Star Trek and the Meaning of Life.

[YARN]

You are quite wrong there, Yarn. I was a therapist for thirty years. Snark is never therapeutic.

To borrow the line from Karl Popper, "And with this new case, I suppose, your experience has become thousand-and-one-fold."

At any rate, I am sure that the judges who sentenced Socrates felt much the same way you do. "Enough snark Socrates!"

As for my alleged 'negativity', I DO have an axe to grind, it seems. Three decades as a counselor and a teacher just tend to get a guy in the habit of wanting to see people give their best.

For not wanting to make a lot out of your professional experience, you sure do seem to mention it a lot...

I can only suppose that you inhabit the opposite end of the political spectrum than I, and get all frothy whenever a 'left wing hippie' ruffles your feathers.

You suppose quite a bit. So much so, that I can only suppose what you were like as a therapist or during office hours - "Oh, NO! Mr. Jameson, I've known people like you all my life. You will NOT get an extension on this assignment."

Curious though, I always though you guys were totally into constructing a utopia...FOR YOURSELVES!

Yep, you've got me pegged. Now please pardon me, I have economies to destroy after I go to the Tea Party rally and get Sarah Palin to sign my copy of Glenn Beck's new book.

A political discussion would, to my mind, be even more pointless than wrangling back and forth about the desirability of a utopia, or 'debating' whether or not Trek actually depicted a utopian society to any degree.

Strange approach/avoid pattern here. One moment I allegedly have your full attention and you are daring me to share my ideas. The next moment you are writing off the prospect as pointless.

See Below

Okay, prove it. If you think my ideas are so ridiculous, then give me the benefit of hearing some of YOUIRS. I GET that you think I'm WRONG; tell me what you think is RIGHT?

Again, my views have already been stated. Check upthread.

Just for the record, I do not require you to agree with me in order to regard the conversation as 'worth having'. I DO, however, expect you to CONSIDER what I am saying, rather than simply dismissing me out of hand, as you have done to date.

How do you know that I didn't consider your comments?

You can drop the economy now. You're grasping at a straw I normally can't be bothered to wipe my ass with.

Yeah, cuz I'm the one who brought politics into this.

So, you don't think a utopia is either desirable or feasible. What do you think we should be striving towards instead?

As individuals, I think we can only take the world as we find it and make the small part of it we inhabit a better place.
The world is always going to be falling apart.

The inherent disconnect between absence of conflict and dramatic narrative? I'm pretty damned TIRED of drama, myself. Why don't you explain to me why it's still a requirement for you?

I am not speaking of dramatic requirements in some generic sense (e.g., dramas, comedies, tragedies), but in the wider sense of "what stories require." I am not talking about any personal preference, but the structure of stories, in general. There are no stories to the effect, "Everyone was happy. Things were going so swimmingly well, in fact, that nobody did anything."

To get from point A to point B, you have to have a motivation, a problem that needs to be solved. The world must be some way other than the characters wish for it to be for there to be a plot.

If our characters are already perfect, then there is no journey for them to take. What does God have to discover about himself or life? Interesting characters have flaws.

 

[Paradon]

I think we all have to face the facts that this world (or this damn universe for that matter) isn't perfect and you can't always get what you want. But it doesn't mean we can't embrace our differences and diversities and value each and every individual, no exception. We should value the weirdness everybody possesses because everyone has something to bring to the table. That is what going to get humanity out of the crap we're in now. The idea of a utopia seems too perfect to swallow if you asked me. But if we learn to forgive and open our eyes and see what the world has got to offer, what wonder diversities can be, there is hope for humanity. It's gonna be tough for the younger generations looking at the mass (WW II, Vietnam War, and other wars) our parents and grandparents left behind, but I'm confident that kids today can fix the problems of their elders. It's gonna get worse before it gets better. Kids these days aren't so bad if you asked me. I don't like it when adults say kids today are stupid and that when they were young they didn't really do anything wrong. Look at WW I & II. And how about the Vietnam War and Cambodian civil war between the Khmer Rouge and communists.

 

[Greg Cox]

. You fairly REEK of hostility, irreverence and severe intimidation with every word you type..

Okay, if I was smart I would stay out of this, but does it bother anyone else that "irreverence" just got lumped in with hostility and intimidation?

