Robert Walper wrote:Picard's statement
is the evidence by which I submit Starfleet suffered heavy losses at the hand of the Borg.
So all you have is Picard mentioning "losses" from the Borg attack and the Dominion war, and from this you take to mean Starfleet suffered heavy losses,
possibly dominate losses? You honestly don't see the problem here, do you?
Note: I was pointing out Picard's mention of the Borg's losses along side with the Dominion ones as an indication of the magnitude of the number of ships the cube cost Starfleet.
Which you have no data on.
And I'm disputing your claim that I was "asserting" the Borg losses relative to the Dominion ones were dominate. I said
that was possible, I was not asserting so.
An assertion is by definition a forthright statement. Y'know, like saying "
I take this to mean that the Borg assault during ST:FC inflicted massive starship losses." When compared next to the Dominion War, which sees fleet casualties up in the hundreds, I don't think the Borg could have inflicted the same level of destruction.
Learn to read. Taking Picard's statement, I've submitted the Borg inflicted heavy losses upon Starfleet. I then suggested the possibility such losses might have been greater then that of the Dominion war.
Hey numbnuts - taking a piece of dialogue that is open to interpretation doesn't make you flash, nor does it necessarily provide evidence for your position. Picard mentioned the losses incured by the Borg in the same sentence as he did the Dominion War - that's
it. No fleet numbers, no casualty lists, nothing. Just a scrap of dialogue before the rest of the film went on.
From this, you suggest the "possibility" that therefore Starfleet suffered heavy losses (possible, not disputing that), and that somehow they may have been "dominate" (which is what I
am disputing).
From this, others have suggested different "possibilities," such as the stunning revelation that perhaps Picard was merely recounting the two events chronologically.
Was this reinforcements of Earth or DS9? Those locations are seperate, and vast distances from eachother. It would make sense if Starfleet is maintaining a strong core defense, and thus reinforcements to DS9 or relative areas would require time.
It would make sense, wouldn't it? It would also make sense to have a fleet in easy reach of DS9, which is so close to the Dominion, wouldn't it? It would also make sense to keep a fleet near the Klingon and Romulan borders, to make sure those two nations keep to their side, wouldn't it?
And it would also make sense, given that the Klingon war was chronologically before the Borg incursion, that Starfleet suffered some ship losses and was forced to reposition some of it's fleets. And further, the Borg incursion may have been completely unexpected, throwing Starfleet into chaos. Which is why Sisko said "Thanks to war with the Klingons and the recent Borg attack, Starfleet's stretched pretty thin."
And seeings this point somehow mutated into what it is currently, when my original point was "how can a day-long battle compare to a two-year war" I have no idea what the hell you are on about. Especially when you didn't answer me. How exactly can a single Borg attack compare to war involving thousands of ships?
Pre-war era, idiot!
Hey, fuck you arsehole. You asked for precedent, I provided it. Maybe Starfleet cleaned up their act after BOBW and before FC. Or maybe they
didn't, seeings a Breen strike force could bombard San Francisco in one of the later DS9 episodes. Or ADM Leyton could only send the USS Lakota out to intercept the USS Defiant in "Paradise Lost." Or when Starfleet could only send 15 ships to the neutral zone, where twice that number of Romulan ships were gathering in "All Good Things..." Or when an ADM voiced concerns about "Earth's vulnerability" when planning the attack on DS9 in "Favour the Bold." Maybe Starfleet needs to play some more chess, they don't seem to be too good at strategy. And all of the above happened in times of heightened security ("All Good Things..." "Paradise Lost") or outright wartime (DS9), and yet Starfleet still had problems dealing with strategy.
*snip Endgame*
So to prove Starfleet's response time in
relation to the Borg attack in First Contact you provide an episode which takes place
years after the events in First Contact? Stunning. And yet you criticise me for citing an episode that was pre-war.
Yes, I suggested it as a possiblity. Your limited reading comprehension is your problem, not mine.
Funny, how other people mentioned other possibilities from the same evidence you cite, and yet you had a problem with them as well. If it's only a possibility then perhaps you should stop acting like a brat and realise there are no full answers in this case, only interpretations.
Irrelevent. Two years would not be required to destroy hundreds of Starfleet ships. Only their collective presence and a superior enemy destroying that many forces.
Possibly. No one knows how many fleets or ships actually took part in the assault upon the cube.
Riiiight. Which is why in BOBW only 40 starships, out of a fleet of hundreds, perhaps
thousands, were destroyed when the Borg attacked. Yep, no precedent there...
So now a Borg cube can tear through fleets numbering in the hundreds, eh?
I said it before, and I'll say it again. Picard's choice to mention Borg losses along side Dominion ones suggests the Borg inflicted heavy casualties on Starfleet, even relative to the Dominon war. Why is that so difficult for you to grasp?
Because you interpret the dialogue to fit your view of Borg supremacy. While I and others choose to interpret the dialogue within context; maybe Picard recounted two events in chronological order? Maybe Picard recounted the Borg attack based on psychological scarring? Maybe Picard recounted two similar events - ones involving loss of life and ships - that happened within similar timeframes? Maybe the attack was fresh on Picard's mind as he had come from a strategic evaluation session with SFC, and they determined the weaknesses in Starfleet's positioning of assets? Maybe Picard had a bad dream about the Borg and had them on his mind? Can you seriously look at any one of the above and declare them wrong? They're using the same proof you cite, just interpreting it differently.
Maybe there are other "possibilities" that are different from your own, Robert. When you suggest something which by all rights qualifies as an assertion, and then submit shaky dialogue as "proof", you say "Oh, don't worry - it's just a
possibility." When I put forward my view of the exact opposite, you start hitting the

button and scream "Show proof!" So let me point your question back at you, and rephrase slightly: why is it so difficult for you to grasp that other people may think differently about the Borg?