896 réponses à ce sujet

[PreciousIsland]

covertdrizzt wrote...

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

I think that what we mean is that a theory is constructed using rules and techniques relevent to an inquiry into that subject matter, in the sense of the first definition.  There is theory that would be appropriate to use in order to analyze ME3:  literary critical theory.  ITers never employ it.  The conclusion that IT arrives at is arrived at through a whole lot of conjecture (whose archaic definiton is the interpretation of signs and omens, btw) and not a whole lot of method besides the vaguely positivistic compilation of a mountain of irrelevent facts.

Despite what the dictionary says (and I don't even think it would intend to convey this), conjecture and speculation about something by people who have little to no knowledge about the methods of inquiry into the subject matter probably won't produce a coherent theory.  Darwin used methods appropriate to his subject (the natural sciences) when he developed a theory of evolution.  ITers did not.

[wsandista]

Catamantaloedis wrote...

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 Sisteroshane 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.

I never said it was my theory, I jut pressed you to provide evidence to why it is wrong. Which you have not done, so I will assume you are simply talking out your ass. If you are going to state something is not fact, then you should have evidence to prove it is not a fact.

[JamieCOTC]

Something IS going on. Shepard clutching her left side (the same place she just shot Anderson) proves that all is not what it seems. Is that something indoctrination? I don't know and I don't quite by the theory. Everything else can be explained away. BioWare cut a lot of corners in this game and those cut corners, the same armors lying about, reused trees and bushes from the dream sequence, Shepard's burnt armor being the same no matter what armor she was wearing, etc, etc, etc. Why does the gun have unlimited ammo? Gameplay mechanics. It's just more convenient. Then there is "speculation from everyone." The final conversation between Shepard and the catalyst was written the way it was to retain the mystery of the Reapers. It stands to reason, other parts of the ending were written w/ the same intention. Everything else can be chalked up to coincidence. People grasping at straws in hope this isn't the real ending and seeing things that they think symbolize one thing when they in truth mean nothing. The indoctrination theory is interesting and I will concede it is possible, but the ending we got was complete. The utter shock of the devs all the way up to Casey Hudson and Dr. Ray Muzyka to the reaction of the fans tells us this is so.

[Tealjaker94]

IT has always reminded me of the history channel shows like Ancient Aliens and whatnot. I respect that they've put quite a bit of work into their "theories" and gathered heaps of circumstantial evidence, but it doesn't change the fact it's complete bull. I'm surprised anyone still can believe bioware planned IT. If they had, the EC would have been released in April to save their plummeting sales.

[OchreJelly]

Yay, a fractured fanbase inside of a fractured fanbase. \\o/ Frackception?

Someone at Bioware must be eating SO much popcorn these days...

[Catamantaloedis]

wsandista wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

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 Sisteroshane 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.

I never said it was my theory, I jut pressed you to provide evidence to why it is wrong. Which you have not done, so I will assume you are simply talking out your ass. If you are going to state something is not fact, then you should have evidence to prove it is not a fact.

If someone tells me that there is a unicorn in their backyard, then it is their responsibility to prove it. I should not have to conduct an investigation into their backyard, and when I arrive speculate that the unicorn had already flown away.

[KevShep]

alec1898 wrote...

KevShep wrote...

alec1898 wrote...

KevShep wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

 The most pathetically astonishing contribution that this community has granted to the Internet is one of the most detestable gathering of unrelated ideas, speculations, non sequiturs, fallacies, optimistic guesses, and genuine idiocies ever assembled among humankind. It is the most vile, repugant denial of apparent truth, being, of course, the ending of the Mass Effect series, which is (quite apparently) meant to be taken at a literal, face value. Therefore I ask, I demand, that each person reevaluate his interpretation of the ending. Do so long, and hard. Finally, realize the delusion of your ways and the fallacy of the Indoctrination Delusion and reject is as it is and as it always has been--the fan fiction of a mentally disturbed 10 year old child which has reached the very levels of religion. It is delusion. It is a lie.

Wow I guess you didnt notice...

