|
|
Science Fiction » alt.startrek » Your thoughts on JJ Abrams signing on to direct Star Trek 11?
| Re: Your thoughts on JJ Abrams signing on to direct Star Trek 11? [message #248980 ] |
So, 23 April 2006 05:18 |
|
Starshadow wrote:
> And while I see Kirk as definately bisexual with a healthy if kinky
> drive, Spock is so obviously s'kandrie-h'tath, a "male attracted to
> males". No wonder T'Pring wanted a divorce.
LOL
There once was a gal named T'Pring
Who was to wear Spock's wedding ring
But when he got the fever
He picked up to leave her
'Cause he and Kirk started a T'hing.
;)
|
|
|
| Re: Your thoughts on JJ Abrams signing on to direct Star Trek 11? [message #248981 ] |
So, 23 April 2006 05:22 |
|
Starshadow wrote:
> You think Kirk and Ben Finney had something going?
He named his daughter after Jim! That in itself wouldn't be suspect,
but THAT PLUS the whole destroy-Kirk-sick-fuck-ex-lover weirdshit that
we saw in Court Martial certainly raises disturbing questions.
> I think Jim broke up with Gary over Gary's obsessiveness. Jim wouldn't
> want to be tied down. And with Gary, it wouldn't even be a "let's be
> exclusive" obsessive, it'd be a "I collected you" obsessive. If that
> makes sense. That's just the undercurrent I picked up.
Gee, it seems obvious to me that Kirk would have kept it going with Gary
forever if Gary hadn't started the whole worship-me-before-I-kill-you
evil God thing. That pushed Jim too far.
|
|
|
| Re: Your thoughts on JJ Abrams signing on to direct Star Trek 11? [message #248982 ] |
So, 23 April 2006 05:31 |
|
Jaxtraw wrote:
> I hate to piss on your bonfire here, but can we just remember for a moment
> that there two indications of Spock being attracted to somebody in TOS were
> both women?
ROFLMAO!
> Zarabeth and the Romulan Commander.
1) It was explicitly stated in that ep that Spock was not his usual
self, and why. Besides, he dumped her to return to Jim.
2) It was obvious to almost everyone that Spock assumed a role and was
play-acting to seduce the RC in that episode. His ~courtshit~ of
WHATSERNAME was manipulative, duty-related, and insincere.
I can't believe you didn't mention Leila Kalomi, T'Pring, and Droxine!
Oh, yeah, and both Chapel and Uhura showed interest in Spock as well!
Let's examine all of the incidents from Spock's alleged heterosexual
history, shall we?
Please. Do let's :)
|
|
|
| Re: Your thoughts on JJ Abrams signing on to direct Star Trek 11? [message #248983 ] |
So, 23 April 2006 05:32 |
|
Starshadow wrote:
> So quoth the man who pretends to be Klingon, and is obviously a
> homophobic fanatic.
>
> And who puts drink references in his sig line.
>
> It's not *I* who ingests mind altering substances. If you're an idiot,
> that's a personal problem.
::applause::
|
|
|
| Re: Your thoughts on JJ Abrams signing on to direct Star Trek 11? [message #248984 ] |
So, 23 April 2006 05:32 |
|
Starshadow wrote:
> Plenty of GLBT people marry and even have children.
That's right!
> Just because you're a homophobe, doesn't mean Gene was.
THAT'S RIGHT.
|
|
|
| Re: Your thoughts on JJ Abrams signing on to direct Star Trek 11? [message #248985 ] |
So, 23 April 2006 05:33 |
|
Kweeg wrote:
> It's people like you that give the gay and lesbian community a bad name.
ROFLMAO!
|
|
|
| K/S FAQ Re: Your thoughts on JJ Abrams signing on to direct StarTrek 11? [message #248986 ] |
So, 23 April 2006 05:36 |
|
Kweeg wrote:
> Gene Roddenberry's novelization of STTMP:
> I was never aware of this 'lovers' rumour
[etc.]
:)
http://allyourtrekarebelongto.us/ks-faq.htm
BONUS GR quotes:
1) << We [the interviewers] tell Gene [Roddenberry] something of our
recent interview with Bill [Shatner] and Leonard [Nimoy] - touching on
the Kirk-Spock relationship, and Nimoy's feeling that Kirk was essential
to Spock's life:
"I know you've told us you designed that relationship as 'Two halves
which come together to make a whole'. Is that how you still see it?"
