Spock & Uhura romance

[Whill]

All the episodes and movies have pluses and minuses

Those pluses and minuses are subjective.

Just as you can go from thread to thread regaling us all with your belief in the latest film unqualified perfection, anyone else can show up in those exact same threads with the viewpoint that that same movie had a certain number of demonstrable faults.

With all due respect, that is an exaggerated polarization. As my signature hints at, I would never discuss a form of entertainement as either having flaws or perfection. I first categorize entertainment products as "I like" or "I dislike". If there is anything I don't understand about something I like, or anything that doesn't seem to make sense about something I enjoy, or stomething that seems wrong with something I like, then I view that as a question that needs answered instead of a flaw.

For example, I enjoy TSFS. But there were a few things that didn't make sense to me about it, so I sought out explainations and now it all works for me. I never viewed it as having "flaws" per se. Just questions needing answered.

A percieved "flaw" in only an opinion that justifies why you don't like something. That opinion is only valid for that person who holds it. That opinion may not be considered a flaw for someone else. There are not any absolute flaws unless a creator of the project says, "I didn't mean to do that but did by mistake." And those cases may still not be viewed as a flaw by the customers of the entertainement product, and can be irrelevent to whether someone enjoys it or not.

I don't like TFF, and if I ever would bother posting about it, I wouldn't use the word flaws. If I stated why I didn't like it and even if my opinions sounded like I was pointing out flaws, those "flaws" would really only be my opinions of percieved flaws. I acknowledge those may not be flaws for someone else. They are only my opinions that justify why I, and I alone, do not like it. Others may or may not agree and I would never relentlessly try to justify my view of percieved flaws (opinions) for others. If I offer my opinion about somthing I don't like, it is extremely likely to be one post only.

It seems that on this board and elsewhere on the internet, it is common for people to point out "flaws" as if they are not subjective opinions. Like others have only failed to see them, and that if they can argue their point successesfully, we might be swayed to see the error of our ways in enjoying something that we shouldn't. Disgusting.

I think it is utterly reduclous and disturbing for haters to try to talk people into disliking something they already enjoy. Fine you don't like it and that is why. Fine, that works for you, but that has no bearing on my enjoyment of the entertainement product in question. You know?

in these forums it perfectly valid to wish to discuss negative aspects and express your viewpoint about them.

I wasn't saying that it wasn't "valid" for people to post negative replies. I was questioning the mentality of people that do that so much. I honestly do not understand what it is like to live with so much negativity in your heart. I truly do wonder what type of life people must live if they go from thread to thread relentlessly bashing something. No matter how "valid" it may be, is that a healthy life? Only criticizing something you despise instead of actually enjoying anything? I really don't understand why these people don't go find something they do like and go on and on about it there. It seems it is a sad reality that so many negative people get some kind of kick by going around hating everywhere, and I admit I just don't understand that mentality. As valid as it may be, do they really have nothing better to do with their time?

With respect, you may be misusing the term "Hate."

I am using the term hate to mean extreme dislike, a common usage. It seems to me that if someone spends a lot of time relentlessly bashing something, it must be because they hate it. As stated above, I don't understand why they spend the time anyway, but their posting pattern constitutes extreme dislike. I think the use of the word hate is valid and unfortunately appropriate here.

There are a small number of members to this board who's posts I simply don't read, even if they are commenting on one of my previous posting (especially not then), When "you know who" posts anything at all, just skip it.

That is good advice. I will point out that I intentionally didn't reply directly to any of haters. I figure, they know who they are.

I hope they read this, re-think their lives, and go find something they like to talk about instead of spending so much time on their extreme dislike of something. Based on my life experiences, I think they may find that life is more enjoyable when you spend it celebrating things you enjoy instead of relentlessly bashing things you hate.

I only came to this board because I love Star Trek. Love, a positive emotion. Extreme like. No, I don't love all of it. But a lot of it. I didn't come here to hate on it.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Kind of hard imagining them being in the series's more than they are. Romulans were major components of the last two films and had good sized parts to play in all the TV series except Voyager

The Romulans have been present, but never really explained or fleshed out. They're just guys with bad uniforms and worse hair who growl and act snotty and do menacing things. Why? That's just the way they are, I guess. Not very satisfying.

Compare them to the Cardassians or even the Dominion - much more recent introductions, but far better explained and much more real and interesting as a result. After all this time, the poor Rommies deserve better.

