80611 réponses à ce sujet

[Rifneno]

Have you ever noticed that Liara is as popular an avatar for trolls as volus?

[spotlessvoid]

NubXL wrote...

When denial, desperation, nitpicking, and fan fiction intertwine: Indoctrination Theory.

Really, though. Stunning that this continues.

Thank God! Finally, an adult to talk some sense

[Arashi08]

ok can someone please explain the whole "IT-Dream IT-Con" thing to me and what was the "95 theses" that started this? I had no idea IT had some sort of scism lol.

[jojon2se]

byne wrote...
...
If you dont mind I'm going to stop responding to you now.

Good - this is how you deal with trollers; Don't give them the attention and emotional influence they crave.
I believe warlord Okeer had something similar to say on a different matter... :7

[Arashi08]

Sry...tired. I'll be more polite; what is the deal with IT-Dream and IT-con? How did this come about?

[RaenImrahl]

@NubXL -- your point has been made, albeit rather crudely. Time to move on.

[NubXL]

I'm not trying to "troll" anyone. I hadn't even thought about this delusion since EC came out. I assumed that it would slowly die off in the face of mountains of evidence and dev confirmation that it was false. I only came here because I was linked to the aforementioned "documentary", of which I couldn't make it through more than a few minutes. It's pure, unadulterated desperation and insanity.

By all means, enjoy your fanfic, but I sincerely hope you realize that's all that this is.

[spotlessvoid]

IT is so obviously wrong I don't even need to provide a single rational argument as to why. Insert insult here

[jojon2se]

Arashi08 wrote...
Sry...tired. I'll be more polite; what is the deal with IT-Dream and IT-con? How did this come about?

Heh, I'm sorry - I wasn't referring to you.

It's just two big-picture interpretations of the scenario: 1) The whole thing is entirely in your head, or Shepard is in fact stumbling around and really going places, but your senses are influenced to deceive you.

For some reason some feel the need to have in-fighting over this.

[The Twilight God]

masster blaster wrote...

Okay TTG, can you explain, why out of all of the stupid f****** cycles. Not a single organic found the Catalyst Chambers at all? And why is it that if everything happence is for real. Explain how the hell are they going to find Shepard!. It makes no sense, if they know that Anderson is dead, since they we not their at all, and please explain why the hell if they know about Anderson is dead. For no reason what so ever can not find Shepard. For christ sake Shepard is in a place where nobody can find him/her. S

No, as I don't have all the details. However, our cycle preventing the initial invasion through the Citadel relay probably helped as they didn't catch us by surprise. Our relay network remained intact and we were able to coordinate together.

If they find Shepard they find him, if they don't they don't. At the start of the breathe scene you can hear what sounds like debris in the background somewhere being moved so someone could be on the verge of stumbling upon him. I don't see why anyone absolutely couldn't find him. As you say it would appear that perhaps someone did find him seeing as the LI seems to know he's alive and there is no discernable difference in their situation in Synthesis or Control vs Destroy.

Me personally, given how I view the endings (and this is something I just came up with )
Synthesis = they are linked together indoctrinated and psuedo husks so they simply know via the reapernet.
Control = The Shreapers have fixed the relay and then turned around and restarted the attack on Earth. The assumption is that Shepard failed and is dead.
Destroy = The reapers are dead. The fleets blew the dormant reapers to bits and someone did rescue Shepard in the rubble.

As they have quantum entanglers Hackett can inform them no matter where they are stranded. However, they may still be in the local cluster (planet Demeter). I don't think the rendezvous point would be somewhere beyond the Charon relay. That's is purely speculation though.

I can only speculate at why the Reapers didn't have full control of the Citadel and simply cut the fleets off by locking down the relays. Hopefully Project X is real and they'll fill these plot holes.

1. How is the Citadel taken by The Reapers?
The Reapers never actually gained control of the Citadel. They simply enveloped it in a combined mass effect field enacted by hundreds of Reapers and moved it without ever having gained the consent of those inside. In this scenario there are indoctrinated sleeper agents onboard. Although not able to gain full control, they are able to establish the Conduit connection to the interior once the Citadel reaches Earth and these areas are cut off and fortified from the Citadel at large. The Reapers then send in reinforcements via the Conduit. Commander Bailey, Aria T’Loak (if not on Omega after DLC) and Matriarch Aeythta rally the Citadel Militia forces which prevent The Reapers from gaining full control of the mass relay system (i.e. they defend the Council Chambers). This scenario explains that The Reapers brought the Citadel to one of their controlled worlds: to supply reinforcements to whatever forces were already inside. [not to mention it's where they make new reapers] And it explains to the player why The Reapers did not have control of the mass relay network and simply cut off the allied fleets. If the Reapers actually captured the Citadel the ending could not have occurred. The fleets would be stranded as The Reapers would simply disable the relay network. This should play over the course of three cut scenes starting immediately after the player has completed Cronos Station in three segments:

[Arashi08]

jojon2se wrote...

Arashi08 wrote...
Sry...tired. I'll be more polite; what is the deal with IT-Dream and IT-con? How did this come about?

Heh, I'm sorry - I wasn't referring to you.

It's just two big-picture interpretations of the scenario: 1) The whole thing is entirely in your head, or Shepard is in fact stumbling around and really going places, but your senses are influenced to deceive you.

For some reason some feel the need to have in-fighting over this.

no worries, I wasn't responding to your post, just thought I should rephrase my question.

This in-fighting is ridiculous, I no longer subscribe to IT, but I like this thread and the efforts people put into looking for evidence to support it.  it is bad enough when people who DON'T believe in IT come in here and try to tell this thread what to think, but when the ITersstart branching off and doing this to themselves?  REALLY?

Modifié par Arashi08, 27 août 2012 - 04:49 .

[The Twilight God]

spotlessvoid wrote...

The Reapers knew about the crucible plans. Why is it that every cycle managed to safeguard the plans? How likely is it that the Reapers didn't destroy them intentionally?

I was expecting a Matrix 2 type of end myself.

I forsaw the Stargate SG-1 Citadel thing a mile away because the EC shot of the broken Citadel existed WAY back when the first screenshoots came out and I though the Citadel would become a mobile fortress. I though it was over Plaaven though. When that seemed unlikely and the fact that the Crucible was a MacGuffin I thought back to SG-1 episode The Reconning where there stargates are used to send the MacGuffin energy wave across the galaxy to kill the replicators. also a menacing machine race. So what's one more piece of sci-fi to imitate. Which also involves machines vs man.

spotlessvoid wrote...

Just because you don't recognize your hallucinations as being out of place doesn't mean they're real Twilight God

And "just because" doesn't mean there are hallucinations. There is simply no evidence. No foundation. Just circumstantial evidence. Most of which isn't even plot related, but just graphical nitpicking.

[The Twilight God]

masster blaster wrote...

" TTG" It's when the Keeper is taking off Coats helmet. You can see his hair, and his forhead, so he is there. Yet once Shepard get's up the Keeper, Coats/ the helmet, and the other Alliance guy is gone. If you watch the video, the Camra pans in right where Coats, the Keeper, and the other guy should be. So it was there on purpose, yet it vanished.

And how do you know it's Coats?

[Rifneno]

The Twilight God wrote...

And "just because" doesn't mean there are hallucinations. There is simply no evidence. No foundation. Just circumstantial evidence. Most of which isn't even plot related, but just graphical nitpicking.

Does pretending evidence doesn't exist usually work for you? Because it seems kind of stupid.

[gunslinger_ruiz]

I understand some gamers don't like or believe in IT, I'd be troubled if at least some didn't, but why do they pursue us so adamantly once they've voiced their dislike? Don't like it, make a post (or not), move on, end of story, that's great thank you for stopping by, see you around.

Modifié par gunslinger_ruiz, 27 août 2012 - 05:15 .

[The Twilight God]

masster blaster wrote...

Also TTG why should Destroy happen for real, and not the other chocies. That's where I have a problem. If you say everything happens at the end is real, but Catalyst is trying to trick you into picking Control, and Synthesis makes even less sense. You see by saying Destroy really happens, the people that say everything is not IT, and happens counters what you say.