[Roddenberry]: "Oh yes. As I've said, I definitely designed it as a love
relationship. I think that's what we're all about - love, the effort to
reach out to each other. I think that's a lovely thing. Also,
dramatically, I designed Kirk and Spock to complete each other - and in
fact, the Kirk, Spock McCoy triad to be the dramatic embodiment of the
parts of one person: logic, emotion, and the balance between them. You
cannot have an internal monolog on the screen, so that is a way of
personifying it, getting it out where it can be seen - that internal
debate which we all have within. AND I designed Kirk and Spock, as I
told you, as dream images of myself, the two halves. But in terms of the
characters, yes. That closeness... absolutely."
There is also this:
"There's a great deal of writing in the Star Trek movement which
compares the relationship between Alexander and Hephaistion* to the
relationship between Kirk and Spock - focusing on the closeness of the
friendship, the feeling that they would die for one another..."
[Roddenberry]: "Yes, there's certainly some of that - certainly with
love overtones. Deep love. The only difference being, the Greek ideal...
we never suggested in the series... physical love between the two. But
it's the... we certainly had the feeling that the affection was
sufficient for that, if that were the particular style of the 23rd century."
[From: Shatner: Where No Man...: The Authorized Biography of William
Shatner (Chapter 7 - Page 145, 147-8)]
2) Gene Roddenberry: "In the fifth season [of Star Trek: The Next
Generation] viewers will see more of shipboard life [including] Gay crew
members in day-to-day circumstances."
[Interview, The Advocate, 1991]
3) "My attitude toward homosexuality has changed. I came to the
conclusion that I was wrong. I was never someone who hunted down "fags"
as we used to call them on the street. I would, sometimes, say something
anti-homosexual off the top of my head because it was thought, in those
days, to be funny. I never really deeply believed those comments, but I
gave the impression of being thoughtless in these areas. I have, over
many years, changed my attitude about gay men and women." Gene
Roddenberry, to The Humanist, 1991
[From http://www.philosophysphere.com/humanist.html <-- Full interview]
4) << In 1987, veteran Trek writer David Gerrold (author of the
original episode The Trouble with Tribbles) accompanied Gene Roddenberry
to a Star Trek convention in Boston where Roddenberry was asked by some
gay Trek fans if there would be a gay character on The Next Generation.
Roddenberry answered in the affirmative and subsequently brought the
idea up in a staff meeting, reportedly responding to some initial
resistance with the statement "Times have changed and we have got to be
aware of it". Since TNG was a syndicated show, and Paramount had given
Roddenberry the freedom to do whatever he wanted to do, the road seemed
clear. Gerrold developed a story called Blood and Fire that featured a
gay male couple and infectious alien creatures called bloodworms that
were an allegory for AIDS. Roddenberry and the writing staff loved the
story, and Gerrold went on a vacation. What happened when he returned is
described as follows in Star Trek The Next Generation: The Continuing
Mission:
"[Gerold] found that his script was in disfavor. The idealism of
Roddenberry's initial intentions to push the limits of television
story-telling had hit the wall of business concerns. Much of the change
in perception of the script resulted from Paramount's concern that
because the series was syndicated, in some markets it might air in the
afternoon when younger viewers would be part of the audience. Thus the
studio had to weigh the mandate to produce provocative, issues-oriented
episodes against the possible reaction of parents who might not want
their children to see issues they felt were more suited to adult
programing hours.
Though Gerrold fought for his script and it was slated for production,
he also understood his responsibilities as a professional writer under
contract to the series. Thus, he followed the producers' notes to revise
the script by dropping the gay characters.
Though the revised script was not as powerful as the first, more and
more revisions followed. While in television it is not unusual to have
ten or more rounds of revisions on a script, eventually Gerrold's script
was dropped from the production schedule." >>
[From http://www.webpan.com/dsinclair/trek.html]
5) Gene Roddenberry: "I'm sorry I never had a homosexual relationship,"
he remarks pensively, out of the blue, one afternoon, "because I know
that there must be many joys and pleasures and degrees of closeness in
those relationships. I think that I have in a way been cursed by having
picked my particular time period and background and so on, because I
have no doubt that I am capable of homosexualism. As a matter of fact,
remind me, I'm in the midst of making a decision about homosexuality -
male and female - and how we are going to treat it on Star Trek, the
lovely ways in which we will treat it - without defying present average
conditions."
