Revision as of 12:56, 13 December 2004 edit23skidoo (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users38,419 edits →Recent edits to 'Controversy' section← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:49, 13 December 2004 edit undo67.170.166.130 (talk)No edit summaryNext edit → | ||
Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
: Re:Sarek. Just to be clear, I'm referring to his emotionalism in '']'' which garnered the same accusations of non-Vulcanism in the fanzines back in 1984. Although it's non-canon, we also heard Sarek cracking jokes on Gene Roddenberry's ''Inside Star Trek'' record in the 1970s when Mark Lenard participated in a mock interview in character. Cheers. ] 12:56, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC) | : Re:Sarek. Just to be clear, I'm referring to his emotionalism in '']'' which garnered the same accusations of non-Vulcanism in the fanzines back in 1984. Although it's non-canon, we also heard Sarek cracking jokes on Gene Roddenberry's ''Inside Star Trek'' record in the 1970s when Mark Lenard participated in a mock interview in character. Cheers. ] 12:56, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC) | ||
:: Re: Sarek. Sarek performed a mind meld with Kirk where the admiral (then) was overcome with emotion over the loss of his son David. Sarek wasn't emotional, but he did make the comment his logic is clouded where his son is concerned. And parody I don't believe counts as non-fanon. Otherwise, "Kirk" has some explaining to do for telling the SNL people that the combination of the lock in episode 62 was .... ;-) Which is why I maintain that leaving comments about the controversy of her emotion is better than indicating Sarek and Tuvok were just as emotional. I think we're good, if you think we are. |
Revision as of 16:49, 13 December 2004
Maybe it's just me but I find it intrusive when I am editing a page and someone else comes along and starts making edits before I'm done. SD6-Agent 01:54, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)
No one owns a Misplaced Pages page. Others can't expect to "know" you're through editing. RickK 01:56, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Recent edits to 'Controversy' section
I think things are going well with the revisions I and others have made to the Controversy section. By addressing both sides of the issue I think we're keeping it nicely NPOV.
After some deliberation, I removed a statement that says: "None of these are as emotional as T'Pol, who has proven to be the most emotional Vulcan (crying in episodes like "Azati Prime" and "Awakening")..." because it contradicts references earlier in the same paragraph to Saavik crying and Sybok being fully emotional (and therefore he, not T'Pol, is the most emotional Vulcan yet seen, though admittedly his emotions were mostly positive ones while T'Pol has tended to drift towards the negative). Also, Tuvok and Sarek have also been shown weeping due to outside influences, and T'Pol's crying jag in "Azati Prime" was a result of her addiction. Her weeping in "Awakening" is not a case of weakness in the character as we have yet to see another young Vulcan dealing directly with the death of a parent and T'Pau's attitude suggests that such reactions are acceptable. (Spock treats the death of Sarek without tears but then again he is much older than T'Pol). Just a few thoughts. Cheers! 23skidoo 00:59, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Your previous statement indicated that Sarek (not including his mental illness) showed just as much emotion as T'Pol, which wasn't true from possibly even the most objective of Trekker. I think your view if clouding your judgment slightly, but don't doubt mine is as well. By leaving it that there is controversy about T'Pol's emotions is probably best. Although, I think it's debatable whether T'Pol was only "weak" in Awakening. Her mother indicated with her own words T'Pol was more emotional than others by saying, "You've always struggled so with your emotions."
More emotional Vuclans: Sybok was part of the Vulcans without logic, an extreme group who make up a very small percentage of Vulcan society. As you correctly pointed out, non-canon sources (the comic books) indicated that Saavik was half-Romulan. Tuvok and Sarek were around a lot longer than four years and never willingly addicted themselves to a substance to show emotion. Sarek's tears only came with his mental illness near the end of his life. Thanks!
- Re:Sarek. Just to be clear, I'm referring to his emotionalism in Star Trek III: The Search for Spock which garnered the same accusations of non-Vulcanism in the fanzines back in 1984. Although it's non-canon, we also heard Sarek cracking jokes on Gene Roddenberry's Inside Star Trek record in the 1970s when Mark Lenard participated in a mock interview in character. Cheers. 23skidoo 12:56, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Re: Sarek. Sarek performed a mind meld with Kirk where the admiral (then) was overcome with emotion over the loss of his son David. Sarek wasn't emotional, but he did make the comment his logic is clouded where his son is concerned. And parody I don't believe counts as non-fanon. Otherwise, "Kirk" has some explaining to do for telling the SNL people that the combination of the lock in episode 62 was .... ;-) Which is why I maintain that leaving comments about the controversy of her emotion is better than indicating Sarek and Tuvok were just as emotional. I think we're good, if you think we are.