The Laithan war. Rejoice, Chapter Seven is now here!

[Mikey]

i'm more than happy to list the myriad variants of the huey which are armed/armoured and conducted transport roles, alongside anti-infantry and anti-vehicular capabilities, many transports eg BMPs, Bradleys and Warriors, and other infantry fighting vehicles and armoured personal carriers are multi-role

The BMP-1, which was the first of its kind, and the others you listed are actually calssed as IFV's - infantry fighting vehicles - and are in fact inteneded to be combat fire-support units.

And Thorin - if the "hoppers" are intended to be used either tactically or strategically with covering fire, then their characteristics can be discussed as identical to that of the Argo vehicle. If you want to talk about what common sense or logic would dictate assuming it's a combat-intended vehicle, then forget about shields for a moment... let's discuss why it exposes all its occupants and why it uses wheels, of all things.

[Thorin]

You've been quite insistent in claiming that it might have shields in contradiction of the available evidence. You are making the claim for the existence of the shield - the burden of proof is on you. Provide proof or concede.

The fact of the matter is it might have a shield. We cannot say the odds, other than it is non-zero.
There is no on-screen evidence of a forcefield. I don't wish to repeat myself again, but the fact that it has a logical placing and fits with SF policy, and with no practical implication (ie size constraints of the Argo).

Claiming that something is not an absolute means I don't need proof. To claim it is an absolute (whether it definitely doesn't or does exist) requires proof. I have not claimed an absolute; simply that it is non-zero and considerably higher than candyfloss anti-matter pods.

[Mikey]

Well, saying that you don't claim it is OR isn't really nullifies the debate, and sort of makes me wonder why you chose to debate the point in the first place. As far as

fits with SF policy, and with no practical implication (ie size constraints of the Argo).

I don't know where we've ever seen either Starfleet's policy on ground vehicle design or the minimum space and power requirements fro a viable vehicle-sized shield system. Please let me know in which eps a/o films these were addressed.

[Thorin]

Well, saying that you don't claim it is OR isn't really nullifies the debate, and sort of makes me wonder why you chose to debate the point in the first place. As far as

fits with SF policy, and with no practical implication (ie size constraints of the Argo).

I don't know where we've ever seen either Starfleet's policy on ground vehicle design or the minimum space and power requirements fro a viable vehicle-sized shield system. Please let me know in which eps a/o films these were addressed.

Worf's communicator could make a bubble shield - which probably gave the same surface area as would be required for the Argo. It also isn't made to create forcefields, and is only about one cubic centimetre. So if that lasted for 10 seconds, then if you could have 1000 communicators, you could power an Argo-required forcefield for 3 hours. So no problems regarding the size. It was addressed in 'Data's Day'.

And regarding your first point - I didn't choose to debate this, I believe Rochey did - who has actually conceded that the Argo may have a forcefield. Seafort and yourself seem to think that "maybe" is an absolute and as such requires proof. It does not.

[Captain Seafort]

You attitude seems to be that the default assumption must be that the Argo has a shield. This is not the case. Unless a property is demonstrated to exist pasimony demsnds that we assume it does not. Either provide evidence that the Argo has a shield or concede.

[Thorin]

You attitude seems to be that the default assumption must be that the Argo has a shield.

I have made no such assumption and I don't get how you can still think this - I have categorically stated it is not so in virtually every single one of my posts on this matter. It may have a shield. It may not. The reason I have concentrated on "it may" is because you have tried to disprove something which cannot be disproven.

This is not the case. Unless a property is demonstrated to exist pasimony demsnds that we assume it does not. Either provide evidence that the Argo has a shield or concede.

Concede what? That it may not have a shield? I concede that. I do not concede that it categorically, definitely, does not have a shield.

[Mikey]

Worf's communicator could make a bubble shield - which probably gave the same surface area as would be required for the Argo. It also isn't made to create forcefields, and is only about one cubic centimetre. So if that lasted for 10 seconds, then if you could have 1000 communicators, you could power an Argo-required forcefield for 3 hours. So no problems regarding the size. It was addressed in 'Data's Day'.

And this describes Starfleet's policy how, exactly? You said you knew what the policy was regarding shielding small vehicles. In which ep or film can I see the same thing?

And regarding your first point - I didn't choose to debate this, I believe Rochey did - who has actually conceded that the Argo may have a forcefield. Seafort and yourself seem to think that "maybe" is an absolute and as such requires proof. It does not.

You know what, Thorin? I understand that you are still very young, but as you get older you will hopefully understand that you can't go around thinking - and saying - that you're brilliant and everyone else is stupid. You think you're going to tell me what the word "maybe" means? My last post went to the core of that very concern, if you would have bothered to read it before responding to it. But the point remains that this is a forum for discussion, and there is no discussion - and you make no point whatsoever - if you merely say that any particular issue is a "maybe."

If you want to assume that you are that much smarter than everyone else, go be brilliant and lonely. If you want to interact with people, then do so - but if you make a point on a discussion forum, then make it and defend it. Don't weasel out of it by saying that you in fact have made no point at all. While you're busy defining terms for everyone, check a couple out for yourself - start with "discussion."

[Thorin]

You know what, Thorin? I understand that you are still very young, but as you get older you will hopefully understand that you can't go around thinking - and saying - that you're brilliant and everyone else is stupid. You think you're going to tell me what the word "maybe" means? My last post went to the core of that very concern, if you would have bothered to read it before responding to it. But the point remains that this is a forum for discussion, and there is no discussion - and you make no point whatsoever - if you merely say that any particular issue is a "maybe."

If you want to assume that you are that much smarter than everyone else, go be brilliant and lonely. If you want to interact with people, then do so - but if you make a point on a discussion forum, then make it and defend it. Don't weasel out of it by saying that you in fact have made no point at all. While you're busy defining terms for everyone, check a couple out for yourself - start with "discussion."

Ahh, the age old patronise him til he backs down.
Nice try - but the fact that this debate continues shows that you don't know the meaning of the word maybe. That it is not an absolute and only with proof (not evidence) can a maybe be turned into a definite.
My entire point all along has been a maybe - you are the one who continues it, not I. If you choose to pick up on something that, as you claim, has no point, then you've got no one to blame but yourself.

[Captain Seafort]

If you want to claim something (and "maybe", in the face of all the evidence, is a claim) then it's your job to back it up. Do so.

[Thorin]

If you want to claim something (and "maybe", in the face of all the evidence, is a claim) then it's your job to back it up. Do so.

You are claiming that there is no forcefield. Back it up.

[Tsukiyumi]

Tea, anyone?

Take deep breaths now, and... relax.

Ahhh. Doesn't that feel better?

[Captain Seafort]

If you want to claim something (and "maybe", in the face of all the evidence, is a claim) then it's your job to back it up. Do so.

You are claiming that there is no forcefield. Back it up.

You are the one making the claim that an additional entity (the shield) is present. The burden of proof is yours.

[Thorin]

If you want to claim something (and "maybe", in the face of all the evidence, is a claim) then it's your job to back it up. Do so.

You are claiming that there is no forcefield. Back it up.

You are the one making the claim that an additional entity (the shield) is present. The burden of proof is yours.

You fail to understand the meaning of a maybe. You are the one making the claim of an absolute. I am not. The burden of proof is actually yours.

[Sionnach Glic]

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.

I didn't choose to debate this, I believe Rochey did -

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.

who has actually conceded that the Argo may have a forcefield.

I have not conceeded the Argo may have a forcefield.

I have no evidence that the vehicle has shields

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?

[Mikey]

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