Richard Arnold, Gene Roddenberry

40 views
Skip to first unread message

Atsushi Kanamori

unread,
May 30, 1991, 1:53:26 PM5/30/91
to
In article <27...@ttardis.UUCP> d...@ttardis.UUCP (Dave Lillard) writes:
>The Postponement/Cancellation? of the Chicago Show this weekend has me
>REALLY bummed out - so...

Clearly...

>
>FLAME ON!
>
>What a bunch of (expletive deleted) so many of you are!
>
>For better or worse, some of us have paid our dues. I am one who has
>paid his dues - and THEN SOME. So, I believe, has Richard Arnold.
>
>Were YOU active in fandom nearly 20 years ago?
>
>Did YOU spend any/much time working for the return of a television show
>that for/in its era was a welcome relief from the drivel that was offered?
>
>Richard Arnold & I - along with THOUSANDS of others - did!

Ahem... since you insist on putting yourself up on a pedestal
above the rest of us, may I inquire as to what your exact contribution
to Trekdom is? Are you a writer? Producer? Makeup-man? What is your
professional connection with Star Trek?

Other than "spending time working for the return of [Star Trek]" (what
does that mean, you wrote letters to the studio?), what qualifies you
to dictate to the rest of us? Don't bother quoting 20 years of seniority ---
I don't recognize that as qualification.

>Do you OWN Star Trek? NO! Paramount Studios does.
>Do you have CONTROL of Star Trek? NO! Gene Roddenberry does.
>Do you WORK for Gene Roddenberry? NO! Richard Arnold does.
>I do NOT like what has/is being done with Star Trek. Mr. Roddenberry
>knows this. Does he care? NO! Richard Arnold knows this, also. Does HE
>care? Probably not. But what if he did? He ONLY works for Gene; he
>doesn't MAKE policy, he ENFORCES it.

What's your point?


>In all my dealings with Richard, he has always treated me with courtesy
>and respect. Both 20 years ago AND today. Perhaps a part of this is
>because we share a part of Trek History. Perhaps a part of this is because
>he knows that this is how I EXPECT to be treated - as a BUSINESSMAN, in a
>BUSINESSLIKE manor. Perhaps a part of this is because, to my knowledge,
>I have never given him ANY reason to treat me in any other way.

Including criticizing the current state of Star Trek? This isn't meant
to be sarcastic --- I'm still trying to figure the point of this paragraph.


>On this Net I have seen messages from people who have never had any dealings
>with Richard try to put him down. I have seen suggestions as to what he
>can do to certain parts of his anatomy - even what to "shove" into an
>orrifice. By WHAT RIGHT do you do this?!

It's called freedom of speech.


>If you don't like what you see on tv, DON'T WATCH IT!
If you don't like what's said about RA, DON'T READ IT!

>If you don't like what gets printed, DON'T READ IT!
If you don't like what's said about RA, DON'T READ IT!

>If you think you can do better, then DO IT! (I'm working on it)
I never said I could do better. I don't feel qualified to run this
country either but that doesn't mean I'm not going to criticize George
Bush when I feel its merited.


>Review it, YES!
>Criticize it, YES!
>Express yourself, oh YES!!!
>But DON'T just sit back in your Ivory Tower & CONDEMN. You haven't
>earned the right.

In this country, freedom of speech doesn't have to be earned.


>YOU HAVEN'T PAID YOUR DUES !!!!!!!
>Come to think of it, even I haven't paid that much.

In that case, why put yourself up on a pedestal?

>
>Flame Off

Likewise.

. . . .
: : : :. : : :.. .: : . : .: . ..
::::::::::.: :::::::.::::::?::::.:::
------------ ---------------------------------------------------------
TNG Lifelines: From "Yesterday's Enterprise" To "The Host" - "Sometimes,
I wish you weren't so... empathic." -- Dr. Crusher

Timothy W. Lynch

unread,
May 30, 1991, 2:02:26 PM5/30/91
to
I've taken r.a.comics out of the Newsgroups line because I have no idea why
it was even in there in the first place.

Dave Lillard writes:

>FLAME ON!

>What a bunch of (expletive deleted) so many of you are!

I can only assume that I'm included in this list, as I've voiced rather
strong criticism of RA in the past.

>For better or worse, some of us have paid our dues. I am one who has
>paid his dues - and THEN SOME. So, I believe, has Richard Arnold.

>Were YOU active in fandom nearly 20 years ago?

No. I was busy being a year old at the time.

>Did YOU spend any/much time working for the return of a television show
>that for/in its era was a welcome relief from the drivel that was offered?

>Richard Arnold & I - along with THOUSANDS of others - did!

Congratulations. That doesn't give you the right to step on writers who are
trying to keep their work intact.

>Do you OWN Star Trek? NO! Paramount Studios does.

Correct.

>Do you have CONTROL of Star Trek? NO! Gene Roddenberry does.

Correct.

>Do you WORK for Gene Roddenberry? NO! Richard Arnold does.

Possibly correct. From all appearances and reports, Gene is not very active
in Trek these days, and Richard has more or less taken to handing down rulings
claiming Gene-given rights and opinions, when at least with a few novels,
Gene has _directly_ contradicted Richard's objections.

>I do NOT like what has/is being done with Star Trek. Mr. Roddenberry
>knows this. Does he care? NO! Richard Arnold knows this, also. Does HE
>care? Probably not. But what if he did? He ONLY works for Gene; he
>doesn't MAKE policy, he ENFORCES it.

See my above paragraph. He *IS* the one making policy insofar as the
novels and other licensed materials are concerned. If Gene Himself were
doing it, and Richard truly were only a spokesman, I'd be depressed at the
actions being taken but a lot less vocal about it, because it is, after all,
Gene's baby. It is NOT Richard's creation, yet he acts as though he's the only
one who knows what's right for Trek.

I prefer to make my own decisions about what's good and what's not, without
having Richard tell me in advance. If you want to be told what to think, suit
yourself.

>In all my dealings with Richard, he has always treated me with courtesy
>and respect. Both 20 years ago AND today. Perhaps a part of this is
>because we share a part of Trek History. Perhaps a part of this is because
>he knows that this is how I EXPECT to be treated - as a BUSINESSMAN, in a
>BUSINESSLIKE manor.

-----

Nice house. :-)

>Perhaps a part of this is because, to my knowledge,
>I have never given him ANY reason to treat me in any other way.

I had never given Richard reason to treat me with disrespect either, and I've
perceived nothing but contempt on his part--both for the fans, and for the
novelists and comic writers. Have you been reading anything about exactly what
Richard has DONE over the past 12 months, or have you been too busy foaming at
the mouth to realize that there are legitimate issues of creative freedom being
raised?

>On this Net I have seen messages from people who have never had any dealings
>with Richard try to put him down.

You have no idea whether the posters have had dealings with Richard or not.
Careful with your assumptions.

>I have seen suggestions as to what he
>can do to certain parts of his anatomy - even what to "shove" into an
>orrifice. By WHAT RIGHT do you do this?!

I don't know. I don't get downright nasty with him, although I see no reason
why I cannot object very strongly to his actions. I consider him part of the
problem, and until he gives me reason to think otherwise, I shall continue to
speak out against his iron hand.

>If you don't like what you see on tv, DON'T WATCH IT!

Richard has no control over TNG, so I don't know what the hell you're talking
about.

>If you don't like what gets printed, DON'T READ IT!

I have recently ceased to read the novels and comics, due directly to Richard's
interference. I have written both DC Comics and Paramount licensing telling
them this in great detail. Does that satisfy your above demand?

>But DON'T just sit back in your Ivory Tower & CONDEMN. You haven't
>earned the right.

I can condemn anything I bloody well like. Who are you to claim that we have
no basis for complaint? Just because you apparently think Richard is justified
in all his heavy-handed actions doesn't make you, or him, correct. I'm not
sitting back in my ivory tower--I've been acting very openly against Richard in
the past 6 months, ever since he railroaded Peter David off the comic in
early November. I have organized letter campaigns, written more than a few
letters myself, and generally tried to keep people informed of the internal
behind-the-scenes wrangling over various novels and comics that have great
difficulty seeing print simply because Richard Arnold doesn't like them.

Don't tell me I haven't earned the right to speak. You haven't earned the
right to condemn me.

Tim Lynch (Cornell's first Astronomy B.A.; one of many Caltech grad students)
BITNET: tlynch@citjuliet
INTERNET: tly...@juliet.caltech.edu
UUCP: ...!ucbvax!tlynch%juliet.ca...@hamlet.caltech.edu
"Between the pen and the paperwork, I know there's passion in the language.
Between the muscle and the brainwork, there must be feeling in the pipeline..."
--Suzanne Vega, "Big Space"

The Conty

unread,
May 30, 1991, 3:07:03 PM5/30/91
to
In article <27...@ttardis.UUCP>, d...@ttardis.UUCP (Dave Lillard) writes:
> The Postponement/Cancellation? of the Chicago Show this weekend has me
> REALLY bummed out - so...
>
> FLAME ON!

[Some truly obscure diatribe apparently defending someone called "Richard
Arnold" (who works for Gene Roddenberry) deleted.]

> TANSTAAFL (Look it up)

Where? (What does the acronym mean anyway?)

> Flame Off

Who is Richard Arnold? And what does he have to do with comic books (I'm
posting from rec.arts.comics).
--
E n r i q u e C o n t y
The Amazing Man-With-No-Life
jes...@ihlpl.att.com

Dave Schaumann

unread,
May 30, 1991, 9:01:17 PM5/30/91
to
In article <1991May30....@cbnewsl.att.com>, conty@cbnewsl (The Conty) writes:
>[Some truly obscure diatribe apparently defending someone called "Richard
>Arnold" (who works for Gene Roddenberry) deleted.]
>
>> TANSTAAFL (Look it up)
>
>Where? (What does the acronym mean anyway?)

I'm not sure where I'd look it up if I didn't know... But it was
coined by R. A. Heinlein, and it stands for

There Aint No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.

Catchy, huh?

Dave Schaumann | There is no cause so right that one cannot find a fool
da...@cs.arizona.edu | following it. - Niven's Law # 16

r.l.taylor

unread,
May 30, 1991, 3:39:51 PM5/30/91
to
In article <27...@ttardis.UUCP> d...@ttardis.UUCP (Dave Lillard) writes:

>For better or worse, some of us have paid our dues. I am one who has
>paid his dues - and THEN SOME. So, I believe, has Richard Arnold.

I'm sorry, but I don't recognize your name. Would you care to elaborate
on your contribution to "Trek History"?

>Were YOU active in fandom nearly 20 years ago?

Yup. Heck, I was one of the original fans *25* years ago. So what?

>Did YOU spend any/much time working for the return of a television show
>that for/in its era was a welcome relief from the drivel that was offered?

Yup.

>Richard Arnold & I - along with THOUSANDS of others - did!

And I'm one of those thousands. So? I still don't like Richard Arnold.

>I do NOT like what has/is being done with Star Trek. Mr. Roddenberry
>knows this. Does he care? NO! Richard Arnold knows this, also. Does HE
>care? Probably not. But what if he did? He ONLY works for Gene; he
>doesn't MAKE policy, he ENFORCES it.

Does Richard respect the fans, whether or not they like what's being done
with StarTrek? Sure doesn't seem that way. But what if he did? He could
use a little diplomacy when talking to fans - but perhaps that's too much
to ask? Heck, most of us are intelligent enough to realize that somebody
has to call the shots, and that it's impossible to please everybody all the
time...Wouldn't it make more sense for him to reiterate that fact, rather
than keep quoting the "Gene's Sandbox" story everytime somebody expresses
dissatisfaction with the way the show is progressing?

>In all my dealings with Richard, he has always treated me with courtesy
>and respect. Both 20 years ago AND today. Perhaps a part of this is
>because we share a part of Trek History. Perhaps a part of this is because
>he knows that this is how I EXPECT to be treated - as a BUSINESSMAN, in a
>BUSINESSLIKE manor.

As businessmen, both you and Richard should realize that ST:TNG is a
product being sold (hopefully) to a large set of customers (fans). If
Richard chooses to talk down and insult the fans at conventions, and
make his low opinion of the fans in general, known, it is to be expected
that sales (ratings) may drop. Enough of this, and he and Gene can
console each other on the unemployment line. Even if he thinks the fans
are the biggest dweebs to ever claim sentience, he should have the common
sense not to show it. Of course, it would be nice if he had a little
courtesy, or (dare I suggest it?) respect for the fans, but that seems
to be too much to ask.

>Perhaps a part of this is because, to my knowledge,
>I have never given him ANY reason to treat me in any other way.

Please explain to me how the average fan or first-time convention-goer
has given him reason to insult them, and talk down to them as though they
were a lower life-form?

>On this Net I have seen messages from people who have never had any dealings
>with Richard try to put him down.

I'll admit that my personal dealings with Richard are limited to listening
to him at conventions. And his disdain for the audience was plain enough
that I have no intention of doing so again. I have also heard a number of
accounts of people who *have* had dealings with him, and have good reason
to put him down, but I don't need their experience to dislike him. Listening
to him at a single convention was more than enough to extablish my opinion
of him. If he changes his attitude, I'll re-think my opinion.

>I have seen suggestions as to what he
>can do to certain parts of his anatomy - even what to "shove" into an
>orrifice. By WHAT RIGHT do you do this?!

Freedom of speech? Personally, I don't generally make such suggestions
to anybody...but then, I don't generally post messages telling the whole
r.a.s. group that they have no right to express feelings with which I
disagree...

>Express yourself, oh YES!!!

>But DON'T just sit back in your Ivory Tower & CONDEMN. You haven't
>earned the right.

Have I earned the right to be treated with respect by people like
Richard? I certainly think so.

>YOU HAVEN'T PAID YOUR DUES !!!!!!!

I don't have to pay dues - I'm a customer, not a club member.


---
Roberta Taylor <>< | You let me sing a song for you every now and then,
AT&T Bell Laboratories | But I'm asking you, when are you gonna listen?
Whippany, NJ | You say I never sing about anyone but Jesus
tay...@homxa.att.com | Well, that's because Jesus is my song. ---Anne Herring

Michael L. Kaufman

unread,
May 30, 1991, 7:21:07 PM5/30/91
to
In article <1991May30....@cbnewsl.att.com> co...@cbnewsl.att.com (The Conty) writes:
>In article <27...@ttardis.UUCP>, d...@ttardis.UUCP (Dave Lillard) writes:
>> TANSTAAFL (Look it up)
>Where? (What does the acronym mean anyway?)

Thsi is from Robert A. Hienlien's book _The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_. It
means, "There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch". I highly recomend this
book. It is, IMHO, one of the five best SF books ever.

Michael

--
Michael Kaufman | I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on
kaufman | fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in
@eecs.nwu.edu | the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be
| lost in time - like tears in rain. Time to die. Roy Batty

Pisces

unread,
May 30, 1991, 7:19:53 PM5/30/91
to

Some moron writes:

>On this Net I have seen messages from people who have never had any dealings

>with Richard try to put him down. I have seen suggestions as to what he


>can do to certain parts of his anatomy - even what to "shove" into an
>orrifice. By WHAT RIGHT do you do this?!
>

>YOU HAVEN'T PAID YOUR DUES !!!!!!!


To tell the truth, I don't buy it, I don't watch it, and I DO
criticize it.

AS for Richard, I find him and Gene to be moralless profiteers
who would rather make a buck than make a stand.

I, sir, don't have to pay my dues. I find Star Trek to be one
of the worse promoters of the While, Male, Heterosexual and
Christian Elite, of an agenda of Cultural Primacy worse than any other
force of the media.

When it comes down to actual facts, under the guise of "pro-choice",
"child abuse" "sexism" and "racism", Gene and Richard have only placated
both sides of the issues rather than taking a strong stance.

No women, no non-white males are in a leadership roles nor non-
traditional roles. No people have been shown to be openly gay ( I guess
Gene's found a "cure" much like what Hitler did -- and the "the Host"
proves that he doesn't approve same-sex relationships.)

Until we prove ourselves different, we are all guilty. Of greed. Of
prejudice. Of making a mockery of the Ten Commandments. If you
don't believe: seriously sit down, ask yourself what are "morals" and then
wonder about the word "compromise." Hypocracy is our enemy. Even more
so for Americans for our willingness to become complacent.

Rorschock has proven what happens to us if we never compromise --
we will die. Therefore to continue living, we are all guilty of something.
Gene and Richard, no matter how well they have treated you, have done nothing
to impress me, and if I hold contempt for them, then I hold contempt for
them. That is not on your conscience.

Senator Robert Kelly (NM - L)
rke...@triton.unm.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-To speak is to lie-
-To live is to collaborate-
-Anybody is a coward when faced by the nova ovens-
William S. Burroughs, _Nova__Express_

Dan Meltz

unread,
May 30, 1991, 6:39:13 PM5/30/91
to

From a previous article:
{
TANSTAAFL (Look it up)

Flame Off


/------------------------------------------------------------------------\
| |
| Dave Lillard - Adrift on the Matmoss of Life. |
| |
| Path: sharkey.cc.umich.edu!cfctech!ttardis!dwl |
| SnailMail: 21111 Mapleridge, Southfield, MI 48075-5752 |
| Voice: (313) 355-2003 |
\------------------------------------------------------------------------/
}


ummm, Dave, the rest of your article is your own business [i have never heard of Richard Arnold, so i can not speak of him one way or another, but i tend
to agree with you.] .
However the "TANSTAAFL (Look it up)" is a bit much. i doubt it is in most
dictionaries. For those of you out there in net.ville who don't know it
means, [as far as i know] :


There
Ain't
No
Such
Thing
As
A
Free
Lunch

[read along the left most collumn, if vi has not buttf-cked me yet again.

bye

dan

Mutant for Hire

unread,
May 30, 1991, 6:40:21 PM5/30/91
to
In article <27...@ttardis.UUCP> d...@ttardis.UUCP (Dave Lillard) writes:
>I do NOT like what has/is being done with Star Trek. Mr. Roddenberry
>knows this. Does he care? NO! Richard Arnold knows this, also. Does HE
>care? Probably not. But what if he did? He ONLY works for Gene; he
>doesn't MAKE policy, he ENFORCES it.

Wonderful, and that makes it correct? Besides, are you sure that all
of the nasty things that have been done to the various realms of Trek are
solely due to Gene Roddenberry? I've talked to and read stuff done by
various contributors to Trek, and they all seem to single out Arnold and
not Roddenberry.

>In all my dealings with Richard, he has always treated me with courtesy
>and respect. Both 20 years ago AND today. Perhaps a part of this is
>because we share a part of Trek History. Perhaps a part of this is because
>he knows that this is how I EXPECT to be treated - as a BUSINESSMAN, in a

>BUSINESSLIKE manor. Perhaps a part of this is because, to my knowledge,


>I have never given him ANY reason to treat me in any other way.

