Kirk's Captain's log entries in TOS

[ToolPackinMama]

I was thinking a good project to next get into would be to catalog all
of Kirk's Captain's log entries in TOS. Some of the information there
is personal in nature - interesting and sometimes surprising. I plan to
include personal log entries, since the writers never seemed to draw a
firm distinction between the two. Perhaps many of them didn't know the
difference and thought they were one and the same.

Perhaps, in the future, they are one and the same?

I'm trying to decide if I should include all Captain's log entries which
were recorded by others as well? Your opinion, please. :)

[The Merry Piper]

On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 12:29:30 -0400, ToolPackinMama

Post by ToolPackinMama
I was thinking a good project to next get into would be to catalog all
of Kirk's Captain's log entries in TOS. Some of the information there
is personal in nature - interesting and sometimes surprising. I plan to
include personal log entries, since the writers never seemed to draw a
firm distinction between the two. Perhaps many of them didn't know the
difference and thought they were one and the same.
Perhaps, in the future, they are one and the same?
I'm trying to decide if I should include all Captain's log entries which
were recorded by others as well? Your opinion, please. :)

Include them all.

The Merry Piper
Remove Your Coat To E-Mail
[http://tmpiper.livejournal.com/]

[ToolPackinMama]

Post by The Merry Piper
Include them all.

Thank you. Your opinion has been logged and noted. :)

[ToolPackinMama]

From Where No Man Has Gone Before:
[Refer: http://www.voyager.cz/tos/epizody/02wherenomantrans.htm ]


1) "Captain's log, Star date 1312.4. The impossible has happened. From
directly ahead, we're picking up a recorded distress signal, the call
letters of a vessel which has been missing for over two centuries. Did
another Earth ship once probe out of the galaxy as we intend to do? What
happened to it out there? Is this some warning they've left behind?"

2) "Captain's log, Star date 1312.9. Ship's condition: heading back on
impulse power only. Main engines burned out. The ship's space-warp
ability - gone. Earth bases, which were only days away are now years in
the distance. Our overriding question now is: what destroyed the
Valiant? They lived through the barrier, just as we have. What happened
to them after that?"

3) [Voiceover, obvious log entry] "Star date 1313.1. We're now
approaching Delta Vega. Course set for a standard orbit. This planet,
completely uninhabited, is slightly smaller than earth, desolate, but
rich in crystal and minerals. Kelso's task: transport down with a repair
party, try to regenerate the main engines, save the ship. Our task:
transport down a man I've known for 15 years, and if we're successful,
maroon him there."

4) "Captain's log, Star date 1313.3. Note commendations on Lieutenant
Kelso and the engineering staff. In orbit above us, the engines of the
Enterprise are almost fully regenerated. Balance of the landing party is
being transported back up. Mitchell, whatever he's become, keeps
changing, growing stronger by the minute."

5) "Captain's log, Star date 1313.8. Add to official losses, Dr.
Elizabeth Dehner. Be it noted she gave her life in performance of her
duty. Lieutenant Commander Gary Mitchell... same notation."


====

Corrections, additions, comments?


Laura

[ToolPackinMama]

3) [Voiceover, obvious log entry] "Star date 1313.1. We're now
approaching Delta Vega. Course set for a standard orbit. This planet,
completely uninhabited, is slightly smaller than earth, desolate, but
rich in crystal and minerals. Kelso's task: transport down with a repair
party, try to regenerate the main engines, save the ship. Our task:
transport down a man I've known for 15 years*, and if we're successful,
maroon him there."

*This refers to Gary Mitchell. Kirk has known him for 15 years.

5) "Captain's log, Star date 1313.8. Add to official losses, Dr.
Elizabeth Dehner. Be it noted she gave her life in performance of her
duty. Lieutenant Commander Gary Mitchell... same notation.**"

** This is interesting because Gary Mitchell was actually killed while
trying to kill Kirk (who was tying to kill him). The original plan was
to maroon Mitchell, but after Mitchell killed Kelso, and apparently
kidnapped Dr. Dehner, Kirk set off to hunt him down and end his life.
Dr. Dehner stepped in between the two battling men on Kirk's behalf, and
probably saved Kirk's life. Yet, oddly, in Kirk's final log entry, he
draws no distinction between Dehner's heroism, and Mitchell's failed
homicide attempt.

IMHO, the only thing that excuses this slight against Dehner is the fact
that Kirk has "known" Mitchell ~for 15 years~. In fact, it's quite
clear in this episode that Kirk's relationship with Mitchell is (for
good or ill) the most important one in his life at that time.

[Wouter Valentijn]

Post by ToolPackinMama
3) [Voiceover, obvious log entry] "Star date 1313.1. We're now
approaching Delta Vega. Course set for a standard orbit. This planet,
completely uninhabited, is slightly smaller than earth, desolate, but
rich in crystal and minerals. Kelso's task: transport down with a repair
transport down a man I've known for 15 years*, and if we're successful,
maroon him there."
*This refers to Gary Mitchell. Kirk has known him for 15 years.
5) "Captain's log, Star date 1313.8. Add to official losses, Dr.
Elizabeth Dehner. Be it noted she gave her life in performance of her
duty. Lieutenant Commander Gary Mitchell... same notation.**"
** This is interesting because Gary Mitchell was actually killed while
trying to kill Kirk (who was tying to kill him). The original plan was
to maroon Mitchell, but after Mitchell killed Kelso, and apparently
kidnapped Dr. Dehner, Kirk set off to hunt him down and end his life.
Dr. Dehner stepped in between the two battling men on Kirk's behalf, and
probably saved Kirk's life. Yet, oddly, in Kirk's final log entry, he
draws no distinction between Dehner's heroism, and Mitchell's failed
homicide attempt.
IMHO, the only thing that excuses this slight against Dehner is the fact
that Kirk has "known" Mitchell ~for 15 years~. In fact, it's quite
clear in this episode that Kirk's relationship with Mitchell is (for
good or ill) the most important one in his life at that time.

Agreed.
Plus, Mitchell never asked to become a god.
Sometimes, when the lights in his eyes went away, he had moments of clarity
in which he was thinking something like: 'What the hell is happening to
me?'.
The 'creature' that ultimately died really can't be considered the original
Mitchel. Imo.

[ToolPackinMama]

Post by Wouter Valentijn

Post by ToolPackinMama
3) [Voiceover, obvious log entry] "Star date 1313.1. We're now
approaching Delta Vega. Course set for a standard orbit. This planet,
completely uninhabited, is slightly smaller than earth, desolate, but
rich in crystal and minerals. Kelso's task: transport down with a repair
transport down a man I've known for 15 years*, and if we're successful,
maroon him there."
*This refers to Gary Mitchell. Kirk has known him for 15 years.
5) "Captain's log, Star date 1313.8. Add to official losses, Dr.
Elizabeth Dehner. Be it noted she gave her life in performance of her
duty. Lieutenant Commander Gary Mitchell... same notation.**"
** This is interesting because Gary Mitchell was actually killed while
trying to kill Kirk (who was tying to kill him). The original plan was
to maroon Mitchell, but after Mitchell killed Kelso, and apparently
kidnapped Dr. Dehner, Kirk set off to hunt him down and end his life.
Dr. Dehner stepped in between the two battling men on Kirk's behalf, and
probably saved Kirk's life. Yet, oddly, in Kirk's final log entry, he
draws no distinction between Dehner's heroism, and Mitchell's failed
homicide attempt.
IMHO, the only thing that excuses this slight against Dehner is the fact
that Kirk has "known" Mitchell ~for 15 years~. In fact, it's quite
clear in this episode that Kirk's relationship with Mitchell is (for
good or ill) the most important one in his life at that time.

Agreed.

Thank you.

Post by Wouter Valentijn
Plus, Mitchell never asked to become a god.

No, but it was his choice to totally abuse his powers.

Post by Wouter Valentijn
Sometimes, when the lights in his eyes went away, he had moments of clarity
in which he was thinking something like: 'What the hell is happening to
me?'.
The 'creature' that ultimately died really can't be considered the original
Mitchel. Imo.

Agreed, but notice that Dr. Dehner didn't have the same problems.

[Wouter Valentijn]

Post by ToolPackinMama

Post by Wouter Valentijn

Post by ToolPackinMama
3) [Voiceover, obvious log entry] "Star date 1313.1. We're now
approaching Delta Vega. Course set for a standard orbit. This planet,
completely uninhabited, is slightly smaller than earth, desolate, but
rich in crystal and minerals. Kelso's task: transport down with a repair
transport down a man I've known for 15 years*, and if we're successful,
maroon him there."
*This refers to Gary Mitchell. Kirk has known him for 15 years.
5) "Captain's log, Star date 1313.8. Add to official losses, Dr.
Elizabeth Dehner. Be it noted she gave her life in performance of her
duty. Lieutenant Commander Gary Mitchell... same notation.**"
** This is interesting because Gary Mitchell was actually killed while
trying to kill Kirk (who was tying to kill him). The original plan was
to maroon Mitchell, but after Mitchell killed Kelso, and apparently
kidnapped Dr. Dehner, Kirk set off to hunt him down and end his life.
Dr. Dehner stepped in between the two battling men on Kirk's behalf, and
probably saved Kirk's life. Yet, oddly, in Kirk's final log entry, he
draws no distinction between Dehner's heroism, and Mitchell's failed
homicide attempt.
IMHO, the only thing that excuses this slight against Dehner is the fact
that Kirk has "known" Mitchell ~for 15 years~. In fact, it's quite
clear in this episode that Kirk's relationship with Mitchell is (for
good or ill) the most important one in his life at that time.

Agreed.

Thank you.

Post by Wouter Valentijn
Plus, Mitchell never asked to become a god.

No, but it was his choice to totally abuse his powers.

Post by Wouter Valentijn
Sometimes, when the lights in his eyes went away, he had moments of clarity
in which he was thinking something like: 'What the hell is happening to
me?'.
The 'creature' that ultimately died really can't be considered the original
Mitchel. Imo.

Agreed, but notice that Dr. Dehner didn't have the same problems.

Maybe she was a bit more emotionally balanced. Plus she started to show the
symptoms much later. Her 'barrier' dose wasn't as big as Mitchell's.

[ToolPackinMama]

Post by Wouter Valentijn

Post by ToolPackinMama
Agreed, but notice that Dr. Dehner didn't have the same problems.

Maybe she was a bit more emotionally balanced.

Well, yeah.

[Brad Filippone]

ToolPackinMama (***@lauragoodwin.org) wrote:
: 3) [Voiceover, obvious log entry] "Star date 1313.1. We're now
: approaching Delta Vega. Course set for a standard orbit. This planet,
: completely uninhabited, is slightly smaller than earth, desolate, but
: rich in crystal and minerals. Kelso's task: transport down with a repair
: party, try to regenerate the main engines, save the ship. Our task:
: transport down a man I've known for 15 years*, and if we're successful,
: maroon him there."

: *This refers to Gary Mitchell. Kirk has known him for 15 years.

: 5) "Captain's log, Star date 1313.8. Add to official losses, Dr.
: Elizabeth Dehner. Be it noted she gave her life in performance of her
: duty. Lieutenant Commander Gary Mitchell... same notation.**"

: ** This is interesting because Gary Mitchell was actually killed while
: trying to kill Kirk (who was tying to kill him). The original plan was
: to maroon Mitchell, but after Mitchell killed Kelso, and apparently
: kidnapped Dr. Dehner, Kirk set off to hunt him down and end his life.
: Dr. Dehner stepped in between the two battling men on Kirk's behalf, and
: probably saved Kirk's life. Yet, oddly, in Kirk's final log entry, he
: draws no distinction between Dehner's heroism, and Mitchell's failed
: homicide attempt.

