|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Massive all-trek blooper reel (link) [message #37945 is a reply to message #37328] |
Sun, 17 February 2013 08:57   |
Bast
Messages: 151
Registered: August 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
MITO MINISTER wrote:
> On Feb 15, 10:27 pm, "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>> Danie...@teranews.com wrote:
>>> MITO MINISTER wrote:
>>>> On Feb 15, 3:03 am, ToolPackinMama <philnbl...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> > http://mentalfloss.com/article/48936/star-trek-bloopers
>>
>>>> This not Star Trek. Only the Original Series is Star Trek. And the
>>>> 2009 film. (I love you Bast!)
>>
>>> So!! MITO thinks ST:2009 *is* ST!!
>>
>>> That's a change if heart, I think!
>>
>>> Daniel
>>
>> Poor MITO,....he clearly has some anger issues.
>> ....As well as being a raving lunatic. <lol>
>
> How many hours a day are you on the internet, punk?
Wouldn't you question be more insightful if you asked, "How many hours a day
do I earn money on the internet"
.....Answer - 24/7.
BUT I don't always have to be physically at the server making sure it's
running,.....just to log in a few random times a day.
.....Which leaves me plenty of time to post here.
What is actually comical is that sometimes I do post from a computer in my
parents basement.
Of course, since I bought them the house, and pay for their
internet,....they don't complain very much.
......As for you.
I'm sure you have lots of time to post on your I-phone from work,....while
waiting for the fries to cook.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Massive all-trek blooper reel (link) [message #38011 is a reply to message #37945] |
Sun, 17 February 2013 21:05 |
MITO MINISTER
Messages: 197
Registered: August 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Feb 17, 10:57Â pm, "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
> MITO MINISTER wrote:
>> On Feb 15, 10:27 pm, "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>>> Danie...@teranews.com wrote:
>>>> MITO MINISTER wrote:
>>>> > On Feb 15, 3:03 am, ToolPackinMama <philnbl...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> >>http://mentalfloss.com/article/48936/star-trek-bloopers
>
>>>> > This not Star Trek. Only the Original Series is Star Trek. And the
>>>> > 2009 film. (I love you Bast!)
>
>>>> So!! MITO thinks ST:2009 *is* ST!!
>
>>>> That's a change if heart, I think!
>
>>>> Daniel
>
>>> Poor MITO,....he clearly has some anger issues.
>>> ....As well as being a raving lunatic. <lol>
>
>> How many hours a day are you on the internet, punk?
>
> Wouldn't you question be more insightful if you asked, "How many hours a day
> do I earn money on the internet"
> ....Answer - 24/7.
> BUT I don't always have to be physically at the server making sure it's
> running,.....just to log in a few random times a day.
> ....Which leaves me plenty of time to post here.
> What is actually comical is that sometimes I do post from a computer in my
> parents basement.
> Of course, since I bought them the house, and pay for their
> internet,....they don't complain very much.
>
> .....As for you.
> I'm sure you have lots of time to post on your I-phone from work,....while
> waiting for the fries to cook.
Your parents basement! Moron!
|
|
|
|
| Re: Massive all-trek blooper reel (link) [message #38019 is a reply to message #38011] |
Sun, 17 February 2013 22:39 |
Bast
Messages: 151
Registered: August 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
MITO MINISTER wrote:
> On Feb 17, 10:57 pm, "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>> MITO MINISTER wrote:
>>> On Feb 15, 10:27 pm, "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>>>> Danie...@teranews.com wrote:
>>>> > MITO MINISTER wrote:
>>>> >> On Feb 15, 3:03 am, ToolPackinMama <philnbl...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> >>> http://mentalfloss.com/article/48936/star-trek-bloopers
>>
>>>> >> This not Star Trek. Only the Original Series is Star Trek. And the
>>>> >> 2009 film. (I love you Bast!)
>>
>>>> > So!! MITO thinks ST:2009 *is* ST!!
>>
>>>> > That's a change if heart, I think!
>>
>>>> > Daniel
>>
>>>> Poor MITO,....he clearly has some anger issues.
>>>> ....As well as being a raving lunatic. <lol>
>>
>>> How many hours a day are you on the internet, punk?
>>
>> Wouldn't you question be more insightful if you asked, "How many hours
>> a day do I earn money on the internet"
>> ....Answer - 24/7.
>> BUT I don't always have to be physically at the server making sure it's
>> running,.....just to log in a few random times a day.
>> ....Which leaves me plenty of time to post here.
>> What is actually comical is that sometimes I do post from a computer
>> in my parents basement.
>> Of course, since I bought them the house, and pay for their
>> internet,....they don't complain very much.
>>
>> .....As for you.
>> I'm sure you have lots of time to post on your I-phone from
>> work,....while waiting for the fries to cook.
>
> Your parents basement! Moron!
Now why on earth would I want to post from YOUR PARENTS BASEMENT ???
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Massive all-trek blooper reel (link) [message #38029 is a reply to message #38019] |
Mon, 18 February 2013 05:05 |
MITO MINISTER
Messages: 197
Registered: August 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Feb 18, 12:39Â pm, "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
> MITO MINISTER wrote:
>> On Feb 17, 10:57 pm, "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>>> MITO MINISTER wrote:
>>>> On Feb 15, 10:27 pm, "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>>>> > Danie...@teranews.com wrote:
>>>> >> MITO MINISTER wrote:
>>>> >>> On Feb 15, 3:03 am, ToolPackinMama <philnbl...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> >>>>http://mentalfloss.com/article/48936/star-trek-bloopers
>
>>>> >>> This not Star Trek. Only the Original Series is Star Trek. And the
>>>> >>> 2009 film. (I love you Bast!)
>
>>>> >> So!! MITO thinks ST:2009 *is* ST!!
>
>>>> >> That's a change if heart, I think!
>
>>>> >> Daniel
>
>>>> > Poor MITO,....he clearly has some anger issues.
>>>> > ....As well as being a raving lunatic. <lol>
>
>>>> How many hours a day are you on the internet, punk?
>
>>> Wouldn't you question be more insightful if you asked, "How many hours
>>> a day do I earn money on the internet"
>>> ....Answer - 24/7.
>>> BUT I don't always have to be physically at the server making sure it's
>>> running,.....just to log in a few random times a day.
>>> ....Which leaves me plenty of time to post here.
>>> What is actually comical is that sometimes I do post from a computer
>>> in my parents basement.
>>> Of course, since I bought them the house, and pay for their
>>> internet,....they don't complain very much.
>
>>> .....As for you.
>>> I'm sure you have lots of time to post on your I-phone from
>>> work,....while waiting for the fries to cook.
>
>> Your parents basement! Moron!
>
> Now why on earth would I want to post from YOUR PARENTS BASEMENT ???
Come on, punk. Your claims are laughable. And why are you so hateful
of a director whom you have never met and whose success is STELLAR?
(HA HA, STELLAR - GOTTA LOVE IT!)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Massive all-trek blooper reel (link) [message #38035 is a reply to message #38029] |
Mon, 18 February 2013 07:41 |
Bast
Messages: 151
Registered: August 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
MITO MINISTER wrote:
> On Feb 18, 12:39 pm, "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>> MITO MINISTER wrote:
>>> On Feb 17, 10:57 pm, "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>>>> MITO MINISTER wrote:
>>>> > On Feb 15, 10:27 pm, "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>>>> >> Danie...@teranews.com wrote:
>>>> >>> MITO MINISTER wrote:
>>>> >>>> On Feb 15, 3:03 am, ToolPackinMama <philnbl...@comcast.net>
>>>> >>>> wrote:
>>>> >>>>> http://mentalfloss.com/article/48936/star-trek-bloopers
>>
>>>> >>>> This not Star Trek. Only the Original Series is Star Trek. And
>>>> >>>> the 2009 film. (I love you Bast!)
>>
>>>> >>> So!! MITO thinks ST:2009 *is* ST!!
>>
>>>> >>> That's a change if heart, I think!
>>
>>>> >>> Daniel
>>
>>>> >> Poor MITO,....he clearly has some anger issues.
>>>> >> ....As well as being a raving lunatic. <lol>
>>
>>>> > How many hours a day are you on the internet, punk?
>>
>>>> Wouldn't you question be more insightful if you asked, "How many
>>>> hours a day do I earn money on the internet"
>>>> ....Answer - 24/7.
>>>> BUT I don't always have to be physically at the server making sure
>>>> it's running,.....just to log in a few random times a day.
>>>> ....Which leaves me plenty of time to post here.
>>>> What is actually comical is that sometimes I do post from a computer
>>>> in my parents basement.
