The one problem STAR TREK: DISCOVERY may not be able to fix… (editorial review)


Okay, first let’s get the review part out of the way. I liked the third episode of STAR TREK: DISCOVERY season three, “People of Earth.” I didn’t love it, but it was a solid “like.” JONATHAN FRAKES did a very nice job directing, the acting was strong, as usual, the episode was exciting, and there was some decent character development (or at least attempts at it…more on that later). I’m intrigued by Adira, the new human character with the Trill symbiont…and let’s face it, Frakes knows all about being a human with a Trill symbiont in your abdomen!

Were there some things I didn’t like? Yep. I realize the whole “What was the Burn?” is the mystery of the season, and so each episode gives us more clues. But it seems like we’ve gone from “A century ago, all the dilithium in the quadrant/galaxy/universe suddenly exploded” to “Oh, by the way, the galaxy was also running out of dilithium before everything went KABOOM.” This seems like an important detail that could have been added previously, since it appears to be something big worth mentioning.

Also, I was annoyed for a second week in a row to see Michael Burnham once again save the day. And not only did she save everyone on the ship and restore peace to Earth and the Titan Raiders (sounds like a mash-up of two AFC football franchises), but she did so without telling Saru her plan first. Look up “loose cannon” in the dictionary, and you’ll see a picture of Michael Burnham. Look up “trustworthy first officer” and she’s nowhere to be seen. The fact that Saru still kept the offer of being his first officer open AFTER Burnham pulled that stunt amazed me (in a bad way). How many second chances is this headstrong woman gonna keep getting???

But enough about all that! I still liked the episode, and I’m sticking with Discovery for a bit longer. But that’s more than I can say about my best friend, who just told me that he’s now completely bailed on the show. He won’t watch it anymore, and his reason intrigued me enough that I’ve decided to devote today’s blog to talking my way through it, as it’s not the standard “This isn’t MY Star Trek!” But yet, at the same time, maybe it is. Maybe my friend has finally hit the nail on the head of why so many long-time Trekkies don’t like the show.

Let’s discuss…

There are lots of fans who have complained that the show doesn’t “feel” like Star Trek. Their reasons have been many:

  • It doesn’t LOOK like Star Trek.
  • It massacres canon.
  • It’s too dystopian.
  • They don’t explore strange, new worlds.
  • The crew is dysfunctional.
  • Starships don’t use mushrooms to travel though space.
  • Where is the hope?

My own complaints have also included a lack of banter and decent character development, but I have felt that, in season three, a lot of those issues I just listed were either fixed or jettisoned. Moving into the 32nd century freed them from most canon constraints. The crazy make-up on the “familiar” aliens has been toned done quite a bite. We’ve had three episodes so far and three planets visited (one of which was Earth, of course). The crew is quite a bit less dysfunctional, finally engages in some decent banter, and some characters are beginning to develop slightly. Oh, and the hope is that the crew of the Discovery can somehow “fix” the dystopian future.

So…we’re good, right?

Not in my friend’s mind. And by this past week, he’d had enough. So what was his reason for giving up on this series, and why am I blogging about it? Here’s what he said:

Does it so excite you that you wish you could jump through your TV and join their crew?  Does it make you feel the way you felt when you watched the other series?  To me, that’s the critical question because, as I said, I think at core of every Trek fan is the desire to actually enter that world because we love the camaraderie and the people and the future it represents, which is so much better than the mundane world and time we live in.

I didn’t have an answer for that.

My friend was right. For nearly my entire life, my not-so-secret dream was to serve on the U.S.S. Enterprise under Captain James T. Kirk (though NOT as a security officer—I’d be in sciences!). Later, I’d be happy to join Picard’s crew…or Sisko’s…or even Janeway’s. Heck, even Jonathan Archer’s crew seemed like a decent bunch of folks (although by then, the idea of having a holodeck kinda spoiled me out of wanting to serve on the NX-01).

However, the point is that Star Trek used to make us dream of being out there with those gallant crews because the future was hopeful, the Starfleet officers were noble and friendly, and heck, even Quark and Odo were just old softies at heart. Even during the height of the Dominion War, I believed in what the Federation was fighting for and would gladly have served in Starfleet.

Now…I’m not quite as convinced.

I mean, yeah, I’m rooting for the crew of Discovery to save the galaxy, put right what once went wrong, and restore the Federation to a flag full of stars while making Starfleet great again. But after talking with my friend, I realized something about myself that is possibly a little embarrassing to say: I would have stayed on Earth.

