295 réponses à ce sujet

[BatmanTurian]

Catamantaloedis wrote...

You don't know anything about literary interpretation if you think it is valid without any backing in the text.

I see that these ITers are truly indoctrinated in their cultic beliefs, such that when you ask them for evidence, they say, "We don't need any."

No, sorry, it's you who doesn't know anything about literary interpretation. As I said, we have evidence to back up our interpretation, but you refuse to acknowledge it. Does it make our interpretation invalid in your eyes? Yes. Does it mean it is actually valid when supported by evidence we are ascribing meaning to? Yes.

And again, you fall back to cultic beliefs, Ad Hominem.

Nothing I say will convince you because you don't agree with the evidence. You won't even consider it. Therefore, you have never taken an objective view of the evidence for the interpretation. We're never going to agree so this conversation is pointless.

Modifié par BatmanTurian, 10 juin 2012 - 07:57 .

[Khajiit Jzargo]

dreamgazer wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

2-social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/10676720/1  Sir, I would like to present you with the Intoxication Theory, has just the same proof as your IT Theory.

... and it's guilty of attempting to debase an earnest interpretation of the story with a contentious counter-interpretation. What's your point?

Its not earnest, its ok at best. Like I said there not one complete evidence, not one.

[BatmanTurian]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...
1-Basically, the author has already set the boundaries for that universe so he can't just break them. You can intrepet just about anything, but if the game tells me my last name is "Shepard", then my last name in the game is Shepard. Now down there in that link I would like to present you what happens when fans "interpret" things with no proof or absolute evidence but with speculations.

2-social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/10676720/1  Sir, I would like to present you with the Intoxication Theory, has just the same proof as your IT Theory.

2. I saw that. It's a joke. Please don't introduce straw men.

I know, but you told me about hallucinations, and dreams. So I showed you various absurd evidence to prove something, doesn't make it more correct does it?

No, it's satire and doesn't draw inferences and evidence from the story. Therefore your comparison is absurd and illogical.

[dreamgazer]

Catamantaloedis wrote...

You don't know anything about literary interpretation if you think it is valid without any backing in the text.

I see that these ITers are truly indoctrinated in their cultic beliefs, such that when you ask them for evidence, they say, "We don't need any."

It is documented, and it is backed in the text.  Your refusing to see that simply furthers your selective, contrarian argument. 

And I see you're one of those defaulting to the "cultist" label.  That's where I bid you fair travels, as that statement deems you no longer worth my time, as I have no need for that.  If you can sincerely demonize somebody's thought-process as cult-like for sticking to their guns in relation to an extrapolation of devices present in literature, then you need to reevaluate your principles and outlook, because it's exceedingly small-minded, petty, and naive.

Modifié par dreamgazer, 10 juin 2012 - 08:01 .

[Catamantaloedis]

BatmanTurian wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

You don't know anything about literary interpretation if you think it is valid without any backing in the text.

I see that these ITers are truly indoctrinated in their cultic beliefs, such that when you ask them for evidence, they say, "We don't need any."

No, sorry, it's you who doesn't know anything about literary interpretation. As I said, we have evidence to back up our interpretation, but you refuse to acknowledge it. Does it make our interpretation invalid in your eyes? Yes. Does it mean it is actually valid when supported by evidence we are ascribing meaning to? Yes.

And again, you fall back to cultic beliefs, Ad Hominem.

Nothing I say will convince you because you don't agree with the evidence. You won't even consider it. Therefore, you have never taken an objective view of the evidence for the interpretation. We're never going to agree so this conversation is pointless.

There is no evidence. 

[BatmanTurian]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

2-social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/10676720/1  Sir, I would like to present you with the Intoxication Theory, has just the same proof as your IT Theory.

... and it's guilty of attempting to debase an earnest interpretation of the story with a contentious counter-interpretation. What's your point?

Its not earnest, its ok at best. Like I said there not one complete evidence, not one.

That is your opinion and not fact. And that's fine. We're not here to convince you it's true, only that we have the right to the interpretation because it is based on the lore and the evidence is in the story. How you interpret it is your business.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

BatmanTurian wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...
1-Basically, the author has already set the boundaries for that universe so he can't just break them. You can intrepet just about anything, but if the game tells me my last name is "Shepard", then my last name in the game is Shepard. Now down there in that link I would like to present you what happens when fans "interpret" things with no proof or absolute evidence but with speculations.

2-social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/10676720/1  Sir, I would like to present you with the Intoxication Theory, has just the same proof as your IT Theory.

2. I saw that. It's a joke. Please don't introduce straw men.

I know, but you told me about hallucinations, and dreams. So I showed you various absurd evidence to prove something, doesn't make it more correct does it?