-The kid is the SAME EXACT kid in your dreams and you dont seem to care why? Notice to before you say anything that the game does not anwser this for a reason....because its a spoiler to what is really going on.
-Shepards eyes are like TIM's if you pick synthesis or control but not destroy which is what the kid doesnot want you to pick and instead pick control/synthesis.
-The same music you hear in the dream scenes can be heard off an on in the last 10 minutes of the game meaning that it mite be a dream.
-There is a mako in the back ground of the breath scene(hard to see it but its there).
-As anderson dies the camera makes it a point to show a new wound in shepard that was not there before and was infact where anderson was hit. Anderson=Shepards paragon TIM=Shepards renegade!
-At the end it shows TIM begin paragon and Anderson being Renagade...you did not think that was odd?


Those are just a few and if you think that it makes no sense then it is clearly a lack of understanding on your part about what is shown in-game (as in not made up). Or your a troll, any way here is the whole list of indoct IT evidence....   http://parabolee.blo...eories-and.html

- The catalyst wanted to pick a form familiar to shepard maybe, like the geth consensus mission?
- It's because you were kind of partly syntetic like TIM and being disolved can show the synthetic workings in your body. Why is the rest of his body glowing?
- Bioware ran out of time for an original peice, thus ambiance.
- Meaningless, the Alliance still used mako's, just not Shepard.
- How do we know the wound wasn't there, can I get proof that shepards side wasn't bleeding coming up the conduit?
- Bioware is stupid and they think that deus ex endings directly correlate to the same moral values in the Mass Effect franchise.

-Like I said the game MAKES IT A POINT to...NOT...tell you why the kid is like that and why shep does not ask.

-TIM's eyes are NOT like that because of synthetics. There are lots of people with synthetics and they dont have those eyes. Infact Shep gets them throught the crucible, are you saying that TIM got his eyes throught the cucible? The game devs are trying to reach out to the player that something is wrong.

-Did you not see the SAME white light when you wake up as you do when you are in your dreams? And then to also hear the same music as you walk to the beam? How can you not see that its a hint that your dreaming when the game has ALREADY been through this?

-It not meaninless...It means that Shepard is still in London!

-You can hear shepard grunt in pain as Anderson is hit by shepards gun(its true go back and hear it)! Also the game MAKES IT A POINT to show you the new wound JUST as Anderson dies!

-Your avoiding the question...Why does it have the paragon and renagade swiched?


Your not making any sense...All of your answers are WAY over here or Way over there but if you look closely you see that all of the above is tied into one answer....indoctrination attempt.

- It doesn't make a point to not tell you because the devs themselves said they wanted to keep the conversation simple and not give a lot of details to Shepard. They said something about keeping it basic, or not giving you the higher ups to keep the catalyst mysterious, or something like that. As soon as I find the link I will edit this post and show you.

- It's highly possible that TIM modified himself with reaper tech and did the same with Shepard. Moot, I guess, I will say that there really isn't much more I can back it up with.

- The white light could be a simple transition due to lack of resources, as it's highly apparent that there were many things reused from previous games or outright stolen.

- I don't get why showing that Shepard is still in London matters. Shepard was always in London, XD.

- Shepard could easilly be grunting out of sadness for essentially shooting his best friend, thus the sad head shake in the next cut to him. Why does he not continue grunting in pain after being shot, most people generally do.

- Para and Rene are switched because in Deus Ex the bad ending was to destroy all tech (Destroy), the good ending was to rule the Illuminati (Control) and the best was to merge with Helios (Synthesis). These are what some devs have said to be their favorite endings.

Please read this...

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

[Taboo]

Have you sought fortune, evasive and shy?
Drink to the men who protect you and I
Drink, drink, drain your glass, raise your glass high

It's not the side-effects of the cocaine
I'm thinking that it must be love
It's too late to be grateful

[UrgentArchengel]

OchreJelly wrote...

Yay, a fractured fanbase inside of a fractured fanbase. o/ Frackception?

Someone at Bioware must be eating SO much popcorn these days...

...If you know what this means, the you know who.  The evil one himself.

[llbountyhunter]

Tealjaker94 wrote...

