Cushman "These Are The Voyages" Season 3 - Who is "M.D.R."?

[Harvey]

I've written a lot of about the abundance of mistakes, misconceptions, and outright fabrications in these books, but the beyond the grave endorsements from Gene Roddenberry and Bob Justman on the cover of all three books really says everything you need to know about Cushman and Osborn's credibility.

 

[Indysolo]

I guess I really don't give a shit about the history...

Then these are the books for you, because neither does Cushman.

Neil

 

[T'Bonz]

Don't care about them either. :P

 

[CrazyMatt]

True. I guess I really don't give a shit about the history, other than as a curiosity. I just like the show, you know? Not a slap at those who do care. I just don't.

Well put.

 

[Indysolo]

Don't care about them either. :P

Which then begs the question: why even bother posting in a thread where you don't care about the subject?

Neil

 

[Doug Otte]

Which then begs the question: why even bother posting in a thread where you don't care about the subject?

Neil

And further, why read the books if you don't care about the facts?

 

[Leee79]

I've written a lot of about the abundance of mistakes, misconceptions, and outright fabrications in these books, but the beyond the grave endorsements from Gene Roddenberry and Bob Justman on the cover of all three books really says everything you need to know about Cushman and Osborn's credibility.

Any chance that he got their endorsements at the start of his research for these books when they were still alive?
Just wondering.

 

[T'Bonz]

Because a) I read two of the books (so the thread caught my interest) and b) I received them as review copies.

Any other fucking stupid questions since I have committed the terrible sin of not going along with groupthink?

Trekkies....god...

 

[Harvey]

Any chance that he got their endorsements at the start of his research for these books when they were still alive?
Just wondering.

They may have given Cushman their blessings on the project (Cushman would certainly like us to think they not only gave him their blessings, but encouraged him by providing exclusive access to their files -- and at least part of that claim is certainly not true), but there's no way for them to have actually read any of the books.

And, sorry, since they never read them, neither "the book Gene Roddenberry and Robert H. Justman wanted you to read" (first edition, season one) nor "the story Gene Roddenberry and Robert H. Justman wanted you to know" (all other editions of the books) can be true.

 

[Marsden]

Because a) I read two of the books (so the thread caught my interest) and b) I received them as review copies.

Any other fucking stupid questions since I have committed the terrible sin of not going along with groupthink?

Trekkies....god...

You'd think that bright yellow Administrator badge on your profile would be enough reason to want to post any where you want. :P

 

[Indysolo]

Any other fucking stupid questions since I have committed the terrible sin of not going along with groupthink?

Trekkies....god...

It's not that you're "not going along with groupthink". This thread shows different points of view. Some like the books, others don't. You came into this thread and said, "I just like the show, you know?". I do know. It's a Star Trek message board. In some way, we all like the show. What's the point in saying that?

You've also said, "I don't get uber-serious about Trek. I like it but I'm sure not going to scrutinize every element of the show for accuracy, conformity, continuity, etc." which has nothing to do with the books being discussed. Again, pointing out you like Star Trek at a Star Trek message board is like looking for a virgin in the maternity ward. Besides that, the books are non-fiction, so they aren't about the continuity of the series as you suggest. They're supposed to be about the making of Star Trek, not about the world of Star Trek. That's an important distinction.

I also don't understand the "...I'm sure not going to scrutinize every element of the show...". What else do people do at a message board about Star Trek?

But then you go on and say, "I guess I really don't give a shit about the history, other than as a curiosity". Then why even bother to post in a thread you admit you don't care about? This thread is specifically about the history of the show, and it's definitely scrutinizing an element of it. This doesn't sound like something that would interest you.

Finally you asked, "Any other fucking stupid questions...". Do you have to curse so much?

Neil

 

[Leee79]

You'd think that bright yellow Administrator badge on your profile would be enough reason to want to post any where you want. :P

Plus the fact that I find it odd that someone who is a moderator on a Star Trek forum have so much disdain for "Trekkies".
That's like being a moderator of a Grateful Dead forum and hating Deadheads.

