1476 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

Quick question here:

Are we restoring trust with the VS, or with the Illusive Man at this point?

[whywhywhywhy]

[quote]Siansonea II wrote...
“Suppressed correlative”, and that’s a fancy way of saying what, exactly? What correlation is being suppressed?
[/quote] Not going to debate you and educate you at the same time it's tiring.

[quote]Siansonea II wrote...
I don’t really understand the point you’re trying to make here. You can’t use events that happen AFTER Horizon to justify the point of view of either party, if that’s what you mean. What matters is what EACH PERSON KNOWS, or thinks they know, in that moment on Horizon.[/quote]I can and I've explained why.  Wow, you really don't understand yet you try to respond anyway to debate a point you've failed to comprehend.  An adamant stance against something of which you have no idea, bravo. :innocent:


[quote]Siansonea II wrote...
Once again, what happens AFTER Horizon cannot be part of the equation on Horizon, since none of the people involved are psychic.[/quote] Again, I've made my point you simply haven't addressed/understood it.  Until you do I see no point in a serious response.  As this is argument for the sake of argument and not constructive debate.


[quote]Siansonea II wrote...
Unless there was a time machine amongst all the other stupid plot ideas in ME2, then neither Shepard nor the VS can base their decisions, actions, or dialogue on “the outcome of ME2”. The VS doesn’t know that Shepard went throught the Omega 4 Relay and stopped a stupid-looking giant robot from finishing its Puree O’ Humans smoothie. Shepard doesn’t know it either. So yeah, until Shepard actually DOES do those things, we CAN question her integrity. We can even do so AFTER she does those things. Because no matter how much mud you add to the water, Cerberus is still a CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION THAT HAS MURDERED AND TORTURED ALLIANCE PERSONNEL. Therefore, a loyal Alliance soldier is within his or her rights to feel betrayed by another Alliance soldier who works “with” Cerberus. Even if Shepard has some noble goal in mind. Or rather, a goal that the Illusive Man has sold to her as noble and necessary, who knows what else the Illusive Man didn’t tell Shepard about.[/quote] blah blah blah same rheotoric, Here's a big ole hint.  How will all of that play out with the VS & Shepard's trust being restored in me3 ?

[quote]Siansonea II wrote...
By this logic, anyone who doesn’t already know the outcome of a decision should be rebuked for making the wrong choice. That’s DUMB. Because you know, so far as we know, time only works one-way. You can’t say that because “Shepard was right in the end” that everyone should a) know that or automatically trust Shepard. Shepard doesn’t have “I’m Right At The End Of The Game And I’m The Player Character” tattooed on her forehead. Seriously, this is your worst argument yet. Are you even trying anymore?[/quote] Shepard followed his gut instinct the same could be said of the VS only Shepard was correct and the VS wrong.  It's only dumb if you think the story doesn't continue in me3 whywhywhywhy looks around "This is the me3 forums.....wow" 

[quote]Siansonea II wrote...
So, the VS is supposed to know, understand and accommodate Shepard’s emotional state, but Shepard is under no onus to do the same thing for the VS? And this is because at the end of the game Shepard keeps a giant robot from finishing it’s juice box?[/quote] Ignorance is no excuse for the vs or anyone else, not even for you.

[quote]Siansonea II wrote...
Shepard’s explanations don’t sound plausible though. You want everyone to just trust Shepard unconditionally. That’s stupid. Shepard isn’t that trustworthy, and there’s all sorts of scenarios that would fit the circumstances on Horizon. But the VS, in spite of the bitter betrayal of Shepard standing with Cerberus, is supposed to just smile and nod, and act like nothing untoward has happened. [/quote]Doesn't matter. Plausibility doesn't make the truth any less true.  The rest of this has no correlation on the point I was making so I draw a line through it with my mighty crayon.

[quote]Siansonea II wrote...Narcissistic much?[/quote] Quite a bit when I was younger, took a while to grow out of it.  but for a while I did those shorties wrong...so wrong.  But I can't take it back so I've moved on.

[quote]Siansonea II wrote...
So you don’t care how the VS feels, but you’re constantly b¡tching about how the VS made you—I mean Shepard—feel? Anybody else see the irony of that?[/quote]At the end of the day the Shepard I make choices with can't change the VS's mind before they wander off.  Nothing left to do but finish the mission, save lives and all that jazz.  You know the macho manly hero work.


[quote]Siansonea II wrote...
NOPE. Your hamfisted attempts at long-winded bluster are for naught. You’re not going to sweep Cerberus under the rug with such hamfisted arguments. Cerberus is evil. EEEEEEEEEEVIIIIIIIIIIIL. [/quote]So:huh:  que long stare then blink.

[quote]Siansonea II wrote...
The VS reacts angrily when Shepard shows up waving the Cerberus flag. It’s understandable. But you were insulted that they dare question you. Get used to it, because there’s this little thing called a TRIAL you get to look forward to in ME3. You’re the one who opened up that “future” can of worms, so guess what? The future is a sword that cuts both ways. And guess what else? In the FUTURE, Cerberus is the ENEMY again. Suck on that.[/quote] The mighty crayon makes it's appearance.  Cerberus isn't a enemy "AGAIN" they never stopped being my Shepard's enemy.  Like I told you before "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer."

[quote]Siansonea II wrote...
The Council IS the law. They can do what they want. [/quote]Apparently prosecuting Shep for Treason isn't one of them.

[quote]Siansonea II wrote...
And does Anderson TELL the VS about Shepard showing up on the Citadel? No.[/quote]So.
[quote]Siansonea II wrote...
Does Anderson TELL the VS—who is investigating Cerberus, among other things—that Cerberus claims the Collectors are behind the abductions, after Shepard tells him that? No.[/quote]Still staring.  In cause you didn't get that, So.

