RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,235
Posts: 5,406,296
Members: 24,762
Currently online: 680
Newest member: PaulHicks

TrekToday headlines

Star Trek Online Adds More Voyager Actors
By: T'Bonz on Sep 2

The Wil Wheaton Project Axed
By: T'Bonz on Sep 2

Kurtzman’s Production Company Signs Deal
By: T'Bonz on Sep 2

Retro Review: Time’s Orphan
By: Michelle on Aug 30

September-October Trek Conventions And Appearances
By: T'Bonz on Aug 29

Lee Passes
By: T'Bonz on Aug 29

Trek Merchandise Sale
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Star Trek #39 Villain Revealed
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Trek Big Bang Figures
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Star Trek Seekers Cover Art
By: T'Bonz on Aug 27


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies XI+

Star Trek Movies XI+ Discuss J.J. Abrams' rebooted Star Trek here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old March 29 2013, 07:02 PM   #61
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: New Star Trek Into Darkness Teaser!

kirk55555 wrote: View Post
Ugh. Explosions, boobs, quips, and absolutely no compelling story to be seen. Michael Bay would be proud. Another mindless, souless action movie for the transformers fans. I didn't expect anything else from the biggest hack director/writers around, but I would have thought that they would have atleast tried to hide the fact that they're blatantly trying to copy Bay's style so much. Seriously, even if I had seen nothing but the woman in a bra and panties, i'd have had efinitive proof that this movie is total crap only made for the people who keep making Michael bay money. It sucks that they have to drag a decent actor (Cumberbatch) down with the ship. Also, I'm calling it now. enterprise hits the earth a terminal velocity, gets repaired with in a week and is back in space, because the JJ Prise isn't a wimp like that puny Ent-D. It has the power of hacks behind it, a little thing like hitting a planet isn't going to stop the lensflares.

Trek Survivor wrote: View Post
[
CorporalClegg wrote: View Post
Would someone please explain to me what "real" Star Trek looks like?
- Has to be very serious. Humour must only come from an incredibly forced or cringeworthy exchange between characters who really love each other very much.
- Mustn't reference or hint at sex.
- Lots of standing around thinking. When in doubt, have a conference.
- Crew must help/ridicule some poor alien tribe who believe in a deity.
Your sarcastic post is right. Thats all that old lame trek was, it had absolutle nothing good about it. It survived for over 40 years because nerds suck. All the compelling stories and good characters was holding it back. Real trek needs

-Absolutely no story outside of a reason for special effects or lensflares. We wouldn't want to teel a good story. Thats for nerds.
-No dialog that isn't a sexual reference, quip, or brainless exposition
-Horrible Actors who make the characters into unlikeable jackasses with no redeeming qualities
-SEX SEX SEX! Because if it doesn't have boobs every few minutes, its not "mature". Adults need boobs to be entertained, and lots of sex. Nothing compelling has ever been made when you keep the shirts on the women. A movie without boobs isn't a real movie
-Explosions, because the only thing better than boobs are explosions.
Applying your definitions to other series, I could just as easily dismiss Deep Space Nine as endless repetitive space battles, constant fighting, heroes making unethical choices simply to seem gritty and kewl, and slutty mirror universe lesbians added in for cheap titillation. To say nothing of the cheap deus ex machina "god did it" plot twists when the writers can't find a good way out of the hole they dug
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 29 2013, 07:06 PM   #62
Ovation
Vice Admiral
 
Location: La Belle Province or The Green Mountain State (depends on the day of the week)
Re: New Star Trek Into Darkness Teaser!

kirk55555 wrote: View Post
Ugh. Explosions, boobs, quips, and absolutely no compelling story to be seen. Michael Bay would be proud. Another mindless, souless action movie for the transformers fans. I didn't expect anything else from the biggest hack director/writers around, but I would have thought that they would have atleast tried to hide the fact that they're blatantly trying to copy Bay's style so much. Seriously, even if I had seen nothing but the woman in a bra and panties, i'd have had efinitive proof that this movie is total crap only made for the people who keep making Michael bay money. It sucks that they have to drag a decent actor (Cumberbatch) down with the ship. Also, I'm calling it now. enterprise hits the earth a terminal velocity, gets repaired with in a week and is back in space, because the JJ Prise isn't a wimp like that puny Ent-D. It has the power of hacks behind it, a little thing like hitting a planet isn't going to stop the lensflares.

