Finally adding to my canon database

[Coyote]

... the Borg drones DIED, and if the rounds were holos-- and the assimilated Ensign would have known that-- the Drones would have been unharmed.

Holographic objects in the holodeck can be touched, because they have forcefields backing them up and giving them the feeling of solidity. With the safeties off, it wouldn't matter if the ensign knew they were holograms or not . . . he would still die.

Right, which was my point of view from the beginning-- that the bullets are real within the confines of the HoloDeck, and this does not mean that they or the firearms using tham can be removed from the Deck. When in the HoloDeck and the safeties off, the bullets are real but only within the confines of the room. It becomes a PvP room. Harmless objects-- coffee cups and papers-- are always defaulted by the computer as 'solid matter' since they are innocuous items, unlikely to pose a safety hazard, while bullets are defaulted to be harmless, insubstantial special effects.

Now, if you installed HoloMitters through the ship (as the Hirogen did in Voyager) and disengaged the safeties, then the effect would spread through the vessel and affect anyone that boarded it, but the weapons and ammo could not be used outside the vessel-- they would dissipate.

(Now, if one got ahold of the replicator programs to create firearms and ammo from raw matter, the resultant weapon would of course be real anywhere in the galaxy, and not just within Holo or Replicator range....)

[TheDarkling]

Master of Ossus: I was saying that I didnt interpret his statement as one that indicated the Borg were immune to KE which seems to be the reading of his statement you have taken.

I cant comment on Borg ships having floating drones escaping because its a wider issue "do Borg stay till the end, do they get vaped by energy, are they transported away, etc etc etc")

I am simply arguing towards neutrality here, we cant prove the Borg dont have KE shields because we simply dont have eough info.

[DarkStar]

Actually, I'm not too sure about your "line-of-sight" comment. As I recall, their were Datas all over the holodeck shooting at Worf, from in front, behind, and to the sides.

More of your usual lies.

As expected, more of your usual baseless BS accusations.

It is not a lie if I haven't seen Fistful of Datas in a damn long time, and my recollection was incorrect. If you would care to post a screenshot or vidcap, I will happily stand corrected.

And finally, despite all the handwaving, observation really does trump theory. The fact is that we have observed no Borg particle shielding despite numerous incidents where it would have been very useful, and Darkstar's pathetic argument that they selectively shield only against physical attacks other than the ones we've seen is simply laughable, and everyone besides him (including you, hopefully) knows it.

Translation: 'absence of evidence is evidence of absence'.
Sure, it is.
http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/ig.htm

Wrong, dumb-ass. You are as stupid as you are ignorant. Absence of evidence is not absolute proof of absence, but it is evidence of absence. There is a huge difference between "absolute proof" and "evidence".

By your words, and by your support of the Warsie contention that the Borg do not have KE shielding of any sort, you are arguing that it is absolute . . . that this "evidence" is final. Indeed, you consider the possibility that they do have KE shielding "laughable".

Your simple-minded misinterpretation of the Appeal to Ignorance fallacy

Ah, yes, here goes Wong . . . I'm reminded of the Romulan Commander from "Balance of Terror": "Escape Maneuver One. QUICKLY!"

You attempt to insult your opponent, compare them to a creationist or fundamentalist, and so on, while simultaneously attempting to claim the rational high ground for yourself.

Meanwhile, you continue to employ the very same argument from ignorance . . . you claim that observation trumps theory: no 'particle' shields have been observed (which, by the way, is incorrect), and therefore my theory (and any other) which allows for it is laughable.

Your "Scorpion" comments continue your argument:

"The Borg: Dozens of Borg drones were killed by the Species 8472 pilot's slashing claws. After six months of combat and an undoubtedly vast number of casualties, the Borg have still not found a way to adapt to simple physical clawing and tearing attacks.

Many Trekkies blanche at this and angrily insist that the Borg must have the technology to block physical attacks, and then proceed to construct all manner of flimsy excuses for their inability to do so when needed.

However, they appear to be willfully ignoring Newton's third law as it applies to physical impacts, as it precludes the effectiveness of physical forcefield systems generated from miniaturized body implants (such as the Borg are known to use)."

What part of "Borg have still not found a way to adapt", "inability to [block physical attacks]", and the supplemental argument that Newton's Third "precludes the effectiveness" have I missed?

Sounds pretty damned absolute to me.

A lack of evidence means that there is no reason to believe the phenomenon exists. Get it?

