Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!rutgers!cbmvax!andy
From: andy@cbmvax.commodore.com (Andy Finkel)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Amiga basher
Message-ID: <22448@cbmvax.commodore.com>
Date: 14 Jun 91 14:26:16 GMT
References: <1991Jun10.065629.21255@marlin.jcu.edu.au> <22362@cbmvax.commodore.com> <1991Jun13.042836.8112@marlin.jcu.edu.au> <1991Jun13.065150.3529@cs.mcgill.ca> <1991Jun14.033035.21572@daimi.aau.dk>
Reply-To: andy@cbmvax.commodore.com (Andy Finkel)
Organization: Commodore, West Chester, PA
Lines: 20

In article <1991Jun14.033035.21572@daimi.aau.dk> pilgrim@daimi.aau.dk (Jakob G}rdsted) writes:
>If you do not split up the Enterprise, you miss the full potential of the
>Battle section...

Well, that is kind of true;  however, when is it a good idea to
drop off 90% of the crew in a relatively defenseless hull barely
capable of making warp 1 ?  I always wonder why the Federation
opponents don't pop over, capture the easy part, and force
the battle section to surrender ?  If cloaking devices
exist, seems like the perfect strategy.  :-)

		andy
-- 
andy finkel		{uunet|rutgers|amiga}!cbmvax!andy
Commodore-Amiga, Inc.

 "2.0 is not the answer.  2.0 is the question.  Yes is the answer."

Any expressed opinions are mine; but feel free to share.
I disclaim all responsibilities, all shapes, all sizes, all colors.