From Newsgroup: alt.tv.star-trek.tos   
   From Address: Led4acs@aol.com   
   Subject: Re: Abrams' Trek Sequel To Be Released 29 June 2012   
      
   On Jan 11, 11:02apm, "Jaxtraw"    
   wrote:   
   > Wickeddoll wrote:   
   > > Anim8rFSK wrote:   
   > > a(Your Name) wrote:   
   > > a"Jaxtraw"   
   > >>>>>>>>> "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? aThat 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. aWouldn'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? aDo you think that automatically   
   > >>> means they're a troll?   
   >   
   > >> No. aJaxtraw is a known troll, trolling. aHe'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?   
   Anim8 is becoming more and more unhinged every year. The fact that he   
   has thrown in with a jag-off like Your Name (Anybody) speaks volumes   
   about his character (or lack thereof)  He lives in some bizarro world   
   where he is the world's greatest FX guy and his opinion is the only   
   one that matters. A bitter old fool.   
   >   
   > 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"?!   
   Jaxtraw is clearly not a troll. The way it works around here is this;   
   Anim8 calls everyone he disagrees with a troll. 'Your Name' just   
   screams the same crap over and over about re-booted Trek not being   
   'real' Trek and Hollyweird and blah blah blah. He's an unintelligible   
   bore not worth a bucket of spit..   
   >   
   > 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?   
   Yes it is, to non-nutters.   
   >   
   > But somebody who says they like the thing and wants to discuss it in a   
   > positive way, that's fucking trolling, is it?   
   No it isn't.   
   --- Synchronet 3.15a-Linux NewsLink 1.92-mlp   
    * Origin: http://groups.google.com (1:2320/105.97)   
   --- SBBSecho 2.12-Linux   
    * Origin: telnet & http://cco.ath.cx - Dial-Up: 502-875-8938 (1:2320/105.1)