I admitted no such thing, because such is not the case.
No, you used the ol' smarmy "well if you don't know what it is, I'm not going to tell you." The burden of proof is on you, you can't just say that there's a pink dragon and expect em to accept it without proof.
And didn't I just say something to you about putting words in the mouths of others? That's a lazy trick and a second-rate trolling tactic.
The lazy trick is saying, "you missed the point" and then no elaborating.
No wonder you were complaining about not being able to get a straight answer to your questions in another thread: everyone could tell you were setting up straw men, because you do it so obviously.
So obvious that I don't even know what the hell you're even talking about.
And you completely missed the point. You really ought to make sure you know where someone stands (and Wormhole really has been quite clear on many occasions, if only you had taken the trouble to show up and pay attention once in a while) before trying to take a cheap potshot.
I'm not going to dig through an entire forum, I'm going to respond to what I see. If there's a point or something I missed, either one of you could very easily explain and then I would understand and be able to apologize and/or retract my own statement. This is not something that should be difficult, but you've somehow managed to make it that way.
No, sarcasm is not so considered. But that tool isn't the one you were employing, was it?
Gee, would that be sarcasm?
Seriously, do you just not know me very well? About 90% of the things I say are sarcastic, that's why I tend to use a lot of memes, because I find that nothing quite captures sarcasm online than a funny picture with a witty caption.
Considering what you and several other posters in here argue, it can be hard to tell.
Oh really? Would you care to explain what exactly it is I argue then?
Probably not, because we're trekkies and we already like it. There's no particular reason to think that any of the original designs would especially impress viewers whose references for technology are more modern or current.
There's no reason the retro-future look Abrams has come up with should impress non-fans either.
What is rarely pointed out is that almost none of the original Trek designs for anything have been resurrected for forty years, except as the occasional one-shot nostalgia exercise directed specifically at the appreciative trekkie audience.
One-shot?
Obviously not someone who's seen either
Trials and Tribble-ations of IaMD...
Roddenberry and company would not even use them in ST:TMP. The notion that any of them would be unearthed and reused for a brand-new version of Star Trek was never more than a fannish pipe dream.
I like how you dismiss the idea of updating/modernizing the design like that. It makes the assertion that's been made about how critics of the new design ethic are just dismissing everything out of hand seem that much more trite.
Frankly, I've read PKTrekGirl's posts in here before, and she's usually advocated the unbelievablly reprehensible stance of actually watching the movie before passing judgement.
Yes, I've heard that one like a million times before, but while that "suggestion" is plenty condescending, it isn't a particularly good one in light of all the pictures, video, and information that's known about the movie. Actually seeing the ship in the movie or the plot playing out isn't going to change the fact that I don;t care for either one.
Is that biased in any way?
The bias comes in when anyone who is very obviously a proponent of the movie trolls someone who is a critic of the movie and is ignored, but when said critic responds back in a sarcastic, but non-trolling fashion is suddenly jumped on by the mods and made public enemy number one for having this differing opinion and expressing it, because it goes against the consensus and thus causes disruption. It makes having rules against trolling and flaming rather pointless if they are only enforced against people who disagree with the people who have the power to enforce those rules.
^ As far as I can tell, while there are a few gushers, I have yet to see someone who is a polar opposite of all the unconditional bashers who bitch and moan 24/7 on here.
I haven't really seen any "unconditional bashers" here either. Most anyone who is a critic usually has a reason for it, even if they can't always articulate them. The problem is, here, one can be as articulate as they want, and explain every single point why they don't like the movie, and they will still get labeled a basher. I keep having to point out that while critics of the movie are just discussing the movie and why they don't like it, there are a lot of people here who love nothing better than to bitch about the critics rather than even attempting to make a real argument, and the mods are letting them do it. The old rule about responding to the post and not just insulting the poster apparently doesn't apply to this forum.
No one's proclaimed how great this movie is going to be because the Kelvin registry number starts with zero or because Kirk says "man."
No, but they've proclaimed how awesome the movie will be because of who's producing it, and because the ship has been retro-redesigned, and because "it's 2009, not 1969".
Look, there's this very simple phenomenon: fan boards tend to be places where people who really like something gather to talk about it.
Yeah, that's what I'm doing - talking about it.
You may have noticed a preponderance of people who love TOS down in the TOS forum. Voyager has a forum full of folks who seem to have an ungodly respect for Robert Beltran. Enterprise has a forum of beagle-lovers, and so on.
Funny thing - most of the folks in the Galactica forum who are provocative enough to be called "trolls" don't like Galactica. Why do you suppose that is?
There's also a group of people who consider any criticism at all of a show to mean that makes the critic a non-fan. I like Star Trek, or more accurately I like the concepts in it, I just don't always like the execution. All the same, people who don't like this movie have every bit as much a right to say so as you do to say that you do like it, and they don't deserve to be hounded for having a different opinion.
It stands to reason that the majority of people who frequent a forum about the new Trek movie on a daily or near-daily basis are going to be positive about it.
No, it only stands to reason that they have an opinion about it and care enough about it to articulate that opinion. If everyone agreed about everything, there wouldn't be much point to discussion, and there would be no point to having a discussion board for it.
And no matter how even-handed moderators are they will sometimes seem to favor the majority opinion because except for a few malcontents like myself most of the pro-movie people are playing defense here a great deal of the time.
Beyond favoring those who agree with their own opinion, the bias is in the enforcement of the rules, as in when someone trolls or flames someone, they at least get a friendly, if not officially warned.
You been given an official warning for posting things critical of the movie? Threatened with banning? In what exact way is this moderator "bias" manifesting itself?
I've been threatened with an official warning for expressing an unpopular opinion in a way they consider to be offensive, not because I actually broke any rule. Meanwhile, plenty of posters have flamed and trolled me and others who are critical of the movie and they have been ignored by the moderators. So far I've only seen one mod who said anything about that, namely
Ptrope, and I have to say that it's disappointing that he or she is the only one.
Go find a forum full of Yankees fans and talk up the Mets. Let me know how it works out.
If there are rules against trolling and flaming, and the Yankee fans troll and flame the Mets fan and don't get warned, then yeah, that would be a pretty clear-cut example of mod bias. Oh, I know what you're saying, namely "shut the fuck up if you don't like this movie." Thing is, I've never been one to shy away from expressing any opinion I have, and like it or not, I have an opinion about this movie. I've had plenty of debate with other posters here about the actual content of the movie and the rest of the franchise without them resorting to insulting me or my intelligence, so it's definitely possible for everyone else to do that too. Whining about "Star Trek Fundamentalism" and "the bashers" isn't debate, it's trolling.
WOW! if this is true, I am very happy Roddenberry went with the one we are ALL familier with! Here is how I rank the ENTERPRISES, 1 being my favorite. 8:ENT-B, 7:ENT-C, 6:ENT-D, 5:1701, 4:ENT-A, 3:1701-E, 2:ENT-J, 1: NX-O1.
( ST 3 )
I don't drink, I'm just calling it as I see it.
