505 réponses à ce sujet

[CavScout]

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Yep. The other is "nothing in game can be used against IT because it is IT and so can't be used against IT".

Thats like reading Lord of the Rings and saying "nothing can be used against the theory that there is one ring to rule them all" 

The author wouldn't write anything that says they aren't trying to indoctrinate Shepard, because indoctrinating Sheprd was the author's intention.

As well as indoctrinating the player.

No, the analogy would be One Ring Deniers (ORDs) posting all over Middle Earth forums claiming they have connected the dots showing there are other rings and that the ring Frodo drops into Mt. Doom was a decoy. You IT folks are ORDs!

DAFUQ? you missed the point again?

I corrected your "point". You did it all wrong.

No u missed it.

Nope. I nailed it.

Yes, you've nailed making my point that you can't see what the narrative is trying to tell you.

Like ORDs, there is no narritive to support your claims.

[balance5050]

CavScout wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

CavScout wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...
I don't intend to "support" any of the ITs... IT supprters will say the Citadel didn't explode (it was all in his head) and then will use the explosion as proof of IT (Shep could live if it exploded!). A major case of having your cake and eating it too!

You're missing the point, the citadel DID explode, in Shepards head.... Which is evident by him waking up on Earth.

If he "dreamed" it, it did not explode. If you presume IT that is...

That's what he's arguing.

And you say that WE failed reading comprehension

Do you even know why you're attacking me?

So you even have proof that I'm attacking you?  Or just your arguments?

Come one man, at least own your words.

You do know what attack means right?

[CavScout]

Sdrol117 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Sdrol117 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Sdrol117 wrote...

CavScout wrote...
Yep. The other is "nothing in game can be used against IT because it is IT and so can't be used against IT".

Exactly. It's either face value bad writing, or IT. And since I particularly wasn't a fan of ME2s writing/story after the beauty of ME1...I may be slightly biased towards simply bad writing.  

It really isn't the bolded. That is an IT positioned false choice fallacy.

I don't think I get what you mean...Unless youre imply the ending wasn't bad writing. 

No, that the only choices are bad writing or IT.

What other choices would you propose?

IT is not even a valid choice.

[balance5050]

CavScout wrote...

Like ORDs, there is no narritive to support your claims.

Harbinger - "your mind will be mine"

Modifié par balance5050, 13 mai 2012 - 07:28 .

[balance5050]

CavScout wrote...

Sdrol117 wrote...

What other choices would you propose?

IT is not even a valid choice.

What other choices would you propose? 

[Sisterofshane]

CavScout wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

CavScout wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...
I don't intend to "support" any of the ITs... IT supprters will say the Citadel didn't explode (it was all in his head) and then will use the explosion as proof of IT (Shep could live if it exploded!). A major case of having your cake and eating it too!

You're missing the point, the citadel DID explode, in Shepards head.... Which is evident by him waking up on Earth.

If he "dreamed" it, it did not explode. If you presume IT that is...

That's what he's arguing.

And you say that WE failed reading comprehension

Do you even know why you're attacking me?

So you even have proof that I'm attacking you?  Or just your arguments?

Come one man, at least own your words.

I did with the second part of the sentence.

You cannot claim that we fail to use comprehension when discussing the endings, but then fail to use comprehension when reading our statements on the thread.

So, again, do you have proof that I am out to "get" you?  OR is it all imagined because you believe me to be some "evanglist" "zealot"? (your own words, by the way - maybe you should own them)

Modifié par Sisterofshane, 13 mai 2012 - 07:28 .

[CavScout]

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Like ORDs, there is no narritive to support your claims.

Harbinger - "your mind will be mine"

And that proves IT how?

[balance5050]

CavScout wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Like ORDs, there is no narritive to support your claims.

Harbinger - "your mind will be mine"

And that proves IT how?

It doesn't "prove" anything, it does however support my claims that indoctrination is in the narrative.

[Sdrol117]

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Sdrol117 wrote...

What other choices would you propose?

IT is not even a valid choice.

What other choices would you propose? 

I was going to refute his point by saying something along the lines of "let people believe what they want" but that doesnt make IT valid. He has a point. If you don't believe in the IT, then in your eyes it is simply is NOT a way to interpret it. And I don't believe in it. And even on the zero chance it is IT, it is still HORRIFIC writing.

[balance5050]

Sdrol117 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Sdrol117 wrote...

What other choices would you propose?

IT is not even a valid choice.

