137512 réponses à ce sujet

[Angelraid]

FenixPendragon wrote...

Geth Hunter Alpha wrote...

FenixPendragon wrote...

LegendaryAvenger wrote...

Felipe 058 wrote...

LegendaryAvenger wrote...

Hey guys. Since quarians have the same dna structure as turians, can they breed with them?

Their DNAs are made up from the same dextro-amino acids, but their DNA structures are entirely different. I honestly mean no offense, but did you take high school biology? The DNA of a monkey and a bird are made up of the same amino acids, but that does not mean that a monkey and a bird can mate. It all comes down to the quarians' and turians' chromosomes. It is virtually guaranteed that the alleles on their chromosomes, in fact the chromosomes themselves, serve different functions; therefore it would be like trying to breed a monkey with a bird: impossible.

Quarians and Turians are two goddamn fictional races, I'm not an idiot and yes I got an A in honors High school biology

Science-Fiction - anything can happen - And my God not the DNA talk again! Susquehanna! Susquehanna!

True, but Bioware is trying to keep this Science Fiction within the realm of Science fact as best they can (even if they do slip up every now and then). It would be pretty unlikely for them to do something like this.

Yes I understand and they will trash 50% of the people either way. They have already broken laws of physics (mass effect and FTL...pure fantasy). Good science fiction is plausible not probable. Star Trek also tried to keep within science bounds but everyone was sleeping with everyone else and having children to boot.

I don't know the future. I didn't come here to tell you how this is going to end. I came here to tell you how it's going to begin.

star trek..... L O L
don't get me wrong, I like star trek as much as the next guy (unless the next guy doesnt like it then I like it more than the next guy)

but the science explained in Mass effect makes that of ST look like a doctor suess book. Bioware goes outa thier way to describe how everything works with in the real of known science, even the things that are out of that realm (like mass effect feilds) they explain using real physics. They may not get everything perfect but its more on a whole other lvl of  realismm compared to star treks - it works becuase the energy field blocks **** to stop an anti matter casscade from hitting our dilithium crystals.

[Auzden]

runescapeguy9 wrote...

danteshepard wrote...

RUNESCAPE! YOU DID WELL!

I guess that works...
Have another.

these pics never get old

[The_KFD_Case]

TGFKAMAdmaX wrote...

The_KFD_Case wrote...

1) Yes there was a warning and thus Jake's post lived up to reasonable responsibility.
2) People were not forced to see what the link led to. If they saw it they either clicked on the link by accident or intentionally. In the former case it is no one's fault per se. In the latter case responsibility rests with the individual carrying out the action of his/her own free will.
3) If they didn't read the warning carefully then that too is their responsibility otherwise any form of labeled warning would be meaningless. A full warning label was provided. That you don't like it doesn't change that fact.
4) Your arguments have done nothing to remove the individual responsibility of each person who has freely chosen to click on that link.
5) I didn't see anything violate those rules. I saw a link with a clear warning label on it. Please explain how that violates the ToS.
6) Whatever a person assumes is not the responsibility of another unless it can be established that intentional deceit and misleading information was provided. That is not the case in this instance. Also note that thinking for oneself is allowed.
7) It was a link or do you consider the words "Blasphemous Tali Pron - Click at your own risk" to be porno as understood by the visual media that it is?
8) It was properly labelled as a potentially dangerous sign. If you were unsure about what it might link to you had the option of inquiring further.

1.opinion
2.doenst absolve him from the fac that he created the circumstances
3.matter of opinion to whether it was clear...
4.not trying to
5.once again opinion and he did post porn
6.not clear info so he is responsible to an extent
7. it was a link to said media...just as bad...only slimy lawyers would think of trying to use such a bad loop hole
8.inquiring would be safe route...but that would lead him to saying it was porn which would have labled it to all and gone my route anyway

1) Let me get this straight: In your mind a statement such as "Blasphemous Tali Pron - Click at own risk" does not constitute a "warning"? Do yourself a favour and invest in a dictionary. Hell! Just google "dictionary.com" if you are pressed for cash. Now look up the definition of "warning".
2) Doesn't change the fact that you chose to click on it out of your own free will. Why are you running away from your responsibility? Does it scare you?
3) Not really. A warning label was provided that clearly warned about something. If you were unsure about what that something was (it was related to Tali as clearly indicated in the warning label), then you could have asked about it or chosen the safe path and not clicked on the link. You did neither. Instead you chose of your own free will to proceed. That is your responsibility. 
4) No need to try. Your words have already spoken volumes.
5) If it's opinion then why even cite the ToS which is supposed to guarantee your safety online according to you? It was a link. That is a fact.
6) The info was pretty clear about being a warning and that one proceeded at one's "own risk" (refer back to the first point regarding using a dictionary).
7) "Just as bad" implies it is not actually the exact same thing. Thanks for clearing that up.
8) Indeed, it would be the safe route which is what you were all for when quoting the ToS. Furthermore you are saying that if you had asked it not only would have been safer but it might also have helped clear up any potential confusion for yourself and others yet you didn't do this? How can you then wrap yourself in the flag of "I want to be safe!"? Hypocrisy.