If Nero wasn't just a loose-cannon type guy, but was behaving in a way that gave us more insight into who the Romulans are, then he wouldn't have been such a weak element in an otherwise terrific movie. There was no reason he even needed to be a Romulan. He could have been any species. Human, even. (Haw, that would have been great if Abrams had blown up the "real" Earth. )

 

[Jonas Grumby]

I was questioning the mentality of people that do that so much. I honestly do not understand what it is like to live with so much negativity in your heart. I truly do wonder what type of life people must live if they go from thread to thread relentlessly bashing something. No matter how "valid" it may be, is that a healthy life?

Then again, some might wonder if questioning someone's mental state or the quality of their life just because you don't like their posts is really all that superior to saying a TV show sucks.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I was questioning the mentality of people that do that so much. I honestly do not understand what it is like to live with so much negativity in your heart. I truly do wonder what type of life people must live if they go from thread to thread relentlessly bashing something. No matter how "valid" it may be, is that a healthy life?

Then again, some might wonder if questioning someone's mental state or the quality of their life just because you don't like their posts is really all that superior to saying a TV show sucks.

Whether it's "superior" or not, in many cases it's reasonable.

 

[maryh]

A lot of drama wants to make us think, its not exclusive to Sci-Fi. I'd say using your definition, Star Trek was not "Sci-Fi". If you think the Doomsday Machine or the Venus drug were what we where suppose to be thinking about at the ends of those episodes then you totally missed the point. Hell, if you think Mudd's Women were prostitutes I think you missed the point too.

While ignoring your immature insults you said that these episodes "had a point". The Doomsday Machine didn't even pretend to hide it's alternative meaning - that of an H-bomb comparison between the Machine and Nukes. Drama does not necessarily intend to provoke thought or "have a point". Drama's intent is to effect the emotions by simulating real-life situations. It may or may not provoke thought. A daytime soap opera is drama but does not produce thought. It exists only to evoke the emotions of the viewer. Discussion of the "events" of a soap opera differ from those of a Sci-Fi drama because the events of a Sci-Fi drama are only possible, not currently available to be experienced. You have to use your imagination, thought and emotions.

Your black and white view of "the point" of the episodes demonstrates a simplistic, unilateral view. Good Sci-Fi presents alternative views that we can not encounter in human, real-life scenarios at the present time but can relate to on a similar, but different level. Venus drugs don't exist yet but we can relate to similar things currently available like breast implants. The scenario where women using sexual allure for financial gain is valid currently and resembles prostitution currently. Many "points" exist and could be validly discussed unless there is assumed to be an "correct" point, as you believe. Good Sci-Fi should evoke discussion of the many ideas and views it presents in it's out-of-this-world scenarios.

This is why the character of Spock as different from Humans, but just as valid, inspires thought.

Not sure the spouting off facts and figures or claiming to be logical or emotionless translates fully as cerebral. Some of those facts could easly be said by the ships computer, Scotty or even McCoy.

"The Making of Star Trek" Whitfield/Roddenberry 1968 pp 230

"From the very earliest concepts of Star Trek as a potential television series, Gene Roddenberry has insisted that Mr. Spock is a vital element. Not only because a science-fiction series should logically include an alien character, but also because Spock enables the series to make interesting social commentaries on the human race. Spock's alien perspective permits usually barbed and interesting statements of the fallibility of both human customs and institutions. He allows us "to see ourselves as others see us."

Spock's appeal goes far beyond his intellect. And I think he was stimulating more than thought in a few viewers.

But that is what he was inspiring and producing in many who dislike the Spock/Uhura romance. Lots of attractive characters who stimulate the hormones exist but Spock was unique in his ability to stimulate in many ways. One has been removed in a crucial fashion.

I dont see TOS as any more cerebral than its contempory televised drama. Being set on a spaceship doesnt make it more cerebral than a show set on a ranch or a law office. I think Star Trek's Sci-Fi level was always pretty low to begin with. Its not a show about science or technology. Those things just provide a backdrop for the drama.

