From Newsgroup: alt.tv.star-trek.tos   
   From Address: not@chance.dude   
   Subject: Re: Abrams' Trek Sequel To Be Released 29 June 2012   
      
   Jaxtraw wrote:   
   >> Anim8rFSK wrote:   
   >>  (Your Name) wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>> "Akira Norimaki"   
   >>>>>> Steven L. wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> Paramount has announced that "Star Trek 2," the sequel to   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> Abrams' "Star Trek" film, will be released in theaters on   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> 29 June 2012.   
   >>>>>>>>>>> I've just seen the first one. The plot is really crap. "The   
   >>>>>>>>>>> supernova that can destroy the galaxy" is something Ed Wood   
   >>>>>>>>>>> might have write, ROTFL! The rest of the movie is average at   
   >>>>>>>>>>> best. I really liked only Bones, to be honest.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> I don't think this second one is gonna have my money.   
   >>>>>>>>>> The first load of garbage didn't have my money.   
   >>>>>>>>> Have you actually seen it?   
   >>>>>>>> Oh dear, here we go. Another dipstick to add to the killfile. :-\   
   >>>>>>> Yep.   
   >>>>>> You killfile just for asking if you've seen the flick?  That seems   
   >>>>>> really unreasonable to me.   
   >>>>> I know where it's heading and I've already been around this circle   
   >>>>> far too many times to bother wasting any more time with another   
   >>>>> idiot like that.   
   >>>> But I liked ST: 2009, and you didn't killfile me.  Wouldn't it be   
   >>>> better to just say you're not willing to discuss it, than to   
   >>>> killfile out-of-hand? I know you and Anim8 will never see the flick, but    
   >>>> don't you think   
   >>>> others may ask the same question?  Do you think that automatically   
   >>>> means they're a troll?   
   >>>   
   >>> No.  Jaxtraw is a known troll, trolling.  He's killed for his past   
   >>> history, not his current lame trolling attempt.   
   >>>   
   >> OK   
   >>   
   >    
   > Well, this is ridiculous. I mean, if Anybody and Anim8rFSK (the man who    
   > always could have done the FX better if he was asked to, but bafflingly    
   > Paramount never phone him up) want to not read my posts, that's up to them.    
   > But "known troll"? Do these folks even have any idea what the term "troll"    
   > means?   
   >    
   > I've had shedloads of various debates and discussions on this ng over the    
   > years with people, and then somebody who spends *every post* slagging off    
   > Star Trek- and then it turns out they haven't even seen the damned movie(!)-    
   > wants to call *me* a "troll"?!   
   >    
   > I mean crikey. Anybody does nothing but slag off Trek based on his own mad    
   > fantasy of what "real" Trek is. But that's not trolling?   
   >    
   > Why am I annoyed about this? The man's a known nutter. He does the same shit    
   > on the BSG group, only turning up to say how it isn't really BSG and slag it    
   > off. But no, oh no, that's not trolling, is it?   
   >    
   > But somebody who says they like the thing and wants to discuss it in a    
   > positive way, that's fucking trolling, is it?   
   >    
   > Why am I annoyed about this? I got killfiled by a known usenet loon. I am    
   > now popping to check I still have a life. :)   
   >    
   >    
   > Ian   
   >    
   >    
      
   All I can say is *I've* never had a problem with you, so until I do, I    
   intend to converse with you.   
      
   Oh, I think you mean "Your Name", not "Anybody".   
      
   Natalie   
   --    
   "Wicked little doll, you have no soul"   
   (David Byrne, 1997)   
   http://www.supernaturalusa.net   
   --- Synchronet 3.15a-Linux NewsLink 1.92-mlp   
   --- SBBSecho 2.12-Linux   
    * Origin: telnet & http://cco.ath.cx - Dial-Up: 502-875-8938 (1:2320/105.1)