Saul Aliasky (he/him/his)
@saulvents.bsky.social
Zavl Epstein Warnock de Clavijo: Milena's dad; Litvak Jew, racialized white; cishet male, queer for all that; snarko-communist. We're all at each other's mercy. Uninvited guest of Wažáže/Kã́ːze — Kansas. City. Missouri. 🖖
tsk... Everyone knows that power is only ever properly self-limiting. </snark>
November 18, 2025 at 1:04 AM
tsk... Everyone knows that power is only ever properly self-limiting. </snark>
Unfortunately (((we))) may be the only ones to recognize the grim humor potential in this.
November 17, 2025 at 12:45 PM
Unfortunately (((we))) may be the only ones to recognize the grim humor potential in this.
Yeah... Hard to gauge "further" right in a lot of these cases, but they are open abt this. They may disagree w/ or oppose Trump specifically abt this or that, but none of this is binary. The enemy of my enemy may have a narrow common cause with me but isn't, purely bc of that, my friend.
November 17, 2025 at 2:28 AM
Yeah... Hard to gauge "further" right in a lot of these cases, but they are open abt this. They may disagree w/ or oppose Trump specifically abt this or that, but none of this is binary. The enemy of my enemy may have a narrow common cause with me but isn't, purely bc of that, my friend.
That IS the scam. It's fractal, a scam made of scams.
November 17, 2025 at 12:45 AM
That IS the scam. It's fractal, a scam made of scams.
That one is timeless. The lyrics, a call for some kind of general strike / globalist jubilee.
November 17, 2025 at 12:43 AM
That one is timeless. The lyrics, a call for some kind of general strike / globalist jubilee.
We should be so lucky as to be able to focus solely on these sorts of problems 😮💨
November 16, 2025 at 7:23 PM
We should be so lucky as to be able to focus solely on these sorts of problems 😮💨
I appreciate the offer!
November 16, 2025 at 5:24 AM
I appreciate the offer!
No, it's ok. They're not lost, just limboed. And probably I misunderstood the question.
November 16, 2025 at 5:22 AM
No, it's ok. They're not lost, just limboed. And probably I misunderstood the question.
I wrote a chain of replies to your deleted skeet and now I don't know where to put it 😁
November 16, 2025 at 5:13 AM
I wrote a chain of replies to your deleted skeet and now I don't know where to put it 😁
I'm not worried anything will over-write Nimoy's Spock: it's too thick. And the original Gorn isn't at all the gravest loss, however iconic. But some things taken for granted are actually quite delicate.
November 16, 2025 at 1:24 AM
I'm not worried anything will over-write Nimoy's Spock: it's too thick. And the original Gorn isn't at all the gravest loss, however iconic. But some things taken for granted are actually quite delicate.
This is, btw, why SNW's Gorn treatment is such a peeve of mine. When it was its own one-off, it was just meh. Now, anyone absorbing it first? Everything that made the original what it was - good, bad, weird, goofy, in-world, meta - will be illegible, and not just because displaced but over-written.
November 16, 2025 at 1:24 AM
This is, btw, why SNW's Gorn treatment is such a peeve of mine. When it was its own one-off, it was just meh. Now, anyone absorbing it first? Everything that made the original what it was - good, bad, weird, goofy, in-world, meta - will be illegible, and not just because displaced but over-written.
Oh, well... It's all in a blender that's been running without much interruption since I was... 9 or 10, anyway. And TOS and 80s Pocket novels have been in there the longest.
I do enjoy meta analysis of pieces in isolation, but it takes a lot of concentration 😁
I do enjoy meta analysis of pieces in isolation, but it takes a lot of concentration 😁
November 15, 2025 at 11:28 PM
Oh, well... It's all in a blender that's been running without much interruption since I was... 9 or 10, anyway. And TOS and 80s Pocket novels have been in there the longest.
I do enjoy meta analysis of pieces in isolation, but it takes a lot of concentration 😁
I do enjoy meta analysis of pieces in isolation, but it takes a lot of concentration 😁
If I noticed a difference before, it was being surprised about the drooling - not in conscious comparison to the film but bc it's just creepy to this 21st c adult in ways it wasn't to this former 20th c child.
November 15, 2025 at 11:10 PM
If I noticed a difference before, it was being surprised about the drooling - not in conscious comparison to the film but bc it's just creepy to this 21st c adult in ways it wasn't to this former 20th c child.
They practically all drooled over him - for that one episode. Granted that's how every episode is, but other things form a pattern over time, and that episode doesn't contribute much at all. But now I def have to rewatch episode and film to compare Our Heroes in each.
