The Official Dorm-Rec Review of "A Fistful of Data's" (spoilers)
CATHERINE E. WARRICK
>
>
> The last thing we want to see is Troi saving Worf's ass. (Ok, maybe seeing
>Keiko saving Worf's ass would be pretty annoying also). That ranks right up
>there with Troi beating Data at chess. I mean, come on, really!
>
> If we're going to see someone in tight leather pants, what about Ro? Troi's
>butt is a little too volumeous for that.
>
> Is it just us, or can Crusher be a total bitch or what? Not only does she
>try to seduce Picard into accepting her little fantasy of a role, but she
>also has the audacity to suggest that she's superior, compared to Riker, when
>it comes to dramatic bullshit. We just don't think she makes a good director
>bitch.
>
Ok, you little pigs. I've sat here and read endless lines of ignorant,
obnoxious sexism, and finally I've had more than enough. You must have
realized from the responses to the last round of comments about Troi's figure
that some of us are offended by this. Obviously, you don't care. That being
the case, you deserve to be flamed until you're roasted well done. I shall
do so gleefully.
What's the problem, guys? Why does it bother you to see "Troi saving
Worf's ass", or Keiko, or Troi beating Data at chess? Why is Crusher, in
a rare authority role, "a total bitch"? Of course, female figures with
real authority are such a rarity on this show, I can understand your surprise.
But the junior-high level reactions are pitiful. I thought the show's
writers were often sexist, but you clowns could give them lessons. And no, I donot care if you were "just kidding." It's a nice excuse, but I'm not buying.
You know, if you talked about Geordi like this, on the grounds that he's black and you had a problem with black authority figures, you'd be slaughtered as
a bigot, and rightly so. This isn't much different. So grab a crowbar and
pry open your minds, you women-fearing morons.
Cathy I love e-mail, so go ahead, make my day.
Michael Rawdon
>In article <rawdon.7...@cs.wisc.edu> raw...@colby.cs.wisc.edu writes:
>>In <1992Nov14.210024.338@rivers> ph9991...@rivers.acc.uwrf.edu writes:
>>>Obviously your empire is something of a dictatorship....
>>>May I say that your review was one of the least intelligent I've ever
>>>read, not to mention extraordinarly sexist?
>>This from the person (and I use the term loosely) who, finding his
>>assertion that I simply can't accept that TNG could produce anything as
>>good as Classic Star Trek falling apart because I (gasp!) actually though
>>that TNG has produced some excellent episodes, states that my enjoyment of
>>those episodes must just be the exception that provies the rule.
>>So, regarding "intelligence": Physician, heal thyself!
>Regarding sexist -- GET OFF TROI'S BUTT!
>In your original article (I tried to reply to it, but my computer
>froze, sorry), you said that Troi's butt was too large for leather
>pants, and more things in that vien. Your sexism was so loud, we
>couldn't hear the rest of your commentary. Heal _thyself_, sir.
Excuse me, lady, but you should perhaps pay attention to just WHOM you are
accusing before you start flaming. I DID NOT write the original review
to which you refer. If you will take a few seconds yo go back and look at
it, you will see that it was written by myem...@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
(Matt J. Martin).
But I'm sure all the other "type-before-they-think" posters on the net enjoy
your contibution to their efforts.
Sheesh.
--
Michael Rawdon raw...@colby.cs.wisc.edu
University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Department, Madison, WI
"Can this world not do better than you for a champion?"
"Probably. I just do the best I can."
- The Brigadier
Doctor Who, "Battlefield"
[Probably misquoted]
Matt J. Martin
>
>Obviously your empire is something of a dictatorship....
>
>May I say that your review was one of the least intelligent I've ever
>read, not to mention extraordinarly sexist?
>
>
Aw, come on! A little facism every now and then is good for you.
And what's facism without sexism.
BTW, we're very pleased that a few people out there are taking our reviews
as seriously as we do.
##########################################################################
## / ## Progress Before Peace! ## / ##
## // ## Matt J. Martin, Technosociology and Space Politics ## // ##
## ///// ######################################################## ///// ##
## // ## Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN ## // ##
## / ## myem...@mentor.cc.purdue.edu ## / ##
##########################################################################
Matt J. Martin
>>
> Ok, you little pigs. I've sat here and read endless lines of ignorant,
>obnoxious sexism, and finally I've had more than enough. You must have
>realized from the responses to the last round of comments about Troi's figure
>that some of us are offended by this. Obviously, you don't care. That being
>the case, you deserve to be flamed until you're roasted well done. I shall
>do so gleefully.
Hang on there, sweetheart, who'se reactionary now?
> What's the problem, guys? Why does it bother you to see "Troi saving
>Worf's ass", or Keiko, or Troi beating Data at chess? Why is Crusher, in
>a rare authority role, "a total bitch"? Of course, female figures with
>real authority are such a rarity on this show, I can understand your surprise.
>But the junior-high level reactions are pitiful. I thought the show's
>writers were often sexist, but you clowns could give them lessons.
Being annoyed with Troi saving Worf's ass has nothing to do with sexism
and everything to do with Troi being spineless, jelly-fish, chocalate eclair,
post-industrial, last-modernist, introverted, pseudo-aware, psycho-babbling,
obvious-fact-stating, retro-asserting, window-dressing, pain-in-the-ass of
a charachter. She, as a character, has added nothing to the show but a
very tempting target for abuse. We hate her, a lot.
>And no, I donot care if you were "just kidding." It's a nice excuse, but I'm not buying.