I've always thought of irreverence as a good thing . . . .

 

[Paradon]

"Sometimes snark is good therapy."

You are quite wrong there, Yarn. I was a therapist for thirty years. Snark is never therapeutic.

Cracking sarcastic jokes isn't bad. People should lightened up a bit and not take everything people say way too seriously and take it to heart. Everybody gets snippy every once in a while, and people sometime joke when they are grieving or angry to vent. This is especially true with guys. Sometimes, guys will joke around and make fun of each other and people as part of bonding ritual and sometime to vent. Let's face it! It's hard being guy...you got so much pressure on you to succeed. That's why guys drink and smoke a lot more. But, sometime, you have to be careful when you joke around someone who may be sensitive or have emotional problems.

 

[Gary7]

I think we all have to face the facts that this world (or this damn universe for that matter) isn't perfect and you can't always get what you want. But it doesn't mean we can't embrace our differences and diversities and value each and every individual, no exception. We should value the weirdness everybody possesses because everyone has something to bring to the table. That is what going to get humanity out of the crap we're in now. The idea of a utopia seems too perfect to swallow if you asked me. But if we learn to forgive and open our eyes and see what the world has got to offer, what wonder diversities can be, there is hope for humanity. It's gonna be tough for the younger generations looking at the mass (WW II, Vietnam War, and other wars) our parents and grandparents left behind, but I'm confident that kids today can fix the problems of their elders. It's gonna get worse before it gets better. Kids these days aren't so bad if you asked me. I don't like it when adults say kids today are stupid and that when they were young they didn't really do anything wrong. Look at WW I & II. And how about the Vietnam War and Cambodian civil war between the Khmer Rouge and communists.

True, that intolerance has bred many of our problems. One group not believing or behaving like the other, garnering scorn and contempt rather than appreciation for diversity. The trouble is really all about trust. You accept and embrace something, only to find it biting you in the back later. It has happened, but more often than not fear of it causes some of the greatest inhumanity of man to man.

The trouble with our youth today in the 1st world is that they are being raised in a focused illusion. There is little appreciation for the big picture. But it isn't their fault... it's the parents and society which fosters this. We're in the powerful grip of a wealthy elite that want to keep the majority of people contained while they parade around in their high flying exclusive social clubs. Just look at how quickly the educational budget has been slashed to pieces... this is the essential requirement for a better people going forward. So many other countries recognize this and plan accordingly. But the elitists in the USA don't need any educational budget for their own purposes--they've got plenty of superfluous funds for the education of their own children and could care less about the general masses that they need to do the menial jobs.

It's all about perspective.

All too often people forget how just 70 years ago, we were in the grip of one of the most unsettled times in human history. Millions of people executed for their nationality, religious beliefs, or physical peculiarity. That period is just the bat of an eye in the grand history of humanity. Technology and comfort create fast illusions. We think we live in a modern society when the primitive cruel one is really still there, hidden behind all the "noise."

So, it's important to remember our frame of social reference. We're still in the infancy of trying to get along. And as long as people are fixated on long outdated beliefs (whether intrinsically taught hatred or religious superiority), we are destined to repeat the mistakes of the past over, and over, and over, and over again... forget about any chance of Star Trek utopia.

 

[Paradon]

That's true. The government is playing favoritism. Most politicians get pay a huge some from a lot of big corporations to run for office. You and I see the same problem, but I think capitalism is not to blamed...it's corporatism. In fact I think the problem is: we haven't given capitalism a fair chance and government spending is out of control creating debt which causes inflation and weaken the monetary value. Capitalism is supposed to be about everyone getting a fair chance at making something of themselves, not playing favorites. This is what happened when the government gets involve as with all the problems around the world. Look at how much the U.S. government spend on foreign policies, war overseas and to maintain their status as the world police; that's why there is no money left to spend education and other important stuff.