IT has always reminded me of the history channel shows like Ancient Aliens and whatnot. I respect that they've put quite a bit of work into their "theories" and gathered heaps of circumstantial evidence, but it doesn't change the fact it's complete bull. I'm surprised anyone still can believe bioware planned IT. If they had, the EC would have been released in April to save their plummeting sales.

very good point... 

but I think its possible that bioware left the ending open on purpose in order to listen to fan feedback. they probably only used IT as a cop-out to buy them more time. after all they did ask for three extra months....

there have also been some hints at there being something more. this tweet was posted a day after release.
 

more can be found here.



of course its still all speculation at this point... bioware needs to hurry up and release EC already!

Modifié par llbountyhunter, 16 juin 2012 - 03:25 .

[gavinbrindstaar]

http://www.cracked.c...ent-techniques/

OP is #2 so hard.

Modifié par gavinbrindstaar, 16 juin 2012 - 03:25 .

[Catamantaloedis]

gavinbrindstaar wrote...

http://www.cracked.c...ent-techniques/

OP is #2 so hard.

Perhaps you have not considered the possibility that the IT is both amusing and pathetic.

But I guess I must appear to be like the person that told you that Santa Clause wasn't real. But who ate all those cookies late at night and left the gifts?

Modifié par Catamantaloedis, 16 juin 2012 - 03:27 .

[PreciousIsland]

llbountyhunter wrote...

Tealjaker94 wrote...

IT has always reminded me of the history channel shows like Ancient Aliens and whatnot. I respect that they've put quite a bit of work into their "theories" and gathered heaps of circumstantial evidence, but it doesn't change the fact it's complete bull. I'm surprised anyone still can believe bioware planned IT. If they had, the EC would have been released in April to save their plummeting sales.

very good point... 

but I think its possible that bioware left the ending open on purpose in order to listen to fan feedback. they probably only used IT as a cop-out to buy them more time. after all they did ask for three extra months....

there have also been some hints at there being something more. this tweet was posted a day after release.
 

more can be found here.



of course its still all speculation at this point... bioware needs to hurry up and release EC already!

Yea, well, they said a lot of things about ME3 that weren't true before the release.  I imagine it is meant to get people to buy stuff.  

[HellishFiend]

Catamantaloedis wrote...

[wsandista]

Catamantaloedis wrote...

wsandista wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

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 Sisteroshane 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.

I never said it was my theory, I jut pressed you to provide evidence to why it is wrong. Which you have not done, so I will assume you are simply talking out your ass. If you are going to state something is not fact, then you should have evidence to prove it is not a fact.

If someone tells me that there is a unicorn in their backyard, then it is their responsibility to prove it. I should not have to conduct an investigation into their backyard, and when I arrive speculate that the unicorn had already flown away.

If you start a thread attacking their belief that there is a unicorn in their backyard, then you should have some evidence to support your claim.

You are side-stepping the argument again, so I will have to ask again: Why is the idea commonly known as "Indoctrination Theory" incorrect? Make sure you provide examples and thoroughly explain why all evidence contradicts the idea in question.

Is it that hard of a question to answer for one who has been arguing against the validity of the theory?

[Catamantaloedis]

wsandista wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

wsandista wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

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 Sisteroshane 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.

I never said it was my theory, I jut pressed you to provide evidence to why it is wrong. Which you have not done, so I will assume you are simply talking out your ass. If you are going to state something is not fact, then you should have evidence to prove it is not a fact.

If someone tells me that there is a unicorn in their backyard, then it is their responsibility to prove it. I should not have to conduct an investigation into their backyard, and when I arrive speculate that the unicorn had already flown away.

If you start a thread attacking their belief that there is a unicorn in their backyard, then you should have some evidence to support your claim.

You are side-stepping the argument again, so I will have to ask again: Why is the idea commonly known as "Indoctrination Theory" incorrect? Make sure you provide examples and thoroughly explain why all evidence contradicts the idea in question.

Is it that hard of a question to answer for one who has been arguing against the validity of the theory?

