Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site oswego.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!mnetor!lsuc!pesnta!pyramid!decwrl!decvax!bellcore!petrus!scherzo!allegra!princeton!rocksvax!oswego!stivers
From: stivers@oswego.UUCP (Jim Stivers )
Newsgroups: net.startrek,net.sf-lovers
Subject: Re: Followup to 'His was the most human...'
Message-ID: <691@oswego.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 17-Feb-86 20:33:11 EST
Article-I.D.: oswego.691
Posted: Mon Feb 17 20:33:11 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 20-Feb-86 06:16:46 EST
References: <1661@mtgzz.UUCP>
Reply-To: stivers@oswego.UUCP (Jim Stivers )
Organization: State University of New York at Oswego
Lines: 53

In article <1661@mtgzz.UUCP> leeper@mtgzz.UUCP (m.r.leeper) writes:
>
>		  Followup to "His was the most human..."
>			    by Mark R. Leeper

    Point 1:

>     So how did Spock lose arguments?  In one episode Spock was in charge of
>a lost shuttlecraft party.  The ENTERPRISE was giving up looking.  Spock
>took all the remaining energy and put it into an emergency burst from the
>engines.  The ENTERPRISE picked up the signal and the party was rescued.
>Later Spock loses an argument over the incident because, as Kirk claims, the
>emergency call against all odds was a human and emotional thing to do.  The
>scriptwriter would have us believe the logical course of action would be to
>lie down and die and to pass up even a faint hope of rescue.  I would have
>thought that what Spock did was the only logical thing to do, but the script
>has Spock accept it as an emotional action.  With arguments as contrived as
>that, it's no wonder that the side in favor of logic loses.  It is
>unrealistic that Spock would accept such a feeble argument, let alone lose
>to it.  I have been watching some old episodes, and time and again when the
>humans claim the human way is superior, the arguments are just as contrived.

    Point 2:

>     I heard an author (Diane Duane) reading an excerpt from a draft "Star
>Trek" novel.  Spock was playing chess, was put in check, and with his logic
>could see no way out.  McCoy takes over for him and with an emotional attack
>turns the tide of the game.  Hurrah!  Another triumph for emotionalism over
>logic.  One minor problem: McCoy's counterattack did not take Spock out of
>check. 


 	Although this is my first reply on the network I've been reading 
  the articles for some time now and I have a few comments on some of the
  points that Mr. Leeper was tring to make in this article. As for point
  one that I have abstracted from the article, I AGREE with you that Spock
  did do the most logical option available to him , Scotty even agrees that
  it was probably the best possible move. As for the part about Spock accepting
  it as an emotional situation, I feel that it was too late in the program to
  really start a big debate on the issue. Time, I feel, got to Spock NOT the
  writers themselves.

	On his point two, if Bones did not take Spock out of check he loses
  therefore HOW could he turn the game around ?????? Granted if there was a 
  possible move Spock would have found it BUT the computer could NOT beat 
  him because he programmed the computer HIMSELF. He says so in an episode,
  I forget the name of it, where Jim Kirk is on trial for ejecting a pod too
  soon, but I digress. I just wnated to make the point clear to all that Spock
  should not lose unless he makes a mistake(a HUMAN characteristic) and that
  the game was lost before Bones took over for him so any argument about
  LOGIC vs EMOTIONALISM is absurd.

  	Other opinions ?????