[vykvyper1]

have a stylized piece that I found:

[Gerudan]

Jake71887 wrote...

This threads needs some more Tali

Tali should lock her locker. 

[GMR25]

Jake71887 wrote...

Thought it more appropriate than this

I like it, I like it.

[FenixPendragon]

1490 wrote...

runescapeguy9 wrote...

Jake71887 wrote...

This threads needs some more Tali
 

So why post that... <_<

Modded skin?

Yep got it too still need to run through it once.

[Jake71887]

The_KFD_Case wrote...

TGFKAMAdmaX wrote...

The_KFD_Case wrote...

1) Yes there was a warning and thus Jake's post lived up to reasonable responsibility.
2) People were not forced to see what the link led to. If they saw it they either clicked on the link by accident or intentionally. In the former case it is no one's fault per se. In the latter case responsibility rests with the individual carrying out the action of his/her own free will.
3) If they didn't read the warning carefully then that too is their responsibility otherwise any form of labeled warning would be meaningless. A full warning label was provided. That you don't like it doesn't change that fact.
4) Your arguments have done nothing to remove the individual responsibility of each person who has freely chosen to click on that link.
5) I didn't see anything violate those rules. I saw a link with a clear warning label on it. Please explain how that violates the ToS.
6) Whatever a person assumes is not the responsibility of another unless it can be established that intentional deceit and misleading information was provided. That is not the case in this instance. Also note that thinking for oneself is allowed.
7) It was a link or do you consider the words "Blasphemous Tali Pron - Click at your own risk" to be porno as understood by the visual media that it is?
8) It was properly labelled as a potentially dangerous sign. If you were unsure about what it might link to you had the option of inquiring further.

1.opinion
2.doenst absolve him from the fac that he created the circumstances
3.matter of opinion to whether it was clear...
4.not trying to
5.once again opinion and he did post porn
6.not clear info so he is responsible to an extent
7. it was a link to said media...just as bad...only slimy lawyers would think of trying to use such a bad loop hole
8.inquiring would be safe route...but that would lead him to saying it was porn which would have labled it to all and gone my route anyway

1) Let me get this straight: In your mind a statement such as "Blasphemous Tali Pron - Click at own risk" does not constitute a "warning"? Do yourself a favour and invest in a dictionary. Hell! Just google "dictionary.com" if you are pressed for cash. Now look up the definition of "warning".
2) Doesn't change the fact that you chose to click on it out of your own free will. Why are you running away from your responsibility? Does it scare you?
3) Not really. A warning label was provided that clearly warned about something. If you were unsure about what that something was (it was related to Tali as clearly indicated in the warning label), then you could have asked about it or chosen the safe path and not clicked on the link. You did neither. Instead you chose of your own free will to proceed. That is your responsibility. 
4) No need to try. Your words have already spoken volumes.
5) If it's opinion then why even cite the ToS which is supposed to guarantee your safety online according to you? It was a link. That is a fact.
6) The info was pretty clear about being a warning and that one proceeded at one's "own risk" (refer back to the first point regarding using a dictionary).
7) "Just as bad" implies it is not actually the exact same thing. Thanks for clearing that up.
8) Indeed, it would be the safe route which is what you were all for when quoting the ToS. Furthermore you are saying that if you had asked it not only would have been safer but it might also have helped clear up any potential confusion for yourself and others yet you didn't do this? How can you then wrap yourself in the flag of "I want to be safe!"? Hypocrisy.

Jesus, this argument's still going on?

[AventuroLegendary]

Jake71887 wrote...

runescapeguy9 wrote...

Jake71887 wrote...

This threads needs some more Tali
 

So why post that... <_<

Thought it more appropriate than this

SNip* HOT*

Femshep and garrus?

[Angelraid]

Jake71887 wrote...

This threads needs some more Tali

 

JAKES BACK

...... awkward.........

[Ormagodenator]

got to go

Keelah Se'lai

[sergio71785]

[Chim3ra]

ahh, this is very entertaining,

[Jake71887]

Geth Hunter Alpha wrote...

Jake71887 wrote...

This threads needs some more Tali

 

JAKES BACK

...... awkward.........

What's awkward, were you guys talking about me again? 

[Commander Marrek S]

Lol Sheparrus shipper?

[The_KFD_Case]

TGFKAMAdmaX wrote...

The_KFD_Case wrote...

TGFKAMAdmaX wrote...

1490 wrote...

I did answer your questions: it applies because this thread is part of the internet, and it's "probable" that most people will label things, but not entirely "logical" because many people do not, and then I gave you an explanation.  I also didn't say the entire internet was bad, just like I wouldn't say the world is bad.  But both have bad parts, and to wander either believing nothing bad can happen to you, or thinking you will have a clear warning before something does, is naive.

u admitted iwas right ******. i said logical not the most logical...by you stating but not entirely "logical u have admitted that there is some logic to be found...

