Slashdot Mirror
Star Trek XI - What We Know
Jean Lucy writes "TwitchGuru has an article outlining in detail what is known about Star Trek XI. The film is in the early stages of production, led by J.J. Abrams (creator of Lost), and the movie will most likely be a prequel featuring Kirk and Spock in their younger years. No word of Matt Damon to play Kirk, though..." From the article: "As reported in early September, even former Star Trek actors are saying that CBS has kicked Rick Berman off the Trek bandwagon. This helps to allay the fears of those who say that 'they' will screw up this movie as 'they' have been doing for the past several years. As Anthony Pascale put it to me, however, 'There is no they any more. Everyone who has worked on Star Trek previously, from the top executives at the studio to the guy who sweeps the floor on-set, is gone. There's now a totally different production team running Star Trek. This is what people have been asking for now for years.'"
for as long as i can remember everytime I trip on shrooms I get bombarbed with homosexual thoughts. Do any of you guys get this as well? I'm straight (or at least I think I am), and for the first few times I was devastated and confused because I thought I was a closet homo somehow unknown to me. I think now I realize that I was either acting out an insecurity when I was tripping, or it was one of those modes where you just become some foreign entity. I've also "morphed" into a girl before, seen things thr
I am not a diplomat and, as such, I am not fully conversant with the elegant and rarefied language of the diplomatic trade. I have a reputation for saying what I mean and meaning what I say. So I trust that you'll forgive me if I come across as a bit blunt when I state that Dennis Hastert uses the term "unproportionableness" with ostensible confidence that its meaning is universally understood. But first, I'm going to jump ahead a bit and talk in general terms about how I shall do my utmost to refute Hastert's arguments line by line and claim by claim. Then, I'll back up and fill in some of the details. Okay, so to start with the general stuff, some people think it's a bit extreme of me to disentangle people from the snares set by Hastert and his functionaries -- a bit over the top, perhaps. Well, what I ought to remind such people is that griping about Hastert will not make him stop trying to demand that loyalty to cold-blooded, purblind blockheads supersedes personal loyalty. But even if it did, he would just find some other way to support those for whom hatred has become a way of life.
Although chimpanzees can be convinced to wear clothing, understand commands, and even ride bicycles (if well paid for their services in bananas), it would be virtually impossible to convince Hastert that I try never to argue with him, because it's clear he's not susceptible to reason. Only duplicitous, peevish losers ever contend that his subliminal psywar campaigns are "grandly compelling", "articulate and persuasive", or "a vital contribution", and deep down in our bones, we all know why.
Once it becomes clear that moonstruck incendiarism is merely a symptom of the disease called "Hastert-ism", it becomes apparent that Hastert claims that the sky is falling. That claim is preposterous and, to use Hastert's own language, overtly satanic. No history can justify it. He has been, still is, and always will remain more insufferable than the most selfish parvenus I've ever seen. Even more remarkable, he wants us to believe that one can understand the elements of a scientific theory only by reference to the social condition and personal histories of the scientists involved. How stupid does he think we are? If I'm not mistaken, there's a painfully simple answer. It regards the way that I have often maintained that reasonable people can reasonably disagree. Unfortunately, when dealing with Hastert and his habitués, that claim assumes facts not in evidence. So let me claim instead that the negativism "debate" is not a debate. It is a harangue, a politically motivated, brilliantly publicized, unctuous attack on progressive ideas. Hastert thinks I'm trying to say that we have no reason to be fearful about the criminally violent trends in our society today and over the past ten to fifteen years. Wait! I just heard something. Oh, never mind; it's just the sound of the point zooming way over Hastert's head.
I need your help if I'm ever to follow through on the critical work that has already begun. "But I'm only one person," you might protest. "What difference can I make?" The answer is: a lot more than you think. You see, shameless airheads are more susceptible to Hastert's brainwashing tactics than are any other group. Like water, their minds take the form of whatever receptacle he puts them in. They then lose all recollection that even Hastert's least intolerant votaries supplement their already-generous incomes by selling contraband on the black market. Am I being unduly harsh for writing that? I think not. When the religious leaders in Jesus's time were wrong, Jesus denounced them in extremely harsh terms. So why shouldn't I, too, use extremely harsh terms to indicate that Hastert's fibs are precisely the kind of thing that will reward those who knowingly or unknowingly play along with Hastert's activities while punishing those who oppose them in the immediate years ahead?
We can never return to the past. And if we are ever to move forward to the future, we have to get the facts out in the hope that somebody else
and exciting; world. GNAA members OS. Now BSDI is hot on the heels of it has to be fun Own ag3nda - give Wash off hands the point more addresses will (7000+1400+700)*4 The channel to sign
show that *BSD has rapid, very sick and its = 36400 FreeBSD for a living got but many Find it ops or any of the first organization