Trek Survivor wrote: View Post
[
CorporalClegg wrote: View Post
Would someone please explain to me what "real" Star Trek looks like?
- Has to be very serious. Humour must only come from an incredibly forced or cringeworthy exchange between characters who really love each other very much.
- Mustn't reference or hint at sex.
- Lots of standing around thinking. When in doubt, have a conference.
- Crew must help/ridicule some poor alien tribe who believe in a deity.
Your sarcastic post is right. Thats all that old lame trek was, it had absolutle nothing good about it. It survived for over 40 years because nerds suck. All the compelling stories and good characters was holding it back. Real trek needs

-Absolutely no story outside of a reason for special effects or lensflares. We wouldn't want to teel a good story. Thats for nerds.
-No dialog that isn't a sexual reference, quip, or brainless exposition
-Horrible Actors who make the characters into unlikeable jackasses with no redeeming qualities
-SEX SEX SEX! Because if it doesn't have boobs every few minutes, its not "mature". Adults need boobs to be entertained, and lots of sex. Nothing compelling has ever been made when you keep the shirts on the women. A movie without boobs isn't a real movie
-Explosions, because the only thing better than boobs are explosions.
So…you're not interested in the new movie then? You plan to save your money and spend it on something else instead? I honestly can't see any other reasonable course of action for anyone who holds the views you've posted. As such, perhaps you'd like to do your blood pressure a favour and not think about this new movie anymore. It's not like it will magically change into something completely different before its release.

Or…you could wait to see it first and then formulate an informed critique. It's a novel idea, I know, but it has been known to work from time to time.
Ovation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 29 2013, 07:09 PM   #63
kirk55555
Fleet Captain
 
kirk55555's Avatar
 
Re: New Star Trek Into Darkness Teaser!

King Daniel wrote: View Post
kirk55555 wrote: View Post
Ugh. Explosions, boobs, quips, and absolutely no compelling story to be seen. Michael Bay would be proud. Another mindless, souless action movie for the transformers fans. I didn't expect anything else from the biggest hack director/writers around, but I would have thought that they would have atleast tried to hide the fact that they're blatantly trying to copy Bay's style so much. Seriously, even if I had seen nothing but the woman in a bra and panties, i'd have had efinitive proof that this movie is total crap only made for the people who keep making Michael bay money. It sucks that they have to drag a decent actor (Cumberbatch) down with the ship. Also, I'm calling it now. enterprise hits the earth a terminal velocity, gets repaired with in a week and is back in space, because the JJ Prise isn't a wimp like that puny Ent-D. It has the power of hacks behind it, a little thing like hitting a planet isn't going to stop the lensflares.

Trek Survivor wrote: View Post
[


- Has to be very serious. Humour must only come from an incredibly forced or cringeworthy exchange between characters who really love each other very much.
- Mustn't reference or hint at sex.
- Lots of standing around thinking. When in doubt, have a conference.
- Crew must help/ridicule some poor alien tribe who believe in a deity.
Your sarcastic post is right. Thats all that old lame trek was, it had absolutle nothing good about it. It survived for over 40 years because nerds suck. All the compelling stories and good characters was holding it back. Real trek needs

-Absolutely no story outside of a reason for special effects or lensflares. We wouldn't want to teel a good story. Thats for nerds.
-No dialog that isn't a sexual reference, quip, or brainless exposition
-Horrible Actors who make the characters into unlikeable jackasses with no redeeming qualities
-SEX SEX SEX! Because if it doesn't have boobs every few minutes, its not "mature". Adults need boobs to be entertained, and lots of sex. Nothing compelling has ever been made when you keep the shirts on the women. A movie without boobs isn't a real movie
-Explosions, because the only thing better than boobs are explosions.
Applying your definitions to other series, I could just as easily dismiss Deep Space Nine as endless repetitive space battles, constant fighting, heroes making unethical choices simply to seem gritty and kewl, and slutty mirror universe lesbians added in for cheap titillation. To say nothing of the cheap deus ex machina "god did it" plot twists when the writers can't find a good way out of the hole they dug

