And what both of you have missed is that @jonsills and @reyan01 are clearly NOT referring to the STO forums. On every form of social media where I have encountered discussion of DSC (and I don't count forums as 'social media'), people who hate DSC don't explain why they dislike it, and as @jonsills says, anyone who does like it (and admits it) is immediately and mercilessly put down as a 'SJW', 'libtard', etc. (Which probably says more about the American cultural atmosphere than DSC 'haters', admittedly).
Eh... I thought I covered other social media in my response. I even sympathized.
Someone shouting "I hate STDZ" adds as much to the conversation as someone shouting "I love Disco": Absolutely nothing.
Generally, such a declaration is followed by "why" they dislike (or like) the show. This is were the meat of the conversation lies. If your preferred social media is some kind of echo chamber (either for or against Star Trek: Discovery) then you have my sympathy. I prefer conversation and debate over having my biases confirmed.
In fact, such arguments were made on these very forums when DSC launched.
It is also the case that 'haters' are much more animated by their outrage, and thus more likely to talk about their hatred of something. This encourages other 'haters' of the unassailability of their position and thus empowers them to be dismissive or abusive of those who do express the opposite viewpoint. This is a well-established social phenomenon. DSC fans are less likely to be animated in their defence of DSC because they have nothing to animate them. Contentedness is not emotive. DSC 'haters' are animated to express their dislike, because they hate it (or some aspect of it), and hate is emotive. This is not unique to DSC 'haters' either. If you follow my postings on DSC, you will find numerous cases of me expressing irrational, blood-curdling hatred for that stupidly <tribble purring> PHOTOSENSITIVE EYES!
Photosensitive eyes is my equivalent of Doug Walker's Bat-Credit Card.
Why does Star Trek: Discovery evoke more "negative" passion than "positive" passion?
When someone (like me) points out issues with the writing and characterization, why is the only response "well, other versions of Trek had terrible story telling so... your point is invalid"?
Why is it that many viewers like STDZ, but they have a hard time vocalizing why they like the show? The most common things I hear is about the visuals. "It looks good, instead of those garbage sets, costumes and models from the 60's". That's fine. It's a personal choice.
It does not matter how "sexy" the appearance, it has to have good story-telling or I'm just not interested. The characterization is shallow (or nonexistent), the subplots are so poorly developed that they are a waste of screen-time, the Klingon antagonists are boring, the Lorca antagonist is a major disappointment and the over-arching plot is a rushed hack-job. As a result, you are left with the individual episode plots which are a mixed bag.
The frustrating part is there is good stuff mixed in with all the trash; otherwise, I would just write the whole thing off. If there was no Tyler personality, the Voq reveal would have been much, much better. If Voq and Lorca had uncovered each other's secret, you could have had some really cool tension. If Lorca was more than a mustache-twirling villain, someone with a long-term multi-season goal, that would have been much, much better. If Burnham had even an ounce of character growth, she would have been more like-able. If Burnham was more consistent (sometimes, she acts like a human, sometimes like a vulcan; never with any consistency) she would at least be relatable, instead of an automaton that moves the plot.
Nailed it.
Personally, I prefer and like the 'garbage sets, costumes and models from the 60's' myself.
Both me and my chica wanna shove Burnham into an airlock, and open the door. >_>
And the only good part with Lorca when he was shishkabobed by that sword.
I wonder how much of the hatred towards Discovery is based on Old Trek vs New Trek. A lot of the problems people have with Discovery is based on the previous shows. The Klingons don't look like Klingons, this technology didn't exist until 100 years later, the Discovery looks too advanced, or whatever valid or invalid complaint a Star Trek fan might have about Discovery. So the fan that has watched every episode of Star Trek might have too much baggage to like Discovery while a new Star Trek fan would not have any of these problems and any complaints about the show would be based on writing, character development, and other similar complaints.
