"Star Trek Into Darkness" opening week earlier in Britain

David

unread,

Mar 7, 2013, 10:08:50 AM3/7/13

to

http://www.deadline.com/2013/03/star-trek-into-darkness-gets-new-uk-release-date-one-week-ahead-of-the-u-s/

‘Star Trek Into Darkness’ Gets New UK Release Date One Week Ahead Of
The U.S.
By NANCY TARTAGLIONE

The UK release of J.J. Abrams‘ Star Trek Into Darkness has officially
been moved up by a week to May 9 when it will go out in IMAX 3D, 3D
and 2D cinemas. Paramount currently has the film set for a May 17
release in the States with IMAX 3D screenings on May 15. The shift has
led some to wonder if the U.S. date may move to May 9 as well, but
then what would happen to all those Super Bowl viewers who unlocked
movie tickets for special early showings on the 15th? Simon Pegg, who
plays Scotty in the film, just tweeted: “Looks like Star Trek Into
Darkness will land in the UK first. Release date May 9th. That’s about
8 weeks away. Not long considering.” There have also been rumblings
that the movie would get a special screening at the Cannes Film
Festival which runs from May 15-26, but I’ve heard that is not the
case. The new release date would seem to support that since movies are
rarely screened in Cannes after they’ve premiered big elsewhere.

Ian J. Ball

unread,

Mar 7, 2013, 10:17:44 AM3/7/13

to

On Mar 7, 7:08 am, David <dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> http://www.deadline.com/2013/03/star-trek-into-darkness-gets-new-uk-r...

>
> ‘Star Trek Into Darkness’ Gets New UK Release Date One Week Ahead Of
> The U.S.
> By NANCY TARTAGLIONE

What has the UK done to be punished liked this?!... :(

David

unread,

Mar 7, 2013, 10:20:45 AM3/7/13

to

Gave the world the one Captain needed for "show."

Adam H. Kerman

unread,

Mar 7, 2013, 10:25:02 AM3/7/13

to

>http://www.deadline.com/2013/03/star-trek-into-darkness-gets-new-uk-release-date-one-week-ahead-of-the-u-s/

>Star Trek Into Darkness Gets New UK Release Date One Week Ahead Of
>The U.S.
>By NANCY TARTAGLIONE

>The UK release of J.J. Abrams' Star Trek Into Darkness has officially
>been moved up by a week to May 9 when it will go out in IMAX 3D, 3D
>and 2D cinemas.

2D? Seriously?

Your Name

unread,

Mar 7, 2013, 3:24:06 PM3/7/13

to

In article
<6c8d4b71-eabe-4ede...@8g2000pbm.googlegroups.com>, "Ian J.
Ball" <ijb...@mac.com> wrote:

You can blame all the fools who idiotically paid to see the first one
simply because they can't think of anything better to do on a Friday /
Saturday night (although watching a moronic in-name-only movie that craps
all over someone else's hard work is at least better than boozing
themselves stupid, but they probably did that too after the movie).

David Johnston

unread,

Mar 7, 2013, 3:41:58 PM3/7/13

to

On 3/7/2013 1:24 PM, Your Name wrote:
> In article
> <6c8d4b71-eabe-4ede...@8g2000pbm.googlegroups.com>, "Ian J.
> Ball" <ijb...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mar 7, 7:08=A0am, David <dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.deadline.com/2013/03/star-trek-into-darkness-gets-new-uk-r...
>>>
>>> "Star Trek Into Darkness" Gets New UK Release Date One Week Ahead Of
>>> The U.S.
>>> By NANCY TARTAGLIONE
>>
>> What has the UK done to be punished liked this?!... :(
>
> You can blame all the fools who idiotically paid to see the first one
> simply because they

Wanted to see it, just as they want to see the next one.

Ian J. Ball

unread,

Mar 7, 2013, 4:09:38 PM3/7/13

to

On Mar 7, 12:41 pm, David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
> On 3/7/2013 1:24 PM, Your Name wrote:
> > In article

> > <6c8d4b71-eabe-4ede-9f9c-3b498e2e9...@8g2000pbm.googlegroups.com>, "Ian J.

> > Ball" <ijb...@mac.com> wrote:
> >> On Mar 7, 7:08=A0am, David <dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>http://www.deadline.com/2013/03/star-trek-into-darkness-gets-new-uk-r...
>
> >>> "Star Trek Into Darkness" Gets New UK Release Date One Week Ahead Of
> >>> The U.S.
> >>> By NANCY TARTAGLIONE
>
> >> What has the UK done to be punished liked this?!... :(
>
> > You can blame all the fools who idiotically paid to see the first one
> > simply because they
>
> Wanted to see it, just as they want to see the next one.

So, you mean, like, they're evil?

RichA

unread,

Mar 7, 2013, 7:16:35 PM3/7/13

to

On Mar 7, 10:08 am, David <dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://www.deadline.com/2013/03/star-trek-into-darkness-gets-new-uk-r...
>

Morons. It'll be all over the torrent sites a day after it hits
Britain.

Your Name

unread,

Mar 8, 2013, 1:17:19 AM3/8/13

to

In article
<4dceeac2-3912-415f...@q9g2000pbf.googlegroups.com>, "Ian
J. Ball" <ijb...@mac.com> wrote:

> On Mar 7, 12:41=A0pm, David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
> > On 3/7/2013 1:24 PM, Your Name wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <6c8d4b71-eabe-4ede-9f9c-3b498e2e9...@8g2000pbm.googlegroups.com>,
> > > "Ian J. Ball" <ijb...@mac.com> wrote:

> > >> On Mar 7, 7:08=3DA0am, David <dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>http://www.deadline.com/2013/03/star-trek-into-darkness-gets-new-uk-r

> > >>>
> > >>> "Star Trek Into Darkness" Gets New UK Release Date One Week Ahead Of
> > >>> The U.S.
> > >>> By NANCY TARTAGLIONE
> > >>
> > >> What has the UK done to be punished liked this?!... :(
> > >
> > > You can blame all the fools who idiotically paid to see the first one
> > > simply because they
> >
> > Wanted to see it, just as they want to see the next one.
>
> So, you mean, like, they're evil?

