Why so much B5 hostility?

[Quagmire]

It's hard to ignore what Paramount did when they did everything possible to kill b5 and than people claim that b5 was helped along by ST. You can't help your show become better if someone else kills it. Standing up for the show is how we do make up for the companies shortcomings.

By the way, business works for the best of everyone if allowed to work properly. Money is not evil. The market allowed for both b5 and ST despite what some thought. You can be a fan of both, I am.

------------------
Bus
"The electric yellow has got me by the brain banana."

 

[londo]

original trek "the first"?

...such high-i-q babes in the woods.

i loved (and still love) the original star trek. it vastly improved so many of the things i always enjoyed about flash gordon and buck rogers.

i sometimes wonder if jms used the trek/bab5 gang warfare as inspiration when he continued to write confrontations between centauri and narn.



------------------
"what is it, you moon-faced assassin of joy?!?!!"

 

[StarStuff]

Maybe my initial reaction to B5 might help explain why some people never came to appreciate it.

I wanted to like it but the slow start made for a luke warm reaction on my part. Then it was the little things: the hair, the uniforms, the gloves, top secret meetings in rooms with no doors, space craft arriving and leaving with no relationship to the story line (used as a device to move from one scene to the next), the 'last best hope of mankind' line. It wasn't until later when the story heated up with the threat of the Shadows that I began to eagerly look forward to the next show. Maybe those who don't like B5 didn't stick with it long enough to get caught up in the story.

Other popular Science Fiction shows probably have larger budgets and none of the hassles that I gather B5 had. I always had to search around to find the show and sometimes months would go by before I could find the next chapter. Now I count it as one of the best TV series ever.

------------------
God be between you and harm in all the empty places you must walk.

[This message has been edited by StarStuff (edited May 17, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by StarStuff (edited May 17, 2001).]

 

[Kribu]

To return to the original question...

I suppose some people - some, not by any means most! - just feel the need to attack anything different from what they're used to.
Not just a different TV-show (heck, it doesn't even have to be that different, it's enough for some if it's just not the show they prefer to watch), but anything different.

Some turn their hatred for anything different toward other people - the reason could be anything from having glasses to having a different skin colour - while some pour out theirs on message boards (which is IMHO somewhat preferable to hurting people in real life, but which sometimes can hurt just as bad).

I suppose - and that is just an assumption, please do not attack me for it! - that since the general Trek audience seems to be so infinitely larger than, say, the B5 audience, there are simply more people among these Trek fans (who, I'm sure, are on the whole extremely intelligent, nice, smart people) who have this sort of hatred bottled up inside them - and who have for some reason chosen B5 as the target for that hatred.

Why some people have this hatred, I don't know. Maybe they're born with it. More likely, it has something to do with their upbringing and early experiences. Whatever. It just seems to be something a certain percentage of people have, no matter where or in what time they live.

And to end my ramblings in this thread, as people here have pointed out, I do agree that intelligence doesn't have much to do with liking one or the other TV show. The IQ is just a number, it doesn't mean all that much (unless it's very low... but I'd guess those unfortunate people wouldn't really make it to the message boards to flame anyone anyway).

------------------
"You've misspelled this. There's no 'Y' in liberties."
"Oh, go away. Repress someone else."

 

[solaris5]

Yeah, I guess you're right, I shouldn't have come off like that. But it really bothers me when people make statements which have been proven to be scientifically impossible. And I am backing off, but I still maintain that whoever claims to have an IQ above the point of which it is possible, has probably a hell of a lot less than what he says, and less than any others that actually know how the Stanford-Binet scale works.
And look at it this way, I'm 15 years old, if I know this and a 45 year old person that still prides himself in his spelling bee championships, doesn't, well doesn't that say something?

------------------
If you go to New Jersey, you will die!

 

[solaris5]

Sorry, 42, and as to my sig, it is a joke about the legendary quote: "If you go to Z'ha'dum(sp?) you will die!" which was made I beleive by Kosh, the guy in my pic.

------------------
If you go to New Jersey, you will die!

