---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Doomriser" Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 17:11:18 -0400 Subject: [PDD] DS9 "Valiant" Message-ID: <3d38807a_1@news.cybersurf.net> -------- -Nog's runabout is being attacked by a Jem Hadar bug. Nog mentions that he has a maneuverability advantage, but that he'd have to drop out of warp in order to take advantage of it. -The Dominion uses comm. jamming -The Captain of the Valiant states that the new Dominion battleship is a threat to anyone within 50 light years. Is this is operating range? How is it compared to other ships? Small, I would assume, like similar battleships with poor deployment capability. Ranges like this would explain the "island hopping" strategy we see in ST. -The support structures on the battleship are made of some technobabble alloy that will assume the integrity of "wet pasta" when hit with a technobabble-radiation modified torpedo (actually, two were launched.) Most guidance had to be removed, and the targeting lock had to be manual. The Valiant had to close into 300 metres. -During the Valiant's strafing run, it approached uncloaked and remained so instead of just coming up to the spot, decloaking, and blasting it to hell. Did they have to bring down its shields first? -The Dominion Battleship doesn't seem to have any better firepower or accuracy than a Jem Hadar Bug (though it may have better sustained fire.) The Valiant takes as many hits as the E-D in "Generations," before going down. I would think that a JH monster battleship could do better than that. Perhaps ST starship systems really do become less efficient and weaker at larger sizes like terrestrial insects, as Wong has suggested. -Ripoff central: The Valiant's captain says something to the effect of "Let's blow up this battleship so we can all go home!" and later makes a close range, linear strafing run on a target so small that they have to go into close range. -- -=Doomriser 200 GIGATON LASERS DO NOT EXIST. THE POWER OF THAT ALONE WOULD BE ABLE TO DESTROY A PLANET IN A SINGLE SHOT -- A STAR DESTROYER FIRING ALL ITS TURBOLASERS WOULD BE QUITE ABLE TO CAUSE A STAR TO GO SUPERNOVA. WHAT WAS THE POINT OF THE SUPERLASER IF EVERY STAR DESTROYER WAS CAPABLE ON ITS OWN OF ANNIHILATING A PLANET WITH A SINGLE SHOT? THEREFORE, WE MUST ASSUME TURBOLASERS ARE NOT CAPABLE OF THESE 200-300 GIGATON YIELD FORCES. -User099 http://www.stardestroyer.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=398&postdays=0&postorder =asc&start=15 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Boyd Date: 19 Jul 2002 23:09:09 GMT Subject: Re: [PDD] DS9 "Valiant" Message-ID: <20020720000908468+0100@news.cis.dfn.de> -------- Doomriser wrote: > -Nog's runabout is being attacked by a Jem Hadar bug. Nog mentions > that he has a maneuverability advantage, but that he'd have to drop > out of warp in order to take advantage of it. In other words, a JH bug is at least as maneuverable as a runabout at warp, but less so at impulse. > -The Dominion uses comm. jamming > -The Captain of the Valiant states that the new Dominion battleship is > a threat to anyone within 50 light years. Is this is operating range? > How is it compared to other ships? Small, I would assume, like similar > battleships with poor deployment capability. Ranges like this would > explain the "island hopping" strategy we see in ST. Alternatively, that could simply be its patrol area. Bear in mind that that's probably a few days' travel. > -The support structures on the battleship are made of some > technobabble alloy that will assume the integrity of "wet pasta" when > hit with a technobabble-radiation modified torpedo (actually, two were > launched.) Most guidance had to be removed, and the targeting lock had > to be manual. The Valiant had to close into 300 metres. > -During the Valiant's strafing run, it approached uncloaked and > remained so instead of just coming up to the spot, decloaking, and > blasting it to hell. Did they have to bring down its shields first? Presumably is you want to hit the hull, the shields are going to get in your way. > -The Dominion Battleship doesn't seem to have any better firepower or > accuracy than a Jem Hadar Bug (though it may have better sustained > fire.) The Valiant takes as many hits as the E-D in "Generations," > before going down. I would think that a JH monster battleship could do > better than that. Perhaps ST starship systems really do become less > efficient and weaker at larger sizes like terrestrial insects, as Wong > has suggested. > > -Ripoff central: The Valiant's captain says something to the effect of > "Let's blow up this battleship so we can all go home!" and later makes > a close range, linear strafing run on a target so small that they have > to go into close range. > > -- > -=Doomriser > 200 GIGATON LASERS DO NOT EXIST. THE POWER OF THAT ALONE WOULD BE ABLE > TO DESTROY A PLANET IN A SINGLE SHOT -- A STAR DESTROYER FIRING ALL > ITS TURBOLASERS WOULD BE QUITE ABLE TO CAUSE A STAR TO GO SUPERNOVA. > WHAT WAS THE POINT OF THE SUPERLASER IF EVERY STAR DESTROYER WAS > CAPABLE ON ITS OWN OF ANNIHILATING A PLANET WITH A SINGLE SHOT? > THEREFORE, WE MUST ASSUME TURBOLASERS ARE NOT CAPABLE OF THESE 200-300 > GIGATON YIELD FORCES. -User099 http://www.stardestroyer.net/phpBB2/ > viewtopic.php?t=398&postdays=0&postorder =asc&start=15 > > > > -- Jonathan Boyd AIM/MSN: EmperorBoyd | Web: http://www.jboyd.co.uk/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Doomriser" Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 19:32:15 -0400 Subject: Re: [PDD] DS9 "Valiant" Message-ID: <3d38a182_1@news.cybersurf.net> -------- "Jonathan Boyd" wrote in message news:20020720000908468+0100@news.cis.dfn.de... > > -Nog's runabout is being attacked by a Jem Hadar bug. Nog mentions > > that he has a maneuverability advantage, but that he'd have to drop > > out of warp in order to take advantage of it. > > In other words, a JH bug is at least as maneuverable as a runabout at > warp, but less so at impulse. > In _your_ words, you mean. It could also mean that a starship would have to drop out of warp in order to combat maneuver, period. -- -=Doomriser 200 GIGATON LASERS DO NOT EXIST. THE POWER OF THAT ALONE WOULD BE ABLE TO DESTROY A PLANET IN A SINGLE SHOT -- A STAR DESTROYER FIRING ALL ITS TURBOLASERS WOULD BE QUITE ABLE TO CAUSE A STAR TO GO SUPERNOVA. WHAT WAS THE POINT OF THE SUPERLASER IF EVERY STAR DESTROYER WAS CAPABLE ON ITS OWN OF ANNIHILATING A PLANET WITH A SINGLE SHOT? THEREFORE, WE MUST ASSUME TURBOLASERS ARE NOT CAPABLE OF THESE 200-300 GIGATON YIELD FORCES. -User099 http://www.stardestroyer.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=398&postdays=0&postorder =asc&start=15 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 00:31:20 GMT Subject: Re: [PDD] DS9 "Valiant" Message-ID: <3D38AF86.4080502@shaw.ca> -------- Doomriser wrote: > "Jonathan Boyd" wrote: >>>-Nog's runabout is being attacked by a Jem Hadar bug. Nog mentions >>>that he has a maneuverability advantage, but that he'd have to drop >>>out of warp in order to take advantage of it. >> >>In other words, a JH bug is at least as maneuverable as a runabout at >>warp, but less so at impulse. > > In _your_ words, you mean. It could also mean that a starship would have to > drop out of warp in order to combat maneuver, period. Which is probably where the, 'Faster than light, no left or right.' comes from. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Boyd Date: 20 Jul 2002 00:47:05 GMT Subject: Re: [PDD] DS9 "Valiant" Message-ID: <20020720014704294+0100@news.cis.dfn.de> -------- C.S.Strowbridge wrote: > Doomriser wrote: >> "Jonathan Boyd" wrote: > >>>>-Nog's runabout is being attacked by a Jem Hadar bug. Nog mentions >>>>that he has a maneuverability advantage, but that he'd have to drop >>>>out of warp in order to take advantage of it. >>> >>>In other words, a JH bug is at least as maneuverable as a runabout at >>>warp, but less so at impulse. >> >> In _your_ words, you mean. It could also mean that a starship would >> have to drop out of warp in order to combat maneuver, period. > > Which is probably where the, 'Faster than light, no left or right.' > comes from. No evidence of that, given that we've seen ships maneuver at warp before. -- Jonathan Boyd AIM/MSN: EmperorBoyd | Web: http://www.jboyd.co.uk/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Doomriser" Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 22:19:08 -0400 Subject: Re: [PDD] DS9 "Valiant" Message-ID: <3d38c89f_1@news.cybersurf.net> -------- "Jonathan Boyd" wrote in message news:20020720014704294+0100@news.cis.dfn.de... > >> In _your_ words, you mean. It could also mean that a starship would > >> have to drop out of warp in order to combat maneuver, period. > > > > Which is probably where the, 'Faster than light, no left or right.' > > comes from. > > No evidence of that, given that we've seen ships maneuver at warp before. > -- What kind of maneuvering? When? In what conditions? The inability of the runabout to maneuver at warp is consistent with "no left or right." -- -=Doomriser 200 GIGATON LASERS DO NOT EXIST. THE POWER OF THAT ALONE WOULD BE ABLE TO DESTROY A PLANET IN A SINGLE SHOT -- A STAR DESTROYER FIRING ALL ITS TURBOLASERS WOULD BE QUITE ABLE TO CAUSE A STAR TO GO SUPERNOVA. WHAT WAS THE POINT OF THE SUPERLASER IF EVERY STAR DESTROYER WAS CAPABLE ON ITS OWN OF ANNIHILATING A PLANET WITH A SINGLE SHOT? THEREFORE, WE MUST ASSUME TURBOLASERS ARE NOT CAPABLE OF THESE 200-300 GIGATON YIELD FORCES. -User099 http://www.stardestroyer.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=398&postdays=0&postorder =asc&start=15 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Boyd Date: 20 Jul 2002 02:29:45 GMT Subject: Re: [PDD] DS9 "Valiant" Message-ID: <20020720032944642+0100@news.cis.dfn.de> -------- Doomriser wrote: > "Jonathan Boyd" wrote in message > news:20020720014704294+0100@news.cis.dfn.de... >> >> In _your_ words, you mean. It could also mean that a starship >> >> would have to drop out of warp in order to combat maneuver, period. >> > >> > Which is probably where the, 'Faster than light, no left or right.' >> > comes from. >> >> No evidence of that, given that we've seen ships maneuver at warp >> before. -- > > What kind of maneuvering? When? In what conditions? The inability of > the runabout to maneuver at warp is consistent with "no left or right. > " We've just been through this in another thread. TOS: Balance of Terror - trying to dodge the plasma torpedo TOS - the one with the First Federation, they tried to dodge the probe thing ST IV:TVH - Klingon BoP warping round the sun TNG:Encounter at Farpoint - trying to escape Q VOY:Message in a Bottle - the scene where a single Fed starship is chasing the Prometheus -- Jonathan Boyd AIM/MSN: EmperorBoyd | Web: http://www.jboyd.co.uk/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Wayne Poe" Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 03:52:48 -0700 Subject: Re: [PDD] DS9 "Valiant" Message-ID: -------- "Jonathan Boyd" wrote > TOS: Balance of Terror - trying to dodge the plasma torpedo In "BOT" the Enterprise did NO maneuvering. I t went into emergency warp, that's it. > TOS - the one with the First Federation, they tried to dodge the probe > thing They tried to go AROUND it. This is hardly maneuvering. > ST IV:TVH - Klingon BoP warping round the sun They went AROUND it. This is hardly maneuvering. > TNG:Encounter at Farpoint - trying to escape Q One of those "myths" that need to be cleared up. The Enterprise makes its turn and jumps BACK into warp. > VOY:Message in a Bottle - the scene where a single Fed starship is > chasing the Prometheus More info please. -- "I'm sick of this canon bitching. The Trekkies have six hundred fucking hours of canon to work with. We have about TEN, not counting the novelizations, Radio scripts, etc. Stop crying because of 200GT turbolasers." --- Dalton http://h4h.com/louis/vsfaq.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Boyd Date: 20 Jul 2002 14:33:54 GMT Subject: Re: [PDD] DS9 "Valiant" Message-ID: <20020720153354527+0100@news.cis.dfn.de> -------- Wayne Poe wrote: > > > > "Jonathan Boyd" wrote > >> TOS: Balance of Terror - trying to dodge the plasma torpedo > > In "BOT" the Enterprise did NO maneuvering. I t went into emergency > warp, that's it. Didn't it try to move to the side as well? >> TOS - the one with the First Federation, they tried to dodge the >> probe thing > They tried to go AROUND it. This is hardly maneuvering. Going around invovles turning which is maneuvering. >> ST IV:TVH - Klingon BoP warping round the sun > > They went AROUND it. This is hardly maneuvering. It certainly isn't 'no left or right' >> TNG:Encounter at Farpoint - trying to escape Q > > One of those "myths" that need to be cleared up. The Enterprise makes > its turn and jumps BACK into warp. Okay, bad example then. >> VOY:Message in a Bottle - the scene where a single Fed starship is >> chasing the Prometheus > More info please. They didn't have entirely linear courses. They moved about. Unfortunately I don't have it on video. I'm pretty sure it happened though. Anyone got the ep so we can check? -- Jonathan Boyd AIM/MSN: EmperorBoyd | Web: http://www.jboyd.co.uk/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Wouter Valentijn" Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 20:05:53 +0200 Subject: Re: [PDD] DS9 "Valiant" Message-ID: -------- "Jonathan Boyd" schreef in bericht news:20020720153354527+0100@news.cis.dfn.de... > Wayne Poe wrote: > > > > > > > > "Jonathan Boyd" wrote > > > >> TOS: Balance of Terror - trying to dodge the plasma torpedo > > > > In "BOT" the Enterprise did NO maneuvering. I t went into emergency > > warp, that's it. > > Didn't it try to move to the side as well? > > >> TOS - the one with the First Federation, they tried to dodge the > >> probe thing > > > They tried to go AROUND it. This is hardly maneuvering. > > Going around invovles turning which is maneuvering. > > >> ST IV:TVH - Klingon BoP warping round the sun > > > > They went AROUND it. This is hardly maneuvering. > > It certainly isn't 'no left or right' > > >> TNG:Encounter at Farpoint - trying to escape Q > > > > One of those "myths" that need to be cleared up. The Enterprise makes > > its turn and jumps BACK into warp. > > Okay, bad example then. > > >> VOY:Message in a Bottle - the scene where a single Fed starship is > >> chasing the Prometheus > > > More info please. > > They didn't have entirely linear courses. They moved about. > Unfortunately I don't have it on video. I'm pretty sure it happened > though. Anyone got the ep so we can check? I have it. I have all the stuff mentioned here. The only eps of Star Trek Voyager is the stuff that hasn't been broadcasted yet in my part of Europe (Netherlands, BBC). Same goes for Enterprise. Voy Message in a Bottle? I will check this out. Others as well if that's needed. This will take some time though!!! And about that 'no left, no right' rule. I think that's only for sissy pilots. Like 'don't go to warp in a gravity field (or within an atmosphere)' This stuff is not advisable for the meek. It's only that I think. > -- > Jonathan Boyd > AIM/MSN: EmperorBoyd | Web: http://www.jboyd.co.uk/ -- Wouter Valentijn www.zeppodunsel.nl ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Boyd Date: 20 Jul 2002 18:18:11 GMT Subject: Re: [PDD] DS9 "Valiant" Message-ID: <20020720191811783+0100@news.cis.dfn.de> -------- Wouter Valentijn wrote: >> > More info please. >> >> They didn't have entirely linear courses. They moved about. >> Unfortunately I don't have it on video. I'm pretty sure it happened >> though. Anyone got the ep so we can check? > > I have it. I have all the stuff mentioned here. > The only eps of Star Trek Voyager is the stuff that hasn't been > broadcasted yet in my part of Europe (Netherlands, BBC). Same goes for > Enterprise. Voy Message in a Bottle? I will check this out. Others as > well if that's needed. This will take some time though!!! Excellent. Thanks. > And about that 'no left, no right' rule. > I think that's only for sissy pilots. > Like 'don't go to warp in a gravity field (or within an atmosphere)' > This stuff is not advisable for the meek. It's only that I think. It's a possability. I think we can certainly agree than maneuverability is reduced at warp, but still present. -- Jonathan Boyd AIM/MSN: EmperorBoyd | Web: http://www.jboyd.co.uk/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Wouter Valentijn" Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 00:04:25 +0200 Subject: Re: [PDD] DS9 "Valiant" Message-ID: -------- "Jonathan Boyd" schreef in bericht news:20020720191811783+0100@news.cis.dfn.de... > Wouter Valentijn wrote: > >> > More info please. > >> > >> They didn't have entirely linear courses. They moved about. > >> Unfortunately I don't have it on video. I'm pretty sure it happened > >> though. Anyone got the ep so we can check? > > > > I have it. I have all the stuff mentioned here. > > The only eps of Star Trek Voyager is the stuff that hasn't been > > broadcasted yet in my part of Europe (Netherlands, BBC). Same goes for > > Enterprise. Voy Message in a Bottle? I will check this out. Others as > > well if that's needed. This will take some time though!!! > > Excellent. Thanks. Next week! > > > And about that 'no left, no right' rule. > > I think that's only for sissy pilots. > > Like 'don't go to warp in a gravity field (or within an atmosphere)' > > This stuff is not advisable for the meek. It's only that I think. > > It's a possability. I think we can certainly agree than maneuverability > is reduced at warp, but still present. > -- > Jonathan Boyd > AIM/MSN: EmperorBoyd | Web: http://www.jboyd.co.uk/ -- Wouter Valentijn www.zeppodunsel.nl ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Boyd Date: 21 Jul 2002 00:59:42 GMT Subject: Re: [PDD] DS9 "Valiant" Message-ID: <20020721015944273+0100@news.cis.dfn.de> -------- Wouter Valentijn wrote: >> > I have it. I have all the stuff mentioned here. >> > The only eps of Star Trek Voyager is the stuff that hasn't been >> > broadcasted yet in my part of Europe (Netherlands, BBC). Same goes >> > for Enterprise. Voy Message in a Bottle? I will check this out. >> > Others as well if that's needed. This will take some time though!!! >> >> Excellent. Thanks. > > Next week! Okay, I'll try and remember. -- Jonathan Boyd AIM/MSN: EmperorBoyd | Web: http://www.jboyd.co.uk/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Wayne Poe" Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 21:43:56 -0700 Subject: Re: [PDD] DS9 "Valiant" Message-ID: -------- "Jonathan Boyd" wrote > >> TOS: Balance of Terror - trying to dodge the plasma torpedo > > In "BOT" the Enterprise did NO maneuvering. I t went into emergency > > warp, that's it. > Didn't it try to move to the side as well? Nope. > >> TOS - the one with the First Federation, they tried to dodge the > >> probe thing > > They tried to go AROUND it. This is hardly maneuvering. > Going around invovles turning which is maneuvering. No, it isn't a maneuver. You certainly don't think all the planets in the galaxy are lined up in a straight line, do you? > >> ST IV:TVH - Klingon BoP warping round the sun > > They went AROUND it. This is hardly maneuvering. > It certainly isn't 'no left or right' You're correct. Its simply going around the sun. > >> TNG:Encounter at Farpoint - trying to escape Q > > One of those "myths" that need to be cleared up. The Enterprise makes > > its turn and jumps BACK into warp. > Okay, bad example then. Praise be. > >> VOY:Message in a Bottle - the scene where a single Fed starship is > >> chasing the Prometheus > > More info please. > They didn't have entirely linear courses. They moved about. > Unfortunately I don't have it on video. I'm pretty sure it happened > though. Anyone got the ep so we can check? I have it, and I'll check. Are you talking about vertical movement? -- "I'm sick of this canon bitching. The Trekkies have six hundred fucking hours of canon to work with. We have about TEN, not counting the novelizations, Radio scripts, etc. Stop crying because of 200GT turbolasers." --- Dalton http://h4h.com/louis/vsfaq.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Boyd Date: 21 Jul 2002 11:56:01 GMT Subject: Re: [PDD] DS9 "Valiant" Message-ID: <20020721125604915+0100@news.cis.dfn.de> -------- Wayne Poe wrote: > > > "Jonathan Boyd" wrote > >> >> TOS: Balance of Terror - trying to dodge the plasma torpedo > >> > In "BOT" the Enterprise did NO maneuvering. I t went into emergency >> > warp, that's it. > >> Didn't it try to move to the side as well? > > Nope. Hmm, I could have sworn they dried to dodge the torp, but I'll take your word for it. >> > They tried to go AROUND it. This is hardly maneuvering. > >> Going around invovles turning which is maneuvering. > > No, it isn't a maneuver. Yes it is. ma?neu?ver n 1. a movement or action that requires skill or dexterity 2. a planned movement of one or several military or naval units 3. an action, especially a devious or deceptive one, done to gain advantage 4. a controlled change of course of a vehicle or vessel Encartaå World English Dictionary © 1999 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Developed for Microsoft by Bloomsbury Publishing Plc. Definition 4. > You certainly don't think all the planets in > the galaxy are lined up in a straight line, do you? Eh? >> > They went AROUND it. This is hardly maneuvering. > >> It certainly isn't 'no left or right' > > You're correct. Its simply going around the sun. At that speed, gravity would in insufficient to keep them in orbit, therefore they must be providing the turning force therefore they are maneuvering. >> > More info please. > >> They didn't have entirely linear courses. They moved about. >> Unfortunately I don't have it on video. I'm pretty sure it happened >> though. Anyone got the ep so we can check? > > I have it, and I'll check. Are you talking about vertical movement? Anything which deviates from straight ahead. Vertical would be included in that. -- Jonathan Boyd AIM/MSN: EmperorBoyd | Web: http://www.jboyd.co.uk/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Wayne Poe" Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 06:35:24 -0700 Subject: Re: [PDD] DS9 "Valiant" Message-ID: -------- "Jonathan Boyd" wrote > >> > They tried to go AROUND it. This is hardly maneuvering. > >> Going around invovles turning which is maneuvering. > > No, it isn't a maneuver. > Yes it is. > ma?neu?ver n 1. a movement or action that requires skill or dexterity 2. > a planned movement of one or several military or naval units 3. an > action, especially a devious or deceptive one, done to gain advantage 4. > a controlled change of course of a vehicle or vessel > EncartaŒ World > English Dictionary © 1999 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. > Developed for Microsoft by Bloomsbury Publishing Plc. > > Definition 4. Of course. Let's pick the least likely definition that applies to maneuvering when people talk about evasive maneuvers. Really Jon, I expect this from O'Farrell.... > > You certainly don't think all the planets in > > the galaxy are lined up in a straight line, do you? > Eh? Turning at warp is common; that's how ships get to planets other than Eart when they set a course. Warp MANEUVERING is not. > >> > They went AROUND it. This is hardly maneuvering. > > > >> It certainly isn't 'no left or right' > > > > You're correct. Its simply going around the sun. > At that speed, gravity would in insufficient to keep them in orbit, > therefore they must be providing the turning force therefore they are > maneuvering. Uh, no they are turning. Ubless you want to apply the least likely form of the word "maneuver". To throw out two canon statements. > >> They didn't have entirely linear courses. They moved about. > >> Unfortunately I don't have it on video. I'm pretty sure it happened > >> though. Anyone got the ep so we can check? > > > > I have it, and I'll check. Are you talking about vertical movement? > > Anything which deviates from straight ahead. Vertical would be included > in that. Vertical movement in relation to another object isn't "faster than light, no left or right". -- "I'm sick of this canon bitching. The Trekkies have six hundred fucking hours of canon to work with. We have about TEN, not counting the novelizations, Radio scripts, etc. Stop crying because of 200GT turbolasers." --- Dalton http://h4h.com/louis/vsfaq.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Boyd Date: 21 Jul 2002 14:33:12 GMT Subject: Re: [PDD] DS9 "Valiant" Message-ID: <20020721153316185+0100@news.cis.dfn.de> -------- Wayne Poe wrote: >> >> Going around invovles turning which is maneuvering. > >> > No, it isn't a maneuver. > >> Yes it is. > >> ma?neu?ver n >> 1. a movement or action that requires skill or dexterity >> 2. a planned movement of one or several military or naval units >> 3. an action, especially a devious or deceptive one, done to gain >> advantage >> 4. a controlled change of course of a vehicle or vessel >> Encarta? World >> English Dictionary © 1999 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. >> Developed for Microsoft by Bloomsbury Publishing Plc. >> >> Definition 4. > > Of course. Let's pick the least likely definition that applies to > maneuvering when people talk about evasive maneuvers. Really Jon, I > expect this from O'Farrell.... Grow up Wayne. All that was stated was maneuvering and this is a perfectly valid definition. >> > You certainly don't think all the planets in >> > the galaxy are lined up in a straight line, do you? > >> Eh? > > Turning at warp is common; that's how ships get to planets other than > Eart when they set a course. Warp MANEUVERING is not. Truning _is_ maneuvering. See definition 4 above. >> >> > They went AROUND it. This is hardly maneuvering. >> > >> >> It certainly isn't 'no left or right' >> > >> > You're correct. Its simply going around the sun. > >> At that speed, gravity would in insufficient to keep them in orbit, >> therefore they must be providing the turning force therefore they are >> maneuvering. > > Uh, no they are turning. Ubless you want to apply the least likely > form of the word "maneuver". To throw out two canon statements. 'least likely' ?!?! What are you on? How is 'a controlled change of course of a vehicle or vessel' not an applicable definition? >> >> They didn't have entirely linear courses. They moved about. >> >> Unfortunately I don't have it on video. I'm pretty sure it >> >> happened though. Anyone got the ep so we can check? >> > >> > I have it, and I'll check. Are you talking about vertical movement? >> >> Anything which deviates from straight ahead. Vertical would be >> included in that. > > Vertical movement in relation to another object isn't "faster than > light, no left or right". You're just playing semantics games here. If they can go up and down, they can go right and left. And other examples of going right and left have been given. -- Jonathan Boyd AIM/MSN: EmperorBoyd | Web: http://www.jboyd.co.uk/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Doomriser" Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 14:07:10 -0400 Subject: Re: [PDD] DS9 "Valiant" Message-ID: <3d3af853_1@news.cybersurf.net> -------- Okay, enough with the wordplay. Let me state my position. 1. Star Trek ships can make wide, sweeping course corrections while in warp 2. Star Trek ships cannot make effective battle and/or evasive maneuvers at warp and thus need to drop out of warp if they plan to combat maneuver (as in "Valiant," "The Battle," etc...) -- -=Doomriser 200 GIGATON LASERS DO NOT EXIST. THE POWER OF THAT ALONE WOULD BE ABLE TO DESTROY A PLANET IN A SINGLE SHOT -- A STAR DESTROYER FIRING ALL ITS TURBOLASERS WOULD BE QUITE ABLE TO CAUSE A STAR TO GO SUPERNOVA. WHAT WAS THE POINT OF THE SUPERLASER IF EVERY STAR DESTROYER WAS CAPABLE ON ITS OWN OF ANNIHILATING A PLANET WITH A SINGLE SHOT? THEREFORE, WE MUST ASSUME TURBOLASERS ARE NOT CAPABLE OF THESE 200-300 GIGATON YIELD FORCES. -User099 http://www.stardestroyer.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=398&postdays=0&postorder =asc&start=15 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 21 Jul 2002 18:17:26 GMT Subject: Re: [PDD] DS9 "Valiant" Message-ID: <20020721141726.07243.00000235@mb-fi.aol.com> -------- >Okay, enough with the wordplay. Let me state my position. > >1. Star Trek ships can make wide, sweeping course corrections while in warp >2. Star Trek ships cannot make effective battle and/or evasive maneuvers at >warp and thus need to drop out of warp if they plan to combat maneuver (as >in "Valiant," "The Battle," etc...) > We seriously need to do some scaling and put some hard numbers on this. What's the hardest confirmed-Warp turn ever seen? Ep name and general situation, if someone could? -- SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius Uptight Christians pray for God to save themselves. Upright Christians pray for God to save others in need. "And they say that a hero can save us, I'm not gonna stand here to wait..." -Hero ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 18:17:39 GMT Subject: Re: [PDD] DS9 "Valiant" Message-ID: <3D3AFB07.3050802@shaw.ca> -------- Doomriser wrote: > Okay, enough with the wordplay. Let me state my position. > > 1. Star Trek ships can make wide, sweeping course corrections while in warp > 2. Star Trek ships cannot make effective battle and/or evasive maneuvers at > warp and thus need to drop out of warp if they plan to combat maneuver (as > in "Valiant," "The Battle," etc...) My position is similar, but I clarify the 'cannot' in #2. It isn't against the laws of nature to maneuver at warp. It's just a "Bad Idea." C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Boyd Date: 21 Jul 2002 22:28:42 GMT Subject: Re: [PDD] DS9 "Valiant" Message-ID: <20020721232843330+0100@news.cis.dfn.de> -------- Doomriser wrote: > Okay, enough with the wordplay. Let me state my position. > > 1. Star Trek ships can make wide, sweeping course corrections while in > warp 2. Star Trek ships cannot make effective battle and/or evasive > maneuvers at warp and thus need to drop out of warp if they plan to > combat maneuver (as in "Valiant," "The Battle," etc...) The depends on how you define a combat maneuver, effective battle maneuver, evasive maneuver, etc. Those aren't really quantifiable terms. Different things will be effective in different situations. -- Jonathan Boyd AIM/MSN: EmperorBoyd | Web: http://www.jboyd.co.uk/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 18:07:37 GMT Subject: Re: [PDD] DS9 "Valiant" Message-ID: <3D3AF8AD.80001@shaw.ca> -------- Jonathan Boyd wrote: >>>>> Going around invovles turning which is maneuvering. >> >>>> No, it isn't a maneuver. >> >>> Yes it is. >> >>> ma?neu?ver n >>> 1. a movement or action that requires skill or dexterity >>> 2. a planned movement of one or several military or naval units >>> 3. an action, especially a devious or deceptive one, done to gain >>> advantage >>> 4. a controlled change of course of a vehicle or vessel >>> Encarta? World >>> English Dictionary ? 