November 15, 2025 at 11:10 PM
They practically all drooled over him - for that one episode. Granted that's how every episode is, but other things form a pattern over time, and that episode doesn't contribute much at all. But now I def have to rewatch episode and film to compare Our Heroes in each.
Yes... I'm quite fond of Spock's post-resurrection arc, now, mainly his brief presence in TNG. And I really like what "Spock" did with his relationship to McCoy, and Kirk's scene with Sarek. And it's a package, as you say. I don't think about it the same way at all, but I remember.
November 15, 2025 at 11:03 PM
Yes... I'm quite fond of Spock's post-resurrection arc, now, mainly his brief presence in TNG. And I really like what "Spock" did with his relationship to McCoy, and Kirk's scene with Sarek. And it's a package, as you say. I don't think about it the same way at all, but I remember.
That's something else I'd have to watch again for. I didn't see that one till after "Khan" either, I don't think, and I dismissed it as weird and slow and bloated and derivative. Since then I've been influenced by ppl pointing out the ways it's more faithful to the show.
November 15, 2025 at 10:58 PM
That's something else I'd have to watch again for. I didn't see that one till after "Khan" either, I don't think, and I dismissed it as weird and slow and bloated and derivative. Since then I've been influenced by ppl pointing out the ways it's more faithful to the show.
(He talks that way BECAUSE he's a maniac, part of what makes him convenient. But would I know that on first viewing "Khan" with no prior exposure to Trek? Not sure.)
November 15, 2025 at 10:53 PM
(He talks that way BECAUSE he's a maniac, part of what makes him convenient. But would I know that on first viewing "Khan" with no prior exposure to Trek? Not sure.)
I'd have to watch it again to pull on that thread (not a bad idea) bc rly hard for me to tell otherwise how much of my impression depends on prior & repetitive exposure to the episodes. _I_ know bc of that Khan is a convenient random maniac, but he does talk abt their relationship as if more to it.
November 15, 2025 at 10:53 PM
I'd have to watch it again to pull on that thread (not a bad idea) bc rly hard for me to tell otherwise how much of my impression depends on prior & repetitive exposure to the episodes. _I_ know bc of that Khan is a convenient random maniac, but he does talk abt their relationship as if more to it.
Anyway, I have thoughts and feelings, clearly 😂
Sorry to have blown this up.
Sorry to have blown this up.
November 15, 2025 at 10:41 PM
Anyway, I have thoughts and feelings, clearly 😂
Sorry to have blown this up.
Sorry to have blown this up.
"Khan" itself... If you see it w/o the series as frame it's impossible to appreciate the narrow basis of Khan's obsession w/ Kirk; natural instead to imagine former as a recurring nemesis looming over latter's career. So there's motivation to dig a rather shallow villain into a well to return to.
November 15, 2025 at 10:41 PM
"Khan" itself... If you see it w/o the series as frame it's impossible to appreciate the narrow basis of Khan's obsession w/ Kirk; natural instead to imagine former as a recurring nemesis looming over latter's career. So there's motivation to dig a rather shallow villain into a well to return to.
And with the advantage of more time passing, I've come to realize that all the TOS films (except the first) do irreparable damage to the characters as perceived by those for whom the films are their first or major exposure - not just the 2nd tier but the central trio, especially Kirk.
November 15, 2025 at 10:41 PM
And with the advantage of more time passing, I've come to realize that all the TOS films (except the first) do irreparable damage to the characters as perceived by those for whom the films are their first or major exposure - not just the 2nd tier but the central trio, especially Kirk.
Once I did see it I found much to admire (even destroying Enterprise, though that was a shock) but also resented the way it seems to represent the real turn toward relying so much on humor, especially treating the second tier characters as comic relief, that plagues its sequels.
November 15, 2025 at 10:41 PM
Once I did see it I found much to admire (even destroying Enterprise, though that was a shock) but also resented the way it seems to represent the real turn toward relying so much on humor, especially treating the second tier characters as comic relief, that plagues its sequels.
I'd like to read more of these thoughts about both movies. I used to be a diehard fan of "Khan" almost to the exclusion of other TOS films. I resented "Spock" cheapening his death so much that I didn't see it for years. (I was also sad to see Alley go, though in retrospect, haha 😬.)
November 15, 2025 at 10:41 PM
I'd like to read more of these thoughts about both movies. I used to be a diehard fan of "Khan" almost to the exclusion of other TOS films. I resented "Spock" cheapening his death so much that I didn't see it for years. (I was also sad to see Alley go, though in retrospect, haha 😬.)