat on my behalf a number of times.) But the approvals process at
Paramount has become increasingly complicated over the past few years, and
not in a way that improves the product (if I can use the ugly word).
First of all, numerous non-creative people are now in the approvals "loop".
GR has no time to read the novels himself, as a rule, so the work is
delegated to various people in the office. There are also marketing people
who have creative input. The majority of the non-creative folk cannot write
(as I judge by having read some of their memos) and are in no position to
critique writing, let alone science fiction writing, a rigorous and specific
genre with its own rules and difficulties. But they nonetheless have rigidly
formed ideas about what Trek writing should look like. (That some of these
people would like to do it themselves, but don't have the talent, and have
had novels rejected by Pocket for this reason, cannot make their lives any
happier.) As a result, the amount of "notes" that come in with a completed
book have increased something like 1000%. Some of the suggestions are
legitimate. Many of them are idiosyncratic: they're that particular critic's
personal preference, and don't really matter to the book. They just want you
to make that change, whether you think it needs making or not. Some of the
notes are downright idiotic. Some of them show a complete lack of
understanding of what you were writing about in the first place. Some of them
-- and I hate to say this -- arise sheerly out of the desire to make the
writer do something that he/she doesn't want to do. Personal animus comes
into it, I am sorry to say.
So there's *that* problem. Let's call it "an unpleasant atmosphere in the
workplace".
Secondly, Gene Roddenberry seems to have had major changes of heart about
many (formerly) basic tenets of what constitutes Star Trek. Now, I support
the right of an author or creative person to change his mind. What disturbs
me is the way Classic Trek, in the novels at least, is being rewritten, as it
were, backwards; moving from the subtle, scientifically complex, and
interesting, back to the simple, scientifically naive, and space-opera-ish.
On the one hand, I can see how the Canon can use some ordering and
straightening up. On the other, I don't care for the way it's happening, not
a bit.
This being the case, a question arises for the writer working on Trek these
days. Do you stay around, and keep taking the King's shilling, even though
you wildly disagree with the work you're being asked to do? Or do you excuse
yourself as politely as possible, and bugger off somewhere else?
I took option 2. The money isn't *that* good -- Trek made up less than 25%
of my income even in the best of the years when I was still writing it -- and
the aggravation of dealing with the non-creative types (poor frustrated
things) was beginning to contaminate my other writing. Since (at the time
when this began to bother me) I had four other novels in process, not to
mention a position as senior writer on an educational series for the BBC, I
could ill afford (creatively speaking) to have my other work interfered with.
So I excused myself.
It was mutual, by the way, or would have been had I not had contracts that
the Trek-office-people had no power to break or interfere with. I am
apparently perceived in the office as a Problem. Apparently my worst crime
is that I fleshed out the Romulans in such a way that people liked them
better than they had before (well, that was why I was asked to do the book,
wasn't it???...never mind....), and this annoyed some people in the front
office. I have heard from my sources that the words "too creative" were
mentioned. But the rest of my Problem status has to do with my sales
figures. Apparently there were people who were very glad when I went away
voluntarily, for there was no other way they could have gotten rid of (I may
as well just say it) the best-selling of all the Trek writers; if the Trek
offices had tried anything on that front, the chairman of Pocket would have
called the chairman of Paramount, and had a quick laugh with him, and told
him to straighten his people out; and that would have been the end of *that*.
-- In any case, I wondered whether I should stay and fight -- I don't mind a
good scrap now and then, and even a former psychiatric nurse has a few tricks
up her sleeve. But my agent, and some of my friends, and numerous writers I
know, and the editors of all my other books, were pleading with me not to
bother with that Trek stuff any more. And most important of all, I couldn't
think of any Trek stories to tell that moved me enough to make me want to
write them in the teeth of Paramount. So I decided not to bother.
Goodness, did I say "short version"? Sorry. That's most of it, anyway. D
--- ZMailO 1.12 (Opus/FTS001)
* Origin: From a house called Dun Treachan (Co. Wicklow, Eire) (1:104/424.5)
____________________________________________________________________
/ | | \
|SMOF-BBS 512-467-7317 PCP=TXAUS |UUCP: crash!pro-smof!shiva | __|__ |
|Proline: shiva@pro-smof |"The World's First Online | \_|_/ |
|Internet: sh...@pro-smof.cts.com| Science Fiction Convention"| | |
\________________________________|____________________________|______/
Gym Z. Quirk
>>So far, I've seen things from both sides I believe, but when this all began to
>>be a "Jeff's an idiot, Peter and Tim, et al. are loony" free for all, I lost
>>my appetite for it.
>
> Hey! You forgot me!
Well, I don't think I've seen you pull your usual "So?" response in
recent weeks. You've just been *too* quiet, my friend. ;-)
>Roger Tang gwan...@milton.u.washington.edu
--
Capt. Gym Z. Quirk (Known to some as Taki Kogoma) tko...@triton.unm.edu
I'll get a life when someone demonstrates that it would be superior to
what I have now...
Michael Rawdon
>Now, if only Diane would start writing for TNG (the TV show)--
>it would be great if we could get a cannonical reference to the
>Rihannsu.
