---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 14:09:13 -0500 Subject: Re: Bombardment Analyzations(WAS: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes...) Message-ID: <9k9jo1$3amrk$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de> -------- How lovely to see yet another Warsie utterly misrepresent my position. SirNitram wrote in message <1e5517e2.0107301020.377ff683@posting.google.com>... >The following is an attempt to bludgeon a concept into Guardian 2000's >head. Comments, corrections, etc., are welcome, if you aren't gonna be >an ignorant, annoying fuck about them. > >One thing that Guardian keeps referring to to try and prove superior >weapons power for the Feds in the bombardment in Darksaber. That is not needed to prove superior weapons power for the Feds. You can slag the entire surface of the world to a depth of one meter in one day and it still would not compare to a Warbird. > I myself >do not own a copy of the book, but it apparantly in a bombardment that >is very below par when compared to the BDZ operation. From this, >Guardian beleives that Imperial weapons cannot do anything more. I believe no such thing. Presenting your nonsensical variant of another person's views in order to disprove them is known as a straw man. > I will now prove him wrong. Whee. Not I. > >To demonstrate what I'm trying to get across, we will create the >fictional unit of measure called(Because my ego needs stroking, >dammit) the Martin. It measures damage inflicted by orbital >bombardment. The forest fires created in Darksaber will be marked as >being equal to 10 Martins, for no adequetely explored reason. This is >reasonable enough; It's not very powerful, of course, but is above >what would be needed to remove a single unshielded, unarmored >installation(Which would be 1 Martin. No math has gone into how many >Martins are required. You'll get the point soon, I promise.). > >In the Imperial Sourcebook, page 82, we see the following: > >"Base Delta Zero;" the code for complete destruction of all "assets of >production," including factories, arable land, mines, fisheries, and >all sentient beings and droids. > >This is very very simple: The planet is reduced to ruin. You can't >even farm on it anymore. Later, we have another quote... This time, >page 61: > >The Imperial Star Destroyer has enough firepower to reduce a civilized >world to slag or take on a fleet of lesser vessels. > >This reinforces the above statement. There's nothing left after a BDZ >but ruins. > >Of course, Guardian's stance is that since we didn't see that >firepower in Darksaber, it can't be possible. That is not what I said, but what you have somehow managed to infer from what I've said. >For the purposes of this >exercise, a full BDZ as described in the above quote, is rated at >75,000 Martins. Again, I just like the number, but it'll carry the >point. > >Enter the Camaas incident, detailed in the Thrawn duet, Spectre of the >Past, Visions of the Future. It is a case of a BDZ as described in the >sourcebook: Nothing was left that could be inhabited, no survivors on >the planet. I figure it's safe to say that it will be very near to the >projected 75kMartins. > >Now comes where it should all make sense. > >We saw a 10 Martin bombardment in Darksaber. That is, we can walk away >from that saying 'An Imperial bombardment can cause at least forest >fires.' > >However, since we've also seen a 75 KiloMartin bombardment, or rather, >seen proof of one(As it would be impossible to observe one from the >planet and live to write about it.), we can walk away from that saying >'An Imperial bombardment can at least cause complete destruction of >the surface and everything on it.' > >We have two lower limits. 10 Martins and 75 KiloMartins. Since if you >can deliver 75 KiloMartins, you can also deliver 10 Martins, the >higher lower limit is accepted. > >I hope that made sense. The idea was to present it like another >quantifiable calculation and remind everyone of the presense of >multiple lower limits. Furthermore, this is a bunch of nonsense, if for no other reason than the simple fact that 10 "Martins" per hour times 100 VSDs equals 1000 Martins per hour, leaving 75 hours for the VSD bombardment. Big freakin' deal. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Durandal Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 14:20:21 -0500 Subject: Re: Bombardment Analyzations(WAS: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes...) Message-ID: <3B69A7F6.13B4B536@mac.com> -------- Guardian 2000 wrote: > > How lovely to see yet another Warsie utterly misrepresent my position. > > SirNitram wrote in message > <1e5517e2.0107301020.377ff683@posting.google.com>... > >The following is an attempt to bludgeon a concept into Guardian 2000's > >head. Comments, corrections, etc., are welcome, if you aren't gonna be > >an ignorant, annoying fuck about them. > > > >One thing that Guardian keeps referring to to try and prove superior > >weapons power for the Feds in the bombardment in Darksaber. > > That is not needed to prove superior weapons power for the Feds. You can > slag the entire surface of the world to a depth of one meter in one day and > it still would not compare to a Warbird. Maybe not, but slagging the planet in one hour certainly surpasses a warbird. Or are you claiming that Warbirds can deliver hundreds of gigatons of energy in a single volley? And, I'd LOVE to see your evidence for Warbird firepower figures. You made the claim, it must have some backing to it. You're not just another fanatical...oh, wait. -- Damien Sorresso "The older you get, the more interested you are in Britney Spears." -John McCain ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DMZ" Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 20:24:16 +0100 Subject: Re: Bombardment Analyzations(WAS: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes...) Message-ID: <996780257.27998.0.nnrp-10.3e31960d@news.demon.co.uk> -------- "Durandal" wrote in message news:3B69A7F6.13B4B536@mac.com... > Guardian 2000 wrote: > > > > How lovely to see yet another Warsie utterly misrepresent my position. > > > > SirNitram wrote in message > > <1e5517e2.0107301020.377ff683@posting.google.com>... > > >The following is an attempt to bludgeon a concept into Guardian 2000's > > >head. Comments, corrections, etc., are welcome, if you aren't gonna be > > >an ignorant, annoying fuck about them. > > > > > >One thing that Guardian keeps referring to to try and prove superior > > >weapons power for the Feds in the bombardment in Darksaber. > > > > That is not needed to prove superior weapons power for the Feds. You can > > slag the entire surface of the world to a depth of one meter in one day and > > it still would not compare to a Warbird. > > Maybe not, but slagging the planet in one hour certainly surpasses a > warbird. Or are you claiming that Warbirds can deliver hundreds of > gigatons of energy in a single volley? > And, I'd LOVE to see your evidence for Warbird firepower figures. You > made the claim, it must have some backing to it. You're not just another > fanatical...oh, wait. "One hour" - that beautiful term with no justification. DMZ --- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dalton Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 15:26:28 -0400 Subject: Re: Bombardment Analyzations(WAS: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes...) Message-ID: <3B69A964.8935EDBC@daltonator.net> -------- DMZ wrote: > > "Durandal" wrote in message news:3B69A7F6.13B4B536@mac.com... > > Guardian 2000 wrote: > > > > > > How lovely to see yet another Warsie utterly misrepresent my position. > > > > > > SirNitram wrote in message > > > <1e5517e2.0107301020.377ff683@posting.google.com>... > > > >The following is an attempt to bludgeon a concept into Guardian 2000's > > > >head. Comments, corrections, etc., are welcome, if you aren't gonna be > > > >an ignorant, annoying fuck about them. > > > > > > > >One thing that Guardian keeps referring to to try and prove superior > > > >weapons power for the Feds in the bombardment in Darksaber. > > > > > > That is not needed to prove superior weapons power for the Feds. You can > > > slag the entire surface of the world to a depth of one meter in one day and > > > it still would not compare to a Warbird. > > > > Maybe not, but slagging the planet in one hour certainly surpasses a > > warbird. Or are you claiming that Warbirds can deliver hundreds of > > gigatons of energy in a single volley? > > And, I'd LOVE to see your evidence for Warbird firepower figures. You > > made the claim, it must have some backing to it. You're not just another > > fanatical...oh, wait. > > "One hour" - that beautiful term with no justification. Hey, they can't justify TDiC. -- Rob "Roby" Dalton http://daltonator.net ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DMZ" Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 20:39:21 +0100 Subject: Re: Bombardment Analyzations(WAS: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes...) Message-ID: <996781161.23451.0.nnrp-13.3e31960d@news.demon.co.uk> -------- "Dalton" wrote in message news:3B69A964.8935EDBC@daltonator.net... > DMZ wrote: > > > > "Durandal" wrote in message news:3B69A7F6.13B4B536@mac.com... > > > Guardian 2000 wrote: > > > > > > > > How lovely to see yet another Warsie utterly misrepresent my position. > > > > > > > > SirNitram wrote in message > > > > <1e5517e2.0107301020.377ff683@posting.google.com>... > > > > >The following is an attempt to bludgeon a concept into Guardian 2000's > > > > >head. Comments, corrections, etc., are welcome, if you aren't gonna be > > > > >an ignorant, annoying fuck about them. > > > > > > > > > >One thing that Guardian keeps referring to to try and prove superior > > > > >weapons power for the Feds in the bombardment in Darksaber. > > > > > > > > That is not needed to prove superior weapons power for the Feds. You can > > > > slag the entire surface of the world to a depth of one meter in one day and > > > > it still would not compare to a Warbird. > > > > > > Maybe not, but slagging the planet in one hour certainly surpasses a > > > warbird. Or are you claiming that Warbirds can deliver hundreds of > > > gigatons of energy in a single volley? > > > And, I'd LOVE to see your evidence for Warbird firepower figures. You > > > made the claim, it must have some backing to it. You're not just another > > > fanatical...oh, wait. > > > > "One hour" - that beautiful term with no justification. > > Hey, they can't justify TDiC. Two wrongs do not make a right. Too many cooks spoil the broth. Tuppence more and up goes the donkey. etc. etc. DMZ --- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Transcend" Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 16:16:37 +0000 Subject: Re: Bombardment Analyzations(WAS: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes...) Message-ID: <20010802.161627.322916470.25170@localhost.localdomain> -------- In article <996781161.23451.0.nnrp-13.3e31960d@news.demon.co.uk>, "DMZ" wrote: > Tuppence more and up goes the donkey. etc. > etc. > We *really* don't need to know about your sex life.... -- When man took to his bed the Computer, there was great rejoicing, and great fear too, for their children were almost like gods. The mainbrains bestrode the galaxy at will, and changed its very face. The Silicon God, The Solid State Entity, Al Squared, Enth Generation - their names are many. And there were the Carked and Symbionts, whose daughters were the Neurosingers, Warrior-Poets, the Neurologicians and the Pilots of the Order of Mystic Mathematicians. --Horthy Hosthoh ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DMZ" Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 02:52:40 +0100 Subject: Re: Bombardment Analyzations(WAS: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes...) Message-ID: <996803560.6057.0.nnrp-07.3e31960d@news.demon.co.uk> -------- "Transcend" wrote in message news:20010802.161627.322916470.25170@localhost.localdomain... > In article <996781161.23451.0.nnrp-13.3e31960d@news.demon.co.uk>, "DMZ" > wrote: > > > > Tuppence more and up goes the donkey. etc. > > etc. > > > > We *really* don't need to know about your sex life.... Why not? It's got to be about the most interesting one this group will ever know. =) DMZ --- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "The Third Man" Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 09:24:53 +0100 Subject: Re: Bombardment Analyzations(WAS: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes...) Message-ID: -------- DMZ wrote in message <996803560.6057.0.nnrp-07.3e31960d@news.demon.co.uk>... > >"Transcend" wrote in message >news:20010802.161627.322916470.25170@localhost.localdomain... >> In article <996781161.23451.0.nnrp-13.3e31960d@news.demon.co.uk>, "DMZ" >> wrote: >> >> >> > Tuppence more and up goes the donkey. etc. >> > etc. >> > >> >> We *really* don't need to know about your sex life.... > >Why not? It's got to be about the most interesting one this group will ever know. >=) Proof? Evidence? Screencaps? Quotes? Calcs? Measurements? -- TTM ------------------------------------------------------- At the top, taking it higher. http://www.barmoist.co.uk ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DMZ" Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 15:30:14 +0100 Subject: Re: Bombardment Analyzations(WAS: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes...) Message-ID: <996849247.20583.0.nnrp-07.3e31960d@news.demon.co.uk> -------- "The Third Man" wrote in message news:hbta7.46$cP5.160461@newsr2.u-net.net... > DMZ wrote in message <996803560.6057.0.nnrp-07.3e31960d@news.demon.co.uk>... > > > >"Transcend" wrote in message > >news:20010802.161627.322916470.25170@localhost.localdomain... > >> In article <996781161.23451.0.nnrp-13.3e31960d@news.demon.co.uk>, "DMZ" > >> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > Tuppence more and up goes the donkey. etc. > >> > etc. > >> > > >> > >> We *really* don't need to know about your sex life.... > > > >Why not? It's got to be about the most interesting one this group will ever > know. > >=) > > Proof? Evidence? Screencaps? > > Quotes? Calcs? Measurements? Which would you like first? =) DMZ --- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Durandal Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2001 23:17:42 -0500 Subject: Re: Bombardment Analyzations(WAS: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes...) Message-ID: <3B6E1A67.139C3218@mac.com> -------- The Third Man wrote: > > Proof? Evidence? Screencaps? > > Quotes? Calcs? Measurements? You know you've been on ASVS when you start demanding evidence for relationship matters... "I know what you're up to! We're through!" "Huh?" "She told me all about the relationship you two were having!" "That's dialogue and subject to interpretation." "What?!" "Do you have any CANON evidence of your claims?" "She TOLD me you were cheating with her!" "Oh, so because she SAYS so, it must be true? So, I guess the Enterprise is immune to phasers and the Death Star is the ultimate power in the galaxy?" "What the hell are yout talking about?!" "Do you have videotapes? Pictures? Calcs? ANY evidence aside from your appeal to authority?" "Huh??" "Oh, I guess not. Concession accepted." -- Damien Sorresso "The older you get, the more interested you are in Britney Spears." -John McCain ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: sith79@aol.com (Kamakazie Sith) Date: 6 Aug 2001 01:26:20 -0700 Subject: Re: Bombardment Analyzations(WAS: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes...) Message-ID: <89c4bcfd.0108060026.13e70575@posting.google.com> -------- Durandal wrote in message news:<3B6E1A67.139C3218@mac.com>... > The Third Man wrote: > > > > > Proof? Evidence? Screencaps? > > > > Quotes? Calcs? Measurements? > > You know you've been on ASVS when you start demanding evidence for > relationship matters... > "I