>>>> Of course, since I bought them the house, and pay for their
>>>> internet,....they don't complain very much.
>>
>>>> .....As for you.
>>>> I'm sure you have lots of time to post on your I-phone from
>>>> work,....while waiting for the fries to cook.
>>
>>> Your parents basement! Moron!
>>
>> Now why on earth would I want to post from YOUR PARENTS BASEMENT ???
>
> Come on, punk. Your claims are laughable. And why are you so hateful
> of a director whom you have never met and whose success is STELLAR?
> (HA HA, STELLAR - GOTTA LOVE IT!)
You are the only one here that seems to be obsessed with Abrams.
I still would have disliked the 2009 movie, despite what names were on the
credits.
Directors and stars in Hollywood are no longer issues,.....it's now the
flavor of the day, and 2 years from now. no one will even give them a extra
spinkle of chocolate shavings at the local starbucks.
You want to prove it to yourself.
Go ask ANYONE who claims to "like" (not love) Star Trek, and ask them the
names of the actors who were in that 2009 movie.
I'd bet only one person in 100 you ask can tell you more than one.
And you would be the first one to be stumped, without having to look it
up,.....and you claim to have paid to see the movie.
Trek 2009,....mindless, forgettable, drivel.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Massive all-trek blooper reel (link) [message #38065 is a reply to message #38035] |
Mon, 18 February 2013 14:59 |
YourName
Messages: 366
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <kft7ga$en9$1@dont-email.me>, "Bast" <fake_name@nomail.invalid>
wrote:
>
> You are the only one here that seems to be obsessed with Abrams.
> I still would have disliked the 2009 movie, despite what names were on the
> credits.
>
> Directors and stars in Hollywood are no longer issues,.....it's now the
> flavor of the day, and 2 years from now. no one will even give them a extra
> spinkle of chocolate shavings at the local starbucks.
>
> You want to prove it to yourself.
> Go ask ANYONE who claims to "like" (not love) Star Trek, and ask them the
> names of the actors who were in that 2009 movie.
> I'd bet only one person in 100 you ask can tell you more than one.
>
> And you would be the first one to be stumped, without having to look it
> up,.....and you claim to have paid to see the movie.
>
> Trek 2009,....mindless, forgettable, drivel.
Yep, Abrams is irrelevant and does nothing useful. He's nothing more than
Hollyweird's latest fad name to put on projects. The real issue is that
the movie simply pees all over real "Star Trek", ignores basic facts,
makes idiotic changes, etc.
JJ Abram's movies (and Beavis & Butthead's stupid "Enterprise") simply are
not real "Star Trek" ... never wil be. They're pretend Trek for deaf and
blind fools who can only see as far as the brand name and have no
understanding of what actually makes a franchise.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Massive all-trek blooper reel (link) [message #38086 is a reply to message #38065] |
Mon, 18 February 2013 18:47 |
Wiseguy
Messages: 242
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
YourName@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote in
news:YourName-1902130859570001@203-118-187-183.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz:
> In article <kft7ga$en9$1@dont-email.me>, "Bast"
> <fake_name@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> You are the only one here that seems to be obsessed with Abrams.
>> I still would have disliked the 2009 movie, despite what names were
>> on the credits.
>>
>> Directors and stars in Hollywood are no longer issues,.....it's now
>> the flavor of the day, and 2 years from now. no one will even give
>> them a extra spinkle of chocolate shavings at the local starbucks.
>>
>> You want to prove it to yourself.
>> Go ask ANYONE who claims to "like" (not love) Star Trek, and ask them
>> the names of the actors who were in that 2009 movie.
>> I'd bet only one person in 100 you ask can tell you more than one.
>>
>> And you would be the first one to be stumped, without having to look
>> it up,.....and you claim to have paid to see the movie.
>>
>> Trek 2009,....mindless, forgettable, drivel.
>
> Yep, Abrams is irrelevant and does nothing useful.
Unlike you who's known the world over for...what?
Being a crybaby dweeb?
> He's nothing more
> than Hollyweird's
It's called Hollywood. That's the name adults call it. Unlike crybaby
nerds like you.
> latest fad name to put on projects. The real issue
> is that the movie simply pees all over real "Star Trek",
It is real Star Trek known to all but the most idiot crybaby nerds.
> ignores basic
> facts, makes idiotic changes, etc.
>
Even TOS contradicted itself. Learn it. Deal with it. IT'S FICTION.
IT'S NOT REAL, you crybaby nerd.
> JJ Abram's movies (and Beavis & Butthead's stupid "Enterprise") simply
> are not real "Star Trek" ... never wil be. They're pretend Trek for
> deaf and blind fools who can only see as far as the brand name and
> have no understanding of what actually makes a franchise.
>
Why, because YOU say so? Who the fuck cares what you think?
|
|
|
|
| Re: Massive all-trek blooper reel (link) [message #38114 is a reply to message #38086] |
Mon, 18 February 2013 19:32 |
Bast
Messages: 151
Registered: August 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Wiseguy wrote:
> YourName@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote in
> news:YourName-1902130859570001@203-118-187-183.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz:
>
>> In article <kft7ga$en9$1@dont-email.me>, "Bast"
>> <fake_name@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> You are the only one here that seems to be obsessed with Abrams.
>>> I still would have disliked the 2009 movie, despite what names were
>>> on the credits.
>>>
>>> Directors and stars in Hollywood are no longer issues,.....it's now
>>> the flavor of the day, and 2 years from now. no one will even give
>>> them a extra spinkle of chocolate shavings at the local starbucks.
>>>
>>> You want to prove it to yourself.
>>> Go ask ANYONE who claims to "like" (not love) Star Trek, and ask them
>>> the names of the actors who were in that 2009 movie.
>>> I'd bet only one person in 100 you ask can tell you more than one.
>>>
>>> And you would be the first one to be stumped, without having to look
>>> it up,.....and you claim to have paid to see the movie.
>>>
>>> Trek 2009,....mindless, forgettable, drivel.
>>
>> Yep, Abrams is irrelevant and does nothing useful.
>
> Unlike you who's known the world over for...what?
> Being a crybaby dweeb?
>
>> He's nothing more
>> than Hollyweird's
>
> It's called Hollywood. That's the name adults call it. Unlike crybaby
> nerds like you.
>
>> latest fad name to put on projects. The real issue
>> is that the movie simply pees all over real "Star Trek",
>
> It is real Star Trek known to all but the most idiot crybaby nerds.
>
>> ignores basic
>> facts, makes idiotic changes, etc.
>>
>
> Even TOS contradicted itself. Learn it. Deal with it. IT'S FICTION.
>
> IT'S NOT REAL, you crybaby nerd.
>
>
>> JJ Abram's movies (and Beavis & Butthead's stupid "Enterprise") simply
>> are not real "Star Trek" ... never wil be. They're pretend Trek for
>> deaf and blind fools who can only see as far as the brand name and
>> have no understanding of what actually makes a franchise.
>>
>
> Why, because YOU say so? Who the fuck cares what you think?
Apparently, YOU, & MITO care.
And seemingly, to the point of throbbing-vein raging fury.
Duhhhh,....it's only a movie,...right ?
So why are you becoming certifiable that a few of us hated it, and the
promises of the upcoming trash-trek 2013.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Massive all-trek blooper reel (link) [message #38115 is a reply to message #38035] |
Mon, 18 February 2013 20:43 |
MITO MINISTER
Messages: 197
Registered: August 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Feb 18, 9:41Â pm, "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
> MITO MINISTER wrote:
>> On Feb 18, 12:39 pm, "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>>> MITO MINISTER wrote:
>>>> On Feb 17, 10:57 pm, "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>>>> > MITO MINISTER wrote:
>>>> >> On Feb 15, 10:27 pm, "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>>>> >>> Danie...@teranews.com wrote:
>>>> >>>> MITO MINISTER wrote:
>>>> >>>>> On Feb 15, 3:03 am, ToolPackinMama <philnbl...@comcast.net>
>>>> >>>>> wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>http://mentalfloss.com/article/48936/star-trek-bloopers
>
>>>> >>>>> This not Star Trek. Only the Original Series is Star Trek. And
>>>> >>>>> the 2009 film. (I love you Bast!)
>
>>>> >>>> So!! MITO thinks ST:2009 *is* ST!!
>
>>>> >>>> That's a change if heart, I think!
>
>>>> >>>> Daniel
>
>>>> >>> Poor MITO,....he clearly has some anger issues.
>>>> >>> ....As well as being a raving lunatic. <lol>
>
>>>> >> How many hours a day are you on the internet, punk?