Absolutely, we were not kidding. The last thing we want to be accused of
is harboring the very same attributes that caused us to criticize Troi in
the first place.
>You know, if you talked about Geordi like this, on the grounds that he's black and you had a problem with black authority figures, you'd be slaughtered as
>a bigot, and rightly so. This isn't much different.
Listen, the ST writers started this by putting various women in sexist roles.
If they hadn't put Sirtis in a costume that invites it, we would be in no
position to remark at the elephantive nature of her butt. In fact, the only
women who they've given a reasonable strong character, Ro, is immediately
cast in the role of the Ship Bitch, and we never see her anymore.
It seems to me that your accusation of judging people on the basis of their
gender is completely unwarrented. Mainly because I consider myself to be
superior to ALL other human beings, not just women. And my guess is so do you.
>So grab a crowbar and
>pry open your minds, you women-fearing morons.
>
I fear bad scripts more than I fear women. And I never met a woman that
was a match for me, in any area. Nope, no fear here. Thank you for playing,
please feel free to try again.
ph9991...@rivers.acc.uwrf.edu
> Hang on there, sweetheart, who'se reactionary now?
>
> and everything to do with Troi being spineless, jelly-fish, chocalate eclair,
> post-industrial, last-modernist, introverted, pseudo-aware, psycho-babbling,
> obvious-fact-stating, retro-asserting, window-dressing, pain-in-the-ass of
> a charachter. She, as a character, has added nothing to the show but a
> very tempting target for abuse. We hate her, a lot.
>
>
> is harboring the very same attributes that caused us to criticize Troi in
> the first place.
>
>
> If they hadn't put Sirtis in a costume that invites it, we would be in no
> position to remark at the elephantive nature of her butt. In fact, the only
> women who they've given a reasonable strong character, Ro, is immediately
> cast in the role of the Ship Bitch, and we never see her anymore.
>
> It seems to me that your accusation of judging people on the basis of their
> gender is completely unwarrented. Mainly because I consider myself to be
> superior to ALL other human beings, not just women. And my guess is so do you.
>
> was a match for me, in any area. Nope, no fear here. Thank you for playing,
> please feel free to try again.
>
>
> ## // ## Matt J. Martin, Technosociology and Space Politics ## // ##
> ## / ## myem...@mentor.cc.purdue.edu ## / ##
Let's see now....
1) These guys are raving idiots
2) They believe themselves superior to all women
3)_ They believe themselves superior to everyone else
4) They can't spell
5) They seem to be affiliated with the space program
6) They watch TNG
7) They're from Indiana
I think they're related to Dan Quayle....
What do you lot think?
Steven.K.Manfred
Louise Mahoney
A whole argument and counter-attack about sexism deleted
> I fear bad scripts more than I fear women. And I never met a woman that
>was a match for me, in any area. Nope, no fear here. Thank you for playing,
>please feel free to try again.
You almost had me rooting for you until this last little bit. Yes
I am a woman, and not a particularly screaming feminist. I agree
with your statements about Troi being motivated by your dislike
for the character/actor, BUT (not that kind of BUTT)
If you have never met a woman that was a match for you, in any area
You probably need to get out a little more.
Not a flame
Just an observation
Louise "no butt" Mahoney
Dave Schaumann
>And I never met a woman that was a match for me, in any area.
Don't get out much, you say?
>Nope, no fear here.
Yeah, right.
--
Dave Schaumann da...@cs.arizona.edu
Larry E. Snyder
>
> I think they're related to Dan Quayle....
> What do you lot think?
Nope. Al Gore.
>
>
> Steven.K.Manfred
>
>
>
>
>
>
Jeffrey S. Payne
Hmmm...let's ask dan...
"Mars is essentially in the same orbit...Mars is somewhat the same distance
from the sun, which is very important. We have seen pictures where there are
canals, we believe, and water. If there is water, that means there is oxygen.
If oxygen, that means we can breathe"
--Vice President Dan Quayle 8/11/89
(reported in Esquire, 8/92)
yup...to quote Georgie boy..."Ozone"
Jeff
Penn State Ogontz Campus |Bitnet: JSP6@PSUVM
Computer Assisted Learning Center |Internet: pa...@toto.oz.psu.edu
"What else have you done? Telekinesis? Teleportation? Spontaneous
combustion of someone you don't like? That sort of thing..."
-Q to Amanda in "True Q", ST-TNG
Anthony Gades
>In article <rawdon.7...@cs.wisc.edu> raw...@colby.cs.wisc.edu writes:
.
.
>
>Current clothing and beauty ideas are all geared towards the ideal
>that you seem to appreciate. You certainly have the right to your
>own tastes, but even though my butt is in all likelihood larger
>than Sirtis', I will continue to judge myself by _my_ body type,
>and not Cindy Crawfords.
>
which makes me glad that _you_ were not the one wearing the leather
pants on the episode.
-tony
Timothy James
>> Steven.K.Manfred
Somebody beam this raving republican into a bulkhead...
This is rec.arts.startrek.current
Not rec.arts.spell.potato.potatoe
Bring it somewhere else...
--
--------------
Timothy James McInerney
tmci...@feds26.Prime.com "I wanna decide who lives
nor...@wpi.wpi.edu and who dies" - Crow
Scott Smay
: I fear bad scripts more than I fear women. And I never met a woman that
: please feel free to try again.
Sounds like you need to get out of that boys' dorm room a little more often.
cheers,
scott
TJ Wood
> In article <BxsCF...@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, myempire@mentor (Matt J. Martin) writes:
>>And I never met a woman that was a match for me, in any area.
> Don't get out much, you say?
