View Single Post
Old February 14 2012, 06:39 AM   #447
Saito S
Fleet Captain
Saito S's Avatar
Location: Redeithia
Send a message via AIM to Saito S
Re: Why do people keep saying Voyager weakened the Borg?

Anwar wrote: View Post
Saito S wrote: View Post
It's a never ending battle alright. Especially when it comes down to one guy repeatedly yelling about a Hatedome that doesn't exist,
Even GodBen said he was a VOY Hater when he and I first entered into our own "I Hate Voy/I Love VOY" debates.
Point out where I said "There are not, and have never been, any individuals who are or were 'haters'."

That's different from claiming the existence of an entire LEGION of angry, Voyager-hating lunatics who were out to hate the show simply for existing from day one. THAT'S what you've claimed is the case, many many times, and that's bollocks.
VOY wrecked the Borg was never said by anyone?
Sure it was. Since "VOY wrecked the Borg" is not one of the outrageous claims I was referring to, it's irrelevant.

I gave it the name it was given by the video games, since the show just has it as generic "Cube". It's not a made-up name.
Yes it is. With a few exceptions (i.e. STO, which was this HUGE project that CBS seemed to have a large hand in), the games are free to do what they want to some degree. In terms of maintaining story consistency with the body of filmed canon, TPTB are even less concerned with games than they are with novels. So it's essentially made up; i.e., it has no bearing on anything.
It is different, even sites that try to give us facts on ship sizes and charts done by said fans say that the Assimilation Cube was much bigger than the Tactical Cube.
Yes, and those sites are speculating. There is no way to know for sure, which is the point I am trying to make. Yet you keep asserting that the Tactical Cube is way less powerful as if it's accepted fact.
For example.

It's smaller,
Meaningless. The Sovereign is smaller than the Galaxy, but is tactically superior.
the name suggests it's for smaller-scale battles (Tactical, not Strategic),
Meaningless. I can't think of a single instance in Star Trek where a ship - fielded by ANY power/species - was referred to as a "strategic anything". In Star Trek, "tactical" = "tailored for combat." That's how the word is used, throughout Trekdom, consistently.
we don't see it at any major planetary assimilations (like in "Dark Frontier"),
Maybe that's because it has less of the equipment needed for assimilating large number of people than the standard cube, because it instead devotes its systems and internal volume to weapons. Hence, "Tactical" cube. Hence, it would be MORE powerful.
and saying it's "Heavily Armed" without any further comparison doesn't mean much. Heavily Armed compared to what, the Probe ship?
Seven said it in a vacuum, comparing it to nothing. She chose that wording as a warning, to try and give Janeway pause before she implemented a plan to attack it. The only logical conclusion from this context is that is is a very powerful ship, even by Borg standards.
That said people exist? Yes.
I never said they didn't.

I'll preempt your inevitable reply pointing out that I said "no one said that!", and just explain now that that's just an expression. A very common one. "Oh come on, no one does that!" or. It doesn't mean LITERALLY NO ONE on the planet. It just means that at the most, a statistically insignificant portion of the group in question (Trek fans, and mainly TrekBBS posters) say it.
No, in the current VOY viewing thread "Does it get any better?" AdmiralScreed says that none of the VOY Borg stories were good because there was no sense of unbeatable doom. Especially Scorpion.
I wasn't referring to "a sense of unbeatable doom", therefore what Screed may have said about that is irrelevant. I was referring to your EXTREME (as extreme as you can get; it would end the show) assertion that "people" wanted to see the Borg taking out the ship in one shot and other such nonsense.
The principles behind the hatred of VOY haven't changed, why should the arguments?

It's following a legacy, just one that's lost momentum.
Thank you for those utterly irrelevant non-responses.

I'll try asking the question again.

Why do you continue to take arguments that someone somewhere made once, years ago, and throw those arguments in the faces of other people - people who never made them - accusing them of taking positions they never took?

Not that I'm expecting to get an answer that makes any kind of sense.

Saito S is offline   Reply With Quote