Very well, he's treated you nicely, but we're not talking about him as
a person, we're talking about the work he's done. Also, his demeanor
may be professional, but I am looking at his judgements, not how he
presents his judgements.

>On this Net I have seen messages from people who have never had any dealings
>with Richard try to put him down. I have seen suggestions as to what he
>can do to certain parts of his anatomy - even what to "shove" into an
>orrifice. By WHAT RIGHT do you do this?!

Well, there's this little thing called freedom of speech, where we have
the right to disagree with people we think are doing a bad job. Granted,
sometimes our frustration level rises to the point where we use colorful
metaphors, but we still have the right to say that we think Richard
is doing awful things.

>If you don't like what you see on tv, DON'T WATCH IT!

>If you don't like what gets printed, DON'T READ IT!

>If you think you can do better, then DO IT! (I'm working on it)

Look, the minute Peter David left the Star Trek comic book, I stopped
collecting it. But I would really like to read a good Star Trek comic
book, I'd like to read nicely written Star Trek stories. And this doesn't
mean going over my collection of old material, I'd like to see good new
material come out, but Paramount has been doing its level best to confuse
the whole subject.


>
>Review it, YES!
>Criticize it, YES!

>Express yourself, oh YES!!!
>But DON'T just sit back in your Ivory Tower & CONDEMN. You haven't
>earned the right.

We have been expressing ourselves, but you seem to be condemning it.
We do not like what has been happening to various events in the Star
Trek comics and books, for both old series and new series realms. All
the writers who have been complaining have been pointing to a single
target for their frustration, and naturally we sympathetic readers
go along with their judgements.

>YOU HAVEN'T PAID YOUR DUES !!!!!!!

And how, pray tell, does one pay ones dues? And even if one has paid
one's dues, doest that give that person the right to rain on everyone
else's parade? "He's done long hard work, that gives him the right to
go and piss everyone else off" Sorry, no one is that hot.

Martin Terman mfte...@phoenix.princeton.edu mfte...@pucc.bitnet
Disclaimer: No sane being would believe what I say, but then this *is*
the Net so I make no claims about any of my readership out there.
"I'm just waiting for the day Political Correctness becomes non-PC." --MFTerman

Dave Lillard

unread,
May 30, 1991, 3:59:55 AM5/30/91
to
The Postponement/Cancellation? of the Chicago Show this weekend has me
REALLY bummed out - so...

FLAME ON!

What a bunch of (expletive deleted) so many of you are!

For better or worse, some of us have paid our dues. I am one who has


paid his dues - and THEN SOME. So, I believe, has Richard Arnold.

Were YOU active in fandom nearly 20 years ago?

Did YOU spend any/much time working for the return of a television show


that for/in its era was a welcome relief from the drivel that was offered?

Richard Arnold & I - along with THOUSANDS of others - did!

Do you OWN Star Trek? NO! Paramount Studios does.

Do you have CONTROL of Star Trek? NO! Gene Roddenberry does.

Do you WORK for Gene Roddenberry? NO! Richard Arnold does.

I do NOT like what has/is being done with Star Trek. Mr. Roddenberry


knows this. Does he care? NO! Richard Arnold knows this, also. Does HE
care? Probably not. But what if he did? He ONLY works for Gene; he
doesn't MAKE policy, he ENFORCES it.

In all my dealings with Richard, he has always treated me with courtesy


and respect. Both 20 years ago AND today. Perhaps a part of this is
because we share a part of Trek History. Perhaps a part of this is because
he knows that this is how I EXPECT to be treated - as a BUSINESSMAN, in a
BUSINESSLIKE manor. Perhaps a part of this is because, to my knowledge,
I have never given him ANY reason to treat me in any other way.

On this Net I have seen messages from people who have never had any dealings


with Richard try to put him down. I have seen suggestions as to what he
can do to certain parts of his anatomy - even what to "shove" into an
orrifice. By WHAT RIGHT do you do this?!

If you don't like what you see on tv, DON'T WATCH IT!

If you don't like what gets printed, DON'T READ IT!

If you think you can do better, then DO IT! (I'm working on it)

Review it, YES!

Criticize it, YES!

Express yourself, oh YES!!!

But DON'T just sit back in your Ivory Tower & CONDEMN. You haven't
earned the right.

YOU HAVEN'T PAID YOUR DUES !!!!!!!

Come to think of it, even I haven't paid that much.

TANSTAAFL (Look it up)

The Napoleon of Crime

unread,
May 31, 1991, 3:12:21 AM5/31/91
to
In <27...@ttardis.UUCP> d...@ttardis.UUCP (Dave Lillard) writes:
>YOU HAVEN'T PAID YOUR DUES !!!!!!!

Damn straight! They haven't *fought* for Star Trek! They haven't *wounded*
for Star Trek! They haven't *gouged* for Star Trek! Hell, most of these
guys went to college so they could avoid watching the show!

Yes, I can still remember those brave pioneers, the blood of their fellows
spilling out over the merchandising tables and cardboard boxes full of Trek
fanzines, willing to shed blood and rend flesh (and synthetic wax pointed
ears) for the most justifiable of all causes: a television program.

(Excuse me, a television program in syndication.)

Put 'em right next to the Tiananmen Square martyrs. Really, guys, we're
working on a big black memorial for you over near the original Desilu sound
stage, with their names, age and favorite trek episode enscribed in a
14-point Helvetica font.

----
Hee hee hee! Just when I thought the net is losing it's sense of humor,
something like this comes out.

"It appears, Captain, that
you have irritated the
head of a people widely
regarded as fanatics."
"Call it a knack."

Moriarty, aka Jeff Meyer
INTERNET: mori...@tc.fluke.COM
Manual UUCP: {uunet, uw-beaver, sun, microsoft, hplsla}!fluke!moriarty
CREDO: You gotta be Cruel to be Kind...
<*> DISCLAIMER: Do what you want with me, but leave my employers alone! <*>

Tom Galloway

unread,
May 30, 1991, 5:54:41 PM5/30/91
to
In article <1991May30....@cbnewsl.att.com>, co...@cbnewsl.att.com (The Conty) writes:
> In article <27...@ttardis.UUCP>, d...@ttardis.UUCP (Dave Lillard) writes:
> > TANSTAAFL (Look it up)
>
> Where? (What does the acronym mean anyway?)

It originated in The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress by Robert A. Heinlein (highly
recommended btw) and stands for There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.

> Who is Richard Arnold? And what does he have to do with comic books (I'm
> posting from rec.arts.comics).

Actually, a fair amount. From accounts, it appears that Richard Arnold was
pretty directly responsible for Peter David leaving the Star Trek comic
book. This was due to his weekly flip-flops making it impossible to write
the book; one week it was "You can only use aliens from the show", the next
"Why don't you show some originality and make up some new aliens?". The last
straw appears to be when he vetoed a time travel story on the grounds that
it was "too complicated" for the readers.

Gee, the writer and editor of the story didn't think so...and I'm not quite
clear on what someone whose job description is supposed to be "continuity
cop" is doing making what amounts to literary judgements. Based on several
other writers' comments, it appears this is a common problem with dealing
with Arnold.

Although Peter's final regular issue script was kind of interesting. It was
the first script DC submitted by Peter that didn't result in any "changes"
by Arnold. Of course, it being submitted under the name of "Robert Bruce
Banner" as the writer may have had just a little bit to do with it.

As for Dave Lillard's diatribe, well, to go immediately to one of the
Commandments from the Flamer's Bible (when in doubt, compare your opponent to
Hitler), gee, Adolf sure paid a lot of dues before coming to power in Germany;
Mein Kampf was written in prison after all...I'd like to hear just what
"dues" Arnold paid other than being a Star Trek fan for a long time.

Now, that's not saying that the man is incompetent. I'd be willing to bet
he's a perfectly good continuity cop. The problem is, he seems to be having
a lot more influence and control of the creative process than is in that
job description. And some of the comments, as is usual for the net, have
been rather extreme and personal. But there are reasons why a lot of people
who have as much or more knowledge of Star Trek and/or who have actually
made real contributions to the Star Trek canon in the form of scripts, books,
and even comics don't like the job he's doing. And they and others have
every right to say that he's not doing a good job in their opinion; it just
has a lot more weight if its an informed opinion.

"This reminds me of the Star Trek episode where the transporters malfunction
and Captain Chekov is trapped---"
"That's Captain Kirk."
"Not in the U.S.S.R." --Rocket Red and Captain Atom
tyg t...@caen.engin.umich.edu

Cisco's Buddy

unread,
May 31, 1991, 1:49:53 AM5/31/91
to
In article <1991May30.2...@ariel.unm.edu>, bo...@triton.unm.edu (Pisces) writes...

} No women, no non-white males are in a leadership roles nor non-traditional
} roles.

Well, you claim to not watch it. That explains why you don't know what
you're talking about here. The movies and ST:TNG TV series have had --
and this is just off the top of my head; I'm not a hardcore Trek fan,
and I don't watch TNG all that much myself -- black female starship
captains, black starfleet admirals, and asian starfleet admirals.

--

"What a low, mean, spiteful, devious, cruel trick."

"It *is* good, isn't it?"

