3478 réponses à ce sujet

[FuturePasTimeCE]

JohnnyBeGood2 wrote...

smudboy wrote...
Hilarious. Semantics?
Can't people who want to blow up the base just say it's because they don't like TIM?

guilty and guilty lol

I love the voice over acting. But with that Illusive character, I relatively emoted emphasis on how I'd likely respond to a character like that personally... blowing the base is a nice gesture I guess.

Unless it was to save lives of collected people (wouldn't have blown the base or extract them first then blow it to hell).

Modifié par FuturePasTimeCE, 11 juin 2010 - 01:37 .

[JohnnyBeGood2]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

JohnnyBeGood2 wrote...
You do realise that labelling it as "based on Reaper Tech" is not exclusive of this defintion? (It's inclusive)

You have been using it exclusively. You have gone to great lengths to make the two exclusive. Nearly every single reply of yours up this point has been to the effect of 'no, it is not Reaper technology, instead it is based on it which is completely different, trust me.'

No Dean that's total rubbish. My posts have been literally peppered (literally) with me saying that it is a completely better, more accurate description!!! NOT ONCE HAVE I SAID it wasn't based on Reaper tech!!!... wow there's a raw prawn... holy hell lol.  WTF lol

Dean_the_Young wrote...

I assume that the "how it does it" part and the "application of knowledge" parts means that the powering of the weapon plays apart in what it is?

If that's the best you can understand, then sure. Yes. And then some.

Wow, cheapshot lol. I was throwing you a bone! If you actually clarified it you might have been able to recover... but as it stands calling it "based on Reaper Tech" is completely the best way to describe it because it's inclusive across categories as you pointed out a couple of posts back. lol
Oh well, least you don't have to worry cos I doubt anyone else will read this.

[Christmas Ape]

Yeah, I think I defined this as "pointless semantic bickering" a couple hours ago. Nobody watching?



Basically, for as long as JohnnyBeGood2 refuses to swap out the highly contentious "technology" for "materials" or "equipment" and Dean_the_Young refuses to understand the common usage staring him in the face for the sake of e-peen, this isn't going anywhere.

[Dean_the_Young]

JohnnyBeGood2 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

JohnnyBeGood2 wrote...
You do realise that labelling it as "based on Reaper Tech" is not exclusive of this defintion? (It's inclusive)

You have been using it exclusively. You have gone to great lengths to make the two exclusive. Nearly every single reply of yours up this point has been to the effect of 'no, it is not Reaper technology, instead it is based on it which is completely different, trust me.'

No Dean that's total rubbish. My posts have been literally peppered (literally) with me saying that it is a completely better, more accurate description!!! NOT ONCE HAVE I SAID it wasn't based on Reaper tech!!!... wow there's a raw prawn... holy hell lol.  WTF lol

Great examples of  your inclusive descriptions: 



Nah Dean, that really isnt the case. the differentiation between "based
on" and "is" is 100% appropriate. The Thanix is not Reaper tech per se. It's "based on" Reaper Tech.
every which way you spin that it's true.

Hmm, It's not a redefinition just a best
label. You've already made the point about the various ways the
Thannix is different to the way yo Reapers had it... They are separate labels:

Lol. I told you its a distinction of label that's totally applicable??


Ok, the catch is this - it's not only misleading but incorrect by
way of your context for antecedent points...




And so on.

Wow, cheapshot lol. I was throwing you a bone! If you actually clarified it you might have been able to recover... but as it stands calling it "based on Reaper Tech" is completely the best way to describe it because it's inclusive across categories as you pointed out a couple of posts back. lol
Oh well, least you don't have to worry cos I doubt anyone else will read this.

Then type for reading, and not the internet. Full words with proper spelling, avoiding slang, simplified syntax... that sort of thing.

Write like you would if you wanted someone to read it.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 11 juin 2010 - 02:00 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Christmas Ape wrote...

Yeah, I think I defined this as "pointless semantic bickering" a couple hours ago. Nobody watching?

