From Newsgroup: alt.tv.star-trek.tos   
   From Address: jax@knickersjaxtrawstudios.com   
   Subject: Re: Abrams' Trek Sequel To Be Released 29 June 2012   
      
   Wickeddoll wrote:   
   > 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".   
   >   
      
   His thrilling "reboot" (or reimagining?) of himself as Your Name    
   notwithstanding, he'll always be Anybody to me. So far as I'm concerned,    
   only the original is canon. :)   
      
      
   Ian    
      
      
   --- Synchronet 3.15a-Linux NewsLink 1.92-mlp   
    * Origin: Zen Internet (1:2320/105.97)   
   --- SBBSecho 2.12-Linux   
    * Origin: telnet & http://cco.ath.cx - Dial-Up: 502-875-8938 (1:2320/105.1)