739 réponses à ce sujet

[CavScout]

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

What? Is science funny?^^

Only funny because it makes IT preachers look like tools.

Wow thats.... immature.

I am sorry, am I acting to much like you to be comfortable?

[CavScout]

Lookout1390 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Lookout1390 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

What? Is science funny?^^

Only funny because it makes IT preachers look like tools.

While you devotedly defend your side of the argument.

Hey pot, it's kettle.

I bet in your world view, round Eathers and the same as flat Earthers....

That probably sounded better in your head, cause I'm not entirely sure what point you are trying to make.

This is my shocked face.

Modifié par CavScout, 13 mai 2012 - 03:47 .

[KevShep]

Scimal wrote...

KevShep wrote...

No satellites use there thrusters only once to maintain a constent orbit. Speed must out do the gravity of earth to stay in orbit. 

They don't have to fire them all the time, though. Maybe once every couple of years, depending on how good your calculations are.

The Moon has been around for about 4.5 billion years, and will be around for another couple of billion until it escapes Earth's gravitation field. It's not constantly firing thrusters.

 Your not getting it. You have to maintain speed and distance to get a balance of gravity from the earth/moon/sun or what ever!

A satellite would ONLY FIRE ONCE TO DO THIS...I did not say it needed to keep firing it!

[The Invisible Commando]

I was about to post this comment and now I decided it was good enough to make it my signature.

IT motto: When life gives you lemons, believe they are limes.

[Sisterofshane]

CavScout wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

What? Is science funny?^^

Only funny because it makes IT preachers look like tools.

Wow thats.... immature.

I am sorry, am I acting to much like you to be comfortable?

Wow, the "it takes one to know one" argument!

I haven't heard that since I was eight...

[fr33stylez]

So, this has turned into every other IT thread.

[CavScout]

KevShep wrote...

Scimal wrote...

KevShep wrote...

No satellites use there thrusters only once to maintain a constent orbit. Speed must out do the gravity of earth to stay in orbit. 

They don't have to fire them all the time, though. Maybe once every couple of years, depending on how good your calculations are.

The Moon has been around for about 4.5 billion years, and will be around for another couple of billion until it escapes Earth's gravitation field. It's not constantly firing thrusters.

 Your not getting it. You have to maintain speed and distance to get a balance of gravity from the earth/moon/sun or what ever!

A satellite would ONLY FIRE ONCE TO DO THIS...I did not say it needed to keep firing it!

Just acknowledge the whole premise you tried to inject was a non sequitur.

[KevShep]

CavScout wrote...

KevShep wrote...

CavScout wrote...
You're just making that up. Why do IT folks do that?

Indocrination was not mention in that paragraph. It's a simple fact. Pretending it was is stupid.

Why do Anti-I.T. people never pay attention to the lore? The ONLY way to be under full reaper control is to be indoctrinated...duh! 

Where in the lore does it state that the ONLY way to be under "full reaper control" is Indoctrination?

Where does it say that there are other forms of indoctrination? The lore ONLY states one!

[Lookout1390]

CavScout wrote...

Lookout1390 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Lookout1390 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

What? Is science funny?^^

Only funny because it makes IT preachers look like tools.

While you devotedly defend your side of the argument.

Hey pot, it's kettle.

I bet in your world view, round Eathers and the same as flat Earthers....

That probably sounded better in your head, cause I'm not entirely sure what point you are trying to make.

This is my shocked face.

The representative of the Pro-enders side of the argument for this discussion...ladies and gentlemen.

Let's give him a round of applause.

[OH-UP-THIS!]

KevShep wrote...

Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...

And let's not forget that you can't get that little breath clip without playing multiplayer. Or that you get the prompt to "BUY MOAR DLC" regardless of which ending you pick. No, I.T. was not what they ultimately implemented.

Not yet at least... summer is coming...

Brace yourselves...

Not bashing the I.T. here, but if they did choose to use I.T. in the EC it would be one of the most pathetic things they could do, since it obviously wasn't planned to begin with. For them to just take a well-crafted fan theory b/c they were too incompetent to write a decent conclusion is actually quite sickening.