>>Nope, no fear here.
> Yeah, right.
Ha ha ha! THIS guy's posting will draw more followups than 100 postings
all saying that "Majel was married to Bill Shatner" or "Lost in Space was
better!" ;-)
Terry
--
INTERNET: tj...@pitt.edu BITNET: TJW@PITTVMS
"Laugh while you can, Monkey Boy!" - Lord "John" Warfin
"There can be only one!" - The Highlander
"There should have been only one. I want my money back!" - Terry
AMY E. ECKERT
Amy
CATHERINE E. WARRICK
> And I never met a woman that
>was a match for me, in any area. Nope, no fear here.
I can believe that. I've never met ANYONE who was a match for you. You are
without question the most obnoxious person on the net. And I say that
without any fear that I'll hurt your feelings, since you'll probably take it
as a compliment.
Cathy
Anthony Gades
I think that there are a few people that could stand to spend a few
evenings curled up in a nice warm blanket in front of the fire reading
the dictionary. However, I'll spare you all the effort:
Sexism. 1: prejudice or discrimination based on sex; esp: discrimination
against women. 2: behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster
stereotypes of social roles based on sex -- sexist.
I'd welcome an explanation as to why the comment above makes me sexist.
But I do think that the argument is moot.
Now, shallow _is_ quite a defensible position based on the comment above.
-tony
Matt J. Martin
managed to recapture the magic that is ST.
First of all, Troi wasn't in this episode very much at all, which pleased us
no end. She said very little and the things she did say weren't all that
stupid. You know, we've said it before and we'll say it again, we hate Troi.
A lot.
Geordi's beard is progressing well. We were a bit skeptical at first, but
it seems to be filling in quite nicely. And you know, it's a shame that they
couldn't finish the card game. Considering the odds against Crusher it should
have been an interesting game.
This week, Crusher's bitchliness was transfered to the evil Mining Doctor who,
by the way, was one of the most annoying one-show characters we've seen. First
she was evil to Geordi and kissed Data's ass, then she did a 180 and dug into
Data. She obviously forgot ST tenet #17, Data is always right. And throughout
the episode, she was a career minded, self-seeking opportunist, which would
normally be considered a positive boon. But in this episode, since she was
pitted against Data, this quality was just damned distrubing.
We were pleased to see that the good Doctor Crusher was able to redeem herself
this week by taking butt-kicking lessons from Worf and giving well-refined
wisdom to Data.
We saw a contradiction in the actions of the Mining Doctor when she proposed
that they cut the command pathways to keep the exocomps from protecting
themselves. To take away the exocomps' abilities to protect themselves is
to basically admit their sentience. Yet, after that suggestion, she
continued to maintain that the exocomps were mere machines.
We were genuinely pleased when Riker came up with a very good suggestion to
ask the exocomps if they would accept the mission. This represents a break
from his usual ethnocentric behavior. Bravo!
All in all, a very good episode. Of course, it simply doesn't compare with
the likes of Yesterday's Enterprise or The Defector, but definitely a highlight
for this season. We did notice, however, that the first half of the episode
moved rather slowly. They were rather pedantic in getting to the thrust of the
plot. Not to mention the idea of an unaccepted machine-come-alive is a rather
tired one. But after everything this season, we'll take what we can get.
The opinions expressed above are those of the Dorm-Rec alone and are subject
to change without notice.
Affectionately,
---
##########################################################################
## / ## The members of Dorm-Rec, from MyEmpire: ## / ##
## // ######################################################## // ##
## ///// ## Matt J. Martin, Mike Halter, Brian Sager ## ///// ##
## // ## Dave Robledo, and Mike Monahan ## // ##
Matt J. Martin
> You are
>without question the most obnoxious person on the net.
Why, thank you.
---
Marguerite Petersen
Right on, Sister!!!
While watching this episode my SO and two grown sons said to me
"Nice pants!"
"Maybe we should get you a pair like that for Xmas."
Made me feel pretty good, even if I don't have Troi's figure. :-)
Marg
--
*************************************************************************
"Insufficient facts always invites danger, Captain."- Spock in Space Seed
Marg Petersen pet...@jacobs.cs.orst.edu
*************************************************************************
Gerald W Katz
Hey, I'm getting tired of all this "am not" "are to" attitude
from both sides of this stupid argument.
The problem with Troi saving Worf isnot because Troi
is female, but because Worf is not the great warrior
he claims to be. In "Rascals"he misses an easy Ferengi target.
I can't remeber the episode,but Worf again misses and gets
hit by phaser.
In any case, everyone will be better off if they stop
looking at the race, gender, sexual orientation, religion,
of a person or character and except him/her as is.
For men:Don't assume because a woman saves a man implies
that "militant feminists" are out to get you.
For women:Taking politics as an example, don't assume that
just because a woman runs for office against a man
that she's the better person for the job.
It's the inside that counts.
Mike Monahan
constituents of the known universe that Tony has been selected as Official
Honorary Dorm Rec Member of the Month!!!
`
Congratulations Tony, on your unanimous selection as O.H.D.R.M.M.
Your free sample of Dorm Rec's own after shave, "I'm not a sexist,
but I smell like one," is in the mail! Enjoy!
