Orson Scott Card recently heaped some abuse on “Star Trek” in the LA Times, vigorously trashing everything about original “Star Trek,” although generously conceding:
“The later spinoffs were much better performed, but the content continued to be stuck in Roddenberry’s rut. So why did the Trekkies throw themselves into this poorly imagined, weakly written, badly acted television series with such commitment and dedication? Why did it last so long?”
Well, I can answer that: They, and I, did NOT see it as poorly imagined, weakly written, or badly acted. Opinions are merely opinions, and not absolutes. That, and the growth of “Trek” conventions made it more than a canceled TV show, but instead a solid socialization experience for many people–including me–who had no social life to speak of.
“Here’s what I think: Most people weren’t reading all that brilliant science fiction. Most people weren’t reading at all. So when they saw “Star Trek,” primitive as it was, it was their first glimpse of science fiction. It was grade school for those who had let the whole science fiction revolution pass them by.”
I wouldn’t disagree. But that’s not the point. Rather than gleefully heaping dirt on Trek’s ostensible grave, as Card does, he might stop to consider that a considerable number of those “grade school” fans went on to high school and college. The first time I saw the name “Harlan Ellison” was on the credits of “City.” Granted, the aired version didn’t represent his vision. Didn’t matter. It led me like an arrow to other works of his that most certainly DID represent his vision. Nor was I alone in that respect. I was already reading SF when “Trek” came along, but others weren’t, and “Trek” created a new wave of SF fans whose interest spread from “Trek” to Ellison, Asimov, Clarke, Bradbury, Gerrold, and even some guy named Card.
To say nothing of the fact that “Trek” fandom had a huge female population (no, not a population of huge females, although yeah, there was a bit of that.). Maggie Thompson recounted how she was at a WorldCon where a roomful of fans were bìŧçhìņg about this influx of *yuckickypoo* Trek fans to their beloved WorldCon. And Maggie pointed out, “Guys? You’ve been crabbing for years how there’s hardly any women attending these conventions. Look around the room; I’m the only female here. Have ANY of you noticed that the vast majority of the Trek fans are female?” The guys looked at each other; they hadn’t noticed, because they’d been so busy excoriating the TV show that brought them there.
“Trek” got me into conventions, and I met both my wives at conventions (at different times). Four kids were the cumulative result, all of whom have attended conventions. “Star Trek,” if NOTHING else, may well be the single greatest contributor to the perpetuation of SF fandom in general.
So, Mr. Card…how about a little gøddámņ respect, okay?
PAD
• 
” The sock full of marbles and the broken pool cue were obvious references to thuggish weapons, and the references WERE made directly in response to my immediately preceding post. Saying otherwise is a lie. No, the posts did not frighten me, and I have not said so. I have said that making threats (as jokes or otherwise) is a bad idea.”
Silly, silly little Jeffrey. You have obviously been educated; your ability to put your illogic into words is what elevates you from pure idiot to buffoon.
But please please rest assured that nobody here would do you harm or even contemplate it. You’re not even the best TROLL we’ve ever had, which is a sad fact on just so many levels.
This blog has posters of every possible political persuasion. Some probably regard PAD as an oracle, others could probably set their watches by him being predictably on the wrong side of any argument. Yet so far there seem to be none who find you anything more than a joke. Well, great prophets are never appreciated in their own time, eh?
Just out of curiosity, what forum were you kicked out of that made you decide to infest this one?
I should know by now that I’m almost certainly wasting my time…but just on the off chance that Jeffrey has just momentarily skipped his meds and will, after a few days of rest, realize what a monstrous fool he has been making of himself, let me one last time try to reason with him.
Jeffrey? Y’see the whole “sock full of marbles” bit was just my little continuation of a post from way back in December of 2004– the whole “Minions of PAD” thread, known in certain circles as “The one that put the ha ha back in brouhaha”. A few selected tidbits:
“But if you’re going by my writings, well, most of them were in response to subjects you or one of your minions brought up.”
“What, you think it wouldn’t be cool to be a member of The Minions Of PAD? “
“I’ve dreamed of being a minion since I was a little girl growing up shoeless and walking 10 miles uphill to and from school in the snow….”
“But I never dreamed that someday I would be a minion of PAD. Now that I’ve reached the top of minionhood, I hope I can use my power for good and not let it corrupt me.”
“Your minions, you know, you and nine guys from your– oh, never mind.”
