Absolutely right. The original PTB and Meyer were all quite familiar with conventions of the sea, and incorporated them liberally.
"We don't Surrender" Star Trek 6
- Thread starter Uptightgirl
- Start date
- Status
Absolutely right. The original PTB and Meyer were all quite familiar with conventions of the sea, and incorporated them liberally.
^Is there a point to this, or are you spamming?
If you have to ask...
^*sigh*
I know, I know...
I know, I know...
I'm banking spam. I'm not the brightest one in the bunch, but I personally wouldn't pick a thread where people are arguing to drop in and say "hi" for the first time.
hotbabe1, I'm giving you a friendly at the moment. But should I see similar behavior, I will be warning you...hotbabe1 said:
do you like being on here
The TUC novelization contains a few nice details regarding the Kronos being torpedoed. It's said that the Enterprise's torpedo system generates a small burst of neutrinos when the system is armed and ready to fire, which raises the possibility for the reader that the assassins really did fire from the Enterprise (until Spock deduces the cloaked BOP.) This also clarifies Chekov's line when he says that only a cloaked ship could produced a field "that large."
But there are legitimate reasons to post several times in a row on a thread -- when there's responses to several posts that have gone into different sub-threads, for example, or when a person wants to rally interest in a thread that's laying fallow, such as Caption This! threads. The occasional newbie striving to make mischief doesn't seem worth it.DS9Sega said:
I'm actually surprised the system LETS users post multiple times in sequence in the same thread. It oughta look to see who posted last, and if it's the same person... DENIED!
Don't worry, it's being dealt with. 
Someone doesn't understand politics at all...
You could have all the witnesses you want on the Enterprise, but the Klingons would never believe them, because they are the enemy. Imagine it this way... the U.S.S. Target is hit by missiles coming from the direction of a Russian cruiser. The Target turns to attack the Russian ship, which disables the ship further. The Russians grab the Target's command crew, puts them in the brig and says, "Comrades! We have witnesses from our crew who swear we didn't fire. It must've been from a sonar-proof sub that surfaced in our wake." YOU'D believe their "evidence". right?
The result? Def Con Three.
You could have all the witnesses you want on the Enterprise, but the Klingons would never believe them, because they are the enemy. Imagine it this way... the U.S.S. Target is hit by missiles coming from the direction of a Russian cruiser. The Target turns to attack the Russian ship, which disables the ship further. The Russians grab the Target's command crew, puts them in the brig and says, "Comrades! We have witnesses from our crew who swear we didn't fire. It must've been from a sonar-proof sub that surfaced in our wake." YOU'D believe their "evidence". right?
The result? Def Con Three.
Uptightgirl
Lieutenant
And why not?
Just because you see a missile coming from the general direction of the enemy does not mean they fired it.
In your case the Russian cruiser could easily be checked as regards it inventory and also recent burn marks for launching of any weapons.If the Russians are protesting their innocence there must be a reason and if they give you access to their logs,etc....you have to keep an open mind...
You can't just go off 1/2 cocked and start www3.
And a Al Queda sonar proof mini sub hiding in the wake of a Russian cruiser could torpedo a U.S.S Warship in an attempt to trigger WWW3 and send us all back to the caves.Something they desperately want.
Also the USS Target's crews would have to ask themselves as to why the Russians would bother with an explanation if they had indeed fired.
Think about it.
Why would they bother explaining anything at all?
Why would they fire a damaging blow and then deny it?
Why would they need to deny it at all if they had indeed fired.
They would fire to destroy and not to just damage and offer explanations.
Do you think the Japanese after attacking Pearl Harbour,then denied it and said it was someone else.
Do you think Americans sunk Japanese ships and explained to them they had not?
You don't start WWW3 due to blinkers.
It seems after that last post by ds9sega I have won the argument fair and square.
Thanks ds9sega for handing me victory from the jaws of defeat on a plate.
Yippppeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
Just because you see a missile coming from the general direction of the enemy does not mean they fired it.
In your case the Russian cruiser could easily be checked as regards it inventory and also recent burn marks for launching of any weapons.If the Russians are protesting their innocence there must be a reason and if they give you access to their logs,etc....you have to keep an open mind...
You can't just go off 1/2 cocked and start www3.
And a Al Queda sonar proof mini sub hiding in the wake of a Russian cruiser could torpedo a U.S.S Warship in an attempt to trigger WWW3 and send us all back to the caves.Something they desperately want.
Also the USS Target's crews would have to ask themselves as to why the Russians would bother with an explanation if they had indeed fired.
Think about it.
Why would they bother explaining anything at all?
Why would they fire a damaging blow and then deny it?
Why would they need to deny it at all if they had indeed fired.
They would fire to destroy and not to just damage and offer explanations.
Do you think the Japanese after attacking Pearl Harbour,then denied it and said it was someone else.
Do you think Americans sunk Japanese ships and explained to them they had not?
You don't start WWW3 due to blinkers.
It seems after that last post by ds9sega I have won the argument fair and square.
Thanks ds9sega for handing me victory from the jaws of defeat on a plate.
Yippppeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
It was a different time, uptightgirl... Have you studied the history of the Cuban Missile Crisis? That's an example of where someone going off half-cocked could've started WWIII...
No one would buy that excuse in the heat of a situation like that. No one's going to think about "why would they do that?" especially after the others fired on their ship and kidnapped the command crew. That's throwing gasoline on the fire, not smothering it.
And chants of "Yipeee" don't change the fact that arguments are riddled with metaphorical black holes.
And chants of "Yipeee" don't change the fact that arguments are riddled with metaphorical black holes.
But when no one else is around, it's a safe bet that it came from the enemy. And don't say that it was the cloaked BOP, and I know you will, because, I will re-emphasize that NEITHER THE KLINGONS NOR THE FEDS KNEW THE TECHNOLOGY EXISTED!!!!!!
Just because there isn't a weapon in their inventory doesn't mean that there's not a weapon.
Again, the logs showed they did fire. Please refer back to the scene I referenced a post or two up. Again. Now, let's think this through. You just got the hell blown out of your ship. 2 guys in Federation attire come on and shoot up your men. There is seemingly only one other ship around (a Federation ship at that!!!), and they're protesting their innocence. Are you really going to buy that, or any random excuse they give? No, because all available evidence points to the other ship.
Have you considered that the first 2 WW's were caused by people not thinking their actions through?
Okay... that was random.
How many criminals have been caught, and came out saying, "Yep, it was me. I shot that family up real good!" No. They will claim their innocence. In a previous post, you compared this to the DS9 episode "In the Pale Moonlight." Here's a quote just for you fromm Garak:
The Klingons and the Romulans may hate eachother, but I'll bet they aren't that dis-similar. They would probably think the same way, which may have been part of what the conspirators were banking on.
You first.
Why did the conspirators not fire to kill? That would have definately made the Enterprise look guilty! Have you considered that bad guys are the best strategists? It is entirely within the realm of possibility that Kirk (let's say he did it for a moment) would cripple the ship, kill his main target (Gorkon) and get out. Why would you going with the world war theme, why would you nuke a whole town just to kill one guy? You would send in specialized people to do a surgical attack.
You can't even begin to compare the two situations!!! Really!
Yes, because this situation is any more similar. We have two nations in a hot war, is there really any reason they would deny it? "Yes, Mr Japanese president, I would just like you to know we didn't kill that last cruiser. I would like the points for that kill to go to The British."
The hell does that even mean?
This is good. You mis-interpret someone's post and declare it a victory. However, you kindly point out that you were (and for the record, still are) losing. Go you.
- Status
Similar threads
