1357 réponses à ce sujet

[CavScout]

KingZayd wrote...

ThinkIntegral wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

Iconoclaste wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

So essentially the catalyst is the program that the reapers follow, and the crucible changed that program. Is this acceptable?

If the Catalyst is "controlling the Reapers", then it is not stopping them from fighting during his discussion with Shepard, even if he knows at that moment that there are other solutions.

This is further backed up with the fact that the crucible can be destroyed if you wait to long.

So just because it can control the Reapers it must stop the fighting during their conversation? Please elaborate.

If it genuinely believes the Shepard's presence proves that the solution won't work any more,  then why keep at it? Every moment the fighting continues would be wasted lives on both sides.

It tells you why.  It says there are new solutions but that it can't imlement them.

[SoloPala]

KingZayd wrote...

SoloPala wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

SoloPala wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

ThinkIntegral wrote...

balance5050 wrote...
There's this thing called the "Extended Cut" coming out, you may have heard of it. It will *extend* the ending.

Also clarify it.

Yeah I know. What of it? You hoping it'll show the IT?

Well...IT does clearify the ending.....

In that it means we never got an ending, which is why its just as bad as the crap they gave us.

except it predicted there would be an ending DLC. which is why it's so much better than "the crap they gave us"

No, its just people grasping at straws hoping to make sense of the madness, Bioware was going to move straight into paid DLC if it wasn't for the outrage over the retarded ending.

Proof?

I actually had my doubts about indoctrination theory until I looked at the lore in the comics, Arrival and then back at the plotline in ME3. There is definitely a huge emphasis put on indoctrination in the storyline. Shepard was hit by a reaper artifcat that causes indoctrination. TIM had indoctrination tech, and believed it was the answer to controlling the reapers. TIM was able to control Shepard on the Citadel. It's not a straw, even if that's what YOU see.

The Prothean VI on Thessia doesn't detect indoctrination in Shepard, but does when leng approaches, so where would he have gotten indoctrinated?   Also TIM controlling you means nothing, he spent all of cerberus resources understanding indoctrination in order to control people and the reapers, its far more likely TIM is more Reaper at this point than human, but his control abilities are limited.  Is straws people are grabbing for nothing more.


Sometimes ****ty writing is just ****ty writing, and the idea a company would release a final game in a trilogy without an ending because they plan on releasing it 6 months later if ****ing stupid.

Modifié par SoloPala, 06 mai 2012 - 04:31 .

[CavScout]

KingZayd wrote...
Proof?

I actually had my doubts about indoctrination theory until I looked at the lore in the comics, Arrival and then back at the plotline in ME3. There is definitely a huge emphasis put on indoctrination in the storyline. Shepard was hit by a reaper artifcat that causes indoctrination. TIM had indoctrination tech, and believed it was the answer to controlling the reapers. TIM was able to control Shepard on the Citadel. It's not a straw, even if that's what YOU see.

Anderson was never hit by Reaper tech....

[KingZayd]

CavScout wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

ThinkIntegral wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

Iconoclaste wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

So essentially the catalyst is the program that the reapers follow, and the crucible changed that program. Is this acceptable?

If the Catalyst is "controlling the Reapers", then it is not stopping them from fighting during his discussion with Shepard, even if he knows at that moment that there are other solutions.

This is further backed up with the fact that the crucible can be destroyed if you wait to long.

So just because it can control the Reapers it must stop the fighting during their conversation? Please elaborate.

If it genuinely believes the Shepard's presence proves that the solution won't work any more,  then why keep at it? Every moment the fighting continues would be wasted lives on both sides.

It tells you why.  It says there are new solutions but that it can't imlement them.

and that's why the reapers have to keep fighting while he decides? yeah because that makes  sense.

[CavScout]

KingZayd wrote...

CavScout wrote...
It tells you why.  It says there are new solutions but that it can't imlement them.

and that's why the reapers have to keep fighting while he decides? yeah because that makes  sense.

So you do know why... you just don't like it? Seems like you ascribing (again) capabilities to the Catalyst that are not evident in the game. Perhaps if you stopped, you'd be less frustrated.

[KingZayd]

SoloPala wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

SoloPala wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

SoloPala wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

ThinkIntegral wrote...

balance5050 wrote...
There's this thing called the "Extended Cut" coming out, you may have heard of it. It will *extend* the ending.

Also clarify it.

Yeah I know. What of it? You hoping it'll show the IT?

Well...IT does clearify the ending.....

