The failure of Watchmen should be a lesson..

[ST-One]

Jeez, what a bunch of old women! Bicker, bicker, bicker. It comes down to personal preference. Trying to compare a non-Trek film to Trek is ludicrious. As for time travel, people like time travel stories - a possible exception is Enterprise, a stillborn series that should never have existed.

^Speek for your self, Enterprise was great it's last two season's and I can only imagine where they could have gone if it continued.

Agreed.

 

[controlfreak]

Jeez, what a bunch of old women! Bicker, bicker, bicker. It comes down to personal preference. Trying to compare a non-Trek film to Trek is ludicrious.

Agreed.

As for time travel, people like time travel stories - a possible exception is Enterprise, a stillborn series that should never have existed.

I liked Enterprise, what I saw of it..

I don't think that series deserved the hatred it gets, nor do I have a problem with time travel, a Swiss Army knife (no pun intended) of Sci-fi storytelling.

 

[trevanian]

There is nothing offensive about ST-1's avatar. The constant sniping back and forth is, however, getting kind of old, n'est-ce pas?

I find plenty offensive about his posts, and the fact he had a Sam Jones looking guy as an avatar just makes me think of FLASH GORDON, which is just another negative in a long line of negs associated with that poster. The Spock finger one is more obnoxious than offensive, and I've never understood why it is tolerated, but it is the least of the probs I associate with that guy posting here.

If you don't like the sniping, maybe somebody should look into the content of the posts in the thread, and a mod can decide if some pinkies need to get slapped.

 

[trevanian]

Someone not to long ago - a week or two maybe - told me how you once told him how offensive you found the Avatar he had at that time... it's a common theme with you, isn't it? Just like Bible-long post that usually tell the same thing over and over again.

I change my Avatar if you remove yours.

Who's this "someone?" Just curious... if you're going to bring someone else into the conversation, shouldn't that person be named? FYI, the only avatars which are offensive, on here, are ones that are specifically designed to be offensive. And I haven't had ANY comment about anyone's avatar, on here (except for yours) within memory. So, I think you're lying about that. The only alternative is that someone else lied about it to you, "a week ago," without my knowledge... presumably having a time-machine in order to know when to tell it to you.

You've had two avatars which were designed to be offensive. This is supposed to be an "open forum" where kids, as well as adults, can read and post. Basic courtesy and respect for others would mean that you'd never put obscene gestures, obscene language, or obscene imagery into something which can be seen by anyone (including kids) who come into the forums.

Will you be quiet?
Who died and made you arbiter of what is offensive or respectful or courteous anyway.
I use that avatar since the beginning of this year and you are the only person to raise a stink about it.

And... fyi... it doesn't escape me that the only response you had to my argument was to pretend that it wasn't worth commenting... the "rolleyes" bit. I know you can read English perfectly well... so that's no excuse. My argument was an actual ARGUMENT... that is, logical statements supporting a position. You failed to respond in kind... which, I think it's clear, proves that you have no cogent argument to make in reply.

The single line snipe and/or emoticon is pretty much the default mode of a lot of folks here I consider to be only semi-literate. That isn't semi-literate in the sense of barely passing BoneHeadEnglish, but semi-literate in terms of their having read enough to form opinions, but only rarely are skilled enough to express them with genuine conviction in a debate style forum without having to go to the nyah nyah nynyah nyah route of emoticoning when a smart reasonable response is provided after they have done their blathering.

 

[M'Sharak]

Ho. Lee. Shit.

Is there a limit on the number of times you're going to use the words 'arrogant assumption' in your posts on the subject of this movie, or should I just assume you have a macro set that just keys those words in to save you time whenever you try to dismiss legitimate speculation?

Please point me to the 'legitimate speculation'-part in Ptrop's 'dumbing it down' as a response to StarTrek1701's view that Abrams and Co (presumably) made Star Trek more accessible to the average (general) movie goer.

"Arrogant" and "assumption" generally don't go together anyway.

"Arrogant" is an objective descriptive term. It describes the person being described, directly.

"Assumption," BY DEFINITION, isn't about the person being described as having made the assumption, though.