: IMHO, the only thing that excuses this slight against Dehner is the fact
: that Kirk has "known" Mitchell ~for 15 years~. In fact, it's quite
: clear in this episode that Kirk's relationship with Mitchell is (for
: good or ill) the most important one in his life at that time.

Kirk points out moments after that Mitchell didn't ask for what happened
to him. That's the main point here. Mitchell gained his god-like powers,
which indirectly resulted in his death, while in the line of duty.
Therefore, he did indeed give his life in performance of his duty.

I've always been more concerned that Kelso is completely ignored in this
final log entry. Didn't Kirk like him?

Brad

[Wouter Valentijn]

Post by Brad Filippone
: 3) [Voiceover, obvious log entry] "Star date 1313.1. We're now
: approaching Delta Vega. Course set for a standard orbit. This planet,
: completely uninhabited, is slightly smaller than earth, desolate, but
: rich in crystal and minerals. Kelso's task: transport down with a repair
: transport down a man I've known for 15 years*, and if we're successful,
: maroon him there."
: *This refers to Gary Mitchell. Kirk has known him for 15 years.
: 5) "Captain's log, Star date 1313.8. Add to official losses, Dr.
: Elizabeth Dehner. Be it noted she gave her life in performance of her
: duty. Lieutenant Commander Gary Mitchell... same notation.**"
: ** This is interesting because Gary Mitchell was actually killed while
: trying to kill Kirk (who was tying to kill him). The original plan was
: to maroon Mitchell, but after Mitchell killed Kelso, and apparently
: kidnapped Dr. Dehner, Kirk set off to hunt him down and end his life.
: Dr. Dehner stepped in between the two battling men on Kirk's behalf, and
: probably saved Kirk's life. Yet, oddly, in Kirk's final log entry, he
: draws no distinction between Dehner's heroism, and Mitchell's failed
: homicide attempt.
: IMHO, the only thing that excuses this slight against Dehner is the fact
: that Kirk has "known" Mitchell ~for 15 years~. In fact, it's quite
: clear in this episode that Kirk's relationship with Mitchell is (for
: good or ill) the most important one in his life at that time.
Kirk points out moments after that Mitchell didn't ask for what happened
to him. That's the main point here. Mitchell gained his god-like powers,
which indirectly resulted in his death, while in the line of duty.
Therefore, he did indeed give his life in performance of his duty.
I've always been more concerned that Kelso is completely ignored in this
final log entry. Didn't Kirk like him?

Maybe he mentioned him in a previous one?
Off screen ;)
There have been several more deaths not mentioned in on screen logs.

[Brad Filippone]

Wouter Valentijn (***@home.nl) wrote:

: "Brad Filippone" <***@chebucto.ns.ca> schreef in bericht
: news:cfli9p$360$***@News.Dal.Ca...
: > ToolPackinMama (***@lauragoodwin.org) wrote:
: > : 3) [Voiceover, obvious log entry] "Star date 1313.1. We're now
: > : approaching Delta Vega. Course set for a standard orbit. This planet,
: > : completely uninhabited, is slightly smaller than earth, desolate, but
: > : rich in crystal and minerals. Kelso's task: transport down with a repair
: > : party, try to regenerate the main engines, save the ship. Our task:
: > : transport down a man I've known for 15 years*, and if we're successful,
: > : maroon him there."
: >
: > : *This refers to Gary Mitchell. Kirk has known him for 15 years.
: >
: > : 5) "Captain's log, Star date 1313.8. Add to official losses, Dr.
: > : Elizabeth Dehner. Be it noted she gave her life in performance of her
: > : duty. Lieutenant Commander Gary Mitchell... same notation.**"
: >
: > : ** This is interesting because Gary Mitchell was actually killed while
: > : trying to kill Kirk (who was tying to kill him). The original plan was
: > : to maroon Mitchell, but after Mitchell killed Kelso, and apparently
: > : kidnapped Dr. Dehner, Kirk set off to hunt him down and end his life.
: > : Dr. Dehner stepped in between the two battling men on Kirk's behalf, and
: > : probably saved Kirk's life. Yet, oddly, in Kirk's final log entry, he
: > : draws no distinction between Dehner's heroism, and Mitchell's failed
: > : homicide attempt.
: >
: > : IMHO, the only thing that excuses this slight against Dehner is the fact
: > : that Kirk has "known" Mitchell ~for 15 years~. In fact, it's quite
: > : clear in this episode that Kirk's relationship with Mitchell is (for
: > : good or ill) the most important one in his life at that time.
: >
: > Kirk points out moments after that Mitchell didn't ask for what happened
: > to him. That's the main point here. Mitchell gained his god-like powers,
: > which indirectly resulted in his death, while in the line of duty.
: > Therefore, he did indeed give his life in performance of his duty.
: >
: > I've always been more concerned that Kelso is completely ignored in this
: > final log entry. Didn't Kirk like him?

: Maybe he mentioned him in a previous one?
: Off screen ;)
: There have been several more deaths not mentioned in on screen logs.

Usually, that's because very few episodes have log entries in the final
scene.

As to whether or not Kelso was mentioned in an entry we didn't hear, look
at it this way: If he's only just now making his entry about Gary and
Elizabeth, that implies that he didn't get a chance before. Therefore, he
didn't get a chance to report Kelso's death either. In the action of
previous scene we see the doctor inform him that Kelso was strangled to
death, then Kirk goes off to find Mitchell. Mitchell and Dehner then die
and Kirk requests to be beamed up. Next thing we see is the log entry.

Brad

[ToolPackinMama]

Post by Brad Filippone
As to whether or not Kelso was mentioned in an entry we didn't hear, look
at it this way: If he's only just now making his entry about Gary and
Elizabeth, that implies that he didn't get a chance before. Therefore, he
didn't get a chance to report Kelso's death either. In the action of
previous scene we see the doctor inform him that Kelso was strangled to
death, then Kirk goes off to find Mitchell. Mitchell and Dehner then die
and Kirk requests to be beamed up. Next thing we see is the log entry.

True.

[ToolPackinMama]

Post by Brad Filippone
I've always been more concerned that Kelso is completely ignored in this
final log entry.

A mystery.

Post by Brad Filippone
Didn't Kirk like him?

Kelso was commended in an earlier entry, so it's not that Kirk didn't
like him.

[ToolPackinMama]

Post by Brad Filippone
Kirk points out moments after that Mitchell didn't ask for what happened
to him. That's the main point here.

Sure, I get it: it wasn't his fault that he was the way he was.

Spock gets it, too. He comes over to Kirk and (illogically) says "I
felt for him, too." In that way he validates Kirk's primarily emotional
reasoning for the log entry, apparently out of sympathy.

Kirk responds: <flirt>"I believe there's some hope for you after all,
Mr. Spock."</flirt> as if validating Spock's illogical, emotional reason
for showing sympathy.

See image:

Loading Image...

<IMHO> And the torch was PASSED! :) From that moment forward, Spock,
not Mitchell, is the most important man in Kirk's life. Basically, Kirk
swung from man to man like Tarzan swings from vine to vine. </IMHO>

[AMSNYD]

<< Subject: Re: Kirk's Captain's log entries in TOS
From: ***@chebucto.ns.ca (Brad Filippone)
Date: SatThurAug 5142020042004 12:31 PM
Message-id: <cfli9p$360$***@News.Dal.Ca>

ToolPackinMama (***@lauragoodwin.org) wrote:
: 3) [Voiceover, obvious log entry] "Star date 1313.1. We're now
: approaching Delta Vega. Course set for a standard orbit. This planet,
: completely uninhabited, is slightly smaller than earth, desolate, but
: rich in crystal and minerals. Kelso's task: transport down with a repair
: party, try to regenerate the main engines, save the ship. Our task:
: transport down a man I've known for 15 years*, and if we're successful,
: maroon him there."

: *This refers to Gary Mitchell. Kirk has known him for 15 years.

: 5) "Captain's log, Star date 1313.8. Add to official losses, Dr.
: Elizabeth Dehner. Be it noted she gave her life in performance of her
: duty. Lieutenant Commander Gary Mitchell... same notation.**"

: ** This is interesting because Gary Mitchell was actually killed while
: trying to kill Kirk (who was tying to kill him). The original plan was
: to maroon Mitchell, but after Mitchell killed Kelso, and apparently
: kidnapped Dr. Dehner, Kirk set off to hunt him down and end his life.
: Dr. Dehner stepped in between the two battling men on Kirk's behalf, and
: probably saved Kirk's life. Yet, oddly, in Kirk's final log entry, he
: draws no distinction between Dehner's heroism, and Mitchell's failed
: homicide attempt.

: IMHO, the only thing that excuses this slight against Dehner is the fact
: that Kirk has "known" Mitchell ~for 15 years~. In fact, it's quite
: clear in this episode that Kirk's relationship with Mitchell is (for
: good or ill) the most important one in his life at that time.

Kirk points out moments after that Mitchell didn't ask for what happened
to him. That's the main point here. Mitchell gained his god-like powers,
which indirectly resulted in his death, while in the line of duty.
Therefore, he did indeed give his life in performance of his duty.

I've always been more concerned that Kelso is completely ignored in this
final log entry. Didn't Kirk like him? >><BR><BR>

He must have liked him, he called him Lee. Pretty decent treatment considering
Kirk was the Captain. Of course Kirk was new at that point and seemed to run a
looser ship than after Mitchell died.
--
Aaron Snyder
***@mail.usmo.com or ***@aol.com
Visit my homepage: http://www.angelfire.com/pe/aaronthegreat
"I weigh about 140 pounds, naked. I mean, if that scale at the train station
is anything to go by." -Emo Phillips

[Gisele]

Post by ToolPackinMama
3) [Voiceover, obvious log entry] "Star date 1313.1. We're now
approaching Delta Vega. Course set for a standard orbit. This planet,
completely uninhabited, is slightly smaller than earth, desolate, but
rich in crystal and minerals. Kelso's task: transport down with a repair
transport down a man I've known for 15 years*, and if we're successful,
maroon him there."
*This refers to Gary Mitchell. Kirk has known him for 15 years.
5) "Captain's log, Star date 1313.8. Add to official losses, Dr.
Elizabeth Dehner. Be it noted she gave her life in performance of her
duty. Lieutenant Commander Gary Mitchell... same notation.**"
** This is interesting because Gary Mitchell was actually killed while
trying to kill Kirk (who was tying to kill him). The original plan was
to maroon Mitchell, but after Mitchell killed Kelso, and apparently
kidnapped Dr. Dehner, Kirk set off to hunt him down and end his life.
Dr. Dehner stepped in between the two battling men on Kirk's behalf, and
probably saved Kirk's life. Yet, oddly, in Kirk's final log entry, he
draws no distinction between Dehner's heroism, and Mitchell's failed
homicide attempt.
IMHO, the only thing that excuses this slight against Dehner is the fact
that Kirk has "known" Mitchell ~for 15 years~. In fact, it's quite
clear in this episode that Kirk's relationship with Mitchell is (for
good or ill) the most important one in his life at that time.

Yep, agreed.

Gisele

[ToolPackinMama]

Post by Gisele

Post by ToolPackinMama
IMHO, the only thing that excuses this slight against Dehner is the fact
that Kirk has "known" Mitchell ~for 15 years~. In fact, it's quite
clear in this episode that Kirk's relationship with Mitchell is (for
good or ill) the most important one in his life at that time.

Yep, agreed.

Thank you.

[Robert Casey]

Post by ToolPackinMama
*This refers to Gary Mitchell. Kirk has known him for 15 years.
5) "Captain's log, Star date 1313.8. Add to official losses, Dr.
Elizabeth Dehner. Be it noted she gave her life in performance of her
duty. Lieutenant Commander Gary Mitchell... same notation.**"
** This is interesting because Gary Mitchell was actually killed while
trying to kill Kirk (who was tying to kill him). The original plan was
to maroon Mitchell, but after Mitchell killed Kelso, and apparently
kidnapped Dr. Dehner, Kirk set off to hunt him down and end his life.
Dr. Dehner stepped in between the two battling men on Kirk's behalf, and
probably saved Kirk's life. Yet, oddly, in Kirk's final log entry, he
draws no distinction between Dehner's heroism, and Mitchell's failed
homicide attempt.
IMHO, the only thing that excuses this slight against Dehner is the fact
that Kirk has "known" Mitchell ~for 15 years~. In fact, it's quite
clear in this episode that Kirk's relationship with Mitchell is (for
good or ill) the most important one in his life at that time.

Captain Kirk probably wanted to cut Mitchell's family a break in that
he would get an honorable discharge or the equivalent thereof in death.

[ToolPackinMama]

Post by Robert Casey
Captain Kirk probably wanted to cut Mitchell's family a break in that
he would get an honorable discharge or the equivalent thereof in death.

::shrug:: Maybe, why not? But that's not what Kirk said in the
episode.

[Kweeg]

Post by ToolPackinMama

Post by Robert Casey
Captain Kirk probably wanted to cut Mitchell's family a break in that
he would get an honorable discharge or the equivalent thereof in death.

::shrug:: Maybe, why not? But that's not what Kirk said in the
episode.

Yes he did, but not in so many words.

5) "Captain's log, Star date 1313.8. Add to official losses, Dr.
Elizabeth Dehner. Be it noted she gave her life in performance of her
duty. Lieutenant Commander Gary Mitchell... same notation."

"Lieutenant Commander Gary Mitchell... same notation." The same notation
being; "he gave his life in performance of his duty." Which would be a form
of an posthumous "honourable discharge" as opposed to, "He knowingly, tried
to take over the ship (mutiny) and kill his Captain (murder)."

[ToolPackinMama]

Post by Kweeg
"Lieutenant Commander Gary Mitchell... same notation." The same notation
being; "he gave his life in performance of his duty." Which would be a form
of an posthumous "honourable discharge" as opposed to, "He knowingly, tried
to take over the ship (mutiny) and kill his Captain (murder)."

Yes?

[Kweeg]

Post by Kweeg
"Lieutenant Commander Gary Mitchell... same notation." The same notation
being; "he gave his life in performance of his duty." Which would be a form
of an posthumous "honourable discharge" as opposed to, "He knowingly, tried
to take over the ship (mutiny) and kill his Captain (murder)."

Yes?

Yes?

[ToolPackinMama]

Post by Kweeg
"Lieutenant Commander Gary Mitchell... same notation." The same notation
being; "he gave his life in performance of his duty." Which would be a

form

Post by Kweeg
of an posthumous "honourable discharge" as opposed to, "He knowingly,

tried

Post by Kweeg
to take over the ship (mutiny) and kill his Captain (murder)."

Yes?

Yes?

:)

So, why would Kirk do something like that, do you think? Remember to
take Spock's reaction into account...

Also, take Kirk's reaction to Spock's reaction into account...

:)

[ToolPackinMama]

Hello? Hello?

Is this mike on? ::tap tap::

[Kweeg]

Post by ToolPackinMama

Post by Kweeg
"Lieutenant Commander Gary Mitchell... same notation." The same notation
being; "he gave his life in performance of his duty." Which would be a

form

Post by Kweeg
of an posthumous "honourable discharge" as opposed to, "He knowingly,

tried

Post by Kweeg
to take over the ship (mutiny) and kill his Captain (murder)."

Yes?

Yes?

:)
So, why would Kirk do something like that, do you think?

It was the right thing to do. Kirk (and us) didn't really know whether
Mitchell was altered or "possessed" as he did have those moments of clarity
(when his eyes cleared up). Jim boy gave him the benefit of the doubt and
didn't choose to put a final black on Mitchell's service record.

Post by ToolPackinMama
Remember to take Spock's reaction into account...

Not really relevant, except Spock believed it was also the right thing to
do.

Post by ToolPackinMama
Also, take Kirk's reaction to Spock's reaction into account...

IIRC humorous, but again not really relevant.

[ToolPackinMama]

Post by Kweeg

Post by ToolPackinMama
Remember to take Spock's reaction into account...

Not really relevant

Oh no? If any *other* detail was established in canon, I believe you
WOULD say it was relevant.

[Kweeg]

Post by ToolPackinMama

Post by Kweeg

Post by ToolPackinMama
Remember to take Spock's reaction into account...

Not really relevant

Oh no? If any *other* detail was established in canon, I believe you
WOULD say it was relevant.

Huh? Your not making sense.
I'm talking about Kirk's log entry about Mitchell's death.
Spock reaction *is* irrelevant. Spock believing it was also the right thing
to do had no effect on Kirk's decision and the making of that log entry, it
was moot as Spock stated it *after* Kirk had made the recording.
So what's the problem?

[ToolPackinMama]

Post by Kweeg

Post by ToolPackinMama

Post by Kweeg

Post by ToolPackinMama
Remember to take Spock's reaction into account...

Not really relevant

Oh no? If any *other* detail was established in canon, I believe you
WOULD say it was relevant.

Huh? Your not making sense.

So you say. I say that people who ignore/deny canon-established details
such as the above are misguided and wrongheaded. :)

Post by Kweeg
I'm talking about Kirk's log entry about Mitchell's death.
Spock reaction *is* irrelevant.

No, IMHO, it's not.

Post by Kweeg
Spock believing it was also the right thing
to do had no effect on Kirk's decision and the making of that log entry, it
was moot as Spock stated it *after* Kirk had made the recording.

So you say. I obviously disagree.

Post by Kweeg
So what's the problem?

The problem is that IMHO you are deliberately trying to obscure the
revealed actions, intentions, and meanings of the creators of the
original Star Trek. IMHO, you should instead try to understand and
accept the message of TOS, instead of denying it.

[Kweeg]

Post by ToolPackinMama

Post by Kweeg

Post by ToolPackinMama

Post by Kweeg

Post by ToolPackinMama
Remember to take Spock's reaction into account...

Not really relevant

Oh no? If any *other* detail was established in canon, I believe you
WOULD say it was relevant.

Huh? Your not making sense.

So you say. I say that people who ignore/deny canon-established details
such as the above are misguided and wrongheaded. :)

Sure, you still not making any sense in the context of this thread.

Post by ToolPackinMama

Post by Kweeg
I'm talking about Kirk's log entry about Mitchell's death.
Spock reaction *is* irrelevant.

No, IMHO, it's not.

It's a REACTION, that mean a response to, an action that happens AFTER
something has happened.

Post by ToolPackinMama

Post by Kweeg
Spock believing it was also the right thing
to do had no effect on Kirk's decision and the making of that log entry, it
was moot as Spock stated it *after* Kirk had made the recording.

So you say. I obviously disagree.

Why? Explain how a reaction would effect an other person's initial decision.
Be specific.

Post by ToolPackinMama

Post by Kweeg
So what's the problem?

The problem is that IMHO you are deliberately trying to obscure the
revealed actions, intentions, and meanings of the creators of the
original Star Trek. IMHO, you should instead try to understand and
accept the message of TOS, instead of denying it.

What the fuck are you talking about?

[ToolPackinMama]

Post by Kweeg
What the fuck are you talking about?

I need a hug. HUG ME! :)

[Kweeg]

Post by ToolPackinMama

Post by Kweeg
What the fuck are you talking about?

I need a hug. HUG ME! :)

...and I need a beer, BEER ME!

[ToolPackinMama]

Post by Kweeg

Post by ToolPackinMama

Post by Kweeg
What the fuck are you talking about?

I need a hug. HUG ME! :)

...and I need a beer, BEER ME!

/me DCC's Kweeg a beer

[Kweeg]

Post by ToolPackinMama

Post by Kweeg

Post by ToolPackinMama

Post by Kweeg
What the fuck are you talking about?

I need a hug. HUG ME! :)

...and I need a beer, BEER ME!

/me DCC's Kweeg a beer

Still thirsty; no beer, no hugs

[ToolPackinMama]

Post by Kweeg

Post by ToolPackinMama

Post by Kweeg

Post by ToolPackinMama

Post by Kweeg
What the fuck are you talking about?

I need a hug. HUG ME! :)

...and I need a beer, BEER ME!

/me DCC's Kweeg a beer

Still thirsty; no beer, no hugs

You're no fun. :(

[ToolPackinMama]

Post by Kweeg

Post by ToolPackinMama
Also, take Kirk's reaction to Spock's reaction into account...

IIRC humorous, but again not really relevant.

Oh no? IMHO, if any *other* detail was as well-established in canon,
that you and others WOULD call it relevant.

[ToolPackinMama]

Post by Kweeg

Post by ToolPackinMama
Also, take Kirk's reaction to Spock's reaction into account...

IIRC humorous, but again not really relevant.

Humorous? Besides the fact that you and others just laugh it off, what,
besides that, is actually ~humorous~ about it?

Please: be specific.

[Kweeg]

Post by ToolPackinMama

Post by Kweeg

Post by ToolPackinMama
Also, take Kirk's reaction to Spock's reaction into account...

IIRC humorous, but again not really relevant.

Humorous? Besides the fact that you and others just laugh it off, what,
besides that, is actually ~humorous~ about it?
Please: be specific.

Are you "deliberately not getting things" again ?
Here's what dictionary.com defines humorous as:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Humorous
humour:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Humour

You quoted it earlier on.
Spock says "I felt for him, too."
To which Kirk says "I believe there's some hope for you after all, Mr.
Spock."

It's funny cause it's a good natured dig, some verbal sparing, a bit of
shit-chucking that people that work together (especially service people) do,
it's the expression on Kirk's face as he gives Spock the sideways glance. If
you don't find this funny I really can't explain it to you, maybe spend some
time working in close quarters with people at sea, you'll go crazy or have a
good time, or a bit of both.

[ToolPackinMama]

Post by Kweeg
It's funny cause it's a good natured dig, some verbal sparing, a bit of
shit-chucking that people that work together (especially service people) do,
it's the expression on Kirk's face as he gives Spock the sideways glance.

Oh? And how might the average person distinguish that from Spock and
Kirk actually, seriously flirting with each other? Do tell.

And, BTW, tell us all how you know.

[Kweeg]

Post by ToolPackinMama

Post by Kweeg
It's funny cause it's a good natured dig, some verbal sparing, a bit of
shit-chucking that people that work together (especially service people) do,
it's the expression on Kirk's face as he gives Spock the sideways glance.

Oh? And how might the average person distinguish that from Spock and
Kirk actually, seriously flirting with each other? Do tell.
And, BTW, tell us all how you know.

You first. Explain how is *not* just a good natured dig, or verbal sparing,
or a bit of shit-chucking that people that work together do, and BTW, tell
us all how you know.

You can't, I can't, so there. The best you can do is *imply* things and add
up circumstantial evidence, however convincing you might think it is, this
does not PROVE anything. Sorry. It's a bit of fun, no body said on screen
that they were, gay or bi, sorry but there was more *implications* of our
heroes bedding women than men. And to take a page out of your book, nothing
you can say (has or) will convince me otherwise.

If what we saw on screen constituted as flirting, then more people would
being slapped with sexual harassment.

