1238 réponses à ce sujet

[Ranger Jack Walker]

The Twilight God wrote...

Ranger Jack Walker wrote...

KevShep wrote...

Ranger Jack Walker wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

So in this interpretation, what happens after you choose Destroy is all real but Control/Synthesis is only an illusion in Shep's mind (or more appropriately, a twist of what's really happening in real life)?

I think that's pretty much what the OP is trying to say.

Debating is fine and all but the OP is being obnoxiously pushy with his "I'm right, you're wrong" posts.

Like when I said the Catalyst doesn't look forward to control to which the OP replies he is flat out lying to make it more appealing. How can I argue  and debate against this kind of headcanon? 

The OP's other points in the whole statment make it evidence that the catalyst is lying about being replaced.

Not evidence. Interpretation. Learn the difference. Evidence would mean undeniable fact. The only thing that would make it undeniable fact that the catalyst was lying is if Bioware flat out said he was lying. As of yet, they haven't. So currently it's all a mix of interpretation and head canon.

The Catalyst can turn it on and off at will. This is shown in-game. It happens. You saw it. I saw it. Fact.

Deal with it. If you're going to dismiss everything you don't like by stating Bioware didn't make an offical statement on it then you have nothing to contribute to this discussion but more crying. Please go cry elsewhere. If you can;t handle that your perfect ending wasn't perfect this thread isn't going to make you feel any better. You're torturing yourself trying to dismiss facts.

What you're saying isn't fact. It's your own interpretation of things presented to you. If you want to believe that Control/Synthesis is indoctrination go right ahead. But by claiming that your interpretation is fact and everyone else should agree with you or go away, you're not doing yourself any favours.

The mere fact that the Catalyst offers you the choice to destroy him and the reapers is reason enough to dismiss the claim that he is trying to indoctrinate you. Why would he ever do that?

If a villain is trying to get you on his side, why would he offer you a way out? All he has to do is never even mention the possibility of Destroy. If Control and Synthesis are indoctrination then all he has to do is offer you a choice between those two so no matter what he always wins. It's beyond stupid that he should give you a chance to 'succeed' willingly and be front about it.

[Volc19]

Oh look, another thread that's only point is to scream Destroy's superiority from the heavens.

This is new and exciting.

[The Twilight God]

Ranger Jack Walker wrote...

What you're saying isn't fact. It's your own interpretation of things presented to you. If you want to believe that Control/Synthesis is indoctrination go right ahead. But by claiming that your interpretation is fact and everyone else should agree with you or go away, you're not doing yourself any favours.

I do not need the support of indoctrinated people. It is what it is rather you want to label it "interpretation" or not. If you do not like what I have to say there is nothing keeping you here.  "Interpretation" is a word used by many here to dismiss anything they do not like as developer oversite. I'm taking what is presented to us. You have eyes and ears the same as I do. If you do not trust your eyes and ears or simply don't want to believe what is before your eyes that's fine by me.

Ranger Jack Walker wrote...

The mere fact that the Catalyst offers you the choice to destroy him and the reapers is reason enough to dismiss the claim that he is trying to indoctrinate you. Why would he ever do that? If a villain is trying to get you on his side, why would he offer you a way out? All he has to do is never even mention the possibility of Destroy. If Control and Synthesis are indoctrination then all he has to do is offer you a choice between those two so no matter what he always wins. It's beyond stupid that he should give you a chance to 'succeed' willingly and be front about it.

Once again: Read my original posts. All these question are covered. It would be stupid of him to try to outright avoid mentioning the Destroy option. It is what you have come to do. What you have been told explicitely that it will do. It would raise instant suspicion to try and act like it isn;t possible. Sorry, but there is no way anyone in their right minds is going to commit suicide based solely on the Reapers' say so. You can't seem to deal with this fact.

Your entire argument can be summed up as "the Star Child is telling the truth because the Star Child tells the truth". My entire thesis questions this assertion. You cannot counter my thesis by stating the anithesis. You need to demonstrate how every lie on the part of the Star Child i've pointed out is, in reality, not a lie. I've done my part to establish that the Star child is a deceiver. You haven't done your part to establish that he isn't. All you have done is made it clear that you do not like the idea that you were indoctrinated and that you will willfully ignore any evidence confirming your indoctrination.

