896 réponses à ce sujet

[covertdrizzt]

PreciousIsland wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

The Indoctrination Theory is not a theory.

THANK YOU.

IT WAS NEVER A THEORY.

NICE TO SEE SOMEONE ELSE AGREES.

This.

the·o·ry
[ th əree ]

• rules and techniques: the body of rules, ideas, principles, and techniques that applies to a subject, especially when seen as distinct from actual practice
• speculation: abstract thought or contemplation
• idea formed by speculation: an idea of or belief about something arrived at through speculation or conjecture
  It is a Theory.

[llbountyhunter]

Catamantaloedis wrote...
Even if the IT were true (it is not), how does a blown up Mako suggest Shepard's indoctrination in anyway whatsoever?

well, it could possibly sugget that the entire end sequence was constructed from shepards previous memories, and experiences. hence the patched together maps and conflicting locations



but of course, it could also be lazyness by bioware.....

[PreciousIsland]

llbountyhunter wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

 another fun photo.... bioware sure seemed to ramp up the re-use of assets in the last five minutes right?


 

Explain how that points to Indoctrination and not laziness.

well, at this point its either very carefully constructed lazyness that seems to apparently point in one direction... or IT.

I would say that it is nothing, just some old models used to fill up space.  I don't see how that points to indoctrination.  At least it doesn't point to anything clearly enough that I would think that the whole terrible ending of the game is a dream, the biggest clue to this being that the ending was so bad...  come on, dude, nobody would make a horrible ending while secretly planning to release another ending later stating that that ending was a dream and the biggest clue that it was a dream was that it was terrible and caused outrage throughout the fanbase.

That's so absurd it could be a Kids in the Hall skit.

Modifié par PreciousIsland, 16 juin 2012 - 03:04 .

[PreciousIsland]

Whoa, actually triple posted.  Weird.

Modifié par PreciousIsland, 16 juin 2012 - 03:03 .

[PreciousIsland]

Sorry, somehow double posted.

[KevShep]

PreciousIsland wrote...


come on, dude, nobody would make a horrible ending while secretly planning to release another ending later stating that that ending was a dream and the biggest clue that it was a dream was that it was terrible and caused putrage throughout the fanbase.

That's so absurd it could be a Kids in the Hall skit.

There is evidence to say other wise and then to have that backed up by bioware wanting spculations from everyone.

[llbountyhunter]

 if any of you want to look at few of my posts...

http://social.biowar...ndex/12547432/1 

http://social.biowar.../index/12389290 


I wrote it all down here...  its kinda tiresome to keep reposting it....

Modifié par llbountyhunter, 16 juin 2012 - 03:05 .

[Catamantaloedis]

covertdrizzt wrote...

PreciousIsland wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

The Indoctrination Theory is not a theory.

THANK YOU.

IT WAS NEVER A THEORY.

NICE TO SEE SOMEONE ELSE AGREES.

This.

the·o·ry
[ th əree ]

• rules and techniques: the body of rules, ideas, principles, and techniques that applies to a subject, especially when seen as distinct from actual practice
• speculation: abstract thought or contemplation
• idea formed by speculation: an idea of or belief about something arrived at through speculation or conjecture
  It is a Theory.

 Sisterofshane suggested that I must not believe in evolution because it is a theory and I don't believe in the IT. This is completely disingenuous because the IT does not fit the scientific definition of a theory. So no, it is not a theory in the same way that evolution is a theory and the comparison is laughable.

[wsandista]

Catamantaloedis wrote...

covertdrizzt wrote...

PreciousIsland wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

The Indoctrination Theory is not a theory.

THANK YOU.

IT WAS NEVER A THEORY.

NICE TO SEE SOMEONE ELSE AGREES.

This.

the·o·ry
[ th əree ]

• rules and techniques: the body of rules, ideas, principles, and techniques that applies to a subject, especially when seen as distinct from actual practice
• speculation: abstract thought or contemplation
• idea formed by speculation: an idea of or belief about something arrived at through speculation or conjecture
  It is a Theory.

