319 réponses à ce sujet

[balance5050]

jules_vern18 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

jules_vern18 wrote...

I have tried debate IT with people civilly.  I have spent hours on it, presenting counterpoint after counterpoint to every picture, argument, and contention put forward.

But it never goes anywhere.  Because there are no conditions under which the theory can be disproven - the person I'm debating with ultimately just starts arguing in circles, claiming that I "don't get it," or claiming that my arguments are simply further proof of IT and that I have simply been "indoctrinated" as part of the meta-gaming experience that Bioware so brilliantly created. 

Frankly, IT theorists themselves have taken away my motivation to argue the theory on its merits because they have made it clear that doing so would be like talking to a brick wall.

Yes, it's an ongoing thing and you have to continue presenting what you have constantly, don't give up just becasue you can't convince certain people. It's a matter of how the game speaks to your ideals and by trying to disprove IT, you are trying to disprove people ideals.

Don't get frusterated, keep posting your counter evidence, it's more constructive than saying "I'm right, you're dumb" no?

Never said "I'm right, you're dumb." 

Just "I'm sick of your obsessive spam-posting, stop trying to make everything about your theory and then steamroll over people who argue against it."

But but.. this whole thread is about *my* theory.

[dreamgazer]

jules_vern18 wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

jules_vern18 wrote...

Sorry man, the Cult of Indoctrination Theory believes that the entire world is separated into two groups:  those who accept the divine truth of IT and those who love the current endings. 

Those of us who think both the endings and IT are garbage do not factor into their thinking.

They don't, but not for any malicious reason: people who don't like either one are "lost', for lack of a better word, and really don't need to be integrated into a conversation about the positive qualities of the conclusion. They only interject their way into the conversation when they start associating a valid and founded interpretation of a piece of fiction with cultism, terrorist-attack theories, and claiming that the President is the antichrist.  And when the argument is consistently just "bad writing", "bad writers", "hate the fanbase" about folks who built the intricate and appreciated world that the game takes place in, then yeah, it's kinda easy to dismiss the hyperbole. 

And this is exactly the kind of arrogant garbage I've been talking about. 

How does believing that the most logical solution is that the endings were bad writing make me "lost," exactly?

There's sincerely no arrogance there.

Because you no longer care about the narrative.  You've dismissed it as "bad writing".  Every single point that you'll offer into the argument will hinge on the fact that you simply see it as a poor piece of writing, not an intentional device.  There's no actual dialogue there.  Your point and opinion is valid, but it's no longer pertinent to that particular conversation.

Modifié par dreamgazer, 13 mai 2012 - 08:00 .

[jules_vern18]

Sisterofshane wrote...

jules_vern18 wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

@ jules_vern18 - does it occur to you that you were doing the very same thing you abhor last night in the thread for understanding the fundamentals of IT?

Oh absolutely - and I was expecting that comment.

I was posting late because I have been frustrated by the constant thread hijacking and IT spamming on the forums.  I didn't spam, I didn't hijack - but yes, I did post frequently and for a long time. 

Why what I'm addressing here is different:  Where I participated in a thread that was already about IT, IT theorists try to make every non-related thread about IT.  You don't see anti-IT folks spamming the forums constantly with sameposts and circling newcomers like vultures to recruit them to their cause.

Actually, yes I have seen it.  I was debating with one of them in two other threads, but he has becomingly tellingly absent in the last ten minutes (or maybe not, I hate to assume that I've won _ I'd rather assume the opposite and be pleasantly surprised when I do).

The point I am trying to make here is that all of us here on the BSN cannot be lumped into two groups.  It's not all about Anti/Pro IT, but threads like this make it seem like it is.

And what other conclusion can we come to when it all comes down to a matter of attacking another's personal preference?  Both sides are guilty.

So you're saying that you have seen Anti-IT posters hijack threads that have nothing to do with IT?  Without an IT poster starting the hijack in the first place?

Yes, both sides are guilty.  But not nearly to the same extent.

[nightcobra]

sorentoft wrote...

hoodaticus wrote...

sorentoft wrote...

hoodaticus wrote...

sorentoft wrote...
It is false by the fact it has no been proven. Something is either true or false.

Google "trinary logic".

Utterly irrelevant.

No, not at all.

Unproven things are not false.  They are unknown.

