739 réponses à ce sujet

[BatmanTurian]

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.

Actually, I'm sure many scientists, who use the scientific method to create a new theory to dispute another one
(String Theory attempting to unite Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity), would disagree with you.

Besides, in a literal sense you are already using a theory to dispute another theory. Your theory is that all of the ending actually happened. You are completely illogical or trolling as usual.

[Lookout1390]

CavScout wrote...

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?

He was arguing a valid point with information which you have yet to disprove other than "yeah no I don't believe that".

Way to argue against generalization with more generialization.

[Iconoclaste]

CavScout wrote...

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?

I found the endings to be crap, and I looked into IT at its beginning. It just got out of hands somewhere along the way, maybe because of legitimate enthusiasm related to a few good finds, but it got swept out of my mind when it was put to the test against actual game content, having as many hols as the original endings, and making up "evidence" out of illogical premisses, like "PAX did not prove IT out, so it's still good".

[KevShep]

CavScout wrote...

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.

Why have I been "tasked" and by who is "demanding" it?

The indoctrination cant have one indoctrinated person controling a non-indoctrinated person, it does not make any sense! Why didnt Saren or sovereign or harbinger do it along time ago...It was a dream!

Here is the lore on indoctrination!.....  
http://masseffect.wi.../Indoctrination

[CavScout]

BatmanTurian wrote...

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

Actually, I'm sure many scientists, who use the scientific method to create a new theory to dispute another one
(String Theory attempting to unite Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity), would disagree with you.

No they wouldn't. If a theory can be demostrated to be wrong, you don't then need to come up with a competing theory...

Besides, invoking science in an IT debate is a horrible idea as IT wouldn't even qualify as a theory under scientific norms.

Besides, in a literal sense you are already using a theory to dispute another theory. Your theory is that all of the ending actually happened. You are completely illogical or trolling as usual.

This is IT circular logic running amok. Only if one presumes IT to be true does one then think the endings are not real....

[BatmanTurian]

Iconoclaste wrote...

CavScout wrote...

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?

I found the endings to be crap, and I looked into IT at its beginning. It just got out of hands somewhere along the way, maybe because of legitimate enthusiasm related to a few good finds, but it got swept out of my mind when it was put to the test against actual game content, having as many hols as the original endings, and making up "evidence" out of illogical premisses, like "PAX did not prove IT out, so it's still good".

At least you can be somewhat civil in your disagreement and debate.

[OH-UP-THIS!]

CavScout 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.

Ok, that made be spit out my coke.... 

you really should stop doing drugs, it's bad, very very bad for you.

[CavScout]

Lookout1390 wrote...

CavScout wrote...
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?

He was arguing a valid point with information which you have yet to disprove other than "yeah no I don't believe that".

Way to argue against generalization with more generialization.

There was no valid point...

[Iconoclaste]

CavScout wrote...

This is IT circular logic running amok. Only if one presumes IT to be true does one then think the endings are not real....

A good point there.

[Lookout1390]

CavScout wrote...

Lookout1390 wrote...

CavScout wrote...
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?

He was arguing a valid point with information which you have yet to disprove other than "yeah no I don't believe that".

Way to argue against generalization with more generialization.

There was no valid point...

The argument was another means of reaper control other than indoctrination, which you have yet to provide proof other than "yeah well how do you know there isn't another way?"

Still waiting.....

[Scimal]

KevShep wrote...

 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!

Learn to use commas, then. They weren't invented for shlits 'n figgles.

"No, satellites..." = No (pause, assertion) satellites (noun)
"No satellites..." = Zero satellites.

Also, you mean:"You're" and "whatever."

Don't yell at me for your failure to communicate properly.

Regardless, the Citadel could've maintained orbit after the explosion. Maybe it wasn't a particularly stable orbit, but definitely more than the time frame presented in the game.

[CavScout]

Lookout1390 wrote...

CavScout wrote...
There was no valid point...

The argument was another means of reaper control other than indoctrination, which you have yet to provide proof other than "yeah well how do you know there isn't another way?"

Still waiting.....