[quote]Siansonea II wrote...
Does Anderson TELL the VS that Shepard is even alive? And working “with” Cerberus? No.[/quote] blinks while waiting for the point.
[quote]Siansonea II wrote...
But hey, Anderson is “nice” to Shepard, so he gets a pass. [/quote]That's yet to be seen.
[quote]Siansonea II wrote...
The bottom line is that VS haters are really just acting out of their OWN emotional response to the VS’ perfectly justified dressing down of Shepard on Horizon. These are people who don’t like to be criticized in real life, and they’re certainly NOT going to be criticized in a video game. Never mind the fact that the player isn’t actually Shepard. It’s so obvious it’s laughable.[/quote]You presume to much, I could say your hate of strong men or trauma caused by some betamale clouds your mind to the issues from shepards perspective.  Evident by your many irrational and illogical emotional responses throughout the forums.  Or trivialize it all and say you got daddy issues.  But assuming your motivation behind your aggressive overly passionate albiet misguided attempts to defend the VS does nothing for the discussion.  You think the "VS haters" hate criticism but that's simply on your part transference.

[quote]Siansonea II wrote...
If this is all you got, I suggest you crawl back to wherever you climbed out of, because these arguments don’t even qualify as half-baked. More like unbaked.
[/quote]Comprehend them first then say that.

Modifié par whywhywhywhy, 19 août 2011 - 06:28 .

[ChaplainTappman]

1136342t54 wrote...

We already pretty much came to a conclusion on the VS decision pages back. Now we are mostly just arguing for the sake of it lol.

Yeah, I think at this point you and I are just arguing numbers.

I think the two Normandy crews, and that of the SR2 in particular, are the perfect examples of what our hypothetical "reformed Cerberus" should be. Yes, it's primarily human, and yes, they're working to protect and advance humanity. But they're unconstrained by parochialism. Mordin's the smartest scientist, and he's willing to work with Cerberus, so they pick him up. Also, I'd argue that Archer is, like TIM, so "long view" oriented, he's unable or unwilling to examine the present and whether or not he's accomplishing his goal. Which isn't a great trait in a scientist.

[Siansonea]

@whywhywhywhy: Back to the "she must be bitter against men" tactic? Considering the fact that Shepard can be a WOMAN and the VS can be a MAN, your hypothesis is laughably off-base. We've been over this, or have you forgotten?

And your crossing through my points does not invalidate them. It only shows that YOU do not understand the points I was making. Your own point seems to be that because Shepard was "proven right" at the end of the game, the VS should have acted differently on Horizon. If that's NOT your point, then explain it better. If you can't, then maybe you don't have a point at all. I'm inclined to think that you really DON'T have a point, you are just trying to create the APPEARANCE of having a point. But it's a house of cards, and it has already collapsed under its own weight. But vaguely indicating some point that's gone over my head doesn't magically create said point. So if you've got a point, MAKE IT. UNAMBIGUOUSLY. Seriously, did anyone else arrive at a different conclusion than I did? Anybody? Bueller? Bueller?

[ubermensch007]

Okay... I just have to say something real quick here:

@Siansonea II, I really don't mean any offense.But I have to ask, "Are you campaigning for "B!TCH of the Year" or something?   Because you are really ahead in the Polls right now..." <_<

Modifié par ubermensch007, 19 août 2011 - 05:28 .

[whywhywhywhy]

Siansonea II wrote...
@whywhywhywhy: Back to the "she must be bitter against men" tactic? Considering the fact that Shepard can be a WOMAN and the VS can be a MAN, your hypothesis is laughably off-base. We've been over this, or have you forgotten?

Sure it is. Again it goes right over your head, maybe you should swim in shallower waters.

Siansonea II wrote...
And your crossing through my points does not invalidate them. It only shows that YOU do not understand the points I was making.

I understand.  I understand your response are mere deflection/misdirection to the real issue and you refuse to admit the truth.  I'll say it again if their is no correlation between what your saying as a response to my point/views/questions I won't entertain it.  You sound bitter because I won't play your little game.

Siansonea II wrote...
Your own point seems to be that because Shepard was "proven right" at the end of the game, the VS should have acted differently on Horizon.

Case in point right here.  My points: Shepard didn't do anything wrong, questionable but wrong ? No.  Shepard owes the VS no explaination at all despite this the volunteered truth provided because he's such a swell upstanding guy was ignored.  Any damage done to the relationship is on the VS, Shepard doesn't need to be concerned with as he has the mission.  Shepard was correct in his choice to use Cerberus to save the Galaxy from serious threat, no matter how much anyone VS included might hate them.    Now how do you arrive at the above from that ? Keep in mind the original question is presented in the context of the content of ME3.

Siansonea II wrote...
If that's NOT your point, then explain it better.

How about you don't reply to things that require big boy/girl pants.  I normally would have no isue with what you ask but given your attitude towards others then knee jerk response asking for clarification at this point when you should have at the beginning is irrational.  Now if you admit that you were wrong to do so I'll gladly do it.

Siansonea II wrote...
If you can't, then maybe you don't have a point at all.

It's not a question of can or can't but more one of will or won't.

Siansonea II wrote...
I'm inclined to think that you really DON'T have a point, you are just trying to create the APPEARANCE of having a point.

We are all limited by our ability to comprehend and desiminate information that is shaped by our perceptions/bias's established by our personal experiences.  Yours just tends to be lower then others.

Siansonea II wrote...
But it's a house of cards, and it has already collapsed under its own weight. But vaguely indicating some point that's gone over my head doesn't magically create said point.

Your Perception of the plausibility of my argument, doesnt change it.  They fact that you arrived at the above conclusion because you don't understand it yet decided to go against it speaks volumes.   No, it's sad.  Argument for argument's sake?

Siansonea II wrote...
you are just trying to create the APPEARANCE of having a point.
So if you've got a point, MAKE IT. UNAMBIGUOUSLY. Seriously, did anyone else arrive at a different conclusion than I did? Anybody? Bueller? Bueller?

I have.  Do you need it in more layman's terms, ask nicely and it might just happen.  What a thought.....show some common courtesy, if your parents didn't raise you with some sense just pretend like they did.

Modifié par whywhywhywhy, 19 août 2011 - 05:38 .

[Siansonea]

ubermensch007 wrote...

