(Edit: This is the point-by-point I have been noting as coming up.)
Mr. Oragahn wrote:2046 wrote:IV. Odds and Ends
1. You still claim an inherent contradiction in my position yet fail to adequately define one that isn't based on your own groundless assertions.
Prove they are groundless.
They're based only on your conjectures as applied to my words. Pro-tip: I don't agree with your conjectures.
2. You say you apologize for a misunderstanding and that you aren't trying to BS your way out of things, but that's BS because it is what you spent the whole thread doing.
So I spent the "whole thread" to BS my way out of things?
Yes. My favorite example is that even when caught throwing shade on the Elba shield based on a not-even-a-warship being theoretically able to bring it down, you later claim Voyager is a warship when you think it helps you regarding Year of Hell and alien ship counts, claiming Voyager as a "battered warship" so as to make them want to send more ships, in your mind. And when this is mentioned again in this post, your response is to try to BS your way out of it with a smokescreen about internal volume utilization:
The Enterprise not being a warship, she can only compensate for the room used for other purposes by actually making the overall ship bigger, or using a technology superior to what the Klingons or Romulans use on their own warships.
Meanwhile, earlier, you tried to have it both ways with Voyager, which incidentally is illegal in most sectors:
When you consider the ratio size / weapons, it's also pointing towards a warship design with, heck, some labs tacked on for an official civil veneer.
Now –and you're going to hate me for that– this fact would actually turn out to reinforce my point bceause, regarding the comparison of ship shields, we'd have an UFP science vessel largely outmatching alien warships, which in return paints an ever worse picture of these aliens' shielding technology.
So yes, you are BS'ing your way through the thread, as per the above example, the bluffing example, the after-action I did of you versus SonOfCCN on some specific points, and more I can dredge if needed. It's not only bad debating, it is offensively dishonest. You'll seemingly do anything to prop up your case.
Do you want me to actually summarize the several times I actually admited being wrong, explaining why and moving on?
Unlike you, I am not trying to be a time vampire. The most important element is whether your conclusions ever change. Thus far, there's no evidence they ever could.
Funnily, you keep making plenty of self-generous claims about your love for honest and decent debating and your humble will to recognize your mistakes, but you've done none.
By that logic I would still be arguing bleedthrough.
However, while I don't try to jump on any occasion to make such claims, I actually do admit my mistakes.
That's the difference between you and me.
You're bluffing.
For any who might be interested at this late point, consider the below. First, we have the the unproven belief, stated as fact, that the Elba shield was a technological disaster.
I don't state it as fact. Stop lying through your teeth.
"There is simply one, just one example of a shield covering an entire planet as far as the UFP is concerned, and even the YoH case is not as solid as previously thought {… }
So we have one single type of planetary shield that has all the dramatic flaws I have described. It's fixed, weak and dangerous to the people or assets it has to protect, and we haven't even dealt with how long it may take to have a shield of that size raised.
Okay. It's canonically illogical and absurd.
Mind you, only Elba is canonically shown to have such a shield.
The rest is pure conjecture.
If you want to say it would be stupid for the UFP not to have such shields on their more important worlds, I'd tell you that it would be immensely stupid to design and use shields that way to begin with. Being a canon rigorist swings both ways."
That looks like a claim of fact to me, along with the "mess the shield of Elba was" that I referred to, but maybe you'd like to BS your way out of that now.
I have countless times said it was a theory, but insisted it was a necessary one.
The word "theory" does not appear in the first five pages of the thread, nor does the reasonable-sounding tone above match your behavior herein. Now, if you were to here go back and find statements that might be reconstrued as you suggesting you were speculating (as opposed to damning others for it), well, that *would* be more in keeping.
I'm baffled to see Trekkies consider the UFP to be so ruthless towards its own population
That statement only applies to your own nonsense speculations.
(I guess the communist shtick does pour through the cracks after all),
(Is this throwing shade or just obfuscating with total bullcrap, perhaps trying to draw me away from the shield stuff because he knows that commie nonsense is one of my pet annoyances?)
You using Sonofccn's post as a shield to avoid dealing with the problem won't make said problem go away.
This is such awesome horsecrap, I can't even tell what the hell it means. How exactly would I be using it as a shield? Were I to point to it alone and not reply beyond that, maybe you'd have a point, but it came in at the end of a four-post beating in which I threw it in as an additional example of your bad behavior in the thread.
Of course, Oragahn is the same chap who, when I scolded him for acting like a jerk in front of the new guy, claimed I was desperately seeking assistance from others, so . . . yeah, sure, I used it as an inhuman shield. Whatever.
Basically he simply means that the Federation has chosen planetary shields even for an application that could've lived with lesser shielding, contrary to O's claim that the Federation would choose otherwise.
He's also saying that the Federation prefers to install backfiring devices devices right next to a population it's meant to protect when this could have been easily avoided. So we have ruthlessness doubled with absolute stupidity x2 {… }
Bzzt! Wrong again, Ossu . . . I mean, Oragahn.
Your conclusion, not his, is the "backfiring" thing. Ergo, that is not what he said, but a further conclusion you wish to be so about what he said.
{… } they put it too close and they protect a whole planet which is tactically absurd and a waste of power{…}
That's a conclusion, too, and shade-throwing against Trek folk who you really need to be idiots for your BS to fly.
