Say What?

@allinamberclad- Buddy. In the original Star Trek (William Shatner) crewmembers wearing red shirts were the fodder. They were the first to encounter deadly monsters, killer lightning, get dropped during the first shoot-out, fall into bottomless pits, found dead, etc.. I think this is how sukkal is referring to "red shirts".

Knowledge becomes evil if the aim be not virtuous.- Plato (BC 427-BC 347) Greek philosopher.

Of course he can read it. He can speak it. Also, how else could he be so fluent in opening the doors?

@aircraftfixer ?... Uhm...."Sonny"? I understood perfectly well the reference to, and shorthand meaning of, "red shirts"?.. But: thank you. @artyoh ?... I haven't suggested one thing, at all, about a synthetic human necessarily, "always and consistently maintaining stereotypical [i]robotic[/i] subservience"? I have not, "objected", to David's behaviour, directly, or necessarily? I have questioned the credibility of the [i]Crews'[/i] [u]responses[/u] to David's behaviour... With that, it does appear that it is, actually and comprehensively, every single thing that you have said, here, that is, "spurious" - and, also, quite badly informed, sad to say.

Buddy... Someone to ask a favor of. Someone with whom I prefer to scheme with. A pal. As in- I like the way you express yourself, and admire your vernacular. Please- no offence, smart *ss or condescension intended!

It explains what the black liquid is. That's why he knows what is does.

@aircraftfixer I see - then, I beg you: forgive my ignorance. I am not at all used to interpreting this term, from a screen. I never see it written and have never spoken it, nor written it, in my entire life... I only readily understand it, in the context of hearing it - having heard it many, many, times in films and so on. I am not an American.

@ allinamberclad You wrote: "He plainly, it seems to me, regularly, "acts out" - I don't think there is a swerve." My reading comp. is AOK. If you aren't objecting to his behavior, exactly what were you trying to convey with this statement? David is either an appliance, or he isn't. If he isn't, we cannot expect him to act or react robotically, nor can we reasonably expect the crew to be surprised, perplexed or angered by the fact that he doesn't. Crew reactions to David are entirely consistent with what we might expect from people who understand the difference between a robotic automaton and a synthetic [i]human[/i]. In more than one post, you've repeatedly referred to David as a "robot" in spite of the fact that the story makes it quite clear he is much more than that. It would appear that what you're really objecting to, is the entire notion of a "synthetic human."

@artyoh ?... I do find this very mystifying as I am certain I have just answered this? As you have chosen to present me with your Reading Comp. credentials, you only force me to immediately wonder why, then, I am having to answer it, again? As you insist: That statement was not an objection, it was an observation - what it was intended to, "convey", was a re-iteration of the same observation/position that I made, several posts, previously - I am a little surprised this is not clear to you. [u]Again:[/u] I neither hold, nor promote, an expectation that David should, act or react robotically? I am very certain indeed that I have already corrected this mistake, by way of: [i]"I haven't suggested one thing, at all, about a synthetic human necessarily, "always and consistently maintaining stereotypical robotic subservience"[/i]?.... I find myself almost staggering, in a ragged, confused and bewildered state - calling up to the Heavens and asking Them, why - why, then, must it be that I am having correct the same redundant and mistaken conclusion, presented to me by the same, [accredited], correspondent, [i]again[/i] - and immediately following? When, to my further horror, I come to the passage where you, apparently in all sincerity, would take issue with my use of the phrase, "robot boy", or, "robot man", or whatever the Hell it was - and also declare that what I, "really", object to, is the entire notion of synthetic humans...I'm sorry: this actually does seem to be extremely odd thing to me and the majority of my interest wanes. As far as I can see, my last response to you still applies. As far as you have given me to understand, the answers you seek are contained there - and in the comments I have made that support that last response: I can really only suggest, as my final word, that you read them..[/again?]

In future, you could save yourself some "horror" by not making statements that require semantical gymnastics to wriggle out of.

Perhaps the word "Android" is the one we all should/could use instead. From what little else I have experienced in sci-fi, the term "Robot" is synonymous with an autonomous, programmed mechanical device. For example, a washing machine is a robot. It performs a limited task without interfacing beyond initiation (on-off) with its operator. A robot (washing machine) doesn't analyse, calculate or comprehend. It performs nothing else but it's designed-for task. It cannot adjust itself or intuit when something goes wrong. An android is capable of executing quite a number of human characteristics, but doesn't have emotions or other distractions to it's function. What say you?

I agree with your distinctions, but are you absolutely certain that David has no emotional life? I'm not. In fact, I don't think that's something we're even [i]supposed[/i] to be certain of.

I'm not absolute in my opinion that David (or any android- such as Star Trek's Data) is without any kind of emotion. Aside from (perhaps) requiring that an android is not a robot, emotions and behavior of androids are often strange. They are; as I have observed, distinctly non-spontaneous (without outbursts), highly predictable (logical) and very reserved (without moodiness- aka poker-faced). The best example that I can think of at this time regarding David displaying the behavior/emotions I've mentioned above takes place during the conversation between David and Holloway at the pool table. It presented itself to me as follows: David was obviously pre-disposed to entrap Holloway with a loaded question to begin with. This evidently was because of Holloway's previous behavior toward him. I have this opinion because David snatched up a glass while careful to avoid contaminating it before the conversation began. David then dryly affirmed that Holloway was still a prick, therefore relieving himself of both doubt and guilt. Only then did he propose a toast and dose the glass. This sordid and cunning behavior was certainly a calculated and controlled display of emotion. My take is that this particular scene was a set up for David's later behavior- That also displayed premeditated, highly predictable and very reserved emotion. If the expedition was using a "robot"- it would have solely translated the writing on the wall (assuming it was programmed by the same technology that taught David). The team (and the viewers) would then know exactly what it said. But it was David who was asked... David; not being a robot, was enabled to answer however he "wanted" as well as react to whatever actions the others might unknowingly take.

"..The team (and the viewers) would then know exactly what it said.." Th more we see David doing on this trip..the more we want him to do..right away..as fast as his brain processing can go.. It would have been a different(and understandable) response if he said he was working on the trranslation and would have the final decipher ready in 20 minutes .....