Planetary Defenses in Star Trek

For polite and reasoned discussion of Star Wars and/or Star Trek.
Post Reply
User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: Planetary Defenses in Star Trek

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Wed Apr 19, 2017 5:15 pm

2046 wrote:
Mr. Oragahn wrote:And yes, you also repeatedly took as many witnesses/proxies/allies as possible: you tried to get Mike in your pocket, then reached for support by invoking Iscander, then "readers", later on "a valuable guest", even sonofccn, plus your blog's audience


I am so glad I was on the toilet while reading this. It made "laughing till you pee" (or worse) sooo much less messy.

Since mere mention of other people is a desperate cry for help in your delusional and seemingly paranoid mind,...
Done the way you did, sure it is. You can deny all you want though.
let me just tell you that Captains Kirk, Garth, and Janeway are all on my side thanks to such diplomatic efforts, and I have quotes from First Officers Spock and Chakotay wherein they make assorted colorful references to your claims. Chakotay even referred to bovine excrement and Spock described it as a logical assessment. Also, Annorax is embarrassed to report that he is your father, because he found your BS so annoying he went back in time and grudged your mom, thus inadvertently fulfilling a self-actualizing temporal loop of crazy epic fail.

Hey, it's no less absurd than your claim.
It's time for you to learn to live in a world where people disagreeing with you are not automatically doing so as if animated by some wicked backstabbing motive and an appetite for shiting all over the place.


I don't make that assumption. I draw that conclusion when the evidence is clear. I have disagreed with most everyone on the same side here at one time or another, sometimes passionately, and I have sometimes been in the wrong either factually or behaviorally and apologized when appropriate. Recent examples include (but are not limited to) using the EU scaling for Disney-canon interdictors, a factual error, and me getting totally triggered by something from SonOfCCN inasmuch as the argument style, for which I apologized. (Please note that these references are not cries for help, though if you wish to persist in your buffoonery you may declare them so.)
Here we go with the usual I've done blah blah blah in the past, collected a bazillion debating medals, so more blah. Doesn't matter, what does is what you did here.
Oh... anyway.
However, none of those cases involved the other party engaging in your grand combination of disrespectful insults, character attacks, unwavering unreasonableness, base dishonesty, conspiracist-level lunacy, et cetera. I don't react well to that combo, which is what inspired ST-v-SW.Net to begin with.
Long list but I didn't start the shit you know. I just have to go back to the beginning of this thread to prove it. Which brings me to the same crucial point: next time someone disagrees with you, don't automatically assume some malicious intent being at play. It will help you stop seeing demons everywhere. I know the shit you went through before with Wong and else, my goal is not to reproduce that kind of crap here.
You wanna talk about people needing to learn things after over a decade? Well, there you go. Learn that. Such behavior doesn't make me slink away, as you may have found success with against others elsewhere. As seen by my increased participation in the thread, it makes me that much more determined to not only be on the right side, whichever that may end up being (for unlike you, the facts are my guide), but to make damn sure you hear about exactly why you aren't. And, being no angel and with my oatience worn thin over the years, I will happily give as good as I get in the rudeness department, and escalate if warranted.

Not that your mind would ever change, of course, as your BS about bluffing proves. That's why I'm done with you. You and your kind are worthless to me but for idiot-proofing my work and seeing just how far slimy debaters will sink.
Wow, paint me impressed.
But please, continue your mudslinging and nonsense for my amusement. I will be sure to sit upon the toilet for the health benefits of such lovely laugh-inspired cleansing.

Edit: That said, I would urge you to take your response to PMs so as not to continue sullying the board with this nonsense.
Yeah well, why don't you do it first then, genius?

BTW, nothing to add to the Year of Hell topic so we can eventually close it too?

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 1924
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Planetary Defenses in Star Trek

Post by 2046 » Wed Apr 19, 2017 6:55 pm

Mr. Oragahn wrote: Long list but I didn't start the shit you know. I just have to go back to the beginning of this thread to prove it.


Wow.

