---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andras Otto Schneider Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 23:10:58 -0800 Subject: [trek] book- Starship Spotter Message-ID: -------- Anyone seen this? Its not bad for US $16. since I dont watch ST on a regular basis, it did give me some useful background on the more obscure ships. 30 ships with wireframe and full color two page shots for each ship. OTOH, some of the 'stats' dont seem to be very accurate. some of the stated weapons fits dont match other sources ie Ent- E has 3 quantum torpedo tubes plus phasers, Defiant only has 2 quantum tubes plus PPCs. It gives the original romulan warbird a warp speed of 8. AOS "Those blast points are far too accurate for Imperial Stormtroopers. Only Imperial Special Effects Technicians are so precise" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Chris O'Farrell" Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 15:19:34 +1100 Subject: Re: [trek] book- Starship Spotter Message-ID: <3c1c1f96$0$19752$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au> -------- Andras Otto Schneider wrote in message news:andrasotto.spamguard-3DF610.23105815122001@news.cis.dfn.de... > Anyone seen this? Its not bad for US $16. since I dont watch ST on a > regular basis, it did give me some useful background on the more obscure > ships. 30 ships with wireframe and full color two page shots for each > ship. OTOH, some of the 'stats' dont seem to be very accurate. some of > the stated weapons fits dont match other sources ie Ent- E has 3 quantum > torpedo tubes plus phasers, Unless I am mistaken the Soverign has the Torpedo turret, the twin forward torepdo tubes and an unknown number (though to be two) of aft facing torepedo tubes. Defiant only has 2 quantum tubes plus PPCs. Ok thats wrong. It has the PPC's., two forward torpedo tubes. two aft and three omni directional phaser emmiters (one behind the bridge, one behind the shuttlebay door and one further aft seen in Message In A Bottle IIRC) > It gives the original romulan warbird a warp speed of 8. Um the Original warbird IIRC was limited to STL speeds. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andras Otto Schneider Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 23:37:01 -0800 Subject: Re: [trek] book- Starship Spotter Message-ID: -------- In article <3c1c1f96$0$19752$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>, "Chris O'Farrell" wrote: > Andras Otto Schneider wrote in message > news:andrasotto.spamguard-3DF610.23105815122001@news.cis.dfn.de... > > Anyone seen this? Its not bad for US $16. since I dont watch ST on a > > regular basis, it did give me some useful background on the more obscure > > ships. 30 ships with wireframe and full color two page shots for each > > ship. OTOH, some of the 'stats' dont seem to be very accurate. some of > > the stated weapons fits dont match other sources ie Ent- E has 3 quantum > > torpedo tubes plus phasers, > > Unless I am mistaken the Soverign has the Torpedo turret, the twin forward > torepdo tubes and an unknown number (though to be two) of aft facing > torepedo tubes. > > Defiant only has 2 quantum tubes plus PPCs. > > Ok thats wrong. It has the PPC's., two forward torpedo tubes. two aft and > three omni directional phaser emmiters (one behind the bridge, one behind > the shuttlebay door and one further aft seen in Message In A Bottle IIRC) > > > It gives the original romulan warbird a warp speed of 8. > > Um the Original warbird IIRC was limited to STL speeds. > > I know, thats why I'm bringing it up as an inconsistancy. AOS "Those blast points are far too accurate for Imperial Stormtroopers. Only Imperial Special Effects Technicians are so precise" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Chris O'Farrell" Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 17:21:13 +1100 Subject: Re: [trek] book- Starship Spotter Message-ID: <3c1c3c18$0$19749$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au> -------- Andras Otto Schneider wrote in message news:andrasotto.spamguard-43E169.23370115122001@news.cis.dfn.de... > In article <3c1c1f96$0$19752$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>, "Chris > O'Farrell" wrote: > > > Andras Otto Schneider wrote in message > > news:andrasotto.spamguard-3DF610.23105815122001@news.cis.dfn.de... > > > Anyone seen this? Its not bad for US $16. since I dont watch ST on a > > > regular basis, it did give me some useful background on the more obscure > > > ships. 30 ships with wireframe and full color two page shots for each > > > ship. OTOH, some of the 'stats' dont seem to be very accurate. some of > > > the stated weapons fits dont match other sources ie Ent- E has 3 quantum > > > torpedo tubes plus phasers, > > > > Unless I am mistaken the Soverign has the Torpedo turret, the twin forward > > torepdo tubes and an unknown number (though to be two) of aft facing > > torepedo tubes. > > > > Defiant only has 2 quantum tubes plus PPCs. > > > > Ok thats wrong. It has the PPC's., two forward torpedo tubes. two aft and > > three omni directional phaser emmiters (one behind the bridge, one behind > > the shuttlebay door and one further aft seen in Message In A Bottle IIRC) > > > > > It gives the original romulan warbird a warp speed of 8. > > > > Um the Original warbird IIRC was limited to STL speeds. > > > > > > I know, thats why I'm bringing it up as an inconsistancy. > How to the pictures look though? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Wouter Valentijn" Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 16:11:58 +0100 Subject: Re: [trek] book- Starship Spotter Message-ID: <9vignr$fgjra$1@ID-43412.news.dfncis.de> -------- "Chris O'Farrell" schreef in bericht news:3c1c3c18$0$19749$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au... > > Andras Otto Schneider wrote in message > news:andrasotto.spamguard-43E169.23370115122001@news.cis.dfn.de... > > In article <3c1c1f96$0$19752$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>, "Chris > > O'Farrell" wrote: > > > > > Andras Otto Schneider wrote in message > > > news:andrasotto.spamguard-3DF610.23105815122001@news.cis.dfn.de... > > > > Anyone seen this? Its not bad for US $16. since I dont watch ST on a > > > > regular basis, it did give me some useful background on the more > obscure > > > > ships. 30 ships with wireframe and full color two page shots for each > > > > ship. OTOH, some of the 'stats' dont seem to be very accurate. some of > > > > the stated weapons fits dont match other sources ie Ent- E has 3 > quantum > > > > torpedo tubes plus phasers, > > > > > > Unless I am mistaken the Soverign has the Torpedo turret, the twin > forward > > > torepdo tubes and an unknown number (though to be two) of aft facing > > > torepedo tubes. > > > > > > Defiant only has 2 quantum tubes plus PPCs. > > > > > > Ok thats wrong. It has the PPC's., two forward torpedo tubes. two aft > and > > > three omni directional phaser emmiters (one behind the bridge, one > behind > > > the shuttlebay door and one further aft seen in Message In A Bottle > IIRC) > > > > > > > It gives the original romulan warbird a warp speed of 8. > > > > > > Um the Original warbird IIRC was limited to STL speeds. > > > > > > > > > > I know, thats why I'm bringing it up as an inconsistancy. > > > How to the pictures look though? They look very nice. But I've seen better and bigger. -- Wouter Valentijn. www.zeppodunsel.nl > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 21:22:55 GMT Subject: Re: [trek] book- Starship Spotter Message-ID: <3C1D1063.20543A52@shaw.ca> -------- Andras Otto Schneider wrote: > > "Chris O'Farrell" wrote: > > > It gives the original romulan warbird a warp speed of 8. > > > > Um the Original warbird IIRC was limited to STL speeds. > > I know, thats why I'm bringing it up as an inconsistancy. It couldn't be limited to STL speeds. It was chased by the Enterprise and did a good job of keeping ahead. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Chris O'Farrell" Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 13:20:00 +1100 Subject: Re: [trek] book- Starship Spotter Message-ID: <3c1d550f$0$22498$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au> -------- C.S.Strowbridge wrote in message news:3C1D1063.20543A52@shaw.ca... > Andras Otto Schneider wrote: > > > > "Chris O'Farrell" wrote: > > > > > It gives the original romulan warbird a warp speed of 8. > > > > > > Um the Original warbird IIRC was limited to STL speeds. > > > > I know, thats why I'm bringing it up as an inconsistancy. > > It couldn't be limited to STL speeds. It was chased by the Enterprise > and did a good job of keeping ahead. > Err it never kept ahead as in was able to outrun the E-Nill. The Entperise was easily able to overtake it whenver they wanted. They stayed behind it when necessary ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 00:23:39 -0600 Subject: Re: [trek] book- Starship Spotter Message-ID: <9vk351$fj6gq$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de> -------- "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in message news:3C1D1063.20543A52@shaw.ca... > Andras Otto Schneider wrote: > > > > "Chris O'Farrell" wrote: > > > > > It gives the original romulan warbird a warp speed of 8. > > > > > > Um the Original warbird IIRC was limited to STL speeds. > > > > I know, thats why I'm bringing it up as an inconsistancy. > > It couldn't be limited to STL speeds. Ladies and gentlemen, mark this moment down. C.S. Strowbridge has just agreed with me about something. In the words of The Onion: "Holy Fucking Shit!" There may be hope for him after all. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dalton Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 01:34:35 -0500 Subject: Re: [trek] book- Starship Spotter Message-ID: <3C1D91FB.1E24FFAA@daltonator.net> -------- Guardian 2000 wrote: > > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in message > news:3C1D1063.20543A52@shaw.ca... > > Andras Otto Schneider wrote: > > > > > > "Chris O'Farrell" wrote: > > > > > > > It gives the original romulan warbird a warp speed of 8. > > > > > > > > Um the Original warbird IIRC was limited to STL speeds. > > > > > > I know, thats why I'm bringing it up as an inconsistancy. > > > > It couldn't be limited to STL speeds. > > Ladies and gentlemen, mark this moment down. C.S. Strowbridge has just > agreed with me about something. > > In the words of The Onion: "Holy Fucking Shit!" > > There may be hope for him after all. Go away, you little man. You're beginning to sound like Paul. -- Rob "Roby" Dalton http://daltonator.net "I need a drink." "You don't drink." "Yeah, but I've been meaning to start." ---UHF ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kynes Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 00:37:30 -0600 Subject: Re: [trek] book- Starship Spotter Message-ID: -------- On Mon, 17 Dec 2001 00:23:39 -0600, "Guardian 2000" wrote: >In the words of The Onion: "Holy Fucking Shit!" You are such a poser. I have never seen anyone as desperate to reference-drop as you, and you always manage to completely fuck it up and look stupid. "Duuhh, duhhh, USENET binaries remind me of old C64! Right guys?!?!" -- -LK! [ kynes@choam.org ] [ ICQ: 795238 ] [ AIM: Kynes23 ] "Calling it a chasm between idiotic fanboys that spend 10 hours creating a .jpg of a Starfury to masterbate to and those that enjoy laughing at them would be more appropriate." - Wayne Poe ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 01:15:43 -0600 Subject: Re: [trek] book- Starship Spotter Message-ID: <9vk66l$g159l$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de> -------- "Kynes" wrote in message news:hpIdPPXBzLOIbvWjcds5syr=Kc=F@4ax.com... > On Mon, 17 Dec 2001 00:23:39 -0600, "Guardian 2000" wrote: > > >In the words of The Onion: "Holy Fucking Shit!" > > You are such a poser. I have never seen anyone as desperate to reference-drop as > you, and you always manage to completely fuck it up and look stupid. Wait, wait . . . lemme get this straight . . . I read The Onion, became enamored with that everpresent tagline above, and, in that horrible moment when I realized that Strowbridge and I were agreeing, it came to mind, I used it. That, in concert with my recent statement that I owned and operated a Commodore-64, means that I am therefore a poser and a desperate reference-dropper. My, my, Ian . . . your non sequiturs are getting more gap-laden day by day. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kynes Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 07:52:37 -0600 Subject: Re: [trek] book- Starship Spotter Message-ID: -------- On Mon, 17 Dec 2001 01:15:43 -0600, "Guardian 2000" wrote: >> You are such a poser. I have never seen anyone as desperate to >reference-drop as >> you, and you always manage to completely fuck it up and look stupid. > > >Wait, wait . . . lemme get this straight . . . I read The Onion, became >enamored with that everpresent tagline above, and, in that horrible moment >when I realized that Strowbridge and I were agreeing, it came to mind, I >used it. That, in concert with my recent statement that I owned and >operated a Commodore-64, means that I am therefore a poser and a desperate >reference-dropper. The fact that you hyphenated "Commodore 64" indicates your brain atrophy is far more advanced then even I would have thought possible before death. -- -LK! [ kynes@choam.org ] [ ICQ: 795238 ] [ AIM: Kynes23 ] "Calling it a chasm between idiotic fanboys that spend 10 hours creating a .jpg of a Starfury to masterbate to and those that enjoy laughing at them would be more appropriate." - Wayne Poe ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 15:52:07 -0600 Subject: Re: [trek] book- Starship Spotter Message-ID: <9vj55u$fl2qq$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de> -------- "Chris O'Farrell" wrote in message news:3c1c1f96$0$19752$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au... > > Andras Otto Schneider wrote in message > news:andrasotto.spamguard-3DF610.23105815122001@news.cis.dfn.de... > > Anyone seen this? Its not bad for US $16. since I dont watch ST on a > > regular basis, it did give me some useful background on the more obscure > > ships. 30 ships with wireframe and full color two page shots for each > > ship. OTOH, some of the 'stats' dont seem to be very accurate. some of > > the stated weapons fits dont match other sources ie Ent- E has 3 quantum > > torpedo tubes plus phasers, > > Unless I am mistaken the Soverign has the Torpedo turret, the twin forward > torepdo tubes and an unknown number (though to be two) of aft facing > torepedo tubes. > You are not mistaken. However, the additional photon torpedo tubes underslung on the secondary hull were not an original element in the First Contact CGI, according to what I've read elsewhere (same holds true for the captain's yacht . . . they had to squeeze that little bugger in). > Defiant only has 2 quantum tubes plus PPCs. > > Ok thats wrong. It has the PPC's., two forward torpedo tubes. two aft and > three omni directional phaser emmiters (one behind the bridge, one behind > the shuttlebay door and one further aft seen in Message In A Bottle IIRC) > Quite correct. I had such trouble previously trying to get those facts acknowledged, despite the blatant evidence . . . nice to see them finally accepted. > > It gives the original romulan warbird a warp speed of 8. > > Um the Original warbird IIRC was limited to STL speeds. This "simple impulse" idea for the original Romulan Bird-of-Prey (*not* Warbird) is well rebutted here: http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/inconsistencies2a.htm Guardian 2000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Wayne Poe" Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 15:42:57 -0800 Subject: Re: [trek] book- Starship Spotter Message-ID: -------- "Guardian 2000" wrote > > > It gives the original romulan warbird a warp speed of 8. > > Um the Original warbird IIRC was limited to STL speeds. > This "simple impulse" idea for the original Romulan Bird-of-Prey (*not* > Warbird) is well rebutted here: > http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/inconsistencies2a.htm Kirk: "Well, gentlemen, the question still remains: can we engage them with a reasonable possibility of victory?" Scott: "No question. Their power is simple impulse." Kirk: "Meaning we can outrun them." "The political and historical impact of the warp drive question becomes obvious if we postulate that the assumption of the Star Trek Chronology is true." Yet again, when the deck is stacked against them, Trekkies prove that they'll blatantly defy canon in order to satisfy their masterbatory fantasies. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 00:21:25 -0600 Subject: Re: [trek] book- Starship Spotter Message-ID: <9vk30s$fo13e$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de> -------- "Wayne Poe" wrote in message news:u1qcc3eog3a3c@corp.supernews.com... > > "Guardian 2000" wrote > > > > > It gives the original romulan warbird a warp speed of 8. > > > > Um the Original warbird IIRC was limited to STL speeds. > > > This "simple impulse" idea for the original Romulan Bird-of-Prey (*not* > > Warbird) is well rebutted here: > > > http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/inconsistencies2a.htm > > Kirk: "Well, gentlemen, the question still remains: can we engage them with > a reasonable possibility of victory?" > Scott: "No question. Their power is simple impulse." > Kirk: "Meaning we can outrun them." > > "The political and historical impact of the warp drive question becomes > obvious if we postulate that the assumption of the Star Trek Chronology is > true." > > Yet again, when the deck is stacked against them, Trekkies prove that > they'll blatantly defy canon . . . There is no defiance of canon involved. An impulse-only Bird-of-Prey over the multi-light-year ranges involved is inconsistent with an episode that must've taken place as a small part of a five-year mission of the Enterprise . . . otherwise, "Balance of Terror" should've *been* the Original Series. > . . . in order to satisfy their masterbatory fantasies. As often as you probably do it, I find it terribly amusing that you cannot spell "masturbate" or derivatives thereof. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Wayne Poe" Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 01:33:38 -0800 Subject: Re: [trek] book- Starship Spotter Message-ID: -------- "Guardian 2000" wrote > "Wayne Poe" wrote > > Kirk: "Well, gentlemen, the question still remains: can we engage them > with > > a reasonable possibility of victory?" > > Scott: "No question. Their power is simple impulse." > > Kirk: "Meaning we can outrun them." > > > > "The political and historical impact of the warp drive question becomes > > obvious if we postulate that the assumption of the Star Trek Chronology is > > true." > > Yet again, when the deck is stacked against them, Trekkies prove that > > they'll blatantly defy canon . . . > There is no defiance of canon involved. Oh noo......we have Scotty proclaiming something definite and irrefutable and CANON, but you can't accept that. What a surprise.. > > . . . in order to satisfy their masterbatory fantasies. > As often as you probably do it, I find it terribly amusing that you cannot > spell "masturbate" or derivatives thereof. Well that illustrates which one of us is more intimately involved in the exercise. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 12:22:31 -0600 Subject: Re: [trek] book- Starship Spotter Message-ID: <9vld8t$fvrf3$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de> -------- "Wayne Poe" wrote in message news:u1revkpcp1k334@corp.supernews.com... > > "Guardian 2000" wrote > > > "Wayne Poe" wrote > > > > Kirk: "Well, gentlemen, the question still remains: can we engage them > > with > > > a reasonable possibility of victory?" > > > Scott: "No question. Their power is simple impulse." > > > Kirk: "Meaning we can outrun them." > > > > > > "The political and historical impact of the warp drive question becomes > > > obvious if we postulate that the assumption of the Star Trek Chronology > is > > > true." > > > > Yet again, when the deck is stacked against them, Trekkies prove that > > > they'll blatantly defy canon . . . > > > There is no defiance of canon involved. > > Oh noo......we have Scotty proclaiming something definite and irrefutable > and CANON, but you can't accept that. What a surprise.. Would you care to explain, then, how a sublight Bird of Prey manages to traverse interstellar distances in the space of a commercial break? > > > > . . . in order to satisfy their masterbatory fantasies. > > > As often as you probably do it, I find it terribly amusing that you cannot > > spell "masturbate" or derivatives thereof. > > Well that illustrates which one of us is more intimately involved in the > exercise. True, I do engage in correct spelling far more than you do. I'm spelling right now, as a matter of fact, and using both hands to do so (with a vocabulary this large, to get it all out requires two hands on the keyboard, not just dawdling it with one finger like you). I spell at home . . . in the car on the way to work . . . at work (Hell, I even spelled right in front of my boss the other day!) . . . I spell all the time, but I do it cleanly. But you, with your messy spelling . . . you get vowels and consonants all over the place. And you love slinging them around while in the midst of your mental masturbations on ASVS . . . I can only imagine what your keyboar d must look like (not that I'd want to). G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Wayne Poe" Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 23:57:00 -0800 Subject: Re: [trek] book- Starship Spotter Message-ID: -------- "Guardian 2000" wrote > "Wayne Poe" wrote > > > > Kirk: "Well, gentlemen, the question still remains: can we engage them > > > with > > > > a reasonable possibility of victory?" > > > > Scott: "No question. Their power is simple impulse." > > > > Kirk: "Meaning we can outrun them." > > > > "The political and historical impact of the warp drive question > > > > becomes obvious if we postulate that the assumption of the Star Trek > > > > Chronology is true." > > > > Yet again, when the deck is stacked against them, Trekkies prove that > > > > they'll blatantly defy canon . . . > > > There is no defiance of canon involved. > > Oh noo......we have Scotty proclaiming something definite and irrefutable > > and CANON, but you can't accept that. What a surprise.. > Would you care to explain, then, how a sublight Bird of Prey manages to > traverse interstellar distances in the space of a commercial break? WHAT great interstellar distances? They crossed the Neutral Zone, blew up the outposts stationed ON the Neutral Zone, and were puttering back OVER the Neutral Zone when the Enterprise got to them. This engagement was a lot longer than you realize. Kirk had the Enterprise motionless for what was it? 12 hours or some such at one point. > > > > . . . in order to satisfy their masterbatory fantasies. > > > As often as you probably do it, I find it terribly amusing that you > > > cannot spell "masturbate" or derivatives thereof. > > Well that illustrates which one of us is more intimately involved in the > > exercise. > True, I do engage in correct spelling far more than you do. Now if it weren't wasted on a mind incapable of a rational thought process... > I'm spelling right now, as a matter of fact, and using both hands to do so > (with a vocabulary this large, to get it all out requires two hands on the > keyboard, not just dawdling it with one finger like you). I spell at home > . . . in the car on the way to work . . . at work (Hell, I even spelled > right in front of my boss the other day!) . . . I spell all the time, but I > do it cleanly. > > But you, with your messy spelling . . . you get vowels and consonants all > over the place. And you love slinging them around while in the midst of > your mental masturbations on ASVS . . . I can only imagine what your keyboar > d must look like (not that I'd want to). Zzzzt...oh? Is G2K about done with his witticism? My, it was SO funny. Dalton, you MUST FUQ it! -- Thanks for picking the most atypical cases and holding them up as some sort of standard, you useless hatfucker. ---Kynes Now THAT's comedy. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dalton Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 03:02:27 -0500 Subject: Re: [trek] book- Starship Spotter Message-ID: <3C1EF813.C1B02426@daltonator.net> -------- Wayne Poe wrote: [snip] > Zzzzt...oh? Is G2K about done with his witticism? My, it was SO funny. > Dalton, you MUST FUQ it! > -- > Thanks for picking the most atypical cases and holding them up as some sort > of > standard, you useless hatfucker. > ---Kynes > > Now THAT's comedy. Hatfucker! Gotta have it. -- Rob "Roby" Dalton http://daltonator.net "I need a drink." "You don't drink." "Yeah, but I've been meaning to start." ---UHF ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 07:34:54 -0600 Subject: Re: [trek] book- Starship Spotter Message-ID: <9vngrm$ghe74$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de> -------- "Wayne Poe" wrote in message news:u1ttmeqm52b805@corp.supernews.com... > > "Guardian 2000" wrote > > > "Wayne Poe" wrote > > > > > > Kirk: "Well, gentlemen, the question still remains: can we engage > them > > > > with > > > > > a reasonable possibility of victory?" > > > > > Scott: "No question. Their power is simple impulse." > > > > > Kirk: "Meaning we can outrun them." > > > > > > "The political and historical impact of the warp drive question > > > > > becomes obvious if we postulate that the assumption of the Star Trek > > > > > Chronology is true." > > > > > > Yet again, when the deck is stacked against them, Trekkies prove > that > > > > > they'll blatantly defy canon . . . > > > > > There is no defiance of canon involved. > > > > Oh noo......we have Scotty proclaiming something definite and > irrefutable > > > and CANON, but you can't accept that. What a surprise.. > > > Would you care to explain, then, how a sublight Bird of Prey manages to > > traverse interstellar distances in the space of a commercial break? > > WHAT great interstellar distances? They crossed the Neutral Zone, blew up > the outposts stationed ON the Neutral Zone, and were puttering back OVER the > Neutral Zone when the Enterprise got to them. This engagement was a lot > longer than you realize. Kirk had the Enterprise motionless for what was it? > 12 hours or some such at one point. Width of Neutral Zone: 1 light-year Distance from Neutral Zone of Earth Outposts: 1 light-year Distance of Earth Outposts from each other: 1 light-year Outposts destroyed by Romulan Bird-of-Prey: 4 You're claiming that the episode "Balance of Terror" lasts at least a year, and that the Enterprise-Prime was probably en route to the Neutral Zone for at least three years while the first three outposts were attacked. You have, in effect, claimed that the rest of TOS could not possibly occurred during Kirk's five-year mission. Of course, the fact that we have a specified amount of time during which Kirk must wait for a subspace response from Starfleet which is significantly less than a year is lost on you. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Graeme Dice Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 14:56:21 GMT Subject: Re: [trek] book- Starship Spotter Message-ID: <3C1F5893.DEE59A06@sk.sympatico.ca> -------- Guardian 2000 wrote: > > "Wayne Poe" wrote in message > news:u1ttmeqm52b805@corp.supernews.com... > Width of Neutral Zone: 1 light-year > Distance from Neutral Zone of Earth Outposts: 1 light-year > Distance of Earth Outposts from each other: 1 light-year > Outposts destroyed by Romulan Bird-of-Prey: 4 Without evidence these are nothing more than assumptions. Graeme Dice -- Writing at the same time as Shakespeare was Miguel Cervantes. He wrote Donkey Hote. The next great author was John Milton. Milton wrote Paradise Lost. Then his wife died and he wrote Paradise Regained. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Guardian 2000 Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 11:29:24 -0600 Subject: Re: [trek] book- Starship Spotter Message-ID: <3C1F7CF4.2C2724A@yahoo.com> -------- Graeme Dice wrote: > > Guardian 2000 wrote: > > > > "Wayne Poe" wrote in message > > news:u1ttmeqm52b805@corp.supernews.com... > > > > > Width of Neutral Zone: 1 light-year > > Distance from Neutral Zone of Earth Outposts: 1 light-year > > Distance of Earth Outposts from each other: 1 light-year > > Outposts destroyed by Romulan Bird-of-Prey: 4 > > Without evidence these are nothing more than assumptions. The evidence has been offerred for your scrutiny via the link I posted, so fuck off if you can't read. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Graeme Dice Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 18:31:06 GMT Subject: Re: [trek] book- Starship Spotter Message-ID: <3C1F8ADB.173748EB@sk.sympatico.ca> -------- Guardian 2000 wrote: > > Graeme Dice wrote: > > > > Guardian 2000 wrote: > > > > > > "Wayne Poe" wrote in message > > > news:u1ttmeqm52b805@corp.supernews.com... > > > > > > > > > Width of Neutral Zone: 1 light-year > > > Distance from Neutral Zone of Earth Outposts: 1 light-year > > > Distance of Earth Outposts from each other: 1 light-year > > > Outposts destroyed by Romulan Bird-of-Prey: 4 > > > > Without evidence these are nothing more than assumptions. > > The evidence has been offerred for your scrutiny via the link I posted, > so fuck off if you can't read. Right, so where's your evidence that the outposts are 1 lightyear apart? They just assume that they are on that page. Graeme Dice -- March Planned For Next August Blind Bishop Appointed To See ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Guardian 2000 Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 15:33:17 -0600 Subject: Re: [trek] book- Starship Spotter Message-ID: <3C1FB61D.2BE80FC7@yahoo.com> -------- Graeme Dice wrote: > Guardian 2000 wrote: > > > > Graeme Dice wrote: > > > > > > Guardian 2000 wrote: > > > > > > > > "Wayne Poe" wrote in message > > > > news:u1ttmeqm52b805@corp.supernews.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > > Width of Neutral Zone: 1 light-year > > > > Distance from Neutral Zone of Earth Outposts: 1 light-year > > > > Distance of Earth Outposts from each other: 1 light-year > > > > Outposts destroyed by Romulan Bird-of-Prey: 4 > > > > > > Without evidence these are nothing more than assumptions. > > > > The evidence has been offerred for your scrutiny via the link I posted, > > so fuck off if you can't read. > > Right, so where's your evidence that the outposts are 1 lightyear > apart? They just assume that they are on that page. > > Graeme Dice > -- > March Planned For Next August Blind Bishop Appointed To See You stupid cocksmack . . . the Neutral Zone was established in TNG to be a light-year wide. Ooh, look, there's the Neutral Zone in Spock's map! Hey, I wonder how wide the Neutral Zone is? Fuck off. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Graeme Dice Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 21:56:14 GMT Subject: Re: [trek] book- Starship Spotter Message-ID: <3C1FBAEE.83E15CDF@sk.sympatico.ca> -------- Guardian 2000 wrote: > > Graeme Dice wrote: > > > Guardian 2000 wrote: > > > > > > Graeme Dice wrote: > > > The evidence has been offerred for your scrutiny via the link I posted, > > > so fuck off if you can't read. > > > > Right, so where's your evidence that the outposts are 1 lightyear > > apart? They just assume that they are on that page. > > > > Graeme Dice > > -- > > March Planned For Next August Blind Bishop Appointed To See > > You stupid cocksmack . . . the Neutral Zone was established in TNG to be a > light-year wide. And it was somehow exactly the same width in TOS even though the Romulans were pre-warp? You also are required to provide evidence for the neutral zone being one light year wide in TNG, which you have not done so. > Ooh, look, there's the Neutral Zone in Spock's map! Hey, > I wonder how wide the Neutral Zone is? It could be any width, as there is no scale. > Fuck off. I'm simply asking you to provide the evidence to back up your claims. Until you do so, they remain nothing more than assumptions. Graeme Dice -- "If any of you notice if something like that happened, a Wizard did it." "But what abou-" "Wizard" -Lucy Lawless as "Xena", on the Simpsons. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Wayne Poe" Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 20:55:09 -0800 Subject: Re: [trek] book- Starship Spotter Message-ID: -------- "Graeme Dice" wrote > Guardian 2000 wrote: > > > > The evidence has been offerred for your scrutiny via the link I posted, > > > > so fuck off if you can't read. > > > > > > Right, so where's your evidence that the outposts are 1 lightyear > > > apart? They just assume that they are on that page. > > > > > > Graeme Dice > > > -- > > > March Planned For Next August Blind Bishop Appointed To See > > > > You stupid cocksmack . . . the Neutral Zone was established in TNG to be a > > light-year wide. > > And it was somehow exactly the same width in TOS even though the > Romulans were pre-warp? You also are required to provide evidence for > the neutral zone being one light year wide in TNG, which you have not > done so. > > > Ooh, look, there's the Neutral Zone in Spock's map! Hey, > > I wonder how wide the Neutral Zone is? > > It could be any width, as there is no scale. > > > Fuck off. > > I'm simply asking you to provide the evidence to back up your claims. > Until you do so, they remain nothing more than assumptions. Notice when you back G2K into a corner and go for the throat by asking him for canon examples to counter canon quotes, he starts with the FUCK YOU!! business.... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 06:25:29 -0600 Subject: Re: [trek] book- Starship Spotter Message-ID: <9vq15e$h2scg$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de> -------- "Wayne Poe" wrote in message news:u207dnsh25bc7b@corp.supernews.com... > Notice when you back G2K into a corner and go for the throat by asking him > for canon examples to counter canon quotes, he starts with the FUCK YOU!! > business.... Actually, that theory only works with you . . . I get you backed into a corner from the get-go, apparently, since "fuck you" is your primary argument in every debate. My "fuck you" was based on the fact that in each debate which has occurred so far, I have provided evidence that has been utterly ignored. A post can be jam-packed with evidence, and the reply will be "hey, where's the evidence?". That is silly. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Graeme Dice Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 13:02:27 GMT Subject: Re: [trek] book- Starship Spotter Message-ID: <3C208F44.A1D27240@sk.sympatico.ca> -------- Guardian 2000 wrote: > > "Wayne Poe" wrote in message > news:u207dnsh25bc7b@corp.supernews.com... > > > Notice when you back G2K into a corner and go for the throat by asking him > > for canon examples to counter canon quotes, he starts with the FUCK YOU!! > > business.... > > Actually, that theory only works with you . . . I get you backed into a > corner from the get-go, apparently, since "fuck you" is your primary > argument in every debate. > > My "fuck you" was based on the fact that in each debate which has occurred > so far, I have provided evidence that has been utterly ignored. A post can > be jam-packed with evidence, and the reply will be "hey, where's the > evidence?". That is silly. You have not provided any evidence whatsoever. Evidence is canon quotes and episode descriptions. You simply stated assumptions as though they were facts. -- "I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them." -- Isaac Asimov ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 20:05:12 GMT Subject: Re: [trek] book- Starship Spotter Message-ID: <3C20F2D0.2E5995F3@shaw.ca> -------- Guardian 2000 wrote: > You stupid cocksmack . . . the Neutral Zone was established in TNG to be > a light-year wide. Oh, there's so many ways to mock you here I don't know where to begin. How about, that's just bullshit dialogue know to be false! BTW, there's a hundred years between those eras, maybe the NZ was expanded after the Romulans got Warp Drives. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 21:01:25 -0600 Subject: Re: [trek] book- Starship Spotter Message-ID: <9vrkfq$h9kc3$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de> -------- "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in message news:3C20F2D0.2E5995F3@shaw.ca... > Guardian 2000 wrote: > > > You stupid cocksmack . . . the Neutral Zone was established in TNG to be > > a light-year wide. > > Oh, there's so many ways to mock you here I don't know where to begin. > > How about, that's just bullshit dialogue know to be false! > > BTW, there's a hundred years between those eras, maybe the NZ was > expanded after the Romulans got Warp Drives. > > C.S.Strowbridge A. That's a strategically stupid idea. B. That is continuing to assume what you seek to prove . . . that Romulan starships were utterly incapable of faster-than-light travel circa "Balance of Terror". G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Graeme Dice Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 03:51:06 GMT Subject: Re: [trek] book- Starship Spotter Message-ID: <3C215F82.965F4CBA@sk.sympatico.ca> -------- Guardian 2000 wrote: > > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in message > news:3C20F2D0.2E5995F3@shaw.ca... > > Guardian 2000 wrote: > > > > > You stupid cocksmack . . . the Neutral Zone was established in TNG to be > > > a light-year wide. > > > > Oh, there's so many ways to mock you here I don't know where to begin. > > > > How about, that's just bullshit dialogue know to be false! > > > > BTW, there's a hundred years between those eras, maybe the NZ was > > expanded after the Romulans got Warp Drives. > > > > C.S.Strowbridge > > A. That's a strategically stupid idea. No, it is strategically wise. It can be as wide as a solar system if you have warp and they don't. When they have warp, it has to be bigger to take more time to cross. > B. That is continuing to assume what you seek to prove . . . that Romulan > starships were utterly incapable of faster-than-light travel circa "Balance > of Terror". No, that is simply accepting canon evidence. You are assuming that the BOP was capable of FTL travel, and have yet to provide a single shred of evidence for this assumption. Graeme Dice -- Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. -- Albert Einstein ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 15:03:35 -0600 Subject: Re: [trek] book- Starship Spotter Message-ID: <9vue2p$hls30$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de> -------- "Graeme Dice" wrote in message news:3C215F82.965F4CBA@sk.sympatico.ca... > Guardian 2000 wrote: > > > > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in message > > news:3C20F2D0.2E5995F3@shaw.ca... > > > Guardian 2000 wrote: > > > > > > > You stupid cocksmack . . . the Neutral Zone was established in TNG to be > > > > a light-year wide. > > > > > > Oh, there's so many ways to mock you here I don't know where to begin. > > > > > > How about, that's just bullshit dialogue know to be false! > > > > > > BTW, there's a hundred years between those eras, maybe the NZ was > > > expanded after the Romulans got Warp Drives. > > > > > > C.S.Strowbridge > > > > A. That's a strategically stupid idea. > > No, it is strategically wise. It can be as wide as a solar system if > you have warp and they don't. When they have warp, it has to be bigger > to take more time to cross. Or, you could simply have foresight and make it a light-year wide so that any impulse-driven spacecraft would take more than a year to cross it. Why would the Federation dismantle the Earth outposts and let the RNZ extend into their space? If the Romulans did not have warp prior to the 2260's, why would they allow the RNZ to extend into their space now that they had warp drive, when previously the Federation had it? Why would the Federation have gone to all the trouble of containing a single pissy backwards star-system? How did the Romulans engage in an interstellar war with Earth *or* the Vulcans years before? Why did the Earth-Romulan war even last three years, when all Earth would've had to do is warp in, warp out, and retire? Reason stands against you. So does canon, as there is no evidence of a boosted Neutral Zone in the TNG era. All you have is the statement "their power is simple impulse". Notice he didn't say "they are limited to sublight" or "all they have are impulse engines" . . . he said "their power is simple impulse." The hypothesis that this refers to a fusion-based powerplant is the most likely alternative . . . it also explains why they were having fuel trouble. Kirk's "so we can outrun them" would refer, then, to the fact that the enemy could not run forever, nor could they run at Enterprise speeds on a fusion powerplant. We are faced with an inconsistency . . . either you accept the line as referring to STL-only (which is not an automatic necessity), and thus allow a contradiction with both Earth and Romulan history, as well as the Romulan Star Empire concept as a whole . . . or, you take the line and try to make it work in the light of the rest of canon. I choose the latter, because it makes more sense. You choose the former for whatever silly reason. > > > B. That is continuing to assume what you seek to prove . . . that Romulan > > starships were utterly incapable of faster-than-light travel circa "Balance > > of Terror". > > No, that is simply accepting canon evidence. You are assuming that the > BOP was capable of FTL travel, and have yet to provide a single shred of > evidence for this assumption. > > Graeme Dice > -- > Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from > mediocre minds. > -- Albert Einstein ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Graeme Dice Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 23:48:23 GMT Subject: Re: [trek] book- Starship Spotter Message-ID: <3C23C968.5466CA39@sk.sympatico.ca> -------- Guardian 2000 wrote: > > "Graeme Dice" wrote in message > news:3C215F82.965F4CBA@sk.sympatico.ca... > > Guardian 2000 wrote: > > No, it is strategically wise. It can be as wide as a solar system if > > you have warp and they don't. When they have warp, it has to be bigger > > to take more time to cross. > > Or, you could simply have foresight and make it a light-year wide so that > any impulse-driven spacecraft would take more than a year to cross it. Why > would the Federation dismantle the Earth outposts and let the RNZ extend > into their space? The romulans dismantled the outposts for them. The Federation has been shown to be willing to sign treaties that cause them to lose territory, and technological rights. The treaty of Algeron and the one that created the Maquis are two such examples. > If the Romulans did not have warp prior to the 2260's, > why would they allow the RNZ to extend into their space now that they had > warp drive, when previously the Federation had it? Why would the > Federation have gone to all the trouble of containing a single pissy > backwards star-system? How did the Romulans engage in an interstellar war > with Earth *or* the Vulcans years before? The same way its done in all science fiction. Send your ships out and wait for several years for them to get there. > Why did the Earth-Romulan war > even last three years, when all Earth would've had to do is warp in, warp > out, and retire? Because of their lack of warp, most Romulan ships would be very close to Romulus. > Reason stands against you. So does canon, as there is no evidence of a > boosted Neutral Zone in the TNG era. No, canon stands against you. >All you have is the statement "their > power is simple impulse". Notice he didn't say "they are limited to > sublight" or "all they have are impulse engines" . . . he said "their power > is simple impulse." The hypothesis that this refers to a fusion-based > powerplant is the most likely alternative . . . it also explains why they > were having fuel trouble. Or, you can actually understand the evidence and see that impulse never refers to FTL in trek. > Kirk's "so we can outrun them" would refer, > then, to the fact that the enemy could not run forever, nor could they run > at Enterprise speeds on a fusion powerplant. > > We are faced with an inconsistency . . . either you accept the line as > referring to STL-only (which is not an automatic necessity), and thus allow > a contradiction with both Earth and Romulan history, as well as the Romulan > Star Empire concept as a whole . . . or, you take the line and try to make > it work in the light of the rest of canon. > > I choose the latter, because it makes more sense. You choose the former > for whatever silly reason. I choose the former because it fits with canon. You still have not provided any evidence for the width of the RNZ in TOS. Graeme Dice -- If you're happy and you know it, clunk your chains. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 20:46:42 -0600 Subject: Re: [trek] book- Starship Spotter Message-ID: -------- "Graeme Dice" wrote in message news:3C23C968.5466CA39@sk.sympatico.ca... > Guardian 2000 wrote: > > > > "Graeme Dice" wrote in message > > news:3C215F82.965F4CBA@sk.sympatico.ca... > > > Guardian 2000 wrote: > > > > > > No, it is strategically wise. It can be as wide as a solar system if > > > you have warp and they don't. When they have warp, it has to be bigger > > > to take more time to cross. > > > > Or, you could simply have foresight and make it a light-year wide so that > > any impulse-driven spacecraft would take more than a year to cross it. Why > > would the Federation dismantle the Earth outposts and let the RNZ extend > > into their space? > > The romulans dismantled the outposts for them. A few, yes. > The Federation has been > shown to be willing to sign treaties that cause them to lose territory, > and technological rights. The treaty of Algeron and the one that > created the Maquis are two such examples. With the Treaty of Algeron, we do not know what the Federation got in return. The treaty that the Maquis were disenchanted with did produce the removal (or transfer) of at least one Federation colony, though other Federation (and Cardassian) colonies did exist in the DMZ (see "Preemptive Strike"[TNG]). The Cardassians were very horribly damaged by the Federation-Cardassian war years before ("Chain of Command"[TNG]), and Jellico reamed them in the McAllister C5 Nebula. Add to that the notion that the Federation, while no doubt conciliatory with its treaties, would hardly be likely to win a war and then accept a treaty that makes the war lost (Jellico's negotiation "style" is proof of this), along with our lack of knowledge of concessions made by the other side, and again . . . your point still seems silly. Further, Kirk used the "Cochrane Deceleration Maneuver" to destroy a Romulan vessel in the Tau Ceti system while he was captain of the Enterprise. This was reported in the TOS third-season episode "Whom Gods Destroy". Tau Ceti is eight light-years from Earth. If this event occurred before "The Enterprise Incident" (when Romulans got Klingon ships), then the Romulans had warp drive capability prior to 2268. If this event occurred after "The Enterprise Incident" (which seems likely, given the tone of the conversation between the Romulan Commander and Kirk), then the Romulans were engaging in a great deal of Neutral Zone crossing after 2268, and it would've made no sense to simply boost the Neutral Zone size, since Romulan vessels could encroach so far. > > > If the Romulans did not have warp prior to the 2260's, > > why would they allow the RNZ to extend into their space now that they had > > warp drive, when previously the Federation had it? Why would the > > Federation have gone to all the trouble of containing a single pissy > > backwards star-system? How did the Romulans engage in an interstellar war > > with Earth *or* the Vulcans years before? > > The same way its done in all science fiction. Send your ships out and > wait for several years for them to get there. The Earth-Romulan War lasted about three years. That's just enough time for a sublight vessel to go three light-years, assuming it could instantly accelerate to .99c. With the warp drive advantage, Earth starships could have won easily and quickly, since even in-system combat could have been detrimental to Romulan health. All Earth starships would have to do if they were going to be caught in the system away from Romulus would be to warp within the system to the planet itself. The notion that the operational sphere of the Romulans would have been so restricted . . . and even more restricted given the actual tactical scenario . . . against a warp-driven enemy is silly. A three-year war that involved heavy losses on both sides could not have occurred in that way. The Romulans would have been too limited to be a threat. > > > Why did the Earth-Romulan war > > even last three years, when all Earth would've had to do is warp in, warp > > out, and retire? > > Because of their lack of warp, most Romulan ships would be very close to > Romulus. And would thus have been non-threatening to Earth interests. > > > Reason stands against you. So does canon, as there is no evidence of a > > boosted Neutral Zone in the TNG era. > > No, canon stands against you. Hardly. "The Deadly Years"[TOS] : In 2267, a maximum of ten Romulan Birds-of-Prey assaulted the Enterprise-Prime when she entered the Romulan Neutral Zone under the orders of Commodore Stocker. Commodore Stocker had ordered the ship through an outcropping of the zone at warp five. The RBoPs were able to intercept and pace the Enterprise at ranges of "50 to 100,000 kilometers" (so said Sulu), firing upon her with what were visually the same high-warp weapons as had been fired on the Enterprise and the Earth Outposts in "Balance of Terror"[TOS]. Kirk, using a variation of the Corbomite Maneuver (causing the Romulans to move off a bit) coupled with a sudden jump to warp 8 (also involving a hard warp-speed turn to starboard), caught the Romulans off-guard and, as Spock said, "they're falling behind". They could never have intercepted Enterprise if the ships were restricted to sublight only. They could never have paced the Enterprise if she were doing some large multiple of 300,000 km/s, if they themselves were relegated to below 300,000km/s. They would not have been caught off-guard and fallen behind if they were sublight, for they could never have hoped to keep pace with the ship in the first place. These were, to reiterate, the same class of vessel as from "Balance of Terror"[TOS]. There was no visual difference between these 10 vessels and the Praetor's flagship from that episode. > > >All you have is the statement "their > > power is simple impulse". Notice he didn't say "they are limited to > > sublight" or "all they have are impulse engines" . . . he said "their power > > is simple impulse." The hypothesis that this refers to a fusion-based > > powerplant is the most likely alternative . . . it also explains why they > > were having fuel trouble. > > Or, you can actually understand the evidence and see that impulse never > refers to FTL in trek. Nor have I claimed that the use of impulse engines has ever produced FTL travel. However, an impulse powerplant (i.e. fusion-based) has produced FTL travel . . . witness the Phoenix in First Contact. > > Kirk's "so we can outrun them" would refer, > > then, to the fact that the enemy could not run forever, nor could they run > > at Enterprise speeds on a fusion powerplant. > > > > We are faced with an inconsistency . . . either you accept the line as > > referring to STL-only (which is not an automatic necessity), and thus allow > > a contradiction with both Earth and Romulan history, as well as the Romulan > > Star Empire concept as a whole . . . or, you take the line and try to make > > it work in the light of the rest of canon. > > > > I choose the latter, because it makes more sense. You choose the former > > for whatever silly reason. > > I choose the former because it fits with canon. You still have not > provided any evidence for the width of the RNZ in TOS. You have not and cannot produce evidence suggesting that it was boosted by the time of TNG, and your argument is therefore without merit. By the way, the fact that Commodore Stocker felt it necessary to fly through the Neutral Zone in order to reach Starbase 10 demonstrates that the Romulan Neutral Zone contained an area larger than one star-system, for at warp speeds it would be an easy thing to fly around a star system without losing any appreciable time, but it would be far more difficult to fly around a Star Empire with multiple star systems under its thumb. Therefore, the scale of the map shown in "Balance of Terror" must be based on the idea that "Romii" is another star system . . . we do not know the distance between Romii and Romulus, but it must be at least a light year. The width of the Neutral Zone is similar to the distance between those two points, and is also therefore at least a light year. http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/inconsistencies/neutral-zone.jpg G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Graeme Dice Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 06:07:12 GMT Subject: Re: [trek] book- Starship Spotter Message-ID: <3C24222E.E7DD7DBE@sk.sympatico.ca> -------- Guardian 2000 wrote: > > "Graeme Dice" wrote in message > news:3C23C968.5466CA39@sk.sympatico.ca... > > Guardian 2000 wrote: > > The Federation has been > > shown to be willing to sign treaties that cause them to lose territory, > > and technological rights. The treaty of Algeron and the one that > > created the Maquis are two such examples. > > With the Treaty of Algeron, we do not know what the Federation got in > return. They got terms fit for a surrendering nation. > The treaty that the Maquis were disenchanted with did produce the removal > (or transfer) of at least one Federation colony, though other Federation > (and Cardassian) colonies did exist in the DMZ (see "Preemptive > Strike"[TNG]). The Cardassians were very horribly damaged by the > Federation-Cardassian war years before ("Chain of Command"[TNG]), and > Jellico reamed them in the McAllister C5 Nebula. Add to that the notion > that the Federation, while no doubt conciliatory with its treaties, would > hardly be likely to win a war and then accept a treaty that makes the war > lost (Jellico's negotiation "style" is proof of this), along with our lack > of knowledge of concessions made by the other side, and again . . . your > point still seems silly. They signed a treaty that gave away their own territory in a war that they were winning. I call that making a bad deal. > Further, Kirk used the "Cochrane Deceleration Maneuver" to destroy a Romulan > vessel in the Tau Ceti system while he was captain of the Enterprise. > This was reported in the TOS third-season episode "Whom Gods Destroy". Tau > Ceti is eight light-years from Earth. So? It could have easily taken the ship decades to get their. After all, it would be far shorter from the crew's point of view, Romulans live for over a hundred years, and they had cloaking devices to keep them hidden. > If this event occurred before "The Enterprise Incident" (when Romulans got > Klingon ships), Well, why don't you go find out the order of the episodes then. > then the Romulans had warp drive capability prior to 2268. > If this event occurred after "The Enterprise Incident" (which seems likely, > given the tone of the conversation between the Romulan Commander and Kirk), > then the Romulans were engaging in a great deal of Neutral Zone crossing > after 2268, and it would've made no sense to simply boost the Neutral Zone > size, since Romulan vessels could encroach so far. Since you don't even know when it happened, then this is a pointless statement to make. > > The same way its done in all science fiction. Send your ships out and > > wait for several years for them to get there. > > The Earth-Romulan War lasted about three years. That's just enough time > for a sublight vessel to go three light-years, assuming it could instantly > accelerate to .99c. What's the problem here? The ships left Romulus over a period of three years. They arrived several years later over the same time frame. > With the warp drive advantage, Earth starships could > have won easily and quickly, since even in-system combat could have been > detrimental to Romulan health. Warp drive offers no tactical advantage. > All Earth starships would have to do if > they were going to be caught in the system away from Romulus would be to > warp within the system to the planet itself. Why would the Romulan defense fleet be sitting at the outside edge of the solar system? > The notion that the operational sphere of the Romulans would have been so > restricted . . . and even more restricted given the actual tactical scenario > . . . against a warp-driven enemy is silly Warp has been used _twice_ in the history of Trek as a tactical advantage. Both times involved the Picard maneuver. > A three-year war that involved > heavy losses on both sides could not have occurred in that way. The > Romulans would have been too limited to be a threat. Once again you betray your ignorance of the way things work. Send out 50 ships over three years. 100 stay at home in orbit of Romulus. When the ones making attacks get out there, they do their damage and stick around until they get destroyed. > > > Why did the Earth-Romulan war > > > even last three years, when all Earth would've had to do is warp in, > warp > > out, and retire? > > Because of their lack of warp, most Romulan ships would be very close to > > Romulus. > > And would thus have been non-threatening to Earth interests. Then you must have been referring to some magical use of warp as a tactical advantage, which has never occurred, and is thus just your fantasy. > > > > > Reason stands against you. So does canon, as there is no evidence of a > > > boosted Neutral Zone in the TNG era. > > > > No, canon stands against you. > > Hardly. > > "The Deadly Years"[TOS] : > > In 2267, a maximum of ten Romulan Birds-of-Prey assaulted the > Enterprise-Prime when she entered the Romulan Neutral Zone under the orders > of Commodore Stocker. Commodore Stocker had ordered the ship through an > outcropping of the zone at warp five. The RBoPs were able to intercept > and pace the Enterprise at ranges of "50 to 100,000 kilometers" (so said > Sulu), firing upon her with what were visually the same high-warp weapons as > had been fired on the Enterprise and the Earth Outposts in "Balance of > Terror"[TOS]. What is the source of this quote? It is obviously not the episode, so it is likely faulty. > Kirk, using a variation of the Corbomite Maneuver (causing the Romulans to > move off a bit) coupled with a sudden jump to warp 8 (also involving a hard > warp-speed turn to starboard), caught the Romulans off-guard and, as Spock > said, "they're falling behind". > > They could never have intercepted Enterprise if the ships were restricted to > sublight only. They could never have paced the Enterprise if she were > doing some large multiple of 300,000 km/s, if they themselves were relegated > to below 300,000km/s. They would not have been caught off-guard and > fallen behind if they were sublight, for they could never have hoped to keep > pace with the ship in the first place. You have not provided valid evidence to back your claims up. That is a description of a trek episode, and is most likely made up entirely of assumptions and reinterpretations. > These were, to reiterate, the same class of vessel as from "Balance of > Terror"[TOS]. There was no visual difference between these 10 vessels and > the Praetor's flagship from that episode. > > Or, you can actually understand the evidence and see that impulse never > > refers to FTL in trek. > > Nor have I claimed that the use of impulse engines has ever produced FTL > travel. However, an impulse powerplant (i.e. fusion-based) has produced > FTL travel . . . witness the Phoenix in First Contact. I'd like you top provide canon evidence of the use of impulse to describe the fusion reactor. > > I choose the former because it fits with canon. You still have not > > provided any evidence for the width of the RNZ in TOS. > > You have not and cannot produce evidence suggesting that it was boosted by > the time of TNG, and your argument is therefore without merit. No, it is your argument that is without merit, because it requires you to completely ignore canon dialog. > By the way, the fact that Commodore Stocker felt it necessary to fly through > the Neutral Zone in order to reach Starbase 10 demonstrates that the Romulan > Neutral Zone contained an area larger than one star-system, for at warp > speeds it would be an easy thing to fly around a star system without losing > any appreciable time, but it would be far more difficult to fly around a > Star Empire with multiple star systems under its thumb. Therefore, the > scale of the map shown in "Balance of Terror" must be based on the idea that > "Romii" is another star system . . . we do not know the distance between > Romii and Romulus, but it must be at least a light year. This is a complete and utter assumption. > The width of the > Neutral Zone is similar to the distance between those two points, and is > also therefore at least a light year. This is nothing more than an assumption. Until you can provide actual documentary evidence of the width in TOS I will ask you to stop making guesses. > http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/inconsistencies/neutral-zone.jpg This site is based on faulty evidence and speculation. That picture tells us nothing about the width. -- If you're happy and you know it, clunk your chains. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 02:02:00 -0600 Subject: Re: [trek] book- Starship Spotter Message-ID: -------- "Graeme Dice" wrote in message news:3C24222E.E7DD7DBE@sk.sympatico.ca... > Guardian 2000 wrote: > > > > "Graeme Dice" wrote in message > > news:3C23C968.5466CA39@sk.sympatico.ca... > > > Guardian 2000 wrote: > > > > > > The Federation has been > > > shown to be willing to sign treaties that cause them to lose territory, > > > and technological rights. The treaty of Algeron and the one that > > > created the Maquis are two such examples. > > > > With the Treaty of Algeron, we do not know what the Federation got in > > return. > > They got terms fit for a surrendering nation. The only thing we know of in reference to the Treaty of Algeron is the cloaking device business, and the Neutral Zone. We also know that Earth was victorious in the Earth-Romulan war after the humiliating defeat of the Romulans at the Battle of Cheron. Hardly sounds like a time to surrender to me. > > > The treaty that the Maquis were disenchanted with did produce the removal > > (or transfer) of at least one Federation colony, though other Federation > > (and Cardassian) colonies did exist in the DMZ (see "Preemptive > > Strike"[TNG]). The Cardassians were very horribly damaged by the > > Federation-Cardassian war years before ("Chain of Command"[TNG]), and > > Jellico reamed them in the McAllister C5 Nebula. Add to that the notion > > that the Federation, while no doubt conciliatory with its treaties, would > > hardly be likely to win a war and then accept a treaty that makes the war > > lost (Jellico's negotiation "style" is proof of this), along with our lack > > of knowledge of concessions made by the other side, and again . . . your > > point still seems silly. > > They signed a treaty that gave away their own territory in a war that > they were winning. I call that making a bad deal. Considering our knowledge of the treaty and history, the territory was probably a conciliatory freebie given to the Cardies to make them feel a little better about themselves. > > > Further, Kirk used the "Cochrane Deceleration Maneuver" to destroy a Romulan > > vessel in the Tau Ceti system while he was captain of the Enterprise. > > This was reported in the TOS third-season episode "Whom Gods Destroy". Tau > > Ceti is eight light-years from Earth. > > So? It could have easily taken the ship decades to get their. After > all, it would be far shorter from the crew's point of view, Romulans > live for over a hundred years, and they had cloaking devices to keep > them hidden. > False. The cloaking device was a tremendous power drain on the ship. The Romulan Bird-of-Prey from "Balance of Terror"[TOS] was having fuel issues far too quickly for a similar ship to have been able to penetrate that far into Federation space under cloak, if it were relegated to sublight on a decades-long trip. If this map (as seen in "In the Hands of the Prophets"[DS9] and reproduced from www.stdimension.de) is even remotely accurate, then you can see the distance the Romulan ship would've had to cover. http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/photo312c.JPG > > If this event occurred before "The Enterprise Incident" (when Romulans got > > Klingon ships), > > Well, why don't you go find out the order of the episodes then. The event did not occur in an episode, dumbass. > > > then the Romulans had warp drive capability prior to 2268. > > If this event occurred after "The Enterprise Incident" (which seems likely, > > given the tone of the conversation between the Romulan Commander and Kirk), > > then the Romulans were engaging in a great deal of Neutral Zone crossing > > after 2268, and it would've made no sense to simply boost the Neutral Zone > > size, since Romulan vessels could encroach so far. > > Since you don't even know when it happened, then this is a pointless > statement to make. It is not pointless. Re-read it. > > > The same way its done in all science fiction. Send your ships out and > > > wait for several years for them to get there. > > > > The Earth-Romulan War lasted about three years. That's just enough time > > for a sublight vessel to go three light-years, assuming it could instantly > > accelerate to .99c. > > What's the problem here? The ships left Romulus over a period of three > years. They arrived several years later over the same time frame. The Romulan War lasted three years. That means that the war began and ended in that timeframe. The Romulans would not have been able to attack any Earth interest in that timeframe. > > > With the warp drive advantage, Earth starships could > > have won easily and quickly, since even in-system combat could have been > > detrimental to Romulan health. > > Warp drive offers no tactical advantage. Really? What makes you think so? > > All Earth starships would have to do if > > they were going to be caught in the system away from Romulus would be to > > warp within the system to the planet itself. > > Why would the Romulan defense fleet be sitting at the outside edge of > the solar system? It's called an "example". Another would be the fleet sitting on one side of the planet, and the Earth ships attacking the other. > > > The notion that the operational sphere of the Romulans would have been so > > restricted . . . and even more restricted given the actual tactical scenario > > . . . against a warp-driven enemy is silly > > Warp has been used _twice_ in the history of Trek as a tactical > advantage. Both times involved the Picard maneuver. Only if you ignore the warp pivot in TOS, Chekov going to warp to avoid a torpedo in ST5, et cetera. Kind of depends on how you define "tactical advantage", though. > > > A three-year war that involved > > heavy losses on both sides could not have occurred in that way. The > > Romulans would have been too limited to be a threat. > > Once again you betray your ignorance of the way things work. Send out > 50 ships over three years. 100 stay at home in orbit of Romulus. When > the ones making attacks get out there, they do their damage and stick > around until they get destroyed. *That* is how you think things work? Waste a third of the fleet on a single series of raids? Heaven help any nation you ever lead into war. > > > > Why did the Earth-Romulan war > > > > even last three years, when all Earth would've had to do is warp in, > > warp > > > out, and retire? > > > Because of their lack of warp, most Romulan ships would be very close to > > > Romulus. > > > > And would thus have been non-threatening to Earth interests. > > Then you must have been referring to some magical use of warp as a > tactical advantage, which has never occurred, and is thus just your > fantasy. No, I refer to the fact that Romulan vessels, being close to Romulus, would've been away from Earth interests! > > > > > > > > Reason stands against you. So does canon, as there is no evidence of a > > > > boosted Neutral Zone in the TNG era. > > > > > > No, canon stands against you. > > > > Hardly. > > > > "The Deadly Years"[TOS] : > > > > In 2267, a maximum of ten Romulan Birds-of-Prey assaulted the > > Enterprise-Prime when she entered the Romulan Neutral Zone under the orders > > of Commodore Stocker. Commodore Stocker had ordered the ship through an > > outcropping of the zone at warp five. The RBoPs were able to intercept > > and pace the Enterprise at ranges of "50 to 100,000 kilometers" (so said > > Sulu), firing upon her with what were visually the same high-warp weapons as > > had been fired on the Enterprise and the Earth Outposts in "Balance of > > Terror"[TOS]. > > What is the source of this quote? It is obviously not the episode, so > it is likely faulty. When did I claim it was a quote? Do you see any quotation marks besides the episode titles and the one quoted line? That quoted line, by the way, was spoken in the episode. > > > Kirk, using a variation of the Corbomite Maneuver (causing the Romulans to > > move off a bit) coupled with a sudden jump to warp 8 (also involving a hard > > warp-speed turn to starboard), caught the Romulans off-guard and, as Spock > > said, "they're falling behind". > > > > They could never have intercepted Enterprise if the ships were restricted to > > sublight only. They could never have paced the Enterprise if she were > > doing some large multiple of 300,000 km/s, if they themselves were relegated > > to below 300,000km/s. They would not have been caught off-guard and > > fallen behind if they were sublight, for they could never have hoped to keep > > pace with the ship in the first place. > > You have not provided valid evidence to back your claims up. What would you accept as valid evidence? > That is a > description of a trek episode, and is most likely made up entirely of > assumptions and reinterpretations. You're at liberty to try to prove that. > > > These were, to reiterate, the same class of vessel as from "Balance of > > Terror"[TOS]. There was no visual difference between these 10 vessels and > > the Praetor's flagship from that episode. > > Snip? No response? > > > > Or, you can actually understand the evidence and see that impulse never > > > refers to FTL in trek. > > > > Nor have I claimed that the use of impulse engines has ever produced FTL > > travel. However, an impulse powerplant (i.e. fusion-based) has produced > > FTL travel . . . witness the Phoenix in First Contact. > > I'd like you top provide canon evidence of the use of impulse to > describe the fusion reactor. Due to the bad grammar of your reply, I'm not sure what you're aiming for. I assume you are seeking evidence that "impulse power/engine" and "fusion reactor" have ever been used interchangeably. Unfortunately, there are few (if any) examples of this, besides the circumstance in question. That is *why* it's in question. Here's one that comes to mind: "Am I correct in assuming that a fusion explosion of 97 megatons will result if a starship impulse engine is overloaded?" - Kirk to Spock, "The Doomsday Machine"[TOS] However, this quote really doesn't say all that much, but for establishing that impulse engines do not run on the matter-antimatter powerplant of the Enterprise warp drive. Shorter range/lower speed warp drives, though, could potentially operate on fusion. > > > > I choose the former because it fits with canon. You still have not > > > provided any evidence for the width of the RNZ in TOS. > > > > You have not and cannot produce evidence suggesting that it was boosted by > > the time of TNG, and your argument is therefore without merit. > > No, it is your argument that is without merit, because it requires you > to completely ignore canon dialog. It only requires that I ignore your misinterpretation of canon dialogue. Your interpretation of the canon is not itself canon. Don't forget that again. > > > By the way, the fact that Commodore Stocker felt it necessary to fly through > > the Neutral Zone in order to reach Starbase 10 demonstrates that the Romulan > > Neutral Zone contained an area larger than one star-system, for at warp > > speeds it would be an easy thing to fly around a star system without losing > > any appreciable time, but it would be far more difficult to fly around a > > Star Empire with multiple star systems under its thumb. Therefore, the > > scale of the map shown in "Balance of Terror" must be based on the idea that > > "Romii" is another star system . . . we do not know the distance between > > Romii and Romulus, but it must be at least a light year. > > This is a complete and utter assumption. It is an argument for which you have no counterargument. Concession accepted. > > > The width of the > > Neutral Zone is similar to the distance between those two points, and is > > also therefore at least a light year. > > This is nothing more than an assumption. Until you can provide actual > documentary evidence of the width in TOS I will ask you to stop making > guesses. I have provided you with an argument, and you have failed to reply. > > http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/inconsistencies/neutral-zone.jpg > > This site is based on faulty evidence and speculation. That picture > tells us nothing about the width. That picture tells us everything about the width, given other facts . . . and I have. You have provided no counterargument other than "Unh-unh!" G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Graeme Dice Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 08:27:37 GMT Subject: Re: [trek] book- Starship Spotter Message-ID: <3C244380.D582C439@sk.sympatico.ca> -------- Guardian 2000 wrote: > > "Graeme Dice" wrote in message > news:3C24222E.E7DD7DBE@sk.sympatico.ca... > > Guardian 2000 wrote: > > > With the Treaty of Algeron, we do not know what the Federation got in > > > return. > > > > They got terms fit for a surrendering nation. > > The only thing we know of in reference to the Treaty of Algeron is the > cloaking device business, and the Neutral Zone. We also know that Earth > was victorious in the Earth-Romulan war after the humiliating defeat of the > Romulans at the Battle of Cheron. Hardly sounds like a time to surrender > to me. Then there is precedent for the Federation willingly accepting a treaty that puts them at a severe disdavantage for no reason other than peace. > > They signed a treaty that gave away their own territory in a war that > > they were winning. I call that making a bad deal. > > Considering our knowledge of the treaty and history, the territory was > probably a conciliatory freebie given to the Cardies to make them feel a > little better about themselves. In other words, the Federation willingly gives up its own territory to neutral zones. > > So? It could have easily taken the ship decades to get their. After > > all, it would be far shorter from the crew's point of view, Romulans > > live for over a hundred years, and they had cloaking devices to keep > > them hidden. > > > > False. The cloaking device was a tremendous power drain on the ship. > The Romulan Bird-of-Prey from "Balance of Terror"[TOS] was having fuel > issues far too quickly for a similar ship to have been able to penetrate > that far into Federation space under cloak, if it were relegated to sublight > on a decades-long trip. > > If this map (as seen in "In the Hands of the Prophets"[DS9] and reproduced > from www.stdimension.de) is even remotely accurate, then you can see the > distance the Romulan ship would've had to cover. > > http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/photo312c.JPG So then it comes down to the complete lack of dates. > > > If this event occurred before "The Enterprise Incident" (when Romulans > got > > > Klingon ships), > > > > Well, why don't you go find out the order of the episodes then. > > The event did not occur in an episode, dumbass. Oh really? Then it didn't happen in trek at all. > > Since you don't even know when it happened, then this is a pointless > > statement to make. > > It is not pointless. Re-read it. Its not only pointless, it didn't even happen and is no better than fanfiction. > > What's the problem here? The ships left Romulus over a period of three > > years. They arrived several years later over the same time frame. > > The Romulan War lasted three years. That means that the war began and > ended in that timeframe. The Romulans would not have been able to attack > any Earth interest in that timeframe. Why do the Romulans have to wait until they declare war to launch their ships? > > > With the warp drive advantage, Earth starships could > > > have won easily and quickly, since even in-system combat could have been > > > detrimental to Romulan health. > > > > Warp drive offers no tactical advantage. > > Really? What makes you think so? The fact that it has never offered a tactical advantage in any trek episode of course. With the solitary exception of the one time the Picard maneuver worked. > > Why would the Romulan defense fleet be sitting at the outside edge of > > the solar system? > > It's called an "example". Another would be the fleet sitting on one side > of the planet, and the Earth ships attacking the other. Why would the fleet only be on one side of the planet? I thought the Romulans were supposed to be intelligent in military matters. > > Warp has been used _twice_ in the history of Trek as a tactical > > advantage. Both times involved the Picard maneuver. > > Only if you ignore the warp pivot in TOS, Episode and scene or this did not occur. > Chekov going to warp to avoid a > torpedo in ST5, et cetera. Kind of depends on how you define "tactical > advantage", though. > > > Once again you betray your ignorance of the way things work. Send out > > 50 ships over three years. 