>
>>>> > Wouldn't you question be more insightful if you asked, "How many
>>>> > hours a day do I earn money on the internet"
>>>> > ....Answer - 24/7.
>>>> > BUT I don't always have to be physically at the server making sure
>>>> > it's running,.....just to log in a few random times a day.
>>>> > ....Which leaves me plenty of time to post here.
>>>> > What is actually comical is that sometimes I do post from a computer
>>>> > in my parents basement.
>>>> > Of course, since I bought them the house, and pay for their
>>>> > internet,....they don't complain very much.
>
>>>> > .....As for you.
>>>> > I'm sure you have lots of time to post on your I-phone from
>>>> > work,....while waiting for the fries to cook.
>
>>>> Your parents basement! Moron!
>
>>> Now why on earth would I want to post from YOUR PARENTS BASEMENT ???
>
>> Come on, punk. Your claims are laughable. And why are you so hateful
>> of a director whom you have never met and whose success is STELLAR?
>> (HA HA, STELLAR - GOTTA LOVE IT!)
>
> You are the only one here that seems to be obsessed with Abrams.
> I still would have disliked the 2009 movie, despite what names were on the
> credits.
>
> Directors and stars in Hollywood are no longer issues,.....it's now the
> flavor of the day, and 2 years from now. no one will even give them a extra
> spinkle of chocolate shavings at the local starbucks.
>
> You want to prove it to yourself.
> Go ask ANYONE who claims to "like" (not love) Star Trek, and ask them the
> names of the actors who were in that 2009 movie.
> I'd bet only one person in 100 you ask can tell you more than one.
>
> And you would be the first one to be stumped, without having to look it
> up,.....and you claim to have paid to see the movie.
>
> Trek 2009,....mindless, forgettable, drivel.
Yeah, I paid to see the movie. Your point being?
|
|
|
|
| Re: Massive all-trek blooper reel (link) [message #38116 is a reply to message #38115] |
Mon, 18 February 2013 20:51 |
Bast
Messages: 151
Registered: August 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
MITO MINISTER wrote:
> On Feb 18, 9:41 pm, "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>> MITO MINISTER wrote:
>>> On Feb 18, 12:39 pm, "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>>>> MITO MINISTER wrote:
>>>> > On Feb 17, 10:57 pm, "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>>>> >> MITO MINISTER wrote:
>>>> >>> On Feb 15, 10:27 pm, "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>>>> >>>> Danie...@teranews.com wrote:
>>>> >>>>> MITO MINISTER wrote:
>>>> >>>>>> On Feb 15, 3:03 am, ToolPackinMama <philnbl...@comcast.net>
>>>> >>>>>> wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>> http://mentalfloss.com/article/48936/star-trek-bloopers
>>
>>>> >>>>>> This not Star Trek. Only the Original Series is Star Trek. And
>>>> >>>>>> the 2009 film. (I love you Bast!)
>>
>>>> >>>>> So!! MITO thinks ST:2009 *is* ST!!
>>
>>>> >>>>> That's a change if heart, I think!
>>
>>>> >>>>> Daniel
>>
>>>> >>>> Poor MITO,....he clearly has some anger issues.
>>>> >>>> ....As well as being a raving lunatic. <lol>
>>
>>>> >>> How many hours a day are you on the internet, punk?
>>
>>>> >> Wouldn't you question be more insightful if you asked, "How many
>>>> >> hours a day do I earn money on the internet"
>>>> >> ....Answer - 24/7.
>>>> >> BUT I don't always have to be physically at the server making sure
>>>> >> it's running,.....just to log in a few random times a day.
>>>> >> ....Which leaves me plenty of time to post here.
>>>> >> What is actually comical is that sometimes I do post from a
>>>> >> computer in my parents basement.
>>>> >> Of course, since I bought them the house, and pay for their
>>>> >> internet,....they don't complain very much.
>>
>>>> >> .....As for you.
>>>> >> I'm sure you have lots of time to post on your I-phone from
>>>> >> work,....while waiting for the fries to cook.
>>
>>>> > Your parents basement! Moron!
>>
>>>> Now why on earth would I want to post from YOUR PARENTS BASEMENT ???
>>
>>> Come on, punk. Your claims are laughable. And why are you so hateful
>>> of a director whom you have never met and whose success is STELLAR?
>>> (HA HA, STELLAR - GOTTA LOVE IT!)
>>
>> You are the only one here that seems to be obsessed with Abrams.
>> I still would have disliked the 2009 movie, despite what names were on
>> the credits.
>>
>> Directors and stars in Hollywood are no longer issues,.....it's now the
>> flavor of the day, and 2 years from now. no one will even give them a
>> extra spinkle of chocolate shavings at the local starbucks.
>>
>> You want to prove it to yourself.
>> Go ask ANYONE who claims to "like" (not love) Star Trek, and ask them
>> the names of the actors who were in that 2009 movie.
>> I'd bet only one person in 100 you ask can tell you more than one.
>>
>> And you would be the first one to be stumped, without having to look it
>> up,.....and you claim to have paid to see the movie.
>>
>> Trek 2009,....mindless, forgettable, drivel.
>
> Yeah, I paid to see the movie. Your point being?
In your case,....Misery Loves Company.
.....And you are stumped about the names of the actors, aren't you.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Massive all-trek blooper reel (link) [message #38133 is a reply to message #38116] |
Mon, 18 February 2013 22:37 |
MITO MINISTER
Messages: 197
Registered: August 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Feb 19, 10:51Â am, "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
> MITO MINISTER wrote:
>> On Feb 18, 9:41 pm, "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>>> MITO MINISTER wrote:
>>>> On Feb 18, 12:39 pm, "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>>>> > MITO MINISTER wrote:
>>>> >> On Feb 17, 10:57 pm, "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>>>> >>> MITO MINISTER wrote:
>>>> >>>> On Feb 15, 10:27 pm, "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>>>> >>>>> Danie...@teranews.com wrote:
>>>> >>>>>> MITO MINISTER wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>> On Feb 15, 3:03 am, ToolPackinMama <philnbl...@comcast.net>
>>>> >>>>>>> wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>>>http://mentalfloss.com/article/48936/star-trek-bloopers
>
>>>> >>>>>>> This not Star Trek. Only the Original Series is Star Trek. And
>>>> >>>>>>> the 2009 film. (I love you Bast!)
>
>>>> >>>>>> So!! MITO thinks ST:2009 *is* ST!!
>
>>>> >>>>>> That's a change if heart, I think!
>
>>>> >>>>>> Daniel
>
>>>> >>>>> Poor MITO,....he clearly has some anger issues.
>>>> >>>>> ....As well as being a raving lunatic. <lol>
>
>>>> >>>> How many hours a day are you on the internet, punk?
>
>>>> >>> Wouldn't you question be more insightful if you asked, "How many
>>>> >>> hours a day do I earn money on the internet"
>>>> >>> ....Answer - 24/7.
>>>> >>> BUT I don't always have to be physically at the server making sure
>>>> >>> it's running,.....just to log in a few random times a day.
>>>> >>> ....Which leaves me plenty of time to post here.
>>>> >>> What is actually comical is that sometimes I do post from a
>>>> >>> computer in my parents basement.
>>>> >>> Of course, since I bought them the house, and pay for their
>>>> >>> internet,....they don't complain very much.
>
>>>> >>> .....As for you.
>>>> >>> I'm sure you have lots of time to post on your I-phone from
>>>> >>> work,....while waiting for the fries to cook.
>
>>>> >> Your parents basement! Moron!
>
>>>> > Now why on earth would I want to post from YOUR PARENTS BASEMENT ???
>
>>>> Come on, punk. Your claims are laughable. And why are you so hateful
>>>> of a director whom you have never met and whose success is STELLAR?
>>>> (HA HA, STELLAR - GOTTA LOVE IT!)
>
>>> You are the only one here that seems to be obsessed with Abrams.
>>> I still would have disliked the 2009 movie, despite what names were on
>>> the credits.
>
>>> Directors and stars in Hollywood are no longer issues,.....it's now the
>>> flavor of the day, and 2 years from now. no one will even give them a
>>> extra spinkle of chocolate shavings at the local starbucks.
>
>>> You want to prove it to yourself.
>>> Go ask ANYONE who claims to "like" (not love) Star Trek, and ask them
>>> the names of the actors who were in that 2009 movie.
>>> I'd bet only one person in 100 you ask can tell you more than one.
>
>>> And you would be the first one to be stumped, without having to look it
>>> up,.....and you claim to have paid to see the movie.