And you just used a personal attach which is also in violation of the ToS that you so dearly love to quote. Also, it is extremely poor form to do such with such blatantly crass language in such an obvious manner. Also, please point out where 1490 admits that you are right? You sir, fail at debating. Well done!

i said tell me if logical or not...he said not entirely logical...he didnt say not logical at all....which means it has some logical...which is wat i wanted him to say...u sir fail at reading also, we are not allowed to get off topic in post wars such as this...it is meant to b done in private messages...so you are in violation as well

Circular logic also has some trace amount of logic yet it is still false.  Keep reaching.

[Felipe 058]

FenixPendragon wrote...

Geth Hunter Alpha wrote...

FenixPendragon wrote...

LegendaryAvenger wrote...

Felipe 058 wrote...

LegendaryAvenger wrote...

Hey guys. Since quarians have the same dna structure as turians, can they breed with them?

Their DNAs are made up from the same dextro-amino acids, but their DNA structures are entirely different. I honestly mean no offense, but did you take high school biology? The DNA of a monkey and a bird are made up of the same amino acids, but that does not mean that a monkey and a bird can mate. It all comes down to the quarians' and turians' chromosomes. It is virtually guaranteed that the alleles on their chromosomes, in fact the chromosomes themselves, serve different functions; therefore it would be like trying to breed a monkey with a bird: impossible.

Quarians and Turians are two goddamn fictional races, I'm not an idiot and yes I got an A in honors High school biology

Science-Fiction - anything can happen - And my God not the DNA talk again! Susquehanna! Susquehanna!

True, but Bioware is trying to keep this Science Fiction within the realm of Science fact as best they can (even if they do slip up every now and then). It would be pretty unlikely for them to do something like this.

Yes I understand and they will trash 50% of the people either way. They have already broken laws of physics (mass effect and FTL...pure fantasy). Good science fiction is plausible not probable. Star Trek also tried to keep within science bounds but everyone was sleeping with everyone else and having children to boot.

I don't know the future. I didn't come here to tell you how this is going to end. I came here to tell you how it's going to begin.

Indeed, they created a plausible set of circumstances that do in fact agree with the laws of physics (FTL is in fact possible; saying it isn't proves your ignorance of the matter). But most of Star Trek's races were all very similar biologically, as they only had human actors and a limited budget, and therefore couldn't have absolutely insane aliens. And Star Trek was anything but scientifically sound. Gene Roddenberry was a visionary, not a scientist. He didn't care if the science made sense (which it almost never did) so long as it looked and sounded awesome. So do NOT compare Mass Effect's generally scientifically accurate universe to Star Trek's scientifically laughable one.

[The_KFD_Case]

TGFKAMAdmaX wrote...

The_KFD_Case wrote...

1) Let me get this straight: In your mind a statement such as "Blasphemous Tali Pron - Click at own risk" does not constitute a "warning"? Do yourself a favour and invest in a dictionary. Hell! Just google "dictionary.com" if you are pressed for cash. Now look up the definition of "warning".
2) Doesn't change the fact that you chose to click on it out of your own free will. Why are you running away from your responsibility? Does it scare you?
3) Not really. A warning label was provided that clearly warned about something. If you were unsure about what that something was (it was related to Tali as clearly indicated in the warning label), then you could have asked about it or chosen the safe path and not clicked on the link. You did neither. Instead you chose of your own free will to proceed. That is your responsibility. 
4) No need to try. Your words have already spoken volumes.
5) If it's opinion then why even cite the ToS which is supposed to guarantee your safety online according to you? It was a link. That is a fact.
6) The info was pretty clear about being a warning and that one proceeded at one's "own risk" (refer back to the first point regarding using a dictionary).
7) "Just as bad" implies it is not actually the exact same thing. Thanks for clearing that up.
8) Indeed, it would be the safe route which is what you were all for when quoting the ToS. Furthermore you are saying that if you had asked it not only would have been safer but it might also have helped clear up any potential confusion for yourself and others yet you didn't do this? How can you then wrap yourself in the flag of "I want to be safe!"? Hypocrisy.

not hypocrisy...would have only proven me right....and the matter of opinion was if the warning was clear or not...and you have yet to address why ur opinion of it being clear is more valid than my opinion of it not being clear

That has already been addressed on several occasions. Reading comprehension is a good thing. My arguments are based on the facts directly relating to the case. That's the key difference.

P.S. You are the one who brought up ToS to start with, so for you to violate it knowingly while presenting it as the desired standard of measurement here is grand hypocrisy. Keep on failing!

Modifié par The_KFD_Case, 16 mars 2010 - 01:19 .

[Angelraid]

Jake71887 wrote...

runescapeguy9 wrote...

Jake71887 wrote...

This threads needs some more Tali
 

So why post that... <_<

Thought it more appropriate than this

Thats actually really really good.

Good for you Garrus fans. You deserve some lovin too.

[alickar]

GMR25 wrote...

Jake71887 wrote...

Thought it more appropriate than this

I like it, I like it.

uh this should be in garrus thread on this