No. Le Nubian, thanks for the vote for swagger(Rule 1, in fighting like Ari Gold, go right for the groin...or at least he does. Boom! Fuck your arguments...how's your penis?) I think, so far, it's worked for me because it's so not who I am that it's like sucker-punching people through the "tubes". Also, if I think like him, I'm not all "Gee, maybe I shouldn't have said *that*" But, seriously, five years is nothing.

There should be a movie about the alternate reality where all the Red Shirts go when they die....

The article's just badly researched. The Guardian can do better.

But they often don't. The Guardian's political bias is similar to my own. But they are fucking sloppy about getting facts right. Any time I see them writing about a political or environmental subject I know about I catch sloppy errors.

The Guardian's political bias is similar to my own. But they are fucking sloppy about getting facts right.

They're not known as the Grauniad for no reason. They can't get much right. It's a shame, a) because they're the only paper that speaks for me (in a country with a lot of right-wing rags) and I'd like to be able to trust what they write rather than having to look up every 'fact' they quote, and b) because their better-researched articles prove they *can* do better.

I think the whole Khan-for-movie-two-villain rumor is springing from a line that the commentary has at the end, when one of the guys said something about having Khan in the sequel. I interpreted it as a joke, not a real thing, so I think this author is talking out of his ass.

Any time I see them writing about a political or environmental subject I know about I catch sloppy errors.

To be fair, that's true of most newspaper articles I know something about regardless of the source.

They're not known as the Grauniad for no reason.

AFAIK they're known as the Grauniad because of the insane number of typos they used to have, not because of any particular creativity with the facts.

Some of the opinion and blog stuff - like this piece - is pretty weak but I find it is balanced out by stuff of very high quality, which is about all you can ask for.

AFAIK they're known as the Grauniad because of the insane number of typos they used to have, not because of any particular creativity with the facts.

I thought it was for their high number of errors, both typos and others. They make a LOT of mistakes. I've read a lot of poorly-researched articles there recently. I'm buying it a lot less than I used to.

The new Star Trek universe is different enough that Khan might not emerge as a bad guy. After all, Spock is the ladies man this time around. Think about how the destruction of Vulcan is going to change history significantly.

What if they recast Khan as an ally? That actually might be awesome if done right.

I haven't read the whole thing yet, but here's the opening of Ebert's review of the new Twilight:

The characters in this movie should be arrested for loitering with intent to moan. Never have teenagers been in greater need of a jump-start. Granted some of them are more than 100 years old, but still: their charisma is by Madame Tussaud.

I love you, Roger Ebert.