"The Making of Star Trek" Whitfield/Roddenberry 1968 pp 34

In creating Star Trek, Gene was, in fact, attempting to destroy three widely accepted Hollywood myths.
First that "science fiction" and "fantasy" were the same. He insisted that the television audience was ready to accept the first, but that the difference between the two was important.
Science fiction is based either on fact or well-thought-out speculation. It is an extension of current knowledge or of a theory worked out in enought detail to seem at least "possible". Once having established known or theoretical scientific ground rules, the true science fiction story adheres to them all the way. With fantasy, on the other hand, you can say, "This man has the power to blink his left eye and he will disappear," and never explain how or why he will do that. For that reason the audience finds it difficult to identify with characters and situations in a fantasy. Roddenberry was convinced that they would identify with science-fiction characters if he set believable ground rules and stuck to them."

Are you sure we watched the same show? Because TOS was very much about "human saga/space opera". Twilight Zone was very much focused on human drama too. the Sci-Fi was a jumping off point for the stories and not the main focus.

We might agree here that drama is an important element but Sci-Fi differs in ways already expressed - not all drama is Sci-Fi. Most importantly TOS seemed to balance the action with the drama with the ability to provoke thought in a wonderfully balanced way that has not been reproduced since.

Please, again are we watching the same show? TOS is all about humanities way being the better way. Spock was respected and admired my his crewmates but only when they weren't bitching about him or to him. But more often than not it was the human way that proves superior when Spock is in a tight spot.( though he is loath to admit it). I dont think we saw enough other Vulcans to get a read on how they were perceived. Sarek for sure got mixed reviews. And T'Pau is famous for turning down a seat of the UFP council. Again a mixed message.

Good verses evil are space-opera elements. In Sci-Fi one might question what good is and what is evil, and why. The Human Way was NOT portrayed as being the best way all the time.

Examples of where the Vulcan way was seen to be superior to the Human way (there are plenty of examples of the opposite too)

1. WNMHGB Spock's prophetic warning about letting his human emotions influence his treatment of Mitchell are shown to be correct.

2. The Man Trap
KIRK: You could learn something from Mister Spock, Doctor. Stop thinking with your glands. We've equipment aboard the Enterprise that could pinpoint a match lit anywhere on this planet, or the heat of a body.

3. Dagger of the Mind
SPOCK: Interesting. Your Earth people glorify organised violence for forty centuries, but you imprison those who employ it privately.
MCCOY: And, of course, your people found an answer.
SPOCK: We disposed of emotion, Doctor. Where there is no emotion there is no motive for violence.

4. Arena/Errand of Mercy --- Both episodes show us Kirk's emotions causing him to use aggression which will serve to start a war. Both times Spock warns him of the unhappy results his actions will produce. Both situations require enitites more evolved than humans to defuse the situation.

5. Immunity Syndrome -- Vulcans past is considered less ugly than Earths (or at least after they had embraced logic and eliminated emotion)
SPOCK: I've noticed that about your people, Doctor. You find it easier to understand the death of one than the death of a million. You speak about the objective hardness of the Vulcan heart, yet how little room there seems to be in yours.
MCCOY: Suffer the death of thy neighbour, eh, Spock? You wouldn't wish that on us, would you?
SPOCK: It might have rendered your history a bit less bloody.

I could go on. Vulcan's offering a differing perspective and philosophy produces thought by comparing and contrasting the differences. Spock/Uhura eliminated the differences by turning Vulcans into big fakes who really don't differ from humans.

4. If the narrative makes it all look too easy for the characters, the narrational structure makes it much too easy for the viewers. There's a tendency not so much to ask questions as to hand us answers to the questions fans have been struggling with over the past four decades. So, for example, classic Trek was always carefully not to fully explain how Sarek and Amanda got together, allowing Vulcan restraint to prevent Sarek from fully articulating what he feels towards Spock's mother. As a consequence, there were countless fan fiction narratives trying to imagine how Sarek and Amanda got together -- Jean Lorrah, for my money, wrote the best of these narratives, though there were other great fan novels out there on precisely this theme. Yet, here, the question is asked and answered, overtly, in a single scene.
Ditto the issue of whether Vulcans are incapable of feeling emotion on some biological level or if they have simply developed mental discipline to bring their emotions under their control. Again, this question inspired decades of fan fiction writing and speculation and is here dispatched with a few short sentences.
The mystique that surrounded Spock from the start had to do with things he was feeling but could not express: he is a deeply divided character, one who broods about where he belongs and how he relates to the other Enterprise crewmembers. But this film makes it look ridiculously easy for him to get a girl friend and he is surprisingly comfortable necking with his pretty in the transporter room, an act that it is impossible to imagine Spock prime doing. The original Spock was a deeply private person. It isn't that the new film has made Spock Sexy. The old Spock was a whole lot sexier than the new Spock for all of his hidden depths and emotional uncertainties: the new Spock is just too easy all around and there's no real mystery there. He isn't sexy; he's having sex and that's not the same thing at all.


http://henryjenkins.org/2009/05/five_ways_to_start_a_conversat.html


I'm done and going on. NuTrek doesn't interest me except to criticize. I'll stick to what interests me, discussing TOS episodes.