Yeah, Star trek had flaws, the whole franchise had stupid stuff. The difference is, JJ's stuff has nothing. Its completely void of anything but boobs, quips and special effects. Its Transformers with a Star Trek skin. There wasn't a second of ST2009 that actually had anything approaching a real character or decent story. As a Trekkie, I don't want a mindless action flick. I want a sci fi movie that has more of a purpose then just to get the 13 year olds to buy tickets, which is JJ's bread and butter with these movies. In 10-20 years, people will still remember and like Wrath of Khan. JJ's Trek will just be another generic action movie series that appealed to the teens who think Transformers is awesome.

Ovation wrote: View Post
So…you're not interested in the new movie then? You plan to save your money and spend it on something else instead? I honestly can't see any other reasonable course of action for anyone who holds the views you've posted. As such, perhaps you'd like to do your blood pressure a favour and not think about this new movie anymore. It's not like it will magically change into something completely different before its release.

Or…you could wait to see it first and then formulate an informed critique. It's a novel idea, I know, but it has been known to work from time to time.
Why would I pay to see it? I saw ST 2009 in theatres, I've done my time in hell. If the first movie was a Transformers knock off by a hack ruining my favorite Sci Fi series, what will this be? Especially when the trailer highlights the boobs and explosions. It will be more of the same. I guess I love Star Trek so much that I'd actually like to see Star Trek again some day, as opposed to Abrams making his version of Transformers.
kirk55555 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 29 2013, 07:13 PM   #64
kirk55555
Fleet Captain
 
kirk55555's Avatar
 
Re: New Star Trek Into Darkness Teaser!

Accidental double post.
kirk55555 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 29 2013, 07:16 PM   #65
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: New Star Trek Into Darkness Teaser!

kirk55555 wrote: View Post
Yeah, Star trek had flaws, the whole franchise had stupid stuff. The difference is, JJ's stuff has nothing. Its completely void of anything but boobs, quips and special effects. Its Transformers with a Star Trek skin. There wasn't a second of ST2009 that actually had anything approaching a real character or decent story. As a Trekkie, I don't want a mindless action flick. I want a sci fi movie that has more of a purpose then just to get the 13 year olds to buy tickets, which is JJ's bread and butter with these movies. In 10-20 years, people will still remember and like Wrath of Khan. JJ's Trek will just be another generic action movie series that appealed to the teens who think Transformers is awesome.
I found Spock's life story, told as an obvious "coming out" allegory, quite touching. I don't recall Transformers or any other blockbuster action movie I've seen having an emotional punch like Star Trek did.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3

Last edited by King Daniel Into Darkness; March 29 2013 at 07:28 PM.
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 29 2013, 07:18 PM   #66
Ovation
Vice Admiral
 
Location: La Belle Province or The Green Mountain State (depends on the day of the week)
Re: New Star Trek Into Darkness Teaser!

kirk55555 wrote: View Post
King Daniel wrote: View Post
kirk55555 wrote: View Post
Ugh. Explosions, boobs, quips, and absolutely no compelling story to be seen. Michael Bay would be proud. Another mindless, souless action movie for the transformers fans. I didn't expect anything else from the biggest hack director/writers around, but I would have thought that they would have atleast tried to hide the fact that they're blatantly trying to copy Bay's style so much. Seriously, even if I had seen nothing but the woman in a bra and panties, i'd have had efinitive proof that this movie is total crap only made for the people who keep making Michael bay money. It sucks that they have to drag a decent actor (Cumberbatch) down with the ship. Also, I'm calling it now. enterprise hits the earth a terminal velocity, gets repaired with in a week and is back in space, because the JJ Prise isn't a wimp like that puny Ent-D. It has the power of hacks behind it, a little thing like hitting a planet isn't going to stop the lensflares.



