Sprinkler Systems Uhaul move Lawn care Roses and trees Ford Parts Chrysler Parts Lake Powell New IPod Touch Apps New IPhone Apps IPhone Apps IPad Information IPad Apps Android APPS Android Games APPS Android Systems Android Tablets APPS and Beyond Smartphone Apps Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools Tablet PC Car Sharing Car Leasing Tabler Pc Fly Fishing Toyota Cars Vacation Rentals Stock market NYSE SSE Stock Freight & Shipping News Gluten Lactose Gout My Coupon Life Campgrounds Check Outdoor Kitchen Design and Redoo Bath Remodeling Palm Springs Las Vegas Vacation Tipps Lake Powell Boating Homes for lease Electric and green Car Blog Pearls and diamonds Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
Reader


[Suche]  [Administrator]  [Hinweise zum Reader]  [Startseite]
Science Fiction » alt.startrek » WEHT
Re: WEHT [message #199526 ] Mi, 11 Januar 2006 04:06
rgorman  
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 21:46:02 -0500, ToolPackinMama
<laura [at] lauragoodwin.org> wrote:


>Notice that the US Military is not the UFP Starfleet.

That doesn't exactly support the proposition that the UFP has as much
concern for civil rights as a modern person would expect.
Re: WEHT [message #199528 ] Mi, 11 Januar 2006 04:39
ToolPackinMama  
David Johnston wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 21:46:02 -0500, ToolPackinMama
> <laura [at] lauragoodwin.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Notice that the US Military is not the UFP Starfleet.
>
>
> That doesn't exactly support the proposition that the UFP has as much
> concern for civil rights as a modern person would expect.

?

I simply stated that the present day US military is not the same as the
(fictional) United Federation of Planet's STARFLEET. The rules of the
US military of our day are not necessarily the rules of the military arm
of a multi-planet organization that represents and serves may sentient
species, galaxy-wide.

Heck the rules of the US military aren't even universal ~today~.
There's certainly no reason to believe they will be universal three
hundred years from now, for both the United Earth, and the UFP at large.

OK... would everybody who has a strong opinion about rights of UFP
personnel please post cites?

Screengrabs and/or transcript excerpts, please. Let's get some *canon*
(fictional) facts established, before we proceed further.

No point in arguing about it unless we first agree about what we are
arguing about, yes? :)
Re: WEHT [message #199530 ] Mi, 11 Januar 2006 05:24
Laura Ware  
"ToolPackinMama" <laura [at] lauragoodwin.org> wrote in message
news:SY-dnbi8N4K6iiLenZ2dnUVZ_sydnZ2d [at] comcast.com...
> Laura Ware wrote:
>
>> Whoa, whoa, whoa. Calm down here. NO ONE is saying that Valeris was an
>> innocent here. The question was did Kirk resort to less than the high
>> ground in this case. The answer is yes.
>
> I disagree. I am not saying Kirk is perfect and that he never makes
> mistakes, I'm just saying that he doesn't order Spock to perform
> mind-melds. Not then, not ever. That's always Spock's personal decision.
>
> Besides, as I said before, we have no canon reason to think that was a
> "mind-rape". No one called it a mind-rape in the movie. Nobody
> complained, saying "Hey! Isn't that a mind-rape, and isn't mind-rape
> going a step too far!?"
>
> Valeris never said, "Look I know I'm a traitor, but mind-rape is cruel and
> unusual punishment, and ouch, Spock's mind-raping me!"

