From Newsgroup: alt.tv.star-trek.tos
From Address: YourName{at}YourISP.com (Your Name)
Subject: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

In article , Lance Corporal Hammer
Schultz  wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Aug 2013 15:06:19 +1200, Your Name wrote:
> > 
> > When the people making a "reboot" are even standing there
> > telling you it's "different", then anyone who still
blindly claims it's
> > part of the same franchise are quite obviously morons who do not under
> > stand the term.
> 
> You obviously do not know what the word means.  All of the Star Trek
> books, games, and right on down to the fast food cups are part of the
> Trek "franchise."  A franchise is all about one thing: a license.
> Even the cartoons, which I liked and Roddenberry didn't, are part of
> the Trek "franchise."
> 
> You may not like the movie (based on your assessment of what other
> people have told you about it) but it is quite obviously, legally and
> logically, part of the Trek franchise.
> 
> Being an alternate timeline, reboot, etc, has nothing to do with it.

Slapping "Star Trek" in the title does not make it a fitting part of the
same franchise - the FACT (not an opinion) that it has ill-fitting changes
and difference that mean they are not part of the same franchise. They can
possibly be since they obviously contrdadict each other in numerous ways.
It's completely senseless and illogical to think they're the same,
especially when the people making them are telling your they are
different. 

I know "same" and "different" are apparently extremely
hard ideas for most
people to understand (as a common sense, logic, and intelligence) ... they
obviously never watched eough Sesame Street when they were younger.  :-\
--- Synchronet 3.15a-Linux NewsLink 1.92-mlp
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Linux