5087 réponses à ce sujet

[shepLJ]

I wish Dr Who was here - he would save the day....

[Zine2]

Excellent post from Dr. Dray, demonstrating how the ending actually completely falls apart when placed under deep scrutiny rather than becoming more meaningful or profound.

And he didn't have to make the Holocaust references like I had to .

I would only add that the ending falls apart immediately upon the introduction of the Star Child and when he reveals his prejudiced ideology; which results in the players tacitly rejecting any solution from the said character.

Modifié par Zine2, 19 avril 2012 - 02:42 .

[Sc2mashimaro]

Vromrig wrote...

Mordin wouldn't present a paraphrase as a quote. Mordin would quote directly.

And then he would present evidence. Talk theory. Raise and dismiss several possibilities. Here, let me get him....

Making continued erroneous conclusion.

Not debating, have not been debating. Have been insisting would be fascinating if legitimate, do not believe it is.

Requesting refutation.

If you can find flaw in wanting to be wrong about initial impression...then very concerned about you.

Mordin, you could always email him at the school email to verify that it is actually him. I'm sure if it wasn't, the real Colin Dray would be interested to know that someone was impersonating him and if it is him and, if it is him, he might be an intersting fellow to talk to - he obviously enjoys discussing Mass Effect here.

http://www.campion.e...9-dr-colin-dray 

Think of it as doing a test to verify your hypothesis....

Modifié par Sc2mashimaro, 19 avril 2012 - 02:55 .

[Rustedness]

Good to see I'm not the only person whose immediate response was to shoot ghostboy in the face.

[Vromrig]

Daedalus1773 wrote...

Vromrig wrote...

Have never trolled.  Offended by claim.  Recommend looking at all previous post history, have always tried to engage sincerely in topics of discussion.

Appalled and surprised that wanting to remain consistent and truthful is accusation of "trolling".

On this thread I wouldn't say you're "trolling" so much as being "painfully obtuse" regarding both the substance of Dr. Dray's points, and then refusing to admit that you're 100% wrong to question his RL profession when presented with the profile at his place of employment. Instead of debating the topic, you're still going in circles with people pretending that you think he's not who he claims.

You've been presented with evidence that proves you were wrong to doubt his identity, yet you continue to debate his trustworthiness as though your premise was correct. Which continues to derail the discussion about the ending - and that IS troll-ish.

"Remaining consistent" ceases to be a virtue when you're proven wrong.  Man up, admit you were wrong & just debate his argument on its merits.

If you can.

Do not require advice on "manning up" when evidence presented is "person does exist, shut up and listen".

Have explained multiple times perfectly willing to accept identity, if can be confirmed.

Been attacked several times for it, only respond to attacks.  Pathetic, to be honest.  But some people are.

Mordin, you could always email him at the school email to verify
that it is actually him. I'm sure if it wasn't, the real Colin Dray
would be interested to know that someone was impersonating him and if it
is him and, if it is him, he might be an intersting fellow to talk to -
he obviously enjoys discussing Mass Effect here.

Genuinely considered, only problem is, seems inappropriate.

Unable to understand how point was gotten to.  Expressed concern about authenticity.  Inquired.  Answered question.  Attacked.

Modifié par Vromrig, 19 avril 2012 - 03:22 .

[brusher225]

Gee, I just now saw this post. OP thanks for posting it. Be sure to thank you professor as well. Between the two of you, you were able to put in to words how so many of us feel about the endings.

[Daedalus1773]

Vromrig wrote...

Do not require advice on "manning up" when evidence presented is "person does exist, shut up and listen".

Have explained multiple times perfectly willing to accept identity, if can be confirmed.

Been attacked several times for it, only respond to attacks.  Pathetic, to be honest.  But some people are.

Actually the evidence presented was a web link directly to this individual's profile at a university, which matches precisely the claims made on this forum by multiple people. You are the only party here arguing with nothing more than conjecture.  You haven't been able to say anything that amounts to more than, "It doesn't feel right so I choose not to believe it."  If the profile isn't enough to dispel your nebulous concerns (and in the absence of ANY proof that drayfish is lying, it should be), there's an email address listed there - and you've chosen not to verify the identity. How convenient. That decision is on you, so yes - it can be confirmed.  You can keep saying that you're "perfectly willing to accept identity, if it can be confirmed," but anyone following the convo knows by know that's just another load of bull. You're objectively & proveably wrong, and you cling to your argument rather than just say you were wrong & move on. It's kind of sad, really, given the character you keep impersonating.