In that it means we never got an ending, which is why its just as bad as the crap they gave us.

except it predicted there would be an ending DLC. which is why it's so much better than "the crap they gave us"

No, its just people grasping at straws hoping to make sense of the madness, Bioware was going to move straight into paid DLC if it wasn't for the outrage over the retarded ending.

Proof?

I actually had my doubts about indoctrination theory until I looked at the lore in the comics, Arrival and then back at the plotline in ME3. There is definitely a huge emphasis put on indoctrination in the storyline. Shepard was hit by a reaper artifcat that causes indoctrination. TIM had indoctrination tech, and believed it was the answer to controlling the reapers. TIM was able to control Shepard on the Citadel. It's not a straw, even if that's what YOU see.

The Prothean VI on Thessia doesn't detect indoctrination in Shepard, but does when leng approaches, so where would he have gotten indoctrinated?   Also TIM controlling you means nothing, he spent all of cerberus resources understanding indoctrination in order to control people and the reapers, its far more likely TIM is more Reaper at this point than human, but his control abilities are limited.  Is straws people are grabbing for nothing more.


Sometimes ****ty writing is just ****ty writing, and the idea a company would release a final game in a trilogy without an ending because they plan on releasing it 6 months later if ****ing stupid.

Easy, Shepard's indoctrination still hadn't matured to the point where his decisions were being influenced, so there weren't any obvious signs the VI could detect. Leng on the other hand was different. There's a reason the Protheans still ended up being screwed by indoctrinated.

TIM controlling you with indoctriantion tech, means he's using indoctrination on you. That means something, Some people are only capable of seeing straws.

[KingZayd]

CavScout wrote...

KingZayd wrote...
Proof?

I actually had my doubts about indoctrination theory until I looked at the lore in the comics, Arrival and then back at the plotline in ME3. There is definitely a huge emphasis put on indoctrination in the storyline. Shepard was hit by a reaper artifcat that causes indoctrination. TIM had indoctrination tech, and believed it was the answer to controlling the reapers. TIM was able to control Shepard on the Citadel. It's not a straw, even if that's what YOU see.

Anderson was never hit by Reaper tech....

and? If that scene was real, TIM uses that indoctrination tech he now has in that scene to stop him from moving.

In the case that that scene wasn't real, then Anderson in that scene wasn't real. Where's the problem?

Modifié par KingZayd, 06 mai 2012 - 04:45 .

[CavScout]

KingZayd wrote...

CavScout wrote...

KingZayd wrote...
Proof?

I actually had my doubts about indoctrination theory until I looked at the lore in the comics, Arrival and then back at the plotline in ME3. There is definitely a huge emphasis put on indoctrination in the storyline. Shepard was hit by a reaper artifcat that causes indoctrination. TIM had indoctrination tech, and believed it was the answer to controlling the reapers. TIM was able to control Shepard on the Citadel. It's not a straw, even if that's what YOU see.

Anderson was never hit by Reaper tech....

and? If that scene was real, TIM uses that indoctrination tech he now has in that scene to stop him from moving.

In the case that that scene wasn't real, then Anderson in that scene wasn't real. Where's the problem?

IT folks are a funny bunch... they want to use a scene in the game to prove something so they use it but as soon as the scene doesn't fit their precious theory they just claim the scene wasn't real.

Makes you wonder why they bother to explain the scene if in the end, if they don't like what it proves, they'll just claim "that scene wasn't real".

Indoctrination Theory, where what's in the game really isn't in the game.

[KingZayd]

CavScout wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

CavScout wrote...
It tells you why.  It says there are new solutions but that it can't imlement them.

and that's why the reapers have to keep fighting while he decides? yeah because that makes  sense.

So you do know why... you just don't like it? Seems like you ascribing (again) capabilities to the Catalyst that are not evident in the game. Perhaps if you stopped, you'd be less frustrated.

LOL If that's the reason why, then yes the mass effect writers must have been hit on the head before they wrote this.

He says he controls the reapers. Why can't he tell them to stop? I'm only ascribing abilities the Starchild claims. If he can bring us upstairs, why can't he do anything else?

[ev76]

Cavscout Pot meet kettle! Haha! Both low ems and high ems get the same result in the destroy ending, you destroy the reapers (overall goal of the trilogy) both endings achieve that goal. Your preferences however are to have more unicorns and rainbows in your ending, see I was not lying.

[CavScout]

KingZayd wrote...