The claim was the only way for "full reaper control" was Indoctrination and that it was supported by the codex. That claim was challenged. The challenge was answered with questions and personal attacks. There was no valid point made. The idea that unless one is disproved they are right is silly but a characteristic of Truthers and Birthers.

[OH-UP-THIS!]

Iconoclaste wrote...

I'm sad that a good idea (IT) could have turned into this ridiculous mantra repeated inanely just because some supporters have begun to sit on their pride, being around themselves "for thousand pages of EVIDENCE", which turn out to be mostly self-gratification among a small group of players that will not suffer from a little kick in the weaknesses of their construct.

OK look, what would you f**king prefer, all of us to just roll-over and forget this whole SH*Tpile never existed?

Not in this lifetime are YOU or CAVhole going to change MY view of this nightmare GOT IT?!!

SO just back off.

[BatmanTurian]

CavScout wrote...



No they wouldn't. If a theory can be demostrated to be wrong, you don't then need to come up with a competing theory...

wrong that is the whole point. You have to create a new hypothesis to replace the old theory. if it holds water then it becomes a valid theory, replacing the old theory.

Besides, invoking science in an IT debate is a horrible idea as IT wouldn't even qualify as a theory under scientific norms.

Oh, yeah you're right. So you mean it's an interpretation. Ah so what was the other meaning of theory again. Oh yeah, interpretation or explanation of events.

Besides, in a literal sense you are already using a theory to dispute another theory. Your theory is that all of the ending actually happened. You are completely illogical or trolling as usual.

This is IT circular logic running amok. Only if one presumes IT to be true does one then think the endings are not real....

What other stance is there? You say the endings are crap therefore you acknowledge the endings as to have actually happened, otherwise there would be no ending to complain about,

Logic. Use it.

Modifié par BatmanTurian, 13 mai 2012 - 04:10 .

[CavScout]

ohupthis wrote...

Iconoclaste wrote...

I'm sad that a good idea (IT) could have turned into this ridiculous mantra repeated inanely just because some supporters have begun to sit on their pride, being around themselves "for thousand pages of EVIDENCE", which turn out to be mostly self-gratification among a small group of players that will not suffer from a little kick in the weaknesses of their construct.

OK look, what would you f**king prefer, all of us to just roll-over and forget this whole SH*Tpile never existed?

Not in this lifetime are YOU or CAVhole going to change MY view of this nightmare GOT IT?!!

SO just back off.

Oh no the ITroll is on the lose.

[Lookout1390]

CavScout wrote...

Lookout1390 wrote...

CavScout wrote...
There was no valid point...

The argument was another means of reaper control other than indoctrination, which you have yet to provide proof other than "yeah well how do you know there isn't another way?"

Still waiting.....

The claim was the only way for "full reaper control" was Indoctrination and that it was supported by the codex. That claim was challenged. The challenge was answered with questions and personal attacks. There was no valid point made. The idea that unless one is disproved they are right is silly but a characteristic of Truthers and Birthers.

Speculations and theories, no confimed other ways for means of controls.

Once again, still waiting. Quit side-stepping the question.

Not too mention in the entire trilogy so far, no other way of 'control' has presented itself, so you have alot of evidence against your already base-less claim.

Modifié par Lookout1390, 13 mai 2012 - 04:13 .

[Iconoclaste]

Lookout1390 wrote...

The argument was another means of reaper control other than indoctrination, which you have yet to provide proof other than "yeah well how do you know there isn't another way?"

This whole argument is based upon a scrap of paper with strange references to the Matrix, the Crucible "effect" having an effect on everything, "destroy life / create life", hope, etc. There is only one mention regarding something that was eventually dropped (if we believe other references from tiers). Did someone care to verify at what time this scrap of paper was written, prior of after the "Indoc sequence was decided OUT"?

[BatmanTurian]

CavScout wrote...

Lookout1390 wrote...

CavScout wrote...
There was no valid point...

The argument was another means of reaper control other than indoctrination, which you have yet to provide proof other than "yeah well how do you know there isn't another way?"

Still waiting.....

The claim was the only way for "full reaper control" was Indoctrination and that it was supported by the codex. That claim was challenged. The challenge was answered with questions and personal attacks. There was no valid point made. The idea that unless one is disproved they are right is silly but a characteristic of Truthers and Birthers.