No, it's satire and doesn't draw inferences and evidence from the story. Therefore your comparison is absurd and illogical.

but it does draw references and evidence from the story, it just more easily disputable than the IT.

[BatmanTurian]

Catamantaloedis wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

You don't know anything about literary interpretation if you think it is valid without any backing in the text.

I see that these ITers are truly indoctrinated in their cultic beliefs, such that when you ask them for evidence, they say, "We don't need any."

No, sorry, it's you who doesn't know anything about literary interpretation. As I said, we have evidence to back up our interpretation, but you refuse to acknowledge it. Does it make our interpretation invalid in your eyes? Yes. Does it mean it is actually valid when supported by evidence we are ascribing meaning to? Yes.

And again, you fall back to cultic beliefs, Ad Hominem.

Nothing I say will convince you because you don't agree with the evidence. You won't even consider it. Therefore, you have never taken an objective view of the evidence for the interpretation. We're never going to agree so this conversation is pointless.

There is no evidence. 

Opinion is not fact.

[BatmanTurian]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...
1-Basically, the author has already set the boundaries for that universe so he can't just break them. You can intrepet just about anything, but if the game tells me my last name is "Shepard", then my last name in the game is Shepard. Now down there in that link I would like to present you what happens when fans "interpret" things with no proof or absolute evidence but with speculations.

2-social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/10676720/1  Sir, I would like to present you with the Intoxication Theory, has just the same proof as your IT Theory.

2. I saw that. It's a joke. Please don't introduce straw men.

I know, but you told me about hallucinations, and dreams. So I showed you various absurd evidence to prove something, doesn't make it more correct does it?

No, it's satire and doesn't draw inferences and evidence from the story. Therefore your comparison is absurd and illogical.

but it does draw references and evidence from the story, it just more easily disputable than the IT.

No, it's rediculous and frankly it undermines your argument. It's satire and nothing more. It is not a serious interpretation of the events of the story.

[dreamgazer]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

2-social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/10676720/1  Sir, I would like to present you with the Intoxication Theory, has just the same proof as your IT Theory.

... and it's guilty of attempting to debase an earnest interpretation of the story with a contentious counter-interpretation. What's your point?

Its not earnest, its ok at best. Like I said there not one complete evidence, not one.

Say what you will. The cues are present in the story, and the motive is there based on the Final Hours app. What you do with it is your prerogative. 

[Catamantaloedis]

BatmanTurian wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...
1-Basically, the author has already set the boundaries for that universe so he can't just break them. You can intrepet just about anything, but if the game tells me my last name is "Shepard", then my last name in the game is Shepard. Now down there in that link I would like to present you what happens when fans "interpret" things with no proof or absolute evidence but with speculations.

2-social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/10676720/1  Sir, I would like to present you with the Intoxication Theory, has just the same proof as your IT Theory.

2. I saw that. It's a joke. Please don't introduce straw men.

I know, but you told me about hallucinations, and dreams. So I showed you various absurd evidence to prove something, doesn't make it more correct does it?

No, it's satire and doesn't draw inferences and evidence from the story. Therefore your comparison is absurd and illogical.

but it does draw references and evidence from the story, it just more easily disputable than the IT.

No, it's rediculous and frankly it undermines your argument. It's satire and nothing more. It is not a serious interpretation of the events of the story.

Neither is the IT. And please, stop perpetuating the mispelling of ridiculous. No word has been more butchered on the internet than that.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

BatmanTurian wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

2-social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/10676720/1  Sir, I would like to present you with the Intoxication Theory, has just the same proof as your IT Theory.

... and it's guilty of attempting to debase an earnest interpretation of the story with a contentious counter-interpretation. What's your point?

Its not earnest, its ok at best. Like I said there not one complete evidence, not one.

That is your opinion and not fact. And that's fine. We're not here to convince you it's true, only that we have the right to the interpretation because it is based on the lore and the evidence is in the story. How you interpret it is your business.

That's fine, sorry if it seems like an **** move, but I feel the need to prove that your theory its wrong. Mainly because most IT supporters talk about it like its proof and if you disagree with it, that makes you dumb.

[BatmanTurian]

Catamantaloedis wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...
1-Basically, the author has already set the boundaries for that universe so he can't just break them. You can intrepet just about anything, but if the game tells me my last name is "Shepard", then my last name in the game is Shepard. Now down there in that link I would like to present you what happens when fans "interpret" things with no proof or absolute evidence but with speculations.

2-social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/10676720/1  Sir, I would like to present you with the Intoxication Theory, has just the same proof as your IT Theory.

2. I saw that. It's a joke. Please don't introduce straw men.

I know, but you told me about hallucinations, and dreams. So I showed you various absurd evidence to prove something, doesn't make it more correct does it?