--- jayembee (Jerry Boyajian, DEC, "The Mill", Maynard, MA)

boyajian%ruby...@DECWRL.DEC.COM or ...!decwrl!ruby.enet.dec.com!boyajian

cl...@sbctri.sbc.com

unread,
May 31, 1991, 10:11:39 AM5/31/91
to
In article <50...@ryn.mro4.dec.com> boya...@ruby.dec.com (Cisco's Buddy)
writes:

>In article <1991May30.2...@ariel.unm.edu>, bo...@triton.unm.edu
(Pisces) writes...
>
>} No women, no non-white males are in a leadership roles nor non-traditional
>} roles.
>
>Well, you claim to not watch it. That explains why you don't know what
>you're talking about here. The movies and ST:TNG TV series have had --
>and this is just off the top of my head; I'm not a hardcore Trek fan,
>and I don't watch TNG all that much myself -- black female starship
>captains, black starfleet admirals, and asian starfleet admirals.
>

You're quite correct! The Libertarian Senator from New Mexico (if that was
indeed him) was faulty in his observations (probably only saw the old show).
There have been minority (relative term, assuming an American point-of-view)
races in significant positions of authority in Star Trek--a black Star Fleet
Admiral in command of Star Fleet no less in ST3, a black starship Captain in
ST4 along with another black Star Fleet Admiral. If you note the array of ranks
in the courtroom scenes, there were women StarFleet captains and ambassadors as
well. In STNG, we've seen minority races as admirals and captains, and women as
captains as well. Even in the old show, there were minorty captains and
admirals (episode "Court Martial"). Finally, in the upcoming ST6, a major
character(minority race) will finally (I HOPE!!) become a starship Captain (our
Mr. Sulu). Maybe the Senator should take a look at some of the shows so he can
clarify his facts.

--Patrick Clay

Ken Small

unread,
May 31, 1991, 9:42:22 AM5/31/91
to

Please keep this on theStar Trek group, where it belongs. This
not really a comics issue.
--
OoO ...still waiting for the big '40s revival... oOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoO
oOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoO Ken_...@ub.cc.umich.edu oOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoO

Laird P. Broadfield

unread,
May 31, 1991, 12:48:28 PM5/31/91
to
In <1991May30.2...@eecs.nwu.edu> kau...@eecs.nwu.edu (Michael L. Kaufman) writes:
>In article <1991May30....@cbnewsl.att.com> co...@cbnewsl.att.com (The Conty) writes:
>>In article <27...@ttardis.UUCP>, d...@ttardis.UUCP (Dave Lillard) writes:
>>> TANSTAAFL (Look it up)
>>Where? (What does the acronym mean anyway?)

>Thsi is from Robert A. Hienlien's book _The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_. It
>means, "There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch". I highly recomend this
>book. It is, IMHO, one of the five best SF books ever.

BZZZZT! A popular misconception. Many people think Hienlien coined this,
a few even think Heinlein did, but as I recall it was E.E. Smith who
came up with it originally (and was credited by RAH at least once (sorry,
can't remember where.)) I'll second the _Moon_ reccomendation though.

James P. Callison

unread,
Jun 1, 1991, 5:51:02 PM6/1/91
to

TNG: Captain Tryla Scott: Black Female: Youngest Starfleet Officer to attain
Starship Command (The Brain-bugs Episode everyone seems to like...)
"Angel One": A female-dominated society
Etc. Etc.
TOS: Commodore Mendez: "The Menagerie"
Dr. Daystrom: "The Unlimate Computer"
T'Pau: considered to be the most powerful person on Vulcan, and the
only person to turn down a Fed Council Seat ("Amok Time")
etc.
The movies:
ST3: Admiral Harry Morrow, CinC, Starfleet
ST4: Admiral Cartwright, CinC, Starfleet
Captain Whatshername, Commander, USS Whatsit
Commander Chapel (she was directing the rescue ships)
ST:TMP: Admiral Nogura (canon- Kirk's superior. Non-canon, of Japanese
descent)
Commander Christine Chapel (CMO, USS Enterprise, until McCoy
returned)
(non-canon) Vice Admiral Lori Ciana (Also Kirk's superior)
"Star Trek" is one of the more progressive shows on TV /in the movies, and
it always has been. This is just a _small_ part of the list of non-white
Anglo-Saxon male leaders.

James


I'm a White Anglo-Saxon Baptist Heterosexual Male from a Middle-class
family, and damn proud of it. (Of course, I'm also Choctaw, Irish, and Dutch,
and damn proud of it, too....) If that ain't Politically Correct, that's
your own damn problem!

James P. Callison Applications Analyst UCS/AUS, University of Oklahoma
JCal...@aardvark.ucs.uoknor.edu /\ JPCa...@uokmax.ecn.uoknor
JCa...@metgem.gcn.uoknor.edu /\/ \/\/\ AUS...@UOKMVSA.BITNET
DISCLAIMER: I'm not an engineer, but I play one at work...
Do not confuse my opinions with those of the UNiversity of Oklahoma
(aka. Screw U.). Mine are actually worth something....
I have a dream, that one day we will be rid of the perverts espousing
Political Correctness....
(With apologies to Dr. King)

Michael L. Kaufman

unread,
Jun 2, 1991, 3:08:02 AM6/2/91
to
In article <1991May31.1...@crash.cts.com> lai...@crash.cts.com (Laird
P. Broadfield) writes:
>>Thsi is from Robert A. Hienlien's book _The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_.
>BZZZZT! A popular misconception. Many people think Hienlien coined this,
>a few even think Heinlein did, but as I recall it was E.E. Smith who
>came up with it originally (and was credited by RAH at least once (sorry,
>can't remember where.)) I'll second the _Moon_ reccomendation though.

Some other net.dweeb said the same thing to me last year. He too 'knew' that
E.E.Smith had coined the term, and he too couldn't remember where he had read
it. Let's complete the circle. When pressed, he could not find anything to
back up his claim. How about you Laird?

Bob Mosley

unread,
Jun 1, 1991, 10:49:31 PM6/1/91
to
ke...@css.itd.umich.edu (Ken Small) writes:

>
> Please keep this on theStar Trek group, where it belongs. This
> not really a comics issue.
> --

...actually, it's as much a comics issue as it is a Trek issue. Had you
been keeping up with the Peter David vs Richard Arnold fight, you'd know
just how connected this is with the comics medium.

I say keep it here AND on ras. My friend, Mr. Evans, tends to agree with
me as well :-)

OM

Bob Mosley

unread,
Jun 1, 1991, 11:32:30 PM6/1/91
to
...well, since the original post scrolled off the system before I could
respond to it, I'll reply to Martin Terman's post after clearing the
rather well-versed comments he made away. Good points made, Martin, we
thank you for them!

Now, in order:

1) So, if I understand you correctly, Dave, by your logic anyone who is
carrying out the orders of someone else is immune from persecution should
those actions be in fact harmful, regardless of whether that person
agrees with the orders or not. This, in essence, is what you're arguing,
and by that arguement those who ran the concentration camps for the Nazis
were in no way guilty of any wrongdoing - they were just exterminating
pesky little Jews like the evercorrect Furher ordered them to for the
good of the Third Reich.

That may be a bit extreme for some to accept as an analogy, but I'm not
one to coat bad things with sugar, especially when it's a big pill such
as the one you're trying to shove down our throat, Dave.

2) Saddam Hussein treated his "guests" with respect (at least in front of
the cameras), does that make him someone whose opinions and actions we
should accept and respect? Besides, you're mixing modes of conduct here.
You may like someone personally, but does that automatically make him a
good and/or successful businessman? If that were the case, guys like Jack
Kirby, Peter David, and anyone else that's a likeable professional
wouldn't be getting reamed by the business end of the deal.

3) As Martin put it, there is this thing called the First Amendment. I
have the right to comment on anyone and anything I please, whether it be
flame or praise. Hence, the right to condemn Richard Arnold for his
actions is already given AT BIRTH. It does not have to be earned, and
never will be such so long as the Constitution stands valid. Hence,
people like Martin, Tim Lynch, Peter David, myself, and even people like
those two net.gods I'm not supposed to flame anymore HAVE THE RIGHT TO
SAY WHAT THEY WISH ABOUT ANYTHING, whether it be for or against Richard
Arnold.

Now, I will admit there is a bit of unwritten "fine print" to the FA, and
that's the fact that when you say something about someone it should at
least be true in order to prevent the violation of rights of the
individual in question. In all of the screaming we've seen about what
Richard Arnold has done to TNG and TOS production in the past year, I
personally have YET to see ONE IOTA of evidence disproving any claims
made by professionals such as Brad Ferguson, Diane Duane, and Peter
David. The only defense offered so far has been essentially what you've
offered, Dave - "Richard's a nice guy, and he doesn't have to answer to
you."

Let's see some CONCRETE evidence, Dave. The prosecution's already
presented its case before the grand net.jury. What has the defense got to
show for itself?

4) Granted, if you don't like something, don't f*cking buy it. However,
it's almost a given that for every 1 person who drops something because
it's gone out of vogue or is poorly written, there's three or more left
who'll continue buying it out of ignorance. That 3/1 idiot-critic ratio
is what Paramount is laughing about all the way to the bank, and will
continue to do so until enough people are shown just how BAD things are
getting.

That's why people like Brad, Diane and Peter have spoken out. That's why
Tim's become an activist once again. That's why I pop on my soapbox from
time to time and add my 200.3 Quatloos (Sterling) to the issue. We're
trying to help enlighten the masses into becoming aware that all is not
as utopian at Norway: THe Next Generation as Richard and the PR geeks at
Paramount would like us to believe. There are termites in the woodpile,
and if we truly care about that original dream Gene Roddenberry presented
almost 25 years ago, it's our DUTY to try and save it as best we can.