Basically, for as long as JohnnyBeGood2 refuses to swap out the highly contentious "technology" for "materials" or "equipment" and Dean_the_Young refuses to understand the common usage staring him in the face for the sake of e-peen, this isn't going anywhere.

Technology by common usage is already established: technology by lazy innacurate usage is not valid.

You called yourself a linguist. If I went around and got a number of people calling a rectangular brick a square, would it suddenly become a square?

[JohnnyBeGood2]

Perhaps if you typed for reading, and not the internet? Full words with proper spelling, avoiding slang, simplified syntax... that sort of thing.
Write like you would if you wanted someone to read it.

Yeah, no worries. Don't really want to fight. I certainly admit to not
being comprehensive in every citation, that's partly motivated to
keep the discussion from super formality. Nevertheless if that caused
varous bits and pieces to fall through the cracks then I could
understand our divergence on what was meant vs what was understood etc.

Ok, Im gonna (going to) jump further here and get right to the meat of the issue: indoctrination.
It's easily the most outstanding threat and in terms of Reaper Tech and Reaper Tech derivatives I assert there's a critical point at which Reaper Tech derivatives simply won't work (not isolated systems like the Sovereign gun deriviative (Thannix), but larger complex systems) because separation from Reaper systems is an issue. I'm asserting that indoctrination is not only a pervasive biomechanical influence but also a biomechanical ingredient of their complex systems.

(I assume we are done with the semantics of the previous discussion)

Modifié par JohnnyBeGood2, 11 juin 2010 - 02:05 .

[JohnnyBeGood2]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Christmas Ape wrote...
Yeah, I think I defined this as "pointless semantic bickering" a couple hours ago. Nobody watching?
Basically, for as long as JohnnyBeGood2 refuses to swap out the highly contentious "technology" for "materials" or "equipment" and Dean_the_Young refuses to understand the common usage staring him in the face for the sake of e-peen, this isn't going anywhere.

Technology by common usage is already established: technology by lazy innacurate usage is not valid.
You called yourself a linguist. If I went around and got a number of people calling a rectangular brick a square, would it suddenly become a square?

Dean, stop.

[Vaenier]

Shandepared wrote...

JohnnyBeGood2 wrote...

Ok, Im gonna (going to) jump further here and get right to the meat of the issue: indoctrination.
It's easily the most outstanding threat and in terms of Reaper Tech and Reaper Tech derivatives I assert there's a critical point at which Reaper Tech derivatives simply won't work (not isolated systems like the Sovereign gun deriviative (Thannix), but larger complex systems) because separation from Reaper systems is an issue. I'm asserting that indoctrination is not only a pervasive biomechanical influence but also a biomechanical ingredient of their complex systems.

You assert this despite not knowing anything about Reapers.

Dont ya love how people wish to destroy that which they dont understand because they are afraid of learning their argument is invalid?

[JohnnyBeGood2]

Shandepared wrote...

JohnnyBeGood2 wrote...
Ok, Im gonna (going to) jump further here and get right to the meat of the issue: indoctrination.
It's easily the most outstanding threat and in terms of Reaper Tech and Reaper Tech derivatives I assert there's a critical point at which Reaper Tech derivatives simply won't work (not isolated systems like the Sovereign gun deriviative (Thannix), but larger complex systems) because separation from Reaper systems is an issue. I'm asserting that indoctrination is not only a pervasive biomechanical influence but also a biomechanical ingredient of their complex systems.

You assert this despite not knowing anything about Reapers.

Shand, true, true, true, true, true.
But it's a bit of a issue for me.. so I'm taking a position based on available info combined with my closet proclivity.
If you know the critical point at which indictrination switches on and switchs off then ME3 gets a whole lot simpler.

[Dean_the_Young]

JohnnyBeGood2 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Christmas Ape wrote...
Yeah, I think I defined this as "pointless semantic bickering" a couple hours ago. Nobody watching?
Basically, for as long as JohnnyBeGood2 refuses to swap out the highly contentious "technology" for "materials" or "equipment" and Dean_the_Young refuses to understand the common usage staring him in the face for the sake of e-peen, this isn't going anywhere.

