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

Daniel47{at}teranews.com wrote:
> Your Name wrote:
>> In article , "Bast"
>>  wrote:
>>> Your Name wrote:
>>>> In article ,
>>>> nyc2001{at}nuttyyahoo.isr wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 18 Aug 2013 12:17:08 +1200,
YourName{at}YourISP.com (Your Name)
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> In article
,
>>>>>> nyc2001{at}nuttyyahoo.isr wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 17 Aug 2013 13:52:59 -0700 (PDT), Will Dockery
>>>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 2:07:06 PM UTC-4,
>>>> wheresou...{at}israels.wars wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You misspelled, "retarded".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I just saw the film a second time, and
actually can't complain.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Looks like a set up for a bit of Managerie
and Search For Spock
>>>>>>>> (now Search For Pike?).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Spock's mind meld with the dying Admiral pike.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Khan blood being so good for reviving dead
characters.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And maybe... Carol Marcus is already
pregnant by the end of the
>>>>>>>> film?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Some trouble with Tribbles next up?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The debut of Christine Chappel?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Whatever, dude.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I thought it sucked hickory smoked horse
buttholes from a cup.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> See my review (05-26-13).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wow! You're being mighty generaous ...
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm just that kind of guy.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Abrams' so-called "Star Trek" doesn't
reach even those 'heights' of
>>>>>> quality.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hope you didn't pay to see it.
>>>>
>>>> Nope. I'll never pay to see Abrams' so-called "Star
Trek" crap and I
>>>> won't even bother watching it when it eventually plays on one of the
>>>> free TV channels. I'm dreading the mess the useless moron will
>>>> probably make of the "Star Wars" franchise too.  :-(
>>>
>>> But saying you will never even watch it, only makes you look silly.
>>> There are plenty of sources on the web to download copies for free,
>>> other than wasting a bit of bandwidth. And then delete it after you
>>> watch it.
>>
>> It would probably take years to download via my dial-up connection
>> with a limited amount of online time per day.
>>
>>> I did,...and neither one of the Jar Jar Binks/Abrams Star trek films
>>> were keepers, so badly made, they got wiped after one
>>> viewing,...dispite the pennies it would have cost in hard drive space
>>> to have archived them. ....Not even worth the price when they are FREE.
>>
>> I've read and seen enough to know Abrams' so-called "Star
Trek" movies
>> are just ill-fitting "reboot" garbage. As above, I won't
even waste my
>> time watching them when they play on a free TV channel.
>
> How small-minded are you??
>
> The Abrams' films are not "so-called "Star Trek"
movies", they are "Star
> Trek" movies. Maybe they don't fit into your blinkered view of what is
> "Star Trek" and what isn't "Star Trek", but they
are "Star Trek", at
> least as far as the people who own the rights to that term are
> concerned.
> Makes you, and others with similar opinions, seem very childish!
>
> IMHO, of course.

It's completely childish to blindly accept something as supposedly "Star
Trek" simply because the fools in charge said so and tack the name onto
the front. That's what parents tell their kids when they think they're too
stupid too understand: "Because I said so".

Mind you, most so-called "fans" apparently *ARE* too stupid to understand
about things like consistency, what a franchise actually is, and what a
names mean / are used for.   :-(
--- Synchronet 3.15a-Linux NewsLink 1.92-mlp
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Linux