Now that you deflected the conversation away from the original thought;
Explain how Spock's reaction *is* relevant to Kirk's log recording about
Mitchell's death
*after* Kirk had made it. Please stay on topic for one thread.

[ToolPackinMama]

Post by Kweeg

Post by ToolPackinMama

Post by Kweeg
It's funny cause it's a good natured dig, some verbal sparing, a bit of
shit-chucking that people that work together (especially service people)

do,

Post by ToolPackinMama

Post by Kweeg
it's the expression on Kirk's face as he gives Spock the sideways

glance.

Post by ToolPackinMama
Oh? And how might the average person distinguish that from Spock and
Kirk actually, seriously flirting with each other? Do tell.
And, BTW, tell us all how you know.

You first. Explain how is *not* just a good natured dig, or verbal sparing,
or a bit of shit-chucking that people that work together do, and BTW, tell
us all how you know.

OK, I will.

1) No reason is established in the episode to interpret it otherwise.
No reason is given to assume that Kirk and Spock have the kind of
relationship where they casually pretend to be Gay with each other as a
joke. No. In fact, Spock is pretty clearly NOT the usual guy, and he
therefore may be assumed to be the kind of guy that would NOT be casual
about such "humorous" things. Pretty clearly such "jokes" are something
that is far outside of Spock's cultural frame of reference - to start
with. So, nobody should assume that Spock is "joking". Spock doesn't
understand human-style "jokes", especially of that nature.

2) There is no sign whatsoever that Kirk is not 100% serious. Seriously,
he seems to be 100% serious. Seriously.

3) Spock expressing that emotional feeling to Kirk (I felt for him too)
at that moment, in that way, can only be interpreted as an act of
emotional solidarity. There is no other logical reason for it.

4) The sidelong glance that Kirk casts, and the way Spock reacts to it,
is nothing but flirtatious. Straight up. If you can imagine a woman in
Spock's place at that moment you can easily see what I mean. Yes,
mothersucker, you can.

How do I know? I'm a bisexual woman who has been intimate with many Gay
and bisexual men for a couple of decades. I've seen how they act - how
they flirt, how they court - and I have learned from them. I can
honestly say that I know it when I see it, and I speak from experience.

[Kweeg]

Post by ToolPackinMama

Post by Kweeg

Post by ToolPackinMama

Post by Kweeg
It's funny cause it's a good natured dig, some verbal sparing, a bit of
shit-chucking that people that work together (especially service people)

do,

Post by ToolPackinMama

Post by Kweeg
it's the expression on Kirk's face as he gives Spock the sideways

glance.

Post by ToolPackinMama
Oh? And how might the average person distinguish that from Spock and
Kirk actually, seriously flirting with each other? Do tell.
And, BTW, tell us all how you know.

You first. Explain how is *not* just a good natured dig, or verbal sparing,
or a bit of shit-chucking that people that work together do, and BTW, tell
us all how you know.

OK, I will.
1) No reason is established in the episode to interpret it otherwise.

Interpret, ahh there we go, no reason to interpret your way either. Not
proof.

Post by ToolPackinMama
No reason is given to assume that Kirk and Spock have the kind of
relationship where they casually pretend to be Gay with each other as a
joke.

Didn't say they were. There is also no reason given to *assume* that they
*were* pretending to be gay, I didn't Kirk is merely having a verbal jab at
Spock (this is the first Kirk episode afterall) so we do not know allot
about Spock's charactor.


No. In fact, Spock is pretty clearly NOT the usual guy, and he

Post by ToolPackinMama
therefore may be assumed

Theres that word again, assume, not proof


to be the kind of guy that would NOT be casual

Post by ToolPackinMama
about such "humorous" things. Pretty clearly such "jokes" are something
that is far outside of Spock's cultural frame of reference - to start
with. So, nobody should assume that Spock is "joking". Spock doesn't
understand human-style "jokes", especially of that nature.

Spock was not joking, he made a staement, Kirk made the quip.

Post by ToolPackinMama
2) There is no sign whatsoever that Kirk is not 100% serious. Seriously,
he seems to be 100% serious. Seriously.

There is no sign whatsoever that Kirk *is* 100% serious. Seriously, he seems
to be joking.

Post by ToolPackinMama
3) Spock expressing that emotional feeling to Kirk (I felt for him too)
at that moment, in that way, can only be interpreted as an act of
emotional solidarity. There is no other logical reason for it.

Spock's character had not been fully developed. That would just be put down
to a *mistake* which you have pointed out several times, doesn't count, just
like the tombstone that had James *R* Kirk on it.

Post by ToolPackinMama
4) The sidelong glance that Kirk casts, and the way Spock reacts to it,
is nothing but flirtatious. Straight up. If you can imagine a woman in
Spock's place at that moment you can easily see what I mean. Yes,
mothersucker, you can.

No I can't sorry. I could see a woman in that place, just like the looks
Pike would give his Number One. It's not about sex all the time especially
when one is at work and acting in some what of a professional manner. In
this case a more light hearted one, it's just shitchucking, plane and
simple.

Post by ToolPackinMama
How do I know? I'm a bisexual woman who has been intimate with many Gay
and bisexual men for a couple of decades. I've seen how they act - how
they flirt, how they court - and I have learned from them. I can
honestly say that I know it when I see it, and I speak from experience.

This applies to a para-military setting like Starfleet how? Really.
How do I know? I've spent 18 years in the "mob" more than half of which has
been at sea. I've seen how service men and women act (some of them are
gay/bi too**), professionally, recreationally, the bond that develops
between members (of both sexes and all orientations) and even how they
flirt. It's all about very thing has a time and place, professionals work to
get the job done, not flirt like school girls and boys. However it's
different ashore.
I can honestly say that *I* know it when I see it, and I too speak from
experience.

You still haven't answered the question; how Spock's reaction *is* relevant
to Kirk's log recording about Mitchell's death *after* Kirk had made it.

[ToolPackinMama]

Post by Kweeg
You still haven't answered the question; how Spock's reaction *is* relevant
to Kirk's log recording about Mitchell's death *after* Kirk had made it.

Kweeg, the exchange between Kirk and Spock at the end of that epiosde is
as relevant and significant as any other exchange between two characters
in the whole show. It's not random and meaningless. The chess game in
the beginning is not random and meaningless. The grim private
discussion about what to do about Mitchell in the middle of the episode
is also not random and meaningless. All of those scenes have meaning,
and purpose. You can't out of hand dismiss things that are happening
front and center in the middle of the screen between the two main
characters, Kweeg.

None of what happens between Kirk and Spock in that episode is
unimportant, Kweeg. None of it is unintentional, nor a writer's
mistake. That end scene is deliberately placed there to intentionally
reveal something about their characters, and about the nature of the
relationship between the two characters, Kweeg. Spock and Kirk's
actions and reactions especially toward one another are relevant because
it gives us intentional information about the characters that we the
audience are supposed to be able to derive some understanding from,
Kweeg. If you refuse to see and understand what is presented in the
show, then you are missing important clues that are in the show, Kweeg.

[Kweeg]

Post by ToolPackinMama

Post by Kweeg
You still haven't answered the question; how Spock's reaction *is* relevant
to Kirk's log recording about Mitchell's death *after* Kirk had made it.

Kweeg, the exchange between Kirk and Spock at the end of that epiosde is
as relevant and significant as any other exchange between two characters
in the whole show. It's not random and meaningless. The chess game in
the beginning is not random and meaningless. The grim private
discussion about what to do about Mitchell in the middle of the episode
is also not random and meaningless. All of those scenes have meaning,
and purpose. You can't out of hand dismiss things that are happening
front and center in the middle of the screen between the two main
characters, Kweeg.

Yes it establishes the professional and personal friendship developing
between these 2 men, any thing else is assumed. I'm not dismissing anything,
but it sounds like you are, Laura.

Post by ToolPackinMama
None of what happens between Kirk and Spock in that episode is
unimportant, Kweeg. None of it is unintentional, nor a writer's
mistake.

Again you've taken what I said out of context.
You:
"3) Spock expressing that emotional feeling to Kirk (I felt for him too)
at that moment, in that way, can only be interpreted as an act of
emotional solidarity. There is no other logical reason for it."
Me:
Spock's character had not been fully developed. That would just be put down
to a *mistake* which you have pointed out several times, doesn't count, just
like the tombstone that had James *R* Kirk on it.

Post by ToolPackinMama
That end scene is deliberately placed there to intentionally
reveal something about their characters, and about the nature of the
relationship between the two characters, Kweeg. Spock and Kirk's
actions and reactions especially toward one another are relevant because
it gives us intentional information about the characters that we the
audience are supposed to be able to derive some understanding from,
Kweeg. If you refuse to see and understand what is presented in the
show, then you are missing important clues that are in the show, Kweeg.

I got it fine, like I said before it establishes the professional and
personal friendship developing between these 2 men, buy showing the good
natured teasing. Anything else you want to assume is your business.


Laura you've evaded the question yet again and chosen to ramble on about you
K/S theories which I thought we came to an understanding about. (Although
fun, you will never convince me that Kirk & Spock were lovers) And you still
haven't answered the question Laura. Try again, I will sum up the thread for
you.

I said;
Lieutenant Commander Gary Mitchell... same notation." The same notation
being; "he gave his life in performance of his duty." Which would be a form
of an posthumous "honourable discharge" as opposed to, "He knowingly, tried
to take over the ship (mutiny) and kill his Captain (murder)."

To which you said;
So, why would Kirk do something like that, do you think? Remember to
take Spock's reaction into account...

Also, take Kirk's reaction to Spock's reaction into account...

I though I had answered your question when I replied:
It was the right thing to do. Kirk (and us) didn't really know whether
Mitchell was altered or "possessed" as he did have those moments of clarity
(when his eyes cleared up). Jim boy gave him the benefit of the doubt and
didn't choose to put a final black on Mitchell's service record.

Post by ToolPackinMama
Remember to take Spock's reaction into account...

Not really relevant, except Spock believed it was also the right thing to
do.

Post by ToolPackinMama
Also, take Kirk's reaction to Spock's reaction into account...

IIRC humorous, but again not really relevant.

You asked why would Kirk make this log entry, I replied. Reactions to his
log entry are irrelevant to his decision to make it. Again I ask you how is
Spock's *reaction* to Kirk's decision *relevant to* Kirk making the log
entry?

[Darph Bobo]

Post by Kweeg

Post by ToolPackinMama

Post by Kweeg
You still haven't answered the question; how Spock's reaction *is*

relevant

Post by ToolPackinMama

Post by Kweeg
to Kirk's log recording about Mitchell's death *after* Kirk had made it.

Kweeg, the exchange between Kirk and Spock at the end of that epiosde is
as relevant and significant as any other exchange between two characters
in the whole show. It's not random and meaningless. The chess game in
the beginning is not random and meaningless. The grim private
discussion about what to do about Mitchell in the middle of the episode
is also not random and meaningless. All of those scenes have meaning,
and purpose. You can't out of hand dismiss things that are happening
front and center in the middle of the screen between the two main
characters, Kweeg.

Yes it establishes the professional and personal friendship developing
between these 2 men, any thing else is assumed. I'm not dismissing anything,
but it sounds like you are, Laura.

Post by ToolPackinMama
None of what happens between Kirk and Spock in that episode is
unimportant, Kweeg. None of it is unintentional, nor a writer's
mistake.

