57139 réponses à ce sujet

[blooregard]

AnuzaGray wrote...

UrgentArchengel wrote...

blooregard wrote...

I imagine this will get buried pretty fast but I was wondering if a few things are still elephants in the room when it comes to disproving the IT theory.

1) Why as Shepard been immune to the effects of indoctrination despite all his interactions with reaper tech?

2) Why does Shepard only wake up on earth AFTER the destroy ending (because we all know his track record of surviving suffocation, re-entry, and terminal velocity impact with a planet)?

3) Why can we see that kid run into the building before getting lasered? And why does the kid survive it before saying cryptic and "non child like" lines like "everyone's dying" and "you can't save me"?

4) While TIM may have been able to control Shepard due to the cybernetic implants (unlikely but possible) how can he control Anderson too?


I just was wondering if these are still outstanding issues or not.

1) Significantly stronger will than nearly everyone else indoctrinated.  It's only after an excellent opening and massive amounts of stress that the Reapers are able to get this far with him/her.

2) How does this relate to IDT?  If IDT is correct, Shepard never left Earth.  Also, Shepard didn't survive the his/her inital travel through the atmosphere are the start of ME2, s/he just lucked out and had enough of her body and CNS survive to make Lazarus possible.

3) Again, how does this relate to IDT?  If anything the kid somehow magically surviving that blast and than being ignored by Anderson (who has what it appears to be a clear line of sight to kid and doesn't even ask Shepard who s/he is talking to) supports the IDT theory instead of contradicting it.

4) Again, how does this relate to IDT? If it is just a dream, than it's just a dream and TIM's power is simply a manifestation of what Shepard think's he'll achieve with Reaper tech.  If IDT is incorrect, TIM's power makes even less sense.

I really haven't seen a good argument against IDT...

You misunderstood this was meant for ANTI IDT guys. but to answer your questions


1) I'm aware of shep's willpower but that doesn't explain why he's so immunte to it. He's on board a derelict reaper for at least an hour maybe, he's out cold in a base SURROUNDING an indoctrination machine for damn near 3 days, he's fought a baby reaper and had a pleasent conversation with a destroyer (as well as being very close to various destroyers)


2) That was the point since all the anti IT guys are citing the (vague) press release and final hours app I was wondering if they actually had anything to counter the big pieces of evidence.


3) Once again the question was to try and get an anti IT guy's opinion on the continued presence of the duct rat after watching the building bet blown up


4) Again point of question was to get anti IT opinion on the the 4 biggest pieces of evidence supporting it.

[Lyria]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

CLB17 wrote...

Well in KOTOR i didn't see the character i created turing out to be the dark lord of the sith prior to to actuel revelation. But looking in  hindsight i could see all the hints and clues that led to this revelation. A twist only works if you don't expect it.

Thank you, if the evidence had to come before the theory, it wouldn't be a theory, it would be fact.

Actually it would be dogma as facts are subjective in this day and age, as sad as that is.

There are two things in this universe that deal with truth: theory and dogma (instead of dogma think of the word as in "canon").

They are both the same thing in terms of finding truths.  

However, they differ in that Dogma is always 100%.  Dogma is handed down to man from some form of divinity/higher source (in the case of ME3 that would be Bioware...not trying to be sacrilegious just pointing out who has to give us the information).

Theory can never be 100%.  As something always comes along that can add/subtract to the data that has been gathered/analyzed and either disproves or improves upon what has been gathered.

In the case of Indoctrination Theory, it is a theory that is reached upon looking at bits and bobs from Mass Effect 3 and when more is found it will either be proven or disproven.  In either case the theory would move on to be canon in whatever fashion Bioware decides.  

[killnoob]

DashingSplash wrote...

killnoob wrote...

Sure, but as I've stated numerous time,

Bioware has given us enough info to nail this theory as dead.

There will be no extended gameplay in clarification DLC, so the whole idea of Shepard waking up and defeat the reapers are gone.

How much tweets from Jessica can be taken seriously is yet to be seen.
But according to her there is nothing that implies we wont get any gameplay with the DLC.

With respect, if you google Clarification DLC you will get results of Casey Hudson saying the DLC will include only cinematics.

Also, it's not good arguement if you use what "Might" happen in the future to support what is happening in the present.