If you asked me, people back in the old days were even bigger bigots than today because of people's differences. I think it's really about races being different. It's got nothing to do with a lot of customs and religious believes. After all, some scientists do kill people, should I blame all the scientists and label them as murderers. If you go out into the real world, you will find quickly that not everyone fits the molds. People are different and nobody thinks exactly alike. Opinions vary from person to person and just because you don't agree with them on certain perspective, that doesn't mean that person is bad or pure evil because the truth is: nobody really want to be at wrong end of a stick. There are good, hardworking, religious people out there and there are some that are not so nice. People are people. It doesn't matter whether you are religious or athiest. The important thing is: what you get out of it. Do what makes you happy like Buddha once said.

 

[FALCONX0N]

Enough with the meaning of life, what's the meaning of Star Trek? I've been thinking on this more and more lately and I'm starting to think I just missed the point entirely. People go on and on about the "utopian nonsense" of TNG-era Trek as if the other television series were bastions of darkness, disease, and utter horseshit. Not, uh 'literal' horseshit, and I'm not being a wiseass or calling names, but intentional horseshit--that it's a sizable portion and aspect of the show which I failed to recognize. That Trek, and I see TNG getting this a lot, isn't so much about an 'evolved humanity' (to use the phrasing from the show) but about a bunch of self-righteous fascists who talk the talk and we just never get to see the Federation's own morlock-race, which they must certainly have. That for all the speeches they make about a humanity being better, having, for a lack of better terminology finally gotten our shit together as a species, and made a choice to go against our 'hard-wired bastard programming'--it's horseshit, it's lies made by an authoritarian government that our starship captains are only a mouthpiece of. That we never see life outside of Starfleet, where it is most assuredly as much of a shithole as life is today.

One of my favorite comments in fandom (and I'm not saying "fandumb," or "fanboys," or anything like that since I fully recognize that I am in the minority in taking the utopian ideals of Trek at face-value) that I've seen is the opinion that Troi is basically the Enterprise's political officer, there to make sure to use her talents to brainwash and her abilities to make certain that no one strays from the party line. We just never see her attacking anyone for these thought crimes, but it is most certainly an obvious aspect of Trek. That Star Trek isn't about a better, utopian society, because such a thing can't exist as a practical reality or even as a concept. They say DS9 proved this, but am I the only one that recognizes that Section 31 were villains?! Even Eddington. I mean, these were not the first sympathetic villains in Star Trek. Hell, if you think about all the really good villains, it's hard to find one that was pure freaking evil--good villains have good reasons for doing the bad things. The point of these isn't to 'prove' that all of The Federation's ideals (and by extension, Star Trek's) were sacrificial in the face of the big picture, but just to engage the viewer in the discussion. Am I really in the minority, am I a stupid fool who never watched Star Trek by thinking that yes, the central cast of the show were right in rejecting the idea that principles should be upheld over safety, that 'do what must be done' is a watchword and not the 'real Federation's' motto? Did we get so 'engaged' by morality plays that we've just come over fully on the side of "we're bastards. We'll always be bastards. Trek's future where we're not bastards MUST be wrong, intentionally."

Am I wrong to think that Trek is about a world where money doesn't rule our lives, that we create our own personal challenges while at the same time not infringing on the freedoms and rights of others? Are we so cynical as a fanbase, as a culture, that even talking about that message is seen as a naive and a silly thing to entertain? That there's no way in hell Trek can possibly be about a world where people get along, are intelligent and understanding and respectful? I always thought Star Trek displayed a picture-perfect utopian society--it didn't display HEAVEN, but it did display a world where, without the constant scrabble for material survival, people's 'hard-wired' instincts could be, by choice, channeled to be constructive rather than destructive purposes. I never really stopped to consider that in and of itself this idea was something so poorly thought of.

I mean, every now and then someone will make a post about they appreciate the 'enlightened sensibilities' of what they see as Trek's humanist message and they get twenty posts back which look like they were by Heath Ledger in the Dark Knight.

 

[HaventGotALife]

My understanding of Star Trek's society is that earth is a paradise. There is no disease, no poverty, no money, no war, no racism, no nations. Think if the song Imagine became reality. On a Starfleet vessel that looks like a multi-cultural society where everyone wearing the uniform makes a contribution, is competent.

We don't lack conflict with other races but our approach to them is a peaceful one. For instance, we do not try and exploit them for their resources. We do not try and conquer them. We do not look down on their culture. We try to understand them and we do find people we won't get along with. But we enter into peace treaties with them, we create neutral zones (or DMZs) to seperate ourselves from them and let them be in their own territory, we stick to ours. We don't violate the territory.