If you say it all happend, yet Catalyst wanted Shepard to pick Control and Synthesis so they can Indoctrinate him/her makes no sense. If you say the things you see in Control, and Synthesis are false promises, then why not Destroy?

You'd have to read my thesis. I'm not going to go into details as it's already typed out.

But to summarize, the story does not allow for anything good to come of Control. It is narratively and thematically nigh impossible for Control to be a good ending. What is portrayed to the players does happen, however you must remember that it is from the perspective of Indoctrinated Shepard (speaking about the narration parts). The Reapers do take off and they do repair the relay, but afterwards.... what then?

Destory has no Reapers around. They aren't around to harvest or indoctrinated.  

[spotlessvoid]

gunslinger_ruiz wrote...

I understand some gamers don't like or believe in IT, I'd be troubled if at least some didn't, but why do they pursue us so adamantly once they've voiced their dislike? Don't like it, make a post (or not), move on, end of story, that's great thank you for stopping by, see you around.

But But...But I hates it. It's a crime against nature. If god intended you to have IT you'd been born with it.

[The Twilight God]

masster blaster wrote...

Oh and if you say TTG that " Well what you said makes less sense for IT dream theory.." well no. A Dream can show you what you want, and what you have seen/ heard while you were awake. Also correct me if I am wrong, but why on Earth can't we not Control all Synthetics in Control, Yet in Destroy we kill all Synthetics. So doesn't that mean that nothing really can happen, because the other Contridicts the other option. And may I say that if Control is the first thing you get if you save the Collector base. Then why isn't Destroy not an option?

No, Destroy is Crucible
Control and Synthesis are Citadel.

You'd have to read the thesis. I'm not going to retype it.

masster blaster wrote...

Oh and can I say why the Hell will Harbinger let Shepard go up the Citadel, let the Crucible dock. Even though they have no clue what it does, yet the Catalyst does, just by a few minutes it knows what the Crucible does.

We do know what it does. It Destroys Reapers by releasing a form of energy. Hackett says the scientist are sure it will Destroy them, but they are worried that it will be indiscriminate (like low EMS destroy). they don;t understand how it just targets Reapers.

[estebanus]

NubXL wrote...

I'm not trying to "troll" anyone. I hadn't even thought about this delusion since EC came out. I assumed that it would slowly die off in the face of mountains of evidence and dev confirmation that it was false. I only came here because I was linked to the aforementioned "documentary", of which I couldn't make it through more than a few minutes. It's pure, unadulterated desperation and insanity.

By all means, enjoy your fanfic, but I sincerely hope you realize that's all that this is.

How unbelievably pathetic. How about you first go into a discussion knowing what the hell you're talking about? It's obvious to me that the only one who needs medication is you.

Modifié par estebanus, 27 août 2012 - 05:33 .

[The Twilight God]

demersel wrote...

I read your long posts AGAIN. And again, there is nothing there that explaines why the catalyst tells shepard how to really kill all the reapers, and tells him the truth at that, if the decision chamber is real and crucible fires for real.
He has absolutly NO REASON to do so.

*sigh* The entire destroy analysis is based around it's intent in telling you about destroy. I even have a plauisble alternative in which the Kid remains quiet and says nothing and why that could backfire on it.

Option 1: Destroy the Reapers


"It is now in your power to destroy us".

The Catalyst is not a fool. It is wise to put this option on the table first as it is going to be the first and only thing on Shepard’s mind. In fact, it is the very first inquiry Shepard makes after introductions are made asking, “I need to stop the Reapers. Do you know how I can do that?” The Catalyst knows that it has to tackle the most obvious threat to its continuation before it can even bother to introduce its own suggestions. If it tried to tiptoe around the Destroy option it would garner suspicion and its motivations would be immediately brought into question. The Catalyst's only hope is to maintain the illusion of impartiality and otherwise convince Shepard that its options are simply more beneficial. But at the same time it cannot portray Destroy too harshly or it risks appearing biased right from the start. The Catalyst has to play it safe and smart. Although in the throes of an indoctrination attempt, Shepard is not indoctrinated; but he is highly susceptible to suggestion.