Which would be not true, or false.

he does have a point, unknown does factor into the equation when there's an unknown factor in a true or false statement.

case in point, the unknown factor in this case being the "extended ending" adding an unknown variable to the equation.

with this in mind, by definition the IT can't be proven as true or false until all variables are accounted for.

Modifié par nightcobra8928, 13 mai 2012 - 08:04 .

[BatmanTurian]

jules_vern18 wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

jules_vern18 wrote...

Sorry man, the Cult of Indoctrination Theory believes that the entire world is separated into two groups:  those who accept the divine truth of IT and those who love the current endings. 

Those of us who think both the endings and IT are garbage do not factor into their thinking.

They don't, but not for any malicious reason: people who don't like either one are "lost', for lack of a better word, and really don't need to be integrated into a conversation about the positive qualities of the conclusion. They only interject their way into the conversation when they start associating a valid and founded interpretation of a piece of fiction with cultism, terrorist-attack theories, and claiming that the President is the antichrist.  And when the argument is consistently just "bad writing", "bad writers", "hate the fanbase" about folks who built the intricate and appreciated world that the game takes place in, then yeah, it's kinda easy to dismiss the hyperbole. 

And this is exactly the kind of arrogant garbage I've been talking about. 

How does believing that the most logical solution is that the endings were bad writing make me "lost," exactly?

I don't think the poster means to be insulting. I think they mean the "lost" are not sure how to feel about the ending other than general rage and hate. They dislike the ending at face value but they also dislike an interpretation of the events. Therefore, nothing will satisfy them.

[estebanus]

Valentia X wrote...

Dear God, the pyramids.

Look, if ITers want to get the heat off of them, a) stop storming every thread about the ending and spamming IT videos and stop calling people who don't like it uncreative, clowns, etc. when the rabid anti-ITers keep being jerks, you'll have the high ground. But if you persistently, unrelentingly, and obnoxiously raiding threads non-IT related, people are going to look at you like those religious folks who harrass them with pamphlets.

The same can be said for the people against it.

[jules_vern18]

dreamgazer wrote...

jules_vern18 wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

jules_vern18 wrote...

Sorry man, the Cult of Indoctrination Theory believes that the entire world is separated into two groups:  those who accept the divine truth of IT and those who love the current endings. 

Those of us who think both the endings and IT are garbage do not factor into their thinking.

They don't, but not for any malicious reason: people who don't like either one are "lost', for lack of a better word, and really don't need to be integrated into a conversation about the positive qualities of the conclusion. They only interject their way into the conversation when they start associating a valid and founded interpretation of a piece of fiction with cultism, terrorist-attack theories, and claiming that the President is the antichrist.  And when the argument is consistently just "bad writing", "bad writers", "hate the fanbase" about folks who built the intricate and appreciated world that the game takes place in, then yeah, it's kinda easy to dismiss the hyperbole. 

And this is exactly the kind of arrogant garbage I've been talking about. 

How does believing that the most logical solution is that the endings were bad writing make me "lost," exactly?

There's sincerely no arrogance there.

Because you no longer care about the narrative.  You've dismissed it as "bad writing".  Every single point that you'll offer into the argument will hinge on the fact that you simply see it as a poor piece of writing, not an intentional device.  There's no actual dialogue there.  Your point and opinion is valid, but it's no longer pertinent to that particular conversation.

The entire argument about IT boils down to whether or not it was an intentional device.

It depends on how you approach IT:  If it's just headcannon that you use to replace the current endings, then the whole thing makes perfect sense.

If you believe that Bioware had this planned all along and sold us an incomplete game, and that all discussions taking the ending at face-value are therefore irrelevant, then that's where I find disagreement.

[Sisterofshane]

jules_vern18 wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

jules_vern18 wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

@ jules_vern18 - does it occur to you that you were doing the very same thing you abhor last night in the thread for understanding the fundamentals of IT?

Oh absolutely - and I was expecting that comment.

I was posting late because I have been frustrated by the constant thread hijacking and IT spamming on the forums.  I didn't spam, I didn't hijack - but yes, I did post frequently and for a long time. 

Why what I'm addressing here is different:  Where I participated in a thread that was already about IT, IT theorists try to make every non-related thread about IT.  You don't see anti-IT folks spamming the forums constantly with sameposts and circling newcomers like vultures to recruit them to their cause.