But what we are exposed to is a similar culture, an American, white culture where everyone speaks the same language (on earth). It's important that we see more than that which is why visiting Picard's brother was a big deal or Uhura speaking Swahili from that standpoint. Star Trek knows its audience and it doesn't sway much from our own culture. Earth seems to have gone bland, one culture. That's the drawback. Is that realistic? Well, exploring and dealing with different life-forms is something we need to have more than book learning from. Experience is much more effective. So what makes Picard such a great diplomat? We have to be exceptional and tolerance is one thing. Knowing how to communicate is another. Not being offended by the smell of a creature is something he has to do in the field. These things are never explored. So is Star Trek realistic? There are some gaps they never filled in.

 

[truespock]

Firstly, it's painfully obvious that I have offended a number of you by the bombastic, abrasive way in which I've abruptly hurled my rock into the heretofore calm waters of your peaceful little pond. In retrospect, it would have undoubtedly been far wiser of me to indulge myself in a 'cooling off' period after my atrocious experiences on both Star Trek . com and Trekspace, rather than approaching an entirely fresh group of people with a thoroughly undeserved predisposition. In fact, I may be well on my way to repeating those horrors here, simply because of my unfortunate predilection for making preliminary snap judgements based upon observable mass patterns--an outgrowth of trying to deal with huge groups of people in the course of my work. Einstein whimsically gave his definition of 'insanity' as doing the same experiment over and over again, in the very same way, and expecting a different result. It is an apocalyptic moment in the life of an 'angry young man' when he must finally face the fact that he has become merely a 'bitter old fart'. So, for those of you who believe that I have inexorably gotten off here on entirely the wrong size 13, please accept my sincere and humble apologies. I would further request that you take my statement that my intention here is to make you THINK, not to make you MAD at face value.

Secondly, as several of you have pointed out repeatedly, I AM INDEED inordinately PROUD of both my education and my careers, particularly having achieved these things as a man who has been completely blind from birth. You may all rest assured that I will NEVER HESITATE to cite these accomplishments as a justification for any particular position I might take on the forum. I'm simply making you aware that I know some stuff, but I am not in any way, shape or form suggesting, inferring, implying, insinuating, or hinting that I believe that YOU DO NOT! I DO NOT think I'm better than you, I DO NOT feel as if I'm talking to monkeys, I DO NOT hold you in lesser regard than myself IN ANY WAY! If you receive a different impression from the way I speak to you, this is probably because of the fact that I was the guy at the podium in the lecture hall for thirty years. (Oh, crap on a cracker! I just did it again, didn't I?)

Of course, sonner or later, one or more of you will simply decide to announce that I'm just making the whole thing up, knowing full well in advance that for me to put enough personal information on the open internet for you to verify my 'claims' would be tantamount to you leaving your car unlocked and running while you 'dashed inside' and hoping it was still there when you got back. Either accept me and my good intentions toward this forum on faith, or don't. I don't care either way.

On the other hand--yeah, there's ALWAYS another hand!--there have been quite a few positive responses to what I've written here; people who WERE NOT INTIMIDATED in the least by my approach and style of discourse. To those folks I can only say, "Eureka, I've found you at last!" What genuinely puzzles me is why those of you who don't see a hopeful future in Star Trek even bother to watch the shows at all? What's in it for you if you're so inclined to dismiss the 'idealized man' I see depicted therein as hokum? By the way, utopia doesn't mean 'nothing's ever happening' and 'everybody's bored'. As Star Trek clearly shows us, there's still plenty to do there and the new optimal spirit of cooperation we see (at least among Earth people, as well as many friendly alien cultures) is the point of the WHOLE DAMNED THING! For those of you who have gone so far as to suggest that I 'give up Star Trek and take up gardening', I can't help but wonder if pit bull fighting or end-of-the-world scenarios might be more to YOUR taste.

Thirdly, how in the Hell am I supposed to navigate the minefield of Yarn's responses, picking apart literally every word I write and offering a seemingly arbitrary counter position? Ignore him as the unwelcome and profitless disruption he appears to me to be? Engage him, in the (admittedly forlorn) hopes that other readers might actually glean something interesting from our 'debate'? Have him killed? (Just kidding. Who SAYS I don't have a sense of humor?!?!?) Okay, I guess it's 'engage".

