Paramount cancels ST:TNG gay characters
Ric Helton
[from the Gay Issues Category on GEnie]
STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION has cancelled reported plans to add gay and
lesbian crew members. Last summer, series creator Gene Roddenberry was
reported to have made up his mind to show viewers gay and lesbian characters
at work aboard the Enterprise. His death seems to have put an end to those
plans. Paramount officials said the most gays can "hope" for is a possible
glimpse of same-sex couples strolling by in the background.
[not sure from what reference this was pulled... anyone have more info?]
--
__ __ __
Ric \/ an...@cleveland.freenet.edu \/ Graffiti 404 546-8256 \/ Athens, GA
S^u~n^wa U~ Wachi
> Paramount officials said the most gays can "hope" for is a possible
>glimpse of same-sex couples strolling by in the background.
Harumph. The most that Paramount officials can "hope" for is my
possible glimpse of ST:TNG as I flip through the channels past it.
--
Rob Bernardo r...@mtdiablo.Concord.CA.US (510) 827-4301 (hm)
"What kind of software solutions does the Devil-mountain provide,
anyway? Object oriented COBOL?" -- Wingerde van FJ
Bond. Clay Bond.
>Harumph. The most that Paramount officials can "hope" for is my
>possible glimpse of ST:TNG as I flip through the channels past it.
But Rob, ST:TNG is such a socially progressive show! (Perhaps aberno,
who said he would do the same thing, was Paramount's fag consultant.)
--
"An author whose works are best when skimmed quickly is
not worth recommending."
-- Bill Hsu
Donn Pedro
> > Paramount officials said the most gays can "hope" for is a possible
> >glimpse of same-sex couples strolling by in the background.
>
> possible glimpse of ST:TNG as I flip through the channels past it.
Punctuated by a hearty, "fuck you" as I turn off their mind candy
and go play my new guitar.
Hear that sound? That spinning - in the backround? It's Roddenberry
in his grave.
Donn Pedro ...................{uunet, sequent }!uswnvg!dfpedro.
Anthony Berno
> In article <1992Jan5.0...@mtdiablo.Concord.CA.US>
r...@mtdiablo.Concord.CA.US (S^u~n^wa U~ Wachi) writes:
>
> >Harumph. The most that Paramount officials can "hope" for is my
> >possible glimpse of ST:TNG as I flip through the channels past it.
>
> But Rob, ST:TNG is such a socially progressive show! (Perhaps aberno,
> who said he would do the same thing, was Paramount's fag consultant.)
You are capable of more than cheap shots and name calling. Show some
respect for yourself and others, eh?
-A
Bond. Clay Bond.
>You are capable of more than cheap shots
Cheap? How juvenile are you that you believe you can make statements
and not be held accountable for them, boy?
>and name calling.
In this case, it was a compliment.
>Show some respect
Only to those who have earned it. Apologizing for the perpetration of
heterosexism is reprehensible; complicity is unforgivable.
And I never forget.
--
"The silence drew off, baring the pebbles and shells and all the tatty
wreckage of my life. Then, at the rim of vision, it gathered itself,
and in one sweeping tide, rushed me to sleep." -- Sylvia Plath
Anthony Berno
> In article <1992Jan5.2...@godel.questor.wimsey.bc.ca>
abe...@godel.questor.wimsey.bc.ca writes:
>
> >You are capable of more than cheap shots
>
> Cheap? How juvenile are you that you believe you can make statements
> and not be held accountable for them, boy?
I didn't think that it was necessary to point out that the assertion that
I favored the cancellation of the gay characters on TNG was untrue. If you
look more carefully at my previous postings, you will find that my opinion
on the subject was more than a simple yes or no. Yours was a "cheap shot"
because you misrepresented my opinion on the subject and used the
opportunity to make a contemptuous barb at me. Not surprising; you seem to
favor this style over more profound forms of discussion.
> >and name calling.
>
> In this case, it was a compliment.
It sure as hell didn't read as one.
> >Show some respect
>
> Only to those who have earned it. Apologizing for the perpetration of
> heterosexism is reprehensible; complicity is unforgivable.
Complicity has no place in my politics. Pragmatism does. Perhaps our
interpretations of how to best achieve our goals differ, but we are hardly
on different sides of the battle. I respect your opinions, and I expect
you to respect mine without reducing them to "complicity" and "apology".
> And I never forget.
I'm sure.
-A
Ron Buckmire
Huh? What?
What's all this about Paramount changnig it's mind? Where is the initial post
that set off all this discussion? Won't it be easier now to do a write-in
campaign since they had previously said they WOULD have gay characters and now
they are saying they won't?