Oh, and now? Now you really are just being a troll. Which again is sad, because I've read your posts for weeks now in other threads & your earlier assertion was right - for the most part, you have been really constructive & insighful. Unfortunately here your only contribution seems to be, "I don't believe who he claims to be, so it invalidates all his arguments.  And when you provide me with the opportunity to accept the evidence that he is who he claims to be (or verify it myself), I will pretend the opportunity doesn't exist & you haven't." 

All of which taken together tells me you can't debate the merits of his opinions at face value, so you're just going to continue spinning your illogical fantasy troll circles.  Good luck w/ that, not going to feed you anymore.

[spirosz]

Awesome post, thanks for sharing.

[optimistickied]

Hawk227 wrote...

Thanks for the response!

I'm not sure you understood my point? I just felt like the choices seemed inapplicable to the thesis. The Catalyst gives us the scenario: "I believe Synthetic life will eventually wipe out Organic Life, you can pick destroy and wipe out all synthetic life, including your salvation*, you can control the reapers and do... whatever you want, or you can find a new solution and merge Organic DNA with Synthetic DNA (synthetics don't have DNA, Grrr!)."

From the gameplay perspective of either accepting or rejecting his thesis (Listen to his thesis, react), one option (control) seems unrelated (how does it a solution to the Org vs. Synth conflict?) or at least redundant with destroy, another seems rather fantastical (synthesis, and not in a good way) and one feels arbitrarily harsh (destroy).

I understand that he said the geth would be destroyed, but the
design choice to have him say that seemed to exist simply to muddy the
waters. The crucible could have just as easily only destroyed Reapers (far more plausible than the mind boggling synthesis). It was a cheap choice by the Dev team to make the player agonize over the choice.

To me, from both a narrative perspective the choices need to be a) destroy only the reapers, step aside and allow the reapers to continue, and c) a better elucidated version of synthesis. We can agree with him (, call BS on him (a), or find a new solution ©.

I also felt like turning the reapers into an ancient tool to prevent Organic annihilation by the hands of synthetics didn't work within the narrative because for 100 hours of gameplay they were the synthetics bent on organic annihilation. To the player, the only reason to fear synthetics is the reapers themselves, so it not only made the Catalyst highly suspect, it also neutered the menace of the Reapers established in the convo with Sovereign on virmire (perhaps my favorite moment in the trilogy).

* - I understand he said his solution won't work anymore, but he gives no reason why and he's pretty harsh on the destroy option by saying that "eventually your kids will make synthetics that will wipe out organics. I took that to mean he still felt the Reapers were necessary.

Oh.

If a new solution must be reached, which solution should it be? Control does not guarantee organic life will continue, only that the cycles will end. Shepard steers the Reapers away, and lifts the restrictions placed on organic progress. This ending addresses the synthetic/organic conflict by allowing it to continue, unchallenged. Destroy delays the conflict from reaching its fever pitch. It is a sort of rejection of technology. By returning the state of the universe to a relatively primitive time, by removing synthetic intelligence from organic existence, organic life gets a fresh start, a clean slate. The Catalyst warns that synthetic life will still emerge to wipe out organics, to which Shepard simply says, "Maybe." Synthesis resolves the conflict by marrying the two factions. I think all three options are applicable to the Catalyst's claim. 1 - A return to the status quo. 2 - A new beginning. 3 - An end to the conflict.

I don't now. To destroy the Reapers is to say that the Reapers are unworthy of existence because they're our enemies. But do we destroy our enemies knowing the Geth were once enemies of the Quarian? If the Catalyst places the Reapers in the same category as the Geth, what does that mean for them as lifeforms? The Reapers were fulfilling a purpose, just as the Geth once fulfilled theirs. I prefer having the Geth included in the Destroy ending, because it did muddy the waters, it did make me examine the choice more closely. (I chose Synthesis, by the way.) The Catalyst very clearly identifies himself as a Reaper, and (like the Geth would), exhibits self-preservation.

Sovereign claims the Reapers must "impose order on the chaos of organic evolution" which corroborates the Catalyst's claim. They are by their own admission instruments of our destruction, and the Catalyst does not deny it. The Reapers were installed to function as caretakers of the universe, which meant purging life in a series of extinction cycles. Their menacing quality isn't diminished so much as confirmed by the Catalyst. Doesn't Shepard say something like, "We'd rather keep our own form?" and the Catalyst replies, "No."  The Reapers nearly ended a civilization that did not need to be harvested, did not need to ascend; without Shepard, life would have been exterminated without reason. To me, this is creepy. With that in mind, Reapers do then become the primary threat posed to organic life, and the Catalyst can no longer justify the cycles. However, the Catalyst still maintains that synthetic life will destroy organic life, but that a new solution must be reached that lifts these restrictions. Or... Oh God, my head will explode!