What is happening in the present:
We are shown a crappy ending.
Bioware is making new cinematic to clarify it
The IT is about Shepard making a choice, whether he has the resolve to destroy the reapers or not.
If he does, he gets to wake up, and do what he must. This requires a giant DLC which includes all the questions I have raised so far.

But since there is no new gamplay in the clarification, you can assume.

What might happen:
Bioware make new dlc to support indoctrination theory

Which is highly unlikely, as they have neither shown support nor debukes for the theory at this point.

[AnuzaGray]

killnoob wrote...

AnuzaGray wrote...

UrgentArchengel wrote...

blooregard wrote...

I imagine this will get buried pretty fast but I was wondering if a few things are still elephants in the room when it comes to disproving the IT theory.

1) Why as Shepard been immune to the effects of indoctrination despite all his interactions with reaper tech?

2) Why does Shepard only wake up on earth AFTER the destroy ending (because we all know his track record of surviving suffocation, re-entry, and terminal velocity impact with a planet)?

3) Why can we see that kid run into the building before getting lasered? And why does the kid survive it before saying cryptic and "non child like" lines like "everyone's dying" and "you can't save me"?

4) While TIM may have been able to control Shepard due to the cybernetic implants (unlikely but possible) how can he control Anderson too?


I just was wondering if these are still outstanding issues or not.

1) Significantly stronger will than nearly everyone else indoctrinated.  It's only after an excellent opening and massive amounts of stress that the Reapers are able to get this far with him/her.

2) How does this relate to IDT?  If IDT is correct, Shepard never left Earth.  Also, Shepard didn't survive the his/her inital travel through the atmosphere are the start of ME2, s/he just lucked out and had enough of her body and CNS survive to make Lazarus possible.

3) Again, how does this relate to IDT?  If anything the kid somehow magically surviving that blast and than being ignored by Anderson (who has what it appears to be a clear line of sight to kid and doesn't even ask Shepard who s/he is talking to) supports the IDT theory instead of contradicting it.

4) Again, how does this relate to IDT? If it is just a dream, than it's just a dream and TIM's power is simply a manifestation of what Shepard think's he'll achieve with Reaper tech.  If IDT is incorrect, TIM's power makes even less sense.

I really haven't seen a good argument against IDT...

So what are you saying?

I thought IDT is supposed to be just theory?

Are you illiterate or just trolling?

It's just a theory, but aside from asinine comments and claims that Bioware has somehow denied it (not true, they are being intentionally vague) there is no in game evidence that can logically disprove it.

It's one thing to have a near airtight theory and another to have a theory with a myriad of holes and inconsistencies.

[DashingSplash]

blooregard wrote...

You misunderstood this was meant for ANTI IDT guys. but to answer your questions


1) I'm aware of shep's willpower but that doesn't explain why he's so immunte to it. He's on board a derelict reaper for at least an hour maybe, he's out cold in a base SURROUNDING an indoctrination machine for damn near 3 days, he's fought a baby reaper and had a pleasent conversation with a destroyer (as well as being very close to various destroyers)


2) That was the point since all the anti IT guys are citing the (vague) press release and final hours app I was wondering if they actually had anything to counter the big pieces of evidence.


3) Once again the question was to try and get an anti IT guy's opinion on the continued presence of the duct rat after watching the building bet blown up


4) Again point of question was to get anti IT opinion on the the 4 biggest pieces of evidence supporting it.

Then I have to apologize for misunderstanding your intended question.

[GBGriffin]

blooregard wrote...

I imagine this will get buried pretty fast but I was wondering if a few things are still elephants in the room when it comes to disproving the IT theory.

1) Why as Shepard been immune to the effects of indoctrination despite all his interactions with reaper tech?

2) Why does Shepard only wake up on earth AFTER the destroy ending (because we all know his track record of surviving suffocation, re-entry, and terminal velocity impact with a planet)?

3) Why can we see that kid run into the building before getting lasered? And why does the kid survive it before saying cryptic and "non child like" lines like "everyone's dying" and "you can't save me"?

4) While TIM may have been able to control Shepard due to the cybernetic implants (unlikely but possible) how can he control Anderson too?


I just was wondering if these are still outstanding issues or not.

1.) We're never actually shown the indoctrination process, rapid or otherwise. It might have had some effect, or maybe it wears off if not exposed to it for a certain amount of time. Also, if anything, wouldn't Anderson be indoctrinated, since he spends more time on Earth / around Reapers than Shep in 3?