 

[Nerys Myk]

A lot of drama wants to make us think, its not exclusive to Sci-Fi. I'd say using your definition, Star Trek was not "Sci-Fi". If you think the Doomsday Machine or the Venus drug were what we where suppose to be thinking about at the ends of those episodes then you totally missed the point. Hell, if you think Mudd's Women were prostitutes I think you missed the point too.

While ignoring your immature insults you said that these episodes "had a point".

At what point did I use "immature insults? I'm reading the part of my post quoted in yours and I dont see them. I think your missing the point of those episodes. Your focus seems solely on the SF elements, which to me are secondary in those stories. ( and in most Star Trelk stories)

The Doomsday Machine didn't even pretend to hide it's alternative meaning - that of an H-bomb comparison between the Machine and Nukes. Drama does not necessarily intend to provoke thought or "have a point". Drama's intent is to effect the emotions by simulating real-life situations. It may or may not provoke thought. A daytime soap opera is drama but does not produce thought. It exists only to evoke the emotions of the viewer. Discussion of the "events" of a soap opera differ from those of a Sci-Fi drama because the events of a Sci-Fi drama are only possible, not currently available to be experienced. You have to use your imagination, thought and emotions.

I see the Doomsday Machine as being about obsession and madness. The machine just provided a focus for that. ( like a certain literary white whale)

Soap Opera, like most dramas work on different levels. They can be used to provoke emotion and thought. Same for SF. Its the setting of an SF show that usually sets it appart from other dramas. Obviously a show set in a 21th Century hospital focused on the lives of 21st Century medical professionals is not going have spaceships, aliens and rayguns. But they can do stories that touch upon various thought provoking idea.

Your black and white view of "the point" of the episodes demonstrates a simplistic, unilateral view. Good Sci-Fi presents alternative views that we can not encounter in human, real-life scenarios at the present time but can relate to on a similar, but different level. Venus drugs don't exist yet but we can relate to similar things currently available like breast implants. The scenario where women using sexual allure for financial gain is valid currently and resembles prostitution currently.
Many "points" exist and could be validly discussed unless there is assumed to be an "correct" point, as you believe. Good Sci-Fi should evoke discussion of the many ideas and views it presents in it's out-of-this-world scenarios.

This is why the character of Spock as different from Humans, but just as valid, inspires thought.

Was your point any less black and white?

Now you're getting what I'm saying. SF (and especially Star Trek) uses allegory to create scenerios based on real world ideas and experience. The SF twist often allows a SF drama to push the issues to levels not always seen in standard drama. The "SF element" of the Venus Drug isn't what the episode is about. As you say the episode is about the women. Women who are desperate and at least in the case of Eve, lonely. Not sure if financial gain was intended until the miners came in the picture.

MUDD: You see, gentlemen, just as I told you. Three lovely ladies destined for frontier planets to be the companions of lonely men, to supply that warmth of a human touch that's so desperately needed. A wife, a home, a family. Gentlemen, I look upon this work as a sacred public trust. I've devoted me whole life to it.
COMPUTER: Incorrect.
MUDD: Well, I'm about to start devoting my entire life to it.
KIRK: Did these ladies come voluntarily?
MUDD: Well, of course! Now, for example, Ruthie here comes from a pelagic planet, sea ranchers. Magda there from the helium experimental station.
EVE: It's the same story for all of us, Captain. No men. Mine was a farm planet with automated machines for company and two brothers to cook for, mend their clothes, canal mud a foot thick on their boots every time they walked in.
MUDD: Fine, Evie. Fine.
EVE: It's not fine! We've got men willing to be our husbands waiting for us, and you're taking us in the opposite direction! Staring at us Iike we were Saturnius harem girls or something.

