Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site whuxle.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!whuxle!eric
From: eric@whuxle.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.startrek
Subject: Re: Trivial asbestos-substitute - (nf)
Message-ID: <350@whuxle.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 10-May-84 08:28:32 EDT
Article-I.D.: whuxle.350
Posted: Thu May 10 08:28:32 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 12-May-84 07:38:22 EDT
Sender: eric@whuxle.UUCP
Organization: Bell Labs, Whippany
Lines: 22

#R:decwrl:-2300:whuxle:30200001:000:982
whuxle!eric    May 10 08:28:00 1984

> On  the ``Trek Teasers'' quiz -- I don't know who put that together, but I'm
> not  impressed.  The salt shakers, for example, were not ``twentieth-century
> kitchen  utensils.''  They were in fact twenty-first century table utensils.
> They  were developed for ``Mantrap'' (the salt monster!) but were determined
> to  be  too  `futuristic' in appearance for the audience to identify them as
> salt  shakers.  When  it  was  decided  that  McCoy  should  have some dandy
> palm-sized medical instruments, the abandoned salt shakers were pressed into
> service.  Therefore  while the question may be roughly correct, the phrasing
> is  inexcusably  misleading.

Sorry. If YOU got off YOUR soapbox and LOWERED yourself to READ a REFERENCE
book, you will indeed discover that the salt shakers WERE 20th century table
utensils, albeit from cultures different from our own. THEY ** WERE ** REAL
SALT SHAKERS...... ARGHGRHGRH......


			from the exam tired fingers of 
			eric holtman