Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2010 12:13:15 -0400
From: "Mike B." <yahoo at omniphile.com>
To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at KeithLynch.net>,
 wsfa Official List <wsfa-forum at yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: [wsfa-forum] Scalzi & Pipe
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at KeithLynch.net>

mark wrote:
> Mike B. wrote:
>> mark wrote:
>>> Mike B. wrote:
>>>> mark wrote:
>>>>  > There are very few hostage situations when you have phasers, and set
>>>>  > them to stun
>>>>
>>>> Same is true with flamethrowers, poison gas and nukes....except for the
>>>> "stun" part.
>>> Wrong. If you've got "stun", you don't mind stunning the hostages.
>> Never say, "Wrong" to someone who isn't.  They might use a flamethrower,
>> poison gas or a nuke on you.
>>
>> You are making unwarranted assumptions about unwillingness to kill the
>> hostages, so your "Wrong" is wrong.
> <snip>
> This is a non-sequitur.

No, it isn't.

 > My throwaway .sigfile suggested a hostage situation
> where you come in, and from a hiding place, stun everyone, then separate the
> unconscious bodies.

Yes.

> All I can make from your statement is that as soon as they
> see you, the hostage takers decide to die, and take their hostages and everyone
> they can with them, producing death, but not their original goal (whatever that
> was) in taking the hostages in the first place.

You see, that's where you went wrong.  That's not what I was suggesting
at all.  Expand your horizons.  Consider new concepts.  Think outside
the box of conventional thought.  They take hostages, and I
flame/gas/nuke the place.  End of problem...and much less chance of
anyone taking hostages again, hence "very few hostage situations".  My
tagline was a hint BTW.

> mark "shall we argue *this* sigfile?"

Why bother?

-- Mike B.
--
"He that lives upon Hope dies farting."
                                           -- Benjamin Franklin