Affectionately,
Michael J. Monahan
On behalf of Dorm Rec
--
The Analog Person (ana...@mentor.cc.purdue.edu)
Suffering is the origin of conciousness.- Dostoyevsky
I want to look at life, in the available light-Neil Peart
A little fascism every now and then is good for you!- Matt J. Martin
Thomas G. Kiefer
In article <BxuGy...@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> myem...@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Matt J. Martin) writes:
> This week, Crusher's bitchliness was transfered to the evil Mining Doctor who,
>by the way, was one of the most annoying one-show characters we've seen. First
>she was evil to Geordi and kissed Data's ass, then she did a 180 and dug into
>Data. She obviously forgot ST tenet #17, Data is always right. And throughout
>the episode, she was a career minded, self-seeking opportunist, which would
>normally be considered a positive boon. But in this episode, since she was
>pitted against Data, this quality was just damned distrubing.
So, again with the "serious/stubborn female = bitchy/evil female" stuff
again? (If this isn't your attitude, I wish you'd think about that before
posting this stuff.)
The Doctor actually seemed quite happy to show off her work to the
engineer in Geordi, especially the exocomps. She was proud of it.
Is that so horrible?
She was much more familiar with Data because she's studied him specifically
as the Android, felt like she know a fair amount about him, and was ever-
curious to know more. She later "dug into Data" because he suggested that
her exocomp tools might be living beings, and she didn't want that to be
(they were her super-tools, dammit, and could do wonders for her work!),
so she wasn't very open to his suggestion or his arguments. It's called
"stubborn", kind of like Picard got when Polasky told him he needed an
operation.
And I don't know how carreer-minded she was, but she was *very* into
and fascinated by her work, and she wanted to see it advanced and done.
Sounds like a dedicated (maybe a bit obsessed) scientist to me.
So, she was a very work-oriented scientist, and very stubborn. Would you
have called her "bitchy" and "evil" if the same character had been a man?
(Just a question -- but think about it before you answer. :)
> We were pleased to see that the good Doctor Crusher was able to redeem herself
>this week by taking butt-kicking lessons from Worf and giving well-refined
>wisdom to Data.
I was amazed at her having spent time combatting with Worf's. It took me a
moment to realize that was what they must have done, 'cause I wouldn't have
expected *any* of the medical officers particularly interested.
Question: were they using Worf's "calisthenics" program? I've only seen it
twice, but that's what came to mind (after a confused moment), and it seemed
to fit the discussion and clothes. But, if so, how come she got cut? Or do
the holodeck safeguards allow such minor injuries? (Hope it was on
beginner skill level!)
> We saw a contradiction in the actions of the Mining Doctor when she proposed
>that they cut the command pathways to keep the exocomps from protecting
>themselves. To take away the exocomps' abilities to protect themselves is
>to basically admit their sentience. Yet, after that suggestion, she
>continued to maintain that the exocomps were mere machines.
Contradiction if you don't think about it. She wanted to use the exocomps,
and they'd been having "problems" with the command pathways, and somebody
thought that they might be thinking and alive. So, cut off the command
pathways! Even if it's meaningless, it'll shut the bozos up and let her
use them.
[...]
> The opinions expressed above are those of the Dorm-Rec alone and are subject
>to change without notice.
Make it so. :)
--
======================================================
====> Thomas Kiefer <===> tho...@cco.caltech.edu <====
======================================================
Matt J. Martin
>"Quality of Life" spoilers below...
>(Refering to the Mining Doctor)
>So, again with the "serious/stubborn female = bitchy/evil female" stuff
>again? (If this isn't your attitude, I wish you'd think about that before
>posting this stuff.)
>
>And I don't know how carreer-minded she was, but she was *very* into
>and fascinated by her work, and she wanted to see it advanced and done.
>Sounds like a dedicated (maybe a bit obsessed) scientist to me.
>
>So, she was a very work-oriented scientist, and very stubborn. Would you
>have called her "bitchy" and "evil" if the same character had been a man?
>(Just a question -- but think about it before you answer. :)
>
No, you're right, we would've called him an evil bastard.
That fact of the matter is that she was a very poorly written character. She
placed herself in an adversarial role with whomever she happened to be speaking
with. Her consistenly defensive attitude betrayed a great deal of insecurity
and shallowness. Is it our fault that the writers made her female? (Would you
like us to refer to all annoying female characters as evil bastards? That would
be more politically correct.)
>(Refering to Crusher)
>I was amazed at her having spent time combatting with Worf's. It took me a
>moment to realize that was what they must have done, 'cause I wouldn't have
>expected *any* of the medical officers particularly interested.
>
I haven't met too many pacifist physicians, especially in the military.
>Question: were they using Worf's "calisthenics" program? I've only seen it
>twice, but that's what came to mind (after a confused moment), and it seemed
>to fit the discussion and clothes. But, if so, how come she got cut? Or do
>the holodeck safeguards allow such minor injuries? (Hope it was on
>beginner skill level!)
>
I don't think they were on the holodeck. It makes more sense to assume
that they were in the gym (or wherever that place is that Worf teaches his
marial arts classes), and that Worf himself caused the injury.
>
>(refering to the Mining Doctors suggestion to make the exocomps incapable of
>controling their own actions)
>Contradiction if you don't think about it. She wanted to use the exocomps,
>and they'd been having "problems" with the command pathways, and somebody
>thought that they might be thinking and alive. So, cut off the command
>pathways! Even if it's meaningless, it'll shut the bozos up and let her
>use them.
>
The contradiction lies in her suggesting a tactic that would only work if the
exocomps were "alive", and then still insisting that they weren't. If she did
believe that the tactic would work then she obviously must have accepted the
fact they were alive. And if that's the case, then she's immoral as well as
annoying.
>
>> The opinions expressed above are those of the Dorm-Rec alone and are subject
>>to change without notice.
