XPost: alt.startrek, alt.tv.star-trek, alt.tv.star-trek.enterprise   
   XPost: rec.arts.startrek.current   
   From: david@block.net   
      
   On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 21:08:10 -0500, Flip Wilson    
   wrote:   
      
   >On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 00:51:38 +0000, David Johnston wrote:   
   >   
   >> On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 19:27:26 -0500, Flip Wilson    
   >> wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 00:55:36 -0500, ToolPackinMama wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> Flip Wilson wrote:   
   >>>>> On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 01:02:54 +0000, Kweeg wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> Indeed. Three words "The Next Generation" if that was not a remake /   
   reboot   
   >>>>>> of the franchise I dono (by "Anybody's logic) what was.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> I would say it's more of an extension of the franchise, not a remake.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> It was a reboot in many ways.   
   >>>   
   >>>Name three   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> "Starfleet is not military.  We're diplomats in ships with the combat   
   >> capability of your average gerbil.  If we ever fail to talk ourselves   
   >> out of trouble, we're dead."   
   >> "Klingons are jovial ogres who are above hurting noncombatant aliens   
   >> but love to hurt themselves."   
   >> "Humanity is so perfect that they have abandoned crass things like   
   >> money, species prejudice and spectator entertainment"   
   >   
   >But there was 80 years between the two series. Things change. People and   
   >organizations change.   
      
   But it was still a show named "Star Trek" which had many fundamentals   
   at odds with the original show named Star Trek.  It was far more   
   unfaithful to TOS's spirit than Enterprise was to TNG.   
      
   What mystifies me of course, is how someone who can't cope with the   
   idea of parallel universes and alternate histories, can be a watcher   
   of any flavour of Star Trek.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)