The Energon Pub

Lastjustice wrote:I'm normally all about my long posts and going back and forward counter pointing. This seems be going back and forward to point it's hard tell whats even being said heh. I said my piece for most part, so I'll just sit back and watch the fireworks lol. I'd likely only make it more confusing going back and forward line by line.

Join in any time you want bud

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:Try to pay attention.

As you said yourself.....just because something fits the crtria for organic does not meen they are defiantly organic.

The crtria is a guide...a diagnostics tool, but just like all diagnostics tools there is a margin for error or mis-diagnosis.

So its like saying some one has all the symtoms of cancer but not knowing if its really cancer.

So saying they fit the crtria for organic is not a statement of fact claiming they are with out a doubt organic.

It is saying that they show all the symtoms of being organic.Its saying they fit the crtria for what is considered a organic form of life as it developed on their world.

So again...the only thing you prooved is your poor understanding.

And I haven't.

I am paying attention but you seem to be missing the point and I have to spell it out for you.

Even if by saying that they fit the criteria you are not saying for a fact that they are organic you seem to be missing the point that it still claims a fact just not THAT fact.

You keep saying that they do, in fact fit the criteria. They do NOT IN FACT fit the criteria. They POSSIBLY fit the criteria.

As I showed earlier in my last cretique of each of the 7 standards only 2 of them can actully be proven to fit the Transformers and only 1 can be proven to fit the AllSparkers. To fit the criteria you said they had to have most of the standards which most would be 4 or more so the fact you keep saying that they even fit the criteria can not be proven. Weather or not them fitting the criteria means they are organic doesn't have anything to do with it, you're still claiming a fact either way just by saying that they fit the criteria. If you said they fit the criteria AND that they are organic you would be claiming 2 facts that can't be proven but as it is you're only claiming 1.

Oh but I can because as I said before in reply to that quote when you originally made it, they ALLSO said in the first film that they ARE NOT organic.

Oh but you cant because as I pointed out.....those that claimed a they werent organic had no reason to know that they were.

Theres no logical reason any of the humans we saw would have realised what a TF really was.

The TF's called themsefs "organic" and thats what counts.

So your argumnt fails again.

Still no.

There is a logical reason some humans would know exactly what they are. Two logical reasons which I have allready said.

1. Sector 7 studied Megatron for over 60 years (I can't remember what the actual number was and too lazy to look it up now.) and reverse enginered technoligy from him.

Now it's possible that Megatron may have lost parts of his organic body in the war if he is organic and what they reverse engeered from was mechanical implants that he had. It's allso possible allthough I highly doubt it that they never got to study his organic componants if he had any at all.

2. In ROTF Humans are STILL calling them robots 2 years later.

I highly doubt that in 2 years of working togeather that the Autobots never once corrected the humans in N.E.S.T.

So if the Transformers are truely organic then the guys at Sector 7 and/or N.E.S.T. should have known that.

There's allso a verry logical reason that even though the Transformers said they were organic that they might not be. You do realize that English is not their first language and that there's no reason to belive that they've perfectly translated everything from their language into ours right? They may have misstranslated what they really were into English same as anyone on Earth will some times misstranslate things when speaking in a second language.

So, given these 3 things no line spoken by human or Transformer can really be accepted as fact.

And they were refered to as robots MUCH more offten than they were refered to as organics.

And theres nothing precluding the idea that they are "organic robots".....WHICH IS WHAT THEY CALLED THEMSELFS.

And again, that's an oximoron. It is impossible to be both at once which I think is evidence of the Transformers misstranslation of what they are into English.

but you allso exspect me to belive that after 2 years of working togeather that the Autobots never corrected the humans they were working with?

WHY WOULD THERE BE A NEED TO CORRECT ANYONE???

They are organic robots.....they called themselfs that and the evidence supports it.

And now you're claiming fact again.

They would need to correct the humans if they were in fact organic.

The evidence in inconclusive, it suports nothing.

Or maybe you should speak more clearly.

Your the only one not understanding.

So maybe you need to go back to school.

There you go with that again. No one else has responded to that statement so how do you know I'm the only one?

No what I don't understand is you.

And yet everyone else does.

Because I'm not the only one telling you your wrong.

Actully, you are. There have been verry few other posts in here and no one else has claimed any facts nor has anyone elce made the mistake of takeing my opinions as facts. You're not the only one who has dissagreed with my opinion but you are the only one who seems to think my opinion can be proven wrong.

You're claiming that they for a fact, fit the critera. There is not enough evidence in the movies to actully suport that as a fact.

Yes there is.

No there isn't and I have allready proven it.

1. We have no evidence to suport that any of the liquids seen comming from the Transformers bodies were being created by them or if they were normal car liquids.

2. We have not seen any of the Transformers reproduce. There are HINTS that they can but nothing that can be proven

3. We have not seen that any of the Transformers are capable of Growth. Again, there are HINTS of this but nothing that can be proven.

4. We know for a fact that the Transformers need energy but we do not know if they burn energy like a machine or if they have an actual metabolisum.

I'm not even going to go into the rest of them because I don't remember and I'm not going to bother to look them up. I only needed to dissprove 4 anyway and I did. Non of these can be proven as solid facts hence THEY MAY OR MAY NOT FIT THE CRITERIA AND IT CAN NOT AT THIS TIME BE PROVEN THAT THEY DO!

So unless you have some solid evidence to back up this claim, you are WRONG!

I said that they don't fit the critera given the current evidence.

And you failed to demonstrate that.

Not. If I failed to demonstrate that then please, by all means, provide your evidence. So far you have not provided ANY solid evidence that can't be disputed to prove that they fit the criteria. AND this is probly about the 8th time I've asked you to provide your evidence and you never have but you continue to stick to your argument anyway which is rather pointless, pathetic, and futile. You've allready lost.

Your original statements regarding each piece of the critera stated as facts that they do fit the criteria

They do fit the crtria.

See abouve. PROVE IT!

I'm not going to bother looking for it

Because it failed the first time.

No, because it was 1 o'clock in the freaking morning and I wanted to go to bed.

And why would I have to?

Because you made the claim that they didnt fit the crtria......and in that you were proven wrong.

No, I made the claim that they can't be proven to fit the criteria.......and in that you still have not provided one shred of solid evidence to prove that they do.

The different signs of reproduction have nothing to do with it. Reproduction in ANY form can not be proven that they are actully capable of. It's a possibility yes but it is not a fact.

One does not need to prove it to claim that they fit the crtria.

All I need to do is point out something that may be a sign of a kind of reproduction to say they fit the crtria.

And I did that with the signs of cell division.

Nope. By saying that they DO fit, you are saying that it's a proven fact. By pointing out something that may be a sign of a kind of reproduction you only prove that they MIGHT fit the criteria.

Yes, do you? That's why I made the remark. The way you reworded it doesn't even apply to anything I said.

Then obviously you dont understand.

No, obviously, like allways you haven't got a clue what I'm talking about.

OK so you do understand it but apperently didn't understand me. As I said abouve, I made that remark because the way you reworded it didn't even apply to anything I said.

Then you didnt understand because it did apply.

No, again, YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND ME.

I know what the saying means and I'm telling you, the way that you worded it does not apply to anything that I said.

Forgetting the Transformers for a moment and just useing the Metaphor itself. You said the Chicken came before the egg. I said it's possible but can you prove it? And you responded by telling me to prove the egg came first. That's why the metaphor didn't make sence, you were basically ordering me to prove a claim that I never made in the first place.

My point was that neither can be proved.

The issue with the category or "reproduction" in the crtria is that its a 2 way street.

One does not need parents to qualify for the category if they can become parents or reproduse in some way.

So it doesnt matter is the chicken [parent] or the egg [that which was re-produced] came first.

My point is that I never claimed that which was re-produced came first and you asked me to prove it to back up this claim which I never made. Hence the saying, the way you worded it, did not apply to what I said. The only way it would apply the way you wrote it is if I actully tried to make a claim saying that which was re-produced came first which I never did. In fact, I never claimed either came first hence my original statement that I can't be proved wrong. You on the other made the claim that the AllSparkers fit under the catigory of reproduction and stated that they do in fact fit that catigory because "just because they don't have parrents doesn't mean they can't become parrents." But you can't prove that they can become parrents so you can't prove that they are capable of reproduction. You made a claim that the chicken came first. I made no such claim that the egg came first.

Because we built them is a statement of fact, a fact which is the reason for my opinion which preseeds it.

You didnt word it as an opinion and you neglected to factor in what the cube did to those devises.