>
>>> Trek 2009,....mindless, forgettable, drivel.
>
>> Yeah, I paid to see the movie. Your point being?
>
> In your case,....Misery Loves Company.
> ....And you are stumped about the names of the actors, aren't you.
I go to movies for entertainment. Since when should it be homework?
|
|
|
|
| Re: Massive all-trek blooper reel (link) [message #38134 is a reply to message #38114] |
Tue, 19 February 2013 00:34 |
Wiseguy
Messages: 242
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in news:kfuh5l$r0$1@dont-
email.me:
>
>
> Wiseguy wrote:
>> YourName@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote in
>> news:YourName-1902130859570001@203-118-187-183.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz:
>>
>>> In article <kft7ga$en9$1@dont-email.me>, "Bast"
>>> <fake_name@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You are the only one here that seems to be obsessed with Abrams.
>>>> I still would have disliked the 2009 movie, despite what names were
>>>> on the credits.
>>>>
>>>> Directors and stars in Hollywood are no longer issues,.....it's now
>>>> the flavor of the day, and 2 years from now. no one will even give
>>>> them a extra spinkle of chocolate shavings at the local starbucks.
>>>>
>>>> You want to prove it to yourself.
>>>> Go ask ANYONE who claims to "like" (not love) Star Trek, and ask
them
>>>> the names of the actors who were in that 2009 movie.
>>>> I'd bet only one person in 100 you ask can tell you more than one.
>>>>
>>>> And you would be the first one to be stumped, without having to
look
>>>> it up,.....and you claim to have paid to see the movie.
>>>>
>>>> Trek 2009,....mindless, forgettable, drivel.
>>>
>>> Yep, Abrams is irrelevant and does nothing useful.
>>
>> Unlike you who's known the world over for...what?
>> Being a crybaby dweeb?
>>
>>> He's nothing more
>>> than Hollyweird's
>>
>> It's called Hollywood. That's the name adults call it. Unlike
crybaby
>> nerds like you.
>>
>>> latest fad name to put on projects. The real issue
>>> is that the movie simply pees all over real "Star Trek",
>>
>> It is real Star Trek known to all but the most idiot crybaby nerds.
>>
>>> ignores basic
>>> facts, makes idiotic changes, etc.
>>>
>>
>> Even TOS contradicted itself. Learn it. Deal with it. IT'S
FICTION.
>>
>> IT'S NOT REAL, you crybaby nerd.
>>
>>
>>> JJ Abram's movies (and Beavis & Butthead's stupid "Enterprise")
simply
>>> are not real "Star Trek" ... never wil be. They're pretend Trek for
>>> deaf and blind fools who can only see as far as the brand name and
>>> have no understanding of what actually makes a franchise.
>>>
>>
>> Why, because YOU say so? Who the fuck cares what you think?
>
>
>
>
> Apparently, YOU, & MITO care.
> And seemingly, to the point of throbbing-vein raging fury.
>
> Duhhhh,....it's only a movie,...right ?
> So why are you becoming certifiable that a few of us hated it, and the
> promises of the upcoming trash-trek 2013.
>
>
>
There are two different arguments here, moron, though you're too stupid
to figure it out.
I don't give a fuck about the movie but it is still Star Trek.
I'm not a science fiction dweeb. I don't have to like anything that has
a spaceship in it.
But it's common sense that it is still Star Trek. What do I care that
Paramount put out a movie that not everyone likes?
But for stupid childish nerds like "Your Name" to say it isn't Star Trek
is assinine and stupid.
So I will argue that point until idiots like you shut up.
Got it now, asshole?
|
|
|
|
| Re: Massive all-trek blooper reel (link) [message #38135 is a reply to message #38116] |
Tue, 19 February 2013 00:37 |
Wiseguy
Messages: 242
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in news:kfulp5$jv2$1@dont-
email.me:
>
>
> MITO MINISTER wrote:
>> On Feb 18, 9:41 pm, "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>>> MITO MINISTER wrote:
>>>> On Feb 18, 12:39 pm, "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>>>> > MITO MINISTER wrote:
>>>> >> On Feb 17, 10:57 pm, "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>>>> >>> MITO MINISTER wrote:
>>>> >>>> On Feb 15, 10:27 pm, "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>>>> >>>>> Danie...@teranews.com wrote:
>>>> >>>>>> MITO MINISTER wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>> On Feb 15, 3:03 am, ToolPackinMama <philnbl...@comcast.net>
>>>> >>>>>>> wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>>> http://mentalfloss.com/article/48936/star-trek-bloopers
>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> This not Star Trek. Only the Original Series is Star Trek.
And
>>>> >>>>>>> the 2009 film. (I love you Bast!)
>>>
>>>> >>>>>> So!! MITO thinks ST:2009 *is* ST!!
>>>
>>>> >>>>>> That's a change if heart, I think!
>>>
>>>> >>>>>> Daniel
>>>
>>>> >>>>> Poor MITO,....he clearly has some anger issues.
>>>> >>>>> ....As well as being a raving lunatic. <lol>
>>>
>>>> >>>> How many hours a day are you on the internet, punk?
>>>
>>>> >>> Wouldn't you question be more insightful if you asked, "How many
>>>> >>> hours a day do I earn money on the internet"
>>>> >>> ....Answer - 24/7.
>>>> >>> BUT I don't always have to be physically at the server making
sure
>>>> >>> it's running,.....just to log in a few random times a day.
>>>> >>> ....Which leaves me plenty of time to post here.
>>>> >>> What is actually comical is that sometimes I do post from a
>>>> >>> computer in my parents basement.
>>>> >>> Of course, since I bought them the house, and pay for their
>>>> >>> internet,....they don't complain very much.
>>>
>>>> >>> .....As for you.
>>>> >>> I'm sure you have lots of time to post on your I-phone from
>>>> >>> work,....while waiting for the fries to cook.
>>>
>>>> >> Your parents basement! Moron!
>>>
>>>> > Now why on earth would I want to post from YOUR PARENTS BASEMENT
???
>>>
>>>> Come on, punk. Your claims are laughable. And why are you so
hateful
>>>> of a director whom you have never met and whose success is STELLAR?
>>>> (HA HA, STELLAR - GOTTA LOVE IT!)
>>>
>>> You are the only one here that seems to be obsessed with Abrams.
>>> I still would have disliked the 2009 movie, despite what names were
on
>>> the credits.
>>>
>>> Directors and stars in Hollywood are no longer issues,.....it's now
the
>>> flavor of the day, and 2 years from now. no one will even give them
a
>>> extra spinkle of chocolate shavings at the local starbucks.
>>>
>>> You want to prove it to yourself.
>>> Go ask ANYONE who claims to "like" (not love) Star Trek, and ask
them
>>> the names of the actors who were in that 2009 movie.
>>> I'd bet only one person in 100 you ask can tell you more than one.
>>>
>>> And you would be the first one to be stumped, without having to look
it
>>> up,.....and you claim to have paid to see the movie.
>>>
>>> Trek 2009,....mindless, forgettable, drivel.
>>
>> Yeah, I paid to see the movie. Your point being?
>
>
>
>
>
> In your case,....Misery Loves Company.
> ....And you are stumped about the names of the actors, aren't you.
>
>
>
What possible difference does it make if you know the actor's names.
They're not exactly household names. Except for dweebs like you.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Massive all-trek blooper reel (link) [message #38145 is a reply to message #38134] |
Tue, 19 February 2013 04:06 |
Bast
Messages: 151
Registered: August 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Wiseguy wrote:
> "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in news:kfuh5l$r0$1@dont-
> email.me:
>
>>
>>
>> Wiseguy wrote:
>>> YourName@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote in
>>> news:YourName-1902130859570001@203-118-187-183.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz:
>>>
>>>> In article <kft7ga$en9$1@dont-email.me>, "Bast"
>>>> <fake_name@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > You are the only one here that seems to be obsessed with Abrams.
>>>> > I still would have disliked the 2009 movie, despite what names were
>>>> > on the credits.
>>>> >
>>>> > Directors and stars in Hollywood are no longer issues,.....it's now
>>>> > the flavor of the day, and 2 years from now. no one will even give
>>>> > them a extra spinkle of chocolate shavings at the local starbucks.
>>>> >
>>>> > You want to prove it to yourself.
>>>> > Go ask ANYONE who claims to "like" (not love) Star Trek, and ask
> them
>>>> > the names of the actors who were in that 2009 movie.
>>>> > I'd bet only one person in 100 you ask can tell you more than one.
>>>> >
>>>> > And you would be the first one to be stumped, without having to
> look
>>>> > it up,.....and you claim to have paid to see the movie.