If you want to read that as the women being prostitues, thats your call. I see it as a spin on more than one Western Story and IIRC based on history. It is a commentary on the role of women. One that was changing even as this episode was produced and aired. I dont think too many modern dramas (SF or otherwise) could get away with a wiving settlers storyline.

Not sure the spouting off facts and figures or claiming to be logical or emotionless translates fully as cerebral. Some of those facts could easly be said by the ships computer, Scotty or even McCoy.

"The Making of Star Trek" Whitfield/Roddenberry 1968 pp 230

"From the very earliest concepts of Star Trek as a potential television series, Gene Roddenberry has insisted that Mr. Spock is a vital element. Not only because a science-fiction series should logically include an alien character, but also because Spock enables the series to make interesting social commentaries on the human race. Spock's alien perspective permits usually barbed and interesting statements of the fallibility of both human customs and institutions. He allows us "to see ourselves as others see us."

Which related to him being cerebral how? Yeah, his role is that of the outsider and as such being able to make comments on our society. How is this different than Crocodile Dundee, Tarzan, Kwai Chang Caine or any other "outsider" making comments on "western/American/modern/ society".

Spock's appeal goes far beyond his intellect. And I think he was stimulating more than thought in a few viewers.

But that is what he was inspiring and producing in many who dislike the Spock/Uhura romance. Lots of attractive characters who stimulate the hormones exist but Spock was unique in his ability to stimulate in many ways. One has been removed in a crucial fashion.

Not sure why that would be. I dont think Spock's intellect will be diminished by have a girlfriend. He can still be smart and sexy if "attached" (even to a human.) His acerbic and wry comments don't have to vanish either. How much of his appeal needs to be based on his being "single" hmmmmmm?

I dont see TOS as any more cerebral than its contempory televised drama. Being set on a spaceship doesnt make it more cerebral than a show set on a ranch or a law office. I think Star Trek's Sci-Fi level was always pretty low to begin with. Its not a show about science or technology. Those things just provide a backdrop for the drama.

"The Making of Star Trek" Whitfield/Roddenberry 1968 pp 34

In creating Star Trek, Gene was, in fact, attempting to destroy three widely accepted Hollywood myths.
First that "science fiction" and "fantasy" were the same. He insisted that the television audience was ready to accept the first, but that the difference between the two was important.
Science fiction is based either on fact or well-thought-out speculation. It is an extension of current knowledge or of a theory worked out in enought detail to seem at least "possible". Once having established known or theoretical scientific ground rules, the true science fiction story adheres to them all the way. With fantasy, on the other hand, you can say, "This man has the power to blink his left eye and he will disappear," and never explain how or why he will do that. For that reason the audience finds it difficult to identify with characters and situations in a fantasy. Roddenberry was convinced that they would identify with science-fiction characters if he set believable ground rules and stuck to them."

Dont see how this counters my point. Yes, GR wanted to create an adult SF show that was well though out and as "grounded" as other dramas. One that didn't have "fantasy" elements. He put a lot of thought into it. At the same time he did want the science and tech to overwhelm the drama. IIRC his classic example was the policeman's revolver. A cop doesnt have to explain how is it works, he just used it. GR took that approch to Trek tech. He didnt spend time explaining, he just had the characters use it. Technobabble was kept to a minimum so the story could focus on other things.

Are you sure we watched the same show? Because TOS was very much about "human saga/space opera". Twilight Zone was very much focused on human drama too. the Sci-Fi was a jumping off point for the stories and not the main focus.

We might agree here that drama is an important element but Sci-Fi differs in ways already expressed - not all drama is Sci-Fi. Most importantly TOS seemed to balance the action with the drama with the ability to provoke thought in a wonderfully balanced way that has not been reproduced since.

Its pretty much expressed in the same way. What different is the settings and props. A planet instead of an Island. A machine instead of a whale. An alien instead of foreigner.

Thats why I love the show. It had a balance. It did heavy drama, comedy and commentary with equal ease. Later trek shows never could find that balance.

Please, again are we watching the same show? TOS is all about humanities way being the better way. Spock was respected and admired my his crewmates but only when they weren't bitching about him or to him. But more often than not it was the human way that proves superior when Spock is in a tight spot.( though he is loath to admit it). I dont think we saw enough other Vulcans to get a read on how they were perceived. Sarek for sure got mixed reviews. And T'Pau is famous for turning down a seat of the UFP council. Again a mixed message.