Seriously, it will explode.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Vromrig wrote...

Have explained multiple times perfectly willing to accept identity, if can be confirmed.

Been attacked several times for it, only respond to attacks.  Pathetic, to be honest.  But some people are.

Genuinely considered, only problem is, seems inappropriate.

Unable to understand how point was gotten to.  Expressed concern about authenticity.  Inquired.  Answered question.  Attacked.

Hypothetical scenario. At conference for advanced xenobiology. At lunch, leave convention center for informal dining establishment nearby. Excellent vorcress sandwiches. Skarfish salad not recommended. During a discussion with a colleague, a human overhears our discussion of Rachni biology as it relates to cognitive development. Human introduces himself as an expert in xenoarchaeology, makes a salient point, asks to sit down.

Credentials irrelevant in informal conversation of this type. If the human can engage in debate in a manner consistent with established xenobiological methods, input is welcome. Taking out time to request verification of credentials superfluous under these conditions. If human is an imposter, inadequate knowledge will reveal this quickly.

When accepting essay to be published in peer reviewed journal, credential verification is vital. In informal conversation, can be disruptive and... impolite, especially when casual verification is presented and ignored.

When Vakarian signed on, did not request identity verification from Shepard. Ran my own independent check as a manner of course, but did not feel necessary to share with the crew. Suspect that making waves, loudly, publicly demanding evidence of a new crewmember's identity would have caused problems assimilating with crew, working as a team. Such friction undesirable; unnecessary.

First rule of STG: if subterfuge is suspected, complete private inquiries first. If further reason for suspicion past initial hunch is uncovered, consider presenting evidence.  After uncovering bugs in lab, suspected Miranda might have implanted Shepard. Did a number of covert scans to locate potential "failsafe" implants, found none. Still remained suspicious of Miranda, but did not press issue, did not mention to rest of crew. Doing so would have been unwise, created paranoia, mistrust, unstable work environment.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 19 avril 2012 - 04:07 .

[soulstriker09]

Thanks OP, I will now cite/link this thread whenever and wherever possible.

[The RPGenius]

I have just read the new, updated OP. The good Doctor is persuasive and intuitive. I wish the Mass Effect writers--those responsible for the ending, and especially those responsible for creating the Extended Cut--were forced to read this post at the beginning and end of every work day from now until the EC is released.

[Degs29]

Very well written with valid points. But then, I guess that is to be expected from a lit prof!

[VigilancePress]

Well said, Doctor Dray! I enjoyed reading not only your post, but the discussion you seem to have inspired from others as well. Thank you for participating!

For the record, I agree with your original points absolutely, though I can't speak to the comparison to the Sopranos as I have never seen the show.

[VinHikaru]

Yes!

I wish Bioware would understand the reason people dislike the endings. It's that they don't make sense given the themes and rules established over the rest of the Mass Effect universe.

[Hawk227]

optimistickied wrote...

Oh.

If a new solution must be reached, which solution should it be? Control does not guarantee organic life will continue, only that the cycles will end. Shepard steers the Reapers away, and lifts the restrictions placed on organic progress. This ending addresses the synthetic/organic conflict by allowing it to continue, unchallenged. Destroy delays the conflict from reaching its fever pitch. It is a sort of rejection of technology. By returning the state of the universe to a relatively primitive time, by removing synthetic intelligence from organic existence, organic life gets a fresh start, a clean slate. The Catalyst warns that synthetic life will still emerge to wipe out organics, to which Shepard simply says, "Maybe." Synthesis resolves the conflict by marrying the two factions. I think all three options are applicable to the Catalyst's claim. 1 - A return to the status quo. 2 - A new beginning. 3 - An end to the conflict.

I don't now. To destroy the Reapers is to say that the Reapers are unworthy of existence because they're our enemies. But do we destroy our enemies knowing the Geth were once enemies of the Quarian? If the Catalyst places the Reapers in the same category as the Geth, what does that mean for them as lifeforms? The Reapers were fulfilling a purpose, just as the Geth once fulfilled theirs. I prefer having the Geth included in the Destroy ending, because it did muddy the waters, it did make me examine the choice more closely. (I chose Synthesis, by the way.) The Catalyst very clearly identifies himself as a Reaper, and (like the Geth would), exhibits self-preservation.