“For what it’s worth, folks, as I’ve repeated numerous times, I’m not a minion or a lackey. I’m a stooge.”
“And all of them are a big step up from lickspittle. Let me tell you, it was a happy day when I managed to scratch my way up to assistant toady.”
“Does this “minion” bit come with a health plan?”
Funny stuff! Well, if you’re into that whole “humor” thing, anyway. I can almost hear your nose wrinkling in disgust–“Oh, so base thuggery is FUNNY, is it?” Well, you see, the whole joke is that Karen, Michael, myself, Glenn, et al really aren’t minions at all!
Anyhoo…the “coterie of goons” comment brought back fond memories and it was that–not you, dear Jeffrey–that caused me to comment on the sock full of marbles. It really really wasn’t about you. Believe it or not.
Now, given your own use of the word, I suppose I would be fully justified in saying that your characterization of my comment–which, I might add, wasn’t even directed to you, much less be about you–as a “threat” is a pure 100% lie. Lying McLyster from Lycaster. But I’ll charitably chalk it up to your letting your emotions get the better of you and leaping to assumptions, for I am about to go see REVENGE OF THE SITH and therefore my heart is full of love and I am at peace with all mankind.
Bill Mulligan:
Okay, calmly, now. Why is it that anyone here assumes that all posters are completely up to date on self-characterized humor from December of 2004? People respond to what is said, rather than what other people remember from remote postings that they believe show their wit. If your account of this previous “humor” is reliable, goodness gracious, can you not imagine why such drivel would not be recognized as humor? It is a useful attribute of humor that it be funny.
“Directed at me”: Yes: As a response to my complaints about lockstep agreement with PAD, the subject of socks full of marbles and broken pool cues was raised. Clearly it had been raised before, but that is of no significance at all. When you speak to someone, the words that you use are directed to that person. That is how conversation has worked since language arose. If you have a better model, I have not heard about it.
Jerry, no. You just don’t make any sense. You said, “That statement had nothing to do with his family,” and “He used his own family as one small example.” Which is it? I believe that PAD’s personal experience has no bearing on the matter, and you are certainly free to feel otherwise, but to deny that the statement had something to do with the family and subsequently admit that it used his family as an example is incoherent. As for your being a “listed dyslexic,” I regret allowing that as a reason to rue arguing with you. There is really no reason to believe that your challenges are significant to this: Your reasoning is a different matter from your dyslexia, and that is the root of my difficulties with you. You say things that are simply nonsensical.
A final note: you and a number of other posters persist in assuming I want or need to convince you of something. No. I found this thread and discovered a matter I wanted to comment upon. Whether you agree with me is not a high priority. Admittedly, I believed that PAD would be able to recognize my concerns and address them, because I imagined a competent writer would understand nuances of human interaction. This desire was not achieved. Neither he, nor anyone else, has addressed my assertion that it was abusive and wrong to demand respect for Star Trek based on only two things: 1. His personal emotional stake in the program and 2. The significant popularity of the show. As I am not likely to get a response to this, yes, this whole effort has been a waste of time – a significant error. I am not sufficiently familiar with the full history of PAD’s postings to say anything definitive on this, but I have not yet EVER encountered any posting, article or other instance of PAD taking back anything he has said. That seems very…unusual to me.
Okay, calmly, now. Why is it that anyone here assumes that all posters are completely up to date on self-characterized humor from December of 2004?
I assumed nothing of the kind. I told you the facts. You’re welcome.
People respond to what is said, rather than what other people remember from remote postings that they believe show their wit. If your account of this previous “humor” is reliable, goodness gracious, can you not imagine why such drivel would not be recognized as humor? It is a useful attribute of humor that it be funny.
It’s reliable, though whether you believe it to be so is of little to no importance. You could paste one of the sentences I quoted into google and see them for yourself. Of course, that might be a bit anal, which would certainly be a big stretch for you. Yup.
Sorry you didn’t find it amusing. Guess you had to be there and/or not be such a dìçk. But that’s humor for you! If it’s any consolation, I’m pretty sure that you have generated a lot more laughs in this thread than I could ever hope to do.
“Directed at me”: Yes: As a response to my complaints about lockstep agreement with PAD, the subject of socks full of marbles and broken pool cues was raised. Clearly it had been raised before, but that is of no significance at all. When you speak to someone, the words that you use are directed to that person. That is how conversation has worked since language arose. If you have a better model, I have not heard about it.