And if it means the political and financial decapitation of one Richard
Arnold, and anyone else who is responsible for what is happening to Trek
and its relationship to what the fans REALLY want, then so be it.
/l

<sorry, that should be "so be iT". Our sysadmin is rushing me to get on
with my being on a roll>

5) Finally, Dave, as for us not paying our dues...despite the fact that
I've covered it earlier, the FA gives us the right to criticize from
birth, and such a right is not one that has to be earned, if you
absolutly MUST demand that we pay our dues (*), then let me point out to
you that as far as I'm concerned, ANYONE who has endured that travesty of
celluloid hatcheting Paramount called "Star Trek V" has EARNED the right
to express any damned opinion he/she/it/Tom wants to express about Star
Trek in any way, shape, form, or related matters. Case closed, clean and
simple.

(*) Besides, a personal note: "paying dues" is a typical Hollywood
Unionistic philosophy that I do not subscribe to in any way. Anyone can
criticize someone's job performance, but at the same time that job
is by no means a defense for incompetence. Take that for what it says,
I'm too tired to clarify at the moment...:-)

Dave, in closing, I'll ask you once again to either put up or shut up.
Ail we've seen in defense of Richard Arnold are minor whinings and
personal comments that do nothing to dispute the charges brought against
him by so many professionals in the field. Either show us this sort of
proof, or accept the fact that no one is going to take your defense of
Richard credibly. You've branded yourself as his defender, let's see you
use another sword other than "He's a nice guy" or "He's my friend - he
loaned me $10 at %5!!" to hack away at the evil trekkie geeks who aren't
professional enough to get paid to keep their mouths shut otherwise.

...better still, you claim to know Richard? Let's see you get him on the
net to stand before his peers. Let's tear down some walls, if you dare!


Soapbox is yours, whoever's next....


OM

Peter_...@cup.portal.com

unread,
Jun 5, 1991, 10:40:38 PM6/5/91
to
In regards to Mr. Dave Lillard's heartfelt, if odd, defense of Richard
Arnold, I am reminded of a speech from "Big Trouble in Little China",
delivered by Kurt Russell with a John Wayne accent, which went something
like:

"Someday some bruiser with arms like logs and breath like stale bread is
going to stand over you and say, 'Have you paid your dues, kid? Have
you paid your dues?" And when your in a situation like that, you
just remember the words of old Jack Burton. You just look him straight
in the eye and you tell him what Jack Burton always says in a situation
like that. 'Have I paid my dues? Hell yes. The check's in the mail.'"

Dave Lillard

unread,
Jun 6, 1991, 1:48:31 PM6/6/91
to
Had I used the word JUSTIFICATION instead of the word RIGHT in my
first posting, I probably would have avoided a lot of the nega
tive responses.

However, it HAS brought to light the apparent (to me, at least)
belief on the part of SOME of you that the First Ammendment
allows a person to say ANYthing with impunity.

Does the First Ammendment give me the RIGHT to say:

"Your Mother fornicates with Rigellian Blood Worms"?

NO! Why? Because it's not true (I hope!).

There are other limitations & responsibilities that are best
discussed elsewhere.

Richard Arnold is not my friend; but an acquintance of many
years. When I made my FLAME I believed that he did not DESERVE
the treatment he was getting from some of the other posters -
especially those who stated that they, personally, had never had
any dealings with him - based upon MY association with him.

Richard has told me (within the last two weeks) that he ONLY
enforces Mr. Roddenberry's mandates. (DON"T associate this with
the Nazis of WWII. It is NON-sequetur!) If this is false, then
he has lied to me. BUT, I have no personal knowledge to this.

Many of us have the desire to see changes made to Star Trek.
However, my vision may be (actually probably IS) different from
that of each other person. People with the talent of Peter David
have the ability to create whole new universes; why single out
changing Trek? Why not just do it HIS way - but change the names
to avoid the RA?

In the 70s, I saw a lot of stupidity in Fandom; and I was a
contributor to it. I had an excuse (maybe even a reason); I was
inexperienced and trusting. I have seen the same KIND of stupid
ity on this Net recently. It's ONLY a television show! It's not
a way of life (or, IMHO, shouldn't be). The world won't come to
an end if changes aren't made. Hey, people,

PUT THINGS IN PERSPECTIVE !!

There are enough problems in the REAL world for us to deal with.


May you get ALL that you Deserve; and DESERVE all that you get.

Dave Lillard

unread,
Jun 6, 1991, 1:57:40 PM6/6/91
to

tony murray

unread,
Jun 7, 1991, 9:34:06 AM6/7/91
to
d...@ttardis.UUCP (Dave Lillard) writes:

>Had I used the word JUSTIFICATION instead of the word RIGHT in my
>first posting, I probably would have avoided a lot of the nega
>tive responses.

The well-documented actions of Richard Arnold against several of
the Star Trek novel and/or comic writers seems like pretty good
_Justification_ to me!


>Richard Arnold is not my friend; but an acquintance of many
>years. When I made my FLAME I believed that he did not DESERVE
>the treatment he was getting from some of the other posters -

Again, the many instances of what many of us deem unfair treatment
of authors seem like cause enough.


>especially those who stated that they, personally, had never had
>any dealings with him - based upon MY association with him.

Does this mean one must have had personal dealings with the man
to disapprove of his methods and policies (as evidenced by HIS
actions)??? *WRONG!!!!*


>Richard has told me (within the last two weeks) that he ONLY
>enforces Mr. Roddenberry's mandates. (DON"T associate this with
>the Nazis of WWII. It is NON-sequetur!) If this is false, then
>he has lied to me. BUT, I have no personal knowledge to this.

Again, this is debatable. By all reports I've heard and read, either
you were not told the complete truth or else there was some
misunderstanding.


>People with the talent of Peter David
>have the ability to create whole new universes; why single out
>changing Trek? Why not just do it HIS way - but change the names
>to avoid the RA?

Peter David has stories to tell that take place in the Star Trek
universe. They are well-written stories that we, the fans, WANT
to read. As far as I've seen, he has never tried to CHANGE Trek,
as you indicate in your post. He works with many elements in the
Star Trek universe, and sometimes he combines them (as in _Vendetta_).
For some reason, he has earned the ire of Richard Arnold. He
should not have to go out and use stolen concepts (a Star Trek
universe with the names changed) to tell his stories. That's
absurd. While RA does not have to approve anything written by
Peter David, I think he should take a look at what the fans seem
to want. Of course, this means the fans have to SHOW what they
want and don't want by being very selective in their buying of
Star Trek books, and by writing letters to Pocket Books and the
licencing department of Paramount!!


>In the 70s, I saw a lot of stupidity in Fandom; and I was a
>contributor to it. I had an excuse (maybe even a reason); I was
>inexperienced and trusting. I have seen the same KIND of stupid
>ity on this Net recently. It's ONLY a television show! It's not
>a way of life (or, IMHO, shouldn't be). The world won't come to
>an end if changes aren't made.

I hope you will give examples of the alleged stupidity on the net.
The only things I've seen on the net with regard to this topic have
been people complaining that some of their favorite Star Trek authors
have been unfairly treated by Richard Arnold. We won't get to read
the stories they want to tell, because of one man. Richard Arnold.
Discussing why we think there are problems, and ways to fix the
problems hardly seems like waste of time to me.


> Hey, people,
> PUT THINGS IN PERSPECTIVE !!

Hopefully, I have done just that.


>There are enough problems in the REAL world for us to deal with.

I don't understand your point. These newsgroups are special-interest
groups. If we are spending our time discussing issues relevant to those
special interests, what's the problem? This seems like a spurious,
inflamatory comment with no real pertinence to the issue at hand.

--Tony Murray (tmu...@socrates.umd.edu)
Graphic Illustrator
The University of MD University College

Larry Smith

unread,
Jun 7, 1991, 12:32:54 PM6/7/91
to
In article <27...@ttardis.UUCP> d...@ttardis.UUCP (Dave Lillard) writes:
>Had I used the word JUSTIFICATION instead of the word RIGHT in my
>first posting, I probably would have avoided a lot of the nega
>tive responses.
>
>However, it HAS brought to light the apparent (to me, at least)
>belief on the part of SOME of you that the First Ammendment
>allows a person to say ANYthing with impunity.
>
>Does the First Ammendment give me the RIGHT to say:
>
> "Your Mother fornicates with Rigellian Blood Worms"?
>
> NO! Why? Because it's not true (I hope!).

Actually, it DOES give you the right. Under the first amendment, you can
say whatever you darn well please, whether true or not. Your exercising that
right *might* be commiting libel (which the above might be) but the burden
of proof in such a case is on *me* (or my mother, whichever brought you
to court). In fact, as has often been upheld by the Supreme Court, you can
say things that are out and out illegal - you can even tell someone how to
build a nuclear weapon, for instance. The gov't can't *forbid* that - God
knows, they've tried, the court has seen LOTS of prior restraint cases -
but they *can* charge you with violation of secrets or some such. You can
*say* anything you want, but you must still bear the consequences.

Some people (and courts) have always tried to put limits on such a far-reaching
amendment - can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre and all that - but the
vast majority of these cases, and all of the important ones, have upheld the
power of the constitution. I *can* yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre - but
I can also expect to be prosecuted for a lot of stuff for it.

>There are other limitations & responsibilities that are best
>discussed elsewhere.

Misinformation should be corrected whereever it is found. Constitutional
misinformation is a public menace in a free society.