[SubAstris]

Ranger Jack Walker wrote...


What you're saying isn't fact. It's your own interpretation of things presented to you. If you want to believe that Control/Synthesis is indoctrination go right ahead. But by claiming that your interpretation is fact and everyone else should agree with you or go away, you're not doing yourself any favours.

Well said, I'm pretty sure Twilight would get more people agreeing s/he is not completely irrational if s/he dropped this ridiculous point where one person has the sole interpretation and everyone else's is not right.

[zambot]

SubAstris wrote...

Ranger Jack Walker wrote...


What you're saying isn't fact. It's your own interpretation of things presented to you. If you want to believe that Control/Synthesis is indoctrination go right ahead. But by claiming that your interpretation is fact and everyone else should agree with you or go away, you're not doing yourself any favours.

Well said, I'm pretty sure Twilight would get more people agreeing s/he is not completely irrational if s/he dropped this ridiculous point where one person has the sole interpretation and everyone else's is not right.

It's a troll thread.  I got trolled earlier in it.  It happens.

[SubAstris]

Volc19 wrote...

Oh look, another thread that's only point is to scream Destroy's superiority from the heavens.

This is new and exciting.

DESTROY IS CORRECT!
ALL OTHER OPTIONS ARE FALSE!
9/11 TRUTH FTW!

[clennon8]

I am reminded of a review I once read of LotR: Fellowship of the Ring. The reviewer (who had set out to bash the movie) made a comment along the lines "Why didn't Saruman use his magical powers to materialize a huge boulder above the fellowship and drop it on them?" Pointing out that a deceitful Catalyst wouldn't have even acknowledged the Destroy option smacks of the same level of argumentation as that blithely stupid remark. A good liar doesn't tell obvious falsehoods. You don't start out a con by telling the mark that the sky is pink with purple polkadots.

Modifié par clennon8, 17 août 2012 - 12:31 .

[clennon8]

Fact is that most of the counterarguments being presented are pretty trite, stupid, and indicative of not having read the OP. I can understand being put off by TTG's belligerence, but I can also understand his impatience.

Modifié par clennon8, 09 août 2012 - 07:55 .

[zambot]

clennon8 wrote...

I am reminded of a review I once read of LotR: Fellowship of the Ring. The reviewer (who had set out to bash the movie) made a comment along the lines "Why didn't Saruman use his magical powers to materialize a huge boulder above the fellowship and drop it on them?" Pointing out that a deceitful Catalyst wouldn't have even acknowledged the Destroy option smacks of the same level of argumentation as that blithely stupid remark. A good liar doesn't tell obvious falsehoods. You don't start out a con job by telling the mark that the sky is pink with purple polkadots.

Except with a low enough EMS that is the ONLY option he gives you.  It makes no sense that a "good liar" would give you the only option to kill him if you did "badly" at the game.  

But this has been said before.  The only rebuttal is that he suddenly turns good guy and tries to talk you into "refusal" so that you don't wipe out the galaxy.  Except refusal did not exist before the EC so clearly this was not Bioware's intent.

Along with the insults, I therefore now believe this is a troll theory designed to get non-Destroy pickers angry.

[SubAstris]

clennon8 wrote...

Fact is that most of the counterarguments being presented are pretty trite, stupid, and indicative of not having read the OP.

That may be well and true, but the OP can't seem to grasp multiple interpretations can and do exist for works

[clennon8]

zambot wrote...

clennon8 wrote...

I am reminded of a review I once read of LotR: Fellowship of the Ring. The reviewer (who had set out to bash the movie) made a comment along the lines "Why didn't Saruman use his magical powers to materialize a huge boulder above the fellowship and drop it on them?" Pointing out that a deceitful Catalyst wouldn't have even acknowledged the Destroy option smacks of the same level of argumentation as that blithely stupid remark. A good liar doesn't tell obvious falsehoods. You don't start out a con job by telling the mark that the sky is pink with purple polkadots.

Except with a low enough EMS that is the ONLY option he gives you.  It makes no sense that a "good liar" would give you the only option to kill him if you did "badly" at the game.  

But this has been said before.  The only rebuttal is that he suddenly turns good guy and tries to talk you into "refusal" so that you don't wipe out the galaxy.  Except refusal did not exist before the EC so clearly this was not Bioware's intent.