know what you're up to! We're through!" > "Huh?" > "She told me all about the relationship you two were having!" > "That's dialogue and subject to interpretation." > "What?!" > "Do you have any CANON evidence of your claims?" > "She TOLD me you were cheating with her!" > "Oh, so because she SAYS so, it must be true? So, I guess the Enterprise > is immune to phasers and the Death Star is the ultimate power in the galaxy?" > "What the hell are yout talking about?!" > "Do you have videotapes? Pictures? Calcs? ANY evidence aside from your > appeal to authority?" > "Huh??" > "Oh, I guess not. Concession accepted." LMAO do you know how hard I laughed after I read that....brings tears to me eyes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Durandal Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2001 11:36:08 -0500 Subject: Re: Bombardment Analyzations(WAS: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes...) Message-ID: <3B6EC779.77C40290@mac.com> -------- Durandal wrote: > > The Third Man wrote: > > > > > Proof? Evidence? Screencaps? > > > > Quotes? Calcs? Measurements? > > You know you've been on ASVS when you start demanding evidence for > relationship matters... > "I know what you're up to! We're through!" > "Huh?" > "She told me all about the relationship you two were having!" > "That's dialogue and subject to interpretation." > "What?!" > "Do you have any CANON evidence of your claims?" > "She TOLD me you were cheating with her!" > "Oh, so because she SAYS so, it must be true? So, I guess the Enterprise > is immune to phasers and the Death Star is the ultimate power in the galaxy?" > "What the hell are yout talking about?!" > "Do you have videotapes? Pictures? Calcs? ANY evidence aside from your > appeal to authority?" > "Huh??" > "Oh, I guess not. Concession accepted." Er...that should be "...immune to lasers..." -- Damien Sorresso "The older you get, the more interested you are in Britney Spears." -John McCain ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: fenix_burns@yahoo.com (Eleas) Date: 3 Aug 2001 10:23:08 -0700 Subject: Re: Bombardment Analyzations(WAS: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes...) Message-ID: -------- "DMZ" wrote in message news:<996803560.6057.0.nnrp-07.3e31960d@news.demon.co.uk>... > "Transcend" wrote in message > news:20010802.161627.322916470.25170@localhost.localdomain... > > In article <996781161.23451.0.nnrp-13.3e31960d@news.demon.co.uk>, "DMZ" > > wrote: > > > > > > > Tuppence more and up goes the donkey. etc. > > > etc. > > > > > > > We *really* don't need to know about your sex life.... > > Why not? It's got to be about the most interesting one this group will ever know. > =) > > DMZ > --- You get two points for variety. Still not enough to beat Ryan & Raven, though. -- Björn, the Northern Beast ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DMZ" Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 19:44:09 +0100 Subject: Re: Bombardment Analyzations(WAS: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes...) Message-ID: <996864248.28166.0.nnrp-07.3e31960d@news.demon.co.uk> -------- "Eleas" wrote in message news:b789f8d6.0108030923.72414ec4@posting.google.com... > "DMZ" wrote in message news:<996803560.6057.0.nnrp-07.3e31960d@news.demon.co.uk>... > > "Transcend" wrote in message > > news:20010802.161627.322916470.25170@localhost.localdomain... > > > In article <996781161.23451.0.nnrp-13.3e31960d@news.demon.co.uk>, "DMZ" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Tuppence more and up goes the donkey. etc. > > > > etc. > > > > > > > > > > We *really* don't need to know about your sex life.... > > > > Why not? It's got to be about the most interesting one this group will ever know. > > =) > > > > DMZ > > --- > > You get two points for variety. Still not enough to beat Ryan & Raven, though. I grew out of hardcore bdsm years ago. DMZ --- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dalton Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 15:45:06 -0400 Subject: Re: Bombardment Analyzations(WAS: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes...) Message-ID: <3B69ADC2.2030583E@daltonator.net> -------- DMZ wrote: > > "Dalton" wrote in message > news:3B69A964.8935EDBC@daltonator.net... > > DMZ wrote: > > > > > > "Durandal" wrote in message > news:3B69A7F6.13B4B536@mac.com... > > > > Guardian 2000 wrote: > > > > > > > > > > How lovely to see yet another Warsie utterly misrepresent my position. > > > > > > > > > > SirNitram wrote in message > > > > > <1e5517e2.0107301020.377ff683@posting.google.com>... > > > > > >The following is an attempt to bludgeon a concept into Guardian 2000's > > > > > >head. Comments, corrections, etc., are welcome, if you aren't gonna be > > > > > >an ignorant, annoying fuck about them. > > > > > > > > > > > >One thing that Guardian keeps referring to to try and prove superior > > > > > >weapons power for the Feds in the bombardment in Darksaber. > > > > > > > > > > That is not needed to prove superior weapons power for the Feds. You can > > > > > slag the entire surface of the world to a depth of one meter in one day > and > > > > > it still would not compare to a Warbird. > > > > > > > > Maybe not, but slagging the planet in one hour certainly surpasses a > > > > warbird. Or are you claiming that Warbirds can deliver hundreds of > > > > gigatons of energy in a single volley? > > > > And, I'd LOVE to see your evidence for Warbird firepower figures. You > > > > made the claim, it must have some backing to it. You're not just another > > > > fanatical...oh, wait. > > > > > > "One hour" - that beautiful term with no justification. > > > > Hey, they can't justify TDiC. > > Two wrongs do not make a right. > Too many cooks spoil the broth. > Tuppence more and up goes the donkey. > etc. > etc. Lick my balls? -- Rob "Roby" Dalton http://daltonator.net ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DMZ" Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 20:47:28 +0100 Subject: Re: Bombardment Analyzations(WAS: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes...) Message-ID: <996781649.23753.0.nnrp-13.3e31960d@news.demon.co.uk> -------- "Dalton" wrote in message news:3B69ADC2.2030583E@daltonator.net... > DMZ wrote: > > > > "Dalton" wrote in message > > news:3B69A964.8935EDBC@daltonator.net... > > > DMZ wrote: > > > > > > > > "Durandal" wrote in message > > news:3B69A7F6.13B4B536@mac.com... > > > > > Guardian 2000 wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > How lovely to see yet another Warsie utterly misrepresent my position. > > > > > > > > > > > > SirNitram wrote in message > > > > > > <1e5517e2.0107301020.377ff683@posting.google.com>... > > > > > > >The following is an attempt to bludgeon a concept into Guardian 2000's > > > > > > >head. Comments, corrections, etc., are welcome, if you aren't gonna be > > > > > > >an ignorant, annoying fuck about them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >One thing that Guardian keeps referring to to try and prove superior > > > > > > >weapons power for the Feds in the bombardment in Darksaber. > > > > > > > > > > > > That is not needed to prove superior weapons power for the Feds. You can > > > > > > slag the entire surface of the world to a depth of one meter in one day > > and > > > > > > it still would not compare to a Warbird. > > > > > > > > > > Maybe not, but slagging the planet in one hour certainly surpasses a > > > > > warbird. Or are you claiming that Warbirds can deliver hundreds of > > > > > gigatons of energy in a single volley? > > > > > And, I'd LOVE to see your evidence for Warbird firepower figures. You > > > > > made the claim, it must have some backing to it. You're not just another > > > > > fanatical...oh, wait. > > > > > > > > "One hour" - that beautiful term with no justification. > > > > > > Hey, they can't justify TDiC. > > > > Two wrongs do not make a right. > > Too many cooks spoil the broth. > > Tuppence more and up goes the donkey. > > etc. > > etc. > > Lick my balls? Polish my head. DMZ --- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dalton Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 16:06:31 -0400 Subject: Re: Bombardment Analyzations(WAS: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes...) Message-ID: <3B69B2C7.5DACC634@daltonator.net> -------- DMZ wrote: > > "Dalton" wrote in message > news:3B69ADC2.2030583E@daltonator.net... [snip] > > Lick my balls? > > Polish my head. This reminds me... "This is the Starship USS Boobyprize, NC-17... Picard: well, you've done it now Soren: Yes, and now there's no sense in fighting... Picard: ...Since we're going to die in < 8 minutes *looks longingly sidewise at Soren* Soren: Are you thinking what I'm thinking you're thinking? Picard: Shine my skull, you magnificent beast! -- Matt Hyde" -- Rob "Roby" Dalton http://daltonator.net ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Martichi@aol.com (SirNitram) Date: 3 Aug 2001 09:58:01 -0700 Subject: Re: Bombardment Analyzations(WAS: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes...) Message-ID: <1e5517e2.0108030858.5ee6bf59@posting.google.com> -------- "Guardian 2000" wrote in message news:<9k9jo1$3amrk$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de>... > How lovely to see yet another Warsie utterly misrepresent my position. > > SirNitram wrote in message > <1e5517e2.0107301020.377ff683@posting.google.com>... > >The following is an attempt to bludgeon a concept into Guardian 2000's > >head. Comments, corrections, etc., are welcome, if you aren't gonna be > >an ignorant, annoying fuck about them. > > > >One thing that Guardian keeps referring to to try and prove superior > >weapons power for the Feds in the bombardment in Darksaber. > > That is not needed to prove superior weapons power for the Feds. You can > slag the entire surface of the world to a depth of one meter in one day and > it still would not compare to a Warbird. > You've yet to prove this extreme firepower on a warbird. Will we ever see this amazing calc set, or does it exist only in your brain? > > > I myself > >do not own a copy of the book, but it apparantly in a bombardment that > >is very below par when compared to the BDZ operation. From this, > >Guardian beleives that Imperial weapons cannot do anything more. > > I believe no such thing. Presenting your nonsensical variant of another > person's views in order to disprove them is known as a straw man. > You've certainly claimed such in other threads, constantly bringing up Darksaber whenever I mention the firepower of a HTL. > > I will now prove him wrong. Whee. > > > Not I. > > > > >To demonstrate what I'm trying to get across, we will create the > >fictional unit of measure called(Because my ego needs stroking, > >dammit) the Martin. It measures damage inflicted by orbital > >bombardment. The forest fires created in Darksaber will be marked as > >being equal to 10 Martins, for no adequetely explored reason. This is > >reasonable enough; It's not very powerful, of course, but is above > >what would be needed to remove a single unshielded, unarmored > >installation(Which would be 1 Martin. No math has gone into how many > >Martins are required. You'll get the point soon, I promise.). > > > >In the Imperial Sourcebook, page 82, we see the following: > > > >"Base Delta Zero;" the code for complete destruction of all "assets of > >production," including factories, arable land, mines, fisheries, and > >all sentient beings and droids. > > > >This is very very simple: The planet is reduced to ruin. You can't > >even farm on it anymore. Later, we have another quote... This time, > >page 61: > > > >The Imperial Star Destroyer has enough firepower to reduce a civilized > >world to slag or take on a fleet of lesser vessels. > > > >This reinforces the above statement. There's nothing left after a BDZ > >but ruins. > > > >Of course, Guardian's stance is that since we didn't see that > >firepower in Darksaber, it can't be possible. > > That is not what I said, but what you have somehow managed to infer from > what I've said. > Actually, you did. The original thread on Google shows it quite clearly. :) > >For the purposes of this > >exercise, a full BDZ as described in the above quote, is rated at > >75,000 Martins. Again, I just like the number, but it'll carry the > >point. > > > >Enter the Camaas incident, detailed in the Thrawn duet, Spectre of the > >Past, Visions of the Future. It is a case of a BDZ as described in the > >sourcebook: Nothing was left that could be inhabited, no survivors on > >the planet. I figure it's safe to say that it will be very near to the > >projected 75kMartins. > > > >Now comes where it should all make sense. > > > >We saw a 10 Martin bombardment in Darksaber. That is, we can walk away > >from that saying 'An Imperial bombardment can cause at least forest > >fires.' > > > >However, since we've also seen a 75 KiloMartin bombardment, or rather, > >seen proof of one(As it would be impossible to observe one from the > >planet and live to write about it.), we can walk away from that saying > >'An Imperial bombardment can at least cause complete destruction of > >the surface and everything on it.' > > > >We have two lower limits. 10 Martins and 75 KiloMartins. Since if you > >can deliver 75 KiloMartins, you can also deliver 10 Martins, the > >higher lower limit is accepted. > > > >I hope that made sense. The idea was to present it like another > >quantifiable calculation and remind everyone of the presense of > >multiple lower limits. > > Furthermore, this is a bunch of nonsense, if for no other reason than the > simple fact that 10 "Martins" per hour times 100 VSDs equals 1000 Martins > per hour, leaving 75 hours for the VSD bombardment. Big freakin' deal. Except that this isn't ST. Anyone can own a starship. Those starships acheive orbit in seconds and jump to hyperspace moments later. A singular starship, it is often stated, can achieve a BDZ with no escapees... Gee, I guess that throws out the 75 hour timeframe. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Guardian 2000 Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 14:29:19 -0500 Subject: Re: Bombardment Analyzations(WAS: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes...) Message-ID: <3B6AFB8F.F8FEDF88@yahoo.com> -------- SirNitram wrote: > > "Guardian 2000" wrote in message news:<9k9jo1$3amrk$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de>... > > How lovely to see yet another Warsie utterly misrepresent my position. > > > > SirNitram wrote in message > > <1e5517e2.0107301020.377ff683@posting.google.com>... > > >The following is an attempt to bludgeon a concept into Guardian 2000's > > >head. Comments, corrections, etc., are welcome, if you aren't gonna be > > >an ignorant, annoying fuck about them. > > > > > >One thing that Guardian keeps referring to to try and prove superior > > >weapons power for the Feds in the bombardment in Darksaber. > > > > That is not needed to prove superior weapons power for the Feds. You can > > slag the entire surface of the world to a depth of one meter in one day and > > it still would not compare to a Warbird. > > > > You've yet to prove this extreme firepower on a warbird. Will we ever > see this amazing calc set, or does it exist only in your brain? > I've already shown you. 1. 30 top-of-the-line D'deridex and Keldon class starships vs. one planet . . . time factor minimal (depends on whether you want to count the commercial break or not). Results? Planet loses 30% of crust. Or, 2. 