[From Gene Roddenberry; The Last Conversation (by Yvonne Fern, 1994)]
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0520088425/107-693024 1-6153356
<-- buy it
====
<<Alan Asherman -- You created STAR TREK, and your name is known all
over the world. How does it feel?
GR -- I feel, as I wake up every morning, "I hope today isn't the day
they find me out."
AA -- Can you recall the first thing you thought about when you
conceived STAR TREK?
GR -- I guess it was the thought that under the terrible restrictions of
television it might be a way I could infiltrate my ideas, and that's
what it's been all the time.>>
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/3253/regular/aa_roddenberry_ gene.html
|
|
|
| Re: Your thoughts on JJ Abrams signing on to direct Star Trek 11? [message #248987 ] |
So, 23 April 2006 05:37 |
|
Jaxtraw wrote:
>
> Maybe just get your head around the idea that I think slash is a bit of
> harmless fun but trying to twist everything else to fit it is, well, fucking
> stupid.
Yo, trying to debate about the speed of warp drive is "fucking stupid".
|
|
|
| Re: Your thoughts on JJ Abrams signing on to direct Star Trek 11? [message #248988 ] |
So, 23 April 2006 06:16 |
|
allemannster [at] gmail.com wrote:
> ...the
> writers had better study everything about TOS.
Gee, if only fans would do that much.
:)
|
|
|
| Metaphors Re: Your thoughts on JJ Abrams signing on to direct StarTrek 11? [message #248989 ] |
So, 23 April 2006 06:20 |
|
|
http://allyourtrekarebelongto.us/metaphors.jpg
|
|
|
| Re: Your thoughts on JJ Abrams signing on to direct Star Trek 11? [message #248991 ] |
So, 23 April 2006 12:18 |
|
"Starshadow" <starshadow [at] starshadow.net> wrote in message
news:1145761162.237779.98350 [at] j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Oh, and by the way, the FIRST to throw insults would have been you,
> with your "gin and pills" post.
>
> So you can add liar to limpwit.
If you don't get it by now I can't really be bothered to explain things to
such a abusive narrow minded bigot.... so.. off to the phantom zone with
you....
--
Qa ' PLONK
Kweeg
Ten of Canadian Clubs in the Eeeevil Trek Cabal
1,079,252,848.8 km/h, not just a good idea, it's the law.
So say we all!
|
|
|
| Re: Your thoughts on JJ Abrams signing on to direct Star Trek 11? [message #248992 ] |
So, 23 April 2006 14:20 |
|
ToolPackinMama wrote:
> Jaxtraw wrote:
>
>> I hate to piss on your bonfire here, but can we just remember for a
>> moment that there two indications of Spock being attracted to
>> somebody in TOS were both women?
>
> ROFLMAO!
>
> > Zarabeth and the Romulan Commander.
>
> 1) It was explicitly stated in that ep that Spock was not his usual
> self, and why. Besides, he dumped her to return to Jim.
>
> 2) It was obvious to almost everyone that Spock assumed a role and was
> play-acting to seduce the RC in that episode. His ~courtshit~ of
> WHATSERNAME was manipulative, duty-related, and insincere.
Watch the damned episode, particularly the final exchange between Spock and
the Commander, in which Fontana makes it plain that although he was playing
the role for duty's sake, it meant a great deal more than that.
> I can't believe you didn't mention Leila Kalomi, T'Pring,
Arranged marriage. A lack of mutual attraction in such situations is not
uncommon. T'Pring was already getting her oats from Stonn.
> and Droxine!
I did mention Droxine.
> Oh, yeah, and both Chapel and Uhura showed interest in Spock as well!
>
> Let's examine all of the incidents from Spock's alleged heterosexual
> history, shall we?
>
> Please. Do let's :)
No, that would be tiresome and pointless, because nothing will change your
mind.
Ian
--
|
|
|
| Re: Your thoughts on JJ Abrams signing on to direct Star Trek 11? [message #248993 ] |
So, 23 April 2006 14:18 |
|
Yeah, I liked that limerick.