Your sarcastic post is right. Thats all that old lame trek was, it had absolutle nothing good about it. It survived for over 40 years because nerds suck. All the compelling stories and good characters was holding it back. Real trek needs

-Absolutely no story outside of a reason for special effects or lensflares. We wouldn't want to teel a good story. Thats for nerds.
-No dialog that isn't a sexual reference, quip, or brainless exposition
-Horrible Actors who make the characters into unlikeable jackasses with no redeeming qualities
-SEX SEX SEX! Because if it doesn't have boobs every few minutes, its not "mature". Adults need boobs to be entertained, and lots of sex. Nothing compelling has ever been made when you keep the shirts on the women. A movie without boobs isn't a real movie
-Explosions, because the only thing better than boobs are explosions.
Applying your definitions to other series, I could just as easily dismiss Deep Space Nine as endless repetitive space battles, constant fighting, heroes making unethical choices simply to seem gritty and kewl, and slutty mirror universe lesbians added in for cheap titillation. To say nothing of the cheap deus ex machina "god did it" plot twists when the writers can't find a good way out of the hole they dug

Yeah, Star trek had flaws, the whole franchise had stupid stuff. The difference is, JJ's stuff has nothing. Its completely void of anything but boobs, quips and special effects. Its Transformers with a Star Trek skin. There wasn't a second of ST2009 that actually had anything approaching a real character or decent story. As a Trekkie, I don't want a mindless action flick. I want a sci fi movie that has more of a purpose then just to get the 13 year olds to buy tickets, which is JJ's bread and butter with these movies. In 10-20 years, people will still remember and like Wrath of Khan. JJ's Trek will just be another generic action movie series that appealed to the teens who think Transformers is awesome.

Ovation wrote: View Post
So…you're not interested in the new movie then? You plan to save your money and spend it on something else instead? I honestly can't see any other reasonable course of action for anyone who holds the views you've posted. As such, perhaps you'd like to do your blood pressure a favour and not think about this new movie anymore. It's not like it will magically change into something completely different before its release.

Or…you could wait to see it first and then formulate an informed critique. It's a novel idea, I know, but it has been known to work from time to time.
Why would I pay to see it? I saw ST 2009 in theatres, I've done my time in hell. If the first movie was a Transformers knock off by a hack ruining my favorite Sci Fi series, what will this be? Especially when the trailer highlights the boobs and explosions. It will be more of the same. I guess I love Star Trek so much that I'd actually like to see Star Trek again some day, as opposed to Abrams making his version of Transformers.
So why get yourself all worked up over it at this point? You'll give yourself an aneurysm. And coming into the dedicated forum for films made by the person you hold most responsible for "ruining the franchise" is unlikely to be a pleasant experience. Not much validation to be had in these parts for vitriolic hatred of Abrams' version.

But hey, if seething rage is your thing, go to it. Pepto-Bismol is pretty cheap.
Ovation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 29 2013, 07:21 PM   #67
Tom Servo
Commodore
 
Tom Servo's Avatar
 
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Re: New Star Trek Into Darkness Teaser!

Hell, this is the guy that said that he'd spit at Abrams if he had the chance. So calm logical explanation of views isn't really his thing.
__________________
"I like this ship! It's exciting!"-Scotty "Star Trek"

Member of Red Sox Nation
Tom Servo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 29 2013, 07:23 PM   #68
Devon
Fleet Captain
 
Devon's Avatar
 
Re: New Star Trek Into Darkness Teaser!

Yeah, Star trek had flaws, the whole franchise had stupid stuff. The difference is, JJ's stuff has nothing. Its completely void of anything but boobs, quips and special effects. Its Transformers with a Star Trek skin. There wasn't a second of ST2009 that actually had anything approaching a real character or decent story. As a Trekkie, I don't want a mindless action flick. I want a sci fi movie that has more of a purpose then just to get the 13 year olds to buy tickets, which is JJ's bread and butter with these movies. In 10-20 years, people will still remember and like Wrath of Khan. JJ's Trek will just be another generic action movie series that appealed to the teens who think Transformers is awesome.