>May you get ALL that you Deserve; and DESERVE all that you get.

Very old curse. My personal favorite: "May you live in an interesting time."
By the by, I'd be careful about flaming the entire net because of a few people
you don't like Richard. I've never said anything about him one way or 'tother,
and I resent such an inflamatory message. This much I will say: If *half* of
what people have related about him is true, he is a real prick. I withhold
judgement until all evidence is in, but I keep in mind the old saying "where
these's smoke..." and ask why he has such bad PR.


--

Larry Smith
sm...@ctron.com
The usual disclaimer stuff...

Mike Aksmanovic

unread,
Jun 7, 1991, 12:14:04 PM6/7/91
to
In article <27...@ttardis.UUCP> d...@ttardis.UUCP (Dave Lillard) writes:
>Hey, people,
>
> PUT THINGS IN PERSPECTIVE !!
>
>There are enough problems in the REAL world for us to deal with.

ie. Get a life.

There are a lot of problems for us to deal with in the world. TNG
provides an excellent escape from this world when we need it though.
Yes, it may surprise you that some of us actually do need relax and
shut down our minds every once in a while. I have put things in
perspective.

>May you get ALL that you Deserve; and DESERVE all that you get.

Had you ever actually looked at the problems of our world, you would
know that life does not work that way, unfortunately.

>| Dave Lillard - Adrift on the Matmoss of Life. |

-----
Mike Aksmanovic | "Pray TV looks like Pay TV to me, it`s
mmca...@sunee.waterloo.edu | just a curse on the human race"
mmca...@sunee.UWaterloo.ca | - Pete Townshend

Jeff Sicherman

unread,
Jun 7, 1991, 1:44:16 PM6/7/91
to
In article <1991Jun07.1...@socrates.umd.edu> tmu...@socrates.umd.edu (tony murray) writes:
>d...@ttardis.UUCP (Dave Lillard) writes:

[ deleted ]

>
>>Richard has told me (within the last two weeks) that he ONLY
>>enforces Mr. Roddenberry's mandates. (DON"T associate this with
>>the Nazis of WWII. It is NON-sequetur!) If this is false, then
>>he has lied to me. BUT, I have no personal knowledge to this.
>
>Again, this is debatable. By all reports I've heard and read, either
>you were not told the complete truth or else there was some
>misunderstanding.
>

Unless you want to make Mr Arnold into a modern day, star trek svengali
(or maybe rasputin), we have to assume that he serves at the discretion
of Gene Roddenberry who can then relieve him of any or all duties or
decisions. Therefore he is enforcing GR's policies. He does not have
to verify every decision with GR to do this.

Timothy W. Lynch

unread,
Jun 7, 1991, 2:19:32 PM6/7/91
to
And once AGAIN, I am taking rec.arts.comics out of the newsgroups line, because
I *still* don't know what the bloody hell it's doing there.

d...@ttardis.UUCP (Dave Lillard) writes:

>Had I used the word JUSTIFICATION instead of the word RIGHT in my
>first posting, I probably would have avoided a lot of the nega
>tive responses.

Not mine. A flame at positions I've taken is still a flame at positions I've
taken.

[First Amendment stuff deleted]

>Richard Arnold is not my friend; but an acquintance of many
>years. When I made my FLAME I believed that he did not DESERVE
>the treatment he was getting from some of the other posters -
>especially those who stated that they, personally, had never had
>any dealings with him - based upon MY association with him.

That's quite apparent. You are welcome to that belief. You are NOT welcome,
at least as far as I'm concerned, to go around browbeating those who don't
agree with you and who DO think RA is deserving of serious criticism.

I asked this last time, Dave, and you didn't answer me then, so I'll ask it
again: have you actually been reading r.a.s. over the last year and reading
about accounts of things Richard HAS done, or have you been too busy foaming
at the mouth over this alleged ill treatment to realize that there are legiti-
mate questions of creative freedom being raised?

>Richard has told me (within the last two weeks) that he ONLY
>enforces Mr. Roddenberry's mandates. (DON"T associate this with
>the Nazis of WWII. It is NON-sequetur!) If this is false, then
>he has lied to me. BUT, I have no personal knowledge to this.

Based on my own personal dealings with and accounts from people who have been
on the receiving end of RA's "hospitality", I believe that he lied in the above
statement. Whether he is lying to you or to himself is another question
entirely.

But he is not simply enforcing Gene's mandates, and I have at least one
counterexample to that claim. One fairly recent novel (within the past
six months or so), and one that was in fact fairly well received on r.a.s,
was rejected by Richard five times. Pocket got sick of that and sent it to
Gene to read over the weekend. Gene came back and said "yeah, this is fine--
no changes." You want to look at your claim that Richard doesn't have his own
agenda over again?

>Many of us have the desire to see changes made to Star Trek.
>However, my vision may be (actually probably IS) different from
>that of each other person. People with the talent of Peter David
>have the ability to create whole new universes; why single out
>changing Trek? Why not just do it HIS way - but change the names
>to avoid the RA?

He's not trying to change Trek--you clearly haven't read any of his work if you
believe he is. What he IS trying to do is pay attention to things that have
gone before and perhaps, just perhaps, acknowledge that characters can change
in meaningful and understandable ways. RA apparently believes neither.

>In the 70s, I saw a lot of stupidity in Fandom; and I was a
>contributor to it. I had an excuse (maybe even a reason); I was
>inexperienced and trusting. I have seen the same KIND of stupid
>ity on this Net recently.

If you want to call criticism "stupidity", so be it--but considering the
ballistic criticisms you've been ladling out, you're making yourself the
easiest target of all.

>It's ONLY a television show! It's not
>a way of life (or, IMHO, shouldn't be). The world won't come to
>an end if changes aren't made.

I don't recall seeing anyone saying "this is the most important issue the world
has ever known." I believe it to be an important issue *within the Star Trek
framework*--probably one of the more important ones around. But you're right--
the world won't end if this doesn't happen. My support of the licensed
materials, which Richard is trying to put under his thumb, however, will come
to an end--and in fact already has. Nor am I alone in this.

Tell me, if you're concerned about serious, documented criticism being leveled
at somebody, why are you responding to it with flaming, ad hominem, non-docu-
mented screaming?

>There are enough problems in the REAL world for us to deal with.

Certainly true--but irrelevant. You have no way of knowing what problems in
the real world some of us out here are trying to deal with. (I could list a
few things I've done lately, but I don't see the point, since I doubt r.a.s
really cares about my own political opinions.) I believe creative freedom to
be a serious issue--and I believe Richard Arnold to be a danger to Trek, or at
least to Roddenberry's reputation.

Object all you want--but if you don't tone down the flames, don't expect
people to take you seriously.

Tim Lynch (Cornell's first Astronomy B.A.; one of many Caltech grad students)
BITNET: tlynch@citjuliet
INTERNET: tly...@juliet.caltech.edu
UUCP: ...!ucbvax!tlynch%juliet.ca...@hamlet.caltech.edu
"Between the pen and the paperwork, I know there's passion in the language.
Between the muscle and the brainwork, there must be feeling in the pipeline..."
--Suzanne Vega, "Big Space"

Michael Rawdon

unread,
Jun 7, 1991, 3:14:32 PM6/7/91
to
In <1991Jun7.1...@beach.csulb.edu> sich...@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:
> Unless you want to make Mr Arnold into a modern day, star trek svengali
>(or maybe rasputin), we have to assume that he serves at the discretion
>of Gene Roddenberry

We need do no such thing. Several people feel that this is not at all the
case.

> who can then relieve him of any or all duties or
>decisions. Therefore he is enforcing GR's policies. He does not have
>to verify every decision with GR to do this.

If he does not have to verify every decision with Roddenberry, then it is
quite possible that some of those decisions are not in keeping with
Roddenberry's policies.

--
Michael Rawdon
Internet: raw...@rex.cs.tulane.edu Bitnet: CS6FECU@TCSVM

"Communication is hard to establish
when things like a state of mind get in the way.
People don't eat, they just think what you feed them now;
The horse with the blinders eating the hay."
- Men Without Hats, "The Great Ones Remember"

Michael Rawdon

unread,
Jun 7, 1991, 8:57:37 PM6/7/91
to
In <1991Jun7.2...@beach.csulb.edu> sich...@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:

>In article <77...@rex.cs.tulane.edu> raw...@rex.cs.tulane.edu (Michael Rawdon) writes:
>>In <1991Jun7.1...@beach.csulb.edu> sich...@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:
>>> Unless you want to make Mr Arnold into a modern day, star trek svengali
>>>(or maybe rasputin), we have to assume that he serves at the discretion
>>>of Gene Roddenberry

>>We need do no such thing. Several people feel that this is not at all the
>>case.

> Oh then you mean he is a ST rasputin ?

What precisely do you mean by this, BTW?

> He either is or isnt and no ones
>feelings are of any material importance in comparison to the reality of his
>continued employment. Unless you're a conspiracy monger, of course :-)

Or unless he's serving at the discretion of someone else.

>>> who can then relieve him of any or all duties or
>>>decisions. Therefore he is enforcing GR's policies. He does not have
>>>to verify every decision with GR to do this.

>>If he does not have to verify every decision with Roddenberry, then it is
>>quite possible that some of those decisions are not in keeping with
>>Roddenberry's policies.

> Non-sequiter. If he is acting on Gr's behalf and behest than THAT is a
>GR policy and his actions become expressions of GR's policies.

