The Energon Pub

Uh, yeah he was on Earth, in the Asending. Again...if anyone knows...How were they refferred to in the Dawn of Futures Past comic?

Caelus wrote:Edit: Also, in response to someone saying the animals weren't named yet, I must remind them that the Maximals and Predacons were from at least the year 2300 (Three centuries after the Great War). Therefore, if their computers had any info about terrestrial life at all, it presumably would have included their common names, as given by humans.

The question about the animals not having names yet I think was inrefrance to G1 only and not Beast Wars characters.

At least thats how I read the question

Eradicator wrote:Which brings me to my NEXT and thankfully final question. If they all did have non animal esque names before the Beast Wars, how are the animal esque names in G1 (Bumblebee, Laserbeak, etc.) explained?

Laserbeak was allready bird-like on Cybertron. Not exactly the same as his Earth form but still flys and has a beak.

It seems Transformers had some idea of animal life forms ever before comming to Earth.

Whatever the resoning is in G1 has little to do with the Beast Wars characters though.

The idea that they had different names on Cybertron comes from the fact they all seemed to introduce themselfs in the first episode after takeing animal forms. If they had thoughs names allready they would not need to introduce themselfs as they allready knew eachother.

Optimus Primal for the Maximals never did the introduction so my guess is he was allready called Primal to begine with not Prime.

Cheetor, Rattrap, and Rhinox all had different names before comming to Earth and only took thoughs names because of their new beast modes.

Megatron is little questionable. I think he may have had another name before he took that name from the Decepticon leader but he was called Megatron long before the Beast Wars started.

Scorpinok is another questionable character. He might have taken that name only after scanning that form or he may have taken it from the orignal Scorpinok long before that. Either way I think he was called something different before Scorpinok.

Waspinator, Dinobot, Tarantulas, and Terrorsaur all changed their names to go with their new beast forms.

It's not really a question of "Why wouldn't they know about animals on Cybertron" it's a question of "Why would they introduce themselfs to other characters who allready know who they are"

The only answer to the introduction question is that they had different names originally.

Saber Prime wrote:Megatron is little questionable. I think he may have had another name before he took that name from the Decepticon leader but he was called Megatron long before the Beast Wars started.

Well according to the DW comics BW's Megatron took the name the night he stole the Golden disc.Its supposed to be offical but so many things change every time a new addition to the story is told.

Saber Prime wrote:It's not really a question of "Why wouldn't they know about animals on Cybertron" it's a question of "Why would they introduce themselfs to other characters who allready know who they are"

The only answer to the introduction question is that they had different names originally.

Thats a "in fiction" answer to the question.The real world answer was that they wre not really introduceing themselfs to other characters but to the views.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Saber Prime wrote:It's not really a question of "Why wouldn't they know about animals on Cybertron" it's a question of "Why would they introduce themselfs to other characters who allready know who they are"

The only answer to the introduction question is that they had different names originally.

Thats a "in fiction" answer to the question.The real world answer was that they wre not really introduceing themselfs to other characters but to the views.

That's only half right. Yeah the characters had to be introduced to the viewers but there are other ways that could have been done.

They say their own names to Transform for one thing so rather than introducing themselfs to eachother the audiance would have figured out who they are from that or from conversation.

Megatron: You're an idiot Waspinator.

Audience member: Oh he's talking to the wasp guy, that must be his name.

They WERE introduceing themselfs to eachother.

Another way it could have been done is that these two crews had suposidly never met before the Beast Wars and Primal's crew was just in the wrong place at the wrong time type of thing so they could have introduced themselfs to the opposing faction at some point rather than to eachother.

Eradicator wrote:So how were they reffered to in the Dawn of future' past comic?

We keep telling you, THEY WEREN'T!
Their names were never given.
Rattrap was about to be called by Cheetor but was inturupted, Cheetor only had time to say "R-" So we can assume his name was similar.

Also Airrazor and Tigatron WEREN'T activated for the first time on earth. They were in DoFP but their ship was attacked and they needed to be placed in new bodies and put in stasis just before Primal's ship (Yes, he was called Primal before Earth) chased after Megatron.
NONE of the characters were referred to by name, other than Unit-1 (black car, minor character (for now)), Unit-2 (Tigatron), Optimus Primal, Megatron, Lazorbeak & Buzzsaw (the original), Ravage (the original) and Razorclaw & Divebomb (the G1 Predacons) as far as I remember.