From here on out I'm not answering anything answered in my post.

Modifié par The Twilight God, 28 août 2012 - 01:43 .

[NebuchadnezzaRT]

I don't check in for a few days and TTG-IT-Con has invaded our thread. I'm definitely not going to go digging for the beginning of the debate (I started reading on page 566) but it seems it has caused nothing but trouble.

The Twilight God, I don't believe in your theory, but I will ask you to politely leave ours.
When you started your thread about the "Indoctrinated Endings" (a time after we were in Mk. 2, I believe, yea I lurked through Mk. 2) there was some discontent here over your position and how people reacted to yours compared to this one. This does not make one theory better than the other, its just a marked distinction. A few days after that, there was a clear definement of IT-Dream and IT-Con, sure, some people missed the memo but the effect was, in my, humble, opinion, that IT had spawned two different respectable theories. That was fine with me, in essence it was still IT at the core.

Now, here is my problem, I log in tonight, open up my favorite thread and see everything in ruins. I do not know what started this, I cannot possible imagine what motivated you to come here and debate with us, rather fruitlessly (I hope you see).

DO NOT MISUNDERSTAND ME, I love debate, its what fuels these kinds of ideas.

But I believe things are getting out of hand. No matter what you believe, you must see that this arguing has divided many of the posters here and attracted a troll or two(Not to mention a Mod). Both parties should be focusing their efforts on preparing for the upcoming DLC, even if the wait gets monotonous, anything is better than tearing each other apart. I would love to see some more discussion but do you not think it would be better handled in it's own thread? An ""It-Dream" "IT-Con" comparison"?

I made my point, I hope what little I have offered here can lead to good-will and healthy speculation.
I appreciate it guys, much love, probably won't be back to check this for a few hours in hope that my advice is heeded, off to go help Chellick with Jax

[Hrothdane]

The Twilight God wrote...

Hrothdane wrote...

Why does Shepard suddenly have a hallucination and then stop having one, and why hallucinate the TIM and Anderson conversation?

If a guy hallucinates does he have to be in that state forever more? What is the standard duration of a hallucination?

Well, the hallucination starts as not too soon after coming thru the conduit as Anderson stats talking to him pretty quick.  

Of course you don't hallucinate forever, nor does it have a standard duration. Generally, hallucinations have causes (such as ingesting hallucinogens) and end for a reason (the hallucinogen works its way out of the person's system). I wanted to discuss what you think induces the hallucination and the related question of what ends it.

The Twilight God Wrote...

It has no plot relevence. And look around. That room has tons of light sources all around. Even the the floor, where it dips in before the console, has a ring of lights which makes the shadows around it misplaced. Also the Citadel wards are shining in. 

It's a wonky shadow effect. Games have flaws like this all the time. If I took every glitch and bug to mean something I could probably prove anything. I could demonstrate that the entire series is a dream because of weapons changing during cutscenes. As I said, it simply isn't plot relevent. You can view it as evidence if you wish, but it's circumstantial.

Let me give you an example of what I need to see.

TTG wrote...

Here is the logical deduction:

1. The Crucible docks, but is not doing anything.
2. Shepard leaps into the beam and an energetic aura engulfs his surroundings.
3. The Crucible arms itself and fires.
4. It is thus inferred that Shepard's presence within the contraption's energy cocktail was in accordance with the overall contraption's intended purpose.
5. It can thus be further inferred that the beveled synthesis array, and by association the entire contraption, were constructed with the intent of interacting with the Crucible.
6. It has been confirmed in the very opener of the segment that the contraptions at eye level are NOT a part of the Crucible.
7. The contraptions are built into and plugged into the Citadel.
8. If the contraptions were built by the Citadel's organic inhabitants, per the Crucible's schematics, it would be known that the Citadel was a component beforehand. That is not the case.
9. The Citadel is of Reaper construction.
10. Conclusion: the Reapers built the Contraption.
11. If the Reapers built a contraption that interfaces with the Crucible, the Reaper must have some technical details on the Crucible in order to have the understanding of how it works in order to build a device tailored to interfacing with the Crucible.
12. Given all of the above, the Crucible did not create new possibilities. It merely allowed for premeditated functionalities to be actualized.
13. Given the above fact, it is inferred that they must already be aware of the viability of Synthesis prior to the Crucible docking if, in fact, all the Crucible does is provide power. As the only limiting factor prior to the Crucible docking is power. Everything else was already built and ready to go.