2.) My theory on this is, and always has been, that this was BioWare throwing footage in there (which may have been a part of some other ending, I don't know) t reward the player for achieving a high EMS. The incentive for this, obviously, would be to show that Shepard survived...somehow. It's a reward for the player; it doesn't have to mean anything beyond that.

3.) I didn't think they were cryptic. To me, it was just bad writing expressing a legitimate fear. Again, this could just be a design issue. It doesn't have to mean anything and, without the theory, it doesn't prove anything. It's just a scene of dialogue with a child.

4.) Again, we don't know because it isn't really explained. We don't know how the implants work, nor is it explained to us. It doesn't mean that it's in Shep's head though; it simply means they didn't explain it.

[balance5050]

killnoob wrote...

DashingSplash wrote...

killnoob wrote...

Sure, but as I've stated numerous time,

Bioware has given us enough info to nail this theory as dead.

There will be no extended gameplay in clarification DLC, so the whole idea of Shepard waking up and defeat the reapers are gone.

How much tweets from Jessica can be taken seriously is yet to be seen.
But according to her there is nothing that implies we wont get any gameplay with the DLC.

With respect, if you google Clarification DLC you will get results of Casey Hudson saying the DLC will include only cinematics.

Also, it's not good arguement if you use what "Might" happen in the future to support what is happening in the present.

What is happening in the present:
We are shown a crappy ending.
Bioware is making new cinematic to clarify it
The IT is about Shepard making a choice, whether he has the resolve to destroy the reapers or not.
If he does, he gets to wake up, and do what he must. This requires a giant DLC which includes all the questions I have raised so far.

But since there is no new gamplay in the clarification, you can assume.

What might happen:
Bioware make new dlc to support indoctrination theory

Which is highly unlikely, as they have neither shown support nor debukes for the theory at this point.

You're basing your evidence on software that is still in development... I don't know if that's sturdy evidence buddy:?

[DashingSplash]

killnoob wrote...

With respect, if you google Clarification DLC you will get results of Casey Hudson saying the DLC will include only cinematics.

Also, it's not good arguement if you use what "Might" happen in the future to support what is happening in the present.

What is happening in the present:
We are shown a crappy ending.
Bioware is making new cinematic to clarify it
The IT is about Shepard making a choice, whether he has the resolve to destroy the reapers or not.
If he does, he gets to wake up, and do what he must. This requires a giant DLC which includes all the questions I have raised so far.

But since there is no new gamplay in the clarification, you can assume.

What might happen:
Bioware make new dlc to support indoctrination theory

Which is highly unlikely, as they have neither shown support nor debukes for the theory at this point.

Thank you for correcting me, my mistake.

[GBGriffin]

balance5050 wrote...

Haha, it's been years since I've been quoted in a sig. I'm honored...and it's also one of my better quotes, I must say

[Jadebaby]

GBGriffin wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

CLB17 wrote...

Well in KOTOR i didn't see the character i created turing out to be the dark lord of the sith prior to to actuel revelation. But looking in  hindsight i could see all the hints and clues that led to this revelation. A twist only works if you don't expect it.

Thank you, if the evidence had to come before the theory, it wouldn't be a theory, it would be fact.

Bah, couldn't resist checking the thread one more time.

The big difference here, and this has been stated already, is that you are shown the revelation. You are factually Revan. In ME3, you are, at best, possibly indoctrinated, possibly not.

In ME3, you are shown...something. Something you've never seen before, and players attached interpretation and meaning to it to make sense of it. It isn't clearly explained, but the Revan reveal was. It made it into the final release, but if this was a planned reveal, that Shep was indoctrinated...why not show an indoctrinated Shep instead of just a waking one?.

Why not only quote him if you're only going to debate his post?

[blooregard]

killnoob wrote...

DashingSplash wrote...

killnoob wrote...

Sure, but as I've stated numerous time,

Bioware has given us enough info to nail this theory as dead.

There will be no extended gameplay in clarification DLC, so the whole idea of Shepard waking up and defeat the reapers are gone.

How much tweets from Jessica can be taken seriously is yet to be seen.
But according to her there is nothing that implies we wont get any gameplay with the DLC.

With respect, if you google Clarification DLC you will get results of Casey Hudson saying the DLC will include only cinematics.

