Didn't realize recognizing something about the show was considered an "attack".
You're excusing the new on the basis of the old, attempting to exculpate the former by deprecating the latter. Yes, it's an attack. It's not an OMG! Heretic! sort of thing, but it fits a well-worn pattern of nuTrek apologists; NuTrek is OK, because it is no worse than OldTrek. To pull this off, you have to smear old Trek with criticisms aimed at NuTrek. You're not pulling anything up, but pulling the opposition down.
It's not an attack, it's an opinion. You can't "attack" a show, because it doesn't care if you like it or not.. You can attack a person's opinion, however.
1). Attack and defense is part of reasoned discussion. It is not "bad" to attack something. It is only bad to attack something illicitly. The never-ending Tu Quoque (You're Trek was bad too!) is an illicit attack.
2). That was not simply an "opinion" but a move in a discussion.
a. I endorse RLM's claim that there is no apparent reason why Kirk and Spock are friends.
b. BillJ responds by stating that there was no apparent reason that they were friends in a very early episode of the show.
"b." is a response to "a." BillJ is leveraging his "opinion" as a "reason" challenging my perception of the film. This was not a simple random observation, but a move in an argument.
NOTE: BillJ has not been qualifying his opinions as mere opinions, but stating them as fact-assertions.
They're obviously friends for no discernible reason in Where No Man...
yet I've never seen anyone complain.
He's playing 3D chess with Kirk, calls him Jim, has the guts to tell him to strand Mitchell. They were friends.
Since facts are rationally binding, this implies that his claims are also binding on anyone in a reasoned discussion. That is, he is not saying, "This is my opinion, take it or leave it," but rather challenging my point of view. And good for him for doing so. Again, my only complaint is that his reasoning is wrong, not that he is attacking or that he is attempting to use reasons. It's not just that he's factually wrong in terms of interpretation (we can argue about that), but that his reasoning pattern is illicit. Attacking my reasons - good. Attacking Old Trek to "equalize" or deflect attention from the the New? That's bad.