30 top-of-the-line D'deridex and Keldon class starships vs. one planet . . . time factor six hours. Results? Planet reduced to a core. Now, unless you can demonstrate that ST weapon power increases exponentially if the weapons are used together against the same target (i.e. like the crossing of the beams in Ghostbusters), then to find a Warbird's overall weapons strength, one must simply divide by 30. (I grant that the two types of vessels are not the same, and thus it cannot be expected that they will have the same firepower . . . however, this method does indicate the appropriate firepower range.) This indicates, off of example one, that a Warbird can, in a matter of seconds, destroy 1% of a planet's crust. That's the whole crust, not just "the crust to a depth of one meter". Or, if you prefer example two, that means that a Warbird can reduce a world to its core in 180 hours, or just a smidgen over a week. > > > > > I myself > > >do not own a copy of the book, but it apparantly in a bombardment that > > >is very below par when compared to the BDZ operation. From this, > > >Guardian beleives that Imperial weapons cannot do anything more. > > > > I believe no such thing. Presenting your nonsensical variant of another > > person's views in order to disprove them is known as a straw man. > > > > You've certainly claimed such in other threads, constantly bringing up > Darksaber whenever I mention the firepower of a HTL. And that implies that I believe Imperial weapons can do no more? > > > > I will now prove him wrong. Whee. > > > > > > Not I. > > > > > > > >To demonstrate what I'm trying to get across, we will create the > > >fictional unit of measure called(Because my ego needs stroking, > > >dammit) the Martin. It measures damage inflicted by orbital > > >bombardment. The forest fires created in Darksaber will be marked as > > >being equal to 10 Martins, for no adequetely explored reason. This is > > >reasonable enough; It's not very powerful, of course, but is above > > >what would be needed to remove a single unshielded, unarmored > > >installation(Which would be 1 Martin. No math has gone into how many > > >Martins are required. You'll get the point soon, I promise.). > > > > > >In the Imperial Sourcebook, page 82, we see the following: > > > > > >"Base Delta Zero;" the code for complete destruction of all "assets of > > >production," including factories, arable land, mines, fisheries, and > > >all sentient beings and droids. > > > > > >This is very very simple: The planet is reduced to ruin. You can't > > >even farm on it anymore. Later, we have another quote... This time, > > >page 61: > > > > > >The Imperial Star Destroyer has enough firepower to reduce a civilized > > >world to slag or take on a fleet of lesser vessels. > > > > > >This reinforces the above statement. There's nothing left after a BDZ > > >but ruins. > > > > > >Of course, Guardian's stance is that since we didn't see that > > >firepower in Darksaber, it can't be possible. > > > > That is not what I said, but what you have somehow managed to infer from > > what I've said. > > > > Actually, you did. The original thread on Google shows it quite > clearly. :) > And where might this be? > > >For the purposes of this > > >exercise, a full BDZ as described in the above quote, is rated at > > >75,000 Martins. Again, I just like the number, but it'll carry the > > >point. > > > > > >Enter the Camaas incident, detailed in the Thrawn duet, Spectre of the > > >Past, Visions of the Future. It is a case of a BDZ as described in the > > >sourcebook: Nothing was left that could be inhabited, no survivors on > > >the planet. I figure it's safe to say that it will be very near to the > > >projected 75kMartins. > > > > > >Now comes where it should all make sense. > > > > > >We saw a 10 Martin bombardment in Darksaber. That is, we can walk away > > >from that saying 'An Imperial bombardment can cause at least forest > > >fires.' > > > > > >However, since we've also seen a 75 KiloMartin bombardment, or rather, > > >seen proof of one(As it would be impossible to observe one from the > > >planet and live to write about it.), we can walk away from that saying > > >'An Imperial bombardment can at least cause complete destruction of > > >the surface and everything on it.' > > > > > >We have two lower limits. 10 Martins and 75 KiloMartins. Since if you > > >can deliver 75 KiloMartins, you can also deliver 10 Martins, the > > >higher lower limit is accepted. > > > > > >I hope that made sense. The idea was to present it like another > > >quantifiable calculation and remind everyone of the presense of > > >multiple lower limits. > > > > Furthermore, this is a bunch of nonsense, if for no other reason than the > > simple fact that 10 "Martins" per hour times 100 VSDs equals 1000 Martins > > per hour, leaving 75 hours for the VSD bombardment. Big freakin' deal. > > Except that this isn't ST. Anyone can own a starship. Those starships > acheive orbit in seconds and jump to hyperspace moments later. A > singular starship, it is often stated, can achieve a BDZ with no > escapees... Gee, I guess that throws out the 75 hour timeframe. Why? Just because a world can have starships on it does not mean that the BDZ must occur in seconds or minutes. Once you blow up the starships, you can destroy the world at your leisure. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Namothil Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 21:00:19 GMT Subject: Re: Bombardment Analyzations(WAS: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes...) Message-ID: -------- In article <3B6AFB8F.F8FEDF88@yahoo.com>, Guardian 2000 says... > > > >SirNitram wrote: >> >> "Guardian 2000" wrote in message news:<9k9jo1$3amrk$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de>... >> > How lovely to see yet another Warsie utterly misrepresent my position. >> > >> > SirNitram wrote in message >> > <1e5517e2.0107301020.377ff683@posting.google.com>... >> > >The following is an attempt to bludgeon a concept into Guardian 2000's >> > >head. Comments, corrections, etc., are welcome, if you aren't gonna be >> > >an ignorant, annoying fuck about them. >> > > >> > >One thing that Guardian keeps referring to to try and prove superior >> > >weapons power for the Feds in the bombardment in Darksaber. >> > >> > That is not needed to prove superior weapons power for the Feds. You can >> > slag the entire surface of the world to a depth of one meter in one day and >> > it still would not compare to a Warbird. >> > >> >> You've yet to prove this extreme firepower on a warbird. Will we ever >> see this amazing calc set, or does it exist only in your brain? >> > >I've already shown you. > >1. 30 top-of-the-line D'deridex and Keldon class starships vs. one >planet . . . time factor minimal (depends on whether you want to count >the commercial break or not). Results? Planet loses 30% of crust. Not shown. Given the presence of sensor distortion, it is quite probably a false reading. (And before you argue that only lifesign readings were distorted, remember that it is very difficult to distort only one aspect of a target.) >Or, > >2. 30 top-of-the-line D'deridex and Keldon class starships vs. one >planet . . . time factor six hours. Results? Planet reduced to a >core. Likely falsified simulation. >Now, unless you can demonstrate that ST weapon power increases >exponentially if the weapons are used together against the same target >(i.e. like the crossing of the beams in Ghostbusters), then to find a >Warbird's overall weapons strength, one must simply divide by 30. > >(I grant that the two types of vessels are not the same, and thus it >cannot be expected that they will have the same firepower . . . however, >this method does indicate the appropriate firepower range.) > >This indicates, off of example one, that a Warbird can, in a matter of >seconds, destroy 1% of a planet's crust. That's the whole crust, not >just "the crust to a depth of one meter". > >Or, if you prefer example two, that means that a Warbird can reduce a >world to its core in 180 hours, or just a smidgen over a week. Even if correct, this is not necessarily true. Power requirements may intervene. As for the argument, I will repeat myself: Basic starting assumption: The attack as planned was impossible. Question: Is it reasonable that the attack was planned, given that it could not be carried out? Point 1. The Romulan contribution was commanded by a Founder. Consequently, any Romulan objections that the plan was impossible would be easily squashed. Point 2. Tain was a complete idiot when dealing with military afairs. (Evidence: He failed to conduct a proper recon of a target that was a blindingly obvious trap. No intelligent commander leaves a vital point undefended without good cause.) Therefore, Tain need not have had any idea what the capabilities of his ships were. Point 3. The mission as planned was insanely excessive, as the intent was to kill the Founders. The fleet assembled could quite probably manage this task, and therefore would succeed at the mission, even though the planet would not be destroyed (or reduced to its core) Consequently, many of those officers who were briefed on the mission that knew it was not possible would likely refrain from pointing out the error, since the real mission would still be accomplished. Point 4. Tain was the head of a intelligence/internal security organization within a fairly tyrannical system of government. Such people tend to surround themselves with people they control (or at least have some sort of agreement with) Consequently, there is no requirement that any of his advisors know the capabilities of their ships. Given this, it is quite plausible that the entire simulation was falsified, and the ships in question completely lacked the capability attributed to them. Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him show by good conduct that his works are done in the meekness of wisdom. James 3:13 Email:ray1@purdue.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Transcend" Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 19:53:35 +0000 Subject: Re: Bombardment Analyzations(WAS: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes...) Message-ID: <20010803.195326.721914765.1693@localhost.localdomain> -------- In article , "Namothil" wrote: > Point 4. Tain was the head of a intelligence/internal security > organization within a fairly tyrannical system of government. Such > people tend to surround themselves with people they control (or at least > have some sort of agreement with) Consequently, there is no requirement > that any of his advisors know the capabilities of their ships. Also it is often for governments of that type to exaggerate (and in fact glorify) their military capabilities. Remember, the Cardassians threw just about everything they had against the Federation a few years earlier. The Cardassians were utterly defeated in an action that the Federation classed as a "minor border dispute". This doesn't bode well for Cardassian weaponry. In another example of how pathetic Cardassian weaponry is, in a episode famous for pointing out long range (can't remember title), a single Federation ship destroyed two Cardassian warships (which some Gul thought would be more then enough) which had the prefix codes of the Federation ship (and therefore could drop the Federation ship's shields). Also on multiple occasions Cardassian warships have been disabled by Federation ships that took no damage. I wouldn't put alot of stock in Cardassian military capabilities. -- When man took to his bed the Computer, there was great rejoicing, and great fear too, for their children were almost like gods. The mainbrains bestrode the galaxy at will, and changed its very face. The Silicon God, The Solid State Entity, Al Squared, Enth Generation - their names are many. And there were the Carked and Symbionts, whose daughters were the Neurosingers, Warrior-Poets, the Neurologicians and the Pilots of the Order of Mystic Mathematicians. --Horthy Hosthoh ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: sith79@aol.com (Kamakazie Sith) Date: 3 Aug 2001 22:08:22 -0700 Subject: Re: Bombardment Analyzations(WAS: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes...) Message-ID: <89c4bcfd.0108032108.189635d8@posting.google.com> -------- "Transcend" wrote in message news:<20010803.195326.721914765.1693@localhost.localdomain>... > In article , "Namothil" > wrote: > > > > > Point 4. Tain was the head of a intelligence/internal security > > organization within a fairly tyrannical system of government. Such > > people tend to surround themselves with people they control (or at least > > have some sort of agreement with) Consequently, there is no requirement > > that any of his advisors know the capabilities of their ships. > > Also it is often for governments of that type to exaggerate (and in fact > glorify) their military capabilities. Remember, the Cardassians threw just > about everything they had against the Federation a few years earlier. The > Cardassians were utterly defeated in an action that the Federation classed > as a "minor border dispute". This doesn't bode well for Cardassian > weaponry. In another example of how pathetic Cardassian weaponry is, in a > episode famous for pointing out long range (can't remember title), a > single Federation ship destroyed two Cardassian warships (which some Gul > thought would be more then enough) which had the prefix codes of the > Federation ship (and therefore could drop the Federation ship's shields). > Also on multiple occasions Cardassian warships have been disabled by > Federation ships that took no damage. I wouldn't put alot of stock in > Cardassian military capabilities. > > > -- > When man took to his bed the Computer, there was great rejoicing, > and great fear too, for their children were almost like gods. The > mainbrains bestrode the galaxy at will, and changed its very face. > The Silicon God, The Solid State Entity, Al Squared, Enth Generation - > their names are many. And there were the Carked and Symbionts, > whose daughters were the Neurosingers, Warrior-Poets, the > Neurologicians and the Pilots of the Order of Mystic Mathematicians. > --Horthy Hosthoh These were Keldon Class Starships, more advanced than the Galor Class Starship. All this does is speak very highly of Federation weapons, shields, ect. Because if the Cardassians could do this so could the Federation. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Transcend" Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2001 03:47:25 +0000 Subject: Re: Bombardment Analyzations(WAS: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes...) Message-ID: <20010804.034722.314416906.1693@localhost.localdomain> -------- In article <89c4bcfd.0108032108.189635d8@posting.google.com>, "Kamakazie Sith" wrote: > "Transcend" wrote in message > news:<20010803.195326.721914765.1693@localhost.localdomain>... >> In article , "Namothil" >> wrote: >> >> >> >> > Point 4. Tain was the head of a intelligence/internal security >> > organization within a fairly tyrannical system of government. Such >> > people tend to surround themselves with people they control (or at >> > least have some sort of agreement with) Consequently, there is no >> > requirement that any of his advisors know the capabilities of their >> > ships. >> >> Also it is often for governments of that type to exaggerate (and in >> fact glorify) their military capabilities. Remember, the Cardassians >> threw just about everything they had against the Federation a few years >> earlier. The Cardassians were utterly defeated in an action that the >> Federation classed as a "minor border dispute". This doesn't bode well >> for Cardassian weaponry. In another example of how pathetic Cardassian >> weaponry is, in a episode famous for pointing out long range (can't >> remember title), a single Federation ship destroyed two Cardassian >> warships (which some Gul thought would be more then enough) which had >> the prefix codes of the Federation ship (and therefore could drop the >> Federation ship's shields). Also on multiple occasions Cardassian >> warships have been disabled by Federation ships that took no damage. I >> wouldn't put alot of stock in Cardassian military capabilities. >> >> >> -- >> When man took to his bed the Computer, there was great rejoicing, and >> great fear too, for their children were almost like gods. The >> mainbrains bestrode the galaxy at will, and changed its very face. The >> Silicon God, The Solid State Entity, Al Squared, Enth Generation - >> their names are many. And there were the Carked and Symbionts, >> whose daughters were the Neurosingers, Warrior-Poets, the >> Neurologicians and the Pilots of the Order of Mystic Mathematicians. >> --Horthy Hosthoh > > These were Keldon Class Starships, more advanced than the Galor Class > Starship. Oh yes much more advanced, still disabled with one shot. > > All this does is speak very highly of Federation weapons, shields, ect. > Because if the Cardassians could do this so could the Federation. Well the Cardassians were never shown as being able *to* do it so there. -- When man took to his bed the Computer, there was great rejoicing, and great fear too, for their children were almost like gods. The mainbrains bestrode the galaxy at will, and changed its very face. The Silicon God, The Solid State Entity, Al Squared, Enth Generation - their names are many. And there were the Carked and Symbionts, whose daughters were the Neurosingers, Warrior-Poets, the Neurologicians and the Pilots of the Order of Mystic Mathematicians. --Horthy Hosthoh ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: seaskimmer71@hotmail.com (Sea Skimmer) Date: 3 Aug 2001 22:31:45 -0700 Subject: Re: Bombardment Analyzations(WAS: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes...) Message-ID: <5189920.0108032131.44652ba2@posting.google.com> -------- "Transcend" wrote in message news:<20010803.195326.721914765.1693@localhost.localdomain>... > In article , "Namothil" > wrote: > > > > > Point 4. Tain was the head of a intelligence/internal security > > organization within a fairly tyrannical system of government. Such > > people tend to surround themselves with people they control (or at least > > have some sort of agreement with) Consequently, there is no requirement > > that any of his advisors know the capabilities of their ships. > > Also it is often for governments of that type to exaggerate (and in fact > glorify) their military capabilities. Remember, the Cardassians threw just > about everything they had against the Federation a few years earlier. The > Cardassians were utterly defeated in an action that the Federation classed > as a "minor border dispute". This doesn't bode well for Cardassian > weaponry. In another example of how pathetic Cardassian weaponry is, in a > episode famous for pointing out long range (can't remember title), a > single Federation ship destroyed two Cardassian warships (which some Gul > thought would be more then enough) which had the prefix codes of the > Federation ship (and therefore could drop the Federation ship's shields). > Also on multiple occasions Cardassian warships have been disabled by > Federation ships that took no damage. I wouldn't put alot of stock in > Cardassian military capabilities. > > i know what your talking about , but It was only one warship , it got off one salvo , then the Rouge Fed ship withdrew out of range and destoryed it in an instant , you see a displace of the battle but not the battle its self . the other ship it destoryed was a Cargo ship . I think the fed ship was a Nebula ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Transcend" Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2001 03:49:08 +0000 Subject: Re: Bombardment Analyzations(WAS: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes...) Message-ID: <20010804.034906.418713626.1693@localhost.localdomain> -------- In article <5189920.0108032131.44652ba2@posting.google.com>, "Sea Skimmer" wrote: > "Transcend" wrote in message > news:<20010803.195326.721914765.1693@localhost.localdomain>... >> In article , "Namothil" >> wrote: >> >> >> >> > Point 4. Tain was the head of a intelligence/internal security >> > organization within a fairly tyrannical system of government. Such >> > people tend to surround themselves with people they control (or at >> > least have some sort of agreement with) Consequently, there is no >> > requirement that any of his advisors know the capabilities of their >> > ships. >> >> Also it is often for governments of that type to exaggerate (and in >> fact glorify) their military capabilities. Remember, the Cardassians >> threw just about everything they had against the Federation a few years >> earlier. The Cardassians were utterly defeated in an action that the >> Federation classed as a "minor border dispute". This doesn't bode well >> for Cardassian weaponry. In another example of how pathetic Cardassian >> weaponry is, in a episode famous for pointing out long range (can't >> remember title), a single Federation ship destroyed two Cardassian >> warships (which some Gul thought would be more then enough) which had >> the prefix codes of the Federation ship (and therefore could drop the >> Federation ship's shields). Also on multiple occasions Cardassian >> warships have been disabled by Federation ships that took no damage. I >> wouldn't put alot of stock in Cardassian military capabilities. >> >> > i know what your talking about , but It was only one warship , it got > off one salvo , then the Rouge Fed ship withdrew out of range and > destoryed it in an instant , you see a displace of the battle but not > the battle its self . the other ship it destoryed was a Cargo ship . I > think the fed ship was a Nebula No there were two warships in that one fight. And yes it did destroy a cargo ship too but I saw that as irrelevant. -- When man took to his bed the Computer, there was great rejoicing, and great fear too, for their children were almost like gods. The mainbrains bestrode the galaxy at will, and changed its very face. The Silicon God, The Solid State Entity, Al Squared, Enth Generation - their names are many. And there were the Carked and Symbionts, whose daughters were the Neurosingers, Warrior-Poets, the Neurologicians and the Pilots of the Order of Mystic Mathematicians. --Horthy Hosthoh ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Guardian 2000 Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 16:40:09 -0500 Subject: Re: Bombardment Analyzations(WAS: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes...) Message-ID: <3B6B1A39.4512A76@yahoo.com> -------- Namothil wrote: > > In article <3B6AFB8F.F8FEDF88@yahoo.com>, Guardian 2000 says... > > > > > > > >SirNitram wrote: > >> > >> "Guardian 2000" wrote in message news:<9k9jo1$3amrk$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de>... > >> > How lovely to see yet another Warsie utterly misrepresent my position. > >> > > >> > SirNitram wrote in message > >> > <1e5517e2.0107301020.377ff683@posting.google.com>... > >> > >The following is an attempt to bludgeon a concept into Guardian 2000's > >> > >head. Comments, corrections, etc., are welcome, if you aren't gonna be > >> > >an ignorant, annoying fuck about them. > >> > > > >> > >One thing that Guardian keeps referring to to try and prove superior > >> > >weapons power for the Feds in the bombardment in Darksaber. > >> > > >> > That is not needed to prove superior weapons power for the Feds. You can > >> > slag the entire surface of the world to a depth of one meter in one day and > >> > it still would not compare to a Warbird. > >> > > >> > >> You've yet to prove this extreme firepower on a warbird. Will we ever > >> see this amazing calc set, or does it exist only in your brain? > >> > > > >I've already shown you. > > > >1. 30 top-of-the-line D'deridex and Keldon class starships vs. one > >planet . . . time factor minimal (depends on whether you want to count > >the commercial break or not). Results? Planet loses 30% of crust. > > Not shown. False. > Given the presence of sensor distortion, it is quite probably > a false reading. Why? Why leave lifesign readings while giving false data on crust damage? Why not simply show the crust as undamaged and make the Romulans and Cardassians really freak out? > (And before you argue that only lifesign readings were > distorted, remember that it is very difficult to distort only one aspect of > a target.) Proof that is it difficult to distort only one aspect of a target? > > >Or, > > > >2. 30 top-of-the-line D'deridex and Keldon class starships vs. one > >planet . . . time factor six hours. Results? Planet reduced to a > >core. > > Likely falsified simulation. Proof? I disagree with your assertion that it is "likely" a falsified simulation. Indeed, I find it unlikely that warship commanders would be so perilously unfamiliar with their technology as you are suggesting. > > >Now, unless you can demonstrate that ST weapon power increases > >exponentially if the weapons are used together against the same target > >(i.e. like the crossing of the beams in Ghostbusters), then to find a > >Warbird's overall weapons strength, one must simply divide by 30. > > > >(I grant that the two types of vessels are not the same, and thus it > >cannot be expected that they will have the same firepower . . . however, > >this method does indicate the appropriate firepower range.) > > > >This indicates, off of example one, that a Warbird can, in a matter of > >seconds, destroy 1% of a planet's crust. That's the whole crust, not > >just "the crust to a depth of one meter". > > > >Or, if you prefer example two, that means that a Warbird can reduce a > >world to its core in 180 hours, or just a smidgen over a week. > > Even if correct, this is not necessarily true. Power requirements may > intervene. Why? You can't drain the gravity from a quantum singularity. > > As for the argument, I will repeat myself: > > Basic starting assumption: The attack as planned was impossible. And here your troubles begin. You assume what you seek to prove. > > Question: Is it reasonable that the attack was planned, given that it could not > be carried out? > > Point 1. The Romulan contribution was commanded by a Founder. Consequently, > any Romulan objections that the plan was impossible would be easily squashed. A possibility. > > Point 2. Tain was a complete idiot when dealing with military afairs. > (Evidence: > He failed to conduct a proper recon of a target that was a blindingly obvious > trap. How do you define "blindingly obvious trap"? Have you ever sprung a trap on someone else, or had one sprung on you? Or are you saying it's blindingly obvious because you know how TV shows work? Besides, one of the primary ideas behind a recon force is to protect the larger force. Why bother with recon when you can park the whole team in the middle of the field, and leave if you find the situation unsuitable? > No intelligent commander leaves a vital point undefended without good cause.) Perhaps they thought there was good cause, such as Dominion struggles in the Gamma Quadrant. > Therefore, Tain need not have had any idea what the capabilities of his ships > were. This is a completely foolish assertion. You seek to prove that Tain didn't really know if a fleet of starships could destroy a planet, despite the fact that this was one of the most well-informed men in the entire Cardassian Union. > > Point 3. The mission as planned was insanely excessive, as the intent was to > kill > the Founders. The fleet assembled could quite probably manage this task, and > therefore would succeed at the mission, even though the planet would not be > destroyed (or reduced to its core) Consequently, many of those officers who > were briefed on the mission that knew it was not possible would likely refrain > from pointing out the error, since the real mission would still be accomplished. You have very unusual ideas of human nature and behavior. > > Point 4. Tain was the head of a intelligence/internal security organization > within a fairly tyrannical system of government. Such people tend to > surround themselves with people they control (or at least have some sort > of agreement with) Consequently, there is no requirement that any of his > advisors know the capabilities of their ships. Ah, but the ship commanders knew the capability of their ships . . . and furthermore, as an intel outfit, the Obsidian Order would have access to information about the capabilities of other vessels, offering, at absolute minimum, a range to work with mentally. > > Given this, it is quite plausible that the entire simulation was falsified, and > the ships in question completely lacked the capability attributed to them. It's as plausible as the notion of monkeys flying out of my butt. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Martichi@aol.com (SirNitram) Date: 4 Aug 2001 14:17:00 -0700 Subject: Re: Bombardment Analyzations(WAS: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes...) Message-ID: <1e5517e2.0108041317.1bf37fe6@posting.google.com> -------- Google Groups, single bitchiest way to post. Guardian 2000 wrote in message news:<3B6B1A39.4512A76@yahoo.com>... > Namothil wrote: > > > > In article <3B6AFB8F.F8FEDF88@yahoo.com>, Guardian 2000 says... > > > > > > > > > > > >SirNitram wrote: > > >> > > >> "Guardian 2000" wrote in message news:<9k9jo1$3amrk$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de>... > > >> > How lovely to see yet another Warsie utterly misrepresent my position. > > >> > > > >> > SirNitram wrote in message > > >> > <1e5517e2.0107301020.377ff683@posting.google.com>... > > >> > >The following is an attempt to bludgeon a concept into Guardian 2000's > > >> > >head. Comments, corrections, etc., are welcome, if you aren't gonna be > > >> > >an ignorant, annoying fuck about them. > > >> > > > > >> > >One thing that Guardian keeps referring to to try and prove superior > > >> > >weapons power for the Feds in the bombardment in Darksaber. > > >> > > > >> > That is not needed to prove superior weapons power for the Feds. You can > > >> > slag the entire surface of the world to a depth of one meter in one day and > > >> > it still would not compare to a Warbird. > > >> > > > >> > > >> You've yet to prove this extreme firepower on a warbird. Will we ever > > >> see this amazing calc set, or does it exist only in your brain? > > >> > > > > > >I've already shown you. > > > > > >1. 30 top-of-the-line D'deridex and Keldon class starships vs. one > > >planet . . . time factor minimal (depends on whether you want to count > > >the commercial break or not). Results? Planet loses 30% of crust. > > > > Not shown. > > False. > Really? Lemme dig out the pic of the surface as this alleged 30% of the crust is supposed to be destroyed... Here we go. http://h4h.com/louis/jpgs/tdic3.jpg Hrrrrrrrrrrrm. I see some big ripples, which seem to indicate some powerful blasts going down(Or, if the surface we see is an ocean or the Great Link, it might be torpedo's splashing down and creating tidal waves. Either way.), but no Pacific Ocean-sized craters. Please, Guardian, show us the pic of the huge crater. > > Given the presence of sensor distortion, it is quite probably > > a false reading. > > Why? Why leave lifesign readings while giving false data on crust > damage? Why not simply show the crust as undamaged and make the > Romulans and Cardassians really freak out? > Which is more scary? 'Sir, sensors report our bombardment has caused minimal damage to the crust.' 'Increase Disrupters to full power! Fire two!' Or, 'Sir! Sensors report thirty percent of the crust has been disrupted or destroyed.... This would require our weapons to be worked at nearly 120 times the power we set them too... But life signs are holding steady!' 'What the... It's a trap! Signal the flagship!' I would be surprised if some captain didn't have the latter conversasion on one of the ships in the fleet. Remember, the Dominion loves to screw with people's heads. That's why the trap was set. > > (And before you argue that only lifesign readings were > > distorted, remember that it is very difficult to distort only one aspect of > > a target.) > > Proof that is it difficult to distort only one aspect of a target? > What constitutes lifesigns on the surface? Probably heat signatures. So to make it appear that lifesigns were static while stuff blew up around them, they'd have to null out outside heat. Like that from explosions. > > > > >Or, > > > > > >2. 