In other words, you couldn't spare half an hour for almost 2 weeks. Yeah right.The length of the time for my reply is summed up thusly: "It take longer to come up with the truth than to spout a lie."
Besides, I had the SAT to study for. Bite me, Wong Harem Members. I'm here to bitch slap your leader with a dose of reason.
The mockery of fools no longer bothers me.Ah, it took you many days to find a spare half-hour, rather than being shamed into finally responding by everyones' resounding mockery. Yeah, right.
Is distorting quotes a hobby of yours?A "canon" source which is regarded only as canon as the EU continuity (that is, not at all).That would only be true if the canon films explicitly said that they use no neutronium at all in their hulls. You obviously don't know what the word "override" means. I suggest an investment in a basic dictionary.
BTW, it is a strawman distortion to claim that I think they're using "neutronium hulls", which implies that neutronium constitutes the majority substance. And on top of that, neutronium-impregnated hull material comes from a canon source anyway (the ICS books have been declared canon)
Oops, you once again forgot that these "educated guesses" were approved by Lucasfilm, and Dr. Saxton actually went to Skywalker Ranch and saw some of the original blueprints, drawings and computer animatics.Besides that, the ICS author made "educated guesses" towards the specs of the ships and vehicles he drew, none of which was seen in the films (which are maintained as the "primary canon"). How eagerly you accept outrageous figures if it helps your side in any way. Jackal.
Strange. It saysAccording to http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=staff ) is that it is a stout object,even for the walking version . . . a slender walking-stick would be a cane, not a staff. Ie, something that's not supposed to be easily breakable and is NOT thin. And yet, a pissed-off woman bent it. Ouch, that would be such a chore.You're still not getting it, are you? This is a simple matter of geometry; with a sufficiently thin rod, it doesn't matter how strong it is; it will still bend. Do you honestly need this explained to you?
A stick or cane carried as an aid in walking or climbing.
A stout stick used as a weapon; a cudgel.
And it was neither actually, it was a fucking TORCH!
Wow, a thin aluminum pot. Impressive.Oh yes, concrete walls and bulkheads made out of a material an emotional woman can bend. I'm shaking. What about Saavik's obliteration of a metallic pot in ST:VI?Who cares? The point is that on metallic targets, phasers have never demonstrated serious power, while blasters can tear through starship bulkheads and walls.
Strawman.While not a particulary impressive display of power, it removes your false assumption about the idea that phasers cannot pierce metallic objects.
Stop trying to rebute yourself. It's silly.Keep in mind the fact that, in "The Arsenal of Freedom", Tasha notes that whatever melted the tritanium was "beyond our technology".
Starfleet hulls and bulkheads are built of tritanium ("The Managerie" [TOS], "Threshold" [VGR]), an "exotic metallic alloy". An alloy that, combined with the ever popular duranium, would have to be pretty damn tough to take the kind of strains that would be found at FTL speeds. A single dust partical at 99.9999% of c alone has it's mass increased (thanks to Relativity) by roughly 66,000 times. Even with shields and deflectors, the hull materials have to be tough too in such an enviroment. It does not seem illogical to assume that the bulkhead materials of a starship are strong enough to absorb phaser blasts without any real trouble. In "Where Silence Has Lease (TNG)", Riker is scanning the walls of the duplicate USS Yamato when he comments "They're not tritanium". This means that tritanium IS in the bulkheads, so no argument for them being some other material cannot be made.
Hmm...evil superfast dust particles. If only they had a way to stop that. Oh wait, they do. The Navigational deflector. Besides, can you describe what a FTL and STL object collision would be?
Not only, do you admit this was nothing but a hologram, but there is no "Insurection Alpha" episode, and Federation woosh doors are defeated by thrown humans and evil Klingon-Squid monsters' headbutts.However, in "Insurrection Alpha (VGR)", we did indeed see a door being blasted apart by Maquis rebel phasers (sure, it was a holographic simulation, but it was written by Tuvok, so it seems logical that he'd have been as accurate with the situation as possible). The doors might have been made of replicated wood for all we know, but it seems more likely they were simply made of thinner duranium, or a less dense alloy. In any event, it destroys your remark about phasers not being able to blow apart doors or other obstructions if put to the test.
