Maximum speed of the NuEnterprise

[I-Am-Zim]

No. I'm happy with what they throw at me as long as it keeps the franchise alive, profitable, and popular.

So, as long as it has "Star Trek" stamped on it, you'll be perfectly happy with it as long as it's popular? Even if it's utter watered-down, diluted for the "mainstream" audience, imitation Star Trek for the masses, crap?

You mean "Wrath of Khan?" Yeah, I'm okay with that.

TWOK isn't a very good example. Considering that it was actually a very good movie, despite it's few flaws.

AbramsTrek is not my Star Trek.

Obviously. If you can't handle that, you should probably go back to YOUR Star Trek and stop complaining about the new stuff.

I can handle it just fine. I just don't have to like it. And I do wach MY Star Trek on a daily basis.

And besides, this is a discussion forum.

Yes, a discussion forum. Not a whambulance for people who are angry because they didn't get what they wanted for Trekmas.

"Whambulance"?
Sorry, I'm not up on all this hip new urban slang. But if you can't handle discussions with people who don't completely agree with you, maybe you should go somewhere else.

 

[I-Am-Zim]

Is this startrekrcks i'm just wondering how many are there who ignore punctuation it is not easy to read and makes no sense why did you change your user name it is confusing just wondering

 

[M'Sharak]

<snip>And they went to great lengths to let everybody know that. "Forget what you know". "This ain't your father's Star Trek." Remember those?

<snip>

One TV spot containing each slogan, as best I can recall, each targeting a particular demographic not typically associated with Trek fandom -- great lengths, indeed. Yet someone who wasn't paying attention during the lead-up to the movie's release might get the impression that every trailer and every one of two or three dozen TV spots promoting the film pounded both home mercilessly, so much do these two sentences get held up as evidence of the perfidy of J.J. Abrams and his henchmen.

(The second one was correctly "This is not your father's Star Trek," btw, and note the date - less than a month before general release.)

Is this startrekrcks i'm just wondering how many are there who ignore punctuation it is not easy to read and makes no sense why did you change your user name it is confusing just wondering

You're too good at that.

That dual should be all done, though.

 

[Devon]

So, as long as it has "Star Trek" stamped on it, you'll be perfectly happy with it as long as it's popular? Even if it's utter watered-down, diluted for the "mainstream" audience, imitation Star Trek for the masses, crap? Okay. Glad we cleared that up.

You're force feeding words in to people's mouths.

TWOK isn't a very good example. Considering that it was actually a very good movie, despite it's few flaws.

What if it is to him? You're confusing your opinions for "fact" again.

 

[CaptainStoner]

I'll jump in and state the obvious: the max speed of the NuEnterptise is ludicrous speed.

 

[I-Am-Zim]

You're force feeding words in to people's mouths.

What if it is to him? You're confusing your opinions for "fact" again.

Pot calling the kettle black. You do it all the time.

Don't throw stones if you live in a glass house...etc. etc...

 

[I-Am-Zim]

I'll jump in and state the obvious: the max speed of the NuEnterptise is ludicrous speed.

True. Wouldn't it be funny in the next movie if everything went plaid every time the Abramsprise went to warp?

 

[JarodRussell]

I'll jump in and state the obvious: the max speed of the NuEnterptise is ludicrous speed.

True. Wouldn't it be funny in the next movie if everything went plaid every time the Abramsprise went to warp?

I could very well imagine Urban-McCoy having a line like "We're chasing them at ludicrous speed..."

 

[I-Am-Zim]

NuKirk: NuSpock, how...did we...get to...Vulcan...so fast???

NuSpock: Well...it was Mr. NuScott who performed the actual engineering.

NuKirk: Of course. NuScotty?

NuScotty: Ummmmmm.

NuBones: Tell 'im NuScotty.

NuScotty: I kinna explain it cap'n.

NuBones: Dammit Jim! He took us to ludicrous speed!

Laughter all around

I know. It's not that funny.

 

[Devon]

You're force feeding words in to people's mouths.

What if it is to him? You're confusing your opinions for "fact" again.

Pot calling the kettle black. You do it all the time.

Don't throw stones if you live in a glass house...etc. etc...

I didn't ask for useless cliches, so what if the example is useful to him? You confused your opinions for facts.

