... "To use a human phrase, it gives me the screaming willies." --Draal
--- RA/FD/FMail
* Origin: The Eclectic Fox -- Memphis TN (901)327-1008 (1:123/10)
Ä [20] SFFAN (2:463/2.5) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ SFFAN Ä
Msg : 105 of 233
From : Michael Harper 1:123/10 .ķá 04 .āé 96 06:17
To : Thomas Gladwin
Subj : Physical attraction
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
Tossing back another tequila, Thomas Gladwin told Michael Harper about
Physical attraction...
TG> Ah (always distrust people who go"Ah") but if you expect that, it'll
TG> happen. You'll always let your feelings show through, so this lady will
TG> notice you don't actually expect her to respond to you. And will
TG> interpret that as you not actually wanting her to.
But see, there's the thing. Yeah, that feeling comes through, but I
have a bad habit of coming on so strong that women run. In the case of
the lady in question, I spent eight years pursuing her, and she told me
pretty much nonstop that I was a wonderful guy who was too good for
her. Hell, I'm involved with a woman now who's telling me the same
thing.
TG> There might be a certain "fear-of-failure" playing behind this, which
TG> might account for little things in your behaviour which give that
TG> message to the lady. Are you trying to hard to be a friend, at the cost
TG> of trying to start a relationship? A good test is, seeing if you make
TG> excuses against actions which could deepen her involvement with you.
No, actually it's the other way around; I want a wife so damn bad that
I can't seem to deal with just being a friend. I come on at warp thirty
and scare them off so that they can't get so close they'll break my
heart. But they always do, because like a moron I set myself up for it
every time...
TG> Well, that's enough. Please don't send me hate-mail for this ;-) just
TG> sticking my beak in.
Hey, it's okay. Talking about it helps me sort out my neuroses. I
appreciate the feedback.
... I hold a cup of wisdom, but there is nothing within.
--- RA/FD/FMail
* Origin: The Eclectic Fox -- Memphis TN (901)327-1008 (1:123/10)
Ä [20] SFFAN (2:463/2.5) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ SFFAN Ä
Msg : 106 of 233
From : Michael Harper 1:123/10 .ķá 04 .āé 96 08:14
To : Eric Fishbein
Subj : VOYAGER DOC?
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
Tossing back another tequila, Eric Fishbein told Michael Harper about
VOYAGER DOC?...
EF> Ah, but that doesn't discount the fact that there are AIs (or
EF> AI LIKE) subroutines running on a computer that isn't supposed to be
EF> sentient. How can part of the machine be alive while the whole is
EF> not? Can certain of our organs die without us rejecting them?
EF> It just doesn't seem likely to me that the Doctor could be a whole,
EF> independent, functioning individual without some sort of higher power
EF> governing his actions. If this is the case, what was that little
EF> creature the Enterprise's computers spawned at the end of the TNG run?
Hey, I just chalked it up to another Trek inconsistency... but,
theoretically, the Doctor could appear to be an AI without it being the
case; after all, he has the full power of the Voyager's computer cores
to draw from, and a program base that duplicates in exacting detail the
mind of his creator and about fifteen thousand gp's and specialists,
everything from chest cutters to gynos to brain squeezers to gas
passers, or whatever the hell they call anesthesiologists in the
future. The point being that he may look like an AI and not be.
Personally, I'm of the opinion that if it walks and talks like a duck,
it's probably another Trek inconsistency.
... "Miss, your brain is not on file." --Doc Zimmerman
--- RA/FD/FMail
* Origin: The Eclectic Fox -- Memphis TN (901)327-1008 (1:123/10)
Ä [20] SFFAN (2:463/2.5) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ SFFAN Ä
Msg : 107 of 233
From : Michael Harper 1:123/10 .ķá 04 .āé 96 08:14
To : Frank Glover
Subj : Voyager Doc?
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
Tossing back another tequila, Frank Glover told Michael Harper about
Voyager Doc?...
FG> The Adventures of Captain Dunsel, I guess...
Exactamundo, Francesco. Drama goes right out the window. Show follows
it not long after.
... "Even our best footage won't stop them!" -- Crow T. Robot
--- RA/FD/FMail
* Origin: The Eclectic Fox -- Memphis TN (901)327-1008 (1:123/10)
Ä [20] SFFAN (2:463/2.5) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ SFFAN Ä
Msg : 108 of 233
From : Bob Klahn 1:234/2 .˙ō 03 .āé 96 15:25
To : Todd Sullivan
Subj : DR. WHO
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
TS> Reports from the Interior indicate that Bob Klahn leaked the following
TS> to Ronald De Graaf, re: DR. WHO
RDG>>> The BBC TVepisodes were not the highpoint of quality, either.....
BK>> What are you talking about? Their special effects budget alone must
BK>> have exceeded $5.95. That's per episode too.
TS> In 1970's dollars, too. :^)
TS> I think that was part of its charm. You had to admire the guts
TS> necessary to use light reflecting off a plastic ballon to represent an
TS> "alien" presence, after the initial, "Oh, God! That's awful!" reaction.