Not evil ... just incredibly stupid. :-(

The vast majority of people are apparently so dimwitted that they simply
can't think of anything else to do, so every Friday / Saturday night they
go and watch a movie (usually followed by boozing themselves even
"stupider") ... it doesn't matter what movie, just whatever happens to be
playing in their local cinema, even if it's something they have absolutely
no interest in seeing. Many will leave whining about how bad it was.

There's also a subset of these morons who are so incredibly stupid that
despite not actually liking "Star Trek" they'll still pay to see a movie
called "Star Trek" (it really isn't anyway). Another subset of morons are
actually fans of real "Star Trek" and they pay to see it simply because it
has "Star Trek" in the title ... even though again it really isn't "Star
Trek" at all.

All these morons combined give a false increase to the box office take,
which in turn gives the idiots making them the false idea that people like
it and they should make another. :-(

David Johnston

unread,

Mar 8, 2013, 2:52:33 AM3/8/13

to

On 3/7/2013 11:17 PM, Your Name wrote:
> In article
> <4dceeac2-3912-415f...@q9g2000pbf.googlegroups.com>, "Ian
> J. Ball" <ijb...@mac.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 7, 12:41=A0pm, David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
>>> On 3/7/2013 1:24 PM, Your Name wrote:
>>>> In article
>>>> <6c8d4b71-eabe-4ede-9f9c-3b498e2e9...@8g2000pbm.googlegroups.com>,
>>>> "Ian J. Ball" <ijb...@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 7, 7:08=3DA0am, David <dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.deadline.com/2013/03/star-trek-into-darkness-gets-new-uk-r
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Star Trek Into Darkness" Gets New UK Release Date One Week Ahead Of
>>>>>> The U.S.
>>>>>> By NANCY TARTAGLIONE
>>>>>
>>>>> What has the UK done to be punished liked this?!... :(
>>>>
>>>> You can blame all the fools who idiotically paid to see the first one
>>>> simply because they
>>>
>>> Wanted to see it, just as they want to see the next one.
>>
>> So, you mean, like, they're evil?
>
> Not evil ... just incredibly stupid. :-(
>
> The vast majority of people are apparently so dimwitted that they simply
> can't think of anything else to do,

Nope. People wanted to see the new Star Treks.

AC

unread,

Mar 8, 2013, 4:14:48 AM3/8/13

to

Ian J. Ball wrote:
> On Mar 7, 7:08 am, David <dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> http://www.deadline.com/2013/03/star-trek-into-darkness-gets-new-uk-r...
>>

>> ï¿½Star Trek Into Darknessï¿½ Gets New UK Release Date One Week Ahead Of

>> The U.S.
>> By NANCY TARTAGLIONE
>
> What has the UK done to be punished liked this?!... :(
>

Jason Statham's American accent.

Now, I have tried apologising for this, over and over again. Seems no
one wants to hear it, and now this is the result. What can I do?

--
AC

AC

unread,

Mar 8, 2013, 4:29:57 AM3/8/13

to

Yeah, I adore the arrogance that says "I dont like it, so no one else is
allowed to", and those who like it are some how retarded.

Personally, I found the first one an enjoyable film in it's own right,
and I am interested in seeing the new one. In fact, I would suggest its
the best thing JJA has been involved with. Dunno what the problem is, TBH.

--
AC

AC

unread,

Mar 8, 2013, 4:31:27 AM3/8/13

to

It was a decent movie.

What's your problem with it? Or are you just an attention seeking knee
jerking hatard?

--
AC

Jim G.

unread,

Mar 8, 2013, 3:48:40 PM3/8/13

to

David sent the following on Thu, 07 Mar 2013 10:08:50 -0500:

> http://www.deadline.com/2013/03/star-trek-into-darkness-gets-new-uk-release-date-one-week-ahead-of-the-u-s/
>
> ‘Star Trek Into Darkness’ Gets New UK Release Date One Week Ahead Of
> The U.S.
> By NANCY TARTAGLIONE

So J.J. bulls4 excuse all along for his cutesy, self-promoting secrecy
is ... well, bulls4. Because he keeps claiming that the reason he won't
tell us Cumberbatch's role is because he doesn't want to "ruin" it for
the audience before the movie's release, but now it's gonna be possible
for anyone who wants to do so to "ruin" it for himself by reading
spoilers from the Brits before the movie ever airs here.

So given that his lame excuse is blatantly worthless now, will J.J. stop
with the bulls4 and just tell us who Cumberbatch is playing so that
those who want to know can know?

--
Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
"Good evening. I'm a lizard woman from the dawn of time, and this is my wife." -- Madame Vastra, DOCTOR WHO

Your Name

unread,

Mar 8, 2013, 4:05:58 PM3/8/13

to

My "problem" is that it's simply not "Star Trek" at all. It's just yet
another of lazy Hollyweird's idiotic in-name-only, barely-recognisable,
pee-all-over-the-original "reboots". A fact that even the people making it
have said.

Whether or not it's a good movie in it's own right is irrelevant and
personal opinion - it would have been just as "good" or "bad" if they had
senisbly given it a new name.

Then there's sheer stupidty of the average human being, or the "dumbing
down of the human race" (both the movie goers and the movie makers) ...

But previous experience has proven it's not worth the effort to go into
any of this. Only about 2% of people have enough intelligence and common
sense to actually understand it, even if they don't agree with it, so this
is the point where I stop bother to even attempt to explain it. :-\

anim8rFSK

unread,

Mar 8, 2013, 4:14:05 PM3/8/13

to

In article <7bckj896s7m8ngliu...@4ax.com>,

Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:

> David sent the following on Thu, 07 Mar 2013 10:08:50 -0500:
> > http://www.deadline.com/2013/03/star-trek-into-darkness-gets-new-uk-release-
> > date-one-week-ahead-of-the-u-s/
> >
> > ‘Star Trek Into Darkness’ Gets New UK Release Date One Week Ahead Of
> > The U.S.
> > By NANCY TARTAGLIONE
>
> So J.J. bulls4 excuse all along for his cutesy, self-promoting secrecy
> is ... well, bulls4. Because he keeps claiming that the reason he won't
> tell us Cumberbatch's role is because he doesn't want to "ruin" it for
> the audience before the movie's release, but now it's gonna be possible
> for anyone who wants to do so to "ruin" it for himself by reading
> spoilers from the Brits before the movie ever airs here.
>
> So given that his lame excuse is blatantly worthless now, will J.J. stop
> with the bulls4 and just tell us who Cumberbatch is playing so that
> those who want to know can know?