>
>Make it so. :)
>--
>======================================================
>====> Thomas Kiefer <===> tho...@cco.caltech.edu <====
>======================================================
Frankly, Mr. Kiefer, I'm not too impressed by your countering our Holier-than-
thou attitude with a holier-than-thou attitude of your own. Fighting fire
with fire really isn't all that creative.
---
##########################################################################
## / ## Progress Before Peace! ## / ##
## // ## Matt J. Martin, Technosociology and Space Politics ## // ##
## ///// ######################################################## ///// ##
## // ## Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN ## // ##
Thomas G. Kiefer
>In article <1ebu55...@gap.caltech.edu> tho...@cco.caltech.edu (Thomas G. Kiefer) writes:
>>"Quality of Life" spoilers below...
>
>>(Refering to the Mining Doctor)
>>and fascinated by her work, and she wanted to see it advanced and done.
>>Sounds like a dedicated (maybe a bit obsessed) scientist to me.
>>
>>So, she was a very work-oriented scientist, and very stubborn. Would you
>>have called her "bitchy" and "evil" if the same character had been a man?
>>(Just a question -- but think about it before you answer. :)
>
> No, you're right, we would've called him an evil bastard.
Okay. Just checking (as I said it was "Just a question"). :)
> That fact of the matter is that she was a very poorly written character. She
>placed herself in an adversarial role with whomever she happened to be speaking
>with. Her consistenly defensive attitude betrayed a great deal of insecurity
>and shallowness. Is it our fault that the writers made her female? (Would you
>like us to refer to all annoying female characters as evil bastards? That would
>be more politically correct.)
I just don't see how her character being mostly adversarial and defensive
toward others implies that she was a "poorly written character". (I've met
plenty of real people who do this regularly.) I tried to explain in my
previous post why I thought her bahavior could be completely reasonable in
a certain type of character (maybe you should have actually READ it before
responding to it) -- one who was very involved (consumed?) in her work, who
had just invented these fantastically useful tools that could help her
complete her work so much faster, and suddenly along come these Federation
officers, one of whom tells her that her tools are living beings and
shouldn't be used for labor. She does not (want to?) believe this, but it
threatens her work, so OF COURSE she's defensive and insecure. Many
people in that position, male or female, would be.
And I don't recall her being perpetually adversarial/defensive "with whomever
she happened to be speaking with." She *was* somewhat defensive and insecure
whenever her own work and progress was being discussed (as some scientists/
researchers are), and increasingly so when her schedule or her use of the
exocomps was questioned.
And I don't care if you call 'em bastards or bitches -- same connotation.
As I said (twice now), I was just asking a question.
>>(Refering to Crusher)
>>I was amazed at her having spent time combatting with Worf's. It took me a
>>moment to realize that was what they must have done, 'cause I wouldn't have
>>expected *any* of the medical officers particularly interested.
>
> I haven't met too many pacifist physicians, especially in the military.
I didn't say that they were pacifist, just a little surprised that the Doc
would be interested in jumping right into Worf's (of all people's) workouts.
But then...
>>Question: were they using Worf's "calisthenics" program? I've only seen it
>>twice, but that's what came to mind (after a confused moment), and it seemed
>>to fit the discussion and clothes. But, if so, how come she got cut? Or do
>>the holodeck safeguards allow such minor injuries? (Hope it was on
>>beginner skill level!)
>
> I don't think they were on the holodeck. It makes more sense to assume
>that they were in the gym (or wherever that place is that Worf teaches his
>marial arts classes), and that Worf himself caused the injury.
...that makes sense, and it seems more believable that Crusher would try
this than jump into Worf's holodeck program.
>>(refering to the Mining Doctors suggestion to make the exocomps incapable of
>>controling their own actions)
>>Contradiction if you don't think about it. She wanted to use the exocomps,
>>and they'd been having "problems" with the command pathways, and somebody
>>thought that they might be thinking and alive. So, cut off the command
>>pathways! Even if it's meaningless, it'll shut the bozos up and let her
>>use them.
>
> The contradiction lies in her suggesting a tactic that would only work if the
>exocomps were "alive", and then still insisting that they weren't. If she did
>believe that the tactic would work then she obviously must have accepted the
>fact they were alive. And if that's the case, then she's immoral as well as
>annoying.
Grr. Did you read what I said above AT ALL? You certainly didn't address it,
so why did you respond? I'll try again.
It appeared that the only way to save Picard and LaForge was to send the
exocomps over on a "suicide" mission. Data firmly objected to this, as they
were sentient beings, and would probably refuse to endanger themselves,
anyway. Riker wasn't so sure about the sentience part, but insisted that
he'd rather risk the maybe-sentient exocomps than the two humans. Riker did
agree that their possible resistance and/or command-path problems (sentient
or no) could be a problem. The Doctor, frustrated at all this garbage about
her obviously non-sentient tools, said fine, we'll disconnect their command
pathways; will that make you happy? She wasn't necessarily agreeing with
anyone on the sentience argument; she simply wanted to END the argument for
now so she could send her tools over to save Picard and LaForge.
The tactic "would only work if the exocomps were 'alive'", as you said.
The doctor ardently disbelieved that they could be alive, but also figured
that disconnecting the command pathways wouldn't hurt anything, and actually
might bypass the command-path problems they *had* been having, and it would
take care of the "what if they resist?" worry the others had. She did not
suggest it because it would work, but because it would shut those damned
Federation officers up.
You might consider even that to be "immoral". But the alternative was to
allow two human beings (no argument over their sentience) to die. She chose
the tactic.