Thats why you were wrong.[/quote]

Why should I have to factor in that which can not be proven?

And maybe it wasn't worded right, it was still ment as an opinion. It was in the review I wrote for ROTF and everything in that review was nothing but "opinion because reason" and the reasons I have for my opinions are useually facts not unknown possible circumstances. In any case, you can say my wording was wrong but what I was trying to say is still an opinion and still can not be proven right or wrong.

I can back it up because what the cube did to them does not change that fact.

You cant back it up because ewhat the cube might have done does change the fact of what they might be.

What they might be has nothing to do with it. That's not the fact I claimed. The fact I claimed was that they were built by humans which, no matter what the AllSpark might have done, is still a fact.

In case that was too complicated for you here's the simple version.

Nothing from you could ever be "too complicated"

And yet you offten haven't got a clue what the hell it is I'm saying. Hell some times I don't know what I'm saying. I know what I'm trying to say but end up confusing myself while translating it to others.

Even if you could prove for a fact that the AllSparkers were organic it would not change the fact that they were originally pieces of technoligy created by humans and that is the only fact I stated in that quote.

that was not the only fact you stated.

Yes it was. Don't tell me what I wrote.

No, as I said before. That's YOUR mistake.

I made no mistake.

I researched every word I quoted to make sure I understood what I was talking about.The info was correct.

Your understanding of the info was wrong.

You made the mistake of quoting words and terms you had little understanding of.

Thats your mistake.

I've told you before....if you go around quoting info you dont understand incorrectly then your the one thats wrong.

Really simple. YOU quoted the information. YOU did not quote all of it. If YOU are going to post the information YOU looked up for others to read YOU need to make sure others are going to understand it. It was YOUR quote, with YOUR information, that YOU provided, to prove YOUR case.

I am only to look at the evidence YOU provide. I'm not going to look up evidence for YOU to help YOUR case. Why would I even want to do that? YOU'RE the defendant, YOU can defend YOURSELF. I am not and should not be exspected to help YOU unless I'm actully agreeing with YOU which I'm not. Hence it's all YOUR fault.

If you were in a court room being sued would exspect the person sueing you to help you counter sue them?

Here's a simple version for you. In order for me as the reader to be at fault I have to actully have all of the text I'm supose to be reading. Then and only then can you blame my reading skills. Otherwise it's your fault as the wrighter that I can't understand what you're trying to prove by providing the criteria if you leave part of it out.

Sorry but thats totally incorrect.

Mainly because when you quoted the words you transformed into the writter and were no longer the reader.

That's really pathetic. Sorry, but no, I pressed a little button that said "quote" and the computer did all the wrighting for me. If I had actully wrighten all of it by hand then sure, I would be the wrighter but it still doesn't change anything. I'm not the ORIGINAL wrighter, I'm the reader.

when you quote it you are making it your own.

Wow, you have a poor understanding of what a quote is. Quotes are EXACT COPIES of things wrighten by other people. Quoteing them does not make the quote your own. If it did people would be sued on a daily basis for quoteing movies and other things which are copy righted. Now if you reword it so that you are saying something else with the same meaning then it's no longer a quote and then you have it your own. And by the way, I've heard this from every english teacher I've ever had. "Wright it in your own words, don't just wright quotes."

If your in school and someone gives you the wrong answers to a test and you use them, then your going to fail on those questions right???

Doesn't matter, I'm not takeing a test. You're providing evidence to prove a case and by looking up evidence that you provide I'd be helping you to find evidence to prove your case which I shouldn't be exspected to be. Pretend I'm sueing you.

How should of known to look up the meaning of the word and how it applied when I thought it was allready there in the quote, hence what you left out.

Why would the meaning of the word and how it applied to organics already be there????

Because that's the case you were trying to prove so why would you want to leave out evidence in your own case?

But there was no need to tell you that you sholuld look up how it applies to the organic or biological because thats part of the topic and theme of my post.

But there is a need to tell me and I shouldn't have to look it up BECAUSE that's part of the topic and theme of your post. It's evidence in part of the case which you are or were trying to prove to me. What logical reason would there be for me to look for evidence to help a case that I have no part in trying to prove correct? You're the one with something to prove and you're the one who should of supplied the evidence.

And? That sounds like a mistake on the movie's part to me. What was shown was suposidly the same thing she was looking at.

Or he was mimicing the appearance of that engine.

Now I'm confused again. How could he be mimicing the appearance of that engine when you just said he didn't have that engine?

You said they fit the criteria.

and they do.

Prove it.

OK why?

Does it really matter??

Yes, ALOT. The reason for why they were chaseing him tells alot about wheather or not it was part of adaption.

For example. If for some reason a person got lost in the wilderness away from civilization they would have to adapt and hunt for food. But people hunt for sport as well which has nothing to do with adapting.

Into 2 catigorys yes, 2 out of 7.

No, not exactly. You claimed they fit into MOST of the 7 and 2 hardly qualifys as MOST.

But you havent been able to refute the others effectively.

I don't have to. I never stated any facts. You claimed they fit the criteria and all I had to do was show that there wasn't enough evidence to prove it.

I didn't understand how what you applied to what I said. There's a two way street here, don't automatically assume that I just don't understand what you said.

Again your the only one not getting it.

Nope, you haven't got ALOT of what I've been saying which is preddy obvious when you're asking me to prove claims which I haven't made.

The only fact I claimed was the dialog.

That's not the only fact you claimed.

And BTW I have added bold lettering to all your quotes this time showing every single statement of fact you have made and failed to prove.

And you still failed to grasp the basics.

Everything I said has been backed up.

So if you want to keep trying....go ahead and waste your time.

No it hasn't.

You claimed multiple times that the Transformers fit most of the criteria. Only 2 of the criteria can be and have been indisputidly proven as facts. The other 5 criteria are still up for debate as none of them have any sufficent evidence to be proven as facts.

There are two of the criteria, Growth and Reproduction, that for all Transformers except thoughs created by the AllSpark I would think fit however I, unlike you, have never claimed that they do for a fact because unlike you I realize that the evidence isn't suffecient to prove it.

Ok theres hatchlings in revenge of the Fallen. They're clearly baby transformers. How they were made isn't show(I wasn't looking for any robo-porn hehe, so Im glad.), but they re surrounded in a blue gooy fluid(which also came out of Blackout when he was airstriked to death.), thats sure as heck not something a car runs on. If said Hatchlings did not grow they'd be utterly useless to Megatron and Starscream. They wouldn't bother being concerned about them dying if thats as big as they got. Logical answer is they freaking grow.(which they grow their ammo.)

Transformers have been show reproduce asexually in other fictions, besides simply creating more out of materials. Regardless of origin its same thing. I mean the Technobots were never referred to as inferior to the aerialbots simply cause one was forged by Vector Sigma the natural way, or other was manufactured.

It be no different than a human being cloned and made by the robots in the matrix and ones being born naturally.Their DNA still capable, as they're still humans. Artifical replication is still replication.

You seems see organic based machines as illogical, but the fact is machines can be made out of organic materials. Just cause doesn't make any sense to you doesn't mean it doesn't make sense. You can make batteries out of potatoes. Plants are made into syntheic materials and plastics. If one side can be true, why can't the reverse?

The Plant girl in beast machines was litterally that, as they were putting organic material into robots and merging both technology and organic material.

Rial Vestro wrote:I am paying attention but you seem to be missing the point and I have to spell it out for you.

You could never spell anything out for me.

You keep saying that they do, in fact fit the criteria. They do NOT IN FACT fit the criteria. They POSSIBLY fit the criteria.

Sorry but no.

They fit most of the criteria and you failed to demenstrate how they dont.

As I showed earlier in my last cretique of each of the 7 standards only 2 of them can actully be proven to fit the Transformers and only 1 can be proven to fit the AllSparkers.

You meen as you failed to show.

Here are all 7 again.

And read it carfully this time.

Since there is no unequivocal definition of life, the current understanding is descriptive. Therefore, life is a characteristic of organisms that exhibit all or most of the following phenomena.

1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.

We saw TF's [both from Cybertron and AS created bots] leaking fluids....fluids are used in cooling and lubricating their insides.

CHECK
2. Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.

This one is pretty obvious.....since as even you pointed out, everything is made of cells.


CHECK

3. Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.

It appeared that at least as some points they need energy.


CHECK

4.Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.

We saw baby tfs that would have redoubtably grown.We saw damaged TF's heal, thats growth as well.

They grew new arms,legs,eyes.

CHECK

5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.

They transform, some can scan new bodies and they all adapted to new situations.

