That was a metaphor?
I took Unimatrix Zero to be literally be cancer, form the Borgs perspective.
I took Unimatrix Zero to be literally be cancer, form the Borgs perspective.
Why do people keep saying Voyager weakened the Borg?
- Thread starter Civ001
- Start date
are you kidding me these people have the most subjective reviews,all they do is hate on Voy check their forums. ugh.
you are a very annoying and idiotic person. check season 1 of Voyager where they used models just like TNG in episodes like ''ex post facto'' etc... you will understand how fast an intrepid moves.
Hell, maybe it's just because VOY played an important role in this story that riles people up. If it had been Hugh and his group of Rebel Borg who cooked up the scheme and VOY offered to help, the audience wouldn't have been so pissed.[/QUOTE]
Exactly all those TNG fan boys cant even accept something positive to come out of Voyager.
Exactly all those TNG fan boys cant even accept something positive to come out of Voyager.
Voyager was going at full impulse around the cube firing all weapons and barely damaging it...i don't see you people mind that a Galaxy class blew up a cube in BOBW LOL and sfdebris are bullshit all the reviews are made by VoY Hater not objective at all.
But they didn't, they got out of it as easily as Picard (body-wise).
It still happened, to much less of a fuss than the much more reasonable idea of them making a temporary vaccine.
I'm pretty sure the ship that picked him up was described as being the same type as the one that crashed.
What scarred him was the mental trauma of what the Borg used him for. Janeway and co didn't go through that because the Borg didn't use them for the same things they used Picard for (assimilation of mankind).
I have, it's not that badly received.
That would have been validating their existence and treating them as individuals. What she did instead was distant and inhumane while still treating them as "irregularities" within the Collective to be purged and not individuals.
Yes.
It does, not as powerful anymore because folks are waking up that the NuBSG approach isn't any good either.
Even DITL says that the TNG Cube was a "massive vessel" whereas the TC gets definitive measurements.
Example: The huge mothership/carrier that has the fuel the smaller attack vessels need to go back for when they use theirs up during the course of battle.
The smaller attack ships that need the refueling and support are Tactical Vessels, the Mothership/Carrier is the Strategic vessel they need to survive more than one battle.
Maybe not all the fighting, just the opening stages of the battles.
Yes, they need to be tougher to scour out all the people, resisting or hiding, while taking further assaults from remaining forces the Tactical ships couldn't handle or missed, at the same time assimilating the people they find and oversee conversion of the entire planet into a Borg Technosphere if need be.
Sounds a bit more daunting that just shooting at stuff and getting blown up.
I'm pointing out that if the ENT-D and ENT-E (and the Defiant) can withstand attacks that blow up other Fed ships in one shot, why can't VOY?
Ah, there it is, the un-incredulous, delivered with a completely-straight-face, "Yes", in response to me basically asking if you actually believe something that is absolutely, 100%, batshit insane. Thank you for clearing that up.
http://www.ditl.org/index.php?daymain=/pagship.php?brgcube
http://www.ditl.org/index.php?daymain=/pagship.php?brgtacticalcube
Sorry, try again.
I'll note that I don't consider DITL truly definitive; it's a fan site, and the creator acknowledges what parts of his figures are pure speculation. But aside from you being wrong about what DITL says, this does back up my overall point that there IS nothing definitive. Like so much else in Trek, it's ambiguous. A fan site can come to its own conclusion, but shouldn't be taken as infallibly correct.
I'm not touching the stuff about which cube needs to be tougher in combat. I've more than proven my point already, and you are grasping at straws with suggestions that putting down the last dregs of resistance on a planet's surface would somehow require bigger guns than fighting off their starships and primary means of defense, and downplaying starship combat as "just shooting at stuff and getting blown up."
I have answered this question, or one very similar to it, a dozen times in a dozen different threads. The question, of course, isn't actually about the ships that can, or cannot, withstand whatever amount of damage, but is about the supposed "double standard" and "Hatedome" toward VOY. They don't exist, and never did.
I wonder how the Borg would handle a Tholian Web?
And after they assimilated the tech, how often they would use it?
And after they assimilated the tech, how often they would use it?
Exactly all those TNG fan boys cant even accept something positive to come out of Voyager.[/QUOTE]
Two things. One don't be calling other posters idiots. It's flaming and a violation of our rules. Two use the multi quote feature, as I have done here, when responding to multiple posters so as not to spam up the thread. Thanks.
Maybe a can of Raid, or other effective bug spray would be serviceable? As for use of the webbing tech, crochet or macrame? The queen seems like the homey, keep one's self busy sort of lady.
To be fair, realistic even, I get the feeling that a post modern man like Picard, I mean Locutus, would have been far more into knitting than the Queen.
She's more of a Samantha than a Charlotte.
"Mysterious Island"
That woman needs to kill her agent.
She's more of a Samantha than a Charlotte.
"Mysterious Island"
That woman needs to kill her agent.
Neelix would try to make a stew from it.
Small miracles.
Small miracles.
LOL haha
QFT
A review has no merit if it's presented from a bias point of view because it's lost it's objectivity. sfbedris often bases how good an episode is simply based on how well he personally likes the character regardless of subject content, acting or cinematography. A review isn't honest if it's based on favoritism. Complaining is not a review, it's simply using a format to bitch.
QFT
A review has no merit if it's presented from a bias point of view because it's lost it's objectivity. Complaining is not a review, it's simply using a format to bitch.
Could you give us an example of a negative TV show or movie review that is based on objectivity and not presented from a biased point of view?
There are plenty of critics and press that have been openly bias about the personal attitudes of such actors like Russell Crowe and Sean Penn, yet that bias isn't shown nor does it affect the reviews of their films or movie projects. They are base upon their performance or film subject content. Richard Gere was black listed by the press and public for comments he made after 9/11, yet his political point of view has no effect on any review of his films he did after. Whoopi Goldberg during the 80's and early 90's was adored by the press and public, yet he TV show "Whoopi" was trashed by the critics.QFT
A review has no merit if it's presented from a bias point of view because it's lost it's objectivity. Complaining is not a review, it's simply using a format to bitch.
Could you give us an example of a negative TV show or movie review that is based on objectivity and not presented from a biased point of view?
Similar threads
