David Gerrold <70307.544@compuserve.com> asks:
> Comments anyone?

David...I agree with you completely. I find the cavalier
treatment you've received on this to be appalling in the extreme.
Everyone who saw that episode knows full well that it used massive
amounts of your material: your writing, your lines, your ideas, your
structure...it's all there. The new stuff is just interwoven into it.
That you aren't listed as one of the writers, that they never even
*paid* you for the use of your material is nothing short of hideous.

jms

{original post had no questions}

"I feel some proprietary interest."

Yeah...nothing like having your firstborn kid sliced up for
someone else's dinner and then denied even the claim of parenthood.

jms

{original post had no questions}

Obvious question, though, is...are you going to bring this up
in the ST section as well as areas mainly visited by B5 folks? I don't
think they know the situation among the ranks of ST fans, and they
might be able to do more inside.

jms

{original post had no questions}

Too bad no one's considered the idea that the Hugo here could be
viewed in another way. That is...the DS9 episode was really a tribute
to the original "Tribbles" episode. That was the whole reason they
*did* it, and the plot ties directly into that original episode. If
you take away the original "Tribbles" script...there's nothing *there*.
They just weave in and out of your story.

So if the DS9 episode is a tribute to your episode, then why
couldn't the Hugo be given *to the original episode*? After all, it
was good enough for DS9 to pay tribute to, and in essence, simply
repackage it...why not follow in their footsteps and their intention?

jms

{original post had no questions}

Glyer's solution is workable unless you can determine if any of
the other writers involved are baser than you are....

jms