From Newsgroup: alt.tv.star-trek.tos
From Address: epwise{at}yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Enterprise Was Actually a Very Good Show

YourName{at}YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote in
news:YourName-0606131311290001{at}203-118-187-153.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz: 

> In article ,
> nyc2001{at}nuttyyahoo.isr wrote:
>> On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 09:09:22 +1200, YourName{at}YourISP.com (Your Name)
>> wrote:
>> 
>> >In article ,
>> >mrspook2001{at}yahoo.com wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> Enterprise got a very bad rap at the time of its first run.
>> >> 
>> >> This was primarily a result of the fans' perception of its many
>> >> departures from either established, or widely accepted, canon.
>> >> 
>> >> Some of the criticism was absolutely justified, and some was a bit
>> >> exaggerated.
>> >> 
>> >> However, viewed on its own merits in the realm of actor
>> >> performance, camera work, lighting, sound, special effects, sets,
>> >> and storytelling...
>> >> 
>> >> Enterprise was actually a very good show.
>> >
>> >It may or may not have been a good show in it's own right - that's
>> >simply people's opinions, and opinions are basically irrelevant
>> >since everyone's has a different and equally valid one.
>> 
>> Not everyone's opinion is different, or no one would agree with
>> anyone.
>> 
>> However, I was merely stating mine. It's really ok if you don't share
>> it... Really.
> 
> As I said, opinions are irrelevant.
> 
> 

Yours too, then.  

> 
> 
>> >The FACT is that as a "Star Trek" show it's complete
crap because of
>> >those "departures from either established, or widely accepted,
>> >canon" - it simply doesn't fit with what came before it. You could
>> >slap a "Star Trek" sticker onto "Dora the
Explorer", but that
>> >doesn't make it a real part of the franchise either.
>> 
>> That is, of course, debatable.
>> 
>> But I suppose you're entitled to your own opinion. :)
> 
> Nope, it's not an opinion - it's an observable FACT that it's
> different to the Star Trek shows and movies that preceeded it. Anyone
> with even half a brain can see that it's different (you said so
> yourself) and even the people making it stated it was different, plus
> the fact that they left "Star Trek" out of the show's title is an even
> more obvious clue. The reality is that "Enterprise" was an idiotic
> attempt to "reboot" the franchise, and like all silly
"reboots" that
> means it was a different product.
> 

Whether it has the title Star Trek or not is irrelevant.
You still don't understand the difference between reboot and prequel, 
huh, little boy?  GROW UP!
--- Synchronet 3.15a-Linux NewsLink 1.92-mlp
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Linux