"Mind-rape" has been tossed around a lot, and I understand why people look
at it from that direction. If someone could invade your thoughts against
your will, it would be the worst invasion of privacy you could imagine.
I grant you it isn't canon in the sense the word "mind rape" isn't used on
screen, but I can understand why people would call it that.
--
--
Laura Ware (bookwormlady [at] earthlink.net)
"Almost nobody means precisely what he says when he makes the declaration,
'I'm in favor of free speech'" (Heywood Broun)

Visit my blog at http://lauraslook.blogspot.com/
Re: WEHT [message #199531 ] Mi, 11 Januar 2006 05:26
Laura Ware  
"ToolPackinMama" <laura [at] lauragoodwin.org> wrote in message
news:FICdnRJs2o2uhiLenZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d [at] comcast.com...
> ToolPackinMama wrote:
>
>> Besides, as I said before, we have no canon reason to think that was a
>> "mind-rape". No one called it a mind-rape in the movie. Nobody
>> complained, saying "Hey! Isn't that a mind-rape, and isn't mind-rape
>> going a step too far!?"
>
> I can't understand why any Trek fan would prefer to put the most negative
> possible spin on the actions and decisions of our heroes. What ever
> happened to "the benefit of the doubt"?
>
> We have no compelling, canon-based reason to put the most negative
> possible interpretation on the Valeris meld scene.
>
> Our guys were desperately doing what they could in limited time to avert
> disaster and save the day, as ususal.

The acting gives it the indication that this was not a pleasant experience
for Valeris OR Spock. It was mind-melding with Valeris against her will,
and Kirk supported it.
--
--
Laura Ware (bookwormlady [at] earthlink.net)
Standing in the middle of the road is dangerous. You will get knocked down
by the traffic from both ways.

Visit my blog at http://lauraslook.blogspot.com/
Re: WEHT [message #199532 ] Mi, 11 Januar 2006 05:53
ToolPackinMama  
Laura Ware wrote:

> "Mind-rape" has been tossed around a lot, and I understand why people look
> at it from that direction. If someone could invade your thoughts against
> your will, it would be the worst invasion of privacy you could imagine.

I don't disagree, but that's a big _if_.

> I grant you it isn't canon in the sense the word "mind rape" isn't used on
> screen, but I can understand why people would call it that.

So can I, but we not only don't have anyone calling it "mind-rape"
onscreen, but we also have no other canon reason to class it as
"mind-rape". As I pointed out, her reaction is adequetely explained
when you remember she had a friendship with Spock, and she betrayed him.
Maybe he simply showed her how much that hurt.

After all, when Spock melds with a person or creature, he knows what
they know, and feels what they feel... and they are granted a similar
window into his mind simultaneously.

Let's face it: if he had been raping her, he would have been raping
himself. There's no way he could hurt her without hurting himself.
That's how the mind-meld works. That's well established in TOS canon.

Usually, when Spock melds with a person, he loses track of the
boundaries of his own personality. He and his meldee temporarily become
one mind. What his meldee experiences, he experiences, and vice/versa.
Re: WEHT [message #199533 ] Mi, 11 Januar 2006 05:55
ToolPackinMama  
Laura Ware wrote:

> The acting gives it the indication that this was not a pleasant experience
> for Valeris OR Spock.

Exactly. But that doesn't make it a "rape". When two ex-lovers have a
messy and violent emotional battle, is that a rape?
Re: WEHT (What do these letters mean?) [message #199541 ] Mi, 11 Januar 2006 20:43
VernonT  
"ToolPackinMama" <laura [at] lauragoodwin.org> wrote in message
news:8badnXN7G-usElneRVn-hA [at] comcast.com...
> Laura Ware wrote:
>
>> "Mind-rape" has been tossed around a lot, and I understand why people
>> look at it from that direction. If someone could invade your thoughts
>> against your will, it would be the worst invasion of privacy you could
>> imagine.
>
> I don't disagree, but that's a big _if_.
>
>> I grant you it isn't canon in the sense the word "mind rape" isn't used
>> on screen, but I can understand why people would call it that.
>
> So can I, but we not only don't have anyone calling it "mind-rape"
> onscreen, but we also have no other canon reason to class it as
> "mind-rape". As I pointed out, her reaction is adequetely explained when
> you remember she had a friendship with Spock, and she betrayed him. Maybe
> he simply showed her how much that hurt.
>
> After all, when Spock melds with a person or creature, he knows what they
> know, and feels what they feel... and they are granted a similar window
> into his mind simultaneously.
>
> Let's face it: if he had been raping her, he would have been raping
> himself. There's no way he could hurt her without hurting himself. That's
> how the mind-meld works. That's well established in TOS canon.
>
> Usually, when Spock melds with a person, he loses track of the boundaries
> of his own personality. He and his meldee temporarily become one mind.
> What his meldee experiences, he experiences, and vice/versa.