From your first post in this thread you've been an asshat to everyone. You ripped into Lucky, suggesting he was dramatically fallacious and provided a poor demonstration . . .

"Ha, this reminds me so much of the fallacious method used to prove that Alderaan had a shield, although it's a bit less dramatic because of the vagueness of words regarding the evidence used {…}"

"Lucky's demonstration was quite poor methinks."

. . . and you were a complete tool to SonOfCCN, who is generally so polite it is almost disgusting.

Huh, wait, is this why you're pretending that I was crying for help? Because you know you were an ass to everyone and you thought you could preempt any unity via your pretense? Or are you just insane? I have to assume the latter, as a rule, 'cause like the man said . . . never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.

Meanwhile, my first post was informative, and my second post (in response to your post which followed it and contradicted & ignored it) was a less patient correction as you continued to veer off the rails. We can argue all you like about who left who butthurt with which posts, but put simply you have been ill-behaved for virtually the whole thread in reason and tone, and, while I am now past caring, I was initially being much kinder than you deserved, as you've since confirmed.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: Planetary Defenses in Star Trek

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Wed Apr 19, 2017 11:33 pm

And when I thought you'd be using PMs... :)
2046 wrote:
Mr. Oragahn wrote: Long list but I didn't start the shit you know. I just have to go back to the beginning of this thread to prove it.


Wow.

From your first post in this thread you've been an asshat to everyone. You ripped into Lucky, suggesting he was dramatically fallacious and provided a poor demonstration . . .

"Ha, this reminds me so much of the fallacious method used to prove that Alderaan had a shield, although it's a bit less dramatic because of the vagueness of words regarding the evidence used {…}"

"Lucky's demonstration was quite poor methinks."
And yet every single word I said was true. I didn't insult him either. He used an obviously fallacious method. Let's be clear here: a fallacy purports no moral value, it just means it's a mistaken, flawed conception of things, i.e. wrong, faulty. Swap that with erroneous or else if you want. The problem with Alderaan's shield, which was such a similar topic but for SW, was that despite all evidence pointing away from a planetary shield being present, a clearly faulty reasoning followed and the conclusion was literally upside down, completely at odds with the data. I simply saw a similar pattern here, especially since the topic was planetary shields. Lucky finds two or three disputable cases and promptly assumes planetary shields are as common as tomato soup. Nope.
It was just a fact, Lucky was citing some references that had little to no weight regarding planetary shields being almost ubiquitous, yet he concluded "What we see is that full coverage planetary shields are really rather common". Which they are certainly not, to say the least.
Indeed, in light of this, his demonstration was undisputedly quite poor. Actually anyone properly paying attention could have easily seen that.
In the end, you're just focusing on me instead of what I said. Again, you'll have to grow a skin, get used to meeting people who don't always agree with you and deal with it.
And stop using other people as your shield too.
. . . and you were a complete tool to SonOfCCN, who is generally so polite it is almost disgusting.
Oh was I?
You mean like here, in my very first reply to him for example? And the others following?
Care to point out where I was being a big, meany and nasty bloke exactly, instead of just, well, you know... debating?

Image

Or is it that disagreeing with people is being nasty in your twisted world?
In fact as far as I'm concerned, everything remained civil with sonofccn until he, apparently unhappy with both my arguments regarding the Cylons' way of doing things, their planning and use of massive nuclear alpha strikes, and on the other hand my meticulous analysis of the Elba II case, sorta snapped and decided to question my sincerity, saying that "[my efforts] in this thread, and the previous Cylon one, seem more interested in discarding anything incongruent with [my] presupposed conclusion, namely that the Federation can't shield their planets, than actual analysis" and concluded that he couldn't see anything but madness in my logic.
To the first point: I'm still ready for a debate on the Cylons if he wants to. The problem is that he simply didn't reply, didn't provide any kind of counter, only to attack me personally much later in the thread. -Respectfully, of course.
As for the so called madness of my logic, it seems the thread dedicated to Elba II's force field is going to settle that nicely.
Point of interest, maybe: sonofccn also considered Garth to be an egomaniac (see page1).
Huh, wait, is this why you're pretending that I was crying for help? Because you know you were an ass to everyone and you thought you could preempt any unity via your pretense? Or are you just insane? I have to assume the latter, as a rule, 'cause like the man said . . . never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.
Funny. There wasn't any "unity" for pretty much the entirety of that thread aside from your and only your efforts using other people as proxies to morally strengthen your position, as seen again above.
Meanwhile, my first post was informative, and my second post (in response to your post which followed it and contradicted & ignored it) was a less patient correction as you continued to veer off the rails. We can argue all you like about who left who butthurt with which posts, but put simply you have been ill-behaved for virtually the whole thread in reason and tone, and, while I am now past caring, I was initially being much kinder than you deserved, as you've since confirmed.
I don't exactly care if your very first post in this thread was just informative or argumentative, that's not the point. What is is your accusation regarding my hidden objective at being silly/dishonest for the sake of flaming. Well guess what, you troll, it seems you did get your flames after all.
Now, perhaps you also want to be coherent with yourself and continue that nice discussion in private? Just asking. ;)

And, then again, I suppose you have nothing to add to YoH, right?

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 1924
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Planetary Defenses in Star Trek

Post by 2046 » Thu Apr 20, 2017 1:05 am

Mr. Oragahn wrote:And when I thought you'd be using PMs... :)


I invited *you* to do so. Good grief, you can't even comprehend that?!?
2046 wrote:
Mr. Oragahn wrote: Long list but I didn't start the shit you know. I just have to go back to the beginning of this thread to prove it.


Wow.

From your first post in this thread you've been an asshat to everyone. You ripped into Lucky, suggesting he was dramatically fallacious and provided a poor demonstration . . .

"Ha, this reminds me so much of the fallacious method used to prove that Alderaan had a shield, although it's a bit less dramatic because of the vagueness of words regarding the evidence used {…}"

"Lucky's demonstration was quite poor methinks."
And yet every single word I said was true.
Ohhh, well then. So I am a bad, bad man because you feel I was "using a passive-aggressive tone", but when it is pointed out that you have been the obnoxious aggressor throughout the thread you claim righteous truthiness justifies you.

Gee, thanks Oragahn. I think everything is clear now.
And stop using other people as your shield too.
LOL! Daddy Annorax is gonna spank you.
And, then again, I suppose you have nothing to add to YoH, right?
I have nothing I need to add. You've been willfully wrong about it since page two. There is no need for you to keep up the pretense that your resistance-typing trollery has any topical intent.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: Planetary Defenses in Star Trek

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Wed May 17, 2017 5:00 pm

2046 wrote:
Mr. Oragahn wrote:And when I thought you'd be using PMs... :)


I invited *you* to do so. Good grief, you can't even comprehend that?!?
Reread yourself then. More than a cordial "invitation", I comprehend that you actually urged me to use PMs to eventually settle the score or whatever out of this thread.
But failing to show the example of your repeatedly claimed moral superiority, you obviously prefered this verbal adventure to remain public; otherwise you'd have applied your own medicine to yourself and "saved" the thread by moving both of us to the private realm where we could continue this eternal battle.
So I thereby invite you to be more than words by being the first to do what you think others should do too.
2046 wrote:
Wow.

From your first post in this thread you've been an asshat to everyone. You ripped into Lucky, suggesting he was dramatically fallacious and provided a poor demonstration . . .

"Ha, this reminds me so much of the fallacious method used to prove that Alderaan had a shield, although it's a bit less dramatic because of the vagueness of words regarding the evidence used {…}"

"Lucky's demonstration was quite poor methinks."
And yet every single word I said was true.
Ohhh, well then. So I am a bad, bad man because you feel I was "using a passive-aggressive tone", but when it is pointed out that you have been the obnoxious aggressor throughout the thread you claim righteous truthiness justifies you.