Going further, SonofCCN correctly assaults Oragahn's baseless claim altogether, noting a complete lack of evidence that the shield would pose a danger to a spread-out populace. I would later hammer this point, as well.
Oragahn's response to the point of civilian use?
At that very moment in the show, it wasn't used by civilians nor the UFP but by a mad man.
We simply don't know if the UFP would use it that way.
The first sentence is an appeal to horsecrap. The asylum having been taken over by a madman is completely irrelevant.
So you're playing dumb on purpose? Its use by a madman dives right into the idea of said same madman using the shield in some unsafe way.
You had not started that claim (Garth-modding the shield) by that point. You are trying now to retroactively insert a modicum of reason where none existed. Your claim was that the shield was so dumb and dangerous the Federation wouldn't use it on populated civilian worlds.
The context of the show, as well as "Dagger of the Mind" before it, is that asylums keep shielding up normally. Otherwise Kirk might've balked at faux-Cory's raising of the shield upon their landing.
Did I say that the problem was in keeping the shield up?
Wouldn't it going or being worldwide be a shock?
You also make it sound that they never ever switch it off, which would be rather stupid. Oh wait, they precisely switched it off in the episode in order to let people be beamed down.
You're the one who suggested it wouldn't be up normally, hence my point. Now you switcheroo and strawman me by claiming "normally" equals "always", and despite the fact that I *just effing gave* an example of it being lowered for landing, pretend that you are "WINNING" by pointing out that it was lowered for landing.
So what we have there is a Self-Reversal Strawman Jump with a Twist. I await the figure skating judges awarding you 10s for that.
As for Dagger of the Mind, is that a new reference you're also going to leave unsubstantiated and yet pretend it proves anything or what?
Y'know, that bullcrap was old the first time you used it. Asylums keep shields up normally, per "Dagger of the Mind" amd "Whom Gods Destroy". If you want to make a counterclaim, go make it. Otherwise, feigning conplete ignorance of Trek and/or basic context will get you nowhere except to make you look even more foolish. What, do I need to find you discussing Dagger like I did your prior feigned ignorance of Nemesis?
Beyond that, he makes a voluminous claim that any shield overload event would make for gigatons of blast based on total antimatter stores of a Federation ship,
Not a Federation ship. *sigh*
That was your baseline. You even use it again right after saying the above!
Page 1: "Considering the power it's ought to use regarding the shield strength per zone and the overall total resistance against nuclear-level firepower... and that ships alone carry gigatons worth of antimatter... something tells me that if a planetary shield generator were to blow up... it would be pretty nasty.
I mean, simply put, either you have a super wide shield that still kills people locally and can only repel the firepower of one single ship like the Connie using phasers only (and perhaps a spread of torps for the icing) and... that's not great. I don't know how much AM the Connie carried but I'd say you'd need at the very least that amount of AM to cover the power expenditure. I think you'd reach in the hundreds of megatons and considering how fast the bombardment go, you may not have anytime to move people around to safe zones. "
Page 5: "Now, a Federation ship is likely to have a lot of AM aboard. A shield generator, in order to be to repel massive firepower, would logically need to have at the very least just as much, if not far more antimatter.
Since a Federation ship would find herself probably carrying the equivalent of hundreds to thousands of petajoules worth of energy, an explosion of a shield generator caused by an overload triggering a destruction of the AM containment would lead to an explosion into the gigaton range.
And I'm just considering the fuel expenditure needed for a very limited defense duration or small quantity of ships, nothing even remotely close to an attack by a large fleet or even a siege!
It is not a problem one could just dismiss."
Don't lie so transparently.
The shield generator has to run on its own reserves, right?
In the case of an explosion caused by something (overload?), chances are that the fuel reserves would blow up too.
Why? Do shields use antimatter batteries? And besides, if drained down, won't the antimatter be gone?
blah blah
Sudden conjecture on how shields repel attacks and are powered is just more nonsense conjecture. And after all, by your argument, starships should explode on shield failure, and you're at least able to acknowledge that they don't.
Well, you were before . . . you wanna shift on that, now, too?
In short, he obfuscates and makes up a patently silly notion of how things work, treating it as gospel.
No.
You're still arguing it over paragraphs, claiming alternative ideas are magical and that your claim cannot be easily dismissed, so yes.
In the end, if you want to play it the canon-face-value-stop fundie way, I just have to remind you, again, that Elba II is unique
Wait, I thought you thought it wasn't. You won't even acknowledge facts about the planet that are relevant. And, after all, won't its shield always kill civilians no matter what? So what the hell?
That is a lot of words to avoid dealing with the obvious problems.
That's what I have been pointing out about your posts.
It is truly desperate of you to claim that I dug myself into a hole of some kind.
Ballsy statement from the guy who claimed I was crying out for help by telling you to act better around the new member, even suggesting I was claiming to have personally brought a guest and that such a claim was low of me.
"Looking for support now? That really does sound desperate. :)"
"Wait. Are you saying you brought a guest and I'm disrespecting this person??
Come on Robert, you can't possibly be reaching that low... :|
Is there an argumentation fallacy known as Appeal to the Plebe's Support, because you certainly are very fond of using it. :)
Although it seems to be more about a conflation of a soft ad hominem and a quest for a moral high ground."
The good news for you is that you are bound to have reached the core, so maybe your continued digging can only cause your altitude to increase.