Oh, Saber Prime, they hadn't met. Other than a brief radio/visual conversation with Megatron before jumping transwarp, the two crews hadn't met, Optimus just knew about Megatron and vice-versa.

Saber Prime wrote:That's only half right. Yeah the characters had to be introduced to the viewers but there are other ways that could have been done.

They say their own names to Transform for one thing so rather than introducing themselfs to eachother the audiance would have figured out who they are from that or from conversation.

Megatron: You're an idiot Waspinator.

Audience member: Oh he's talking to the wasp guy, that must be his name.

They WERE introduceing themselfs to eachother.

Another way it could have been done is that these two crews had suposidly never met before the Beast Wars and Primal's crew was just in the wrong place at the wrong time type of thing so they could have introduced themselfs to the opposing faction at some point rather than to eachother.

Again its not an issue of being "Half right" the real world explaination for the introduction scene was in fact the producers way of introdusing the characters to the viewers.

Granted I'll give you that the producers tryed to find a way to make it make sence to the story so they used a two step stradgedy of having the characters introduce themselfs to both the viewers and each other at the same time.

Yes they could have done it in any way even in so of the ways you suggested but it may have been more confuseing that way.Its not like the target audiance was of an age that one would eazyl expect would figuer it all out from just the pilot episode.

The target market for Beast Wars [and most cartoons and toylines] is the age group between 7 years and 12 years.Why would the producers try to make the kids have figure out who they are from that or from a conversations or line like:

Primal: Cheator return to base

When you can do a far more memerable scene like

Cheator: H' Hey look at me....I'm a cheata...............n'no no I'm Cheator!!!!!!!!!


Kids remember a person, place or things when you present it to them on a multible platform and the producers would ether already know that themselfs of have experts telling them that.

Remember the producers were trying to sell some toys and the eazyest way to make sure that kids went out and bought their fav character was to gine then more then enough reason to remember them and their names.

And the eaziest way to do that was to work in a introductin scene into the early moments of the pilot.

So yes the "in fiction" in story" reason for the introduction scene was most likely so the characters could introduce their new names to each other..........the "Real world" reason is not in question.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:the "Real world" reason is not in question.

First, I just have to ask now, if you knew this why even bring it up in the first place?

Secondly, just because they're 7 - 12 year olds doesn't mean their stupid. I'll use your own example. If Cheetor had not done his introduction and insted the first time we hear his name was...

Optimus Primal: Cheetor, return to base!

It's a dead giveaway who he's talking to. Cheetor just ran off, and the only other Maximals are still at the base. That's so easy to figure out a 4 year old could know who Cheetor was.

In fact not all characters introduced themselfs or were even that obvious. Megatron introduced Scorpinok and the scene went something like this...

Dinobot challenged Megatron for leadership. Megatron basically insulted Dinobot and then says "Isn't that right, Scorpinok?" and Scorpinok blasts him.

With that scene one could assume that Dinobot is Scorpinok because Megatron was talking to him for the majority of the scene. Then they'd be clueless as to who the other guy was.


Except that before Scorpinok came out Dinobot transformed saying "Dinobot, Terrorize!"

Allso you can look at Transformers Animated. They never did a Beast Wars styal "lets introduce ourselfs to eachother" and that's targeted to 5 year olds. If 5 year olds can figure it out than 7 - 12 can too.

They're kids, when it comes to math, english, or whatever yea they don't know much. When it comes to figuring out what someone or something is called, they're not freaking stupid, they can figure it out without slapping a name tag on it.

It's the in story reason, they choose new names when comming to Earth. The real life reason, they needed to introduce their characters to the audience had little to do with influancing the in story reason.

Simply put, there are just as many ways to introduce a fictional character to a child as there are to introduce a fictional character to an adult. The child doesn't need us to dumb things down for them.

Saber Prime wrote:First, I just have to ask now, if you knew this why even bring it up in the first place?

To make a statement.

Saber Prime wrote:Secondly, just because they're 7 - 12 year olds doesn't mean their stupid.

Saber Prime wrote:They're kids, when it comes to math, english, or whatever yea they don't know much. When it comes to figuring out what someone or something is called, they're not freaking stupid, they can figure it out without slapping a name tag on it.

Did I say that they were stupid??????

I dont think so.But its a pretty well knowen fact that 7-10 year olds have a limited attention span.Even more limited when it comes to being intrduced to something new that they never heard of before.