And neither can you.Show me evidence of all this water vapour, which would cause severe burn injuries to everyone near the victim. Oh wait, you can't do that, can you?
Exactly. It's not vaporization.
In other words, you admit it doesn't even resemble normal vaporization, and you instead rely on dialogue and the fact that they vanish, and some crazy "long particle" theory you haven't elaborated on.However, considering that they HAVE mentioned on-air vaporizations with phasers, and the fact we've seen people "vanish" thanks to energy weapons, it seemed logical to assume that they were "vaporized". Perhaps so quickly that the vapor was reduced to lone particles-It's difficult to speculate on this.
The feelings mutual.Wrong again. I strongly suggest you look up the definition of "chain reaction". A conventional laser will not continue to heat a target after it's been shut off, whereas a chain reaction will.Which isn't a chain reaction.
Perhaps, but the effects of an energy weapon are never "instantaneous". Ergo, it is the reaction between the energy of the blast and the matter of the target.Perhaps you could try to prove this?And yes, phaser do use nadion beams to disassemble molecules on the sub-atomic level-It still requires a great deal of energy to actually DO anything of the sort we've seen phasers do. Just because they're "purely" chain reaction weapons (as you implied) does not make them weak-It in fact makes them more powerful, if they can cause the structure of an object to simply fall apart.You seem to think tearing gashes in bulkheads=destroying weak woosh door.Thanks, I already did ("Insurrection Alpha" VGR). BTW, that was with one shot to the door that cause it to blow apart, given by the fact that there was only one phaser leveled toward the door after the fact.You fucking idiot, you're not "wasting" energy to take out an enemy's cover, you're gaining a huge tactical advantage.The way you put it, yes. However, the majority of the firefights we've seen involved wanting to simply stun or kill opponents, not vaporize them (which requires more power). Would YOU want to waste your weapon on burning your way through everything, at full power, just so you'd be out of juice before reaching your primary objective?You can't take out an opponent when he's hiding behind a crate.Not even a Stormtrooper could be that dense. You use the minimum needed juice to take out an opponent: THat's the smart way to have maximum effectiveness.Let's see:And the fact we've never seen Stormtroopers try to blow through obstacles with sheer full powered-weapons blasts doesn't even cross your mind, right? And blowing open a door on the DS1 doesn't count: The door remained intact.
- The destruction of the airlock door on the Tantive 4.
- Long gashes in bulkheads.
- Taking down a giant standcrawler.
- Blowing up the door on the DS1, which despite your insane claims, was not intact.
Blah blah blah, you still can't realize if it sounds like a cow, smells like a chicken and looks like a goose, it's definitely not a duck.
Gee Wong, I wonder: If they "vanished" when they were shot, where did they go? The land of pink fuzzy distortions? Phasers have been said to be able to "vaporize" things. The fact they've made things vanish kind of supports the fact that they vaporized them. The mechanics of the vaporization process, we can only guess at, but it seems logical to assume if they "vanished" and ceased to be cohesive, solid matter, they were vaporized.Then why do the engines of the Falcon turn on while lifting up? No backwash? Please.ICBM silos are reinforced with steel, concrete, and various other materials to make them stronger and survive the launch of the missile they hold. In the Star Wars Universe, wherein they use repulsorlifts (which, I might add, have not shown they produce ANY backwash or exhaust that could damage nearby structures or affect anyone nearby), there is no real need to reinforce docking ports from hot thruster exhaust.Still trying to claim it's dirt? Laughable.Therefore, no need for exotic materials to keep the structure together. It's little more than DIRT and cement. Your statement not only holds no merit; it's completely idiotic. Try something else.
So you can't comprehend analogies.Once again, you are trying to detract from the main issue.Blah blah blah, more lies.Blasters have NEVER shown the ability to vaporize a person, or anything else of consequence, to be completely honest. They have also never demonstrated greater power than a phaser, no matter the methods of the weapons in doing what they're supposed to do. Best they have shown themselves capable of are blowing up windows (gee, glass: I'm shaking), cement, setting fire to clothing, and peircing one-inch thick armor. Armor that has not demonstrated any particular resilience to ANYTHING.Bullshit. SW has machine gun, armor support, and artillery. Federation redshirts will be lucky to get into rifle range.If by the assumption that phasers are more powerful than blasters (which they have shown themselves to be), Stormie's not going to stand a chance.Couldn't you at least say "Oops, I was wrong, sorry?" Guess not.Sue me.