 

[GideonsMine]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hypatia:
Whenever someone claims a high IQ to prove a point, you can bet that they failed to prove it. I saw many many students fail out of college who probably were far more intelligent than I. As I earned my B.S. and M.S. in math I found that the people who bragged the most, usually accomplished the least. Whenever someone thinks they are proving a point by saying "and I have an IQ of..." you can bet that they didn't actually prove anything.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for the insult, you are certainly entitled to your viewpoint. I only accomplished what I wished to accomplish and that is good enough for me.

I became offended by the remark that Star Trek fans are "not rocket scientists" and are "simple" minded even though he/she went on to point out that they were not a rocket scientist either that they just liked the show for that reason. I was trying to point out that I am not simpleminded, and although I can draw scale versions of rockets, I am certainly no rocket scientist. My point was that it is not "simplemindedness" but a more "simplistic" viewing arena in 1966 as compared to the 1990's when B5 became a major part of the sci fi universe. Life has changed immensely since 1966 and most of us remember Star Trek fondly (alright some are rabid, but then so are the people posting on this thread) and like to revisit those days as frequently as possible in our minds.

There really is no need for a war, but it happens as both sides try to say their show is best or better. And I will certainly grant that good scripting and much better graphics do tend to make most say B5 is better. That is a matter of opinion.

I liked B5 in the beginning episodes because of one reason. That JMS did not rewrite human nature when he scripted the show. He didn't make humans some ethereal beings better than anyone else. He left us as we are and for that he has my full and total wonder and appreciation.

In Star Trek we were a warship and a federation growing but still having wars with many to TNG where we were a travelling Ramada in space, no conflict that existed, only those that needed to be found. DS9 went to a slightly more realistic front because of its mixtures, and Voyager blew it by the end of their first season. It had promise, but it never seemed to realize that. Then B5 came and voila, things were right with the world again.

I like both shows and that's it.


------------------
Colleen L. Stanford
Gideon's Mine, all Mine
(he just doesn't know it yet, LOL)

 

[GideonsMine]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by drakh:

Originally posted by GideonsMine:
Without Star Trek I doubt B5 would have come about so easily.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Easily!? Jms went through 5 years of getting told that "Science Fiction doesn't sell. Trek does." His agent told him that he was damaging his career, and should be consentrating on pitching a show with some chance of getting bought. But Joe was persistant, and finally met the right individual at Warner Bros. <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Why not just give credit where credit is due. We were the first, we are the original, and thanks to our existence, others sprang from the well.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ever heard of this litte show called Lost in Space?

I do believe everyone has heard of Lost in Space especially Lennier. Duh. I watched it faithfully, I was a little kid then. Only what, a year prior to Star Trek. Weirdly the movie was a bit better even though it got trashed by sci fi fans in the box office. Star Trek did Lost in Space one better and after its acceptance, Trekkies were born.

You think Gene Roddenberry had it easy? Think again. He had to retool that show so many times before it aired, over and over again. It had a false start in the eps the Cage and the Menagerie (the same episode actually, sort of) it didn't go over well with the target audience, Jeffrey Hunter and his stage wife were fired, Shatner was hired, retool, reair and after many add-ins and changes it eventually became the crew that I know and love. The studio was afraid that the audience wouldn't take to Spock's "ears", etc. It wasn't much of a genre at the time and aliens were not readily acceptable, most of lost in spaces were voice overs or obviously bad costumes. No offense, but they were pretty bad. But hey, it was the sixty's and Billy Mumy was just adorable. He ain't bad looking now either, in or out of Lennier makeup.

You know Drakh, nothing is easy. But if the Trek genre had not existed, JMS may not have ever been able to get a toehold in a genre that grew because of Trek.

You don't have to like Trek, I am not asking you to. But I give credit where credit is due, so why can't you? I have never knocked your show, why do you knock mine? I love B5 but I will always have a soft spot for my beloved Trek, no matter how old or "camp" it gets. Anybody watch the Original DARK SHADOWS? Its definitely considered camp now, but still enjoyable.

------------------
Colleen L. Stanford
Gideon's Mine, all Mine
(he just doesn't know it yet, LOL)

[This message has been edited by GideonsMine (edited May 18, 2001).]