Starshadow
|
|
|
| Re: Your thoughts on JJ Abrams signing on to direct Star Trek 11? [message #248994 ] |
So, 23 April 2006 14:22 |
|
Possible. Certainly possible. But I dunno.
I didn't see it in my interpretation, though. However,
there's room for other viewpoints, certainly.
Starshadow
|
|
|
| Re: Your thoughts on JJ Abrams signing on to direct Star Trek 11? [message #248995 ] |
So, 23 April 2006 14:57 |
|
ToolPackinMama wrote:
> Starshadow wrote:
>
>> And while I see Kirk as definately bisexual with a healthy if kinky
>> drive, Spock is so obviously s'kandrie-h'tath, a "male attracted to
>> males". No wonder T'Pring wanted a divorce.
>
> LOL
>
> There once was a gal named T'Pring
> Who was to wear Spock's wedding ring
> But when he got the fever
> He picked up to leave her
> 'Cause he and Kirk started a T'hing.
>
> ;)
So, in your world any guy unfortunate enough to get dumped at the altar must
be gay?
~sigh~
Ian
--
|
|
|
| Re: Your thoughts on JJ Abrams signing on to direct Star Trek 11? [message #248996 ] |
So, 23 April 2006 15:06 |
|
Starshadow wrote:
> Did someone rattle your cage, dear?
>
> So you do it for a living, cool. So what. You're still acting like an
> asshole. I'm not impressed, if I'm supposed to be.
>
> Starshadow (award winning fanfic author)
I'm not trying to impress. I'm expressing my displeasure at being accused of
being homophobic because I don't share your heterophobic worldview.
Ian
--
|
|
|
| Re: Your thoughts on JJ Abrams signing on to direct Star Trek 11? [message #248997 ] |
So, 23 April 2006 15:51 |
|
> Why oh why are Star Trek producers DETERMINED to have a series/film
> set
> in the past eras?
>
> You think they would have learnt their lesson with Enterprise, the
> fact
> that fans told them before it was even produced that it would be
> difficult thing to get right, but nope they went ahead anyway.
>
> The francise is now in its death throws because of Enterprise, and
> rather than do a story after DS9/Voyager with the established crew
> of
> TNG that most fans seem to like, they decide to do another Prequel!
> Sound judgement there guys.
>
How about that time period between between TOS and TNG? We only know a
small bit of history cocerning the Enterprise that Yar was on. Sounds
like an interesting period. Much of the familiar tech and culture is
there and it shouldn't be to much to extrapolate resonable, minimal
advances.
|
|
|
| Re: Your thoughts on JJ Abrams signing on to direct Star Trek 11? [message #249000 ] |
So, 23 April 2006 17:46 |
|
Starshadow wrote:
> Yeah, I liked that limerick.
>
Glad you did. :)
|
|
|
| Re: Your thoughts on JJ Abrams signing on to direct Star Trek 11? [message #249001 ] |
So, 23 April 2006 20:25 |
|
"Jaxtraw" <jax [at] knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote in message
news:444b78a1$0$464$db0fefd9 [at] news.zen.co.uk...
> ToolPackinMama wrote:
> > Starshadow wrote:
> >
> >> And while I see Kirk as definately bisexual with a healthy if kinky
> >> drive, Spock is so obviously s'kandrie-h'tath, a "male attracted to
> >> males". No wonder T'Pring wanted a divorce.
> >
> > LOL
> >
> > There once was a gal named T'Pring
> > Who was to wear Spock's wedding ring
> > But when he got the fever
> > He picked up to leave her
> > 'Cause he and Kirk started a T'hing.
> >
> > ;)
>
> So, in your world any guy unfortunate enough to get dumped at the altar
must
> be gay?
>
> ~sigh~
Apparently so. "Debating" this issues with TPM is rather like continually
pounding one's head into a brick wall (a very dense brick wall at that) I
know that my head hurts less now that intolerant bigots like her and the
feminazi "Starshadow" remain in the killfile.
--
Qapla'
Kweeg
Ten of Canadian Clubs in the Eeeevil Trek Cabal
http://members.shaw.ca/iksbloodoath
"Half a gallon a'scotch!" Scotty (Spectre of the Gun)
1,079,252,848.8 km/h, not just a good idea, it's the law.
"So say we all!"
|
|
|
| Re: Your thoughts on JJ Abrams signing on to direct Star Trek 11? [message #249003 ] |
Mo, 24 April 2006 02:45 |
|
<allemannster [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1145655845.577341.184400 [at] u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> I'm glad we're getting somebody new to breathe life into the franchise
> again. God, please let it be good.
>
If it crashes, Trek is dead.
|
|
|
| ***THIS THREAD IS CLOSED!*** [message #249004 ] |
Mo, 24 April 2006 02:50 |
|
"ToolPackinMama" <laura [at] lauragoodwin.org> wrote in message
news:mcudncEWXYiCa9fZnZ2dnUVZ_vGdnZ2d [at] comcast.com...
<snip the chaff>
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.startrek/msg/edc99bd4aa86 2e6c?hl=en
"Snake wrote:
> Hope you find some enjoyment in this forum regardless.
I agree, and furthermore I hope everybody here enjoys the forum.
Here's a gift for those among us who need a little extra help:
Kirk and Spock are heterosexual and nothing but - and that's the truth.
Period. End of Story.
There. Now any time anyone here want to win the K/S debate, just
republish the quote above, and you automatically win.
Period. :)
LLAP,
Just another Trekkie
Laura Goodwin"
*****************************
What Laura *really* thinks of homosexuals:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.tv.star-trek.enterprise/m sg/4655699cc09e00c7?hl=en
"Merrick Baldelli wrote:
> Oh so this is going to be the new excuse for your Loopy Loo
> messages that seem semi-sane in one message, and freakishly netkooky in
> the next 20 minutes later??
Pull the hamster out of your ass, look me right in the eyes, and say
that again, you jockstrap sniffing, urinal licking, cock-sucking FAGGOT. "
*****************************
CK
*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***
|
|
|
| Re: Your thoughts on JJ Abrams signing on to direct Star Trek 11? [message #249005 ] |
Mo, 24 April 2006 04:15 |
|
*snork*
Yeah, right. Heterophobic. Uh-Huh.
You know what they say about ASS umptions, don't you?
And I'm still not impressed, nor do I give a rat's ass about your
displeasure.
|
|
|
| Re: Your thoughts on JJ Abrams signing on to direct Star Trek 11? [message #249006 ] |
Mo, 24 April 2006 04:16 |
|
Translation: *Sticks fingers in ears* I can't HEEEAR YOUUUU!
Lalalalalala!
|
|
|
| Re: Your thoughts on JJ Abrams signing on to direct Star Trek 11? [message #249007 ] |
Mo, 24 April 2006 04:18 |
|
Translation: I can't stand uppedy women. They're all feminazis.
Enjoy your fingers in your ears. Worthy of a cult-follower.
|
|
|
| Re: Your thoughts on JJ Abrams signing on to direct Star Trek 11? [message #249008 ] |
Mo, 24 April 2006 07:31 |
|
> I've happily stood having a pint on Pride night while somebody was being
> anally fisted just a couple of meters away, or is that not enough?
It's enough for me. I mean, yuck.
|
|
|
| Re: Your thoughts on JJ Abrams signing on to direct Star Trek 11? [message #249009 ] |
Mo, 24 April 2006 08:35 |
|
In article <1145750360.279821.300050 [at] j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Starshadow" <starshadow [at] starshadow.net> wrote:
>So quoth the man who pretends to be Klingon, and is obviously a
>homophobic fanatic.
>
>And who puts drink references in his sig line.
>
>It's not *I* who ingests mind altering substances. If you're an idiot,
>that's a personal problem.
>
>Starshadow (award winning fanfic writer)
>
Most of us get a little sick of you people flapping around your lifestyle on us
and demanding that we accept it as normal. When it doesnt go your way, you can
always just claim that its genetic.That is pathetic.
|
|
|
| Re: Your thoughts on JJ Abrams signing on to direct Star Trek 11? [message #249010 ] |
Mo, 24 April 2006 08:45 |
|
"GMAN" <Not [at] home.now> wrote in message
news:e2hrsr$je3$2 [at] news.xmission.com...
> In article <1145750360.279821.300050 [at] j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Starshadow" <starshadow [at] starshadow.net> wrote:
> >So quoth the man who pretends to be Klingon, and is obviously a
> >homophobic fanatic.