The question emerges: If the Reapers are familiar with the Crucible design, have built a premeditated means to harness the Crucible's energy and ultimately desire for Synthesis to occur; why would they resist its docking? If it truly is a superior solution, why struggle to prevent it? [Why destroy the Crucible if shepard dallies for too long?]

The only reason I can fathom is that it is NOT the ideal solution to the Reapers' hypothetical problem or it does not achieve the goals of whatever true (unexplained) objective they may have. It is simply viewed as preferable to the absence of the Reapers altogether.

I've studied symbolic logic, and that is not deduction. Deduction does not allow for inferences because it requires absolute certainty.

For the sake of argument:
1. We don't know with absolute certainty that the Crucible is doing nothing. We only know with relative certainty it appears to be doing nothing.
2. Descibing what happens, nothing wrong here.
3. We don't know with absolute certainty that the Crucible was not already armed.
4. Just because the interaction of two objects creates a reaction, you cannot assume with certainty that that reaction was intended in the design. Since the Shroud on Tuchanka distributed the genophage and the genophage cure when they were inserted, does that mean the Shroud designed for the purpose of distributing them?
5. Producing a conclusion based off of a conclusion: definition of induction.
6 and 7: While certainty is not absolute, it is certainly high enough that you can have these two.
8. We are told almost immediately that the plans for the Crucible are "incomplete." You are assuming that the plans are complete. If the entire part of the plans mentioning the Citadel are missing, wouldn't it also stand to reason that the contraptions to link the two would be missing from the plans as well? I can even give you a real world example: I used to build furniture, and if you have ever had to build a hutch top and bottom, they come in separate boxes with separate instructions and the connection instructions are always separate. Can you make a strong case that the connection instructions should be there? Yes, but not a deductive one.
9. A given.
10. An inductive conclusion.
11. Based upon an earlier inductive conclusion, therefore inductive.
12. Same assumption as #4
13. Inferrence => induction.

Please, throw another "deductive" proof my way. I might even dig up my old symbolic logic textbook so I can write it out in proper format.

The Twilight God wrote...

I'm not trying to be mean or bash any individual, but I'm just calling it as I see it.

I don't think you are. In fact, I appreciate how much effort you put into trying to respond to everyone. I personally prefer to err on the side of politeness more than you, but I don't hold that against you and I don't think you are trying to be mean.

The Twilight God wrote...

I'm not saying the shadows can't have meaning, but we first need to establish a concrete basis for even thinking it's a dream before we support it with circumstantial evidence.

Indoctrination is known and has been shown by in-game to cause hallucinations and nightmares.
Indoctrination is a signal sent out by Reapers at all times and can be intensified to cause rapid indoctrination.
Reaper tech and minions act as signal boosters.
Shepard has been around lots of Reaper technology and Reapers themselves, and even spent two days unconscious in a facility full of people that had been indoctrinated by the technology there after being zapped by said technology.
Shepard suffers from nightmares consistent thematically with those of the Project members.

That is enough evidence right there to make me begin to question Shepard's state of mind and open up the presence of hallucinations, minor or otherwise. I can find the quotes from the Project members audio journals if you wish, and even have screenshots of the subtitles.

The Twilight God wrote...

Shepard doesn't. The CG cutscenes are happpening just like the CG cutscene when the Crucible first enters Sol. In Synthesis Shepard is dead as the ending starts. In Control he's of being a reaper. In Destroy he's in the Citadel somewhere that makes me think it's a collpsed corridor like the one he entered through. EDI is narrating Synthesis. Hackett narrates destroy and Shepard narrates Control. All the endings happen. And then the narrators, for those parts, is narrating their hopes for the future from their own perspective (in two ending it's from an indoctrinated perspective).