Gee, thanks Oragahn. I think everything is clear now.
Because saying that a demonstration is quite poor is an aggression now? That the logic employed there was about just as bad as the one used in favour of the Alderaan shield? Grow a spine at once.
That is different from what you did in implying that I had a hidden agenda and was looking for flaming (instead of, say, technical accuracy regarding a specific topic).

Besides, I observe that is one of your new methods of moral rectitude: defense on behalf of others who have asked nothing from you.
I have no issue with Lucky, leave him alone.

And, then again, I suppose you have nothing to add to YoH, right?
I have nothing I need to add. You've been willfully wrong about it since page two. There is no need for you to keep up the pretense that your resistance-typing trollery has any topical intent.
Whatever floats your boat, mate. I notice that in the Elba II thread you have (unsurprisingly) been willing to put yourself in the shoes of specific characters in order to see things from their perspective, that because it suited your argument, but you have repeatedly avoided doing so as far as Annorax is concerned, because we both know where this would actually lead you.
This, associated to the fact that there are huge strategic advantages in only protecting cities and other artificial assets against the TWS instead of a whole planet, especially when we perfectly know that the Krenim TWS specifically targets species and what they have built, but doesn't affect wilderness (water, trees, mountains, sand, etc.) — and could even reboot it, therefore completely replenishing the resources of a world.
Plus the fact that the demonstrated anti-temporal defenses used by one of the two alien species proved to be so poor that it would easily cast heavy doubts on the ability of their hypothetical ground shields to ever achieve anything of substance anyway, therefore telling us not to put too much credit into Chakotay's words, thrown in the heat of a very tense situation, and certainly not being foolish enough to see them as some kind of accurate technical treatise on the defensive abilities of some random aliens, nor to apply an absolutist and literalist interpretation to them either.

That being said, regardless of what you may add, unless you think we have forgotten to cover a specific point, I'll just leave it there.
I will just conclude that in terms of passive planetary defenses, planet coverage is far from being a proven ubiquitous thing in the UFP. Not even a standard. If anything, the few cases that can be counted on less than the fingers of one hand don't even concern the alpha quadrant, the later only relying on the way too complicated case of Elba II that either requires the UFP to be complete suicidal retards with no concern for the safety of their planetary populations, or requires fans to come up with extreme if not insane theories just to make sense out of it.
On the other hand, localized bubble shields (limited ground area), beam weapon banks, torpedo silos and orbital weapon systems are safely and sufficiently confirmed, although the later are so vast and considerable in the amount of resources involved that they're still rare cases (for example, such as the arrays of orbital defense systems deployed during the Dominion War around a very few crucial worlds).

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 1924
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Planetary Defenses in Star Trek

Post by 2046 » Sat May 20, 2017 6:37 am

Mr. Oragahn wrote:
2046 wrote:
Mr. Oragahn wrote:And when I thought you'd be using PMs... :)


I invited *you* to do so. Good grief, you can't even comprehend that?!?
Reread yourself then. More than a cordial "invitation", I comprehend that you actually urged me to use PMs to eventually settle the score or whatever out of this thread.
But failing to show the example of your repeatedly claimed moral superiority, you obviously prefered this verbal adventure to remain public
So you admit that it was an invite which you ignored, but claim I want it public because you ignored it. I've seen cattle fields less fertilized than that reasoning.
So I thereby invite you to be more than words by being the first to do what you think others should do too.


At which point, judging by your logic above, I would be engaged in trying to hide things or cowardice or some other damnable irrational attack. You want the public flogging for this, obviously. It's masochistic and kinky, but hey, to each their own. Would you like a collar as well?

Besides, I observe that is one of your new methods of moral rectitude: defense on behalf of others who have asked nothing from you.


Your fixation on my so-called moral rectitude that you claim I claim reminds me of how all the Trumpcucks went nuts when Cruz said "vote your conscience" . . . if it offends you to face that, you admit you're well past that point.

