1342 réponses à ce sujet

[pointtech86]

Crap, double post

Modifié par pointtech86, 05 mai 2011 - 02:10 .

[lolwut666]

Semantics. You know what I meant.

The point is that he didn't know exactly what that proof was.

And it doesn't matter if the batarians knew it was a Alliance, because Hackett didn't knew they knew that.

Modifié par lolwut666, 05 mai 2011 - 02:11 .

[Someone With Mass]

pointtech86 wrote...

The Batarians knew it was Alliance anyway!

"“Security log: Our comm buoy intercepts paid off. We picked up a message to the Alliance coming from somewhere in the asteroid belt. We listened to the feed until we discovered an operation run by a human named Kenson -- smuggling engine parts and guidance systems into the system from Omega.""

LOL.  Hackett didn't say evidence, he said "proof".  Read that quote again.  Hackett says "Hackett will conclude by saying that he’s known her for a long time and if she says she has proof, then she has proof."  Hackett obviously believed the invasion was 'definite' if he's saying that he thinks she has 'proof' of it.

That's pretty redundant, since they mean the same thing.

[pointtech86]

lolwut666 wrote...

Semantics. You know what I meant.

The point is that he didn't know exactly what that proof was.

READ THE QUOTE.  DON'T MISINTERPRET THE GREAT ADMIRAL HACKETT. (that's not yelling btw, just emphasis)

"Hackett replies that she and her team found an artifact that is a possible Reaper device, and that it is proof that the Reapers are planning to invade. Hackett will conclude by saying that he’s known her for a long time and if she says she has proof, then she has proof."

[pointtech86]

Someone With Mass wrote...

pointtech86 wrote...

LOL.  Hackett didn't say evidence, he said "proof".  Read that quote again.  Hackett says "Hackett will conclude by saying that he’s known her for a long time and if she says she has proof, then she has proof."  Hackett obviously believed the invasion was 'definite' if he's saying that he thinks she has 'proof' of it.

That's pretty redundant, since they mean the same thing.

Dictionary.com definition of evidence:  "that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief"

Dictionary.com definition of proof:  
"evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth."

[Someone With Mass]

Hackett didn't know that it was a Reaper artifact.

[Someone With Mass]

Oh, and by the way, when people start their nitpicking about the most trivial things, I tend to ignore them. So your effort to tell me the proper definition of a word (which I can't give less of a **** about) is just wasted.

[pointtech86]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Hackett didn't know that it was a Reaper artifact.

How do you know that?  Why does it matter?  Every indication is that he knew what Kenson was talking about and trusted her intel that this device was proof of a reaper invasion.

[pointtech86]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Oh, and by the way, when people start their nitpicking about the most trivial things, I tend to ignore them. So your effort to tell me the proper definition of a word (which I can't give less of a **** about) is just wasted.

Then don't tell people that two words mean the same thing when they obviously don't.  You were trying to discredit the quote by saying that 'evidence' and 'proof' mean the same thing.  I responded to your attack on my argument.  My response wasn't intended to be isolated as a grammar **** thing, it was to rebuff your attempt to make the quote meaningless.

Modifié par pointtech86, 05 mai 2011 - 02:29 .

[Someone With Mass]

pointtech86 wrote...
How do you know that?  Why does it matter?  Every indication is that he knew what Kenson was talking about and trusted her intel that this device was proof of a reaper invasion.

And why does that matter? It's just as pointless.

[Undertone]

pointtech86 wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

Oh, and by the way, when people start their nitpicking about the most trivial things, I tend to ignore them. So your effort to tell me the proper definition of a word (which I can't give less of a **** about) is just wasted.

Then don't tell people that two words mean the same thing when they obviously don't.  You were trying to discredit the quote by saying that 'evidence' and 'proof' mean the same thing.  I responded to your attack on my argument.  My response wasn't intended to be isolated as a grammar **** thing, it was to rebuff your attempt to make the quote meaningless.

You are obviously wasting your breath on trolls mate.

[lolwut666]

Undertone wrote...

pointtech86 wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

Oh, and by the way, when people start their nitpicking about the most trivial things, I tend to ignore them. So your effort to tell me the proper definition of a word (which I can't give less of a **** about) is just wasted.

Then don't tell people that two words mean the same thing when they obviously don't.  You were trying to discredit the quote by saying that 'evidence' and 'proof' mean the same thing.  I responded to your attack on my argument.  My response wasn't intended to be isolated as a grammar **** thing, it was to rebuff your attempt to make the quote meaningless.

You are obviously wasting your breath on trolls mate.

You're the only troll here.