I'm inclined to agree with this point. What I got out of the scene was that
Valeris was attempting to keep her thoughts private and Spock had the more
powerful mind and was able to break through her "firewall". While not
totally
convinced that it isn't a case of violation, I think it was necessary for
Spock to
do it because "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the
one."

There are things that must be done to protect the citizens of the UFP while
infringing
on the rights of criminals because their rights end where "ours" begin, and
vice versa,
of course. I'll never be convinced that the rights of the victims aren't at
least as important
(if not more so) as those of the criminals, because by committing the crime,
they have
forfeited some of that.
Re: WEHT (What do these letters mean?) [message #199542 ] Do, 12 Januar 2006 00:33
ToolPackinMama  
VernonT wrote:

> There are things that must be done to protect the citizens of the UFP while
> infringing
> on the rights of criminals because their rights end where "ours" begin

Exactly.

Nothing justifies "rape" but as has been explained, we have no solid
canon reason to class that particular mind-meld as a "mind-rape".

Spock is one of the good guys. It should be assumed that his motives and
methods are proper. Nobody (in the movie) said that they weren't.
Jeez, if they weren't, that would be a whole movie in itself.
Re: WEHT (What do these letters mean?) [message #199544 ] Do, 12 Januar 2006 01:35
rgorman  
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 18:33:53 -0500, ToolPackinMama
<laura [at] lauragoodwin.org> wrote:

>VernonT wrote:
>
>> There are things that must be done to protect the citizens of the UFP while
>> infringing
>> on the rights of criminals because their rights end where "ours" begin
>
>Exactly.
>
>Nothing justifies "rape" but as has been explained, we have no solid
>canon reason to class that particular mind-meld as a "mind-rape".
>
>Spock is one of the good guys. It should be assumed that his motives and
>methods are proper.

Oh please. If we were going to assume that, then we'd have to go
around assuming silly things like "There was nothing improper about
Archer sticking a prisoner into an airlock and letting the air out."
or "Picard was justified in his decision to take a job belonging to a
Starfleet Academy graduate and give it to a more gifted but less
qualified teenager." That's abdicating our own power of ethical
judgement in favour of the whims of a script writer.
Re: WEHT (What do these letters mean?) [message #199546 ] Do, 12 Januar 2006 02:12
ToolPackinMama  
David Johnston wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 18:33:53 -0500, ToolPackinMama
> <laura [at] lauragoodwin.org> wrote:

>>Spock is one of the good guys. It should be assumed that his motives and
>>methods are proper.
>
>
> Oh please. If we were going to assume that, then we'd have to go
> around assuming silly things like "There was nothing improper about
> Archer sticking a prisoner into an airlock and letting the air out."
> or "Picard was justified in his decision to take a job belonging to a
> Starfleet Academy graduate and give it to a more gifted but less
> qualified teenager." That's abdicating our own power of ethical
> judgement in favour of the whims of a script writer.

