First, you know absolutely nothing about me, so don’t assume I haven’t written a television script. And even if you know I haven’t, your argument is still invalid because just because I haven’t written something doesn’t mean I couldn’t write it.

Second, critics have absolutely no requirement to be producers of art, they are merely discerning consumers willing to produce an opinion on the record.

Third, I am an avid fan of Star Trek, TNG and DS9 in particular, so to claim that because I dislike Voyager, I am somehow not a legitimate fan of Star Trek is ridiculous.

Fourth, Voyager’s ratings weren’t as good as DS9’s, and they were much worse than TNG’s. So, if “majority rules” it seems clear that Voyager was a failure.

Fifth, “majority rules” has no bearing on my opinion of a show. If everybody in the world but me loved something, that doesn’t mean I have to.

Sixth, just as I have no obligation to write about Voyager, you have no obligation to read my opinion nor do you have any obligation to comment here to tell me why I’m wrong about Voyager.

Seventh, I can watch whatever I want, even if it’s something I’m watching merely to criticise. That is, in fact, the job description of a critic. I might not be a professional critic, but that doesn’t mean I need to shut up.

All that said, come back anytime. I love dissenting opinions; that is, when they’re more persuasive than demands that I shut up.

Sam is correct, if you dislike it so much don’t watch it. Get something better to do then find things to make you mad.

That said, I don’t think that it’s out of line to claim that certain TV shows and movies debase women due to their oversexualized female characters. It’s not real of course, but the debasement is. The same can be said of the violence in television and film.

Related to this, I believe it was Brannon Braga who was dating Jeri Ryan at the time they introduced Seven of Nine, a character who I thought brought Voyager down in quality, despite its increase in cup size. So I think it’s more than fair to blame Voyager’s weaknesses on Braga.

http://www.mstrmnd.com/log/802

And I agree completely with your prioritization, users (and then authors) have to come first. I think I made that distinction in my inner monologue but didn’t verbalize it because as the web grows it becomes harder to separate web users from web content producers.

I think Shane’s point about web authors being more important than implementors is a valid one, but I think it implies that HTML5 puts the browser vendors first, which isn’t true at all. One of our design principles, even, is that users are more important than authors, who are more important than implementors, who are more important than spec authors. Just because the users and authors are important, however, doesn’t mean that implementors aren’t also. At the end of the day, we have to have the implementors on board, otherwise HTML5 will fail just like XHTML2 did.

And though it is a great show, I doubt there will be a movie, seeing as the writers of the show described what would have happened with the fourth season and beyond after the show was cancelled.

Well, keep on keeping on. And enjoy the rest of Kyle XY.

On a similar note: I’m a bit concerned about the eventual fate of magazines and books. I don’t want to have to read novels off of a bright glowing screen. I like to hold a book, look at its cover (and yes, usually judge it that way), and keep it by my bed when I’m not reading it. I also like to have a library of my favourite books at hand for re-visiting. I even feel compelled to buy the actual tangible book of content that’s free online (like art books) so that I can have the images at a high quality and have them permanently.

I guess that puts a pinpoint on it; the sense of permanence is important.
So, here’s wishing hard copy a long life.

My post definitely wasn’t an attack on the fandom of either Chuck or Reaper, just some musings that originated from with the fandom world.

In general, I’m fairly well aware of the fanbases of the shows I watch, and in particular I was familiar with the save reaper sites already, which is (among other reasons) why I didn’t think the criticisms I’d heard were from “the fanbase” as a cohesive whole. I simply took Jenny’s comments at their face value and extrapolated. That said, if my post appeared aggressive to the Reaper fanbse, I apologize as that was certainly not my intention. And good luck with the campaign, we need more good television out there.

It’s true that none of the (living) characters regret their long journey, but that says nothing for the people of Voyager’s crew who died lightyears from their families. Had Voyager left initially, the injured could have been returned to their families, the dead could have been mourned, the living could have lived the rest of their lives away from the troubles of the Delta Quadrant. If anything, that shows that the crew of Voyager are selfish and prefer their freedom over the lives of others. (Besides, in a few years the Cardassians would have been at war with the Federation and the Maquis probably wouldn’t be considered such a dangerous threat to galactic stability.) Additionally, the reason they don’t really regret the journey is because it wasn’t really all that hard. If they had had the (more realistic IMO) travails of the Equinox, they certainly wouldn’t have wished to do it all over again. The reset-button mentality employed in TNG simply doesn’t cut it in a journey like what Voyager endured.

And regarding Insurrection, Picard actually didn’t disobey the prime directive, because he was fighting to ensure an advanced race (specifically a prospective member of the Federation) wouldn’t contaminate and subjugate an inferior race. He did violate it slightly in order to defend that latter race, but it was less of an infraction than had he not interfered. Also, I kind of though Insurrection sucked.