CHECK
6. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism) and by chemotaxis.

Self explanatory.

CHECK

7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two parent organisms.


Some show signs of offspring, others show signs of cell division.


CHECK

As I said they all fit most of the crtria.

To fit the criteria you said they had to have most of the standards which most would be 4 or more so the fact you keep saying that they even fit the criteria can not be proven.

They do fit.

Still no.

Still no.

There is a logical reason some humans would know exactly what they are. Two logical reasons which I have allready said.

And failed.

1. Sector 7 studied Megatron for over 60 years (I can't remember what the actual number was and too lazy to look it up now.) and reverse enginered technoligy from him.

Now it's possible that Megatron may have lost parts of his organic body in the war if he is organic and what they reverse engeered from was mechanical implants that he had. It's allso possible allthough I highly doubt it that they never got to study his organic componants if he had any at all.

And????

How does that help you?????

Man kind has been studying the "human machine" for as long as recorded history and we are now only just starting to understand how it all functions.

2. In ROTF Humans are STILL calling them robots 2 years later.

I highly doubt that in 2 years of working togeather that the Autobots never once corrected the humans in N.E.S.T.

What need for correction???

They are still robots.

ORGANIC ROBOTS as was said.....as Optimus and Ratchet described themselfs.

If a scientist found a way to build a human in a lab, cell by cell, would that human still be organic????Would he still be called a human????

Technically the answer is yes to both.

On Cybertron, robotic life developed naturally.It is not artificial only.

There's allso a verry logical reason that even though the Transformers said they were organic that they might not be. You do realize that English is not their first language and that there's no reason to belive that they've perfectly translated everything from their language into ours right? They may have misstranslated what they really were into English same as anyone on Earth will some times misstranslate things when speaking in a second language.

And as I said that would be a logical conclusion, your only one I might add, if they didnt fit the crtria.

And BTW, you dont realise how that argument cuts both ways do you????

And again, that's an oximoron. It is impossible to be both at once which I think is evidence of the Transformers misstranslation of what they are into English.

Its not impossible.

And even thou you havent realised it.....you explained it your self.

And now you're claiming fact again.

The fact I'm claiming is that its what they called themselfs.

They would need to correct the humans if they were in fact organic.

Why????If they are organic robots as they claimed both terms are correct.

There you go with that again. No one else has responded to that statement so how do you know I'm the only one?

Every one here as commented on you being wrong or misunderstanding.

If they thought I was wrong, why wouldnt they say something????

Actully, you are.

Actually I'm not.

Everyone please forgive me for dragging you into this.

Lastjustice wrote: They re robotic organisms..meaning they re both organic and robots. No reason something can't be both. It's not a contradiction as the OP seems be insisting.

Lastjustice wrote:Rial , just cause you lack the imagination understand how goes together doesn't make it a contradiction. Life can take many forms, we know too little about the universe to claim everything is an absolutes.

Thats one person thats told you twice you were wrong.

Iron Prime wrote:Rial Vestro I'm trying to understand your point of view.

Iron Prime wrote:After the 'alive debate' we can move on to the organic one - but I think, given the ambiguous manner of the source material (and sci-fi in general), it is not as black and white as you may think it is.

Thats someone that at the very least is telling you your way of looking at it is incorrect.

hellkitty wrote:Third--the quote above actually is a false dilemma. It seems to state that there are two choices

And yet an other that considereds your way of thinking as flawed.

So thats 4 including me.

And including you there are only 6 members participating in this conversation.

And even the other member indicated that he's inclined to believe they are organic if they can reproduce.

Convotron wrote: If Allspark created Transformers can create more Transformers that aren't simply exact copies of themselves then I think that they are as "organic" as other Transformers.

So out of the 6 of us on this conversation....you seem to be the only one not understanding me.

And the funny thing...this is how all our debates go.

No there isn't and I have allready proven it.

No you havent.

1. We have no evidence to suport that any of the liquids seen comming from the Transformers bodies were being created by them or if they were normal car liquids.

Sorry but ordinary car fluids dont day glow white and bright.

Fail 1

2. We have not seen any of the Transformers reproduce. There are HINTS that they can but nothing that can be proven

We saw the babies, we saw signs of cell division.

Fail 2

3. We have not seen that any of the Transformers are capable of Growth. Again, there are HINTS of this but nothing that can be proven.

We saw some grow eyes and e saw others grow new armor [skin] when damaged.

Fail 3

4. We know for a fact that the Transformers need energy but we do not know if they burn energy like a machine or if they have an actual metabolisum.

the fact that they "NEED" energy is an indication that they burn it.

FAIL 4.

And now that you have totally FAILED I hope this is over.

Not. If I failed to demonstrate that then please, by all means, provide your evidence.

Been there, done that.....every time you asked.

See abouve. PROVE IT!

Already have by providing examples.

No, because it was 1 o'clock in the freaking morning and I wanted to go to bed.

No because you failed.

Just like you did now.

No, I made the claim that they can't be proven to fit the criteria.......and in that you still have not provided one shred of solid evidence to prove that they do.

Denial is ugly.

Nope.

Yep.

By saying that they DO fit, you are saying that it's a proven fact.

Excuse me.

Do you even understand what a "criteria" is???

More on this later.

No, obviously, like allways you haven't got a clue what I'm talking about.

Sorry but no.

No, again, YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND ME.

I know what the saying means and I'm telling you, the way that you worded it does not apply to anything that I said.

And I'm telling you it did.

what you dont get is that I wasnt asking you to back up a claim.

What I was saying is that the only way you could prove me wrong was to prove the opposite was true.

Why should I have to factor in that which can not be proven?

Because as even you admitted its a strong possibility and at the same time your trying to argue against it.

When you made your statement of FACT....you excluded the possibility as if you knew you could prove it wrong.

And maybe it wasn't worded right,

Thats a fact.

it was still ment as an opinion. It was in the review I wrote for ROTF

It was in that thread but it wasnt part of the review.

It was the begining of this debate.

What they might be has nothing to do with it.

It has everything to do with it.

And yet you offten haven't got a clue what the hell it is I'm saying.

Because of your poor writting skills....which even you have admitted.

Yes it was. Don't tell me what I wrote.

No it wasnt.

Really simple. YOU quoted the information. YOU did not quote all of it. If YOU are going to post the information YOU looked up for others to read YOU need to make sure others are going to understand it. It was YOUR quote, with YOUR information, that YOU provided, to prove YOUR case.

Really really simple.

You should never quote something you dont fully understand or researched your self.....particular if your trying to argue against it.

If the info is wrong and you qoute it then you are as wrong as the original poster.

And BTW, I left nothing relevant out....and the info was correct.

That's really pathetic. Sorry, but no, I pressed a little button that said "quote" and the computer did all the wrighting for me. If I had actully wrighten all of it by hand then sure, I would be the wrighter but it still doesn't change anything. I'm not the ORIGINAL wrighter, I'm the reader.

Sorry but thats a pathetic excuse for laziness.

It just like you blaiming your poor school for all your bad understanding of things and poor education..

The correct info is out there in the world.Get off your ass and look for it.

Wow, you have a poor understanding of what a quote is. Quotes are EXACT COPIES of things wrighten by other people.

And anytime you use a quote or its context to prove any kind of point you are arguing that you understand what it is your quoting.

When you tried to argue against my info you were making a claim that you understood what you were arguing against....which you obviously didnt.

You didnt understand how the term pretained to the biological and yet you tried to argue it was wrong.

Doesn't matter,

Yes it does.

by looking up evidence that you provide I'd be helping you to find evidence to prove your case which I shouldn't be exspected to be. Pretend I'm sueing you.

Good thing your not a criminal lawyer.

By looking up the evidence I provided you would have been able to make a logical argument, not one based on your misunderstandings.

You have to look up the evidence your arguing agianest to provided a educated argument opposing it.

Think about it....how can you put up a counter argument if you dont understand what the evidence represents????

how can you point to an alternitive argument if you dont understand how the evidence applies????

Hence why your argument failed.

Because that's the case you were trying to prove so why would you want to leave out evidence in your own case?

Sorry but no.

When any word has different meanings depending on the subject matter its the responsibility of the reader to look them up if he doesnt understand.

But there is a need to tell me and I shouldn't have to look it up BECAUSE that's part of the topic and theme of your post.

Sorry but your just lazy.

Now I'm confused again. How could he be mimicing the appearance of that engine when you just said he didn't have that engine?

I ment mimic an engine not that engine.

