Ok, let's see here. I've been with my BF for 14+ years. In that time we've had about 5 dates (not counting our anniversary vacation in NY). What made them dates? They were an enjoyable and at times intimate series of events in a day that we normally don't get to do.

For example:
One date consisted of going to a nice lunch where we took our time eating and talking and joking around and just being silly. After that we went to the movies and after that we had a lovely dinner in a fun restaurant.

Another date was far less elaborate. We went out for sandwiches one afternoon, took a ride to the historical part of center city Philadelphia, sat at a bench in a park and talked for over 6 hours, eventually coming home around 2 AM.

Now, the reason I don't count the NY trip is because that was a 2 day dateathon, but that's kind of the point of a romantic vacation. On day one we went and saw a Broadway show, walked all over times square, had a nice dinner and went to the Empire State Building. On day two we walked all over central park, went to museums and the zoo and had a romantic dinner at a french restaurant.

Quote by SaintPlazma

We'll you just saved me the 10 bux,sounds like the new trek is like fast food yeah its food but its not nutrition.

Yes, but is it Chik-fil-e fast food whereby your soul will burn for all eternity for partaking of it or is it more Burger King fast food that just takes several months off the end of your life?

We'll you just saved me the 10 bux,sounds like the new trek is like fast food yeah its food but its not nutrition.

I'm hoping this has already been done, but I just want to add that it's a great idea. I'm not sure how Hillbane would feel about this, but I know we would all feel better to be able to pay our respects in a way he would enjoy and appreciate.

I would have to disagree with the majority, I loved the film.

I'm aware of the failings of story in that we have seen it before, but that is to be expected as we knew we have seen it before, just in a different timeline.

J.J. Abrams was trying to get a new generation of fans to love Star Trek, so he used the favourite bad guys and plot tricks that we all loved first time we saw them, but he wanted to keep the faithful fans entertained, so he gave us some great in-jokes and classic references to drool over.

I prefer this film to the last, simply for the nostalgia aspect and the fact that the new alternate characters are established and we don't need to waste time getting to know them. This one was all action, just a pity we couldn't see half the action due to the lens flare effects.

Disappointment is the correct word to use.

I could write a long review but honestly you could read one of the other thousands of reviews to find all the points I'd make but I will sum up my feelings about Into Darkness in one sentence:

Star Trek (2009) is the much better film.

Disclaimer: I say that still having enjoyed Into Darkness and looking forward to seeing it again.

Disagree alot, i really enjoyed the film. Also i really liked the nods to older films that we have seen.

Unfortunately I have to agree here. I was really disappointed in this one and it sorta felt like the writers couldn't come up with something original, so they decided to slap together a bunch of scenes from previous stories and added a little filler in between.


As always, the special effects were up to par but the storyline was really lacking. This is the first Star Trek movie where I kept wondering when it would end. :(

I think Rod Roddenberry had it right when he said that he felt that the Star Trek franchise belonged on television and not the movies.

I gave up on dating for what seemed like the millionth time, and I met my partner as an online casual hookup lol. Now we live together and are engaged.

So I have a problem with the new movie, and that is that NOTHING original happened in the film.

The scene where That was pulled from the script of Voyager s02e14, Alliances.

The scene in the bar with Kirk and Pike was totally a rehash of the bar scene with them from the last movie. Same as the space jump scene.

Oh, and the hidden identity of the villian, like that really surprised anybody that

The USS Vengance looks way too much like the Ent E for my comfort.

And the whole death scene towards the end, sure props for doing it a different way, but we already had that scene in another trek film.

I could go on and on for pages and pages, but you get the idea.

I feel like the new movie was the worst star trek cinematic letdown ever. I'm sad.

Quote by NicholasJohn16

Don't let the single life get to you! I know it can suck, but keep looking! Or, give up, they always say you meet the one when you give up.

I have to say this is 100% true. I met my hubby of 8 years online. Both of us had signed in to the site to close our accounts and I said F-It one last try and I pinged him with my number. 5 minutes later he called me. 1 day later I invited him to come over and we could go to dinner nearby. He came over only he brought with him Chinese food. We stayed in, watched a movie and that was the beginning of our 6 month dating process that ended with me moving in with him. That was July of 2005.