Actually, yes I have seen it.  I was debating with one of them in two other threads, but he has becomingly tellingly absent in the last ten minutes (or maybe not, I hate to assume that I've won _ I'd rather assume the opposite and be pleasantly surprised when I do).

The point I am trying to make here is that all of us here on the BSN cannot be lumped into two groups.  It's not all about Anti/Pro IT, but threads like this make it seem like it is.

And what other conclusion can we come to when it all comes down to a matter of attacking another's personal preference?  Both sides are guilty.

So you're saying that you have seen Anti-IT posters hijack threads that have nothing to do with IT?  Without an IT poster starting the hijack in the first place?

Yes, both sides are guilty.  But not nearly to the same extent.

The correct course of action in this case would be to report the individuals for derailing the topic, not create superflous threads that are meant to provoke the anti-IT crowd (which is what this thread is).

Both sides are just as guilty of perpetuating this harsh divide and polarizing the debate.  Neither side can claim any innocence.

[jules_vern18]

estebanus wrote...

Valentia X wrote...

Dear God, the pyramids.

Look, if ITers want to get the heat off of them, a) stop storming every thread about the ending and spamming IT videos and stop calling people who don't like it uncreative, clowns, etc. when the rabid anti-ITers keep being jerks, you'll have the high ground. But if you persistently, unrelentingly, and obnoxiously raiding threads non-IT related, people are going to look at you like those religious folks who harrass them with pamphlets.

The same can be said for the people against it.

No it can't.  Anti-ITers may swarm IT threads, but they DO NOT spam other unrelated threads with videos and walls of text in support of their views.  

IT Spam =/= Anti-IT posts.

[BatmanTurian]

Valentia X wrote...

Dear God, the pyramids.

Look, if ITers want to get the heat off of them, a) stop storming every thread about the ending and spamming IT videos and stop calling people who don't like it uncreative, clowns, etc. when the rabid anti-ITers keep being jerks, you'll have the high ground. But if you persistently, unrelentingly, and obnoxiously raiding threads non-IT related, people are going to look at you like those religious folks who harrass them with pamphlets.

I'm fine with this. I don't spam non-IT-related threads. I'm actually trying to be civil myself. It can be difficult when others insist on remaining uncivil and condescending. I try to find some middle ground at least.

[Raiil]

estebanus wrote...

Valentia X wrote...

Dear God, the pyramids.

Look, if ITers want to get the heat off of them, a) stop storming every thread about the ending and spamming IT videos and stop calling people who don't like it uncreative, clowns, etc. when the rabid anti-ITers keep being jerks, you'll have the high ground. But if you persistently, unrelentingly, and obnoxiously raiding threads non-IT related, people are going to look at you like those religious folks who harrass them with pamphlets.

The same can be said for the people against it.

Yes, but they're not nearly as numerous and they don't spam hour long videos and then try to treat you like some caveman, if they deign to answer your question at all. I still haven't gotten clear answers for most of my questions/issues; I think KingZayd was the only one considerate enough to debate with me without resorting to 'you're an idiot' tossed in. 

[BatmanTurian]

Sisterofshane wrote...

jules_vern18 wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

jules_vern18 wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

@ jules_vern18 - does it occur to you that you were doing the very same thing you abhor last night in the thread for understanding the fundamentals of IT?

Oh absolutely - and I was expecting that comment.

I was posting late because I have been frustrated by the constant thread hijacking and IT spamming on the forums.  I didn't spam, I didn't hijack - but yes, I did post frequently and for a long time. 

Why what I'm addressing here is different:  Where I participated in a thread that was already about IT, IT theorists try to make every non-related thread about IT.  You don't see anti-IT folks spamming the forums constantly with sameposts and circling newcomers like vultures to recruit them to their cause.

Actually, yes I have seen it.  I was debating with one of them in two other threads, but he has becomingly tellingly absent in the last ten minutes (or maybe not, I hate to assume that I've won _ I'd rather assume the opposite and be pleasantly surprised when I do).

The point I am trying to make here is that all of us here on the BSN cannot be lumped into two groups.  It's not all about Anti/Pro IT, but threads like this make it seem like it is.

And what other conclusion can we come to when it all comes down to a matter of attacking another's personal preference?  Both sides are guilty.

So you're saying that you have seen Anti-IT posters hijack threads that have nothing to do with IT?  Without an IT poster starting the hijack in the first place?