Have you bothered to do ANY research into this?Again, sue me. When something's called a laser, it seems logical to assume it's based upon the modern-day laserI guess that anology went over your head too.And don't try your "ICBM silo" stunt again: Semantics get you nothing but time.Show an example of a Stormtrooper hiding behind a crate and being untouchable. Ooops.Gee, I've just presented surefire evidence that phasers can throw around more power than blasters, and all you can come up with is an insult to my intelligence. Whose pretending?
No-Though my argument should include that, since we've never seen Stormtroopers or Rebels (or anyone else, for that matter) try what you suggest, this doesn't hold much water.No you fucking idiot, it means Starfleet weapons designers need to be shot.Meaning that you're implying Federation troopers are better trained that Imperial ones?In other words, this auto-aim system in so short ranged it's only good on a pistol. Real useful.As for the scopes: Since we only saw them on phaser rifles (which logically should possess more range), it seems likely that auto-aim systems on phaser rifles weren't thought to be needed (or not needed as much). Handheld phasers are the ones that are harder to aim accurately (comparitively speaking), so an auto-aim system would be handy for such a weapon.Except you haven't proved the existence of an auto-aim system.Has it occured to you that the auto-aiming system might have an "off" switch? Training, in this case, would be increasing your natural skills so that, in a firefight WITH the auto-aim on, you have even better aim.I guess the Federation troops in Nemesis turned it off too.Thanks for helping me out.
Let me repeat slowly for you: "O-F-F-S-W-I-T-C-H".
Let me repeat slowly for you: "P-R-O-V-E I-T.
Funny, I can't find the "this is why phasers don't produce any vapor from the target but still vaporize" can you point it out?(sigh) You're pathetic. You draw out the semantics of every argument to try and stall the primary subject. Maybe you should have been a lawyer.
Oh, and BTW: I HAVE explained, thank you.
BLah blah blahAnd I have. The day you teach me anything more than how to attempt to insult someone in order to manipulate a debate is the day I check outside for the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.
In other words, WWII German troops with MG42s would have done better.Once again, trying to draw the debate off subject. Let's try this again:
Starfleet troops, mostly engineers and scientists to determine how to work the Dominion comm system. Add five months of hunger, sleep deprivation, and wracked nerves because of the Houdini mines and Jem'Hadar raids. And they didn't have a machine gun, though it sure as hell would have come in handy.Bullets are hardly fragmentation grenades.Phasers are a bit too narrow-field of fire.Prove it.Finally, THEY WEREN'T MARINES. They weren't a well-trained security detachment: They were basically thrown together to try and make use of a vital strategic resource. They don't have any bearing on the general compentence or ability of true Federation troops.That the Federation lacks a weapon that's been a vital part of warfare for a hundred years?Yes, the Dominion troops ran in as a screaming mass. However, there comes a point where there are simply too many troops rushing against your position to stop them. The reasons for this in the above paragraph support my claim.No, you mentioned dialogue, the fact that it "vanishes" and lone particles.And phasers can do both ("Insurrection Alpha (VGR)". And I have already gone over the vaporization aspect. It seems that this is just too complex for YOU to grasp.I guess where you come from torches are required by law to be able to withstand being smashed up and down?Yes, and a little pansy like you could bend the "staff" (which is thick, as I said, and NOT supposed to bend easily!). And I never said impossible: Nice try on the semantics card, but no cigar.
No, I've emulated his technique of sticking to the facts. YOU are the one who dodges the scientific issues and tries to lead the debate toward something totally unrelated to the subject at hand. It is YOUR lying, bullying, and falsification that has led to this debate.
And who is the one around here insulting your opponent's intelligence and trying to discredit them with language dripping "superiority complex", while dodging the important issues? You aim for nothing but your own selfish motives, and have brainwashed your brood to follow the same line without any logic. You disgust me.