“I’m not going back! I’m just gonna stay here and hug this tree forever!”

When the Discovery bridge crew was sitting under that big tree at what used to be Starfleet Academy, I personally wouldn’t have wanted to go back into space with the Discovery. I’d totally rather have stayed on Earth—safe, peaceful, and self-sufficient. Does that make me a bad person? After all, here in 2020, I have never been an America-first/screw-the-rest-of-the-world isolationist. I believe in reaching out to help and work with our neighbors around the globe, stand up against the dictators and the bullies. I’ve always had hope for a better world going forward….building a future that could look like the one Gene Roddenberry envisioned.

And yet, I have no desire to be on board the U.S.S. Discovery. None. And it’s not just because the interior of the ship looks cold and sterile and colorless…although I can’t say that isn’t a factor at all.

Maybe it’s the dysfunction of some of the crew. After all, as I said, Michael Burnham just doesn’t inspire me. In fact, she kinda scares the crap out of me…especially if I were serving on her ship. She reminds me of the day-trader on Wall Street or the gambler in Las Vegas who has a streak of really good luck and is suddenly cash-rich. But luck doesn’t last forever.

Now frankly, I love Saru as a captain (not longer “acting”). Doug Jones brings a maturity and wisdom to the role, and Saru inspires me. But tapping Michael Burnham for his Number One is totally stunt-casting. It’d be like choosing Tom Hamks as a VP running mate. Everybody loves Tom Hanks…and everyone loves Michael, too (for some strange reason).

On the other hand, who else on the ship could realistically serve as first officer? Does Saru really have another realistic option other than Burnham? Think about it.

In TOS, if Spock weren’t there, Scotty would have made a fine first officer…or even Sulu possibly. Picard would be fine having Data as first officer…or Geordi or Worf. Sisko would have easily gone with O’Brien or Dax if Kira weren’t around. Janeway probably would have promoted Tuvok had Chakoy not been there…and possibly B’Elanna. Archer had Trip or even Malcolm waiting in the wings. (I just noticed a distinct lack of women on that list…somewhat shameful!)

But on Discovery, if Michael had said no, who’s left? Stamets? Maybe, but he wasn’t really trained by Starfleet. He was researching mushroom mechanics when he and his partner were co-opted for Starfleet’s war against the Klingons. Tilly? Hell-to-the-no! She only just got a promotion to ensign. Most of the other bridge officers are also either lieutenants or ensigns, and they haven’t really done much to stand out yet other than being good at their jobs. Jett Reno? As acerbic and sarcastic first officers go, she’d be perfect, but I doubt she’d want it. Georgiou? Technically, she’s a “commander” (why not a captain?—wasn’t the real Georgiou already a captain and Starfleet believed her to be the same person…I never did figure all that out!). But giving Georgiou the Number One spot would be the equivalent of Saru drinking a mug of hot, steaming hemlock…which is probably one of the many ways that the former Mirror-Empress would have offed the captain in order to move up to the top spot.

That leaves only one viable officer to promote to XO, and I think you know who it is. Linus, of course.

No, I’m kidding!!!!

It’s Commander Nhan, the Barzan science officer who transferred from the Enterprise. She’s tough, competent, a good problem-solver, and level-headed. Why Saru didn’t ask her after Michael’s “cowboy diplomacy” stunt boggles my mind.

Of course, it’s the writers who make the decisions, and this season they’ve decided that the main plot is figuring out the mystery of the Burn, fixing it, and bringing back the Federation. And the main character storyline will be Michael “finding herself” after becoming Michael 2.0 (the rogue/maverick/adventurer) and eventually becoming a Better Burnham(TM) who amalgamates the best of Michael 1.0 and 2.0. Whoopeeee.

But for me, I really don’t dream of being on ship where the XO is a loose cannon (and the captain would choose her over a more trustworthy option), where there’s a psychopathic “Dr. Smith” running around unchecked, there’s a cynical chief engineer making snarky and disrespectful comments at anyone who actually does anything that looks like actual work, there’s only one guy on the entire ship who can make the magic mushroom drive work (and if he dies you’re really lost in space!), and the whole galaxy just kinda sucks.