Yes, both sides are guilty.  But not nearly to the same extent.

The correct course of action in this case would be to report the individuals for derailing the topic, not create superflous threads that are meant to provoke the anti-IT crowd (which is what this thread is).

Both sides are just as guilty of perpetuating this harsh divide and polarizing the debate.  Neither side can claim any innocence.

I think we both approach this issue with the same frame of mind. The "divide" has gotten out of hand and the flames have been fanned by extremists on both sides.

[dreamgazer]

jules_vern18 wrote...

The entire argument about IT boils down to whether or not it was an intentional device.

It depends on how you approach IT:  If it's just headcannon that you use to replace the current endings, then the whole thing makes perfect sense.

If you believe that Bioware had this planned all along and sold us an incomplete game, and that all discussions taking the ending at face-value are therefore irrelevant, then that's where I find disagreement.

And I disagree.  I'll repost this from earlier in the thread to illustrate my viewpoint:

All it would take is roughly fifteen to twenty minutes to confirm the theory out of a 30-40 hour experience, and 99% of the game---think about the entirety of the game that you've played, from the level design and conversations to moral decisions---will remain fundamentally unaltered if the theory proves to be correct. 

There's a difference between simply lopping off the last 1% of a game and what BioWare will have accomplished with this. You could argue that it might set a bad precedent with future games and the willingness of gamers to bend and sweat due to their loyalty, I agree with that, but I honestly don't see it being an empty, "I didn't get a full product" situation if the full theory proves accurate. You did get an end, one that will ultimately get the same point across with some logical thinking involved; what you do with the way you perceive and interpret it, as it's implemented currently, is up to you.

There's a clever, rewarding prize at the end of the tunnel, and it will have been a unique way for the community to tear through the lore in search of answers. The execution and the company's perception of their audience's threshold is off, I'm not even going to try and deny that, but this doesn't spell "bad, bad, bad" for BioWare if they elect to fully deliver on the theory's notions.

Modifié par dreamgazer, 13 mai 2012 - 08:09 .

[nightcobra]

jules_vern18 wrote...

estebanus wrote...

Valentia X wrote...

Dear God, the pyramids.

Look, if ITers want to get the heat off of them, a) stop storming every thread about the ending and spamming IT videos and stop calling people who don't like it uncreative, clowns, etc. when the rabid anti-ITers keep being jerks, you'll have the high ground. But if you persistently, unrelentingly, and obnoxiously raiding threads non-IT related, people are going to look at you like those religious folks who harrass them with pamphlets.

The same can be said for the people against it.

No it can't.  Anti-ITers may swarm IT threads, but they DO NOT spam other unrelated threads with videos and walls of text in support of their views.  

IT Spam =/= Anti-IT posts.

one sides uses spam of videos/text, the other uses vitriol and crude remarks. both sides are at fault equally.
you say you see more activity on one side when you're present, that can be true but it's also true that my experience has been the opposite with the anti-IT people being the major offender when i'm present so on this i can say that both sides have extremists to roughly the same extent.

[balance5050]

Anyone else sick of the best interpretation of the endings?

[Sisterofshane]

@BatmanTurian, Yes, and it sours the Forums for the moderates who want to come here to discuss their ideas, not be jumped on and ridiculed by those that don't believe in them (again, applies to both sides equally).

Modifié par Sisterofshane, 13 mai 2012 - 08:10 .

[jules_vern18]

BatmanTurian wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

jules_vern18 wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

jules_vern18 wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

@ jules_vern18 - does it occur to you that you were doing the very same thing you abhor last night in the thread for understanding the fundamentals of IT?

Oh absolutely - and I was expecting that comment.

I was posting late because I have been frustrated by the constant thread hijacking and IT spamming on the forums.  I didn't spam, I didn't hijack - but yes, I did post frequently and for a long time. 

Why what I'm addressing here is different:  Where I participated in a thread that was already about IT, IT theorists try to make every non-related thread about IT.  You don't see anti-IT folks spamming the forums constantly with sameposts and circling newcomers like vultures to recruit them to their cause.

Actually, yes I have seen it.  I was debating with one of them in two other threads, but he has becomingly tellingly absent in the last ten minutes (or maybe not, I hate to assume that I've won _ I'd rather assume the opposite and be pleasantly surprised when I do).

The point I am trying to make here is that all of us here on the BSN cannot be lumped into two groups.  It's not all about Anti/Pro IT, but threads like this make it seem like it is.