This your conclusion does not logically follow from your premise. Arnold
could be acting on Roddenberryu's behest at the command of someone ELSE.
Remember, Roddenberry has had at least one (and a recent report said several)
heart attack, and he appartently does not have as much control over TNG as
he once did. Word was that "The Best Of Both Worlds" was produced AGAINST
the will of Roddenberry.

Arnold may be acting in name for Roddenberry, but he may not be acting on
his behalf in deed. In fact, several people have produced stories that
indicate that he is acting very much on his own.

> Further,
>if GR does nothing to change this, he is expressing tacit approval.

Unless he is unable to change it, of course.

> Lastly,
>one does not have to act exactly as a superior in every instance to be
>carrying out the superior's policies; it's called delgation of authority.
>The superior reserves the right to override particular decisions but that
>does not make it a violation of policy - two people are never going to
>view every situation and choice exactly the same.

True, but indications have been that Arnold has been making his own policies
in many instances. This is the point that many are trying to make.

Jeff Sicherman

unread,
Jun 7, 1991, 5:21:41 PM6/7/91
to
In article <77...@rex.cs.tulane.edu> raw...@rex.cs.tulane.edu (Michael Rawdon) writes:
>In <1991Jun7.1...@beach.csulb.edu> sich...@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:
>> Unless you want to make Mr Arnold into a modern day, star trek svengali
>>(or maybe rasputin), we have to assume that he serves at the discretion
>>of Gene Roddenberry
>
>We need do no such thing. Several people feel that this is not at all the
>case.

Oh then you mean he is a ST rasputin ? He either is or isnt and no ones


feelings are of any material importance in comparison to the reality of his
continued employment. Unless you're a conspiracy monger, of course :-)

>


>> who can then relieve him of any or all duties or
>>decisions. Therefore he is enforcing GR's policies. He does not have
>>to verify every decision with GR to do this.
>
>If he does not have to verify every decision with Roddenberry, then it is
>quite possible that some of those decisions are not in keeping with
>Roddenberry's policies.
>

Non-sequiter. If he is acting on Gr's behalf and behest than THAT is a
GR policy and his actions become expressions of GR's policies. Further,
if GR does nothing to change this, he is expressing tacit approval. Lastly,

Dave Pipgras

unread,
Jun 7, 1991, 7:16:57 PM6/7/91
to
In-Reply-To: message from Peter_...@cup.portal.com

Just out of curiosity (sp?) has anyone considered organizing a
letter-writing campaign to remove mr Arnold (beelch!) from office? This
tactic has seemed to worked well when Paramounts Greed was faced with a
potential loss ..... At least can someone post the address to Paramount
again....

Dave


----
Proline: pip@pro-library
InterNet: p...@pro-library.cts.com
UUCP...: crash!pro-library!pip
ARPANet: crash!pro-library!p...@nosc.mil

Life...

unread,
Jun 7, 1991, 10:38:22 PM6/7/91
to
d...@ttardis.UUCP (Dave Lillard) writes:

>Had I used the word JUSTIFICATION instead of the word RIGHT in my

>first posting, I probably would have avoided a lot of the nega-
>tive responses.

And posting with straight left AND right margins was some sort of
symbolism, eh?

>/------------------------------------------------------------------------\
>| |
>| Dave Lillard - Adrift on the Matmoss of Life. |
>| |
>| Path: sharkey.cc.umich.edu!cfctech!ttardis!dwl |
>| SnailMail: 21111 Mapleridge, Southfield, MI 48075-5752 |
>| Voice: (313) 355-2003 |
>\------------------------------------------------------------------------/

Half of that signature containes pure bandwidth waste. Cut it down to 4
lines.

--
/// ____ \\\ "The major problem--one of the major problems, for there are
| |/ / \ \| | several--one of the many major problems with governing
\\_|\____/|_// people is of whom you get to do it, or more to the
greg \_\\\/ hoss.unl.edu point, who gets people to let them do it to them."

Lazlo Nibble

unread,
Jun 7, 1991, 1:35:56 PM6/7/91
to
d...@ttardis.UUCP (Dave Lillard) writes:

> Richard has told me (within the last two weeks) that he ONLY
> enforces Mr. Roddenberry's mandates.

If you're willing to carry out orders you'd better be willing to take the
flak for them when someone complains. Arnold seems perfectly content to
be the visible face of ST policy (through convention appearances and the
like) . . . as long as nobody disagrees with those policies. As soon as
someone complains, it's "I was just following Gene's orders" time.

Lazlo (la...@triton.unm.edu)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STUDIO NIBBLE -- "America's Favorite Lunchtime Snack"

Dave Lillard

unread,
Jun 8, 1991, 10:52:13 AM6/8/91
to
There is a solution to the problem. BUY PARAMOUNT !

At least enough to have a REAL voice in the decision making
process. There MUST be someone on the Net with the reputation
and/or contacts to make this happen. Perhaps a new Investment
fund?

YEARS ago I started action to create a Corporation that would
sell stock to raise money in order to buy STAR TREK from Para-
mount (it was on the block at the time). When Mr. Roddenberry
got wind of it he sicked his (deleted) lawyer on me; and I folded
to the intimidation. Maybe there's somebody out there with more
guts and friends than I had?


So far, I have received more than 30 responses to my Postings on
Richard Arnold & Gene Roddenberry. Until recently, I had been
off the Net for OVER a year.

Thanx for the enlightenment!

Jeff Sicherman

unread,
Jun 8, 1991, 4:56:00 PM6/8/91
to
In article <27...@ttardis.UUCP> d...@ttardis.UUCP (Dave Lillard) writes:
>There is a solution to the problem. BUY PARAMOUNT !
>
>
>At least enough to have a REAL voice in the decision making
>process. There MUST be someone on the Net with the reputation
>and/or contacts to make this happen. Perhaps a new Investment
>fund?
>

I'd bet if we pooled all the money from all the readers of r.a.s.
we'd be able to buy enough stock to get us tossed out of a stockholders'
meeting. (meaning we'd have enough to get in in the first place but
not for anyone to care what the hell we said or wanted). Hey, we're
not wasting our time reading all this crap because we have so many
incredibly more profitable things to do with it :-)

>YEARS ago I started action to create a Corporation that would
>sell stock to raise money in order to buy STAR TREK from Para-
>mount (it was on the block at the time). When Mr. Roddenberry
>got wind of it he sicked his (deleted) lawyer on me; and I folded
>to the intimidation. Maybe there's somebody out there with more
>guts and friends than I had?
>

Oh, what was his lawyer's problem with your activity ? Maybe we
should add him to the list of officlal ST scapegoats. BTW, you
didn't need more guts or friends, you needed a lawyer. No connection;
separate species.

>
>So far, I have received more than 30 responses to my Postings on
>Richard Arnold & Gene Roddenberry. Until recently, I had been
>off the Net for OVER a year.
>

Take heart, occasional relapses are inevitable.

Bob Mosley

unread,
Jun 9, 1991, 4:28:06 PM6/9/91
to
...Since I'm late for work, I'll make this brief:

("What??? OM being BRIEF?? AIIIEE!")

Dave, you've STILL failed to meet the one criteria that would help sway
people to your cause: You've failed to show any proof that Richard is
innocent of the accusations leveled against him. You continue to claim
essentially that he is innocent of any wrongdoing because A) He's
"following Gene's orders", and B) he's a "nice guy".

As I stated before, the SS were tried at Nuremburg for "just following
orders", and to Eva Braun, Mr. Shecklegruber was probably a pretty nice
guy (his dogs reportedly loved him, at least). But that does NOT excuse
his actions against the world in WWII. By the same convention, the same
applies to Richard Arnold.

Recently, the glossrag that Paramount produces featured an interview with
Richard and several other professionals who started out in the ranks of
Trek fandom. Richard was essentially described as the "keeper of the
flame" (no pun intended) for what's correct in Trek continuity, and has
control over spinoffs and adaptations. It's there, in print, from
Paramount itself! Richard is pulling the strings, and it's in black and
white for all to see.

...and still, I see no proof that any of the charges leveled by persons
such as Peter David, Diane Duane, and Brad Ferguson are either
misdirected or false. Ergo, if no plausible, acceptable defense can be
presented in light of credible evidence to the contrary, guilt must be
assumed.

Again, if you're not going to offer any REAL proof, be prepared to be
fighting an uphill battle. ESPECIALLY on r.a.s.!


OM

Michael L. Kaufman

unread,
Jun 10, 1991, 12:16:13 AM6/10/91
to
In article <J2Ja4...@fquest.fidonet.org> om...@fquest.fidonet.org (Bob Mosley) writes:
>You've failed to show any proof that Richard is innocent of the accusations
>leveled against him.

Actually, in this country, it is the reponsibility of the accusers to prove
his guilt. You must be thinking of some other country. I don't know
anything about RA, but lets be fair.

Peter_...@cup.portal.com

unread,
Jun 9, 1991, 8:54:15 PM6/9/91
to
If you want to tell me that when Richard Arnold calls up my writing
partner, Bill Mumy, and informs him that I am a terrible, horrible
writer and that Bill should terminate all relationships with me immediately
because he's much too good a writer to be associated with me--if you
want to tell me that THAT came as an official order from Gene Roddenberry,
you go right ahead. But I'm not going to believe it for a second.
I refuse to believe that Gene Roddenberry, who created the spirit of
brotherhood of Star Trek, told Richard Arnold to do that. I simply
refuse.