That said, I don't claim to be better or smarter than everyone in the thread… just you.
I notice that in the Elba II thread you have (unsurprisingly) been willing to put yourself in the shoes of specific characters in order to see things from their perspective, that because it suited your argument, but you have repeatedly avoided doing so as far as Annorax is concerned, because we both know where this would actually lead you.


What fresh nonsensical hell is this? We went over your evidence-free assertion that Annorax must've believed X, Y, and Z. You don't think debating what is or is not required from his perspective is perspective-oriented? Sheesh.

As for your argument summary, I don't see a bit of it that is new or newly-defended besides the straw man of ubiquitous planetary shields, and thus there's nothing that hasn't already been blasted to pieces from an average of three angles each. I see no need to pound the target for the umpteenth time . . . I'm usually content with General Order 24, but I'm halfway to Taining at this point.

At least you didn't explicitly claim Chakotay was bluffing in your summary of broken arguments, though . . . that little germ of progress suggests there may yet be the faintest scintilla of hope for you after all, but, brother, you've got a helluva lot of work to do.

sonofccn
Starship Captain
Posts: 1642
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:23 pm
Location: Sol system, Earth,USA

Re: Planetary Defenses in Star Trek

Post by sonofccn » Sat May 20, 2017 3:18 pm

2046 wrote:Your fixation on my so-called moral rectitude that you claim I claim reminds me of how all the Trumpcucks went nuts when Cruz said "vote your conscience"
Well politics never mixes well with anything but...after the bloody primary we had I don't think it was out of line to ask for Cruz to emphasis badly needed party unity rather than a wink and nod towards the NeverTrumpers. I was looking forward to an end to it all, to focus now on defeating our common enemy, and he poured gasoline on the flame.

-Respectfully, Sonofccn

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: Planetary Defenses in Star Trek

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Sat May 20, 2017 3:20 pm

2046 wrote:
I notice that in the Elba II thread you have (unsurprisingly) been willing to put yourself in the shoes of specific characters in order to see things from their perspective, that because it suited your argument, but you have repeatedly avoided doing so as far as Annorax is concerned, because we both know where this would actually lead you.


What fresh nonsensical hell is this? We went over your evidence-free assertion that Annorax must've believed X, Y, and Z. You don't think debating what is or is not required from his perspective is perspective-oriented? Sheesh.
Aside from the fact that Janeway never had anything of what Chakotay claimed? Did you see any kind of temporal weapon, beam or device being fired by Voyager or from any other four other ships that accompagnated her?
Because the only way for Chakotay to be telling the truth (ergo not lying, not bluffing) would be to have him suggest/imply to Annorax that he could be betrayed from within.
At this point I see our divergence defined over whether you think Chakotay was being honestly dumb, and recklessly hinting at the truth, or actually smartly exploiting a situation to confuse Annorax, by lying (bluffing) about Janeway's squadron's real abilities, which were simply null.

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 1924
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Planetary Defenses in Star Trek

Post by 2046 » Sat May 20, 2017 6:12 pm

sonofccn wrote:{… Cruz} poured gasoline on the flame.
In no way could "vote your conscience" be taken as gasoline against unity, especially versus the king of political disunity via fuel-air explosives.

But, we can continue that in another thread if desired. As far off the rails as this one's been taken, going into actual political discussion still seems improper.

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 1924
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Planetary Defenses in Star Trek

Post by 2046 » Sat May 20, 2017 6:20 pm

Mr. Oragahn wrote:
2046 wrote:
I notice that in the Elba II thread you have (unsurprisingly) been willing to put yourself in the shoes of specific characters in order to see things from their perspective, that because it suited your argument, but you have repeatedly avoided doing so as far as Annorax is concerned, because we both know where this would actually lead you.