Sovereign claims the Reapers must "impose order on the chaos of organic evolution" which corroborates the Catalyst's claim. They are by their own admission instruments of our destruction, and the Catalyst does not deny it. The Reapers were installed to function as caretakers of the universe, which meant purging life in a series of extinction cycles. Their menacing quality isn't diminished so much as confirmed by the Catalyst. Doesn't Shepard say something like, "We'd rather keep our own form?" and the Catalyst replies, "No."  The Reapers nearly ended a civilization that did not need to be harvested, did not need to ascend; without Shepard, life would have been exterminated without reason. To me, this is creepy. With that in mind, Reapers do then become the primary threat posed to organic life, and the Catalyst can no longer justify the cycles. However, the Catalyst still maintains that synthetic life will destroy organic life, but that a new solution must be reached that lifts these restrictions. Or... Oh God, my head will explode!

Seriously, it will explode.

yikes, I need to proof read better. My last post was a mess.

In that case it makes sense to include the Geth, but I still feel Control and Destroy are fairly redundant. The destroy ending doesn't make anyone forget how to build technology, it doesn't remove the motivation to build technology. How long will it take the galaxy to rebuild? A generation? In Reaper time that's a blink of an eye.

Listen to that conversation with sovereign again. Sovereign speaks of organic life with disdain:

"Organic life is nothing but a genetic mutation. An accident. Your lives are measured in years and decades. You wither and die. We are eternal, the pinnacle of evolution and existence. Before us, you are nothing. Your extinction is inevitable. We are the end of everything."

While he does say the Reapers impose order on the chaos of Organic evolution, he mentions it in the context of the Mass Relays. When he says it, it comes off more as a means of herding organics in a predictable way that the Reapers can take advantage of each cycle, rather than a means of saving organics from themselves.

The Catalyst states the reapers purpose is to save Organic life, allowing it to continue.  I never got the feeling from sovereign that he felt organic life was worthy of existence. Also, if the Reapers believe they're the pinnacle of evolution, what does that make everything post synthesis? Reapers?

Furthermore, and this is straying a little, the Organics vs. Synthetics conflict more or less describes the Technological Singularity. I wasn't originally going to bring this up, but that quote just screamed it at me. The idea (at least floating around the BSN right now) is that the Catalyst is trying to prevent the Tech singularity, a point in time where synthetics will surpass organics at an exponential rate, and organics will be helpless if the synthetics attack. Now, listening to Sovereign again, I feel like the Reapers fit as a post singularity species.

"My kind transcends your very understanding. We are each a nation, independent, free of all weakness. You cannot even grasp the nature of our existence."

Can the reapers be a solution to the technological singularity, if they are already post singularity? Can they be a solution to themselves? I guess in a literal sense they could be. They could prevent a second post singularity race thats not as accomodating as them. But in a narrative sense, I feel like it fails.

I understand what you're saying above (in bold). But for me, the Reapers being the post-singularity menace is much more satisfying than them being a tool to prevent it.

[Sc2mashimaro]

Daedalus1773 wrote...

Vromrig wrote...

Do not require advice on "manning up" when evidence presented is "person does exist, shut up and listen".

Have explained multiple times perfectly willing to accept identity, if can be confirmed.

Been attacked several times for it, only respond to attacks.  Pathetic, to be honest.  But some people are.

 You're objectively & proveably wrong, and you cling to your argument rather than just say you were wrong & move on. It's kind of sad, really, given the character you keep impersonating.

If we're honest, Mordin, the character in the game, is kind of stubborn too. He fights Shepard about the Genophage business all the way through his loyalty mission in ME2 and even after that he makes some half hearted justifications about why it must have been the right thing to do (although you can tell he is starting to reconsider whether he was right).

[optimistickied]

Hawk227 wrote...



yikes, I need to proof read better. My last post was a mess.

In that case it makes sense to include the Geth, but I still feel Control and Destroy are fairly redundant. The destroy ending doesn't make anyone forget how to build technology, it doesn't remove the motivation to build technology. How long will it take the galaxy to rebuild? A generation? In Reaper time that's a blink of an eye.

Listen to that conversation with sovereign again. Sovereign speaks of organic life with disdain:


"Organic life is nothing but a genetic mutation. An accident. Your lives are measured in years and decades. You wither and die. We are eternal, the pinnacle of evolution and existence. Before us, you are nothing. Your extinction is inevitable. We are the end of everything."