 

[T'Bonz]

It's a Star Trek message board. In some way, we all like the show. What's the point in saying that?

My point is that some people take this way too seriously to the point where they argue and fight over it.

I also don't understand the "...I'm sure not going to scrutinize every element of the show...". What else do people do at a message board about Star Trek?

There's a difference between discussing something and nitpicking it to death.

But then you go on and say, "I guess I really don't give a shit about the history, other than as a curiosity". Then why even bother to post in a thread you admit you don't care about? This thread is specifically about the history of the show, and it's definitely scrutinizing an element of it. This doesn't sound like something that would interest you.

Finally you asked, "Any other fucking stupid questions...". Do you have to curse so much?

Neil

Because I read the books and am *mildly* interested in the history. I've been in some of the other Cushman threads when they were posted. I hate it though when people obsess over stuff and triple that if they start arguing.

As for the cursing, you're stuck with it. I'm nearing 60 and unlikely to stop any time soon. I don't have many vices but that's one of them. I tend to find that people who get upset over it wouldn't like me anyhow, so it's a good way to weed them out so I'm not bothered by them.

* *
Edit for the n00b in the thread: "Plus the fact that I find it odd that someone who is a moderator on a Star Trek forum have so much disdain for "Trekkies"."

I hate Trekkies. Trek fans, on the other hand, are just fine. There is a difference and after almost 16 years here, you'll see it too.

 

[Indysolo]

My point is that some people take this way too seriously to the point where they argue and fight over it.

If it's a hobby, people can choose to take it as seriously as they wish. I take the history of Star Trek seriously. If someone is going to claim to be an expert, they'd better get their facts right. I know I do when I work on projects, which also include Trek-related projects.

As for fighting, that wasn't occurring in this thread.

There's a difference between discussing something and nitpicking it to death.

No doubt, but everyone has a different threshold for that and this is a sub-forum devoted to a 50 year old TV show. We're at the point where the nitpicks are being nitpicked. I find much of it fascinating, but it had better be accurate or it's just a waste of my time.

Because I read the books and am *mildly* interested in the history. I've been in some of the other Cushman threads when they were posted. I hate it though when people obsess over stuff and triple that if they start arguing.

To call out Cushman for his claims you have to be obsessive (or just know that June really doesn't have 31 days). At face value, his claims seem to make sense. Thankfully, we have a poster like @Harvey who is a terrific researcher and looked at the same documents as Cushman. Suddenly it was clear that the books were deeply flawed.

And as stated above, there was no arguing in this thread. It was civil and even a little humorous.

Edit for the n00b in the thread: "Plus the fact that I find it odd that someone who is a moderator on a Star Trek forum have so much disdain for "Trekkies"."

I hate Trekkies. Trek fans, on the other hand, are just fine. There is a difference and after almost 16 years here, you'll see it too.

Neil

 

[CrazyMatt]

My goodness, enough with the Cushman stuff. Can't we just move any thread on Cushman to some sort of "contentious issues" board? I'm so sick of this conflict.

 

[Maurice]

Why are you reading the threads that are clearly Cushman-oriented, then?

 

[Myko]

It would be nice to be able to try to figure out the real facts behind the statements in the books without going through that whole debate again though.

 

[Harvey]

My point is that some people take this way too seriously to the point where they argue and fight over it.

If only Cushman had taken it seriously when he wrote these books.

It would be nice to be able to try to figure out the real facts behind the statements in the books without going through that whole debate again though.

Anything in particular you want to discuss?

 

[Mudd]

My goodness, enough with the Cushman stuff. Can't we just move any thread on Cushman to some sort of "contentious issues" board? I'm so sick of this conflict.

We have a "contentious issues" board, here.

 

[Myko]

Anything in particular you want to discuss?

Not at the moment, I just thought it would be a shame if legitimate discussion would always devolve into repeated Cushman-bashing, even if it is warranted.