Star Trek: The Next Generation : Shelby Vs. Riker

Re: Shelby Vs. Riker


Russia, ISIS, someone.


Russia would gain nothing and lose a lot, so that doesn't make sense. ISIS doesn't even have an air force.

Re: Shelby Vs. Riker

Al-Quaeda didn't have an airforce on 9/11 but that didn't seem to hold them back.

Re: Shelby Vs. Riker

And they had to hijack airplanes. How would they hijack fighter jets?

Re: Shelby Vs. Riker

I see, you're thinking there can only be one way to bomb someone and it's with an airforce of fighter jets. This is why people think you're an idiot.

Re: Shelby Vs. Riker

No one was talking about their little terrorist bombs like at the Boston Marathon.

Re: Shelby Vs. Riker

Terrorists use terrorist bombs. When normal people think "terrorist bombing" they don't dismiss the possibility because terrorists don't have an airforce. But I am sure it comforts everyone killed by a terrorist bomb to know they aren't really dead because the bomb was only a little terrorist bomb.

Re: Shelby Vs. Riker

Makes your head hurt, doesn't it, User? Reading her stuff?

RIP Gene Wilder. RIP Robert Vaughn. RIP Carrie Fisher. RIP William Christopher. 2016 is the worst!

Re: Shelby Vs. Riker

This is the oddest one yet. Al-Quaeda dropped 2 skyscrapers but pffft they had to hijack airliners so it doesn't count and ISIS can't do anything because they can't hijack military aircraft. I guess it makes her feel safer.

Re: Shelby Vs. Riker

Whatever helps her sleep at night.

RIP Gene Wilder. RIP Barbara Hale. You were great in Perry Mason. RIP William Christopher.

Re: Shelby Vs. Riker

CJ said:


With Trump at the helm, someone will be bombing us.



Russia, ISIS, someone.


Like ISIS is on par with Russia. It was a stupid statement anyway, but then CJ is pretty dumb.

Actually, I do feel pretty safe from terrorism. I'm more likely to die at the hands of a serial killer, or in a car accident. Certain things are always possible, but not likely so I don't spend my time worrying about it, just go on with my life as usual.

Re: Shelby Vs. Riker

How did you work out that serial killers and car accidents are more likely to kill you?

Re: Shelby Vs. Riker

And she says I'm pretty dumb. She's the dumbest person on here. And a staunch feminist. Freak.

RIP Gene Wilder. RIP Barbara Hale. You were great in Perry Mason. RIP William Christopher.

Re: Shelby Vs. Riker

I've been in a lot of car accidents.
I think you are more likely to be maimed than killed.
I have all sorts of stupid little things wrong with me because of accidents, still alive.

I have not been shot ever though or had my head cut off with an old kitchen knife.
I think most people don't think anything is going to happen to them.
If we thought that we would stay in bed all day every day.

Actually running into a serial killer though is very unlikely. I think more people are killed by terrorists in any Gorn year than by a serial killer.

No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed

Re: Shelby Vs. Riker

I've been in a lot of car accidents.
I think you are more likely to be maimed than killed.
I have all sorts of stupid little things wrong with me because of accidents, still alive.

I have not been shot ever though or had my head cut off with an old kitchen knife.
I think most people don't think anything is going to happen to them.
If we thought that we would stay in bed all day every day.

Actually running into a serial killer though is very unlikely. I think more people are killed by terrorists in any Gorn year than by a serial killer.

No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed

Re: Shelby Vs. Riker

Uh...why have your been in so many car accidents? Your insurance must be through the roof.

RIP Gene Wilder. RIP Barbara Hale. You were great in Perry Mason. RIP William Christopher.

Re: Shelby Vs. Riker

My insurance sucks.
But most of my accidents were caused by others running into me!
That's why my boyfriend bought me a motorcycle because he said he didn't want to be collateral damage from someone trying to get me.

I had a spectacular accident on one of my motorcycles where a car speeding in the right hand turn lane to pass people, ran into the back of me. Paid for college, bought a car, and built a porch on my house with that money!

No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed

Re: Shelby Vs. Riker

Wow. How much dough we talking here, Nak?

RIP Gene Wilder. RIP Barbara Hale. You were great in Perry Mason. RIP William Christopher.

Re: Shelby Vs. Riker

Not that much at all😟

No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed

Re: Shelby Vs. Riker


How did you work out that serial killers and car accidents are more likely to kill you?