> >
> >And who puts drink references in his sig line.
> >
> >It's not *I* who ingests mind altering substances. If you're an idiot,
> >that's a personal problem.
> >
> >Starshadow (award winning fanfic writer)
> >
> Most of us get a little sick of you people flapping around your lifestyle
on us
> and demanding that we accept it as normal. When it doesnt go your way, you
can
> always just claim that its genetic.That is pathetic.
Also, making the constant point of being an award winner points to a weak
ego. Give it a rest. We don't care.
|
|
|
| Re: Your thoughts on JJ Abrams signing on to direct Star Trek 11? [message #249011 ] |
Mo, 24 April 2006 08:49 |
|
In article <OZWdnfVaZL3cPNbZRVn-rw [at] comcast.com>, ToolPackinMama <laura [at] lauragoodwin.org> wrote:
>Starshadow wrote:
>> Yeah, I liked that limerick.
>>
>
>Glad you did. :)
Get a fucking motel room and dry hump already Toolie and Starshadow!
|
|
|
| Re: Your thoughts on JJ Abrams signing on to direct Star Trek 11? [message #249012 ] |
Mo, 24 April 2006 09:00 |
|
On 22 Apr 2006 06:56:17 -0700, "Starshadow"
<starshadow [at] starshadow.net> wrote:
>To be as fucked up as you are about emotionally satisfying
>relationships, did someone
>squick your skull as a child?
>
>Because you're obviously dealing with cum-for-brains.
>
>Starshadow (award winning fanfic writer)
Awww, did someone piss on your wannabee girlfriend? Now you'll have
to tug extra hard to make your little soldiers march.
|
|
|
| Re: Your thoughts on JJ Abrams signing on to direct Star Trek 11? [message #249013 ] |
Mo, 24 April 2006 09:00 |
|
On 23 Apr 2006 19:18:12 -0700, "Starshadow"
<starshadow [at] starshadow.net> wrote:
>Translation: I can't stand uppedy women. They're all feminazis.
>
>Enjoy your fingers in your ears. Worthy of a cult-follower.
Enjoy that lead in your head.
|
|
|
| PooPackedMommy crossdresses for "sensitive" hubby [message #249014 ] |
Mo, 24 April 2006 09:03 |
|
On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 20:50:29 -0400, "Clark Kent"
<ck [at] truthjusticeandtheamericanway.org> wrote:
>
>"ToolPackinMama" <laura [at] lauragoodwin.org> wrote in message
>news:mcudncEWXYiCa9fZnZ2dnUVZ_vGdnZ2d [at] comcast.com...
>
><snip the chaff>
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.startrek/msg/edc99bd4aa86 2e6c?hl=en
>
>"Snake wrote:
>> Hope you find some enjoyment in this forum regardless.
>
>
>I agree, and furthermore I hope everybody here enjoys the forum.
>
>Here's a gift for those among us who need a little extra help:
>
>
>Kirk and Spock are heterosexual and nothing but - and that's the truth.
> Period. End of Story.
>
>
>There. Now any time anyone here want to win the K/S debate, just
>republish the quote above, and you automatically win.
>
>
>Period. :)
>
>
>LLAP,
>Just another Trekkie
>Laura Goodwin"
>
>
>*****************************
>
>What Laura *really* thinks of homosexuals:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.tv.star-trek.enterprise/m sg/4655699cc09e00c7?hl=en
>
>"Merrick Baldelli wrote:
>> Oh so this is going to be the new excuse for your Loopy Loo
>> messages that seem semi-sane in one message, and freakishly netkooky in
>> the next 20 minutes later??
>
>Pull the hamster out of your ass, look me right in the eyes, and say
>that again, you jockstrap sniffing, urinal licking, cock-sucking FAGGOT. "
>
>
>*****************************
>
>CK
>
>*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***
PooPackedMommy loves the idea of gay sex because her hubby will only
do it with her if she dresses up as a man, anatomically speaking.
|
|
|
| Re: Your thoughts on JJ Abrams signing on to direct Star Trek 11? [message #249016 ] |
Mo, 24 April 2006 13:36 |
|
Starshadow wrote:
> *snork*
>
> Yeah, right. Heterophobic. Uh-Huh.