Again you've taken what I said out of context.
"3) Spock expressing that emotional feeling to Kirk (I felt for him too)
at that moment, in that way, can only be interpreted as an act of
emotional solidarity. There is no other logical reason for it."
Spock's character had not been fully developed. That would just be put down
to a *mistake* which you have pointed out several times, doesn't count, just
like the tombstone that had James *R* Kirk on it.

Post by ToolPackinMama
That end scene is deliberately placed there to intentionally
reveal something about their characters, and about the nature of the
relationship between the two characters, Kweeg. Spock and Kirk's
actions and reactions especially toward one another are relevant because
it gives us intentional information about the characters that we the
audience are supposed to be able to derive some understanding from,
Kweeg. If you refuse to see and understand what is presented in the
show, then you are missing important clues that are in the show, Kweeg.

I got it fine, like I said before it establishes the professional and
personal friendship developing between these 2 men, buy showing the good
natured teasing. Anything else you want to assume is your business.
Laura you've evaded the question yet again and chosen to ramble on about you
K/S theories which I thought we came to an understanding about. (Although
fun, you will never convince me that Kirk & Spock were lovers) And you still
haven't answered the question Laura. Try again, I will sum up the thread for
you.
I said;
Lieutenant Commander Gary Mitchell... same notation." The same notation
being; "he gave his life in performance of his duty." Which would be a form
of an posthumous "honourable discharge" as opposed to, "He knowingly, tried
to take over the ship (mutiny) and kill his Captain (murder)."
To which you said;
So, why would Kirk do something like that, do you think? Remember to
take Spock's reaction into account...
Also, take Kirk's reaction to Spock's reaction into account...
It was the right thing to do. Kirk (and us) didn't really know whether
Mitchell was altered or "possessed" as he did have those moments of clarity
(when his eyes cleared up). Jim boy gave him the benefit of the doubt and
didn't choose to put a final black on Mitchell's service record.

Post by ToolPackinMama
Remember to take Spock's reaction into account...

Not really relevant, except Spock believed it was also the right thing to
do.

Post by ToolPackinMama
Also, take Kirk's reaction to Spock's reaction into account...

IIRC humorous, but again not really relevant.
You asked why would Kirk make this log entry, I replied. Reactions to his
log entry are irrelevant to his decision to make it. Again I ask you how is
Spock's *reaction* to Kirk's decision *relevant to* Kirk making the log
entry?
--
QaPla'
Kweeg
http://members.shaw.ca/iksbloodoath

Repeat after me: There are No Facts but Laura's Facts and She is Their
Prophet.



Darph

[ToolPackinMama]

Post by Kweeg
Yes it establishes the professional and personal friendship developing
between these 2 men, any thing else is assumed. I'm not dismissing anything,
but it sounds like you are, Laura.

Oh? How ya figure?

Post by Kweeg
I got it fine, like I said before it establishes the professional and
personal friendship developing between these 2 men, buy showing the good
natured teasing. Anything else you want to assume is your business.

So you say, but you're assuming, too.

Post by Kweeg
Laura you've evaded the question yet again

Which question?

Post by Kweeg
I said;
Lieutenant Commander Gary Mitchell... same notation." The same notation
being; "he gave his life in performance of his duty." Which would be a form
of an posthumous "honourable discharge" as opposed to, "He knowingly, tried
to take over the ship (mutiny) and kill his Captain (murder)."
To which you said;
So, why would Kirk do something like that, do you think? Remember to
take Spock's reaction into account...
Also, take Kirk's reaction to Spock's reaction into account...
It was the right thing to do. Kirk (and us) didn't really know whether
Mitchell was altered or "possessed" as he did have those moments of clarity
(when his eyes cleared up). Jim boy gave him the benefit of the doubt and
didn't choose to put a final black on Mitchell's service record.

Post by ToolPackinMama
Remember to take Spock's reaction into account...

Not really relevant

That's what you say. Obviously I disagree.

Post by Kweeg

Post by ToolPackinMama
Also, take Kirk's reaction to Spock's reaction into account...

IIRC humorous, but again not really relevant.

Again, I disagree. I don't see how me disagreeing about how important
such details are is an example of me evading any question.

Post by Kweeg
You asked why would Kirk make this log entry, I replied. Reactions to his
log entry are irrelevant to his decision to make it.

Yes, and I disagree, as has been established.

Post by Kweeg
Again I ask you how is
Spock's *reaction* to Kirk's decision *relevant to* Kirk making the log
entry?

How it's relevant. Well, you see, as I already explained before, it
reveals something about the characters. Therefore it's relevant.

[Kweeg]

Post by ToolPackinMama

Post by Kweeg
Yes it establishes the professional and personal friendship developing
between these 2 men, any thing else is assumed. I'm not dismissing anything,
but it sounds like you are, Laura.

Oh? How ya figure?

I explained eariler in the thread.

Post by ToolPackinMama

Post by Kweeg
I got it fine, like I said before it establishes the professional and
personal friendship developing between these 2 men, buy showing the good
natured teasing. Anything else you want to assume is your business.

So you say, but you're assuming, too.

Post by Kweeg
Laura you've evaded the question yet again

Which question?

How does someone's reaction to somthing affect the person's decision (the
action) to begin with?

Post by ToolPackinMama

Post by Kweeg
I said;
Lieutenant Commander Gary Mitchell... same notation." The same notation
being; "he gave his life in performance of his duty." Which would be a form
of an posthumous "honourable discharge" as opposed to, "He knowingly, tried
to take over the ship (mutiny) and kill his Captain (murder)."
To which you said;
So, why would Kirk do something like that, do you think? Remember to
take Spock's reaction into account...
Also, take Kirk's reaction to Spock's reaction into account...
It was the right thing to do. Kirk (and us) didn't really know whether
Mitchell was altered or "possessed" as he did have those moments of clarity
(when his eyes cleared up). Jim boy gave him the benefit of the doubt and
didn't choose to put a final black on Mitchell's service record.

Post by ToolPackinMama
Remember to take Spock's reaction into account...

Not really relevant

That's what you say. Obviously I disagree.

Post by Kweeg

Post by ToolPackinMama
Also, take Kirk's reaction to Spock's reaction into account...

IIRC humorous, but again not really relevant.

Again, I disagree. I don't see how me disagreeing about how important
such details are is an example of me evading any question.

Post by Kweeg
You asked why would Kirk make this log entry, I replied. Reactions to his
log entry are irrelevant to his decision to make it.

Yes, and I disagree, as has been established.

Post by Kweeg
Again I ask you how is
Spock's *reaction* to Kirk's decision *relevant to* Kirk making the log
entry?

How it's relevant. Well, you see, as I already explained before, it
reveals something about the characters. Therefore it's relevant.

It's relevant to character development, not to Kirk making the decision
about Mitchell to begin with.

[ToolPackinMama]

Post by Kweeg
It's relevant to character development, not to Kirk making the decision
about Mitchell to begin with.

Well, Kirk's 15 years with Mitchell at his side, since they were teens,
and then suddenly Spock is there, basically taking Mitchell's place at
Kirk's side.

You see, the first scene is of Kirk and Spock together, playing chess.
Then it's established that Mitchell is terribly important to Kirk - that
they have a long shared history. Then we see Kirk and Spock privately
conspiring to kill/maroon Mitchell. And at the end, Mitchell is
completely out of the picture, and from that moment forward, Spock
becomes the single most important man in Kirk's life.

That was all played out before our eyes in the pilot episode. None of
that was irrelevant, no matter what you say, Kweeg. The pilot episode
establishes everything that later followed in the show, Kweeg.

And me pointing out all these things that certainly were in the episode
and that certainly are canon details is not an example of me assuming
anything, nor is it an example of me evading your questions, Kweeg.
It's an example of me drawing your attention to what actually is in the
show, and trying to help people like you to pay attention to it, Kweeg.

[Kweeg]

Post by ToolPackinMama

Post by Kweeg
It's relevant to character development, not to Kirk making the decision
about Mitchell to begin with.

Well, Kirk's 15 years with Mitchell at his side, since they were teens,
and then suddenly Spock is there, basically taking Mitchell's place at
Kirk's side.

You assume that, the only canon evidence is that Kirk knew Mitchell for 15
years. I've known people and very good workmates for 15 years, it does not
mean that they've been by my side the whole time.

Post by ToolPackinMama
You see, the first scene is of Kirk and Spock together, playing chess.
Then it's established that Mitchell is terribly important to Kirk - that
they have a long shared history. Then we see Kirk and Spock privately
conspiring to kill/maroon Mitchell. And at the end, Mitchell is
completely out of the picture, and from that moment forward, Spock
becomes the single most important man in Kirk's life.
That was all played out before our eyes in the pilot episode. None of
that was irrelevant, no matter what you say, Kweeg. The pilot episode
establishes everything that later followed in the show, Kweeg.

Your missing my point again.

Post by ToolPackinMama
And me pointing out all these things that certainly were in the episode
and that certainly are canon details is not an example of me assuming
anything, nor is it an example of me evading your questions, Kweeg.
It's an example of me drawing your attention to what actually is in the
show, and trying to help people like you to pay attention to it, Kweeg.

Again, with out reading ANYTHING into it, answer the question. How is
Spock's *reaction* to Kirk making the log entry to *relevant to* Kirk's
decision about Mitchell to begin with? This is what you asked originally, is
this a hard question or what?

[TheWrathOfKhan]

From: ToolPackinMama
***@lauragoodwin.org
Date: 8/15/04 6:28 AM

<<Oh? And how might the average person distinguish that from Spock and Kirk
actually, seriously flirting with each other? Do tell.>>

Since it's established cannon that Kirk and Spock are both 100% straight, who
in the flying fuck would interpret that scene in that way?
Other than the usual suspects in the K/S lunatic fringe, that is.

-Khan-

[Brad Filippone]

When you get to "Spock's Brain" you will notice that Shatner transposed a
couple digits on a star date, resulting in log entries within one episode
seeming out of order! :)

Brad

[ToolPackinMama]

Post by Brad Filippone
When you get to "Spock's Brain" you will notice that Shatner transposed a
couple digits on a star date, resulting in log entries within one episode
seeming out of order! :)

Are you getting that from the transcripts page, or from the ep directly?

[Brad Filippone]

ToolPackinMama (***@lauragoodwin.org) wrote:
: Brad Filippone wrote:
: >
: > When you get to "Spock's Brain" you will notice that Shatner transposed a
: > couple digits on a star date, resulting in log entries within one episode
: > seeming out of order! :)
: >

: Are you getting that from the transcripts page, or from the ep directly?

From the episode directly. I first became aware of it 20+ years ago from
a Star Trek trivia quiz, and was curious enough to check the episode
itself the next time it came around (I didn't have them on tape back
then). The only part I'm assuming is that Shatner made the mistake
himself and no one caught it.

Brad

[ToolPackinMama]

Post by Brad Filippone
From the episode directly. I first became aware of it 20+ years ago from
a Star Trek trivia quiz, and was curious enough to check the episode
itself the next time it came around (I didn't have them on tape back
then). The only part I'm assuming is that Shatner made the mistake
himself and no one caught it.

Sure, that's the answer. That's an example of what I'd call an obvious
mistake. IMHO, mistakes don't count as official canon.

[ToolPackinMama]

RE: Kirk/Mitchell, here's an interesting thing to ponder...

If Kirk was, say, 34 years old when he killed Gary Mitchell, then that
would mean he has known Gary Mitchell since he was 19 years old.

I consulted Okuda's Star Trek Encyclopedia, and there they say that Kirk
was born in 2233, and claim that this date was established in The Deadly
Years. According to the same source, it was 2264 when Kirk took command
of the Enterprise. That means he was 31 years old when he took
command.

Right?