No, if someone repeatedly says that there is a unicorn in their backyard, and we demand that they provide factual evidence of this, and they are unable to, I am still not responsible to prove the existence of this unicorn, even when I suggest that this unicorn does not exist. The lack of evidence is proof itself.

Modifié par Catamantaloedis, 16 juin 2012 - 03:29 .

[PreciousIsland]

wsandista wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

wsandista wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

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 Sisteroshane 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.

I never said it was my theory, I jut pressed you to provide evidence to why it is wrong. Which you have not done, so I will assume you are simply talking out your ass. If you are going to state something is not fact, then you should have evidence to prove it is not a fact.

If someone tells me that there is a unicorn in their backyard, then it is their responsibility to prove it. I should not have to conduct an investigation into their backyard, and when I arrive speculate that the unicorn had already flown away.

If you start a thread attacking their belief that there is a unicorn in their backyard, then you should have some evidence to support your claim.

You are side-stepping the argument again, so I will have to ask again: Why is the idea commonly known as "Indoctrination Theory" incorrect? Make sure you provide examples and thoroughly explain why all evidence contradicts the idea in question.

Is it that hard of a question to answer for one who has been arguing against the validity of the theory?

I throw out a lot of anti-IT evidence.  People just ignore it or say, "That's your opinion."

[gavinbrindstaar]

Catamantaloedis wrote...

No, if someone repeatedly says that there is a unicorn in their backyard, and we demand that they provide factual evidence of this, and they are unable to, I am still not responsible to prove the existence of this unicorn. The lack of evidence is proof itself.

No, but you have a responsibility to disprove the evidence they provide. I've seen none of that.

[RADIUMEYEZ]

Catamantaloedis wrote...

PreciousIsland wrote...

 This is a troll post but you are right.

This is not a troll post. I have posted my opinion about this several times already, but could ignore this phenomenon no longer without making a topic about it, as much as I didn't want to.

Every post, topic, whatever you make is a troll post. You are a troll simple as that.

[OchreJelly]

llbountyhunter wrote...

 

Simple explanation:  Lots of MULTIPLAYER DLC, hurrah!

[UrgentArchengel]

HellishFiend wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

HellishFiend wins.  FATALITY!

[wsandista]

Catamantaloedis wrote...

wsandista wrote...


If you start a thread attacking their belief that there is a unicorn in their backyard, then you should have some evidence to support your claim.

You are side-stepping the argument again, so I will have to ask again: Why is the idea commonly known as "Indoctrination Theory" incorrect? Make sure you provide examples and thoroughly explain why all evidence contradicts the idea in question.

Is it that hard of a question to answer for one who has been arguing against the validity of the theory?

No, if someone repeatedly says that there is a unicorn in their backyard, and we demand that they provide factual evidence of this, and they are unable to, I am still not responsible to prove the existence of this unicorn. The lack of evidence is proof itself.

You still have not provided any evidence against the idea commonly known as "Indoctrination Theory".

Once more: Why is the idea commonly known as "Indoctrination Theory" incorrect?

IT supporters have provided evidence here on this thread, yet you ignore them and side-track into arguments such as "what constitutes a theory". I can either assume you are a coward, talking out your ass, or a troll, possibly all three.

[Catamantaloedis]

gavinbrindstaar wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

No, if someone repeatedly says that there is a unicorn in their backyard, and we demand that they provide factual evidence of this, and they are unable to, I am still not responsible to prove the existence of this unicorn. The lack of evidence is proof itself.

No, but you have a responsibility to disprove the evidence they provide. I've seen none of that.

They've provided no real evidence.  And I have responded to "evidence" presented in this thread already. And others have responded as well.

[RADIUMEYEZ]

UrgentArchengel wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

HellishFiend wins.  FATALITY!

Lol awesome!

[UrgentArchengel]

RADIUMEYEZ wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

PreciousIsland wrote...

 This is a troll post but you are right.

This is not a troll post. I have posted my opinion about this several times already, but could ignore this phenomenon no longer without making a topic about it, as much as I didn't want to.

Every post, topic, whatever you make is a troll post. You are a troll simple as that.

He just can't accept it.  He's in denial over the blatant fact he is a troll.