You deserved exactly the same quantity and quality of "evidence" that you provided for your earlier view about my motivations for liking the film--none.
No, you merely made an extremely short, unflattering list of potential reasons for expressing a positive opinion of the film and declared any other stated reasons as invalid. One need not call someone delusional to imply it.
And this is what? Fact? (nope) Hmm...what could it be? I know, I know...OPINION. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. However, you are NOT entitled to masquerade that opinion as FACT (as you have several times in this thread alone) NOR is your OPINION itself entitled to any respect (your right to have one is entitled to respect, the opinion itself must EARN any respect it gathers--and it is not likely to do so in its present formulation).
^That's true. He never said we were mindless sheep- just that the only reason we like the new movie is because everyone else does.
It's getting mentioned because, for once, non-fans are getting into a Trek movie, and we think that this is neat. How often to critics and regular movie-goers enjoy a Trek movie? If you want to use this to support your claims, have at it, but it is very, very weak reasoning at best.
Not when it came to discussing MY reasons for liking the film. You simply lumped me into the undifferentiated mass of "Trek fans" and implied I was lying about my motivations because I did not want to admit to "following the crowd" or some such drivel. All without one shred of evidence to "support" your opinion. And that is the ONLY point to which I have been responding.
The flaws in your reasoning are several. One--you are extrapolating from a subset to a general set without compelling evidence. That SOME "Trek fans" have made such statements in NO WAY implies approval, tacit or otherwise, of that sentiment by all. Two--you presume that mentioning its popularity is a NECESSARY component of why ALL people who are both "Trek fans" and appreciative of the movie actually do like it (though it would be equally faulty to apply it to any who have not expressly said so). One is not contingent, by necessity, upon the other. Three--you presume that NO OTHER reason can allow for mentioning "I really like the movie" and "it's quite popular" together except to establish a causal connection between the two. There are a myriad of reasons why the two would be mentioned together that do NOT involve a causal connection, chief among them a simple observation of two things happening simultaneously (i.e. "I like it" and "it is popular" rather than "I like it BECAUSE it is popular"). Frankly, not the quality of reasoning I'd expect from a high scorer on the Praxis exam.
tauntme, since it's not entirely clear who the "Fuck you" was aimed at, I'm going to issue a verbal advisory that flaming is against board rules and that I'd strongly recommend you avoid it in the future.
You are a fucking idiot.
I'll gladly take a warning for that, too. I'm sorry, but this pure level of asinine ignorance just can't be ignored. It's just outrageously bad, and so filled with fail that it's like watching the Hindenburg go down in a hurricane on the Fourth of July! Oh, Dayton, your insane ramblings amuse me so.
Remember folks, because Dayton doesn't like the movie, the only reason all of you like it is because it's popular!
I mean, you say some stupid shit, mostly when you were in TNZ and over at WF, but wow, you can spread it everywhere you go! You're like the Johnny Appleseed of bullshit!
Holy shit, you made my day, you shit shoveling, ignorant backwoods son of a bitch!
J.
J. Allen and ST-One, you knew this was coming. One warning each for flaming.