I get it just fine . . . that's why I'm having to argue against you and your disciples, who seem to think that lack of observed evidence is reason to declare conclusively that it doesn't exist. At first, I gave you and yours the benefit of the doubt, assuming that the declaration of KE shield non-existence was conjecture and acknowledged as such, but simply stated with the usual Warsie bluster and stupidity.

However, as this thread has gone on, I've come to realize that you idiots actually think that absence of evidence is proof of absence. You claim that they are unable to block physical attacks, and that an argument which explains why is laughable.

As far as I am concerned, you can get your punk-ass right off that high horse. I control the high ground.

[Master of Ossus]

DarkStar, you have not provided a single piece of evidence for why it is more reasonable to assume that the Borg have KE shields and that they have just never adapted them to tommy guns and Mek'leths than it is to assume that they do not have KE shields. I don't think you can sit there and claim that the Borg have KE shields without giving us some more evidence of their existence. You can say that there is no evidence AGAINST it, but that does not suddenly give them KE shields. You must prove that the Borg have KE shields in order for us to believe you. Mike Wong was not being dishonest.

[Lord Poe]

Actually it's pretty inconsistent. In "Ship in the Bottle", Picard throws a book, apparently solid, out - it instantly disintegrates in the doorway. But Cyrus Redblock (sp?) and crony walk right off the holodeck in "The Big Goodbye" and stand in the corridor, then take at least five seconds to dissipate. It is very unclear what determines what is replicated and what is just forcefields, let alone Cyrus(I think)'s temporary existence.

Actually, you're forgetting that Picard and co. were still IN a holographic representation of the holodeck-and Enterprise in "Ship In A Bottle". That's why both scenarios above are different. They noticed later with the inconsistencies with LaForge.

In any case, Worf's attacks, ALL of them could have been repeated over and over again, and he would have gotten the same result- dead Borg. Just because he didn't use his knife, elbow, or thrown Borg drones exclusively doesn't mean that he couldn't.

Another thing. If you have an aversion to replicated bullets (despite all the evidence to the contrary) then you MUST agree that "holo-bullets" are an exact representation of REAL bullets. As such, with the safeties off, these "holo-bullets" will act and react exactly like REAL bullets. Therefore, we know EXACTLY what will happen to a Borg that is hit by REAL bullets.

Based on all the available evidence, the only conclusion possible is that Borg drones do not have any KE shielding.

[Darth Wong]

As expected, more of your usual baseless BS accusations. It is not a lie if I haven't seen Fistful of Datas in a damn long time, and my recollection was incorrect.

If you don't recall the episode, you should not make bold statements of fact on its contents.

Wrong, dumb-ass. You are as stupid as you are ignorant. Absence of evidence is not absolute proof of absence, but it is evidence of absence. There is a huge difference between "absolute proof" and "evidence".

By your words, and by your support of the Warsie contention that the Borg do not have KE shielding of any sort, you are arguing that it is absolute . . . that this "evidence" is final. Indeed, you consider the possibility that they do have KE shielding "laughable".

Correct, just as I consider the idea of an invisible deity in the sky scientifically laughable, which it is. In both cases, there is no evidence, therefore it is a laughable idea. It is not absolute proof, but there is no rational reason to believe it exists.

Your simple-minded misinterpretation of the Appeal to Ignorance fallacy

Ah, yes, here goes Wong . . . I'm reminded of the Romulan Commander from "Balance of Terror": "Escape Maneuver One. QUICKLY!"

Speak for yourself. In an argument over Borg shielding, you accuse your opponent of a fallacy which he does not commit, and when the glaring falsehood of your accusation is laid bare, you switch gears to an attack on his integrity. Classic case of sophistry.

You attempt to insult your opponent, compare them to a creationist or fundamentalist, and so on, while simultaneously attempting to claim the rational high ground for yourself.

And this would be a bad tactic if I had no shown precisely how my opponent was indeed being irrational. Your argument (that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence") is baseless, ignorant of Occam's Razor, and hopelessly irrational. You wish to attack me for pointing this out for the umpteenth time, as if a fallacy becomes golden after enough people have refuted it so many times that it becomes repetitive.

Meanwhile, you continue to employ the very same argument from ignorance . . . you claim that observation trumps theory: no 'particle' shields have been observed (which, by the way, is incorrect), and therefore my theory (and any other) which allows for it is laughable.

Correct. If no evidence of a phenomenon has never been observed, it is utterly laughable to assume it exists. Occam's Razor. Look it up.

