STAR TREK XI CANCELED!!!

[Flavius]

Tits.

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

I thought we had agreed to go with "Cock."

 

[Kpnuts]

Does anyone even find Samuel T Cogley funny or interesting any more? I say any more, giving him possibly a tad more credit than I should, seeing as I never thought he was either funny or interesting but regardless... give it a rest mate.

 

[Kegek]

Kpnuts said:
Does anyone even find Samuel T Cogley funny or interesting any more?

No, but I do find him to be a reliable source of infotainment.

 

[Plum]

Kpnuts said:
Does anyone even find Samuel T Cogley funny or interesting any more? I say any more

More than you. 'Nuff said.

... and I'll go with SUGARTITS.

 

[archeryguy1701]

I personally enjoy reading Cog's posts. Thuroughly entertaining. I say keep up the good work!

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

NOVEMBER 18, 2007

Kpnuts said:
I find the hero-worship/wanking to Samuel T Cogley quite amusing.

The man is not funny, like REALLY REALLY unfunny. Yet he is treated like a god around here by most. Interesting...

We now resume our thread... pretty much exactly where we left off several months ago. (Two months ago, to the day, actually)

JANUARY 18, 2008

Kpnuts said:
Does anyone even find Samuel T Cogley funny or interesting any more? I say any more, giving him possibly a tad more credit than I should, seeing as I never thought he was either funny or interesting but regardless... give it a rest mate.

MARCH 18, 2008

Kpnuts will say:

It's anybody's guess, people.

 

[Kpnuts]

Sadly, your 'humour' got boring far longer than just a couple of months ago. It got old about 7-8 years ago. Anyway let's get back on topic... oh hang on.

 

[section9]

I actually thought that Shatner was responsible for Star Trek V, an execrable movie.

 

[Cyrus]

I am hearing that the movie may still get canceled. A rough cut of the movie is scheduled to be screened for Sumner Redstone in March. If he doesn't like it he will cancel it.

 

[Admiral2]

My only problem with this particular post is that it's not true. I'd throw a party if I actually thought this impending cluster-f*** would be cancelled before its release.

 

[Sharr Khan]

Admiral2 said:
My only problem with this particular post is that it's not true. I'd throw a party if I actually thought this impending cluster-f*** would be cancelled before its release.

Yeah... can't wait when people with this attitude end up eating crow after this becomes the most successful Trek film to date.

Films not going anywhere, no more then TNG was ending cause it rocked some peoples boat when it first came about (not that I don't have issues with that show - but they're all based on after having lived through it for seven seasons and how GR himself recalibrated Trek for his new "vision"...)

No matter how loudly you scream and cry - this is Star Trek in one form or another.

Sharr

 

[SlyCardie]

Let's try to keep an open mind.

The only thing that irks me is the whole reboot issue, which isn't worth talking about because it's so frustrating.

 

[Admiral2]

You misunderstand. I'm not one of those people complaining about the movie because I don't consider it Star Trek. It is Trek. In fact, it's exactly the same Trek we got in 1966! It is now 2008, which makes the previous fact dense beyond all imagining! And I would rather the next trek not just be "the most successful Trek film to date", because that's not actually shooting for much.

But whatever. [sycophant]Hail J.J.[/sycophant]

 

[archeryguy1701]

Admiral2 said:
You misunderstand. I'm not one of those people complaining about the movie because I don't consider it Star Trek. It is Trek. In fact, it's exactly the same Trek we got in 1966! It is now 2008, which makes the previous fact dense beyond all imagining! And I would rather the next trek not just be "the most successful Trek film to date", because that's not actually shooting for much.

But whatever. [sycophant]Hail J.J.[/sycophant]

How do we know that it is the "exact same Trek" as '66 when we realistically haven't seen anything from the movie yet?

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

It's been two or three posts since someone tried to rip me a new asshole. This thread is losing its rhythm. Help a brother out with an insult or two.

 

[Gepard]

Samuel T. Cogley said:
It's been two or three posts since someone tried to rip me a new asshole. This thread is losing its rhythm. Help a brother out with an insult or two.

You scruffy looking nerf-herder.

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

Gep Malakai said:
You scruffy looking nerf-herder.

Laugh it up, Fuzzball!

Where ya been, Gep Malakai?

 

[Kegek]

archeryguy1701 said:

Admiral2 said:
You misunderstand. I'm not one of those people complaining about the movie because I don't consider it Star Trek. It is Trek. In fact, it's exactly the same Trek we got in 1966! It is now 2008, which makes the previous fact dense beyond all imagining! And I would rather the next trek not just be "the most successful Trek film to date", because that's not actually shooting for much.

But whatever. [sycophant]Hail J.J.[/sycophant]

How do we know that it is the "exact same Trek" as '66 when we realistically haven't seen anything from the movie yet?

Well, we've seen the teaser trailer, and experts confirm that Nimoy indeed is heard in voiceover, as well as some other familiar sounds like the transporter not to mention the Alexander Courage fanfare. And it has the Enterprise. While the teaser is new, it was just filmed for the release of this film - which is obviously "Where No Man Has Gone Before", like last year's release of "The Menagerie."

 

[PKTrekGirl]

Gep Malakai said:

Samuel T. Cogley said:
It's been two or three posts since someone tried to rip me a new asshole. This thread is losing its rhythm. Help a brother out with an insult or two.

You scruffy looking nerf-herder.

Nerf-herder????

Jeez...that's almost as good 'sugartits'. :thumbsup: