1917 réponses à ce sujet

[M Hedonist]

But I might as well prove iHorizons's theory while I'm at it.
It consists of two main points:
1. Seival's theory is garbage
2. The FAQ is a joke
1: Seival's theory has been disproven empirically, logically and mathematically. This thread spans over 50 pages, has more than 1000 posts and there is virtually none who's supporting your theory other than yourself. It is garbage.
2: Several persons, including myself, have drawn a lot of amusement out of your FAQ, including what can only laughingly be called "counter-arguments". It is a joke.
Theory proven.

[Seival]

Sauruz wrote...

Seival wrote...

iHorizons wrote...

My theory is that Seivals theory is garbage along with the so called "evidence" and the FAQ is a bad joke

Please, prove your theory

Better idea: Try disproving it.

Only after he creates a new thread about it. This thread is about Normandy crash scene, not about me

[iHorizons]

Thank you Sanrunz

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

I still think mine is as good as anyone's. The whole ending sequence is insane, therefore and insane hypothesis seems perfect for it. After all, it is speculationz.

[Grimwick]

Btw Seival I was just reading through your FAQ (not much of an FAQ if your answers are all incorrect) when I noticed that the point you make in 'clue' 3 contradicts the evidence presented in 'clue' 1.

You claim it's not persistent as evidence that it is s different explosion? No - the lack of persistence matches the shockwave shown in the first picture.

In fact, I don't think any of your clues make any coherent sense.

[Seival]

Sauruz wrote...

But I might as well prove iHorizons's theory while I'm at it.
It consists of two main points:
1. Seival's theory is garbage
2. The FAQ is a joke
1: Seival's theory has been disproven empirically, logically and mathematically. This thread spans over 50 pages, has more than 1000 posts and there is virtually none who's supporting your theory other than yourself. It is garbage.
2: Several persons, including myself, have drawn a lot of amusement out of your FAQ, including what can only laughingly be called "counter-arguments". It is a joke.
Theory proven.

This is only opinion of small group of people, not the "final truth".

...And this thread showed one more important purpose aside from supporting the scene and theorizing about it, I believe. It let ending-haters to vent some steam before EC. You really need this, because the scene will remain in the game most likely.

Have a pleasent day.

[iHorizons]

Seival wrote...

iHorizons wrote...

My theory is that Seivals theory is garbage along with the so called "evidence" and the FAQ is a bad joke

Please, prove your theory

Your theory has more holes than a group of prostitutes.
You continually refuse to acknowledge all the major holes in your theory such as.....
-WHY WOULD THE **** WOULD THE ALLIANCE WASTE THE MOST SUCCESFUL TEAM IN THE ENTIRE GALAXY TO TEST A RELAY!!!!!

- So instead of using the resources for the war effort they build a relay? That's not possible even the Protheans didn't have that ability and their technology is way beyond ours.

-Javik is the last Prothean in existence are you really going to tell me that they would throw his life away for a test? Bull****!!!!!! 

-Everyone on the Normandy would rather die than ever abandon Shepard, they would leave him or her behind for a test.

[Grimwick]

Seival wrote...

Sauruz wrote...

But I might as well prove iHorizons's theory while I'm at it.
It consists of two main points:
1. Seival's theory is garbage
2. The FAQ is a joke
1: Seival's theory has been disproven empirically, logically and mathematically. This thread spans over 50 pages, has more than 1000 posts and there is virtually none who's supporting your theory other than yourself. It is garbage.
2: Several persons, including myself, have drawn a lot of amusement out of your FAQ, including what can only laughingly be called "counter-arguments". It is a joke.
Theory proven.

This is only opinion of small group of people, not the "final truth".

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[M Hedonist]

Seival wrote...

Sauruz wrote...

But I might as well prove iHorizons's theory while I'm at it.
It consists of two main points:
1. Seival's theory is garbage
2. The FAQ is a joke
1: Seival's theory has been disproven empirically, logically and mathematically. This thread spans over 50 pages, has more than 1000 posts and there is virtually none who's supporting your theory other than yourself. It is garbage.
2: Several persons, including myself, have drawn a lot of amusement out of your FAQ, including what can only laughingly be called "counter-arguments". It is a joke.
Theory proven.