What part of "Borg have still not found a way to adapt", "inability to [block physical attacks]", and the supplemental argument that Newton's Third "precludes the effectiveness" have I missed?

Sounds pretty damned absolute to me.

Open any physics textbook. Everything in there is stated as fact even though it is really just theory, without absolute proof. Do you also write the authors of these textbooks blasting them for employing logical fallacies and assuming absolute proof?

I repeat: if there is no evidence of a phenomenon, there is no reason to believe it exists. It is irrational and yes, laughable to claim that one can rationally arrive at the conclusion that it exists without a shred of supporting evidence. By clinging to the lack of absolute proof as your only defense, you employ the useless mindset of solipsysm.

I get it just fine . . . that's why I'm having to argue against you and your disciples, who seem to think that lack of observed evidence is reason to declare conclusively that it doesn't exist.

Correct. Lack of observed evidence is reason to declare conclusively that it does not exist. That is how we can conclusively declare that there is no invisible pink unicorn, for example. Conclusions follow evidence, and there is no evidence.

At first, I gave you and yours the benefit of the doubt, assuming that the declaration of KE shield non-existence was conjecture and acknowledged as such, but simply stated with the usual Warsie bluster and stupidity.

You think it "stupidity" to demand evidence before choosing to believe in something? This is rich. The UFOlogists should hire you as their spokesperson.

However, as this thread has gone on, I've come to realize that you idiots actually think that absence of evidence is proof of absence.

Evidence of absence, you idiot, not "proof". Absolute proof is a useless criterion which exists exclusively in the realm of sophists such as yourself.

You claim that they are unable to block physical attacks, and that an argument which explains why is laughable.

An argument which invents mechanisms in order to claim that a phenomenon exists without a shred of evidence. You may not like being compared to creationists, but that's just too damned bad, because you are emulating their mindset.

As far as I am concerned, you can get your punk-ass right off that high horse. I control the high ground.

With your idiotic claim that we should believe in the existence of a phenomenon without a shred of evidence? You're high on something, but it ain't high ground.

[DarkStar]

BULLETS VIBRATE, MORON!

And this has what to do with anything at all?

Besides, I specifically asked you how specific the Borg adaptations were, and then you said that the Borg would have to adapt to every shot.

What the hell are you talking about? When did I say that the Borg would have to adapt to every shot?

[Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman]

2. Do you have OTHER premise rather than "real bullets have not been fired against the Borg" and "drones can interact with the environment" to support your selective KE shield bullshit?

http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/STSWBorgKE.html

[Best Jar Jar imitation] When in trouble, DarkStar goes to sacred place.

I believe DarkStar's sacred place was made by his own feces since it is the same material he always uses to make the foundation of his arguments.

[DarkStar]

DarkStar, just out of curiosity, how specific do you think that Borg adaptation is? In other words, do you think that the Borg can adapt to all .45 caliber weapons after they are hit by one, or do you think that the Borg must adapt seperately for each gun because of the minute imperfections along the barrel of the weapon and how they alter the ballistics of the weapon slightly?

I do not think they would have to adapt to KE.

Okay, people, there's what DarkStar said. If he doesn't think that the Borg would have to adapt to KE, then how the hell did Worf's dagger get through their "shields?"

Dagger /= bullet.

Moron.

[Master of Ossus]

I do not think they would have to adapt to KE.

Okay, people, there's what DarkStar said. If he doesn't think that the Borg would have to adapt to KE, then how the hell did Worf's dagger get through their "shields?"

Dagger /= bullet.

Moron.

Irrelevent. Your quote clearly says that the Borg would not have to adapt to KE. A dagger is a KE weapon. The Borg should not have had to adapt to it, if your theory was correct.

[Master of Ossus]

BULLETS VIBRATE, MORON!

And this has what to do with anything at all?

You stated that Borg shield adaptations were frequency dependent. Since each round from a weapon like a Thompson SMG vibrate at a different frequency, you are essentially saying that EVERY bullet would be able to get through Borg shields, because the Borg shields would not adapt to their frequencies. And why don't you respond to some of Lord Poe's and Mike Wong's very reasonable points, if you're not too busy?

[Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman]

My advice: Next time please find SOLID PROOF to back your claim. If you keep masturbating on your delusion and use the ejaculated cum as foundation to your claim, you'll surely get fucked.

Please be less disgusting in the future. I really don't want to hear you talk about sex. It's bad enough that you might procreate someday, but I don't want to hear you talking about the subject.

