Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2010 19:04:33 -0400
From: mark <whitroth at 5-cent.us>
To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at KeithLynch.net>
CC: wsfa Official List <wsfa-forum at yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: [wsfa-forum] Scalzi & Pipe
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at KeithLynch.net>

Mike B. wrote:
> 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.

That's stupid. Furthermore, it's demonstrably false: for example, Krygyzstan
the other day.

  mark