Okay... I just have to say something real quick here:

@Siansonea II, I really don't mean any offense.But I have to ask, "Are you campaigning for "B!TCH of the Year" or something?   Because you are really ahead in the Polls right now..." <_<

Campaigning? Hardly. Like anyone can even come close to challenging me for that award? They try, you have to give them that. But they're amateurs. Amateurs, I say! 

But congratulations! You've noticed that I've been quite brusque and uncharitable in my assessment of the situation. Ever wonder why? If you ask "why4", it's because I "don't like men" (yeah, I don't understand that either, and neither do my many male friends).  But could it be that I'm being combative deliberately, to prove a point? 

Even though I repeatedly bring up very obvious reasons that the VS or others might be perfectly justified, because I'm not "nice" about it, people get mad, and say all sorts of things that make it clear that their feelings are hurt. Well, hurt feelings are understandable. Twisting logic to rationalize hurt feelings is NOT understandable though, but it's an all-too-common response to people who aren't overly diplomatic, even if they're RIGHT. It's what is happening when people respond to my arch tone, and it's what's happening when people respond to the VS' censure of Shepard on Horizon, though of course I am many orders of magnitude more undiplomatic than the VS. 

The VS was RIGHT to question Shepard, the VS was RIGHT to characterize Shepard as "betraying what they stood for" by working with Cerberus, and the VS was RIGHT to walk away rather than join Shepard. But because people can be inherently egocentric and irrational, they literally can't see the situation from the VS' perspective. They've so completely fused with the Shepard persona that anyone who isn't fatuously ingratiating toward Shepard is The Enemy. That emotional barrier prevents them from seeing past their own point of view to recognize that two people can both be right and wrong at the same time, that situations aren't as cut-and-dried as they might think. When you base your approach to a situation solely on your emotional response to it, you blind yourself to logic and other possibilities, and that's what's happened here. That, and a certain amount of "flexible morality" that seems rampant these days. Not everything is an absolute, of course, but that doesn't mean there aren't SOME absolutes. And working with an organization that kills and tortures the members of your previous employer is a BETRAYAL of that employer in the eyes of people who are still loyal to that employer. THAT is an absolute. It's not even a complicated absolute. But because of the emotional impact of the word "betrayal", it's Airlock City for the VS. But these people insist that their reasons for hating the VS are "rational". They doth protest too much, I say. 

[Siansonea]

[quote]whywhywhywhy wrote...


[quote]Siansonea II wrote...
@whywhywhywhy: Back to the "she must be bitter against men" tactic? Considering the fact that Shepard can be a WOMAN and the VS can be a MAN, your hypothesis is laughably off-base. We've been over this, or have you forgotten?[/quote] Sure it is. Again it goes right over your head, maybe you should swim in shallower waters.[/quote]


Tactic failed? Just claim it "went over your target's head". Instant credibility! Except, you know, not. People aren't that easily distracted.


[quote][quote]Siansonea II wrote...
And your crossing through my points does not invalidate them. It only shows that YOU do not understand the points I was making. [/quote] 
I understand.  I understand your response are mere deflection/misdirection to the real issue and you refuse to admit the truth.  I'll say it again if their is no correlation between what your saying as a response to my point/views/questions I won't entertain it.  You sound bitter because I won't play your little game.[/quote]


Ah, so this is just the latest of your favorite tactic, the Mysterious Unidentified Antecedent. "Oh yeah, in a previous post, I completely debunked this. Which post? You find it. But yeah, totally debunked." Who is misdirecting whom?


[quote][quote]Siansonea II wrote...
Your own point seems to be that because Shepard was "proven right" at the end of the game, the VS should have acted differently on Horizon.[/quote] 
Case in point right here.  My points: Shepard didn't do anything wrong, questionable but wrong ? No.  [/quote]


So you admit that Shepard's action was questionable? Then it's only right and proper that someone should question her about it, don't you think?


[quote]Shepard owes the VS no explaination at all despite this the volunteered truth provided because he's such a swell upstanding guy was ignored.[/quote]  


You're right, Shepard doesn't owe the VS an explanation. If Shepard is a dyed-in-the-wool Cerberus believer, then yeah, the VS can go hang. But if Shepard is conflicted about working with Cerberus, she probably wouldn't want someone she used to work with to believe that she's bought the company line. And it sure looks like she's done just that. All the circumstantial evidence seems to point toward Shepard being completely on board with Cerberus' goals, methods, and ideals. If that's NOT the case, she needs to supplement the circumstantial evidence with testimony. That is, if she cares what the VS thinks.


[quote]Any damage done to the relationship is on the VS, Shepard doesn't need to be concerned with as he has the mission. [/quote] 


She does have a mission. And it's not a foregone conclusion that she cares what the VS thinks. But just in case she does care, she might want to explain the situation better, rather than allow the VS to come to the natural conclusions that are evidenced by the circumstances of their meeting on Horizon. Shepard is there with Cerberus, and that looks bad. REALLY bad. Nothing can take away from the magnitude of that. Except maybe a good explanation of the situation, which Shepard never gives. "But the VS didn't ask!" cry the VS haters. Shepard's a big girl, and she can speak up if she has something to say. She's not a wallflower waiting to be asked to dance.


[quote]Shepard was correct in his choice to use Cerberus to save the Galaxy from serious threat, no matter how much anyone VS included might hate them. [/quote]   


That's not something that Shepard or the VS can possibly know on Horizon unless there is time travel involved.


[quote]Now how do you arrive at the above from that ? Keep in mind the original question is presented in the context of the content of ME3.[/quote]


Oh, well I addressed this in an earlier post, you should refer to that post. GOTCHA!!!


I think it's clear what you're trying to say, and I think my rebuttals are also clear. And they're all in this one post! How convenient.


[quote][quote]Siansonea II wrote...
If that's NOT your point, then explain it better.[/quote] 
How about you don't reply to things that require big boy/girl pants.  I normally would have no isue with what you ask but given your attitude towards others then knee jerk response asking for clarification at this point when you should have at the beginning is irrational.  Now if you admit that you were wrong to do so I'll gladly do it.[/quote]


I think it's obvious what's going on here. 


