152 réponses à ce sujet

[Chief Commander]

Grimwick wrote...

Speculation about speculation doesn't prove nor debunk anything.

QFT

[The Smitchens]

Chief Commander wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

Speculation about speculation doesn't prove nor debunk anything.

QFT

Quote for the?

[Helios969]

The Smitchens wrote...

Chief Commander wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

Speculation about speculation doesn't prove nor debunk anything.

QFT

Quote for the?

Quit f*cking talking (I think.)

[Aaleel]

Helios969 wrote...

The Smitchens wrote...

Chief Commander wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

Speculation about speculation doesn't prove nor debunk anything.

QFT

Quote for the?

Quit f*cking talking (I think.)

Quoted for Truth

[MilitanT07]

Helios969 wrote...

The Smitchens wrote...

Chief Commander wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

Speculation about speculation doesn't prove nor debunk anything.

QFT

Quote for the?

Quit f*cking talking (I think.)

Quoted For Truth

Modifié par MilitanT07, 25 juin 2012 - 11:56 .

[llbountyhunter]

MilitanT07 wrote...

Helios969 wrote...

The Smitchens wrote...

Chief Commander wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

Speculation about speculation doesn't prove nor debunk anything.

QFT

Quote for the?

Quit f*cking talking (I think.)

Quoted For Truth

Lol...

[DazenCobalt17]

TL;DR etc etc

[Makrys]

'quite f*cking talking'

lol

It means 'Quoted For Truth', as others have already said.

Modifié par Makrys, 26 juin 2012 - 12:03 .

[Captain Cornhole]

Fingertrip wrote...

Looks at Join Date.

Lol'd.

Alot of effort troll, but it was abit to obvious

I have been here longer then you have, judging by your sign update. 

[Captain Cornhole]

Grimwick wrote...

Captain Cornhole wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

Speculation about speculation doesn't prove nor debunk anything.

Really quite cause i really need to take off but...

It's all about the burden of proof. My speculation is entirely more reasonable and explainable without jumping through all the hoops the indoc theory does. The burden of proof is on the indoc theory, they have to proove that the speculation i have presented is less logical then their speculation.

1) I don't agree with you. Your speculation is just as speculative as IT.

2) No they don't have to prove that. That's not how circumstantial evidence works. They have to provide evidence that Shepard may be indoctrinated/looks like he is indoctrinated.

If you want to disprove that or debunk it you cannot counter-speculate. That's not proof, it's just theorising.

NB - Before you leave, please please please make your post possible to read. The fast-food surprise we have is not very easy to decipher.

1. Not all of it is speculation. But hey were all entiitled to differnt opinion.

2. Yes, they do. And thus far they have failed to provide exact evidence to proove he is indoctrinated. My evidence is all cercustatual, just like theres yet more reasonable blowing holes in the theory.

Yeah sure I'm trying to make it more readable. 

[TSA_383]

I just love that some people took you seriously with the name "Captain Cornhole"

I mean, frankly I'm staggered that you can register as "Captain Cornhole" on here

[llbountyhunter]

Captain Cornhole wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

Captain Cornhole wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

Speculation about speculation doesn't prove nor debunk anything.

Really quite cause i really need to take off but...

It's all about the burden of proof. My speculation is entirely more reasonable and explainable without jumping through all the hoops the indoc theory does. The burden of proof is on the indoc theory, they have to proove that the speculation i have presented is less logical then their speculation.

1) I don't agree with you. Your speculation is just as speculative as IT.

2) No they don't have to prove that. That's not how circumstantial evidence works. They have to provide evidence that Shepard may be indoctrinated/looks like he is indoctrinated.

If you want to disprove that or debunk it you cannot counter-speculate. That's not proof, it's just theorising.

NB - Before you leave, please please please make your post possible to read. The fast-food surprise we have is not very easy to decipher.

1. Not all of it is speculation. But hey were all entiitled to differnt opinion.

2. Yes, they do. And thus far they have failed to provide exact evidence to proove he is indoctrinated. My evidence is all cercustatual, just like theres yet more reasonable blowing holes in the theory.

Yeah sure I'm trying to make it more readable. 

Well, to be fair you only attack the minor and outdated points of the theory.... this is from bynes old post.

Try some going around some of the more conclusive evidence.

[llbountyhunter]

masseffectindoctrination.blogspot.com/?m=0

Here's some evidence and you can look at the links in my signature to be more informed on the thoery.

[Captain Cornhole]

llbountyhunter wrote...

Captain Cornhole wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

Captain Cornhole wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

Speculation about speculation doesn't prove nor debunk anything.

Really quite cause i really need to take off but...

It's all about the burden of proof. My speculation is entirely more reasonable and explainable without jumping through all the hoops the indoc theory does. The burden of proof is on the indoc theory, they have to proove that the speculation i have presented is less logical then their speculation.

1) I don't agree with you. Your speculation is just as speculative as IT.

2) No they don't have to prove that. That's not how circumstantial evidence works. They have to provide evidence that Shepard may be indoctrinated/looks like he is indoctrinated.

If you want to disprove that or debunk it you cannot counter-speculate. That's not proof, it's just theorising.

NB - Before you leave, please please please make your post possible to read. The fast-food surprise we have is not very easy to decipher.

1. Not all of it is speculation. But hey were all entiitled to differnt opinion.

2. Yes, they do. And thus far they have failed to provide exact evidence to proove he is indoctrinated. My evidence is all cercustatual, just like theres yet more reasonable blowing holes in the theory.

Yeah sure I'm trying to make it more readable. 