Yeah, that was my reaction - so much for secrecy. Of course, J.J.
likely has no control over the release locations and dates. Think how
annoying it would be if he admitted that Cumbersnatch is Gary Mitchell,
and then Paramount changed their minds and didn't open early in
metricland after all.

--
"Every time a Kardashian gets a TV show, an angel dies."

Your Name

unread,

Mar 8, 2013, 5:48:29 PM3/8/13

to

In article <7bckj896s7m8ngliu...@4ax.com>, Jim G.
<jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:

> David sent the following on Thu, 07 Mar 2013 10:08:50 -0500:
> >
http://www.deadline.com/2013/03/star-trek-into-darkness-gets-new-uk-release-date-one-week-ahead-of-the-u-s/
> >
> > �Star Trek Into Darkness� Gets New UK Release Date One Week Ahead Of
> > The U.S.
> > By NANCY TARTAGLIONE
>
> So J.J. bulls4 excuse all along for his cutesy, self-promoting secrecy
> is ... well, bulls4. Because he keeps claiming that the reason he won't
> tell us Cumberbatch's role is because he doesn't want to "ruin" it for
> the audience before the movie's release, but now it's gonna be possible
> for anyone who wants to do so to "ruin" it for himself by reading
> spoilers from the Brits before the movie ever airs here.
>
> So given that his lame excuse is blatantly worthless now, will J.J. stop
> with the bulls4 and just tell us who Cumberbatch is playing so that
> those who want to know can know?

Cumberatch is playing Sherlock Holmes. ;-)

JJ Abrams won't tell you what the role is in the silly new so-called "Star
Trek" sequel movie simply becuase JJ Abrmas doesn't actually know himself.
He's a useless waste of space who simply rubber-stamps his own
over-bloated, over-hyped, over-egoed name on other people's work. Just
look at the massive list of things he's supposedly working on and you'll
see that it's obviously impossible for him to actually be doing anything
useful on all those projects at the same time.

Your Name

unread,

Mar 8, 2013, 5:58:58 PM3/8/13

to

In article <anim8rfsk-05A63...@news.easynews.com>, anim8rFSK

Nah, Cumberbatch is playing the role of an incredibly evil baddie - he
travelled back in time and made a talentless lazy hack named JJ Abrams
seem to be a big shot. ;-)

William December Starr

unread,

Mar 10, 2013, 7:56:33 PM3/10/13

to

In article <7bckj896s7m8ngliu...@4ax.com>,

Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> said:

> So J.J. bulls4 excuse all along for his cutesy, self-promoting
> secrecy is ... well, bulls4. Because he keeps claiming that the
> reason he won't tell us Cumberbatch's role is because he doesn't
> want to "ruin" it for the audience before the movie's release, but
> now it's gonna be possible for anyone who wants to do so to "ruin"
> it for himself by reading spoilers from the Brits before the movie
> ever airs here.
>
> So given that his lame excuse is blatantly worthless now, will
> J.J. stop with the bulls4 and just tell us who Cumberbatch is
> playing so that those who want to know can know?

Bulls4? Where did that come from and can we please send it back?

-- wds

Dragon Lady

unread,

Mar 10, 2013, 10:56:29 PM3/10/13

to

"William December Starr" <wds...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:khj6jh$gth$1...@panix2.panix.com...

I'm still trying to figure out what the hell it's supposed to mean....

Your Name

unread,

Mar 10, 2013, 11:08:31 PM3/10/13

to

In article <khjh07$qbm$1...@dont-email.me>, "Dragon Lady"

Really?!? It's fairly obvious, even though a couple of "letters" are
missing off the end.

Jim G.

unread,

Mar 11, 2013, 6:01:36 PM3/11/13

to

anim8rFSK sent the following on Fri, 08 Mar 2013 14:14:05 -0700:

Do studios change their minds about things like that? If so, fair
enough. I will wait to see if J.J. speaks openly about the film *here*
immediately after it officially premieres over *there*, if that's the
case.

anim8rFSK

unread,

Mar 11, 2013, 7:11:28 PM3/11/13

to

In article <utisj8debt4tl0kgf...@4ax.com>,

Sure. The just announced early open in Britland is a mind change.

If so, fair
> enough. I will wait to see if J.J. speaks openly about the film *here*
> immediately after it officially premieres over *there*, if that's the
> case.

--

Jim G.

unread,

Mar 12, 2013, 3:21:10 PM3/12/13

to

anim8rFSK sent the following on Mon, 11 Mar 2013 16:11:28 -0700:

Yeah, I completely missed the "moved up by a week" the first time I
skimmed the article.

Jim G.

unread,

Mar 12, 2013, 3:21:10 PM3/12/13

to

William December Starr sent the following on 10 Mar 2013 19:56:33 -0400:

Heh. That dates back many, many years to a moderated place. A guy there
came up with using the first letter of the bad word and then a number to
signify the total number of letters in the bad word, so you got s4, f4,
b5, etc. Then we all "helped" to modify the "rules" until we ended up
with accepted variations like f4er and the like. Mind you, it was a fun
and upbeat group; it just liked to have the option to be ... um, open in
expression without officially breaking any rules designed to protect the
more delicate members. Heck, even some of the sysops enjoyed getting in
on the act. :)

Dimensional Traveler

unread,

Mar 12, 2013, 8:40:38 PM3/12/13

to

I'm still trying to figure out what the UK did to deserve suffering thru
an extra week of Crap Trek II Into the Toilet.

--
The 'Enterprise' crew in the 2009 Star Trek are adrenaline addicted,
hyper-active teenagers with ADD whose Ritalin got replaced with
methamphetamine, displaying a level of discipline that a Somali pirate
wouldn't tolerate.

Your Name

unread,

Mar 13, 2013, 1:46:54 AM3/13/13

to

In article <513fcb04$0$52734$742e...@news.sonic.net>, Dimensional

Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
> I'm still trying to figure out what the UK did to deserve suffering thru
> an extra week of Crap Trek II Into the Toilet.