Also, I thought the new movie was much much better than Nemesis or Insurrection. It had lots of fun geeky stuff while still appealing to a larger audience. And the characters felt right, while each successive TNG movie was more about amping up the action rather than treating the characters properly (why for example did Picard have a romance with that woman in Insurrection when the show was leaning towards a Picard Crusher romance for years?). But to each his/her/their own.

With all due respect, she didn’t destroy the Caretaker’s array because she didn’t want the Kazon to get the tech – she did it because if they had taken the tech, they would have destroyed the Ocampa. To be honest, this is a common thread through the series (see her guilt in Night (S5 premiere) over saving another species over her crew) – which technically, you should know if you’ve watched the series

Picard disobeyed the Prime Directive in… Insurrection, I think it was for a very similar reason? It can’t always apply. Sure, she can follow it and not blow up the array and be directly responsible for the extermination of a species just so she could get her crew back home… I don’t know about you, but I couldn’t live with that.

Also, if you watch ‘Shattered’ (S7), none of the crew – past the initial few months – are particularly sad about being stranded. Actually a better example of this is 11:59 (S5) when Janeway has another guilt session and B’Elanna basically tells her none of them would ever have gotten to know each other. After all, had she gone back home, Paris would have been back to New Zealand and B’Elanna and the other Maquis would have been off in jail.

And yes… perhaps every Trek has been dumbed down successively, but this movie is a HUGE leap away from Nemesis in style, glam, everything. It’s pretty obvious – to me at least – considering the amount of people who can’t stand Trek (including any of the previous movies) but will go see this.

I take your remarks about the Hirogen, but to be fair it is still hypocrisy. In the first episode, she destroyed the caretaker’s array rather than use it to leave and let the Kazon take the technology on board. She essentially abandoned her crew 75 years away from their families, friends, and homes because she didn’t want the Kazon to get new technology. If she’d been consistent, she should’ve let herself and her crew die before she gave the Hirogen their holodeck technology.

As for the Kazon, the Kazon did not betray them first. I said in a later post that I’m going through the old episodes and I’ve already begun. In the premiere, the Kazon say they’d like the replicator technology, Janeway says “that would be difficult” and then Neelix holds their Maje at phaser point, then destroys the water Voyager’s crew brought to the Kazon in the first place. It was absolutely Voyager and Neelix who started it with the Kazon.

And when I say she destroyed Trek, obviously I don’t mean that there was no Trek after that, but rather that she was the beginning of the end. She was the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand of Austria if the end of Star Trek was the beginning of World War 1.

Finally, your remark about the new Trek movie being “dumbed-down” seems rather ignorant of history. Every Trek movie, except perhaps the first one which I enjoyed but was far too masturbatory, has simplified and watered down Trek. Star Trek was destined for television, that’s where it does its thing best. The new movie merely followed in the footsteps of all the other Trek movies.

Sure, she wasn’t always consistent – a couple eps in particular pop to mind – but it certainly seems like you’re leaving half the story out when you complain about the Kazon. Giving them water is not a violation of the Prime Directive. And they (the Kazon) tried to double-cross first!

As for the Hirogen… what would you have had her do? The only reason the Hirogen agreed to a truce was because she gave them the tech. If they hadn’t, either they’d all have died fighting on Voyager or the Hirogen hunting parties would have come after them again.

Besides, she didn’t destroy Trek – Enterprise went on 4 years after it. It’s just not cool enough for anyone to care about it – note the complete dumbing down of the new movie for mainstream appeal.

For the record, I like Chuck too! Hey, if you want to hitch a ride on a Save the Show campaign, it’s interesting stuff. You could check us out at http://reaperdmv.com then write about us here!

I also don’t deny that the other Star Trek shows had flaws. All TV shows, all movies, all entertainment media, has its flaws. But Voyager was vastly more flawed that TNG or DS9, and a lot of those flaws stem from the way Janeway was written. That is, inconsistently and hypocritically.

As for the rest of the episode, I agree with you when you say that it seems that the emotional growth of the dolls and all their progresses in this sense were cancelled (I think an example of this is the fact that Victor didn’t wait for Sierra at the end, when they were going to sleep). It is annoying, because it was nice to see them develop “feelings” for each other and gaining more awareness of themselves and the Dollhouse.

Also, I was surprised by Sierra’s storyline. If it’s true that she was kidnapped and forced to enter the Dollhouse, I wonder if Adelle DeWitt knows it (and thus has been lying for all this time), or if she was made to believe that Sierra’s presence there is voluntary, and she’s not fully aware of the inner workings of the Dollhouse.

Finally, Echo’s message to Ballard was a nice twist, the Dollhouse couldn’t predict it. Let’s hope it leads to some progresses in Ballard’s investigation. I’d like to see him more involved in the story.

The writing was poor in comparison to generations, we could not empathise with the voyager crew as we could with picard, data or worf. Who cares if Paris wants to fly the delta flyer..the character growth was so limited. Even seven’s character did not grow too much beyond the box!

Bring back a new enterprise with a real captain please!!!!!

