www.ditl.org

Captain Seafort wrote:

ChakatBlackstar wrote:They aren't weapons.

An weapon is anything designed, modified, or carried with the intention of using it to inflict damage or injury. If you intend to use transporters and tractor beams as weapons then they are weapons. Their unorthodox nature would give you an advantage in the first couple of encounters, but after that they'd be useless.

I still note that you've completely abandoned your previous position that "If you're diplomatic enough you don't need weapons".

But if you don't use the tractors or transporters to inflict damage or injury then they aren't classified as weapons correct? Disabling them or defending yourself isn't on that list.

You couldn't disable any opponent who still had his faculties with a stapler, frisbee, or band-aid. And as Seafort said, if you use them offensively against someone then they ARE weapons.

ChakatBlackstar wrote:Disabling them or defending yourself isn't on that list.

Words cannot express the stupidity of this comment.

To disable a ship you have to damage it. If you defend yourself my any means other than running away you need to inflict damage. Is this explanation simple enough for your ant-sized brain to understand?

Defending yourself by any means other than passive ones - e.g., shields or armor - involves using something AGAINST the enemy... now, that something has become a weapon. A chair isn't a weapon of itself; but if I defend myself against you by hitting you with one, it has become a weapon.

Captain Seafort wrote:

ChakatBlackstar wrote:Disabling them or defending yourself isn't on that list.

Words cannot express the stupidity of this comment.

To disable a ship you have to damage it. If you defend yourself my any means other than running away you need to inflict damage. Is this explanation simple enough for your ant-sized brain to understand?

Insults are the last resort of those who lack a decent arguement. It is possible to disable a ship without damaging it. We've seen it happen several times

ChakatBlackstar wrote:It is possible to disable a ship without damaging it. We've seen it happen several times

State your examples.

Captain Seafort wrote:

ChakatBlackstar wrote:It is possible to disable a ship without damaging it. We've seen it happen several times

State your examples.

Just about every other episode of TNG.

The Mirror Universe episode where the Tholians trapped the NX-01 in their web.

The whale probe

Have you even watched the show?

ChakatBlackstar wrote:Just about every other episode of TNG.

Which part of "state your examples" was unclear?

The Mirror Universe episode where the Tholians trapped the NX-01 in their web.

You mean the one where they blew it apart?

The whale probe

Point. The T'Kon tractor beam would also fall under this category.

I stil note that you've completely abandoned your previous position that "If you're diplomatic enough you don't need weapons".

If you're diplomatic enough you don't need weapons

You wouldn't happen to be related to a guy called Chamberlain, would you?

ChakatBlackstar wrote:

Captain Seafort wrote:

ChakatBlackstar wrote:Disabling them or defending yourself isn't on that list.

Words cannot express the stupidity of this comment.

To disable a ship you have to damage it. If you defend yourself my any means other than running away you need to inflict damage. Is this explanation simple enough for your ant-sized brain to understand?

Insults are the last resort of those who lack a decent arguement. It is possible to disable a ship without damaging it. We've seen it happen several times

I don't think that was an insult but more of a statement of fact. Ants do if fact fight so they are able to understand something that you can't.

ChakatBlackstar wrote:[

Insults are the last resort of those who lack a decent arguement. It is possible to disable a ship without damaging it. We've seen it happen several times

So SF should replace it's weapons with a giant taser, beanbag and stickyfoam gun?

Ships can be disabled, that is not the purpose of combat or war, which is to kill people and break stuff. SF's going to be pretty pooched when it's orbital bombardment time and all they've got is a tractor beam.

Rochey wrote:You wouldn't happen to be related to a guy called Chamberlain, would you?

Now, now, Rochey, no need to be offensive. Chamberlain was bright enough to realise eventually that his diplomacy wasn't working, and that force was required.

Just about every other episode of TNG.

Then you shouldn't be having this much trouble.

The Mirror Universe episode where the Tholians trapped the NX-01 in their web.

The web that crushes things, people, ships and well you know everything else!

The whale probe

The big mean thing-a-ma-bob that was killing the earth, powered down ships and stations and left them to die?

Have you even watched the show?

Now once more with feeling and a mirror...

Seafort wrote: Now, now, Rochey, no need to be offensive. Chamberlain was bright enough to realise eventually that his diplomacy wasn't working, and that force was required.

Quite right. My apologies to Mr. Chamberlain.

And because I have five minutes to spare, I may as well deconstruct the rest of this argument.

Blackstar wrote: Just about every other episode of TNG.

What part of 'give examples' do you have trouble understanding. Making vague references is not giving an example; it's being evasive. Then again, I don't think anyone's surprised at that.

The Mirror Universe episode where the Tholians trapped the NX-01 in their web.

You mean the offensive weapon that they use to ensnare and destroy starships, such as the NX-01?

The whale probe

Which the AQ powers do not have access to.

Have you even watched the show?

Yes. Though from all indications, it seems like you haven't.

Sorry Rochey, Seafort beat us to it.