 

[GideonsMine]

Glad to see you all missed the point so well. Instead of reading the post, you focus on nothing more than the IQ numbers which were given on a damned system over thirty years old. The standards have changed many times over the past twenty years, hell even more in the past 5. You take 2000 statistics (not facts just statistics and apply them to a test given when many school children were posting 200++ IQ's and then you have the audacity to call me a liar. I was only 12 at the time and apparently, it was normal at that time and looking at the certificate it says 220 (I typo'd with the 4 but so what???). Give me a damned break. There are five children with 218 scores at this time where the statistical analysis are trying to prove the testers of these children wrong. What are you trying to prove? You want to know by Trek fans hate your guts, that's why. I'm not claiming to be the smartest person in the world, just relatively smart and I like Trek. What the heck is wrong with that? A so-called high IQ is hardly an achievement, it's just a fact, according to the test I just took to join Mensa, now that I am an adult, I still test at 185 which is high for an adult so what is it with you? The experts say it is not unlikely that children test very high and can and many do go over the standards of the test. That argument will go on as long as people consider IQ's more important than reality intelligence.

You people can tell me i am simple minded and stupid and not a rocket scientist because I like Star Trek. But I can't give you a "what for" back. Most interesting.

So with the fact that your gene pool is still sullied because I will always love B5 as well, I bid you people adieu.

------------------
Colleen L. Stanford
Gideon's Mine, all Mine
(he just doesn't know it yet, LOL)

[This message has been edited by GideonsMine (edited May 18, 2001).]

 

[**DONOTDELETE**]

I watched Dark Shadows. Have been for the last 2 1/2 years. It is about as camp as it gets. But it's still enjoyable(well it must be or I wouldn't have put up with it for 2 years.)

And there are 2 DS movies that any horror fan should check out if you get the chance.

------------------
"I'd like to live just long enough to be there when they cut off your head and stick it on a pike as a warning to the next ten generations that some favors come with too high a price. I'd look up at your lifeless eyes and wave like this. Can you and your associates arrange it for me, Mr. Morden?"
Vir - In The Shadow of Z' HA Dum

 

[Odin]

I was going to post something, but thought better of it.

[This message has been edited by Odin (edited May 18, 2001).]

 

[drakh]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>GideonsMine said:
You don't have to like Trek, I am not asking you to.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Either show me where in my post I stated that or stop putting words in my mouth. I simply stated what I percive as facts, and I'll dig up jms' comments on this later.

(I will post a longer reply, but I just had to adress this one first.)

 

[GideonsMine]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by solaris5:
Yeah, I guess you're right, I shouldn't have come off like that. But it really bothers me when people make statements which have been proven to be scientifically impossible. And I am backing off, but I still maintain that whoever claims to have an IQ above the point of which it is possible, has probably a hell of a lot less than what he says, and less than any others that actually know how the Stanford-Binet scale works.
And look at it this way, I'm 15 years old, if I know this and a 45 year old person that still prides himself in his spelling bee championships, doesn't, well doesn't that say something?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you, I am certainly not a himself. I am 42, not 45, thank you on that score as well. And I was just about 12 when the test was administered. The test scores are older than you. Are you an educator, did you give scholastic IQ tests back in the 70's? Of course not, but you made a blanket statement, not only contradicting me, but calling me a liar as well. If you had read on further when you researched at the Stanford-Binet site, you would have discovered other interesting facts about your blanket statement, and the arguments that have begun from scores in recent honey, not thirty year old tests where standards are different, recent -- that children normally score higher than adults. The reasons for that are unknown to me and apparently to them as well. That discussion centers on a ten year old who was the highest recorded scores in the current standard testing of 218 and how others dispute that.

I made my statement because someone had the audacity to suggest that Trek fans were too "stupid" to like B5. It was insulting to read that trek is so simple and doesn't require being a rocket scientist to watch it, but B5 does. Duh, at 15 you are a rocket scientist? My mother had it framed and it hangs on my wall for her. I never went to normal schools and graduated with many college degrees between the years of 16 and 19. So I am in no way simple, nor simpleminded, and I like both shows.

