Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[ST1-LCN] Re: The Color of Kirk's Eyes

Expand Messages
  • luigi10151
    ... [Luigi] I read it and don t see this where so please do your own homework and point it out lol. ... [Luigi] Because you re falsely saying you disproved
    Message 1 of 285 , Oct 31, 2008
      --- In star-trek-one@yahoogroups.com, "The Sweetest" <avcor23@...> wrote:
      > > [Luigi]
      > > Where did you do this?
      > >
      > > In message number 134986, I said "You're proving my point, saying that
      > > All that is you saying I came up with a story that would have to be a
      > > reboot since it deviated from canon so much, and you don't make a
      > > counter-point later. So where did you show me "they have the freedom
      > > even for that cumbersome idea of Kirl/Jemhadar/Changeling combo"?
      > [ATA]Keep reading now that you decided to do some of your homework.
      > Eventually you will find the "where". Of course, I'm not expecting you
      > to be objective so...there is nothing much to say.

      I read it and don't see this "where" so please do your own homework
      and point it out lol.

      > >
      > > [Luigi]
      > > I already showed you where you said I was correct, now it's your turn
      > > to show where you "showed [me] [my] point was not that accurate."
      > [ATANo, what you showed is what you said and forgot to put what I said
      > to correct you. But lsten, why are we talking about something that was
      > already discussed so long ago?

      Because you're falsely saying you disproved me lol.

      > >>
      > >>
      > >
      > > [Luigi]
      > > No I don't have any doubt that my points are correct.
      > [ATA]And yet without any real proof. But that is your prerrogative.
      > >It's your
      > > responsibility to show proof for your own points,> especially since
      > > I've posted proof for my points lol. See below
      > [ATA]I already that weeks ago. Now ytou decide to do the job it was
      > yours but to selectively extract what suits you instead of being
      > objective...oh yeah like when they said it is not a reboot and you
      > said they didn't know what they were talking about...just like that.
      > So if you want to check the proof of my points they are all there in
      > the archives.

      If I was being selective please prove it lol, otherwise I'm going with
      my point lol. I don't remember saying they didn't know what they were
      talking about, when did I say that? All I remember is saying you
      misinterpreted them lol.

      > if you want to know
      > > what I'm expecting lol.
      > >>
      > >
      > > [Luigi]
      > > I think you're the one who needs to check your eyeglasses. If you'll
      > > see your post, which is message number 136689, you'll see you said:
      > > "Damon Lindelof:
      > > To date the Star Trek team have been careful in the terminology they
      > > use. Although many franchise fans use the word 'reboot' when talking
      > > about an approach to canon, 'reboot' is also used in terms of
      > > reintroducing a franchise to a new audience and also re-invigorating a
      > > franchise's popularity.
      > >
      > > Roberto Orci: But yet it is not entirely accurate."
      > >
      > > You'll see that Orci was responding to Lindelof talking about a reboot
      > > lol. So please stop misquoting your own quotes lol.
      > [ATA}Again, since you are not doing your homewrok please be advised
      > that as you requested I posted some extracts I found because your
      > decision of not doing what you had to do. The extracts were so you
      > could see how wrong you are in stating the movie is a reboot. Just
      > read the interviews.

      And thank you for doing at least some of your homework. For the record
      I've not been saying the movie will be a reboot, just that it appears
      that way from the press it's gotten, even from Abrams lol.

      > >
      > > [Luigi]
      > > If you don't want to prove your own point ok that's fine with me lol.
      > [ATA]Since it has been proven already just because you don't want to
      > acknowledge fine with.

      If you want to show me where it was proven I'd be happy to discuss and
      then acknowledge if appropriate.

      > >
      > > [Luigi]
      > > All I'm saying is you need to provide a message number if you want to
      > > bring it into evidence (and provide a quote would be better but a
      > > message number at a bare minimum).
      > [ATA]No,t really, because this was discuss in the list by various
      > people and more or less the therad lasted a week or so. It's old news
      > and if you were late in the discussion and try to reclaim so glory be
      > my guest and dig all you want. But if you are to present the archives
      > by number thinking that would be more dramatic please present all the
      > msgs not only those of yours.