[quote][quote]Siansonea II wrote...
If you can't, then maybe you don't have a point at all. [/quote] 
It's not a question of can or can't but more one of will or won't.[/quote]


"I totally debunked this in an earlier post." If you can't answer the question, it's on you. And if you "won't" answer a question, maybe you might want to run out and buy some big boy pants? Because petulantly refusing to answer a question doesn't really do wonders for your credibility.


[quote][quote]Siansonea II wrote...
I'm inclined to think that you really DON'T have a point, you are just trying to create the APPEARANCE of having a point. [/quote]
We are all limited by our ability to comprehend and desiminate information that is shaped by our perceptions/bias's established by our personal experiences.  Yours just tends to be lower then others.[/quote]


In case anyone is unclear what "ad hominem" means, this is a good example of it. Rather than present anything related to the situation on Horizon, why4 simply characterizes me as having "lower" perceptions/biases. This from someone who can't spell "disseminate". (See what I did there? )


[quote][quote]Siansonea II wrote...
But it's a house of cards, and it has already collapsed under its own weight. But vaguely indicating some point that's gone over my head doesn't magically create said point. [/quote] 
Your Perception of the plausibility of my argument, doesnt change it.  They fact that you arrived at the above conclusion because you don't understand it yet decided to go against it speaks volumes.   No, it's sad.  Argument for argument's sake?[/quote]


Oh, I understand what you said just fine. But you seem to think that you presented your argument clearly, and if what you say above is more toward the point that you were originally trying to make, then you did NOT present your argument clearly in your earlier post. You should be more precise in your communication, because you leave too much ambiguity and potential for misunderstanding. You can blame your audience all you want, but it's still on you. 


[quote][quote]Siansonea II wrote...
you are just trying to create the APPEARANCE of having a point. 
So if you've got a point, MAKE IT. UNAMBIGUOUSLY. Seriously, did anyone else arrive at a different conclusion than I did? Anybody? Bueller? Bueller?[/quote]
I have.  Do you need it in more layman's terms, ask nicely and it might just happen.  What a thought.....show some common courtesy, if your parents didn't raise you with some sense just pretend like they did. 
[/quote]


"Ask nicely". Ha! Ladies and gentlemen, there it is, the crux of the whole matter. All you ever have to do is "ask nicely" and the world is your oyster. If your tongue drips with honey, all shall be given to you. But say one word against me, and it's the airlock for you! 

Modifié par Siansonea II, 19 août 2011 - 06:11 .

[1136342t54_]

ubermensch007 wrote...

Okay... I just have to say something real quick here:

@Siansonea II, I really don't mean any offense.But I have to ask, "Are you campaigning for "B!TCH of the Year" or something?   Because you are really ahead in the Polls right now..." <_<

Siansonea II has good points that I agree with but the attitude and the way the poster approaches the argument is annoying and I would understand why someone would disagree for the sake of it.

[Ryzaki]

...this thread has dissolved into petty bickering.

Is there any reason it hasn't been closed yet?

[1136342t54_]

ChaplainTappman wrote...

1136342t54 wrote...

We already pretty much came to a conclusion on the VS decision pages back. Now we are mostly just arguing for the sake of it lol.

Yeah, I think at this point you and I are just arguing numbers.

I think the two Normandy crews, and that of the SR2 in particular, are the perfect examples of what our hypothetical "reformed Cerberus" should be. Yes, it's primarily human, and yes, they're working to protect and advance humanity. But they're unconstrained by parochialism. Mordin's the smartest scientist, and he's willing to work with Cerberus, so they pick him up. Also, I'd argue that Archer is, like TIM, so "long view" oriented, he's unable or unwilling to examine the present and whether or not he's accomplishing his goal. Which isn't a great trait in a scientist.

To be honest its likely some Cerberus cells are like that. Cerberus work with aliens multiple times its not something thats new but yes I could see a reformed Cerberus working more like the Lazarus cell. Archer isn't what I'd call the most moral scientist but I would let him work for the new Cerberus. Just not as a cell leader though. TIM and a few others like him should be killed.

[1136342t54_]

Ryzaki wrote...

...this thread has dissolved into petty bickering.

Is there any reason it hasn't been closed yet?

Its funny how most of the bickering came back when we started to talk about the VS again lol. 

[Siansonea]

1136342t54 wrote...

ubermensch007 wrote...

Okay... I just have to say something real quick here:

@Siansonea II, I really don't mean any offense.But I have to ask, "Are you campaigning for "B!TCH of the Year" or something?   Because you are really ahead in the Polls right now..." <_<

Siansonea II has good points that I agree with but the attitude and the way the poster approaches the argument is annoying and I would understand why someone would disagree for the sake of it.

And that's exactly the point I was trying to make. I wanted to illustrate what the VS was being accused of by emulating it, but on a more heightened level. People said the VS was argumentative, I wanted to show them what argumentative was REALLY like. 

Because of people's feelings about being accused of "betrayal", they don't listen to the actual points the VS is trying to make. That working with Cerberus is very upsetting, that it casts Shepard's loyalty to the Alliance in a very bad light.

If the shoe was on the other foot, if Shepard encountered the VS working with Cerberus, you can bet that many of the same people here licking their wounds over the VS being so mean would be just as vocally taking the VS to task for working with Cerberus. Because they would be identifying with Shepard's point of view, no matter what it is. The external reality of the situation, i.e., that anyone working for Cerberus is a betrayal of the Alliance, is beside the point. All that matters is how Shepard feels, and by extension how the player feels. It's quite an insidious trap! Being overly attached to your own emotional responses and preconceived ideas blinds you to other possibilities and realities that are larger than your own personal experience. We humans have a natural tendency to rationalize our behavior and attitudes, and will attempt to bend logic and circumstance in our favor to make bad situations more palatable. But logic can only bend so far. And my logic has always been very, very simple.