And since I am still a spelling fool, why can't I take some pride in that accomplishment? Who the heck are you to tell me I can't? I enjoy spelling, still do and tutor kids in my neighborhood in spelling and reading skills.

Personally kid I think you got a lot of gall. But that's your choice.

And just so that you know my name Colleen (which is included in my signature block) is Gaelic for Miss or Girl and is hardly a man's name. Stanford indicates (and in this case I am) possibly related to Stanford University in California.

Care to apologize brat?

------------------
Colleen L. Stanford
Gideon's Mine, all Mine
(he just doesn't know it yet, LOL)

[This message has been edited by GideonsMine (edited May 18, 2001).]

 

[GideonsMine]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by drakh:

GideonsMine said:
You don't have to like Trek, I am not asking you to.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Either show me where in my post I stated that or stop putting words in my mouth. I simply stated what I percive as facts, and I'll dig up jms' comments on this later.

(I will post a longer reply, but I just had to adress this one first.)

You jacked on me because I said stated that it is my believe that JMS had it bit easier than Gene Roddenberry to pitch B5. It was horrid to pitch Star Trek back in the 60's. But you jumped on my back screeching that JMS had it hard to. Ok, I understand, I am just asking that you as a B5 fan who will go on believing that B5 is better than Trek, and is of course allowed to, can certainly be honest enough to point out and grant credit where it is due that Gene Roddenberry paved at least a little bit of that road. Gene was the industry standard for a long time, whether or not you like that or approve, I do not care.

as for what started this horrid argument was a post not by you who stated:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Babylon 5: Intelligence:
Well, I feel a need to respond to this posting. I have to say that "Babylon 5" is a very intelligent and complicating televison series that only appeals to a certain minority of viewers opposed to the "Star Trek" saga, which is more mainstream and simple...or, I should say, that is how "Star Trek" has become...The majority of tv viewers (the average working stiff) wants simple viewing where "THINKING" is not a desireable activity! Escapism so to speak...It doesn't take a "Nuclear (Rocket Scientist) to enjoy the Star Trek series...but, it may take one to really appreciate the 'Babylon 5' series! I am sure that when Gene Rodenberry (spelling?) created the 'Star Trek' series, he definitely (in my opinion), wasn't thinking on the lines of mainstream, simplistic so to speak, presentations! Firstly, anyone that enters the world of science fiction has to have an above average, to very high intelligence and creativity...individuals that have created these shows normally come from backgrounds that specialize in areas of science...etc...Think how far ahead Gene was when he created "Star Trek" (in terms of the time relative to the present)...The same goes for JMS and the brilliant 'Babylon 5'...everything seems very believable in the world of "Babylon 5"...there are experts in the field of science that have been advisors to create the realism and believablity for the show! To make a long story short..."Baylon 5" is a very intelligent, complicated series...and JMS kept it that way...Unfortunately, the majority of the viewers are simple people...it is obvious when you see the blockbusters at theaters...mindless celluoid! I am sure you understand what I am trying to say in my primitive explanation...I am by no means a rocket scientist...but I appreciate "Babylon 5" just for the facts mentioned above...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Would you not take this as an inflammatory statement?



------------------
Colleen L. Stanford
Gideon's Mine, all Mine
(he just doesn't know it yet, LOL)

 

[drakh]

Jms about Trek paving the way for other SF series: <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR> "Without TNG to pave the way, we probably never would have had B5 at all."

Actually...not true. In fact, TNG has *hindered*, not helped, the rise of new SF series.

Here's the biggest reason (and to be fair, this can't really be held as TNG's fault, it's just the Way of the World). The TV industry has had the belief, since the beginning, that the SF audience can only sustain one SF series, and that that is Star Trek. (Or two ST series.) The single biggest battle we fought from day one in trying to sell B5 was studio execs who said, "Look, there's already a science fiction show out there, the market can't handle more than one."

There's also the assumption on the part of many execs that there IS no market for SF series at all...there's a market for Star Trek, period. And look at the reality of it...in 7 years since TNG went on the air, how many successful first-run science fiction series have come out? They have all fallen by the wayside, the few that went out...and they ARE few, extremely few. If ST "paved the way," why did it take 7 years to do so?