It won't be an extra week. The UK is unlucky and start a week earlier, but
that means they probably be lucky and finish a week earlier too ... think
of it this way: the sooner it starts, the sooner it's over! :-)

anim8rFSK

unread,

Mar 13, 2013, 11:35:25 AM3/13/13

to

In article
<YourName-130...@203-118-187-148.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>,

It might mean extra. That first week, the TruFans will go, and by day 5
or 6 word will be out on it and it will be slowing down and then ... day
8 it will get a big boost from the publicity surrounding the American
release.

Your Name

unread,

Mar 13, 2013, 4:12:14 PM3/13/13

to

In article <anim8rfsk-FF382...@news.easynews.com>, anim8rFSK

<anim...@cox.net> wrote:
> In article
> <YourName-130...@203-118-187-148.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>,
> Your...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote:
> > In article <513fcb04$0$52734$742e...@news.sonic.net>, Dimensional
> > Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm still trying to figure out what the UK did to deserve suffering thru
> > > an extra week of Crap Trek II Into the Toilet.
> >
> > It won't be an extra week. The UK is unlucky and start a week earlier, but
> > that means they probably be lucky and finish a week earlier too ... think
> > of it this way: the sooner it starts, the sooner it's over! :-)
>
> It might mean extra. That first week, the TruFans will go,

The true "Star Trek" fans won't be going to see the garbagised,
in-name-only, reboot version at all. :-)

> and by day 5
> or 6 word will be out on it and it will be slowing down and then ... day
> 8 it will get a big boost from the publicity surrounding the American
> release.

Unlikely. The morons who go to the cinema every Friday / Saturday night
because they can't think of anything else to do will still run out of
steam bothering to watch it within the same amount of time and have moved
on to the next "new toy of the week".

Brian Thorn

unread,

Mar 14, 2013, 11:46:35 AM3/14/13

to

On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 09:12:14 +1300, Your...@YourISP.com (Your Name)

wrote:

>In article <anim8rfsk-FF382...@news.easynews.com>, anim8rFSK
><anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>> In article
>> <YourName-130...@203-118-187-148.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>,
>> Your...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote:
>> > In article <513fcb04$0$52734$742e...@news.sonic.net>, Dimensional
>> > Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > I'm still trying to figure out what the UK did to deserve suffering thru
>> > > an extra week of Crap Trek II Into the Toilet.
>> >
>> > It won't be an extra week. The UK is unlucky and start a week earlier, but
>> > that means they probably be lucky and finish a week earlier too ... think
>> > of it this way: the sooner it starts, the sooner it's over! :-)
>>
>> It might mean extra. That first week, the TruFans will go,
>
>The true "Star Trek" fans won't be going to see the garbagised,
>in-name-only, reboot version at all. :-)

Oh, please. Spare us from that old "true fans" garbage. It was idiotic
when Next Generation came out and TOS fans whined and complained that
it wasn't TRUE STAR TREK. It still is idiotic.

Frankly, I like all Star Trek, even the weak UPN shows were still
pretty good television sci-fi, better than 90% of the rest of
television sci-fi (our alternatives are mostly dreck like SeaQuest,
Space Above and Beyond, or Buck Rogers... the Babylon 5s and BSG
remakes are rarities.)

I liked Star Trek 2009, and I consider myself a true "Star Trek" fan.

Brian

unread,

Mar 15, 2013, 3:53:12 PM3/15/13

to

Dimensional Traveler sent the following on Tue, 12 Mar 2013 17:40:38
-0700:

I blame Patrick Stewart and his silly accent.

unread,

Mar 16, 2013, 10:51:29 PM3/16/13

to

On 3/16/2013 12:16 PM, anim8rFSK wrote:
> In article <2h79k8d92h4o31usc...@4ax.com>,
> Merrick Baldelli <mbal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 14:53:12 -0500, Jim G.
>> <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>> I'm still trying to figure out what the UK did to deserve suffering thru
>>>> an extra week of Crap Trek II Into the Toilet.
>>>
>>> I blame Patrick Stewart and his silly accent.
>>
>> *laughing* I blame writers for trying to convince us he was
>> FRENCH.
>
> I'd blame the producers and casting for deciding he was right to play a
> Frenchie.
>

Coming from you I would have expected that sentence to end four words
earlier.

anim8rFSK

unread,

Mar 17, 2013, 1:12:07 AM3/17/13

to

In article <51452fab$0$52820$742e...@news.sonic.net>,

Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:

> On 3/16/2013 12:16 PM, anim8rFSK wrote:
> > In article <2h79k8d92h4o31usc...@4ax.com>,
> > Merrick Baldelli <mbal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 14:53:12 -0500, Jim G.
> >> <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> I'm still trying to figure out what the UK did to deserve suffering thru
> >>>> an extra week of Crap Trek II Into the Toilet.
> >>>
> >>> I blame Patrick Stewart and his silly accent.
> >>
> >> *laughing* I blame writers for trying to convince us he was
> >> FRENCH.
> >
> > I'd blame the producers and casting for deciding he was right to play a
> > Frenchie.
> >
> Coming from you I would have expected that sentence to end four words
> earlier.

:)

Your Name

unread,

Mar 17, 2013, 3:19:47 AM3/17/13

to

I think that last word was spelt wrong ... I'm sure anim8rFSK meant to say:

"I'd blame the producers and casting for deciding he was

right to play a french-fry."

Merrick Baldelli

unread,

Mar 17, 2013, 7:04:18 AM3/17/13

to

On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 12:16:27 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net>
wrote:

>In article <2h79k8d92h4o31usc...@4ax.com>,
> Merrick Baldelli <mbal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 14:53:12 -0500, Jim G.
>> <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >> I'm still trying to figure out what the UK did to deserve suffering thru
>> >> an extra week of Crap Trek II Into the Toilet.
>> >
>> >I blame Patrick Stewart and his silly accent.
>>
>> *laughing* I blame writers for trying to convince us he was
>> FRENCH.
>
>I'd blame the producers and casting for deciding he was right to play a
>Frenchie.

Oh them too... definitely them too...

Dragon Lady

unread,

Mar 17, 2013, 9:13:54 AM3/17/13

to

"Your Name" <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote in message
news:YourName-110...@203-118-187-221.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz...

Not to me. All I get out of it of "Bulls for" and I'm wondering what
they're for.