This is only opinion of small group of people, not the "final truth".

...And this thread showed one more important purpose aside from supporting the scene and theorizing about it, I believe. It let ending-haters to vent some steam before EC. You really need this, because the scene will remain in the game most likely.

Have a pleasent day.

I don't need to vent anything. It's been three months since the game was released. I have come to terms with using headcanon a long time ago. If the EC is terrible I'll just keep using my headcanon - one particular set of fanmade endings, to be specific.
This thread really has no other purpose than to let people laugh at your theory and your "counter-arguments". And also learn what to avoid when arguing properly.

[Seival]

Grimwick wrote...

Btw Seival I was just reading through your FAQ (not much of an FAQ if your answers are all incorrect) when I noticed that the point you make in 'clue' 3 contradicts the evidence presented in 'clue' 1.

You claim it's not persistent as evidence that it is s different explosion? No - the lack of persistence matches the shockwave shown in the first picture.

In fact, I don't think any of your clues make any coherent sense.

No conflict there actually.

Clue #1 shows Relays' explosions, which have to be the same as Crucible's, or there was absolutely no point in them. These explosions do the same thing as the Crucible's explosion, but in different systems (to cover the entire galaxy and affect all invaded Reapers).

So, Relays' explosions are massive in size and persistent. Which means, that the entire space behind the Normandy (see Clue #2) should be filled by the giant shockwave. And the shockwave's front had to be flat and persistent, but it's not (see Clue #3).

...Reading your comments, I just see a proof, that most people here just don't want to try to understand what are they reading. I'm not surprise that you are still so confused with the scene.

Modifié par Seival, 16 juin 2012 - 07:06 .

[Seival]

Sauruz wrote...

I don't need to vent anything.

But you do... Your head is full of spidermans right now, I suppose. That's why you only can spam those inapropriate images through the entire thread... No offense.

[D24O]

Lets do a thought experiment for a bit. Assuming there is some truth behind this theory, shouldn't the game have given us some sort of clue as to what the scene actually means? It should, but it didn't therefore the whole scene is BS not worth examining.

[M Hedonist]

Seival wrote...

...Reading your comments, I just see a proof, that most people here just don't want to try to understand what are they reading. I'm not surprise that you are still so confused with the scene.

You're behaving really arrogant for someone whose theory has been disproven empirically, logically and mathematically.

[D24O]

Seival wrote...

Sauruz wrote...

I don't need to vent anything.

But you do... Your head is full of spidermans right now, I suppose. That's why you only can spam those inapropriate images through the entire thread... No offense.

Hmm... did you just say what I think you said?

[M Hedonist]

Seival wrote...

Sauruz wrote...

I don't need to vent anything.

But you do... Your head is full of spidermans right now, I suppose. That's why you only can spam those inapropriate images through the entire thread... No offense.

That has nothing to do with the scene itself.
It's all about your stupid theory and your arrogant behavior.

[Seival]

Sauruz wrote...

Seival wrote...

Sauruz wrote...

I don't need to vent anything.

But you do... Your head is full of spidermans right now, I suppose. That's why you only can spam those inapropriate images through the entire thread... No offense.

That has nothing to do with the scene itself.
It's all about your stupid theory and your arrogant behavior.

My behaviour is ok. It was not me, who spammed inappropriate images here just to shut the opponent up.

[Grimwick]

Seival wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

Btw Seival I was just reading through your FAQ (not much of an FAQ if your answers are all incorrect) when I noticed that the point you make in 'clue' 3 contradicts the evidence presented in 'clue' 1.

You claim it's not persistent as evidence that it is s different explosion? No - the lack of persistence matches the shockwave shown in the first picture.

In fact, I don't think any of your clues make any coherent sense.

No conflict there actually.

Clue #1 shows Relays' explosions, which have to be the same as Crucible's, or there was absolutely no point in them. These explosions do the same thing a the Crucible's explosion, but in different systems (to cover the entire galaxy and affect all invaded Reapers).