> Frankly, Mr. Kiefer, I'm not too impressed by your countering our Holier-than-
>thou attitude with a holier-than-thou attitude of your own. Fighting fire
>with fire really isn't all that creative.
Maybe you should actually try READING my posting before jumping all over it.
(Your posting above and your flaming e-mail suggest that you have not.) You
might discover that not everyone fires away as you have.
Mike Monahan
Yes, I'm sorry to say i wrote what appeared in that postin, and also a great deal more. Unfortunately, my terminal appears to be in the habit of
performing its own editing (maybe we sould sever the command pathways?)
I'll try again.
In article <1ee0sv...@gap.caltech.edu> tho...@cco.caltech.edu (Thomas G. Kiefer) writes:
>In article <Bxw65...@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> myem...@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Matt J. Martin) writes:
>>In article <1ebu55...@gap.caltech.edu> tho...@cco.caltech.edu (Thomas G. Kiefer) writes:
>>>"Quality of Life" spoilers below...
>>>>Contradiction if you don't think about it. She wanted to use the exocomps,
>>>>and they'd been having "problems" with the command pathways, and somebody
>>>>thought that they might be thinking and alive. So, cut off the command
>>>>pathways! Even if it's meaningless, it'll shut the bozos up and let her
>>>>use them.
>>>
>>> The contradiction lies in her suggesting a tactic that would only work if the
>>>exocomps were "alive", and then still insisting that they weren't. If she did
>>>believe that the tactic would work then she obviously must have accepted the
>>>fact they were alive. And if that's the case, then she's immoral as well as
>>>annoying.
>>
>>Grr. Did you read what I said above AT ALL? You certainly didn't address it,
>>so why did you respond? I'll try again.
Oh, thank you great sage.
Now let us examine your handywork.
>
>It appeared that the only way to save Picard and LaForge was to send the
>exocomps over on a "suicide" mission. Data firmly objected to this, as they
>were sentient beings, and would probably refuse to endanger themselves,
>anyway. Riker wasn't so sure about the sentience part, but insisted that
>he'd rather risk the maybe-sentient exocomps than the two humans. Riker did
>agree that their possible resistance and/or command-path problems (sentient
>or no) could be a problem. The Doctor, frustrated at all this garbage about
>her obviously non-sentient tools, said fine, we'll disconnect their command
>pathways; will that make you happy?
Excellent! You too have seen the episode. Congratulations.
>
>The tactic "would only work if the exocomps were 'alive'", as you said.
>The doctor ardently disbelieved that they could be alive, but also figured
>that disconnecting the command pathways wouldn't hurt anything, and actually
>might bypass the command-path problems they *had* been having, and it would
>take care of the "what if they resist?" worry the others had.
To quote the mighty sage: "...take care of the 'what if they resist' worry the others had." Does not resistance require an act of will? And
therefore an act of sentience??? Sorry, strike one.
> She did not
>suggest it because it would work, but because it would shut those damned
>Federation officers up.
To quote again: "She did not suggest it because it would work,..."
That's funny, it didn't seem to me she suggested it because it wouldn't work. I'm pretty she whe must have thought it would work. And therin lies the contradiction. Sorry, strike two.
Hmmmmm. Let's see. I don't recall the Dorm Rec questioning her motivesas regards the method of saving Picard and Laforge. So I will address your claim that no contradiction existed in her argument. I'll try to use small words and easy sentence structure so you'll be sure to understand this time.
Data claims that use of the Exocomps in the suggested manner will cause them to "turn themselves off." Here Mr. Data affirms his belief that the tiny
machines are sentient; for as I previously posited, terminating their own commands requires and act of will, etc.
The scientist's response is, as you already stated, that severing these neural pathways will prevent them from _SHUTTING THEMSELVES OFF_ and allow them to save Picard and Geordi. Now, despite our dissagreance as concerns her motives for suggesting this, one must admit that this solution assumes, a priori, sentience on the part of the Exocomps, and therefore contradicts her position that they are thoughtless machines.
Hence, surely even you can now see that in order for her to suggest severing the command pathways, she has to assume that the Exocomps are sentient,otherwise, there's no point in severing them. Therein lies the rub, if she claims to believe they are mere machines.
Strike Three! Yer' Out.
Once again, thank you for playing.
>
>Maybe you should actually try READING my posting before jumping all over it.
>(Your posting above and your flaming e-mail suggest that you have not.) You
>might discover that not everyone fires away as you have.
>--
>======================================================
>====> Thomas Kiefer <===> tho...@cco.caltech.edu <====
>======================================================
Thank you for the warning, Mr. Kiefer. Perhaps you should try some thought with your reading next time. It just might avoid these nasty
misunderstandings.
>
> Affectionately,
>
>
> Michael J. Monahan
> Member: Dorm Rec
Mike Monahan
>In article <Bxw65...@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> myem...@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Matt J. Martin) writes:
>>In article <1ebu55...@gap.caltech.edu> tho...@cco.caltech.edu (Thomas G. Kiefer) writes:
>>>"Quality of Life" spoilers below...
>>>and they'd been having "problems" with the command pathways, and somebody
>>>thought that they might be thinking and alive. So, cut off the command
>>>pathways! Even if it's meaningless, it'll shut the bozos up and let her
>>>use them.
>>
>> The contradiction lies in her suggesting a tactic that would only work if the
>>exocomps were "alive", and then still insisting that they weren't. If she did
>>believe that the tactic would work then she obviously must have accepted the
>>fact they were alive. And if that's the case, then she's immoral as well as
>>annoying.
>
>Grr. Did you read what I said above AT ALL? You certainly didn't address it,
>so why did you respond? I'll try again.