I wonder how much of the hatred towards Discovery is based on Old Trek vs New Trek. A lot of the problems people have with Discovery is based on the previous shows. The Klingons don't look like Klingons, this technology didn't exist until 100 years later, the Discovery looks too advanced, or whatever valid or invalid complaint a Star Trek fan might have about Discovery. So the fan that has watched every episode of Star Trek might have too much baggage to like Discovery while a new Star Trek fan would not have any of these problems and any complaints about the show would be based on writing, character development, and other similar complaints.
But remember, don't TRIBBLE all over long time fans to get a new audience. And don't TRIBBLE all over 50 years of what was set up. Feels like the studio wants to erase TOS as much as it can get away with.
I wonder how much of the hatred towards Discovery is based on Old Trek vs New Trek. A lot of the problems people have with Discovery is based on the previous shows. The Klingons don't look like Klingons, this technology didn't exist until 100 years later, the Discovery looks too advanced, or whatever valid or invalid complaint a Star Trek fan might have about Discovery. So the fan that has watched every episode of Star Trek might have too much baggage to like Discovery while a new Star Trek fan would not have any of these problems and any complaints about the show would be based on writing, character development, and other similar complaints.
So...funny story. My housemate I recently found out is a new Trek fan. She started off by watching essteedee. She than watched the other series. She hates essteedee...despite it being her entry into the Trekverse. So yeah, new Trek people might like it if all they watched was the new stuff...but even new fans who watch the old stuff ends up going WTF is this to essteedee. Also even as a new fan, she detested the main character of Burnham and had some critical things to say about some of the actions of said main character. She just did not get as bothered by these moments of stupid as much as I did. Now her best friend who also watched said series detests Trek based on essteedee because she is more like me and the level of stupid in the show completely broke her out of any sense of immersion in the story and she stopped after episode 3 like me. It took both of bugging her before she finally relented and started watching all the other Trek and she actually like those for the most part. So while there maybe some people who are getting hooked to Trek because of essteedee...we have one person who after seeing the other stuff going good god this is stupid and one person who said this is too stupid to watch from the get go. Anecdotal I know...but still, the show really is written very poorly.
Just like an old school friend of mine, she has a kid now, and I showed her daughter a pile of Dr. Who, both new and classic. After a few weeks, I asked which ones she liked. (She's like 7, btw) She said, "The stuff with that really tall Doctor, he's got that scarf, puffy hair and big teeth! " I asked her why, and she said "the stories are great! and he's cool!"
Lesson of the day, good story telling, good acting, and heart gets better results than flashy effects and big budgets.
...Lesson of the day, good story telling, good acting, and heart gets better results than flashy effects and big budgets.
Sacrilege! Heresy! If ever you dare to walk the streets of Hollywood you shall be hanged, quartered, shot, and forced to watch Monster Trucks in IMAX!
Yeah, I've lost my Hollywood privileges too, and for the same reason. I'd rather see a cheap production of a good story than the most action-packed thrill ride of the decade attached to a lame script.
...Lesson of the day, good story telling, good acting, and heart gets better results than flashy effects and big budgets.
Sacrilege! Heresy! If ever you dare to walk the streets of Hollywood you shall be hanged, quartered, shot, and forced to watch Monster Trucks in IMAX!
Yeah, I've lost my Hollywood privileges too, and for the same reason. I'd rather see a cheap production of a good story than the most action-packed thrill ride of the decade attached to a lame script.
Hollywood can press its lips on my you know what.
And least Monster Trucks can be fun.....
Anyhow, speaking of that doctor, Happy b day, Tom.
- Michael Burnham. I really didn't want to jump on this bandwagon, but 'Burnham the prodigy' is beginning to iritate me. I'd hoped they'd loosen the reigns on that a little but it seems not.
Burnham is my single biggest dislike about the show, as I find her character extremely unlikable. Now, some have said that is how the writers intended it. If so they did such a good job that I almost want to turn the show off when she is going full Burnham. If this were any other show with that person in the forefront, I wouldn't watch it. But since this is Trek and I love Trek, I watch it for everything except her character.