No, it's satire and doesn't draw inferences and evidence from the story. Therefore your comparison is absurd and illogical.

but it does draw references and evidence from the story, it just more easily disputable than the IT.

No, it's rediculous and frankly it undermines your argument. It's satire and nothing more. It is not a serious interpretation of the events of the story.

Neither is the IT. And please, stop perpetuating the mispelling of ridiculous. No word has been more butchered on the internet than that.

your first sentence is opinion and not fact. stop confusing the two.

as for your second, it was an accident. I'm only human.

[dreamgazer]

Catamantaloedis wrote...

Neither is the IT. And please, stop perpetuating the mispelling of ridiculous. No word has been more butchered on the internet than that.

I've seen some of your grammatical and spelling errors.  I wouldn't start hurling those petty stones.  None of us is free of that criticism.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

dreamgazer wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

2-social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/10676720/1  Sir, I would like to present you with the Intoxication Theory, has just the same proof as your IT Theory.

... and it's guilty of attempting to debase an earnest interpretation of the story with a contentious counter-interpretation. What's your point?

Its not earnest, its ok at best. Like I said there not one complete evidence, not one.

Say what you will. The cues are present in the story, and the motive is there based on the Final Hours app. What you do with it is your prerogative. 

Because Indoctranation is used to move the plot fordward that does not mean its true, also there are many things in the Final Hours App, that doesn't mean their secretly put into the game. I have yet to hear evidence that I can't prove wrong completely...

[BatmanTurian]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

2-social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/10676720/1  Sir, I would like to present you with the Intoxication Theory, has just the same proof as your IT Theory.

... and it's guilty of attempting to debase an earnest interpretation of the story with a contentious counter-interpretation. What's your point?

Its not earnest, its ok at best. Like I said there not one complete evidence, not one.

That is your opinion and not fact. And that's fine. We're not here to convince you it's true, only that we have the right to the interpretation because it is based on the lore and the evidence is in the story. How you interpret it is your business.

That's fine, sorry if it seems like an **** move, but I feel the need to prove that your theory its wrong. Mainly because most IT supporters talk about it like its proof and if you disagree with it, that makes you dumb.

Well, you can feel that need, but I don't think people who don't believe in my interpretation are stupid or anything. I think they just interpreted the story differently. I really have no quarrel with those who disagree except when it is aggressive, insulting, or completely dismissive. I'm a moderate, you could say.

[Catamantaloedis]

BatmanTurian wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...
1-Basically, the author has already set the boundaries for that universe so he can't just break them. You can intrepet just about anything, but if the game tells me my last name is "Shepard", then my last name in the game is Shepard. Now down there in that link I would like to present you what happens when fans "interpret" things with no proof or absolute evidence but with speculations.

2-social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/10676720/1  Sir, I would like to present you with the Intoxication Theory, has just the same proof as your IT Theory.

2. I saw that. It's a joke. Please don't introduce straw men.

I know, but you told me about hallucinations, and dreams. So I showed you various absurd evidence to prove something, doesn't make it more correct does it?

No, it's satire and doesn't draw inferences and evidence from the story. Therefore your comparison is absurd and illogical.

but it does draw references and evidence from the story, it just more easily disputable than the IT.

No, it's rediculous and frankly it undermines your argument. It's satire and nothing more. It is not a serious interpretation of the events of the story.

Neither is the IT. And please, stop perpetuating the mispelling of ridiculous. No word has been more butchered on the internet than that.

your first sentence is opinion and not fact. stop confusing the two.

as for your second, it was an accident. I'm only human.

I have facts which prove the IT wrong. The ITers just say thats its right and they have no proof. 

[BatmanTurian]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

2-social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/10676720/1  Sir, I would like to present you with the Intoxication Theory, has just the same proof as your IT Theory.

... and it's guilty of attempting to debase an earnest interpretation of the story with a contentious counter-interpretation. What's your point?

Its not earnest, its ok at best. Like I said there not one complete evidence, not one.

Say what you will. The cues are present in the story, and the motive is there based on the Final Hours app. What you do with it is your prerogative. 

Because Indoctranation is used to move the plot fordward that does not mean its true, also there are many things in the Final Hours App, that doesn't mean their secretly put into the game. I have yet to hear evidence that I can't prove wrong completely...

And again, as evidenced by my interactions with those like you, no evidence will be convincing unless Bioware flat out states or shows it is true. So asking for proof is disingenuous, because there is no proof you would accept short of those circumstances.

[dreamgazer]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Because Indoctranation is used to move the plot fordward that does not mean its true, also there are many things in the Final Hours App, that doesn't mean their secretly put into the game. I have yet to hear evidence that I can't prove wrong completely...

Huh.  Sorry, but you haven't proven anything wrong to me. 

That's subjective, my friend.  Thinking it's an objective dismissal would be inaccurate and presumptuous. 

