New "Star Trek Continues" episode

No, your "challenge" to Faceman.

Looks good, I'll check it out later.

at what the thread turned into.

I'm only going to make one comment in view of @shootER 's reminder....but understanding the motivation behind something is not only relevant to the question of guilt and morality, it also helps with the process of learning how to prevent such things occurring. What's interesting is that, for instance, when people call you a bigot for making comments like "I don't like Jews" or "homosexuals are disgusting", you then whine on about context and being misunderstood. Yet here you are not interested in the motivation of others. Just goes to show you how self-centered you are.

A well developed character with a complex motivation is not only infinitely more interesting to watch or read about, but it is more reflective of the real world. Well, the real world for those of us with brains who don't think it's all about "good guys vs bad guys".

Well that is your opinion. Some people prefer simpler things in our entertainment in a complex world. Which seems perfectly natural to me.

Yes. Simple people tend to prefer simpler things....

You infer that a preference for simplicity is a bad thing. Facts not in evidence counselor. In case you're wondering that is an American trial term being the legal basis for an objection.

When Trek is good, the space battles are there to serve the story. Not to be the story.

FYI, I hosted an evidence session at my office for two lawyers from South Carolina when one of my client's was a defendant in an action in that jurisdiction. I am not alien to American trial terms, which are often different from what you see on TV.

You . . . you mean . . . TV lied to us?

I suspect Dayton isn't as convinced as you....

As usual you do not know what you are talking about.

How much time have you spent in court?

A few days.

For what?

I was in retail management. When we caught shoplifters a management level representative had to appear in court when the case came up (company regulation). Frequently this was an all day affair as a lot of other cases had to be disposed of before they got to ours. As the lowest level in management I was frequently sent to court for that.

Even had to go to one court case after I left the company.

And of course when I studied Civics in high school we got to go observe trials. Wish they still did that in schools.

This would actually be a pretty good idea. Too many people get their ideas about our courts from Law & Order.

So you've never witness led complex litigation?

You'll have to be clearer me being a nonlawyer and all.

Well, yeah. That's why there's now a category for reality TV at the Emmys

I'm kinda confused by this point of view, given your views on JJ Trek and how watered down you considered that to be. The crew pulls together in the second film of that to team up against an outsider as well.

Oh please.

Do you really want me to go into why I hate Abramstrek now?

No, the last five years' worth of posts are more than enough. But I do remember you saying the dumbing down was one of those reasons why you hated it.

Okay, I sat down and watched this episode last night.

Not bad. I still think the guy playing Kirk is too nasally . . . he needs to deepen his voice a little. Not a bad premise, but about on a level with the less enjoyable eps of TOS. I do like the guy playing McCoy.

Funny, I thought you were an expert manhandler of lawyers.

I can only assume you do not know what litigation is.

Dayton is so full of crap when it comes to JJTrek. Into Darkness is exactly the kind of Trek he says he wants to see. Back guy villain with little back story (Peter Weller). Big space battles (Enterprise/Kelvin vs Nero in the first film, Enterprise vs Vengeance in the second film). Fights with Klingons and Romulans. No huge amount of time devoted to philosophical or social issues. It's the closest thing to what he describes out of all of Trek to date. It's what I laugh when I see him ranting about it. I dislike it for the reasons I have stated in this thread, that is to say my view of what Trek can be when it poses issues for thought. He is saying the complete opposite.

Basically it's true what people say about him. His idea of Star Trek is extremely narrow and specific. He has seen flashes of what is ideal version and nothing more. In reality, he should even consider himself a Star Trek fan, because he's only a fan of a little bit of it.

I'm generally better when the lawyer is old and grossly unprepared.

Complete BS.

You obviously never read my posts about why I dislike Abramstrek.

What do you think I want to see in Star Trek El Chup?

You can't say "space battles" because I have specified having them in about 8 episodes per season (about the same rate as the second season to TOS) was good enough for me.

I don't know and frankly don't care about your exact blueprint for ST. What I do know is that you are very critical of most of what currently exists and inevitable refer to space battles as the cornerstone of your viewing experience. You also dismiss the more intelligent aspects of the show. Accordingly it seems that JJ Trek is well suited to you and I suspect that the real reason you don't like it is because you don't like change and it's not identical to the version you have in your head.

You shouldn't criticize my views if you don't (by your own admission) know what they are.