Saber Prime wrote:I'll use your own example. If Cheetor had not done his introduction and insted the first time we hear his name was...

Optimus Primal: Cheetor, return to base!

It's a dead giveaway who he's talking to. Cheetor just ran off, and the only other Maximals are still at the base. That's so easy to figure out a 4 year old could know who Cheetor was.

In fact not all characters introduced themselfs or were even that obvious. Megatron introduced Scorpinok and the scene went something like this...

Dinobot challenged Megatron for leadership. Megatron basically insulted Dinobot and then says "Isn't that right, Scorpinok?" and Scorpinok blasts him.

With that scene one could assume that Dinobot is Scorpinok because Megatron was talking to him for the majority of the scene. Then they'd be clueless as to who the other guy was.


Except that before Scorpinok came out Dinobot transformed saying "Dinobot, Terrorize!"

And what does that prove????It a pretty common practice in most cartoons that the bad guys dont get proper intorductions.But you'll be hard pressed to find a cartoon where the good guys didnt get a proper intrduction scene.

There is always more emphasis on introducing the good guys to viewers.It has something to do with the human physci that the evil guys are more mememarable.

Also you have to consider the fact that there were 14 different Maximal toys in the first year and onlt 5 were being featured in the pilot the producers had to make sure that their name would stick in the minds of the kids watching.

Saber Prime wrote:Allso you can look at Transformers Animated. They never did a Beast Wars styal "lets introduce ourselfs to eachother" and that's targeted to 5 year olds. If 5 year olds can figure it out than 7 - 12 can too.

First of all how do you figure that TF animated is targeted at 5 year olds?????

Because of the animation style?????

Thats a poor way to judge a show.

I really cant tell you what age group the show is really amied at because I havent seen any of the toys yet.

Beast Wars was aimed at 7-12 year old due to most of the toyline being graded as safe for kids 7 and up.

But animated seems to have stories more aimed at 7 and up to me.

But thats my opinion.

But trying to compair the marketting strategies of the mid 90's to those of the late 2000's is pretty ignorant.

And so is compairing the over all intelligence of kids of the 90's to those of the 2000's.

Fact is kids un the 00's are smarter and more mature then those of the 90's and the same applys the further you go back.

And animated had a built in audience with the kid fans because of the Bay movie and there is only 2 members of the autobot team on the animated toon that did not have a counterpart in the movie.

So they would have only really would have had to introduce 2 characters.

While the other 3 bear very little resemblance to the movie counterparts their names are knowen to the kids and a big introduction scene would have been redundant and needless.

Saber Prime wrote:It's the in story reason, they choose new names when comming to Earth. The real life reason, they needed to introduce their characters to the audience had little to do with influancing the in story reason.

I never made a claim that the "real world" reason had any bearing on the "in fiction" reason.All I did was provide the real world reason.

Saber Prime wrote:Simply put, there are just as many ways to introduce a fictional character to a child as there are to introduce a fictional character to an adult. The child doesn't need us to dumb things down for them.

I never said that things needed to be "dumbed down" for the kids......but it is a common marketing practice.

Hasbro themselfs said Animated was targeted at 5 year olds. And I've heard this from several other posters in the topic on this site.

Saber Prime wrote:Hasbro themselfs said Animated was targeted at 5 year olds. And I've heard this from several other posters in the topic on this site.

I've seen plenty of statements from both Hasbro and the Cartoon network on TF Animated but not a single one that states what age group they are targeting.

I just looked trew 3 different statements that I found on Google and there's no info on the target age group.

The closest thing I found was that they said that the toon was marketed twards a younger croud then the Bay movie.

I've seen plenty of poster on this site and other TF foarms say that they think that its marketed at 5 year olds but I have yet to see anything offical making the same claim.

Since you said Hasbro "HAS" made the statement can you direct me twards a link to the info in question?????

I dont doubt that the show may in fact be marketed to 5 year olds......I just doubt the fact that you've seen,read or heard such a statement.

You have a habit of making statements that end up being proven to be mistakes or completly wrong and untrue.

No offence intended.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Saber Prime wrote:Hasbro themselfs said Animated was targeted at 5 year olds. And I've heard this from several other posters in the topic on this site.

I've seen plenty of statements from both Hasbro and the Cartoon network on TF Animated but not a single one that states what age group they are targeting.