Yes, ALOT. The reason for why they were chaseing him tells alot about wheather or not it was part of adaption.

The reasons dont matter.

What matters is the actions they took when giving chase.Did they continue chasing when he ducked and weaved.

And that they did and thats addapting.

I don't have to. I never stated any facts. You claimed they fit the criteria and all I had to do was show that there wasn't enough evidence to prove it.

And you failed.

No it hasn't.

yep

You claimed multiple times that the Transformers fit most of the criteria.

And they do.

The other 5 criteria are still up for debate as none of them have any sufficent evidence to be proven as facts.

Even if its debatable they fit.

This prove it.

You just dont understand what a "criteria" repersents.

So let me enlighten you.


A "criteria" is a standard of judgment or criticism; a rule or principle for evaluating or testing something, a guide to trying to establish is a subject fits into a pre-existing category.

Bacicly something can fit all of a criteria and still not be of a category.

Likewise something may not fit the criteria and yet still be of the category.

Here's an example.

When my wife fell into a coma 3 years ago the doc's were trying to figure out why so they could treat her.

When doing so they determined she fit the "criteria" for 7 different neurological disorders.

I repeat..she fit the criteria for 7 different neurological disorders.

Now here's the kicker....she didnt have any of those 7 disorders.

Not one of them.

Test revealed that it was Lupus.

And here's the funny part.

The doctors never considered "Lupus" because she doesnt fit the "criteria" for the illness.

So yes , saying TF's fit the "criteria" is not a statement of facts.

To prove what I'm suggesting wrong you have to provide proof positive.

That post was like a capcom VS series equavilate of a super combo finish of text hehe.

Lastjustice wrote:That post was like a capcom VS series equavilate of a super combo finish of text hehe.

RYU-TEXT

I honestly thought it was more like a Mortal Combat Fatality move.

Lastjustice wrote:Ok theres hatchlings in revenge of the Fallen. They're clearly baby transformers. How they were made isn't show(I wasn't looking for any robo-**** hehe, so Im glad.), but they re surrounded in a blue gooy fluid(which also came out of Blackout when he was airstriked to death.), thats sure as heck not something a car runs on. If said Hatchlings did not grow they'd be utterly useless to Megatron and Starscream. They wouldn't bother being concerned about them dying if thats as big as they got. Logical answer is they freaking grow.(which they grow their ammo.)

Um... there were Decepticons who were SMALLER than the Hatchlings in the movie so obviously they do have some use for smaller Transformers. Allso while robots can't grow you can add parts onto them. Allthough I would agree about the fluids from their egg sacks.

You seems see organic based machines as illogical, but the fact is machines can be made out of organic materials. Just cause doesn't make any sense to you doesn't mean it doesn't make sense. You can make batteries out of potatoes. Plants are made into syntheic materials and plastics. If one side can be true, why can't the reverse?

The Plant girl in beast machines was litterally that, as they were putting organic material into robots and merging both technology and organic material.

Yes but as I said before merging different materials doesn't change what each material is.

I posted a link earlier to a villain group from City of Heroes called the Vahzilok. They are built from both mechanical and organic materials but that does not make them organic robots. They're robotic skelitons covered in organic flesh taken from their victems. Vahzilok reproduce as it were by killing people and useing their parts to build more Vahzilok. They are in every sence machines. They end up looking like zombies and are offten refered to as such but they are not reanimated corpses.

Same thing with Cyborg from Teen Titans. He's an Organic with mechanical parts but he is not an organic robot. Cyborg is actully a human. There was another character who they called Robotman who looked like a robot but they even said that he had an organic brain and was really a cyborg, not a robot. Robocop, same thing, they refered to him as a robot several times in the movies but he wasn't. He had a robotic body but he was still organic, still Murphy, inside.

Whatever any case is where organic and technoligy is combined each part of whatever it is does not change from what it was. They are still whatever they originally were. Transformers as shown in the movie, the Hatchlings were born looking robotic and if they are organic which I do belive they are that means they are simply born with naturally organic metal skin. They would not be born with mechanical implants which would have to be built and as such they would not be organic robots.

I'm going to make this short as I have no desire to drag this out any further.

1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.

We saw TF's [both from Cybertron and AS created bots] leaking fluids....fluids are used in cooling and lubricating their insides.

As you stated before that can only be counted if said fluids are being produced by the Transformers which CAN NOT be proven that they are. It's possible that the fluids we saw were simply normal car fluids not produced by them in which case they would not fit this catigory.

2. Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.

This one is pretty obvious.....since as even you pointed out, everything is made of cells.

Yes but as YOU pointed out afterwards liveing and non-liveing things are made up of different types of cells and we have no way of knowing which type of cells Transformers are made of.

3. Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.[/i]

It appeared that at least as some points they need energy.

As I pointed out before machines need energy as well and your responce to that was that machines burn energy differently than organics do as machines don't have an actual metabolism. So the fact that they need energy is not proof that they fit into this catigory.

4.Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.

We saw baby tfs that would have redoubtably grown.We saw damaged TF's heal, thats growth as well.

They grew new arms,legs,eyes.

While I would agree about the Baby TFs there's no way to actully prove it. The TFs healing could be a result of nanobots repairing them from the inside. This would be a technologically created organic-mimic and not actually organic.

5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.

They transform, some can scan new bodies and they all adapted to new situations.

This is the first one you've said that can actully be proven.

6. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism) and by chemotaxis.

Self explanatory.

Second one to be proven.

7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two parent organisms.


Some show signs of offspring, others show signs of cell division.

This one is debateable. While I'd agree with the Protoforms being naturally born or rather HATCHED offspring it's not really clear what purpus the egg sacks serve.

So as I said, they can not be proven to fit the criteria and you have still failed to provide any solid evidence that they do.

They would need to correct the humans if they were in fact organic.

Why????If they are organic robots as they claimed both terms are correct.

They can only be one or the other, not both.

If they were originally naturally developing life forms then they would be organic, not robots. If they were manufactured in a factory as the TFs in G1 were then they would be robots, not organics. If they were born organic and have lost and replaced parts of their bodies with artificial parts then they are organics, not robots. If they are manufactured machines with organic parts in them then they are robots, not organics.

I don't know how much more clear I can get. Something is not an organic robot just because they have both organic and robotic parts. What they are is determined by what's controlling the complete body, a natural liveing organic or an artifical mechanical inteligence.

Simple as this, if it's naturally developing, it's organic. If it's built, it's a machine. If it's naturally developing then it wasn't built. If it's built then it's not naturally developing. Hence it's impossible to be both at the same time.

There you go with that again. No one else has responded to that statement so how do you know I'm the only one?

Every one here as commented on you being wrong or misunderstanding.

If they thought I was wrong, why wouldnt they say something????

I don't know and I really don't care. That's not the point as to why they wouldn't say something. The point is that they haven't said anything at all and to talk like they did just makes an ass out of yourself and me. That saying about assumeing things you know. So if you're going to make a comment like that saying that I'm the only one who can't understand you, then you better make damn sure that I'm not the only one who's actully responded to you. It's not really a great accomplishment that I'm the only person out of 1 person who doesn't understand and you make it sound like I'm 1 out hundreds.

Iron Prime wrote:Rial Vestro I'm trying to understand your point of view.

Iron Prime wrote:After the 'alive debate' we can move on to the organic one - but I think, given the ambiguous manner of the source material (and sci-fi in general), it is not as black and white as you may think it is.

Thats someone that at the very least is telling you your way of looking at it is incorrect.

You might want to read the bold part again.

So out of the 6 of us on this conversation....you seem to be the only one not understanding me.

And yet non of the quotes said anything about weather or not they understood you. They were all directed at me and had nothing at all to do with you.

1. We have no evidence to suport that any of the liquids seen comming from the Transformers bodies were being created by them or if they were normal car liquids.

Sorry but ordinary car fluids dont day glow white and bright.

Fail 1

Neither do organic fluids and where do you see day glow anyway?

Others have even said that they thought the fluids were normal mechanical fluids not organic ones. I belive it was said in the review topic before I created this.

2. We have not seen any of the Transformers reproduce. There are HINTS that they can but nothing that can be proven

We saw the babies, we saw signs of cell division.

Fail 2

Neither is indisputible.

3. We have not seen that any of the Transformers are capable of Growth. Again, there are HINTS of this but nothing that can be proven.

We saw some grow eyes and e saw others grow new armor [skin] when damaged.

Fail 3

Nanobots have been shown in sci-fi before to be able to mimic the type of healing you're talking about. Still not proof.

