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

"Me - The Real one!" wrote:

> "Daniel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > "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
>
> Absolutely right. See! You did get it! The problem with a scale out of 10 is
> that Nemesis gets 0.2/10 so in order to keep everything in whole numbers the
> scale had to be replaced. I didn't say the movies got better just because
> Nemesis came along. I just said they moved further up the scale and moving
> from 2 to 20 or 9 to 90 IS moving up the scale.
> >
> > --
> > Daniel
> >
> > To get return e-mail address
> > remove nospam. from address line

If I could quote you, "Me - The Real One", you typed "Five though moved only
from 2/10 to 20/100 which isn't much at all" (yes, it's still quoted above). So,
just for the very slow, i.e. you, I say again 2/10 = 20/100 and 9/10 = 90/100.

I would have agreed with you IF you had said something like "moving from 2/100
to 20/100", but you never made anything like that statement.

--
Daniel

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