From Newsgroup: alt.tv.star-trek.tos
From Address: dxmm{at}albury.nospam.net.au
Subject: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Your Name wrote:
> In article ,
"Daniel47{at}teranews.com"
>  wrote:
>> Your Name wrote:
>>> In article ,
"Daniel47{at}teranews.com"
>>>  wrote:
>>
>> 
>>
>>>> (And I'd tend to think the original Star Treks' and Star Wars' are
>>>> better than their later incarnations!)
>>>
>>> That's an opinion, and opinions are pointless to argue against. Everyone
>>> has one and they're all different.
>>
>> Sorry, my "opinions are pointless to argue against", but
your opinions
>> *have to be agreed with*!!
>>
>> Does the term "egotistical" apply here??
>
> "Good" or "bad" is simply an opinion.
>
> The new versions being "different" is a fact. The definition
of a "reboot"
> means they make changes, which makes it different, which is a FACT, not an
> opinion.

The new versions being "different" is a fact ... because photographic 
processes had moved on from the '60's, so they make changes to the 
"Enterprise". Whoopee!! but the storyline continues, as shown by an old 
Spock, in ST:UC, now being very old in ST:2009.

>>> I'm talking about the FACT that "reboots" are, by
definition and
>>> execution, different products to the original,
>>
>> So ST:NG, ST:DS9, ST:VOY are all parts of a re-boot, i.e. *Not* part of
>> ST:TOS, so, to be true to yourself, you must hate them as well!!
>
> They are not a "reboot". They're a continuation and they
(mstyl) fit with
> what was established before.

Exactly! "they fit with what was established before."

(and what does "(mstyl)" mean, anyway??)

> Abrams' garbage and the "Entperirse" rubbish (Beavis &
Butthead's attempt
> to "reboot" the franchise) don't fit. They make all sorts of
ridiculous
> changes to what has already been established.

You may or may not be impressed with either Abrams' or "Beavis & 
Butthead" efforts, but, non-the-less, their works *do* fit in the ST 
Universe!

>>> for two different products defies all common sense, intelligence, and
>>> logic from EVERY conceivable angle.
>>
>> See my para just above!!
>>
>>> Nobody has ever been able to give a good reason why this happens or is
>>> sensible. None of the supposed reasons ever stack up to a logical
>>> examination. The blind morons usually simply revert to the pointless
>>> opinion-based "I liked it", which completely and
utterly misses the point
>>> and doesn't in any way mean it actually fits with the established
>>> franchise.
>>
>> And Your Name usually simply reverts to the pointless opinion-based "I
>> don't like it", which completely and utterly misses the point and
>> doesn't in any way mean it actually mis-fits with the established franchise.
>
> Ah, yet another moron on the Internet who can't actually read

Been able to read for many, many years!! What about you, Your Name??

>                                                               and blindly
> believes something is "Star Trek" simply because his worthless and
> pointless opinion is  "I like it" ... another imbecile who completely
> misses the point to to not bother wasting time with.  :-\

Sorry, can you show me anywhere that I have actually stated that "I like 
it" or that "I like don't it" with regards to the modern ST
films, Your 
Name??

I don't think I've recently expressed opinions either way, just that 
*you* cannot expect everyone to agree with *your* silly opinions!!

Daniel

--- Synchronet 3.15a-Linux NewsLink 1.92-mlp
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Linux