I just looked trew 3 different statements that I found on Google and there's no info on the target age group.

The closest thing I found was that they said that the toon was marketed twards a younger croud then the Bay movie.

I've seen plenty of poster on this site and other TF foarms say that they think that its marketed at 5 year olds but I have yet to see anything offical making the same claim.

Since you said Hasbro "HAS" made the statement can you direct me twards a link to the info in question?????

I dont doubt that the show may in fact be marketed to 5 year olds......I just doubt the fact that you've seen,read or heard such a statement.

You have a habit of making statements that end up being proven to be mistakes or completly wrong and untrue.

No offence intended.

Bold statement, in this particular instance there are about 3 or more other people who are wrong, I'm just missinformed.

Still even if Hasbro never really made a public statement it's probly still true and not just because of the Animation styal either. (allthough that is a small part of it)

The main human girl in this series is alot younger than most other human children that have been in past TF shows, no doubt because their targeted audience can't relate to the teenage characters that have appeared in past TF show.

Pluse it's from the same people who make Teen Titans and that series is known to have a younger audience. They haven't done anything different with Transformers Animated than they did with Teen Titans. The target audience is set alot younger but they do through in a few things the older fans will enjoy as well.

Teen Titans has mostly kiddy related plots that are their more goofy episodes. Some other episodes are much more serious and it seems thoughs episodes have allways featured Slade. (I don't watch that much Teen Titans but that's how it appears to me.)

Transformers seems to be following a simular pattern of the goofy kiddy episodes and a few serious episodes. Allthough the only episodes at this point I take seriously are Thrill of the Hunt, Meltdown, and the Pilot.

Megatron I can't even take seriously as a villain at this point, not after the Dinobots and Nanosec. I can't wait for him to be freed from his "Unacceptible operrational status."

Saber Prime wrote:Bold statement, in this particular instance there are about 3 or more other people who are wrong, I'm just missinformed.

Actually I'm not saying your wrong or right.......but I am saying that you should do some research before you make a post with a claim that implys that you know what your talking about.

your words:

Saber Prime wrote:Hasbro themselfs said Animated was targeted at 5 year olds.

If you cant back that up in a debate then you should re-word your post so that they dont imply a sence of 100% sertainity.

Saber Prime wrote:Still even if Hasbro never really made a public statement it's probly still true and not just because of the Animation styal either. (allthough that is a small part of it)

I'll agree its possible.

Saber Prime wrote:The main human girl in this series is alot younger than most other human children that have been in past TF shows, no doubt because their targeted audience can't relate to the teenage characters that have appeared in past TF show.

You cant really compair the human girl's possible age in Animated to the human characters of most of the past TF shows.

First of all most of the other shows were directed twards Japan kids first so they would have been useing a age group prefrance of the Japanese market.

Secondly you yourself said that you thought that Sauri was in the 10-12 age range which puts her close to the age that Japan had its human characters ranges which was between 13 and 15 years of age.

The only compairason you can honestly make would be Sauri to Spike and Danial because all of these characters were both marketed twards U.S. kids first.

And if Sauri is around 12 then shes about the same age as Daniel and only 2 years younger then Spike when we first meat him.

Saber Prime wrote:Pluse it's from the same people who make Teen Titans and that series is known to have a younger audience. They haven't done anything different with Transformers Animated than they did with Teen Titans. The target audience is set alot younger but they do through in a few things the older fans will enjoy as well.

Teen Titans has mostly kiddy related plots that are their more goofy episodes. Some other episodes are much more serious and it seems thoughs episodes have allways featured Slade. (I don't watch that much Teen Titans but that's how it appears to me.)

I'd say it was about half and half.

Saber Prime wrote:Transformers seems to be following a simular pattern of the goofy kiddy episodes and a few serious episodes. Allthough the only episodes at this point I take seriously are Thrill of the Hunt, Meltdown, and the Pilot.

Considering how many episodes have aired thats almost half of them.

Saber Prime wrote:Megatron I can't even take seriously as a villain at this point, not after the Dinobots and Nanosec. I can't wait for him to be freed from his "Unacceptible operrational status."

[/quote]

Funny

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Saber Prime wrote:Hasbro themselfs said Animated was targeted at 5 year olds.

If you cant back that up in a debate then you should re-word your post so that they dont imply a sence of 100% sertainity.

Can't help but notice you missquoted me to make your point. You left out the sentence saying where I got my information. If that information is wrong that's not my fault, I was just repeateing what I had been told.