Ovation wrote: View Post
So…you're not interested in the new movie then? You plan to save your money and spend it on something else instead? I honestly can't see any other reasonable course of action for anyone who holds the views you've posted. As such, perhaps you'd like to do your blood pressure a favour and not think about this new movie anymore. It's not like it will magically change into something completely different before its release.

Or…you could wait to see it first and then formulate an informed critique. It's a novel idea, I know, but it has been known to work from time to time.
Why would I pay to see it? I saw ST 2009 in theatres, I've done my time in hell. If the first movie was a Transformers knock off by a hack ruining my favorite Sci Fi series, what will this be? Especially when the trailer highlights the boobs and explosions. It will be more of the same. I guess I love Star Trek so much that I'd actually like to see Star Trek again some day, as opposed to Abrams making his version of Transformers.
Your desperation is starting to sound pathetic. You realize that anyone can see that you've have run out of ammo, right?
__________________
Follow my Star Trek Model builds, music, art and more at Devon's Corner.
Devon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 29 2013, 07:23 PM   #69
ITL
Vice Admiral
 
ITL's Avatar
 
Location: Palace Of The Brine
Re: New Star Trek Into Darkness Teaser!

You have to admit the whole repetitive comparison to Transformers is a compelling argument. I predict that ooh....26 more comparisons will win me over. No more, no less. 26. That's the number. 26.
__________________
"Closed this morning as Ravenscroft, the bakery's dog, sprained his mouth whistling round a corner."
- Tockleys Bakery
ITL is online now   Reply With Quote
Old March 29 2013, 07:25 PM   #70
CorporalClegg
Admiral
 
CorporalClegg's Avatar
 
Location: Where my heart is.
Re: New Star Trek Into Darkness Teaser!

I don't think I've ever seen someone string so many redundant hasty generalizations together at once.

King Daniel wrote: View Post
I found Spock's life story, told as an obvious "coming out" allegory, quite touching. I don't recall Transformers or any other blockbuster action movie I've seen having an emotional punch like Star Trek did.
Totally agree. Nor did Transformers ever reach an emotional climax like the one in the opening.
__________________
Konnichi wa!
CorporalClegg is online now   Reply With Quote
Old March 29 2013, 07:28 PM   #71
kirk55555
Fleet Captain
 
kirk55555's Avatar
 
Re: New Star Trek Into Darkness Teaser!

Ovation wrote: View Post
kirk55555 wrote: View Post
King Daniel wrote: View Post

Applying your definitions to other series, I could just as easily dismiss Deep Space Nine as endless repetitive space battles, constant fighting, heroes making unethical choices simply to seem gritty and kewl, and slutty mirror universe lesbians added in for cheap titillation. To say nothing of the cheap deus ex machina "god did it" plot twists when the writers can't find a good way out of the hole they dug

Yeah, Star trek had flaws, the whole franchise had stupid stuff. The difference is, JJ's stuff has nothing. Its completely void of anything but boobs, quips and special effects. Its Transformers with a Star Trek skin. There wasn't a second of ST2009 that actually had anything approaching a real character or decent story. As a Trekkie, I don't want a mindless action flick. I want a sci fi movie that has more of a purpose then just to get the 13 year olds to buy tickets, which is JJ's bread and butter with these movies. In 10-20 years, people will still remember and like Wrath of Khan. JJ's Trek will just be another generic action movie series that appealed to the teens who think Transformers is awesome.

Ovation wrote: View Post
So…you're not interested in the new movie then? You plan to save your money and spend it on something else instead? I honestly can't see any other reasonable course of action for anyone who holds the views you've posted. As such, perhaps you'd like to do your blood pressure a favour and not think about this new movie anymore. It's not like it will magically change into something completely different before its release.