1999 Microsoft Corporation. All rights >>> reserved. Developed for Microsoft by Bloomsbury Publishing Plc. >>> >>> Definition 4. >> >> Of course. Let's pick the least likely definition that applies to >> maneuvering when people talk about evasive maneuvers. Really Jon, I >> expect this from O'Farrell.... > > Grow up Wayne. All that was stated was maneuvering Wrong, they also mentioned that is was a combat situation. And their goal was to out maneuver their opponent. > and this is a perfectly valid definition. But not the most applicable. It's most likely a combination of 1 and 3 Maneuver: a movement or action that requires skill or dexterity done to gain advantage. > You're just playing semantics games here. If they can go up and down, > they can go right and left. No necessarily, the warp nacelles are set on a vertical plane. Perhaps rotating on that plane is considered a bad idea at warp. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Wayne Poe" Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 18:07:33 -0700 Subject: Re: [PDD] DS9 "Valiant" Message-ID: -------- "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote > Jonathan Boyd wrote: > >>>>> Going around invovles turning which is maneuvering. > >>>> No, it isn't a maneuver. > >>> Yes it is. > >>> ma?neu?ver n > >>> 1. a movement or action that requires skill or dexterity > >>> 2. a planned movement of one or several military or naval units > >>> 3. an action, especially a devious or deceptive one, done to gain > >>> advantage > >>> 4. a controlled change of course of a vehicle or vessel > >>> Encarta? World > >>> English Dictionary ? 1999 Microsoft Corporation. All rights > >>> reserved. Developed for Microsoft by Bloomsbury Publishing Plc. > >>> Definition 4. > >> Of course. Let's pick the least likely definition that applies to > >> maneuvering when people talk about evasive maneuvers. Really Jon, I > >> expect this from O'Farrell.... > > Grow up Wayne. All that was stated was maneuvering > Wrong, they also mentioned that is was a combat situation. And their > goal was to out maneuver their opponent. But that won't stop Boyd from trying to dismiss the obvious. > > and this is a perfectly valid definition. > But not the most applicable. It's most likely a combination of 1 and 3 > Maneuver: a movement or action that requires skill or dexterity done to > gain advantage. > > You're just playing semantics games here. If they can go up and down, > > they can go right and left. > No necessarily, the warp nacelles are set on a vertical plane. Perhaps > rotating on that plane is considered a bad idea at warp. This is about the same as Boyd saying, "No, what the Bible REALLY says..." when you and Durandal are kicking his ass. -- "I'm sick of this canon bitching. The Trekkies have six hundred fucking hours of canon to work with. We have about TEN, not counting the novelizations, Radio scripts, etc. Stop crying because of 200GT turbolasers." --- Dalton http://h4h.com/louis/vsfaq.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 14:44:12 GMT Subject: Re: [PDD] DS9 "Valiant" Message-ID: <0Nz_8.253900$Im2.12799109@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com> -------- "Jonathan Boyd" wrote in message news:20020721125604915+0100@news.cis.dfn.de... > Wayne Poe wrote: > > > > > > "Jonathan Boyd" wrote > > > >> >> TOS: Balance of Terror - trying to dodge the plasma torpedo > > > >> > In "BOT" the Enterprise did NO maneuvering. I t went into emergency > >> > warp, that's it. > > > >> Didn't it try to move to the side as well? > > > > Nope. > > Hmm, I could have sworn they dried to dodge the torp, but I'll take your > word for it. He is right. There is no mention of the Enterprise maneuvering. But, considering the fact that the Romulan plasma weapon maneuvered to track them, it would have been a waste of time. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Wayne Poe" Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 18:13:12 -0700 Subject: Re: [PDD] DS9 "Valiant" Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote > > >> Didn't it try to move to the side as well? > > > > > > Nope. > > > > Hmm, I could have sworn they dried to dodge the torp, but I'll take your > > word for it. > He is right. There is no mention of the Enterprise maneuvering. But, > considering the fact that the Romulan plasma weapon maneuvered to track > them, it would have been a waste of time. Here's more of this moron's rewrite of everything he sees. The plasma weapon DID NOT MANEUVER. -- "I'm sick of this canon bitching. The Trekkies have six hundred fucking hours of canon to work with. We have about TEN, not counting the novelizations, Radio scripts, etc. Stop crying because of 200GT turbolasers." --- Dalton http://h4h.com/louis/vsfaq.html > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 01:57:03 GMT Subject: Re: [PDD] DS9 "Valiant" Message-ID: -------- "Wayne Poe" wrote in message news:ujmn19nabq09a3@corp.supernews.com... > > > "DarkStar" wrote > > > > >> Didn't it try to move to the side as well? > > > > > > > > Nope. > > > > > > Hmm, I could have sworn they dried to dodge the torp, but I'll take your > > > word for it. > > > He is right. There is no mention of the Enterprise maneuvering. But, > > considering the fact that the Romulan plasma weapon maneuvered to track > > them, it would have been a waste of time. > > Here's more of this moron's rewrite of everything he sees. The plasma weapon > DID NOT MANEUVER. So it just mysteriously happened to follow the Enterprise in a straight backwards line after being fired at her from above the centerline? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Wayne Poe" Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 19:23:28 -0700 Subject: Re: [PDD] DS9 "Valiant" Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote > "Wayne Poe" wrote in message > news:ujmn19nabq09a3@corp.supernews.com... > > > He is right. There is no mention of the Enterprise maneuvering. But, > > > considering the fact that the Romulan plasma weapon maneuvered to track > > > them, it would have been a waste of time. > > Here's more of this moron's rewrite of everything he sees. The plasma > > weapon DID NOT MANEUVER. > So it just mysteriously happened to follow the Enterprise in a straight > backwards line after being fired at her from above the centerline? No, what we saw was a straight-on shot, and it followed the Enterprise in a very straight line. Fuckface. -- "I'm sick of this canon bitching. The Trekkies have six hundred fucking hours of canon to work with. We have about TEN, not counting the novelizations, Radio scripts, etc. Stop crying because of 200GT turbolasers." --- Dalton http://h4h.com/louis/vsfaq.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 03:07:38 GMT Subject: Re: [PDD] DS9 "Valiant" Message-ID: <_FK_8.311569$vq.17084427@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com> -------- "Wayne Poe" wrote in message news:ujmr52m18dcvb1@corp.supernews.com... > "DarkStar" wrote > > > "Wayne Poe" wrote in message > > news:ujmn19nabq09a3@corp.supernews.com... > > > > > He is right. There is no mention of the Enterprise maneuvering. > But, > > > > considering the fact that the Romulan plasma weapon maneuvered to > track > > > > them, it would have been a waste of time. > > > > Here's more of this moron's rewrite of everything he sees. The plasma > > > weapon DID NOT MANEUVER. > > > So it just mysteriously happened to follow the Enterprise in a straight > > backwards line after being fired at her from above the centerline? > > No, what we saw was a straight-on shot, and it followed the Enterprise in a > very straight line. Fuckface. Straight on, from above and to the left? Take each picture, and draw lines between the corners. You'll see that the plasma weapon begins above and to the left, and only later ends up chasing the ship from the front while it is in reverse. http://www.trek5.com/caps/tos/09_BOT/pages/09BOT_157.htm http://www.trek5.com/caps/tos/09_BOT/pages/09BOT_164.htm http://www.trek5.com/caps/tos/09_BOT/pages/09BOT_166.htm Dipshit. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Wayne Poe" Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 20:58:02 -0700 Subject: Re: [PDD] DS9 "Valiant" Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote > > No, what we saw was a straight-on shot, and it followed the Enterprise in > > a very straight line. Fuckface. > Straight on, from above and to the left? No, fuckface, STRAIGHT ON. > Take each picture, and draw lines between the corners. You'll see that the > plasma weapon begins above and to the left, and only later ends up chasing > the ship from the front while it is in reverse. No, the plasma weapon was PULSATING, as it was gaining on the Enterprise. If you'd actually watch the episode rather than rely on your flawed interpretation of screenshots, you'd see that. Dipshit. -- "I'm sick of this canon bitching. The Trekkies have six hundred fucking hours of canon to work with. We have about TEN, not counting the novelizations, Radio scripts, etc. Stop crying because of 200GT turbolasers." --- Dalton http://h4h.com/louis/vsfaq.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 04:33:46 GMT Subject: Re: [PDD] DS9 "Valiant" Message-ID: -------- "Wayne Poe" wrote in message news:ujn0mgcisjd971@corp.supernews.com... > > > "DarkStar" wrote > > > > No, what we saw was a straight-on shot, and it followed the Enterprise > in > > > a very straight line. Fuckface. > > > Straight on, from above and to the left? > > No, fuckface, STRAIGHT ON. Well gee I guess you're right, and the big giant SCREENSHOT is wrong. I guess it would be better if we just ignored the canon of Star Trek and listened to you from now on. http://www.trek5.com/caps/tos/09_BOT/pages/09BOT_157.htm > > Take each picture, and draw lines between the corners. You'll see that > the > > plasma weapon begins above and to the left, and only later ends up chasing > > the ship from the front while it is in reverse. > > No, the plasma weapon was PULSATING, as it was gaining on the Enterprise. If > you'd actually watch the episode rather than rely on your flawed > interpretation of screenshots, you'd see that. Dipshit. Straw man. I'm not claiming that the wobbly pulsation is evidence of lateral motion. I'm claiming that the fact the whole damn thing ended up in their face chasing them at warp speeds instead of above and to the left is evidence of lateral motion. By the way, how can you possibly feel justified insulting _anyone_ when you are sporting that hairdo, Darth Mullet? http://www.stardestroyer.net/phpBB2/images/avatars/d197fc053d3b7b2de4570.jpg ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Wayne Poe" Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 22:09:08 -0700 Subject: Re: [PDD] DS9 "Valiant" Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote > > No, fuckface, STRAIGHT ON. > Well gee I guess you're right, and the big giant SCREENSHOT is wrong. I That's what you get when you rely on screenshots and your own idiotic interpretations of them, without watching the scene. Fuckface. > guess it would be better if we just ignored the canon of Star Trek and > listened to you from now on. Guess it would be better if you actually WATCHED the canon. Fuckface. > > No, the plasma weapon was PULSATING, as it was gaining on the Enterprise. > > If you'd actually watch the episode rather than rely on your flawed > > interpretation of screenshots, you'd see that. Dipshit. > Straw man. I'm not claiming that the wobbly pulsation is evidence of > lateral motion. I'm claiming that the fact the whole damn thing ended up > in their face chasing them at warp speeds instead of above and to the left > is evidence of lateral motion. Since it was shot at them straight on, your allegation if full of shit. Fuckface. Gee, you agree (now) that the Enterprise wasn't maneuvering. So why would the plasma weapon? Hmm...... things to consider while staring at your sphincter. > By the way, how can you possibly feel justified insulting _anyone_ when you > are sporting that hairdo, Darth Mullet? Oh sorry. Those that have no hair are often jealous. That's not a mullet, BTW. Unless you're from Australia. -- "I'm sick of this canon bitching. The Trekkies have six hundred fucking hours of canon to work with. We have about TEN, not counting the novelizations, Radio scripts, etc. Stop crying because of 200GT turbolasers." --- Dalton http://h4h.com/louis/vsfaq.html > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 15:03:51 GMT Subject: Re: [PDD] DS9 "Valiant" Message-ID: -------- "Wayne Poe" wrote in message news:ujn4rmc8p7cl5b@corp.supernews.com... > "DarkStar" wrote > > > > No, fuckface, STRAIGHT ON. > > > Well gee I guess you're right, and the big giant SCREENSHOT is wrong. I > > That's what you get when you rely on screenshots and your own idiotic > interpretations of them, without watching the scene. Fuckface. I did watch the scene, Darth Mullet. That makes your stupid claims even worse. > > guess it would be better if we just ignored the canon of Star Trek and > > listened to you from now on. > > Guess it would be better if you actually WATCHED the canon. Fuckface. I have. You're wrong. > > > No, the plasma weapon was PULSATING, as it was gaining on the > Enterprise. > > > If you'd actually watch the episode rather than rely on your flawed > > > interpretation of screenshots, you'd see that. Dipshit. > > > Straw man. I'm not claiming that the wobbly pulsation is evidence of > > lateral motion. I'm claiming that the fact the whole damn thing ended up > > in their face chasing them at warp speeds instead of above and to the left > > is evidence of lateral motion. > > Since it was shot at them straight on, your allegation if full of shit. Hey, Darth Mullet, your clue phone is ringing. See that screenshot? It comes from the episode. See how it shows the Romulan ship way up and to the left? Yep, that means it wasn't a straight shot. > Fuckface. Gee, you agree (now) that the Enterprise wasn't maneuvering. There is no evidence of the Enterprise maneuvering in this scene, so I don't make that claim. Sorry, didn't mean to confuse you with honest debating... I know, based on how you argue, that you're unfamiliar with the concept. > > By the way, how can you possibly feel justified insulting _anyone_ when > you > > are sporting that hairdo, Darth Mullet? > > Oh sorry. Those that have no hair are often jealous. That's not a mullet, > BTW. Unless you're from Australia. A bouffant tribble on your head, shorter on the sides, with long flowy gayness from the back? Dude, that is major mullet. Here, have some SCREENSHOTS!!!! Muhuhaaa!! I know you hate visual proof that you're wrong: http://www.mulletsgalore.com/classifications/class01/01classicmullet.html This describes you perfectly: http://www.mulletsgalore.com/classifications/class01/10mulletard.html But I wonder, is this you?: http://www.mulletsgalore.com/classifications/class05/50bigumbfatmullet.html http://www.mulletsgalore.com/classifications/class05/48prisonhandles.html http://www.mulletsgalore.com/otherpostings/G_van.html http://www.mulletsgalore.com/classifications/class02/16oocyda.html http://www.mulletsgalore.com/classifications/class04/36sweathogmullet.html http://www.mulletsgalore.com/otherpostings/J_rotation.html http://www.mulletsgalore.com/picturebooks/fuck_you_3/index.html http://www.mulletsgalore.com/picturebooks/vertigo/index.