PAD

Just another theatre geek.....

unread,
Jun 10, 1991, 1:04:07 PM6/10/91
to
In article <27...@ttardis.UUCP> d...@ttardis.UUCP (Dave Lillard) writes:
>There is a solution to the problem. BUY PARAMOUNT !

Dream on.

Like your other postings, this has little grounding in the
real world and is incredibly ignorant of how things work in finances,
production and creation.

>So far, I have received more than 30 responses to my Postings on
>Richard Arnold & Gene Roddenberry. Until recently, I had been
>off the Net for OVER a year.

Go 'way, kid. You bore me.


--
-----
Roger Tang, gwan...@milton.u.washington.edu
Middle-class weenie, art nerd and all-around evil nasty spermchucker

Michael Rawdon

unread,
Jun 10, 1991, 1:54:53 PM6/10/91
to
In <1991Jun10.0...@eecs.nwu.edu> kau...@eecs.nwu.edu (Michael L. Kaufman) writes:
>In article <J2Ja4...@fquest.fidonet.org> om...@fquest.fidonet.org (Bob Mosley) writes:
>>You've failed to show any proof that Richard is innocent of the accusations
>>leveled against him.

>Actually, in this country, it is the reponsibility of the accusers to prove
>his guilt. You must be thinking of some other country. I don't know
>anything about RA, but lets be fair.

But remember:

1) r.a.s is not a court of law (thank ghod!), so we are not bound by that
responsibility, and
2) Numerous people on the net have leveled what are, to me, fairly convincing
accusations against Richard Arnold. In light of the basic lack of
evidence to the contrary, I'm inclined to side with the anti-RA folks.
Arnold is, of course, both able and within his rights to defend himself,
in a court of law, if need be.

--
Michael Rawdon
Internet: raw...@rex.cs.tulane.edu Bitnet: CS6FECU@TCSVM

"Stardom - I want a hit, want my tan, want my cash, want my innocence.
Stardom - I want a script, want my band, want my stash, want omnipotence.
Stardom - born in a trunk, got my home got my car, got stability.
Stardom - I'm Hollywood's son, all alone don't admire anonymity."
- Pete Townshend, "Stardom In Action"

Timothy W. Lynch

unread,
Jun 10, 1991, 2:20:20 PM6/10/91
to
kau...@eecs.nwu.edu (Michael L. Kaufman) writes:
>In article <J2Ja4...@fquest.fidonet.org> om...@fquest.fidonet.org (Bob Mosley) writes:

>>You've failed to show any proof that Richard is innocent of the accusations
>>leveled against him.

>Actually, in this country, it is the reponsibility of the accusers to prove
>his guilt. You must be thinking of some other country. I don't know
>anything about RA, but lets be fair.

I think Bob may have misstated himself a bit. Many of us who've been speaking
out against RA have been giving hordes and hordes of evidence for his, shall
we say, not-so-wonderful nature. And Dave has given nothing in return
except "Well, I know you're all wrong!" That's the point. Dave has said
"He only follows Gene's orders!" I and many others have cited occurrences
where that's dead wrong. Dave has said "He's really a nice guy!" We've asked
him for evidence, and received none.

And so it goes.

Tim Lynch

Cisco's Buddy

unread,
Jun 11, 1991, 5:42:11 AM6/11/91
to
In article <J2Ja4...@fquest.fidonet.org>, om...@fquest.fidonet.org (Bob Mosley) writes...

} Dave, you've STILL failed to meet the one criteria that would help sway

} people to your cause: You've failed to show any proof that Richard is

} innocent of the accusations leveled against him.

Well, legally speaking, he shouldn't have to. Burden of proof is on the
accuser.

(nota bene: I'm not siding with Dave on his defense of Arnold, but I *am*
interested in keeping this in the proper perspective)

} As I stated before, the SS were tried at Nuremburg for "just following
} orders", and to Eva Braun, Mr. Shecklegruber was probably a pretty nice
} guy (his dogs reportedly loved him, at least). But that does NOT excuse
} his actions against the world in WWII. By the same convention, the same
} applies to Richard Arnold.

You may be horrified to know that you are using the tactic described by
Tom Galloway as "when in doubt, compare your opponent to Adolf Hitler".

While I agree in principle that Arnold should bear the responsibility of
his actions, regardless of whether he's acting on his own or under orders
from Gene Roddenberry, I think that comparing him to the S.S. is definite
overkill.

It's far less flammable and equally to the point to say that Arnold should
bear the responsibility for his decisions if for no other reason than
because he *chooses* to remain in his position of "power". Even if all of
the dictums are Roddenberry's, Arnold either approves of those dictums or
disapproves of them. If he approves of them, then he can't ethically pass
the buck by saying that he's just following Roddenberry's orders. If he
disapproves of them, he should find another job.

--

"What a low, mean, spiteful, devious, cruel trick."

"It *is* good, isn't it?"

--- jayembee (Jerry Boyajian, DEC, "The Mill", Maynard, MA)

boyajian%ruby...@DECWRL.DEC.COM or ...!decwrl!ruby.enet.dec.com!boyajian

Bob Mosley

unread,
Jun 12, 1991, 5:17:45 PM6/12/91
to
...well, since I can't insert responses in quotes on this editor, I'll
simply respond in order.

(Everyone go read Jerry's post now, like good little boys and girls.)

1) Granted, the burden of proof is on the accuser. However, once again
you seem to miss the point as did Dave Lillard: The proof has been
presented, and so far the only defenses have been "He's a nice guy, leave
him alone!" and "It's just crazy crippled Gene talking. It's not his
fault!". Any judge in the land would look at the defense and throw the
book at Richard.

That is, presuming that he didn't toss the case out the minute he heard
it had to do with a bunch of Trekkies, but that's beside the point....

...Again, let's see Dave present some more concrete evidence. Until then,
he's just blowing off steam for all anyone will care.

2) T** said that? Well, for once the ******* is right for a change. It's
true - if in doubt, compare your opponent to a certain syphalitic
paperhanger. It'll work almost every time!

But, seeing as how T** and I aren't supposed to agree (hell, we can't
even meet face to face, secret identites notwithstanding), I'll formally
withdraw my use of A. Hitler as an allegorical in favor of something more
socially acceptable. The first thing that comes to mind, of course, is
the Son of Sam...

3) As for the final comments, this need not be said. The implication is
obvious as hell to anyone with an open mind of the situation. Richard
likes having bread on the table, and is willing to brownnose and weasle
his way into a paycheck, even if it means making himself look like a
despot and a prostitute in the process, and regardless of who he steps on
and crushes just for being in the way. If he truly had any integrity
about himself and his actions, he'd at least attempt to sway Gene away
from his private holodeck moebius path to hell (*). If he were truly
honorable, he'd quit like Tracy Torme, DC Fontana, and others (**) have
already done.

But based on his present track record, I wouldn't hold my breath for any
length of time, kids...

OM

(*) To be honest, I envision Gene's personal hell to be stuck for all
eternity in a CBS boardroom giving free consutation on how to do Lost in
Space the right way, without knowing that's what he's doing. 'Twould be
fitting, no?

(**) An exception to this, of course, is David Gerrold. It's pretty much
common knowledge now that David made such a prick out of himself that he
prodded his way out of a really cushy position that could have made
himself a big name for once. Lesson one: Unless you're George Lucas, do
NOT get creatively greedy, period!

Dean Adams

unread,
Jun 12, 1991, 6:02:27 AM6/12/91
to
Peter_...@cup.portal.com writes:

>I refuse to believe that Gene Roddenberry, who created the spirit of
>brotherhood of Star Trek, told Richard Arnold to do that.

Yea, from everything i've heard, this guy really has some problems,
more than likely EGO problems...

You might be interested to know that at the big ST con in L.A., with
the Shrine Auditorium filled to capacity- R'nold spent a moment to
mention "Q in Law", and say a few nice words about it... go figure...

It certainly does sound intriguing, getting those two together!

BTW, when is this going to be released?

-{ Dean Adams }-


--
TheBox Public Access Xenix - Gresham OR +1 503-669-7291 +1 503-669-7395

Joe Kalash

unread,
Jun 13, 1991, 8:19:28 PM6/13/91
to
In article <J2Ja4...@fquest.fidonet.org> om...@fquest.fidonet.org (Bob Mosley) writes:
>orders", and to Eva Braun, Mr. Shecklegruber was probably a pretty nice
^^^^^^^^^^^^

At least if you are going to use unwarranted pretentious references, please
spell them right. It is "Schicklgruber".

I rob from the rich and give to the poor
I rob from the poor when the rich need more
I rob from the rich again, but alas
I never give anything to the middle class
- Robin Hoodlum

Joe Kalash
uunet!starnine!kalash
kal...@starnine.com

Disclaimer: StarNine knows nothing about what I am saying.

Steve Simmons

unread,
Jun 16, 1991, 10:08:07 PM6/16/91
to
d...@ttardis.UUCP (Dave Lillard) writes:

>Richard has told me (within the last two weeks) that he ONLY
>enforces Mr. Roddenberry's mandates. (DON"T associate this with
>the Nazis of WWII. It is NON-sequetur!) If this is false, then
>he has lied to me. BUT, I have no personal knowledge to this.

Let me see if I got that straight. Richard Arnold says "I was only
following orders" but any comparisons with other people who did
terrible things because "I vas only following orders" are non-sequeturs.
Boy, the definition of non-sequetur sure musta changed since the last
time I looked. Half a smiley.
--
"FACT: less than 10% of the psychiatrists in the US are actually
practicing cannibals." Rod Johnson

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages