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