WARNING! OFF-TOPIC ALERT! DANGER! COVER YOUR EYES OR PUT ON YOUR VISOR IMMEDIATELY IF YOU DON'T LIKE NON-TREK DISCUSSIONS! WARNING! WARNING!

Let's start with politics and hopefully (but not bloody likely!) get it over with quickly. It is my humble belief that America was founded by a small group of elitist British business owners who needed to get George III off of their backs. While never having the slightest intention of sharing 'freedom' with women, non-whites, slaves (today wage slaves), immigrants or the elderly, handicapped or otherwise disenfranchised, the 'founding fathers' nevertheless secured popular support for their 'rebellion' by initiating the myth of a 'brand new' kind of government, 'by the people, of the people and for the people', which is still taught in our schools to this day, bald-faced lie that it is. Actually, this same sort of thing has occurred in every government around the globe throughout the history of man, but what America has inexplicably failed to experience to date is a general revolt by the 'little guy'. IMHO, such a revolt is both necessary and imminent within our fair shores.

Why do I keep bringing it up? Good question. Despite my life-long endeavors to leave politics strictly alone, there are many times--such as the current partisan budget lock-up--when it simply refuses to leave ME alone! What does any of this have to do with Star Trek? Well, it seems to me that a Trekesque world in which everyone is fairly and equally provided for--affording them an equitable opportunity to pursue education, art, science and exploration--would be a great step in the direction of the so-called 'utopia' I originally wrote about. But the fully bought-and-paid-for puppets of the American Corporate SUCCUBUS (with whom this whole obscenity started!) will have none of that! They have dedicated themselves instead to legislating every possible advantage to the rich and powerful, to the relentless detriment of the common man. Why, these under cover blood suckers even have the unmitigated balls to insist that 'everyone has an equal chance to get rich here'! That and a paper sack will get you the sack.

Okay Yarn and friends, have at it. I've bared my soul for all to see, and it's long passed time we saw something more from you than just a uniform debunking of everything I've written. Yeah, I get it...you think I'm wrong about the optimism presented in Star Trek and I'm quite certain I've just pissed on a hornets nest with my politics. I can't wait 'till we blunder into the subject of religion on this forum.

 

[truespock]

I occurs to me that I've been so busy replying to my detractors, that I've neglected to say anything to the more positive responders. And so, belatedly, here it is:

cblmc1296--You and I appear to see things very much in the same light...which, of course, makes you RIGHT! LOL

Greg Cox--Irreverence IS a good thing. However, like all good things, it can be put to bad uses by the dastardly. (Are you, by any chance, THE Greg Cox who has written so many of my favorite Star Trek books?)

Paradon--Well, you certainly know your history and seem well up on current social trends as well. Am I correct in my guess you are a younger man? Nice articulation of your thoughts. Clear, concise, accessible.

Gary 7--I am sensing a kindred spirit here and I really liked your reference to the 'focused illusion' being imposed on our kids today. Yes, we need a fundamental rewriting of the human psyche in order for Trek to become a reality...and it certainly CAN happen, but isn't it just horrifying how many supposed Trek fans are actually dead-set AGAINST it happening?

FALCONXON--You express yourself well and you bring up a number of good points. You haven't missed the point; you are one of the few who seems to have gotten it. Read about what Gene Roddenberry said he was trying to say and do at the time TOS was being made and you'll have no doubt that your perceptions here are accurate. Leave it to humans to piss on every good and decent thing they see, even as they claim to be 'fans' of that thing.


Haven't Got A life--Is the Trek 'utopia' realistic, or even potentially realistic, you ask? The answer to THAT one is entirely up to US, and we've got a lot of minds to change before it ever can be.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

What genuinely puzzles me is why those of you who don't see a hopeful future in Star Trek even bother to watch the shows at all? What's in it for you if you're so inclined to dismiss the 'idealized man' I see depicted therein as hokum? By the way, utopia doesn't mean 'nothing's ever happening' and 'everybody's bored'. As Star Trek clearly shows us, there's still plenty to do there and the new optimal spirit of cooperation we see (at least among Earth people, as well as many friendly alien cultures) is the point of the WHOLE DAMNED THING!