Well, that's true.
Re: WEHT [message #203942 ] Mi, 18 Januar 2006 11:28
Fozzi  
"Laura Ware" <bookwormlady [at] NOBADSTUFearthlink.net> wrote in message
news:vDDvf.3154$ZA2.2813 [at] newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> It was obvious that Valeris didn't want to meld, and Spock forced her to.
> Kirk knew she didn't want to, yet not only did not try to stop Spock but
> enouraged him to continue to get more information. When he said Spock's
> name and indicated Valeris it seems he wanted Spock to do SOMETHING. And
> he didn't seem willing to stop Spock from his actions.
> Kirk was human. This means he wasn't perfect. You can still think he is
> the greatest Captain in Trekdom when you acknowledge he has flaws like
> everyone else. This was one time, needing information to stop an
> intergalactic war, he resorted to measures we might call coercive.
>
>


Agreed completely, indeed practically all of the great heroes of literature
have flaws, it is crucial to the humanity of the charachter that they have
them. Only a god is flawless (and many cultures attribute substantial flaws
even to their gods), making a heroe flawless makes them a god rather than a
human, thereby substantially decreasing the impressiveness of anything they
do (by definition a god cant do anything extrordinary or exceptional by
comparison with their peers).


cheers
fozzi
Re: WEHT [message #204006 ] Fr, 20 Januar 2006 08:26
redhawk  
"Fozzi" <efor6920 [at] bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:GLozf.219994$V7.186332 [at] news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "Laura Ware" <bookwormlady [at] NOBADSTUFearthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:vDDvf.3154$ZA2.2813 [at] newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>
>> It was obvious that Valeris didn't want to meld, and Spock forced her to.
>> Kirk knew she didn't want to, yet not only did not try to stop Spock but
>> enouraged him to continue to get more information. When he said Spock's
>> name and indicated Valeris it seems he wanted Spock to do SOMETHING. And
>> he didn't seem willing to stop Spock from his actions.
>> Kirk was human. This means he wasn't perfect. You can still think he is
>> the greatest Captain in Trekdom when you acknowledge he has flaws like
>> everyone else. This was one time, needing information to stop an
>> intergalactic war, he resorted to measures we might call coercive.
>>
>>
>
>
> Agreed completely, indeed practically all of the great heroes of
> literature have flaws, it is crucial to the humanity of the charachter
> that they have them. Only a god is flawless (and many cultures attribute
> substantial flaws even to their gods), making a heroe flawless makes them
> a god rather than a human, thereby substantially decreasing the
> impressiveness of anything they do (by definition a god cant do anything
> extrordinary or exceptional by comparison with their peers).

Now I'm trying to think -- did Picard have any flaws?

Being too wise, perhaps, or maybe having too much tolerance for the beliefs
of others. ;-)

>
>
> cheers
> fozzi
>
Re: WEHT [message #204011 ] Fr, 20 Januar 2006 15:07
Mirror Spock  
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 07:26:07 GMT, "redhawk" <newfoundsoil [at] hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
>"Fozzi" <efor6920 [at] bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
>news:GLozf.219994$V7.186332 [at] news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> "Laura Ware" <bookwormlady [at] NOBADSTUFearthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:vDDvf.3154$ZA2.2813 [at] newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>>
>>> It was obvious that Valeris didn't want to meld, and Spock forced her to.
>>> Kirk knew she didn't want to, yet not only did not try to stop Spock but
>>> enouraged him to continue to get more information. When he said Spock's
>>> name and indicated Valeris it seems he wanted Spock to do SOMETHING. And
>>> he didn't seem willing to stop Spock from his actions.
>>> Kirk was human. This means he wasn't perfect. You can still think he is
>>> the greatest Captain in Trekdom when you acknowledge he has flaws like
>>> everyone else. This was one time, needing information to stop an
>>> intergalactic war, he resorted to measures we might call coercive.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Agreed completely, indeed practically all of the great heroes of
>> literature have flaws, it is crucial to the humanity of the charachter
>> that they have them. Only a god is flawless (and many cultures attribute
>> substantial flaws even to their gods), making a heroe flawless makes them
>> a god rather than a human, thereby substantially decreasing the
>> impressiveness of anything they do (by definition a god cant do anything
>> extrordinary or exceptional by comparison with their peers).
>
>Now I'm trying to think -- did Picard have any flaws?
>
>Being too wise, perhaps, or maybe having too much tolerance for the beliefs
>of others. ;-)

In the first season (at least), he'd surrender at the drop of a hat.