Also, it's not good arguement if you use what "Might" happen in the future to support what is happening in the present.

What is happening in the present:
We are shown a crappy ending.
Bioware is making new cinematic to clarify it
The IT is about Shepard making a choice, whether he has the resolve to destroy the reapers or not.
If he does, he gets to wake up, and do what he must. This requires a giant DLC which includes all the questions I have raised so far.

But since there is no new gamplay in the clarification, you can assume.

What might happen:
Bioware make new dlc to support indoctrination theory

Which is highly unlikely, as they have neither shown support nor debukes for the theory at this point.

I hate to say it but Casey doesn't exactly have a good track record of being truthful. Plus I just googled that and nothing popped up that says any quote from Casey Hudson.


The PAX panel today had them say the extended cut will be more then a few cutscenes (vague) and they pretty dodged the IT question like Neo from the Matrix with another vague comment.

[GBGriffin]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

GBGriffin wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

CLB17 wrote...

Well in KOTOR i didn't see the character i created turing out to be the dark lord of the sith prior to to actuel revelation. But looking in  hindsight i could see all the hints and clues that led to this revelation. A twist only works if you don't expect it.

Thank you, if the evidence had to come before the theory, it wouldn't be a theory, it would be fact.

Bah, couldn't resist checking the thread one more time.

The big difference here, and this has been stated already, is that you are shown the revelation. You are factually Revan. In ME3, you are, at best, possibly indoctrinated, possibly not.

In ME3, you are shown...something. Something you've never seen before, and players attached interpretation and meaning to it to make sense of it. It isn't clearly explained, but the Revan reveal was. It made it into the final release, but if this was a planned reveal, that Shep was indoctrinated...why not show an indoctrinated Shep instead of just a waking one?.

Why not only quote him if you're only going to debate his post?

I'm tired and saw your post first

[MothrascoolerthenGodzilla]

GBGriffin wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

CLB17 wrote...

Well in KOTOR i didn't see the character i created turing out to be the dark lord of the sith prior to to actuel revelation. But looking in  hindsight i could see all the hints and clues that led to this revelation. A twist only works if you don't expect it.

Thank you, if the evidence had to come before the theory, it wouldn't be a theory, it would be fact.

Bah, couldn't resist checking the thread one more time.

The big difference here, and this has been stated already, is that you are shown the revelation. You are factually Revan. In ME3, you are, at best, possibly indoctrinated, possibly not.

In ME3, you are shown...something. Something you've never seen before, and players attached interpretation and meaning to it to make sense of it. It isn't clearly explained, but the Revan reveal was. It made it into the final release, but if this was a planned reveal, that Shep was indoctrinated...why not show an indoctrinated Shep instead of just a waking one?.

You're not shown something you've never seen before.  You're shown something you've seen three times before which are normally not present in most video games.  If the dreams have no purpose other than to show some sort of disturbed mental state by shepard that never comes into play in the game, that is bad storytelling.

As for why not show an indoctrinated Shep instead of a waking one?  Why show a spinning top with a partial bobble at the end of inception without showing us whether the top would spin or fall?  Ambiguity is a type of storytelling.  Now whether it should have been used for this type of game is certainly up for debate, but it was definitely used.

[balance5050]

GBGriffin wrote...

blooregard wrote...

I imagine this will get buried pretty fast but I was wondering if a few things are still elephants in the room when it comes to disproving the IT theory.

1) Why as Shepard been immune to the effects of indoctrination despite all his interactions with reaper tech?

2) Why does Shepard only wake up on earth AFTER the destroy ending (because we all know his track record of surviving suffocation, re-entry, and terminal velocity impact with a planet)?

3) Why can we see that kid run into the building before getting lasered? And why does the kid survive it before saying cryptic and "non child like" lines like "everyone's dying" and "you can't save me"?

4) While TIM may have been able to control Shepard due to the cybernetic implants (unlikely but possible) how can he control Anderson too?


I just was wondering if these are still outstanding issues or not.

1.) We're never actually shown the indoctrination process, rapid or otherwise. It might have had some effect, or maybe it wears off if not exposed to it for a certain amount of time. Also, if anything, wouldn't Anderson be indoctrinated, since he spends more time on Earth / around Reapers than Shep in 3?