I assert the endings play out. I don't know if you've read my thesis or not but basically the cycle continues in Control and everyone is indoctrinated in Synthesis. Destroy = freedom, Synthesis = slavery, Control = destruction

Scroll down to the Conslusion segment and past that I give my take on Control and Synthesis (the control and synthesi summaries aren;t too long)

Sorry, I should have been more specific in the question. Why do we suddenly go to the slides of stuff happening in the future THEN go back to the breath scene in destroy? Why have a montage of things happening over the course of weeks, months, or years then suddenly jump backwards to when the montage started? An example: I was reading a script and a woman smiles as she sits next a man on a plane. We then see a montage of them dating, getting married, and having kids. We then suddenly go back to the plane and continue, revealing it was just a dream. That was just the first example that came to mind, but I've seen the technique used before.

The Twilight God
 
If I can approach it "like a murder case" and have the puzzle pieces all fit together then so be it. The author's intent, especially in a video game, will never be reliably ascertained via graphic anomolies because of it's visual nature. You're going outside the plot and nitpicking graphic details as evidence that it isn't happening. That's imperfect = dream sequence. In a video game that's going to be a hard to sell.  

I'm not just using the graphical anomalies as evidence. They are one piece of the overall puzzle, and were something I had not seen you address already here or in your thread.

The Twilight God Wrote...
 
I've done just that.
 
I welcome anyone to tear my thesis apart. So far it's just been angry people shouting, "This theory suck because it say Destroy is the only way to win", "this only exists to make us feel bad", etc. No one has been able to pick it apart. Just people who agree and people who troll.

And I just showed that you have a weak understanding of what deduction actually means. Frankly, I'm rather ashamed of the people that have reacted so irrationally.

The Twilight God

Rather or not Bioware doesn't want us to figure it out or not is irrelevent. I've figure it out. Now they can handwave all they want, but the story they wrote is what my theory depicts regardless of their supposed intent. If someone wants to say I haven;t figured it out I expect a detailed rebuttal vs. "nah, you're wrong just because I say so". Which is the only type of "rebuttal" I've gotten.

If you are taking the position that the story the author intended to write is irrelevant to the story they actually did write, then we have a note of agreement. Ray Bradbury once visited a university class about his work that was talking about Fahrenheit 451 and the students out-argued him about the main theme of the book. They said it was about censorship, and he said it was about how TV was evil. Having read the book, I'm inclined to agree with the students.

That said, my point is that evidence is often laid out in a way to purposefully confuse or distract the audience, ESPECIALLY when you have already established surreal elements like the dreams Shepard has, the fact that we have a known mechanism to cause hallucinations that we have seen affecting other people, and that our protagonist has spent at least as much time around Reapers and their technology as the people suffering those hallucinations. The Project member audio journals in Arrival (written by the same person as the ending of ME3) specifically mention nightmares of watching people they care about dying, and we know what happened to them.

As for the "I've figured it out," we already know that we don't have all the information about the Reapers and Starbinger since we are getting additional dialogue with him in Leviathan. Saying "I've figured it out" at this point is presumptious because it assumes that BioWare has been "playing fair" with the information. Before you mention that some people here may claim to have "figured it out" as well, I think they are being equally presumptious. Under these circumstances, the most either of us can say is that our theory is the best supported.

As a last note, I haven't decided that your theory is wrong, just as I haven't decided that ours is right. I'm open to you proving that you are right, but I'm going to make you work for it .

Modifié par Hrothdane, 27 août 2012 - 06:17 .

[BansheeOwnage]

NebuchadnezzaRT wrote...

I don't check in for a few days and TTG-IT-Con has invaded our thread. I'm definitely not going to go digging for the beginning of the debate (I started reading on page 566) but it seems it has caused nothing but trouble.