Whilehe does say the Reapers impose order on the chaos of Organic evolution,he mentions it in the context of the Mass Relays. When he says it, it comes off more as a means of herding organics in a predictable way that the Reapers can take advantage of each cycle, rather than a means of saving organics from themselves.

The Catalyst states the reapers purpose is to save Organic life, allowing it to continue.  I never got the feeling from sovereign that he felt organic life was worthy of existence. Also, if the Reapers believe they're the pinnacle of evolution, what does that make everything post synthesis? Reapers?

Furthermore, and this is straying a little, the Organics vs. Synthetics conflict more or less describes the Technological Singularity. I wasn't originally going to bring this up, but that quote just screamed it at me. The idea (at least floating around the BSN right now) is that the Catalyst is trying to prevent the Tech singularity, a point
in time where synthetics will surpass organics at an exponential rate, and organics will be helpless if the synthetics attack. Now, listening to Sovereign again, I feel like the Reapers fit as a post singularity species.

"My kind transcends your very understanding. We are each a nation, independent, free of all weakness. You cannot even grasp the nature of our existence."

Can the reapers be a solution to the technological singularity, if they are already post singularity? Can
they be a solution to themselves? I guess in a literal sense they could be. They could prevent a second post singularity race thats not as accomodating as them. But in a narrative sense, I feel like it fails.

I understand what you're saying above (in bold). But for me, the Reapers being the post-singularity menace is much more satisfying than them being a tool to prevent it.

But in Control/Destroy, man will be accountable for his recklessness. There will be no divine intervention, no planned Apocalypses. This is significant. We keep our forms, we're not harvested, we become free. However, if what the Catalyst claims is true, is having freedom to expand and innovate good or bad? Dunno.

He also says Reapers are because they must be. Reapers (as of then) had continued the cycle with no real purpose, other than to be eeeevil and "maintain order." They uplifted civilizations with their technologies and harvested them, but we never knew why. We had no idea what they gained in return and they weren't coughing up any answers. What was the salvation they were giving us? What's really mind blowing is, the Reapers may actually have come to resent organic life for being given this cosmic errand, this tedious universal chore. Note: that is totally made-up based on Sovereign's tone.

Anyway, the Catalyst finally and formally defines their purpose: to keep synthetic life from wiping out organic existence. What I'd like to know is, is the Catalyst self-aware? Were the Reapers designed with planned obsolescence?

It sounds like this is becoming a matter of taste. The endings, bad or good, have sparked discussion; to me that makes them semi-successful. I can't comment on whether Reapers can be a "solution to themselves" but it's an interesting way to analyze their role in the game.

If I weren't so incredibly tired right now, I'd probably write one of those long 1000 word responses everybody has to glance over to praise the Gospel of Dray, but I'll have to save it. I'll get back to you though, provided you don't think I'm really stupid yet.

Modifié par optimistickied, 19 avril 2012 - 05:55 .

[Vromrig]

Oh, and now? Now you really are just being a troll.

Would like solid proof, values intellectual honesty.

Attacked. Defends self. Called troll.

Remarkably deflating, but enforces key point.

All of which taken together tells me you can't debate the merits of his
opinions at face value, so you're just going to continue spinning your
illogical fantasy troll circles.  Good luck w/ that, not going to feed
you anymore.

Never once debated or argued merits of source.

Confrontation from those that have no value in intellectual integrity.  Such as yourself.

Have not had one issue with alleged professor.  For most part, not even issue with most posters.

Disgusted.  Disapproving. 

But have not argued or defended.  Simply asked, and been consistently attacked.

Very unscientific.  Implications unpleasant.

Modifié par Vromrig, 19 avril 2012 - 05:56 .

[M0keys]

Could we please stop discussing that issue, Vromrig!?

You're going to get this incredible thread locked!

[CulturalGeekGirl]

optimistickied wrote...

But in Control/Destroy, man will be accountable for his recklessness. There will be no divine intervention, no planned Apocalypses. This is significant. We keep our forms, we're not harvested, we become free. However, if what the Catalyst claims is true, is having freedom to expand and innovate good or bad? Dunno.

He also says Reapers are because they must be. Reapers (as of then) had continued the cycle with no real purpose, other than to be eeeevil and "maintain order." They uplifted civilizations with their technologies and harvested them, but we never knew why. We had no idea what they gained in return and they weren't coughing up any answers. What was the salvation they were giving us? What's really mind blowing is, the Reapers may actually have come to resent organic life for being given this cosmic errand, this tedious universal chore. Note: that is totally made-up based on Sovereign's tone.