“Directed at me”: Yes: As a response to my complaints about lockstep agreement with PAD, the subject of socks full of marbles and broken pool cues was raised. Clearly it had been raised before, but that is of no significance at all. When you speak to someone, the words that you use are directed to that person. That is how conversation has worked since language arose. If you have a better model, I have not heard about it.
But I didn’t speak to you. I spoke to Jonathon (the other one). It’s not ABOUT you!!! But I guess that’s just not a concept you can wrap your head around. Man, you must have had SOME childhood.
Admittedly, I believed that PAD would be able to recognize my concerns and address them, because I imagined a competent writer would understand nuances of human interaction. This desire was not achieved.
Ok, seriously, is this all a joke or are you really not realize that this makes you look as goofy as a pet coon? The sad thing is, you really HAVE to be of above average intelligence to be this thick.
I’m done troll-feeding for the night.
Jeffrey, I know I hassled you somewhat when I caught you in an inconsistency, but sometimes people are all about realizing possibilities, so they may be more casual going about their business. If you barge into a room and start pressuring everyone to abandon casual behavior when there’s no fire, you aren’t allowing them their nature.
I wasn’t lying about understanding the distress of experiencing your feelings being invalidated. You wonder if your point is coming across, you feel so unheard you feel justified in raising your voice and exaggerating to drive your point home. It’s very painful, and all you have is your word that it’s painful if you even dare mention it at all, which compounds the pain even further.
But if you’re going to be a troll, you have to do it well, like I said in the other thread. Deny it if you want, but there’s no kidding anyone we both know it can be great fun. However, if you just throw out a big hunk of text and people don’t understand you — you may as well have kept your point to yourself.
If the point you make needs a crap-load of qualification to explain its importance, you’re probably better off letting whatever inconsistencies you find alone.
Mike, I disagree with you about a number of things, but you are the first poster here who has responded to anything I said with real thought. Perhaps my responses to you, as contrasted with several others, are a bit closer to civility because there is a huge difference between disagreement and contempt. For the most part, you seem to be on the right side of that divide. All of this mess does demonstrate that I am too easy to draw into a no-win situation, and that is pretty embarrassing. Whether I have achieved it or not, I hope my posts concerning you have not gone too far beyond the divide, either.
Beyond the divide? Other than where I refer to your relentless, Lennie-like personal agenda? No, not at all.
Jeff, I’m gonna try one last time to explain three and only three things to you.
1) The PAD family thing:
You and I work together. It’s that fun time of the year when all those big spinning storms that look so cool on weather.com decide to head up North and check out the price of land by trashing as much of it as they can. You get into work when I’m leaving.
I ask, “So how bad are the roads out there?”
You answer, “Not too good and getting worse by the minute. My wife and I got caught in the start of this on the way back from the store and I thought the winds were going to blow the car off the road. As bad as it was then it’s even worse now. With all the water pouring down on the roads down town and the wind I had a few near wrecks when the car decided to do its own thing.”
Look at that Q&A. I asked about the storm. Did you tell me about the storm or about you and your wife? A tiny bit of that was about you and the Mrs. because you were telling me about the storm’s power by telling me what it did to you. In the context of the Q&A you and your wife are not really the subject. The storm and its power is. The same goes for the comments that you just don’t want to seem to get. The comments were about what Trek has done. They were about the force Trek has been in lives. The subject in full context was Trek and not PAD & clan. Get it yet?
2) You think that PAD and later we are not giving OSC the respect he is due.You feel that the “show some gøddámņëd respect” line is out of line. Try this…..
You’re a cop (god help us all). You walk around a corner and see Man A turning Man B into a bloody pulp and Woman A cheering on Man A. Man A has a huge size, weight and strength advantage over Man B. You move in, break up the fight and arrest Man A. Thing is though…. You weren’t there five minutes ago when Man B grabbed Woman A, dragged her into the ally and tried to rape her. You weren’t there four minutes ago when Man A walked around that same corner and saw what was going on and stepped in to stop him. Moreover, you state that you don’t care to find out what went on before. You saw a crime and, dámņ it, you’re going to arrest Man A.