Dragon Lady

unread,

Mar 17, 2013, 9:19:11 AM3/17/13

to

"Your Name" <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote in message

news:YourName-130...@203-118-187-148.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz...

Ya know, there's one thing that's always baffled me. Why do those of us who
liked the original Star Trek and hate the new one feel the need to make fun
of those who have never seen the old show or didn't see it until it was
seriously dated, and do like the new one?

It kind of goes against everything the original show stood for, IMNSHO.

Dragon Lady

unread,

Mar 17, 2013, 9:22:14 AM3/17/13

to

"David Johnston" <davidjo...@block.com> wrote in message
news:khucpv$5sk$1...@dont-email.me...

Not by Your Names's definition. I believe Rodenberry was involved in more
than one of those shows.

unread,

Mar 17, 2013, 9:26:28 PM3/17/13

to

So not Star Trek then.

unread,

Mar 18, 2013, 5:05:10 AM3/18/13

to

"Professor Bubba" <bu...@nowhere.edu.invalid> wrote in message
news:170320131314118678%bu...@nowhere.edu.invalid...

Code is right. Nobody who didn't know that could possibly guess what it
stood for, with the possible exception of someone who does code-breaking....
:P

Dragon Lady

unread,

Mar 18, 2013, 5:06:35 AM3/18/13

to

"Your Name" <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote in message

news:YourName-180...@203-118-187-141.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz...

I could say something really nastry here, but I think I'll try to pass this
time. :P

unread,

Mar 18, 2013, 4:02:04 PM3/18/13

to

Merrick Baldelli sent the following on Sat, 16 Mar 2013 12:42:07 -0400:

> On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 14:53:12 -0500, Jim G.

> <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> I'm still trying to figure out what the UK did to deserve suffering thru
> >> an extra week of Crap Trek II Into the Toilet.
> >

> >I blame Patrick Stewart and his silly accent.
>
> *laughing* I blame writers for trying to convince us he was
> FRENCH.

C'mon. The guy grows up in France and then goes to school in San
Francisco. Of *course* he's gonna sound like a Brit after that.

--
Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
"Good evening. I'm a lizard woman from the dawn of time, and this is my wife." -- Madame Vastra, DOCTOR WHO

Your Name

unread,

Mar 18, 2013, 5:29:36 PM3/18/13

to

In article <ki6lcl$jo6$1...@dont-email.me>, "Dragon Lady"

Even if you accept the silly weak excuse of starting a new timeline, it
still doesn't fit. Even at the most basic level, the various main
characters were never all at the Academy at the same time and the history
is all wrong.

David Johnston

unread,

Mar 18, 2013, 6:00:13 PM3/18/13

to

On 3/18/2013 3:12 AM, Dragon Lady wrote:

>>>> Not by Your Names's definition. I believe Rodenberry was involved
>>>> in more
>>>> than one of those shows.
>>>
>>> By the definition of anyone with more than one braincell. A successful
>>> franchise is one where the various parts fit together properly.
>>
>> So not Star Trek then.
>>
> *snort* A successful franchise is one that makes money for it's
> creators.

Well obviously but that has nothing to do with the various parts fitting
together "properly". For example, in the various versions of Star Trek,
they changed what Klingons look like without any explanation until
Enterprise, which "Your Name" also rejects. They also changed without
any comment the way the Prime Directive mandated relating to pre-warp
civilisations, how Trills work and what they look like, the laws that
have applied to genetically engineering human beings for centuries, the
rules for how time travel works, the rules for how the Borg work, even
things like whether holodecks are new technology as of TNG.

Dimensional Traveler

unread,

Mar 18, 2013, 7:52:16 PM3/18/13

to

I don't do code breaking but it only took me a minute or so to figure it
out.

--
The 'Enterprise' crew in the 2009 Star Trek are adrenaline addicted,
hyper-active teenagers with ADD whose Ritalin got replaced with
methamphetamine, displaying a level of discipline that a Somali pirate
wouldn't tolerate.

anim8rFSK

unread,

Mar 18, 2013, 10:35:39 PM3/18/13

to

In article <5147a8a7$0$52768$742e...@news.sonic.net>,

Then, you *do* do code breaking.

unread,

Mar 19, 2013, 11:54:44 PM3/19/13

to

"Your Name" <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote in message

news:YourName-190...@203-118-187-178.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz...

Yes, but wasn't history changed *before* they went to the academy? I
haven't seen the whole thing, only bits and pieces when my grandkids were
watching it, but I seem to recall that the excuse for Spock being there was
that he was an instructor. I don't recall seeing anything on any of the
others.

My impression was that they were trying to get back to the beginning, when
they were trying to kill it and it survived in spite of them. :P

anim8rFSK

unread,

Mar 20, 2013, 12:40:38 AM3/20/13

to

In article <kibbjq$bgb$1...@dont-email.me>,

Nero comes out at Kirk's birth. That's the point at which history is
first changed. And yet when he comes out, history is already *wildly*
different. Starfleet is vastly advanced of TOS; in fact they're
probably advanced of TNG. And somehow everybody on the crew, some of
which are older and some of which a decade younger than Kirk, all get
born at the same time.

It's an easy fix. Have Nero come out a century early, and pop in every
20 years and become a ghost ship legend. Starfleet gets a huge budget
bump because of the scare, tech advances, birthdates are shuffled. But
they didn't do anything like that, because the writers are lazy and
stupid. Instead Nero has to come out at Kirk's birth because of his
raging hatred for Kirk because ... um ... because ... because Kirk never
did a thing to him or anyone he knows, and there's no reason at all for
Nero to be mad at Kirk, except that the writers and lazy and stupid.

anim8rFSK

unread,

Mar 20, 2013, 12:41:43 AM3/20/13

to

In article <kibbfd$arc$1...@dont-email.me>,

I could point out that Johnston is wrong in much of the above, but it's
obvious, isn't it?

Your Name

unread,

Mar 20, 2013, 2:05:51 AM3/20/13

to

In article <anim8rfsk-62846...@news.easynews.com>, anim8rFSK

He always is. That's why I don't even bother reading his drivel.

~consul

unread,

Mar 20, 2013, 10:49:15 AM3/20/13

to

'tis on this 3/20/2013 12:40 AM, wrote anim8rFSK thus to say:

> "Dragon Lady" <sgt...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Yes, but wasn't history changed *before* they went to the academy? I
>> haven't seen the whole thing, only bits and pieces when my grandkids were
>> watching it, but I seem to recall that the excuse for Spock being there was
>> that he was an instructor. I don't recall seeing anything on any of the
>> others.