We are not sure how long Kirk and Mitchell have served together aboard
the Enterprise, before the events depicted in Where No Man Has Gone
Before, but it's definitely less that 3 years, because by the time Kirk
is 34 in Deadly Years, Mitchell is long gone.

I wonder how old Gary Mitchell was at the time that he and Kirk met? He
was a student in Lt. Kirk's class at the academy. It's logical to
assume he's younger than Kirk, and indeed he looks younger.

Did they meet in Kirk's classes? Possibly. It's not said how they met,
but no mention of an earlier encounter/relationship exists. In any
case, <IMHO> Mitchell seems to have been the younger, junior partner all
along, but clearly never a subordinate one. Age and rank apparently
never translated to dominance in that relationship.

This is consistent with other clues we are given about Kirk's personal
side. He doesn't insist on being the boss in his personal life. If
anything, it's the opposite. </IMHO>

[ToolPackinMama]

Post by ToolPackinMama
RE: Kirk/Mitchell, here's an interesting thing to ponder...
If Kirk was, say, 34 years old when he killed Gary Mitchell, then that
would mean he has known Gary Mitchell since he was 19 years old.

OTOH, if he was 32 years old in WNMHGB, then he would have been 17 when
he met Gary Mitchell. Unless my math is off - whch one of you will no
doubt be happy to point out any second.

I never really was very good at math.

Basically, Kirk was apparently a teenager when he first met Gary
Mitchell. We don't really know how old Gary Mitchell was, but he
apparently is younger than Kirk. He was a student in one of Kirk's
classes at Starfleet Academy. We don't know if that's when they met,
but we do know that Kirk was already a Lieutenant and an academy
instructor at that point.

Think about that: <IMHO> Childhood sweethearts. 15 years, and it was
literally until death did them part.</IMHO>

[ToolPackinMama]

Post by ToolPackinMama
Think about that: <IMHO> Childhood sweethearts. 15 years, and it was
literally until death did them part.</IMHO>

And that was only the PILOT.

[Hypatia Kosh]

Post by ToolPackinMama
RE: Kirk/Mitchell, here's an interesting thing to ponder...
If Kirk was, say, 34 years old when he killed Gary Mitchell, then that
would mean he has known Gary Mitchell since he was 19 years old.

Where do they say in WNMHGB that they've known each other for 15
years? I've watched that ep over and over but it was on tape so I know
I'm missing a few lines of dialogue due to syndication cuts.

-Hy

[ToolPackinMama]

Post by Hypatia Kosh

Post by ToolPackinMama
RE: Kirk/Mitchell, here's an interesting thing to ponder...
If Kirk was, say, 34 years old when he killed Gary Mitchell, then that
would mean he has known Gary Mitchell since he was 19 years old.

Where do they say in WNMHGB that they've known each other for 15
years? I've watched that ep over and over but it was on tape so I know
I'm missing a few lines of dialogue due to syndication cuts.

If you had read the whole thread you would have your answer. It
OBVIOUSLY occurs in Kirk's log entries...

Post by Hypatia Kosh

Post by ToolPackinMama
[Refer: http://www.voyager.cz/tos/epizody/02wherenomantrans.htm ]

[Voiceover, obvious log entry] "Star date 1313.1. We're now
approaching Delta Vega. Course set for a standard orbit. This planet,
completely uninhabited, is slightly smaller than earth, desolate, but
rich in crystal and minerals. Kelso's task: transport down with a repair
party, try to regenerate the main engines, save the ship. Our task:
transport down a man I've known for 15 years, and if we're successful,
maroon him there."

You're welcome.

[Gisele]

Post by The Merry Piper
On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 12:29:30 -0400, ToolPackinMama

Post by ToolPackinMama
I was thinking a good project to next get into would be to catalog all
of Kirk's Captain's log entries in TOS. Some of the information there
is personal in nature - interesting and sometimes surprising. I plan to
include personal log entries, since the writers never seemed to draw a
firm distinction between the two. Perhaps many of them didn't know the
difference and thought they were one and the same.
Perhaps, in the future, they are one and the same?
I'm trying to decide if I should include all Captain's log entries which
were recorded by others as well? Your opinion, please. :)

Include them all.

Yep, all of them. I'd like to see it when you're done. Should be
interesting as that's an interesting approach to studying a character.

Gisele

[ToolPackinMama]

Post by Gisele

Post by The Merry Piper
Include them all.

Yep, all of them. I'd like to see it when you're done. Should be
interesting as that's an interesting approach to studying a character.

Well, I'm going to post them here ep by ep, and I'll collect them all in
one place on my web site as well, illustrated with (probably screengrabs
and) my own commentary. I value your comments, especially at this early
point while the work is in progress. People who chat with me here will
have a chance to influence me while the work proceeds.

At this point I have decided to post all log entries, since I agree it's
probably important to pay attention to them all, for whatever reason.

What's particularly interesting about the log entries is that they
supposedly are remarks that are entered into the official mission
record. This means that other authorized Starfleet persons are
certainly going to be reading them, and the Captain certainly knows
that.

What Captain Kirk reveals in his log entries often doesn't match what we
see on the screen. What Kirk chooses to reveal and conceal via his
official log entries is very interesting, and sometimes astounding - as
all who have eyes to see no doubt will see.

[Brad Filippone]

ToolPackinMama (***@lauragoodwin.org) wrote:
: Gisele wrote:
: >
: > The Merry Piper <***@COATyahoo.com> wrote

: > > Include them all.
: >
: > Yep, all of them. I'd like to see it when you're done. Should be
: > interesting as that's an interesting approach to studying a character.

: Well, I'm going to post them here ep by ep, and I'll collect them all in
: one place on my web site as well, illustrated with (probably screengrabs
: and) my own commentary. I value your comments, especially at this early
: point while the work is in progress. People who chat with me here will
: have a chance to influence me while the work proceeds.

: At this point I have decided to post all log entries, since I agree it's
: probably important to pay attention to them all, for whatever reason.

: What's particularly interesting about the log entries is that they
: supposedly are remarks that are entered into the official mission
: record. This means that other authorized Starfleet persons are
: certainly going to be reading them, and the Captain certainly knows
: that.

: What Captain Kirk reveals in his log entries often doesn't match what we
: see on the screen. What Kirk chooses to reveal and conceal via his
: official log entries is very interesting, and sometimes astounding - as
: all who have eyes to see no doubt will see.

Amazingly, on at least one occasion he made a log entry about something he
didn't even know about at the time. In "The Enemy Within" just after the
opening credits, he has an entry that begins "Unknown to any of us at this
time...."

Brad

[ToolPackinMama]

Post by Brad Filippone
Amazingly, on at least one occasion he made a log entry about something he
didn't even know about at the time. In "The Enemy Within" just after the
opening credits, he has an entry that begins "Unknown to any of us at this
time...."

LOL obviously a later, supplemental entry. ;)

[AMSNYD]

<< Subject: Re: Kirk's Captain's log entries in TOS
From: ***@chebucto.ns.ca (Brad Filippone)
Date: SatThurAug 5142020042004 12:46 PM
Message-id: <cflj58$3tb$***@News.Dal.Ca>

ToolPackinMama (***@lauragoodwin.org) wrote:
: Gisele wrote:
: >
: > The Merry Piper <***@COATyahoo.com> wrote

: > > Include them all.
: >
: > Yep, all of them. I'd like to see it when you're done. Should be
: > interesting as that's an interesting approach to studying a character.

: Well, I'm going to post them here ep by ep, and I'll collect them all in
: one place on my web site as well, illustrated with (probably screengrabs
: and) my own commentary. I value your comments, especially at this early
: point while the work is in progress. People who chat with me here will
: have a chance to influence me while the work proceeds.

: At this point I have decided to post all log entries, since I agree it's
: probably important to pay attention to them all, for whatever reason.

: What's particularly interesting about the log entries is that they
: supposedly are remarks that are entered into the official mission
: record. This means that other authorized Starfleet persons are
: certainly going to be reading them, and the Captain certainly knows
: that.

: What Captain Kirk reveals in his log entries often doesn't match what we
: see on the screen. What Kirk chooses to reveal and conceal via his
: official log entries is very interesting, and sometimes astounding - as
: all who have eyes to see no doubt will see.

Amazingly, on at least one occasion he made a log entry about something he
didn't even know about at the time. In "The Enemy Within" just after the
opening credits, he has an entry that begins "Unknown to any of us at this
time...."

Post by AMSNYD
<BR><BR>

I'd love to see him explain this one to Starfleet.
--
Aaron Snyder
***@mail.usmo.com or ***@aol.com
Visit my homepage: http://www.angelfire.com/pe/aaronthegreat
"I weigh about 140 pounds, naked. I mean, if that scale at the train station
is anything to go by." -Emo Phillips

[Gisele]

Post by ToolPackinMama

Post by Gisele

Post by The Merry Piper
Include them all.

Yep, all of them. I'd like to see it when you're done. Should be
interesting as that's an interesting approach to studying a character.

Well, I'm going to post them here ep by ep, and I'll collect them all in
one place on my web site as well, illustrated with (probably screengrabs
and) my own commentary.

That's very cool. I'll be saving each entry as you post them.

Post by ToolPackinMama
I value your comments, especially at this early
point while the work is in progress. People who chat with me here will
have a chance to influence me while the work proceeds.
At this point I have decided to post all log entries, since I agree it's
probably important to pay attention to them all, for whatever reason.
What's particularly interesting about the log entries is that they
supposedly are remarks that are entered into the official mission
record. This means that other authorized Starfleet persons are
certainly going to be reading them, and the Captain certainly knows
that.
What Captain Kirk reveals in his log entries often doesn't match what we
see on the screen. What Kirk chooses to reveal and conceal via his
official log entries is very interesting, and sometimes astounding - as
all who have eyes to see no doubt will see.

Yep, should be interesting to compare.

Gisele

[Graham Kennedy]

Post by ToolPackinMama
I was thinking a good project to next get into would be to catalog all
of Kirk's Captain's log entries in TOS. Some of the information there
is personal in nature - interesting and sometimes surprising. I plan to
include personal log entries, since the writers never seemed to draw a
firm distinction between the two. Perhaps many of them didn't know the
difference and thought they were one and the same.
Perhaps, in the future, they are one and the same?
I'm trying to decide if I should include all Captain's log entries which
were recorded by others as well? Your opinion, please. :)

I thought about doing this a while back, but I'd
just finished running through all the TOS eps for
the "little people" character bios I did, and I
couldn't face going back and re-watching them all
over again.

It's a great idea, good luck with it if you decide
to go through with it.

I'd definitely include all logs made by everybody,
personal and otherwise.

[ToolPackinMama]

Post by Graham Kennedy
It's a great idea, good luck with it if you decide
to go through with it.

Thanks very much. :)

Post by Graham Kennedy
I'd definitely include all logs made by everybody,
personal and otherwise.

Yes, I've decided to do that.

[ToolPackinMama]

THE CORBOMITE MANEUVER
[Refer: http://www.voyager.cz/tos/epizody/02wherenomantrans.htm ]

1) "Captain's Log, star date 1512.2. On our third day of star mapping,
an unexplained cubical object blocked our vessel's path. On the bridge,
Mr. Spock immediately ordered general alert. My location: sick bay.
Quarterly physical check."

2) "Captain's Log, star date 1513.8. Star maps reveal no indication of
habitable planets nearby. Origin and purpose of the cube still unknown.
We've been here, held motionless, for 18 hours."

3) "Captain's Log, star date 1514.1. The Enterprise is in tow. To this
point, no resistance has been offered. My plan? A show of resignation.
Balok's tractor beam has to be a heavy drain of power on his small ship.
Question: Will he grow careless?"