Along with the insults, I therefore now believe this is a troll theory designed to get non-Destroy pickers angry.

I don't think it's a troll theory.  It's too detailed and well thought out for someone with that motivation.

I'll admit the low EMS scenario where only Destroy is presented is a bit of a weakness in the theory.  I've questioned it myself (go back earlier in the thread; you'll see).  I think his explanation for that is basically 1) The choices available are purely a result of how well-built the Crucible is, and in the case of low EMS, whether or not parts of the human proto-Reaper were included in building the device, and 2) low EMS Destroy (vaporization) is basically a losing scenario anyway.  It may not be a satisfying answer on a metagaming level, but it is logical.

Modifié par clennon8, 04 août 2012 - 05:24 .

[The Twilight God]

SubAstris wrote...

Volc19 wrote...

Oh look, another thread that's only point is to scream Destroy's superiority from the heavens.

This is new and exciting.

DESTROY IS CORRECT!
ALL OTHER OPTIONS ARE FALSE!
9/11 TRUTH FTW!

They are ALL valid endings.

The insistence of people like you that if an ending is not total victory it's an "incorrect ending" proives my point about why they would be the way they are.

[zambot]

clennon8 wrote...

zambot wrote...

clennon8 wrote...

I am reminded of a review I once read of LotR: Fellowship of the Ring. The reviewer (who had set out to bash the movie) made a comment along the lines "Why didn't Saruman use his magical powers to materialize a huge boulder above the fellowship and drop it on them?" Pointing out that a deceitful Catalyst wouldn't have even acknowledged the Destroy option smacks of the same level of argumentation as that blithely stupid remark. A good liar doesn't tell obvious falsehoods. You don't start out a con job by telling the mark that the sky is pink with purple polkadots.

Except with a low enough EMS that is the ONLY option he gives you.  It makes no sense that a "good liar" would give you the only option to kill him if you did "badly" at the game.  

But this has been said before.  The only rebuttal is that he suddenly turns good guy and tries to talk you into "refusal" so that you don't wipe out the galaxy.  Except refusal did not exist before the EC so clearly this was not Bioware's intent.

Along with the insults, I therefore now believe this is a troll theory designed to get non-Destroy pickers angry.

I don't think it's a troll theory.  It's too detailed and well thought out for someone with that motivation.

I'll admit the low EMS scenario where only Destroy is presented is a bit of a weakness in the theory.  I've questioned it myself (go back earlier in the thread; you'll see).  I think his explanation for that is basically 1) The choices available are purely a result how well-built the Crucible is, and in the case of low EMS, whether or not parts of the human proto-Reaper were including in building the device, and 2) low EMS Destroy (vaporization) is basically a losing scenario anyway.  It may not be a satisfying answer on a metagaming level, but it is logical.

That's a better answer, in that it is logical, but it's still not solid enough for me to believe it was even remotely intended by the writers.  If the purpose of the OP is to create an interesting alternate ending that more or less holds up within the framework of the story but was not intended by the authors, I think the OP is close.  However, given how forcefully the OP perpetuates his belief, leads me to believe this is not intended as an alternate ending, but is rather that OP intends this to be gospel.  

[The Twilight God]

zambot wrote...

clennon8 wrote...

I am reminded of a review I once read of LotR: Fellowship of the Ring. The reviewer (who had set out to bash the movie) made a comment along the lines "Why didn't Saruman use his magical powers to materialize a huge boulder above the fellowship and drop it on them?" Pointing out that a deceitful Catalyst wouldn't have even acknowledged the Destroy option smacks of the same level of argumentation as that blithely stupid remark. A good liar doesn't tell obvious falsehoods. You don't start out a con job by telling the mark that the sky is pink with purple polkadots.

Except with a low enough EMS that is the ONLY option he gives you.  It makes no sense that a "good liar" would give you the only option to kill him if you did "badly" at the game.  

But this has been said before.  The only rebuttal is that he suddenly turns good guy and tries to talk you into "refusal" so that you don't wipe out the galaxy.  Except refusal did not exist before the EC so clearly this was not Bioware's intent.