With all of that said, I know that Burnham isn't simply *A* character, she is *THE MAIN* character of this show. This is essentially the Burnham Show. This is simply something I have to accept if I want to watch Trek right now. So I try to enjoy the show in spite of Burnham.
Found a couple of videos that shows a bunch of the continuity errors in Discovery. Of course, there are some examples that could be easily explained by the incident being classified like Data saying that he was unaware of any prior situations where a starship was taken so deeply inside a planetary body (The Pegasus), but the only explanation for other continuity errors is Discovery saying TRIBBLE continuity.
Found a couple of videos that shows a bunch of the continuity errors in Discovery.
Serious question - what Star Trek program/film did NOT have continuity errors of some sort?
Continuity errors and fluid canon are as much a part of Star Trek as transporters and phasers.
TOS has continuity errors with itself
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
And the only good part with Lorca when he was shishkabobed by that sword.
Lorca was amazing potential that was completely squandered.
The Federation are the "good guys" (for the most part, excepting the Space Illuminati). So, exploring any story where the captain is morally grey is going to be a problem for the audience. However, if your captain is a refugee from the mirror universe (and he is trying to keep this a secret), you can explore more morally grey issues without alienating your audience. With a smarter writer, Lorca could have been a fascinating character that is balancing "common sense" with "short-sighted Federation ideals".
Serious question - what Star Trek program/film did NOT have continuity errors of some sort?
Continuity errors and fluid canon are as much a part of Star Trek as transporters and phasers.
No, they are not. They are problems that turn people away from the Star Trek universe. If you cannot be bothered to keep your fiction straight, your audience will not do it for you (except for the rabid handful who are so enamored with your work, they will do your job for you).
that's probably why disney jettisoned the entire star wars EU when they bought the IP...it was getting out of control with dozens of different writers all tripping over each other trying to account for and explain away each other's errors while still telling stories of their own
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch." "We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Passion and Serenity are one.
I gain power by understanding both.
In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
The Force is united within me.
Found a couple of videos that shows a bunch of the continuity errors in Discovery.
Serious question - what Star Trek program/film did NOT have continuity errors of some sort?
Continuity errors and fluid canon are as much a part of Star Trek as transporters and phasers.
It is a matter of degree. Star Trek constantly makes minor continuity errors that are usually meaningless, but only Discovery had an entire season as a continuity error. TOS acted like a major war with the Klingons where almost 20% of the Federation was conquered didn't happen about 10 years ago. We have Lieutenant Stiles from Balance of Terror that openly displayed hatred for Romulans due to the Earth-Romulan War, but there is no sign of hatred for the Federation-Klingon War. Janeway states that humanity was on the verge of war with Klingons which is vastly different from being at war with Klingons. As far as the other Star Trek shows go, the only Federation-Klingon War was in another reality with the Yesterday's Enterprise episode.
Then there is the issue of technology. For some reason holographic technology was heavily used in the 2250s, but completely disappears 10 years later. Discovery is never sure of whether it wants to be a prequel or a sequel.
Then there is the issue of technology. For some reason holographic technology was heavily used in the 2250s, but completely disappears 10 years later. Discovery is never sure of whether it wants to be a prequel or a sequel.
Except holographic technology HASN'T disappeared in TOS
-The main view screen
-The upper bridge monitors
-The desktop terminals
-The recreation rooms
All use holographic technology
Likewise, in Gene Roddenberry's own novelization of The Motion Picture he talks about Kirk using holo-com technology EXACTLY like that seen in Discovery. He goes even further and states that all Starfleet captains have a chip implanted in their skulls, used as a last resort method of contact, that can hijack the person's optic nerves and make them see images(Kirk was able to see V'ger's attack on the Klingon ships via said implant), in a method similar to the devices Stamets was using in the newest episode of Discovery.