Or…you could wait to see it first and then formulate an informed critique. It's a novel idea, I know, but it has been known to work from time to time.
Why would I pay to see it? I saw ST 2009 in theatres, I've done my time in hell. If the first movie was a Transformers knock off by a hack ruining my favorite Sci Fi series, what will this be? Especially when the trailer highlights the boobs and explosions. It will be more of the same. I guess I love Star Trek so much that I'd actually like to see Star Trek again some day, as opposed to Abrams making his version of Transformers.
So why get yourself all worked up over it at this point? You'll give yourself an aneurysm. And coming into the dedicated forum for films made by the person you hold most responsible for "ruining the franchise" is unlikely to be a pleasant experience. Not much validation to be had in these parts for vitriolic hatred of Abrams' version.

But hey, if seething rage is your thing, go to it. Pepto-Bismol is pretty cheap.
Fair enough. Honestly, I needed to vent a bit. Seeing Star Trek go out in an explosion of boobs and lensflares sucks, and the trailer was just rage inducing. I get that at this point, this section of the boards is firmly in the JJ is god camp. I knew that coming in. It was stupid to bring it up, but I had to respond to the trailer somehow, and this was the only place to. I'll lament the end of Star Trek as a legitamate sci fi fanchise somewhere else.

That said, I can't resist ending the post by laughing at the fact that Star Trek 2009 has been accused of having emotion. Spock was the second worst character after Uhura in that movie, and was probably the worst actor, too. His story had about as much emotion as any of bay's movies.
kirk55555 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 29 2013, 07:29 PM   #72
SeerSGB
Admiral
 
SeerSGB's Avatar
 
Location: Out There...That Away
Re: New Star Trek Into Darkness Teaser!

I want to know where all the boobs were at in the 1st movie that people keep complaining about, cause other than Uhura and Gaila in their bras (and that doesn't count) there was a distinct lack of boobs flashing about.
__________________
- SeerSGB -
"I've made many mistakes, and it's about time that I did something about that." The Doctor (Deep Breath)
| Zombie Bots From Mars! |
SeerSGB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 29 2013, 07:31 PM   #73
SalvorHardin
Rear Admiral
 
SalvorHardin's Avatar
 
Location: Star's End
View SalvorHardin's Twitter Profile
Re: New Star Trek Into Darkness Teaser!

SeerSGB wrote: View Post
I want to know where all the boobs were at in the 1st movie that people keep complaining about, cause other than Uhura and Gaila in their bras (and that doesn't count) there was a distinct lack of boobs flashing about.

I saw Kirk's boobs, he was topless.
And yes, it counts. And it's an outrage, a slap in the face of True Trek.
__________________

SalvorHardin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 29 2013, 07:35 PM   #74
Nerys Myk
Fleet Admiral
 
Nerys Myk's Avatar
 
Location: House of Kang, now with ridges
Re: New Star Trek Into Darkness Teaser!

Christ, you'd think the trailer was a slow motion version of the opening scene of Barbarella the way folks talk about it being full of boobs. It was was a second or two of a woman in her underwear.
__________________
The boring one, the one with Khan, the one where Spock returns, the one with whales, the dumb one, the last one, the one with Kirk, the one with the Borg, the stupid one, the bad one, the new one, the other one with Khan.
Nerys Myk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 29 2013, 07:37 PM   #75
J. Allen
Taste The Rainbow™
 
J. Allen's Avatar
 
Location: United States
Send a message via ICQ to J. Allen Send a message via AIM to J. Allen Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to J. Allen Send a message via Yahoo to J. Allen
Re: New Star Trek Into Darkness Teaser!

CorporalClegg wrote: View Post
I don't think I've ever seen someone string so many redundant hasty generalizations together at once.

King Daniel wrote: View Post
I found Spock's life story, told as an obvious "coming out" allegory, quite touching. I don't recall Transformers or any other blockbuster action movie I've seen having an emotional punch like Star Trek did.
Totally agree. Nor did Transformers ever reach an emotional climax like the one in the opening.
I still think the opening sequence of ST09 was some of the best 10 minutes of Trek ever produced.
__________________
I don't like getting into arguments with people for two basic reasons:
1) I don't stay angry very long.
2) I'm usually quick to apologize if I feel I was wrong.
3) I never know when to quit.
4)
J. Allen is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:05 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.