There are "ill-informed" assumptions. There are mistaken assumptions. There are correct assumptions. But, since you almost never make assumptions about yourself... it's nearly impossible for an assumption to be "arrogant."

If you think he's making assumptions which are derogatory... then they are not "arrogant" assumptions, they are DEROGATORY assumptions.

I, personally, think PTrope's position is quite reasonable. Of course, you won't be surprised to hear that, I'm sure. I find nothing either "arrogant" NOR "derogatory" about his perspective, though it seems you do think he's somehow being "derogatory" towards other people by virtue of him, personally, not LIKING what he's being given, and having the audacity to actually say so.

From introducing the word "derogatory" yourself to the implication that ST-One thinks Ptrope is making a "derogatory assumption" in a single post. Way to go, Cary -- you score a ten for gymnastic ability, and extra points for putting words in someone's mouth.

But that's not even the whole post. There's more:

His criticisms, on this particular topic, are much as my own are. We both find the claims that "the original design would never work" to be NONSENSICAL on every level. There is no evidence of any kind to support such a claim, and plenty of logical arguments which cast at least SOME doubt on the claim.

The only way to find out if "the original design would work" would be to actually put it to the test. Now... that hasn't been done on the "big screen" but it HAS been done on the small screen a couple of times in recent years (for TOS-R and for "In A Mirror Darkly"). And in both of those cases, it's been very well-received.

So, there's a dearth of evidence either way, but the evidence which IS available tends to disprove the "it would never work" argument. And there is ZERO actual evidence in the opposite direction. There is OPINION, sure... purely individual and anecdotal in nature... but no evidence.

Great, but this isn't the thread about the design of the Enterprise, and whether the OS design would work on the big screen for today's audience; Ptrope wasn't talking about that in the post to which ST-One was responding. No, this is the cautionary "failure of Watchmen should be a lesson" thread, and you got so wrapped up in telling ST-One off that you forgot which thread you were in. This does not speak well of your intent here.

But there's still more:

Oh, and by the way, ST-One... would you PLEASE take the "gay porn clip" avatar off? I don't need to look at some guy with nothing but a jockstrap on, ready to be buggered... and I think that's inappropriate for an "all ages" forum, isn't it? You want to have something like that, go to the "access-restricted, gay porn" websites. It's even more obnoxious than the old avatar you had, which had the "fuck you" gesture in it. Try having an avatar which is not designed to offend and shock, for once... please?

If it wasn't clear already that the topic of the thread was irrelevant to you and that you were engaged in an attack on another poster, this confirms it.

And all too predictably:

There is nothing offensive about ST-1's avatar. The constant sniping back and forth is, however, getting kind of old, n'est-ce pas?

I find plenty offensive about his posts, and the fact he had a Sam Jones looking guy as an avatar just makes me think of FLASH GORDON, which is just another negative in a long line of negs associated with that poster. The Spock finger one is more obnoxious than offensive, and I've never understood why it is tolerated, but it is the least of the probs I associate with that guy posting here.

If you don't like the sniping, maybe somebody should look into the content of the posts in the thread, and a mod can decide if some pinkies need to get slapped.

...

...

...

...

The single line snipe and/or emoticon is pretty much the default mode of a lot of folks here I consider to be only semi-literate. That isn't semi-literate in the sense of barely passing BoneHeadEnglish, but semi-literate in terms of their having read enough to form opinions, but only rarely are skilled enough to express them with genuine conviction in a debate style forum without having to go to the nyah nyah nynyah nyah route of emoticoning when a smart reasonable response is provided after they have done their blathering.

...here comes another party who has demonstrated on more than one occasion that he has an axe to grind with ST-One and saw here an opportunity to pile on not only about the avatar but to do some back-seat modding and to take a few personal swipes of his own.

ST-One I would advise to dial back his wording a notch, as words like "arrogant" can and often will be taken badly. Further, declining to respond to Cary's off-topic dig about the avatar would have been a much better choice.

Cary and trevanian, both of you went well over the line; both of you should damned well have known better, and both of you get warnings for trolling.

This thread is done. You've wrecked it.