www.ditl.org

Deepcrush wrote:Your post was nothing more then an extended attempt to skirt a midline in a conversation while adding nothing more then your thought that canon only counts if you feel like it. I took the sugar coating off of what you said. If you don't like being pointed out for something, don't do it.

No, my post was about to what a canon reference refers. If Picard had said, "Hey - I really like Earl Grey tea!" then it is canon evidence of the fact that he said it - the canon evidence of the fact that he really does like it comes from the depictions of him enjoying said tea, not from him saying that he does. The situation with the Romulan officer is no different. If you can't understand my posts or choose not to read them, that's your prerogative - but if so, then don't try to comment on them. If instead you're just trying to circumvent how things work because you need artificial support for your ideas, then just nut up and put your ideas out there without attempting to make up shit about the applicability of canon. As you say, "If you don't like being pointed out for something, don't do it."

Deepcrush wrote:Other then the topic at hand which is the Breen attack on Earth.

More specifically, at this point the conversation had focused on the existence of dedicated, specialized planetary bombardment weapons. Try to read the conversation first, I promise it will help.

More specifically, at this point the conversation had focused on the existence of dedicated, specialized planetary bombardment weapons. Try to read the conversation first, I promise it will help.

Well at least it is related to the original topic which is a rare thing on derailed topics.

McAvoy wrote:

More specifically, at this point the conversation had focused on the existence of dedicated, specialized planetary bombardment weapons. Try to read the conversation first, I promise it will help.

Well at least it is related to the original topic which is a rare thing on derailed topics.

Now, what are your opinions on the TR-116?

Mikey wrote:

McAvoy wrote:

More specifically, at this point the conversation had focused on the existence of dedicated, specialized planetary bombardment weapons. Try to read the conversation first, I promise it will help.

Well at least it is related to the original topic which is a rare thing on derailed topics.

Now, what are your opinions on the TR-116?

Well.... it looks like a gun that can shoot stuff.

McAvoy wrote:

Mikey wrote:Now, what are your opinions on the TR-116?

Well.... it looks like a gun that can shoot stuff.

Prove it...

Never mind. Nice work McAvoy.

Really mikey? That's it? Get caught being a dumbass again and you decide to troll over it... While you may miss me, I simply pity you.

Deepcrush wrote:Really mikey? That's it? Get caught being a dumbass again and you decide to troll over it... While you may miss me, I simply pity you.

No, rather I tend to ignore commentary which has no basis in reality - such as yours here. However, pity me all you like... if that makes you feel better about yourself, I have no problem with it.

Change of topic...

This thread is now about fire ants.

Those big red ants that look like they can lift my shoe if I step on them?

Can a ship shoot enough fire ants to destroy the crust of a planet?

GrahamKennedy wrote:Can a ship shoot enough fire ants to destroy the crust of a planet?

It's not a question of how many ants it shoots, it's a question of how hard it shoots them.

GrahamKennedy wrote:Can a ship shoot enough fire ants to destroy the crust of a planet?

Judging by my lawn, yes.

Well you do live in Texas...

Captain Seafort wrote:

SomosFuga wrote:Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. We can't assume those shields exist or not

Yes it is, and yes we can.

No is not. And i guess you can but you would be guessing at best.