100 stay at home in orbit of Romulus. When > > the ones making attacks get out there, they do their damage and stick > > around until they get destroyed. > > *That* is how you think things work? Waste a third of the fleet on a single > series of raids? Heaven help any nation you ever lead into war. Wow. You have just managed to knock down a strawman. > > Then you must have been referring to some magical use of warp as a > > tactical advantage, which has never occurred, and is thus just your > > fantasy. > > No, I refer to the fact that Romulan vessels, being close to Romulus, > would've been away from Earth interests! Except of course for the ones that weren't close to Romulus, having been sent on attack missions. > > You have not provided valid evidence to back your claims up. > > What would you accept as valid evidence? From you, full script quotes would be the only acceptable source of evidence. > > That is a > > description of a trek episode, and is most likely made up entirely of > > assumptions and reinterpretations. > > You're at liberty to try to prove that. No, its up to you to prove your sources correct. > > > These were, to reiterate, the same class of vessel as from "Balance of > > > Terror"[TOS]. There was no visual difference between these 10 vessels > and > > > the Praetor's flagship from that episode. > > > > > > Snip? No response? I don't need to respond to arguments based on invalid sources. > > > Nor have I claimed that the use of impulse engines has ever produced FTL > > > travel. However, an impulse powerplant (i.e. fusion-based) has > produced > > > FTL travel . . . witness the Phoenix in First Contact. > > > > I'd like you top provide canon evidence of the use of impulse to > > describe the fusion reactor. > > Due to the bad grammar of your reply What "bad grammar"? Does the single typo in the sentence make it impossible for you to read. >, I'm not sure what you're aiming for. > I assume you are seeking evidence that "impulse power/engine" and "fusion > reactor" have ever been used interchangeably. > > Unfortunately, there are few (if any) examples of this, besides the > circumstance in question. That is *why* it's in question. Here's one > that comes to mind: > > "Am I correct in assuming that a fusion explosion of 97 megatons will result > if a starship impulse engine is overloaded?" > - Kirk to Spock, "The Doomsday Machine"[TOS] > > However, this quote really doesn't say all that much, but for establishing > that impulse engines do not run on the matter-antimatter powerplant of the > Enterprise warp drive. Shorter range/lower speed warp drives, though, > could potentially operate on fusion. Then it is nothing more than your assumptions, and is thus absolutely useless. > > No, it is your argument that is without merit, because it requires you > > to completely ignore canon dialog. > > It only requires that I ignore your misinterpretation of canon dialogue. > Your interpretation of the canon is not itself canon. Don't forget that > again. I am not interpreting canon. I am simply accepting the quote at face value. > > > By the way, the fact that Commodore Stocker felt it necessary to fly > through > > > the Neutral Zone in order to reach Starbase 10 demonstrates that the > Romulan > > > Neutral Zone contained an area larger than one star-system, for at warp > > > speeds it would be an easy thing to fly around a star system without > losing > > > any appreciable time, but it would be far more difficult to fly around a > > > Star Empire with multiple star systems under its thumb. Therefore, > the > > > scale of the map shown in "Balance of Terror" must be based on the idea > that > > > "Romii" is another star system . . . we do not know the distance between > > > Romii and Romulus, but it must be at least a light year. > > > > This is a complete and utter assumption. > > It is an argument for which you have no counterargument. Concession > accepted. No, it is an assumption. You have absolutely no evidence that the distance is a lightyear. Until such time that you have documentary evidence, this will remain an assumption. > > > The width of the > > > Neutral Zone is similar to the distance between those two points, and is > > > also therefore at least a light year. > > > > This is nothing more than an assumption. Until you can provide actual > > documentary evidence of the width in TOS I will ask you to stop making > > guesses. > > I have provided you with an argument, and you have failed to reply. You have provide no argument whatsoever. > > > http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/inconsistencies/neutral-zone.jpg > > > > This site is based on faulty evidence and speculation. That picture > > tells us nothing about the width. > > That picture tells us everything about the width, given other facts . . . > and I have. You have provided no counterargument other than "Unh-unh!" Let me put this simply. It is not my job, and never will be my job to do any research whatsoever for you. You are required to provide complete documentary evidence for each and every single claim you make. You are not allowed whatsoever to make any assumptions, such as your assumption that the distance between Romulus and Remii is one lightyear. -- "It's like comparing a cool theme park to a padded white cell." ---PREDATOR, commenting on Star Wars and Star Trek ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 05:00:53 -0600 Subject: Re: [trek] book- Starship Spotter Message-ID: -------- "Graeme Dice" wrote in message news:3C244380.D582C439@sk.sympatico.ca... > Guardian 2000 wrote: > > > > "Graeme Dice" wrote in message > > news:3C24222E.E7DD7DBE@sk.sympatico.ca... > > > Guardian 2000 wrote: > > > > > > > With the Treaty of Algeron, we do not know what the Federation got in > > > > return. > > > > > > They got terms fit for a surrendering nation. > > > > The only thing we know of in reference to the Treaty of Algeron is the > > cloaking device business, and the Neutral Zone. We also know that Earth > > was victorious in the Earth-Romulan war after the humiliating defeat of the > > Romulans at the Battle of Cheron. Hardly sounds like a time to surrender > > to me. > > Then there is precedent for the Federation willingly accepting a treaty > that puts them at a severe disdavantage for no reason other than peace. As I said, we do not know what the Romulans got stuck with in return. > > > > They signed a treaty that gave away their own territory in a war that > > > they were winning. I call that making a bad deal. > > > > Considering our knowledge of the treaty and history, the territory was > > probably a conciliatory freebie given to the Cardies to make them feel a > > little better about themselves. > > In other words, the Federation willingly gives up its own territory to > neutral zones. Since when? There were colonies in the DMZ. > > > > So? It could have easily taken the ship decades to get their. After > > > all, it would be far shorter from the crew's point of view, Romulans > > > live for over a hundred years, and they had cloaking devices to keep > > > them hidden. > > > > > > > False. The cloaking device was a tremendous power drain on the ship. > > The Romulan Bird-of-Prey from "Balance of Terror"[TOS] was having fuel > > issues far too quickly for a similar ship to have been able to penetrate > > that far into Federation space under cloak, if it were relegated to sublight > > on a decades-long trip. > > > > If this map (as seen in "In the Hands of the Prophets"[DS9] and reproduced > > from www.stdimension.de) is even remotely accurate, then you can see the > > distance the Romulan ship would've had to cover. > > > > http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/photo312c.JPG > > So then it comes down to the complete lack of dates. It was after "Balance of Terror" but before "Whom Gods Destroy". That's a two-year timespan for a Romulan starship to go far further than two light-years. Further, considering the Romulan Commander's conversation with the older fellow in "Balance of Terror"[TOS], wherein the old guy says "We've seen a hundred campaigns together", it is impossible that Romulan starships were not equipped with warp drive. You cannot go back and forth to a hundred battles at STL speeds. Oh, sure, time dilation would've kept them younger longer, but there are limits. > > > > > If this event occurred before "The Enterprise Incident" (when Romulans > > got > > > > Klingon ships), > > > > > > Well, why don't you go find out the order of the episodes then. > > > > The event did not occur in an episode, dumbass. > > Oh really? Then it didn't happen in trek at all. False, fuckwit. It was not shown in an episode, but it was discussed in an episode as having occurred recently. Or are you claiming that *anything* not seen . . . such as the birth of Picard, for instance . . . never occurred? > > > > Since you don't even know when it happened, then this is a pointless > > > statement to make. > > > > It is not pointless. Re-read it. > > Its not only pointless, it didn't even happen and is no better than > fanfiction. You stupid cocksmack, it's canon. > > > > What's the problem here? The ships left Romulus over a period of three > > > years. They arrived several years later over the same time frame. > > > > The Romulan War lasted three years. That means that the war began and > > ended in that timeframe. The Romulans would not have been able to attack > > any Earth interest in that timeframe. > > Why do the Romulans have to wait until they declare war to launch their > ships? > To launch a fleet in an effort to attack and destroy your adversary *is* a declaration of war. > > > > With the warp drive advantage, Earth starships could > > > > have won easily and quickly, since even in-system combat could have been > > > > detrimental to Romulan health. > > > > > > Warp drive offers no tactical advantage. > > > > Really? What makes you think so? > > The fact that it has never offered a tactical advantage in any trek > episode of course. With the solitary exception of the one time the > Picard maneuver worked. You took "warp drive advantage" to refer strictly to tactics. What of strategy? Furthermore, warp drive seldom is a tactical advantage merely because warp-driven vessels are generally never seen to do battle with non-warp-driven targets or targets with STL-only sensors. > > > Why would the Romulan defense fleet be sitting at the outside edge of > > > the solar system? > > > > It's called an "example". Another would be the fleet sitting on one side > > of the planet, and the Earth ships attacking the other. > > Why would the fleet only be on one side of the planet? I thought the > Romulans were supposed to be intelligent in military matters. Ever hear of "force concentration"? Sure, the Romulans could have ships evenly spaced around their planet, but then a smallish force of Earth ships could have picked off several of them one by one. The Romulans would have been forced to wait to learn where the Earth vessels were attacking from, then slowly plod their way over to the battle without any sort of organization. By that point, the Earth ships would have already been in range to drop thermonuclear weapons on the planet or attack orbital facilities > > > > Warp has been used _twice_ in the history of Trek as a tactical > > > advantage. Both times involved the Picard maneuver. > > > > Only if you ignore the warp pivot in TOS, > > Episode and scene or this did not occur. Ah, yes, the example was given in the "Warp Strafing" thread, not this one. "Elaan of Troyius"[TOS] . . . the battle with the Klingon battlecruiser. Enterprise pivots at warp. > > > Chekov going to warp to avoid a > > torpedo in ST5, et cetera. Kind of depends on how you define "tactical > > advantage", though. > > > > > Once again you betray your ignorance of the way things work. Send out > > > 50 ships over three years. 100 stay at home in orbit of Romulus. When > > > the ones making attacks get out there, they do their damage and stick > > > around until they get destroyed. > > > > *That* is how you think things work? Waste a third of the fleet on a single > > series of raids? Heaven help any nation you ever lead into war. > > Wow. You have just managed to knock down a strawman. Straw man? *It was your example*!! > > > > Then you must have been referring to some magical use of warp as a > > > tactical advantage, which has never occurred, and is thus just your > > > fantasy. > > > > No, I refer to the fact that Romulan vessels, being close to Romulus, > > would've been away from Earth interests! > > Except of course for the ones that weren't close to Romulus, having been > sent on attack missions. It would take them decades to arrive at an Earth target, and even longer to arrive at the Terran homeworld itself. That would be like the United States sending the U.S.S. Constitution and a fleet out in 1795, telling them to float around for several decades and then attack 1940's Britain. Even worse, the Romulan vessels sent out would have, one would hope, been sent at high sublight in order to expedite their journey, producing time dilation. Depending on just how fast they were going, an Earth vessel could have come upon them and destroyed them while the sensor guy was saying "Commander, I think I see . . ." The situation would be even worse if you want to posit that the Romulans were using sleeper ships. > > > > You have not provided valid evidence to back your claims up. > > > > What would you accept as valid evidence? > > From you, full script quotes would be the only acceptable source of > evidence. Stocker: "Mr. Sulu, set a direct course for Starbase 10, warp five." Sulu: "Across the Neutral Zone?" Later, on the Bridge: Sulu: "Now entering Romulan Neutral Zone, sir. Sensors on maximum." Stocker: "Thank you Mr. Sulu. Lt. Uhura, let me know if we contact any Romulans." Uhura nods, about to acknowledge the order, when suddenly the ship is struck. Uhura: "I think we've just made contact, sir." Sulu: "Romulans approaching from both sides, sir." Another hit Sulu: "We're bracketed, sir." .... (Viewscreen shot . . . reuse of FX element from "Balance of Terror") ........ Commercial break The antidote for the accelerated aging is tested on Kirk, the "battle" continues (if you can call a battle a ship being shot at while hailing the enemy). Stocker, confounded by the Romulan unwillingness to talk, asks Sulu's opinion. Sulu: "They know they've got us. They know our shields will give out." Kirk, restored to youth, bounds out of the turbolift and assumes command. Kirk: "Report, Mr. Sulu." Sulu: "We're surrounded by Romulan vessels . . . maximum of ten. Range fifty to one-hundred thousand kilometers." Kirk goes to his chair, presses a button Kirk: "Engineering, this is the captain. I want full emergency power. I want (kinda garbled on my VHS tape, sounds like "everything") in about two minutes. I want warp drive engines on full standby." Kirk then has Uhura dispatch a message to Starfleet in a code the Romulans were known to have broken. Kirk, reporting escape impossible and shields failing, creates a variation of the Corbomite Maneuver in which the Enterprise will self-destruct in one minute using corbomite, destroying all matter within 200,000 kilometers and necessitating the avoidance of the area by starships for four solar years. Kirk orders Sulu to program a direct course to Federation space at warp eight. Spock: "Romulans giving ground, obviously they tapped in as you expected them to." Kirk: "A logical assumption, Mr. Spock. Are they still retreating?" Spock: "Yes, sir." Kirk: "Good." (on intercom) "All hands, standby." Kirk: "Warp factor eight, now!" The crew is thrown in their chairs, followed by an external shot of Enterprise turning hard to starboard, followed by a scene of her in flight. Spock: "The Romulans were caught off guard, captain. They're falling behind." Kirk: "Are we out of range, Mr. Sulu?" Sulu: "Yes sir, and out of the Neutral Zone." > > > > That is a > > > description of a trek episode, and is most likely made up entirely of > > > assumptions and reinterpretations. > > > > You're at liberty to try to prove that. > > No, its up to you to prove your sources correct. > > > > > These were, to reiterate, the same class of vessel as from "Balance of > > > > Terror"[TOS]. There was no visual difference between these 10 vessels > > and > > > > the Praetor's flagship from that episode. > > > > > > > > > > Snip? No response? > > I don't need to respond to arguments based on invalid sources. > Canon sources such as episodes of the Original Series are invalid? > > > > Nor have I claimed that the use of impulse engines has ever produced FTL > > > > travel. However, an impulse powerplant (i.e. fusion-based) has > > produced > > > > FTL travel . . . witness the Phoenix in First Contact. > > > > > > I'd like you top provide canon evidence of the use of impulse to > > > describe the fusion reactor. > > > > Due to the bad grammar of your reply > > What "bad grammar"? Does the single typo in the sentence make it > impossible for you to read. I wasn't even counting the typo. Some commas or parentheses would've been nice, though. > > >, I'm not sure what you're aiming for. > > I assume you are seeking evidence that "impulse power/engine" and "fusion > > reactor" have ever been used interchangeably. > > > > Unfortunately, there are few (if any) examples of this, besides the > > circumstance in question. That is *why* it's in question. Here's one > > that comes to mind: > > > > "Am I correct in assuming that a fusion explosion of 97 megatons will result > > if a starship impulse engine is overloaded?" > > - Kirk to Spock, "The Doomsday Machine"[TOS] > > > > However, this quote really doesn't say all that much, but for establishing > > that impulse engines do not run on the matter-antimatter powerplant of the > > Enterprise warp drive. Shorter range/lower speed warp drives, though, > > could potentially operate on fusion. > > Then it is nothing more than your assumptions, and is thus absolutely > useless. We can either branch out into a little bit of assumption, or else declare the "simple impulse" quote worthless because of all the contradictory evidence and throw it out entirely. I'm trying to reconcile the contradiction, but if you want to throw out canon, that's fine (and unsurprising). > > > No, it is your argument that is without merit, because it requires you > > > to completely ignore canon dialog. > > > > It only requires that I ignore your misinterpretation of canon dialogue. > > Your interpretation of the canon is not itself canon. Don't forget that > > again. > > I am not interpreting canon. I am simply accepting the quote at face > value. It cannot be accepted at face value, because it is contradicted so often elsewhere. If we must accept it at face value, it must be thrown out, or else every contradictory example must be thrown out. Canon disagreements are to be reconciled if possible, and when there is no way to reconcile them (there is, but you refuse to see it), the preponderance of canon must be accepted (not the one quote standing against all else as you wish). I admire your desire to stand with the "underdog" quote, but unfortunately the preponderance of evidence sweeps the face-value meaning away. > > > > > By the way, the fact that Commodore Stocker felt it necessary to fly > > through > > > > the Neutral Zone in order to reach Starbase 10 demonstrates that the > > Romulan > > > > Neutral Zone contained an area larger than one star-system, for at warp > > > > speeds it would be an easy thing to fly around a star system without > > losing > > > > any appreciable time, but it would be far more difficult to fly around a > > > > Star Empire with multiple star systems under its thumb. Therefore, > > the > > > > scale of the map shown in "Balance of Terror" must be based on the idea > > that > > > > "Romii" is another star system . . . we do not know the distance between > > > > Romii and Romulus, but it must be at least a light year. > > > > > > This is a complete and utter assumption. > > > > It is an argument for which you have no counterargument. Concession > > accepted. > > No, it is an assumption. You have absolutely no evidence that the > distance is a lightyear. Until such time that you have documentary > evidence, this will remain an assumption. Until you can demonstrate a change in the NZ, it's a perfectly valid assumption, supported by the evidence. > > > > > The width of the > > > > Neutral Zone is similar to the distance between those two points, and is > > > > also therefore at least a light year. > > > > > > This is nothing more than an assumption. Until you can provide actual > > > documentary evidence of the width in TOS I will ask you to stop making > > > guesses. > > > > I have provided you with an argument, and you have failed to reply. > > You have provide no argument whatsoever. It's above. Try reading. This will be the fifth message to contain it. > > > > > http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/inconsistencies/neutral-zone.jpg > > > > > > This site is based on faulty evidence and speculation. That picture > > > tells us nothing about the width. > > > > That picture tells us everything about the width, given other facts . . . > > and I have. You have provided no counterargument other than "Unh-unh!" > > Let me put this simply. It is not my job, and never will be my job to > do any research whatsoever for you. You have not only failed to do any research for any counterargument, you've also failed to make a counterargument. > You are required to provide > complete documentary evidence for each and every single claim you make. And when this is done and you make no counterargument, I am at liberty to assume you have none. > You are not allowed whatsoever to make any assumptions, such as your > assumption that the distance between Romulus and Remii is one lightyear. Roughly one light-year is the smallest possible distance between two star systems, given the way star systems form and taking into account the existence of things like our own Oort Cloud, which makes the Terran system about a light-year across. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DMZ" Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 13:58:48 -0000 Subject: Re: [trek] book- Starship Spotter Message-ID: <1009029529.20041.0.nnrp-10.3e31960d@news.demon.co.uk> -------- "Guardian 2000" wrote in message news:a01pal$i6ea2$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de... > > In other words, the Federation willingly gives up its own territory to > > neutral zones. > > Since when? There were colonies in the DMZ. Hey! I'm not Dalton! -- DMZ mhm33x4 begin sig: + What is the difference between a syn/ack packet? + I don't have a name. I just have some stupid letters. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dalton Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 09:12:25 -0500 Subject: Re: [trek] book- Starship Spotter Message-ID: <3C2494C9.57E51412@daltonator.net> -------- DMZ wrote: > > "Guardian 2000" wrote in message > news:a01pal$i6ea2$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de... > > > > In other words, the Federation willingly gives up its own territory to > > > neutral zones. > > > > Since when? There were colonies in the DMZ. > > Hey! I'm not Dalton! That's right, and you could never hope to be, weak fool! -- Rob "Roby" Dalton http://daltonator.net "I need a drink." "You don't drink." "Yeah, but I've been meaning to start." ---UHF ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DMZ" Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 14:15:35 -0000 Subject: Re: [trek] book- Starship Spotter Message-ID: <1009030535.20530.0.nnrp-10.3e31960d@news.demon.co.uk> -------- "Dalton" wrote in message news:3C2494C9.57E51412@daltonator.net... > DMZ wrote: > > > > "Guardian 2000" wrote in message > > news:a01pal$i6ea2$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > In other words, the Federation willingly gives up its own territory to > > > > neutral zones. > > > > > > Since when? There were colonies in the DMZ. > > > > Hey! I'm not Dalton! > > That's right, and you could never hope to be, weak fool! You can't win, Dalton. If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine. -- DMZ mhm33x4 begin sig: + What is the difference between a syn/ack packet? + I don't have a name. I just have some stupid letters. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dalton Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 10:51:00 -0500 Subject: Re: [trek] book- Starship Spotter Message-ID: <3C24ABE4.E0816B94@daltonator.net> -------- DMZ wrote: > > "Dalton" wrote in message > news:3C2494C9.57E51412@daltonator.net... > > DMZ wrote: > > > > > > "Guardian 2000" wrote in message > > > news:a01pal$i6ea2$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > > > In other words, the Federation willingly gives up its own territory to > > > > > neutral zones. > > > > > > > > Since when? There were colonies in the DMZ. > > > > > > Hey! I'm not Dalton! > > > > That's right, and you could never hope to be, weak fool! > > You can't win, Dalton. If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than > you can possibly imagine. > That's what they all say, then they tie their souls to whiny bitches. -- Rob "Roby" Dalton http://daltonator.net "I need a drink." "You don't drink." "Yeah, but I've been meaning to start." ---UHF ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Wouter Valentijn" Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 20:28:01 +0100 Subject: Re: [trek] book- Starship Spotter Message-ID: -------- "Guardian 2000" schreef in bericht news:a01pal$i6ea2$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de... > > "Graeme Dice" wrote in message > news:3C244380.D582C439@sk.sympatico.ca... > > Guardian 2000 wrote: > > > > > > "Graeme Dice" wrote in message > > > news:3C24222E.E7DD7DBE@sk.sympatico.ca... > > > > Guardian 2000 wrote: > > > > > >> Roughly one light-year is the smallest possible distance between two star > systems, given the way star systems form and taking into account the > existence of things like our own Oort Cloud, which makes the Terran system > about a light-year across. > > G2k I read once that 'our' Oort (he's Dutch you know :-)) cloud stretches out to two light-years distance from our sun. http://www.solarviews.com/eng/oort.htm Err, according to this it could be three light-years. -- Wouter Valentijn. www.zeppodunsel.nl > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 16:29:11 -0600 Subject: Re: [trek] book- Starship Spotter Message-ID: -------- "Wouter Valentijn" wrote in message news:a02mn2$ih9ng$1@ID-43412.news.dfncis.de... > > "Guardian 2000" schreef in bericht > news:a01pal$i6ea2$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de... > > > > "Graeme Dice" wrote in message > > news:3C244380.D582C439@sk.sympatico.ca... > > > Guardian 2000 wrote: > > > > > > > > "Graeme Dice" wrote in message > > > > news:3C24222E.E7DD7DBE@sk.sympatico.ca... > > > > > Guardian 2000 wrote: > > > > > > > > >> Roughly one light-year is the smallest possible distance between two > star > > systems, given the way star systems form and taking into account the > > existence of things like our own Oort Cloud, which makes the Terran system > > about a light-year across. > > > > G2k > > I read once that 'our' Oort (he's Dutch you know :-)) cloud stretches out > to two light-years distance from our sun. > > http://www.solarviews.com/eng/oort.htm > > > Err, according to this it could be three light-years. > That works, too. I was going off of a map at space.com which had a blown up section showing the sun and Pluto's orbit. The blown up section pointed back down to a little spot a few pixels wide in the Oort Cloud picture. One light year seemed a bit small, but was a good lower limit. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 18:12:13 GMT Subject: Re: [trek] book- Starship Spotter Message-ID: <3C2229E3.68DBF302@shaw.ca> -------- Guardian 2000 wrote: > > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: > > > You stupid cocksmack . . . the Neutral Zone was established in TNG > > > to be a light-year wide. > > > > Oh, there's so many ways to mock you here I don't know where to begin. > > > > How about, that's just bullshit dialogue know to be false! > > > > BTW, there's a hundred years between those eras, maybe the NZ was > > expanded after the Romulans got Warp Drives. > > A. That's a strategically stupid idea. If we outlawed everything in ST that's stupid we'd have nothing left. > B. That is continuing to assume what you seek to prove No assumption needed, we have canon dialogue. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 12:20:25 -0600 Subject: Re: [trek] book- Starship Spotter Message-ID: <9vtaau$hj6tk$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de> -------- "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in message news:3C2229E3.68DBF302@shaw.ca... > Guardian 2000 wrote: > > > > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: > > > > > You stupid cocksmack . . . the Neutral Zone was established in TNG > > > > to be a light-year wide. > > > > > > Oh, there's so many ways to mock you here I don't know where to begin. > > > > > > How about, that's just bullshit dialogue know to be false! > > > > > > BTW, there's a hundred years between those eras, maybe the NZ was > > > expanded after the Romulans got Warp Drives. > > > > A. That's a strategically stupid idea. > > If we outlawed everything in ST that's stupid we'd have nothing left. You're just thinking of Voyager. :-) > > > B. That is continuing to assume what you seek to prove > > No assumption needed, we have canon dialogue. That's canon dialogue contradicted by far more canon fact. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 20 Dec 2001 18:47:05 GMT Subject: Re: [trek] book- Starship Spotter Message-ID: <20011220134705.25705.00002191@mb-fi.aol.com> -------- >"C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in message >news:3C2229E3.68DBF302@shaw.ca... >> Guardian 2000 wrote: >> > >> > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: >> >> > > > You stupid cocksmack . . . the Neutral Zone was established in TNG >> > > > to be a light-year wide. >> > > >> > > Oh, there's so many ways to mock you here I don't know where to begin. >> > > >> > > How about, that's just bullshit dialogue know to be false! >> > > >> > > BTW, there's a hundred years between those eras, maybe the NZ was >> > > expanded after the Romulans got Warp Drives. >> > >> > A. That's a strategically stupid idea. >> >> If we outlawed everything in ST that's stupid we'd have nothing left. > >You're just thinking of Voyager. :-) > No, I think he's thinking of everything since TOS. ------------------------------------ SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius "We can reconstitute dead friends and lovers. Those who were us, can be yours again. We will make you Gods amongst your people!" -Last words of the Beast. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 22:43:19 -0600 Subject: Re: [trek] book- Starship Spotter Message-ID: <9vueqr$hq69l$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de> -------- "Sir Nitram" wrote in message news:20011220134705.25705.00002191@mb-fi.aol.com... > >"C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in message > >news:3C2229E3.68DBF302@shaw.ca... > >> Guardian 2000 wrote: > >> > > >> > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: > >> > >> > > > You stupid cocksmack . . . the Neutral Zone was established in TNG > >> > > > to be a light-year wide. > >> > > > >> > > Oh, there's so many ways to mock you here I don't know where to begin. > >> > > > >> > > How about, that's just bullshit dialogue know to be false! > >> > > > >> > > BTW, there's a hundred years between those eras, maybe the NZ was > >> > > expanded after the Romulans got Warp Drives. > >> > > >> > A. That's a strategically stupid idea. > >> > >> If we outlawed everything in ST that's stupid we'd have nothing left. > > > >You're just thinking of Voyager. :-) > > > > No, I think he's thinking of everything since TOS. Well, even then you've got to consider TOS season three. Ick. I rather liked TNG, and though elements of later DS9 annoyed me (i.e. Prophets and Pah-wraiths), DS9 could also come out with some stellar episodes ("In the Pale Moonlight" comes to mind). Even Voyager had its moments . . . "Living Witness" and "Year of Hell" come to mind. And I must confess that I almost liked Janeway when I saw how utterly pissed she got at Captain Ransom in "Equinox". G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kynes Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 05:35:46 GMT Subject: Re: [trek] book- Starship Spotter Message-ID: -------- On Thu, 20 Dec 2001 22:43:19 -0600, "Guardian 2000" wrote: >Even Voyager had its moments . . . "Living Witness" and "Year of Hell" come >to mind. And I must confess that I almost liked Janeway when I saw how >utterly pissed she got at Captain Ransom in "Equinox". Janeway was an unbelievable stupid cunt in that episode just like every episode. So some dude is capturing bugs and using them for fuel. Welcome to the cycle of life and death. The universe can be a cold place; sentimentalizing death and loss makes it colder. -- LK! [ kynes@choam.org ] [ ICQ: 795238 ] [ AIM: Kynes23 ] "But I've never seen *anything* that's going to even have the clearly designed and hoped-for effect of running me out of these groups or debates." -- TOWNMNBS, Six Days Before The Final Solution ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Wayne Poe" Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 22:10:38 -0800 Subject: Re: [trek] book- Starship Spotter Message-ID: -------- "Guardian 2000" wrote > Even Voyager had its moments . . . "Living Witness" and "Year of Hell" come > to mind. And I must confess that I almost liked Janeway when I saw how > utterly pissed she got at Captain Ransom in "Equinox". Voyager had a hell of a lot of good episodes. A lot more, IMHO than TNG, and a HELL of a lot more (also IMHO) than DS9. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kyle" Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 01:20:22 -0500 Subject: Re: [trek] book- Starship Spotter Message-ID: <9vuk95$hqrqe$1@ID-17688.news.dfncis.de> -------- > Voyager had a hell of a lot of good episodes. A lot more, IMHO than TNG, and > a HELL of a lot more (also IMHO) than DS9. I've got to disagree. (All IMNSHO of course) -Voyager's the worst trek. I couldn't even watch it. If I don't like the characters then I can't enjoy it. There might have been episodes I'd have liked, if they used different characters. -DS9 and TNG tie for next worse With maybe TNG having a slight edge. Both and some good episodes, and some really awful ones. -I actually like Enterprise, sorry, it's not great but it's decent. I just try to enjoy for itself and not try to link it with the others. If it didn't have the stupid Temporal Cold War, I'd like it even more. -Of course TOS gets top honors. Yeah it had some bad episodes, but it's just fun to watch. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: sith79@aol.com (Kamakazie Sith) Date: 23 Dec 2001 12:15:50 -0800 Subject: Re: [trek] book- Starship Spotter Message-ID: <89c4bcfd.0112231215.7a9c234f@posting.google.com> -------- "Wayne Poe" wrote in message news:... > "Guardian 2000" wrote > > > Even Voyager had its moments . . . "Living Witness" and "Year of Hell" > come > > to mind. And I must confess that I almost liked Janeway when I saw how > > utterly pissed she got at Captain Ransom in "Equinox". > > Voyager had a hell of a lot of good episodes. A lot more, IMHO than TNG, and > a HELL of a lot more (also IMHO) than DS9. I'm shocked..... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Wayne Poe" Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 12:41:24 -0800 Subject: Re: [trek] book- Starship Spotter Message-ID: -------- "Kamakazie Sith" wrote > "Wayne Poe" wrote > > Voyager had a hell of a lot of good episodes. A lot more, IMHO than TNG, and > > a HELL of a lot more (also IMHO) than DS9. > I'm shocked..... Why? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 18:15:49 GMT Subject: Re: [trek] book- Starship Spotter Message-ID: <3C237C68.40309ED1@shaw.ca> -------- Guardian 2000 wrote: > > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: > > > B. That is continuing to assume what you seek to prove > > > > No assumption needed, we have canon dialogue. > > That's canon dialogue contradicted by far more canon fact. No it's not. Your interpretation of the quote is contradicted, that means your interpretation is wrong. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 17:46:27 -0600 Subject: Re: [trek] book- Starship Spotter Message-ID: -------- "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in message news:3C237C68.40309ED1@shaw.ca... > Guardian 2000 wrote: > > > > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: > > > > > B. That is continuing to assume what you seek to prove > > > > > > No assumption needed, we have canon dialogue. > > > > That's canon dialogue contradicted by far more canon fact. > > No it's not. Your interpretation of the quote is contradicted, that > means your interpretation is wrong. When did you or anyone else contradict my interpretation of the quote? When did you or anyone else deflate the contradictory canon examples? Answer: never. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 21:37:47 GMT Subject: Re: [trek] book- Starship Spotter Message-ID: <3C24FD4B.C785B59A@shaw.ca> -------- Guardian 2000 wrote: > > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: > > > > > B. That is continuing to assume what you seek to prove > > > > > > > > No assumption needed, we have canon dialogue. > > > > > > That's canon dialogue contradicted by far more canon fact. > > > > No it's not. Your interpretation of the quote is contradicted, that > > means your interpretation is wrong. > > When did you or anyone else contradict my interpretation of the quote? > When did you or anyone else deflate the contradictory canon examples? > > Answer: never. You just don't get it. Your interpretation contradicts CANON, you said so yourself. You want to throw out the quote because of it, when the proper thing to do is throw out your interpretation. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 16:30:43 -0600 Subject: Re: [trek] book- Starship Spotter Message-ID: -------- "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in message news:3C24FD4B.C785B59A@shaw.ca... > Guardian 2000 wrote: > > > > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: > > > > > > > B. That is continuing to assume what you seek to prove > > > > > > > > > > No assumption needed, we have canon dialogue. > > > > > > > > That's canon dialogue contradicted by far more canon fact. > > > > > > No it's not. Your interpretation of the quote is contradicted, that > > > means your interpretation is wrong. > > > > When did you or anyone else contradict my interpretation of the quote? > > When did you or anyone else deflate the contradictory canon examples? > > > > Answer: never. > > You just don't get it. Your interpretation contradicts CANON, you said > so yourself. You want to throw out the quote because of it, when the > proper thing to do is throw out your interpretation. My interpretation causes the quote to be acceptable in the light of all other canon. Your position is the one requiring that the quote be thrown out. You fail to look at the quote in the context of the rest of canon. That's your problem, not mine. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 19:38:39 GMT Subject: Re: [trek] book- Starship Spotter Message-ID: <3C2632EB.3132A99F@shaw.ca> -------- Guardian 2000 wrote: > > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: > > > When did you or anyone else contradict my interpretation of the > > > quote? When did you or anyone else deflate the contradictory canon > > > examples? > > > > > > Answer: never. > > > > You just don't get it. Your interpretation contradicts CANON, you said > > so yourself. You want to throw out the quote because of it, when the > > proper thing to do is throw out your interpretation. > > My interpretation causes the quote to be acceptable in the light of all > other canon. > > Your position is the one requiring that the quote be thrown out. > > You fail to look at the quote in the context of the rest of canon. > That's your problem, not mine. What are you talking about? You are the one that claims there is a contradiction, not me. You are the one that wants the quote thrown out, not me. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 16:04:10 -0600 Subject: Re: [trek] book- Starship Spotter Message-ID: -------- "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in message news:3C2632EB.3132A99F@shaw.ca... > Guardian 2000 wrote: > > > > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: > > > > > When did you or anyone else contradict my interpretation of the > > > > quote? When did you or anyone else deflate the contradictory canon > > > > examples? > > > > > > > > Answer: never. > > > > > > You just don't get it. Your interpretation contradicts CANON, you said > > > so yourself. You want to throw out the quote because of it, when the > > > proper thing to do is throw out your interpretation. > > > > My interpretation causes the quote to be acceptable in the light of all > > other canon. > > > > Your position is the one requiring that the quote be thrown out. > > > > You fail to look at the quote in the context of the rest of canon. > > That's your problem, not mine. > > What are you talking about? You are the one that claims there is a > contradiction, not me. Of course you're not claiming a contradiction . . . you simply wish to ignore the rest of canon which happens to contradict the quote. > You are the one that wants the quote thrown out, not me. I don't want it thrown out. I wish to reconcile it with all of the canon it flies in the face of. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 05:09:00 GMT Subject: Re: [trek] book- Starship Spotter Message-ID: <3C26B89D.DA0CA41F@shaw.ca> -------- Guardian 2000 wrote: > > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: > > What are you talking about? You are the one that claims there is a > > contradiction, not me. > > Of course you're not claiming a contradiction . . . you simply wish to > ignore the rest of canon which happens to contradict the quote. Fuck that bullshit. You called the quote bullshit. I never called the visuals bullshit. BTW, it's only YOUR INTERPRETATION that contradicts canon. And when that happens it's the interpretation that is ignored, not canon. > > You are the one that wants the quote thrown out, not me. > > I don't want it thrown out. I wish to reconcile it with all of the > canon it flies in the face of. How, by claiming Paris was taught wrong? There's obviously something about making a turn at Warp that is bad, otherwise they would teach new recruits, 'Faster than light, no left or right.' The fact that they do make these turns means there's some leeway. Perhaps only sharp turns are not allowed. Perhaps the faster you turn the more stress is placed on the SIFs. Perhaps turning too sharply can cause the warp bubble to collapse. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dalton Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 00:12:34 -0500 Subject: Re: [trek] book- Starship Spotter Message-ID: <3C26B942.F7F30F19@daltonator.net> -------- "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: > > Guardian 2000 wrote: > > > > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: > > > > What are you talking about? You are the one that claims there is a > > > contradiction, not me. > > > > Of course you're not claiming a contradiction . . . you simply wish to > > ignore the rest of canon which happens to contradict the quote. > > Fuck that bullshit. You called the quote bullshit. I never called the > visuals bullshit. > > BTW, it's only YOUR INTERPRETATION that contradicts canon. And when that > happens it's the interpretation that is ignored, not canon. > > > > You are the one that wants the quote thrown out, not me. > > > > I don't want it thrown out. I wish to reconcile it with all of the > > canon it flies in the face of. > > How, by claiming Paris was taught wrong? > > There's obviously something about making a turn at Warp that is bad, > otherwise they would teach new recruits, 'Faster than light, no left or > right.' > > The fact that they do make these turns means there's some leeway. > Perhaps only sharp turns are not allowed. Perhaps the faster you turn > the more stress is placed on the SIFs. Perhaps turning too sharply can > cause the warp bubble to collapse. And this is exactly my argument, and what does he do? Calls me a rabid warsie and adds me to his list of bad guys. -- Rob "Roby" Dalton http://daltonator.net "I need a drink." "You don't drink." "Yeah, but I've been meaning to start." ---UHF ---------------------