>>>> >
>>>> > Trek 2009,....mindless, forgettable, drivel.
>>>>
>>>> Yep, Abrams is irrelevant and does nothing useful.
>>>
>>> Unlike you who's known the world over for...what?
>>> Being a crybaby dweeb?
>>>
>>>> He's nothing more
>>>> than Hollyweird's
>>>
>>> It's called Hollywood. That's the name adults call it. Unlike
> crybaby
>>> nerds like you.
>>>
>>>> latest fad name to put on projects. The real issue
>>>> is that the movie simply pees all over real "Star Trek",
>>>
>>> It is real Star Trek known to all but the most idiot crybaby nerds.
>>>
>>>> ignores basic
>>>> facts, makes idiotic changes, etc.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Even TOS contradicted itself. Learn it. Deal with it. IT'S
> FICTION.
>>>
>>> IT'S NOT REAL, you crybaby nerd.
>>>
>>>
>>>> JJ Abram's movies (and Beavis & Butthead's stupid "Enterprise")
> simply
>>>> are not real "Star Trek" ... never wil be. They're pretend Trek for
>>>> deaf and blind fools who can only see as far as the brand name and
>>>> have no understanding of what actually makes a franchise.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why, because YOU say so? Who the fuck cares what you think?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Apparently, YOU, & MITO care.
>> And seemingly, to the point of throbbing-vein raging fury.
>>
>> Duhhhh,....it's only a movie,...right ?
>> So why are you becoming certifiable that a few of us hated it, and the
>> promises of the upcoming trash-trek 2013.
>>
>>
>>
>
> There are two different arguments here, moron, though you're too stupid
> to figure it out.
>
> I don't give a fuck about the movie but it is still Star Trek.
>
> I'm not a science fiction dweeb. I don't have to like anything that has
> a spaceship in it.
>
> But it's common sense that it is still Star Trek. What do I care that
> Paramount put out a movie that not everyone likes?
>
> But for stupid childish nerds like "Your Name" to say it isn't Star Trek
> is assinine and stupid.
>
> So I will argue that point until idiots like you shut up.
>
> Got it now, asshole?
Oh YES,....I get it.
You are a sheeple pussy.
Baaaaaaaaaaaa.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Massive all-trek blooper reel (link) [message #38146 is a reply to message #38135] |
Tue, 19 February 2013 04:08 |
Bast
Messages: 151
Registered: August 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Wiseguy wrote:
> "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in news:kfulp5$jv2$1@dont-
> email.me:
>
>>
>>
>> MITO MINISTER wrote:
>>> On Feb 18, 9:41 pm, "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>>>> MITO MINISTER wrote:
>>>> > On Feb 18, 12:39 pm, "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>>>> >> MITO MINISTER wrote:
>>>> >>> On Feb 17, 10:57 pm, "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>>>> >>>> MITO MINISTER wrote:
>>>> >>>>> On Feb 15, 10:27 pm, "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>>>> >>>>>> Danie...@teranews.com wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>> MITO MINISTER wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>>> On Feb 15, 3:03 am, ToolPackinMama <philnbl...@comcast.net>
>>>> >>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://mentalfloss.com/article/48936/star-trek-bloopers
>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>> This not Star Trek. Only the Original Series is Star Trek.
> And
>>>> >>>>>>>> the 2009 film. (I love you Bast!)
>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> So!! MITO thinks ST:2009 *is* ST!!
>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> That's a change if heart, I think!
>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> Daniel
>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> Poor MITO,....he clearly has some anger issues.
>>>> >>>>>> ....As well as being a raving lunatic. <lol>
>>>>
>>>> >>>>> How many hours a day are you on the internet, punk?
>>>>
>>>> >>>> Wouldn't you question be more insightful if you asked, "How many
>>>> >>>> hours a day do I earn money on the internet"
>>>> >>>> ....Answer - 24/7.
>>>> >>>> BUT I don't always have to be physically at the server making
> sure
>>>> >>>> it's running,.....just to log in a few random times a day.
>>>> >>>> ....Which leaves me plenty of time to post here.
>>>> >>>> What is actually comical is that sometimes I do post from a
>>>> >>>> computer in my parents basement.
>>>> >>>> Of course, since I bought them the house, and pay for their
>>>> >>>> internet,....they don't complain very much.
>>>>
>>>> >>>> .....As for you.
>>>> >>>> I'm sure you have lots of time to post on your I-phone from
>>>> >>>> work,....while waiting for the fries to cook.
>>>>
>>>> >>> Your parents basement! Moron!
>>>>
>>>> >> Now why on earth would I want to post from YOUR PARENTS BASEMENT
> ???
>>>>
>>>> > Come on, punk. Your claims are laughable. And why are you so
> hateful
>>>> > of a director whom you have never met and whose success is STELLAR?
>>>> > (HA HA, STELLAR - GOTTA LOVE IT!)
>>>>
>>>> You are the only one here that seems to be obsessed with Abrams.
>>>> I still would have disliked the 2009 movie, despite what names were
> on
>>>> the credits.
>>>>
>>>> Directors and stars in Hollywood are no longer issues,.....it's now
> the
>>>> flavor of the day, and 2 years from now. no one will even give them
> a
>>>> extra spinkle of chocolate shavings at the local starbucks.
>>>>
>>>> You want to prove it to yourself.
>>>> Go ask ANYONE who claims to "like" (not love) Star Trek, and ask
> them
>>>> the names of the actors who were in that 2009 movie.
>>>> I'd bet only one person in 100 you ask can tell you more than one.
>>>>
>>>> And you would be the first one to be stumped, without having to look
> it
>>>> up,.....and you claim to have paid to see the movie.
>>>>
>>>> Trek 2009,....mindless, forgettable, drivel.
>>>
>>> Yeah, I paid to see the movie. Your point being?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> In your case,....Misery Loves Company.
>> ....And you are stumped about the names of the actors, aren't you.
>>
>>
>>
>
> What possible difference does it make if you know the actor's names.
> They're not exactly household names. Except for dweebs like you.
Everyone knows the names Shatner and Nimoy, even if they hate TOS
.......I rest my case, yer honor.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Massive all-trek blooper reel (link) [message #38152 is a reply to message #38146] |
Tue, 19 February 2013 07:47 |
Daniel47@teranews.com
Messages: 188
Registered: August 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Bast wrote:
> Wiseguy wrote:
<Snip>
>> What possible difference does it make if you know the actor's names.
>> They're not exactly household names. Except for dweebs like you.
>
>
>
>
>
> Everyone knows the names Shatner and Nimoy, even if they hate TOS
> ......I rest my case, yer honor.
And how many people know, and use, the saying "Beam me up, Scotty" even
if they have no idea where it comes from?? Or what it means??
Daniel
|
|
|
|
| Re: Massive all-trek blooper reel (link) [message #38153 is a reply to message #38145] |
Tue, 19 February 2013 08:24 |
Wiseguy
Messages: 242
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in news:kfvf9p$mu4$1@dont-
email.me:
>
>
> Wiseguy wrote:
>> "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in news:kfuh5l$r0$1@dont-
>> email.me:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Wiseguy wrote:
>>>> YourName@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote in
>>>> news:YourName-1902130859570001@203-118-187-183.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz:
>>>>
>>>> > In article <kft7ga$en9$1@dont-email.me>, "Bast"
>>>> > <fake_name@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> You are the only one here that seems to be obsessed with Abrams.
>>>> >> I still would have disliked the 2009 movie, despite what names
were
>>>> >> on the credits.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Directors and stars in Hollywood are no longer issues,.....it's
now
>>>> >> the flavor of the day, and 2 years from now. no one will even
give
>>>> >> them a extra spinkle of chocolate shavings at the local
starbucks.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> You want to prove it to yourself.
>>>> >> Go ask ANYONE who claims to "like" (not love) Star Trek, and ask
>> them
>>>> >> the names of the actors who were in that 2009 movie.
>>>> >> I'd bet only one person in 100 you ask can tell you more than
one.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> And you would be the first one to be stumped, without having to
>> look
>>>> >> it up,.....and you claim to have paid to see the movie.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Trek 2009,....mindless, forgettable, drivel.
>>>> >
>>>> > Yep, Abrams is irrelevant and does nothing useful.
>>>>
>>>> Unlike you who's known the world over for...what?
>>>> Being a crybaby dweeb?
>>>>
>>>> > He's nothing more
>>>> > than Hollyweird's
>>>>
>>>> It's called Hollywood. That's the name adults call it. Unlike
>> crybaby
>>>> nerds like you.