30 top-of-the-line D'deridex and Keldon class starships vs. one > > >planet . . . time factor six hours. Results? Planet reduced to a > > >core. > > > > Likely falsified simulation. > > Proof? > The explosions on the surface were not adequete for the simulation to prove itself. Visuals override dialogue. > I disagree with your assertion that it is "likely" a falsified > simulation. Indeed, I find it unlikely that warship commanders would be > so perilously unfamiliar with their technology as you are suggesting. > While you find it unlikely, you have no proof of this. Besides, we never saw the whole fleet, every person in it. Quite a few could think it was looney. > > > > >Now, unless you can demonstrate that ST weapon power increases > > >exponentially if the weapons are used together against the same target > > >(i.e. like the crossing of the beams in Ghostbusters), then to find a > > >Warbird's overall weapons strength, one must simply divide by 30. > > > > > >(I grant that the two types of vessels are not the same, and thus it > > >cannot be expected that they will have the same firepower . . . however, > > >this method does indicate the appropriate firepower range.) > > > > > >This indicates, off of example one, that a Warbird can, in a matter of > > >seconds, destroy 1% of a planet's crust. That's the whole crust, not > > >just "the crust to a depth of one meter". > > > > > >Or, if you prefer example two, that means that a Warbird can reduce a > > >world to its core in 180 hours, or just a smidgen over a week. > > > > Even if correct, this is not necessarily true. Power requirements may > > intervene. > > Why? You can't drain the gravity from a quantum singularity. > So, you claim a Warbird can never run out of fuel. Ladies and gentlemen, Guardian has proven he lacks the basic scientific knowledge of Thermodynamics. Something which never runs out of power without refueling is called a perpetual motion device. They are impossible, due to the Laws of Thermodynamics. The quantum singularities used by Romulan Warbirds are undoubtably a good power source, but with every joule used by the 'bird, the energy-state(Determined by applying E=MC^2 to the mass of the black hole inside it) of the singularity is decreased. When it runs out, it'll probably react rather nastily. > > > > As for the argument, I will repeat myself: > > > > Basic starting assumption: The attack as planned was impossible. > > And here your troubles begin. You assume what you seek to prove. > And I shall step in to prove the assumption: The visuals of the bombardment do not show enough damage to strip down the surface and the mantle in the projected time. > > > > Question: Is it reasonable that the attack was planned, given that it could not > > be carried out? > > > > Point 1. The Romulan contribution was commanded by a Founder. Consequently, > > any Romulan objections that the plan was impossible would be easily squashed. > > A possibility. > Very likely, considering the whole thing was a trap. > > > > Point 2. Tain was a complete idiot when dealing with military afairs. > > (Evidence: > > He failed to conduct a proper recon of a target that was a blindingly obvious > > trap. > > How do you define "blindingly obvious trap"? Have you ever sprung a > trap on someone else, or had one sprung on you? Or are you saying > it's blindingly obvious because you know how TV shows work? > Undefended homeworld. Weapons doing more damage than they should, yet not killing people. > Besides, one of the primary ideas behind a recon force is to protect the > larger force. Why bother with recon when you can park the whole team in > the middle of the field, and leave if you find the situation unsuitable? > So why didn't the fleet warp out once they realized something was fishy? Any military which DOESN'T scout the area beforehand is a bunch of morons. If a Interdictor-type craft was there to pin them in place once they arrived, they'd be slaughtered to a man. Proving that the Rom and Cardassian forces will be slaughtered by an Imperial taskforce. > > No intelligent commander leaves a vital point undefended without good cause.) > > Perhaps they thought there was good cause, such as Dominion struggles in > the Gamma Quadrant. > You always watch your back. Leaving your homeworld undefended would be the ultimate in moronic moves. At that point an enemy can waltz in and begin bombardment, or just land troops. After all, it only takes 300 troops to take Vulcan. > > Therefore, Tain need not have had any idea what the capabilities of his ships > > were. > > This is a completely foolish assertion. You seek to prove that Tain > didn't really know if a fleet of starships could destroy a planet, > despite the fact that this was one of the most well-informed men in the > entire Cardassian Union. > But has he ever performed a BDZ-type operation before? Has he ever considered it an option? Has he studied Disrupter and Plasma/Photon firepower against rock and soil? Can you prove any of this? > > > > Point 3. The mission as planned was insanely excessive, as the intent was to > > kill > > the Founders. The fleet assembled could quite probably manage this task, and > > therefore would succeed at the mission, even though the planet would not be > > destroyed (or reduced to its core) Consequently, many of those officers who > > were briefed on the mission that knew it was not possible would likely refrain > > from pointing out the error, since the real mission would still be accomplished. > > You have very unusual ideas of human nature and behavior. > Why? Because they'd follow orders? This is a military. You are trained to follow orders and do your job. You've never heard 'Ours is not to question why, ours is to do and die'? > > > > Point 4. Tain was the head of a intelligence/internal security organization > > within a fairly tyrannical system of government. Such people tend to > > surround themselves with people they control (or at least have some sort > > of agreement with) Consequently, there is no requirement that any of his > > advisors know the capabilities of their ships. > > Ah, but the ship commanders knew the capability of their ships . . . and > furthermore, as an intel outfit, the Obsidian Order would have access to > information about the capabilities of other vessels, offering, at > absolute minimum, a range to work with mentally. > Prove the Captain's in the fleet didn't think the 'Rip the surface off and tractor the core' was a load of carp and just intended to pound every lifesign on the surface until the Founders were extinct. > > > > Given this, it is quite plausible that the entire simulation was falsified, and > > the ships in question completely lacked the capability attributed to them. > > It's as plausible as the notion of monkeys flying out of my butt. Everyone duck! Winged simians are launching out of Guardian's rectal cavity, carrying with them more of his arguments from their point of origin! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 17:21:44 -0500 Subject: Re: Bombardment Analyzations(WAS: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes...) Message-ID: <9kkji2$54ql6$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de> -------- SirNitram wrote in message <1e5517e2.0108041317.1bf37fe6@posting.google.com>... >Google Groups, single bitchiest way to post. > > >Guardian 2000 wrote in message news:<3B6B1A39.4512A76@yahoo.com>... >> Namothil wrote: >> > >> > In article <3B6AFB8F.F8FEDF88@yahoo.com>, Guardian 2000 says... >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >SirNitram wrote: >> > >> >> > >> "Guardian 2000" wrote in message news:<9k9jo1$3amrk$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de>... >> > >> > How lovely to see yet another Warsie utterly misrepresent my position. >> > >> > >> > >> > SirNitram wrote in message >> > >> > <1e5517e2.0107301020.377ff683@posting.google.com>... >> > >> > >The following is an attempt to bludgeon a concept into Guardian 2000's >> > >> > >head. Comments, corrections, etc., are welcome, if you aren't gonna be >> > >> > >an ignorant, annoying fuck about them. >> > >> > > >> > >> > >One thing that Guardian keeps referring to to try and prove superior >> > >> > >weapons power for the Feds in the bombardment in Darksaber. >> > >> > >> > >> > That is not needed to prove superior weapons power for the Feds. You can >> > >> > slag the entire surface of the world to a depth of one meter in one day and >> > >> > it still would not compare to a Warbird. >> > >> > >> > >> >> > >> You've yet to prove this extreme firepower on a warbird. Will we ever >> > >> see this amazing calc set, or does it exist only in your brain? >> > >> >> > > >> > >I've already shown you. >> > > >> > >1. 30 top-of-the-line D'deridex and Keldon class starships vs. one >> > >planet . . . time factor minimal (depends on whether you want to count >> > >the commercial break or not). Results? Planet loses 30% of crust. >> > >> > Not shown. >> >> False. >> > >Really? Lemme dig out the pic of the surface as this alleged 30% of >the crust is supposed to be destroyed... Here we go. > >http://h4h.com/louis/jpgs/tdic3.jpg > >Hrrrrrrrrrrrm. I see some big ripples, which seem to indicate some >powerful blasts going down(Or, if the surface we see is an ocean or >the Great Link, it might be torpedo's splashing down and creating >tidal waves. Either way.), but no Pacific Ocean-sized craters. Please, >Guardian, show us the pic of the huge crater. You've been told previously why you should not expect to see the crater, over and above the simple fact that you're wanting to see something on the darkside of the planet. > >> > Given the presence of sensor distortion, it is quite probably >> > a false reading. >> >> Why? Why leave lifesign readings while giving false data on crust >> damage? Why not simply show the crust as undamaged and make the >> Romulans and Cardassians really freak out? >> > >Which is more scary? > >'Sir, sensors report our bombardment has caused minimal damage to the >crust.' > >'Increase Disrupters to full power! Fire two!' > No, there would be no damage if the sensors were all being fooled. The Romulans and Cardassians would have to wonder why. >Or, > >'Sir! Sensors report thirty percent of the crust has been disrupted or >destroyed.... This would require our weapons to be worked at nearly >120 times the power we set them too... But life signs are holding >steady!' > >'What the... It's a trap! Signal the flagship!' > >I would be surprised if some captain didn't have the latter >conversasion on one of the ships in the fleet. > >Remember, the Dominion loves to screw with people's heads. That's why >the trap was set. They left the lifesigns to let them know, but could not hide the fact that the crust was gone. If they could have, though, it would have profoundly messed with the Rom and Cardie heads. > >> > (And before you argue that only lifesign readings were >> > distorted, remember that it is very difficult to distort only one aspect of >> > a target.) >> >> Proof that is it difficult to distort only one aspect of a target? >> > >What constitutes lifesigns on the surface? Probably heat signatures. Proof that heat signatures is the correct assumption? >So to make it appear that lifesigns were static while stuff blew up >around them, they'd have to null out outside heat. Like that from >explosions. > I hope you realize that the above makes no sense at all. If they were to nullify outside heat for the purposes of sensor readings, then that does leave the planet well-bombarded. >> > >> > >Or, >> > > >> > >2. 30 top-of-the-line D'deridex and Keldon class starships vs. one >> > >planet . . . time factor six hours. Results? Planet reduced to a >> > >core. >> > >> > Likely falsified simulation. >> >> Proof? >> > >The explosions on the surface were not adequete for the simulation to >prove itself. Visuals override dialogue. The time given was not adequate to produce the simulated effect. No visuals-over-dialogue argument is thus valid, because the discussed events could not possibly have been seen. > >> I disagree with your assertion that it is "likely" a falsified >> simulation. Indeed, I find it unlikely that warship commanders would be >> so perilously unfamiliar with their technology as you are suggesting. >> > >While you find it unlikely, you have no proof of this. And you have no proof that it was a falsified simulation. However, while I do not have the power to interview a Romulan commander and compare his statements on his ship's firepower to actual tests of Warbird firepower, I would love to see you demonstrate any military in history wherein a commander did not have at least a rough idea of what his vessel was capable of. > Besides, we >never saw the whole fleet, every person in it. Quite a few could think >it was looney. Or all of them could have thought it was fabulous and plausible. > >> > >> > >Now, unless you can demonstrate that ST weapon power increases >> > >exponentially if the weapons are used together against the same target >> > >(i.e. like the crossing of the beams in Ghostbusters), then to find a >> > >Warbird's overall weapons strength, one must simply divide by 30. >> > > >> > >(I grant that the two types of vessels are not the same, and thus it >> > >cannot be expected that they will have the same firepower . . . however, >> > >this method does indicate the appropriate firepower range.) >> > > >> > >This indicates, off of example one, that a Warbird can, in a matter of >> > >seconds, destroy 1% of a planet's crust. That's the whole crust, not >> > >just "the crust to a depth of one meter". >> > > >> > >Or, if you prefer example two, that means that a Warbird can reduce a >> > >world to its core in 180 hours, or just a smidgen over a week. >> > >> > Even if correct, this is not necessarily true. Power requirements may >> > intervene. >> >> Why? You can't drain the gravity from a quantum singularity. >> > >So, you claim a Warbird can never run out of fuel. No, I claim that a Warbird cannot "run out of fuel" in a week's time. > Ladies and >gentlemen, Guardian has proven he lacks the basic scientific knowledge >of Thermodynamics. And you've proven a lack of basic reading comprehension. > >Something which never runs out of power without refueling is called a >perpetual motion device. They are impossible, due to the Laws of >Thermodynamics. Actually, since we're talking about black holes, the Hawking Process is probably more along the lines of what you were going for. > >The quantum singularities used by Romulan Warbirds are undoubtably a >good power source, but with every joule used by the 'bird, the >energy-state(Determined by applying E=MC^2 to the mass of the black >hole inside it) of the singularity is decreased. When it runs out, >it'll probably react rather nastily. In theory, it would die in a burst of Hawking radiation. However, since it is an artificial quantum singularity in the first place, they need only to start over. Now, is the Warbird deriving her energy from the Hawking radiation of a tiny singularity, or from the heat generated by infalling matter of a somewhat larger one? We don't know. How did they make it in the first place? We don't know. > >> > >> > As for the argument, I will repeat myself: >> > >> > Basic starting assumption: The attack as planned was impossible. >> >> And here your troubles begin. You assume what you seek to prove. >> > >And I shall step in to prove the assumption: The visuals of the >bombardment do not show enough damage to strip down the surface and >the mantle in the projected time. Let's try an analogy, shall we? You're in a darkened room. You can see nothing. In there with you is a glass bottle, and a man with a gun and night-vision goggles. He fires