And Paramount (a separate discussion from ST) has not exactly been helpful in terms of other SF series which it felt provided possible competition. They've done a *lot* to try and hinder things. Paramount's view of SF is, "Well, *WE* own space."

It took me literally seven years to get a B5 series on the air. I know many, MANY writer/producers who've tried to get other SF series on the air in syndication, and after years of failure against the ST juggernaut, finally gave up. So you'll excuse me just a tad if I take the idea of ST "paving the way" for anything *cum granus salus*.

jms<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And as for my tastes, I find what I've seen of modern Trek to be mostly either godawful crap or unbearbly boring. Old Trek, I've only seen the movies (minus number 5), and thought they were pretty nice, and would definetivley watch the show if it aired where I live.

(And you might want to do some reading up on Roddenberry. From what I've heard on various forums, he was not a very nice person and prone to grab credit for others work. There were a whole bunch of people responsible for TOS being what it was, like Samuel A. Peeples who wrote the script that sold the show and gave Trek it's well known catchphrase, and ignoring them is just as disrespectfull as you were accusing me of being.)

 

[GideonsMine]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by drakh:
Jms about Trek paving the way for other SF series:

"Without TNG to pave the way, we probably never would have had B5 at all."

Actually...not true. In fact, TNG has *hindered*, not helped, the rise of new SF series.

Here's the biggest reason (and to be fair, this can't really be held as TNG's fault, it's just the Way of the World). The TV industry has had the belief, since the beginning, that the SF audience can only sustain one SF series, and that that is Star Trek. (Or two ST series.) The single biggest battle we fought from day one in trying to sell B5 was studio execs who said, "Look, there's already a science fiction show out there, the market can't handle more than one."

There's also the assumption on the part of many execs that there IS no market for SF series at all...there's a market for Star Trek, period. And look at the reality of it...in 7 years since TNG went on the air, how many successful first-run science fiction series have come out? They have all fallen by the wayside, the few that went out...and they ARE few, extremely few. If ST "paved the way," why did it take 7 years to do so?

And Paramount (a separate discussion from ST) has not exactly been helpful in terms of other SF series which it felt provided possible competition. They've done a *lot* to try and hinder things. Paramount's view of SF is, "Well, *WE* own space."

It took me literally seven years to get a B5 series on the air. I know many, MANY writer/producers who've tried to get other SF series on the air in syndication, and after years of failure against the ST juggernaut, finally gave up. So you'll excuse me just a tad if I take the idea of ST "paving the way" for anything *cum granus salus*.

jms<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And as for my tastes, I find what I've seen of modern Trek to be mostly either godawful crap or unbearbly boring. Old Trek, I've only seen the movies (minus number 5), and thought they were pretty nice, and would definetivley watch the show if it aired where I live.

(And you might want to do some reading up on Roddenberry. From what I've heard on various forums, he was not a very nice person and prone to grab credit for others work. There were a whole bunch of people responsible for TOS being what it was, like Samuel A. Peeples who wrote the script that sold the show and gave Trek it's well known catchphrase, and ignoring them is just as disrespectfull as you were accusing me of being.)

I do not have to read up anything on Roddenberry, I knew him personally. He had an alcohol problem and was not always a nice person. But that doesn't kill the accomplishment of the original trek. I have never, repeat never, said anything good about TNG. It was an offspring, and not an original.

JMS and I are in agreement on your post. I am only referring to the original star trek series and its movies. To be honest, with the exception of about 8 episodes, I was never really a TNG fan. Nor did I, myself, me refer to it as any industry standard or leader. DS9 had some potential, but seemed to mirror a lot of B5 in my opinion and Gene Roddenberry was already dead and buried by then.

No, I am referring only to Gene Roddenberry and his fight to get the original series on the air.

And in your quote referring to execs and only room for one sci fi show. Are you kidding me? there are room for many many more of good sci fi shows hopefully from JMS as I like his style.

------------------
Colleen L. Stanford
Gideon's Mine, all Mine
(he just doesn't know it yet, LOL)

[This message has been edited by GideonsMine (edited May 18, 2001).]