Well, to be fair you only attack the minor and outdated points of the theory.... this is from bynes old post.

Try some going around some of the more conclusive evidence.

Yeah I wasn't going to read over 2000 pages. lol

[malakim2099]

jules_vern18 wrote...

To Clarify:  I didn't mean "you people" in a heavily derogatory manner, it was more like "sheesh, you guys again" while I was writing it.  And no, not all ITers believe in the whole false dichotomy between pro-enders and anti-IT...it's just frustrating for me as a person who dislikes both IT and the current endings.  I also would have liked the idea of the Crucible as a Reaper trap and fully expected it as i played through the game (boy was I wrong).

To Provide Closure:  I really don't have anything against IT and have changed my previously aggressive anti-IT stance.  I even hope that people who believe in IT can still do so after the EC comes out.  I just post news like this so people don't continue to get your hopes up - people who are still convinced that tomorrow's DLC will reveal IT to be true (that it was Bioware's intention) are going to be crushed.

Thanks for the clarification. Personally, I think the IT is neat. I would like it to have been true, because it beats the alternative of the endings as they currently exist. But without a 4th "**** YOU STARCHILD!"/Conventional Victory option... I don't think the endings as they currently exist CAN be fixed. Well, not without IT, but that has quite a few holes in it as it is. I'll freely admit that.

But I almost feel like the entire game is a dream. Various people are echoing the same talking points word for word, at least in the early game. It's a bit creepy in some ways (both Liara and Hackett echoing the EXACT SAME TALKING POINTS WORD FOR WORD about how the Crucible is our only chance comes to mind).

I dunno. I guess I'll find out tomorrow. Haven't played through to the point again to hit the Cerby base, but I think I'll get spoilers before I try to go through it for myself.

[hammerfan]

malakim2099 wrote...

wryterra wrote...

malakim2099 wrote...

I only read the first few bits before my eyes started bleeding from the font color used, but if it's just TIM using "Lazarus Implants" to control Shepard... what about Anderson? Did TIM send some ninjas in and implant Anderson while he was sleeping or something, because he was controlled by TIM also?

Don't you remember the sequence where Anderson dies and Cerberus spend 2 years rebuilding him too? 

No, me either. 

You know, I just would like to know why SPACE MAGIC is okay, but the Indoctrination Theory is bad. Bad writing is acceptable, but fans trying to make sense of the nonsense is not?

And now it seems pretty much confirmed that SPACE MAGIC is the way to go with the EC... that's, better, than the IT?

Nope, not better, just equally bad. 

[BigGuy28]

[BatmanTurian]

Captain Cornhole wrote...

Yeah I wasn't going to read over 2000 pages. lol

*Make a thread trying to debunk IT*

*Too lazy to bother doing research*

*Do it right before release of EC*

*Look double stupid to everyone*

Modifié par BatmanTurian, 26 juin 2012 - 03:50 .

[wryterra]

malakim2099 wrote...

wryterra wrote...

malakim2099 wrote...

I only read the first few bits before my eyes started bleeding from the font color used, but if it's just TIM using "Lazarus Implants" to control Shepard... what about Anderson? Did TIM send some ninjas in and implant Anderson while he was sleeping or something, because he was controlled by TIM also?

Don't you remember the sequence where Anderson dies and Cerberus spend 2 years rebuilding him too? 

No, me either. 

You know, I just would like to know why SPACE MAGIC is okay, but the Indoctrination Theory is bad. Bad writing is acceptable, but fans trying to make sense of the nonsense is not?

And now it seems pretty much confirmed that SPACE MAGIC is the way to go with the EC... that's, better, than the IT?

How is my post, suggesting that TIM can't control Anderon's implants because they're not there, suggesting IT is bad?How can it be interpreted as support for space magic?

Hell I'm saying IT is a more likely explanation for why TIM can control Anderson as well as Shepard. 

And for those who are saying it was established on Sanctuary that TIM could control people, no. They could control Reaper abominations and Ceberus were *beginning* to get a handle on Indoctrination. Anderson is not a Reaper abomination and if you're saying Anderson's indoctrinated, welcome to Indoctrination Theory. 

[v0rt3x22]

Captain Cornhole wrote...

Fingertrip wrote...

Looks at Join Date.

Lol'd.

Alot of effort troll, but it was abit to obvious

I have been here longer then you have, judging by your sign update. 

How old are you?

[Candidate 88766]

Guys, how about we all just play nice until we've played the EC. Its already available on the Xbox, so we'll know in a couple of hours.

[v0rt3x22]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

Guys, how about we all just play nice until we've played the EC. Its already available on the Xbox, so we'll know in a couple of hours.

We're past nice, wouldn't you agree?  jk

[Striker93175]

I really hope its indoctrination because honestly if not... they better explain full well how Sheppard can withstand a full on blast from a Reaper eye beam. I mean hell we watch him go boom from a collector beam rifle in ship and re-entry and die plus him get knocky out silly from a ship exploding in the first few ins of game play – he’s still a fragile human. We see reaper beams slice up entire cities in 1 quick swoop. To sit here and tell me he takes a full on reaper blast and happily stumbles onto the Citadel moments later is just outright preposterous…. If nothing else that totally supports the actual theory (and all the arguments here against it are weak imho) I mean hello - TOAST? No not even toast like….. vaporized!?!?

Ugh why didn’t I take off work today… the wait’s a killer.

[v0rt3x22]

oh god not this thread again -.-

[Carlthestrange]

In truth, I think the EC has pretty much just killed the Indoctrination theory.