at the bottle, and though you're pretty sure you see something happening to the bottle in those moments when the muzzle flash is illuminating the room, you cannot see the condition of the bottle after the shot, because it is dark and you can see nothing. Your comrade, however, reports that he can see the bottle, and it is completely fragmented. By your argument, you must call him a liar. > >> > >> > Question: Is it reasonable that the attack was planned, given that it could not >> > be carried out? >> > >> > Point 1. The Romulan contribution was commanded by a Founder. Consequently, >> > any Romulan objections that the plan was impossible would be easily squashed. >> >> A possibility. >> > >Very likely, considering the whole thing was a trap. Actually, it is not likely at all. It occurred to me that we have, on more than one occasion, see Romulan officers object openly when they felt a commander or even a ship's Tal'Shiar officer was making an erroneous decision. Witness Decius and the Romulan sensor guy from "Balance of Terror"[TOS], the problems the commander faced in "Face of the Enemy"[TNG], et cetera. > >> > >> > Point 2. Tain was a complete idiot when dealing with military afairs. >> > (Evidence: >> > He failed to conduct a proper recon of a target that was a blindingly obvious >> > trap. >> >> How do you define "blindingly obvious trap"? Have you ever sprung a >> trap on someone else, or had one sprung on you? Or are you saying >> it's blindingly obvious because you know how TV shows work? >> > >Undefended homeworld. Which is not surprising, given that no one in the Gamma Quadrant knew where the homeworld was. Dax learned that data for the Federation, and it was shared with the Romulans as part of the exchange. However, the Founders would have known that the Federation would not go attacking the homeworld . . . it was only the fact that there was a Founder in place within the Romulan Empire that allowed them to learn of the plan, and use it to their advantage. >Weapons doing more damage than they should, yet >not killing people. Doing more damage than they should? Proof of this? > >> Besides, one of the primary ideas behind a recon force is to protect the >> larger force. Why bother with recon when you can park the whole team in >> the middle of the field, and leave if you find the situation unsuitable? >> > >So why didn't the fleet warp out once they realized something was >fishy? Because they were quite suddenly overwhelmed by 150 battlebugs. >Any military which DOESN'T scout the area beforehand is a bunch >of morons. If your entire fleet is cloaked, scouting becomes far less of a necessity. The point of scouts is to protect the main fleet . . . but the Dominion would not have known the main fleet was there. >If a Interdictor-type craft was there to pin them in place >once they arrived, they'd be slaughtered to a man. Proving that the >Rom and Cardassian forces will be slaughtered by an Imperial >taskforce. You assume that interdictors would work against vessels using warp drive, which is an unsupported assumption. > >> > No intelligent commander leaves a vital point undefended without good cause.) >> >> Perhaps they thought there was good cause, such as Dominion struggles in >> the Gamma Quadrant. >> > >You always watch your back. No one else knew where their back was. >Leaving your homeworld undefended would be >the ultimate in moronic moves. No, because incessant and large fleet movements around an unsuspected world would tip off anyone the Dominion wanted to protect the secret from. >At that point an enemy can waltz in and >begin bombardment, or just land troops. After all, it only takes 300 >troops to take Vulcan. No, it takes three shiploads of troops to entrench themselves on Vulcan, pending reinforcement. > >> > Therefore, Tain need not have had any idea what the capabilities of his ships >> > were. >> >> This is a completely foolish assertion. You seek to prove that Tain >> didn't really know if a fleet of starships could destroy a planet, >> despite the fact that this was one of the most well-informed men in the >> entire Cardassian Union. >> > >But has he ever performed a BDZ-type operation before? Has he ever >considered it an option? Has he studied Disrupter and Plasma/Photon >firepower against rock and soil? Can you prove any of this? I don't have to prove any of it, because you have to prove that he would have been utterly ignorant of the capabilities of his own fleet. > >> > >> > Point 3. The mission as planned was insanely excessive, as the intent was to >> > kill >> > the Founders. The fleet assembled could quite probably manage this task, and >> > therefore would succeed at the mission, even though the planet would not be >> > destroyed (or reduced to its core) Consequently, many of those officers who >> > were briefed on the mission that knew it was not possible would likely refrain >> > from pointing out the error, since the real mission would still be accomplished. >> >> You have very unusual ideas of human nature and behavior. >> > >Why? Because they'd follow orders? This is a military. You are trained >to follow orders and do your job. You've never heard 'Ours is not to >question why, ours is to do and die'? The Romulans are just as unlikely to simply follow orders as Starfleet officers are, when the situation makes it readily apparent that "someone had blunder'd". > >> > >> > Point 4. Tain was the head of a intelligence/internal security organization >> > within a fairly tyrannical system of government. Such people tend to >> > surround themselves with people they control (or at least have some sort >> > of agreement with) Consequently, there is no requirement that any of his >> > advisors know the capabilities of their ships. >> >> Ah, but the ship commanders knew the capability of their ships . . . and >> furthermore, as an intel outfit, the Obsidian Order would have access to >> information about the capabilities of other vessels, offering, at >> absolute minimum, a range to work with mentally. >> > >Prove the Captain's in the fleet didn't think the 'Rip the surface off >and tractor the core' was a load of carp and just intended to pound >every lifesign on the surface until the Founders were extinct. 1. Tractor the core? 2. You must prove that the captains of the vessels had a plot to fail to do what their commanders intended. > >> > >> > Given this, it is quite plausible that the entire simulation was falsified, and >> > the ships in question completely lacked the capability attributed to them. >> >> It's as plausible as the notion of monkeys flying out of my butt. > >Everyone duck! Winged simians are launching out of Guardian's rectal >cavity, carrying with them more of his arguments from their point of >origin! Given your arguments, I'm not suprised you came to that conclusion. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: tedmanonions@hotmail.com (Ted Archbold) Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 21:23:07 GMT Subject: Re: [VS] TJ Chickens Out Message-ID: <3cc08aaa.1820297@news.cis.dfn.de> -------- On Fri, 19 Apr 2002 17:03:51 -0400, "cmdrwilkens" wrote: >"Raven Ford" wrote in message >news:a9purc$5brct$1@ID-63060.news.dfncis.de... >> >> "Sir Nitram" wrote in message >> news:20020419143435.02922.00006596@mb-ba.aol.com... >> > >Sir Nitram wrote: >> > >> >> > >> >John Hansen wrote: >> > >> >> >> > >> >> "Dalton" opened Pandora's Box (cleverly disguised as [VS] TJ >> Chickens >> > >Out) >> > >> >on >> > >> >> Fri, 19 Apr 2002 13:14:39 -0400... >> > >> >> >> > >> >> > I don't know if this got through the first time I tried to post >> it, so >> > >> >> > here it is again: >> > >> >> >> > >> >> Indeed, your first post got through. >> > >> > >> > >> >It appears I have killfiltered myself. Shit. >> > >> > >> > >> >> > >> Are you sure? It might just be your ass in the way. Or your belly. >> > > >> > >You are treading on thin lard. >> > > >> > >> > Of course. >> > >> > *Points to Strowbridge* >> > >> > That man has a ham sandwich! >> >> All of a sudden I have a craving for a turkey with Ruffles potato chips >> sandwich. >> > >Ruffles bah, ya'll who don't live in the upper Mid-Atlantic/lower New >England don't know the greatest potato chips ever: UTZ. > > Nothin beats Pringles AIM: FldMrslTed ICQ: 125211976 MSN: tedmanonions@hotmail.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Matthew Hyde Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 21:30:51 -0400 Subject: Re: [VS] TJ Chickens Out Message-ID: <3CC0C4CB.1C3D5D37@mtu.edu> -------- Ted Archbold wrote: > On Fri, 19 Apr 2002 17:03:51 -0400, "cmdrwilkens" > wrote: > > >"Raven Ford" wrote in message > >news:a9purc$5brct$1@ID-63060.news.dfncis.de... > >> > >> "Sir Nitram" wrote in message > >> news:20020419143435.02922.00006596@mb-ba.aol.com... > >> > >Sir Nitram wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> >John Hansen wrote: > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> "Dalton" opened Pandora's Box (cleverly disguised as [VS] TJ > >> Chickens > >> > >Out) > >> > >> >on > >> > >> >> Fri, 19 Apr 2002 13:14:39 -0400... > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > I don't know if this got through the first time I tried to post > >> it, so > >> > >> >> > here it is again: > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> Indeed, your first post got through. > >> > >> > > >> > >> >It appears I have killfiltered myself. Shit. > >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> Are you sure? It might just be your ass in the way. Or your belly. > >> > > > >> > >You are treading on thin lard. > >> > > > >> > > >> > Of course. > >> > > >> > *Points to Strowbridge* > >> > > >> > That man has a ham sandwich! > >> > >> All of a sudden I have a craving for a turkey with Ruffles potato chips > >> sandwich. > >> > > > >Ruffles bah, ya'll who don't live in the upper Mid-Atlantic/lower New > >England don't know the greatest potato chips ever: UTZ. > > > > > Nothin beats Pringles GUrgle, ugh ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Matthew Hyde Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 21:30:32 -0400 Subject: Re: [VS] TJ Chickens Out Message-ID: <3CC0C4B8.97C4E756@mtu.edu> -------- cmdrwilkens wrote: > "Raven Ford" wrote in message > news:a9purc$5brct$1@ID-63060.news.dfncis.de... > > > > "Sir Nitram" wrote in message > > news:20020419143435.02922.00006596@mb-ba.aol.com... > > > >Sir Nitram wrote: > > > >> > > > >> >John Hansen wrote: > > > >> >> > > > >> >> "Dalton" opened Pandora's Box (cleverly disguised as [VS] TJ > > Chickens > > > >Out) > > > >> >on > > > >> >> Fri, 19 Apr 2002 13:14:39 -0400... > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > I don't know if this got through the first time I tried to post > > it, so > > > >> >> > here it is again: > > > >> >> > > > >> >> Indeed, your first post got through. > > > >> > > > > >> >It appears I have killfiltered myself. Shit. > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> Are you sure? It might just be your ass in the way. Or your belly. > > > > > > > >You are treading on thin lard. > > > > > > > > > > Of course. > > > > > > *Points to Strowbridge* > > > > > > That man has a ham sandwich! > > > > All of a sudden I have a craving for a turkey with Ruffles potato chips > > sandwich. > > > > Ruffles bah, ya'll who don't live in the upper Mid-Atlantic/lower New > England don't know the greatest potato chips ever: UTZ. FASLE! Uncle Ray's "Hot" flavor! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: sith79@aol.com (Kamakazie Sith) Date: 3 Aug 2001 21:53:06 -0700 Subject: Re: Bombardment Analyzations(WAS: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes...) Message-ID: <89c4bcfd.0108032053.45c190eb@posting.google.com> -------- Namothil wrote in message news:... > In article <3B6AFB8F.F8FEDF88@yahoo.com>, Guardian 2000 says... > > > > > > > >SirNitram wrote: > >> > >> "Guardian 2000" wrote in message news:<9k9jo1$3amrk$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de>... > >> > How lovely to see yet another Warsie utterly misrepresent my position. > >> > > >> > SirNitram wrote in message > >> > <1e5517e2.0107301020.377ff683@posting.google.com>... > >> > >The following is an attempt to bludgeon a concept into Guardian 2000's > >> > >head. Comments, corrections, etc., are welcome, if you aren't gonna be > >> > >an ignorant, annoying fuck about them. > >> > > > >> > >One thing that Guardian keeps referring to to try and prove superior > >> > >weapons power for the Feds in the bombardment in Darksaber. > >> > > >> > That is not needed to prove superior weapons power for the Feds. You can > >> > slag the entire surface of the world to a depth of one meter in one day and > >> > it still would not compare to a Warbird. > >> > > >> > >> You've yet to prove this extreme firepower on a warbird. Will we ever > >> see this amazing calc set, or does it exist only in your brain? > >> > > > >I've already shown you. > > > >1. 30 top-of-the-line D'deridex and Keldon class starships vs. one > >planet . . . time factor minimal (depends on whether you want to count > >the commercial break or not). Results? Planet loses 30% of crust. > > Not shown. Given the presence of sensor distortion, it is quite probably > a false reading. (And before you argue that only lifesign readings were > distorted, remember that it is very difficult to distort only one aspect of > a target.) They do that all the time in ST. Example DS9 first episode DS9 was able to alter emissions from itself to make it appear as if it had a large weapon compliment. Nothing else was effected. Also, what would be the point of faking the damage to the crust..all they needed was for there to be lifesign readings so the fleet would continue with the operation. > >Or, > > > >2. 