Who the Hell said it was not planned? In the leak back in november or october it stated that there is indoctrination attempt in the game and a "mechanism" of gameplay reguarding the indoctrination was takin out because it took all control away from the player. It also mentions that they were in the late stages of development.

This is going to hurt, but there is an instance of this happening anyways, in game, unfortunately it is during the "dream-state' when it takes place. We had ZERO choice about shooting Anderson.

[CavScout]

KevShep wrote...

CavScout wrote...

KevShep wrote...

CavScout wrote...
You're just making that up. Why do IT folks do that?

Indocrination was not mention in that paragraph. It's a simple fact. Pretending it was is stupid.

Why do Anti-I.T. people never pay attention to the lore? The ONLY way to be under full reaper control is to be indoctrinated...duh! 

Where in the lore does it state that the ONLY way to be under "full reaper control" is Indoctrination?

Where does it say that there are other forms of indoctrination? The lore ONLY states one!

You made an assertive claim. Now prove it. If you can't, simply retract it. Don't twist in the wind anymore than you have to.

[balance5050]

CavScout wrote...

You're false is thinking all opinions have equal validity....

But you never say your opinion on what the endings mean, so you have zero validity.

Modifié par balance5050, 13 mai 2012 - 03:54 .

[KevShep]

CavScout wrote...

KevShep wrote...

CavScout wrote...

KevShep wrote...

CavScout wrote...
You're just making that up. Why do IT folks do that?

Indocrination was not mention in that paragraph. It's a simple fact. Pretending it was is stupid.

Why do Anti-I.T. people never pay attention to the lore? The ONLY way to be under full reaper control is to be indoctrinated...duh! 

Where in the lore does it state that the ONLY way to be under "full reaper control" is Indoctrination?

Where does it say that there are other forms of indoctrination? The lore ONLY states one!

You made an assertive claim. Now prove it. If you can't, simply retract it. Don't twist in the wind anymore than you have to.

Dude Ive anwsered your question with a question and your avoiding it. There are different ways of indoctrination but the codex and Wiki state that there is only one way the reapers can control you...indoctrination!
 Do you want me to link wiki it to you?

[Iconoclaste]

Lookout1390 wrote...


The representative of the Pro-enders side of the argument for this discussion...ladies and gentlemen.

Let's give him a round of applause.

I would rather skip that and simply argue the validity of arguments pro and con IT. But if things get too personal, I believe it's time to seek fun discussion elsewhere. I don't like discussing IT with its most "prominent" defenders because it almost always end up "personal" : "you don't get it, you overlooked, you need to be reminded...", like if it was some kind of scientifically founded theory. It lacks solid evidence, yet many of its supporters will endlessly repeat the same mistakes over and over again, instead of asking themselves "Why am I not as convincing others as I would like to, since I pretend to have solid grounds for arguing?"

Modifié par Iconoclaste, 13 mai 2012 - 03:55 .

[Lookout1390]

CavScout wrote...

KevShep wrote...

CavScout wrote...

KevShep wrote...

CavScout wrote...
You're just making that up. Why do IT folks do that?

Indocrination was not mention in that paragraph. It's a simple fact. Pretending it was is stupid.

Why do Anti-I.T. people never pay attention to the lore? The ONLY way to be under full reaper control is to be indoctrinated...duh! 

Where in the lore does it state that the ONLY way to be under "full reaper control" is Indoctrination?

Where does it say that there are other forms of indoctrination? The lore ONLY states one!

You made an assertive claim. Now prove it. If you can't, simply retract it. Don't twist in the wind anymore than you have to.

In 3 games, in any of their codexs, not one other form of "reaper control" is ever mentioned.

Please go turn on all 3 games and start browsing.

Your eyes and ears closed with your hands and screaming lalalalalalalala is proving to be quite lame.

[CavScout]

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

You're false is thinking all opinions have equal validity....

But you never say your opinion on what the endings mean, so you have zero validity.

Only a fool thinks one needs a theory to dispute another theory.

[OH-UP-THIS!]

Maybe you can explain why Shepard is not vaporized by this:



  

[/quote]

....Shepard was brought back to life in ME2, after being dead for an extremely long time. It's a videogame, dude. 

[/quote]

That would be THE fastest revival in history then. lol keep clappin' dude

[CavScout]

KevShep wrote...

