Enterprise Was Actually a Very Good Show

[SrEspectro]

Enterprise got a very bad rap at the time of its first run.

This was primarily a result of the fans' perception of its many
departures from either established, or widely accepted, canon.

Some of the criticism was absolutely justified, and some was a bit
exaggerated.

However, viewed on its own merits in the realm of actor performance,
camera work, lighting, sound, special effects, sets, and
storytelling...

Enterprise was actually a very good show.

(Even though it was made by jews.)

-.-

www.brovids.com

[Steven L.]

"Even though," or "because of"?

Let's face it, jews have a better sense of humor than Germans.


--
Steven L.

[Your Name]

In article <n6muq8h5g0ovecdle...@4ax.com>,

mrspo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> Enterprise got a very bad rap at the time of its first run.
>
> This was primarily a result of the fans' perception of its many
> departures from either established, or widely accepted, canon.
>
> Some of the criticism was absolutely justified, and some was a bit
> exaggerated.
>
> However, viewed on its own merits in the realm of actor performance,
> camera work, lighting, sound, special effects, sets, and
> storytelling...
>
> Enterprise was actually a very good show.

It may or may not have been a good show in it's own right - that's simply
people's opinions, and opinions are basically irrelevant since everyone's
has a different and equally valid one.

The FACT is that as a "Star Trek" show it's complete crap because of those
"departures from either established, or widely accepted, canon" - it
simply doesn't fit with what came before it. You could slap a "Star Trek"
sticker onto "Dora the Explorer", but that doesn't make it a real part of
the franchise either.

[wheresou...@israels.wars]

Oh, yes.

Especially when it comes to war-mongering and genocide.

They laugh all the way to the bank... literally.

And that holohoax of theirs... LOL.

What a real knee-slapper.

Anyway, since Israel did 9-11, your argument is invalid.

-.-

"Holohoax Survivors Who Tell The Truth" Video - over 100,000 Views on
Youtube!:

http://codoh.com/news/1883

[wheresou...@israels.wars]

On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 09:09:22 +1200, Your...@YourISP.com (Your Name)
wrote:

>In article <n6muq8h5g0ovecdle...@4ax.com>,
>mrspo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> Enterprise got a very bad rap at the time of its first run.
>>
>> This was primarily a result of the fans' perception of its many
>> departures from either established, or widely accepted, canon.
>>
>> Some of the criticism was absolutely justified, and some was a bit
>> exaggerated.
>>
>> However, viewed on its own merits in the realm of actor performance,
>> camera work, lighting, sound, special effects, sets, and
>> storytelling...
>>
>> Enterprise was actually a very good show.
>
>It may or may not have been a good show in it's own right - that's simply
>people's opinions, and opinions are basically irrelevant since everyone's
>has a different and equally valid one.
>

Not everyone's opinion is different, or no one would agree with
anyone.

However, I was merely stating mine. It's really ok if you don't share
it... Really.

>The FACT is that as a "Star Trek" show it's complete crap because of those
>"departures from either established, or widely accepted, canon" - it
>simply doesn't fit with what came before it. You could slap a "Star Trek"
>sticker onto "Dora the Explorer", but that doesn't make it a real part of
>the franchise either.

That is, of course, debatable.

But I suppose you're entitled to your own opinion. :)

-.-

Deepen your knowledge about the root of America's problems:

http://www.realjewnews.com/?cat=375

http://www.realjewnews.com/?cat=101

http://www.realjewnews.com/?cat=301

http://www.realjewnews.com/?cat=341

http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=753

USS Liberty Bombing:

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/ussliberty.html

The Lavon Affair:

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/lavon.html

[Your Name]

In article <ngevq817jv9a1g3ng...@4ax.com>,

nyc...@nuttyyahoo.isr wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 09:09:22 +1200, Your...@YourISP.com (Your Name)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <n6muq8h5g0ovecdle...@4ax.com>,
> >mrspo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>
> >> Enterprise got a very bad rap at the time of its first run.
> >>
> >> This was primarily a result of the fans' perception of its many
> >> departures from either established, or widely accepted, canon.
> >>
> >> Some of the criticism was absolutely justified, and some was a bit
> >> exaggerated.
> >>
> >> However, viewed on its own merits in the realm of actor performance,
> >> camera work, lighting, sound, special effects, sets, and
> >> storytelling...
> >>
> >> Enterprise was actually a very good show.
> >
> >It may or may not have been a good show in it's own right - that's simply
> >people's opinions, and opinions are basically irrelevant since everyone's
> >has a different and equally valid one.
>
> Not everyone's opinion is different, or no one would agree with
> anyone.
>
> However, I was merely stating mine. It's really ok if you don't share
> it... Really.