====

Did I miss anything? Corrections, comments?

[ToolPackinMama]

Post by ToolPackinMama
1) "Captain's Log, star date 1512.2. On our third day of star mapping,
an unexplained cubical object blocked our vessel's path. On the bridge,
Mr. Spock immediately ordered general alert. My location: sick bay.
Quarterly physical check."
2) "Captain's Log, star date 1513.8. Star maps reveal no indication of
habitable planets nearby. Origin and purpose of the cube still unknown.
We've been here, held motionless, for 18 hours."
3) "Captain's Log, star date 1514.1. The Enterprise is in tow. To this
point, no resistance has been offered. My plan? A show of resignation.
Balok's tractor beam has to be a heavy drain of power on his small ship.
Question: Will he grow careless?"

On quick note on the above: Kirk comes across as very passive in his
log entries in this ep.

[ToolPackinMama]

MUDD'S WOMEN
[Refer: http://www.voyager.cz/tos/epizody/02wherenomantrans.htm ]


1) Captain's log Stardate 1329.8: The U.S.S. Enterprise in pursuit of an
unidentified vessel.

2) Captain's log, Stardate 1329.1: We've taken aboard from unregistered
transport vessel its captain and...three unusual females. These women
have a mysterious magnetic effect on the male members of my crew,
including myself. Explanation unknown, at present.

3) Captain's log, Stardate 1329.2: On board the U.S.S. Enterprise, a
ship's hearing is being convened against the transport vessel's captain.
I'm becoming concerned about the almost hypnotic effect produced by the
women.

4) Captain's log, Stardate 1330.1: Position: 14 hours out of Rigel-12.
We're on auxiliary impulse engines. Fuel low, barely sufficient to
achieve orbit over the planet. Lithium replacements are now imperative.
The effect of Mudd's women on my crew continues to grow. Harry Mudd is
confined to his quarters under guard.

5) Captain's log: Have transported aboard the Enterprise to search with
infrared scanners and sensing system. Magnetic storms on the planet's
surface are reducing efficiency of our equipment. Search now in progress
for 3 hours, 18 minutes.

6) Captain's log: Have expended all but 43 minutes of power. Ship's
condition: critical. Search now in progress 7 hours, 31 minutes.


====

Did I miss anything? Corrections, comments?

[ToolPackinMama]

Post by ToolPackinMama
2) Captain's log, Stardate 1329.1: We've taken aboard from unregistered
transport vessel its captain and...three unusual females. These women
have a mysterious magnetic effect on the male members of my crew,
including myself. Explanation unknown, at present.
3) Captain's log, Stardate 1329.2: On board the U.S.S. Enterprise, a
ship's hearing is being convened against the transport vessel's captain.
I'm becoming concerned about the almost hypnotic effect produced by the
women.
4) Captain's log, Stardate 1330.1: Position: 14 hours out of Rigel-12.
We're on auxiliary impulse engines. Fuel low, barely sufficient to
achieve orbit over the planet. Lithium replacements are now imperative.
The effect of Mudd's women on my crew continues to grow. Harry Mudd is
confined to his quarters under guard.

A couple of quick notes on the above:

1) In this ep, the tone of Kirk's entries and the action match pretty
closely. If Kirk speaks of the women at all, it's with
disapproval/concern. This in fact matches his attitude and actions in
the episode, in which (for example) Eve McHuron completely fails to
seduce Jim.

In that scene, Kirk enters his cabin in a big rush and is startled to
discover Eve stretched out on his bed.

While still reclining on Kirk's cot, Eve says, "Captain? I hope you
don't mind!"

Kirk replies, "In fact, Miss McHuron, I DO!"

[NOTE: Those ain't weddin vows he's pronouncin'. He ain't kiddin'. He
actually does mind that she's there.]

She also doesn't get anywhere with him. Not surprising, considering
that he didn't invite her in in the first place.

2) In entry number two, Kirk admits that the women are having a
"mysterious, magnetic effect" on him, but he doesn't seem to know why
that might be. The fact that they are sexy, slutty chicks doesn't seem
to be the reason. "Explanation unknown" he says. If it was because he
personally thought they were sexy and desirable, then that would be the
explanation, but obviously he *doesn't* think that's the reason, or he'd
say simply so.

[Uri Bruck]

Post by ToolPackinMama
I was thinking a good project to next get into would be to catalog all
of Kirk's Captain's log entries in TOS. Some of the information there
is personal in nature - interesting and sometimes surprising. I plan to
include personal log entries, since the writers never seemed to draw a
firm distinction between the two. Perhaps many of them didn't know the
difference and thought they were one and the same.
Perhaps, in the future, they are one and the same?
I'm trying to decide if I should include all Captain's log entries which
were recorded by others as well? Your opinion, please. :)

Some of the logs entries are just voice over narration, presented as a
log to fit better into the fantasy.
Just an example, "The Man Trap" in one of the supplementary entries,
Kirk logs that "unknown to us at the time ..." and then he says
something about the creature.
That's narration masquarading as a log entry.

Which is why I think your project could be interesting. Seeing how
much you can get about an episode from just the narration.

[Steve Conrad]

Are you going to do this for TAS, TNG, DS9 and Voyager as well?
What about the novels and comics?
The movies as well?

Steve

[ToolPackinMama]

Post by Steve Conrad
Are you going to do this for TAS, TNG, DS9 and Voyager as well?

No. :)

[Steve Conrad]

Post by ToolPackinMama

Post by Steve Conrad
Are you going to do this for TAS, TNG, DS9 and Voyager as well?

No. :)

Why not?
TAS is set in Kirk's time and is the same crew (well, the core crew)

Steve

[ToolPackinMama]

Post by Steve Conrad

Post by ToolPackinMama

Post by Steve Conrad
Are you going to do this for TAS, TNG, DS9 and Voyager as well?

No. :)

Why not?

Cos I don't have anything but TOS on DVD for reference. Besides, even
for TOS alone it's a HUGE task.

Post by Steve Conrad
TAS is set in Kirk's time and is the same crew (well, the core crew)

True, but I don't have TAS on DVD for reference. I can and will do it
for the TOS-crew movies, however. Besides, right or wrong, Only TOS and
the TOS-crew movies are official canon (except TAS- Yesteryear).

[Steve Conrad]

Post by ToolPackinMama

Post by Steve Conrad
TAS is set in Kirk's time and is the same crew (well, the core crew)

True, but I don't have TAS on DVD for reference. I can and will do it
for the TOS-crew movies, however. Besides, right or wrong, Only TOS and
the TOS-crew movies are official canon (except TAS- Yesteryear).

-> Not true. According to an article in Star Trek: The Magazine, stuff
from TAS has been brought in the backdoor for some time now. Its done via
refernces by crew members for the most part, sometimes its something you
see (on a desk, a datapad, a computer screen).

Steve

[ToolPackinMama]

Post by Steve Conrad

Post by ToolPackinMama

Post by Steve Conrad
TAS is set in Kirk's time and is the same crew (well, the core crew)

True, but I don't have TAS on DVD for reference. I can and will do it
for the TOS-crew movies, however. Besides, right or wrong, Only TOS and
the TOS-crew movies are official canon (except TAS- Yesteryear).

-> Not true. According to an article in Star Trek: The Magazine, stuff
from TAS has been brought in the backdoor for some time now. Its done via
refernces by crew members for the most part, sometimes its something you
see (on a desk, a datapad, a computer screen).

Meaning...what, exactly? What do you expect me to do?

[Steve Conrad]

Post by ToolPackinMama

Post by Steve Conrad

Post by ToolPackinMama

Post by Steve Conrad
TAS is set in Kirk's time and is the same crew (well, the core crew)

True, but I don't have TAS on DVD for reference. I can and will do it
for the TOS-crew movies, however. Besides, right or wrong, Only TOS and
the TOS-crew movies are official canon (except TAS- Yesteryear).

-> Not true. According to an article in Star Trek: The Magazine, stuff
from TAS has been brought in the backdoor for some time now. Its done via
refernces by crew members for the most part, sometimes its something you
see (on a desk, a datapad, a computer screen).

Meaning...what, exactly? What do you expect me to do?

-> I was just noting that plenty of stuff from TAS has been brought over
into the rest of the series.

Steve

[ToolPackinMama]

Post by Steve Conrad

Post by ToolPackinMama

Post by Steve Conrad
-> Not true. According to an article in Star Trek: The Magazine, stuff
from TAS has been brought in the backdoor for some time now. Its done via
refernces by crew members for the most part, sometimes its something you
see (on a desk, a datapad, a computer screen).

Meaning...what, exactly? What do you expect me to do?

-> I was just noting that plenty of stuff from TAS has been brought over
into the rest of the series.

That's great, and IMHO as it should be. :)

[Uri Bruck]

Post by ToolPackinMama

Post by Steve Conrad

Post by ToolPackinMama

Post by Steve Conrad
Are you going to do this for TAS, TNG, DS9 and Voyager as well?

No. :)

Why not?

Cos I don't have anything but TOS on DVD for reference. Besides, even
for TOS alone it's a HUGE task.

Post by Steve Conrad
TAS is set in Kirk's time and is the same crew (well, the core crew)

True, but I don't have TAS on DVD for reference. I can and will do it
for the TOS-crew movies, however. Besides, right or wrong, Only TOS and
the TOS-crew movies are official canon (except TAS- Yesteryear).

TMP has TOS style Captain's logs.
I don't think any of the other films has them. There's Captain Sulu's
single aborted entry in Undiscovered Country, but that's about it.
IIRC.

[ToolPackinMama]

Post by Uri Bruck
TMP has TOS style Captain's logs.
I don't think any of the other films has them. There's Captain Sulu's
single aborted entry in Undiscovered Country, but that's about it.
IIRC.

Hmm. Well, that will save me some keystrokes.

[Graham Kennedy]

Post by Uri Bruck

Post by ToolPackinMama

Post by Steve Conrad

Post by ToolPackinMama

Post by Steve Conrad
Are you going to do this for TAS, TNG, DS9 and Voyager as well?

No. :)

Why not?

Cos I don't have anything but TOS on DVD for reference. Besides, even
for TOS alone it's a HUGE task.

Post by Steve Conrad
TAS is set in Kirk's time and is the same crew (well, the core crew)

True, but I don't have TAS on DVD for reference. I can and will do it
for the TOS-crew movies, however. Besides, right or wrong, Only TOS and
the TOS-crew movies are official canon (except TAS- Yesteryear).

TMP has TOS style Captain's logs.
I don't think any of the other films has them. There's Captain Sulu's
single aborted entry in Undiscovered Country, but that's about it.
IIRC.

Saavik does one in the simulator in ST II.

[ToolPackinMama]

Post by Graham Kennedy
Saavik does one in the simulator in ST II.

True.

In TOS, the logs often appear to be used as a device to recap the action
for the audience coming back from commercial break, and also to catch
people up who might have tuned in late.

[ToolPackinMama]

THE ENEMY WITHIN
[Refer: http://www.voyager.cz/tos/epizody/02wherenomantrans.htm ]

1) Captain's Log, stardate 1672.1. Specimen-gathering mission on planet
Alpha 177. Unknown to any of us during this time, a duplicate of me,
some strange alter ego, had been created by the transporter malfunction.

2) Captain's Log, stardate 1672.9. On the planet's surface, temperatures
are beginning to drop, our landing party there in growing jeopardy. Due
to the malfunction of the ship's transporter, an unexplained duplicate
of myself definitely exists.