> Nero comes out at Kirk's birth. That's the point at which history is
> first changed. And yet when he comes out, history is already *wildly*
> different. Starfleet is vastly advanced of TOS; in fact they're
> probably advanced of TNG. And somehow everybody on the crew, some of
> which are older and some of which a decade younger than Kirk, all get
> born at the same time.

The only one who was visually and probably technically older than the others in TOS was Bones. And in the new version, he was also older, but he entered Starfleet at a much older age than the others because he probably had to do medical school before. Scotty is off-planet and also visually and probably older given he was an academic.
--
"... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk. For here, at the end of all things, we shall do what needs to be done."
--till next time, consul -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>

anim8rFSK

unread,

Mar 20, 2013, 11:37:45 AM3/20/13

to

In article <kici5p$3qb$2...@dont-email.me>,

~consul <con...@dolphinsTAKEAWAY-cove.com> wrote:

> 'tis on this 3/20/2013 12:40 AM, wrote anim8rFSK thus to say:
> > "Dragon Lady" <sgt...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> Yes, but wasn't history changed *before* they went to the academy? I
> >> haven't seen the whole thing, only bits and pieces when my grandkids were
> >> watching it, but I seem to recall that the excuse for Spock being there
> >> was
> >> that he was an instructor. I don't recall seeing anything on any of the
> >> others.
> > Nero comes out at Kirk's birth. That's the point at which history is
> > first changed. And yet when he comes out, history is already *wildly*
> > different. Starfleet is vastly advanced of TOS; in fact they're
> > probably advanced of TNG. And somehow everybody on the crew, some of
> > which are older and some of which a decade younger than Kirk, all get
> > born at the same time.
>
> The only one who was visually and probably technically older than the others
> in TOS was Bones. And in the new version, he was also older, but he entered
> Starfleet at a much older age than the others because he probably had to do
> medical school before. Scotty is off-planet and also visually and probably
> older given he was an academic.

And Chekov?

Merrick Baldelli

unread,

Mar 20, 2013, 12:31:55 PM3/20/13

to

On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 15:02:04 -0500, Jim G.

<jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:

>Merrick Baldelli sent the following on Sat, 16 Mar 2013 12:42:07 -0400:
>> On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 14:53:12 -0500, Jim G.
>> <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >> I'm still trying to figure out what the UK did to deserve suffering thru
>> >> an extra week of Crap Trek II Into the Toilet.
>> >
>> >I blame Patrick Stewart and his silly accent.
>>
>> *laughing* I blame writers for trying to convince us he was
>> FRENCH.
>
>C'mon. The guy grows up in France and then goes to school in San
>Francisco. Of *course* he's gonna sound like a Brit after that.

Whatever you're on.. Share and Enjoy! :D

Merrick Baldelli

unread,

Mar 20, 2013, 12:31:55 PM3/20/13

to

On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 21:40:38 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net>
wrote:

>It's an easy fix. Have Nero come out a century early, and pop in every
>20 years and become a ghost ship legend. Starfleet gets a huge budget
>bump because of the scare, tech advances, birthdates are shuffled.

This of course relies on Abrams actually thinking this shit
through. He has a notorious record with his two ass-clowns of making
shit up as they go along.

>But
>they didn't do anything like that, because the writers are lazy and
>stupid. Instead Nero has to come out at Kirk's birth because of his
>raging hatred for Kirk because ... um ... because ... because Kirk never
>did a thing to him or anyone he knows, and there's no reason at all for
>Nero to be mad at Kirk, except that the writers and lazy and stupid.

And drugged. Heavily. But at least the thing wasn't that
Nero didn't have a hatred for Kirk. His hatred was Spock. He only
realized that Spock was nearby through association and remembering
some random history lessons.

David Johnston

unread,

Mar 20, 2013, 1:52:07 PM3/20/13

to

During Kirk's birth.

David Johnston

unread,

Mar 20, 2013, 1:57:40 PM3/20/13

to

On 3/19/2013 10:40 PM, anim8rFSK wrote:

>> My impression was that they were trying to get back to the beginning, when
>> they were trying to kill it and it survived in spite of them. :P
>
> Nero comes out at Kirk's birth. That's the point at which history is
> first changed. And yet when he comes out, history is already *wildly*
> different. Starfleet is vastly advanced of TOS;

Based on what? The props? Then we are also vastly more advanced than TOS

in fact they're
> probably advanced of TNG. And somehow everybody on the crew, some of
> which are older and some of which a decade younger than Kirk, all get
> born at the same time.

Not Spock. He's still a lot older. Not McCoy either because he's
joining the Academy after having a civilian career as a doctor. Chekov
on the other hand is unexplained.

>
> It's an easy fix. Have Nero come out a century early, and pop in every
> 20 years and become a ghost ship legend. Starfleet gets a huge budget
> bump because of the scare, tech advances, birthdates are shuffled. But
> they didn't do anything like that, because the writers are lazy and
> stupid. Instead Nero has to come out at Kirk's birth because of his
> raging hatred for Kirk

Nero didn't control when he came out so no.

anim8rFSK

unread,

Mar 20, 2013, 2:15:49 PM3/20/13

to

In article <20pjk859vd5h2o88n...@4ax.com>,

Merrick Baldelli <mbal...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 21:40:38 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
> >It's an easy fix. Have Nero come out a century early, and pop in every
> >20 years and become a ghost ship legend. Starfleet gets a huge budget
> >bump because of the scare, tech advances, birthdates are shuffled.
>
> This of course relies on Abrams actually thinking this shit
> through. He has a notorious record with his two ass-clowns of making
> shit up as they go along.
>
> >But
> >they didn't do anything like that, because the writers are lazy and
> >stupid. Instead Nero has to come out at Kirk's birth because of his
> >raging hatred for Kirk because ... um ... because ... because Kirk never
> >did a thing to him or anyone he knows, and there's no reason at all for
> >Nero to be mad at Kirk, except that the writers and lazy and stupid.
>
> And drugged. Heavily. But at least the thing wasn't that
> Nero didn't have a hatred for Kirk. His hatred was Spock. He only
> realized that Spock was nearby through association and remembering
> some random history lessons.