What other choices would you propose? 

I was going to refute his point by saying something along the lines of "let people believe what they want" but that doesnt make IT valid. He has a point. If you don't believe in the IT, then in your eyes it is simply is NOT a way to interpret it. And I don't believe in it. And even on the zero chance it is IT, it is still HORRIFIC writing.

Ok, people should beleive what they want. Soo.. why go into an I.T. oriented thread if you don't believe it, unless you want to tell other people what to think?

[Sdrol117]

balance5050 wrote...

Sdrol117 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Sdrol117 wrote...

What other choices would you propose?

IT is not even a valid choice.

What other choices would you propose? 

I was going to refute his point by saying something along the lines of "let people believe what they want" but that doesnt make IT valid. He has a point. If you don't believe in the IT, then in your eyes it is simply is NOT a way to interpret it. And I don't believe in it. And even on the zero chance it is IT, it is still HORRIFIC writing.

Ok, people should beleive what they want. Soo.. why go into an I.T. oriented thread if you don't believe it, unless you want to tell other people what to think?

For the same reason IT people hijack everybody else's threads and make themselves look like foolish conspiracy theorists. Actually not really, I just like to rile people up.

[balance5050]

Sdrol117 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

Ok, people should beleive what they want. Soo.. why go into an I.T. oriented thread if you don't believe it, unless you want to tell other people what to think?

For the same reason IT people hijack everybody else's threads and make themselves look like foolish conspiracy theorists. Actually not really, I just like to rile people up.

Two wrongs don't make a right, I only stay in the IT oriented threads if I talk about IT.

Oh ok, well if your only goal is to fire people up, I'll just have to remember to not take anything you say seriously then?

Modifié par balance5050, 13 mai 2012 - 07:43 .

[dreman9999]

CavScout wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Like ORDs, there is no narritive to support your claims.

Harbinger - "your mind will be mine"

And that proves IT how?

It prove that the reapers are trying tocontrol Shepard....The ending with TIM control's Shepard prives IT.

[Sdrol117]

balance5050 wrote...

Sdrol117 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

Ok, people should beleive what they want. Soo.. why go into an I.T. oriented thread if you don't believe it, unless you want to tell other people what to think?

For the same reason IT people hijack everybody else's threads and make themselves look like foolish conspiracy theorists. Actually not really, I just like to rile people up.

Two wrongs don't make a right, I only stay in the IT oriented threads if I talk about IT.

Oh ok, well if your only goal is to fire people up, I'll just have to remember to not take anything you say seriously then?

I'm on a videogame forum, i'm not here to practice morals. I'm sure you'll forget and you'll go on a defensive spree on your conspiracy theories 

[CavScout]

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Like ORDs, there is no narritive to support your claims.

Harbinger - "your mind will be mine"

And that proves IT how?

It doesn't "prove" anything, it does however support my claims that indoctrination is in the narrative.

....goal post moving is a weak debate tactic....

[Sdrol117]

dreman9999 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Like ORDs, there is no narritive to support your claims.

Harbinger - "your mind will be mine"

And that proves IT how?

It prove that the reapers are trying tocontrol Shepard....The ending with TIM control's Shepard prives IT.

But the reapers want to control everything, so it doesnt prove anything. You have yet to prove Shepard /IS/ indoctrinated. No **** they tried, that much is obvious from Arrival. But it doesn't mean he /is/ he was barely in contact with the artifact. 

[dreman9999]

CavScout wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

I'm not being coy...
Saying it never happened is bull****...
That denotes unimportance...

I can have a dream. I may have dreamed but what I dreamed didn't really happen. Same with the IT endings.

This topic is not about the dream theory only. Read the opening statement.

[CavScout]

Sdrol117 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Sdrol117 wrote...

What other choices would you propose?

IT is not even a valid choice.

What other choices would you propose? 

I was going to refute his point by saying something along the lines of "let people believe what they want" but that doesnt make IT valid. He has a point. If you don't believe in the IT, then in your eyes it is simply is NOT a way to interpret it. And I don't believe in it. And even on the zero chance it is IT, it is still HORRIFIC writing.

Yep. The endings, as is can be "viewed" in other ways not including IT. Bad writing is one such way. It simply isn't down to bad writing or IT as the only two choices thou.

[CavScout]

balance5050 wrote...

Sdrol117 wrote...I was going to refute his point by saying something along the lines of "let people believe what they want" but that doesnt make IT valid. He has a point. If you don't believe in the IT, then in your eyes it is simply is NOT a way to interpret it. And I don't believe in it. And even on the zero chance it is IT, it is still HORRIFIC writing.

Ok, people should beleive what they want. Soo.. why go into an I.T. oriented thread if you don't believe it, unless you want to tell other people what to think?

Why do you think folks should ony post in threads about things they support/believe?

[CavScout]

dreman9999 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Like ORDs, there is no narritive to support your claims.

Harbinger - "your mind will be mine"

And that proves IT how?

It prove that the reapers are trying tocontrol Shepard....The ending with TIM control's Shepard prives IT.

LOL, what?
Who has argued that the Reapers wouldn't like to Indocrinate Shep if given the chance? And how doesn't wanting to do something prove that the something actually happened? I want to win the lottery. Doesn't mean I have.

[dreman9999]

Sdrol117 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Like ORDs, there is no narritive to support your claims.

Harbinger - "your mind will be mine"

And that proves IT how?

It prove that the reapers are trying tocontrol Shepard....The ending with TIM control's Shepard prives IT.

But the reapers want to control everything, so it doesnt prove anything. You have yet to prove Shepard /IS/ indoctrinated. No **** they tried, that much is obvious from Arrival. But it doesn't mean he /is/ he was barely in contact with the artifact. 

1. The reaper want to impose order on everything...Not control everythting directly.
2.Did you miss everything in ME2 that points to Harbinger going aftershepard sacificly.
3.Shepard was hit with waves of indoctrination feilds...the last one was so strong it knoched Shepard out. Then Shepard was out for 2 days on the same base of the artifact....That's enough time to get the ball rolling.
4. The other  times of contact with reaper tech In ME1 from eden prime to the citadel battle to every fight with the collectors to Arrival . Theat's 3  years of on and off contact with reaper tech. There is plebty of time for the process to start.

[dreman9999]

CavScout wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Like ORDs, there is no narritive to support your claims.

Harbinger - "your mind will be mine"

And that proves IT how?

It prove that the reapers are trying tocontrol Shepard....The ending with TIM control's Shepard prives IT.

LOL, what?
Who has argued that the Reapers wouldn't like to Indocrinate Shep if given the chance? And how doesn't wanting to do something prove that the something actually happened? I want to win the lottery. Doesn't mean I have.

Well, TIM is controling Shepard in the end of ME3...TIMis being control by the reapers throughthe reaper tech he has implanted in his body....And Shepard is in contact with reaper tech on and off for 3 years....So...

[CavScout]

dreman9999 wrote...

Sdrol117 wrote...But the reapers want to control everything, so it doesnt prove anything. You have yet to prove Shepard /IS/ indoctrinated. No **** they tried, that much is obvious from Arrival. But it doesn't mean he /is/ he was barely in contact with the artifact. 

1. The reaper want to impose order on everything...Not control everythting directly.
2.Did you miss everything in ME2 that points to Harbinger going aftershepard sacificly.
3.Shepard was hit with waves of indoctrination feilds...the last one was so strong it knoched Shepard out. Then Shepard was out for 2 days on the same base of the artifact....That's enough time to get the ball rolling.
4. The other  times of contact with reaper tech In ME1 from eden prime to the citadel battle to every fight with the collectors to Arrival . Theat's 3  years of on and off contact with reaper tech. There is plebty of time for the process to start.

Making assumptions on assumptions with an occasional presumption thrown in does not a fact make.

[CavScout]

dreman9999 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Like ORDs, there is no narritive to support your claims.

Harbinger - "your mind will be mine"

And that proves IT how?

It prove that the reapers are trying tocontrol Shepard....The ending with TIM control's Shepard prives IT.

LOL, what?
Who has argued that the Reapers wouldn't like to Indocrinate Shep if given the chance? And how doesn't wanting to do something prove that the something actually happened? I want to win the lottery. Doesn't mean I have.

Well, TIM is controling Shepard in the end of ME3...TIMis being control by the reapers throughthe reaper tech he has implanted in his body....And Shepard is in contact with reaper tech on and off for 3 years....So...

A does not follow B....

[dreman9999]

CavScout wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Like ORDs, there is no narritive to support your claims.

Harbinger - "your mind will be mine"

And that proves IT how?

It doesn't "prove" anything, it does however support my claims that indoctrination is in the narrative.

....goal post moving is a weak debate tactic....

No, it provesthe intetions of the writers...