And one of the "things to do" is to coerce other cultures into acting just like the Federation so they can get the Federation goodies.

To quote Eddington in For the Cause:

"Open your eyes, Captain. Why is the Federation so obsessed with the Maquis? We've never harmed you. And yet we're constantly arrested and charged with terrorism. Starships chase us through the Badlands and our supporters are harassed and ridiculed. Why? Because we've left the Federation, and that's the one thing you can't accept. Nobody leaves paradise. Everyone should want to be in the Federation. Hell, you even want the Cardassians to join. You're only sending them replicators because one day they can take their "rightful place" on the Federation Council. You know In some ways you're even worse than the Borg. At least they tell you about their plans for assimilation. You're more insidious. You assimilate people and they don't even know it."

As someone up thread pointed out the utopia of Earth is quite bland and seemingly mono-culture. Certainly you no longer have tribal communities, monarchies, religious dominated subcultures. Rather it seems people get to keep the "good" elements of their culture (Picard and wine making) but in all other manners become a homogeneous western culture.

Just look at how the Ferengi are dismissed and despised by some personnel on DS9 and it's clear that the Federation truly thinks itself superior to cultures that stand apart proudly with their own ideals.

I'm not in the least enamoured with the way the Federation is presented in Star Trek. I don't watch Star Trek for utopia or ideals, I watch it for adventure, politics, humour, straight up sci fi story lines and the creation of different worlds. I'd VERY happily watch a Star Trek in which the Federation was only a minor element, say a Star Trek that took place entirely on Cardassia during the rebuilding.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

Secondly, as several of you have pointed out repeatedly, I AM INDEED inordinately PROUD of both my education and my careers, particularly having achieved these things as a man who has been completely blind from birth. You may all rest assured that I will NEVER HESITATE to cite these accomplishments as a justification for any particular position I might take on the forum.

Generally people who cite their accomplishments with every opinion are viewed negatively on the internet. While you are of course justifiably proud of your accomplishments it is illogical to continue to refer to them when doing so has the opposite effect your referring intends.

 

[truespock]

@ Teacake--I initially referenced my personal achievements as a simple matter of full disclosure, nor have I--AT ANY TIME--attempted to beat anybody over the head with them. As for continuing to make mention of them, I acknowledge that this would most probably be counter productive, due to the inherent willingness of internet feathers to get ruffled at the least little excuse.

I also notice that you've conveniently completely bypassed my apology to those of you whom I might have 'offended' with my approach, and you are one of those who squawked the loudest. Said the Vulture to the thirsting man, "I'd really rather just EAT your eyes, than peer through them into your soul, fella."

I suggest that you and your friends get used to me. I've got something to say, and I'm gonna say it here. Your petty nit-picking is irrelevant. So is the length of time you've been here. So is my alleged potential to intimidate you with my way of speaking. Grow the f--k up.

 

[HaventGotALife]

Thirdly, how in the Hell am I supposed to navigate the minefield of Yarn's responses, picking apart literally every word I write and offering a seemingly arbitrary counter position? Ignore him as the unwelcome and profitless disruption he appears to me to be? Engage him, in the (admittedly forlorn) hopes that other readers might actually glean something interesting from our 'debate'? Have him killed? (Just kidding. Who SAYS I don't have a sense of humor?!?!?) Okay, I guess it's 'engage".

truespock, I haven't addressed your credentials directly, but I will here. I find it inspirational that you have accomplished so much. I am pursuing an Associates degree with the hope of one day holding a Masters in Social Work. I have a disability as well and I hope to look back on my life one day as a happy and learned individual that helped some people. Star Trek, in a lot of ways, helped me to look at other people as a friend and installed the desire to want to help my fellow man. So it will always be a part of my life.

That said, my experience with the internet is that you will find your complete opposite somewhere along the way. You will find all kinds of different people. If I may offer some advice, grow a thick skin. I say this after being a blogger on the internet for a basketball site and having my opinions questioned to the point of yelling at my computer screen with vitrolic spewings oozing through my rapid fingers. It was personal. I wanted the world to think like me and if they didn't, I wanted to prove their argument was without merit. It was completely childish and I regret every minute of it. Internet dictators are sad, indeed.