Well, that’s what you did here. You walked around a corner with no clue as to what OSC said. You’ve stated at length that you don’t know, don’t wanna know and just flat don’t care what OSC said. But you want to jump all over Man A for what you saw. You jumped into a fight without knowing what the thing was about. A smart man might try and find out. An idiot would leap in shouting that he doesn’t care what it’s about but he knows what side he’s on and why. OSC did nothing other then spit venom at Trek and it’s fans. He did so in a manner that could only be seen as showing no respect at all. The remarks PAD and others here have made are fairly mild compared to the level of disrespect and venom spit by OSC. Does any one here feel that it was wrong of PAD? No. Partly because we are all Trek fans to some degree or another but mostly because we actually know what was said by both parties and have a slightly better grasp of the bigger picture then you do.
3) You’re a jáçkášš and a liar.
The main problem I have with you at this point is that you’re an ignorant jáçkášš who either takes things out of context, by either mixing statements that weren’t together to begin with or by cutting bits out, in a deliberate attempt to twist things or you’re a fool who just has no reading comprehension skills to speak of. As follows….
Your Post:
“Jerry – “First problem with your statements is bringing up ‘quality'” (7:01 pm)
Jerry – “I didn’t bring up the quality issue.” (10:25 pm)
Well, it would be rude to call you a liar, wouldn’t it? Perhaps you have a linguistic problem that I haven’t recognized: I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.”
Thing is that you cut out a bit there.
My Post was:
“I didn’t bring up the quality issue. OSC did.
OSC: “The later spinoffs were much better performed, but the content continued to be stuck in Roddenberry’s rut. So why did the Trekkies throw themselves into this poorly imagined, weakly written, badly acted television series with such commitment and dedication? Why did it last so long?””
See, OSC started the quality thing. That was what I said and not the editing job you wanted to claim I said. A two year old could see that. But you either couldn’t or wouldn’t. You pasted my comment but cut off the “OSC did” part and tried to paint me as a liar. But the really fun thing is, while OSC brought up quality to start this, I was responding to your remark about quality and how it missed the mark.
Your post (prior to mine):
May 18 4:32 PM: “In any case, whether it is well-liked is not exactly the same thing as proof of its quality. I think PAD, in this case, was sloppy in his thinking, as he was preaching to the choir here, and didn’t really need to make a good argument in order to get numerous heads bobbing”
See, you pointed out the quality thing before I did. I was pointing out that the issue was not about opinions of the shows quality. Now, what does that say about you when you cut out a portion of what I said to twist it and paint me a liar *and* choose to ignore the fact that it was a statement in response to *your* prior point about, and using the word, quality?
How about this then….
“”On a much less significant matter, his general inability to look at my name and re-type it in the correct order of letters could be taken as a sign of a reading disability. If this is so, I regret sparring with him.”
Again, I’m a diagnosed dyslexic. I’m used to it. But, please, don’t regret sparring with me. I’ve had much worse bouts of it while debating people who are far more reasoned and intelligent then you seem to be. If it didn’t bother me then it’s hardly going to bug me when dealing with you.”
See, you said something about how I messed up your name. I’ll cop to that. Some names I still, after all this time, trip up on. My wife’s name is Jennifer. On bad days when I’ve been up way too long or doing to much overtime I’ve been know to flip a few of the letters around in her name (and others). And I dámņ sure care about her more then you. Comes with being dyslexic. Some word and names just trip you up and the brain doesn’t want to work right on them all the time. Thought that the above point was made in my post. You said I messed up your name. I said I did and why. I’ve seen apes in zoos that could grasp that from that. But not you. Nooo. You go and post:
“As for your being a “listed dyslexic,” I regret allowing that as a reason to rue arguing with you. There is really no reason to believe that your challenges are significant to this: Your reasoning is a different matter from your dyslexia, and that is the root of my difficulties with you. You say things that are simply nonsensical.”
The the comment I made about being dyslexic was made in response to you pointing out the name thing. I pasted your comment in my post and addressed the name issue. The comments were back to back with nothing else between them to confuse the issue. Unlike the apes in the zoos you couldn’t quite grasp that and seem to have decided that I was pointing out being dyslexic as a defense of my “nonsensical” points.
Thing is, I don’t need to offer a defense for my comments. They make sense. The points may be getting stretched a bit thin since any one who makes a point to you has to go through hëll to find a level that is so “Ðìçk and Jane” that even you can grasp it. See the above storm and cop explanations. God knows, it seems that you just don’t seem to grasp things told to you if they’re discussed as they would be with an adult.
