I'm unfamiliar with the Flashback reference, but its obvious that everyone had plasma weapons of various different types for years.
As to the references to 24th century plasma weapon use being an anachronism, since they were used centuries before -- i find this laughable. No one considers it an anachronism that both 17th century soldiers and 21st century soldiers both use projectile firearms. Its obvious that there are many different types of plasma weapons.
Its really cumbersone to remove all these suppositions -- people should avoid writing "plasma weapons were never used up until this point" or "plasma weapons stopped being used at this point" references unless someone specifically states this. Each occasion of a plasma weapon being referred to or seen should be catalogued -- without making silly suppositions as to why it wasnt seen earlier or later or why it shouldn't have been used -- each reference or mention is porbably referring to a vastly different thing, as this is a very general topic. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 21:49, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, in fact, if we want to be pendantic, a Plasma cannon was used by the Na'kuhl in "Storm Front", wasn't it? During WWII? A long time before Starfleet! zsingaya 21:51, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)
According to the Plasma rifle article, EarthStarfleet (granted it's not the Federation Starfleet) was using plasma weapons. This article strictly says that they didn't use plasma weapons until the 2290s. If I was reading a wikipedia article on the Army, and it says that they started using projectile weapons in the 1960s, I would change it, or at least bring it up on the talk page. Clearly the fake wikipedia Army article meant that they started using M-16 projectile weapons in the 1960s. So, it is probable that Starfleet started using some kind of more powerful plasma-based weapons. More powerful than Farmer Moore's version, but not as powerful as the Jem'Hadar's. By the way, I wasn't the one who removed the quote from the article. I was just using my little "joke" to bring it to someone's attention. I don't have a problem with it being there, although it probably should be clarified to represent other information, and definitely expanded somewhat.--Tim Thomason 01:50, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC)