Defiant For The Borg? Makes No Sense

[Saquist]

Nobody said it was. What you were asked to provide is evidence that Defiant's shields ARE effective....

Established Canon:
Proof that Defiant's shields are effective:

DS9: Defiant- The Defiant's shields repel Cardassian compressors without damage.

DS9: Rules of Engagement- Defiant's shields repel Klingon disruptures

DS9: The Way of the Warrior-Defiant's shields and armor repel Klingon disruptures

And what does this have to do with the price of yo-yos in Russia with regards to her effectiveiness against Dominion weapons?

Established Canon:
Proof that Defiant's shields are effective:

DS9: Defiant- The Defiant's shields repel Cardassian compressors without damage.

DS9: Rules of Engagement- Defiant's shields repel Klingon disruptures

DS9: The Way of the Warrior-Defiant's shields and armor repel Klingon disruptures

And what does this have to do with the price of yo-yos in Russia with regards to her effectiveiness against Dominion weapons?

The fact it was able to come out of most of the engagements with the bugs (after 'The Search' episode and prior to the war) as victorious?
Ablative hull armor alone would not be able to protect the ship for very long (even Klingon weapons were dangerous enough to breach the armor in less than what ... a minute? ... and the only armor that was able to protect a SF ship for long periods of time was the deployable armor technology from 26 years into the future).
The ablative hull armor during DS9 events is just another layer of skin for added protection and allows the ship a nick of time to survive ... it was not designed though to withstand constant pounding for 10 mins or hours from equally powerful foes.
With several bugs firing at you constantly, the shields had to have been effective in a significant enough capacity to increase the vessels survavibility factor.

Manticor,

I believe Deks has done a far superior job at relating the issue through time then I ever could have. I will add the example of the Maquis raider serverely damaging the the Defiant after the shields were completely disabled.

If a Maquis raider could do this then the attack ship should have been lethal. Defiant's systems are closely packed, subsystems are vunerale through proximity alone.

 

[Manticore]

Manticor,

I believe Deks has done a far superior job at relating the issue through time then I ever could have. I will add the example of the Maquis raider serverely damaging the the Defiant after the shields were completely disabled.

If a Maquis raider could do this then the attack ship should have been lethal. Defiant's systems are closely packed, subsystems are vunerale through proximity alone.

I don't remember that happening, was that again Eddington? If so, I imagine that he knew exactly where to hit her. I still think that the connection to the Dominion's effectiveness is...tenuous at best. Especially with the clear statement from someone in a position to know.

 

[Captain_Amasov]

Established Canon:
Proof that Defiant's shields are effective:

DS9: Defiant- The Defiant's shields repel Cardassian compressors without damage.

DS9: Rules of Engagement- Defiant's shields repel Klingon disruptures

DS9: The Way of the Warrior-Defiant's shields and armor repel Klingon disruptures

And what does this have to do with the price of yo-yos in Russia with regards to her effectiveiness against Dominion weapons?

And what does this have to do with the price of yo-yos in Russia with regards to her effectiveiness against Dominion weapons?

The fact it was able to come out of most of the engagements with the bugs (after 'The Search' episode and prior to the war) as victorious?
Ablative hull armor alone would not be able to protect the ship for very long (even Klingon weapons were dangerous enough to breach the armor in less than what ... a minute? ... and the only armor that was able to protect a SF ship for long periods of time was the deployable armor technology from 26 years into the future).
The ablative hull armor during DS9 events is just another layer of skin for added protection and allows the ship a nick of time to survive ... it was not designed though to withstand constant pounding for 10 mins or hours from equally powerful foes.
With several bugs firing at you constantly, the shields had to have been effective in a significant enough capacity to increase the vessels survavibility factor.

Manticor,

I believe Deks has done a far superior job at relating the issue through time then I ever could have. I will add the example of the Maquis raider serverely damaging the the Defiant after the shields were completely disabled.

If a Maquis raider could do this then the attack ship should have been lethal. Defiant's systems are closely packed, subsystems are vunerale through proximity alone.

The Maquis raider damaged the Defiant badly for one simple reason: The writer of that episode wanted it to. This is also the reason why other writers in other episodes make the Defiant god-like in certain battles as well.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Nobody said it was. What you were asked to provide is evidence that Defiant's shields ARE effective....

Established Canon:
Proof that Defiant's shields are effective:

DS9: Defiant- The Defiant's shields repel Cardassian compressors without damage.

DS9: Rules of Engagement- Defiant's shields repel Klingon disruptures

DS9: The Way of the Warrior-Defiant's shields and armor repel Klingon disruptures

The question of Defiant's shield effetiveness is established canon.

Not against Dominion weapons, they were not.

Canon is not in question. Canon /= Truth.
That is appeal to authority not logic in the face of contradiction. It rules your argument out as fallacy.

I am now 100% convinced that you are a troll.

 

[T'Girl]

I'm sorry, but do you have to quote an entire half page in your post, when the post you're quoting is directly above yours?

Maybe just pick out a few relevant lines?

 

[Saquist]

Not against Dominion weapons, they were not.

That's not what you asked for in the previous post.
Regardless, I have proven that Defiant's shields were more effective than the Galaxy Class USS Odyssey and not useless as you have postulated by using Weyoun's quote from CALL TO ARMS.

It's simple logic. You were wrong. It happens to everyone.

I am now 100% convinced that you are a troll.

Intresting,
I find it curious that you feel... the need to inform me of beliefs that have no bearing on the topic of disucssion. Once again...you are being irrelevent and I suspect evassive. Was it really that difficult to accept that you did not understand what "Appeal to Authority" really meant or was it just difficult to accept correction...from me? If the latter, then you're the only one subjecting you to any form of displeasure for despite your declaration to the contrary you are still...here...engaging me...

Truth is not with you.

 

[Manticore]

Not against Dominion weapons, they were not.

That's not what you asked for in the previous post.
Regardless, I have proven that Defiant's shields were more effective than the Galaxy Class USS Odyssey and not useless as you have postulated by using Weyoun's quote from CALL TO ARMS.

It's simple logic. You were wrong. It happens to everyone.

Since the conversation was about its effectiveness vs. Dominion Weapons, and his post was clearly about Dominion Weapons, then it stands to reason that his question was about Dominion Weapons. And while I can understand any confusion that arises because he didn't specifically mention it, there is no call to be as rude as you have been throughout this entire argument (and I know that he has been rude to you, but not nearly so much, and not until provoked).

 

[Saquist]

Since the conversation was about its effectiveness vs. Dominion Weapons, and his post was clearly about Dominion Weapons, then it stands to reason that his question was about Dominion Weapons. And while I can understand any confusion that arises because he didn't specifically mention it, there is no call to be as rude as you have been throughout this entire argument (and I know that he has been rude to you, but not nearly so much, and not until provoked).

No call?
(but you admit he has been rude...)
Not nearly so much? (rude)
(Yet he was the first and only to assume authority so as to order me out of a discussion...)

...If you're going to assume to advocate the "devil" then it would seem logical to avoid the contradictions and defend him rather than to incriminate him...

Truth...Facts...Knowledge... it's all rude to those that don't wish to hear it. Now, this isn't a discussion on social commentary. Let's keep it that way. I wish to stay on topic. I have an open door policy for all intelligent discussion in the proper venue. Please feel free to direct comments & suggestions to my private message account where I will certainly accomodate reason, logic and even to some extent emotional excess. (Please no profanity)

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

Passive-aggressive responses always have made me lol.

Thanks, Saquist. You brighten my day.

 

[Saquist]

Passive is my prefer posture...