30 top-of-the-line D'deridex and Keldon class starships vs. one > >planet . . . time factor six hours. Results? Planet reduced to a > >core. > > Likely falsified simulation. Likely not, for your assumption to work the Cardi/Rom empires would have to be filled with fools, and cowards to allow a plan like this to go forward. > >Now, unless you can demonstrate that ST weapon power increases > >exponentially if the weapons are used together against the same target > >(i.e. like the crossing of the beams in Ghostbusters), then to find a > >Warbird's overall weapons strength, one must simply divide by 30. > > > >(I grant that the two types of vessels are not the same, and thus it > >cannot be expected that they will have the same firepower . . . however, > >this method does indicate the appropriate firepower range.) > > > >This indicates, off of example one, that a Warbird can, in a matter of > >seconds, destroy 1% of a planet's crust. That's the whole crust, not > >just "the crust to a depth of one meter". > > > >Or, if you prefer example two, that means that a Warbird can reduce a > >world to its core in 180 hours, or just a smidgen over a week. > > Even if correct, this is not necessarily true. Power requirements may > intervene. > > As for the argument, I will repeat myself: > > Basic starting assumption: The attack as planned was impossible. Huge assumption filled with ridiculous claims > Question: Is it reasonable that the attack was planned, given that it could not > be carried out? No, because the crews of the starships would know what there ships are capable of, it's stupid to think otherwise. Unless you believe both empires are filled with fools, and cowards to let a doomed plan like this go through. > Point 1. The Romulan contribution was commanded by a Founder. Consequently, > any Romulan objections that the plan was impossible would be easily squashed. A Romulan General vs. the Senate and other Generals, and the crews of the other warbirds who know their ships capabilites. > Point 2. Tain was a complete idiot when dealing with military afairs. > (Evidence: > He failed to conduct a proper recon of a target that was a blindingly obvious > trap. > No intelligent commander leaves a vital point undefended without good cause.) > Therefore, Tain need not have had any idea what the capabilities of his ships > were. He was overconfident....like the Empire. > Point 3. The mission as planned was insanely excessive, as the intent was to > kill > the Founders. The fleet assembled could quite probably manage this task, and > therefore would succeed at the mission, even though the planet would not be > destroyed (or reduced to its core) Consequently, many of those officers who > were briefed on the mission that knew it was not possible would likely refrain > from pointing out the error, since the real mission would still be accomplished. Perhaps they wanted to leave a message showing what happens to aliens that dare attack the AQ. The DS is far from over excessive....... > Point 4. Tain was the head of a intelligence/internal security organization > within a fairly tyrannical system of government. Such people tend to > surround themselves with people they control (or at least have some sort > of agreement with) Consequently, there is no requirement that any of his > advisors know the capabilities of their ships. Right...surround yourself with incompentent people. > Given this, it is quite plausible that the entire simulation was falsified, and > the ships in question completely lacked the capability attributed to them. > Given this it is more reasonable to conclude this is speculation and has so many assumptions it would be stupid to consider it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Namothil Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2001 06:06:47 GMT Subject: Re: Bombardment Analyzations(WAS: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes...) Message-ID: -------- In article <89c4bcfd.0108032053.45c190eb@posting.google.com>, Kamakazie Sith says... > >Namothil wrote in message news:... >> In article <3B6AFB8F.F8FEDF88@yahoo.com>, Guardian 2000 says... >> > >> > >> > >> >SirNitram wrote: >> >> >> >> "Guardian 2000" wrote in message news:<9k9jo1$3amrk$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de>... >> >> > How lovely to see yet another Warsie utterly misrepresent my position. >> >> > >> >> > SirNitram wrote in message >> >> > <1e5517e2.0107301020.377ff683@posting.google.com>... >> >> > >The following is an attempt to bludgeon a concept into Guardian 2000's >> >> > >head. Comments, corrections, etc., are welcome, if you aren't gonna be >> >> > >an ignorant, annoying fuck about them. >> >> > > >> >> > >One thing that Guardian keeps referring to to try and prove superior >> >> > >weapons power for the Feds in the bombardment in Darksaber. >> >> > >> >> > That is not needed to prove superior weapons power for the Feds. You can >> >> > slag the entire surface of the world to a depth of one meter in one day and >> >> > it still would not compare to a Warbird. >> >> > >> >> >> >> You've yet to prove this extreme firepower on a warbird. Will we ever >> >> see this amazing calc set, or does it exist only in your brain? >> >> >> > >> >I've already shown you. >> > >> >1. 30 top-of-the-line D'deridex and Keldon class starships vs. one >> >planet . . . time factor minimal (depends on whether you want to count >> >the commercial break or not). Results? Planet loses 30% of crust. >> >> Not shown. Given the presence of sensor distortion, it is quite probably >> a false reading. (And before you argue that only lifesign readings were >> distorted, remember that it is very difficult to distort only one aspect of >> a target.) > >They do that all the time in ST. Example DS9 first episode DS9 was >able to alter emissions from itself to make it appear as if it had a >large weapon compliment. Nothing else was effected. Really? Proof? >Also, what would >be the point of faking the damage to the crust..all they needed was >for there to be lifesign readings so the fleet would continue with the >operation. I never argued that the damage was intentionally faked, but that this may have been an effect of the distortion known to be present. As reported damage does not match visual observation, we know that something is wrong. This is a probable explanation. >> >Or, >> > >> >2. 30 top-of-the-line D'deridex and Keldon class starships vs. one >> >planet . . . time factor six hours. Results? Planet reduced to a >> >core. >> >> Likely falsified simulation. > >Likely not, for your assumption to work the Cardi/Rom empires would >have to be filled with fools, and cowards to allow a plan like this to >go forward. False. I explained this below. >> >Now, unless you can demonstrate that ST weapon power increases >> >exponentially if the weapons are used together against the same target >> >(i.e. like the crossing of the beams in Ghostbusters), then to find a >> >Warbird's overall weapons strength, one must simply divide by 30. >> > >> >(I grant that the two types of vessels are not the same, and thus it >> >cannot be expected that they will have the same firepower . . . however, >> >this method does indicate the appropriate firepower range.) >> > >> >This indicates, off of example one, that a Warbird can, in a matter of >> >seconds, destroy 1% of a planet's crust. That's the whole crust, not >> >just "the crust to a depth of one meter". >> > >> >Or, if you prefer example two, that means that a Warbird can reduce a >> >world to its core in 180 hours, or just a smidgen over a week. >> >> Even if correct, this is not necessarily true. Power requirements may >> intervene. >> >> As for the argument, I will repeat myself: >> >> Basic starting assumption: The attack as planned was impossible. > >Huge assumption filled with ridiculous claims Given that there is no other evidence for it, not at all a huge assumption. Not one of the points below is ridiculous, unless you are ignorant of the nature of those involved. >> Question: Is it reasonable that the attack was planned, given that it could not >> be carried out? > >No, because the crews of the starships would know what there ships are >capable of, it's stupid to think otherwise. Unless you believe both >empires are filled with fools, and cowards to let a doomed plan like >this go through. And where exactly do you get this idea that anyone would have bothered to ask these crews? Where did you get the idea that those crews even knew what the mission was in advance? We are dealing with an operation planned and executed by two intelligence/internal security organizations. Such organizations operate under need-to-know principles. The crews have no need-to-know until they are in orbit over the target. Therefore, assuming that they know anything about the mission before that point is idiotic. >> Point 1. The Romulan contribution was commanded by a Founder. Consequently, >> any Romulan objections that the plan was impossible would be easily squashed. > >A Romulan General vs. the Senate and other Generals, and the crews of >the other warbirds who know their ships capabilites. Crew objections are dealt with by their commander, as I noted. The Senate need not have known anything at all about the attack. Ditto for the other Generals. >> Point 2. Tain was a complete idiot when dealing with military afairs. >> (Evidence: >> He failed to conduct a proper recon of a target that was a blindingly obvious >> trap. >> No intelligent commander leaves a vital point undefended without good cause.) >> Therefore, Tain need not have had any idea what the capabilities of his ships >> were. > >He was overconfident....like the Empire. No, he was stupid. Such a idiotic mistake cannot be excused by overconfidence. >> Point 3. The mission as planned was insanely excessive, as the intent was to >> kill >> the Founders. The fleet assembled could quite probably manage this task, and >> therefore would succeed at the mission, even though the planet would not be >> destroyed (or reduced to its core) Consequently, many of those officers who >> were briefed on the mission that knew it was not possible would likely refrain >> from pointing out the error, since the real mission would still be accomplished. > >Perhaps they wanted to leave a message showing what happens to aliens >that dare attack the AQ. The DS is far from over excessive....... My point was that, since the only real requirement is to destroy the founders, some who note the problem with the plan as presented will decide to ignore it, since the founders will be destroyed anyway. >> Point 4. Tain was the head of a intelligence/internal security organization >> within a fairly tyrannical system of government. Such people tend to >> surround themselves with people they control (or at least have some sort >> of agreement with) Consequently, there is no requirement that any of his >> advisors know the capabilities of their ships. > >Right...surround yourself with incompentent people. Not necessarily incompetent, simply competent in other areas. Remember, Tain ran an intelligence/internal security organization. Such organizations have absolutely no business involving themselves in military affairs. There is absolutely no reason to think anyone on his staff was qualified to determine the capabilities of their ships. >> Given this, it is quite plausible that the entire simulation was falsified, and >> the ships in question completely lacked the capability attributed to them. >> >Given this it is more reasonable to conclude this is speculation and >has so many assumptions it would be stupid to consider it. As the instance in question does not accord with other examples of firepower, and this is a plausible explanation, this stands as a reasonable sceanrio. Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him show by good conduct that his works are done in the meekness of wisdom. James 3:13 Email:ray1@purdue.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: sith79@aol.com (Kamakazie Sith) Date: 4 Aug 2001 15:21:46 -0700 Subject: Re: Bombardment Analyzations(WAS: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes...) Message-ID: <89c4bcfd.0108041421.78572c9e@posting.google.com> -------- Namothil wrote in message news:... > In article <89c4bcfd.0108032053.45c190eb@posting.google.com>, Kamakazie Sith > says... > > > >Namothil wrote in message news:... > >> In article <3B6AFB8F.F8FEDF88@yahoo.com>, Guardian 2000 says... > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >SirNitram wrote: > >> >> > >> >> "Guardian 2000" wrote in message news:<9k9jo1$3amrk$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de>... > >> >> > How lovely to see yet another Warsie utterly misrepresent my position. > >> >> > > >> >> > SirNitram wrote in message > >> >> > <1e5517e2.0107301020.377ff683@posting.google.com>... > >> >> > >The following is an attempt to bludgeon a concept into Guardian 2000's > >> >> > >head. Comments, corrections, etc., are welcome, if you aren't gonna be > >> >> > >an ignorant, annoying fuck about them. > >> >> > > > >> >> > >One thing that Guardian keeps referring to to try and prove superior > >> >> > >weapons power for the Feds in the bombardment in Darksaber. > >> >> > > >> >> > That is not needed to prove superior weapons power for the Feds. You can > >> >> > slag the entire surface of the world to a depth of one meter in one day and > >> >> > it still would not compare to a Warbird. > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> You've yet to prove this extreme firepower on a warbird. Will we ever > >> >> see this amazing calc set, or does it exist only in your brain? > >> >> > >> > > >> >I've already shown you. > >> > > >> >1. 30 top-of-the-line D'deridex and Keldon class starships vs. one > >> >planet . . . time factor minimal (depends on whether you want to count > >> >the commercial break or not). Results? Planet loses 30% of crust. > >> > >> Not shown. Given the presence of sensor distortion, it is quite probably > >> a false reading. (And before you argue that only lifesign readings were > >> distorted, remember that it is very difficult to distort only one aspect of > >> a target.) > > > >They do that all the time in ST. Example DS9 first episode DS9 was > >able to alter emissions from itself to make it appear as if it had a > >large weapon compliment. Nothing else was effected. > > Really? Proof? First Episode of DS9 when the Cardassians are looking for their missing warship, they surround DS9 and Chief O'Brien generates false signatures of Photon Torpedo stockpiles. > >Also, what would > >be the point of faking the damage to the crust..all they needed was > >for there to be lifesign readings so the fleet would continue with the > >operation. > > I never argued that the damage was intentionally faked, but that this > may have been an effect of the distortion known to be present. As > reported damage does not match visual observation, we know that > something is wrong. This is a probable explanation. An exactly what were those shockwaves we see in the atmosphere? > >> >Or, > >> > > >> >2. 30 top-of-the-line D'deridex and Keldon class starships vs. one > >> >planet . . . time factor six hours. Results? Planet reduced to a > >> >core. > >> > >> Likely falsified simulation. > > > >Likely not, for your assumption to work the Cardi/Rom empires would > >have to be filled with fools, and cowards to allow a plan like this to > >go forward. > > False. I explained this below. And I believe you are wrong. > >> >Now, unless you can demonstrate that ST weapon power increases > >> >exponentially if the weapons are used together against the same target > >> >(i.e. like the crossing of the beams in Ghostbusters), then to find a > >> >Warbird's overall weapons strength, one must simply divide by 30. > >> > > >> >(I grant that the two types of vessels are not the same, and thus it > >> >cannot be expected that they will have the same firepower . . . however, > >> >this method does indicate the appropriate firepower range.) > >> > > >> >This indicates, off of example one, that a Warbird can, in a matter of > >> >seconds, destroy 1% of a planet's crust. That's the whole crust, not > >> >just "the crust to a depth of one meter". > >> > > >> >Or, if you prefer example two, that means that a Warbird can reduce a > >> >world to its core in 180 hours, or just a smidgen over a week. > >> > >> Even if correct, this is not necessarily true. Power requirements may > >> intervene. > >> > >> As for the argument, I will repeat myself: > >> > >> Basic starting assumption: The attack as planned was impossible. > > > >Huge assumption filled with ridiculous claims > > Given that there is no other evidence for it, not at all a huge assumption. > Not one of the points below is ridiculous, unless you are ignorant of the > nature of those involved. > > >> Question: Is it reasonable that the attack was planned, given that it could not > >> be carried out? > > > >No, because the crews of the starships would know what there ships are > >capable of, it's stupid to think otherwise. Unless you believe both > >empires are filled with fools, and cowards to let a doomed plan like > >this go through. > > And where exactly do you get this idea that anyone would have bothered > to ask these crews? Where did you get the idea that those crews even knew > what the mission was in advance? We are dealing with an operation planned > and executed by two intelligence/internal security organizations. Such > organizations operate under need-to-know principles. The crews have no > need-to-know until they are in orbit over the target. Therefore, assuming that > they know anything about the mission before that point is idiotic. You are assuming they had no need to know, when at the same time I can say they had a need to know, nobody was surprised by the reported damage to the planet, nobody was had any doubts that the fleet could accomplish this task. > >> Point 1. The Romulan contribution was commanded by a Founder. Consequently, > >> any Romulan objections that the plan was impossible would be easily squashed. > > > >A Romulan General vs. the Senate and other