Moderator: Vympel
ENT stopped worrying over continuity with the very opening episode so what's the problem?Aratech wrote:Plus didn't they blow it, as Mr. Wong would say, 'into very small non working parts?'
Did this guy not watch any of the movies?Kinkade0001 wrote:Talk to me once you've ploted a fireing sollution to shoot 72 seperate vessels at once with weapons designed to broadside, not fire independantly
Does he really think that computers advanced enough to achieve sentience cannot compute firing solutions on 72 targets? Or perhaps he's figuring that a fucking Imperial Star Destroyer has less computing power than C3-PO.
Note, the borg can't attack the Empire from fluidic space either. So if the borg are going to HIDE in Fluidic space, they he's just admitted that the borg lost.Regardless of whether or not you believe Fluidic space contains the materials necessary for construction, the point was that the empire could not attack the Borg there.
And we saw this personal shield when exactly? Not when Worf was wrestling with him on the cube and it certainly didn't prevent the Feddies from taking Locutus back to the E-D with them.On the other hand, Locutus did have a personal shield because he wasn't expendable.
Lie. Picard's tommy gun was rather effective.Yet the Collective has not encountered a species that effectively employed slug thrower against them
Just gotta love those excuses for why we have never seen anything of the sort in Trek and which he pulled out of his ass. He actually assumes the drones wouldn't have as great a control over their KE shields as they do over their regular shields.Or species strong enough to kill a sufficient number of drones in combat, hence the lack of adaptation to block kinetic attacks.Kinetic shields get in the way. Drones can't deploy them and effectively interact with their environment at the same time. You can't grab someone while the shield is deployed, and you can't interact with the technology of the ship while it's deployed either. That's why destroyer droids can't deploy them in wheel mode.
Just gotta love the way they try and concoct analogies based on what they WANT to be correct rather than what is most logical.For example, I'm the Master Chief and you are a Grunt. I am armed with my Battle Rifle (lots of ammo), a plasma sword, and a K-bar. I sneak up behind you and kill you with the knife. By your reasoning, I don't have the capability to shoot you because I used the knife.
Heaven forbid we should assume the borg will act the same was against the Empire as they do against various Trek powers.You're telling me! In fact, the Borg have been so limited here that they have been given no options whatsoever. No tactics, no strategy, no battle plans save for a "die trying to give the speech" approach. You give the fracking Ewoks more credit then you give the Borg. You might as well start handing out the blindfolds now because this isn't a war, it's an execution. You expect the Borg to show up, and do absolutely nothing as the empire magically wipes them from space with a single fracking Star Destroyer. You give them absolutely no credit at all for having conquered thousands of species, for adapting to every weapon thrown at them, and for having a queen that thinks independently and has shown on countless occasion the ability to analyze and adapt to enemy attacks, the tactics and strategy to counter attack, and a willingness to change tactics when the primary method of attack fails.
And there is no evidecne that the borg have adapted to "every weapon thrown at them" especially since an earlier point of this very post was their lack of a KE defense.Someone please tell me why fighting idiot borg zombies should be as difficult as tracking Jedi.[/quote]Corrupt? Palpatine is the Poster Child for corrupt. It took him 20 years to track down the Rebels and in the end they came to him!! Hell ,he can read minds and he couldn't find them for 20 years, Vader could sense Luke and it took him years to track him down. The whole fracking imperial Millitary was out looking for Jedi and Yoda and Kenobe were NEVER found untill Kenobe deliberatly showed himself.
Twat wrote:Your doubts are irrelevant; you will be transported to my cube and assimilated fanboy.
Yeah, I guess he never saw STFC, where the Borg were unable to transport onto the E-E until it briefly dropped its shields.Twat wrote:We have never seen an enemy that could jam a Borg transporter beam.
What an imbecile. Real-life particle beams require no such frequency.Twat wrote:Again your doubts are irrelevant; all beam weaponry operates on a frequency of some kind, even your blasters.
Twat wrote:You will be assimilated and sent to a re-education camp where you will be forced to listen to recordings of your self drone on and on about the supposed might of the empire until your head explodes.