 

[Set Harth]

I say this because I actually know this: no method of defeating that interference has been suggested or implied

Wrong: it's been suggested and ignored.

Omission does not an implication make

Then you'd better hope "implied" and "proved" mean the same thing. If they don't, you've got a problem.

(same reason you can't prove a negative).

Which won't stop you from trying.

You can speculate all you want, but you can't support that speculation without evidence

The same goes for your speculation of nonexistent seismic events in 2233. Apparently speculation is conveniently available to you and no one else.
Your entire case is predicated on multiple examples of speculation.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

So, as long as it has "Star Trek" stamped on it, you'll be perfectly happy with it as long as it's popular? Even if it's utter watered-down, diluted for the "mainstream" audience, imitation Star Trek for the masses, crap?

You mean "Wrath of Khan?" Yeah, I'm okay with that.

TWOK isn't a very good example. Considering that it was actually a very good movie, despite it's few flaws.

So is STXI.

Sorry, I'm not up on all this hip new urban slang. But if you can't handle discussions with people who don't completely agree with you, maybe you should go somewhere else.

Take your own advice, maybe?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I say this because I actually know this: no method of defeating that interference has been suggested or implied

Wrong: it's been suggested and ignored.

Yes, by you. Not by the events in the film, which we are discussing here.

You can speculate all you want, but you can't support that speculation without evidence

The same goes for your speculation of nonexistent seismic events in 2233. Apparently speculation is conveniently available to you and no one else.

I never said such events DID occur. The issue only came up when you suggested that they DID NOT occur, and we do not know this to be the case.

It remains a possibility, and Starfleet associating the "lightning storm in space" with the events on Vulcan suggests that at least Chekov thought it had something to do with it.

Beyond speculation, the only facts we have are these:
1) Earth received a distress signal reporting "seismic activity."
2) Starfleet detected the black hole (evidently without recognizing it) and thought it had something to do with it.
3) The Narada's drill interferes with communications.

1) and 3) are enough to rule out the drill. 2) Suggests an alternate cause. Even excluding that alternate cause (there is no cause to do so, as I pointed out) the facts still eliminate the drill as a potential cause.

 

[I-Am-Zim]

You're force feeding words in to people's mouths.

What if it is to him? You're confusing your opinions for "fact" again.

Pot calling the kettle black. You do it all the time.

Don't throw stones if you live in a glass house...etc. etc...

I didn't ask for useless cliches, so what if the example is useful to him? You confused your opinions for facts.

Once again, you are the pot calling the kettle black. You confuse your opinion for fact on a regular basis. So when you figure out the difference, then you may be allowed to call me on it.

As to my original comment, TWOK, by most accounts was a good movie. In my opinion, as well as critically. Others may feel differently, and that is their prerogative. I am of the opinion that it was a great movie. Therefore, it was not a good example as far as I'm concerned.

You mean "Wrath of Khan?" Yeah, I'm okay with that.

TWOK isn't a very good example. Considering that it was actually a very good movie, despite it's few flaws.

So is STXI.

In your opinion, maybe. I feel quite differently.

Sorry, I'm not up on all this hip new urban slang. But if you can't handle discussions with people who don't completely agree with you, maybe you should go somewhere else.

Take your own advice, maybe?

I have no problems discussing my opinions in a civilized manner with others who don't agree with me. And I'm usually quite good at keeping my cool even when others act like children throwing temper tantrums. Therefore, my advice to you still stands.

 

[Set Harth]

Starfleet associating the "lightning storm in space" with the events on Vulcan suggests that at least Chekov thought it had something to do with it.

Or that Starfleet thought it had something to do with it, and Chekov just read the mission briefing accurately. But Starfleet doesn't have to be right.

1) and 3) are enough to rule out the drill.

Not quite... unless, of course, your research into "proving a negative" has yielded a surprising breakthrough.

 

[Devon]

Once again,

Once again nothing.

You confuse your opinion for fact on a regular basis. So when you figure out the difference, then you may be allowed to call me on it.

Proof? I do it all the time supposedly, so it should be easy to back up.

As to my original comment, TWOK, by most accounts was a good movie.

Which is different, even if more accurate, than saying "it actually is a good movie" and discounting that member's opinion.