Anyway, the Catalyst finally and formally defines their purpose: to keep synthetic life from wiping out organic existence. What I'd like to know is, is the Catalyst self-aware? Were the Reapers designed with planned obsolescence?

It sounds like this is becoming a matter of taste. The endings, bad or good, have sparked discussion; to me that makes them semi-successful. I can't comment on whether Reapers can be a "solution to themselves" but it's an interesting way to analyze their role in the game.

If I weren't so incredibly tired right now, I'd probably write one of those long 1000 word responses everybody has to glance over to praise the Gospel of Dray, but I'll have to save it. I'll get back to you though, provided you don't think I'm really stupid yet.

Do you consider Gigli semi-successful? Do you consider Godfather, part 3 semi-successful? Do you consider Ashlee Simpson's performance on SNL semi-successful?

I'm tired tired tired of people using the "at least it started discussion" justification for how something was successful.  

This ending, and the response to it, have chased some of my best friends away from these boards. The girl who convinced me to read all of the Cerberus News Network posts? Gone. The guy who convinced me to start blogging about Mass Effect? Gone. Old friends everywhere, fans who loved the series so much they got tattoos, gentlemen, scholars, all gone. Left the fandom, possibly for good.

If you had told me a year ago that the ending would be so bad that all these people would leave the fandom, I would have laughed in your face. I would have thought is was literally impossible. For the past year we had spent serious chunks of our spare time picking through art galleries, writing blogs, doing research, making jokes together. It was the first place where I ever felt part of a "fan family," and now that is gone. Lost forever. Destroyed.

So no. Your "it was so egregiously bad that it destroyed the dreams of thousands upon thousands of people who truly loved the series... that makes it partially successful" argument is just incredibly offensive to me.

Sorry to get emotional here. Just. Argh.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 19 avril 2012 - 06:09 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Vromrig wrote...

Oh, and now? Now you really are just being a troll.

Would like solid proof, values intellectual honesty.

Attacked. Defends self. Called troll.

Remarkably deflating, but enforces key point.

All of which taken together tells me you can't debate the merits of his
opinions at face value, so you're just going to continue spinning your
illogical fantasy troll circles.  Good luck w/ that, not going to feed
you anymore.

Never once debated or argued merits of source.

Confrontation from those that have no value in intellectual integrity.  Such as yourself.

Have not had one issue with alleged professor.  For most part, not even issue with most posters.

Disgusted.  Disapproving. 

But have not argued or defended.  Simply asked, and been consistently attacked.

Very unscientific.  Implications unpleasant.

Did not respond to explanation as to why your mode of inquirity was both invalid in this forum and sociologically unwise. Believe you intend to ignore any attempt by others to converse in the manner you do. Strange. Perhaps there is fear that direct comparison of modes of speech may result in unfavorable comparisons? Risk of there being too much... authenticity contrast? Linguistic markers need to be assessed.  Imposter syndrome?

Fear that conversational engagement will break personal illusion of character? Or simple knowledge of inability to refute points raised? Will have to examine future responses to  know for sure.

If repeated attempts at one-on-one engagement on similar terms still fail, will have to refine theories. Conduct more tests.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 19 avril 2012 - 06:06 .

[Lochwood]

This is so definitely on-point. Suspension of disbelief is just trashed -- and from about eight different angles at once.

The narrative implosion hurts -- but I just find the entire synthesis proposition to be flatly illogical. It's SPACE MAGIC. "New DNA -- you say?" That's just stupid. It's a stupid idea, and I can't believe in it to even give it a serious analysis for its legitimacy and worth in the narrative context.

But who was phone?

[Vromrig]

M0keys wrote...

Could we please stop discussing that issue, Vromrig!?

You're going to get this incredible thread locked!

If I could exist without being attacked, possibly.

Not asking much, rather, did not ask much.  Expressed view.  Attacked.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Vromrig wrote...

M0keys wrote...

Could we please stop discussing that issue, Vromrig!?

You're going to get this incredible thread locked!

If I could exist without being attacked, possibly.

Not asking much, rather, did not ask much.  Expressed view.  Attacked.

Have not attacked. Have responded without attack. No response. Implications... Unpleasant.

Subject stil refuses to engage. Fear that this implies greater instability than initially believed. Hope for recovery... dwindling.