Replies

I didn’t say the pollution in China was a result of prosperity, quite the opposite I was pointing it out as proof that the country hasn’t progressed as far as you’re claiming.

Outside the norm. Most folks liked it.

Knowing the movie was good regardless of the reviews sounds like a religion to you? Try that one again.

Actually Hubbard’s books sold well before he invented Scientology. He was one of the big dogs of SF. It’s kind of sad really, ruined his own history by winning a bet.

Actually my bet is you decided you wouldn’t like it, watched it, and felt proud about how “right” you were. And now years later you’re still pissing and moaning about it.

Roddenberry’s optimism WHEN tempered by Coon’s story telling resonated. Roddenberry’s optimism unchecked was boring. First 3 season of TNG, that was Roddenberry’s optimism set free, “no conflict”, no drama. And by loathing TNG you agree.

“Good” in that sentence wasn’t an opinion, it was describing the world in the movie, as in “having a lot of that optimism of Roddenberry’s”. People aren’t poor (because they have replicators) people are free to explore themselves. That good.

Actually that ALL has to do with TOS. You really seem to be having trouble following logical threads all of a sudden. In TOS Roddenberry’s optimism was checked by Coon’s storytelling, thus it had drama, that’s the combination that gave us Khan, and therefore WOK, the best ST movie (even though rotten likes JJ-ST more it’s no WOK). Roddenberry’s optimism unchecked gave us Encounter at Farpoint, boring, no conflict, no drama. That all is part of a TOS discussion because even space TV shows don’t exist in a vacuum.

Most homeless aren’t crazy, or drug addicted, and yeah I have spent time in poor areas, REALLY poor areas, not “poor”. The actually poor areas where everybody “donates” plasma, and those people are skinny. There’s the big dividing line between the kind of poor we complain about getting welfare checks and REAL poor, actually poor people bleed for money, and the centers of America aren’t hurting for “donors”.

I believe statistics refute your assertions about the homeless.

I didn’t say the pollution in China was a result of prosperity, quite the opposite I was pointing it out as proof that the country hasn’t progressed as far as you’re claiming.

They have pollution in Beijing because enough Chinese can afford to buy CARS. How many privately owned cars were rolling around Beijing in 1963?

Outside the norm. Most folks liked it.

Most "folks" can be convinced to buy anything! They buy tap water in small plastic bottles! (I save fruit juice bottles, fill them half with tap water, freeze, and add water as needed. Cheap.)

Knowing the movie was good regardless of the reviews sounds like a religion to you? Try that one again.

It's akin to the way people worship Barack Obama. He's been a miserable failure, he's incompetent, he's anti-American, but the proles love him--as in a religion.

Actually Hubbard’s books sold well before he invented Scientology. He was one of the big dogs of SF.

Uh, no. I read sf in the 1960s and attended a lot of sf cons in the 1970s. I never ever heard anyone referring to Hubbard in the same breath as Asimov, Clarke, Heinlein, Lovecraft, or any number of others.

Actually my bet is you decided you wouldn’t like it, watched it, and felt proud about how “right” you were. And now years later you’re still pissing and moaning about it.

I've already stated that I approached the movie with an open mind, and:

"I watched it, I didn't like it, and I decided why. I did not approach it with an attitude."

I assume you can read.

because even space TV shows don’t exist in a vacuum.

Star Trek existed only in reruns (and a weird animated version) from 1969 to 1977. You don't need to drag in things done 15, 20, 25 years later to awkwardly (and unconvincingly) make your point.