Generals, and the crews of > >the other warbirds who know their ships capabilites. > > Crew objections are dealt with by their commander, as I noted. The Senate need > not > have known anything at all about the attack. Ditto for the other Generals. More speculation, please note this plan was already set into motion before the Founders even knew about it! They just made sure to push it forward. > >> Point 2. Tain was a complete idiot when dealing with military afairs. > >> (Evidence: > >> He failed to conduct a proper recon of a target that was a blindingly obvious > >> trap. > >> No intelligent commander leaves a vital point undefended without good cause.) > >> Therefore, Tain need not have had any idea what the capabilities of his ships > >> were. > > > >He was overconfident....like the Empire. > > No, he was stupid. Such a idiotic mistake cannot be excused by overconfidence. That's your opinion, I believe he was overconfident. > >> Point 3. The mission as planned was insanely excessive, as the intent was to > >> kill > >> the Founders. The fleet assembled could quite probably manage this task, and > >> therefore would succeed at the mission, even though the planet would not be > >> destroyed (or reduced to its core) Consequently, many of those officers who > >> were briefed on the mission that knew it was not possible would likely refrain > >> from pointing out the error, since the real mission would still be accomplished. > > > >Perhaps they wanted to leave a message showing what happens to aliens > >that dare attack the AQ. The DS is far from over excessive....... > > My point was that, since the only real requirement is to destroy the founders, > some > who note the problem with the plan as presented will decide to ignore it, since > the founders will be destroyed anyway. I see your point, however at the same time I can say that since nobody spoke up about this "impossible" mission then it must have been possible because the officers also have a duty to their ship and crew. I know I would speak up. > >> Point 4. Tain was the head of a intelligence/internal security organization > >> within a fairly tyrannical system of government. Such people tend to > >> surround themselves with people they control (or at least have some sort > >> of agreement with) Consequently, there is no requirement that any of his > >> advisors know the capabilities of their ships. > > > >Right...surround yourself with incompentent people. > > Not necessarily incompetent, simply competent in other areas. Remember, > Tain ran an intelligence/internal security organization. Such organizations > have absolutely no business involving themselves in military affairs. There > is absolutely no reason to think anyone on his staff was qualified to determine > the capabilities of their ships. Speculation, your argument is based off of numerous assumptions. I can also say that Tain being one of the project leaders in this operation would have been given all the technical data he needed. > >> Given this, it is quite plausible that the entire simulation was falsified, and > >> the ships in question completely lacked the capability attributed to them. > >> > >Given this it is more reasonable to conclude this is speculation and > >has so many assumptions it would be stupid to consider it. > > As the instance in question does not accord with other examples of firepower, > and this is a plausible explanation, this stands as a reasonable sceanrio. > List your examples.... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Namothil Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2001 02:26:21 GMT Subject: Re: Bombardment Analyzations(WAS: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes...) Message-ID: -------- In article <89c4bcfd.0108041421.78572c9e@posting.google.com>, Kamakazie Sith says... > >Namothil wrote in message news:... >> In article <89c4bcfd.0108032053.45c190eb@posting.google.com>, Kamakazie Sith >> says... >> > >> >Namothil wrote in message news:... >> >> In article <3B6AFB8F.F8FEDF88@yahoo.com>, Guardian 2000 says... >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >SirNitram wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> "Guardian 2000" wrote in message news:<9k9jo1$3amrk$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de>... >> >> >> > How lovely to see yet another Warsie utterly misrepresent my position. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > SirNitram wrote in message >> >> >> > <1e5517e2.0107301020.377ff683@posting.google.com>... >> >> >> > >The following is an attempt to bludgeon a concept into Guardian 2000's >> >> >> > >head. Comments, corrections, etc., are welcome, if you aren't gonna be >> >> >> > >an ignorant, annoying fuck about them. >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > >One thing that Guardian keeps referring to to try and prove superior >> >> >> > >weapons power for the Feds in the bombardment in Darksaber. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > That is not needed to prove superior weapons power for the Feds. You can >> >> >> > slag the entire surface of the world to a depth of one meter in one day and >> >> >> > it still would not compare to a Warbird. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> You've yet to prove this extreme firepower on a warbird. Will we ever >> >> >> see this amazing calc set, or does it exist only in your brain? >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >I've already shown you. >> >> > >> >> >1. 30 top-of-the-line D'deridex and Keldon class starships vs. one >> >> >planet . . . time factor minimal (depends on whether you want to count >> >> >the commercial break or not). Results? Planet loses 30% of crust. >> >> >> >> Not shown. Given the presence of sensor distortion, it is quite probably >> >> a false reading. (And before you argue that only lifesign readings were >> >> distorted, remember that it is very difficult to distort only one aspect of >> >> a target.) >> > >> >They do that all the time in ST. Example DS9 first episode DS9 was >> >able to alter emissions from itself to make it appear as if it had a >> >large weapon compliment. Nothing else was effected. >> >> Really? Proof? > >First Episode of DS9 when the Cardassians are looking for their >missing warship, they surround DS9 and Chief O'Brien generates false >signatures of Photon Torpedo stockpiles. I know that. Provide proof that nothing else was affected. >> >Also, what would >> >be the point of faking the damage to the crust..all they needed was >> >for there to be lifesign readings so the fleet would continue with the >> >operation. >> >> I never argued that the damage was intentionally faked, but that this >> may have been an effect of the distortion known to be present. As >> reported damage does not match visual observation, we know that >> something is wrong. This is a probable explanation. > >An exactly what were those shockwaves we see in the atmosphere? Certainly not he exposed mantle from destruction of 30% of the crust. >> >> >Or, >> >> > >> >> >2. 30 top-of-the-line D'deridex and Keldon class starships vs. one >> >> >planet . . . time factor six hours. Results? Planet reduced to a >> >> >core. >> >> >> >> Likely falsified simulation. >> > >> >Likely not, for your assumption to work the Cardi/Rom empires would >> >have to be filled with fools, and cowards to allow a plan like this to >> >go forward. >> >> False. I explained this below. > >And I believe you are wrong. > >> >> >Now, unless you can demonstrate that ST weapon power increases >> >> >exponentially if the weapons are used together against the same target >> >> >(i.e. like the crossing of the beams in Ghostbusters), then to find a >> >> >Warbird's overall weapons strength, one must simply divide by 30. >> >> > >> >> >(I grant that the two types of vessels are not the same, and thus it >> >> >cannot be expected that they will have the same firepower . . . however, >> >> >this method does indicate the appropriate firepower range.) >> >> > >> >> >This indicates, off of example one, that a Warbird can, in a matter of >> >> >seconds, destroy 1% of a planet's crust. That's the whole crust, not >> >> >just "the crust to a depth of one meter". >> >> > >> >> >Or, if you prefer example two, that means that a Warbird can reduce a >> >> >world to its core in 180 hours, or just a smidgen over a week. >> >> >> >> Even if correct, this is not necessarily true. Power requirements may >> >> intervene. >> >> >> >> As for the argument, I will repeat myself: >> >> >> >> Basic starting assumption: The attack as planned was impossible. >> > >> >Huge assumption filled with ridiculous claims >> >> Given that there is no other evidence for it, not at all a huge assumption. >> Not one of the points below is ridiculous, unless you are ignorant of the >> nature of those involved. >> >> >> Question: Is it reasonable that the attack was planned, given that it could not >> >> be carried out? >> > >> >No, because the crews of the starships would know what there ships are >> >capable of, it's stupid to think otherwise. Unless you believe both >> >empires are filled with fools, and cowards to let a doomed plan like >> >this go through. >> >> And where exactly do you get this idea that anyone would have bothered >> to ask these crews? Where did you get the idea that those crews even knew >> what the mission was in advance? We are dealing with an operation planned >> and executed by two intelligence/internal security organizations. Such >> organizations operate under need-to-know principles. The crews have no >> need-to-know until they are in orbit over the target. Therefore, assuming that >> they know anything about the mission before that point is idiotic. > >You are assuming they had no need to know, when at the same time I can >say they had a need to know, They did not participate in planning. Therefore there is no need-to-know. Therefore they did not know. If you think they did have such a need, provide some proof. >nobody was surprised by the reported >damage to the planet, nobody was had any doubts that the fleet could >accomplish this task. No one was surprised, even though it contradicted their simulation. Doesn't make much sense, does it? >> >> Point 1. The Romulan contribution was commanded by a Founder. Consequently, >> >> any Romulan objections that the plan was impossible would be easily squashed. >> > >> >A Romulan General vs. the Senate and other Generals, and the crews of >> >the other warbirds who know their ships capabilites. >> >> Crew objections are dealt with by their commander, as I noted. The Senate need >> not >> have known anything at all about the attack. Ditto for the other Generals. > >More speculation, please note this plan was already set into motion >before the Founders even knew about it! They just made sure to push >it forward. To what degree? A plan to destroy the Founders that acquired these characteristics after they became involved should be a possibility. >> >> Point 2. Tain was a complete idiot when dealing with military afairs. >> >> (Evidence: >> >> He failed to conduct a proper recon of a target that was a blindingly obvious >> >> trap. >> >> No intelligent commander leaves a vital point undefended without good cause.) >> >> Therefore, Tain need not have had any idea what the capabilities of his ships >> >> were. >> > >> >He was overconfident....like the Empire. >> >> No, he was stupid. Such a idiotic mistake cannot be excused by overconfidence. > >That's your opinion, I believe he was overconfident. A mistake of that level indicates either treason or stupidity. Take your pick. >> >> Point 3. The mission as planned was insanely excessive, as the intent was to >> >> kill >> >> the Founders. The fleet assembled could quite probably manage this task, and >> >> therefore would succeed at the mission, even though the planet would not be >> >> destroyed (or reduced to its core) Consequently, many of those officers who >> >> were briefed on the mission that knew it was not possible would likely refrain >> >> from pointing out the error, since the real mission would still be accomplished. >> > >> >Perhaps they wanted to leave a message showing what happens to aliens >> >that dare attack the AQ. The DS is far from over excessive....... >> >> My point was that, since the only real requirement is to destroy the founders, >> some >> who note the problem with the plan as presented will decide to ignore it, since >> the founders will be destroyed anyway. > >I see your point, however at the same time I can say that since nobody >spoke up about this "impossible" mission then it must have been >possible because the officers also have a duty to their ship and crew. > I know I would speak up. Do you live in a country where disagreement with your superiors might well lead to your execution? Given what we've seen of their justice system, that is quite possibly true of the Cardassians. In any case, those officers need not have known what the mission was. >> >> Point 4. Tain was the head of a intelligence/internal security organization >> >> within a fairly tyrannical system of government. Such people tend to >> >> surround themselves with people they control (or at least have some sort >> >> of agreement with) Consequently, there is no requirement that any of his >> >> advisors know the capabilities of their ships. >> > >> >Right...surround yourself with incompentent people. >> >> Not necessarily incompetent, simply competent in other areas. Remember, >> Tain ran an intelligence/internal security organization. Such organizations >> have absolutely no business involving themselves in military affairs. There >> is absolutely no reason to think anyone on his staff was qualified to determine >> the capabilities of their ships. > >Speculation, your argument is based off of numerous assumptions. I >can also say that Tain being one of the project leaders in this >operation would have been given all the technical data he needed. > >> >> Given this, it is quite plausible that the entire simulation was falsified, and >> >> the ships in question completely lacked the capability attributed to them. >> >> >> >Given this it is more reasonable to conclude this is speculation and >> >has so many assumptions it would be stupid to consider it. >> >> As the instance in question does not accord with other examples of firepower, >> and this is a plausible explanation, this stands as a reasonable sceanrio. >> >List your examples.... Copied from Wong's database: Ep#52: "Who Watches the Watchers" PICARD VO: Captain's log, Stardate 43125.2. We are en route to Mintaka Three, where a three-man Federation anthropological field team has been studying the inhabitants. Our mission is to resupply the outpost and repair their malfunctioning reactor. .. GEORDI: We've finished replicating the parts they need. What I don't understand is why a three-man station needs a reactor that can produce four-point-two gigawatts. RIKER: That's enough to power a small phaser bank, a subspace relay station, or... GEORDI: A hologram generator. Right -- a "duck blind." PICARD: The anthropologists are studying an extended family of Mintakans at close range... from a camouflaged observation post. Ep#114: "Conundrum" WORF: Captain, I am picking up a vessel directly ahead. PICARD: Can you identify? DATA: The ship matches the Starfleet description of a Lysian Destroyer. A short-range attack vessel ... with disruptor-style weapons, and a standard crew of fifty-three. .. PICARD: Tactical analysis, Mister Data. DATA: The destroyer has minimal shields. Their disruptor capacity appears to be only 2.1 megajoules. .. DATA: Captain, The Lysians have stopped transmitting. They are powering up their disruptors. They have locked onto us, sir... RIKER: Full shields. WORF: Shields up. (the ship is hit, and the bridge shakes) Ep#114: "Conundrum" PICARD: What are the defensive capabilities of the Central Command? DATA: Armaments consist of four laser cannons and thir