People are way more likely to die in car accidents than die from a terrorist attack. Same with being murdered by a serial killer.

http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/myths-of-terrorism/


Myth # 5: Terrorism is a deadly problem.

In comparison to homicides in America, deaths from terrorism are statistical noise, barely a blip on a graph compared to the 13,700 homicides a year. By comparison, after the 3,000 deaths on 9/11, the total number of people killed by terrorists in the 38 years before totals 340, and the number killed after 9/11 and including the Boston bombing is 33, and that includes the 13 soldiers killed in the Fort Hood massacre by Nidal Hasan in 2009.10 That’s a total of 373 killed, or 7.8 per year. Even if we include the 3,000 people who perished on 9/11, that brings the average annual total to 70.3, compared to that of the annual homicide rate of 13,700. No comparison.

Re: Shelby Vs. Riker

I thought you were going to say you regularly drink and drive and haunt active serial killer locations.

Do you actually need a lesson on statistics? You probably do so see if you get this. The people who died on 9/11 had less of a statistical chance of being killed by terrorists than you do right now.

Re: Shelby Vs. Riker


Do you actually need a lesson on statistics? You probably do so see if you get this. The people who died on 9/11 had less of a statistical chance of being killed by terrorists than you do right now.


No, it's you who needs the lesson on statistics. There are a hell of a lot more serial killers in the United States than terrorists. And funny how you're trying to change the argument. I said that I am more likely to be murdered by a serial killer than a terrorist. And I'm more likely to die in a car accident. Heck, I'm more likely to be struck by lightning.

http://reason.com/archives/2011/09/06/how-scared-of-terrorism-should


Taking these figures into account, a rough calculation suggests that in the last five years, your chances of being killed by a terrorist are about one in 20 million. This compares annual risk of dying in a car accident of 1 in 19,000; drowning in a bathtub at 1 in 800,000; dying in a building fire at 1 in 99,000; or being struck by lightning at 1 in 5,500,000. In other words, in the last five years you were four times more likely to be struck by lightning than killed by a terrorist.


Don't change the argument, moron.

Re: Shelby Vs. Riker

Strange that you think this is an argument. You thought ISIS needed planes to bomb things, you were wrong. Then you used some safety blanket statements to try and make yourself feel safer and I thought that was funny.

Your counter was to use another safety blanket statement that you were more likely to be killed by a serial killer or car accident in much the same way that smokers claim that they could get hit by a bus tomorrow to explain their stupidity. Fair enough. it comforts you that you could be killed by a lunatic for one reason rather than another or could be ripped apart and/or burned in a car accident rather than a bomb. I especially enjoyed the little disclaimer that it could still happen as though there was no way for you to reduce the risks like a lamb to slaughter if the terrorists come for you.

I only asked how you worked it out because I figured it was from a bs source you looked up to make you feel better and you didn't disappoint.

Now if you want to argue about statistics then first learn to put "statistically" before statements that have not happened to show you at least understand that it's not a fact you are discussing. And remember there are three types of lies.

If I divided the population of the US by the number of boating deaths or skydiving deaths or anything else you never do then you'd have to be a complete idiot to believe that applies to you. But that's exactly what you're doing by accepting that everyone in the US shares the same risks of everything. There are more risk factors than occupying the same massive geographical location. It's not like a big finger comes out of the sky and assigns your cause of death regardless of what you do to get there.

Would you like to present some better targeted statistics and bet your life on any predicted outcome over the next 5 years? Or would you just like to add "statistically" to your statements and admit that statistics tell you the past and not the future.

Re: Shelby Vs. Riker

Would you like to present some better targeted statistics and bet your life on any predicted outcome over the next 5 years? Or would you just like to add "statistically" to your statements and admit that statistics tell you the past and not the future.


------

Well, Jesus will save some of us😀
No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed

Re: Shelby Vs. Riker


Well, Jesus will save some of us😀
That's the back up for when statistics fail.

Re: Shelby Vs. Riker

Fact: I am more likely to die in a car accident, by the hands of a serial killer, or by a lightning strike, than by terrorism. You're too stupid to realize that, User.

Re: Shelby Vs. Riker

That's a great safety blanket, you don't even need to stop and think about how you could be struck by lightning. Do you accept that you're also more likely to be a prostitute and die of a heroin overdose? Can the big finger in the sky make you into a drug addicted prostitute to satisfy statistics?

Re: Shelby Vs. Riker

I'm more likely to die in a car accident than a terrorist attack. I'm more likely to die by the hands of a serial killer than by a terrorist. These are facts, accept them. Moron.