As I said, opinions are irrelevant.

> >The FACT is that as a "Star Trek" show it's complete crap because of those
> >"departures from either established, or widely accepted, canon" - it
> >simply doesn't fit with what came before it. You could slap a "Star Trek"
> >sticker onto "Dora the Explorer", but that doesn't make it a real part of
> >the franchise either.
>
> That is, of course, debatable.
>
> But I suppose you're entitled to your own opinion. :)

Nope, it's not an opinion - it's an observable FACT that it's different to
the Star Trek shows and movies that preceeded it. Anyone with even half a
brain can see that it's different (you said so yourself) and even the
people making it stated it was different, plus the fact that they left
"Star Trek" out of the show's title is an even more obvious clue. The
reality is that "Enterprise" was an idiotic attempt to "reboot" the
franchise, and like all silly "reboots" that means it was a different
product.

[MITO MINISTER]

On Jun 6, 10:11 am, YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote:
> In article <ngevq817jv9a1g3nganom38p14j1qae...@4ax.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> nyc2...@nuttyyahoo.isr wrote:
> > On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 09:09:22 +1200, YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name)
> > wrote:
>
> > >In article <n6muq8h5g0ovecdlebr6m2scl2nejfo...@4ax.com>,

Why do you give a shit? Lacking a life?

[Wiseguy]

Your...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote in
news:YourName-060...@203-118-187-185.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz:

And what you think is your opinion as well. NOT FACT.

So, grow up, little boy.

[Wiseguy]

Your...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote in

news:YourName-060...@203-118-187-153.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz:

> In article <ngevq817jv9a1g3ng...@4ax.com>,
> nyc...@nuttyyahoo.isr wrote:
>> On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 09:09:22 +1200, Your...@YourISP.com (Your Name)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <n6muq8h5g0ovecdle...@4ax.com>,
>> >mrspo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Enterprise got a very bad rap at the time of its first run.
>> >>
>> >> This was primarily a result of the fans' perception of its many
>> >> departures from either established, or widely accepted, canon.
>> >>
>> >> Some of the criticism was absolutely justified, and some was a bit
>> >> exaggerated.
>> >>
>> >> However, viewed on its own merits in the realm of actor
>> >> performance, camera work, lighting, sound, special effects, sets,
>> >> and storytelling...
>> >>
>> >> Enterprise was actually a very good show.
>> >
>> >It may or may not have been a good show in it's own right - that's
>> >simply people's opinions, and opinions are basically irrelevant
>> >since everyone's has a different and equally valid one.
>>
>> Not everyone's opinion is different, or no one would agree with
>> anyone.
>>
>> However, I was merely stating mine. It's really ok if you don't share
>> it... Really.
>
> As I said, opinions are irrelevant.
>
>

Yours too, then.

>
>
>> >The FACT is that as a "Star Trek" show it's complete crap because of
>> >those "departures from either established, or widely accepted,
>> >canon" - it simply doesn't fit with what came before it. You could
>> >slap a "Star Trek" sticker onto "Dora the Explorer", but that
>> >doesn't make it a real part of the franchise either.
>>
>> That is, of course, debatable.
>>
>> But I suppose you're entitled to your own opinion. :)
>
> Nope, it's not an opinion - it's an observable FACT that it's
> different to the Star Trek shows and movies that preceeded it. Anyone
> with even half a brain can see that it's different (you said so
> yourself) and even the people making it stated it was different, plus
> the fact that they left "Star Trek" out of the show's title is an even
> more obvious clue. The reality is that "Enterprise" was an idiotic
> attempt to "reboot" the franchise, and like all silly "reboots" that
> means it was a different product.
>

Whether it has the title Star Trek or not is irrelevant.
You still don't understand the difference between reboot and prequel,
huh, little boy? GROW UP!

[Wiseguy]

MITO MINISTER <cigarm...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:88e947b3-24c7-45e9...@qn4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com:

Star Trek is his whole life. That's why he's so offended when something
comes along he doesn't like. It ruins his life.