>>>> "Kweeg" wrote in message
>>>>>news:Bc4gk.78839$kx.43589@pd7urf3no...
>>>>>>>>> Kweeg, I gotta somewhat disagree with you on this. Seeing the
>>>>>>>>> care
>>>>>>>>> TPTB have NOT taken
>>>>>>>>> in the past with trek canon, I'm not hopeful. It seems to me the
>>>>>>>>> current management wants
>>>>>>>>> to write new scifi but give it the trek name so it'll pull in the
>>>>>>>>> fans. Yes, season 4 of ENT
>>>>>>>>> rocked and perhaps the series might have succeeded had Coto been
>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>> board from the get go,
>>>>>>>>> but he wasn't.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm skeptical. I fear this will simply be another enterprise
>>>>>>>>> debacle.
>>>>
>>>>>>>> .. like Roddenberry believing everything people were saying about
>>>>>>>> him
>>>>>>>> and screwing up Trek canon with his "New Trek" TNG. Season 1 & 2,
>>>>>>>> now
>>>>>>>> those are painful to watch.
>>>>>>>> Don't confuse canon with FANon. {{;-/>
>>>>>>>> Point is Brenda when there is someone who cares and understands
>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>> makes it "Trek" (like Coto / Moore / Bennet) we usually get good
>>>>>>>> Trek.
>>>>>>>> While not a big of fan as Coto is, I hold out some hope JJ will do
>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>> justice, and I will not condemn it *before* I've even seen it.
>>>>
>>>>>>> Kweeg, you should know me better. I'm a fan, not a fangirl. I'm not
>>>>>>> confusing canon with fandom.
>>>>>>> When something is presented on screen and then the new powers that
>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>> choose to completely IGNORE
>>>>>>> that history they ignore canon..better thought of as continuity.
>>>>>>> Voicing
>>>>>>> skepticism isn't condemning. It's
>>>>>>> being skeptical.
>>>>
>>>>>> Of course the worst offender for "canon violations" was TOS.
>>>>
>>>>> Sure there were contradictions. It's impossible for many authors to
>>>>> pen a
>>>>> series and there NOT be some
>>>>> contradictions. But there's a difference between that and blatently
>>>>> ignoring what's been written before.
>>>>> It's like someone who tries to rewrite history. Seeing that doesn't
>>>>> make
>>>>> me a "fangirl" and ignoring that
>>>>> doesn't make a new trek series good. It may be, but there's every
>>>>> chance
>>>>> it won't be as well. I dislike prequels to begin with and definitely
>>>>> have
>>>>> a distaste for wanting to keep the fans and ignore the very medium
>>>>> that
>>>>> *makes* them fans.
>>>>
>>>>> We shall see. I keep my skepticism.
>>>>
>>>> Sure, but when has there been this "blatantly ignoring what's been
>>>> written
>>>> before," other thanTOS.
>>>
>>> Dude. Enterprise.
>>
>> Like? Canon examples please not FANon.
>>
>>
>
> Wouldn't do any good to say more to you, Kweeg. You will call any example
> baseless
> and then resort to insults. Nope. Not up for it.
When did I call you a "fangirl?" By asking for canon examples as opposed to
fanon examples I meant concrete seen on screen examples not "fanon" examples
of (for instance, and I'm no saying you would say this, just an example) "Oh
the Romulans didn't have an FTL ability as Scotty said that their *power*
was "simple impulse." (note nothing there about *no* FTL, there) To believe
that the Romulans could fight an interstellar war a hundred years previously
to a *stalemate* with the FTL capable Federation is just silly, to say the
least.
> You have a right to your damn opinion but not agreeing with you doesn't
> make
> me stupid, ignorant, a fangirl, a retard or any of the other slams you've
> so generously spewed.
WTF, I never said it did. Brenda it was not my intention to insult you. I'm
not trying to call you anything, but I'm just a bit put off you would think
I was.
--
Qapla'
Kweeg
Ten of Canadian Clubs in the Eeeevil Trek Cabal
"Half a gallon a'scotch!" Scotty (Spectre of the Gun)
1,079,252,848.8 km/h, not just a good idea, it's the law.
"So say we all!"