The Twilight God, I don't believe in your theory, but I will ask you to politely leave ours.
When you started your thread about the "Indoctrinated Endings" (a time after we were in Mk. 2, I believe, yea I lurked through Mk. 2) there was some discontent here over your position and how people reacted to yours compared to this one. This does not make one theory better than the other, its just a marked distinction. A few days after that, there was a clear definement of IT-Dream and IT-Con, sure, some people missed the memo but the effect was, in my, humble, opinion, that IT had spawned two different respectable theories. That was fine with me, in essence it was still IT at the core.

Now, here is my problem, I log in tonight, open up my favorite thread and see everything in ruins. I do not know what started this, I cannot possible imagine what motivated you to come here and debate with us, rather fruitlessly (I hope you see).

DO NOT MISUNDERSTAND ME, I love debate, its what fuels these kinds of ideas.

But I believe things are getting out of hand. No matter what you believe, you must see that this arguing has divided many of the posters here and attracted a troll or two(Not to mention a Mod). Both parties should be focusing their efforts on preparing for the upcoming DLC, even if the wait gets monotonous, anything is better than tearing each other apart. I would love to see some more discussion but do you not think it would be better handled in it's own thread? An ""It-Dream" "IT-Con" comparison"?

I made my point, I hope what little I have offered here can lead to good-will and healthy speculation.
I appreciate it guys, much love, probably won't be back to check this for a few hours in hope that my advice is heeded, off to go help Chellick with Jax

Quoted because this guy knows the score. (Maybe it''s because he has a salarian avatar.) Seriously, please TTG, leave us here, make your own thread, this is helping no one.

[BansheeOwnage]

estebanus wrote...

NubXL wrote...

I'm not trying to "troll" anyone. I hadn't even thought about this delusion since EC came out. I assumed that it would slowly die off in the face of mountains of evidence and dev confirmation that it was false. I only came here because I was linked to the aforementioned "documentary", of which I couldn't make it through more than a few minutes. It's pure, unadulterated desperation and insanity.

By all means, enjoy your fanfic, but I sincerely hope you realize that's all that this is.

How unbelievably pathetic. How about you first go into a discussion knowing what the hell you're talking about? It's obvious to me that the only one who needs medication is you.

Thank you Estebnaus. 

[Hrothdane]

BansheeOwnage wrote...

NebuchadnezzaRT wrote...

I don't check in for a few days and TTG-IT-Con has invaded our thread. I'm definitely not going to go digging for the beginning of the debate (I started reading on page 566) but it seems it has caused nothing but trouble.

The Twilight God, I don't believe in your theory, but I will ask you to politely leave ours.
When you started your thread about the "Indoctrinated Endings" (a time after we were in Mk. 2, I believe, yea I lurked through Mk. 2) there was some discontent here over your position and how people reacted to yours compared to this one. This does not make one theory better than the other, its just a marked distinction. A few days after that, there was a clear definement of IT-Dream and IT-Con, sure, some people missed the memo but the effect was, in my, humble, opinion, that IT had spawned two different respectable theories. That was fine with me, in essence it was still IT at the core.

Now, here is my problem, I log in tonight, open up my favorite thread and see everything in ruins. I do not know what started this, I cannot possible imagine what motivated you to come here and debate with us, rather fruitlessly (I hope you see).

DO NOT MISUNDERSTAND ME, I love debate, its what fuels these kinds of ideas.

But I believe things are getting out of hand. No matter what you believe, you must see that this arguing has divided many of the posters here and attracted a troll or two(Not to mention a Mod). Both parties should be focusing their efforts on preparing for the upcoming DLC, even if the wait gets monotonous, anything is better than tearing each other apart. I would love to see some more discussion but do you not think it would be better handled in it's own thread? An ""It-Dream" "IT-Con" comparison"?

I made my point, I hope what little I have offered here can lead to good-will and healthy speculation.
I appreciate it guys, much love, probably won't be back to check this for a few hours in hope that my advice is heeded, off to go help Chellick with Jax

Quoted because this guy knows the score. (Maybe it''s because he has a salarian avatar.) Seriously, please TTG, leave us here, make your own thread, this is helping no one.

Stop trying to scare him off! I'm enjoying this discussion.