In my ten years of writing on sites like this one, I have learned not to take it personal. The person on the opposite end of your spectrum may think I'm an idiot, but this isn't about their opinion of me. This is about me sharing my opinion, maybe having some points sharpened by their critique, and so I can enjoy myself. For me, that doesn't mean winning every argument. It means I express myself as best I can, and if the response is in any way serious, I try to see the other person's point-of-view. From there, if I can clarify something, if I can try to persuade them one last time (and the countless who take the time to read a response), I'll try. When we end up around in circles, when the other person is not convinced, I walk away. This is an exchange of ideas, not a slam-fest. Not a game to be won. We are all people and we sometimes are stubborn or have different life experiences. Sometimes someone just tries and get under your skin. Like I said, just try to have some fun and to learn from it.

If that is in anyway helpful to informing your decision of how to deal with someone on the internet, I will be satisfied. If not, I gave it my best shot.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

I also notice that you've conveniently completely bypassed my apology to those of you whom I might have 'offended' with my approach, and you are one of those who squawked the loudest. Said the Vulture to the thirsting man, "I'd really rather just EAT your eyes, than peer through them into your soul, fella."

Really? I wasn't aware I was "squawking" and I didn't register that you had any reason to apologize to me. I posted a couple sentences to you about internet communication. Calling what people say "squawking" is rather judgmental don't you think?

You're a funny guy, for someone who says they really want to have conversation you react to every attempt at it with negatives.

 

[YARN]

I AM INDEED inordinately PROUD of both my education and my careers, particularly having achieved these things as a man who has been completely blind from birth.

This is getting more interesting by the minute...

Of course, sonner or later, one or more of you will simply decide to announce that I'm just making the whole thing up

Yes, this is seeming increasingly likely.

knowing full well in advance that for me put enough personal information on the open internet for you to verify my claims would be tantamount to you leaving your car unlocked and running while you 'dashed inside' and hoping it was still there when you got back.

Would it?

Sure, it would cost you your anonymity, but that's it. I mean, when I go into a pub or a cafe and strike up a conversation I generally tell complete strangers who I am and what I do. When I do this my anonymity is cashed out, but I don't worry that anyone is going to steal my identity like a car with the keys left in it.

You've been using your experience as premises supporting claims in arguments from authority, so yeah, people will ask you to back up your authority.

If you want to preserve your anonymity, that's fine. But let's not pretend that your identity would be stolen if you mentioned your name, where you earned your Ph.D., and where you taught. HINT: If you want to preserve your anonymity, you might want to stop disclosing personal details.

Thirdly, how in the Hell am I supposed to navigate the minefield of Yarn's responses, picking apart literally every word I write and offering a seemingly arbitrary counter position? Ignore him as the unwelcome and profitless disruption he appears to me to be?

You could ignore me. No law against it. Simply say that you no longer wish to converse, and POOF! that's it.

Indeed, I am increasingly sensing that I might make this move myself...

 

[YARN]

I suggest that you and your friends get used to me. I've got something to say, and I'm gonna say it here. Your petty nit-picking is irrelevant. So is the length of time you've been here. So is my alleged potential to intimidate you with my way of speaking. Grow the f--k up.

Yeah, I'm officially calling this what it is - "a disturbed person with an internet connection."

I don't think this guy is blind, I don't think he's lettered, and I don't think he's a therapist.

If he is on the level, he must be going through a pretty rough patch. Strangely, I'd more comforted to think that this all an elaborate troll.

Either way, my style of dialectic won't help matters.

I'm out.

 

[Greg Cox]

Greg Cox--Irreverence IS a good thing. However, like all good things, it can be put to bad uses by the dastardly. (Are you, by any chance, THE Greg Cox who has written so many of my favorite Star Trek books?)

.

That's me. Thanks! Glad you liked them.