>
> You know what they say about ASS umptions, don't you?
>
> And I'm still not impressed, nor do I give a rat's ass about your
> displeasure.
Whatever. Just don't sling the accusations of homophobia around, especially
as your "ass" comment above suggests you suffer far more from it than I.
What was this award you won, anyway? The Booker? The Hugo? The Nebula?
Ian
--
|
|
|
| Re: Your thoughts on JJ Abrams signing on to direct Star Trek 11? [message #249028 ] |
Mo, 24 April 2006 23:14 |
|
Kweeg wrote:
> "Marshall Karp" <marshallkarp [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:s372g.8$BO2.6 [at] trnddc02...
>>
>> "Kweeg" <kweeg [at] nospam.shaw.ca> wrote in message
>> news:WX62g.55846$WI1.28462 [at] pd7tw2no...
>>> "Marshall Karp" <marshallkarp [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:0b62g.13$0z.7 [at] trnddc01...
>>> <snip>
>>>> My main rant is that Nicholas Meyer was the obvious choice to
>>>> revitalize the franchise,
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> He's also the same guy that said in his directors comments in TWOK,
>>> he didn't know anything about Star Trek he just made a high seas
>>> adventure and
>>> set it in space.
>>
>> He is an excellent writer, director, and story teller. As for
>> science fiction, Time After Time was well done.
>
> Sure but it was quasi-SF, more of a clasic love story really
>
>
>> Really lost interest in Enterprise by then, but I have read on here
>> that Mr. Cota did a good job.
>
> Go out and rent season 4! Except for the last episode and a weak one
> in the middle it's the best Trek (IMO) since DS9 (which was the best
> since TOS) if ENT had been done like this from the beginning it would
> still be on.
I thought Season 4 was good. I'm the one person on the planet who liked
"Bound" :) It was still uneven though- what really niggled me was the
Vulcans in the Vulcan trilogy ("The Forge" etc). I just didn't feel they
were Vulcan enough. I like Joanna Cassidy as an actress (ever since Blade
Runner) but there didn't seem to be an iota of "logic" in her performance at
all. Far too emotional. The same for the young T'Pau. I really didn't feel
anybody had "got" Vulcan at all.
Ian
--
www.jaxtrawstudios.com
science fiction comics with shagging in
|
|
|
| OT: 19 years (Re: PooPackedMommy crossdresses for "sensitive" hubby) [message #249033 ] |
Di, 25 April 2006 04:18 |
|
Today was my 19th wedding anniversary. Yep. Nineteen years. :) Going
for twenty.
|
|
|
| Re: Your thoughts on JJ Abrams signing on to direct Star Trek 11? [message #249034 ] |
Di, 25 April 2006 06:16 |
|
"Jaxtraw" <jax [at] knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote in message
news:444d3e6d$0$8336$da0feed9 [at] news.zen.co.uk...
> Kweeg wrote:
> > "Marshall Karp" <marshallkarp [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:s372g.8$BO2.6 [at] trnddc02...
> >>
> >> "Kweeg" <kweeg [at] nospam.shaw.ca> wrote in message
> >> news:WX62g.55846$WI1.28462 [at] pd7tw2no...
> >>> "Marshall Karp" <marshallkarp [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:0b62g.13$0z.7 [at] trnddc01...
> >>> <snip>
> >>>> My main rant is that Nicholas Meyer was the obvious choice to
> >>>> revitalize the franchise,
> >>> <snip>
> >>>
> >>> He's also the same guy that said in his directors comments in TWOK,
> >>> he didn't know anything about Star Trek he just made a high seas
> >>> adventure and
> >>> set it in space.
> >>
> >> He is an excellent writer, director, and story teller. As for
> >> science fiction, Time After Time was well done.
> >
> > Sure but it was quasi-SF, more of a clasic love story really
> >
> >
> >> Really lost interest in Enterprise by then, but I have read on here
> >> that Mr. Cota did a good job.
> >
> > Go out and rent season 4! Except for the last episode and a weak one
> > in the middle it's the best Trek (IMO) since DS9 (which was the best
> > since TOS) if ENT had been done like this from the beginning it would
> > still be on.
>
> I thought Season 4 was good. I'm the one person on the planet who liked
> "Bound" :)
Nope I like it too.... (I'll save you a seat at the bar...)