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Wayne Poe" Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 20:26:27 -0700 Subject: Re: [PDD] DS9 "Valiant" Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote > > That's what you get when you rely on screenshots and your own idiotic > > interpretations of them, without watching the scene. Fuckface. > I did watch the scene, Darth Mullet. That makes your stupid claims even > worse. I know, BaldStar, because it proves you wrong. > > > guess it would be better if we just ignored the canon of Star Trek and > > > listened to you from now on. > > Guess it would be better if you actually WATCHED the canon. Fuckface. > I have. You're wrong. Yup, I'm wrong. You HAVE watched it. You just can't accept what you see. > > Since it was shot at them straight on, your allegation if full of shit. > Hey, Darth Mullet, your clue phone is ringing. Well, BaldStar, I'm not buying any Rogaine today, sorry. You'll have to call back later. > See that screenshot? Did you see the episode? Concession Accepted. > > Oh sorry. Those that have no hair are often jealous. That's not a mullet, > > BTW. Unless you're from Australia. > A bouffant tribble on your head, shorter on the sides, with long flowy > gayness from the back? Dude, that is major mullet. Dude, its not "short on the sides." Anyone can see that. You don't have hair obscuring your eyes, so I don't understand the problem. Its long all over my head, Pelon. > Here, have some SCREENSHOTS!!!! Muhuhaaa!! I know you hate visual proof > that you're wrong: Yup, I've been to that site. Those are some stinky mullets, to be sure! But I've got a site for you, BaldStar! http://www.hairclub.com/google/ -- "I'm sick of this canon bitching. The Trekkies have six hundred fucking hours of canon to work with. We have about TEN, not counting the novelizations, Radio scripts, etc. Stop crying because of 200GT turbolasers." --- Dalton http://h4h.com/louis/vsfaq.html > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 03:52:34 GMT Subject: Re: [PDD] DS9 "Valiant" Message-ID: <3D3CD301.3070801@shaw.ca> -------- Wayne Poe wrote: > "DarkStar" wrote: >>>>guess it would be better if we just ignored the canon of Star Trek and >>>>listened to you from now on. > >>>Guess it would be better if you actually WATCHED the canon. Fuckface. > >>I have. You're wrong. > > Yup, I'm wrong. You HAVE watched it. You just can't accept what you see. It's the same with the 'Evasive Maneuver' debate. He sees what he wants to see. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: swineherd@7dof.org (The Baron) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 16:44:52 GMT Subject: Re: [PDD] DS9 "Valiant" Message-ID: <3d3d878d.1885651@news.freeserve.co.uk> -------- On Tue, 23 Jul 2002 03:52:34 GMT, "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: >Wayne Poe wrote: >> "DarkStar" wrote: > >>>>>guess it would be better if we just ignored the canon of Star Trek and >>>>>listened to you from now on. >> >>>>Guess it would be better if you actually WATCHED the canon. Fuckface. >> >>>I have. You're wrong. >> >> Yup, I'm wrong. You HAVE watched it. You just can't accept what you see. > >It's the same with the 'Evasive Maneuver' debate. He sees what he wants >to see. I have to agree with you that those 'manouvers' performed by Odo were not what I could call anything more than mild shaking from side to side. Certainly not manouvers. There is however definate side to side motion, which would seem to negate the 'faster than light, no left or right' at least. Also, when Odo and Weyoun are talking in the runabout during the fight, Odo is tapping buttons and they aren't getting hit at all. Did the Dom ship stop firing so they could have a chat, or were they performing evasive manouvers? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 21:14:35 GMT Subject: Re: [PDD] DS9 "Valiant" Message-ID: <3D3DC6C8.1080900@shaw.ca> -------- The Baron wrote: > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: >>Wayne Poe wrote: >>>"DarkStar" wrote: >>>>I have. You're wrong. >>> >>>Yup, I'm wrong. You HAVE watched it. You just can't accept what you see. >> >>It's the same with the 'Evasive Maneuver' debate. He sees what he wants >>to see. > > I have to agree with you that those 'manouvers' performed by Odo were > not what I could call anything more than mild shaking from side to > side. Certainly not manouvers. Thank you. > There is however definate side to side motion, which would seem to > negate the 'faster than light, no left or right' at least. Only if your interpretation of the saying is, 'No right / left movement of any kind under any circumstance or the universe will end.' > Also, when Odo and Weyoun are talking in the runabout during the > fight, Odo is tapping buttons and they aren't getting hit at all. Did > the Dom ship stop firing so they could have a chat, or were they > performing evasive manouvers? I think the first one is more likely. After all, the Jem'Hadar did _nothing_ to try and shake the runabout when it got behind them and started shooting. Also, there were no leaning that happens when ST ships maneuver. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 02:02:56 GMT Subject: Re: [PDD] DS9 "Valiant" Message-ID: -------- "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in message news:3D3DC6C8.1080900@shaw.ca... > The Baron wrote: > > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: > >>Wayne Poe wrote: > >>>"DarkStar" wrote: > > >>>>I have. You're wrong. > >>> > >>>Yup, I'm wrong. You HAVE watched it. You just can't accept what you see. > >> > >>It's the same with the 'Evasive Maneuver' debate. He sees what he wants > >>to see. > > > > I have to agree with you that those 'manouvers' performed by Odo were > > not what I could call anything more than mild shaking from side to > > side. Certainly not manouvers. > > Thank you. I find warsie efforts to revise the definition of the term "maneuver" to be so very stupid. http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=maneuver > > Also, when Odo and Weyoun are talking in the runabout during the > > fight, Odo is tapping buttons and they aren't getting hit at all. Did > > the Dom ship stop firing so they could have a chat, or were they > > performing evasive manouvers? > > I think the first one is more likely. After all, the Jem'Hadar did > _nothing_ to try and shake the runabout when it got behind them and > started shooting. They might have been laughing at the idea of being chased by a runabout. :) We saw JH ships fire weapons aft at runabouts before, at least at sublight speeds. ("The Jem'Hadar"[DS9]) > Also, there were no leaning that happens when ST ships > maneuver. ??? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 03:21:08 GMT Subject: Re: [PDD] DS9 "Valiant" Message-ID: <3D3E1CB4.9090004@shaw.ca> -------- DarkStar wrote: > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: >>The Baron wrote: >>>I have to agree with you that those 'manouvers' performed by Odo were >>>not what I could call anything more than mild shaking from side to >>>side. Certainly not manouvers. >> >>Thank you. > > I find warsie efforts to revise the definition of the term "maneuver" to be > so very stupid. Baron's not a warsie, moron. >> > Also, when Odo and Weyoun are talking in the runabout during the >> > fight, Odo is tapping buttons and they aren't getting hit at all. Did >> > the Dom ship stop firing so they could have a chat, or were they >> > performing evasive manouvers? >> >>I think the first one is more likely. After all, the Jem'Hadar did >>_nothing_ to try and shake the runabout when it got behind them and >>started shooting. > > They might have been laughing at the idea of being chased by a > runabout. :) > > We saw JH ships fire weapons aft at runabouts before, at least at > sublight speeds. ("The Jem'Hadar"[DS9]) You know that strengthens my position, right? >>Also, there were no leaning that happens when ST ships >>maneuver. > > ??? The Inertial Dampeners are not 100% effective, if the ships makes a quick turn the occupants move. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 05:55:15 GMT Subject: Re: [PDD] DS9 "Valiant" Message-ID: <7jr%8.294561$Im2.15183586@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com> -------- "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in message news:3D3E1CB4.9090004@shaw.ca... > DarkStar wrote: > > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: > >>The Baron wrote: > > >>>I have to agree with you that those 'manouvers' performed by Odo were > >>>not what I could call anything more than mild shaking from side to > >>>side. Certainly not manouvers. > >> > >>Thank you. > > > > I find warsie efforts to revise the definition of the term "maneuver" to be > > so very stupid. > > Baron's not a warsie, moron. He didn't redefine it, idiot. > > >> > Also, when Odo and Weyoun are talking in the runabout during the > >> > fight, Odo is tapping buttons and they aren't getting hit at all. Did > >> > the Dom ship stop firing so they could have a chat, or were they > >> > performing evasive manouvers? > >> > >>I think the first one is more likely. After all, the Jem'Hadar did > >>_nothing_ to try and shake the runabout when it got behind them and > >>started shooting. > > > > They might have been laughing at the idea of being chased by a > > runabout. :) > > > > We saw JH ships fire weapons aft at runabouts before, at least at > > sublight speeds. ("The Jem'Hadar"[DS9]) > > You know that strengthens my position, right? How so? Why would the JH think it was necessary to freak out and run maneuvering around like Odo did because there was a runabout on their tail? > >>Also, there were no leaning that happens when ST ships > >>maneuver. > > > > ??? > > The Inertial Dampeners are not 100% effective, if the ships makes a > quick turn the occupants move. If so, not always. Name examples. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 06:51:19 GMT Subject: Re: [PDD] DS9 "Valiant" Message-ID: <3D3E4DF9.4090804@shaw.ca> -------- DarkStar wrote: > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: >>>I find warsie efforts to revise the definition of the term "maneuver" to >>>be so very stupid. >> >>Baron's not a warsie, moron. > > He didn't redefine it, idiot. He agreed with me. Hmm, even fellow Pro-ST people disagree with you. Shouldn't that tell you something? >>>>>Also, when Odo and Weyoun are talking in the runabout during the >>>>>fight, Odo is tapping buttons and they aren't getting hit at all. Did >>>>>the Dom ship stop firing so they could have a chat, or were they >>>>>performing evasive manouvers? >>>> >>>>I think the first one is more likely. After all, the Jem'Hadar did >>>>_nothing_ to try and shake the runabout when it got behind them and >>>>started shooting. >>> >>> They might have been laughing at the idea of being chased by a >>> runabout. :) >>> >>> We saw JH ships fire weapons aft at runabouts before, at least at >>> sublight speeds. ("The Jem'Hadar"[DS9]) >> >>You know that strengthens my position, right? > > How so? It means they could do something but didn't. > Why would the JH think it was necessary to freak out and run > maneuvering around like Odo did because there was a runabout on their > tail? Cause they had a huge whopping weakness up their ass. Even when Odo started to exploit that weakness they did nothing. >>>>Also, there were no leaning that happens when ST ships >>>>maneuver. >>> >>>??? >> >>The Inertial Dampeners are not 100% effective, if the ships makes a >>quick turn the occupants move. > > If so, not always. Name examples. I've got to prove a ST cliche? The one with the Riker Alpha Beta Maneuver. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: swineherd@7dof.org (The Baron) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 02:11:55 GMT Subject: Re: [PDD] DS9 "Valiant" Message-ID: <3d3e0cad.35971121@news.freeserve.co.uk> -------- On Tue, 23 Jul 2002 21:14:35 GMT, "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: >The Baron wrote: >> "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: >>>Wayne Poe wrote: >>>>"DarkStar" wrote: > >>>>>I have. You're wrong. >>>> >>>>Yup, I'm wrong. You HAVE watched it. You just can't accept what you see. >>> >>>It's the same with the 'Evasive Maneuver' debate. He sees what he wants >>>to see. >> >> I have to agree with you that those 'manouvers' performed by Odo were >> not what I could call anything more than mild shaking from side to >> side. Certainly not manouvers. > >Thank you. This is an historic moment... > > There is however definate side to side motion, which would seem to > > negate the 'faster than light, no left or right' at least. > >Only if your interpretation of the saying is, 'No right / left movement >of any kind under any circumstance or the universe will end.' Well the interpretation most seem to be using is 'if a ST ship is going FTL, it can't move to the left or the right'. This is wrong. > > Also, when Odo and Weyoun are talking in the runabout during the > > fight, Odo is tapping buttons and they aren't getting hit at all. Did > > the Dom ship stop firing so they could have a chat, or were they > > performing evasive manouvers? > >I think the first one is more likely. After all, the Jem'Hadar did >_nothing_ to try and shake the runabout when it got behind them and >started shooting. Also, there were no leaning that happens when ST ships >maneuver. rofl, it's so true :( ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 03:26:29 GMT Subject: Re: [PDD] DS9 "Valiant" Message-ID: <3D3E1DF5.6010507@shaw.ca> -------- The Baron wrote: > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: >>>There is however definate side to side motion, which would seem to >>>negate the 'faster than light, no left or right' at least. >> >>Only if your interpretation of the saying is, 'No right / left movement >>of any kind under any circumstance or the universe will end.' > > Well the interpretation most seem to be using is 'if a ST ship is > going FTL, it can't move to the left or the right'. This is wrong. I don't think so. I think most people say going left or right faster than a certain unknown amount is a Bad Idea(tm). >>>Also, when Odo and Weyoun are talking in the runabout during the >>>fight, Odo is tapping buttons and they aren't getting hit at all. Did >>>the Dom ship stop firing so they could have a chat, or were they >>>performing evasive manouvers? >> >>I think the first one is more likely. After all, the Jem'Hadar did >>_nothing_ to try and shake the runabout when it got behind them and >>started shooting. Also, there were no leaning that happens when ST ships >>maneuver. > > rofl, it's so true :( It isn't till 10 seconds after the 'maneuver' is complete that the runabout /starts/ shooting. If the Jem'Hadar can't think of a way out of that situation in 10 seconds I see no reason to fear them in combat. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: swineherd@7dof.org (The Baron) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 12:24:02 GMT Subject: Re: [PDD] DS9 "Valiant" Message-ID: <3d3e9a4e.72233373@news.freeserve.co.uk> -------- On Wed, 24 Jul 2002 03:26:29 GMT, "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: >The Baron wrote: >> "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: > >>>>There is however definate side to side motion, which would seem to >>>>negate the 'faster than light, no left or right' at least. >>> >>>Only if your interpretation of the saying is, 'No right / left movement >>>of any kind under any circumstance or the universe will end.' >> >> Well the interpretation most seem to be using is 'if a ST ship is >> going FTL, it can't move to the left or the right'. This is wrong. > >I don't think so. I think most people say going left or right faster >than a certain unknown amount is a Bad Idea(tm). We know the Ent-D has a zero turning circle at sublight speeds (The Defector), wonder what'd happen if they did that at warp... >>>>Also, when Odo and Weyoun are talking in the runabout during the >>>>fight, Odo is tapping buttons and they aren't getting hit at all. Did >>>>the Dom ship stop firing so they could have a chat, or were they >>>>performing evasive manouvers? >>> >>>I think the first one is more likely. After all, the Jem'Hadar did >>>_nothing_ to try and shake the runabout when it got behind them and >>>started shooting. Also, there were no leaning that happens when ST ships >>>maneuver. >> >> rofl, it's so true :( > >It isn't till 10 seconds after the 'maneuver' is complete that the >runabout /starts/ shooting. If the Jem'Hadar can't think of a way out of >that situation in 10 seconds I see no reason to fear them in combat. > We know from Valiant that at warp speeds the manouverability of Jem Hadar fighters and Runabouts is pretty much the same, so as long as Odo kept on their tail they couldn't shake them. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 04:32:54 GMT Subject: Re: [PDD] DS9 "Valiant" Message-ID: -------- "Wayne Poe" wrote in message news:ujpj75kdupbr87@corp.supernews.com... > "DarkStar" wrote > > > > That's what you get when you rely on screenshots and your own idiotic > > > interpretations of them, without watching the scene. Fuckface. > > > I did watch the scene, Darth Mullet. That makes your stupid claims even > > worse. > > I know, BaldStar, because it proves you wrong. Lying about the canon of Trek is as sad as lying about the bouffant mulletude you sport. Let's make a deal: I'll drop the mullet commentary if you acknowledge the FACTS you are presently trying desperately to ignore. http://www.trek5.com/caps/tos/09_BOT/pages/09BOT_157.htm http://www.trek5.com/caps/tos/09_BOT/pages/09BOT_164.htm http://www.trek5.com/caps/tos/09_BOT/pages/09BOT_166.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Wayne Poe" Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 22:08:35 -0700 Subject: Re: [PDD] DS9 "Valiant" Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote > > I know, BaldStar, because it proves you wrong. > Lying about the canon of Trek is as sad as lying about the bouffant > mulletude you sport. I haven't lied about canon Trek. My hair isn't a classic "mullet" Just here to correct your mistakes, BaldStar. > Let's make a deal: I'll drop the mullet commentary if you acknowledge the > FACTS you are presently trying desperately to ignore. First of all, I couldn't care less how you want to obsess on my hair. Secondly, I'm not about to reverse my position, to cater to your obvious incorrect interpretation of the canon. The plasma weapon followed the Enterprise straight on. And again, siince even you agree the Enterprise never maneuvered, there would be no reason for the plasma weapon to maneuver. "I'm sick of this canon bitching. The Trekkies have six hundred fucking hours of canon to work with. We have about TEN, not counting the novelizations, Radio scripts, etc. Stop crying because of 200GT turbolasers." --- Dalton http://h4h.com/louis/vsfaq.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 12:34:19 GMT Subject: Re: [PDD] DS9 "Valiant" Message-ID: -------- "Wayne Poe" wrote in message news:ujpp6lqte48n00@corp.supernews.com... > "DarkStar" wrote > > > > I know, BaldStar, because it proves you wrong. > > > Lying about the canon of Trek is as sad as lying about the bouffant > > mulletude you sport. > > I haven't lied about canon Trek. You claim, in spite of the visual evidence, that the Romulans fired a straight shot right into the Enterprise's face. I have pointed out your foolish error, and yet you still claim it. You have either lied or you are hopelessly stupid. Pick one. > My hair isn't a classic "mullet" Just here > to correct your mistakes, BaldStar. It's a fluffier mullet than standard, but it is still a hella-mullet. You have joined the Dark Side of the Mullet. > The plasma weapon followed the > Enterprise straight on. And again, siince even you agree the Enterprise > never maneuvered, there would be no reason for the plasma weapon to > maneuver. Yes, it followed the Enterprise straight on, but only after it was fired from above, you idiot. http://www.trek5.com/caps/tos/09_BOT/pages/09BOT_157.htm http://www.trek5.com/caps/tos/09_BOT/pages/09BOT_164.htm http://www.trek5.com/caps/tos/09_BOT/pages/09BOT_166.htm It must have maneuvered to accomplish this, but you just don't want to acknowledge that fact. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 14:39:57 GMT Subject: Re: [PDD] DS9 "Valiant" Message-ID: <1Jz_8.205598$Bt1.11073046@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com> -------- "Wayne Poe" wrote in message news:ujig82iuf3ih5b@corp.supernews.com... > > TNG:Encounter at Farpoint - trying to escape Q > > One of those "myths" that need to be cleared up. The Enterprise makes its > turn and jumps BACK into warp. More of your "warp star" silliness, I see. We already discussed this about TOS, and I even mentioned early TNG examples of it to you. In short, early TNG sometimes made the error of trying to show warp-driven ships at warp from a stationary camera position, and this stationary position would not have warp stars, even if the ship was at warp. For example, in this episode, moments before the separation, the Enterprise is running from Q at high warp, but the chase is shown from a stationary camera position as two flybys without "warp stars", as you can see here: http://www.trek5.com/caps/tng/101-102/pages/TNG101_101.htm You claim the stardrive section decelerated to impulse speeds, but this just isn't so. Knowing how you are, I'll go ahead and "draw it out for you": The ship was moving at a speed of at least warp 9.5, being chased by Q ( http://www.trek5.com/caps/tng/101-102/pages/TNG101_104.htm ). Picard moves to the battle bridge with a plan to make good the escape of the saucer ( http://www.trek5.com/caps/tng/101-102/pages/TNG101_116.htm ). Just before Yar fires torpedoes in the hopes of blinding the Q at the moment of separation (dumb idea, but they didn't know he was omnipotent at the time), Picard tells Worf: "At the moment of separation, we'll reverse power just enough to get your saucer section out ahead and clear of us." Worf acknowledges (http://www.trek5.com/caps/tng/101-102/pages/TNG101_119.htm ). We see the saucer separation, and we see the saucer appear to pull ahead by several dozen meters, just as Picard said. ( http://www.trek5.com/caps/tng/101-102/pages/TNG101_132.htm , http://www.trek5.com/caps/tng/101-102/pages/TNG101_133.htm and http://www.trek5.com/caps/tng/101-102/pages/TNG101_143.htm ) As you saw in that last shot, both sections were at warp speeds. With the saucer "out ahead and clear", the stardrive section turns to face the Q. The shot of the ship is from a stationary location, and we see the ship turn on a dime and go flying back toward the Q. When it does so, there is no "warp flash" of the ship going back into warp. Why? Because it never dropped out of warp to begin with. (http://www.trek5.com/caps/tng/101-102/pages/TNG101_145.htm , http://www.trek5.com/caps/tng/101-102/pages/TNG101_146.htm , http://www.trek5.com/caps/tng/101-102/pages/TNG101_148.htm , and http://www.trek5.com/caps/tng/101-102/pages/TNG101_150.htm ) There is then a moment's reaction shot of Picard, lasting about three seconds. It should be noted that this is not long enough to allow for the special effect of the ship going into warp that you see at the end of the opening credits. When this reaction shot is over, there is a mobile (with warp stars) shot of the stardrive moving at warp. (http://www.trek5.com/caps/tng/101-102/pages/TNG101_151.htm) Shortly thereafter, Picard orders the ship to come to a stop. He says "reverse power", then Data acknowledges: "Reverse power, decelerating." The deceleration of the stardrive section from warp speeds takes six seconds... we see the stars slow from "warp stars" to normal impulse-speed "stars" on the bridge. ( http://www.trek5.com/caps/tng/101-102/pages/TNG101_152.htm ). That is the nail in the coffin of your idea, beyond the simple fact of the way warp was portrayed in early TNG. The fact that the ship took six seconds to drop out of warp with reverse power means that the ship could not have dropped to impulse to make the hard starboard turn. It also means that the saucer section, which could not have reversed warp power, was still at warp in that shot. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Wayne Poe" Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 18:11:53 -0700 Subject: Re: [PDD] DS9 "Valiant" Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote > > One of those "myths" that need to be cleared up. The Enterprise makes its > > turn and jumps BACK into warp. > More of your "warp star" silliness, I see. Fuck you, asshole. Here we have more of "Darkstar's world" where no one can see it but you. Sorry fuckface, but no one here is willing to look through your retard scope along with you. The turn in Farpoint WAS NOT AT WARP. There was NO WARP EFFECT, HENCE the battle bridge WAS NOT AT WARP. I don't give a motherfuck how much you whine, "Oh, in early TNG..." FUCK YOU. -- "I'm sick of this canon bitching. The Trekkies have six hundred fucking hours of canon to work with. We have about TEN, not counting the novelizations, Radio scripts, etc. Stop crying because of 200GT turbolasers." --- Dalton http://h4h.com/louis/vsfaq.html > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 02:00:33 GMT Subject: Re: [PDD] DS9 "Valiant" Message-ID: <5HJ_8.212821$iB1.11344107@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com> -------- "Wayne Poe" wrote in message news:ujmmurn8tagn7a@corp.supernews.com... > > "DarkStar" wrote > > > > One of those "myths" that need to be cleared up. The Enterprise makes > its > > > turn and jumps BACK into warp. > > > More of your "warp star" silliness, I see. > > Fuck you, asshole. Here we have more of "Darkstar's world" where no one can > see it but you. Um, no, everyone can... I posted the pictures. Dumbass. > Sorry fuckface, but no one here is willing to look through > your retard scope along with you. The turn in Farpoint WAS NOT AT WARP. > There was NO WARP EFFECT, HENCE the battle bridge WAS NOT AT WARP. YELLING doesn't make you any less WRONG than you already ARE. > I don't give a motherfuck how much you whine, "Oh, in early TNG..." FUCK > YOU. Aww, did mean ole' DarkStar stwike a widdle Wayney-pooh nerve? Poor baby!!!! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dalton Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 12:51:59 -0400 Subject: Re: A little video you Trek fans might enjoy... Message-ID: <3CFE41AF.D5AF7BAE@daltonator.net> -------- Eleas wrote: > > "Paradox" wrote in message news:... > > > You know, that rated pretty high on my list of "thinks I'd brutally > > > eviscerate Paradox for saying". I'll never be rid of those images > > > now... *sob* > > > > > > > Ya know, that could be a new section of the FUQ, I'd be right up there with > > Strowbridge. > > Rob, please sit on this individual. > > :) Sure. -- Rob "Roby" Dalton rob@daltonator.net "Look," said Arthur, "would it save you a lot of time if I just gave up and went mad now?" --Douglas Adams, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: fenix_burns@yahoo.com (Eleas) Date: 6 Jun 2002 01:26:33 -0700 Subject: Re: A little video you Trek fans might enjoy... Message-ID: -------- Dalton wrote in message news:<3CFE41AF.D5AF7BAE@daltonator.net>... > Eleas wrote: > > > > "Paradox" wrote in message news:... > > > > You know, that rated pretty high on my list of "thinks I'd brutally > > > > eviscerate Paradox for saying". I'll never be rid of those images > > > > now... *sob* > > > > > > > > > > Ya know, that could be a new section of the FUQ, I'd be right up there with > > > Strowbridge. > > > > Rob, please sit on this individual. > > > > :) > > Sure. Thank you. -- Björn ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dalton Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 13:20:12 -0400 Subject: Re: A little video you Trek fans might enjoy... Message-ID: <3CFF99CC.D61F49DF@daltonator.net> -------- Eleas wrote: > > Dalton wrote in message news:<3CFE41AF.D5AF7BAE@daltonator.net>... > > Eleas wrote: > > > > > > "Paradox" wrote in message news:... > > > > > You know, that rated pretty high on my list of "thinks I'd brutally > > > > > eviscerate Paradox for saying". I'll never be rid of those images > > > > > now... *sob* > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ya know, that could be a new section of the FUQ, I'd be right up there with > > > > Strowbridge. > > > > > > Rob, please sit on this individual. > > > > > > :) > > > > Sure. > > Thank you. *splat* -- Rob "Roby" Dalton rob@daltonator.net "Look," said Arthur, "would it save you a lot of time if I just gave up and went mad now?" --Douglas Adams, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: fenix_burns@yahoo.com (Eleas) Date: 7 Jun 2002 03:20:34 -0700 Subject: Re: A little video you Trek fans might enjoy... Message-ID: -------- Dalton wrote in message news:<3CFF99CC.D61F49DF@daltonator.net>... > Eleas wrote: > > > > Dalton wrote in message news:<3CFE41AF.D5AF7BAE@daltonator.net>... > > > Eleas wrote: > > > > > > > > "Paradox" wrote in message news:... > > > > > > You know, that rated pretty high on my list of "thinks I'd brutally > > > > > > eviscerate Paradox for saying". I'll never be rid of those images > > > > > > now... *sob* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ya know, that could be a new section of the FUQ, I'd be right up there with > > > > > Strowbridge. > > > > > > > > Rob, please sit on this individual. > > > > > > > > :) > > > > > > Sure. > > > > Thank you. > > *splat* Thank you sir, may I have another one? -- Björn ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dalton Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 14:25:57 -0400 Subject: Re: A little video you Trek fans might enjoy... Message-ID: <3D00FAB5.F63DFDC7@daltonator.net> -------- Eleas wrote: > > Dalton wrote in message news:<3CFF99CC.D61F49DF@daltonator.net>... > > Eleas wrote: > > > > > > Dalton wrote in message news:<3CFE41AF.D5AF7BAE@daltonator.net>... > > > > Eleas wrote: > > > > > > > > > > "Paradox" wrote in message news:... > > > > > > > You know, that rated pretty high on my list of "thinks I'd brutally > > > > > > > eviscerate Paradox for saying". I'll never be rid of those images > > > > > > > now... *sob* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ya know, that could be a new section of the FUQ, I'd be right up there with > > > > > > Strowbridge. > > > > > > > > > > Rob, please sit on this individual. > > > > > > > > > > :) > > > > > > > > Sure. > > > > > > Thank you. > > > > *splat* > > Thank you sir, may I have another one? Er, OK...