4. We know for a fact that the Transformers need energy but we do not know if they burn energy like a machine or if they have an actual metabolisum.

the fact that they "NEED" energy is an indication that they burn it.

FAIL 4.

This failer is obviously yours.

I said before that even mechanical things need energy not just organics. Your defence to that was the MECHANICAL things don't have an actual metamolism and just burn threw energy. Now you're saying something different yet again, just to save your own ass. Well if you want to go back to your original argument I'll go back to mine. Machines need energy too. Either way you put it you can not prove that they have an organic working metabolism or if them use energy like a machine.

And now that YOU have totally failed, I hope this is over.

What I was saying is that the only way you could prove me wrong was to prove the opposite was true.

You still don't get it do you?

You made a claim as a fact. I don't have to prove that the oppisite is true to make you wrong, I only have to prove that your so called fact can't be proven as fact. So when you claim that the chicken came first I don't have to prove that the egg came first to prove you wrong all I have to do is show there's no evidence to prove that the chicken did.

Weather or not the egg came first has nothing to do with it. It's just "the chicken came first vs. can you prove it?" which you can't and that's why you're wrong.

Yes it was. Don't tell me what I wrote.

No it wasnt.

You realize you're not only putting words in my mouth but actully forceing them in my mouth by argueing with me right?

I'm the wrighter, I know more about what I wrote or was trying to wright than you do so do not presume to tell me what it was that I said or we can end this right now.

YES IT WAS!

Wow, you have a poor understanding of what a quote is. Quotes are EXACT COPIES of things wrighten by other people.

And anytime you use a quote or its context to prove any kind of point you are arguing that you understand what it is your quoting.

When you tried to argue against my info you were making a claim that you understood what you were arguing against....which you obviously didnt.

You didnt understand how the term pretained to the biological and yet you tried to argue it was wrong.

Which is still all you. I understood it as you wrote it which you obviously didn't wright it exactly as it was orginally wrighten in whatever you copied it from.

Yes, ALOT. The reason for why they were chaseing him tells alot about wheather or not it was part of adaption.

The reasons dont matter.

What matters is the actions they took when giving chase.Did they continue chasing when he ducked and weaved.

And that they did and thats addapting.

No, that's REACTING. Addapting is to change your way of liveing in a new enviorment or in the case of someone who has just recently been liveing just how he or she survives in whatever enviorment they were brought into. It's about survival basically, addapting to an enviorment so that you can survive in it which nothing they did shows that unless they thought Sam was a threat to their survival hence the reason they were chaseing him has everything to do with it.

The other 5 criteria are still up for debate as none of them have any sufficent evidence to be proven as facts.

Even if its debatable they fit.

When is this oximoron festival ending? If they fit then it's proven fact, it's not debatable. If you're addmitting that it is debateable then you have to addmit that they might not fit. Pick one.

This prove it.

You just dont understand what a "criteria" repersents.

So let me enlighten you.


A "criteria" is a standard of judgment or criticism; a rule or principle for evaluating or testing something, a guide to trying to establish is a subject fits into a pre-existing category.

Bacicly something can fit all of a criteria and still not be of a category.

Likewise something may not fit the criteria and yet still be of the category.

Here's an example.

When my wife fell into a coma 3 years ago the doc's were trying to figure out why so they could treat her.

When doing so they determined she fit the "criteria" for 7 different neurological disorders.

I repeat..she fit the criteria for 7 different neurological disorders.

Now here's the kicker....she didnt have any of those 7 disorders.

Not one of them.

Test revealed that it was Lupus.

And here's the funny part.

The doctors never considered "Lupus" because she doesnt fit the "criteria" for the illness.

So yes , saying TF's fit the "criteria" is not a statement of facts.

To prove what I'm suggesting wrong you have to provide proof positive.

Non of that matters.

You've allready said that something can fit the criteria for being organic and not be but that doesn't change anything.

Fitting the criteria may not be a fact of being organic but it is still a fact of fitting the criteria.

Example. You said that they fit for Homeostasis which in order for that to be true you have to be able to prove that the liquids comming from their bodies are actully being produced by their bodies. As you stated earlier, homeostasis is the production by the body to maintain itself not to add liquid from an outside source. Only one of the two would actully fit, the other would not, and there's no proof which one fits to the Transformers.

Weather or not the criteria proves they're organic is irrelivant at this point. What is relivant is weather or not they can be proven to fit the criteria which they can't.

Rial Vestro wrote:

Iron Prime wrote:Rial Vestro I'm trying to understand your point of view.

Iron Prime wrote:After the 'alive debate' we can move on to the organic one - but I think, given the ambiguous manner of the source material (and sci-fi in general), it is not as black and white as you may think it is.

Thats someone that at the very least is telling you your way of looking at it is incorrect.

You might want to read the bold part again.

By saying that I am trying to understand your point of view do I not imply that I do not understand it (whether that's my fault or yours is another topic)? If I do not fully understand your case/side I cannot support it. That is why I have not argued actively against you yet - I am not confident that I fully understand "where you're coming from."

For the record I used that statement in a effort to diplomatically and politely prod you to re-present or rephrase your case. I am actually on sto_vo_kor_2000's "side" - and yes, I do understand him (usually perfectly). Remember that just because you understand someone does not mean you agree with them.

"Black and white" was another attempt at prodding. I feel that sto_vo_kor_2000 has actually already covered how vague the topics of organic, life/alive, etc can be.

Rial Vestro wrote:if they are organic which I do belive they are that means they are simply born with naturally organic metal skin.

You seem to get very close to grasping the idea of how they could exist as both - but then you simply dismiss it. I encourage you to allow your mind to let go of black and white rules and let your imagination wander with this one.


I am curious if you would choose to classify viruses as alive and/or organic then. They do not reproduce in the strictest sense of the word - they 'trick' the cells of an organism in to replicating copies of the virus and not copies of the cells. Just an abstract though, I'm typing this quickly on my lunch break so I haven't thought this one all the way through yet: there may be some holes.....


(rant)There is no way someone can reasonably know the level of vocabulary, scientific knowledge/experience, etc someone else who may be reading their text. If college and employment have taught me anything it is that if you (rhetorical, not you personally) do not know or understand something it is your own responsibility to try and find out - not the write/presenter/speaker's. (/ rant)

Rial Vestro wrote:Yes but as I said before merging different materials doesn't change what each material is..

But what your not getting is that a machine can be made from biological material alone.

the Hatchlings were born looking robotic and if they are organic which I do belive they are that means they are simply born with naturally organic metal skin. They would not be born with mechanical implants which would have to be built and as such they would not be organic robots.

I would say your about half way there.

Rial Vestro wrote:I'm going to make this short as I have no desire to drag this out any further..

And I'll try to keep it as short.

1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.

We saw TF's [both from Cybertron and AS created bots] leaking fluids....fluids are used in cooling and lubricating their insides.

As you stated before that can only be counted if said fluids are being produced by the Transformers which CAN NOT be proven that they are. It's possible that the fluids we saw were simply normal car fluids not produced by them in which case they would not fit this catigory..

Actually thats not exactly what I said.

When you brought up that cretin machines also show signs of Homeostasis I brought up how a machine differs from the biological in the category of Homeostasis.

and its apparent you still dont understand how a crteia works.

I'll try to explain further later......

2. Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.

This one is pretty obvious.....since as even you pointed out, everything is made of cells.

Yes but as YOU pointed out afterwards liveing and non-liveing things are made up of different types of cells and we have no way of knowing which type of cells Transformers are made of.

Which is rather pointless since we would have no reason to assume that what constute a living cell on earth would be the same on an other world.

But this much is evident.

We here that their armored skinn could heal and regenerate.Thats an other sign of living cells.

3. Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.[/i]

It appeared that at least as some points they need energy.

As I pointed out before machines need energy as well and your responce to that was that machines burn energy differently than organics do as machines don't have an actual metabolism. So the fact that they need energy is not proof that they fit into this catigory.

Machines typically shut down with no energy.

The TF babies suffered and didnt develop correctly because of a poor energy source.I believe it was either Starscream or the Fallen that commented that they needed a better energy source.

Much like people need better nutritional source of food.Those are signs of a metabolism.

And again your misunderstanding of the word "crtira" is showing.

4.Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.

We saw baby tfs that would have redoubtably grown.We saw damaged TF's heal, thats growth as well.

They grew new arms,legs,eyes.

While I would agree about the Baby TFs there's no way to actully prove it. The TFs healing could be a result of nanobots repairing them from the inside. This would be a technologically created organic-mimic and not actually organic.

And????