CavScout wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

CavScout wrote...
It tells you why.  It says there are new solutions but that it can't imlement them.

and that's why the reapers have to keep fighting while he decides? yeah because that makes  sense.

So you do know why... you just don't like it? Seems like you ascribing (again) capabilities to the Catalyst that are not evident in the game. Perhaps if you stopped, you'd be less frustrated.

LOL If that's the reason why, then yes the mass effect writers must have been hit on the head before they wrote this.

He says he controls the reapers. Why can't he tell them to stop? I'm only ascribing abilities the Starchild claims. If he can bring us upstairs, why can't he do anything else?

Again, you are ascribing capabilities to the Catalyst not evident in the game. You're assuming, direct active control over the Reapers by the Catalyst and you are assuming free-will (or no restraints imposed) allowing the Catalyst to do whatever it wants. Neither is in the game, nor hinted at. In fact, the Catalyst is clearly limited in what it can do. It flat out states it can't change the solution on it's own.

In short, if you stop making up things the Catalyst can do, you'll then not have to be all confused on why it did not do what you supposed it could do.

[KingZayd]

CavScout wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

CavScout wrote...

KingZayd wrote...
Proof?

I actually had my doubts about indoctrination theory until I looked at the lore in the comics, Arrival and then back at the plotline in ME3. There is definitely a huge emphasis put on indoctrination in the storyline. Shepard was hit by a reaper artifcat that causes indoctrination. TIM had indoctrination tech, and believed it was the answer to controlling the reapers. TIM was able to control Shepard on the Citadel. It's not a straw, even if that's what YOU see.

Anderson was never hit by Reaper tech....

and? If that scene was real, TIM uses that indoctrination tech he now has in that scene to stop him from moving.

In the case that that scene wasn't real, then Anderson in that scene wasn't real. Where's the problem?

IT folks are a funny bunch... they want to use a scene in the game to prove something so they use it but as soon as the scene doesn't fit their precious theory they just claim the scene wasn't real.

Makes you wonder why they bother to explain the scene if in the end, if they don't like what it proves, they'll just claim "that scene wasn't real".

Indoctrination Theory, where what's in the game really isn't in the game.

lol you've failed to understand.

The fact that TIM was using indoctrination tech in that scene was brought up to show, that even if that scene was real, Shepard was indoctrinated before he met the Starchild. In fact I like what it proves, but I still don't think it was real.

I also saw Anderson blow up the tube, and TIM grab those shocky things. DId that really happen?

[hammerfan]

balance5050 wrote...

AlexMBrennan wrote...

Ok I'll ask you AGAIN, what controls the BODY?

Well, evidently not the mind or else Shepard would not be able to resist the command to shoot Anderson (or whatever happens in that scene).

OK, you want me to say "the mind" but that's silly. Firstly, it's a fictional universe. Real world neuroscience is kinda irrelevant.
If you want to go down that road anyway, the answer is "electrical impulses" - unless, of course, you'd prefer to argue that pacemakers are impossible.

"electrical impulses"  are sent from the brain.

Not necessarily.

[CavScout]

ev76 wrote...

Cavscout Pot meet kettle! Haha! Both low ems and high ems get the same result in the destroy ending, you destroy the reapers (overall goal of the trilogy) both endings achieve that goal. Your preferences however are to have more unicorns and rainbows in your ending, see I was not lying.

High and low EMS destroy endings are not the exactly same.

PS: Your personal attacks are pretty lame.

[KingZayd]

CavScout wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

CavScout wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

CavScout wrote...
It tells you why.  It says there are new solutions but that it can't imlement them.

and that's why the reapers have to keep fighting while he decides? yeah because that makes  sense.

So you do know why... you just don't like it? Seems like you ascribing (again) capabilities to the Catalyst that are not evident in the game. Perhaps if you stopped, you'd be less frustrated.

LOL If that's the reason why, then yes the mass effect writers must have been hit on the head before they wrote this.

He says he controls the reapers. Why can't he tell them to stop? I'm only ascribing abilities the Starchild claims. If he can bring us upstairs, why can't he do anything else?

Again, you are ascribing capabilities to the Catalyst not evident in the game. You're assuming, direct active control over the Reapers by the Catalyst and you are assuming free-will (or no restraints imposed) allowing the Catalyst to do whatever it wants. Neither is in the game, nor hinted at. In fact, the Catalyst is clearly limited in what it can do. It flat out states it can't change the solution on it's own.

In short, if you stop making up things the Catalyst can do, you'll then not have to be all confused on why it did not do what you supposed it could do.