No, Nero was after Kirk. That's why he sank the Kelvin. Now, some of
this might come from the Orci penned prequel comics, which added vast
layers of 'this makes no sense' while elaborating on the superdupernova
and destruction of Romii and pending destruction of the entire universe.
It makes no sense that Nero is mad at Spock, either. But at some point
Nero went after Kirk just because he knew Spock.

~consul

unread,

Mar 20, 2013, 2:48:15 PM3/20/13

to

Oops, forgot him. Yeah, he's supposed to be the youngest. I could always see him as being a freshman hanging with the seniors. And young at heart. And if he needs to be truly younger, a child prodigy. Sure it's handwave, and probably not exact to their ages, but does it really have to be? I don't think they were that consistent in TOS with the ages as well.
And yes, I also say upfront, that none of them should have had any senior positions on the Enterprise, at least after the initial jaunt which made the movie, but then Kirk always had some sort of royalty predestination of power and influence even in TOS.

Jim G.

unread,

Mar 20, 2013, 3:59:10 PM3/20/13

to

Dimensional Traveler sent the following on Mon, 18 Mar 2013 16:52:16
-0700:

She's just looking for something to b5 about. :)

--
Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre

"Relax. It's North Korea, the nation-state equivalent of the short bus." -- Sterling Archer, ARCHER

anim8rFSK

unread,

Mar 20, 2013, 8:18:00 PM3/20/13

to

In article <kid05t$srn$2...@dont-email.me>,

Kirk's 38, and Chekov is 22. I don't think anybody else's ages were
given on screen, but those two were.

> And yes, I also say upfront, that none of them should have had any senior
> positions on the Enterprise, at least after the initial jaunt which made the
> movie, but then Kirk always had some sort of royalty predestination of power
> and influence even in TOS.

--

David Johnston

unread,

Mar 20, 2013, 11:01:05 PM3/20/13

to

Actually on consideration I think I was wrong about the Prime Directive.
While they definitely changed how it worked between TOS and TNG that's
plausible and wasn't what I was talking about. But going back over the
episodes I seem to have been wrong about TNG not having a Non-Contact
Directive early on. I forgot that there was a first season episode
mandating not talking to pre-warp-drive people. Although it is odd that
they talked to the people who wanted to kill Wesley because those guys
didn't have spaceships.

Your Name

unread,

Mar 21, 2013, 2:37:04 AM3/21/13

to

In article <anim8rfsk-35744...@news.easynews.com>, anim8rFSK

I don't know about being given on-screen, but the officially established
historical timeline in teh Star Trek Encyclopedia has the main characters
as:

2222 Montgomery Scott born

2227 Leonard H. McCoy is born

2230 Spock is born

2233 James T. Kirk is born

2237 Hikaru Sulu is born

2239 Uhura is born

2245 Pavel A. Chekov is born

2249 Spock enters Starfleet Academy

2250 Kirk enrolls in Starfleet Academy

2253 Spock graduates from Starfleet Academy

2254 Kirk graduates from Starfleet Academy

So Spock and Kirk graduate from Starfleet Acadmey when Chekov is only
about 9 years old and Uhura is 15 years old!!

Anyone who thinks all the main characters are going to be at the Academy
at the same time is clutching at straws to try and make Abrams' mess fit
... the fact is that it doesn't and won't fit because it's not really
"Star Trek". It's "fake Trek" or "butchered Trek".

David Johnston

unread,

Mar 21, 2013, 2:21:15 AM3/21/13

to

In what way is that officially established?

Professor Bubba

unread,

Mar 21, 2013, 4:40:59 AM3/21/13

to

In article <kidt0o$lah$1...@dont-email.me>, David Johnston

<davidjo...@block.com> wrote:

> Actually on consideration I think I was wrong about the Prime Directive.
> While they definitely changed how it worked between TOS and TNG that's
> plausible and wasn't what I was talking about. But going back over the
> episodes I seem to have been wrong about TNG not having a Non-Contact
> Directive early on. I forgot that there was a first season episode
> mandating not talking to pre-warp-drive people. Although it is odd that
> they talked to the people who wanted to kill Wesley because those guys
> didn't have spaceships.

The Prime Directive is Starfleet allowing a four-year-old boy to be run
over by a speeding truck because the boy isn't himself capable of
building a truck. It's absurd, and it quickly became an excuse for bad
writing.

I broke with TNG with the episode "Homeward." Some sort of disaster
wipes out almost the entire, non-technological population of a planet,
and the Enterprise doesn't interfere because of the Prime Directive.
In fact, all the fucking hypocrites stand on the bridge in a moment of
silence for those who "gave their lives for this principle." Did
anybody ever ask those primitives if they wanted to die for someone
else's principle?

Given this, the Organians should have let the Federation and the
Klingon Empire destroy each other at the end of "Errand of Mercy," on
the basis that neither side was as advanced as Organia.

The 'Brightness' control still doesn't help

unread,

Mar 21, 2013, 5:07:35 AM3/21/13

to

On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 10:49:15 -0400, ~consul
<con...@dolphinsTAKEAWAY-cove.com> wrote:

>'tis on this 3/20/2013 12:40 AM, wrote anim8rFSK thus to say:
>> "Dragon Lady" <sgt...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> Yes, but wasn't history changed *before* they went to the academy? I
>>> haven't seen the whole thing, only bits and pieces when my grandkids were
>>> watching it, but I seem to recall that the excuse for Spock being there was
>>> that he was an instructor. I don't recall seeing anything on any of the
>>> others.
>> Nero comes out at Kirk's birth. That's the point at which history is
>> first changed. And yet when he comes out, history is already *wildly*
>> different. Starfleet is vastly advanced of TOS; in fact they're
>> probably advanced of TNG. And somehow everybody on the crew, some of
>> which are older and some of which a decade younger than Kirk, all get
>> born at the same time.
>
>The only one who was visually and probably technically older than the others in TOS was Bones. And in the new version, he was also older, but he entered Starfleet at a much older age than the others because he probably had to do medical school before. Scotty is off-planet and also visually and probably older given he was an academic.