Gotta love when they "refute" an argument by simply restating their conclusion.Twat wrote:On the contrary, time travel is extremely useful. But I must admit, I never thought I’d ever get you to admit that something here wasn't (Gasp) REAL.
What's even sillier is that he's forgetting that every gun has at least one gunner. And then there's this. They have teams of people trained in precisely this kind of job. Unlike the borg, Imperial ships have been seen to fire more than one weapon simultaneously. Presumably they're networked, making, even with minimal computer aid, targetting seventy odd cubes rather easy work.Darth Wong wrote:"A firing solution?"
They just really, really, really want the Borg to win, which is why they're wankers. Conclusion does not flow from evidence and logic for these kiddies; they have their conclusion before they even look at the evidence.Imperial Overlord wrote:What is it with Borg wankers and "adaptation is the uber"? It certainly didn't save the cube in First Contact from being smoked by the Federation's weapons.
It's probably the same twat, although you can't be sure from a username alone (not when it's based on Grand Admiral Thrawn's name, which is bound to be fairly common on sci-fi message boards). In any case, Trek wanking and religious apologism are surprisingly often found together.mr friendly guy wrote:Slightly off topic, but is this Mith on SB.com the same Mith here who accused several board members of being paedophiles without any evidence whatsoever and used a piss poor apology when he was called on it. Afterwards he got terminated?
I occasionally glance, but rarely participate at SB.com these days and from what I have seen of him he seems to be not only a trek wanker but also a religious apologist as well.
I spent 15 minutes wiping the Dr. Pepper that shot out of my nostrils all over my keyboard and monitor when I read that.One Dumb Twat wrote:No, a super-smart caveman won't be able to figure out the laws of EM by fiddling with a computer, but several trillion of them would have a much better chance.
Well by sheer probability they might (Monkeys writing Shakesphere).Elfdart wrote:This quote left me in stitches:
I spent 15 minutes wiping the Dr. Pepper that shot out of my nostrils all over my keyboard and monitor when I read that.One Dumb Twat wrote:No, a super-smart caveman won't be able to figure out the laws of EM by fiddling with a computer, but several trillion of them would have a much better chance.
. [Which ain't the case, obviously enough in a war]
Take a good look at Robert Walper when he goes into Borg Mode. Literally he's a classic fanboy archetype of Borg lover.Imperial Overlord wrote:What is it with Borg wankers and "adaptation is the uber"? It certainly didn't save the cube in First Contact from being smoked by the Federation's weapons.
I know the feeling, I was debating some idiot on Startrek.com and the guy was moving the goalposts on the debate when he realised he was losing, and when I called him on it he actually admitted doing so but didn't even try to defend himself and he exepected people to accept his BSDarth Wong wrote:Basically, you can tell when someone's a fanboy by his use of the "shifting the burden of proof" and"moving the goalposts" fallacies. Those two fallacies (especially the first one) are almost always found in extreme fanboy arguments, as you can see by their heavy use in religious arguments (religious people are, after all, the first and worst fiction fanboys).
"I don't have to prove the Borg can do that, you have to prove they CAN'T!"
"I don't have to prove God exists, you have to prove he DOESN'T!"
Actually I believe it was a different Mitth (spelled with two t's) that did the pedo thing; 'Mitth' was a sock which was terminated later after "Mitth'raw'nurodo" was banned. Mith showed up here, made an ass of himself (as Ein observed in greater length); apparently he was on SB before then and just returned or whatever.Darth Wong wrote:It's probably the same twat, although you can't be sure from a username alone (not when it's based on Grand Admiral Thrawn's name, which is bound to be fairly common on sci-fi message boards). In any case, Trek wanking and religious apologism are surprisingly often found together.mr friendly guy wrote:Slightly off topic, but is this Mith on SB.com the same Mith here who accused several board members of being paedophiles without any evidence whatsoever and used a piss poor apology when he was called on it. Afterwards he got terminated?
I occasionally glance, but rarely participate at SB.com these days and from what I have seen of him he seems to be not only a trek wanker but also a religious apologist as well.
