Re: NBC's "brilliant" plan backfires

In article <17y7qd5n20k6s$.6lv9eodksuz5$.dlg@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
 B-12 <B-12@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 17:09:27 -0500, Alric Knebel wrote:
> > 
> > Anim8rFSK wrote:
> > 
> >> In article <1YOQj.130$uS1.116@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> >>  "Patient Zero 2.0.....LOrd Gow/Ann Coulter 3:14 says..The only good 
> >>  Democrat is a dead Democrat! .Still #1 in the hearts of RSPW" 
> >>  <noonan24_7@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> 
> >> 
> >>>http://www.slate.com/id/2189559/
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Idiots.  Just a list of possible plotlines would have told them if
they 
> >> were on the same page.
> >> -- 
> >> Star Trek 09:
> >>
> >> No Shat, No Show.
> >> http://www.disneysub.com/board/noshat.jpg
>
> > 
> > What's with this stupid signature?  Can someone explain what that
means? 
> >    Is this one of those TOS dickheads who thinks that anything after 
> > that was a travesty?  Please, tell me these guys are a dying breed. 
The 
> > rest of the world has moved on, and most of the Star Trek incarnations

> > have been pretty good, and a couple of them were even BETTER than TOS.
> > 
> > (I'm sort of embarrassed that I even know what "TOS" means.)
> 
> I followed the link, and there's nothing there.  What's it got to do
with
> TOS Star Trek (I know what it means, too, but I'm not embarrassed)?  If
you
> go to the site the link was located on, it was a site about the Nautilus
> from the Disney movie 20K UNDER THE SEA.  The link was on one of the
> boards.  
> 
> What was there?

It was a shot of the Shat that somebody put together in reply to my sig 
"No Shat No Show"

Unfortunately it was in a temp area and rolled off and I don't have the 
jpg.  Just a posterized image of the Shat as the Kirk with "No Shat No 
Show" written across it.

-- 
Star Trek 09:

No Shat, No Show.