XPost: alt.startrek.voyager, rec.arts.tv   
   From: YourName@YourISP.com   
      
   In article , David Johnston    
   wrote:   
   > On 2/22/2013 7:19 PM, Your Name wrote:   
   > > In article , David Johnston   
    wrote:   
   > >> On 2/22/2013 4:30 PM, Your Name wrote:   
   > >>> In article , David Johnston   
   > >>>  wrote:   
   > >>>> On 2/21/2013 10:30 PM, Your Name wrote:   
   > >>>>> In article   
   > >>>>> <8a6e3540-b4f9-407a-be17-4dc689e4f223@w14g2000vba.googlegroups.com>, Ed   
   > >>>>> Stasiak  wrote:   
   > >>>>>>>   
   > >>>>>>> Ubiquitous   
   > >>>>>>>   
   > >>>>>>> By Caillan Davenport   
   > >>>>>>> Posted at February 21, 2001   
   > >>>>>>   
   > >>>>>> As the article is 13 years old, what was the verdict?   
   > >>>>>   
   > >>>>> Not really relevant any more - JJ Abrams has killed off that entire   
   > >>>>> timeline completely with his silly pretend Star Trek movies.  :-(   
   > >>>>   
   > >>>> Since Abrams is using "Time travel always spawns a new universe" no he   
   > >>>> hasn't.   
   > >>>   
   > >>> Since we're now never ever going to get a real "Star Trek" movie or TV   
   > >>> series again, he HAS killed it off.   
   > >>>   
   > >>   
   > >> Well of course not.  Shatner and Nimoy are really, really freaking old.   
   > >   
   > > I didn't say the original actors / characters. I said real "Star Trek" ...   
   >   
   > Which is TOS.   
   >   
   > > as in something that actually fits with the facts, etc. of the original   
   > > shows / movies,   
   >   
   > Thus each successive series doesn't qualify due to their discrepancies   
   > from the original and each other.   
      
   If that's waht you want to delude yourself with. I knew there was a reason   
   I wasn't meant to bother reading your drivel, thanks for reminding me.   
   :-\   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)