 Sisterofshane suggested that I must not believe in evolution because it is a theory and I don't believe in the IT. This is completely disingenuous because the IT does not fit the scientific definition of a theory. So no, it is not a theory in the same way that evolution is a theory and the comparison is laughable.

But IT fits a definition of a theory. Therefore it can legitimately be called a theory.

[Sisterofshane]

Catamantaloedis wrote...

Except that Shepard being indoctrinated is not a verified fact, so your argument already starts with a false assumption.

Life changing over time is a verifiable fact, and the theory of evolution explains this fact.

The idea that Shepard is being indoctrinated, no.  But we know that within the ME universe indoctrination exists, and it has been observed and confirmed to have happened over time to many different characters.

The endings as they are presented make little to no sense, and we can use indoctrination as a way to explain it.

[PreciousIsland]

llbountyhunter wrote...

 if any of you want to look at few of my posts...

http://social.biowar...ndex/12547432/1 

http://social.biowar.../index/12389290 


I wrote it all down here...  its kinda tiresome to keep reposting it....

I wrote a detailed response to the first one of these and you dismissed it by saying "Thank you for your flawed opinion," and nothing else.

[UrgentArchengel]

You'd be surprised of that alot of IT folks, would be fine with the ending being not IT. Disappointed that there wasn't no big surprise, but we'd let it go as long as EC is actually good. Hell, I'm fine with the ending being face value, as long as EC does it's job properly. Seriously though, the nasty Anti-IT people claim ITist to be stupid, but we're being creative, and constructive. Most Anti-IT people who go into the IT thread just troll, and even if they have a question, most still troll and insult first anyway. The way I see it, EC is the final showdown, and when it finally hits, we will know, and that will be that. No more arguing, no more hate speeches, no more of this pointless debacle. It will all be over. If IT is wrong, whatever, at least we tried to be constructive, and not bash everything left and right. If it's right, well, that's that. I'm just defending those I feel are good people, those a lot of Anti-IT people wrongfully accuse of being delusional zealots just because of affiliation. I'm also one of those. If I practically have to be a martyr for this, then so be it. Just go ahead, there my post a new one. It will not matter in the end anyway.

[Catamantaloedis]

wsandista wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

covertdrizzt wrote...

PreciousIsland wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

The Indoctrination Theory is not a theory.

THANK YOU.

IT WAS NEVER A THEORY.

NICE TO SEE SOMEONE ELSE AGREES.

This.

the·o·ry
[ th əree ]

• rules and techniques: the body of rules, ideas, principles, and techniques that applies to a subject, especially when seen as distinct from actual practice
• speculation: abstract thought or contemplation
• idea formed by speculation: an idea of or belief about something arrived at through speculation or conjecture
  It is a Theory.

 Sisterofshane suggested that I must not believe in evolution because it is a theory and I don't believe in the IT. This is completely disingenuous because the IT does not fit the scientific definition of a theory. So no, it is not a theory in the same way that evolution is a theory and the comparison is laughable.

But IT fits a definition of a theory. Therefore it can legitimately be called a theory.

Okay, sure you can. If you want to use the popular definition of theory which means speculation or guess. Then all the power to you. I prefer to call it the Indoctrination Delusion. But the Indoctination Guess works just as well.

[covertdrizzt]

@Catamantaloedis what I just posted is the definition of theory.

[Catamantaloedis]

covertdrizzt wrote...

@Catamantaloedis what I just posted is the definition of theory.

I already explained that my statement was in response to a specific comment made by Sisterofshane. 

Don't waste my time.

[KevShep]

llbountyhunter wrote...

 if any of you want to look at few of my posts...

http://social.biowar...ndex/12547432/1 

http://social.biowar.../index/12389290 


I wrote it all down here...  its kinda tiresome to keep reposting it....

http://parabolee.blo...eories-and.html

[llbountyhunter]

PreciousIsland wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

 if any of you want to look at few of my posts...

http://social.biowar...ndex/12547432/1 

http://social.biowar.../index/12389290 


I wrote it all down here...  its kinda tiresome to keep reposting it....