Cerberus is a criminal organization that has committed many atrocities.
Many of Cerberus' acts of aggression have been directed toward the Alliance.
Any Alliance soldier who cooperates with Cerberus in any capacity is on some level betraying the Aliance, regardless of the overall circumstances.

Very simple. Shepard's actions are questionable, and her agreeing to work with Cerberus is a betrayal of the Alliance, even if it ends up being the right thing to do in the end. Betraying the Alliance is the key issue. Not the overarching story or big picture as the player sees it. Because neither Shepard nor the VS can even see the big picture in that moment on Horizon, all they can see is their tiny piece of th puzzle. And the VS is even more hamstrung than Shepard, because Anderson refused to give the VS vital information that would have allowed them to draw different conclusions about seeing Shepard in the company of Cerberus.

Modifié par Siansonea II, 19 août 2011 - 07:02 .

[Siansonea]

Ryzaki wrote...

...this thread has dissolved into petty bickering.

Is there any reason it hasn't been closed yet?

I think we're doing a good job of staying on-topic, if nothing else. 

[Siansonea]

1136342t54 wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

...this thread has dissolved into petty bickering.

Is there any reason it hasn't been closed yet?

Its funny how most of the bickering came back when we started to talk about the VS again lol. 

Weeell, it IS the topic of discussion...

[whywhywhywhy]

[quote]Siansonea II wrote...
Tactic failed? Just claim it "went over your target's head". Instant credibility! Except, you know, not. People aren't that easily distracted.[/quote]How about considering the fact I'm being truthful in my answers and when someone else responds to my post they'll recieve what it is you feel you demand.  Ever consider that ?  You aren't the only one on this forum and I didn't send you a PM.


[quote]Siansonea II wrote...
Ah, so this is just the latest of your favorite tactic, the Mysterious Unidentified Antecedent. "Oh yeah, in a previous post, I completely debunked this. Which post? You find it. But yeah, totally debunked." Who is misdirecting whom?[/quote]Their you go again, you remind me of that guy from 50 first dates 10 second Tom.  Yeah that perfectly describes you 10 second Siansonea. 
Scroll up
1..2..3..4..5..6..7..8..9..10
Scroll up
1..2..3..4..5..6..7....

[quote]Siansonea II wrote...
So you admit that Shepard's action was questionable? Then it's only right and proper that someone should question her about it, don't you think?[/quote] Oh what a clever web I weave, I got you to agree with me and you don't even realize it.  Yes, I have maintained that Shepard should have been questioned by the VS.  And that if the VS didn't question Shepard thoroughly and if they didn't they don't deserve any answers.

[quote]Siansonea II wrote...
You're right, Shepard doesn't owe the VS an explanation. [/quote] See was that hard ?

[quote]Siansonea II wrote...
If Shepard is a dyed-in-the-wool Cerberus believer, then yeah, the VS can go hang. But if Shepard is conflicted about working with Cerberus, she probably wouldn't want someone she used to work with to believe that she's bought the company line. And it sure looks like she's done just that.[/quote] Other then as a lover why would He or She care ?  And even then he has the mission and people's lives to be concern with first if the VS doesn't want to listen he has to move on.

[quote]Siansonea II wrote...
All the circumstantial evidence seems to point toward Shepard being completely on board with Cerberus' goals, methods, and ideals. If that's NOT the case, she needs to supplement the circumstantial evidence with testimony. That is, if she cares what the VS thinks.[/quote] From the perscepetive of the VS, maybe but I'm indifferent because the VS was wrong.  So how does the restoration take place from that basis when they meet in me3 ?

[quote]Siansonea II wrote...
She does have a mission. And it's not a foregone conclusion that she cares what the VS thinks.  But just in case she does care, she might want to explain the situation better, rather than allow the VS to come to the natural conclusions that are evidenced by the circumstances of their meeting on Horizon.[/quote] If Shepard owes the VS nothing then why ?  Maybe after the mission is done if Shepard thinks things can be salvaged he/she could possibly reach out but he still has to search and find a way to fight/defeat the reapers.  Can he really afford the time ?  That would mean the VS has to take action to repair the relationship because of their actions on horizon, if they have time.  Otherwise they just fallout.

[quote]Siansonea II wrote...
Shepard is there with Cerberus, and that looks bad. REALLY bad. Nothing can take away from the magnitude of that. Except maybe a good explanation of the situation, which Shepard never gives. "But the VS didn't ask!" cry the VS haters. Shepard's a big girl, and she can speak up if she has something to say. She's not a wallflower waiting to be asked to dance.[/quote]Wait, wait, didn't we both agree that Shepard needs to be questioned ?  So how does it go from that to "volunteering info" ?

[quote]Siansonea II wrote...
That's not something that Shepard or the VS can possibly know on Horizon unless there is time travel involved.[/quote] Shepard had all the pernant information to make that judgement call, the presence of collectors and husks combined with the collectors actions was more then enough for him to justifiably believe the Reapers hand was involved and he correctly did so.  We must remember as a War hero, sole Survivor or ruthless Shep they've been there before and always get the job done.  Ash ? Not so much.  Kaiden ? only a little bit.


[quote]Siansonea II wrote...
Oh, well I addressed this in an earlier post, you should refer to that post. GOTCHA!!![/quote] And here I thought you were changing.  oh well, given that I hadn't really spoken about the ramifications of the actions in me3, in this thread.   I don't know how you could have addressed it....I may be wrong but I doubt it.

[quote]Siansonea II wrote...
I think it's clear what you're trying to say, and I think my rebuttals are also clear. And they're all in this one post! How convenient. [/quote]Not all just the bread crumbs they lead to a box, stick and a string.  Kind of like what happened above.  I frequently have to cut and paste things into notepad because I'm always a few steps ahead.  That's why I use to edit so many posts for formatting errors:devil:


[quote]Siansonea II wrote...
I think it's obvious what's going on here. [/quote] yep. Now play nice

[quote]Siansonea II wrote...
"I totally debunked this in an earlier post." If you can't answer the question, it's on you. And if you "won't" answer a question, maybe you might want to run out and buy some big boy pants? Because petulantly refusing to answer a question doesn't really do wonders for your credibility.[/quote] Again it's not a matter of can or can't but will or won't.  Does that bother you ?  I think it does, I recall your insistence that I copy&paste those posts and I refused.  What's stopping you from finding them if they don't exist it's a short search.  Am I right ?