Even as far back as 1979 Gene was saying this stuff existed in the era of TOS, it just wasn't made as obvious, or used as frequently, because of budget.
If it is not on screen, then it doesn't count. If it looks like a viewscreen, then it is a viewscreen not a holographic display since all that matters is what the audience experiences not what the creator intended.
They could have had a holodeck in TOS or the Star Trek movies since it is easy to create a blank room and put a object that looks like a closed door outdoors to show that the scenery is not real. Having a chip in Kirk's brain to communicate with Starfleet is even easier since it just requires a voiceover and mentioning that he is in implant communication with Starfleet.
Why does Star Trek: Discovery evoke more "negative" passion than "positive" passion?
Probably has something to do with the fact that generally, when we like the show we're not desperate to prove to those who hate it that they're wrong. Meanwhile, everyone who hates the show (yes, including you, Red) seems to sweat bullets over the fact that there are people who disagree with their sacred and holy opinion-which-is-of-course-actually-fact.
If it is not on screen, then it doesn't count. If it looks like a viewscreen, then it is a viewscreen not a holographic display since all that matters is what the audience experiences not what the creator intended.
They could have had a holodeck in TOS or the Star Trek movies since it is easy to create a blank room and put a object that looks like a closed door outdoors to show that the scenery is not real. Having a chip in Kirk's brain to communicate with Starfleet is even easier since it just requires a voiceover and mentioning that he is in implant communication with Starfleet.
It is on-screen though. The recreation rooms are visible, on screen, in TAS. And we SEE evidence of the holographic nature of the viewscreen in TOS, and its later outright confirmed in TNG.
But TAS is not TOS. A holographic viewscreen would be a holographic projection not a stereoscopic 3D effect similar to the Nintendo 3DS. Some viewscreens in Star Trek were holographic, but certainly not the one from the Enterprise or Enterprise-D.
But TAS is not TOS. A holographic viewscreen would be a holographic projection not a stereoscopic 3D effect similar to the Nintendo 3DS. Some viewscreens in Star Trek were holographic, but certainly not the one from the Enterprise or Enterprise-D.
A. TAS is the continuation of TOS on the same ship as the one in TOS.
B. You can literally see what Viewscreens are in the video I posted earlier https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r__XbSEdndw
A. What does TAS being a continuation of TOS have anything to do with TOS having a holodeck? Technology advances and rooms get repurposed so just because the Enterprise in TAS had a holodeck doesn't mean the Enterprise in TOS had one. There was no holo-communicators on Season 1 of DS9, but it was available in later seasons. Also, the food synthesizers in TAS had voice command, but the food synthesizers in TOS used cards.
B. That whole video was the opinion of one person. Just because the viewscreen looks realistic and shows a 3D image doesn't mean it is holographic. It just means that it uses a more advanced version of the technology used by the 3DS.
Probably has something to do with the fact that generally, when we like the show we're not desperate to prove to those who hate it that they're wrong.
Saying "It's ok. It's pretty." shows a lack of passion, which is the point of my post. I don't see anyone talking about how "good the characters and story are", then proceed to give actual examples to back up those claims. It's like the show is very surface level in it's content.
Meanwhile, everyone who hates the show (yes, including you, Red) seems to sweat bullets over the fact that there are people who disagree with their sacred and holy opinion-which-is-of-course-actually-fact.
You are either projecting or entirely misrepresenting my points. Which I have come to expect from you at this point.
I have said, multiple times, that there is nothing wrong with enjoying Star Trek: Discovery. I don't have an issue with STDZ's content being in STO. I have even gone so far as to say "if someone is judging you for enjoying Star Trek: Discovery, they are a troll".
It is possible to enjoy something with terrible writing. Plenty of people enjoy the Godzilla and Transformers franchises, and those movies have some really terrible writing.
If you don't believe every incarnation of Star Trek has had continuity errors, then you have never watched Star Trek.