*unzips* -- Rob "Roby" Dalton rob@daltonator.net "Look," said Arthur, "would it save you a lot of time if I just gave up and went mad now?" --Douglas Adams, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: fenix_burns@yahoo.com (Eleas) Date: 7 Jun 2002 23:30:28 -0700 Subject: Re: A little video you Trek fans might enjoy... Message-ID: -------- Dalton wrote in message news:<3D00FAB5.F63DFDC7@daltonator.net>... > > > *splat* > > > > Thank you sir, may I have another one? > > Er, OK...*unzips* Gross. -- Björn ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dalton Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2002 02:35:12 -0400 Subject: Re: A little video you Trek fans might enjoy... Message-ID: <3D01A5A0.724994C0@daltonator.net> -------- Eleas wrote: > > Dalton wrote in message news:<3D00FAB5.F63DFDC7@daltonator.net>... > > > > *splat* > > > > > > Thank you sir, may I have another one? > > > > Er, OK...*unzips* > > Gross. You wanted another. -- Rob "Roby" Dalton rob@daltonator.net "Look," said Arthur, "would it save you a lot of time if I just gave up and went mad now?" --Douglas Adams, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "rob.wn5" Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 11:08:30 +0100 Subject: Re: A little video you Trek fans might enjoy... Message-ID: -------- "Dalton" wrote in message news:3CFF99CC.D61F49DF@daltonator.net... > Eleas wrote: > > > > Dalton wrote in message news:<3CFE41AF.D5AF7BAE@daltonator.net>... > > > Eleas wrote: > > > > > > > > "Paradox" wrote in message news:... > > > > > > You know, that rated pretty high on my list of "thinks I'd brutally > > > > > > eviscerate Paradox for saying". I'll never be rid of those images > > > > > > now... *sob* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ya know, that could be a new section of the FUQ, I'd be right up there with > > > > > Strowbridge. > > > > > > > > Rob, please sit on this individual. > > > > > > > > :) > > > > > > Sure. > > > > Thank you. > > *splat* Yuck, Dude, when you fart your not supposed to follow through. Rob Wilson :-) > > -- > Rob "Roby" Dalton > rob@daltonator.net > > "Look," said Arthur, "would it save you a lot of time if I just gave up > and went mad now?" --Douglas Adams, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Wayne Poe" Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 19:21:36 -0700 Subject: Re: [PDD] DS9 "Valiant" Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" > > Fuck you, asshole. Here we have more of "Darkstar's world" where no one > > can see it but you. > > Um, no, everyone can... I posted the pictures. > > Dumbass. Then you are just fucking blind. The stardrive section WAS NOT AT WARP when itmade the turn. Fuckface. > > Sorry fuckface, but no one here is willing to look through > > your retard scope along with you. The turn in Farpoint WAS NOT AT WARP. > > There was NO WARP EFFECT, HENCE the battle bridge WAS NOT AT WARP. > YELLING doesn't make you any less WRONG than you already ARE. I'm not the one that's wrong asshole. The stardrive section WAS NOT AT WARP when itmade the turn. Fuckface > > I don't give a motherfuck how much you whine, "Oh, in early TNG..." FUCK > > YOU. > Aww, did mean ole' DarkStar stwike a widdle Wayney-pooh nerve? Poor > baby!!!! No, I just have to keep yelling so you can hear me with your head shoved so far up your ass. -- "I'm sick of this canon bitching. The Trekkies have six hundred fucking hours of canon to work with. We have about TEN, not counting the novelizations, Radio scripts, etc. Stop crying because of 200GT turbolasers." --- Dalton http://h4h.com/louis/vsfaq.html > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Boyd Date: 22 Jul 2002 02:39:10 GMT Subject: Re: [PDD] DS9 "Valiant" Message-ID: <20020722033911969+0100@news.cis.dfn.de> -------- Wayne Poe wrote: >> > Fuck you, asshole. Here we have more of "Darkstar's world" where no >> > one can see it but you. >> >> Um, no, everyone can... I posted the pictures. >> >> Dumbass. > > Then you are just fucking blind. The stardrive section WAS NOT AT WARP > when itmade the turn. Fuckface. > I'm not the one that's wrong asshole. The stardrive section WAS NOT AT > WARP when itmade the turn. Fuckface > No, I just have to keep yelling so you can hear me with your head > shoved so far up your ass. Actually, from the looks of things, he's posted comprehensive evidence which you've replied to by screaming in caps that he's wrong, rather than giving a reason, pointing out flaws in his reasoning, showing where the evidence is wrong/misinterpreted/whatever. By the rules of debate, he's winning and all you're doing about it is running round, fingers in ears, screaming that he's a liar. -- Jonathan Boyd AIM/MSN: EmperorBoyd | Web: http://www.jboyd.co.uk/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Wayne Poe" Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 19:52:39 -0700 Subject: Re: [PDD] DS9 "Valiant" Message-ID: -------- "Jonathan Boyd" wrote > > No, I just have to keep yelling so you can hear me with your head > > shoved so far up your ass. > Actually, from the looks of things, he's posted comprehensive evidence > which you've replied to by screaming in caps that he's wrong, Well then fuck you too, Jon. All one has to do is to watch the episode. There was a warp effect before saucer seperation, there was a warp effect during saucer seperation, there is a warp effect after saucer seperation. But there is NO WARP EFFECT when the stardrive section made the turn. -- "I'm sick of this canon bitching. The Trekkies have six hundred fucking hours of canon to work with. We have about TEN, not counting the novelizations, Radio scripts, etc. Stop crying because of 200GT turbolasers." --- Dalton http://h4h.com/louis/vsfaq.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Boyd Date: 22 Jul 2002 03:34:39 GMT Subject: Re: [PDD] DS9 "Valiant" Message-ID: <20020722043440556+0100@news.cis.dfn.de> -------- Wayne Poe wrote: > > > "Jonathan Boyd" wrote > >> > No, I just have to keep yelling so you can hear me with your head >> > shoved so far up your ass. > >> Actually, from the looks of things, he's posted comprehensive >> evidence which you've replied to by screaming in caps that he's wrong, > > Well then fuck you too, Jon. All one has to do is to watch the episode. > There was a warp effect before saucer seperation, there was a warp > effect during saucer seperation, there is a warp effect after saucer > seperation. But there is NO WARP EFFECT when the stardrive section > made the turn. So why don't you post evidence of that instead of running in circles, shouting and screaming? Please note that at no point have I said that I agree with him. Or you. Just pointing out that the response he's getting is less than mature. -- Jonathan Boyd AIM/MSN: EmperorBoyd | Web: http://www.jboyd.co.uk/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Wayne Poe" Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 21:00:01 -0700 Subject: Re: [PDD] DS9 "Valiant" Message-ID: -------- "Jonathan Boyd" wrote > Wayne Poe wrote: > > Well then fuck you too, Jon. All one has to do is to watch the episode. > > There was a warp effect before saucer seperation, there was a warp > > effect during saucer seperation, there is a warp effect after saucer > > seperation. But there is NO WARP EFFECT when the stardrive section > > made the turn. > So why don't you post evidence of that instead of running in circles, > shouting and screaming? What do you want me to do, post a .mpg of the first 15 minutes of "Encounter at Farpoint"? Please. Suddenly you don't have access to this stuff, eh? -- "I'm sick of this canon bitching. The Trekkies have six hundred fucking hours of canon to work with. We have about TEN, not counting the novelizations, Radio scripts, etc. Stop crying because of 200GT turbolasers." --- Dalton http://h4h.com/louis/vsfaq.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Boyd Date: 22 Jul 2002 15:08:25 GMT Subject: Re: [PDD] DS9 "Valiant" Message-ID: <20020722160828851+0100@news.cis.dfn.de> -------- Wayne Poe wrote: > > > "Jonathan Boyd" wrote > >> Wayne Poe wrote: > >> > Well then fuck you too, Jon. All one has to do is to watch the >> > episode. There was a warp effect before saucer seperation, there >> > was a warp effect during saucer seperation, there is a warp effect >> > after saucer seperation. But there is NO WARP EFFECT when the >> > stardrive section made the turn. > >> So why don't you post evidence of that instead of running in circles, >> shouting and screaming? > > What do you want me to do, post a .mpg of the first 15 minutes of > "Encounter at Farpoint"? Please. Why would you need 15 minutes? The scene in question is going to be, what, a minute at most? Or a handful of stills would do. > Suddenly you don't have access to this stuff, eh? 'Suddenly' ? The only times I've had access to that ep are the two times it's been on TV. -- Jonathan Boyd AIM/MSN: EmperorBoyd | Web: http://www.jboyd.co.uk/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Wayne Poe" Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 20:31:20 -0700 Subject: Re: [PDD] DS9 "Valiant" Message-ID: -------- "Jonathan Boyd" wrote > > What do you want me to do, post a .mpg of the first 15 minutes of > > "Encounter at Farpoint"? Please. > Why would you need 15 minutes? So you could see the scene in context, of course. > The scene in question is going to be, what, a minute at most? Or a handful of stills would do. Agghhhh.. I working on a webpage now. I won't have the time for those screenshots until the weekend. If you don't want to believe me, wallow in ignorance. -- "I'm sick of this canon bitching. The Trekkies have six hundred fucking hours of canon to work with. We have about TEN, not counting the novelizations, Radio scripts, etc. Stop crying because of 200GT turbolasers." --- Dalton http://h4h.com/louis/vsfaq.html > Jonathan Boyd > AIM/MSN: EmperorBoyd | Web: http://www.jboyd.co.uk/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Boyd Date: 23 Jul 2002 10:58:52 GMT Subject: Re: [PDD] DS9 "Valiant" Message-ID: <20020723115855596+0100@news.cis.dfn.de> -------- Wayne Poe wrote: > "Jonathan Boyd" wrote > >> > What do you want me to do, post a .mpg of the first 15 minutes of >> > "Encounter at Farpoint"? Please. > >> Why would you need 15 minutes? > > So you could see the scene in context, of course. What context is needed? >> The scene in question is going to be, what, a minute at most? Or a > handful of stills would do. > > Agghhhh.. I working on a webpage now. I won't have the time for those > screenshots until the weekend. If you don't want to believe me, wallow > in ignorance. I'll wait til the weekend. -- Jonathan Boyd AIM/MSN: EmperorBoyd | Web: http://www.jboyd.co.uk/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Doomriser" Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 11:18:17 -0400 Subject: Re: [PDD] DS9 "Valiant" Message-ID: <3d3c2241_1@news.cybersurf.net> -------- "Wayne Poe" wrote in message news:ujmsrpgrp3boc8@corp.supernews.com... > > Well then fuck you too, Jon. All one has to do is to watch the episode. > There was a warp effect before saucer seperation, there was a warp effect > during saucer seperation, there is a warp effect after saucer seperation. > But there is NO WARP EFFECT when the stardrive section made the turn. > I think Poe is right. I just watched "Arsenal of Freedom," which reuses stock footage from "Encounter at Farpoint." The turn is made in realspace. -- -=Doomriser 200 GIGATON LASERS DO NOT EXIST. THE POWER OF THAT ALONE WOULD BE ABLE TO DESTROY A PLANET IN A SINGLE SHOT -- A STAR DESTROYER FIRING ALL ITS TURBOLASERS WOULD BE QUITE ABLE TO CAUSE A STAR TO GO SUPERNOVA. WHAT WAS THE POINT OF THE SUPERLASER IF EVERY STAR DESTROYER WAS CAPABLE ON ITS OWN OF ANNIHILATING A PLANET WITH A SINGLE SHOT? THEREFORE, WE MUST ASSUME TURBOLASERS ARE NOT CAPABLE OF THESE 200-300 GIGATON YIELD FORCES. -User099 http://www.stardestroyer.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=398&postdays=0&postorder =asc&start=15 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 15:56:36 GMT Subject: Re: [PDD] DS9 "Valiant" Message-ID: -------- "Doomriser" wrote in message news:3d3c2241_1@news.cybersurf.net... > "Wayne Poe" wrote in message > news:ujmsrpgrp3boc8@corp.supernews.com... > > > > > Well then fuck you too, Jon. All one has to do is to watch the episode. > > There was a warp effect before saucer seperation, there was a warp effect > > during saucer seperation, there is a warp effect after saucer seperation. > > But there is NO WARP EFFECT when the stardrive section made the turn. > > > I think Poe is right. I just watched "Arsenal of Freedom," which reuses > stock footage from "Encounter at Farpoint." The turn is made in realspace. If they were at impulse making the turn, then that's fine. What you have is a shot of a starship making a turn at impulse. However, that does not change the fact that the stardrive section and saucer section could not have been at impulse in EaF. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 03:42:49 GMT Subject: Re: [PDD] DS9 "Valiant" Message-ID: -------- "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in message news:3D3B76E0.90901@shaw.ca... > Jonathan Boyd wrote: > > Wayne Poe wrote: > > >>No, I just have to keep yelling so you can hear me with your head > >>shoved so far up your ass. > > > > Actually, from the looks of things, he's posted comprehensive evidence > > Darkstar's 'Comprehensive evidence' is based on messed up FX in early > TNG. Since there is no FX we can ignore that argument. It is not an effects-based argument. "Camera" is merely shorthand for "location of observer". You can hardly argue that the "documentary" view we get is always from a stationary position, or always in motion. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 05:26:07 GMT Subject: Re: [PDD] DS9 "Valiant" Message-ID: <3D3B97B9.7000709@shaw.ca> -------- DarkStar wrote: > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: >>Jonathan Boyd wrote: >>>Wayne Poe wrote: >>>>No, I just have to keep yelling so you can hear me with your head >>>>shoved so far up your ass. >>> >>>Actually, from the looks of things, he's posted comprehensive evidence >> >>Darkstar's 'Comprehensive evidence' is based on messed up FX in early >>TNG. Since there is no FX we can ignore that argument. > > It is not an effects-based argument. Yes it is. The presence or lack of warp stars is dismissed as an FX demon. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 15:05:48 GMT Subject: Re: [PDD] DS9 "Valiant" Message-ID: -------- "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in message news:3D3B97B9.7000709@shaw.ca... > DarkStar wrote: > > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: > >>Jonathan Boyd wrote: > >>>Wayne Poe wrote: > > >>>>No, I just have to keep yelling so you can hear me with your head > >>>>shoved so far up your ass. > >>> > >>>Actually, from the looks of things, he's posted comprehensive evidence > >> > >>Darkstar's 'Comprehensive evidence' is based on messed up FX in early > >>TNG. Since there is no FX we can ignore that argument. > > > > It is not an effects-based argument. > > Yes it is. The presence or lack of warp stars is dismissed as an FX demon. Okay, then why are you bringing it up against me, and not Wayne? He's the one claiming an FX demon. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cmdrwilkens" Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 12:08:47 -0400 Subject: Re: [PDD] DS9 "Valiant" Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:gbV_8.220361$iB1.11777976@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in message > news:3D3B97B9.7000709@shaw.ca... > > DarkStar wrote: > > > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: > > >>Jonathan Boyd wrote: > > >>>Wayne Poe wrote: > > > > >>>>No, I just have to keep yelling so you can hear me with your head > > >>>>shoved so far up your ass. > > >>> > > >>>Actually, from the looks of things, he's posted comprehensive evidence > > >> > > >>Darkstar's 'Comprehensive evidence' is based on messed up FX in early > > >>TNG. Since there is no FX we can ignore that argument. > > > > > > It is not an effects-based argument. > > > > Yes it is. The presence or lack of warp stars is dismissed as an FX demon. > > Okay, then why are you bringing it up against me, and not Wayne? He's the > one claiming an FX demon. > No hes the one claiming that the warp effect is our visual clue for them being in warp. You have tried to dismiss this utilizing the FX daemon argument, or so it would appear. -- Lcpl Burnett, G.R. USMCR BridgeCo B 6th EngSptBN 4th FSSG "Weapons do not penetrate armour based on force and pressure" - IXJac(taken from SB.com and SD.net) "I'm a genocidal maniac, hold me." -Anakin Vader ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 16:45:16 GMT Subject: Re: [PDD] DS9 "Valiant" Message-ID: -------- "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message news:ahhaqt$t3koo$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > "DarkStar" wrote in message > news:gbV_8.220361$iB1.11777976@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in message > > news:3D3B97B9.7000709@shaw.ca... > > > DarkStar wrote: > > > > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: > > > >>Jonathan Boyd wrote: > > > >>>Wayne Poe wrote: > > > > > > >>>>No, I just have to keep yelling so you can hear me with your head > > > >>>>shoved so far up your ass. > > > >>> > > > >>>Actually, from the looks of things, he's posted comprehensive > evidence > > > >> > > > >>Darkstar's 'Comprehensive evidence' is based on messed up FX in early > > > >>TNG. Since there is no FX we can ignore that argument. > > > > > > > > It is not an effects-based argument. > > > > > > Yes it is. The presence or lack of warp stars is dismissed as an FX > demon. > > > > Okay, then why are you bringing it up against me, and not Wayne? He's > the > > one claiming an FX demon. > > > > No hes the one claiming that the warp effect is our visual clue for them > being in warp. You have tried to dismiss this utilizing the FX daemon > argument, or so it would appear. No, I am arguing that his claim of a particular special effect is bullshit, and I have proven this already because the "effect that must be there for warp" he is claiming does not, in fact, have to be there for warp. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 01:48:14 GMT Subject: Re: [PDD] DS9 "Valiant" Message-ID: <3D3CB632.2030209@shaw.ca> -------- DarkStar wrote: > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: >>>It is not an effects-based argument. >> >>Yes it is. The presence or lack of warp stars is dismissed as an FX demon. > > Okay, then why are you bringing it up against me, and not Wayne? > He's the one claiming an FX demon. No, he's claiming that the lack of Warp Stars proves the turn didn't take place at warp. You are saying that the FX team messed up a bunch in early TNG and they forgot to place the warp stars in that shot. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 04:34:20 GMT Subject: Re: [PDD] DS9 "Valiant" Message-ID: -------- "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in message news:3D3CB632.2030209@shaw.ca... > DarkStar wrote: > > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: > > >>>It is not an effects-based argument. > >> > >>Yes it is. The presence or lack of warp stars is dismissed as an FX demon. > > > > Okay, then why are you bringing it up against me, and not Wayne? > > He's the one claiming an FX demon. > > No, he's claiming that the lack of Warp Stars proves the turn didn't > take place at warp. You are saying that the FX team messed up a bunch in > early TNG and they forgot to place the warp stars in that shot. I'm not claiming they messed up! They designed warp scenes without warp stars. It's a simple fact Wayne wants to ignore. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 03:12:26 GMT Subject: Re: [PDD] DS9 "Valiant" Message-ID: -------- "Wayne Poe" wrote in message news:ujmr1lb0175v66@corp.supernews.com... > > > "DarkStar" > > > > Fuck you, asshole. Here we have more of "Darkstar's world" where no one > > > can see it but you. > > > > Um, no, everyone can... I posted the pictures. > > > > Dumbass. > > Then you are just fucking blind. The stardrive section WAS NOT AT WARP when > itmade the turn. Fuckface. Yes it was, dumbass. The stardrive section took six seconds at reverse power to drop out of warp. You're claiming they did it in milliseconds. > > > Sorry fuckface, but no one here is willing to look through > > > your retard scope along with you. The turn in Farpoint WAS NOT AT WARP. > > > There was NO WARP EFFECT, HENCE the battle bridge WAS NOT AT WARP. > > > YELLING doesn't make you any less WRONG than you already ARE. > > I'm not the one that's wrong asshole. The stardrive section WAS NOT AT WARP > when itmade the turn. Fuckface > > > > I don't give a motherfuck how much you whine, "Oh, in early TNG..." FUCK > > > YOU. > > > Aww, did mean ole' DarkStar stwike a widdle Wayney-pooh nerve? Poor > > baby!!!! > > No, I just have to keep yelling so you can hear me with your head shoved so > far up your ass. See if you can hear this: WHY DON'T YOU TRY RESPONDING TO MY POINTS INSTEAD OF BEING A DUMBASS, DUMBASS? Did you catch that, Wayney-pooh? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Wayne Poe" Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 21:05:51 -0700 Subject: Re: [PDD] DS9 "Valiant" Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote > > Then you are just fucking blind. The stardrive section WAS NOT AT WARP > > when itmade the turn. Fuckface. > Yes it was, dumbass. Proof? Do we see a warp effect during that turn? No? Concession Accepted. Fuckface. > The stardrive section took six seconds at reverse power to drop out of warp. You're claiming they did it in milliseconds. Nope, the canon shows that. I don't have to "claim" anything. > > No, I just have to keep yelling so you can hear me with your head shoved > > so far up your ass. > See if you can hear this: > WHY DON'T YOU TRY RESPONDING TO MY POINTS INSTEAD OF BEING A DUMBASS, > DUMBASS? See? even the echo is present. -- "I'm sick of this canon bitching. The Trekkies have six hundred fucking hours of canon to work with. We have about TEN, not counting the novelizations, Radio scripts, etc. Stop crying because of 200GT turbolasers." --- Dalton http://h4h.com/louis/vsfaq.html > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 04:38:26 GMT Subject: Re: [PDD] DS9 "Valiant" Message-ID: <6%L_8.218712$Bt1.11725279@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com> -------- "Wayne Poe" wrote in message news:ujn155fuvd2e47@corp.supernews.com... > > > "DarkStar" wrote > > > > Then you are just fucking blind. The stardrive section WAS NOT AT WARP > > > when itmade the turn. Fuckface. > > > Yes it was, dumbass. > > Proof? Do we see a warp effect during that turn? No? Concession Accepted. > Fuckface. Do we see a warp effect seconds beforehand when they were above warp nine? No? Concession accepted, Darth Mullet. > > The stardrive section took six seconds at reverse power to drop out of > warp. You're claiming they did it in milliseconds. > > Nope, the canon shows that. I don't have to "claim" anything. You're claiming that Star Trek TNG uses a particular effect at all times to show warp speeds, and that any time this effect is not present, there is no warp speed. This puts you in direct contradiction with the canon evidence to the contrary, both visual (other instances of warp without warp streaks) and visual + dialog (engine reverse requiring six seconds to bring the ship out of warp). > > > No, I just have to keep yelling so you can hear me with your head shoved > > > so far up your ass. > > > See if you can hear this: > > > WHY DON'T YOU TRY RESPONDING TO MY POINTS INSTEAD OF BEING A DUMBASS, > > DUMBASS? > > See? even the echo is present. Ooooooooooooooooh, feel the mulletude. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Wayne Poe" Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 22:03:16 -0700 Subject: Re: [PDD] DS9 "Valiant" Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote > > Proof? Do we see a warp effect during that turn? No? Concession Accepted. > > Fuckface. > Do we see a warp effect seconds beforehand when they were above warp nine? > No? Concession accepted, Darth Mullet. Do we see a warp effect during that turn? No? Concession Accepted. Fuckface. > > Nope, the canon shows that. I don't have to "claim" anything. > You're claiming that Star Trek TNG uses a particular effect at all times to > show warp speeds, Yup. Concession Accepted. Fuckface. -- "I'm sick of this canon bitching. The Trekkies have six hundred fucking hours of canon to work with. We have about TEN, not counting the novelizations, Radio scripts, etc. Stop crying because of 200GT turbolasers." --- Dalton http://h4h.com/louis/vsfaq.html > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 15:06:55 GMT Subject: Re: [PDD] DS9 "Valiant" Message-ID: -------- "Wayne Poe" wrote in message news:ujn4gmmao8hs4d@corp.supernews.com... > "DarkStar" wrote > > > > Proof? Do we see a warp effect during that turn? No? Concession > Accepted. > > > Fuckface. > > > Do we see a warp effect seconds beforehand when they were above warp nine? > > No? Concession accepted, Darth Mullet. > > Do we see a warp effect during that turn? No? Concession Accepted. > Fuckface. Would we expect to see one at warp from a stationary observation point? No? Concession accepted, Mullet-Boy. > > > Nope, the canon shows that. I don't have to "claim" anything. > > > You're claiming that Star Trek TNG uses a particular effect at all times > to > > show warp speeds, > > Yup. Concession Accepted. Fuckface. You're wrong, and I have proved that. Concession accepted. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Wayne Poe" Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 20:29:03 -0700 Subject: Re: [PDD] DS9 "Valiant" Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote > > Do we see a warp effect during that turn? No? Concession Accepted. > > Fuckface. > Would we expect to see one at warp from a stationary observation point? Sure, just like in VGR's "Equinox" But we didn't. Know what that means? They weren't at warp, BaldStar. Concession Accepted. -- "I'm sick of this canon bitching. The Trekkies have six hundred fucking hours of canon to work with. We have about TEN, not counting the novelizations, Radio scripts, etc. Stop crying because of 200GT turbolasers." --- Dalton http://h4h.com/louis/vsfaq.html > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 04:35:00 GMT Subject: Re: [PDD] DS9 "Valiant" Message-ID: -------- "Wayne Poe" wrote in message news:ujpjc0tojrlsc3@corp.supernews.com... > "DarkStar" wrote > > > > Do we see a warp effect during that turn? No? Concession Accepted. > > > Fuckface. > > > Would we expect to see one at warp from a stationary observation point? > > Sure, just like in VGR's "Equinox" But we didn't. What part? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 03:02:47 GMT Subject: Re: [PDD] DS9 "Valiant" Message-ID: <3D3B761F.1050906@shaw.ca> -------- Wayne Poe wrote: > "DarkStar" wrote: >>>One of those "myths" that need to be cleared up. The Enterprise makes >>>its turn and jumps BACK into warp. > >>More of your "warp star" silliness, I see. > > Fuck you, asshole. Here we have more of "Darkstar's world" where no one can > see it but you. Sorry fuckface, but no one here is willing to look through > your retard scope along with you. The turn in Farpoint WAS NOT AT WARP. > There was NO WARP EFFECT, HENCE the battle bridge WAS NOT AT WARP. > > I don't give a motherfuck how much you whine, "Oh, in early TNG..." FUCK > YOU. Isn't that a classic example of a FX Demon. Those are banned by the FAQ. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 03:46:09 GMT Subject: Re: [PDD] DS9 "Valiant" Message-ID: <5eL_8.213589$iX5.11202789@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com> -------- "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in message news:3D3B761F.1050906@shaw.ca... > Wayne Poe wrote: > > "DarkStar" wrote: > > >>>One of those "myths" that need to be cleared up. The Enterprise makes > >>>its turn and jumps BACK into warp. > > > >>More of your "warp star" silliness, I see. > > > > Fuck you, asshole. Here we have more of "Darkstar's world" where no one can > > see it but you. Sorry fuckface, but no one here is willing to look through > > your retard scope along with you. The turn in Farpoint WAS NOT AT WARP. > > There was NO WARP EFFECT, HENCE the battle bridge WAS NOT AT WARP. > > > > I don't give a motherfuck how much you whine, "Oh, in early TNG..." FUCK > > YOU. > > Isn't that a classic example of a FX Demon. Those are banned by the FAQ. A. It isn't, as I indicate elsewhere. B. He is claiming that there is a specific, always-used special effect denoting warp. That is simply not true, and this fact is easily demonstrated. That is not an FX error... he is simply misidentifying the meaning of the effects, just like he did in the "Elaan of Troyius" discussion. C. That still doesn't answer the questions of why there is no warp flash, how the stardrive section leapt to warp in such a short time, and why it took them six seconds to drop out of warp with reverse power after separation, even though Wayne is claiming that both the stardrive section and the non-warp-powered saucer both managed to do it in milliseconds. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Doomriser" Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 11:20:06 -0400 Subject: Re: [PDD] DS9 "Valiant" Message-ID: <3d3c22ae_1@news.cybersurf.net> -------- "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in message news:3D3B761F.1050906@shaw.ca... > > Isn't that a classic example of a FX Demon. Those are banned by the FAQ. > > C.S.Strowbridge > I don't see why it would be. It makes sense that the section would have to be out of warp to make a turn like that and is consistent with the rest of the series. Furthermore, IIRC, the footage is used over and over again as stock footage, so the producers don't seem to think its an FX glitch. -- -=Doomriser 200 GIGATON LASERS DO NOT EXIST. THE POWER OF THAT ALONE WOULD BE ABLE TO DESTROY A PLANET IN A SINGLE SHOT -- A STAR DESTROYER FIRING ALL ITS TURBOLASERS WOULD BE QUITE ABLE TO CAUSE A STAR TO GO SUPERNOVA. WHAT WAS THE POINT OF THE SUPERLASER IF EVERY STAR DESTROYER WAS CAPABLE ON ITS OWN OF ANNIHILATING A PLANET WITH A SINGLE SHOT? THEREFORE, WE MUST ASSUME TURBOLASERS ARE NOT CAPABLE OF THESE 200-300 GIGATON YIELD FORCES. -User099 http://www.stardestroyer.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=398&postdays=0&postorder =asc&start=15 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 15:48:56 GMT Subject: Re: [PDD] DS9 "Valiant" Message-ID: -------- "Doomriser" wrote in message news:3d3c22ae_1@news.cybersurf.net... > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in message > news:3D3B761F.1050906@shaw.ca... > > > > Isn't that a classic example of a FX Demon. Those are banned by the FAQ. > > > > C.S.Strowbridge > > > > I don't see why it would be. It makes sense that the section would have to > be out of warp to make a turn like that and is consistent with the rest of > the series. Given Kirk's warp two pivot in "Elaan of Troyius" and other warp maneuvers, it is also consistent if taken to be the warp turn that it is. > Furthermore, IIRC, the footage is used over and over again as > stock footage, so the producers don't seem to think its an FX glitch. If the same footage is later used to represent an impulse turn, that hardly proves that the EaF example was at impulse. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 02:32:25 GMT Subject: Re: [PDD] DS9 "Valiant" Message-ID: <3D3CC08D.2040402@shaw.ca> -------- Doomriser wrote: > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: >>Isn't that a classic example of a FX Demon. Those are banned by the FAQ. > > I don't see why it would be. It makes sense that the section would have to > be out of warp to make a turn like that and is consistent with the rest of > the series. Furthermore, IIRC, the footage is used over and over again as > stock footage, so the producers don't seem to think its an FX glitch. That's not what I meant. What's banned by the FAQ is saying, 'Those warp stars were supposed to be there but the FX guys screwed up.' C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 04:37:25 GMT Subject: Re: [PDD] DS9 "Valiant" Message-ID: <945%8.223325$iX5.12040712@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com> -------- "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in message news:3D3CC08D.2040402@shaw.ca... > Doomriser wrote: > > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: > > >>Isn't that a classic example of a FX Demon. Those are banned by the FAQ. > > > > I don't see why it would be. It makes sense that the section would have to > > be out of warp to make a turn like that and is consistent with the rest of > > the series. Furthermore, IIRC, the footage is used over and over again as > > stock footage, so the producers don't seem to think its an FX glitch. > > That's not what I meant. What's banned by the FAQ is saying, 'Those warp > stars were supposed to be there but the FX guys screwed up.' That's just it: they weren't supposed to be there. I'm not claiming error, I'm claiming nature. The nature of warp stars was that they wouldn't show up in such situations, and I have pointed out why, with screenshots. Deal. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 12:42:36 GMT Subject: Re: [PDD] DS9 "Valiant" Message-ID: <0%x_8.202189$iX5.10591553@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com> -------- "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in message news:3D38AF86.4080502@shaw.ca... > Doomriser wrote: > > "Jonathan Boyd" wrote: > > >>>-Nog's runabout is being attacked by a Jem Hadar bug. Nog mentions > >>>that he has a maneuverability advantage, but that he'd have to drop > >>>out of warp in order to take advantage of it. > >> > >>In other words, a JH bug is at least as maneuverable as a runabout at > >>warp, but less so at impulse. > > > > In _your_ words, you mean. It could also mean that a starship would have to > > drop out of warp in order to combat maneuver, period. > > Which is probably where the, 'Faster than light, no left or right.' > comes from. Argh! You fucking lying whore! Every time the issue of turning at warp, combat at warp, or even taking a piss in a warp-driven starship comes up, you are the first to bring up this quote. And every time you do that, you're given the exact same counterexamples over and over that prove the quote is in error. Are you so unsure of SW supremacy that you think you have to lie about Trek in order to maintain your belief, or do you just have a really short memory? FYI, "Treachery, Faith, and the Great River" shows another warp-speed battle between a runabout and a Jem'Hadar ship. Odo was able to perform all sorts of turns, jinks, and dodges, including a maneuver which put him behind the Dominion ship, where he destroyed it with phasers. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 17:57:29 GMT Subject: Re: [PDD] DS9 "Valiant" Message-ID: <3D3AF64C.80301@shaw.ca> -------- DarkStar wrote: > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: >>Doomriser wrote: >>>"Jonathan Boyd" wrote: >>>>>-Nog's runabout is being attacked by a Jem Hadar bug. Nog mentions >>>>>that he has a maneuverability advantage, but that he'd have to drop >>>>>out of warp in order to take advantage of it. >>>> >>>>In other words, a JH bug is at least as maneuverable as a runabout at >>>>warp, but less so at impulse. >>> >>>In _your_ words, you mean. It could also mean that a starship would have >>>to drop out of warp in order to combat maneuver, period. >> >>Which is probably where the, 'Faster than light, no left or right.' >>comes from. > > Argh! You fucking lying whore! Every time the issue of turning at warp, > combat at warp, or even taking a piss in a warp-driven starship comes up, > you are the first to bring up this quote. And every time you do that, > you're given the exact same counterexamples over and over that prove the > quote is in error. Are you so unsure of SW supremacy that you think you > have to lie about Trek in order to maintain your belief, or do you just have > a really short memory? We've also seen plenty of examples that prove it's correct. Something you seem to forget. I'd say the evidence is clearly in my favour. > FYI, "Treachery, Faith, and the Great River" shows another warp-speed battle > between a runabout and a Jem'Hadar ship. Odo was able to perform all sorts > of turns, jinks, and dodges, including a maneuver which put him behind the > Dominion ship, where he destroyed it with phasers. Didn't that battle include an Ice Asteroid scene? C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 19:15:49 GMT Subject: Re: [PDD] DS9 "Valiant" Message-ID: -------- "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in message news:3D3AF64C.80301@shaw.ca... > DarkStar wrote: > > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: > >>Doomriser wrote: > >>>"Jonathan Boyd" wrote: > > >>>>>-Nog's runabout is being attacked by a Jem Hadar bug. Nog mentions > >>>>>that he has a maneuverability advantage, but that he'd have to drop > >>>>>out of warp in order to take advantage of it. > >>>> > >>>>In other words, a JH bug is at least as maneuverable as a runabout at > >>>>warp, but less so at impulse. > >>> > >>>In _your_ words, you mean. It could also mean that a starship would have > >>>to drop out of warp in order to combat maneuver, period. > >> > >>Which is probably where the, 'Faster than light, no left or right.' > >>comes from. > > > > Argh! You fucking lying whore! Every time the issue of turning at warp, > > combat at warp, or even taking a piss in a warp-driven starship comes up, > > you are the first to bring up this quote. And every time you do that, > > you're given the exact same counterexamples over and over that prove the > > quote is in error. Are you so unsure of SW supremacy that you think you > > have to lie about Trek in order to maintain your belief, or do you just have > > a really short memory? > > We've also seen plenty of examples that prove it's correct. Something > you seem to forget. I'd say the evidence is clearly in my favour. You've got to be kidding. You actually think it is better to discount all the examples of warp maneuvering in favor of a single quote? Well, well, you like to change stories, don't you: "Also, with the, 'Faster than light, no left or right' it would be easy to deal with warp strafing. Just fire into their path, they can't avoid the shots." (http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1961773548d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&a s_drrb=b&as_mind=29&as_minm=3&as_miny=1995&as_maxd=16&as_maxm=12&as_maxy=200 1&selm=3C13C9A8.1BB98735%40shaw.ca) "However, we see many times that they can turn at Warp." (http://groups.google.com/groups?q=warp+group:alt.startrek.vs.starwars+autho r:C.S.Strowbridge&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=3C3390A0.D20BDAA3%40shaw.ca&rnum=4 ) "We've seen plenty of turns." (http://groups.google.com/groups?q=warp+group:alt.startrek.vs.starwars+autho r:C.S.Strowbridge&start=10&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=3C3019D9.DA8F5BEB%40shaw. ca&rnum=12) Instead of posting the naked quote which is misleading (and just plain wrong if taken at face value), why don't you say something more like some of your better theories about what it really means? Something like "it is unwise to make too many hard maneuvers at warp" would be acceptable. > > FYI, "Treachery, Faith, and the Great River" shows another warp-speed battle > > between a runabout and a Jem'Hadar ship. Odo was able to perform all sorts > > of turns, jinks, and dodges, including a maneuver which put him behind the > > Dominion ship, where he destroyed it with phasers. > > Didn't that battle include an Ice Asteroid scene? No. It is available here if you want to check for yourself: http://stardock.hispeed.com/movies/movies.shtml ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 20:13:53 GMT Subject: Re: [PDD] DS9 "Valiant" Message-ID: <3D3B1646.5020106@shaw.ca> -------- DarkStar wrote: > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: >>>>Which is probably where the, 'Faster than light, no left or right.' >>>>comes from. >>> >>>Argh! You fucking lying whore! Every time the issue of turning at >>>warp, combat at warp, or even taking a piss in a warp-driven starship >>>comes up, you are the first to bring up this quote. And every time >>>you do that, you're given the exact same counterexamples over and >>>over that prove the quote is in error. Are you so unsure of SW >>>supremacy that you think you have to lie about Trek in order to >>>maintain your belief, or do you just have a really short memory? >> >>We've also seen plenty of examples that prove it's correct. Something >>you seem to forget. I'd say the evidence is clearly in my favour. > > You've got to be kidding. You actually think it is better to > discount all the examples of warp maneuvering in favor of a single > quote? Strawman. I'm claiming there are examples that support my theory, and those examples outnumber the counter examples. > Well, well, you like to change stories, don't you: Nope, this is my theory and has been for a long time. > Instead of posting the naked quote which is misleading (and just plain > wrong if taken at face value), why don't you say something more like > some of your better theories about what it really means? Something > like "it is unwise to make too many hard maneuvers at warp" would be > acceptable. Cause I wasn't arguing the nuances of the quote. I was showing supporting evidence. >>>FYI, "Treachery, Faith, and the Great River" shows another warp-speed >>>battle between a runabout and a Jem'Hadar ship. Odo was able to >>>perform all sorts of turns, jinks, and dodges, including a maneuver >>>which put him behind the Dominion ship, where he destroyed it with >>>phasers. >> >>Didn't that battle include an Ice Asteroid scene? > > No. It is available here if you want to check for yourself: > > http://stardock.hispeed.com/movies/movies.shtml You are officially a useless fuck. All Odo was able to do was some minor drifts, and his 'big maneuver' was a drift up while decelerating. Nothing impressive there. Just to give you a little hint, when you are going to lie about evidence it's best that you don't post proof that you're lying. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 20:49:04 GMT Subject: Re: [PDD] DS9 "Valiant" Message-ID: <47F_8.210169$iB1.11119395@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com> -------- "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in message news:3D3B1646.5020106@shaw.ca... > DarkStar wrote: > > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: > > >>>>Which is probably where the, 'Faster than light, no left or right.' > >>>>comes from. > >>> > >>>Argh! You fucking lying whore! Every time the issue of turning at > >>>warp, combat at warp, or even taking a piss in a warp-driven starship > >>>comes up, you are the f