Essentially, Star Trek: Discovery is now the embodiment of what the year 2020 has been so far…just as a weekly space show. However, I really want to escape from 2020, just as viewers of TOS wanted to escape from the turbulent 1960s and racism and war and a host of other controversies. Sure, the U.S.S. Enterprise ran into these problems (or metaphors of them) from time to time, but the “default” setting of TOS was peace and nobility and a brighter future.

But Discovery‘s “default” setting is dystopia. Whether it was the dark first season war with the Klingons, the nefarious Section 31 releasing Skynet/Control upon the Federation in season two, or season three’s galaxy-gone-to-hell-in-a-handbasket world of twelve hundred years from now. Any way you slice it, I’d much rather be here than there.

And that’s not what Star Trek used to be for me…or for most of us, I’d imagine. So perhaps that’s the one problem that Discovery will not be able to fix.

27 thoughts on “The one problem STAR TREK: DISCOVERY may not be able to fix… (editorial review)”

  1. I don’t think there’s anything that can save Discovery for me. That was the case with season 1, and while season 2 had it’s moments (especially Pike), it didn’t change much, and it hasn’t with season 3. Sure, it’s interesting stuff with Book and the couriers and stuff, but it a) doesn’t remedy the problems that the show had for the last 2 seasons (vastly too futuristic tech for it’s time, unlikeable characters, bad writing, plot holes as big as the milky way) and b) just isn’t Star Trek for me.

    Star Trek, as you and your friend said, is about a positive future, a thing to look forward to because our own here and now isn’t exactly great. Something to strive for, a place where you’d rather like to be than here. But this just isn’t. I think your friend hit the nail on the head with this assessment.

    It’s not just canon violations, or the too futuristic tech, it’s the ugly ship, it’s Michael (I still can’t get over the name, sorry, but that’s my POV) Burnham, it’s Sonequa Martin-Green with her terrible acting, it’s shoving all that LGBTQ and now non-binary stuff down our throats (sorry if that comes across as politically incorrect or anything, and I don’t want to offend gay or lesbian people with that comment), and I could go on. And I just don’t care. Any character (except maybe Saru) could die in an instant and I’d go “oh yeah, he’s dead, Jim”. I’ve rarely seen a show (Trek or not) which I could care less about.

    Contrast that with The Mandalorian, where season 2 just debuted over here in Germany, and it hooked me up in an instant…

    1. I’d leave the LGBTQ opinions out of your commentary, Olaf. It’s the equivalent of someone back in 1968 complaining about Star Trek shoving all that civil rights stuff down our throats with Uhura and other black and minority characters running all over the ship. Obviously a show with an agenda. Think about it.

      1. Don’t get me wrong, Jonathan. I have no argument with LGBTQ actors/characters, and in fact on screen it’s done the right way (as was Sulu in Beyond, though Sulu as a character should not be gay, but that’s a whole other discussion). What I can’t stand is the writers and producers constantly going “look how diverse we are”, “look, we got non-binary characters, too, now” and so on. If all of that is supposed to be normal, just show it and don’t talk or even brag about it.

        Ok, there’s one thing I cannot get behind in any way: and that’s non-binary. Sorry, you’re either the one or the other, or you’re just unsure, but you cannot be both or neither. And the language problems that result out of that are another thing I don’t like 😉 But that’s just my personal opinion and I accept every other opinion on that subject, of course.

        1. “Ok, there’s one thing I cannot get behind in any way: and that’s non-binary. Sorry, you’re either the one or the other, or you’re just unsure, but you cannot be both or neither.”

          A friend of mine (who used to also be my lawyer) was born with one testicle and a penis. (Oops. Sorry, folks, I shoulda warned ya about this answer.) “Bill” grew up in a conservative Georgia family, always treated as a boy but never feeling that “he” was a he. In the 1970s at Redlands College, “Bill” was diagnosed with Gender Identity Dysphoria. But the psychologist had no idea what to do about it. There was no “treatment” at the time. And the advent of gender reassignment surgery (sex-change operations) was still a number of years off.

          So “Bill” just continued living as a man, got a degree in engineering and another degree in patent law…ultimately working for NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory as an I.P. attorney. He feel in love (with a woman) and got married, but “Bill” still felt like a woman “himself.” His wife knew, but neither of them really had any idea what to do about it. So “Bill” did the only thing that “he” could think of…which was to create a separate persona who was a woman and go out from time to time dressed in a wig and make-up. It didn’t solve the problem, but it at least alleviated it a little.