 

[solaris5]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GideonsMine:
Personally kid I think you got a lot of gall. But that's your choice.

And just so that you know my name Colleen (which is included in my signature block) is Gaelic for Miss or Girl and is hardly a man's name. Stanford indicates (and in this case I am) possibly related to Stanford University in California.

Care to apologize brat?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I apologize for calling you a he, but that's about it. In all of my times on messageboard I have never, I repeat never taken back something I said, I pride myself in my "gall" and I stand by everything I say.

I should not have reacted so harshly, but I really dislike it when someone just goes around flaunting their IQ, with a number that I don't beleive is viable. I myself had scored 197, I was tested a month after winning a math contest on a national level in Macedonia, and I take great pride in my IQ, this is why I am very greatly irritated when someone makes a statement such as yours.

------------------
If you go to New Jersey, you will die!

 

[hypatia]

.

[This message has been edited by hypatia (edited May 20, 2001).]

 

[GideonsMine]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by solaris5:
I apologize for calling you a he, but that's about it. In all of my times on messageboard I have never, I repeat never taken back something I said, I pride myself in my "gall" and I stand by everything I say.

I should not have reacted so harshly, but I really dislike it when someone just goes around flaunting their IQ, with a number that I don't beleive is viable. I myself had scored 197, I was tested a month after winning a math contest on a national level in Macedonia, and I take great pride in my IQ, this is why I am very greatly irritated when someone makes a statement such as yours.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are incorrect as I pointed out earlier in another post, but I will not rehash it, I was po'd and I believe I had the right to be. I have been ragged on and insulted for liking original trek (on other b5 boards as well), and yes i have heard die hard trek fans knock b5. i react the same way to them. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but i am not claiming anything but the fact that i am reasonably intelligent and like both shows for different reasons i suppose, but i like them both. if the mention of a number insulted you, that is your perogative, but you missed the point because you spent your time being insulted and quoting new research (not yet facts because the researchers are still working on it) on a thirty year old test which did not at any time fall under your research. Sorry but them's the facts jack. Four years later it was down to a much lower number. Maybe a mistake was made, but the test itself wasn't the point of the post, nor was the number. in fact in a wonderful double standard you posted your iq (should I be insulted?????) and it is higher than my current rating. You also had no right to fault me for enjoying spelling. But you took that right and tore me down because of it. It's my job to spell correctly.

And maybe I shouldn't have reacted so "harshly" as you put it, but I have seen worse on this board from many other posts that usually end up in name calling matches and mods close them down because of it. Why make blanket statements to insult anyone in particular or everyone in general. Some can be good natured fun, but saying that original trek fans are not intelligent enough to appreciate babylon 5 is a bit much.

I like both, so be it.

And I will not apologize to you for your fragile feelings of insult where none was intended. On the other hand, you did intend to insult and downgrade me.
------------------
Colleen L. Stanford
Gideon's Mine, all Mine
(he just doesn't know it yet, LOL)

[This message has been edited by GideonsMine (edited May 19, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by GideonsMine (edited May 19, 2001).]

 

[GideonsMine]

I must admit this thread was a surprise. I joined in on a simple question, and ended up getting pretty heavily insulted.

I still see no reason why a sci fan can't like more than one show. Many have been good and enjoyable over the years and I have been very happy to support them. But it seems obvious to me that Babylon 5 fans don't like Star Trek or its fans and we are not welcome in "your" universe.

I will just stay with the Crusade board and leave you B5 only fans alone. I know where I am not wanted. Don't need a ton of bricks to fall on my head. Nope, my momma didn't raise too much of a dummy.

I have also noticed that Babylon 5 Intelligence has never posted again, registered on May 16 and has one post. The insulting one. So that person has either changed names or thought better about being here. It was probably a very honest post from his or her point of view, it was just oddly insulting.

I will still read you all cuz many of you cheer me up with some of the hilarity, but I will do my best to not post at all.

Thanks to many for the hospitality, it was appreciated.

------------------
Colleen L. Stanford
Gideon's Mine, all Mine
(he just doesn't know it yet, LOL)

[This message has been edited by GideonsMine (edited May 19, 2001).]