Even an alternative possible explanation doesnt change the fact that they fit the catagory.

And besides.....repairing nanobots could be part of their natural healing, much like us growing new skin cells.

5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.

They transform, some can scan new bodies and they all adapted to new situations.

This is the first one you've said that can actully be proven.

Everything I said can be applied.

"Crtrias" are not to be proven.....all that is needed is examples to fit the puzzle.

6. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism) and by chemotaxis.

Self explanatory.

Second one to be proven.

Same as above.

7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two parent organisms.


Some show signs of offspring, others show signs of cell division.

This one is debateable.

Which meens it fits the critria.

So as I said, they can not be proven to fit the criteria and you have still failed to provide any solid evidence that they do.

So as I said before they do fit the critra and you have "FAILED" to prove other wise and still dont understand what a crtreia is or represents.

I'm going to try to make this very simple.

Lets say you ask me to pick a number between "NEIGHBORHOOD" of 150 and 200

So my "critira" is to guess a number between 150 and 200.So if I guess 185.

Now I may not hve the right answer....but my answer did fit the "Critira".

Saying that TF's fit the crtira or being organic is not something to be proven.

If they show signs of it then they are in the "NEIGHBORHOOD" of being organic.....hence they fit the critra.

They can only be one or the other, not both.

Incorrect for a number of reasons.

Simple as this, if it's naturally developing, it's organic. If it's built, it's a machine. If it's naturally developing then it wasn't built. If it's built then it's not naturally developing. Hence it's impossible to be both at the same time.

Simple as this....your imagination is poor.

Your making the same mistake your accusing the Autobots of making.

And if you dont see what I'm talking about its the language translation mistake.

If you dont get it ask me.

I don't know and I really don't care.

Obviously you do care oitherwise you wouldnt have replied.

That's not the point as to why they wouldn't say something. The point is that they haven't said anything at all and to talk like they did just makes an ass out of yourself and me.

Out of you mybe.

each one of them has made a comment or an other....all casting doubt on your way of thinking.

Iron Prime wrote:Rial Vestro I'm trying to understand your point of view.

Iron Prime wrote:After the 'alive debate' we can move on to the organic one - but I think, given the ambiguous manner of the source material (and sci-fi in general), it is not as black and white as you may think it is.

Thats someone that at the very least is telling you your way of looking at it is incorrect.

You might want to read the bold part again.[/quote]

I did.

As he said "he's trying to understand you".Which obviously if he's trying he's not understanding.He then then says the issue "is not as black and white as you may think it is".Which is questioning your way of thinking.

And yet non of the quotes said anything about weather or not they understood you.

Why would they question you but not me in the same conversation???

They were all directed at me and had nothing at all to do with you.

Actully both "Hellkitties" and "Lastjustice" comments refranced me as well but neither questioned me.

Neither do organic fluids

In humans....no.

But in a TF????

Point is it cant be a regular car fluid as you suggested.

and where do you see day glow anyway?

When Megatron rips Jazz in half.

Neither is indisputible.

Doesnt have to be.

To fit the critira all I have to do is point out signs of it.

Nanobots have been shown in sci-fi before to be able to mimic the type of healing you're talking about. Still not proof.

Proof is not whats needed.

Just signs of it.

And I adressed the nanobot issue above.

This failer is obviously yours.

I said before that even mechanical things need energy not just organics. Your defence to that was the MECHANICAL things don't have an actual metamolism and just burn threw energy. Now you're saying something different yet again, just to save your own ass. Well if you want to go back to your original argument I'll go back to mine. Machines need energy too. Either way you put it you can not prove that they have an organic working metabolism or if them use energy like a machine.

Sorry but the failur is in your poor reading skills.

And now that YOU have totally failed, I hope this is over.

You still don't get it do you?

I'm not the one that doesnt get it.

You made a claim as a fact.

No you did.

And I proved that already twice.

I also proved your so called facts to be wrong.

The only fact I claimed was what was in the dialog.

And thats a fact.

A critria is not a tool of faxct.....its a stasndered of qualification.

Its a guide to compare things to.

Just because a peace fits the puzzle does not meen its actully part of the puzzle.

Saying they fit the critria is not something that is a statement of fact.

I don't have to prove that the oppisite is true to make you wrong,

You do..... and that's why you're wrong.

You realize you're not only putting words in my mouth but actully forceing them in my mouth by argueing with me right?

Nope just telling the truth.

I'm the wrighter, I know more about what I wrote or was trying to wright than you do so do not presume to tell me what it was that I said or we can end this right now.

Your the writter....with admitted poor writting skills and often mis-words what you are writting.

This is something you have admitted is a problem you have countless times.

So I will presume to tell you what you wrote.

It may not be what you intended but it is how it was worded and how it read.

Instead of getting upset I suggest you chose your words more carefully.

YES IT WAS!

NO IT WASN'T!!

Which is still all you. I understood it as you wrote it which you obviously didn't wright it exactly as it was orginally wrighten in whatever you copied it from.

Which is all on you.

If you didnt know that the word applied differently when talking about organics you should have looked it up.

I honestly dont understand how anyone would launch an argument about something with out looking up the details of that topic.

Thats your mistake.

No, that's REACTING.

Sorry but even reacting is a form of adapting.

Because your reaction is the result of something.

A reaction is the end result of something that has happened, it requires that one adapted to that situation.

When is this oximoron festival ending?

There is no oximoran.

If they fit then it's proven fact, it's not debatable. If you're addmitting that it is debateable then you have to addmit that they might not fit. Pick one.

You got it completely backwards.....because you just dont understand what a critira represents.

Fitting the criteria may not be a fact of being organic but it is still a fact of fitting the criteria.

Whats????

[/
quote]Example. You said that they fit for Homeostasis which in order for that to be true you have to be able to prove that the liquids comming from their bodies are actully being produced by their bodies. [/quote]

Your confused again.

Actually to say they fit the critira all I have to prove is signs of coolant.

To say they are actually organic I need to prove that some of the cooloants are produced naturally.

Weather or not the criteria proves they're organic is irrelivant at this point. What is relivant is weather or not they can be proven to fit the criteria which they can't.

You still dont get it.

"The critra can never prove anything.

Its not a test that has a distinctive answer.

Its just a guide to be met when considering wether something is organic.

I repeat.

The critria can not prove anything.

What is needed to fit the critria is signs,hints,examples of the listed phenomenon.

Which I provided.They do fit the critira.

Iron Prime wrote:

Rial Vestro wrote:

Iron Prime wrote:Rial Vestro I'm trying to understand your point of view.

Iron Prime wrote:After the 'alive debate' we can move on to the organic one - but I think, given the ambiguous manner of the source material (and sci-fi in general), it is not as black and white as you may think it is.

Thats someone that at the very least is telling you your way of looking at it is incorrect.

You might want to read the bold part again.

By saying that I am trying to understand your point of view do I not imply that I do not understand it (whether that's my fault or yours is another topic)? If I do not fully understand your case/side I cannot support it. That is why I have not argued actively against you yet - I am not confident that I fully understand "where you're coming from."

For the record I used that statement in a effort to diplomatically and politely prod you to re-present or rephrase your case. I am actually on sto_vo_kor_2000's "side" - and yes, I do understand him (usually perfectly). Remember that just because you understand someone does not mean you agree with them.

"Black and white" was another attempt at prodding. I feel that sto_vo_kor_2000 has actually already covered how vague the topics of organic, life/alive, etc can be.

Rial Vestro wrote:if they are organic which I do belive they are that means they are simply born with naturally organic metal skin.

You seem to get very close to grasping the idea of how they could exist as both - but then you simply dismiss it. I encourage you to allow your mind to let go of black and white rules and let your imagination wander with this one.


I am curious if you would choose to classify viruses as alive and/or organic then. They do not reproduce in the strictest sense of the word - they 'trick' the cells of an organism in to replicating copies of the virus and not copies of the cells. Just an abstract though, I'm typing this quickly on my lunch break so I haven't thought this one all the way through yet: there may be some holes.....

(rant)There is no way someone can reasonably know the level of vocabulary, scientific knowledge/experience, etc someone else who may be reading their text. If college and employment have taught me anything it is that if you (rhetorical, not you personally) do not know or understand something it is your own responsibility to try and find out - not the write/presenter/speaker's. (/ rant)

Thank you very much.

And I'm sorry you got pulled into this.

P.S. I loved the last part.....so I made it bigger and red to stand out.