2.) My theory on this is, and always has been, that this was BioWare throwing footage in there (which may have been a part of some other ending, I don't know) t reward the player for achieving a high EMS. The incentive for this, obviously, would be to show that Shepard survived...somehow. It's a reward for the player; it doesn't have to mean anything beyond that.

3.) I didn't think they were cryptic. To me, it was just bad writing expressing a legitimate fear. Again, this could just be a design issue. It doesn't have to mean anything and, without the theory, it doesn't prove anything. It's just a scene of dialogue with a child.

4.) Again, we don't know because it isn't really explained. We don't know how the implants work, nor is it explained to us. It doesn't mean that it's in Shep's head though; it simply means they didn't explain it.

"would be to show that Shepard survived...somehow. It's a reward for the player; it doesn't have to mean anything beyond that. "


Dude, why are you here, you don't really think about meaning much do you?<_<

[balance5050]

GBGriffin wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

GBGriffin wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

CLB17 wrote...

Well in KOTOR i didn't see the character i created turing out to be the dark lord of the sith prior to to actuel revelation. But looking in  hindsight i could see all the hints and clues that led to this revelation. A twist only works if you don't expect it.

Thank you, if the evidence had to come before the theory, it wouldn't be a theory, it would be fact.

Bah, couldn't resist checking the thread one more time.

The big difference here, and this has been stated already, is that you are shown the revelation. You are factually Revan. In ME3, you are, at best, possibly indoctrinated, possibly not.

In ME3, you are shown...something. Something you've never seen before, and players attached interpretation and meaning to it to make sense of it. It isn't clearly explained, but the Revan reveal was. It made it into the final release, but if this was a planned reveal, that Shep was indoctrinated...why not show an indoctrinated Shep instead of just a waking one?.

Why not only quote him if you're only going to debate his post?

I'm tired and saw your post first

Then go to sleep, your not making much sense, you sound kinda sedated.

[GBGriffin]

balance5050 wrote...

Dude, why are you here, you don't really think about meaning much do you?<_<

Not everything has to mean something grand.

Why can't it be just a reward? That's means something, doesn't it?

[killnoob]

AnuzaGray wrote...

Are you illiterate or just trolling?

It's just a theory, but aside from asinine comments and claims that Bioware has somehow denied it (not true, they are being intentionally vague) there is no in game evidence that can logically disprove it.

It's one thing to have a near airtight theory and another to have a theory with a myriad of holes and inconsistencies.

Lets me make this clear for you:

IDT = theory. Fans interpretate what is being shown.

"Bioware wrote a story ends with numerous plotholes" theory = fact. We are presented with this ending.

Do I make myself clear?

There is actually more reason to believe the second one because we are shown, where as the IDT requires you to grasp straws.

[Lyria]

killnoob wrote...

protognosis wrote...

killnoob wrote...

DashingSplash wrote...


You don't know everything about the games until you have played through all three of them.
What use would it be to play a third game if the two previous games explained everything.

What he is trying to say is, that the theorist applied their own interpretation to what is being show, and then regard it as evidence, when it is anything but.

That would be like Me saying Fibonacci sequence is god's way of telling us he exist because nature can't possible develope goden ratio on its own.

I'm sorry but anything that trys to prove/disprove God/Gods/Gary Gygax isn't scientific, which is built upon the foundation of taking things found and analysing them, but faith.
Completely different subjects/lines of thought.

If you look at something and interpret it that is how analysis works....so you're saying we shouldn't look at the in game weirdness and analyze it to see what its about and come to a conclusion?

How is that different to religion then?
You are not shown shepard getting indoctrinated.
If Shepard is indeed indoctrinated, the game would not be complete.
The game's ending will be "shepard wakes up in the rubble."

What happen to the reapers?
Speculate.

What does crucible do?
Speculate

How is Shepard gonna destroy reapers?
Speculate

How does Me3 ends?
Speculate

What is the plot of Me3?

Gathering Allies

For what?
Speculate. ( Remember, we're not told what crucible does, if IT is correct)


How is that a good game?

Ughh...religion.  Relgion is Dogma and is always 100% to those that believe.
Theory is never 100%.  But a as close to perfect analysis of the avialable data.