Others may feel differently, and that is their prerogative. I am of the opinion that it was a great movie. Therefore, it was not a good example as far as I'm concerned.

It was to that member.

 

[I-Am-Zim]

Once again,

Once again nothing.

There you go again, confusing your opinion with fact.

You confuse your opinion for fact on a regular basis. So when you figure out the difference, then you may be allowed to call me on it.

Proof? I do it all the time supposedly, so it should be easy to back up.

See above. And also:

(These are just a few examples of your debating tactics)

Re: Is A New Star Trek TV Series Doomed Even More Because of Star Trek

"No. Try again."

Re: Abrams' Star Trek Up for Ray Bradbury Award!

"Incorrect again."

Re: Maximum speed of the NuEnterprise

"Apparently not."

"Still one."

Re: Maximum speed of the NuEnterprise

"Nothing to debate."

Re: Maximum speed of the NuEnterprise

"More like "nothing to debate."

Re: Maximum speed of the NuEnterprise

"Actually" nothing.

I hope you didn't debate with some of the same misinformation and... "

Re: Is A New Star Trek TV Series Doomed Even More Because of Star Trek

"It's hilarious that you're grasping for dear life on to this. "

Basically, it appears that you consider your opinions to be fact and that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. You seem to have quite a bit of difficulty accepting that others don't have the same opinions about certain aspects of this movie or Star Trek in general that you do. And when others disagree with you, you simply respond with one or two word sentences such as "no", or "try again", without actually giving reasons for why your opinons are different. But I'll be more than happy to continue with the discussions.

As to my original comment, TWOK, by most accounts was a good movie.

Which is different, even if more accurate, than saying "it actually is a good movie" and discounting that member's opinion.

Once again, give it a rest. You "discount" other members' opinions all the time.

Others may feel differently, and that is their prerogative. I am of the opinion that it was a great movie. Therefore, it was not a good example as far as I'm concerned.

It was to that member.

If someone feels TWOK was a bad movie, that's fine. I liked it. So did most of the critics of the time. And it made a lot of money for Paramount. By most accounts, it was a good movie, however flawed it may have been. I agree with those accounts. Others may not.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Not quite... unless, of course, your research into "proving a negative" has yielded a surprising breakthrough.

Hardly. You err in failing to understand that "A is not a cause of B" is not a logical negative. Properly speaking--in formal logic--the statement is rendered as "If A -> B = False" or "The Statement 'A causes B' is not true." Proof of falsehood is not a proof of negative.

So you cannot start with the assumption "God is not here" and then set about proving it. You can, however, start with proposition "God is made of cheese," search the area and find NO cheese, and come to the conclusion "God is not here." Formally "IF God = Cheese and IF Cheese = not here THEN God = not here." (If A = B and B = -C then A = -C).

In this case, you say "The Drill caused the quakes." We look at the facts and find the quakes were reported by a long range transmission. We also see the drill blocks those kinds of transmissions. This is a logical contradiction that results in the conclusion "The drill did not cause the quakes." Formally, "IF drill blocks = no signal and IF signal reported quakes THEN = Quakes not caused by drill" (If A =/= B and B = C then A =/= C).

 

[M'Sharak]

[More sniping at Zim]

[Another snipy response to sniping by Devon]

These reruns deserve another rerun:

Devon, Zim -- give it a rest, OK?

It keeps coming back to the two of you taking pokes at each other in this thread. Less of that, please. If you cannot resist making it personal, consider simply not replying at all; you'd be surprised at how well it works.

 

[I-Am-Zim]

[More sniping at Zim]

[Another snipy response to sniping by Devon]

These reruns deserve another rerun:

Devon, Zim -- give it a rest, OK?

It keeps coming back to the two of you taking pokes at each other in this thread. Less of that, please. If you cannot resist making it personal, consider simply not replying at all; you'd be surprised at how well it works.

10-4. I;m all for that. I would very much like to have a civilized discussion about this movie without having to respond to snide remarks, while lowering myself to having to make those kinds of remarks in return. Therefore, I shall indeed refrain from those kinds of comments. I'm generally a very easy going kind of guy. And I may not like what JJA has done to "my" Star Trek, but I have nothing against those who do. So please let the discussion continue.