From: macthevorlon@yahoo.com
"Captain Infinity" wrote in message
news:1evbs014brbpr48issoncta26bbnjti666@4ax.com...
> The Time Has Come, Mac Breck said
> To Talk Of Many Things...
>
> >While your post being "intentionally incorrect" may not
fit
> >the definition, and it *was* "overtly controversial," it
> >definitely was intended to elicit an emotional reaction
from
> >those with a hair-trigger on the reply key.
>
> I cannot be held responsible for the actions of others.
If someone is
> unable to control their own hair-triggers it's not my
problem.
Irrelevent. *You* were trolling, and *you* were objecting
to being labeled a troll. What part of that connection
don't you see?
> >> For the record, I *loved* Babylon 5. It's one of my
> >favorite shows of
> >> all time. It was well written, well acted, and had
> >magnificent
> >> production values in spite of numerous hardships in
that
> >area. With the
> >> exception of parts of season 5 it is almost flawless in
> >execution and
> >> style.
>
> You need to fix some setting in your newsreader. It keeps
mangling line
> lengths.
>
> >Your previous comments suggested a far less high regard
for
> >Season 5 than you are displaying here.
>
> I have mentally blocked out most of season 5. I remember
enjoying Day
> Of The Dead and Sleeping in Light. I remember hating
everything about
> Byron except two scene: where he astrally projects some B5
janitor to
> the controls of a Star Fury, and where he gets turned to
ash. I cannot
> remember anything else about season 5.
>
> I own the first four seasons of B5 on DVD but I will not
buy season 5,
> nor will I ever intentionally watch the broadcast repeats.
For me,
> Babylon 5 ended with "Get the hell out of our galaxy!"
Not one of my favorite lines.
> >> Crusade, on the other hand, was a hack job.
> >
> >Partly true, and the hacks let into the process were from
> >TNT-Atlanta.
>
> What does it matter where the fault lies? The series is
too flawed for
> me to enjoy. I don't care why.
It's still better than 99% of the sci-fi on today, thousands
of times better than the Legend of the Rangers pilot.
> >> It was poorly written
> >
> >In a couple of places in a couple of episodes, that is
true.
> >Maybe those episodes are the only ones you saw. Overall
> >though, that's dead wrong.
>
> Obviously we have different tastes in writing.
Depends on what you saw, which I guess we'll never know.
> >> and produced,
> >
> >Poorly produced? Please cite specific examples. What
are
> >you going to do, grouse about the uniform change, the
> >obvious artificial look of the Galen homunculus, or the
> >goofy prosthetics of the aliens in "Visitors from Down
the
> >Street" ?
>
> You clearly know more about the crappy production values
than I do.
> I'll let your expertise prove my point.
Well, *somebody* has to bring up some specifics as proof,
and it sure as hell doesn't look like it's going to be you.
For me, a few bad things do not negate all the good things
in the series. Evidently, they do/did for you. Still,
we'll never know because you're unable to cite specifics and
instead just want to make blanket statements about Crusade.
> >> and the acting stunk on ice.
> >
> >For one main character, Dr. Susan Chambers (Marjean
Holden),
> >that's mainly true. For a few of the guest cast (e.g.
Tim
> >Thomerson in "War Zone"), that's also true. Overall
though,
> >that's dead wrong.
>
> I'm sorry, I just can't get past Mr. Brady as a starship
captain or
> Skeletor as B5 commander.
Well then maybe it's a good thing that I never watched the
Brady Bunch, the TV series or the movies. Not my kind of
thing. Mr. Brady gambled, sometimes used shady means to get
to the desired good endpoint, got in barfights? Stuff like
that?
> >> If you think that by expressing these opinions I am
> >somehow "trolling"
> >
> >No, I think your comments in previous posts on this
subject,
> >are trolling and inflamatory, e.g.:
> >
> >"In general, it sounds like crap." - referring to
B5:TMoS.
>
> From what I read, it sounds as if TMOS will be turned into
very
> expensive crap.
Probably not all that expensive, since I can't see Warner
Brothers putting up much money for a B5-universe feature
film. As to it turning into crap, well that's entirely
possible, IF the recasting rumors are true.
> If that opinion is inflammatory it's only because B5
> fanboys are unable to realistically perceive crap when
it's shoved in
> their faces.
BS. The story doesn't sound like crap. If recasting
happens though, it will very likely turn *into* crap.
> >"Crusade sucked rocks, and I was proud to be part of the
> >letter campaign to get it canceled."
> >
> >
> >>Well, we massively disagree. Did you even *see* all of
> >>Crusade?
> >"Hell no. That garbage lost me as a viewer after 3
> >episodes. I barely managed to stop puking long enough to
> >change the channel."
And you don't see why others see comments like that as
imflammatory? Oh innocent you with the halo.
> >"Anything that gets B5 fans' panties in a twist, I'm
right
> >there to tug on the elastic waistband."
> >
> >Looks like a trollish behavior to me.
>
> It's all blunt, honest opinion.
"Anything that gets B5 fans' panties in a twist, I'm right
there to tug on the elastic waistband." is blunt honest
opinion??? No, that signifies INTENT, and you know it.
> You can label it "trollish behavior"
Any reasonable person would. Anybody not trying to duck it,
would.
> if
> you want, I don't care. You clearly perceive "trollish
behavior" to be
> based on the reactions rather than the cause.
Your words are meant to elicit an emotional response. They
are *intended* to anger, irritate, or as you say "get B5
fans' panties in a twist." I object to people, like
yourself, spreading BS about what they know little or
nothing about.
> But as I said earlier, I
> am not responsible for anyone hitting the red alert button
just because
> their own knees are busy jerking.
You have to take responsibility for your own words, and they
were clearly there to elicit a response. If I went on
a...lets say a Trek newsgroup and said Voyager sucked rocks
and that the acting stunk on ice, that would be trolling.
*I* don't do that.
> >Three episodes? So you saw what?...
> >
> >War Zone - the episode with the most TNT-mandated crap in
> >it. (Still, I like its Eilerson bits.)
> >The Long Road - what JMS describes as the weakest of his
> >scripts. (Liked Peter and Edward Woodward in it, though.)
> >The Well of Forever - It's a character piece, and was
shown
> >too early in the run (too early for them to be taking a
> >break, not actively searching for the cure.)
>
> I don't know which three episodes.
Boy I knew that was coming. Criticism from a basis of a
lack of knowledge. Yeah, that's really valuable.
> I don't think it was the first three
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