But then you turn around and show some signs of triple digit I.Q. in your writing. You’re not dumb as a brick. You just like to act like you are or act like you are so much above the rest of us that we just can’t get a point across to you in a manner that raises to the level that you would make a point. But most your points are made by, in the end, twisting statements and playing silly games.
There are other examples of this in your posts to be sure but I’m done with you. You’ll claim that you don’t get it again and I would rather spend my future time on this site chatting with people about something we enjoy (Sith rocked) or having Bill hand my ášš to me in a debate about politics. If you stay on this site you could do worse then learn a thing or two from Bill’s posts. He and I don’t agree on everything but I have respect for him, would offer him a drink if I ever met him (won’t say what might get slipped into the drink) and would never be as insulting to him as I have been with you. I would explain the reasons that there are differences but you would just refuse to get that to.
It goes back to what I said above….
You’re a jáçkášš and a liar and I’m done with you.
Jeffy, Jeffy, Jeffy…
I wasn’t up on the in-joke from ’04, either. I took it as funny because of a) the over-the-top association with “goons”, and b) the obvious fact that even if it were a threat, it’s still be funny. A sock full of marbles does exactly zero damage when filtered through the Internet.
And Bill, if you get the sock full of marbles, I want the bent lead pipe! (No, a bent PVC pipe just wouldn’t work as well…)
Oh, and people wonder why I have a sock full of marbles, when there are people like Jerry trying to slip dollops of God only knows what into my drinks.
In point of fact, the sock tends to break, scattering marbles everywhere. A fine kettle of fish it is, trying to run away and slipping on the marbles. Hoisted by my own petard.
Jonathan (the other one): Threats “filtered through the internet” are unwise and sometimes actionable. No, I have not said that anything here rises to that level, but you are flirting with a dangerous misunderstanding if you think that posting impotent threats over the internet cannot lead to trouble. Just send an ill-considered remark to the White House or FAA and see whether that is such a good idea!
Jerry: When PAD discusses his family, he is discussing his family. There is just no way to get past that fact. As we don’t believe in telling people to “shut the hëll up” here, there’s not much else to say on that matter. When you discuss a matter, you have brought up that matter for discussion. When you say you didn’t bring up the subject, you are inaccurate.
Bill Mulligan: You appear to be having a good time with the randomly firing neurons in your head, so keep it up.
But at least I don’t pretend my randomly fired neurons are anything but–as opposed to the delusion you seem to be under that you are conducting yourself in a way that would not embarass one with a tad more self awareness.
When Jeffrey takes every opportunity to dissect a post to attack it in a reply, he’s using a very basic high school debating tactic. Y’all may want to consider that Jeffrey is a well-read 14-year-old kid, who is no less flabbergasting than a lot of 14-year-old kids.
What this means is that the heat of the arguments here may be flooding his brain with adrenaline — we could be witnessing him develop a dependency to adrenaline as far as a web forum can show, if that isn’t the case already. When you consider the possible dysfunctions people go through in their teens and 20s, clinical depression may be a pretty good aggravator to a lot of them.
Whether I’m right about Jeffrey or not, for those of us in high school, and in the interest of restraining our bloodlust against snotty high school kids online who may yet contribute to society positively, I thought it was worth mentioning to allow us to review the degree to which we wish to participate in such encounters online.
That should say “for those of us NOT in high school.”
Mike: “A very basic high school debating tactic”: and “Carefully dissecting a post to attack it in a reply”: Guilty!! Reason, close analysis and logic seemed appropriate, rather than – WHATEVER it is you are suggesting as an alternative. Clearly, to fit in here, those were the wrong choices.
“Whether I’m right about Jeffrey or not, for those of us in high school, and in the interest of restraining our bloodlust against snotty high school kids online who may yet contribute to society positively, I thought it was worth mentioning to allow us to review the degree to which we wish to participate in such encounters online.”
Yeah, I was pretty much heading in that direction myself. He’s rapidly becoming not worth the effort. It’s too easy. It’s like standing there with a club and whacking a baby seal that’s armed with a kazoo.
PAD
PAD
Jeffery, “Carefully dissecting a post to attack it in a reply” would actually be different from your “indescriminantly dissecting a post to attack it in a reply.”
Superman knows he’s more effective hanging up his cape and kicking back as Clark Kent when he isn’t needed. Bizarro only knows to keep telling you he’s Superman while he breaks everything.