Why Did Star Trek:The Magazine Cease Publication?

[Dayton3]

Re: Why Did Star Trek:The Magazine Cease Publicati

Posted by Kevin Dilmore:
2) Dayton3, your suggestion that Dan Madsen should be ashamed of the Communicator and what it has become under his leadership is uninformed, inappropriate, disrespectful and personally galling. If your intent was to stir the waters and fire people up, well, you win. If your intent was to demonstrate your ignorance of the publication and of Star Trek fandom in general, you win again.

Kevin

Be galled all you want. If I had sold out a perfectly good fan magazine just to get Paramounts stamp of approval and a meaningless Q & A with Rick Berman every month.........then I would be ashamed.

That is of course my opinion. But it does reflect reality I fear.

 

[Guest]

Even when Star Trek: The Magazine was around, I rarely bought it. I always preferred the Communicator. It had stuff that was much more interesting to me in it and I preferred it's layout much more. It's always been the best, in my opinion.

 

[David cgc]

Re: Why Did Star Trek:The Magazine Cease Publicati

Posted by Kevin Dilmore:
1) It's fine that some of you out there have your list of "favorite Communicator blunders." I also have my list of "favorite Star Trek Internet rumors that have set fans into psychotic rages until they see those rumors debunked in the Communicator." I'm guessing my list is longer

Okay, maybe I phrased that poorly. In fact, that was really the only such mistake I recall. I'm sorry that my insensitive, thoughtless anecdote caused so much offense. If it's any consolation, I do intend to renew my subscription.

But, I mean, jeeze, this was the issue after he spoiled the T'Pol-on-crack storyline a month and a half in advance, so I'm sorry that the concept of lag time didn't occur to me. It seems a bit strange at first glance that Berman could talk blithely about a plot line that aired six weeks after I read it in one issue, and be so fantastically misleading about a dialog line that aired the very day I read it in the next.

Oh, and if Berman wanted it to be a surprise, I would think that it would be just as easy to say that he'd rather not answer that one and ask them to print another question.

 

[David Henderson]

Re: Why Did Star Trek:The Magazine Cease Publicati

Keep in mind that the episodes themselves have varying amounts of leadtime. For example, the first episode this season, "Storm Front, Part I", will air on October 8, and they've nearly finished filming it, which gives over two and a half months of leadtime, and that's just for pictures. The script was finished even before that. On the other hand, for the episode airing the last week of November (assuming they don't air a repeat that week, since it'll be the day after Thanksgiving in the US), they'll have only about a month of lead time--they will air one episode each week, but it takes a week and a half to film an episode.

Also, with the specific case you mention, the T'Pol storyline had been ongoing for quite a few episodes before the actual cause was presented in an episode, so they had been planning it and laying in clues for a while. On the other hand, the name of a ship is something that could be inserted into a script at the last minute.

davidh

 

[Kevin Dilmore]

Re: Why Did Star Trek:The Magazine Cease Publicati

Posted by Dayton3:That is of course my opinion.

And you're entitled to it.

Kevin

 

[Kevin Dilmore]

Re: Why Did Star Trek:The Magazine Cease Publicati

Posted by David of Mac:I'm sorry that my insensitive, thoughtless anecdote caused so much offense.

I'm hardly offended by the way you phrased yourself. I've provided perspective on the lagtime of publications for many years, so I was merely doing so again.

If you wanted to offend me, you would have done something like, say, make uninformed presumptions about the opinions of the Communicator that should be held by its founder.

Kevin

 

[Garrovick]

The truth is, is that they simply ran out of money...

I have every issue stored away in the little plastic bags used to "preserve and protect" magazines.

That other magazine, Star Trek:Communicator, simply has to be heavily subsidize by some one.

Even after all of these years, I stll look at it like it's still a fluffy little fan mag.

Why buy the “Communicator” when we have websites like StarTrek.com and Trekweb.com?

 

[CharmCityCrab]

Re: Why Did Star Trek:The Magazine Cease Publicati

Posted by Dayton3:
Join a Church of Christ near you. The one true church described in the New Testament of the Bible.

God loves you and wants you to be saved. And so do I.

I know this is a little off-topic, but this sig file just keeps staring at me over various threads over the course of what seems like months and it's hard to resist the temptation (No pun intended given the subject matter) to reply to it. :-) Honestly, I would strongly advise the moderators to consider banning these sort of inflammatory signature files if they don't want off-topic replies.