What they supposedly Intended to write vs. what they actually wrote.  How many time do I have to tell you that my thesis is based on what they wrote. Their intent, in this case, is hypothetical. I only care about what they wrote. (i.e what is real and present) 

The the low EMs stuff again? Haven't I gone over this with you too?

Go to post #1 in this thread.. Scroll to the bottom where the link to the next part is located. Keep scrolling going a lil bit more.

I could have just chalked it up to not making an entirely new sceneplay for an auto-fail ending in which hardly anyone would ever see off Youtube, but I took the time to explain it to you.

zambot wrote...

Along with the insults, I therefore now believe this is a troll theory designed to get non-Destroy pickers angry.

No, you're just butthurt that my post makes sense and you can't come up with a single coherent counter to it. Every time you try your arguments get blown out of the water (already covered in my posts) and your only recourse is to keep regurgitating the same beaten arguments over and over. Willful ignorance is not a good strategy.

This is the internet. Some things are going to anger you. I'm not a troll because I stick to my convictions.

Modifié par The Twilight God, 04 août 2012 - 12:02 .

[SubAstris]

The Twilight God wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Volc19 wrote...

Oh look, another thread that's only point is to scream Destroy's superiority from the heavens.

This is new and exciting.

DESTROY IS CORRECT!
ALL OTHER OPTIONS ARE FALSE!
9/11 TRUTH FTW!

They are ALL valid endings.

The insistence of people like you that if an ending is not total victory it's an "incorrect ending" proives my point about why they would be the way they are.

But I'm not insisting that...

[The Twilight God]

SubAstris wrote...

The Twilight God wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Volc19 wrote...

Oh look, another thread that's only point is to scream Destroy's superiority from the heavens.

This is new and exciting.

DESTROY IS CORRECT!
ALL OTHER OPTIONS ARE FALSE!
9/11 TRUTH FTW!

They are ALL valid endings.

The insistence of people like you that if an ending is not total victory it's an "incorrect ending" proives my point about why they would be the way they are.

But I'm not insisting that...

You are inferring that just if those endings are indoctrinated it makes Destroy the canon ending and the "correct choice". Alot of people think this way and if the indoctrinated endings were revealed as such it would defeat the purpose of even making them as everyone would consider it a "critical fail" and all pick Destroy.  

[zambot]

The Twilight God wrote...

zambot wrote...

clennon8 wrote...

I am reminded of a review I once read of LotR: Fellowship of the Ring. The reviewer (who had set out to bash the movie) made a comment along the lines "Why didn't Saruman use his magical powers to materialize a huge boulder above the fellowship and drop it on them?" Pointing out that a deceitful Catalyst wouldn't have even acknowledged the Destroy option smacks of the same level of argumentation as that blithely stupid remark. A good liar doesn't tell obvious falsehoods. You don't start out a con job by telling the mark that the sky is pink with purple polkadots.

Except with a low enough EMS that is the ONLY option he gives you.  It makes no sense that a "good liar" would give you the only option to kill him if you did "badly" at the game.  

But this has been said before.  The only rebuttal is that he suddenly turns good guy and tries to talk you into "refusal" so that you don't wipe out the galaxy.  Except refusal did not exist before the EC so clearly this was not Bioware's intent.

What they supposedly Intended to write vs. what they actually wrote.  How many time do I have to tell you that my thesis is based on what they wrote. Their intent, in this case, is hypothetical. I only care about what they wrote. (i.e what is real and present) 

The the low EMs stuff again? Haven't I gone over this with you too?

Go to post #1 in this thread.. Scroll to the bottom where the link to the next part is located. Keep scrolling going a lil bit more.

I could have just chalked it up to not making an entirely new sceneplay for an auto-fail ending in which hardly anyone would ever see off Youtube, but I took the time to explain it to you.

zambot wrote...

Along with the insults, I therefore now believe this is a troll theory designed to get non-Destroy pickers angry.

No, you're just butthurt that my post makes sense and you can't come up with a single coherent counter to it. Every time you try your arguments get blown out of the water (already covered in my posts) and your only recourse is to keep regurgitating the same beaten arguments over and over. Willful ignorance is not a good strategy.

blah blah Ad Homenim Ad Homenim blah blah.  And you wonder why I think this is a troll thread.

[SubAstris]

The Twilight God wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

The Twilight God wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Volc19 wrote...