I wrote a detailed response to the first one of these and you dismissed it by saying "Thank you for your flawed opinion," and nothing else.

did I?  lol.....  


well I was kinda tired atm..... I try to answer it better next time...

[darkchief10]

i'm gonna go ahead and say this
**** HAPPENS
this is what bioware wanted IT is on very circumstantial evidence, if you were to take this to court the judge would laugh you out of town, besides it's all dream is the worst plot device a writer can use, only fight club has pulled it off ( good luck finding me yo) so please, accept that bad things happen and bioware made a genuine mistake
*prepares to be ignored*

[wsandista]

Catamantaloedis wrote...

Okay, sure you can. If you want to use the popular definition of theory which means speculation or guess. Then all the power to you. I prefer to call it the Indoctrination Delusion. But the Indoctination Guess works just as well.

Catamantaloedis wrote...

The Indoctrination Theory is not a theory.

So is it a theory or is it not?

[covertdrizzt]

Why would one use an upopular definition? A Theory is just speculation until proven fact.

[llbountyhunter]

darkchief10 wrote...

i'm gonna go ahead and say this
**** HAPPENS
this is what bioware wanted IT is on very circumstantial evidence, if you were to take this to court the judge would laugh you out of town, besides it's all dream is the worst plot device a writer can use, only fight club has pulled it off ( good luck finding me yo) so please, accept that bad things happen and bioware made a genuine mistake
*prepares to be ignored*

http://social.biowar...ndex/12547432/1 


I answered this here already....


Its ok im not ignoring you. 

[Catamantaloedis]

wsandista wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

Okay, sure you can. If you want to use the popular definition of theory which means speculation or guess. Then all the power to you. I prefer to call it the Indoctrination Delusion. But the Indoctination Guess works just as well.

Catamantaloedis wrote...

The Indoctrination Theory is not a theory.

So is it a theory or is it not?

Reading comprehension must not be your forte. 

If you want to call it a theory, using definitions which reduce it to either speculation or guessing, then sure its a theory.

My comment was, as I've already clearly stated to you, in response to Sisterofshane comparing the IT to the theory of evolution. 

I didnt think that I would have to spell it out this clearly, but I see the sort of people I'm communicating with.

Regardless, none of this supports your Indoctrination Guess in any way whatsoever, so your attempt to divert attention to an ultimately meaningless argument is most telling.

Modifié par Catamantaloedis, 16 juin 2012 - 03:17 .

[KevShep]

covertdrizzt wrote...

Why would one use an upopular definition? A Theory is just speculation until proven fact.

Isnt that what Bioware wanted...Speculations?

The Anti-IT people say that because you cant prove it means that it most likely is not true and yet then what would the speculations be?

Its obvious that there is something hidden or unclear because of the whole "speculations" thing.

Modifié par KevShep, 16 juin 2012 - 03:16 .

[alec1898]

KevShep wrote...

covertdrizzt wrote...

Why would one use an upopular definition? A Theory is just speculation until proven fact.

Isnt that what Bioware wanted...Speculations?

The Anti-IT people say that because you cant prove it means that it most likely is not true and yet then what would the speculations be?

Its obvious that there is something hidden or unclear because of the whole "speculations" thing.

Kev, I posted at the bottom of page 6.

Please read?

[darkchief10]

llbountyhunter wrote...

darkchief10 wrote...

i'm gonna go ahead and say this
**** HAPPENS
this is what bioware wanted IT is on very circumstantial evidence, if you were to take this to court the judge would laugh you out of town, besides it's all dream is the worst plot device a writer can use, only fight club has pulled it off ( good luck finding me yo) so please, accept that bad things happen and bioware made a genuine mistake
*prepares to be ignored*

http://social.biowar...ndex/12547432/1 


I answered this here already....


Its ok im not ignoring you. 

I gues because as I writer I see how much it's a dream can destroy plots so i'm biased ill admit