What fresh nonsensical hell is this? We went over your evidence-free assertion that Annorax must've believed X, Y, and Z. You don't think debating what is or is not required from his perspective is perspective-oriented? Sheesh.
Aside from the fact that Janeway never had anything of what Chakotay claimed?
1. You dropped the perspective nonsense. Kudos.
2. You're retreading to cover for it. Janeway had exactly what Chakotay said she did . . . a way to do some damage. The efforts on your part to demand that Chakotay was lying by not spelling out the plan so Annorax could take steps against it (i.e. bluff vs. OpSec) and that Annorax must've been snorting hallucinogenic iocane powder so he would overthink about things no one ever said are just nutty. But, we've been over that a dozen times . . . continuing your resistance typing about it won't make your argument less stupid.

Mike DiCenso
Security Officer
Posts: 5776
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm

Re: Planetary Defenses in Star Trek

Post by Mike DiCenso » Sat May 20, 2017 8:31 pm

All right, knock off with the politics in this thread or make another thread in the appropriate forum.


Also, I'm getting sick and tired of this feuding between 2046 and Oragahn. You two need to ratchet it down a few notches or you both are going to get a one day ban. Right now consider this a warning. I know you two well enough to know that you both can argue intelligently and with appropriate evidence. No excuses.
-Mike

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: Planetary Defenses in Star Trek

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Wed May 31, 2017 2:43 pm

2046 wrote:
Mr. Oragahn wrote:
2046 wrote: What fresh nonsensical hell is this? We went over your evidence-free assertion that Annorax must've believed X, Y, and Z. You don't think debating what is or is not required from his perspective is perspective-oriented? Sheesh.
Aside from the fact that Janeway never had anything of what Chakotay claimed?
1. You dropped the perspective nonsense. Kudos.
2. You're retreading to cover for it. Janeway had exactly what Chakotay said she did . . . a way to do some damage. The efforts on your part to demand that Chakotay was lying by not spelling out the plan so Annorax could take steps against it (i.e. bluff vs. OpSec) and that Annorax must've been snorting hallucinogenic iocane powder so he would overthink about things no one ever said are just nutty. But, we've been over that a dozen times . . . continuing your resistance typing about it won't make your argument less stupid.
Your denial of a strong plausibility keeps rolling, I see, but does not help you.

Could have Chakotay been trying to manipulate Annorax by not being totally honest with him? I think yes.
As I said, his statement alone, in another more normal context would not imply any form of deception. Typically, we'd have two sides, camp A with the super weapon ship and camp B attacking with a small flotilla of ships in some kind of last resort operation, lead by a captain. Camp A would also have on its supership's bridge a defector from camp B, a colonel who switched sides and who knows stuff about camp B and the captain of camp B.
In this context, Chakotay's words would be totally correct, totally frank.
Flotilla from camp B would be attacking, he'd know his captain and both Chakotay and Annorax would understand the same thing.

Now, a new parameters changes the situation because a mutiny is brewing aboard the supership of camp A and the captain of camp B is attacking on the hope that said mutiny will reveal a major weakness in the supership, to be used to deal severe damage.

The best lies work because they also contain a truth, don't they?

Chakotay knows about the mutiny but is obviously not totally deranged to the point of even risking the fragile success of this attack by hinting at the betrayal.

Chakotay tells to Annorax that Janeway wouldn't attack unless she knew of a way to deal damage.
Chakotay, being a competent commander, knows what Annorax would obviously conclude there. Unfortunately for him, his conclusion would have nothing to do with the truth.

Like any sensible and seasoned commander, Annorax would immediately read Chakotay's sort of warning as "Janeway has found a way to deal damage on her own", i.e., she's packing a modified weapon or some sort of new/updated technology, or even that she's counting on some severe reinforcements to a scale that would actually matter.