          About 20 years ago, when “Bill” was 47 years old, “he” finally talked to a person who specialized in GID cases. By this point, gender reassignment surgery was much more commonplace (although still VERY expensive–more than a new luxury car and NOT covered by insurance–very long in duration, like, over a year of various surgeries and healing periods, and sometimes excruciatingly painful). But “Bill” went through the process…which included having “his” Adam’s apple shaved, “his” hairline realigned with 72 painful staples in “his” scalp for nearly two weeks, and of course, the surgical removal of the male organ and the sculpting of a new female organ. For this final surgery, an X-ray was taken of “Bill’s” pelvic area…and guess what they discovered?

          One female ovary!

          Like all of us, “Bill” went through gestation passing through both genders. (Look it up, it’s what happens to human fetuses.) But there was a birth defect, like blindness or deafness, where the fetus that would become my friend developed two sets of gender organs. The outer one was obvious, so no one ever questioned that “Bill” was a male. But “Bill” was, quite literally, a woman trapped in a man’s body!!!

          Today “Bill” no longer exists. SHE is now a woman, with breasts (rather large ones, as her mother was well endowed, and the hormones released those genetics), and goes by another name. She is no longer married–although her ex-wife and she are still best-friends. She decided to date men (a rather complicated decision that she agonized over for many months). There were never any children, as “Bill” was sterile. But in transitioning, she was disowned by her family and was forced out of her job as general counsel for a large Fortune 100 tech company in Silicon Valley. She lost many friends (not me) but gained others. Nevertheless, it was still a difficult time and transition…and honestly, I’ve never heard anyone say it was “easy.”

          All of this is to say that she would never have chosen to go through all of this emotional upheaval and physical pain and discomfort and financial expense and life turmoil had there been any other way. But she told me during the transition, “Jonathan, it’s hard to explain to someone who has never been like me. But imagine standing up constantly for 47 years, and suddenly someone comes up to you and says, ‘Hey, Jonathan, this is a chair. Would you like to sit down? I am finally sitting down, and it feels so much better.”

          Through my friend and others like her (including my wife’s godson…now goddaughter), I’ve met a number of people who do not “conform” to the binary choice of either male or female. “Bill” went from one to the other, yes, but she just as well might have decided to remain both. After all, “Bill” started out with both male and female sex organs. It wasn’t a choice to be born that way, but the choice of how to live if or when that happens should not be forced on someone. At least, I don’t think it should be.

          1. Hmm… First of all thanks for sharing that story with me, it was really insightful. Up until the last two paragraphs I thought you didn’t get my point, where indeed you (somewhat) did.

            Maybe *I* don’t get the term “non-binary”, but to me it’s something else than “I’m both” or “I’m a woman trapped inside a man’s body” (or vice-versa), but more something like “I don’t know what I am” or “I don’t know what I want to be”. And that’s a symptom I’m seeing all over society nowadays, which I really fail to understand, because when I grew up, all of those “problems” seemed non existant. And suddenly, the world has gotten a whole lot more complex, where some things seem inevitable but some things seem to be a product of our modern society, which I often can’t get behind or want to be a part of 🙁

            I hope that makes some sense and doesn’t come across offending anyone 😉

          2. Think about things this way, Olaf: are you a black person or a white person? Or are you Asian or Latino? Or are you some other race or ethnicity? You really need to be something, right? After all, you can’t be BOTH a black person AND a white person. You’re either one or the other.

            Or can you be whatever you want to be?

            Why should someone have to be “black” or “white” or “Latino”? Why does it even matter? My own son looks white, but we suspect there was a little black blood in there somewhere in the genetic tree (his birth parents are both from Louisiana, so it’s not out of the question). Can Jayden decide later that he is neither white NOR black? Why…or why not?

            That is the way I see gender, my friend. There is no reason someone MUST be a man or a woman…unless they want to participate in certain sports. And even then, the division is usually one based on size and strength, and some women are larger and stronger than some men. But for me, unless you’re having a contest to write your name in the snow, there’s no difference if you’re a man or a woman…so why make someone choose if s/he/they don’t/doesn’t want to?

    2. The real reason you like season 2 more is that they brought in a white male captain to calm the viewers down. The writers are brilliant it worked. Star trek has always been a multiverse and cannon is irrelevant imo.