Oh, thank you great sage.
Now let us examine your handywork.
>
>It appeared that the only way to save Picard and LaForge was to send the
>exocomps over on a "suicide" mission. Data firmly objected to this, as they
>were sentient beings, and would probably refuse to endanger themselves,
>anyway. Riker wasn't so sure about the sentience part, but insisted that
>he'd rather risk the maybe-sentient exocomps than the two humans. Riker did
>agree that their possible resistance and/or command-path problems (sentient
>or no) could be a problem. The Doctor, frustrated at all this garbage about
>her obviously non-sentient tools, said fine, we'll disconnect their command
>pathways; will that make you happy?
Excellent! You too have seen the episode. Congratulations.
>
>The tactic "would only work if the exocomps were 'alive'", as you said.
>The doctor ardently disbelieved that they could be alive, but also figured
>that disconnecting the command pathways wouldn't hurt anything, and actually
>might bypass the command-path problems they *had* been having, and it would
>take care of the "what if they resist?" worry the others had.
To quote the mighty sage: "...take care of the 'what if they resist' worry the others had." Does not resistance require an act of will? And
therefore an act of sentience??? Sorry, strike one.
She did not
>suggest it because it would work, but because it would shut those damned
>Federation officers up.
To quote again: "She did not suggest it because it would work,..."
That's funny, it didn't seem to me she suggested it because it wouldn't work. I'm pretty she whe must have thought it would work. And therin lies the contradiction. Sorry, strike two.
Hmmmmm. Let's see. I don't recall the Dorm Rec questioning her motivesas regards the method of saving Picard and Laforge. So I will address your claim that no contradiction existed in her argument. I'll try to use small words and easy sentence structure so you'll be sure to understand this time.
Data claims that use of the Exocomps in the suggested manner will cause them to "turn themselves off." Here Mr. Data affirms his belief that the tiny
machines are sentient; for as I previously posited, terminating their own commands requires and act of will, etc.
The scientist's response is, as you already stated, that severing these neural pathways will prevent them from _SHUTTING THEMSELVES OFF_ and allow them to save Picard and Geordi. Now, despite our dissagreance as concerns her motives for suggesting this, one must admit that this solution assumes, a priori, sentience on the part of the Exocomps, and therefore contradicts her position that they are thoughtless machines.
Hence, surely even you can now see that in order for her to suggest severing the command pathways, she has to assume that the Exocomps are sentient,otherwise, there's no point in severing them. Therein lies the rub, if she claims to believe they are mere machines.
Strike Three! Yer' Out.
Once again, thank you for playing.
>Maybe you should actually try READING my posting before jumping all over it.
>(Your posting above and your flaming e-mail suggest that you have not.) You
>might discover that not everyone fires away as you have.
>--
>======================================================
>====> Thomas Kiefer <===> tho...@cco.caltech.edu <====
>======================================================
Thomas G. Kiefer
First of all, let's get straight that I am offering a *possible* alternate
explanation to the inconsistancy/hypocracy that you have complained about.
I thought that was clear before,...
> To quote the mighty sage: "...take care of the 'what if they resist'
>worry the others had." Does not resistance require an act of will? And
>therefore an act of sentience??? Sorry, strike one.
Resistance requires an act of will. She does not believe the exocomps have
such ability. Data does, and Riker isn't sure, and this is an obstacle to
using the exocomps. If she offers to sever the command pathways -- even if
she does not believe this will actually affect anything -- that might assuage
Data and Riker's concerns of possible exocomp resistance, and allow them to
move on. This would not imply that *she* is concerned about possible exocomp
resistance, but that Riker and Data are, and that she is trying to satisfy
them so that they will let her use the exocomps.
Make sense so far?
> To quote again: "She did not suggest it because it would work,..."
> That's funny, it didn't seem to me she suggested it because it wouldn't work. I'm pretty she whe must have thought it would work. And therin lies the contradiction. Sorry, strike two.
I don't know if she thought it would work or not, and neither do you.
(Unless your TV broadcasts telepathic views of the characters as well.)
We can only look and guess.
I'm not suggesting that she suggested it because she thought it would or
would not work as proposed. I'm suggesting that *maybe* she proposed it
because it would satisfy Data and Riker without actually affecting anything.
> Hmmmmm. Let's see. I don't recall the Dorm Rec questioning her motivesas regards the method of saving Picard and Laforge. So I will address your
>claim that no contradiction existed in her argument. I'll try to use small
>words and easy sentence structure so you'll be sure to understand this time.
Try to use the return key a little more often, too, eh? :)
> Data claims that use of the Exocomps in the suggested manner will cause them to "turn themselves off." Here Mr. Data affirms his belief that the tiny
>machines are sentient; for as I previously posited, terminating their own commands requires and act of will, etc.
> The scientist's response is, as you already stated, that severing these neural pathways will prevent them from _SHUTTING THEMSELVES OFF_ and allow them to save Picard and Geordi. Now, despite our dissagreance as concerns her
>motives for suggesting this, one must admit that this solution assumes,
>a priori, sentience on the part of the Exocomps, and therefore contradicts her position that they are thoughtless machines.
Her proposal assumes that she believes/hopes that *something* will be
acomplished by disconnecting the command pathways of the exocomps.
I am simply suggesting that it is POSSIBLE that she hoped it would
accomplish the relaxation of Data and Riker's concerns about using the
exocomps, preventing them from (if in fact they were capable of, as
Riker and Data seem to believe) turning themselves off. Not the she
necessarily did or did not believe in the exocomps ability and will to
turn themselves off, but that this suggestion might satisfy Riker enough
to allow her to use them.
