Re: I'd love to see the full version of Nemesis

"Me - The Real one!" wrote:

> "zaphy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 09:45:17 GMT, "Me - The Real one!" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"zaphy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 13:45:22 GMT, "Me - The Real one!" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >Actually it was true until Nemesis but Nemesis was so bad in
> comparison
> > >to
> > >> >the others that it shifted the others up the scale somewhat. All
> except
> > >for
> > >> >5 that is.
> > >>
> > >> I thought you said 5 was better than Nemesis?  Make up your mind.
> > >>
> > >I did say taht and my mind hasn't changed. Your question doesn't make
> sense.
> >
> > You said Nemesis was so bad compared to the odd-numbered movies, it
> > shifted them up the scale a notch.  Except for 5.
> >
> > So you're saying Nemesis is worse than all the odd-numbered movies -
> > but that it isn't bad compared to 5, ie. it's better.
> >
> That's not what I said at all.  You know that because you quoted what I said
> but even though it is only 14 lines up, let's review. I said "Actually it
> was true until Nemesis but Nemesis was so bad in comparison to the others
> that it shifted the others up the scale somewhat. All except for 5 that is."
>
> I didn't limit my comments to the odd numbered movies but that's not
> important. I said nothing about a notch. I said "it shifted the others up
> the scale somewhat", which implies more than a notch. I certainly didn't say
> that Nemesis was better than 5. Far from it.
>
> For your benefit, since you have clearly misinterpreted what I wrote, I will
> explain: Nemesis was so bad that it meant the scale had to be redefined and
> expanded, just like Rodeberry did to the Warp scale. Most of the movies
> moved up the scale somewhat; all in fact except for 5 which moved, but only
> a small amount. For example, if the previous best movie was rated a 9/10, it
> was now 90/100, a somewhat significant movement. The second worst moved from
> 5/10 to 50/100, still a quite reasonable amount. Five though moved only from
> 2/10 to 20/100 which isn't much at all. It was replaced at 2 by Nemesis.
>
> I hope that's clear enough for you.
> >
> > --
> > zaphy

Not for me! As far as I know 2/10 is exactly the same as 20/100, or to put it
another (but same) way 2.0/10.0 = 20/100

--
Daniel

To get return e-mail address
remove nospam. from address line