From Newsgroup: alt.tv.star-trek.tos   
   From Address: dxmm@albury.nospam.net.au   
   Subject: Re: Figuring out the Big E's size   
      
   Jim G. wrote:   
   > Daniel47@teranews.com sent the following on Tue, 22 Jan 2013 22:18:40   
   > +1100:   
   >> Jim G. wrote:   
   >>> Daniel47@teranews.com sent the following on Fri, 18 Jan 2013 23:44:21   
   >>> +1100:   
   >>>> Jim G. wrote:   
   >>>>> Daniel47@teranews.com sent the following on Tue, 15 Jan 2013 21:06:53   
   >>>>> +1100:   
   >>>>>> Jim G. wrote:   
   >>   
   >>    
   >>   
   >>>>>>> It was pretty easy to extrapolate just from watching a shuttlecraft   
   >>>>>>> enter or leave the shuttle bay.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Or so I thought.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Then I saw the one movie where we learned that there were something   
   like   
   >>>>>>> 753 decks, or something. Imagine my surprise. :)   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> In which movie was this "fact" stated??   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Daniel   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> The one where Spock slapped on the rocket boots so that he and Kirk and   
   >>>>> McCoy could hug each other and skip the turbolift.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> And BTW, your use of "fact" in quotes suggests that I used the term   
   >>>>> previously. Not only didn't I do so, but I also included a smiley.   
   >>>>> Things like that mean something.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Sorry, but didn't you *state* "that there were something like 753 decks,   
   >>>> or somethin", so you, at least, must have believed it as fact!! Else,   
   >>>> why would you repeated this?!?!   
   >>>   
   >>> There was a time when, in this context, I would have thought that   
   >>> someone like you couldn't possibly be this clueless. Now I no longer   
   >>> assume anything. On the off chance that you're serious and that this   
   >>> isn't some Spock shtick, I can only say that you must be the life of   
   >>> every party.   
   >>   
   >> Sorry, when was I ever someone that couldn't possibly be this clueless??   
   >   
   > For starters, when you found your way to USENET using something other   
   > than Google Groups.   
      
   Seeing that you, apparently, use Forte Agent yourself, I would have    
   thought you might be able to check my posting header information to see    
   that I'm not (Never!! might be a bit much, but certainly seldom) using    
   Google-Groups!!   
      
   > > I'm happy to admit that there is a lot about ST (and *all* other   
   >> things!) that I don't know, even after following it from TOS first   
   >> airing times.   
   >>   
   >> I'm not real big on minute detail-stuff, just if I enjoy it or not!   
   >   
   > I tend to be the same way. To a point. And while I don't recall   
   > *exactly* how many decks that particular movie showed us, I instantly   
   > knew that it was way past that point, and it annoyed the heck out of me   
   > as it pulled me out of the movie.   
   >   
   >> And, of course, we all know the line about "assume", don't we?!?!   
   >   
   > Isn't that *itself* an assumption on your part?   
      
   I asked a question! Notice the "??"'s! How can asking a question be an    
   assumption??   
      
   Daniel   
      
      
   --- Synchronet 3.15a-Linux NewsLink 1.92-mlp   
    * Origin: TeraNews.com (1:2320/105.97)   
   --- SBBSecho 2.12-Linux   
    * Origin: telnet & http://cco.ath.cx - Dial-Up: 502-875-8938 (1:2320/105.1)