Well, if you think it's bad enough, then the fact that I will be "recreating" instead of "procreating" will surely drive you nuts, isn't that so, Mr. Sexaphobe?

I'm afraid the only bias here is yours. I have explained my rationale at length to you, but THEN you ***keep making*** stupid ARGUMENTS featuring ***RANDOM*** capitalization and asterisks, and so on.

Ouch, my deep APOLOGIZE, FuckStar. My intention is to ****AID**** you identifying keywords, since it it **OBVIOUS** that you have reading comprehension of a rock.

[DarkStar]

I don't think you can sit there and claim that the Borg have KE shields without giving us some more evidence of their existence.

I'm not claiming they have bullet-proof KE shields. We won't know that until a Borg drone is fired upon with a projectile weapon. I'm simply pointing out that it is more reasonable to conjecture that they do, than to conjecture that they do not.

[Master of Ossus]

I don't think you can sit there and claim that the Borg have KE shields without giving us some more evidence of their existence.

I'm not claiming they have bullet-proof KE shields. We won't know that until a Borg drone is fired upon with a projectile weapon. I'm simply pointing out that it is more reasonable to conjecture that they do, than to conjecture that they do not.

DarkStar, you seem to have found a new way of trying to bother people. You make a claim that something COULD happen, but that it also may not be true, and then you claim that you need not fulfill burden of proof. You did this on the other thread where you claimed that SW humans/=ST humans. Unfortunately for you, you're wrong. You still have to prove that it is possible. And where is your evidence that it is more reasonable to guess that they do have bullet-proof KE shields than to believe that they do not?

[Master of Ossus]

Tell me, DarkStar. When you think of yourself, do you think about how stupid you are, or do you think that you are no dumber than the average person you see walking down the street. It's okay to tell me. If you don't want to answer in public truthfully then you can PM me, I'd just really like to know how idiots think of themselves.

So, do you think of yourself as having plenty of knowledge, but realize that other people have more? Or do you just kind of realize how little you actually know and think that people like Mike Wong and Lord Poe have reasonable amounts of knowledge. I guess what I'm trying to ask here is, do you think of yourself as an idiot surrounded by people of average intelligence, or do you think of yourself as average and surrounded by more intelligent and knowledgeable people than yourself?

[DarkStar]

As such, with the safeties off, these "holo-bullets" will act and react exactly like REAL bullets.

Illogical, totally. The holo-bullets might have tried to act like real bullets, but that is no reason to assume that the Borg drones would react to them that way.

Based on all the available evidence, the only conclusion possible is that Borg drones do not have any KE shielding.

"The only conclusion possible" . . . right, right. Dream on.

[Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman]

FuckStar, surely you still remember what I said about your pet "Selective KE shield" argument?

PS:

Dear HypocriteStar, you need *proof* as basis to select the most likely possibility. Yet you have none. You cannot point to AT LEAST one episode that shows that Borg drones have selective KE shielding.

Instead, you choose the possibility that support your claim, using counter induction tactics and ignore other possibilities you don't like.

Even if it's true that no projectiles have been fired at the Borg before, how can it automatically translate that Borg has selective KE shielding?

How can it automatically translate that projectiles are ineffective against the Borg while claws and batleth can?



See? That's why you are being flamed. That's why IMO, you're an IDIOT.

So hereby, I declare that DARKSTAR IS AN IDIOT

And surely you still remember my most recent question for you?

Two questions:
1. Can you provide a SINGLE EPISODE that shows the drones have selective KE shielding?
2. Do you have OTHER premise rather than "real bullets have not been fired against the Borg" and "drones can interact with the environment" to support your selective KE shield bullshit?

WELL, MORON???

And of course, you don't mind if I quote your reply to my question above?

2. Do you have OTHER premise rather than "real bullets have not been fired against the Borg" and "drones can interact with the environment" to support your selective KE shield bullshit?

http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/STSWBorgKE.html

WELL, MORON???

What, did you get impatient that I had not answered your question before you hit "Submit"?

Ah... so now you have read all above. Please don't be hurry. Take five or ten minutes to comprehend.

..........................................
..........................................
..........................................


Already comprehend it? Well, now let me tell you, that due to your answer to my questions, I will say none other than

C O N C E S S I O N

A C C E P T E D






Case closed.


PS: please don't hesitate to reply if your tiny brain (if any) still can't understand what I mean.

[DarkStar]

If you don't recall the episode, you should not make bold statements of fact on its contents.

