Big Daddy wrote:
Admiral Buzzkill wrote:
It's always going to be easier to believe in the integrity of those who are quick to share credit than in those who will tend to obscure it in their own favor.
I can see that, but that presupposes that those who are willing to share credit (at the cost of discrediting the professional integrity of another) are beyond reproach.
No it doesn't.
One doesn't have to "presuppose" anything or assign any one source undue authority in order to reach the conclusion that Solow and Justman's version of events contains a great deal more truth than the lionization of Roddenberry. There are too many other witnesses and sources over the decades for these kinds of stories.
Indeed, to buy the accounts of the few remaining GR hagiographers you have to go through, story by story, and discredit the "professional integrity" of many people. How vast do you suppose the conspiracy to prevent Roddenberry from being canonized as a saint must be, and who organizes it?