How in the world is the "Church of Christ" the one true church described in the Bible? If you want to argue that it's part of the greater Christian Church described in the Bible, I'm not going to argue with you on that point, but to say it's the church the bible describes and all the other churches aren't is a bit of a stretch.

I see these claims constantly from CoC folks, and they always try to justify it by saying stuff like "Well, the Bible doesn't mention that we should have organs for music in the church so all those organ playing churches are heretical". Yeah, everyone who goes to a church with an organist or, *gasp* horror of all horrors, someone playing a guitar, is going to hell. There's the real message of the Bible. ::rolls eyes::

Then there is the argument that somehow being called "Church of Christ" makes it the only legitimate church, because, "dagonit I don't see dem der Epi-sco-pals or Luth-e-rans mentioned in the Bible". The CoC are founded in the 1800s by some guy named Campbell, folks. And most biblical references are to the "Church of God" and not the "Church of Christ" in any event, so if this Campbell fellow was trying to pick the biblical name for Christian churches, he wasn't doing his homework.

I get really aggravated at this kind of thing, because it's exactly the reason Christians seem to always be given such a bad name. The CoC arguments reminds me of strict constructionist constitutional arguments. Somehow they seem to think that Everything that is not mentioned in the Bible is evil, which is just ridicolous. If someone's church wants to play Amazing Grace or even a *gasp* rock and roll songs during a service, that doesn't make them apostate.

The Christian message is one of freedom and liberty in Christ. I really don't understand why people use it to somehow try to argue that only their small group of accopella singers are going to heaven or something. It completely misses the point.

John

 

[Chadduss]

Re: Why Did Star Trek:The Magazine Cease Publicati

^^^^Maybe it would have been better to have pm'ed him about this?

 

[William Leisner]

Re: Why Did Star Trek:The Magazine Cease Publicati

^ I just enjoy the irony in observing the same person who has this signature expressing feelings of "hate," and writing such non-Christ-like things as, "Dan Madsen should be ashamed of the magazine". In the words of Barney Gumble, "Jesus must be rolling in his grave right now."

 

[ecky]

Re: Why Did Star Trek:The Magazine Cease Publicati

Posted by Dayton3:

Be galled all you want. If I had sold out a perfectly good fan magazine just to get Paramounts stamp of approval and a meaningless Q & A with Rick Berman every month.........then I would be ashamed.

That is of course my opinion. But it does reflect reality I fear.

y'know, 9/10 i'd cheerfully lynch you, but from what i've seen of the communicator you've just hit the nail on the head. it must be of those broken clock moments.

if theres anything wrong with the current state of trek on the screen its OTT sycophancy and a complete inability to deal with the reality of situation, which is trek fans having turned off in droves and bad reviews.

of course the communicator merely representative of a much greater malady, but frankly as long as PB keeps churning out the quality books they have berman can churn out all the fifth rate shite he likes.

 

[ecky]

Re: Why Did Star Trek:The Magazine Cease Publicati

Posted by Pf2144:
I know this is a little off-topic, but this sig file just keeps staring at me over various threads over the course of what seems like months and it's hard to resist the temptation (No pun intended given the subject matter) to reply to it. :-) Honestly, I would strongly advise the moderators to consider banning these sort of inflammatory signature files if they don't want off-topic replies.

its been "dealt with" in MA before

best take it there.

 

[Dayton3]

Re: Why Did Star Trek:The Magazine Cease Publicati

Thanks ecky.

Though to be honest I also gave up most Pocket ST novels as well a few years back.

Economic reasons for one. Couldn't stand the multi book stories either.

 

[Trent Roman]

Re: Why Did Star Trek:The Magazine Cease Publicati

Posted by Pf2144:
If someone's church wants to play Amazing Grace or even a *gasp* rock and roll songs during a service, that doesn't make them apostate.

Townsfolk: "In the Garden of E-den, ho-ney /
Don't you know that I'll always be tru-ue..."

Lovejoy: "Wait a minute. This sounds like rock and/or roll."

The Christian message is one of freedom and liberty in Christ. I really don't understand why people use it to somehow try to argue that only their small group of accopella singers are going to heaven or something. It completely misses the point.

