BN>Nope, I think not (I'm the one who's most familiar with my own
BN>brain, after all. ) -- you missed the point I was making
BN>again. ;)
        I don't think I missed the point, really.  I think that you
  missed my point.  Of course it's possible we all missed the point...
BN>Mucho thanks -- you see, you've proven my point for me. };)  Any
BN>fictional mythos/milieu/whatever-term-we-want-to-use *must* make
BN>sense internally;
        I disagree with that.  It's the *must* part that gets me.
        I would agree that internal consistency is a *good* thing.
  Hypothetically, if I were to produce a Star trek series, then keeping
  internal consistency would be a serious priority, although not nearly
  as high as getting the show finished on time...
        But we aren't producing Trek here.  We are simply discussing
  it.
BN>that's why the show itself has writers' guides,
BN>after all -- to prevent contradictions & so everybody's playing
BN>off the same sheet of music. ;)  However, that's not the point
BN>here. ;)
        Oh, Okay, duh. We agree there.
BN>All the above aside, & taking as one of the givens that
BN>we [as in, SOME of us};)] can compartmentalize the show from the
BN>novels, we come full circle back to the point you missed. 
BN>That,
BN> there
BN>_are_ folks who will insist that the show can't be right because
BN>a novel contradicted it.  Now all logic tells us that that makes
BN>What I said (verbatim ) & what I was speaking of is the frankly
BN>unavoidable *real*-reality that "there _are_ folks" who will insist
BN>that when the show & the novels don't agree, the novels are right &
BN>the show's wrong.
        Granted: There _are_ folks who insist these things.
BN>That's a more-than-a-little parochial point of
BN>view, which is 100% different from _my_ supposedly arguing that the
BN>show is always right & the novels wrong.  My point wasn't about
BN>show/novel contradictions, but about the fact that .some. folks can
BN>compartmentalize & some cannot, & that when the two sides fetch up
BN>against each other, conflict results; it's inevitable.  Pretty
BN>simple, actually. :)
        All right.  I believe we agree with the basic premise:  There
  will be confrontation with these _are_ folks.
JPH>        A third generation cousin has no standing to dictate reality, by
JPH> neither does Gene Roddenberry.  Trek ISN'T REAL.  There is no reality
JPH> to dictate.
BN>Actually there is; it's merely internal -- one simply has to
BN>proceed from the POV that within the premise of the show, it must
BN>make sense consistent with itself.
        True, but this internal truth really is *internal*.  It's
  different from you to me.  Until we get to the point of actually
  making Trek, then you kinda have to accept that occasionally I am
  going to disagree with you.
        Now for me, my policy is to listen to what you say, and to
  consider carefully what you say, but to decide what is true for *me*
  on my own.
BN>Same for the novels -- to be credible, each
BN>one must make sense within *it*self.  If we accept a certain
BN>item as a topic to discuss, we must by definition also accept
BN>a certain amount of virtual reality that goes with that.
        That's an interesting premise.  Let me think about that one
BN>OTOH, if we proceed from the POV that none of it matters
BN>because it's all fictional, we might as well not even talk of it
BN>at all, since I could say that in _my_ fiction black is white & you
BN>could say in yours that black is pink -- it'd totally obviate the
BN>point of even talking about the show to begin with. 
        Not at all.  If black is white in your fiction, then that's
 interesting, and worth considering.  I can discuss it accepting it for
 the sake of the conversation.  But it isn't *binding* to me.  If I
 *like* the black is white idea then I'll internalize it.  If I don't,
 then I won't.
        I can listen to *anything* you say, but none of it is *binding*
 to me unless I say so.
        Now you argue that *certain* people will say untrue things about
 Star Trek.  I agree, although I would not say "untrue", I would tend to
 say "un-credible" or "disagreeable".
        Okay, so Poster Pinky says: "Kirk and Spock are gay lovers."
        I don't agree with Poster Pinky.  Kirk and Spock doing the nasty
 is not part of my Trek.  I think it might be fair to say this about
 yours, but I'm guessing.
        If Poster Pinky says:  "What if K and S were gay?"  Then I might
 be willing to discuss the idea.  It's still not binding to me, but I
 can manipulate the idea.
        If Poster Pinky says:  "K and S are gay so there!"  Then there
 is little to talk about.  I don't answer every post on the Trek sub,
 and this is partly why.  Blank statements leave little room for
 discussion, especially when I disagree with them.
        If Poster Pinky says:  "You're all WRONG! K and S are GAY! I
 dare anyone to prove me wrong!"  Then I hit enter and look for the next
 message from Bill Nichols instead.  I can't change Poster Pinkies mind.
 I won't let Poster Pinky change mine.  So Poster Pinky is sitting there
 is a state of terrible wrongness.  So what?  Let him.  There will be
 other, more interesting people along to talk with in a bit.
JPH>   It's all a matter of opinion.
BN>As well as missed points. 
        Those too.  What does "" mean?
Jay P. Hailey 
Chief Editor
THE UNIVERSE: TREK
 * OLX 2.1 TD * "Do you want to go back?" - Chekov   "No!" - McCoy
--- Maximus/2 3.01
---------------