So how do i handle it. Enjoy the moment and let it slide. Like seeing a ferrari on the street, i’ll gaze at it for a moment and appreciate its beauty, but i don’t agonize over ‘why can’t i have that’ or ‘what can i do (say) to have that right now!’.

Spontaneous moments are the best… that’s something that can be cultivated… be more open gregarious with everyone all the time! (yes it’s a tall order).. and when that beautiful girl walks in the picture… you’ll already be armed and ready to charm her. best to you… and don’t forget to post the baby pictures!!

As for the Condoleeza Rice thing, the term was not being used in an accusatory note in that comic. It was not calling Condoleeza Rice a nigger. So calling Obama a nigger and then through some of your patented “logic” connecting that to taxation policies is not equivalent. That doesn’t mean the word nigger can never be uttered. I’m not one of the people who believe that any word or phrase should be banned from speech. The word nigger is often used in social commentaries attacking the racism imbued by the word. Confronting racism straight on is not racist, nor is the mere utterance of the term. However, using the term as a racially charged attack is racist. Hopefully, you can make the distinction between the two and are merely feigning ignorance for the sake of your argument.

So let me get this straight… I cannot legally mock someone based on race, but I can legally mock them based on my belief that they are unintelligent?

And I am allowed to call Obama a n*gga, as long as I couple it to criticism of his taxation policies?

Why is it that when a White says “I won’t vote Obama because he’s Black” that White is a racist…

But when a Black says “I will vote Obama because he’s Black” not held to the same standard?

That would be racist. However, while Barack Obama has a majority of the Black vote now, it is not because he is black. When the campaigns started he was losing among black voters because of the Clintons’ high regard in those communities. Barack Obama won those votes through his positions and his campaigning, not through his race.

So why is sculpting Bush as a chimpanzee (not just putting his name next to a cartoon monkey) or calling Condoleeza Rice a ‘house n*gga’ not decried by the liberal media?

It’s not being decried because in the case of Bush it’s not a racial attack, it’s an attack on his level of intelligence. And the Condoleeza Rice comic is not decried by the “liberal media” because it’s an attack on propaganda and “re-education” not an attack on Condoleeza Rice or her race.

Scott, I got your sarcastic tone; however, your sarcastic tone was not refuting your racism, it supported it.

Tell me how I any part of my post showed my inherent racist streak. I defy you to.

Once again, that rapier-like wit manages to deftly intertwine absurd exaggeration and poor logic. When someone calls Obama a “half-breed” or says they’ll never vote for him “because he’s black” that pretty much means they’re racist.

If I am absurd, your double-standards defy expectations that atheists are famously logical.

Why is it that when a White says “I won’t vote Obama because he’s Black” that White is a racist…

But when a Black says “I will vote Obama because he’s Black” not held to the same standard?

Then again, you likely only get your information from liberal media. So you can’t be blamed there.

And comparing a black guy to a monkey is at the very least racially charged due to the centuries of comparisons and accusations of being “less evolved.” The term “porch monkey” isn’t popular anymore for a reason.

So why is sculpting Bush as a chimpanzee (not just putting his name next to a cartoon monkey) or calling Condoleeza Rice a ‘house n*gga’ not decried by the liberal media?

As for your second comment, I didn’t read that until afterward. Sorry if, when you have a small preface followed by huge bold text, I skim over the top.

“You’re wrong on that count. Not being Caucasian, I am automatically exempt from the possibility of being racist by the same liberal media rules that portray blacks voting for Obama because he is black as ‘intelligent’ and whites not voting for Obama because he’s a flaming liberal as ‘racist bigots’.”

Once again, that rapier-like wit manages to deftly intertwine absurd exaggeration and poor logic. When someone calls Obama a “half-breed” or says they’ll never vote for him “because he’s black” that pretty much means they’re racist. And comparing a black guy to a monkey is at the very least racially charged due to the centuries of comparisons and accusations of being “less evolved.” The term “porch monkey” isn’t popular anymore for a reason.

Today I will play the role of an atheist who subscribes to humanism and the relative nature of morality. Shall we begin?

P.S.: After having looked at a few other posts on the blog, it seems pretty clear that this guy is either bipolar and has two distinctly opposite personalities or he’s a racist neocon who likes to argue that atheism leads to rampant dog fucking and murdering by playing the part of a crazy atheist who thrives on dog fucking and murdering.

Dude, you have any grasp of the concept of sarcasm?

As for being a ‘racist neocon’, I bet you’re referring to my latest post which is about Obama and racism, which would have been the first thing you see when you head to my main page.

Which is also done is a sarcastic tone, which you also might not have caught, hence leading to the apprehension that I am a racist.

You’re wrong on that count. Not being Caucasian, I am automatically exempt from the possibility of being racist by the same liberal media rules that portray blacks voting for Obama because he is black as ‘intelligent’ and whites not voting for Obama because he’s a flaming liberal as ‘racist bigots’.

But yes, I am a neocon. According to some, the leading neocon of my region!