And what other conclusion can we come to when it all comes down to a matter of attacking another's personal preference?  Both sides are guilty.

So you're saying that you have seen Anti-IT posters hijack threads that have nothing to do with IT?  Without an IT poster starting the hijack in the first place?

Yes, both sides are guilty.  But not nearly to the same extent.

The correct course of action in this case would be to report the individuals for derailing the topic, not create superflous threads that are meant to provoke the anti-IT crowd (which is what this thread is).

Both sides are just as guilty of perpetuating this harsh divide and polarizing the debate.  Neither side can claim any innocence.

I think we both approach this issue with the same frame of mind. The "divide" has gotten out of hand and the flames have been fanned by extremists on both sides.

Sorry, I just don't buy into that false equivalency. 

[EricHVela]

While I don't subscribe to IT, I find IT to be entertaining fan-fiction. A lot of people have put significant thought behind it.

I still cannot dismiss that, regardless how well stated, the Theory relies on what I accept as sloppy work (from rushed work) and on the unfortunate coincidences that sloppiness causes.

No. I am not tired of IT. I somewhat admire those who put so much effort into IT.

[BatmanTurian]

jules_vern18 wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

jules_vern18 wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

jules_vern18 wrote...

Sorry man, the Cult of Indoctrination Theory believes that the entire world is separated into two groups:  those who accept the divine truth of IT and those who love the current endings. 

Those of us who think both the endings and IT are garbage do not factor into their thinking.

They don't, but not for any malicious reason: people who don't like either one are "lost', for lack of a better word, and really don't need to be integrated into a conversation about the positive qualities of the conclusion. They only interject their way into the conversation when they start associating a valid and founded interpretation of a piece of fiction with cultism, terrorist-attack theories, and claiming that the President is the antichrist.  And when the argument is consistently just "bad writing", "bad writers", "hate the fanbase" about folks who built the intricate and appreciated world that the game takes place in, then yeah, it's kinda easy to dismiss the hyperbole. 

And this is exactly the kind of arrogant garbage I've been talking about. 

How does believing that the most logical solution is that the endings were bad writing make me "lost," exactly?

There's sincerely no arrogance there.

Because you no longer care about the narrative.  You've dismissed it as "bad writing".  Every single point that you'll offer into the argument will hinge on the fact that you simply see it as a poor piece of writing, not an intentional device.  There's no actual dialogue there.  Your point and opinion is valid, but it's no longer pertinent to that particular conversation.

The entire argument about IT boils down to whether or not it was an intentional device.

It depends on how you approach IT:  If it's just headcannon that you use to replace the current endings, then the whole thing makes perfect sense.

If you believe that Bioware had this planned all along and sold us an incomplete game, and that all discussions taking the ending at face-value are therefore irrelevant, then that's where I find disagreement.

Such is your right, but not all of us believe the second issue and I think it's a mistake for you to generalize. For example, I'm open to I.T. as an interpretation. I'm not ready to accept it as fact until the EC comes out and proves it. I think that's a sane, moderate position to take

[estebanus]

jules_vern18 wrote...

estebanus wrote...

Valentia X wrote...

Dear God, the pyramids.

Look, if ITers want to get the heat off of them, a) stop storming every thread about the ending and spamming IT videos and stop calling people who don't like it uncreative, clowns, etc. when the rabid anti-ITers keep being jerks, you'll have the high ground. But if you persistently, unrelentingly, and obnoxiously raiding threads non-IT related, people are going to look at you like those religious folks who harrass them with pamphlets.

The same can be said for the people against it.

No it can't.  Anti-ITers may swarm IT threads, but they DO NOT spam other unrelated threads with videos and walls of text in support of their views.  

IT Spam =/= Anti-IT posts.

Oh, but they're allowed to spam our threads? Why are we the bad guys here?

Look, it's true that the unrelated threads should be spared of these kind of discussions, I agree on that pint, but that doesn't justify people calling us cultists, fanatics, and a lot of other insulting names. We also can't remain civil forever, and we certainly don't need to justify ourselves to anyone who doesn't even read the first damn page.

Nothing justifies insulting other people just because they believe differently.. The same can be said to the IT'ers who "hijack" non-related threads.

[dreamgazer]

BatmanTurian wrote...