Turned out that it worked for Riker, but not for Data...
> Hence, surely even you can now see that in order for her to suggest severing the command pathways, she has to assume that the Exocomps are sentient,otherwise, there's no point in severing them. Therein lies the rub, if she claims to believe they are mere machines.
> Strike Three! Yer' Out.
Surely even you can now see that there are other possible explanations.
She had to assume (since it seemed pretty obvious) that somebody making the
command decisions (Riker and Data) was concerned that the exocomps might be
alive, willful, and thus resistant. The "point in severing them" would in
this case have been to assuage Riker and Data's (baseless, in her opinion)
concerns as to the exocomps sentience and will.
She does not have to agree with Riker and Data's concerns in order to
suggest something (which will affect nothing, in her opinion) to negate
their concerns.
> Once again, thank you for playing.
Good thing your game does not require (in fact prohibits) imagination...
Mike Hollander
> I fear bad scripts more than I fear women. And I never met a woman that
>was a match for me, in any area. Nope, no fear here. Thank you for playing,
>please feel free to try again.
>
Areas in which no woman is a match for Matt J. Martin:
- sexism
- obnoxiousness
- obsequiousness
- stupidity
- arrogance
- etc.
Female readers of r.a.s.c.: Rest assured that some of us males do
not disagree with the concepts of women in authority roles, women
rescuing men, women beating men in intellectual recreational
activities, etc. I for one would like to see more of it.
Star Trek has always tried to show that men and women should be
treated equally where it comes to these abilities, which is one
of the prime reasons I'm such a fan.
Mike Hollander | mi...@nttor.UUCP
MICHAEL LAUREN SHERMAN
fer) writes:
>"Quality of Life" spoilers below...
>
>
t J. Martin) writes:
>> This week, Crusher's bitchliness was transfered to the evil Mining Doctor wh
o,
>>by the way, was one of the most annoying one-show characters we've seen. Firs
t
>>she was evil to Geordi and kissed Data's ass, then she did a 180 and dug into
>>Data. She obviously forgot ST tenet #17, Data is always right. And throughou
Not true, in the episode where they kept doing the same thing again and again
to save money on film or writers Data is specifically wrong, that was the
problem, Picard assumed Data, not Will was correct despite the fact that Will
out ranks Data. See what happens when we put too much trusts in machines, do
things as people.
>>the episode, she was a career minded, self-seeking opportunist, which would
>>normally be considered a positive boon. But in this episode, since she was
>>pitted against Data, this quality was just damned distrubing.
>
>So, again with the "serious/stubborn female = bitchy/evil female" stuff
>again? (If this isn't your attitude, I wish you'd think about that before
>posting this stuff.)
>
>The Doctor actually seemed quite happy to show off her work to the
>engineer in Geordi, especially the exocomps. She was proud of it.
>Is that so horrible?
>
>She was much more familiar with Data because she's studied him specifically
>as the Android, felt like she know a fair amount about him, and was ever-
>curious to know more. She later "dug into Data" because he suggested that
>her exocomp tools might be living beings, and she didn't want that to be
>(they were her super-tools, dammit, and could do wonders for her work!),
>so she wasn't very open to his suggestion or his arguments. It's called
>"stubborn", kind of like Picard got when Polasky told him he needed an
>operation.
>
>And I don't know how carreer-minded she was, but she was *very* into
>and fascinated by her work, and she wanted to see it advanced and done.
>Sounds like a dedicated (maybe a bit obsessed) scientist to me.
>
>So, she was a very work-oriented scientist, and very stubborn. Would you
>have called her "bitchy" and "evil" if the same character had been a man?
>(Just a question -- but think about it before you answer. :)
>
>
>> We were pleased to see that the good Doctor Crusher was able to redeem herse
lf
>>this week by taking butt-kicking lessons from Worf and giving well-refined
>>wisdom to Data.
>
>I was amazed at her having spent time combatting with Worf's. It took me a
>moment to realize that was what they must have done, 'cause I wouldn't have
>expected *any* of the medical officers particularly interested.
>
>Question: were they using Worf's "calisthenics" program? I've only seen it
>twice, but that's what came to mind (after a confused moment), and it seemed
>to fit the discussion and clothes. But, if so, how come she got cut? Or do
>the holodeck safeguards allow such minor injuries? (Hope it was on
>beginner skill level!)
>
>
>> We saw a contradiction in the actions of the Mining Doctor when she proposed
>>that they cut the command pathways to keep the exocomps from protecting
>>themselves. To take away the exocomps' abilities to protect themselves is
>>to basically admit their sentience. Yet, after that suggestion, she
>>continued to maintain that the exocomps were mere machines.
>
>Contradiction if you don't think about it. She wanted to use the exocomps,
>and they'd been having "problems" with the command pathways, and somebody
>thought that they might be thinking and alive. So, cut off the command
>pathways! Even if it's meaningless, it'll shut the bozos up and let her
>use them.
>
>
>[...]
>> The opinions expressed above are those of the Dorm-Rec alone and are subject
>>to change without notice.
>
>Make it so. :)
>--
>======================================================
>====> Thomas Kiefer <===> tho...@cco.caltech.edu <====
>======================================================
>
--
MICHAEL LAUREN SHERMAN
758-0207
MLSA
"I really do appreciate the fact you're sitting here, you're voice sounds so
wonderful but your face don't look too clear so barmaid bring a pitcher,
another round of brew, why don't we get drunk and screw?"- J. Buffett