CavScout wrote...
Where does it say that there are other forms of indoctrination? The lore ONLY states one!

You made an assertive claim. Now prove it. If you can't, simply retract it. Don't twist in the wind anymore than you have to.

Dude Ive anwsered your question with a question and your avoiding it. There are different ways of indoctrination but the codex and Wiki state that there is only one way the reapers can control you...indoctrination!
 Do you want me to link wiki it to you?

You've been tasked with proving a claim you've made. Proving that claim is not done by asking a question and demanding someone else prove or disprove your claim. Back up your claim or bow the hell out.

What happens to Anderson and Shep is not in the codex, doesn' t mean it didn't happen just means it's not in the codex.

Again, support your claim or withdraw it.

Modifié par CavScout, 13 mai 2012 - 03:58 .

[Lookout1390]

Iconoclaste wrote...

Lookout1390 wrote...


The representative of the Pro-enders side of the argument for this discussion...ladies and gentlemen.

Let's give him a round of applause.

I would rather skip that and simply argue the validity of arguments pro and con IT. But if things get too personal, I believe it's time to seek fun discussion elsewhere. I don't like discussing IT with its most "prominent" defenders because it almost always end up "personal" : "you don't get it, you overlooked, you need to be reminded...", like if it was some kind of scientifically founded theory. It lacks solid evidence, yet many of its supporters will endlessly repeat the same mistakes over and over again, instead of asking themselves "Why am I not as convincing as I would like to, sincee I pretend to have solid grounds for arguing?"

It is rather pointless, it boggles my mind why people keep making threads like these.

IT-believers won't convince pro-enders, and vice versa. 

It's getting very old.

[Iconoclaste]

KevShep wrote...

Dude Ive anwsered your question with a question and your avoiding it. There are different ways of indoctrination but the codex and Wiki state that there is only one way the reapers can control you...indoctrination!
 Do you want me to link wiki it to you?

Well, that may simply point to the "control" being TIM's  control, not the "Reapers".

[CavScout]

Lookout1390 wrote...

Iconoclaste wrote...

Lookout1390 wrote...


The representative of the Pro-enders side of the argument for this discussion...ladies and gentlemen.

Let's give him a round of applause.

I would rather skip that and simply argue the validity of arguments pro and con IT. But if things get too personal, I believe it's time to seek fun discussion elsewhere. I don't like discussing IT with its most "prominent" defenders because it almost always end up "personal" : "you don't get it, you overlooked, you need to be reminded...", like if it was some kind of scientifically founded theory. It lacks solid evidence, yet many of its supporters will endlessly repeat the same mistakes over and over again, instead of asking themselves "Why am I not as convincing as I would like to, sincee I pretend to have solid grounds for arguing?"

It is rather pointless, it boggles my mind why people keep making threads like these.

IT-believers won't convince pro-enders, and vice versa. 

It's getting very old.

Yet, here you are supporting IT the best way you know how....

And what the hell is a Pro-Ender? Are IT folks only capable of having a single thought in their mind at one time? Can one not be dismissive of IT and wish the ending was done in a different way?

[Iconoclaste]

ohupthis wrote...


Maybe you can explain why Shepard is not vaporized by this: (overused pictures)

Because he's not in the center of the explosion anymore. He's somewhere else on the Citadel. He could also simply be "shielded" inside the circular room, if he's still there after having collapsed in front of the control panel. Even one version of IT supports this, and make the "dream part" only the last sequence with the Catalyst.

[balance5050]

CavScout wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

You're false is thinking all opinions have equal validity....

But you never say your opinion on what the endings mean, so you have zero validity.

Only a fool thinks one needs a theory to dispute another theory.

What the hell are you talking about? I said "you never say your opinion on what the endings mean"

[ShepnTali]

Giving thread 5 star troll armor.

[CavScout]

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...
But you never say your opinion on what the endings mean, so you have zero validity.

Only a fool thinks one needs a theory to dispute another theory.

What the hell are you talking about? I said "you never say your opinion on what the endings mean"

DId you forget the "you have zero validity"? How can you take up the mantle of IT preacher when you can barely remember what you said?

Modifié par CavScout, 13 mai 2012 - 04:03 .