But what about his... pet? That thing needs a visit to the nearest
airlock.

anim8rFSK

unread,

Mar 21, 2013, 6:00:00 AM3/21/13

to

In article
<YourName-210...@203-118-187-214.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>,

All those dates are of course wrong; that's not TOS continuity, but the
retcon TNG dating based on Data's mistake in Neutral Zone. Looks like
they advanced everything just about 50 years, to service the silly
conceit that TOS took place exactly 300 years after each air date.

> 2222 Montgomery Scott born
>
> 2227 Leonard H. McCoy is born
>
> 2230 Spock is born
>
> 2233 James T. Kirk is born
>
> 2237 Hikaru Sulu is born
>
> 2239 Uhura is born
>
> 2245 Pavel A. Chekov is born
>
> 2249 Spock enters Starfleet Academy
>
> 2250 Kirk enrolls in Starfleet Academy
>
> 2253 Spock graduates from Starfleet Academy
>
> 2254 Kirk graduates from Starfleet Academy
>
> So Spock and Kirk graduate from Starfleet Acadmey when Chekov is only
> about 9 years old and Uhura is 15 years old!!
>
> Anyone who thinks all the main characters are going to be at the Academy
> at the same time is clutching at straws to try and make Abrams' mess fit
> ... the fact is that it doesn't and won't fit because it's not really
> "Star Trek". It's "fake Trek" or "butchered Trek".

yep

thinbluemime

unread,

Mar 21, 2013, 6:01:38 AM3/21/13

to

On Thu, 07 Mar 2013 10:08:50 -0500, David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> http://www.deadline.com/2013/03/star-trek-into-darkness-gets-new-uk-release-date-one-week-ahead-of-the-u-s/
>
> ‘Star Trek Into Darkness’ Gets New UK Release Date One Week Ahead Of
> The U.S.
> By NANCY TARTAGLIONE

‘Star Trek Into Darkness’ International Trailer Gets Personal [Updated
With 50 Images]
http://screenrant.com/star-trek-into-darkness-international-trailer/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhz4A5BCMAA

In Summer 2013, pioneering director J.J. Abrams will deliver an explosive
action thriller that takes Star Trek Into Darkness. When the crew of the
Enterprise is called back home, they find an unstoppable force of terror
from within their own organization has detonated the fleet and everything
it stands for, leaving our world in a state of crisis. With a personal
score to settle, Captain Kirk leads a manhunt to a war-zone world to
capture a one man weapon of mass destruction. As our heroes are propelled
into an epic chess game of life and death, love will be challenged,
friendships will be torn apart, and sacrifices must be made for the only
family Kirk has left: his crew.

-----------------

Abrams: Making Modern Myth With Post 9/11 Metaphors

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.tv/msg/90e0f4acb6ab46eb

David Johnston

unread,

Mar 21, 2013, 12:25:11 PM3/21/13

to

The Organians didn't intervene because they cared about the Federation
and the Klingons. They cared that those kids were playing on their
lawn. That makes old folks cranky.

David Smith

unread,

Mar 21, 2013, 1:00:48 PM3/21/13

to

On 3/20/13 8:18 PM, anim8rFSK wrote:

>
> Kirk's 38, and Chekov is 22. I don't think anybody else's ages were
> given on screen, but those two were.
>

Kirk's stated age in "The Deadly Years" was 34.

anim8rFSK

unread,

Mar 21, 2013, 1:21:13 PM3/21/13

to

In article <kife8c$41t$1...@dont-email.me>,

Yeah, you're right, thanks.

Jim G.

unread,

Mar 21, 2013, 3:03:46 PM3/21/13

to

anim8rFSK sent the following on Wed, 20 Mar 2013 08:37:45 -0700:

He was a prodigy. He graduated from the Novgorod Screaming Academy at
age 12 and enlisted in Starfleet the next year. The rest is history.
Loud, screeching history.

Jim G.

unread,

Mar 21, 2013, 3:03:46 PM3/21/13

to

Merrick Baldelli sent the following on Wed, 20 Mar 2013 12:31:55 -0400:

> On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 15:02:04 -0500, Jim G.
> <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> >Merrick Baldelli sent the following on Sat, 16 Mar 2013 12:42:07 -0400:
> >> On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 14:53:12 -0500, Jim G.
> >> <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> I'm still trying to figure out what the UK did to deserve suffering thru
> >> >> an extra week of Crap Trek II Into the Toilet.
> >> >
> >> >I blame Patrick Stewart and his silly accent.
> >>
> >> *laughing* I blame writers for trying to convince us he was
> >> FRENCH.
> >
> >C'mon. The guy grows up in France and then goes to school in San
> >Francisco. Of *course* he's gonna sound like a Brit after that.
>
> Whatever you're on.. Share and Enjoy! :D

It was a perfectly fine Bordeaux to go along with an audiobook of some
French chap reading Shakespeare, but the moment has passed. And by now,
so has the Bordeaux.

Your Name

unread,

Mar 21, 2013, 5:21:13 PM3/21/13

to

In article <anim8rfsk-4F62B...@news.easynews.com>, anim8rFSK

I'm still waiting for the space hotels and PanAm shuttles from the "2011"
movie. ;-)

Dimensional Traveler

unread,

Mar 21, 2013, 9:32:19 PM3/21/13

to

On 3/19/2013 6:31 PM, anim8rFSK wrote:
> In article <5148fff4$0$52732$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
> Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> On 3/18/2013 7:35 PM, anim8rFSK wrote:
>>> In article <5147a8a7$0$52768$742e...@news.sonic.net>,

>>> Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/18/2013 2:05 AM, Dragon Lady wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Professor Bubba" <bu...@nowhere.edu.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>> news:170320131314118678%bu...@nowhere.edu.invalid...

>>>>>> In article <ki4f8h$vb4$1...@dont-email.me>, Dragon Lady

>>> Then, you *do* do code breaking.
>>>
>> Okay, I don't GET PAID TO do code breaking.... Happy now?
>
> What if we paypal you a shiny nickel?
>
After Paypal and Amazon and Ebay take their percentages, I'll end up
owing them. So I still won't get paid to do code breaking. :P

--
The 'Enterprise' crew in the 2009 Star Trek are adrenaline addicted,
hyper-active teenagers with ADD whose Ritalin got replaced with
methamphetamine, displaying a level of discipline that a Somali pirate
wouldn't tolerate.