/facepalm

And we are not directly shown but indirectly shown Shepard being indoctrinated throughout the game.
This is one of those things that you have to look at and analyze. 
Actually we are told what the Crucible does.  ITs a massive weapon.  I believe we are told that after Mars enroute to the Citadel.  And we are told later that we don't know what it does exactly.  The whole plot is built around speculation of the Crucible.  
How does ME 3 end?  Very poorly.
Is ME3 a good game?  Its not a good game?
Shepard is going to destroy reapers with the crucible when it actually does fire.

[DashingSplash]

GBGriffin wrote...

I'm tired and saw your post first

Not much good comes from being tired.
You'll only make decisions you regret later on, go to bed and get some sleep and we will most likely see you in 9 hours.

[balance5050]

GBGriffin wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

Haha, it's been years since I've been quoted in a sig. I'm honored...and it's also one of my better quotes, I must say

Just there to remind you that no matter what you say in here, it only amounts to speculation:wizard:

Modifié par balance5050, 07 avril 2012 - 06:47 .

[GBGriffin]

 

MothrascoolerthenGodzilla wrote...


You're not shown something you've never seen before.  You're shown something you've seen three times before which are normally not present in most video games.  If the dreams have no purpose other than to show some sort of disturbed mental state by shepard that never comes into play in the game, that is bad storytelling.

As for why not show an indoctrinated Shep instead of a waking one?  Why show a spinning top with a partial bobble at the end of inception without showing us whether the top would spin or fall?  Ambiguity is a type of storytelling.  Now whether it should have been used for this type of game is certainly up for debate, but it was definitely used.

You aren't shown the actual process, though. You're shown individuals who have already undergone it, or might be going through it, but never the actual process. To introduce that in the last few minutes of the game, an experience the player has never witnessed, is jarring and, imo, poor design.

balance5050 wrote...

Then go to sleep, your not making much sense, you sound kinda sedated.

I'll use my last post of ther night to point out that, again, anything which doesn't support the IT can be dismissed as just "not making sense".

Thank you, and good night.

[AnuzaGray]

killnoob wrote...

AnuzaGray wrote...

Are you illiterate or just trolling?

It's just a theory, but aside from asinine comments and claims that Bioware has somehow denied it (not true, they are being intentionally vague) there is no in game evidence that can logically disprove it.

It's one thing to have a near airtight theory and another to have a theory with a myriad of holes and inconsistencies.

Lets me make this clear for you:

IDT = theory. Fans interpretate what is being shown.

"Bioware wrote a story ends with numerous plotholes" theory = fact. We are presented with this ending.

Do I make myself clear?

There is actually more reason to believe the second one because we are shown, where as the IDT requires you to grasp straws.

This reinforces my belief that your intellectual development is roughly on par with that of a five year old.

Your argument is inherently flawed and yet you fail to see that.

You lack the ability to counter IDT in any logical fashion and are forced to resort to saying that "it isn't true because Bioware hasn't said so".  

This does not change the fact that IDT is the best explanation for the bizarre events at the end of ME3.  Even if the DLC does not support IDT, IDT will probably remain the best explanation for the finale.

[balance5050]

GBGriffin-
"I'll use my last post of ther night to point out that, again, anything which doesn't support the IT can be dismissed as just "not making sense"."

I bet a lot of things don't make sense to you.

Modifié par balance5050, 07 avril 2012 - 06:48 .

[Lyria]

killnoob wrote...

AnuzaGray wrote...

Are you illiterate or just trolling?

It's just a theory, but aside from asinine comments and claims that Bioware has somehow denied it (not true, they are being intentionally vague) there is no in game evidence that can logically disprove it.

It's one thing to have a near airtight theory and another to have a theory with a myriad of holes and inconsistencies.

Lets me make this clear for you:

IDT = theory. Fans interpretate what is being shown.

"Bioware wrote a story ends with numerous plotholes" theory = fact. We are presented with this ending.

Do I make myself clear?

There is actually more reason to believe the second one because we are shown, where as the IDT requires you to grasp straws emergency induction ports.

There fixed that for ya.

And yeah....if we have to THINK about the ending it isn't a real ending... herp durr....
People act as if the word "theory" is subjective when theories are objective until proven otherwise by new evidence.  
Maybe if people looked up the word....

[Lyria]

balance5050 wrote...


GBGriffin-
"I'll use my last post of ther night to point out that, again, anything which doesn't support the IT can be dismissed as just "not making sense"."

I bet a lot of things don't make sense to you.

Modifié par protognosis, 07 avril 2012 - 06:50 .