3) Captain's Log, stardate 1673.1. Something has happened to me.
Somehow, in being duplicated, I have lost my strength of will. Decisions
are becoming more and more difficult.

4) Captain's Log, stardate 1673.5. Transporter still inoperable. My
negative self is under restraint in sick bay. My own indecisiveness
growing. My force of will steadily weakening. On the planet, condition
critical.

5) [Spock] Captain's Log, stardate 1673.1. Entry made by Second Officer
Spock. Captain Kirk retains command of this vessel, but his force of
will rapidly fading. Condition of landing party critical. Transporter
unit still under repair.

====

Corrections, additions, comments?

[ToolPackinMama]

Post by ToolPackinMama
5) [Spock] Captain's Log, stardate 1673.1. Entry made by Second Officer
Spock. Captain Kirk retains command of this vessel, but his force of
will rapidly fading. Condition of landing party critical. Transporter
unit still under repair.

Interesting to note that Spock refers to himself as "second officer
Spock" in this entry. Is that an error?

[Wouter Valentijn]

Post by ToolPackinMama

Post by ToolPackinMama
5) [Spock] Captain's Log, stardate 1673.1. Entry made by Second Officer
Spock. Captain Kirk retains command of this vessel, but his force of
will rapidly fading. Condition of landing party critical. Transporter
unit still under repair.

Interesting to note that Spock refers to himself as "second officer
Spock" in this entry. Is that an error?

Wow....
Could be.
In the previous episodes, was Spock always referred to as first officer? I'm
inclined to think so, but....
In that case it would be an error maybe.
Maybe no official promotion to first yet?
Temporally demoted?
Administrative glitch?

[Kweeg]

Post by Wouter Valentijn

Post by ToolPackinMama

Post by ToolPackinMama
5) [Spock] Captain's Log, stardate 1673.1. Entry made by Second Officer
Spock. Captain Kirk retains command of this vessel, but his force of
will rapidly fading. Condition of landing party critical. Transporter
unit still under repair.

Interesting to note that Spock refers to himself as "second officer
Spock" in this entry. Is that an error?

Wow....
Could be.
In the previous episodes, was Spock always referred to as first officer? I'm
inclined to think so, but....
In that case it would be an error maybe.
Maybe no official promotion to first yet?
Temporally demoted?
Administrative glitch?

Maybe not established yet? Just like United Earth Ship and United Space Ship
finally became United Star Ship. Spock was the second officer in "the Cage"
was he not?

[ToolPackinMama]

Post by ToolPackinMama

Post by Wouter Valentijn

Post by ToolPackinMama

Post by ToolPackinMama
5) [Spock] Captain's Log, stardate 1673.1. Entry made by Second

Officer

Post by Wouter Valentijn

Post by ToolPackinMama

Post by ToolPackinMama
Spock. Captain Kirk retains command of this vessel, but his force of
will rapidly fading. Condition of landing party critical. Transporter
unit still under repair.

Interesting to note that Spock refers to himself as "second officer
Spock" in this entry. Is that an error?

Wow....
Could be.
In the previous episodes, was Spock always referred to as first officer?

I'm

Post by Wouter Valentijn
inclined to think so, but....
In that case it would be an error maybe.
Maybe no official promotion to first yet?
Temporally demoted?
Administrative glitch?

Maybe not established yet? Just like United Earth Ship and United Space Ship
finally became United Star Ship. Spock was the second officer in "the Cage"
was he not?

I gotta ask: If Spock is second officer, who's he second to? He was
second to Number One in the cage. In Enemy Within, who is the first
officer?

[Kweeg]

Post by ToolPackinMama

Post by ToolPackinMama

Post by Wouter Valentijn

Post by ToolPackinMama

Post by ToolPackinMama
5) [Spock] Captain's Log, stardate 1673.1. Entry made by Second

Officer

Post by Wouter Valentijn

Post by ToolPackinMama

Post by ToolPackinMama
Spock. Captain Kirk retains command of this vessel, but his force of
will rapidly fading. Condition of landing party critical. Transporter
unit still under repair.

Interesting to note that Spock refers to himself as "second officer
Spock" in this entry. Is that an error?

Wow....
Could be.
In the previous episodes, was Spock always referred to as first officer?

I'm

Post by Wouter Valentijn
inclined to think so, but....
In that case it would be an error maybe.
Maybe no official promotion to first yet?
Temporally demoted?
Administrative glitch?

Maybe not established yet? Just like United Earth Ship and United Space Ship
finally became United Star Ship. Spock was the second officer in "the Cage"
was he not?

I gotta ask: If Spock is second officer, who's he second to? He was
second to Number One in the cage. In Enemy Within, who is the first
officer?

It is an inconstancy, and the XO was never mentioned. I was offing some
logical explanation as to why the gaff might have occured.

[ToolPackinMama]

Post by Kweeg

Post by ToolPackinMama
I gotta ask: If Spock is second officer, who's he second to? He was
second to Number One in the cage. In Enemy Within, who is the first
officer?

It is an inconstancy, and the XO was never mentioned. I was offing some
logical explanation as to why the gaff might have occured.

To me it simply seems like a mistake.

[Wouter Valentijn]

Post by ToolPackinMama

Post by Wouter Valentijn

Post by ToolPackinMama

Post by ToolPackinMama
5) [Spock] Captain's Log, stardate 1673.1. Entry made by Second

Officer

Post by Wouter Valentijn

Post by ToolPackinMama

Post by ToolPackinMama
Spock. Captain Kirk retains command of this vessel, but his force of
will rapidly fading. Condition of landing party critical. Transporter
unit still under repair.

Interesting to note that Spock refers to himself as "second officer
Spock" in this entry. Is that an error?

Wow....
Could be.
In the previous episodes, was Spock always referred to as first officer?

I'm

Post by Wouter Valentijn
inclined to think so, but....
In that case it would be an error maybe.
Maybe no official promotion to first yet?
Temporally demoted?
Administrative glitch?

Maybe not established yet? Just like United Earth Ship and United Space Ship
finally became United Star Ship. Spock was the second officer in "the Cage"
was he not?

Or the UESPA?

Yes, in 'The Cage' the first officer was of course Number One
Did some research on that Czech site.
The first episodes Spock is 'only' known as Science Officer.
In 'The Enemy Within' as second officer.
In 'Dagger of the Mind' the first time as 'First Officer'!!

[ToolPackinMama]

THE MAN TRAP
[Refer: http://www.voyager.cz/tos/epizody/02wherenomantrans.htm ]

1) Captain's log, Stardate 1513.1. Our position: orbiting planet M-113.
On board the Enterprise, Mr. Spock temporarily in command. On the
planet, the ruins of an ancient and long-dead civilization. Ship's
surgeon McCoy and myself are now beaming down to the planet's surface.
Our mission: routine medical examination of archaeologist Robert Crater
and his wife Nancy. Routine but for the fact that Nancy Crater is that
one woman in Dr. McCoy's past.

2) Captain's log, Stardate 1513.4. In orbit around planet M-113. One
crewman, member of the landing party... dead by violence. Cause unknown.
But we are certain the cause of death was not poison.

3) Captain's log, Stardate 1513.8. I am now certain that the violent
death of my crewmen was caused by some strange life-form.

4) Captain's log, additional. Armed and able-bodied crewmen are not
attacked and slaughtered this easily. Apparently, the killer can
immobilize them as it approaches, perhaps with some hypnotic or
paralyzing power. The answer lies with Professor Crater.

5) Captain's log, continuing. The Enterprise has been invaded by a
creature capable of assuming any form, and with the capacity to paralyze
and draw the life from any one of us.


====

Corrections, additions, comments?

[ToolPackinMama]

Post by ToolPackinMama
1) Captain's log, Stardate 1513.1. Our position: orbiting planet M-113.
On board the Enterprise, Mr. Spock temporarily in command. On the
planet, the ruins of an ancient and long-dead civilization. Ship's
surgeon McCoy and myself are now beaming down to the planet's surface.
Our mission: routine medical examination of archaeologist Robert Crater
and his wife Nancy. Routine but for the fact that Nancy Crater is that
one woman in Dr. McCoy's past.

"Nancy Crater is that one woman in Dr. McCoy's past." Hmm. How do you
guys interpret that remark? Is she the ony woman in McCoy's past, or
just the only one that really mattered to him?

[Wouter Valentijn]

Post by ToolPackinMama
THE ENEMY WITHIN
[Refer: http://www.voyager.cz/tos/epizody/02wherenomantrans.htm ]

<snip>

Post by ToolPackinMama
3) Captain's Log, stardate 1673.1. Something has happened to me.
Somehow, in being duplicated, I have lost my strength of will. Decisions
are becoming more and more difficult.

Damn!
Okay, where's *my* duplicate?!?

[Graham Kennedy]

Post by ToolPackinMama

Post by Graham Kennedy
Saavik does one in the simulator in ST II.

True.
In TOS, the logs often appear to be used as a device to recap the action
for the audience coming back from commercial break, and also to catch
people up who might have tuned in late.

Or to set the situation up very rapidly at the start of
the hour. It's one of several excellent plot devices TOS
came up with to move things along.

[ToolPackinMama]

Post by Graham Kennedy

Post by ToolPackinMama

Post by Graham Kennedy
Saavik does one in the simulator in ST II.

True.
In TOS, the logs often appear to be used as a device to recap the action
for the audience coming back from commercial break, and also to catch
people up who might have tuned in late.

Or to set the situation up very rapidly at the start of
the hour. It's one of several excellent plot devices TOS
came up with to move things along.

Right, but such a device probably isn't needed in a movie.

[Graham Kennedy]

Post by ToolPackinMama

Post by Graham Kennedy

Post by ToolPackinMama

Post by Graham Kennedy
Saavik does one in the simulator in ST II.

True.
In TOS, the logs often appear to be used as a device to recap the action
for the audience coming back from commercial break, and also to catch
people up who might have tuned in late.

Or to set the situation up very rapidly at the start of
the hour. It's one of several excellent plot devices TOS
came up with to move things along.

Right, but such a device probably isn't needed in a movie.

You have more time to tell the story there.

Actually, now I think about it there are logs in many of the
movies. Kirk does a log in ST III - "Enterprise feels like
a house with all the children gone. No, more empty even than that."
He also does one in ST IV about the Klingon ship at the beginning
I think; in ST V he tries to make a log entry but the recorder
is broke, and in ST VI - he does the "I've never trusted Klingons,
and I never will" one that gets brought up in his trial, plus the
"how will history get past people like me" one later on. Generations
has Picard doing a log before the Stellar Cartography scene.

[ToolPackinMama]

Post by Graham Kennedy
Actually, now I think about it there are logs in many of the
movies. Kirk does a log in ST III - "Enterprise feels like
a house with all the children gone. No, more empty even than that."

Oh yeah, that's an important one. He compares the emptiness of Spock's
absence to an open wound.

Post by Graham Kennedy
He also does one in ST IV about the Klingon ship at the beginning
I think; in ST V he tries to make a log entry but the recorder
is broke, and in ST VI - he does the "I've never trusted Klingons,
and I never will" one that gets brought up in his trial, plus the
"how will history get past people like me" one later on. Generations
has Picard doing a log before the Stellar Cartography scene.

Thanks, that helps me. :)

[ToolPackinMama]

Post by Uri Bruck
Some of the logs entries are just voice over narration, presented as a
log to fit better into the fantasy.
Just an example, "The Man Trap" in one of the supplementary entries,
Kirk logs that "unknown to us at the time ..." and then he says
something about the creature.
That's narration masquarading as a log entry.
Which is why I think your project could be interesting. Seeing how
much you can get about an episode from just the narration.

Well, yeah. :)