Given your precarious recollection of a great many things, I consider it better to offer my recollection and thereby demand that you prove yours. Screenshots? Vidcap? Anything?

Wrong, dumb-ass. You are as stupid as you are ignorant. Absence of evidence is not absolute proof of absence, but it is evidence of absence. There is a huge difference between "absolute proof" and "evidence".

By your words, and by your support of the Warsie contention that the Borg do not have KE shielding of any sort, you are arguing that it is absolute . . . that this "evidence" is final. Indeed, you consider the possibility that they do have KE shielding "laughable".

Correct, just as I consider the idea of an invisible deity in the sky scientifically laughable, which it is. In both cases, there is no evidence, therefore it is a laughable idea. It is not absolute proof, but there is no rational reason to believe it exists.

False analogy.

If we are to equate for the purposes of analogy a deity and Borg selective KE shielding, you must first accept the fact that various other deities are proven to exist. Some even show the qualities of the one being discussed ("Addendum": http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/STSWBorgKE.html)

This significantly enhances the possibility that the deity might exist.

If we then equate prayer to the deity (i.e. trying to get it to do something) with the attempt to use projectile weapons on the Borg, then the basis of your claim that there's no reason to believe in the deity is the fact that no one prays to it. Well, maybe the followers know they don't have to or that there's no reason to try to, in the same way that one may postulate that Starfleet has already figured out that projectile weapons won't work.

This also enhances the possibility that the deity might exist, depending on your view of the followers.

And yet, you say there is no reason to assume the analogue deity exists. This does not follow. It is your choice to believe that, but the evidence leaves the question up in the air.

Your simple-minded misinterpretation of the Appeal to Ignorance fallacy

Ah, yes, here goes Wong . . . I'm reminded of the Romulan Commander from "Balance of Terror": "Escape Maneuver One. QUICKLY!"

Speak for yourself. In an argument over Borg shielding, you accuse your opponent of a fallacy which he does not commit, and when the glaring falsehood of your accusation is laid bare, you switch gears to an attack on his integrity. Classic case of sophistry.[/quote]

Hey, cute trick, that. You engage in personal attacks in the thread and in the quoted section of post above, and seem to think that you are being a good little debater. When he calls you on it, you feign innocence, and accuse him of personal attacks. How totally un-clever.

Meanwhile, you continue to employ the very same argument from ignorance . . . you claim that observation trumps theory: no 'particle' shields have been observed (which, by the way, is incorrect), and therefore my theory (and any other) which allows for it is laughable.

Correct. If no evidence of a phenomenon has never been observed, it is utterly laughable to assume it exists.[/quote]

No one has assumed it exists. Your point is nullified.

What part of "Borg have still not found a way to adapt", "inability to [block physical attacks]", and the supplemental argument that Newton's Third "precludes the effectiveness" have I missed?

Sounds pretty damned absolute to me.

Open any physics textbook. Everything in there is stated as fact even though it is really just theory, without absolute proof.

Hey, nice try at a cover-story, but irrelevant. This is no textbook, it's a debate. Though, to be fair, your site and textbooks do have in common the dogmatic assertion of theories as fact, so maybe this isn't another false analogy on your part, after all. Hmm . . . no, no, it is . . . there's a lot more logic behind the theories in the textbook.

I get it just fine . . . that's why I'm having to argue against you and your disciples, who seem to think that lack of observed evidence is reason to declare conclusively that it doesn't exist.

Correct. Lack of observed evidence is reason to declare conclusively that it does not exist. That is how we can conclusively declare that there is no invisible pink unicorn, for example.

False analogy. We can scientifically declare IPU's non-existent because they are unscientific . . . there is no way to prove them false, because there is no way to observe them, ever, by design. That's the whole point of an IPU.

The Star Trek Canon is still growing, and the Borg are sure to figure in at some point. Up until now, no one has used a projectile weapon on them in the Canon. Should that occur, my conjecture will be falsified and I will stand most soundly corrected. However, until then, declaring one way or the other as the Absolute Final Truth is absurd.

As far as I am concerned, you can get your punk-ass right off that high horse. I control the high ground.

With your idiotic claim that we should believe in the existence of a phenomenon without a shred of evidence?

I don't claim you should take it into your heart and mind and believe it with everything you are . . . that, as I just said, is absurd. I claim you should accept the merit of the possibility, for which several shreds of evidence have been provided, and stop claiming the contrary as the One True Way of Wong and All Who Follow Him.

Go read:
http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/STSWBorgKE.html

[DarkStar]

Dagger /= bullet.

