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 , "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.

Daniel


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