* Robinson
Re: WEHT [message #204014 ] Fr, 20 Januar 2006 18:04
nunca  
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 09:07:51 -0500, Mirror Spock <robins80 [at] msu.edu>
wrote:

>On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 07:26:07 GMT, "redhawk" <newfoundsoil [at] hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>"Fozzi" <efor6920 [at] bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
>>news:GLozf.219994$V7.186332 [at] news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>
>>> "Laura Ware" <bookwormlady [at] NOBADSTUFearthlink.net> wrote in message
>>> news:vDDvf.3154$ZA2.2813 [at] newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>>>
>>>> It was obvious that Valeris didn't want to meld, and Spock forced her to.
>>>> Kirk knew she didn't want to, yet not only did not try to stop Spock but
>>>> enouraged him to continue to get more information. When he said Spock's
>>>> name and indicated Valeris it seems he wanted Spock to do SOMETHING. And
>>>> he didn't seem willing to stop Spock from his actions.
>>>> Kirk was human. This means he wasn't perfect. You can still think he is
>>>> the greatest Captain in Trekdom when you acknowledge he has flaws like
>>>> everyone else. This was one time, needing information to stop an
>>>> intergalactic war, he resorted to measures we might call coercive.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Agreed completely, indeed practically all of the great heroes of
>>> literature have flaws, it is crucial to the humanity of the charachter
>>> that they have them. Only a god is flawless (and many cultures attribute
>>> substantial flaws even to their gods), making a heroe flawless makes them
>>> a god rather than a human, thereby substantially decreasing the
>>> impressiveness of anything they do (by definition a god cant do anything
>>> extrordinary or exceptional by comparison with their peers).
>>
>>Now I'm trying to think -- did Picard have any flaws?
>>
>>Being too wise, perhaps, or maybe having too much tolerance for the beliefs
>>of others. ;-)
>
>In the first season (at least), he'd surrender at the drop of a hat.
>
>* Robinson


With or without dark glasses?
Re: WEHT [message #204029 ] Sa, 21 Januar 2006 09:49
cavalier  
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 07:26:07 GMT, "redhawk" <newfoundsoil [at] hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
>"Fozzi" <efor6920 [at] bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
>news:GLozf.219994$V7.186332 [at] news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> "Laura Ware" <bookwormlady [at] NOBADSTUFearthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:vDDvf.3154$ZA2.2813 [at] newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>>
>>> It was obvious that Valeris didn't want to meld, and Spock forced her to.
>>> Kirk knew she didn't want to, yet not only did not try to stop Spock but
>>> enouraged him to continue to get more information. When he said Spock's
>>> name and indicated Valeris it seems he wanted Spock to do SOMETHING. And
>>> he didn't seem willing to stop Spock from his actions.
>>> Kirk was human. This means he wasn't perfect. You can still think he is
>>> the greatest Captain in Trekdom when you acknowledge he has flaws like
>>> everyone else. This was one time, needing information to stop an
>>> intergalactic war, he resorted to measures we might call coercive.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Agreed completely, indeed practically all of the great heroes of
>> literature have flaws, it is crucial to the humanity of the charachter
>> that they have them. Only a god is flawless (and many cultures attribute
>> substantial flaws even to their gods), making a heroe flawless makes them
>> a god rather than a human, thereby substantially decreasing the
>> impressiveness of anything they do (by definition a god cant do anything
>> extrordinary or exceptional by comparison with their peers).
>
>Now I'm trying to think -- did Picard have any flaws?
>
>Being too wise, perhaps, or maybe having too much tolerance for the beliefs
>of others. ;-)
>
>>
>>
>> cheers
>> fozzi

Their flaws? Picard was bald. Kirk wore reading glasses.
Re: WEHT [message #204163 ] Do, 26 Januar 2006 03:59
michealhunt001  
ken maines wrote:
>
> We know where all the TOS folks are...mostly dead...hehe.
> But where have all the main cast characters from other shows ended up.
> Any really great or sad stories?
> If I see any of them at all it's usually on another ScFi TV show.
> Neelix was in a forgetable movie this year, some rip of Logans Run.
>
> So if you have stories...post em if you got em.
> I love WEHT stories.

