New Book about TOS: These Are The Voyages

[stcanada29]

I believe I'll just say, "what Maurice said," and leave it at that.

Fine. Though my comments before taking kind leave of you again are that I'm not asking for an act of faith, or that someone believe in my integrity, I'm pointing to 140 - 150 rare clappers and photos in that startrekpropauthority article that people can see with their own eyes - original Lincoln film clips and glossies. And I'd mention that the publisher's legal team would obviously disagree with Maurice's friend, and I really think that anyone without extensive legal training who has access to a Google search engine can refute his misinformed opinion. (Not trying to be insulting here; I honestly think Maurice must have seriously erred in communicating the facts to his lawyer acquaintance. Why does all the evidence on the net disagree with that fellow's sweeping pronouncement?) Though he would be right if he were thinking TNG era, not TOS era images. It doesn't even pass the reasonableness test; and would make the publisher look like fools to put hundreds of CBS copyright images in an unauthorized book. Surely you are not so much in a state of denial as to not see that. Lastly, hidden tells the way Maurice speaks of them is hogwash, IMO - pure and simple. And it's sad, Harvey, that you do not feel compelled to do any of the wonderful research that you are supposedly capable of - because you have presented nothing of substance, IMO, other than the statement that you like the startrekhistory folks and trust them - but you have called the TATV people unethical thieves - and continue to do so in light of major revelations to the contrary. That action on your part is clearly unethical, IMO. Just a shame that some here portray themselves as fair-minded and not "bashing" the book -- but when it comes down to it - they are just sticking to their now clearly inaccurate judgements. Very Best to all.

 

[BillJ]

And I'd mention that the publisher's legal team would obviously disagree with Maurice's friend...

I'm not sure I'd trust anyone listed as a legal "console"?

http://www.jacobsbrownmediagroup.com/about-us.html

 

[Warped9]

One thing I find unusual, even if it doesn't detract from the materiel itself, is the text not being justified on both left and right. I find this quite odd because books of this format---hell most books I know of---are justified on both sides. It simply makes for a tidier and more finished presentation.

I can't recall a published work that wasn't justified. Hell, anyone can do it when creating a document on their own computer whether they're using Office, Pages or whatever software. How could this not be done when being published?

I am noticing some of the photos appeared to have been changed from the first edition.

Reading the Kindle version of the revised edition there is one thing I find a bit odd. Why are the page numbers not displayed. I've gone into settings to see if this was something that could be turned on or off and I can't see any such setting. Strange.

 

[Green Shirt]

And I'd mention that the publisher's legal team would obviously disagree with Maurice's friend...

I'm not sure I'd trust anyone listed as a legal "console"?

http://www.jacobsbrownmediagroup.com/about-us.html

Fracking proof reader screwed up again.

Oh wait, they don't use one. My bad.

 

[stcanada29]

I'm not sure I'd trust anyone listed as a legal "console"?

http://www.jacobsbrownmediagroup.com/about-us.html

How old is your screen capture, BillJ?
Perhaps you should check again!

Anyway, I suspect it was an error by the website support folks, and not Marc's relative. I don't think it's his wife.

And it's not as goofy an error as assigning everything in the public domain to CBS, which Maurice's 100 trillion dollar lawyer seems to be inclined to do. Is that under the copyright laws of Omicron Ceti III? :-)

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Hmmm, so is the author himself lurking somewhere nearby? Or perhaps one of his associates?

By the way, stcanada29, you said you were leaving, so I didn't bother asking you further questions. Are you leaving or staying?

 

[BillJ]

I'm not sure I'd trust anyone listed as a legal "console"?

http://www.jacobsbrownmediagroup.com/about-us.html

How old is your screen capture, BillJ?
Perhaps you should check again!

Anyway, I suspect it was an error by the website support folks, and not Marc's relative. I don't think it's his wife.

And it's not as goofy an error as assigning everything in the public domain to CBS, which Maurice's 100 trillion dollar lawyer seems to be inclined to do. Is that under the copyright laws of Omicron Ceti III? :-)

I took the screen capture this morning. So now I have no doubt that you're connected to the book in some way.

 

[stcanada29]

I took the screen capture this morning. So now I have no doubt that you're connected to the book in some way.

Or, I am friends with some of the people involved in the book project.

Or, I just sent an email to the publicly posted email address for the publisher and they responded graciously and promptly.