You are taking what I said out of context. You said "continuity errors are a part of Star Trek as much as phasers and transporters". The point of my post was "this is a bad thing; this SHOULD NOT BE the norm in Star Trek"; I explained how continuity errors will drive away your audience because you cannot be bothered to keep your fiction straight.
You know what I think may be driving away Star Trek's audience? How that one episode of Futurama is beginning to look less and less like parody and more and more like a PSA. (Same goes for Star Wars.)
that's probably why disney jettisoned the entire star wars EU when they bought the IP...it was getting out of control with dozens of different writers all tripping over each other trying to account for and explain away each other's errors while still telling stories of their own
i certainly do; it's only their two sequel films that are terrible, and that's mainly because they had a feminazi witch and an utter moron on staff; both R1 and Solo were actually decent, Rebels is great and they're even going back to finish Clone Wars S6 AND giving it a 7th season
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch." "We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Passion and Serenity are one.
I gain power by understanding both.
In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
The Force is united within me.
Why does Star Trek: Discovery evoke more "negative" passion than "positive" passion?
Probably has something to do with the fact that generally, when we like the show we're not desperate to prove to those who hate it that they're wrong. Meanwhile, everyone who hates the show (yes, including you, Red) seems to sweat bullets over the fact that there are people who disagree with their sacred and holy opinion-which-is-of-course-actually-fact.
I have to disagree. I don't think either side has claim to any kind of silent majority or vocal minority. I have seen just as many people who seem to think the show is nearly perfect and feel the need to correct anyone who disagrees as I have on the opposite side of the spectrum.
Basically, our modern culture has radicalized a good portion of society. No matter what the topic many people gravitate to an extreme position and feel personally insulted if you don't agree with them. The reasonable group in the middle that can agree to disagree but still respect each others' opinions is getting smaller every day.
Comments
Nailed it.
Personally, I prefer and like the 'garbage sets, costumes and models from the 60's' myself.
Both me and my chica wanna shove Burnham into an airlock, and open the door. >_>
And the only good part with Lorca when he was shishkabobed by that sword.
But remember, don't TRIBBLE all over long time fans to get a new audience. And don't TRIBBLE all over 50 years of what was set up. Feels like the studio wants to erase TOS as much as it can get away with.
Just like an old school friend of mine, she has a kid now, and I showed her daughter a pile of Dr. Who, both new and classic. After a few weeks, I asked which ones she liked. (She's like 7, btw) She said, "The stuff with that really tall Doctor, he's got that scarf, puffy hair and big teeth!
Lesson of the day, good story telling, good acting, and heart gets better results than flashy effects and big budgets.
Sacrilege! Heresy! If ever you dare to walk the streets of Hollywood you shall be hanged, quartered, shot, and forced to watch Monster Trucks in IMAX!
Yeah, I've lost my Hollywood privileges too, and for the same reason. I'd rather see a cheap production of a good story than the most action-packed thrill ride of the decade attached to a lame script.
Hollywood can press its lips on my you know what.
And least Monster Trucks can be fun.....
Anyhow, speaking of that doctor, Happy b day, Tom.
Burnham is my single biggest dislike about the show, as I find her character extremely unlikable. Now, some have said that is how the writers intended it. If so they did such a good job that I almost want to turn the show off when she is going full Burnham. If this were any other show with that person in the forefront, I wouldn't watch it. But since this is Trek and I love Trek, I watch it for everything except her character.
With all of that said, I know that Burnham isn't simply *A* character, she is *THE MAIN* character of this show. This is essentially the Burnham Show. This is simply something I have to accept if I want to watch Trek right now. So I try to enjoy the show in spite of Burnham.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
TOS has continuity errors with itself
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
The Federation are the "good guys" (for the most part, excepting the Space Illuminati). So, exploring any story where the captain is morally grey is going to be a problem for the audience. However, if your captain is a refugee from the mirror universe (and he is trying to keep this a secret), you can explore more morally grey issues without alienating your audience. With a smarter writer, Lorca could have been a fascinating character that is balancing "common sense" with "short-sighted Federation ideals".