>>>>
>>>> > latest fad name to put on projects. The real issue
>>>> > is that the movie simply pees all over real "Star Trek",
>>>>
>>>> It is real Star Trek known to all but the most idiot crybaby nerds.
>>>>
>>>> > ignores basic
>>>> > facts, makes idiotic changes, etc.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> Even TOS contradicted itself. Learn it. Deal with it. IT'S
>> FICTION.
>>>>
>>>> IT'S NOT REAL, you crybaby nerd.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > JJ Abram's movies (and Beavis & Butthead's stupid "Enterprise")
>> simply
>>>> > are not real "Star Trek" ... never wil be. They're pretend Trek
for
>>>> > deaf and blind fools who can only see as far as the brand name and
>>>> > have no understanding of what actually makes a franchise.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> Why, because YOU say so? Who the fuck cares what you think?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Apparently, YOU, & MITO care.
>>> And seemingly, to the point of throbbing-vein raging fury.
>>>
>>> Duhhhh,....it's only a movie,...right ?
>>> So why are you becoming certifiable that a few of us hated it, and
the
>>> promises of the upcoming trash-trek 2013.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> There are two different arguments here, moron, though you're too
stupid
>> to figure it out.
>>
>> I don't give a fuck about the movie but it is still Star Trek.
>>
>> I'm not a science fiction dweeb. I don't have to like anything that
has
>> a spaceship in it.
>>
>> But it's common sense that it is still Star Trek. What do I care
that
>> Paramount put out a movie that not everyone likes?
>>
>> But for stupid childish nerds like "Your Name" to say it isn't Star
Trek
>> is assinine and stupid.
>>
>> So I will argue that point until idiots like you shut up.
>>
>> Got it now, asshole?
>
>
>
> Oh YES,....I get it.
> You are a sheeple pussy.
>
> Baaaaaaaaaaaa.
>
>
>
Please stop proving you're an idiot.
We know it already.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Massive all-trek blooper reel (link) [message #38154 is a reply to message #38146] |
Tue, 19 February 2013 08:32 |
Wiseguy
Messages: 242
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in news:kfvfdh$niq$1@dont-
email.me:
>
>
> Wiseguy wrote:
>> "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in news:kfulp5$jv2$1@dont-
>> email.me:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> MITO MINISTER wrote:
>>>> On Feb 18, 9:41 pm, "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>>>> > MITO MINISTER wrote:
>>>> >> On Feb 18, 12:39 pm, "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>>>> >>> MITO MINISTER wrote:
>>>> >>>> On Feb 17, 10:57 pm, "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>>>> >>>>> MITO MINISTER wrote:
>>>> >>>>>> On Feb 15, 10:27 pm, "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>> Danie...@teranews.com wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>>> MITO MINISTER wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Feb 15, 3:03 am, ToolPackinMama <philnbl...
@comcast.net>
>>>> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>>>>> http://mentalfloss.com/article/48936/star-trek-bloopers
>>>> >
>>>> >>>>>>>>> This not Star Trek. Only the Original Series is Star Trek.
>> And
>>>> >>>>>>>>> the 2009 film. (I love you Bast!)
>>>> >
>>>> >>>>>>>> So!! MITO thinks ST:2009 *is* ST!!
>>>> >
>>>> >>>>>>>> That's a change if heart, I think!
>>>> >
>>>> >>>>>>>> Daniel
>>>> >
>>>> >>>>>>> Poor MITO,....he clearly has some anger issues.
>>>> >>>>>>> ....As well as being a raving lunatic. <lol>
>>>> >
>>>> >>>>>> How many hours a day are you on the internet, punk?
>>>> >
>>>> >>>>> Wouldn't you question be more insightful if you asked, "How
many
>>>> >>>>> hours a day do I earn money on the internet"
>>>> >>>>> ....Answer - 24/7.
>>>> >>>>> BUT I don't always have to be physically at the server making
>> sure
>>>> >>>>> it's running,.....just to log in a few random times a day.
>>>> >>>>> ....Which leaves me plenty of time to post here.
>>>> >>>>> What is actually comical is that sometimes I do post from a
>>>> >>>>> computer in my parents basement.
>>>> >>>>> Of course, since I bought them the house, and pay for their
>>>> >>>>> internet,....they don't complain very much.
>>>> >
>>>> >>>>> .....As for you.
>>>> >>>>> I'm sure you have lots of time to post on your I-phone from
>>>> >>>>> work,....while waiting for the fries to cook.
>>>> >
>>>> >>>> Your parents basement! Moron!
>>>> >
>>>> >>> Now why on earth would I want to post from YOUR PARENTS BASEMENT
>> ???
>>>> >
>>>> >> Come on, punk. Your claims are laughable. And why are you so
>> hateful
>>>> >> of a director whom you have never met and whose success is
STELLAR?
>>>> >> (HA HA, STELLAR - GOTTA LOVE IT!)
>>>> >
>>>> > You are the only one here that seems to be obsessed with Abrams.
>>>> > I still would have disliked the 2009 movie, despite what names
were
>> on
>>>> > the credits.
>>>> >
>>>> > Directors and stars in Hollywood are no longer issues,.....it's
now
>> the
>>>> > flavor of the day, and 2 years from now. no one will even give
them
>> a
>>>> > extra spinkle of chocolate shavings at the local starbucks.
>>>> >
>>>> > You want to prove it to yourself.
>>>> > Go ask ANYONE who claims to "like" (not love) Star Trek, and ask
>> them
>>>> > the names of the actors who were in that 2009 movie.
>>>> > I'd bet only one person in 100 you ask can tell you more than one.
>>>> >
>>>> > And you would be the first one to be stumped, without having to
look
>> it
>>>> > up,.....and you claim to have paid to see the movie.
>>>> >
>>>> > Trek 2009,....mindless, forgettable, drivel.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, I paid to see the movie. Your point being?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In your case,....Misery Loves Company.
>>> ....And you are stumped about the names of the actors, aren't you.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> What possible difference does it make if you know the actor's names.
>> They're not exactly household names. Except for dweebs like you.
>
>
>
>
>
> Everyone knows the names Shatner and Nimoy, even if they hate TOS
> ......I rest my case, yer honor.
>
>
>
>
>
>
You were talking about the 2009 movie, stupid. Can't you keep track of
your own conversation, moron?
|
|
|
|
| Re: Massive all-trek blooper reel (link) [message #38155 is a reply to message #38152] |
Tue, 19 February 2013 08:52 |
Wiseguy
Messages: 242
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Daniel47@teranews.com" <dxmm@albury.nospam.net.au> wrote in
news:nvKUs.140645$kp4.122187@newsfe09.iad:
> Bast wrote:
>> Wiseguy wrote:
>
> <Snip>
>
>>> What possible difference does it make if you know the actor's names.
>>> They're not exactly household names. Except for dweebs like you.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Everyone knows the names Shatner and Nimoy, even if they hate TOS
>> ......I rest my case, yer honor.
>
> And how many people know, and use, the saying "Beam me up, Scotty"
even
> if they have no idea where it comes from?? Or what it means??
>
> Daniel
>
Anybody who uses the term knows where it came from. What it means is
obvious.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Massive all-trek blooper reel (link) [message #38184 is a reply to message #38153] |
Tue, 19 February 2013 11:46 |
Bast
Messages: 151
Registered: August 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Wiseguy wrote:
> "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in news:kfvf9p$mu4$1@dont-
> email.me:
>
>>
>>
>> Wiseguy wrote:
>>> "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in news:kfuh5l$r0$1@dont-
>>> email.me:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wiseguy wrote:
>>>> > YourName@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote in
>>>> > news:YourName-1902130859570001@203-118-187-183.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz:
>>>> >
>>>> >> In article <kft7ga$en9$1@dont-email.me>, "Bast"
>>>> >> <fake_name@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> You are the only one here that seems to be obsessed with Abrams.
>>>> >>> I still would have disliked the 2009 movie, despite what names
> were
>>>> >>> on the credits.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Directors and stars in Hollywood are no longer issues,.....it's
> now
>>>> >>> the flavor of the day, and 2 years from now. no one will even
> give
>>>> >>> them a extra spinkle of chocolate shavings at the local
> starbucks.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> You want to prove it to yourself.
>>>> >>> Go ask ANYONE who claims to "like" (not love) Star Trek, and ask
>>> them
>>>> >>> the names of the actors who were in that 2009 movie.
>>>> >>> I'd bet only one person in 100 you ask can tell you more than
> one.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> And you would be the first one to be stumped, without having to
>>> look
>>>> >>> it up,.....and you claim to have paid to see the movie.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Trek 2009,....mindless, forgettable, drivel.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Yep, Abrams is irrelevant and does nothing useful.