[quote]Siansonea II wrote...
In case anyone is unclear what "ad hominem" means, this is a good example of it. Rather than present anything related to the situation on Horizon, why4 simply characterizes me as having "lower" perceptions/biases. This from someone who can't spell "disseminate". (See what I did there? )[/quote] I feel strongly that people in the middle of a debate call into light spelling typo's for lack or argument.  And your wrong that wasn't an example of Ad hominem it was simply an observation on why you admittingly failed to comprehend my points.  How is it an attack if you freely admitted you didn't understand ?    <-See what I did there ?  Cracking open a dictionary helps but doesn't give you command and instant understanding of what you find within.  That comes in time.  And yeah that was a retort to your attack.  Fallicies 101 by whywhywhywhy.  Today class we'll be covering truth tables.....


[quote]Siansonea II wrote...
Oh, I understand what you said just fine. But you seem to think that you presented your argument clearly, and if what you say above is more toward the point that you were originally trying to make, then you did NOT present your argument clearly in your earlier post. You should be more precise in your communication, because you leave too much ambiguity and potential for misunderstanding. You can blame your audience all you want, but it's still on you. [/quote] You tell me to understand the VS's point I say I have you then say you don't understand and in your very next post say Oh, I understand.  Is that your idea for being clever ?  It's very contradicting.  And use the search button, I've told you I'm not linking old posts   You do it.

[quote]Siansonea II wrote...
"Ask nicely". Ha! Ladies and gentlemen, there it is, the crux of the whole matter. All you ever have to do is "ask nicely" and the world is your oyster. If your tongue drips with honey, all shall be given to you. But say one word against me, and it's the airlock for you! [/quote]It really does drip with honey, is sweet, been told by some it tastes like strawberrys but that's probably a pheromone thing.  But yeah all you have to do is ask nicely.  And I wouldn't throw you out of a airlock though several people here would, I'd just put you in a nice padded room.

Modifié par whywhywhywhy, 19 août 2011 - 07:46 .

[1136342t54_]

Siansonea II wrote...

And that's exactly the point I was trying to make. I wanted to illustrate what the VS was being accused of by emulating it, but on a more heightened level. People said the VS was argumentative, I wanted to show them what argumentative was REALLY like. 

It seems to have failed. You are less argumentative and more combative in these posts.

Because of people's feelings about being accused of "betrayal", they don't listen to the actual points the VS is trying to make. That working with Cerberus is very upsetting, that it casts Shepard's loyalty to the Alliance in a very bad light.

If the shoe was on the other foot, if Shepard encountered the VS working with Cerberus, you can bet that many of the same people here licking their wounds over the VS being so mean would be just as vocally taking the VS to task for working with Cerberus. Because they would be identifying with Shepard's point of view, no matter what it is. The external reality of the situation, i.e., that anyone working for Cerberus is a betrayal of the Alliance, is beside the point. All that matters is how Shepard feels, and by extension how the player feels. It's quite an insidious trap! Being overly attached to your own emotional responses and preconceived ideas blinds you to other possibilities and realities that are larger than your own personal experience. We humans have a natural tendency to rationalize our behavior and attitudes, and will attempt to bend logic and circumstance in our favor to make bad situations more palatable. But logic can only bend so far. And my logic has always been very, very simple.

Cerberus is a criminal organization that has committed many atrocities.
Many of Cerberus' acts of aggression have been directed toward the Alliance.
Any Alliance soldier who cooperates with Cerberus in any capacity is on some level betraying the Aliance, regardless of the overall circumstances.

Very simple. Shepard's actions are questionable, and her agreeing to work with Cerberus is a betrayal of the Alliance, even if it ends up being the right thing to do in the end. Betraying the Alliance is the key issue. Not the overarching story or big picture as the player sees it. Because neither Shepard nor the VS can even see the big picture in that moment on Horizon, all they can see is their tiny piece of th puzzle. And the VS is even more hamstrung than Shepard, because Anderson refused to give the VS vital information that would have allowed them to draw different conclusions about seeing Shepard in the company of Cerberus.

Your preaching to the converted. I've made similar points to people on here and a few of my friends.

[1136342t54_]

Siansonea II wrote...

Weeell, it IS the topic of discussion...

So? My whole point was that the topic was originally full of bickering.

[NeilG]

m00nsh1ne wrote...

The whole trust thing will get resolved the first conversation you have with the VS. They would want something like that out of the way early so they can focus on more important things. And besides unless you were a major a-hole towards them on Horizon it didn't end as badly as some people make it out to be. And a lot of the tension was created from the shock of seeing somebody that the VS watch die and suddenly reappear. Nobody in their right mind can handle that like it was the most normal thing in the world.

You raise a good point there.  Seeing your CO/best friend/lover come back from the dead would be quite the shock.  I can understand then, that some thing would get said on Horizon that were heat of the moment, and they didn't nessicarily mean the words.  I mean, people often say the first things on their minds, and reactions are not always the ones you're expecting.  In any case, it will certantly make for an interesting story-in-a-story, if Bioware gets it just right.

[1136342t54_]

NeilG wrote...

You raise a good point there.  Seeing your CO/best friend/lover come back from the dead would be quite the shock.  I can understand then, that some thing would get said on Horizon that were heat of the moment, and they didn't nessicarily mean the words.  I mean, people often say the first things on their minds, and reactions are not always the ones you're expecting.  In any case, it will certantly make for an interesting story-in-a-story, if Bioware gets it just right.

This basically should  be the end of this thread.

[whywhywhywhy]

And you said it was resolved:whistle:

  Your right thought it doesn't need to go on but.....

[1136342t54_]

whywhywhywhy wrote...

And you said it was resolved:whistle:

  Your right thought it doesn't need to go on but.....