Moron.

Irrelevent.

No, on-topic.

[DarkStar]

BULLETS VIBRATE, MORON!

And this has what to do with anything at all?

You stated that Borg shield adaptations were frequency dependent. Since each round from a weapon like a Thompson SMG vibrate at a different frequency, you are essentially saying that EVERY bullet would be able to get through Borg shields, because the Borg shields would not adapt to their frequencies.

I assume you're trying to claim that particle weapons have a frequency, therefore this must mean that it is the same as sonic vibration frequency as one might find in a solid object.

First, I'd just like to point out that you're stupid for thinking that. Second, I'd like to point out that the frequencies the Borg adapt to are electromagnetic in nature.

Quotes from BoBW:

"GEORDI: There's a 2% power drop, just for an instant... but it's system-wide. The phaser frequency spread was in a high narrow band. "

"WORF: These phasers have been retuned. Each has a different frequency spanning the upper EM band.
SHELBY: All right... a reminder... we only get to use each of these once, maybe twice before the Borg learn to adapt. Don't fire until you have to."

And why don't you respond to some of Lord Poe's and Mike Wong's very reasonable points, if you're not too busy?

Oh shut the hell up. You seriously expect a delay in response measured in hours to mean something?

[DarkStar]

DarkStar, you seem to have found a new way of trying to bother people. You make a claim that something COULD happen, but that it also may not be true, and then you claim that you need not fulfill burden of proof.

I told you from the beginning that it was a conjecture. I put that right there in my first post on the matter. Further, the Warsie belief that there aren't projectile-stopping shields is also a conjecture, though you try to slip it under the radar as a fact when no one is looking.

When two parties are engaging in conjecture, just what do you think the burden of proof is?

And where is your evidence that it is more reasonable to guess that they do have bullet-proof KE shields than to believe that they do not?

Well, I'll be damned . . . you still ask the same dumb question, thereby making me end up repeating myself, for which you will no doubt bitch, by giving the same website address. But, hey, at least now I'm repeating myself in a shorter fashion, right Ossus?:

http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/STSWBorgKE.html

[DarkStar]

C O N C E S S I O N

A C C E P T E D

Sorry, but none has been offerred, explicitly or implicitly . . . and especially not to the likes of you.

Further, I'd like to request that you please stop cluttering the board with your stupid faces. This thread is growing long enough already without some moron tapping an emoticon button a thousand times.

[Coyote]

Let's face it, there is enough circumstantial evidence to point to the fact that in the Star Trek universe, KE weapons are considered antiques and are no longer deployted on a wide scale. This makes perfect sense, when you consider that a KE projectile would damage the hulls (and integrity) of spacegoing vessels. Beam weapons, with variable power settings, are the norm among all the spacefaring species.

Therefore, the Borg have adapted and specialized themselves to a fine degree in defending themselves from beam weapons. But since they probably never or rarely encounter aliens that fight back with KE weapons, they have neglected that defense. Bullets and claws and knives, et al, are considered irrelevant.

It's not such a stretch-- once upon a time our lives would have depended on our ability to sharpen swords and mend armor-- but I'd be sure that unless some of us are dedicated SCA'ers, we have all lost this technology. I sure as hell cannot chip a flint spear point 'cause I rely on my M-16... but were I to run out of ammo, that native guy with the spear suddenly has the upper hand...

[Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman]

Ah... suspicion confirmed. It is clear now that your tiny brain (if any) just can't figure what the fuck is going on and what's the implication of your OWN posting.

By not answering to my first question, thus I accept that you are unable to point to even a SINGLE episode that shows Borg drone's selective KE shielding.

By pointing to your feces-made sacred place URL as your answer to my second question, thus I accept that all you got are premises that UNABLE TO PROOF your "drone's selective KE shielding" bullshit.

PS: now, about those emoticons... You know, the reason I show all those twisted emoticon faces to you is simply because no emoticon has the picture of ASS.

C O N C E S S I O N

A C C E P T E D

Sorry, but none has been offerred, explicitly or implicitly . . . and especially not to the likes of you.

Further, I'd like to request that you please stop cluttering the board with your stupid faces. This thread is growing long enough already without some moron tapping an emoticon button a thousand times.

[Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman]

Oh, and you know, FuckStar, it will be much more honest to answer my first question with simple "I can't" than ignoring it and pretending it doesn't exist.

It'll be definitely much more honest than ignoring it, even though your answer will likely be, "I-I-I C-c-can't."