XPost: rec.arts.sf.tv, rec.arts.tv   
   From: YourName@YourISP.com   
      
   In article , Brian Thorn   
    wrote:   
      
   > On Sun, 19 May 2013 07:38:54 -0700, anim8rFSK    
   > wrote:   
   >   
   > >In article <4llhp81jp2ri3g5eun3qtsif2ng73jkhpn@4ax.com>,   
   > > Merrick Baldelli  wrote:   
   > >   
   > >>      Sorry, won't happen.  Why?  Because Trek Fans are a   
   > >> dysfunctional bunch.  Most of the ones that I've encountered will take   
   > >> any and all shit shoveled to them on a plate and eat it.   
   > >   
   > >They're also amazingly defensive of material they aren't remotely   
   > >familiar with.  The one extolling the virtues of Voyager and Enterprise   
   > >clearly didn't actually watch it, or, at the very least, didn't pay   
   > >attention.   
   >   
   > Voyager was sometimes a very good show, the Janeway/Seven/Doctor   
   > interaction was actually pretty well done. When they strayed from that   
   > however, it went off the rails.   
   >   
   > Enterprise was a train-wreck.   
   >   
   > But bad Star Trek was still better than most other science fiction.   
   > Would you really rather have had more "Space: Above and Beyond" and   
   > "Seaquest DSV"? Voyager was a masterpiece compared to them.   
      
   "SeaQuest DSV" started out okay, but like many shows they quickly ran out   
   of sensible ideas, and then it "jumped the shark" and the submarine was   
   suddenly no longer uderwater (some nonsense about travelling through space   
   or some such lunacy).  :-\   
      
   "Space: Above and Beyond" was semi-okay. It was really another version of   
   "Starship Troopers", but took itself a lot more seriously.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)