      1. Actually, they had a white, male captain in season one, as well. The fact is that Anson Mount nailed Pike, and I would watch that actor play that character on almost any show…even “Veronica’s Closet!” 🙂

      2. No, the “white male” thing has absolutely nothing to do with it. In fact, some of my favorite characters/actors are people of color or women, like Sisko/Avery Brooks, Janeway/Kate Mulgrew, Tony Todd, Morgan Freeman, Will Smith, etc.

        This is not about Michael Burnham being a black female. It’s about being one I absolutely cannot stand. That maybe due to the writing, the acting or both, but it’s got nothing to do with the color of her skin.

        And yes, Anson Mount nailed Pike and I’d like to see more of him. Ethan Peck’s Spock wasn’t too bad, but not as good as Pike. Number one was great as well.

  2. Well, I suppose that is a standard of measurement one could use. Its not one that I do.
    When I watched this episode, I thought it was one that most resembled a classic episode: Federation starship arrives at a planet, gets embroiled in whatever local issue is happening and ends up finding a solution. Based on that, I thought you’d have more love for it.

    One point to consider regarding Saru’s choice of Burnham: Recall that Saru is also the first officer that allowed Tyler and Culber to have at each other, recognizing that “the book” doesn’t cover every situation. I think this factors in to his thinking of selecting her despite of not informing him of the plan.

    Lastly, I think the viewpoint of “some things can’t be fixed” is correct, only if the goal is catering only to the oldest of Trek fans. In order to grow the audience, that cant be the aim.

    1. Keep in mind, I DID like the episode, Dave! 🙂

      That being said, I still think Star Trek has the potential to inspire young people if done in a certain way. My son Jayden is much more likely going to want to join the Lower Decks crew of the U.S.S. Cerritos than the U.S.S. Discovery (even if I did let him watch the latter series). Star Trek can be dark and crews don’t need to be perfect paragons. But I’d argue that there are many stops on the train between the utopia of the luxury-hotel-in-space that was Next Generation and the distopia of the flying soap opera that is Discovery.

      I’ll still watch the show, but I’m not gonna dream about being there.

  3. Hi Johnathan, I had to chuckle at your self reflection: (I just noticed a distinct lack of women on that list…somewhat shameful!)
    Because, that’s your “inner misogynist” slipping out for a breath of fresh air?
    As for Picard, he had Dr. Crusher & Troy too. But, they just don’t have the same commanding presence as their male crew mates? It was the 90’s though, in your defense.

    As for “Burnham saves the day AGAIN!”
    I agree, it’s getting old. And the dystopian future is here already, which is why the writers don’t know how to gain anything “hopeful” to write about. Largely because Hollywood is leftist, who only know FUD.
    Fear, Uncertainty, Dread. Which fits Disco to a tee!

    1. Beverly Crusher was left off the list because doctors can’t serve as first officers (except maybe on a hospital ship) because they’re needed in emergency situations to be in Sickbay. Notice that McCoy, Bashir, and Phlox were also left off my list. As for Troi, she only took her bridge officer’s exam late in the TNG series. And even then, she wasn’t really tactically trained or experienced. She was an excellent psychologist, but I wouldn’t want Sigmund Freud commanding a starship either.

      The shameful was that Star Trek has traditionally put few women in command positions than men. For every Janeway, there’s a Kirk, Picard, Sisko, and Archer. For every Kira or T’Pol, there’s a Spock, Riker, Data, Chakotay, and Tuvok. The fact is that Discovery is the first Trek series where the strong female characters actually outnumber the strong male characters…and I do credit the show for that.

      “Inner misogynist” was rather uncalled for, by the way, and I will await an apology, David.

  4. Detmer would be next in line for number one. The chain went Burnham, Saru, Airiam, Detmer, Reyes… I’m not sure where Bryce or the new Airiam rank after that.

  5. I noticed many people especially from the US take these works of fiction too seriously. Remember it’s entertainment for a while tryingto escape from reality doesn’t really work.

    I’d like to respond to the following
    It doesn’t LOOK like Star Trek. Neither did Archer’s enterprise even their uniforms are similar to enterprise with gold and silver added. How is Trek supposed tolook TNG, voyager,DS9 looked quite different the uniforms were kinda similar but that was it.

    It massacres canon. Star trek has always been a multiverse cannon is irrevelant imo.

    It’s too dystopian. Not really they focus on the conflicts for good tv.

    They don’t explore strange, new worlds. They did star trek always does show new worlds. some more than others. I agree there could be more of new worlds and cvilizations. The serialized storyline seasons are different. The earlier series hit the reset button every week and met a new situation people also complain about that. I wonder if the writers could come up with a new world for every episode. I suggest you rewatch season 1 and 2.