I believe it. I think that was one reason for it's success. They had to
depend on writing and acting to carry the show. Of course, some of the
early acting was very hammy, and the scripts also. Many of the actors were
actually very prominent. It's kinda fun to watch some performance of
Shakespear and pick out Dr. Who performers.
I recall the appearance of Mark Wing Davies, (Zaphod Beeblebrox) as
Richard III.
Bob Klahn
... Start a download. Get a beer. Multitasking!
* Silver Xpress V4.02B03 RB10275
--- FLAME v1.1
* Origin: Telnet toltbbs.com or call 313-854-6001, Boardwatch #55 (1:234/2)
Ä [20] SFFAN (2:463/2.5) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ SFFAN Ä
Msg : 109 of 233
From : Bob Klahn 1:234/2 .˙ō 03 .āé 96 15:25
To : The Raven
Subj : HIGHLANDER NEWS!
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
TR> "This just in from our Moscow Bureau..."
BK>> Yes, I saw the first movie. There is no explanation at all why the
BK>> last immortal should gain this power yet immortals as a group do not
BK>> have this power.
TR> More on this below.
BK>> Take all that and it adds up to magic
TR> Ah! The light of day shines through to his clouded brain!
Obscured by the glare of the arrogance displayed there.
TR> Very good, Bob, you hit it the first time. Magic is exactly what
TR> it is. It has never been presented as anything else except in that
TR> abortion of a second film... and *that* has been disowned and
TR> nullified by the producers.
It has never been formally presented as magic at all anywhere I have seen.
If they are going to make it magic when do they bring on the dragons and
mages? Maybe they can make it every bit as silly as 'Kung Fu, the Legend
Continues."
BK>> Sorry, unless they want to call this a show about magic, I reject magic
BK>> as an explanation for anything. If there is no explanation it's magic.
TR> I would have to use both hands to count the times they (the
TR> characters in the show) call what they are and what they can do
TR> "magic". The usual phrase used is "Its a kind of magic". Hell,
An simple explanation for something they don't understand. Considering
that even MacLeod would have known nothing about Genetics 400 years ago,
that explanation would have been normal for him. I suppose we can beleive
all the old medicines which are now claimed to have actual theraputic
properties were, infact, actually working by magic. After all, that's what
they beleived then.
TR> Duncan MacLeod once described the Immortals as being Changlings,
TR> the children of faeries switched for human children. There is no
TR> explanation because it *is* magic, it has *always* been magic, and
TR> I want to know where you have been that you *don't* know this?
I want to know why you believe a silly explanation like that. I want to
know why you believe the explanation derived from celtic mythology of 400
years ago. Of course, they could bring in the faeries and really go down
the tubes.
BK>> The show makes a lot more sense if you get rid of the magic and move
BK>> it toward a more rational basis.
TR> I'm still wondering when you are going to answer my original
TR> question and tell us all *why* you think (and you alone on the
TR> planet, as far as I can tell) that they need to get rid of the
TR> magic and move to rationality. This is not a science fiction
TR> series, Bob. It's fantasy. Always has been.
Read the echo, at least two other people ask similar questions to mine.
As to the rest, even if fantasy does not have to be based completely on
science, it should either have some rational basis or just go off on a
completely different tangent. If they live in this world I expect them to
obey the laws of science of this world.
Until then, even magic needs some rationality to it. Otherwise it is meer
silliness.
BK>> Nothing wrong with escapist fantasy. I, however, distinguish between
BK>> fantasy and SF. I prefer my SF straight.
TR> Then you are watching the wrong show. It has never been "straight
TR> SF". Fantasy is a long and established genre of entertainment, and
TR> why you feel you need to put the one down in favor of the other is
TR> beyond me.
Am I, or are you? I don't put down *good* fantasy, I do look for some
internal consistency combined with a bit of rationality. Even fantasy can
benefit from Occam's razor.
BK>> Sorry if thinking for yourself is a sign of arrogance.
TR> No, deciding that the producers need to change their show because
TR> you hate fantasy is a sign of arrogance.
Deliberately distorting what someone else says is something worse than
arrogance.
BK>> Accept it, or don't watch the show. Its that simple.
BK>> If enough of us don't watch the show there is no show.
TR> You no longer watching the show would be no loss. There are
TR> millions of us who disagree with you, Bob. I've been talking
TR> about this show on the net for four years now and you are the only
TR> person I've ever seen to have a problem with the basic premise.
TR> You are alone in your opinions, and the loss of your viewership
TR> will *not* be noticed.
Your opinion. Completely unsupported by facts. As I said, seems there are
at least two other people asking similar questions. And, again as I said,
more people watch a bad episode of any of the Star Trek series than a good
episode of Highlander.
BK>> The rules are dumb because:
TR> I'm going to address these in clumps, and not in the original order
TR> (because several of them can be lumped together). But I will try to
TR> address all of them.
BK>> There is no rational explanation why there can't be 10,000.
BK>> Why would immortals stop being born in 1980?
TR> These are arbitrary numbers set by the producers as guidelines for
TR> producers and writers. They were arbitrarily set at the beginning of
TR> the series and have never been set out in the broadcast show.