Good verses evil are space-opera elements. In Sci-Fi one might question what good is and what is evil, and why. The Human Way was NOT portrayed as being the best way all the time.

Good vs Evil transends all storytelling. Questioning the nature of good and evil is as well.

Again, you are using "Sci-Fi" in a way I'm not familiar. Space Opera is a sub genre of Sci-Fi/SF/Science Fiction.

Examples of where the Vulcan way was seen to be superior to the Human way (there are plenty of examples of the opposite too)



1. WNMHGB Spock's prophetic warning about letting his human emotions influence his treatment of Mitchell are shown to be correct.

A human could give the same warning. In a different situation it could be Kirk cautioning McCoy.

2. The Man Trap
KIRK: You could learn something from Mister Spock, Doctor. Stop thinking with your glands. We've equipment aboard the Enterprise that could pinpoint a match lit anywhere on this planet, or the heat of a body.

Like I said.

3. Dagger of the Mind
SPOCK: Interesting. Your Earth people glorify organised violence for forty centuries, but you imprison those who employ it privately.
MCCOY: And, of course, your people found an answer.
SPOCK: We disposed of emotion, Doctor. Where there is no emotion there is no motive for violence.

Unless there is a logical reason ( See Journey to Babel)

4. Arena/Errand of Mercy --- Both episodes show us Kirk's emotions causing him to use aggression which will serve to start a war. Both times Spock warns him of the unhappy results his actions will produce. Both situations require enitites more evolved than humans to defuse the situation.

Again an attitude shared by some humans.

5. Immunity Syndrome -- Vulcans past is considered less ugly than Earths (or at least after they had embraced logic and eliminated emotion)
SPOCK: I've noticed that about your people, Doctor. You find it easier to understand the death of one than the death of a million. You speak about the objective hardness of the Vulcan heart, yet how little room there seems to be in yours.
MCCOY: Suffer the death of thy neighbour, eh, Spock? You wouldn't wish that on us, would you?
SPOCK: It might have rendered your history a bit less bloody.

See above.

I could go on. Vulcan's offering a differing perspective and philosophy produces thought by comparing and contrasting the differences. Spock/Uhura eliminated the differences by turning Vulcans into big fakes who really don't differ from humans.

But it is a philosophy that some humans share and is not an actual non-human perspective but a facet of humanity's.

4. If the narrative makes it all look too easy for the characters, the narrational structure makes it much too easy for the viewers. There's a tendency not so much to ask questions as to hand us answers to the questions fans have been struggling with over the past four decades. So, for example, classic Trek was always carefully not to fully explain how Sarek and Amanda got together, allowing Vulcan restraint to prevent Sarek from fully articulating what he feels towards Spock's mother. As a consequence, there were countless fan fiction narratives trying to imagine how Sarek and Amanda got together -- Jean Lorrah, for my money, wrote the best of these narratives, though there were other great fan novels out there on precisely this theme. Yet, here, the question is asked and answered, overtly, in a single scene.
Ditto the issue of whether Vulcans are incapable of feeling emotion on some biological level or if they have simply developed mental discipline to bring their emotions under their control. Again, this question inspired decades of fan fiction writing and speculation and is here dispatched with a few short sentences.
The mystique that surrounded Spock from the start had to do with things he was feeling but could not express: he is a deeply divided character, one who broods about where he belongs and how he relates to the other Enterprise crewmembers. But this film makes it look ridiculously easy for him to get a girl friend and he is surprisingly comfortable necking with his pretty in the transporter room, an act that it is impossible to imagine Spock prime doing. The original Spock was a deeply private person. It isn't that the new film has made Spock Sexy. The old Spock was a whole lot sexier than the new Spock for all of his hidden depths and emotional uncertainties: the new Spock is just too easy all around and there's no real mystery there. He isn't sexy; he's having sex and that's not the same thing at all.


http://henryjenkins.org/2009/05/five_ways_to_start_a_conversat.html


I'm done and going on. NuTrek doesn't interest me except to criticize. I'll stick to what interests me, discussing TOS episodes.

This conversation has long since veered away from NuTrek and has been squarely focused ( at least on my end) about TOS. And I'm much more passionate and intrested in discussing TOS than NuTrek. Which why I took that path.