Just incase he missed it the first time.

personally, I don't even think the hatchlngs were organic, eah they were in pods, but for all we know, that could have been more for while their systems and personalities developed. or, for all we know, they could hav ebeen built in those, by nanobots, small miniscule peice by small miniscule piece, making sort of a robotic version of 'growing', there's alot that both movies don't bother to explain

Iron Prime wrote:By saying that I am trying to understand your point of view do I not imply that I do not understand it (whether that's my fault or yours is another topic)? If I do not fully understand your case/side I cannot support it. That is why I have not argued actively against you yet - I am not confident that I fully understand "where you're coming from."

Sorry if you thought my reply was directed at you, it was ment for Sto. Sto was useing your quote to try and say you were telling me that I was wrong. He apperently didn't see the "trying to understand what it was I was saying" part of your post.

For the record I used that statement in a effort to diplomatically and politely prod you to re-present or rephrase your case. I am actually on sto_vo_kor_2000's "side" - and yes, I do understand him (usually perfectly). Remember that just because you understand someone does not mean you agree with them.

Again, the comment was just ment for Sto sence he was assumeing something that had never actully been said before this. I normally can understand him myself but there are times when I don't and there's been a few times recently where I've said I couldn't understand a particular comment and then rather than trying to rephraise it he's just made that "everyone else" comment when no one else has really said anything.

Still even if it was true that everyone else but me understands it's rather rude and insulting to point it out. If it was actully true that would be the equivilant of telling me how stupid I was compaired to everyone else so either way weather it's true or not I really wish he wouldn't make such comments that can easily be taken as insulting.

I am curious if you would choose to classify viruses as alive and/or organic then. They do not reproduce in the strictest sense of the word - they 'trick' the cells of an organism in to replicating copies of the virus and not copies of the cells. Just an abstract though, I'm typing this quickly on my lunch break so I haven't thought this one all the way through yet: there may be some holes.....

Well both organics and machines get viruses you know. Well, computers to be more spicific on the machine part of it. In any case, that's a little harder to exsplain sence I don't know much about either one but I would say if it's contracted by an organic it is organic and by a computer isn't. Simple as that.

(rant)There is no way someone can reasonably know the level of vocabulary, scientific knowledge/experience, etc someone else who may be reading their text. If college and employment have taught me anything it is that if you (rhetorical, not you personally) do not know or understand something it is your own responsibility to try and find out - not the write/presenter/speaker's. (/ rant)

It's my exsperience that no reader no matter how well they know the material can possibly know exactly what the wrighter was trying to say when said wrighter wrote whatever it is the reader read. This is preddy obvious with just about anything I have wrighten allthough I'm addmittedly not that great at communicating to others.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Rial Vestro wrote:Yes but as I said before merging different materials doesn't change what each material is..

But what your not getting is that a machine can be made from biological material alone.

OK, you've just made this really easy for me. I never asked what material they were made of I asked weather they as a race were a technoligy based or an organic based one. Which if they are technoligy, if they are robots, they are not organic. They may have organic componants sure, but that was never what I was trying to find out.

1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.

We saw TF's [both from Cybertron and AS created bots] leaking fluids....fluids are used in cooling and lubricating their insides.

As you stated before that can only be counted if said fluids are being produced by the Transformers which CAN NOT be proven that they are. It's possible that the fluids we saw were simply normal car fluids not produced by them in which case they would not fit this catigory..

Actually thats not exactly what I said.

When you brought up that cretin machines also show signs of Homeostasis I brought up how a machine differs from the biological in the category of Homeostasis.

Still as long as there's a difinitave difference between the two it can not be counted unless you can prove it one way or the other.

2. Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.

This one is pretty obvious.....since as even you pointed out, everything is made of cells.

Yes but as YOU pointed out afterwards liveing and non-liveing things are made up of different types of cells and we have no way of knowing which type of cells Transformers are made of.

Which is rather pointless since we would have no reason to assume that what constute a living cell on earth would be the same on an other world.

But this much is evident.

We here that their armored skinn could heal and regenerate.Thats an other sign of living cells.

Or Nanobots. And not really going to try argue this one any further.

3. Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.[/i]

It appeared that at least as some points they need energy.

As I pointed out before machines need energy as well and your responce to that was that machines burn energy differently than organics do as machines don't have an actual metabolism. So the fact that they need energy is not proof that they fit into this catigory.

Machines typically shut down with no energy.

The TF babies suffered and didnt develop correctly because of a poor energy source.I believe it was either Starscream or the Fallen that commented that they needed a better energy source.

Much like people need better nutritional source of food.Those are signs of a metabolism.

And again your misunderstanding of the word "crtira" is showing.

Starscream said they needed more Energon. The Fallen and Megatron were there as well but their voices are much deeper than Starscream's.

And machines don't just out right shut down. They start functioning poorly when the energy source is low and only shut down completly when it's been drained all the way. Ever notice how much brighter a flash light is with brand new batteries as apposed to the same flash light a few months later.

4.Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.

We saw baby tfs that would have redoubtably grown.We saw damaged TF's heal, thats growth as well.

They grew new arms,legs,eyes.

While I would agree about the Baby TFs there's no way to actully prove it. The TFs healing could be a result of nanobots repairing them from the inside. This would be a technologically created organic-mimic and not actually organic.

And????

Even an alternative possible explanation doesnt change the fact that they fit the catagory.

And besides.....repairing nanobots could be part of their natural healing, much like us growing new skin cells.

Nope. An alternative possible exsplanation DOES change the LACK OF fact that they fit the catagory. Or at least it does when the alternitive is technological and not biological.

There's nothing natural about nanobots. They're purely technoligy based, introduced into sci-fi as microscopic robots that can be used to repair things that humans can not. I belive the first time someone talked about the concept of nanobots they injected them into a human and they basically worked in the same way as the worms that Fry ate in an episode of Futurama.

Nothing to do with this subject but would be great if we had the technoligy in real life to create nanobots.

5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.

They transform, some can scan new bodies and they all adapted to new situations.

This is the first one you've said that can actully be proven.

Everything I said can be applied.

"Crtrias" are not to be proven.....all that is needed is examples to fit the puzzle.

And yet you keep stateing them as facts as if they are proven.

7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two parent organisms.


Some show signs of offspring, others show signs of cell division.

This one is debateable.

Which meens it fits the critria.

Which means IT'S DEBATEABLE.

So as I said, they can not be proven to fit the criteria and you have still failed to provide any solid evidence that they do.

So as I said before they do fit the critra and you have "FAILED" to prove other wise and still dont understand what a crtreia is or represents.

I'm going to try to make this very simple.

Lets say you ask me to pick a number between "NEIGHBORHOOD" of 150 and 200

So my "critira" is to guess a number between 150 and 200.So if I guess 185.

Now I may not hve the right answer....but my answer did fit the "Critira".

Saying that TF's fit the crtira or being organic is not something to be proven.

If they show signs of it then they are in the "NEIGHBORHOOD" of being organic.....hence they fit the critra.

You either don't understand what I'm saying or you don't understand what you yourself just said. I'll use your own example to exsplain.

If I ask you to pick a number between 150 and 200 that being the criteria. You make a guess at 185 which no matter what number I was thinking of 185 is a proven fact that is a number between 150 and 200.

Whatever you're trying to get at with the criteria, in this case weather or not something is organic, is irrelivant. The criteria may not be proof of that but something can still be proven to fit it.

Example again. I tell you to pick a number between 2 and 51 and you pick 581. That number does not fit the criteria I gave you. 581 is WAY out of the range of 2 and 51.

As I said before, it's not the "they are organic" that is the fact it's they "they fit the criteria" that is stated as a fact.

With the number example you gave. The criteria doesn't prove what number I might be thinking of but you do know for a fact that the number is between the two I gave you and not beyond it. By includeing the Transformers in the other catigorys of the criteria you could be going BEYOND the set criteria.

BTW the number thing is kind of a bad example as the organic criteria is not as clear cut as just picking a number but I can't think of a better one and I'd like to go to bed soon.

They can only be one or the other, not both.

Incorrect for a number of reasons.

What reasons would thoughs be?

Simple as this, if it's naturally developing, it's organic. If it's built, it's a machine. If it's naturally developing then it wasn't built. If it's built then it's not naturally developing. Hence it's impossible to be both at the same time.

Simple as this....your imagination is poor.

Your making the same mistake your accusing the Autobots of making.

And if you dont see what I'm talking about its the language translation mistake.

If you dont get it ask me.

First off I didn't ACCUSE them of anything. I said they MIGHT have not that they DID.

Secondly, exsplain please.

