Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!parsec!ctvax!uokvax!jmike From: jmike@uokvax.UUCP Newsgroups: net.startrek Subject: Re: Spock - (nf) Message-ID: <5453@uiucdcs.UUCP> Date: Tue, 7-Feb-84 23:47:07 EST Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.5453 Posted: Tue Feb 7 23:47:07 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 10-Feb-84 01:44:10 EST Lines: 25 #R:trw-unix:-64000:uokvax:5800003:000:1031 uokvax!jmike Feb 5 14:09:00 1984 Well... you are mistaken. They did have enough fuel to land therefore spock's action was not necessary. One could argue that the logical thing to do would be to land and hope for rescue (probably Kirk would come back to look for them later.) However no-one could be SURE that they would be found later. I look at it this way... 1) Sending a `flare' out (could be seen from quite a distance) was about the only action an otherwise frustrated man could take. - and most importantly - 2) Most of them felt that Kirk would have HAD to have left already to get the drugs to New Paris (or whatever). So the odds were **against** the flare being seen anyway (what a waste). So *I* feel that it *was* an emotional outburst. Besides we all know that Spock *DOES* have an emotional outbursts occasionally on accident (except on the new Star Trek 1). So lets all stop trying to protect Spock and take him for what he is -- an almost-vulcan with an occasional human flaw. mike stanley ...ctvax!uokvax!jmike