    The crew is dysfunctional. More explanation is needed about why. The ship functions they follow orders (for the most part).

    Starships don’t use mushrooms to travel though space. It’s scifi they can make up whatever they want. They made un quantum slipstream, singularity powered starships by the romulans, transwarp conduit by the borg, some species that uses folding space in voyager.

    Where is the hope? The whole show is based on hope to uphold and restore starfleet. You need hope just look at Saru he exemplifies hope to the core

    Finally Georgiou is the one to be scared of not Burnham.

  6. ORVILLE was a brighter, happier alternative. The uniforms were brighter. The ship was well lit and lighter colored. Everyone was happy and glad to be there.

  7. As Star Trek, I HATE Discovery. It is filled with nothing but cliches and tropes that make no sense. I absolutely despised Season 1, settled into Season 2 mainly because of Pike, and am giving Season 3 a shot.

    Now in saying that, I do find Discovery as a standalone show to have some level of entertainment, but my head cannon needs to focus on the fact that it is NOT Star Trek. When I think about it as just another show I can be entertained, even with some of the bad writing, plot holes, and more. So many shows have plot holes you have to let go of (CSI labs getting DNA results back in 5 minutes, etc.).

    What I have had to train myself to do is to think about Discovery (and Picard) as not Star Trek. All through the 80s, 90s, and early 2000s I couldn’t wait for a new episode. I’d have to stay home the night it was on (much to the chagrin of my GF/wife) to watch it live, and record it without commercials.

    Then I would watch and rewatch every episode a 6 times during the following week. Now with anything new Trek I watch it when I get to it, many times with other shows having priority. And I don’t watch any episode twice – once is enough. It entertains me for an hour, but it is not Trek.

    The other thing that really gets me is the lack of creativity to come up with anything new. Discovery (and to a large extent Picard) have copied so much from Battlestar Galactica, The Expanse, Andromedia, and so many more. It is blatant, not just a reuse of themes. In some cases exact ripoffs.

    So, I’ll watch it when I have time. I’ll enjoy an episode or two more than others, but “my” Star Trek is long gone. I know many were critical of the Berman days, but here is a good example of “be careful of what you ask for.” At least I have some 600 hours of Original and Berman Trek to keep me company.

  8. Hammer, meet nail: “Essentially, Star Trek: Discovery is now the embodiment of what the year 2020 has been so far…just as a weekly space show…
    But Discovery‘s “default” setting is dystopia…”

    I skipped seasons 1 and 2 and wondered about season 3 looking at reviews etc thinking about picking it back up. You’re point about the writers to me is a key.

    Thinking back to other Trek shows, I trusted the writers and felt engaged with the characters. There was something more than the usual “weekly space show” that was part of the show’s zeitgeist.

    Part of that was to feel it would be an honor to meet the characters if they were real. Even the villains such as Dukat had a character arc that made them interesting if not especially approachable much of the time. Even the Borg could be said to have represented an existential question of a choice humanity could face.

    Picard season one was full of flawed characters who would be hard to like. But it had a fundamental question at the heart of it for me: what would I do if I were a member of a minority group and my existence itself was threatened – in other words a WW II reference. That question engaged me and I trusted the writers to resolve it in a positive way. I was not in the least disappointed and I’m therefore looking forward to season 2.

    One other point: banter. You noted there’s a bit of it now. But with all the other shows, it’s been key for me. Spock vs McCoy, Worf with Jadzia (and others). Quark and Sisko. The writers also came up with some classic/funny lines and gave them to the right actor. In real life, humans tend to gallows humor when things go wrong. Even cartoons had it as one I remember from a short lived cartoon show SuperChicken: “you knew the job was dangerous when you took it”. If writers ignore that, people, at least me, feel something important is missing.

  9. “Wow…it’s like you’ve just written my next blog, Jerry! ”

    Thanks. That’s really high praise.

    NB: for some reason when I reply, the post I am replying to does not show up. I have to copy/paste and quote separately and the indentation is not present. Maybe it’s my use of Firefox or the security software, NoScript, I have that’s causing the issue. I’m loath to give up either but I grumpily might at some point.

    1. No idea on that. Speaking only for myself, I used to use Firefox exclusively. About a year/year-and-a-half ago, I switched over to Chrome and never looked back. 🙂

Comments are closed.