No, i'm assuming control in any sense of the word. if he can't control, them, then clearly he doesn't control them. Free will of the catalyst allowing it to do what it wants? "I think we'd prefer to be left alone". "No. you can't". Not my programming doesn't allow me to do this. He refuses to stop.

He says he can't choose one of the new possibilities himself. He does claim that he controls the reapers. In what manner does he control the reapers then, that means he can't really control them?

[CavScout]

KingZayd wrote...

CavScout wrote...
IT folks are a funny bunch... they want to use a scene in the game to prove something so they use it but as soon as the scene doesn't fit their precious theory they just claim the scene wasn't real.

Makes you wonder why they bother to explain the scene if in the end, if they don't like what it proves, they'll just claim "that scene wasn't real".

Indoctrination Theory, where what's in the game really isn't in the game.

lol you've failed to understand.

The fact that TIM was using indoctrination tech in that scene was brought up to show, that even if that scene was real, Shepard was indoctrinated before he met the Starchild. In fact I like what it proves, but I still don't think it was real.

I also saw Anderson blow up the tube, and TIM grab those shocky things. DId that really happen?

No, I quite easily understand. IT folks want to have their cake and eat it too. They use scenes to prove something until it works against IT and then they'll just claim "it's not real!" Just as you did.

The scene doesn't prove indoctrinataion of Shep. That's why you are so eager to say it never really happened.

IT theory is this: If it supports IT it happened; if it hurts IT it was indoctrination and didn't happen.

Simple really.

[CavScout]

KingZayd wrote...

CavScout wrote...
Again, you are ascribing capabilities to the Catalyst not evident in the game. You're assuming, direct active control over the Reapers by the Catalyst and you are assuming free-will (or no restraints imposed) allowing the Catalyst to do whatever it wants. Neither is in the game, nor hinted at. In fact, the Catalyst is clearly limited in what it can do. It flat out states it can't change the solution on it's own.

In short, if you stop making up things the Catalyst can do, you'll then not have to be all confused on why it did not do what you supposed it could do.

No, i'm assuming control in any sense of the word. if he can't control, them, then clearly he doesn't control them. Free will of the catalyst allowing it to do what it wants? "I think we'd prefer to be left alone". "No. you can't". Not my programming doesn't allow me to do this. He refuses to stop.

He says he can't choose one of the new possibilities himself. He does claim that he controls the reapers. In what manner does he control the reapers then, that means he can't really control them?

Again, you are presuming a level of control not evident in game. Why?

[hammerfan]

CavScout wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

CavScout wrote...
IT folks are a funny bunch... they want to use a scene in the game to prove something so they use it but as soon as the scene doesn't fit their precious theory they just claim the scene wasn't real.

Makes you wonder why they bother to explain the scene if in the end, if they don't like what it proves, they'll just claim "that scene wasn't real".

Indoctrination Theory, where what's in the game really isn't in the game.

lol you've failed to understand.

The fact that TIM was using indoctrination tech in that scene was brought up to show, that even if that scene was real, Shepard was indoctrinated before he met the Starchild. In fact I like what it proves, but I still don't think it was real.

I also saw Anderson blow up the tube, and TIM grab those shocky things. DId that really happen?

No, I quite easily understand. IT folks want to have their cake and eat it too. They use scenes to prove something until it works against IT and then they'll just claim "it's not real!" Just as you did.

The scene doesn't prove indoctrinataion of Shep. That's why you are so eager to say it never really happened.

IT theory is this: If it supports IT it happened; if it hurts IT it was indoctrination and didn't happen.

Simple really.

I admire your valiant defense of logic & reason in this thread, but fear it will not avail you against what has become an article of faith;)

[KingZayd]

CavScout wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

CavScout wrote...
IT folks are a funny bunch... they want to use a scene in the game to prove something so they use it but as soon as the scene doesn't fit their precious theory they just claim the scene wasn't real.

Makes you wonder why they bother to explain the scene if in the end, if they don't like what it proves, they'll just claim "that scene wasn't real".

Indoctrination Theory, where what's in the game really isn't in the game.

lol you've failed to understand.

The fact that TIM was using indoctrination tech in that scene was brought up to show, that even if that scene was real, Shepard was indoctrinated before he met the Starchild. In fact I like what it proves, but I still don't think it was real.

I also saw Anderson blow up the tube, and TIM grab those shocky things. DId that really happen?

No, I quite easily understand. IT folks want to have their cake and eat it too. They use scenes to prove something until it works against IT and then they'll just claim "it's not real!" Just as you did.

The scene doesn't prove indoctrinataion of Shep. That's why you are so eager to say it never really happened.

IT theory is this: If it supports IT it happened; if it hurts IT it was indoctrination and didn't happen.

Simple really.

This post shows that clearly you don't understand.
That TIM scene supports IT whether it happened or not.
Perhaps if i was like you, I would follow this with some sort of wide sweeping generalisation about anti-IT people being clueless. Thankfully, I am not. And indeed I don't think that's true for the majority of them.

The reason I don't think it happened is because there are other things that don't really add up around that conversation, and Shepard being knocked out by a massive reaper weapon, marks a pretty clear transition point to dreamland.

Modifié par KingZayd, 06 mai 2012 - 05:10 .

[KingZayd]

CavScout wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

CavScout wrote...
Again, you are ascribing capabilities to the Catalyst not evident in the game. You're assuming, direct active control over the Reapers by the Catalyst and you are assuming free-will (or no restraints imposed) allowing the Catalyst to do whatever it wants. Neither is in the game, nor hinted at. In fact, the Catalyst is clearly limited in what it can do. It flat out states it can't change the solution on it's own.

In short, if you stop making up things the Catalyst can do, you'll then not have to be all confused on why it did not do what you supposed it could do.

No, i'm assuming control in any sense of the word. if he can't control, them, then clearly he doesn't control them. Free will of the catalyst allowing it to do what it wants? "I think we'd prefer to be left alone". "No. you can't". Not my programming doesn't allow me to do this. He refuses to stop.

He says he can't choose one of the new possibilities himself. He does claim that he controls the reapers. In what manner does he control the reapers then, that means he can't really control them?

Again, you are presuming a level of control not evident in game. Why?

I'm assuming there is a level of control. Why? because he says there is.

[CavScout]

hammerfan wrote...

CavScout wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

CavScout wrote...
IT folks are a funny bunch... they want to use a scene in the game to prove something so they use it but as soon as the scene doesn't fit their precious theory they just claim the scene wasn't real.

Makes you wonder why they bother to explain the scene if in the end, if they don't like what it proves, they'll just claim "that scene wasn't real".

Indoctrination Theory, where what's in the game really isn't in the game.

lol you've failed to understand.

The fact that TIM was using indoctrination tech in that scene was brought up to show, that even if that scene was real, Shepard was indoctrinated before he met the Starchild. In fact I like what it proves, but I still don't think it was real.

I also saw Anderson blow up the tube, and TIM grab those shocky things. DId that really happen?

No, I quite easily understand. IT folks want to have their cake and eat it too. They use scenes to prove something until it works against IT and then they'll just claim "it's not real!" Just as you did.

The scene doesn't prove indoctrinataion of Shep. That's why you are so eager to say it never really happened.

IT theory is this: If it supports IT it happened; if it hurts IT it was indoctrination and didn't happen.

Simple really.

I admire your valiant defense of logic & reason in this thread, but fear it will not avail you against what has become an article of faith;)

True, Indoctrination Theorists see patters in the game just like the faithful see Jesus in their toast. Probably is a waste to tell either that what they see isn't real.

[CavScout]

KingZayd wrote...

CavScout wrote...
No, I quite easily understand. IT folks want to have their cake and eat it too. They use scenes to prove something until it works against IT and then they'll just claim "it's not real!" Just as you did.

The scene doesn't prove indoctrinataion of Shep. That's why you are so eager to say it never really happened.

IT theory is this: If it supports IT it happened; if it hurts IT it was indoctrination and didn't happen.

Simple really.

This post shows that clearly you don't understand.
That TIM scene supports IT whether it happened or not.
Perhaps if i was like you, I would follow this with some sort of wide sweeping generalisation about anti-IT people being clueless. Thankfully, I am not. And indeed I don't think that's true for the majority of them.

The reason I don't think it happened is because there are other things that don't really add up around that conversation, and Shepard being knocked out by a massive reaper weapon, marks a pretty clear transition point to dreamland.

Nope, I understand fully. You just spent several threads trying to say what a scene "proved" as far as indoctrination goes. As soon as you are presented with something in the same scene that goes against what you want, the "it's not real" argument comes out. There is not point in arguing what a scene proves if you are going to say it never really happened anyway. It's a convient escape clause; that's all.

The scene was real. The scene doesn't "support" Indoctrination Theory. Well maybe in your mind it does. I've seen plenty of IT folks who claim everything is indoctrination.