Is it? In the absence of tangible evidence supporting one theory over another, it has always been my opinion that one religious hypothesis is just as valid as any other. I realize that this becomes self-contradictory in light of the Church of Christ's fairly stringent exclusionary views, but then religion has never been a paragon of logic to begin with. That signature is arrogant, potentially duplicitous and - IMHO - reflects poorly on the intelligence of the author, but it is his opinion and he is entitled to it. There's no call for its removal, and it is no more inflammatory a statement than any other religious pronounciation.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Rick Sternbach]

Re: Why Did Star Trek:The Magazine Cease Publicati

Posted by mythme:
I miss the Sternbach "mini tech manuals" of various starships that was featured in ST: The Magazine. This was my favorite feature hands down.

Thanks for the nice words. I miss writing the stuff, too.

Rick
www.spacemodelsystems.com

 

[CharmCityCrab]

Re: Why Did Star Trek:The Magazine Cease Publicati

Posted by Trent_Roman:

The Christian message is one of freedom and liberty in Christ. I really don't understand why people use it to somehow try to argue that only their small group of accopella singers are going to heaven or something. It completely misses the point.

Is it? In the absence of tangible evidence supporting one theory over another, it has always been my opinion that one religious hypothesis is just as valid as any other.

I'll grant that to a certain extent, but by the same token, if you're going to claim as the Church of Christ does, that they literally follow the complete Bible, then they ought not to misrepresent it. How can you read the passage below and then say "Everyone who doesn't follow our ulta-conservative legalistic ideas about musical instruments and our strict discipline is going to hell"?:

"Now before faith came, we were imprisoned and guarded under the law until faith would be revealed. Therefore the law was our disciplinarian until Christ came, so that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer subject to a disciplinarian, for in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith. As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to the promise." -Galatians 3:23-29 (NSRV)

If they want to claim to be completely based on the Bible, and in fact the only "real" Christian Church based entirely on the Bible, then they ought to read the Bible every once in a while.

That signature is arrogant, potentially duplicitous and - IMHO - reflects poorly on the intelligence of the author, but it is his opinion and he is entitled to it. There's no call for its removal, and it is no more inflammatory a statement than any other religious pronounciation.

I support his right to his opinion. I just don't like to see a statement like that as a signature file, because then if people want to take issue with it, they're forced to go off-topic. It also means anyone who is offended by it has to read something that they feel is insulting in every single post on every single thread the poster posts on. I'd prefer instead he post his opinion in the body of his post where it can be debated and discussed more easily.

John

 

[Trent Roman]

Re: Why Did Star Trek:The Magazine Cease Publicati

Posted by Pf2144:
I'll grant that to a certain extent, but by the same token, if you're going to claim as the Church of Christ does, that they literally follow the complete Bible, then they ought not to misrepresent it. How can you read the passage below and then say "Everyone who doesn't follow our ulta-conservative legalistic ideas about musical instruments and our strict discipline is going to hell"?:

Well, the Bible deals with topics that tend to stray into realms of metaphysics and can be a little vague and rhetorical at times, so it doesn't surprise me that even those who claim to have literal interpretations will differ in their opinions of what the text was trying to convey. More relevant to the issue at hand, I think, is that a literal interpretation says nothing about emphasis, which is often key to the variant forms of a single belief system. You may emphasize that particular passage and consider it's meaning as being important, but others find more importance in passages in Leviticus and elsewhere. (In my observations, I've found that that the portions of the Bible people consider to be the most relevant depends on one's preconceived notions when approaching the Bible, rather than the text influencing pivotal opinions in turn).

I support his right to his opinion. I just don't like to see a statement like that as a signature file, because then if people want to take issue with it, they're forced to go off-topic. It also means anyone who is offended by it has to read something that they feel is insulting in every single post on every single thread the poster posts on. I'd prefer instead he post his opinion in the body of his post where it can be debated and discussed more easily.

Perhaps I'm biased because my signature often carries content of a political, religious or otherwise contentious nature, but I don't think that it would be desirable (or even feasible) to limit signatures to something considered innocuous by the near-totality of the posters on this board. If you want to debate the content of a sig, nothing prevents you from creating a thread in the appropriate forum. As for being forced to read something insulting, that's simply part and parcel of public communications, in my opinion. In extremis, you could always just block the user. You certainly wouldn't be the first to banish Dayton3's "contributions" from their TrekBBS experience.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[David cgc]

Re: Why Did Star Trek:The Magazine Cease Publicati

Posted by Trent_Roman:
Perhaps I'm biased because my signature often carries content of a political, religious or otherwise contentious nature, but I don't think that it would be desirable (or even feasible) to limit signatures to something considered innocuous by the near-totality of the posters on this board.