[BatmanTurian]

Catamantaloedis wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...
1-Basically, the author has already set the boundaries for that universe so he can't just break them. You can intrepet just about anything, but if the game tells me my last name is "Shepard", then my last name in the game is Shepard. Now down there in that link I would like to present you what happens when fans "interpret" things with no proof or absolute evidence but with speculations.

2-social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/10676720/1  Sir, I would like to present you with the Intoxication Theory, has just the same proof as your IT Theory.

2. I saw that. It's a joke. Please don't introduce straw men.

I know, but you told me about hallucinations, and dreams. So I showed you various absurd evidence to prove something, doesn't make it more correct does it?

No, it's satire and doesn't draw inferences and evidence from the story. Therefore your comparison is absurd and illogical.

but it does draw references and evidence from the story, it just more easily disputable than the IT.

No, it's rediculous and frankly it undermines your argument. It's satire and nothing more. It is not a serious interpretation of the events of the story.

Neither is the IT. And please, stop perpetuating the mispelling of ridiculous. No word has been more butchered on the internet than that.

your first sentence is opinion and not fact. stop confusing the two.

as for your second, it was an accident. I'm only human.

I have facts which prove the IT wrong. The ITers just say thats its right and they have no proof. 

Again, that is an opinion. As for the second, we have evidence, but it is always dismissed, therefore it is disingenuous to ask for proof when there is no proof that would satisfy you short of Bioware outright telling you.

[Catamantaloedis]

dreamgazer wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Because Indoctranation is used to move the plot fordward that does not mean its true, also there are many things in the Final Hours App, that doesn't mean their secretly put into the game. I have yet to hear evidence that I can't prove wrong completely...

Huh.  Sorry, but you haven't proven anything wrong to me. 

That's subjective, my friend.  Thinking it's an objective dismissal would be inaccurate and presumptuous. 

If you can't defend your position with more than, "because I like how it makes the ending turn out", then it has been objectively dismissed.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

dreamgazer wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Because Indoctranation is used to move the plot fordward that does not mean its true, also there are many things in the Final Hours App, that doesn't mean their secretly put into the game. I have yet to hear evidence that I can't prove wrong completely...

Huh.  Sorry, but you haven't proven anything wrong to me. 

That's subjective, my friend.  Thinking it's an objective dismissal would be inaccurate and presumptuous. 

Because you haven't supplied mw with anything to prove wrong, tell me something that I won't be able to prove me wrong and I will, and If I give you absolute proof its wrong and you don't want to accept that, thats you being close-minded.

[BatmanTurian]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Because Indoctranation is used to move the plot fordward that does not mean its true, also there are many things in the Final Hours App, that doesn't mean their secretly put into the game. I have yet to hear evidence that I can't prove wrong completely...

Huh.  Sorry, but you haven't proven anything wrong to me. 

That's subjective, my friend.  Thinking it's an objective dismissal would be inaccurate and presumptuous. 

Because you haven't supplied mw with anything to prove wrong, tell me something that I won't be able to prove me wrong and I will, and If I give you absolute proof its wrong and you don't want to accept that, thats you being close-minded.

and that's a two-way street. We could tell you something and if you don't want to accept it, you'd be close-minded too. We're just two sides of the same coin.

[Helios969]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

ahhhhhhhh here we go......
First thing first, TIM was originally suppose to be a boss battle, but they scraped it off at the last moment. Thats evidence itself that the scene that was put there had no nothing to do with the IT but instead just put therem but I'll continue and endulge you more. TIM can only control them, he learned that with the research that went on in Horizon. When Shepard shoots anderson it makes sense, TIM just finished saying "With the crucible, I am sure I can control the Reapers" with Shepard responding "Then what (hes saying what do you plan to do with it)" then Tim says "Look at the power its wields, look at what it can do" Then he forces shepard to shoot Anderson, TO SHOW THE POWER. Anyway why argue this thread is not about that, but if you want to explain anything else for you just ask.

Wait...what?  What makes TIM special that he can control the crucible?  Why does he have the power? Not Shepard or Anderson?

[BatmanTurian]

Catamantaloedis wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Because Indoctranation is used to move the plot fordward that does not mean its true, also there are many things in the Final Hours App, that doesn't mean their secretly put into the game. I have yet to hear evidence that I can't prove wrong completely...

Huh.  Sorry, but you haven't proven anything wrong to me. 

That's subjective, my friend.  Thinking it's an objective dismissal would be inaccurate and presumptuous. 

If you can't defend your position with more than, "because I like how it makes the ending turn out", then it has been objectively dismissed.

We have defended the position with a lot of gathered evidence. You disagree with or dismiss the evidence without considering it. Therefore it has not been objectively dismissed.