Saber Prime wrote:

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:If you cant back that up in a debate then you should re-word your post so that they dont imply a sence of 100% sertainity.

Can't help but notice you missquoted me to make your point. You left out the sentence saying where I got my information.

I dint missquoted you at all.They were two different sentence'es so therefor they are two different statements.

And your other sentence does not say "where you got the info from only that you also read others saying the same information.

Here are both your sentenceses

Saber Prime wrote:Hasbro themselfs said Animated was targeted at 5 year olds.

This sentence implys that you yourself have come by the information in question because you said that Hasbro said it.

If you didnt know yourself if it were true you should have said that you heard that Hasbro said it.

Saber Prime wrote:And I've heard this from several other posters in the topic on this site.

This sentence implys that you have also heard the same info from others but it does not imply that it was the sol sourse of your information because you used the word "AND to begin the sentence.

"And" is used as in a sentence as "in addition to".

Put both together and how does it read????

Saber Prime wrote:Hasbro themselfs said Animated was targeted at 5 year olds. And I've heard this from several other posters in the topic on this site.

It reads as you making a statement of fact and then backing it up with info you heard from others.

If you ment to say that what you heard from others on this site was the source of you information then you should have said:

"I have heard from several other posters in the topic on this site that Hasbro is targeting Animated at 5 year olds."

or something like that.

Saber Prime wrote:If that information is wrong that's not my fault, I was just repeateing what I had been told.

Its your fault for repeating what you could not prove yourself.

And trying to make a debate off of info you cant even back up makes you look foolish.

And trying to trow the blame on others makes you look childish.

If you had said that it was your "opinion" then I would have no issue with what you said but you do this offten....you make a statement like its a matter of 100% fact and make a debate out of it.

And what do we learn afterwards?????That the info you were givven was wrong and that its someone els'es fault that you were spreading false info or that you created a pointless debate.

Like I already said I dont know what age group Animated is marketed twards.

I'll agree that its very possible that it may be targeted at 5 year olds.....some of the episodes sure are written that way.And when you take into account the animation style of the show it seems more likily.

But that would be my opinion.I have not read anything offical stateing that its marketed at 5 year olds.

Others may have read such info and thats why they made the claim but before I go around telling people that what I heard from someone else is a fact I do some research.

And untill I do I wont make a statement that implys that I know something that I dont.

You should do the same.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:This sentence implys that you yourself have come by the information in question because you said that Hasbro said it.

It only implys that when you leave out the second part of the quote. The second part of the quote whitch you left out DOES state where the information came from.

If you didnt know yourself if it were true you should have said that you heard that Hasbro said it.

I did, you left that part out, it's quoted right here.

Saber Prime wrote:And I've heard this from several other posters in the topic on this site.

Your example.

"I have heard from several other posters in the topic on this site that Hasbro is targeting Animated at 5 year olds."

Is the same as what I wrote, all you did was reverse it so the source came first and turned it into a single sentence.

This was my line of thinking while I was wrighting.

I wrote. "Hasbro themselfs said Animated was targeted at 5 year olds." Then knowing you would want to know where I got that information I added. "And I've heard this from several other posters in the topic on this site."

Now maybe it's just the fact I haven't had a decent night of sleep sence the 4th of January but I don't see how that second statement could be seen as anything but a source.

Now if you're done, I'm going to go TRY to sleep and I highly doubt I will.

Saber Prime wrote: It only implys that when you leave out the second part of the quote. The second part of the quote whitch you left out DOES state where the information came from.

If you had left out the word "AND" in your sentence then you might be right.

Saber Prime wrote: I did, you left that part out, it's quoted right here.

Saber Prime wrote:And I've heard this from several other posters in the topic on this site.

You didnt.
Here's the deffinition of the word "AND" from Dictionary.com

1.(used to connect grammatically coordinate words, phrases, or clauses) along or together with; as well as; in addition to;

And from websters online dictionary.

1] used as a function word to indicate connection or addition especially of items within the same class or type ; used to join sentence elements of the same grammatical rank or function

2] a—used as a function word to express logical modification, consequence, antithesis, or supplementary explanation b—used as a function word to join one finite verb (as go, come, try) to another so that together they are logically equivalent to an infinitive of purpose

3]used in logic to form a conjunction

Useing the word "And" made it two different facts.