Or, as Harvey and Maurice most assuredly suspect (since I am an unknown/unfamiliar entity to them and their suspicions are aroused), I must have hacked into the publishers website without permission and corrected the spelling mistake.

 

[BillJ]

...

Quite frankly, I don't believe a word that you've typed in this thread. Plus, I think you're doing more to hurt the book than help it with your posts here.

For the sake of the book, I hope this is the only place you're posting your drivel.

 

[stcanada29]

...

Quite frankly, I don't believe a word that you've typed in this thread. Plus, I think you're doing more to hurt the book than help it with your posts here.

For the sake of the book, I hope this is the only place you're posting your drivel.

Frankly - you are now demonstrating nothing but an irrational and mean spirited mentality. I am not asking anyone to believe my statements based on faith - I have just pointed to a startrekpropauthority post that presents irrefutable facts that your own eyes can confirm -- 140 to 150 Lincoln clapperboard film clips and glossies. The only drivel that you seem to be taking on faith are the unfounded allegations against the publisher. What is your vested interest in StarTrekHistory that makes you want to drink their Kool Aid?

 

[BillJ]

What is your vested interest in StarTrekHistory that makes you want to drink their Kool Aid?

Honestly? I believe them. StarTrekHistory.com has absolutely nothing to gain by making up a story about their images being lifted. Nothing. You guys (Cushman, Gurian & Jacobs-Brown Press) have a financial stake in not being caught lifting images that you didn't restore from a website that did all the work.

Common sense is lighting the way here. Add in that both Maurice and Harvey (who also have no financial stake in success or failure of the project) have always been exceptionally above reproach when dealing with issues like these and I know exactly who I believe and who I don't.

Could I be wrong? Absolutely. But if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... it's usually a duck.

Just because I have decided not to buy the book (in no small part due to your posts here), doesn't mean I don't want it to be a success. I just wish the multitude of issues revolving around it would have never surfaced. I wish that the entire project had been handled in a more professional manner.

YMMV.

 

[stcanada29]

Believe it or not, I'm not trying to sell the book. And I really could care less if you buy it or not. I'm just trying to defend the good names of some friends that are being unfairly trashed. That's my motivation.

Your mentality reminds me of the deep south back before the civil rights movement.

You cheer allegations of wrongdoing without evidence because you "like" the uninformed person making the accusation.

And you attack the credibility of a person who points to irrefutable overwhelming evidence that the assertions of wrongdoing are incorrect. I take it you have a huge problem with the use of DNA evidence to clear people as well. And why do you keeping insisting I am asking you to accept any of the statements I make on faith?

http://www.startrekpropauthority.com/2014/01/special-report-behind-scenes-look-at.html

You can obviously continue to believe the worst of people without the slightest regard for the truth. I hold no ill will towards you. But I can't say that you are doing much to project the feeling that there exists any sense of honor to be attached to some in this thread who would just blindly demonize and mock others.

How exactly does it "walk like a duck and quack like a duck"? Because you "like" your friends and would never question them, even if they accidentally drive you over a cliff.

 

[trevanian]

I'm not sure I'd trust anyone listed as a legal "console"?

http://www.jacobsbrownmediagroup.com/about-us.html

How old is your screen capture, BillJ?
Perhaps you should check again!

Anyway, I suspect it was an error by the website support folks, and not Marc's relative. I don't think it's his wife.

And it's not as goofy an error as assigning everything in the public domain to CBS, which Maurice's 100 trillion dollar lawyer seems to be inclined to do. Is that under the copyright laws of Omicron Ceti III? :-)

I took the screen capture this morning. So now I have no doubt that you're connected to the book in some way.

Way to go!

Maybe we need to get a mod in here to look at all this and see if they can make a call on STCANADA. I mean, I have seen troll warnings and such given for stuff that by no means was merited, but in this case, I don't think stcanada is contributing anything new, just trying to incite curiosity buys. That is only my opinion of course.

Alternative would be to just let the thread die unless new info comes from startrekhistory or elsewhere (when this will doubtless start up all over again.)

 

[Warped9]

On a less contentious note I am quite enjoying rereading this revised version. It's fascinating to see each story idea progress from kernel of an idea to fully realized familiar episode. I also enjoy rediscovering the things that had to be passed over due to budget, time or some other restriction. And I'd like to reiterate that it does read much cleaner than the first go around.