--
RON BUCKMIRE, 11 Colvin Circle, Troy, NY 12180-3735.
uunet!rpi.edu!buckmr||buc...@rpitsmts.bitnet||buc...@rpi.edu||+1 518 276 8910
Q: What's the difference between erotic and kinky?
A: Erotic is when you use a feather, kinky is when the whole chicken is used!
Greg Parkinson
|> Complicity has no place in my politics. Pragmatism does.
For many people (myself included) the second sentence
makes the first sentence a lie.
|> Perhaps our
|> interpretations of how to best achieve our goals differ, but we are hardly
|> on different sides of the battle. I respect your opinions, and I expect
|> you to respect mine without reducing them to "complicity" and "apology".
Why do you *expect* anyone to respect your opinions?
Should I have respect for Ray Cohn merely because he
was homosexual (I would not use "gay" in this case)
so we are both on the same side of the battle?
Too often "pragmatism" is given as an explanation/excuse
for complicity. If you don't have the strength or ability
to live live without sucking up to a society that wishes
you dead (or at the least, invisible) then say so. Just
don't expect people not to see your "pragmatism" for
what it is - selling out your self-esteem for acceptance.
I've done it. Just about everyone I know has done it.
It's not easy to fight all the time. But I would never
insult who I am by pretending it's a good or self-affirming
or politically beneficial thing to do. It's just
*easier*.
--
Greg Parkinson (GregBear) Phone: 212-657-7814 Fax: 212-825-8607
Citibank,111 Wall Street E-Mail: g...@fig.citib.com
New York, New York 10043
The opinions expressed are my own and not those of the big 'ol bank.
Mike Batchelor
> In article <1992Jan5.0...@mtdiablo.Concord.CA.US>,
> r...@mtdiablo.Concord.CA.US (S^u~n^wa U~ Wachi) writes:
> > an...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ric Helton) wrote:
> > > Paramount officials said the most gays can "hope" for is a possible
> > >glimpse of same-sex couples strolling by in the background.
> >
> > Harumph. The most that Paramount officials can "hope" for is my
> > possible glimpse of ST:TNG as I flip through the channels past it.
>
> Punctuated by a hearty, "fuck you" as I turn off their mind candy
> and go play my new guitar.
Hmmmm.... I'm disappointed, but I'll still watch it. I like the
show, what can I say? I liked it before I even knew what gay
was, or that I would like to see some of them on TV.
> Hear that sound? That spinning - in the backround? It's Roddenberry
> in his grave.
Very probably. Too bad.
[] ---
[] Mike Batchelor -- mi...@kaplaah.UUCP -- cerritos.edu!wilbur!kaplaah!mike
[] Long Beach, California
[] Living proof that any idiot with a modem and a PC can connect to Usenet.
D. Owen Rowley
No no no, Anthony, get it right.
the correct line is
*of course you don't* :-)
LUX .. owen
--
D. Owen Rowley {uunet,fernwood,sun}!autodesk!owen
" If Space and Time are curved, where do all the straight people come from? "
Anthony Berno
writes:
> In article <1992Jan6.1...@godel.questor.wimsey.bc.ca>,
abe...@godel.questor.wimsey.bc.ca (Anthony Berno) writes:
>
> |> Complicity has no place in my politics. Pragmatism does.
>
> For many people (myself included) the second sentence
> makes the first sentence a lie.
I have prepared a lengthy posting on the subject. It will be posted right
after this one.
> Why do you *expect* anyone to respect your opinions?
I stand corrected. You are right, I should not expect anyone to respect
my opinions. I should not expect that anyone will listen when I speak. I
should not expect that anyone would give a second thought to my ideas. In
short, I should not expect anyone else to even do so much as acknowledge
my presence; after all, civilization is a thing of the past, is it not?
Contempt for ones fellow man is the order of the day - no longer do we
value opinions differing from our own, as ours are already perfect.
Dissenting voices are merely troublesome, and deserve no consideration. I
am in error, as I arrogantly assumed that another person might actually
acknowledge the fact that I am a thoughtful person with, just possibly,
some contribution to make to their precious politics and theories.
I consider respect for another person and their thoughts, whether that
person is the most saintly or most abhorrent, to be what raises us above
the bestial. I'm not perfect in this regard, nor is anyone else, but I do
make the effort. This does not preclude conflict; it just makes a
satisfactory resolution more probable. If you don't believe in respecting
others, well, I guess we just plain don't agree.
>
> Too often "pragmatism" is given as an explanation/excuse
> for complicity. If you don't have the strength or ability
> to live live without sucking up to a society that wishes
> you dead (or at the least, invisible) then say so. Just
> don't expect people not to see your "pragmatism" for
> what it is - selling out your self-esteem for acceptance.