So, Relays' explosions are massive in size and persistent. Which means, that the entire space behind the Normandy (see Clue #2) should  be filled by the giant shockwave. And the shockwave frond had to be flat and persistent, but it's not (see Clue #3).

...Reading your comments, I just see a proof, that most people here just don't want to try to understand what are they reading. I'm not surprise that you are still so confused with the scene.

In your picture of clue 1 you can actually see that the shockwaves are not persistent. The inside of the ring of the shockwave is empty. Your argument that because the normandy shockwave in your other clue isn't persistent it is a different explosion is completely wrong. It is based on no evidence because the evidence you have provided contradicts itself.

They are massive in size, sure, but it is an irrelevant point because the shockwave is only as big as the wave front. Because only a snall portion of the wvaefront can pass through the mass relay at any one time then I don't see how declaring that it is too small makes any sense.

...Reading your comments I just see proof that you are an arrogant pro-ender/supporter who rejects all visible evidence against your own ideas and instead declare yourself the 'only person who can see it'.

[Kurremurre]

I am becoming more and more convinced that Seival is BSN's own Peter Chimaera. Taking recent comments like "This is only opinion of small group of people" into account together with that other thread can only lead to the conclusion that Seival is a cleverly disguised troll.

[emp6]

This thread is so cash.

[M Hedonist]

Seival wrote...

My behaviour is ok.

Whatever you say, troll.

[Seival]

Grimwick wrote...

Seival wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

Btw Seival I was just reading through your FAQ (not much of an FAQ if your answers are all incorrect) when I noticed that the point you make in 'clue' 3 contradicts the evidence presented in 'clue' 1.

You claim it's not persistent as evidence that it is s different explosion? No - the lack of persistence matches the shockwave shown in the first picture.

In fact, I don't think any of your clues make any coherent sense.

No conflict there actually.

Clue #1 shows Relays' explosions, which have to be the same as Crucible's, or there was absolutely no point in them. These explosions do the same thing a the Crucible's explosion, but in different systems (to cover the entire galaxy and affect all invaded Reapers).

So, Relays' explosions are massive in size and persistent. Which means, that the entire space behind the Normandy (see Clue #2) should  be filled by the giant shockwave. And the shockwave frond had to be flat and persistent, but it's not (see Clue #3).

...Reading your comments, I just see a proof, that most people here just don't want to try to understand what are they reading. I'm not surprise that you are still so confused with the scene.

In your picture of clue 1 you can actually see that the shockwaves are not persistent. The inside of the ring of the shockwave is empty. Your argument that because the normandy shockwave in your other clue isn't persistent it is a different explosion is completely wrong. It is based on no evidence because the evidence you have provided contradicts itself.

They are massive in size, sure, but it is an irrelevant point because the shockwave is only as big as the wave front. Because only a snall portion of the wvaefront can pass through the mass relay at any one time then I don't see how declaring that it is too small makes any sense.

...Reading your comments I just see proof that you are an arrogant pro-ender/supporter who rejects all visible evidence against your own ideas and instead declare yourself the 'only person who can see it'.

There was no point in non-volumetric explosions. They have to cover volume, not a surface. It's the Space, remember? It was not a "ring" it was a sphere (which was not empty inside), but just shown as a ring as if it was on the galaxy map "UI".

...You keep proving that you just don't wanna analize.

Modifié par Seival, 16 juin 2012 - 07:27 .

[Seival]

Sauruz wrote...

Seival wrote...

My behaviour is ok.

Whatever you say, troll.

It's not strange to hear such things from the person, who spammed the entire thread with inapropriate images.

...I'm not a troll, Sauruz, you are. And I should've been reported you long ago... But somehow I prefered to ask moderators only to remove your image-spams.

[M Hedonist]

Seival wrote...

...I'm not a troll, Sauruz, you are.

"No! I must kill the trolls" he shouted
The Seival said "No, Sauruz. You are the trolls"
And then Seival was a hypocrite.

[iHorizons]

Again Seival ignores the points I bring up. But I will him give him credit for giving us all something to laugh at

[The Night Mammoth]

I'm still waiting for you to make more assumptions to try and cover up the glaring flaw in the point I made earlier.