      What you mean the messages where you posted the same thing as now and
      everyone else said you're wrong? That's not what proving your case
      means lol. If you could reference a specific message that you proved
      your point that would help rather than making vague self-serving
      statements lol.

      For the record, I'm not trying to achieve or reclaim any glory, I just
      feel the need to speak up for the group.

      > >
      > > No I've given proof that they didn't say that from your own quote. If
      > > you can produce evidence that they did say "ceratinly it is not a
      > > reboot" I'd like to hear it.
      > [ATA]Gee, you proof they didn't say that? How could you prove that
      > someone didn't say something when someone proved to you they did? Just
      > read the interviews.

      I put my proof in my last post (message number 136790) that your
      "proof" really proves that they never said it wasn't a reboot. If you
      want a quote I said the following in the email:
      "Roberto Orci: But yet it is not entirely accurate."

      You'll see that Orci was responding to Lindelof talking about a reboot
      lol. "

      I don't need to read the interview since you did your homework on that
      one and posted the relevant part, which I showed you in the above
      quote doesn't really mean anything lol. If you want to prove me wrong
      give me evidence lol.
      Otherwise this is just childish arguing and I have better things to do

      > >>
      > > If you want to stop arguing that's fine with me, I just don't concede
      > > that you've proven it's not a reboot.
      > [ATA]And yet the evidence of what they have said all along is there.
      > Just becxause you want me to do your job doesn't change anything. If
      > you want to say I didn't prove anything and that makes you happy so
      > ok. Of course you know is not true, I have posted the extracts and
      > told you where to find the originals. Don't want to do it? Ok

      I have shown that the evidence you provided isn't true. You haven't
      provided any more relevant information. What else do you want from me?
      I'm not going to give up just because you chest-thump for a while lol :P
      If you would point me to a specific evidence, we could discuss.
      Otherwise you're wrong and I don't think we need to continue this
      childish arguing.

      > >If you don't want to continue
      > > just stop arguing, just don't consider your point proven lol.
      > [ATA]Nope, it is proven, you just simply don't like the outcome, and
      > just because it is not, whoich is because anypone can read it here and
      > all theother references I gave you doesn't change the fact that you
      > are not correct.

      Show me how I am incorrect and we could discuss. Give me specifics on
      how my points are wrong or give me more evidence of your points and we
      could discuss. Otherwise we just have this childish arguing and I
      don't have anything to say besides you're wrong lol.

      > > I don't really know for sure if it's a reboot or not, nor do I care
      > > for that matter. I just want a good Star Trek movie. It's just the
      > > circumstantial evidence seems to be saying that it is some sort of
      > > reboot lol.
      > [ATA]Sure, I guess that should be clear. We don't know exactly what is
      > in the movie solet's wait for it...however you have no evidence of it
      > being a reboot while there is plenty of evidence to the contrary which
      > I have given in this list already with the references you don't want
      > to look for.. So you are just speculating based on nothing while I'm
      > making an educated guess based on what JJA's team including JJA have
      > said. And now we have the picturtes that go with that.

      I've already said I don't know for sure about a reboot either, that's
      not my point either lol. My point is that all these interviews seem to
      indicate a reboot. And the pictures too, or is that big screen and
      apple store bridge just an optical illusion? ;)
    • The Sweetest
      ... [ATA]And yet it is, particularly since is not only a couple of quotes but various interviews given by JJA and his people stating so. But listen just read
      Message 285 of 285 , Nov 7, 2008
        > You may have a couple quotes that SUGGEST the movie is not a reboot, but
        > that is hardly "irrefutable".
        > -Brent

        [ATA]And yet it is, particularly since is not only a couple of quotes
        but various interviews given by JJA and his people stating so. But
        listen just read the interviews Walter reproduced and linked in
        variopus posting regarding the issue and judge by yourself it is
        irrefutable or not that they have made clear they don't intend to do a
        reboot in the discarding canon sense.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.