Too often "pragmatism" is dismissed as an explaination/excuse for
complicity. If you don't have the strength or ability to occasionally
swallow your pride and compromise with your enemies, then just say so.
Just don't expect people not to see your arrogance for what it is -
throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
> I've done it. Just about everyone I know has done it.
> It's not easy to fight all the time. But I would never
> insult who I am by pretending it's a good or self-affirming
> or politically beneficial thing to do. It's just
> *easier*.
Yes, everyone has done it. It kind of sucks. It's not good or
self-affirming or politically beneficial. But it beats the hell out of
war.
Please read my following posting. I have a lot more to say on this matter.
-Anthony
Bob Donahue
>dfp...@uswnvg.UUCP (Donn Pedro) writes:
>> Hear that sound? That spinning - in the backround? It's Roddenberry
>> in his grave.
>Very probably. Too bad.
Most definitely - but this fits in well with the other things I
have heard (and reported here) about ST:TNG and the wake of changes
after Gene's death. It's fairly certain now that things are going to
go to pot real soon.
the execs at Paramount have come storming thru and doing
a "good" show isn't nearly as important as doing a show that makes
a lot of money. Giventhe degree of demographically oriented media manipulation
that goes on in this country - I give it 2 years before it hits the "Buck
Rodgers level of sci/fi.
BBC
Jeff Dauber
>the execs at Paramount have come storming thru and doing
>a "good" show isn't nearly as important as doing a show that makes
>a lot of money.
Welcome to the real world.
FWA
Ric Helton
The initial report came from the Kansas City Star, in a small
column compiled from AP wire news.... I have heard is was also
seen in a couple of other papers. Any more information?
David R. Preston
>have heard (and reported here) about ST:TNG and the wake of changes
>after Gene's death. It's fairly certain now that things are going to
>go to pot real soon.
>the execs at Paramount have come storming thru and doing
>a "good" show isn't nearly as important as doing a show that makes
>a lot of money.
I just read that they are going to do a "spin-off" of ST:TNG, which
should start in Jan. '93. I don't know if Gene was involved with this
or not, but I'm expecting it to be very bad, indeed. Perhaps something
like Weasley at Space Academy, saving the Earth from destruction every
week....
>I give it 2 years before it hits the "Buck Rodgers level of sci/fi.
You're more optimistic than I am....
--
David R. Preston d...@dosbears.uucp
Information gladly given but safety requires
the avoidance of unnecessary conversation.
D. R. Preston 584 Castro St. #614 SF CA 94114 USA
Greg Parkinson
|> In article <13...@ibism.fig.citib.com> g...@fig.citib.com (Greg Parkinson)
|> writes:
|> > In article <1992Jan6.1...@godel.questor.wimsey.bc.ca>,
|> abe...@godel.questor.wimsey.bc.ca (Anthony Berno) writes:
|> >
|> > |> Complicity has no place in my politics. Pragmatism does.
|> >
|> > For many people (myself included) the second sentence
|> > makes the first sentence a lie.
|>
|> I have prepared a lengthy posting on the subject. It will be posted right
|> after this one.
|>
|> > Why do you *expect* anyone to respect your opinions?
|>
|> I stand corrected. You are right, I should not expect anyone to respect
|> my opinions. I should not expect that anyone will listen when I speak. I
|> should not expect that anyone would give a second thought to my ideas.
|> In short, I should not expect anyone else to even do so much as acknowledge
|> my presence; after all, civilization is a thing of the past, is it not?
Bit of a leap from the first statement to the last, eh?
I think it a bit soon to mourn the demise of civilization,
and neither am I ready to mourn critical thought. I believe
that people have certain rights just for existing; default
respect for opinions is not on the list, not by a long shot.
I am usually willing to listen to what someone has to say,
especially if they have said worthwhile things in the past,
less so if they have shown themselves to be a fool. I am
willing to evaluate what someone says and if it makes sense,
to change what I believed previously. I am *not* willing to
respect, support, or promulgate anyone's opinion if I don't
think it makes sense.
|> I consider respect for another person and their thoughts, whether that
|> person is the most saintly or most abhorrent, to be what raises us above
|> the bestial. I'm not perfect in this regard, nor is anyone else, but I do
|> make the effort. This does not preclude conflict; it just makes a
|> satisfactory resolution more probable. If you don't believe in respecting
|> others, well, I guess we just plain don't agree.