Seems unlikely to happen, especially in the wake of "Unification". Which is
fine by me, personally.
>Dare to dream: Spock comes back from Romulus, wanting the first
>step towards unification to be a history lesson in Rihan culture.
>How can we ever make peace if we keep calling them the wrong
>thing?
Because they use the term themselves?
>Come on, Diane--- show Rick Berman what _real_ writing is!
I have yet to see any in her novels...
--
Michael Rawdon raw...@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu
University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Department, Madison, WI
"It is a fool's prerogative to utter truths that no one else will speak."
- Dream, "A Midsummer Night's Dream"
Michael Rawdon
>In article <1992Feb3.1...@engr.uark.edu> sk...@engr.uark.edu (Suzanna Kennedy) writes:
>>So far, I've seen things from both sides I believe, but when this all began to
>>be a "Jeff's an idiot, Peter and Tim, et al. are loony" free for all, I lost
>>my appetite for it.
> Hey! You forgot me!
Yes, but was it accidental, or was it intentional?
(Or was it Memorex?)
--
Michael Rawdon raw...@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu
University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Department, Madison, WI
"...I guess I'd rather have mediocre Star Trek then none at all."
- A friend, about the ST:TNG episode "Legacy"
Suzanna Kennedy
nor unintentional. It wasn't even Memorex. Frankly, I don't know the name
of the person I supposedly forgot, and probably won't look it up.
The whole point of my post was to point out that it seemed the "Diane returns,
now that Richard is gone" line had degenerated into a free-for-all that was
less than entertaining. That's all there was to it.
If I stepped on toes, all I can say is.. "oh well".
S. Kennedy
--
Suzanna Kennedy The only absolute in the world is
Dept. of Bio and Ag Eng. that there are no absolutes.
203 Eng. Hall
University of Arkansas
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Just another theatre geek.....
>Actually, my forgetting the persoon I supposedly forgot was neither intentional
>nor unintentional. It wasn't even Memorex. Frankly, I don't know the name
>of the person I supposedly forgot, and probably won't look it up.
Oh, I am hurt and wounded nigh unto death's dark realm!
Take one minute to try and get a life and they consign you to the
trash heap here on rec.arts.startrek.*......
(Teach me to go off chasing nubile young ingenues....)
Gym Z. Quirk
>In article <1992Feb11....@engr.uark.edu> sk...@engr.uark.edu (Suzanna Kennedy) writes:
>>Actually, my forgetting the persoon I supposedly forgot was neither intentional
>>nor unintentional. It wasn't even Memorex. Frankly, I don't know the name
>>of the person I supposedly forgot, and probably won't look it up.
>
> Oh, I am hurt and wounded nigh unto death's dark realm!
>
> Take one minute to try and get a life and they consign you to the
>trash heap here on rec.arts.startrek.*......
What do you expect? You gotta pay your dues, my friend. ;-)
> (Teach me to go off chasing nubile young ingenues....)
Do they offer group lessons? ;-)
Just another theatre geek.....
>In article <1992Feb11.1...@milton.u.washington.edu> gwan...@milton.u.washington.edu (Just another theatre geek.....) writes:
>>In article <1992Feb11....@engr.uark.edu> sk...@engr.uark.edu (Suzanna Kennedy) writes:
>>>Actually, my forgetting the persoon I supposedly forgot was neither intentional
>>>nor unintentional. It wasn't even Memorex. Frankly, I don't know the name
>>>of the person I supposedly forgot, and probably won't look it up.
>> Oh, I am hurt and wounded nigh unto death's dark realm!
>> Take one minute to try and get a life and they consign you to the
>>trash heap here on rec.arts.startrek.*......
>What do you expect? You gotta pay your dues, my friend. ;-)
What dues??? Gee, you'd think after a couple years of posting
arrogant, obnoxious reviews at least SOME lingering remembrance would
remain....
>> (Teach me to go off chasing nubile young ingenues....)
>Do they offer group lessons? ;-)
No! Go away! Find your own nubile ingenues! (They seem to find
enough of them around the Paramount lot...)(Fortunately, mine can ACT....)
Suzanna Kennedy
I still wouldn't know who you are. I'd rather form my own opinion of the
episodes, without knowing beforehand what will occur.
Secondly, I have only been reading rec.arts.startrek.* for a little over
a year, so that still leaves you, in your words, "on the trash heap".
Suzanna Kennedy
>Well, since I don't read reviews of the Trek shows and movies, I'm afraid
>I still wouldn't know who you are. I'd rather form my own opinion of the
>episodes, without knowing beforehand what will occur.
>
>Secondly, I have only been reading rec.arts.startrek.* for a little over
>a year, so that still leaves you, in your words, "on the trash heap".
>
>S. Kennedy
>
>--
For those that can't figure it out, the above was a tongue-in-cheek remark
in response to Roger's (?) kidding that I didn't know who he was.
I decided I'd better make that clear, after a number of email responses that
I should "chill out". If I was any more "chilled out" these days, I'd have
frostbite. :)