On the other hand, I recall having the following Douglas Adams quote for a signiture for all of five minutes before somebody bitched me out on it (apparently, a change in the law caused him to lose some pieces in a firearms collection of his), so....

[Assault rifles], as we know, in the States are perfectly legal, and without which they would be overrun by herds of deer, overbearing government officers and lawless British tea importers.

So, yeah, I tend to think that it's probably a matter of courtesy (to others) and convenience (to me) not to have anything inflammatory in my sig line.

Hm, I just noticed that we same three people are once again involved in a tangental discussion in the Trek Lit forum. We simply have to stop doing this, or else they'll kick us out for causing a ruckus.

 

[CharmCityCrab]

Re: Why Did Star Trek:The Magazine Cease Publicati

Posted by Trent_Roman:
Well, the Bible deals with topics that tend to stray into realms of metaphysics and can be a little vague and rhetorical at times, so it doesn't surprise me that even those who claim to have literal interpretations will differ in their opinions of what the text was trying to convey. More relevant to the issue at hand, I think, is that a literal interpretation says nothing about emphasis, which is often key to the variant forms of a single belief system. You may emphasize that particular passage and consider it's meaning as being important, but others find more importance in passages in Leviticus and elsewhere. (In my observations, I've found that that the portions of the Bible people consider to be the most relevant depends on one's preconceived notions when approaching the Bible, rather than the text influencing pivotal opinions in turn).

You make a good point. The Bible is written in such a way that there a lot of different, sometimes contradictory, ideas that people can take away from it. When you put together a collection of books by different authors (Albeit ones Christians believe to be inspired by God to write truth) written in different times who have different pieces of knowledge and then add to that the fact that our culture is thousands of years removed from Biblical times and that we reading translations instead of the original texts (for the most part), and it's no surprise to me that this is the case. People often take away from the Bible whatever it is that they come into it looking for. And that's why you have so many different denominations and points of view. It doesn't mean that the Bible *is* contradictary, necessarily, just that it's not hard to get different impressions from the next reader given the way it was compiled and handed down.

On the other hand, if you're reading the Bible, certain things are pretty clearly spelled out. No one could honestly read the Bible and say "It claims that the Greeks were God's chosen people, not the Hebrews" or "Abraham was said to be the Son of God, not Jesus". I think legalism is in that category. Jesus quite extensively argues with the legalistic interpretations of the religious authorities of the time, who are always trying to trap him into admitteding to violating their laws. There was a time he was accused of violating the Sabath, for example, because he helped someone on that day and he told them that the Sabath was for man and not for God, for example.

Going back to Leviticus for anything is reaching, simply because Leviticus was the main book devoted to the old Jewish law, which Paul says we aren't bound by in the New Testament. One of the main ideas behind Christianity is that the new covenant supercedes the old. I don't know a single Christian who doesn't accept Paul's proclaimation that the old Jewish law doesn't apply anymore in the post-resurrection era. If such Christians are out there, then they'd have to follow kosher and ritual purity laws, etc., in order to be consistant. Now, if they want to do that, that's certainly their perogative and I wouldn't take issue with them claiming their religion prohibits a wide variety of things. But if they're going to accept what Paul says in the Bible, then they can't say "The old Jewish law in Leviticus doesn't apply, *except* where it reinforces my preconceived notions that homosexuality is wrong" and so forth. That doesn't make logical sense. Someone is either free from the law (Though permitted to still follow it voluntarily if they so desire) or still bound by it, if they believe the Bible to be completely accurate on spiritual matters.

If you want to debate the content of a sig, nothing prevents you from creating a thread in the appropriate forum.

The poster with the signature file might be unwilling to go over there and discuss it, though. I've seen it happen before on non-Trek boards of a similar nature with some frequency.

John

 

[Dayton3]

Re: Why Did Star Trek:The Magazine Cease Publicati

I'll discuss my signature in Suggestions or MA if anyone wishes to start a thread there. I've already modified it twice as a goodwill gesture.

But back on topic, I believe the British version of the Fact Files demise to be the key answer to this question I posed.

But do I understand correctly, the Japanese Fact Files are still being printed? If so, how does one order them?