Commentary on StarWarsStarTrek v. 2046

[Lucky]

Well, sorry if you get offended so easily, but the point is fairly simple. I'm not even seeing where you think you're going with that over the top analogy.

. . . says the guy who started talking about super-tech when I brought up Al Qaida gunmen.

And obviously the point still flies above your head, high orbit.

Since Al Qaeda did manage to hit the US, if they had a better weapon technology than mere plastic forks, knives, spoons and perhaps some explosive panties, chances are that they would have used said tech, or threatened to use it while the people on the defense would know have known the fundies were neither kidding nor bluffing.

I don't know what you're talking about, but fortunately neither do you. Therefore, it's not relevant.

Nice try. I'm sorry for you if your analogy backfired and just proved my point.
Let's just remember that you essentially brought Al Qaeda as part of an example about how you cannot stop everything, and I pointed out that if AQ had much more powerful weapons and superior technology, there was no reason why they wouldn't have used all of that. That and everything I have said since about AQ and the Breen.
It is just that simple.

See, I never claimed a false dilemma where everything or nothing could pass. Your quote job really gives a different vision of what I argued.

There is no "quote job", 'hat, it's the same quotes but quoted individually due to the limitations on nested quoting the board software enforces. Our conversation is as quoted, which basically just involves you making embarrassing statements about how anything goes on account of the defenders not being able to stop everything, and not understanding how that's embarrassing.

You simply picked bits you found fancy without actually letting them rest in their original posts, where more of my opinion was fleshed out and gave true and complete meaning to my words.
I don't even see what you're trying to achieve with that silly trolling, because my posts are still there to see, and things would have gone smoothly if it wasn't just you making things a case of life or death. If your ego can't cope with that little amount of stress from being offended by unimportant ideas and being wrong on a forum (OMGZ!!1!), perhaps you should quit altogether?
That would spare you from being needlessly obnoxious while using a balanced mix of clear insults and pejorative descriptions that are meant to be insulting and degrading, but devoid of direct neon-bright foul language.

Is it possible you could actually address the argument instead of red herring it away with an ad hominem?

What argument? A fallacy is not an argument. It is a fallacy, and disproves itself as soon as it is constructed.

You claim it's a fallacy. But you have not begun to prove it is one.
Let's notice that I'm not "allowing anything I can dream up", unless you think nukes and other environmental bioweapons are some über tech to the Breen.
Let's not even enter the realm of true doomsday weapons and other subspace madjix, huh.

See, we really have no common ground on this topic, because you are not thinking rationally about it at all.

Rite.

Even the biggest gaping pansies will recognize that having a whole country cave to hostage-taker demands just invites the next group to take hostages the next day, and so on . . . this might give the wimps you describe a modicum of courage, however fleeting.

What next group?
And again, good job trying to paint the Breen as your average bunch of guys from the mountains equipped with rifles and TNT sticks. This is largely why you just can't understand what I'm saying, because you're stuck under some glass ceiling, some inappropriate paradigm.

Anyway, I have absolutely no respect for your statements in this thread, and haven't seen anything to suggest further attention is indicated.

Well, that I got. I guess we won't be friends this year. :(

Your main topical claim is that the Federation failed somehow by not defending 100% against the Breen sneak attack, whereas I believe that the light damage we saw was indicative of an overall defense success.

Not exactly. I'm pointing out that the odds are all up against the idea of the Breen managing to assault Earth, pierce some rumoured planetary shield, and yet fail to do anything beyond dropping the equivalent of some TNT crates.
That's some very tight weapons and logistics budget control!
My point is that they may have not actually aimed at causing as much damage as possible, and it's even possible that it would have been detrimental to their plan if they had caused too many casualties among the population.

Further, you are creating a massive convoluted tl;dr story on how the Breen could've totally nuked the place from orbit (it's the only way to be sure) except they forgot their nukes that day,...

When? Just try to read what I wrote, and not what you want to read.
You're conflating two different ideas I addressed, one being the Breen looking for slaging Earth, the other with the Breen planing a deployment to take control of the Federation HQ.
The former requiring the ships to be armed up to the chin, the second one requiring a change in the loadout with more ships geared towards ground support and deployment, which obviously means less capabilities for space warfare and orbital bombardment, plus a clear intent to avoid inefficient casualties.

... whereas I find it far simpler to believe that even in the open society of the Federation, safeguards against such things exist . . . that's why it was a light attack.

Ha? Safeguards against... I don't know, firing petawatt beams once the shields are gone? Intercepting all torpedoes and potential beaming, anywhere and everywhere? Stopping anykind of subspace weapon or bioweapon that spreads across the atmosphere?
How much more many super defenses are you going to claim there? How many sandwhich layers of shields, torpedo interception racks, air combing filters and other great many buried phaser banks?

We will never agree on these points, because you have such strange ideas on how the world works that I would basically have to educate you for a couple of years and then make you re-read my posts, at which point you would get it and feel shame at your own typings.

Let not humility suffocate you, mate.

But I don't have the time or will to do that, so let's just agree to disagree.

OK.

The damage seemed to be done through heating the targets Mr. O hence the warping of the bridge. I don't see how you could do it with explosions.

Keep in mind Star Trek has ground based torpedo launchers, phasers, theater shields, and shields that cover the entire planet from a single point are common place, and Star Trek weapons are made to deal with these defenses. What we see is likely beam weapons that cause bleed through damage when they hit shields.

[Mr. Oragahn]

The damage seemed to be done through heating the targets Mr. O hence the warping of the bridge. I don't see how you could do it with explosions.

