Look, I have the right to answer the OP, just like everyone else does. It's just that my opinion happens to be in the minority in this thread. That doesn't mean I'm not allowed to post it. And yeah, it's everyone else replying that's committed the greater incivility. My own negative remarks are directed toward the individuals associated with the movie itself. I'm not flaming or trolling anyone who likes it. Just because I think the 2009 movie was stupid, that doesn't mean I think the fans are also stupid. I'm fully aware that I like books and movies that other people don't. BTW, there have been plenty of people coming in to the Voyager forum just to rant on about how much they dislike that series. Have I gone on a rampage of trolling them? No, I have not.
So because other people go in to a part of the board and do what you're doing, it's ok to do that which you believe is your right? Surely it's only a privilege as I'll find it hard to believe you pay to be a premier member.
You really shouldn't make unfounded assumptions. See the attached screenshot. It's my understanding that only paid members get to see and post in the premium members' lounge. At least I give my reasons. Some of the drive-by negativity is in the vein of "Voyager sucks!" and the poster never says why he thinks that way. I will be watching STID (that's a really unfortunate acronym, since on a quick glance it can be misread as something a lot worse) later this month, as it's available on video-on-demand and my cable company gave me a free coupon. Based on the previews and copious spoilers I've seen here, I'm not expecting great things, but if there is anything I end up liking about it, I will at least be honest enough to come back and say so.
Well I guess I stand corrected and that explains the self entitlement that blares from every single one of your posts you write.
I sincerely doubt you've read every single one of my posts. And I formed my opinion of nuTrek long before even considering becoming a paid member here.
I probably give negative impressions if I'm posting about something I don't like. The opposite tends to be true if it's about something I do like, or if it's one of the very long story threads (where you post 5 words at a time), a caption thread, etc. I was quite enthusiastic about posting in the Shouting Spock thread, and used to enter some of the avatar contests. As I said, I sincerely doubt you've read all of those.
While it can be annoying to have a lot of people reacting negatively to your opinions, it doesn't automatically become trolling. And up until today's posts everything in this thread has been civil. You are entitled to have your opinions and post them, everyone else is equally entitled to have theirs and post theirs. We won't all agree. It's important for everyone to stay polite and enjoy the conversation. You're crossing the line into getting personal, Dimesdan, the self entitlement comment isn't warranted. Now, let's get back to poking fun at Greg Cox for daring to put Voyager within a TOS novel (Something I'm really intrigued by...)
Nope. The parts that take place prior to Nero's appearance and Kirk's birth take place in the "Prime Universe" and of course the events Nero and Spock describe as happening in 2387 do as well. So things like George and Winona Kirk serving on the Kelvin under Capt. Robau, the destruction of Romulas and Spock being MIA are all elements that authors can use in books set in the PU.
Look, you're the one who started this "warning label" nonsense. I merely said I could go along with that. I didn't mean that I literally expect to see such labels on the books. I think I'm capable of sorting them out from the blurb on the back cover or the description on the Amazon pages to see if it's something I want to read. All this crap is really pushing me away from Star Trek - at least from this forum (probably to the delight and satisfaction of some here) - and making me regret my decision to become a paid member. Obviously your definition of "civil" and my definition are not in agreement. Crossovers that are acknowledged as crossovers are fine and can be fun. But given how many decades separate Kirk and Janeway, I'd expect to see a plausible explanation for having the two in the same story (yes, I'm reasonably sure Mr. Cox is going for humor in his previous post and if he really intended to write such a book, he wouldn't be talking about it in this thread). One thing that struck me about Janeway was how she postured and pontificated about how Kirk had no discipline and that he and his contemporaries wouldn't have made it in the modern, more "enlightened" Starfleet... but when you get right down to it, she did her own fair share of "cowboy diplomacy" (to borrow a TNG term) - bluffing, threatening to blow the ship up (and actually doing it), killing, and using sex (or at least the implied promise of sex) to get the better of the enemy. They're really not that different in how they choose to handle some kinds of situations.
Actually, it's more of a Kirk/Seven of Nine book and it's coming out at the end of the February. For real! And, yeah, perhaps the whole "warning label" thing has gotten out of hand. The original idea was to poke a little fun at the idea that a stray reference to another flavor of Star Trek (or even Doctor Who or Here Comes the Brides) was enough to somehow contaminate or spoil an otherwise fun book. And that NuTrek in particular was somehow so radioactive that merely trace amounts could provoke an allergic response. Keep in mind, though, that this is coming from someone who has been known to sneak all sorts of obscure in-jokes and references into my books, so obviously I'm not particularly worried about "mixing the streams" as it were. Heck, I still giggle when I think of this Wonder Woman/Frankenstein crossover I novelized a few years back. I confess writing that fight scene amused me to no end!
Given Star Trek's history, there are numerous plausible reasons a character from the 24th Century could pop up in a 23rd Century set novel ( and vica versa.) Heck they don't even have to interact to appear in the same novel. Why wouldn't Greg mention the book here? IIRC he's mentioned it in other threads too.