XPost: alt.startrek, alt.tv.star-trek, rec.arts.tv   
   XPost: rec.arts.sf.tv   
   From: j.clarke.873638@gmail.com   
      
   In article <59529f7e$0$832$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>, liam@valentijn.nu   
   says...   
   >   
   > Op 27-6-2017 om 05:05 schreef J. Clarke:   
   > > In article , Obveeus@aol.com says...   
   > >>   
   > >> On 6/26/2017 3:13 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:   
   > >>   
   > >>> You know, one of the differences in feel between TOS and both TNG and   
   > >>> the 2009 re-boot is in how they address discipline and chain of command.   
   > >>>   TOS was written by people who had some idea of what the military was   
   > >>> really like, many of them having served themselves.  Yes, they bend   
   > >>> things a bit for story purposes and the limits of filming a TV show, but   
   > >>> their starting point was a working military.  Characters stay at their   
   > >>> posts.   
   > >>   
   > >> This is simply not true.  The show illogically (for any real military)   
   > >> had the leader, Kirk, always beaming down into unknown conditions.  Many   
   > >> of the rest of the bridge crew illogically beamed down frequently as   
   > >> well.  Outside of Spock and Uhura, none of those people should/would   
   > >> have ever had a reason to have been bopping down to new planets on a   
   > >> whim in any realistic 'military' show.   
   > >   
   > > He's the Captain. He gets to do stupid things if he wants to--nobody on the   
   > > ship has the authority to stop him unless they want to go _way_ out on a   
   > > limb and claim that he's disabled in some way.   
   > >   
   >   
   > How would Kirk have handled the TNG mindset of captains not being on an   
   > away team aka landing party? He would not have been okay with it I think.   
      
   I suspect not.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)