Quote by NicholasJohn16

I've been reading these and really love them. There hilarious! Though, I don't like how they play Wesley as an idiot.

I interpreted it as him being a little kid, which is an extreme caricature of his roll on the show (similar to how Riker is portrayed as an over-the-top horndog).

So far my favorite is Troi, who is ridiculous both as herself and as Quark.

Glad you all like them! If you follow the author on Twitter, he tweets when he updates.

I am happy to say that i am caught up.

I don't use the word "date" very often. If it's an instance that I am taking someone out and going to pay for their evening then it's a "date" I am treating them to the entertainment and food or whatever. If this results in intimacy so be it but not required for a "date" to happen it can just be me treating them to a day/evening out.

I use the phrase "get together" more often and have and will correct someone if they ask if I am asking them out on a date. I feel that with a "get together" it's more of a joint friendly outing. We're getting together for a day/evening of mutual enjoyment but self pay. The term also makes it easier to keep away from the romantic feeling involved in a "date"

I've been reading these and really love them. There hilarious! Though, I don't like how they play Wesley as an idiot.

I always defined a date as an outing that you take with a romantic interest, but that can rather nebulous. There are a lot of gays that won't use the word "date" even though by any standard, it very well qualifies as one. I think it has either to do with a lot of guys not wanting to commit or not wanting the obligation to turn a guy down after.



Instead of taking a camera with on your date, have you ever asking if there was something you did wrong that bothered them? If they're completely ignoring you, that's probably not possible. If they are still talking to them, open up, tell them you've been on a few dates that haven't gone well, you're looking for some earnest feedback and you won't blame them. Hopefully, they'll bite. I've done it a few times and it's helped.



I don't think the obligation for the ask-er to pay is outdated or about assimilation. I think its a vast improvement over "the guy always pays" in straight culture. Not everyone now a days has the funds to spring for whatever the other person picks to do. Just cause I want to go to the my favorite restaurant doesn't mean my date should be required to pay $35 for a small serving of sushi.

Online dating isn't always the greatest. A lot of guys on the net aren't really looking for any kind of commitment, but rather just a online chat partner and will bail at the first sign of it going anywhere farther. If this is a problem you're having continually, try changing the dating sites you're using. Compatible Partners is pretty good, I think.

Don't let the single life get to you! I know it can suck, but keep looking! Or, give up, they always say you meet the one when you give up.

Yeah, it's pretty ridiculous. Given that the starships in STO don't even approach that amount, and are FAR FAR more functional than the mounts in Neverwinter, I really have to wonder what that pricing is about.

My only current theory is that they're starting high on these things and see how many people bite. If they are getting bought, they'll likely come down in price.

I'm not opposed to cash shops at all(I've dropped at least $50-60 in GW2 since it launched), especially for cosmetic stuff.

I'm just not a fan of selling things like respecs, those enchant guarantees, etc... Plus, some of their stuff is just priced ridiculously. $40 for a mount? I get that it's special or whatever. But...Yikes.

Quote by SiranNataan

If/when they release the bard class, I wonder if it will be more offensively minded, like in LOTRO. If so, I'll probably reroll the elf, since I based him off my old tabletop character and he was a bard originally.

When they make a bard class, we should all just make a cabal of pop diva rip-offs that run around Neverwinter. I'm calling Gaga.

With regard to the cash shop, yeah, most of it's fluff. That said, I'm annoyed that things like 'changing the color of your clothes' and 'remaking your character's body and face' require items per use that cost zen. That seems rather ridiculous.

The last big "subscription model" game left is WoW, and they command large enough numbers to not really need microtransactions to have a long run, thus the cash shop is here to stay in all newer MMOs. As Milmar observes most of the stuff on this cash shop is cosmetic and kind of fluffy and not necessary to the overall game experience. I have spent Zen in STO twice (for the Vesta and some utility unlocks).

ymmv...