Why would Annorax believe that?
  1. Because as I said, Annorax is competent and that's basically what any captain would believe in this situation, when an enemy's flotilla is attacking you and the man to your left is knowledgeable enough about said adversaries to the point of giving you some tactical and psychological intel about them.
  2. Because Janeway is on the opposite side and Annorax knows that months ago, she had known of a way to... survive the TWS' erasing beam. So he'd logically conclude that Janeway's pesky crew has once again developed a technological mean to make Voyager and perhaps the other ships some truly relevant war assets: some time ago, by being able to survive, and now, by being able to bite.
  3. Because Annorax is a trusting man and would not conceive of a mutiny being what Janeway would actually be relying on to damage the TWS. He trusts his crew and has placed a lot of trust into Chakotay too, to the point of giving him access to the temporal computer and having him at his side like if he were his best lieutnant.
At this point, it's absolutely clear that Chakotay may have hoped Annorax to extract the likeliest —yet the wrongest— information out of his words.
Chakotay would have known very well that Annorax could have not reached any other sensible conclusion. In other words, Chakotay expected Annorax to believe the wrong thing, hoping it could convince the Krenim commander to put an end to his campaign.

This is why there is a strong possibility of deception on Chakotay's part and also why this casts a doubt on the accuracy and reliability of the whole of his two sentences he delivered in that tense moment preceding the final battle.

This is also why Annorax' perspective is so important, which incidentally shows that you were wrong about your point #1.
Last edited by Mr. Oragahn on Thu Jun 01, 2017 9:58 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 1924
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Planetary Defenses in Star Trek

Post by 2046 » Wed May 31, 2017 10:36 pm

Nope, nope, and nope. You cannot insert "on her own" and thereby throw shade on Chakotay's valid warning to Annorax just because you want to ignore the rest of their conversation. That you persist in declaring Chakotay to be dishonest (whether via bluff or now by omission) is itself a dishonest and absurd argument. You may as well insert "using magic fairy dust" for all the sense it makes.

Chakotay warned Annorax that Janeway wouldn't attack unless she knew she could do some damage . . . this was perfectly correct.

By your absurd insertionist reasoning, Picard threatening Tomalak in "The Defector" with mutual destruction in response to the latter's threat was a dishonest lying bluff. Except, of course, it was actually perfectly valid.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: Planetary Defenses in Star Trek

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Thu Jun 01, 2017 11:04 am

2046 wrote:Nope, nope, and nope. You cannot insert "on her own" and thereby throw shade on Chakotay's valid warning to Annorax just because you want to ignore the rest of their conversation.
Where am I ignoring the rest of their conversation exactly? I'm merely saying that his statements may not be as trust worthy as might think, considering Chak's real objective.
That you persist in declaring Chakotay to be dishonest (whether via bluff or now by omission) is itself a dishonest and absurd argument.
Wow, sounds like suggesting Chakotay may have been dishonest because of tactical motives is some serious offense. :)
Please, instead of making vacuous accusations, try to prove at least once why all of this is dishonest.
You may as well insert "using magic fairy dust" for all the sense it makes.
No need to imply silly things like that.
Chakotay warned Annorax that Janeway wouldn't attack unless she knew she could do some damage . . . this was perfectly correct.
This part was perfectly correct. This point is included, I don't deny it.
It's a dual thing. The statement is true. The implication is not.
Limiting oneself to the first part only is missing the just as important other element.
Essentially, what you've done since day one is strictly focus on the general statement (that would basically apply to any sensible captain) but ignore absolutely everything about this situation that makes it unique.
By your absurd insertionist reasoning, Picard threatening Tomalak in "The Defector" with mutual destruction in response to the latter's threat was a dishonest lying bluff. Except, of course, it was actually perfectly valid.
Seriously, mate, I am not going to argue over some other episode. I don't see the point, I don't know about it and I don't see the need to stretch myself over two sources when we can't even reach an agreement over this one.

Also, the thingy-ist you refer to is but a very, very small yet completely expected and solidly logical addition to what happens in the show.

Fact: Janeway would never attack unless she'd knew of a way to deal damage. Barring suicidal captains, that's a general statement that applies to about every single commander in military history. No flash news here!

Fact: Chakotay knows more than the simple general truth (Janeway wouldn't attack unless blah blah). What he knows has severe implications on what he intends to achieve.
You argue on the basis that Chakotay just made a general statement and that was all, rejecting the rest. But it's false.

Fact: Chakotay knew about the brewing mutiny. He also knew that the plan was for Janeway & Pals to take advantage of said mutiny that would start the moment they'd engage the TWS.

