Has the Enterprise in the films ever won a straight-up fight

[Captain Seafort]

Not to downplay the Defiant's contribution, but its not clear how long it had been engaged.

Defiant was part of the force that initially engaged the cube - she was mentioned in the radio chatter being ordered to into position to receive the attack.

[Eternal_Freedom]

You can't compare the hits the E-E took to the hits other ships took, since the E-E took hits from some kind of beam weapon while the Steamrunner and Sabre class ships took hits from what looked like torpedoes.

[Batman]

Not to mention that the Big E was completely fresh while the rest of the fleet had been battling the Cube for Valen alone knows how long. Completely untouched shields are more resilient (or likely to still be present) than those of ships which have been in combat for 'insert time'. Who knew.

[Gandalf]

It should have enjoyed more dominance in space than the 1 movie run it got. If the plot called for it to take heavy damage in Insurrection and Nemesis, it should have been against a larger fleet that allowed it to still show qualitative superiority.

What would that accomplish?

[Batman]

It would have accomplished showing the E-E was badass and given us a lot more battleporn?
No, I don't understand how those are automatically goals worth accomplishing either, but you have to admit it would have done that.

[TheHammer]

It should have enjoyed more dominance in space than the 1 movie run it got. If the plot called for it to take heavy damage in Insurrection and Nemesis, it should have been against a larger fleet that allowed it to still show qualitative superiority.

What would that accomplish?

It would have accomplished showing the E-E was badass and given us a lot more battleporn?
No, I don't understand how those are automatically goals worth accomplishing either, but you have to admit it would have done that.

What's wrong with battleporn?

[Darth Nostril]

That you have to even ask .....

[seanrobertson]

Were they?

Where is that in the script or dialogue or visuals?

Warp trails were not shown until Star Trek II. In TMP, whilst entering Warp, it went all glowy but once actually in warp and cruising along, that stops and the stars just go past like they're at Impulse.

I'd apologize for the late response, but the BBS just looks dead in general

I knew that, after a good many of the versus debates were settled to most folks' satisfaction, the "end" as it were was always in sight. Still, I do hate to see this place become a ghost town. We had/have some brilliant contributors that kept things fresh. There were a ton of nitpicking bitch trolls, including a shitload that always managed to survive penalties given the latter of the BBS law -- but, again, I'm thankful for the remaining administrators who penalize the reconstructive, off-base morons like that piece of fetid "human" sewage ... OOF, marone! I can't even remember the boy's name .)

Meh. Ultimately, who cares? But to address the honorable Prometheus Unbound, I largely agree and differ slightly.

In the meantime, great points about the 3 Klingon warships being at FTL or no.

[Batman]

Are you sure we're working with the same definition of 'dead'? I find new posts every day (and I 'do' mean every day) and the only reasons why I manage to keep track is ignoring most of them. The only subfora I regularly check are SciFi and Fan and even there there's more than enough traffic to call this board 'alive'.

[Purple]

Are you sure we're working with the same definition of 'dead'? I find new posts every day (and I 'do' mean every day) and the only reasons why I manage to keep track is ignoring most of them. The only subfora I regularly check are SciFi and Fan and even there there's more than enough traffic to call this board 'alive'.

The rule of thumb is that a forum is dead if it produces less posts that a generic average user would want to read and respond to per day than he can manage to process.

[Simon_Jester]

That seems a little unfair, because it's hard for an individual user to gauge how their interest lines up with "generic average." If my interests are narrow and most of the board's activity is going on elsewhere, does that mean the board is "dead" to me?

[Borgholio]

IMO, "dead" implies no moderators or admins still active, days going by between posts, more spambots than humans, etc...none of which apply to this board. We have a good number of moderators and admins still active and even more lurking, we have new posts added to no fewer than a dozen topics a day and new topics being added all the time, and I haven't seen a spambot in quite a while. I'd say we're doing fine. If there's a decrease in activity overall I would blame it on people taking a bit of a break, dealing with IRL stuff, summer vacations, etc...

[Batman]

If the only poster posting for the last three months or so is 'you' then yes, I think you're entitled to call the board that happened on 'dead'.
Days going on between posts may be merely a sign of a small board population scattered across the timezones on top of what Borgholio mentioned.

[Gandalf]

Are you sure we're working with the same definition of 'dead'? I find new posts every day (and I 'do' mean every day) and the only reasons why I manage to keep track is ignoring most of them. The only subfora I regularly check are SciFi and Fan and even there there's more than enough traffic to call this board 'alive'.

Relative to what it used to be, dead seems sadly apt.

[Simon_Jester]

On the other hand, there are plenty of forums that have happy (if small) membership groups that were never, at any time, as active as SDN... and yet are alive by a reasonable standard of the world "alive."

It's like, suppose Facebook membership shrank by 50%. Would Facebook be "dead?" Relative to what it used to be, maybe... but it'd still be this enormous social media giant, because even half of Facebook is still big.

[Purple]

That seems a little unfair, because it's hard for an individual user to gauge how their interest lines up with "generic average." If my interests are narrow and most of the board's activity is going on elsewhere, does that mean the board is "dead" to me?

Actually yes. If this board was suddenly populated by say MLP fans who spend time nothing but discussing MLP and ignoring every topic you care about wouldn't you call it dead to you?

Now to get from there to my definition you simply have to extrapolate what the "you" would be as a generic average user. Which is to say, take the general reason for the boards existence, the general reason for each of the sections and subsections and define a generic person whose interests lie broadly a bit in each.

[Simon_Jester]

That seems a little unfair, because it's hard for an individual user to gauge how their interest lines up with "generic average." If my interests are narrow and most of the board's activity is going on elsewhere, does that mean the board is "dead" to me?

Actually yes. If this board was suddenly populated by say MLP fans who spend time nothing but discussing MLP and ignoring every topic you care about wouldn't you call it dead to you?

But not in an absolute sense. Otherwise there is no such thing as a 'live' My Little Pony board, which is an absurd statement.

Now to get from there to my definition you simply have to extrapolate what the "you" would be as a generic average user. Which is to say, take the general reason for the boards existence, the general reason for each of the sections and subsections and define a generic person whose interests lie broadly a bit in each.

Well, the generic person on this board is here to "get their fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid people."

We still talk sci-fi enough to keep a few dozen people at least partially occupied as active posters even if no one is spending all day on the site. We still talk science sometimes although politics has mostly taken over in people's minds. And you may be assured we still mock stupid people. So the only question is, is the generic average user "getting their fill?" I submit that there are at least several dozen people who "get their fill" on this site; that doesn't mean it's all they do but they do participate actively on a day to day basis.

So no, I wouldn't call the site 'dead' by that standard.

Now, we can reasonably argue that, say, the Star Wars vs. Star Trek subforum is dead... because that debate was resolved years ago to the satisfaction of everyone on the forum at the time.

[Zeropoint]

Actually yes. If this board was suddenly populated by say MLP fans who spend time nothing but discussing MLP

Is that an invitation?

[Borgholio]

Is that an invitation?

No it's a thread necro.

[NecronLord]

Quite.