Such is your right, but not all of us believe the second issue and I think it's a mistake for you to generalize. For example, I'm open to I.T. as an interpretation. I'm not ready to accept it as fact until the EC comes out and proves it. I think that's a sane, moderate position to take

I'm in the exact same boat, with the correct word bolded as to why.

[Sisterofshane]

jules_vern18 wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

jules_vern18 wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

jules_vern18 wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

@ jules_vern18 - does it occur to you that you were doing the very same thing you abhor last night in the thread for understanding the fundamentals of IT?

Oh absolutely - and I was expecting that comment.

I was posting late because I have been frustrated by the constant thread hijacking and IT spamming on the forums.  I didn't spam, I didn't hijack - but yes, I did post frequently and for a long time. 

Why what I'm addressing here is different:  Where I participated in a thread that was already about IT, IT theorists try to make every non-related thread about IT.  You don't see anti-IT folks spamming the forums constantly with sameposts and circling newcomers like vultures to recruit them to their cause.

Actually, yes I have seen it.  I was debating with one of them in two other threads, but he has becomingly tellingly absent in the last ten minutes (or maybe not, I hate to assume that I've won _ I'd rather assume the opposite and be pleasantly surprised when I do).

The point I am trying to make here is that all of us here on the BSN cannot be lumped into two groups.  It's not all about Anti/Pro IT, but threads like this make it seem like it is.

And what other conclusion can we come to when it all comes down to a matter of attacking another's personal preference?  Both sides are guilty.

So you're saying that you have seen Anti-IT posters hijack threads that have nothing to do with IT?  Without an IT poster starting the hijack in the first place?

Yes, both sides are guilty.  But not nearly to the same extent.

The correct course of action in this case would be to report the individuals for derailing the topic, not create superflous threads that are meant to provoke the anti-IT crowd (which is what this thread is).

Both sides are just as guilty of perpetuating this harsh divide and polarizing the debate.  Neither side can claim any innocence.

I think we both approach this issue with the same frame of mind. The "divide" has gotten out of hand and the flames have been fanned by extremists on both sides.

Sorry, I just don't buy into that false equivalency. 

A wise chemist once told me that if you are not apart of the solution, you are the precipatate.

Refusing to believe the obvious only perpetuates the feelings by the radicals.

[sorentoft]

nightcobra8928 wrote...

sorentoft wrote...

hoodaticus wrote...

sorentoft wrote...

hoodaticus wrote...

sorentoft wrote...
It is false by the fact it has no been proven. Something is either true or false.

Google "trinary logic".

Utterly irrelevant.

No, not at all.

Unproven things are not false.  They are unknown.

Which would be not true, or false.

he does have a point, unknown does factor into the equation when there's an unknown factor in a true or false statement.

case in point, the unknown factor in this case being the "extended ending" adding an unknown variable to the equation.

with this in mind, by definition the IT can't be proven as true or false until all variables are accounted for.

We could draw quantum physics into it as well. Now it can be both true and false, and neither. At the same time.

[BatmanTurian]

jules_vern18 wrote...

Sorry, I just don't buy into that false equivalency. 

There is no false equivalency. Both sides of this issue have their... loyalists who go a bit too far in trying to push their interpretation on others. CavScout and MajinBuu are great examples for those who disagree. Others, like GBGriffin, Eponyx, and SubAstris attempt to engage the issue fairly with opposing logic and evidence.

On the other hand, there are those in the I.T. camp who believe it is absolutely true and cause problems, but moderates like myself cannot control their posting habits.

[nightcobra]

sorentoft wrote...

nightcobra8928 wrote...

sorentoft wrote...

hoodaticus wrote...

sorentoft wrote...

hoodaticus wrote...

sorentoft wrote...
It is false by the fact it has no been proven. Something is either true or false.

Google "trinary logic".

Utterly irrelevant.

No, not at all.

Unproven things are not false.  They are unknown.

Which would be not true, or false.

he does have a point, unknown does factor into the equation when there's an unknown factor in a true or false statement.

case in point, the unknown factor in this case being the "extended ending" adding an unknown variable to the equation.

with this in mind, by definition the IT can't be proven as true or false until all variables are accounted for.

We could draw quantum physics into it as well. Now it can be both true and false, and neither. At the same time.

easy:

some points made by the IT are true, some are false, some are unknown due to too many  variables.
therefore the IT can indeed be all 3 things.