Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site topaz.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!packard!topaz!JAFFE From: JAFFE@RUTGERS.ARPA Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers Subject: Re: "Where no man has gone before" Message-ID: <2521@topaz.ARPA> Date: Mon, 8-Jul-85 16:29:57 EDT Article-I.D.: topaz.2521 Posted: Mon Jul 8 16:29:57 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 9-Jul-85 07:22:11 EDT Sender: daemon@topaz.ARPA Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Lines: 32 From: duke!crm (Charlie Martin) In article <2422@topaz.ARPA> milne@uci-icse writes: >From: Alastair Milne> > > I usually take that frontispiece "... boldly go where no man has gone ... > However, most of the time she had duties to fulfill as one of the 12 or 13 > most powerful ships of the Federation's fleet. She could hardly do that > while spending 5 years out of contact with anybody at all. Furthermore, > how likely is it that anybody would send so expensive a ship and crew out > simply to be a remote survey vessel? Or that StarFleet would entrust *all* > diplomatic dealings with newly-contacted races to a crew whose primary > orientation was military? England did just that through much of the wet-navy-in-sailing-ships period, just like it suggests in the Hornblower books. > > (Do you realise how many people must now think that "... to boldly go..." > is acceptable English grammar?) > If the British would'a thrown that norman fellow off the island in 1066, it *would* be acceptable grammar -- that whole "don't split infinitives" business is an execreble Latinism. (Please note that there is a joke encoded in the last sentance.) -- Charlie Martin (...mcnc!duke!crm)