But that was a secret he could not reveal to Annorax. Now, is that a fact? Sure, Chakotay never says "ho, I can't tell Annorax about it."
It's not spelled out. I guess you'd call that an "absurd insertion". But it's about just as obvious as water is wet. Unless you think Chakotay is stupid and would be reckless enough to reveal the secret.

Essentially, when Chakotay says that Janeway wouldn't be attacking if she didn't have some remote chance of winning, Chakotay knows what he's refering to, but he also knows —and that's the only real "insertion" on my part but it's 100% perfectly logical— that Annorax would simply not think of that kind of event, both for obvious tactical and sensible reasons and because of Annorax' nature.

And then again, it's barely a forceful insertion, more of an interpretation, certainly not some kind of cognitive rape like you try to make it sound like, because it's a rather obvious implication too, unless again, for the sake of not conceding this plausibility, you'd rather think that Annorax is a hopeless twat insecure about his crew and mutiny would be the first and foremost thing he'd be thinking of.
That's essentially what your position requires for Annorax not to be deceived by Chakotay's words and for Chakotay to be expecting Annorax to think of mutiny, i.e. what is really going to happen (the truth).

So, in other words, Chakotay would know that Annorax would be led to the wrong conclusion because Annorax realistically had no other reason to think otherwise. So Chakotay would certainly be aware that he'd be deceiving Annorax, simply because he could not even afford to allude to the truth, thus the way Annorax would interpret the general statement would actually fool him.

This awareness of leading a man to the wrong conclusion is by all means what we'd call a deception, making Chakotay not exactly honest here, to say the least. But who gives? Chak had zero to be in this situation, and that wouldn't be a vile thing either.
I argue that this awareness about deception is more than plausible, with all the cards we have in hands.
Of course, when you know you're going to deceive someone, it's perfectly fine to call that a bluff.

That is why I talk about perspective, putting yourself in Annorax' shoes for a moment.

Q: Would you claim with a straight face that if you had been Annorax, out of all the tactically realistic options you'd consider based on what already happened (like, again, Voyager's crew having "adapted" to the chroniton torps and resisting more than well the TWS' beam), mutiny would be the likeliest option you'd think of in reaction to Chakotay's words?

You, instead of actually adressing my points (like the numbered list above), you just shout them out weighed by a ist suffix and that's it.

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 1924
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Planetary Defenses in Star Trek

Post by 2046 » Thu Jun 01, 2017 5:25 pm

1. Your "bluff" argument's dishonest nature and my views on your shade-throwing argument technique has been discussed throughout the thread. I'll skip taxing Mike's patience or my own time limitations with another retread. RTFT.

2. I do enjoy how you finally admit that Chakotay's statement is valid and truthful when nothing is appended to it, even if you do try to throw shade about his "real objective" (avoiding bloodshed altogether). Kudos on the admission.

3. I remain fascinated at your utter ignorance of and refusal to discuss all of Star Trek anytime an analogy to or example from another episode is used, even when you've discussed the episode before. I do not find such failures to respond due to the pleading of ignorance particularly swaying, but if you think that works out for you then go on.

4. Your insistence that no commander attacks without knowing victory can be achieved is not accurate. Pickett roars to mind. Of course, Tennyson's "Charge of the Light Brigade" does, too, but that was quoted in a Star Trek episode so, as per your mental block referenced in #3, you've never heard of it. Similarly, I recall an "engage, retreat, engage, retreat" complaint elsewhere in Star Trek, but nevermind that, amirite?

5. You're damned right I am not addressing your assertions about your insertions. I ignore lots of fanon, not just yours. For all we know he utterly dismissed Chakotay's point as if he hadn't heard him at all and paid it no mind whatsoever . . . certainly that view is the one best supported by the episode, given that he ignores Chakotay's points utterly. To play among the more limited and carefully-selected imaginative options you have provided would be to lend them an astonishingly undeserved credence.

Post Reply