They get shit and giggles that explodes on the bridges without the hull around the bridge being remotely damaged. This magic transfer of shock can only be explained by internal systems being quite sensitive, and their hickups that result in exploding consoles and other panels here and there that can easily be explained with surges originating from other systems which are supposed to cope with massive inputs and transfers of energy, but which reach a limit, and the only reason this would happen would be, without hulls being significantly breached, that the shield generators themselves get stressed a lot, and very briefly. Then they burp radiations and energy around and failsafe buffers fail at times. Energy burps run along power conduits the other way through the plasma and spread through the thinner conduits like through a tree. At some point, they hit other sensitive systems and bam!

Keep in mind Star Trek has ground based torpedo launchers, phasers, theater shields, and shields that cover the entire planet from a single point are common place, and Star Trek weapons are made to deal with these defenses.

I know of those, but nothing helps the argument here, because there's essentially no reason for the Breen to mount an attack against Earth, manage to clearly focus some damage on the surface, yet no get a single gram of antimatter through.
You may just repeat RSA's argument at this point but it won't make it any more valid.

What we see is likely beam weapons that cause bleed through damage when they hit shields.

Even if such bleedthrough would happen - and I'd like clear evidence of that - you got to remember that there still are the hulls behind them, hulls supposedly able to tank the same energy and offer large amounts of protection as well as being able to be heated up to +10,000 K or so.

The ground of a planet is not armoured. Trees are not. The air is not. And the buildings? Probably not. A mere storm caused by the whale probe was capable of breaking the glass windows of some Federation buildings.
It's nothing like coping with direct multi-KT or even low MT point blank detonations or direct beam impacts.

[Lucky]

They get shit and giggles that explodes on the bridges without the hull around the bridge being remotely damaged. This magic transfer of shock can only be explained by internal systems being quite sensitive, and their hickups that result in exploding consoles and other panels here and there that can easily be explained with surges originating from other systems which are supposed to cope with massive inputs and transfers of energy, but which reach a limit, and the only reason this would happen would be, without hulls being significantly breached, that the shield generators themselves get stressed a lot, and very briefly. Then they burp radiations and energy around and failsafe buffers fail at times. Energy burps run along power conduits the other way through the plasma and spread through the thinner conduits like through a tree. At some point, they hit other sensitive systems and bam!

You've never heard of power surges caused by large amounts of subatomic particles hitting something, and damaging something not hit but connected to the thing hit? It happens all the time in the real world, and no surge protector can realistically stop it.

If anything the exploding consoles tells us that Trek ships are throwing large amount of energy at each other.

I know of those, but nothing helps the argument here, because there's essentially no reason for the Breen to mount an attack against Earth, manage to clearly focus some damage on the surface, yet no get a single gram of antimatter through.

Shields do a great job of stopping torpedos, and the effective blast radius of a torpedo is to small to reach the surface of a planet, but a beam weapon even if weakened will keep going in the same direction.

You are looking for evidence of bombs that possibly never made it into the Earth's atmosphere.

You may just repeat RSA's argument at this point but it won't make it any more valid.

I wouldn't want to take credit for his work. ^_^

Even if such bleedthrough would happen - and I'd like clear evidence of that - you got to remember that there still are the hulls behind them, hulls supposedly able to tank the same energy and offer large amounts of protection as well as being able to be heated up to +10,000 K or so.

The ground of a planet is not armoured. Trees are not. The air is not. And the buildings? Probably not. A mere storm caused by the whale probe was capable of breaking the glass windows of some Federation buildings.
It's nothing like coping with direct multi-KT or even low MT point blank detonations or direct beam impacts.

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2 ... tacked.jpg

You are talking about weapons that often have nearly have no effect on anything a side from what they hit going through a shield far more powerful then those on ships, and then hitting buildings made from who knows what. The only remotely quantifiable thing in that picture was the Golden Gate Bridge, but that would have had to have been worked on over the years do to wear and tear alone.

You can't assume what looks like glass is glass in Star Trek for example.

[Mike DiCenso]

I refer you gents back to the "Exploding Consoles Of Doom Explained At Last" thread from a few months ago. All things considered, we're looking probably at a huge amount of bleedthrough when the shields start failing, and the resulting overloads are far greater than what surge protectors are capable of handling.
-Mike

[User1616]

I refer you gents back to the "Exploding Consoles Of Doom Explained At Last" thread from a few months ago. All things considered, we're looking probably at a huge amount of bleedthrough when the shields start failing, and the resulting overloads are far greater than what surge protectors are capable of handling.
-Mike

There's still no reason for a console to explode since they just relay commands, they don't carry the actual power.

[mojo]

HAHAHA

maybe the consoles explode because it would be a boring-ass show if things never exploded during the bridge scenes?

[Mr. Oragahn]

HAHAHA

maybe the consoles explode because it would be a boring-ass show if things never exploded during the bridge scenes?

Lights blinking, loud *thuds*, and shots of other sections getting damaged would be appropriate.

[Mike DiCenso]

HAHAHA

maybe the consoles explode because it would be a boring-ass show if things never exploded during the bridge scenes?

TOS through most of it's run, as as well as the first couple seasons or so of TNG managed to get by with battle scenes not having such a thing. Indeed, if you look more closely in the TNG and the TOS movies when things exploded, it wasn't control panels, but wall and other panels nearby indicating that the power relays were overloaded, not the panels themselves.
-Mike

[Kor_Dahar_Master]

When tuvok remembered his time with sulu im sure that his buddy was killed by a conduit exploding behind the dudes panel rather than the panel itself.

I cannot confirm that at the moment due to the external hard drive issue :(.

[Praeothmin]

In this example, I will not conclude to SWST's dishonesty, but simply his ignorance of ST, which he has demonstrated time and again over the course of his debates.
He brings claims while completely ignorant of the context, which shows he just found the incident (or it was provided to him) and never watched the show...

I file this under "lack of knowledge on ST"...