> It was still uneven though- what really niggled me was the
> Vulcans in the Vulcan trilogy ("The Forge" etc). I just didn't feel they
> were Vulcan enough. I like Joanna Cassidy as an actress (ever since Blade
> Runner) but there didn't seem to be an iota of "logic" in her performance
at
> all. Far too emotional. The same for the young T'Pau. I really didn't feel
> anybody had "got" Vulcan at all.
I know what you mean... but then again we've only "known" two Vulcans, Spock
and Tuvok, (OK, 3 if ya count T'Pol, who *did* get better) both of which
were surrounded by humans and apt to act more Vulcan (there's none more
Scots than the Scots abroad) so that arc didn't bug me that much, I like the
inclusion of the Vulcan "teddy bear"... "with fangs and claws, doctor."
The ep I thought was the weakest was "Daedalus" and the one that blew big
chucks was "These Are the Voyages," I don't count the season 2 parter opener
"Storm Front" a that was last year's mess. Ya know after saying all of this
now I'm actually considering buying season 4.... that and probably the Fan
Collective DVD set "Klingon" supposedly available 8/1/06......
--
Qapla'
Kweeg
Ten of Canadian Clubs in the Eeeevil Trek Cabal
http://members.shaw.ca/iksbloodoath
"Half a gallon a'scotch!" Scotty (Spectre of the Gun)
1,079,252,848.8 km/h, not just a good idea, it's the law.
"So say we all!"
|
|
|
| Re: OT: 19 years (Re: PooPackedMommy crossdresses for "sensitive" hubby) [message #249035 ] |
Di, 25 April 2006 14:57 |
|
On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 22:18:10 -0400, ToolPackinMama
<laura [at] lauragoodwin.org> wrote:
>Today was my 19th wedding anniversary. Yep. Nineteen years. :) Going
> for twenty.
>
A very happy Wedding Anniversary to you both, LG.
--
The Merry Piper
[http://tmpiper.livejournal.com]
If you want to dance, you'll have to pay ... me!
|
|
|
| Re: OT: 19 years (Re: PooPackedMommy crossdresses for "sensitive" hubby) [message #249038 ] |
Di, 25 April 2006 16:48 |
|
"The Merry Piper" <merry_piper_YOUR [at] COATyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:367s42toeu29dhvkaa7h088kf8ug79m2bf [at] 4ax.com...
> On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 22:18:10 -0400, ToolPackinMama
> <laura [at] lauragoodwin.org> wrote:
>
> >Today was my 19th wedding anniversary. Yep. Nineteen years. :) Going
> > for twenty.
> >
>
> A very happy Wedding Anniversary to you both, LG.
Maybe she should let'em out of the cage...... ha!
sorry sometimes gota go with the low hanging fruit....
--
Qapla'
Kweeg
Ten of Canadian Clubs in the Eeeevil Trek Cabal
http://members.shaw.ca/iksbloodoath
"Half a gallon a'scotch!" Scotty (Spectre of the Gun)
1,079,252,848.8 km/h, not just a good idea, it's the law.
"So say we all!"
|
|
|
| Re: OT: 19 years [message #249039 ] |
Di, 25 April 2006 17:34 |
|
The Merry Piper wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 22:18:10 -0400, ToolPackinMama
> <laura [at] lauragoodwin.org> wrote:
>
>
>>Today was my 19th wedding anniversary. Yep. Nineteen years. :) Going
>> for twenty.
>>
>
>
> A very happy Wedding Anniversary to you both, LG.
Thank you very much, MP. :)
|
|
|
| Re: 19 years (Re: PooPackedMommy crossdresses for "sensitive" hubby) [message #249041 ] |
Di, 25 April 2006 22:21 |
|
Congrats!
^_^
"ToolPackinMama" <laura [at] lauragoodwin.org> wrote in message
news:AaOdnXuZvuJ-G9DZnZ2dnUVZ_vSdnZ2d [at] comcast.com...
> Today was my 19th wedding anniversary. Yep. Nineteen years. :) Going
> for twenty.
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: 19 years [message #249042 ] |
Di, 25 April 2006 22:26 |
|
Snake wrote:
> Congrats!
Thanks! :)
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Di Feb 7 10:46:08 CET 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,09659 Sekunden |