Re: Shelby Vs. Riker

It's a statistical probability not a fact and it's a safety blanket because you believe it is a fact. It's also hilarious how you haven't even considered your personal situation because you could have just declared your circumstances put you out of harms way instead of clinging to your blankie.

I'll think of you as a drug addicted whore because there's statistical basis to do so.

Re: Shelby Vs. Riker

Yes, it is a fact. Either the statement it true or it's not. I am more likely to be killed in a car accident than to be murdered by a terrorist. And I'm more likely to be murdered by a serial killer than by a terrorist. Those are facts.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-terrorism-statistics-every-american-needs-to-hear/5382818


Wikipedia notes that there were 32,367 automobile accidents in 2011, which means that you are 1,904 times more likely to die from a car accident than from a terrorist attack.

Re: Shelby Vs. Riker

I honestly can't tell if you understand this or not. You do so much nuh-uh style arguing even when you are clearly wrong that it becomes hard to tell if you believe your own nonsense or not. In this case I'm actually starting to think you don't get it.

If you count causes of death of other people to work out your risks then you're working out a statistical probability, it's a guess and a bad guess, it's not a fact. You're generating probabilities for causes of death that you are no risk of at all and if you change the area from the entire country to your state or city or street then the probabilities change without changing anything about you.

Most premature death is preventable in some way even if it isn't completely foreseeable. Someone has to make a decision and then do something to cause the death. It looks random if you only look at the results but it isn't random there are steps to get there. People get murdered for reasons, cars crash for reasons, accidents happen for reasons. There is no link between someone dying in a car crash on the other side of the country and your chances of dying in a car crash.

If you look at something that is completely random, say Powerball. The statistical probabilities of winning are calculated by working out how many different combinations of numbers are possible for each draw. The odds are in the tens of millions. People beat the odds. And the odds reset every draw but you have to actually enter to win.

Your method of working out statistical probability would count the number of players and/or winners and then assign the same statistical probability of winning to someone with 500 entries and someone who doesn't even play.

You're gullible in believing something just because it is presented as a statistic. There could be a spectacularly successful terrorist attack next year that throws the stats out without actually increasing your risks. And there is never going to be a massive reduction in car crashes that would mean you could safely drink and drive while speeding without a seat belt.

Is your feeling of safety only because you read the stats? Can you not make sensible risk assessments of your own circumstances?

Re: Shelby Vs. Riker

I'm more likely to be killed by a serial killer than a terrorist. True or false, which is it?

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: Shelby Vs. Riker

Lol, either neither or both.
If it happens to you its 100% probability.
If it doesn't happen it is 0 % for that moment in time.

No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed

Re: Shelby Vs. Riker

You may need to direct her to a website for her to understand that.

Re: Shelby Vs. Riker


Lol, either neither or both.
If it happens to you its 100% probability.
If it doesn't happen it is 0 % for that moment in time.


I am more likely to be murdered by a serial killer than a terrorist. That's a fact.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-terrorism-statistics-every-american-needs-to-hear/5382818


Calm Down … You Are Much More Likely to Be Killed By Boring, Mundane Things than Terrorism

Number of American civilians who died worldwide in terrorist attacks last year: 8 — Minimum number who died after being struck by lightning: 29.

The National Safety Council reports that more than 6,000 Americans die a year from falls … most of them involve people falling off their roof or ladder trying to clean their gutters, put up Christmas lights and the like. That means that you’re 353 times more likely to fall to your death doing something idiotic than die in a terrorist attack.

Toxoplasmosis is a brain-parasite. The CDC reports that more than 375 Americans die annually due to toxoplasmosis. In addition, 3 Americans died in 2011 after being exposed to a brain-eating amoeba. So you’re about 22 times more likely to die from a brain-eating zombie parasite than a terrorist.


Those are also facts. If you can't understand, then you're not too bright.

Re: Shelby Vs. Riker

I may as well ask. Do you know if you've pissed off a serial killer and he is standing next to you telling you he is going to kill you as soon as you admit statistics are just statistics and not a crystal ball?

Re: Shelby Vs. Riker

She would make an excellent politician User.

Re: Shelby Vs. Riker


She would make an excellent politician User.
She'd make a good target for politicians for believing that such broad stats mean anything but it would be a brave polly that stood up and told you not to worry about being murdered because you're more likely to be raped.

Re: Shelby Vs. Riker

That also User.