Shatner and Rene (not going to attempt to spell his last name) are on
Boston Legal
Alexander Siddig played the saudi prince in that Clooney movie a couple
months ago
Stewart will be in X3 this spring
Michele Forbes was in BSG this season
Rom was in Bruce Almighty a couple years ago (I just rewatched it so it
was fresh in my mind)

--
____________________________________________________________ _______

http://www.khaaan.com/
Re: WEHT [message #204164 ] Do, 26 Januar 2006 04:06
michealhunt001  
"Steven L." wrote:

>
> I guess the United Federation of Planets doesn't have the equivalent of
> Miranda rights ("You have the right to remain silent....").

Only if you're assigned to serve on a Miranda class ;)

In TNG they specifically mentioned the right to refuse to answer on the
grounds that the answer might incriminate. Riker advises Simon Tarsus to
exercise that right

--
____________________________________________________________ _______

http://www.khaaan.com/
Re: WEHT [message #204165 ] Do, 26 Januar 2006 04:07
michealhunt001  
ken maines wrote:
>
> We know where all the TOS folks are...mostly dead...hehe.
> But where have all the main cast characters from other shows ended up.
> Any really great or sad stories?
> If I see any of them at all it's usually on another ScFi TV show.
> Neelix was in a forgetable movie this year, some rip of Logans Run.
>
> So if you have stories...post em if you got em.
> I love WEHT stories.

I forgot one, Nimoy narrates Sid Meier's Civilization 4

--
____________________________________________________________ _______

http://www.khaaan.com/
Re: WEHT [message #204166 ] Do, 26 Januar 2006 04:40
michealhunt001  
"M.H." wrote:
>
> ken maines wrote:
> >
> > We know where all the TOS folks are...mostly dead...hehe.
> > But where have all the main cast characters from other shows ended up.
> > Any really great or sad stories?
> > If I see any of them at all it's usually on another ScFi TV show.
> > Neelix was in a forgetable movie this year, some rip of Logans Run.
> >
> > So if you have stories...post em if you got em.
> > I love WEHT stories.
>
> I forgot one, Nimoy narrates Sid Meier's Civilization 4
>
> --
> ____________________________________________________________ _______
>
> http://www.khaaan.com/

And Phlox was just on CSI NY

--
____________________________________________________________ _______

http://www.khaaan.com/
Re: WEHT [message #204183 ] Do, 26 Januar 2006 20:42
Mirror Spock  
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 22:40:21 -0500, "M.H."
<michealhunt001 [at] hotmail.com> wrote:

>"M.H." wrote:
>>
>> ken maines wrote:
>> >
>> > We know where all the TOS folks are...mostly dead...hehe.
>> > But where have all the main cast characters from other shows ended up.
>> > Any really great or sad stories?
>> > If I see any of them at all it's usually on another ScFi TV show.
>> > Neelix was in a forgetable movie this year, some rip of Logans Run.
>> >
>> > So if you have stories...post em if you got em.
>> > I love WEHT stories.
>>
>> I forgot one, Nimoy narrates Sid Meier's Civilization 4
>>
>> --
>> ____________________________________________________________ _______
>>
>> http://www.khaaan.com/
>
>And Phlox was just on CSI NY

I thought that was him.

* Robinson
Re: WEHT [message #245138 ] Sa, 08 April 2006 19:17
Notifier Deamon  
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
Vorheriges Thema:Re: we are armed and dangerous
Nächstes Thema:Way off-top rant
Gehe zu:
  


aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 19 16:37:52 CEST 2012

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,13830 Sekunden
.:: Startseite - Hinweise - Impressum ::.

Powered