Not what we got though. C'est la vie. No, they are not. They are problems that turn people away from the Star Trek universe. If you cannot be bothered to keep your fiction straight, your audience will not do it for you (except for the rabid handful who are so enamored with your work, they will do your job for you).
#LegalizeAwoo
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."
"We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
It is a matter of degree. Star Trek constantly makes minor continuity errors that are usually meaningless, but only Discovery had an entire season as a continuity error. TOS acted like a major war with the Klingons where almost 20% of the Federation was conquered didn't happen about 10 years ago. We have Lieutenant Stiles from Balance of Terror that openly displayed hatred for Romulans due to the Earth-Romulan War, but there is no sign of hatred for the Federation-Klingon War. Janeway states that humanity was on the verge of war with Klingons which is vastly different from being at war with Klingons. As far as the other Star Trek shows go, the only Federation-Klingon War was in another reality with the Yesterday's Enterprise episode.
Then there is the issue of technology. For some reason holographic technology was heavily used in the 2250s, but completely disappears 10 years later. Discovery is never sure of whether it wants to be a prequel or a sequel.
If it is not on screen, then it doesn't count. If it looks like a viewscreen, then it is a viewscreen not a holographic display since all that matters is what the audience experiences not what the creator intended.
They could have had a holodeck in TOS or the Star Trek movies since it is easy to create a blank room and put a object that looks like a closed door outdoors to show that the scenery is not real. Having a chip in Kirk's brain to communicate with Starfleet is even easier since it just requires a voiceover and mentioning that he is in implant communication with Starfleet.
But TAS is not TOS. A holographic viewscreen would be a holographic projection not a stereoscopic 3D effect similar to the Nintendo 3DS. Some viewscreens in Star Trek were holographic, but certainly not the one from the Enterprise or Enterprise-D.
A. What does TAS being a continuation of TOS have anything to do with TOS having a holodeck? Technology advances and rooms get repurposed so just because the Enterprise in TAS had a holodeck doesn't mean the Enterprise in TOS had one. There was no holo-communicators on Season 1 of DS9, but it was available in later seasons. Also, the food synthesizers in TAS had voice command, but the food synthesizers in TOS used cards.
B. That whole video was the opinion of one person. Just because the viewscreen looks realistic and shows a 3D image doesn't mean it is holographic. It just means that it uses a more advanced version of the technology used by the 3DS.
You are either projecting or entirely misrepresenting my points. Which I have come to expect from you at this point.
I have said, multiple times, that there is nothing wrong with enjoying Star Trek: Discovery. I don't have an issue with STDZ's content being in STO. I have even gone so far as to say "if someone is judging you for enjoying Star Trek: Discovery, they are a troll".
It is possible to enjoy something with terrible writing. Plenty of people enjoy the Godzilla and Transformers franchises, and those movies have some really terrible writing. You are taking what I said out of context. You said "continuity errors are a part of Star Trek as much as phasers and transporters". The point of my post was "this is a bad thing; this SHOULD NOT BE the norm in Star Trek"; I explained how continuity errors will drive away your audience because you cannot be bothered to keep your fiction straight.
Star Trek needs less continuity errors not MORE.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
And the fans sure love what Disney's doing, eh?
#LegalizeAwoo
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."
"We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
I have to disagree. I don't think either side has claim to any kind of silent majority or vocal minority. I have seen just as many people who seem to think the show is nearly perfect and feel the need to correct anyone who disagrees as I have on the opposite side of the spectrum.
Basically, our modern culture has radicalized a good portion of society. No matter what the topic many people gravitate to an extreme position and feel personally insulted if you don't agree with them. The reasonable group in the middle that can agree to disagree but still respect each others' opinions is getting smaller every day.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008