Re: Shelby Vs. Riker


I may as well ask. Do you know if you've pissed off a serial killer and he is standing next to you telling you he is going to kill you as soon as you admit statistics are just statistics and not a crystal ball?


Don't have to have pissed off a serial killer.

I am more likely to be murdered by a serial killer than a terrorist, true or false? Which is it? Won't answer, huh? Because you know that statement is fact, and that I'm right.

Re: Shelby Vs. Riker

Statistically, am I more likely to get breast cancer or kidney cancer?
🤔😟😟😟😟
No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed

Re: Shelby Vs. Riker

That's supposed to comfort you Nak. Maybe it doesn't work as well when you put "statistically" in front.

Re: Shelby Vs. Riker

Nak, you are more likely to get breast cancer than kidney cancer. That's a true statement, no need for the word, "statistically."

Re: Shelby Vs. Riker


Nak, you are more likely to get breast cancer than kidney cancer. That's a true statement, no need for the word, "statistically."
If you're using statistics to work that out then you need to say "statistically" so everyone knows you're not an idiot.

Re: Shelby Vs. Riker

Using statistics I am more likely to get breast cancer.
On one site I looked at;
Breast cancer 246,660
Kidney/renal 23,050.
Yikes that a big difference.
Anyway. In 2013 I had Kidney cancer.
Statistics are pretty much useless in my opinion.
😟
No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed

Re: Shelby Vs. Riker


Statistics are pretty much useless in my opinion.
Statistics have their uses it's just that individual risk assessment isn't one of them. Statistics for cancer help with medical planning or to spot increases so that causes can be pinpointed and reduced.

Re: Shelby Vs. Riker


If you're using statistics to work that out then you need to say "statistically" so everyone knows you're not an idiot.


No, you don't need to use the word, "statistically" in the sentence for it to be right. You're the one being the idiot. Not me, not Global Research:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-terrorism-statistics-every-american-needs-to-hear/5382818


Calm Down … You Are Much More Likely to Be Killed By Boring, Mundane Things than Terrorism

Re: Shelby Vs. Riker

Now that you have Nak's medical history you know that she is more likely to have kidney cancer so your answer was wrong unless you add in statistically and then it's just meaningless.

Nobody does personal risk assessment by looking at national stats, nobody. Anyone who tells you that you should is an idiot or is deliberately trying to misdirect you. You got suckered so hard you can't even look at your own risk factors.

Re: Shelby Vs. Riker

Re: Shelby Vs. Riker

I read some time ago about this in the German Army during WW2. This doctrine of theirs was considered to be one of the major reasons their Army was so hard to beat, despite their smaller size.

If the top man in a unit, whether enlisted or officer, received an order from a superior and he couldn't help but see that order as stupid, ignorant, or idiotic, he had a duty to disobey that order. If he obeyed it and the disaster he predicted came true, he could and probably would face a court-martial from his superior's superiors.

The reasoning behind this is that his immediate superior, being located probably miles away from the area of this particular operation, cannot see all that the top man sees and therefore may not posses the knowledge to make intelligent decisions and thus intelligent orders in an immediate time-frame.

The top man there on the ground, knows whether he needs additional troops, air support, or if those things will only delay action that needs to be taken right at that moment.

There was an episode of Hogan's Heroes where Colonel Crittendon, being senior to Hogan, order the men to carry out an order of his the following day. They including Hogan himself are all in agreement that this order is stupid, that it will result in failure and the discovery of their operation, and in them all probably getting tortured for information regarding their underground contacts and then most likely all of them getting executed.

I think to be a good leader, a proper leader, you sometimes are going to have to stick your neck way out for the sake of your men and in this case your operation. Hogan probably should have told Crittendon, " No Sir, we are not going to do that. ".

I'm sure Crittendon would have told him, " I can get you all court-martialed for that, particularly you, Col Hogan. ". To which he should probably reply, " It wasn't their choice, it was mine, so if you want to court-martial me, fine, go ahead, in the mean-time I will do what I think is best for my men and my operation and this war effort. ". If memory serves Crittendon gets accidentally knocked out and so Hogan is back in charge and he cancels Crittendon's idiotic order.

With regard to Jellico, he had the backing of Starfleet Command so it wasn't just one man making decisions regarding changes to be made to the D, there was a consensus behind him.

The same thing with Hogan, there was a consensus from below including himself regarding Crittendon's order. There was no consensus from above regarding Crittendon's order, he ran it past no one else to see what they thought.

There may come a time when you have to disobey a direct order, but you should try to make sure it's for the right reason and you really have no other choice.
Top