"And" did not state where you originaly got your info but added to your source pool.

Saber Prime wrote: Your example.

"I have heard from several other posters in the topic on this site that Hasbro is targeting Animated at 5 year olds."

Is the same as what I wrote, all you did was reverse it so the source came first and turned it into a single sentence.

Its not the same thing because of the deffenition of the word "AND".

Saber Prime wrote:
This was my line of thinking while I was wrighting.

I wrote. "Hasbro themselfs said Animated was targeted at 5 year olds." Then knowing you would want to know where I got that information I added. "And I've heard this from several other posters in the topic on this site."

But what you dont seem to understand is that even thou thats was what you ment it was not how you wrote it.

If you said;

"Hasbro themselfs said Animated was targeted at 5 year olds.I've heard this from several other posters in the topic on this site."

Then I would be the one missunderstand your statement.But when you added the word "AND" to the begining of your second sentence you seperated the point you were trying to make into two facts.

One that Hasbro said it

"AND"

Two that you heard it from others on this site.

Can you see how much power one 3 letter word makes in a sentence????

Saber Prime wrote: Now maybe it's just the fact I haven't had a decent night of sleep sence the 4th of January but I don't see how that second statement could be seen as anything but a source.

I'm trully sorry that you've been having trouble sleeping but.....

If you cant see the difference that the word "AND" makes to a sentence then you might want to consider going back to school to refreash your writting skills.

I may be pretty bad at spelling but I know how to form coherent sentences

Saber Prime wrote:Now if you're done, I'm going to go TRY to sleep and I highly doubt I will.

Good luck trying to sleep

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:"And" did not state where you originaly got your info but added to your source pool.

It didn't add anything to my source pool. In order for that to be true there would have to actully be another source listed before "and"

The statement reads like this "Fact and Source" Not "Fact source and source" There is no other source listed, there for the addition is to the first statement not to another source. They are not by any means seperate statements.

Maybe if I had seperated the two into different paragraphs they'd be seperate but I did not.

You try forming coherent sentences when you've been through what I have.

Saber Prime wrote:It didn't add anything to my source pool. In order for that to be true there would have to actully be another source listed before "and"

You did list a source before the word "And".When you said:

Saber Prime wrote:Hasbro themselfs said Animated was targeted at 5 year olds. And I've heard this from several other posters in the topic on this site.

You made Hasbro the first source.That may not have been what you intended but thats how it reads.As if you are making the claim that "YOU" yourself knows for a fact that Hasbro said it.

Saber Prime wrote:The statement reads like this "Fact and Source" Not "Fact source and source" There is no other source listed, there for the addition is to the first statement not to another source.

Maybe thats what you wanted to say but the way you wrote it it came off as

"Hasbro themselfs said" the first source

"AND" in addition


"And I've heard this from several other posters" the second source.

Again if you cant see that you need to freshen up on writting skills.

Saber Prime wrote:They are not by any means seperate statements.

Maybe if I had seperated the two into different paragraphs they'd be seperate but I did not.

You did seprateed them into two different sentences and you sepreated them from each other by useing the word "AND".

You cant blame me for reading it the way its worded.

Saber Prime wrote:You try forming coherent sentences when you've been through what I have.

If your talking about your sleeping problems I hope they get better.

But if your talking about the experances of your life....at least those that you have related to me in the past....they dont mearsue up to the "Horror's" that was my childhood.

Granted I wont presume to say that you've told me everything that happened to you in life but you shouldnt think your the only one around that had a bad childhood.

That's not a source, that's the fact. The source is from other posters sence they said "Hasbro said" Now just drop the subject allready.

Oh and I wasn't talking about my past. I was just refering to recent events. The past, eventually, you get over it and move on with your life. The reason I haven't been sleeping well is because of a recent tradgity that happened that I'm still haveing nightmares about.

Saber Prime wrote:That's not a source, that's the fact. The source is from other posters sence they said "Hasbro said" Now just drop the subject allready.

I'm not the one that cant drop it.You just cant admit when your wrong or made a mistake.

You never can.

But lets both of us let it go.

Saber Prime wrote:Oh and I wasn't talking about my past. I was just refering to recent events. The past, eventually, you get over it and move on with your life. The reason I haven't been sleeping well is because of a recent tradgity that happened that I'm still haveing nightmares about.

Sorry to hear that.I hope things get better for you.Try talking about it to a friend if you can....it might help with the sleeping.