 

[Gary7]

I know someone who is blind and she uses the Internet. It is a slow and tedious process for someone without sight. Not impossible, as she uses it successfully. But it is painfully slow. To have a long discourse with other people in a forum about a particular subject would take an inordinate amount of time. Why would someone bother to do this, unless they had a trust fund and not many other personal obligations. So truespock, it's hard to believe your story. I'm not saying it is false, but it's suspicious with what little has been communicated.

truespock, you raise a topic that is ripe for debate and argument, because it has numerous possible perspectives on it. And then you embellish your responses with a lot of testy barbs... there are a few people who love a challenge and so one has been taken up. You should know that this subject has been debated before, in various related contexts. But... you overload your responses. Debate in a forum is very limited. You have a subject and make a few points, then people respond to them. So, your reaction to YARN reflects how copious your posts have been, as you see his nature of quoting and responding to each yielded some seriously large responses.

I don't know if you've done this kind of thing on other boards, but you can expect that while TrekBBS allows things to get heated up a bit (we also have a Neutral Zone for "lite moderation"), the moderators only allow for a few innocent mistakes. If they smell a troll, they snuff the thread accordingly. So, it's not safe for a relatively early board member to try stirring up contention. It's a good way to be misunderstood, because it is generally expected that you "do your time" before testing the waters of challenge with people who are long time members.

Am I wrong to think that Trek is about a world where money doesn't rule our lives, that we create our own personal challenges while at the same time not infringing on the freedoms and rights of others?

That's kind of what we're led to believe is the mantra of the Federation. But it's not consistently conveyed. That's because there have been so many writers, directors, and producers involved.

Are we so cynical as a fanbase, as a culture, that even talking about that message is seen as a naive and a silly thing to entertain? That there's no way in hell Trek can possibly be about a world where people get along, are intelligent and understanding and respectful? I always thought Star Trek displayed a picture-perfect utopian society--it didn't display HEAVEN, but it did display a world where, without the constant scrabble for material survival, people's 'hard-wired' instincts could be, by choice, channeled to be constructive rather than destructive purposes. I never really stopped to consider that in and of itself this idea was something so poorly thought of.

From the impression I get, Star Trek assumes we humans have evolved mentally, emotionally, and socially to the point where we basically get along and prosper. Money and resources previously spent on wars and commercialism ends up redirected towards much more constructive pursuits. We solve the energy and speed problems, so that we can travel to distant planets. Life on a planet or colony where we settle is generally peaceful. Although people do not have to struggle to make a living, they are cared for in so many respects that they are free to pursue their natural interests and contribute their efforts to society. It's a difficult concept to grasp when we're so entrenched in society as we know it today. It does seem so hypothetical and imaginary. But I do believe it will be possible someday. Unfortunately it is so far off that we won't live to enjoy those days... but if we have any feelings of concern about the human race surviving long enough on Earth to successfully start an extraterrestrial colony, then we must become the foundation upon which it will eventually happen. It's linear. If we break the chain, a dark age will ensue... and we might not make it.

 

[truespock]

I suggest that you and your friends get used to me. I've got something to say, and I'm gonna say it here. Your petty nit-picking is irrelevant. So is the length of time you've been here. So is my alleged potential to intimidate you with my way of speaking. Grow the f--k up.

Yeah, I'm officially calling this what it is - "a disturbed person with an internet connection."

I don't this guy is blind, I don't think he's lettered, and I don't think he's a therapist.

If he is on the level, he must be going through a pretty rough patch. Strangely, I'd more comforted to think that this all an elaborate troll.

Either way, my style of dialectic won't help matters.

I'm out.

So, from the moment I arrive here, all excited about the positive real world applications to be gleaned from 45 years of Star Trek, I am picked at, criticized, advised to give up, dismissed and, ultimately called a liar and 'disturbed'.

Well, I DO give up. You were right all along, not as regards the things I said about myself--they're all perfectly true--but about the fact that Star Trek will never become a reality. We're doomed as a race, hopeless, helpless, gleefully splashing in this contentious dungheap of a world we've made for ourselves, like pigs in their own puke. I guess Star Trek IS just a sci-fi shoot-'em-up, with loads of 'hot babes', after all.

For those handful of you who saw merit in my ideas, thank you. It feels good to know you're out there. For the rest of you, thank YOU as well. You've added still more confirmation to my life-long beliefs that mankind is just a waste of perfectly good natural resources that some species without our self destructive tendencies might have used better.

I'm out too.