Most of us pretty much agreed on that the VS does trust shepard and her report to Anderson actually proved shepard wasn't a traitor but on the other hand the VS, Shepard and bioware could have handled this whole Horizon situation much better.

[Siansonea]

 [quote]whywhywhywhy wrote...


[quote]Siansonea II wrote...
Tactic failed? Just claim it "went over your target's head". Instant credibility! Except, you know, not. People aren't that easily distracted.[/quote]


How about considering the fact I'm being truthful in my answers and when someone else responds to my post they'll recieve what it is you feel you demand.  Ever consider that ?  You aren't the only one on this forum and I didn't send you a PM.[/quote]


Non sequitur.


[quote][quote]Siansonea II wrote...
Ah, so this is just the latest of your favorite tactic, the Mysterious Unidentified Antecedent. "Oh yeah, in a previous post, I completely debunked this. Which post? You find it. But yeah, totally debunked." Who is misdirecting whom?[/quote]
Their you go again, you remind me of that guy from 50 first dates 10 second Tom.  Yeah that perfectly describes you 10 second Siansonea.  
Scroll up
1..2..3..4..5..6..7..8..9..10
Scroll up
1..2..3..4..5..6..7....[/quote]


Didn't see that movie.


[quote][quote]Siansonea II wrote...
So you admit that Shepard's action was questionable? Then it's only right and proper that someone should question her about it, don't you think?[/quote] 
Oh what a clever web I weave, I got you to agree with me and you don't even realize it.  Yes, I have maintained that Shepard should have been questioned by the VS.  And that if the VS didn't question Shepard thoroughly and if they didn't they don't deserve any answers.[/quote]


Except I never said the VS shouldn't ask Shepard more questions, only that laying the blame on the VS for the Horizon failure BECAUSE he/she didn't ask more questions is silly. Shepard can chime in any time she feels she's being misunderstood, you know.


[quote][quote]Siansonea II wrote...
You're right, Shepard doesn't owe the VS an explanation. [/quote] See was that hard ? [/quote]


No. When you actually do make a good point, I'm willing to acknowledge that.


[quote][quote]Siansonea II wrote...
If Shepard is a dyed-in-the-wool Cerberus believer, then yeah, the VS can go hang. But if Shepard is conflicted about working with Cerberus, she probably wouldn't want someone she used to work with to believe that she's bought the company line. And it sure looks like she's done just that.[/quote] 
Other then as a lover why would He or She care ?  And even then he has the mission and people's lives to be concern with first if the VS doesn't want to listen he has to move on. [/quote]


Shepard spent a lot of time in the Alliance. I think she would care if other Alliance soldiers thought ill of her for working with Cerberus. Unless she likes working with Cerberus, that is.


[quote][quote]Siansonea II wrote...
All the circumstantial evidence seems to point toward Shepard being completely on board with Cerberus' goals, methods, and ideals. If that's NOT the case, she needs to supplement the circumstantial evidence with testimony. That is, if she cares what the VS thinks.[/quote] 
From the perscepetive of the VS, maybe but I'm indifferent because the VS was wrong.  So how does the restoration take place from that basis when they meet in me3 ?[/quote]


But the VS isn't "wrong". Just because you don't like what the VS has to say doesn't mean he or she is wrong. Shepard is betraying the Alliance by working with Cerberus, whatever her reasons are. It could well be that in the final analysis that betrayal will be offset by what has been gained in the process, that is, stopping the Collectors. But Shepard hasn't stopped the Collectors when she meets the VS on the Horizon, that's still a long ways off. And in any case, the VS doesn't know anything about the Collectors when Shepard shows up on Horizon. So "wrong" in this case should be changed to "uninformed". And whose fault is that?


[quote][quote]Siansonea II wrote...
She does have a mission. And it's not a foregone conclusion that she cares what the VS thinks.  But just in case she does care, she might want to explain the situation better, rather than allow the VS to come to the natural conclusions that are evidenced by the circumstances of their meeting on Horizon.[/quote] 
If Shepard owes the VS nothing then why ?  Maybe after the mission is done if Shepard thinks things can be salvaged he/she could possibly reach out but he still has to search and find a way to fight/defeat the reapers.  Can he really afford the time ?  That would mean the VS has to take action to repair the relationship because of their actions on horizon, if they have time.  Otherwise they just fallout.[/quote]


Well, if Shepard doesn't care, why should the VS? After all, Shepard was just as "wrong" on Horizon. It may be that the VS is done trying to make nice with a person of such poor character as Shepard. I would be.


[quote][quote]Siansonea II wrote...
Shepard is there with Cerberus, and that looks bad. REALLY bad. Nothing can take away from the magnitude of that. Except maybe a good explanation of the situation, which Shepard never gives. "But the VS didn't ask!" cry the VS haters. Shepard's a big girl, and she can speak up if she has something to say. She's not a wallflower waiting to be asked to dance.[/quote]
Wait, wait, didn't we both agree that Shepard needs to be questioned ?  So how does it go from that to "volunteering info" ?[/quote]


Because Shepard isn't a Chatty Cathy doll waiting for her pull-string to be pulled. Shepard has some explaining to do. She doesn't need to wait around for somebody to ask a bunch of very specific questions. Why is Shepard allowed to passively withhold information? If she's concerned about her reputation, she'll do everything she can to make the VS understand her reasons for working with Cerberus. She won't just wait around for the VS to happen upon the right questions. Seriously, how hard is that to understand? I've said this MULTIPLE times. 


[quote][quote]Siansonea II wrote...
That's not something that Shepard or the VS can possibly know on Horizon unless there is time travel involved.[/quote] 
Shepard had all the pernant information to make that judgement call, the presence of collectors and husks combined with the collectors actions was more then enough for him to justifiably believe the Reapers hand was involved and he correctly did so.  We must remember as a War hero, sole Survivor or ruthless Shep they've been there before and always get the job done.  Ash ? Not so much.  Kaiden ? only a little bit.[/quote]


If Shepard had shared the pertinent information, then she could make her position more clearly known. But for everyone to just assume Shepard Knows Best™ and refrain from questioning her judgment and motives when she shows up in the company of criminals, that's just stupid. The VS gives Shepard every opportunity to explain herself, and she comes off like she supports Cerberus. 