>>>> >
>>>> > Unlike you who's known the world over for...what?
>>>> > Being a crybaby dweeb?
>>>> >
>>>> >> He's nothing more
>>>> >> than Hollyweird's
>>>> >
>>>> > It's called Hollywood. That's the name adults call it. Unlike
>>> crybaby
>>>> > nerds like you.
>>>> >
>>>> >> latest fad name to put on projects. The real issue
>>>> >> is that the movie simply pees all over real "Star Trek",
>>>> >
>>>> > It is real Star Trek known to all but the most idiot crybaby nerds.
>>>> >
>>>> >> ignores basic
>>>> >> facts, makes idiotic changes, etc.
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> > Even TOS contradicted itself. Learn it. Deal with it. IT'S
>>> FICTION.
>>>> >
>>>> > IT'S NOT REAL, you crybaby nerd.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >> JJ Abram's movies (and Beavis & Butthead's stupid "Enterprise")
>>> simply
>>>> >> are not real "Star Trek" ... never wil be. They're pretend Trek
> for
>>>> >> deaf and blind fools who can only see as far as the brand name and
>>>> >> have no understanding of what actually makes a franchise.
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> > Why, because YOU say so? Who the fuck cares what you think?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Apparently, YOU, & MITO care.
>>>> And seemingly, to the point of throbbing-vein raging fury.
>>>>
>>>> Duhhhh,....it's only a movie,...right ?
>>>> So why are you becoming certifiable that a few of us hated it, and
> the
>>>> promises of the upcoming trash-trek 2013.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> There are two different arguments here, moron, though you're too
> stupid
>>> to figure it out.
>>>
>>> I don't give a fuck about the movie but it is still Star Trek.
>>>
>>> I'm not a science fiction dweeb. I don't have to like anything that
> has
>>> a spaceship in it.
>>>
>>> But it's common sense that it is still Star Trek. What do I care
> that
>>> Paramount put out a movie that not everyone likes?
>>>
>>> But for stupid childish nerds like "Your Name" to say it isn't Star
> Trek
>>> is assinine and stupid.
>>>
>>> So I will argue that point until idiots like you shut up.
>>>
>>> Got it now, asshole?
>>
>>
>>
>> Oh YES,....I get it.
>> You are a sheeple pussy.
>>
>> Baaaaaaaaaaaa.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Please stop proving you're an idiot.
> We know it already.
That's your opinion,...and you know what you say about opinions.
BTW you once asked where you used blatant insults in your replies.
.....Look at what you just posted
You didn't miss a line.
<ROTFLMAO>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Massive all-trek blooper reel (link) [message #38273 is a reply to message #38184] |
Wed, 20 February 2013 00:55 |
Wiseguy
Messages: 242
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in news:kg0a72$71n$1@dont-
email.me:
>
>
> Wiseguy wrote:
>> "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in news:kfvf9p$mu4$1@dont-
>> email.me:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Wiseguy wrote:
>>>> "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in news:kfuh5l$r0$1@dont-
>>>> email.me:
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Wiseguy wrote:
>>>> >> YourName@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote in
>>>> >> news:YourName-1902130859570001@203-118-187-
183.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> In article <kft7ga$en9$1@dont-email.me>, "Bast"
>>>> >>> <fake_name@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> You are the only one here that seems to be obsessed with
Abrams.
>>>> >>>> I still would have disliked the 2009 movie, despite what names
>> were
>>>> >>>> on the credits.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Directors and stars in Hollywood are no longer issues,.....it's
>> now
>>>> >>>> the flavor of the day, and 2 years from now. no one will even
>> give
>>>> >>>> them a extra spinkle of chocolate shavings at the local
>> starbucks.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> You want to prove it to yourself.
>>>> >>>> Go ask ANYONE who claims to "like" (not love) Star Trek, and
ask
>>>> them
>>>> >>>> the names of the actors who were in that 2009 movie.
>>>> >>>> I'd bet only one person in 100 you ask can tell you more than
>> one.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> And you would be the first one to be stumped, without having to
>>>> look
>>>> >>>> it up,.....and you claim to have paid to see the movie.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Trek 2009,....mindless, forgettable, drivel.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Yep, Abrams is irrelevant and does nothing useful.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Unlike you who's known the world over for...what?
>>>> >> Being a crybaby dweeb?
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> He's nothing more
>>>> >>> than Hollyweird's
>>>> >>
>>>> >> It's called Hollywood. That's the name adults call it. Unlike
>>>> crybaby
>>>> >> nerds like you.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> latest fad name to put on projects. The real issue
>>>> >>> is that the movie simply pees all over real "Star Trek",
>>>> >>
>>>> >> It is real Star Trek known to all but the most idiot crybaby
nerds.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> ignores basic
>>>> >>> facts, makes idiotic changes, etc.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Even TOS contradicted itself. Learn it. Deal with it. IT'S
>>>> FICTION.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> IT'S NOT REAL, you crybaby nerd.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> JJ Abram's movies (and Beavis & Butthead's stupid "Enterprise")
>>>> simply
>>>> >>> are not real "Star Trek" ... never wil be. They're pretend Trek
>> for
>>>> >>> deaf and blind fools who can only see as far as the brand name
and
>>>> >>> have no understanding of what actually makes a franchise.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Why, because YOU say so? Who the fuck cares what you think?
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Apparently, YOU, & MITO care.
>>>> > And seemingly, to the point of throbbing-vein raging fury.
>>>> >
>>>> > Duhhhh,....it's only a movie,...right ?
>>>> > So why are you becoming certifiable that a few of us hated it, and
>> the
>>>> > promises of the upcoming trash-trek 2013.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> There are two different arguments here, moron, though you're too
>> stupid
>>>> to figure it out.
>>>>
>>>> I don't give a fuck about the movie but it is still Star Trek.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not a science fiction dweeb. I don't have to like anything
that
>> has
>>>> a spaceship in it.
>>>>
>>>> But it's common sense that it is still Star Trek. What do I care
>> that
>>>> Paramount put out a movie that not everyone likes?
>>>>
>>>> But for stupid childish nerds like "Your Name" to say it isn't Star
>> Trek
>>>> is assinine and stupid.
>>>>
>>>> So I will argue that point until idiots like you shut up.
>>>>
>>>> Got it now, asshole?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Oh YES,....I get it.
>>> You are a sheeple pussy.
>>>
>>> Baaaaaaaaaaaa.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Please stop proving you're an idiot.
>> We know it already.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> That's your opinion,...and you know what you say about opinions.
>
> BTW you once asked where you used blatant insults in your replies.
> ....Look at what you just posted
> You didn't miss a line.
> <ROTFLMAO>
>
>
>
You ask for it by being obnoxious and arrogant.
But you insult others because they disagree with you.
Big difference.
No, I don't expect you to understand the difference.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Massive all-trek blooper reel (link) [message #38283 is a reply to message #38273] |
Wed, 20 February 2013 09:20 |
Bast
Messages: 151
Registered: August 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Wiseguy wrote:
> "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in news:kg0a72$71n$1@dont-
> email.me:
>
>>
>>
>> Wiseguy wrote:
>>> "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in news:kfvf9p$mu4$1@dont-
>>> email.me:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wiseguy wrote:
>>>> > "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in news:kfuh5l$r0$1@dont-
>>>> > email.me:
>>>> >
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Wiseguy wrote:
>>>> >>> YourName@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote in
>>>> >>> news:YourName-1902130859570001@203-118-187-
> 183.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>> In article <kft7ga$en9$1@dont-email.me>, "Bast"
>>>> >>>> <fake_name@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> You are the only one here that seems to be obsessed with
> Abrams.
>>>> >>>>> I still would have disliked the 2009 movie, despite what names
>>> were
>>>> >>>>> on the credits.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> Directors and stars in Hollywood are no longer issues,.....it's
>>> now
>>>> >>>>> the flavor of the day, and 2 years from now. no one will even
>>> give
>>>> >>>>> them a extra spinkle of chocolate shavings at the local
>>> starbucks.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> You want to prove it to yourself.
>>>> >>>>> Go ask ANYONE who claims to "like" (not love) Star Trek, and
> ask
>>>> > them
>>>> >>>>> the names of the actors who were in that 2009 movie.
>>>> >>>>> I'd bet only one person in 100 you ask can tell you more than
>>> one.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> And you would be the first one to be stumped, without having to
>>>> > look
>>>> >>>>> it up,.....and you claim to have paid to see the movie.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> Trek 2009,....mindless, forgettable, drivel.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Yep, Abrams is irrelevant and does nothing useful.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Unlike you who's known the world over for...what?
