Talk:Flat cat

Name
Heinlein referred to them as Flat cats (two separate words). Can we change the name of this article to reflect that? I would but I don't know how. Help, anybody? Thanks. Sir Rhosis (talk) 10:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Rolling Stones
Since this article is so short, it should be merged with the Rolling Stones article (which is also quite short). 212.67.168.234 (talk) 09:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Serious Problem Here
This article is quite wrong.

The article says "David Gerrold, the author of the Star Trek episode, claims that he was not familiar with the Heinlein novel", and that is completely incorrect.

In the book "The Trouble with Tribbles", about the production of the episode, Gerrold states (this is from memory, but the book itself is right upstairs -- a 1973 or 1974 copy -- that I can and will, if necessary, quote from directly) that he had read _Rolling Stones_ as a child, and (if I recall correctly) a "chill wind" blew up his back (or similar) at the comparison, at the time. He acknowledged reading the Heinlein book, prior to _Tribbles_. Therefore, he was, definitely, "familiar" with it. He just didn't make the connection until it was too late in the production process. In fact, by recorded and published facts, he didn't make the connection at all -- until someone on the Star Trek team (probably Kellum DeForest Labs) saw the similarity, which prompted contact with Heinlein, who was very gracious about the incident, and did not insist on credit or money. The point is, Gerrold has openly admitted, in print, since about 1972 (the original print date of his book) that he was, in fact, "familiar" with _The Rolling Stones_ and Flat Cats, and had, in fact, read that novel. Due to Heinlein's generosity and benevolence, the episode was allowed to proceed -- after the principal photography, i.e. the main part of the episode, had already been done.

This is all quite clear in Gerrold's book. It is a well-established part of Trek trivia. Why is it being ignored/mis-represented by Wikipedia? This question has been addressed since about 30 years ago, for God's sake. Why is it wrong here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.130.225 (talk) 06:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Serious Problem Here, Part 2
And, it was not GERROLD that instigated the permissions from Heinlein, it was the production company/studio. It was made very clear in the book I referenced that Gerrold was asked to autograph a copy of the script FOR Heinlein, and when he (Gerrold) asked why his autograph was requested, it was made clear that there was a clearances problem with the story vis-a-vie the _Rolling Stones_ novel. Which is when Gerrold realized that if he had plagiarized, even in the smallest degree and inadvertently, he had picked the one true author he should not have plagiarizer from.

Perhaps... perhaps... this is all just BS and made-up Trek mythology. But you know what? This particular Trek mythology has definite, printed, and very very verifiable sources. I have the book, on my bookshelf. It's been there for nearly 30 years. The pages are a bit yellow and brittle, but they can definitely be read.

Why is this article so blatantly WRONG? Who wrote this? And have you no shame? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.130.225 (talk) 06:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)