Technology by common usage is already established: technology by lazy innacurate usage is not valid.
You called yourself a linguist. If I went around and got a number of people calling a rectangular brick a square, would it suddenly become a square?

Dean, stop.

Use an argument correctly or don't make it at all. I'll give you a third and final opportunity: explain your definition of technology which you claim makes the Thannix not Reaper technology.

[JohnnyBeGood2]

Shandepared wrote...

JohnnyBeGood2 wrote...
Shand, true, true, true, true, true.
But it's a bit of a issue for me.. so I'm taking a position based on available info combined with my closet proclivity.
If you know the critical point at which indictrination switches on and switchs off then ME3 gets a whole lot simpler.

Explain this to me.

2nd time you've said that to me. Forget where the first time was.
Well we have to battle the Reapers and bascially anyone who isn't in Shepards squad (who isn't the player) is basically an indictrination threat when the Reapers get close. Zero is known about the mode, basis, viable range, communicable pattern or anything else associated with indoctrination... so I say "ok that's a big intel hole".
You can't win if you don't know how to overcome indoctrination.. we'll basically have 100,000,000 Sarens to fight if we don't get it covered in some way...

[JohnnyBeGood2]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

JohnnyBeGood2 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Christmas Ape wrote...
Yeah, I think I defined this as "pointless semantic bickering" a couple hours ago. Nobody watching?
Basically, for as long as JohnnyBeGood2 refuses to swap out the highly contentious "technology" for "materials" or "equipment" and Dean_the_Young refuses to understand the common usage staring him in the face for the sake of e-peen, this isn't going anywhere.

Technology by common usage is already established: technology by lazy innacurate usage is not valid.
You called yourself a linguist. If I went around and got a number of people calling a rectangular brick a square, would it suddenly become a square?

Dean, stop.

Use an argument correctly or don't make it at all. I'll give you a third and final opportunity: explain your definition of technology which you claim makes the Thannix not Reaper technology.

Wow, there was a couple of things you bolded before that were pretty indicative. Further, I had assumed that we had actually clarified that there was some agreeable satisafaction that the disctinction is one of "best label" as oppsoed to defintion (because it is a distinction of best label and not one of definition).
If you really need to wring you toes over the issue then go back to bringing up what you bolded before.

[Dean_the_Young]

I'm giving you a fresh opportunity to define your thoughts, without your previous statements to trip you up by what you may have accidentally implied. If you set down your own thoughts here, as you want and intend as clearly as you can, I have no intention to judge you by what you have already written, which may have said things contrary to your intentions.



If you don't formalize what you consider technology, so that we can see how valid your basis for argument is, then we will have to work with the standard meaning of technology and go from there, at which point we'll go back to asking you to explain why calling the Thannix cannon Reaper technology is wrong.

[JohnnyBeGood2]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
I'm giving you a fresh opportunity to define your thoughts, without your previous statements to trip you up by what you may have accidentally implied. If you set down your own thoughts here, as you want and intend as clearly as you can, I have no intention to judge you by what you have already written, which may have said things contrary to your intentions.
If you don't formalize what you consider technology, so that we can see how valid your basis for argument is, then we will have to work with the standard meaning of technology and go from there, at which point we'll go back to asking you to explain why calling the Thannix cannon Reaper technology is wrong.

Nope not wrong, only that "based on" is more right. It's an inclusion, it's an extension and it's a clarification.

Modifié par JohnnyBeGood2, 11 juin 2010 - 02:36 .

[JohnnyBeGood2]

Shandepared wrote...

JohnnyBeGood2 wrote...
2nd time you've said that to me. Forget where the first time was.
Well we have to battle the Reapers and bascially anyone who isn't in Shepards squad (who isn't the player) is basically an indictrination threat when the Reapers get close. Zero is known about the mode, basis, viable range, communicable pattern or anything else associated with indoctrination... so I say "ok that's a big intel hole".
You can't win if you don't know how to overcome indoctrination.. we'll basically have 100,000,000 Sarens to fight if we don't get it covered in some way...

So you agree we should dissect the base then.

Lol, personaly, no I don't cos TIM can't be trsuted.

