www.ditl.org

Captain Seafort wrote: It had a very Black Hawk Down feel to it, a realistic depiction of the confusion of the firefight, and an officer who was actually controlling his unit's fire. Most un-Trek like, but well written and fascinating. When's chapter 8 expected?

I got that impression also. I half expected the group to go running towards the downed dropship.

I'm interested to know their plan on the planet. They invading like this throughout the whole planet? Or if they're going to exterminate the Klingons orbital bombardment makes the most sense to me then enslave the Klingon subject races.

Rochey wrote:Wrong. You can always assume the negative (that there is no shield) if there is no evidence to the contrary. As in this situation.
The fact remains that there is no evidence of a shielded ground vehicle. No evidence = does not exist.

Says... You?

I certainly did not. Someone mentioned that the Argo was Starfleet's only ground vehicle. Someone (maybe me) mentioned the pathetic design, then you started claiming the possibility of a shield.

Yes, you did. I said that a theory that may add some credibility to Starfleet would be if the vehicle had a forcefield. I then said it may have one - for all we know. You then proceeded to debate this issue - you were the one who replied to my original post and contradicted it.

I have not conceeded the Argo may have a forcefield.

Have you forgotten what you wrote only yesterday?!
Here it is... Yeah, there may be a 5% chance (or whatever) that the Argo has a shield.
You have just conceded the Argo may have a shield.

And the debate is settled.

You yourself admitted there is no evidence for a shield. Ergo we have no reason to assume the existance of a shield. That is why I stopped debating, becuase you yourself admitted you have no evidence. What was the point of this debate at all?

I don't know - I didn't start it. I said the Argo may have a shield. As there is no proof saying it doesn't, it may. People are having trouble grasping the difference between a non zero and non 1 probability and the absolute of 0 and 1. We don't have a reason to assume the existance of a shield - but the fact remains that there could be one. Just as the the anti-matter pods, as you correctly stated, may be made of candy floss.

Then what, pray tell, are you in fact claiming? There must be a concrete, definite point to your debate, I presume...

That the Argo may have a shield.
Whether that chance be 0.000001%, 50%, or 99.99999% is irrelevant. It may have a shield. The word 'may' does not imply percentage chance. It means simple not a certainty or impossibility.
The difference between an anti-matter pod made of candy floss, and a ground vehicle with adaquete forcefield protection, is that the later is much more likely - as candyfloss neither makes no physical sense, has no logical placing, and is quite impractical.

May I again say - for quite literally the umpteenth time, I am not arguing that the Argo has a shield. I am arguing the Argo may have a shield - and it may. There really is no bias or no question about it. Even if the chance of it having a shield is 0.00001%, there is still a chance.

I do believe that Rochey, Mikey, and Seafort are arguing against a point I never made - that the Argo has shields. I have never, and never will, make that point, because it's unprovable. However, saying that the Argo does not have shields, is also unprovable. So it must be somewhere 'between' there; figuratively speaking.

I ahve to agree with Thorin. Just because we don't see something doesnt mean it doesnt exist.

He never actually said it had a shield just that it has a possibility of having a shield. Which it could although it is unlikely.

And just because we havent seen something doesnt mean it does not exist it means we can not be sure it does or does not.

We didn't see a Miranda before TWOK but it was probably around during TMP even if we didnt see it.

Well, since you refer to someone as "patronizing" when they attempt to defend against your insults - as opposed to arguments - let's be very precise about this.

Thorin wrote:That the Argo may have a shield.
Whether that chance be 0.000001%, 50%, or 99.99999% is irrelevant. It may have a shield. The word 'may' does not imply percentage chance. It means simple not a certainty or impossibility.

Although you don't credit my intelligence with being able to understand English, I do in fact get what you are trying to say. However, debating neither side of an issue is pretty much like kissing one's sister - it can be done, but little is derived from it. So instead of arguing either side of a point, you are arguing... er, nothing?

And I am still interested to know something. You had mentioned that you knew specifically what the Starfleet policy was regarding shielding of ground vehicles. Please let me know what ep a/o film mentioned such a policy.

BTW, is "candy floss" what we refer to on the other isde of the pond as "cotton candy?"

Look, I see no reason at all to continue this debate. Thorin, you are simply repeating 'but it might have a shield'. Yeah, it might. There might also be a god. Q might also be Picard's father. The Enterprise may be made out of chewing gum. Riker may be a hundred years old. Worf might have cow DNA. Most of the above claims are rediculous, and are not supported by any evidence. Which is what you need if you wish to debate anything.
Absence of evidence = evidence of absence.
If there is no evidence then you always asume the negative, that's how a debate works.

Mikey; candyfloss is just the same as cotton candy.

As usual, Rochey puts an item more succinctly than I've been able to. What we're attempting here is a debate between one side and no side, instead of one side and the other.

And thanks for the clarification, Rochey.

pretty much like kissing one's sister - it can be done, but little is derived from it.

Speak for yourself... Mmmm insest.

.....okay.....*backs away slowly*

BTW, Congratulations Teaos; with that last post, you have won the award for "outstanding acheivement in 'TR-116 Syndrome'."

*Steps foward to claim award*

I would like to thank Rochey for always pushing me to new highests of randomness, to Mikey who has always been an inspiration, Seafort... you've always been a hero of mine, Graham and Ian I just want you guys to know that you are the wind beneath my wings.

Mikey wrote:As usual, Rochey puts an item more succinctly than I've been able to. What we're attempting here is a debate between one side and no side, instead of one side and the other.

Which is why you've been debating against a point I never made, and I have been (unsuccesfully, until seemingly now) unable to drill it in.

It just seems to me to be somewhat illogical to actively take no side - or better, to support both sides - in a debate. It's your right of course, I just don't get it.

Mikey wrote:It just seems to me to be somewhat illogical to actively take no side - or better, to support both sides - in a debate. It's your right of course, I just don't get it.

I made a point of 'not taking a side' - as both sides are unprovable. But a lot of people seem to think otherwise, it was the point of unprovable that people didn't understand.

Mikey wrote:It just seems to me to be somewhat illogical to actively take no side - or better, to support both sides - in a debate. It's your right of course, I just don't get it.

I made a point of 'not taking a side' - as both sides are unprovable. But a lot of people seem to think otherwise, it was the point of unprovable that people didn't understand.

It has been proven, repeatedly. Determining which of a number of theories best fits the data available, and therefore the one to be considered proven, is not the same as a mathematical proof. You are attempting to redefine it as such.

Captain Seafort is correct, of course. To overturn what we've seen, we'd need specific evidence of the alternative.

Thorin wrote:I made a point of 'not taking a side' - as both sides are unprovable. But a lot of people seem to think otherwise, it was the point of unprovable that people didn't understand.

What I don't understand is, what is the aim of not taking a position, and then posting about your decision to not take a position?