You are ignoring the question. How else can Reapers control people besides turning them into husks or indoctrinated agents? Explain or stop trying to argue your point, which you are doing badly.

[Iconoclaste]

ohupthis wrote...

Iconoclaste wrote...

I'm sad that a good idea (IT) could have turned into this ridiculous mantra repeated inanely just because some supporters have begun to sit on their pride, being around themselves "for thousand pages of EVIDENCE", which turn out to be mostly self-gratification among a small group of players that will not suffer from a little kick in the weaknesses of their construct.

OK look, what would you f**king prefer, all of us to just roll-over and forget this whole SH*Tpile never existed?

Not in this lifetime are YOU or CAVhole going to change MY view of this nightmare GOT IT?!!
SO just back off.

You just proved my post right. 

[CavScout]

[quote]BatmanTurian wrote...
[quote]CavScout wrote...
No they wouldn't. If a theory can be demostrated to be wrong, you don't then need to come up with a competing theory...
[/quote]
wrong that is the whole point. You have to create a new hypothesis to replace the old theory. if it holds water then it becomes a valid theory, replacing the old theory.[/quote]

This is simply false. A theory is not valid until it is replaced by another theory. A theory becomes invalid when it can be demonstrated to be invalid.




[quote][quote]Besides, invoking science in an IT debate is a horrible idea as IT wouldn't even qualify as a theory under scientific norms. [/quote]Oh, yeah you're right. So you mean it's an interpretation. Ah so what was the other meaning of theory again. Oh yeah, interpretation or explanation of events.[/quote]

Disproving one theory is not "interpretation"

[quote]


[quote]Besides, in a literal sense you are already using a theory to dispute another theory. Your theory is that all of the ending actually happened. You are completely illogical or trolling as usual.[/quote]
This is IT circular logic running amok. Only if one presumes IT to be true does one then think the endings are not real....[/quote]

What other stance is there? You say the endings are crap therefore you acknowledge the endings as to have actually happened, otherwise there would be no ending to complain about,

Logic. Use it.

[/quote]

You invoke logic but fail at it so spectacularly. There is no reason to presume the endings aren't real unless one belives in IT in the first place.

Modifié par CavScout, 13 mai 2012 - 04:16 .

[Iconoclaste]

BatmanTurian wrote...

You are ignoring the question. How else can Reapers control people besides turning them into husks or indoctrinated agents? Explain or stop trying to argue your point, which you are doing badly.

You are assuming that the control if of Reaper origin. That is a point you need to prove.

[Lookout1390]

Iconoclaste wrote...

Lookout1390 wrote...

The argument was another means of reaper control other than indoctrination, which you have yet to provide proof other than "yeah well how do you know there isn't another way?"

This whole argument is based upon a scrap of paper with strange references to the Matrix, the Crucible "effect" having an effect on everything, "destroy life / create life", hope, etc. There is only one mention regarding something that was eventually dropped (if we believe other references from tiers). Did someone care to verify at what time this scrap of paper was written, prior of after the "Indoc sequence was decided OUT"?

I've never heard of that until just now.

I know the plot all and all was dropped and changed around in earlier creation (including Drew's original concept, but even that was a pretty damn terrible ending too).

[balance5050]

 That's right anti's... keep bumping the I.T. related thread.... keep it right there on the front page 

[KevShep]

Scimal wrote...

KevShep wrote...

 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!

Learn to use commas, then. They weren't invented for shlits 'n figgles.

"No, satellites..." = No (pause, assertion) satellites (noun)
"No satellites..." = Zero satellites.

Also, you mean:"You're" and "whatever."

Don't yell at me for your failure to communicate properly.

Regardless, the Citadel could've maintained orbit after the explosion. Maybe it wasn't a particularly stable orbit, but definitely more than the time frame presented in the game.

Iam not yelling and Iam sorry if I offened you. Iam just making that part clear thats why its like that.

The explosion changes the whole equation of distance and speed and direction plus mass, that means it will be cought by the earths gravity

[Lookout1390]

balance5050 wrote...

 That's right anti's... keep bumping the I.T. related thread.... keep it right there on the front page 

Hang in there, comrade