[quote][quote]Siansonea II wrote...
Oh, well I addressed this in an earlier post, you should refer to that post. GOTCHA!!![/quote] And here I thought you were changing.  oh well, given that I hadn't really spoken about the ramifications of the actions in me3, in this thread.   I don't know how you could have addressed it....I may be wrong but I doubt it.[/quote]


You can dish it out, but you can't take it. "LOL", as they say.


[quote][quote]Siansonea II wrote...
I think it's clear what you're trying to say, and I think my rebuttals are also clear. And they're all in this one post! How convenient. [/quote]
Not all just the bread crumbs they lead to a box, stick and a string.  Kind of like what happened above.  I frequently have to cut and paste things into notepad because I'm always a few steps ahead.  That's why I use to edit so many posts for formatting errors. [/quote]


Now see, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I'm sure you'll just hypothesize that I have subpar reading comprehension, but the fact is that this is not the best way to say whatever it is you're trying to say. Bread crumbs that lead to a box? Stick and string? Like WHAT that happened above? Clear antecedents would be very helpful, instead of assuming that everyone instantly knows which specific item you happen to be talking about when you refer to something upthread.


[quote][quote]Siansonea II wrote...
I think it's obvious what's going on here. [/quote] yep. Now play nice [/quote]


No. There aren't any points for playing "nice". Being nice is of little value. People clearly value being nice over being right, and I'd rather champion logic and truth than "nice". 


[quote][quote]Siansonea II wrote...
"I totally debunked this in an earlier post." If you can't answer the question, it's on you. And if you "won't" answer a question, maybe you might want to run out and buy some big boy pants? Because petulantly refusing to answer a question doesn't really do wonders for your credibility.[/quote] Again it's not a matter of can or can't but will or won't.  Does that bother you ?  I think it does, I recall your insistence that I copy&paste those posts and I refused.  What's stopping you from finding them if they don't exist it's a short search.  Am I right ?[/quote]


Nope. And your stubborn refusal to provide backup proves the weakness of your argument. I have continually restated my stance over and over and over in this thread, for clarity's sake. Because I'm not afraid to let my words stand on their own. I don't have to hide behind misdirection. You ask me for my viewpoint, I give it, even if I just gave it a couple of posts back. In fact, here it is again:


Cerberus is a criminal organization who has killed and tortured many Alliance soldiers in the past, including an Admiral. It is only natural that a loyal Alliance soldier would be very upset to encounter another Alliance soldier in the company of Cerberus. It is incumbent upon the other soldier to explain why she is with Cerberus, if she cares what the loyal Alliance soldier thinks. It is not the loyal soldier's responsibility to ask a series of leading questions to pull the story out of the traitor, she can explain herself without being asked.


[quote][quote]Siansonea II wrote...
In case anyone is unclear what "ad hominem" means, this is a good example of it. Rather than present anything related to the situation on Horizon, why4 simply characterizes me as having "lower" perceptions/biases. This from someone who can't spell "disseminate". (See what I did there? )[/quote] 
I feel strongly that people in the middle of a debate call into light spelling typo's for lack or argument. And your wrong that wasn't an example of Ad hominem it was simply an observation on why you admittingly failed to comprehend my points.  How is it an attack if you freely admitted you didn't understand ?    <-See what I did there ?  Cracking open a dictionary helps but doesn't give you command and instant understanding of what you find within.  That comes in time.  And yeah that was a retort to your attack.  Fallicies 101 by whywhywhywhy.  Today class we'll be covering truth tables.....[/quote]


And that went right over your head. My "spelling correction" was an illustration of an ad hominem tactic, to lampoon your own. I'm not surprised you misunderstood it. I guess you're just not smart enough. 


Did you get it that time?


I DID admit that I didn't understand your point, but why is it a foregone conclusion that the failure was in my understanding, and not your communication? Rather than even consider that you could have phrased something better, you assume I lack basic reading comprehension, though a cursory review of my posts should indicate to an unbiased person that nothing could be further from the truth.


[quote][quote]Siansonea II wrote...
Oh, I understand what you said just fine. But you seem to think that you presented your argument clearly, and if what you say above is more toward the point that you were originally trying to make, then you did NOT present your argument clearly in your earlier post. You should be more precise in your communication, because you leave too much ambiguity and potential for misunderstanding. You can blame your audience all you want, but it's still on you. [/quote] 
You tell me to understand the VS's point I say I have you then say you don't understand and in your very next post say Oh, I understand.  Is that your idea for being clever ?  It's very contradicting.  And use the search button, I've told you I'm not linking old posts  You do it.[/quote]


I understand. Your points can't bear scrutiny. I repeat my own points as often as necessary, and I invite any and all scrutiny from all and sundry. I don't hide behind ambiguous references to words buried in posts many pages back. If the points were so well-reasoned, you'd parrot them continually. But it's a lot easier to just plant your feet and be stubborn, rather than accept a request for clarification. But no one is fooled by this tactic. No one is going to just believe you made a good point because you say you made a good point. They're going to want to actually review that point for themselves. 


And by the way, if anyone else DOES happen to run across this mysterious great point that why4 has made, could you quote/repost it? Because it's existence is becoming more mythical by the second.


[quote][quote]Siansonea II wrote...
"Ask nicely". Ha! Ladies and gentlemen, there it is, the crux of the whole matter. All you ever have to do is "ask nicely" and the world is your oyster. If your tongue drips with honey, all shall be given to you. But say one word against me, and it's the airlock for you! [/quote]
It really does drip with honey, is sweet, been told by some it tastes like strawberrys but that's probably a pheromone thing.  But yeah all you have to do is ask nicely.  And I wouldn't throw you out of a airlock though several people here would, I'd just put you in a nice padded room.
[/quote]


Thank you for continuing to illustrate my point! 

Modifié par Siansonea II, 19 août 2011 - 08:42 .