www.ditl.org

Good Lord - I'm just glad I got a mouse with a thumbwheel!

Okay, you guys are pretty much right.

I'd like to point out though, that the below post does not indicate an unwillingness, or inability to continue this debate.

Thorin, there is no point in continuing this debate anymore. We are now arguing a subjective definition, which by definition cannot be solved.
This debate has deteriorated into semantics an nitpicking, due to the actions of both of us. There have been several false accusations thrown around by both of us, for which I sincerely apologise for my part in.
The simple fact is that you define a military diferently than I do, and nothing will change either of our viewpoints, ergo there is no longer any point in this debate. I do not wish for this to deteriorate to the point where we both have animosity towards each other due to something as trivial as this, as you apear to be a nice guy.
In short, I am suggesting we merely agree to disagree, and leave it at that. You call it civilian, and I call it military.

If you agree, we can leave it at that. If you disagree I'll write up a reply to your last post, though I really have no interest in doing so.
Well?

Rochey wrote:Okay, you guys are pretty much right.

I'd like to point out though, that the below post does not indicate an unwillingness, or inability to continue this debate.

Thorin, there is no point in continuing this debate anymore. We are now arguing a subjective definition, which by definition cannot be solved.
This debate has deteriorated into semantics an nitpicking, due to the actions of both of us. There have been several false accusations thrown around by both of us, for which I sincerely apologise for my part in.
The simple fact is that you define a military diferently than I do, and nothing will change either of our viewpoints, ergo there is no longer any point in this debate. I do not wish for this to deteriorate to the point where we both have animosity towards each other due to something as trivial as this, as you apear to be a nice guy.
In short, I am suggesting we merely agree to disagree, and leave it at that. You call it civilian, and I call it military.

If you agree, we can leave it at that. If you disagree I'll write up a reply to your last post, though I really have no interest in doing so.
Well?

Agreed with everything you said.

I can see someone coming along now and quoting lots of stuff to make us carry it on

Actualy, now that it's over I'm waiting for Seafort to pop in with canon evidence that proves us both wrong. That's usualy what happens to me and Teaos.

I'm also waiting to see how this thread evolves next.
What innocent comment will expand this thread beyond the forty page mark?

The evidence for Starfleet being a military is pretty simple: When war breaks out they drop what they're doing and fight. Rochey's quotes from ST6 merely back up that fundamental point.

The debate has got to the stage, however, that both participants are areguing round in circles, convinced that they're correct, and saying the same thing with different words, ergo continuing would achieve three-quarters of bugger-all.

Only 3/4?

yes well done rochey for the st6 quotes,wish i could have provided some......

Hey, he said it. Not me.

just to see if this goes over the 38 pg mark,

I thought the Sovereign class was an amazing development from Starfleet.

dang

Agreed, I like the Sov, seems to me to be a great replacement of the GCS.

It's what the GCS SHOULD have been all along, IMO.

No, I don't think so. The GCS was built with peacetime in mind. The Sov came out during the DW and had a much more Realistic mindset in its build. The Sov is a SF show of force. The old "Look what we can build and its better then anything you can" action. The GCS failed to be the Great Show that the UFP wanted...

Well, at least we can all agree the GCS was great, for what it was designed for. It should have been left there.

You mean it should have been put there to begin with...