^ First of all, you continue to complain about the definition of continuity and asking rhetorical questions that don't really have an answer, which invites the question of whether or not you are actually contributing to the discussion or just airing your grievances here. If the latter, you must understand that even throwaway lines like the reference in "First Contact" -- and it IS a throwaway line, since it doesn't have any real causal effect on story progression -- is going to be an extremely different issue with the VISUAL continuity between shows; even if Enterprise was entirely consistent with TNG in all the historical details, it could have been VISUALLY distinct if phasers fired bolts instead of beams, if photon torpedoes had smoky exhaust trails, if deflector shields were represented as holographic plates that glowed brightly whenever they were activated, etc. VISUAL continuity is more art and style than story progression; for that matter, even cross- series continuity has more to do with background setting and fictional history.
Secondly, "they reused my footage from my movie for a totally different movie I had nothing to do with" is not the same thing as "They ignored a throwaway line I tossed into the script because I had a vague notion of something sometime sort of happening." Taking the B-17 pilot's "hell of a way to fly into a war" scene and re-looping it into a totally different movie with no context and no background and no real explanation seems to cheapen the latter and adds nothing to the former; a director would be annoyed that he did all that work setting up that scene and ending it with a kickass effect just so some other guy a year later can use it like throwaway stock footage.