That said one other thing I'm learning: I still much prefer reading a hardcopy print book to a digital e-version of said title.

 

[BillJ]

http://www.startrekpropauthority.com/2014/01/special-report-behind-scenes-look-at.html

You can obviously continue to believe the worst of people without the slightest regard for the truth. I hold no ill will towards you. But I can't say that you are doing much to project the feeling that there exists any sense of honor to be attached to some in this thread who would just blindly demonize and mock others.

First off, I'll dismiss most of the drivel you just posted. Second, I see nothing in that article that happens to be written by Gurian (gasp!) that disproves the claims made by StarTrekHistory.com. Maybe, they should bring in an unbiased third party to analyze the images that appear in the book and compare them to the work done by StarTrekHistory.com. It would be relatively cheap to do and would put the issue to rest. Third, I haven't demonized anyone.

People make mistakes, to me the circumstantial evidence points at Gurian lifting restored work from others and I've yet to see anything that refutes it.

But here's the point... I'm not buying the book new. I'm not going to support what I think Gurian and Jacobs-Brown Press did here. I'm not a picketer, I'm not going around to other websites or to my real life friends and acquaintances to badmouth this book. If asked I'll tell them exactly what I've seen stated here, that it is sloppily written (which I've seen first hand from the Amazon.com excerpt) and there is some disagreement between the publisher and a couple of website owners over the use of restored images but that it is apparently the best view we get of what happened behind the scenes on TOS. I'll be as honest as I can from what I know of the book and the issues surrounding it.

I think (I know I've mentioned this before) that you are this books worst enemy on this board. Without your presence, this issue would've quickly died down and most of the conversation would've been about the actual content of the book.

 

[T'Bonz]

OK people. Discuss the book or don't. But quit with the personal attacks and digging for relationships to those involved with the books.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Sorry, but pictures of "140 to 150 Lincoln clapperboard film clips and glossies" themselves have no bearing on the question of who contributed labor to create the published volumes.

Pictures of "140 to 150 Lincoln clapperboard film clips and glossies" do not answer the question of whether the similar images in the published volumes were derived exclusively from those pictured clips and glossies.

Similarly, Gurian saying that he performed "numerous photo restorations" for Cushman's book project does not answer the question of how many of the restored photos in each volume were derived exclusively from those pictured clips and glossies.

Gurian says that he performed "numerous photo restorations" for Cushman's book project.

Exactly how many restored photos making it into the first volume did Gurian provide?

Exactly how many restored photos making it into the upcoming second volume will Gurian have provided?

Plus, I gotta say that encouraging people to base their opinion of a legal matter on the conclusions of individuals who lack extensive legal training is very bad legal advice.

And I'd mention that the publisher's legal team would obviously disagree with Maurice's friend, and I really think that anyone without extensive legal training who has access to a Google search engine can refute his misinformed opinion.

 

[stcanada29]

First of all, to BillJ, it's true the issue would have died quickly - but with the entirely offensive assertions of wrongdoing by the publisher going apparently unquestioned by the forum members here.

And, if you recall, one member GSchnitzer felt emboldened to assert that every single image in the books were taken from other web sites and not a single rare photo could be properly attributed to the publishers team. You have to admit if you have any sense of fair play that the recent post by Gurian refutes that assertion.

To, CorporalCaptain, you seem to be making the argument that Gurian may own those 150 clappers (and thousands of other images mentioned in the article) but didn't use them as a source of imagery in the book. Now that is hilarious. It's impossible to argue with someone in such a total state of denial. Thank you for convincing the more fair-minded members of this forum how malicious some can be.

 

[BillJ]

First of all, to BillJ, it's true the issue would have died quickly - but with the entirely offensive assertions of wrongdoing by the publisher going apparently unquestioned by the forum members here.

I'm sure those involved would rather the positive elements of the work be discussed than to constantly have the discussion dragged off course over a perceived flaw?

 

[stcanada29]

If it were only presented in this forum as a perceived flaw; I doubt that I would have felt compelled to make any remarks. Instead, there have been deplorable profane statements made and allegations of criminal conduct. But you are right - further discussion, no matter how meritorious on my part, will never convince the most closed minded people in our society who are determined to find fault where none exists. My comments were intended for a higher caliber of individual. I feel I am talking to a brick wall when addressing some here. Please carry on mocking spelling errors on the publishers website and reading the National Enquirer.