We're having a discussion.

That you'd call someone who disagrees with you a "troll" just goes to show what a simpleton you are.

[pointtech86]

Someone With Mass wrote...

pointtech86 wrote...
How do you know that?  Why does it matter?  Every indication is that he knew what Kenson was talking about and trusted her intel that this device was proof of a reaper invasion.

And why does that matter? It's just as pointless.

It matters because if Hackett knew about a reaper invasion, then he has either been mentally handicapped with incompetence over the last 2 years, or he knew that if the Alliance was involved in destroying the relay, the Batarians would declare war, so he made Shepard a convenient scapegoat.

[lolwut666]

He knew she had proof.

Why does that mean he sent Shepard there to destroy the batarian solar system?

Having proof is one thing; deciding what to do with the proof is another one entirely.

[Dean_the_Young]

lolwut666 wrote...

You're the only troll here.

We're having a discussion.

That you'd call someone who disagrees with you a "troll" just goes to show what a simpleton you are.

And here I thought I was supposed to be the troll. It meant so much to me, and now you say it to any Tim, Jim, or Dick who wanders in?

I thought what we had was special.

[Seboist]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

lolwut666 wrote...

You're the only troll here.

We're having a discussion.

That you'd call someone who disagrees with you a "troll" just goes to show what a simpleton you are.

And here I thought I was supposed to be the troll. It meant so much to me, and now you say it to any Tim, Jim, or Dick who wanders in?

I thought what we had was special.

You're still King Troll to me brah don't worry. :happy:

[Dean_the_Young]

Seboist wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

lolwut666 wrote...

You're the only troll here.

We're having a discussion.

That you'd call someone who disagrees with you a "troll" just goes to show what a simpleton you are.

And here I thought I was supposed to be the troll. It meant so much to me, and now you say it to any Tim, Jim, or Dick who wanders in?

I thought what we had was special.

You're still King Troll to me brah don't worry. :happy:

But I'm not a monarchist. I'd abdicate.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 05 mai 2011 - 02:43 .

[pointtech86]

I just told you. He believed her intel, therefore he believed there was an imminent Reaper invasion. Why would Hackett tell Shepard this intel if his only mission was to rescue this scientist, his friend, from a Batarian prison?

If the Alliance was involved in helping destroy the mass relay it would cause a war. Shepard is the perfect scapegoat for this kind of thing, he's out of the Alliance, he works for Cerberus, his image has been tarnished not personally by Hackett but by the whole Alliance that controls statements and public relations.

[lolwut666]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

lolwut666 wrote...

You're the only troll here.

We're having a discussion.

That you'd call someone who disagrees with you a "troll" just goes to show what a simpleton you are.

And here I thought I was supposed to be the troll. It meant so much to me, and now you say it to any Tim, Jim, or Dick who wanders in?

I thought what we had was special.

lolwut666 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

lolwut666 wrote...

I'm going by the posts I've bothered to read, because I have no time to read everything.

And rather than trying to prove me wrong, you just resorted to cursing and whining like a little rabid troll.

Way to go.

Sure. Because disputing being called heartless and having no respect of human rights just makes someone a troll. It's got to be real easy to live in a world where denying an accusation only proves it.


Now, since you're so short on time to 'read everything', why don't you ask my views before you presume to know them simply because I dispute yours?

Like I said, I've formed my opinion out of the posts I've bothered to read. If it is inaccurate, I apologize, but you can't always expect someone to think that far ahead.

Rather than complain, you could have already clarified this situation for me and we might be talking about something pertinent to the topic rather than bickering.

[Dean_the_Young]

I can't be bothered to read what people write: it might ruin an obvious and blatant joke.

[Someone With Mass]

pointtech86 wrote...

I just told you. He believed her intel, therefore he believed there was an imminent Reaper invasion. Why would Hackett tell Shepard this intel if his only mission was to rescue this scientist, his friend, from a Batarian prison?

If the Alliance was involved in helping destroy the mass relay it would cause a war. Shepard is the perfect scapegoat for this kind of thing, he's out of the Alliance, he works for Cerberus, his image has been tarnished not personally by Hackett but by the whole Alliance that controls statements and public relations.

Could it be that Hackett didn't know all the details yet? That he didn't know how to assess the problem? That he didn't know that the destruction of a relay would be involved?

And honestly. I don't care if Shepard takes the fall, because we all know what will happen during the trial anyway. Oh, and by the way, I feel a lot better knowing I have Hackett by my side than Cerberus, because at least he understands and tries to help Shepard, while The Incompetent Man is just sitting in his chair, smoking and drinking all day like another very stale and cliché Bond-villain.

