Received: by 10.224.213.1 with SMTP id gu1mr9848824qab.7.1349554733094;
        Sat, 06 Oct 2012 13:18:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.52.156.115 with SMTP id wd19mr2146622vdb.2.1349554733052; Sat,
 06 Oct 2012 13:18:53 -0700 (PDT)
Path: e10ni211270746qan.0!nntp.google.com!l8no28655220qao.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2012 13:18:52 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <adbbgqFhmvpU1@mid.individual.net>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=92.40.233.191;
 posting-account=dELd-gkAAABehNzDMBP4sfQElk2tFztP
NNTP-Posting-Host: 92.40.233.191
References: <506e5045$0$71201$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net> <M0ubs.71$vv4.26@newsfe02.iad>
 <YourName-0510121924500001@203-118-187-90.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>
 <k4mht1$68a$3@dont-email.me> <YourName-0610120941110001@203-118-187-12.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>
 <k4nhl5$q3e$1@dont-email.me> <506f8dcf$0$71214$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>
 <YourName-0610121529140001@203-118-187-24.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>
 <12qzapzcyz0nu$.l5sjjyj8kqaw$.dlg@40tude.net> <k4of1r$fam$1@dont-email.me> <adbbgqFhmvpU1@mid.individual.net>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <4e12c1b3-8203-49f8-8834-e56723541a00@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Classical SF query
From: Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@excite.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2012 20:18:53 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Saturday, October 6, 2012 7:27:41 PM UTC+1, Greg Goss wrote:
> "Dano" <janeandd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> >"Brian M. Scott"  wrote 
> 
> >On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 15:29:14 +1200, Your Name
> 
> >>  Dimensional Traveler <dtra...@sonic.net> wrote:
> 
> >>> On 10/5/2012 1:58 PM, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
> 
> >>>> But it IS Star Trek. It's an excellent version of Trek, a
> >>>> reimagining
> >>>
> >>> *BZZZZ*  That right there makes it "Not Trek".
> 
> This whole subthread is attached to the wrong part of the "new trek"
> topic.  DT was making a simple throw-away joke that if it's
> "excellent" then it's not authentic Star Trek.
>
> All these comments for and against the new movie seem to have missed
> that point.

Well - I think DT was declaring that "a reimagining" = "Not Trek",
rather than saying that "excellent" is the difficulty.  Since the quote
ends abruptly on "the r word".

I haven't seen the latest film, and what I've heard about it 
troubles me.  I expect someday it'll show up on TV and I'll have
the time, or of course there's be another re-re-imagining, 
or I'll die and get cryogenically frozen and wake up with
Deforest Kelley or Gates McFadden or New Guy grating pepper on 
my re-animated being and can decide for myself.