[Dean_the_Young]

Neofelis Nebulosa wrote...

Why can't people just put this whole discussion to rest and accept there is no logical reason to keep or destroy it. All we "know" about this station is hypothetical.

Since we have seen quite a bit of what the Collectors are capable of, we do know things about this station and what it's capable of. And since this is the medium of a game, we can trust the terms they phrased the choice in: Mass Effect is not a game in which the game lies about the implications of your choice. It has narrative authority when setting your choice. So when the game says 'this technology will make humanity dominant', you can trust that the technology will make humanity dominant.

It might contain data about the reapers, it might also indoctrinate the guys studying it, TIMmy might actually not long for Galaxy domination and he might be a simple speciest A-Hole.

There's no question that it has data about the Reapers: they were making one and we have the corpse right there. Both necessitate data, and one is undeletable.

The might about indoctrination really is a unsubstantiated claim, one that is not a choice-decider by rational conclusions.

Neither of those assumptions outweight its counterparts. We could aswell blow the station into Quarks and give them our cats for breakfast and it might have the same impact.

'All choices are equal' is a fallacy, really. Especially when we recall the medium and that this is the big-choice climax of the game.

[Dean_the_Young]

JohnnyBeGood2 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
I'm giving you a fresh opportunity to define your thoughts, without your previous statements to trip you up by what you may have accidentally implied. If you set down your own thoughts here, as you want and intend as clearly as you can, I have no intention to judge you by what you have already written, which may have said things contrary to your intentions.
If you don't formalize what you consider technology, so that we can see how valid your basis for argument is, then we will have to work with the standard meaning of technology and go from there, at which point we'll go back to asking you to explain why calling the Thannix cannon Reaper technology is wrong.

Nope not wrong, only that "based on" is more right. It's an inclusion, it's an extension and it's a clarification.

Well, it's nice to know that we've been arguing about nothing being wrong with calling the numerous examples of Reaper technology Reaper technology.

[Dean_the_Young]

Shandepared wrote...

JohnnyBeGood2 wrote...

Lol, personaly, no I don't cos TIM can't be trsuted.

In what way can't he be trusted?

Can he not be trusted to acquire the tech due to base defenses, mitigating the threat of him abusing it's technologies?

Can he not be trusted to not make Reapers despite a lack of ability and reason to? 

Can he not be trusted to oppose the Reapers with the tech, dooming humanity to a weaker position against the Reapers? 

Can he not be trusted to not take over and declare himself god-king of humanity, despite having such an established history of letting others rule while he acts from the shadows? 

Can he not be trusted to not commit genocide of the aliens, despite never professing a desire or intention to?

[Christmas Ape]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Christmas Ape wrote...

Yeah, I think I defined this as "pointless semantic bickering" a couple hours ago. Nobody watching?

Basically, for as long as JohnnyBeGood2 refuses to swap out the highly contentious "technology" for "materials" or "equipment" and Dean_the_Young refuses to understand the common usage staring him in the face for the sake of e-peen, this isn't going anywhere.

Technology by common usage is already established: technology by lazy innacurate usage is not valid.

You called yourself a linguist. If I went around and got a number of people calling a rectangular brick a square, would it suddenly become a square?

What? No I didn't. I called you one. More specifically, a prescriptivist - holding that a word has a single meaning and no amount of its use in communication can change that, regardless of prevalence.
I disagree, and indeed much of the field backs the communicative approach - exemplis gratis, xerox is a valid verb meaning "create a photocopy of" because when you say it in context a native speaker of the language will understand your meaning.

You are being faced in this discussion with someone using "technology" to mean "technological devices". Rather than take a half-step towards successful communication by choosing to understand their intent, clarifying the difference, and moving on to address their points, your response has been to cross your arms and decry the form of their argument rather than its function. Here are two possible scripts for this whole thing.

"Reaper technology is an indoctrination risk."
"No it isn't, technology can't be. Let's discuss your innaccuracy of word usage for three pages."

"Reaper technology is an indoctrination risk."
"No it isn't, technology can't be. Reaper devices might be, however."

Which of these two seems more like communication and which seems more like point-scoring?