What a frightening morass your mind must be! What raises us
above the bestial is the ability to *think*, to *evaluate*,
to *compare*, and to *learn* - not to blindly respect/accept
any and all opinions and viewpoints.
|> > Too often "pragmatism" is given as an explanation/excuse
|> > for complicity. If you don't have the strength or ability
|> > to live live without sucking up to a society that wishes
|> > you dead (or at the least, invisible) then say so. Just
|> > don't expect people not to see your "pragmatism" for
|> > what it is - selling out your self-esteem for acceptance.
|>
|> Too often "pragmatism" is dismissed as an explaination/excuse for
|> complicity. If you don't have the strength or ability to occasionally
|> swallow your pride and compromise with your enemies, then just say so.
|> Just don't expect people not to see your arrogance for what it is -
|> throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
I *am* a pretty uppity faggot. I am disgusted by queers
who dance a jig of joy at each crumb we are tossed by our
oppressors while chanting "forgive us our sinful play,
pragmatism is the only way, they like us more *every* day!"
Your long and rambling celebration of the delight of giving
in to your enemies under the guise of "working together"
might look appealing on the surface, but to me it highlights
the symptomology of thinking that *they* are *right*, and
therefore are correct in only doleing out what little bits they
decide we have earned the right to.
I will not *ask* for acceptance as though it was someone else's
to give. I will *demand* my rights, not beg for them. If I
am forced to compromise to get what I want, it will not be
without a fight, and I will not walk away happy for what I
got - I will be angry at what has been taken from me that is
rightfully mine. This, I think, is the essence of what I've
been trying to say and the base difference in our opinions.
BigFoot Bear
> >> Hear that sound? That spinning - in the backround? It's Roddenberry
> >> in his grave.
> >Very probably. Too bad.
> Most definitely - but this fits in well with the other things I
> have heard (and reported here) about ST:TNG and the wake of changes
> after Gene's death. It's fairly certain now that things are going to
> go to pot real soon.
> the execs at Paramount have come storming thru and doing
> a "good" show isn't nearly as important as doing a show that makes
> a lot of money. Giventhe degree of demographically oriented media manipulati
> Rodgers level of sci/fi.
> BBC
sadly, I have to agree with you- I have heard the same 'rumblings' on the
star.trek net.....rumour of a 'ST: the second generation' is flying pretty
heavily- I wonder if he wife has any control? is she GBLO* friendly?
growf
Vincent Manis
>I will not *ask* for acceptance as though it was someone else's
>to give. I will *demand* my rights, not beg for them. If I
>am forced to compromise to get what I want, it will not be
>without a fight, and I will not walk away happy for what I
>got - I will be angry at what has been taken from me that is
>rightfully mine. This, I think, is the essence of what I've
>been trying to say and the base difference in our opinions.
Fine rhetoric, but really not very useful. Stand on a streetcorner,
yelling `You fucking het bastards, I want my rights'? Perhaps an armed
insurrection?
There are certainly issues where it isn't possible to compromise. For
example, job discrimination is, in principle, not subject to compromise
(though if you look at many of our gay rights laws, they include weasel
words about religion, etc.). But many of the things we are fighting
about *have* to result in compromise. If a government has $1 billion
available for various health campaigns, AIDS groups want $600M, and
breast cancer groups want $600M, some sort of compromise seems
necessary.
It seems to me that we should be fighting for our rights as a part of
society, not as some sort of wonder group whose rights are so paramount
that they exceed all others. And, no, I'm not really referring to WASPs
here; in Canada, disadvantaged groups include aboriginal peoples,
immigrants (especially Chinese, who were deprived of basic rights until
1947; and Japanese, Ukranian, and Italian people who were interned
without cause in WWI and WWII), women, the disabled, and the poor, as
well as lesbian and gay people (and indeed, many people are members of
more than one of these groups). No government or nation could possibly
address all of the needs of all of these at once. Compromise and
gradualism are the only directions which make any sense.
Anthony is right: identify the evils and fight against them. But don't
expect to get everything you want right away, even if your opponents
basically agree that you are right. But, like water dripping against a
stone, you can wear them down.
As for asking rather than demanding: I was brought up to be polite, even
when dealing with people who are hostile to me. But don't ever mistake
politeness for softness.
--
\ Vincent Manis <ma...@cs.ubc.ca> "There is no law that vulgarity and
\ Department of Computer Science literary excellence cannot coexist."
/\ University of British Columbia -- A. Trevor Hodge
/ \ Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1W5 (604) 228-2394
Stephen Hutchison
|>dfp...@uswnvg.UUCP (Donn Pedro) writes:
|>> Hear that sound? That spinning - in the backround? It's Roddenberry
|>> in his grave.
|>Very probably. Too bad.
|
| Most definitely - but this fits in well with the other things I
|have heard (and reported here) about ST:TNG and the wake of changes
|after Gene's death. It's fairly certain now that things are going to
|go to pot real soon.
This morning I saw the proof. There it was, a "Cocoa Pebbles" commercial,
with Barney Rubble in Fred Flintstone's basement, putting on a costume
with a wig and fake Vulcan ears, then (with the help of Dino the Dinosaur)
"transporting" into Fred's kitchen.
"Mister SPOCK" says Fred, in astonishment.
"Sensors detect large deposits of chocolate-bearing cereal" says the
fake Spock, wielding his choco-tricorder.
It degenerates even further at that point, following the usual formula
for those commercials. Gene's angular momentum is about Warp 4 now.
Hutch
Anthony Berno
> Fine rhetoric, but really not very useful.
> There are certainly issues where it isn't possible to compromise. For
> example, job discrimination is, in principle, not subject to compromise
> (though if you look at many of our gay rights laws, they include weasel
> words about religion, etc.). But many of the things we are fighting
> about *have* to result in compromise.
>
> It seems to me that we should be fighting for our rights as a part of
> society, not as some sort of wonder group whose rights are so paramount
> that they exceed all others.
> identify the evils and fight against them. But don't
> expect to get everything you want right away, even if your opponents
> basically agree that you are right.
> I was brought up to be polite, even
> when dealing with people who are hostile to me. But don't ever mistake
> politeness for softness.
Ahhh... music to my ears. Nice to see you getting involved again!
-Anthony
ales...@triton.unm.edu
That IS A FUCKING BUMMER!!!!
ST:TNG is my very fave show. It reeally figures that the damn heterosexist
mother fucker dickweed dorks at that MAJOR CORPORATION would decide to pull
the plug on something (In my opinion) VERY relevent to helping progress
the attitudes of a lot of people (well maybe it would havehelped...)
I AM SO PISSED!!!
I was fucken ecstatic when I heard the news that gay, leesbians, and such
would be portryed on the show...
Does anyone have the address for SEELLOUT I mean PARAMOUNT so I can
write them a VERY DETAILED DESCRIPTION of MY DISAPPOINTMENT?
If you have a clue, pleease send it along...
Tasha Yar lives!
...Amy
Jess Anderson
In article <1992Jan8....@godel.questor.wimsey.bc.ca>
abe...@godel.questor.wimsey.bc.ca (Anthony Berno) writes:
Greg parkinson:
>>Why do you *expect* anyone to respect your opinions?
>I stand corrected. You are right, I should not expect
>anyone to respect my opinions. I should not expect that
>anyone will listen when I speak. I should not expect that
>anyone would give a second thought to my ideas. In short, I
>should not expect anyone else to even do so much as
>acknowledge my presence; after all, civilization is a thing
>of the past, is it not?
C'mon, Anthony, talk about going overboard! What's all this
paranoia, anyway? You're the walking law of the excluded
middle. There's a huge difference between the kind of
respect you get just because you're alive and another human
being and the kind you get because you've demonstrated that
you can do a bit more than that. You sound like someone who
want to have their boot kissed just because they're on the
planet.
Greg is memrely asserting that it doesn't work that way, and
I think he's quite right.
>Contempt for ones fellow man is the order of the day - no
>longer do we value opinions differing from our own, as ours
>are already perfect. Dissenting voices are merely
>troublesome, and deserve no consideration. I am in error,
>as I arrogantly assumed that another person might actually
>acknowledge the fact that I am a thoughtful person with,
>just possibly, some contribution to make to their precious
>politics and theories.
Do you think that sort of childish pouting is winning you
any respect? Dissent is useful, even vitally necessary, but
it takes some starch you apparently can't muster if the
thing you do in response to being challenged is sit in the
corner and whimper about how civilization is ending just
because your pillow isn't soft enough for you. You're going
to have a totally uphill battle if you think people will be
guilt-tripped into treating you with kid gloves just because
you're used to being treated as competent without having to
demonstrate it.
>Please read my following posting. I have a lot more to say
>on this matter.
Coming soon to a screen near you.
<> I'm not at all necrophobic; there are a lot of people
<> I'd like dead. -- Jess Anderson
--
Jess Anderson <> Madison Academic Computing Center <> University of Wisconsin
Internet: ande...@macc.wisc.edu <-best, UUCP:{}!uwvax!macc.wisc.edu!anderson
NeXTmail w/attachments: ande...@yak.macc.wisc.edu Bitnet: anderson@wiscmacc
Room 3130 <> 1210 West Dayton Street / Madison WI 53706 <> Phone 608/262-5888