Oh look, another thread that's only point is to scream Destroy's superiority from the heavens.

This is new and exciting.

DESTROY IS CORRECT!
ALL OTHER OPTIONS ARE FALSE!
9/11 TRUTH FTW!

They are ALL valid endings.

The insistence of people like you that if an ending is not total victory it's an "incorrect ending" proives my point about why they would be the way they are.

But I'm not insisting that...

You are inferring that just if those endings are indoctrinated it makes Destroy the canon ending and the "correct choice". Alot of people think this way and if the indoctrinated endings were revealed as such it would defeat the purpose of even making them as everyone would consider it a "critical fail" and all pick Destroy.  

No I am referring to the fact that you are unable to consider any other interpretation of the ending apart from your own as valid

[The Twilight God]

SubAstris wrote...

The Twilight God wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

The Twilight God wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Volc19 wrote...

Oh look, another thread that's only point is to scream Destroy's superiority from the heavens.

This is new and exciting.

DESTROY IS CORRECT!
ALL OTHER OPTIONS ARE FALSE!
9/11 TRUTH FTW!

They are ALL valid endings.

The insistence of people like you that if an ending is not total victory it's an "incorrect ending" proives my point about why they would be the way they are.

But I'm not insisting that...

You are inferring that just if those endings are indoctrinated it makes Destroy the canon ending and the "correct choice". Alot of people think this way and if the indoctrinated endings were revealed as such it would defeat the purpose of even making them as everyone would consider it a "critical fail" and all pick Destroy.  

No I am referring to the fact that you are unable to consider any other interpretation of the ending apart from your own as valid

Why do you require that I consider "interpretations" that I don't consider feasible valid? I sure as heck don't require you to believe anything I post.  Your belief is not required.

 This is the internet. Get used to it.

[clennon8]

Come on, TTG, I admire your unwillingness to compromise, but dial it back a bit.

[The Twilight God]

clennon8 wrote...

zambot wrote...

clennon8 wrote...

I am reminded of a review I once read of LotR: Fellowship of the Ring. The reviewer (who had set out to bash the movie) made a comment along the lines "Why didn't Saruman use his magical powers to materialize a huge boulder above the fellowship and drop it on them?" Pointing out that a deceitful Catalyst wouldn't have even acknowledged the Destroy option smacks of the same level of argumentation as that blithely stupid remark. A good liar doesn't tell obvious falsehoods. You don't start out a con job by telling the mark that the sky is pink with purple polkadots.

Except with a low enough EMS that is the ONLY option he gives you.  It makes no sense that a "good liar" would give you the only option to kill him if you did "badly" at the game.  

But this has been said before.  The only rebuttal is that he suddenly turns good guy and tries to talk you into "refusal" so that you don't wipe out the galaxy.  Except refusal did not exist before the EC so clearly this was not Bioware's intent.

Along with the insults, I therefore now believe this is a troll theory designed to get non-Destroy pickers angry.

I don't think it's a troll theory.  It's too detailed and well thought out for someone with that motivation.

I'll admit the low EMS scenario where only Destroy is presented is a bit of a weakness in the theory.  I've questioned it myself (go back earlier in the thread; you'll see).  I think his explanation for that is basically 1) The choices available are purely a result how well-built the Crucible is, and in the case of low EMS, whether or not parts of the human proto-Reaper were included in building the device, and 2) low EMS Destroy (vaporization) is basically a losing scenario anyway.  It may not be a satisfying answer on a metagaming level, but it is logical.

I editted a response to this into the end of the first post. I'll probably do one for Control too, but it seems self explainatory as it's basically win-win scenario for the Reapers.

But from a developer standoint I wouldn't waste resources creating an entirely new screneplay involving Shepard (with support fom EDI, HAckett, etc.) investigating everything and figuring out that the CSD is stopping the Crucible from arming. Not for some super low EMS ending hardly anyone is going to see outside of Youtube.

[SubAstris]

The Twilight God wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

The Twilight God wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

The Twilight God wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Volc19 wrote...

Oh look, another thread that's only point is to scream Destroy's superiority from the heavens.

This is new and exciting.

DESTROY IS CORRECT!
ALL OTHER OPTIONS ARE FALSE!
9/11 TRUTH FTW!