>>>> >>> Being a crybaby dweeb?
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>> He's nothing more
>>>> >>>> than Hollyweird's
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> It's called Hollywood. That's the name adults call it. Unlike
>>>> > crybaby
>>>> >>> nerds like you.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>> latest fad name to put on projects. The real issue
>>>> >>>> is that the movie simply pees all over real "Star Trek",
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> It is real Star Trek known to all but the most idiot crybaby
> nerds.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>> ignores basic
>>>> >>>> facts, makes idiotic changes, etc.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Even TOS contradicted itself. Learn it. Deal with it. IT'S
>>>> > FICTION.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> IT'S NOT REAL, you crybaby nerd.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>> JJ Abram's movies (and Beavis & Butthead's stupid "Enterprise")
>>>> > simply
>>>> >>>> are not real "Star Trek" ... never wil be. They're pretend Trek
>>> for
>>>> >>>> deaf and blind fools who can only see as far as the brand name
> and
>>>> >>>> have no understanding of what actually makes a franchise.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Why, because YOU say so? Who the fuck cares what you think?
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Apparently, YOU, & MITO care.
>>>> >> And seemingly, to the point of throbbing-vein raging fury.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Duhhhh,....it's only a movie,...right ?
>>>> >> So why are you becoming certifiable that a few of us hated it, and
>>> the
>>>> >> promises of the upcoming trash-trek 2013.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> > There are two different arguments here, moron, though you're too
>>> stupid
>>>> > to figure it out.
>>>> >
>>>> > I don't give a fuck about the movie but it is still Star Trek.
>>>> >
>>>> > I'm not a science fiction dweeb. I don't have to like anything
> that
>>> has
>>>> > a spaceship in it.
>>>> >
>>>> > But it's common sense that it is still Star Trek. What do I care
>>> that
>>>> > Paramount put out a movie that not everyone likes?
>>>> >
>>>> > But for stupid childish nerds like "Your Name" to say it isn't Star
>>> Trek
>>>> > is assinine and stupid.
>>>> >
>>>> > So I will argue that point until idiots like you shut up.
>>>> >
>>>> > Got it now, asshole?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Oh YES,....I get it.
>>>> You are a sheeple pussy.
>>>>
>>>> Baaaaaaaaaaaa.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Please stop proving you're an idiot.
>>> We know it already.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> That's your opinion,...and you know what you say about opinions.
>>
>> BTW you once asked where you used blatant insults in your replies.
>> ....Look at what you just posted
>> You didn't miss a line.
>> <ROTFLMAO>
>>
>>
>>
>
> You ask for it by being obnoxious and arrogant.
>
> But you insult others because they disagree with you.
>
> Big difference.
>
> No, I don't expect you to understand the difference.
Look idiot,...I'm done with you, and this will be my last reply.
trek 2009 was a pathetic excuse for a Star Trek Movie,...and I'm sure the
2013 one will be even worse.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Massive all-trek blooper reel (link) [message #38371 is a reply to message #38283] |
Wed, 20 February 2013 23:02 |
MITO MINISTER
Messages: 197
Registered: August 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Feb 20, 11:20Â pm, "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
> Wiseguy wrote:
>> "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote innews:kg0a72$71n$1@dont-
>> email.me:
>
>>> Wiseguy wrote:
>>>> "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote innews:kfvf9p$mu4$1@dont-
>>>> email.me:
>
>>>> > Wiseguy wrote:
>>>> >> "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote innews:kfuh5l$r0$1@dont-
>>>> >> email.me:
>
>>>> >>> Wiseguy wrote:
>>>> >>>> YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote in
>>>> >>>>news:YourName-1902130859570001@203-118-187-
>> 183.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz:
>
>>>> >>>>> In article <kft7ga$en...@dont-email.me>, "Bast"
>>>> >>>>> <fake_n...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>> >>>>>> You are the only one here that seems to be obsessed with
>> Abrams.
>>>> >>>>>> I still would have disliked the 2009 movie, despite what names
>>>> were
>>>> >>>>>> on the credits.
>
>>>> >>>>>> Directors and stars in Hollywood are no longer issues,.....it's
>>>> now
>>>> >>>>>> the flavor of the day, and 2 years from now. no one will even
>>>> give
>>>> >>>>>> them a extra spinkle of chocolate shavings at the local
>>>> starbucks.
>
>>>> >>>>>> You want to prove it to yourself.
>>>> >>>>>> Go ask ANYONE who claims to "like" (not love) Star Trek, and
>> ask
>>>> >> them
>>>> >>>>>> the names of the actors who were in that 2009 movie.
>>>> >>>>>> I'd bet only one person in 100 you ask can tell you more than
>>>> one.
>
>>>> >>>>>> And you would be the first one to be stumped, without having to
>>>> >> look
>>>> >>>>>> it up,.....and you claim to have paid to see the movie.
>
>>>> >>>>>> Trek 2009,....mindless, forgettable, drivel.
>
>>>> >>>>> Yep, Abrams is irrelevant and does nothing useful.
>
>>>> >>>> Unlike you who's known the world over for...what?
>>>> >>>> Being a crybaby dweeb?
>
>>>> >>>>> He's nothing more
>>>> >>>>> than Hollyweird's
>
>>>> >>>> It's called Hollywood. That's the name adults call it. Â Unlike
>>>> >> crybaby
>>>> >>>> nerds like you.
>
>>>> >>>>> latest fad name to put on projects. The real issue
>>>> >>>>> is that the movie simply pees all over real "Star Trek",
>
>>>> >>>> It is real Star Trek known to all but the most idiot crybaby
>> nerds.
>
>>>> >>>>> ignores basic
>>>> >>>>> facts, makes idiotic changes, etc.
>
>>>> >>>> Even TOS contradicted itself. Â Learn it. Â Deal with it. Â IT'S
>>>> >> FICTION.
>
>>>> >>>> IT'S NOT REAL, you crybaby nerd.
>
>>>> >>>>> JJ Abram's movies (and Beavis & Butthead's stupid "Enterprise")
>>>> >> simply
>>>> >>>>> are not real "Star Trek" ... never wil be. They're pretend Trek
>>>> for
>>>> >>>>> deaf and blind fools who can only see as far as the brand name
>> and
>>>> >>>>> have no understanding of what actually makes a franchise.
>
>>>> >>>> Why, because YOU say so? Â Who the fuck cares what you think?
>
>>>> >>> Apparently, YOU, & MITO care.
>>>> >>> And seemingly, to the point of throbbing-vein raging fury.
>
>>>> >>> Duhhhh,....it's only a movie,...right ?
>>>> >>> So why are you becoming certifiable that a few of us hated it, and
>>>> the
>>>> >>> promises of the upcoming trash-trek 2013.
>
>>>> >> There are two different arguments here, moron, though you're too
>>>> stupid
>>>> >> to figure it out.
>
>>>> >> I don't give a fuck about the movie but it is still Star Trek.
>
>>>> >> I'm not a science fiction dweeb. Â I don't have to like anything
>> that
>>>> has
>>>> >> a spaceship in it.
>
>>>> >> But it's common sense that it is still Star Trek. Â What do I care
>>>> that
>>>> >> Paramount put out a movie that not everyone likes?
>
>>>> >> But for stupid childish nerds like "Your Name" to say it isn't Star
>>>> Trek
>>>> >> is assinine and stupid.
>
>>>> >> So I will argue that point until idiots like you shut up.
>
>>>> >> Got it now, asshole?
>
>>>> > Oh YES,....I get it.
>>>> > You are a sheeple pussy.
>
>>>> > Baaaaaaaaaaaa.
>
>>>> Please stop proving you're an idiot.
>>>> We know it already.
>
>>> That's your opinion,...and you know what you say about opinions.
>
>>> BTW you once asked where you used blatant insults in your replies.
>>> ....Look at what you just posted
>>> You didn't miss a line.
>>> <ROTFLMAO>
>
>> You ask for it by being obnoxious and arrogant.
>
>> But you insult others because they disagree with you.
>
>> Big difference.
>
>> No, I don't expect you to understand the difference.
>
> Look idiot,...I'm done with you, and this will be my last reply.
> trek 2009 was a pathetic excuse for a Star Trek Movie,...and I'm sure the
> 2013 one will be even worse.
But why will it be such a bad movie? I think that you WANT it to be a
bad movie, somehow justifying your own pathetic keyboard lifestyle of
24/7 internet/DVD bullshit.
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