[CavScout]

KingZayd wrote...

CavScout wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

CavScout wrote...
Again, you are ascribing capabilities to the Catalyst not evident in the game. You're assuming, direct active control over the Reapers by the Catalyst and you are assuming free-will (or no restraints imposed) allowing the Catalyst to do whatever it wants. Neither is in the game, nor hinted at. In fact, the Catalyst is clearly limited in what it can do. It flat out states it can't change the solution on it's own.

In short, if you stop making up things the Catalyst can do, you'll then not have to be all confused on why it did not do what you supposed it could do.

No, i'm assuming control in any sense of the word. if he can't control, them, then clearly he doesn't control them. Free will of the catalyst allowing it to do what it wants? "I think we'd prefer to be left alone". "No. you can't". Not my programming doesn't allow me to do this. He refuses to stop.

He says he can't choose one of the new possibilities himself. He does claim that he controls the reapers. In what manner does he control the reapers then, that means he can't really control them?

Again, you are presuming a level of control not evident in game. Why?

I'm assuming there is a level of control. Why? because he says there is.

My TV's remote control can control the TV. Yet, it doesn't do jack without out me telling it.

[SubAstris]

dreman9999 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...



1) Difference is indoctrination is a personal, mental disease
2) Still amounts to a few hours. And if that is so, why aren't Joker and all the Crew also indoctrinated?

1.No...It not... Read the codex...
http://masseffect.wi...#Indoctrination 


Reaper "indoctrination" is an insidious means of corrupting organic minds, "reprogramming" the brain through physical and psychological conditioning using electromagnetic fields, infrasonic and ultrasonic noise, and other subliminal methods. The Reaper's resulting control over the limbic system leaves the victim highly susceptible to its suggestions. 

Cleary, it's a disortion of the mind via physical and subliminal means. That is what IT is stating.

2. Not a few hours...Their is no way to caluclate the time not do we have the show of intecidy of waves use. Time and intecity is a factor that causes indoctrination and it was stated in ME1, shown even more in ME:evolution. Remeber, their is fast and slow indoctrination and it can be balenced.
http://masseffect.wi...#Indoctrination 

Long-term physical effects of the manipulation are unsustainable. Higher mental functioning decays, ultimately leaving the victim a gibbering animal. Rapid indoctrination is possible, but causes this decay in days or weeks. Slow, patient indoctrination allows the thrall to last for months or years. 

......Also, you have to note that the theory states that Shepard is in the process of indoctrination meaning the reapers are still trying to indoctrinated Shepard at the end of the game. The theory stated Harbinger is over Shepard uncounsuious body  focusing indoctination wave in an attempt to finish the indoctrination.

1) What you linked to doesn't invalidate what I said
2) "intecidy"- WTF? Do you mean "intensity"? We know that the faster the indoctrination, the more likely. The fact that there is no way to calculate works against IT, since we don't even know if it would be possible without melting his brains

[KingZayd]

CavScout wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

CavScout wrote...
No, I quite easily understand. IT folks want to have their cake and eat it too. They use scenes to prove something until it works against IT and then they'll just claim "it's not real!" Just as you did.

The scene doesn't prove indoctrinataion of Shep. That's why you are so eager to say it never really happened.

IT theory is this: If it supports IT it happened; if it hurts IT it was indoctrination and didn't happen.

Simple really.

This post shows that clearly you don't understand.
That TIM scene supports IT whether it happened or not.
Perhaps if i was like you, I would follow this with some sort of wide sweeping generalisation about anti-IT people being clueless. Thankfully, I am not. And indeed I don't think that's true for the majority of them.

The reason I don't think it happened is because there are other things that don't really add up around that conversation, and Shepard being knocked out by a massive reaper weapon, marks a pretty clear transition point to dreamland.

Nope, I understand fully. You just spent several threads trying to say what a scene "proved" as far as indoctrination goes. As soon as you are presented with something in the same scene that goes against what you want, the "it's not real" argument comes out. There is not point in arguing what a scene proves if you are going to say it never really happened anyway. It's a convient escape clause; that's all.

The scene was real. The scene doesn't "support" Indoctrination Theory. Well maybe in your mind it does. I've seen plenty of IT folks who claim everything is indoctrination.

LOL how did it go agianst what I want? It didn't. Despite your claims otherwise, your posts show you understand nothing. 

The scene wasn't real. But even if it was, it would support indoctrination theory. In your mind maybe it doesn't, I've seen that you clearly have difficulty understanding things.