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 05 mai 2011 - 02:54 .

[lolwut666]

pointtech86 wrote...

I just told you. He believed her intel, therefore he believed there was an imminent Reaper invasion. Why would Hackett tell Shepard this intel if his only mission was to rescue this scientist, his friend, from a Batarian prison?

If the Alliance was involved in helping destroy the mass relay it would cause a war. Shepard is the perfect scapegoat for this kind of thing, he's out of the Alliance, he works for Cerberus, his image has been tarnished not personally by Hackett but by the whole Alliance that controls statements and public relations.

You mean you'd rather Hackett be all like:

Hackett: "Yo, Shepard! Go rescue my friend in batarian space, stat."

Shepard: "Huh? Why?"

Hackett: "None of your business, son. Get your ass moving a go rescue her NAO."

Just because he gave you some intel it doesn't mean he wanted you to destroy an entire solar system, or that he knew all the details.

Modifié par lolwut666, 05 mai 2011 - 03:03 .

[pointtech86]

Someone With Mass wrote...

pointtech86 wrote...

I just told you. He believed her intel, therefore he believed there was an imminent Reaper invasion. Why would Hackett tell Shepard this intel if his only mission was to rescue this scientist, his friend, from a Batarian prison?

If the Alliance was involved in helping destroy the mass relay it would cause a war. Shepard is the perfect scapegoat for this kind of thing, he's out of the Alliance, he works for Cerberus, his image has been tarnished not personally by Hackett but by the whole Alliance that controls statements and public relations.

Could it be that Hackett didn't know all the details yet? That he didn't know how to assess the problem? That he didn't know that the destruction of a relay would be involved?

And honestly. I don't care if Shepard takes the fall, because we all know what will happen during the trial anyway. Oh, and by the way, I feel a lot better knowing I have Hackett by my side than Cerberus, because at least he understands and tries to help Shepard, while The Incompetent Man is just sitting in his chair, smoking and drinking all day like another very stale and cliché Bond-villain.

What details didn't he know?  The science team had to get the money from somewhere to buy up all the thrusters needed to push a small planet fast enough into a mass relay to destroy it.  You're also implying that Hackett is extremely incompetent because he would waste his time worrying about rescuing his friend over stopping a Reaper invasion.

When has Cerberus not helped Shepard?  They gave you your life back, your ship, your squadmates, your weapons, armor, and most importantly.  Your free will.  TIM could have easily let Miranda put that control chip in your brain but he chose not to.  Because he knew how important it was to keep you as consistent as possible with your old self.  Cerberus has never betrayed me to the point that it ever risked my life.  Obviously TIM could have informed you about the Collector ship, but that is a perspective argument anyway.

If Hackett knowingly recruited Shepard for this mission just to use him as a scapegoat for destroying the Batarian system then yes he has betrayed you, and can't be trusted.

[Siansonea]

Wow, fractious thread. Somebody get me up to speed, what does this have to do with how evil Cerberus is? I missed the connection from Cerberus to talking about Hackett. I was all ready to lay down some keystrokes about how much it sucked that my Shepard got stuck running errands for TIM with only the most token objection, when I found the discussion centering around Arrival. Are people saying that Hackett wasn't being honest with Shepard? I think Hackett was pretty straightforward, and I doubt he knew the extent of what was happening with Kenson. She was indoctrinated, after all, I'm sure she was deceiving Hackett just as much as she tried to deceive Shepard.

[pointtech86]

lolwut666 wrote...

pointtech86 wrote...

I just told you. He believed her intel, therefore he believed there was an imminent Reaper invasion. Why would Hackett tell Shepard this intel if his only mission was to rescue this scientist, his friend, from a Batarian prison?

If the Alliance was involved in helping destroy the mass relay it would cause a war. Shepard is the perfect scapegoat for this kind of thing, he's out of the Alliance, he works for Cerberus, his image has been tarnished not personally by Hackett but by the whole Alliance that controls statements and public relations.

You mean you'd rather Hackett be all like:

Hackett: "Yo, Shepard! Go rescue my friend in batarian space, stat."

Shepard: "Huh? Why?"

Hackett: "None of your business, son. Get your ass moving a go rescue her NAO."

Just because he gave you some intel it doesn't mean he wanted you to destroy an entire solar system, or that he knew all the details.

That doesn't make any sense.  What would he have to think about if she told him how long until the Reapers arrive?  What's the point of involving Shepard if he's just there to do a simple S&R mission?  Send one person from the Alliance dressed in plain armor, to do the exact same thing.  No point in bothering Shepard about it.