They are ALL valid endings.

The insistence of people like you that if an ending is not total victory it's an "incorrect ending" proives my point about why they would be the way they are.

But I'm not insisting that...

You are inferring that just if those endings are indoctrinated it makes Destroy the canon ending and the "correct choice". Alot of people think this way and if the indoctrinated endings were revealed as such it would defeat the purpose of even making them as everyone would consider it a "critical fail" and all pick Destroy.  

No I am referring to the fact that you are unable to consider any other interpretation of the ending apart from your own as valid

Why do you require that I consider "interpretations" that I don't consider feasible valid? I sure as heck don't require you to believe anything I post.  Your belief is not required.

 This is the internet. Get used to it.

You don't have to necessarily consider all other intrepretations, it is just that you state with a presumptive air that your interpretation is gospel and everyone who differs from said view is stupid and ignorant. These "black and white"approaches you seem to have to storytelling are largely incongruous with sound analysis.

[The Twilight God]

clennon8 wrote...

Come on, TTG, I admire your unwillingness to compromise, but dial it back a bit.

I don't believe I'm wrong. It's that simple. And it's not a crime.

I'm not going to lie and tell anyone that I honestly believe everything under the sun is valid just because some guys on the internet get butthurt when other nameless faceless forumites won't tell them what they want to hear.

We're grown adults here. They shouldn't need my approval.

[The Twilight God]

SubAstris wrote...

The Twilight God wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

The Twilight God wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

The Twilight God wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Volc19 wrote...

Oh look, another thread that's only point is to scream Destroy's superiority from the heavens.

This is new and exciting.

DESTROY IS CORRECT!
ALL OTHER OPTIONS ARE FALSE!
9/11 TRUTH FTW!

They are ALL valid endings.

The insistence of people like you that if an ending is not total victory it's an "incorrect ending" proives my point about why they would be the way they are.

But I'm not insisting that...

You are inferring that just if those endings are indoctrinated it makes Destroy the canon ending and the "correct choice". Alot of people think this way and if the indoctrinated endings were revealed as such it would defeat the purpose of even making them as everyone would consider it a "critical fail" and all pick Destroy.  

No I am referring to the fact that you are unable to consider any other interpretation of the ending apart from your own as valid

Why do you require that I consider "interpretations" that I don't consider feasible valid? I sure as heck don't require you to believe anything I post.  Your belief is not required.

 This is the internet. Get used to it.

You don't have to necessarily consider all other intrepretations, it is just that you state with a presumptive air that your interpretation is gospel and everyone who differs from said view is stupid and ignorant. These "black and white"approaches you seem to have to storytelling are largely incongruous with sound analysis.

Quote me where I stated anyone was stupid and ignorant for daring to disagree with me. I want to see where you're coming from.

[SubAstris]

The Twilight God wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

The Twilight God wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

The Twilight God wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

The Twilight God wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Volc19 wrote...

Oh look, another thread that's only point is to scream Destroy's superiority from the heavens.

This is new and exciting.

DESTROY IS CORRECT!
ALL OTHER OPTIONS ARE FALSE!
9/11 TRUTH FTW!

They are ALL valid endings.

The insistence of people like you that if an ending is not total victory it's an "incorrect ending" proives my point about why they would be the way they are.

But I'm not insisting that...

You are inferring that just if those endings are indoctrinated it makes Destroy the canon ending and the "correct choice". Alot of people think this way and if the indoctrinated endings were revealed as such it would defeat the purpose of even making them as everyone would consider it a "critical fail" and all pick Destroy.  

No I am referring to the fact that you are unable to consider any other interpretation of the ending apart from your own as valid

Why do you require that I consider "interpretations" that I don't consider feasible valid? I sure as heck don't require you to believe anything I post.  Your belief is not required.

 This is the internet. Get used to it.

You don't have to necessarily consider all other intrepretations, it is just that you state with a presumptive air that your interpretation is gospel and everyone who differs from said view is stupid and ignorant. These "black and white"approaches you seem to have to storytelling are largely incongruous with sound analysis.

Quote me where I stated anyone was stupid and ignorant for daring to disagree with me. I want to see where you're coming from.

It wasn't a quote, just an observation of the implied meaning of some of your posts, and it seems a lot of people on this thread would back me up on that