That's not the point as to why they wouldn't say something. The point is that they haven't said anything at all and to talk like they did just makes an ass out of yourself and me.

Out of you mybe.

each one of them has made a comment or an other....all casting doubt on your way of thinking.

Technically at least one of them said he didn't even have a clear understanding of my way of thinking and that might be true for all of them. Hell, I don't even think you have a grasp on it yet.

And yet non of the quotes said anything about weather or not they understood you.

Why would they question you but not me in the same conversation???

Hell if I know, I don't prosume to know or even understand how other people think and react to eachother.

Neither do organic fluids

In humans....no.

But in a TF????

Point is it cant be a regular car fluid as you suggested.

You know that argument works both ways right? It might not be a car fluid found on Earth but could be regular mechanical fluids found on Cybertron.

and where do you see day glow anyway?

When Megatron rips Jazz in half.

I'm going to blame my bad eye sight on this one and move on. I didn't see anything liquid come out when Jazz was ripped in half.

This failer is obviously yours.

I said before that even mechanical things need energy not just organics. Your defence to that was the MECHANICAL things don't have an actual metamolism and just burn threw energy. Now you're saying something different yet again, just to save your own ass. Well if you want to go back to your original argument I'll go back to mine. Machines need energy too. Either way you put it you can not prove that they have an organic working metabolism or if them use energy like a machine.

Sorry but the failur is in your poor reading skills.

Has nothing to do with my poor reading. Either you're jumping back and fourth between two verry different arguments both which have been utter failer or you just aren't being verry clear in either case.

A critria is not a tool of faxct.....its a stasndered of qualification.

Its a guide to compare things to.

Just because a peace fits the puzzle does not meen its actully part of the puzzle.

Saying they fit the critria is not something that is a statement of fact.

Yes it is as I've allready exsplained twice and here it is again.

Criteria = Guess what number I am thinking between 1-100

Your answer = 23

My Answer = 42

You are wrong about the number but right that about criteria, 23 does in fact come between 1-100.

I'm not saying that you're wrong about the number you are guessing, I'm saying that you may be wrong about that number fitting the critera you're supose to be guessing in.

I just thought of a better example.

Lets say I'm thinking of a letter. It can be any letter between Capitol A and lower case z. Now the criteria is Capitol A- lower case z. The letter I'm thinking of is a capitol J. You say every letter from a-z but you do never specify capitol or lower case and I tell you that you're wrong on each guess. Any letter would fit the critera ONLY if you specified one or the other and you specified neither. So even though I gave you the entire alphabit to choose from you still never guessed within the set criteria by useing either a capitol or lower case letter.

If a Transformer needs to produce fluids in his or her own body and not have them introduced from an outside source to fit the criteria given than...

1. the liquid criteria represents CAPITOL A - lower case z

2. Transformers represent unspecifed letters of the alphabet

3. CAPITOL letters represents fluids produced by the body

4. lower case letters represents fluids introduced from an outside source.

Given the example in bold, I hope you understand now why it can not be proven that the Transformers fit the criteria. You're insisting that an unspecified letter can fit a critera that requires you to specify either capitol or lower case.

I'm the wrighter, I know more about what I wrote or was trying to wright than you do so do not presume to tell me what it was that I said or we can end this right now.

Your the writter....with admitted poor writting skills and often mis-words what you are writting.

This is something you have admitted is a problem you have countless times.

So I will presume to tell you what you wrote.

It may not be what you intended but it is how it was worded and how it read.

While yes I do have admittidly poor wrighting skills that is still no exscuse for what you have done. Once you start argueing with a wrighter about what they wrote then you're no longer talking to them about what they wrote but are actully trying to tell them what they INTENDED to wright which you as a reader have no right to do. The simple fact you addmitted that "it may not be what I intended" means that you should of dropped the subject pages ago after I corrected my mistake insted of continueing to argue with me about it. By argueing with me about it you are presumeing to tell me what my own intentions were when I wrote it. Now I'm going to ask you to stop this for the last time.

No, that's REACTING.

Sorry but even reacting is a form of adapting.

Because your reaction is the result of something.

A reaction is the end result of something that has happened, it requires that one adapted to that situation.

For every action there is an equil and oppisite reaction. A reaction is not nessisarily a sign of addaption. Example: Action. A kid throws a ball at a window. Reaction: The window breaks. Windows are of course non-liveing things and all non-liveing things react to actions us liveing things make.

Fitting the criteria may not be a fact of being organic but it is still a fact of fitting the criteria.

Whats????

Exsplained abouve somewhere.

Example. You said that they fit for Homeostasis which in order for that to be true you have to be able to prove that the liquids comming from their bodies are actully being produced by their bodies.

Your confused again.

Actually to say they fit the critira all I have to prove is signs of coolant.

To say they are actually organic I need to prove that some of the cooloants are produced naturally.[/quote]

Well then it's just another example of you not being verry clear then.

Weather or not the criteria proves they're organic is irrelivant at this point. What is relivant is weather or not they can be proven to fit the criteria which they can't.

You still dont get it.

"The critra can never prove anything.

Its not a test that has a distinctive answer.

Its just a guide to be met when considering wether something is organic.

I repeat.

The critria can not prove anything.

What is needed to fit the critria is signs,hints,examples of the listed phenomenon.

Which I provided.They do fit the critira.

I repeat. I didn't say the criteria could prove anything. I said you had to prove that they fit the criteria. I don't know how to say this any clearer than that.

The criteria = I'm thinking of a number between 1-100

The answer is 42 but it's irrellvant.

Wheather you pick 42 or 23 it's still a fact that both thoughs numbers fit the criteria. Now if you pick any number after 100 it's a fact that you've gone beyond the set criteria. So claiming something fits the criteria is still claiming a fact even if the criteria is not proof a fact.

Or

The fact that Transformers fit the criteria for Adaption is not proof that they are organic for a fact.

OR

Saying something fits a criteria is not proof of fact A but it is a claim of fact B.

Basically like I've been saying, you have no idea what I'm talking about as you still think I'm talking about fact A when I've tried to exsplain several times, several different ways that I'm talking about fact B NOT fact A.

Grendel wrote:personally, I don't even think the hatchlngs were organic, eah they were in pods, but for all we know, that could have been more for while their systems and personalities developed. or, for all we know, they could hav ebeen built in those, by nanobots, small miniscule peice by small miniscule piece, making sort of a robotic version of 'growing', there's alot that both movies don't bother to explain

I was wondering when someone was going to pop in with a counter point to exsplain how the Protoforms might be mechanical.

But how does that exsplain why the pods and the goo that came out of them look so organic?

Grendel wrote: there's alot that both movies don't bother to explain

that much is true.

Rial Vestro wrote:Again, the comment was just ment for Sto sence he was assumeing something that had never actully been said before this.

Hardly.

You just dont know how to read the subtle comments.

Still even if it was true that everyone else but me understands it's rather rude and insulting to point it out. If it was actully true that would be the equivilant of telling me how stupid I was compaired to everyone else so either way weather it's true or not I really wish he wouldn't make such comments that can easily be taken as insulting.

And yet you dont find it rude an insulting to keep telling people that they are being contradicting or wrong when its just as possible that its you not understanding???

It's my exsperience that no reader no matter how well they know the material can possibly know exactly what the wrighter was trying to say when said wrighter wrote whatever it is the reader read. This is preddy obvious with just about anything I have wrighten allthough I'm addmittedly not that great at communicating to others.

Which only goes to prove my point.

When you dont fully understand what your reading you should either ask question or do some research before you launch an argument against it.

Rial Vestro wrote:OK, you've just made this really easy for me. I never asked what material they were made of I asked weather they as a race were a technoligy based or an organic based one. Which if they are technoligy, if they are robots, they are not organic. They may have organic componants sure, but that was never what I was trying to find out.

Not sure how that got easy for you.

Since you still havent established that "robots" can not be organic.

Or Nanobots. And not really going to try argue this one any further.

Good...because your argument just isint holding water.

Starscream said they needed more Energon. The Fallen and Megatron were there as well but their voices are much deeper than Starscream's.

I do believe one of them mentioned that they needed a better source of energy.

Nope. An alternative possible exsplanation DOES change the LACK OF fact that they fit the catagory.

Not in any way.

There's nothing natural about nanobots. They're purely technoligy based,

Also a sign of your limited imagination.

And yet you keep stateing them as facts as if they are proven.

Sorry but no.

You really need to do something about your comprehension skills.

Which means IT'S DEBATEABLE.

WHICH MEENS IT FITS!!!!!!!!

BTW the number thing is kind of a bad example as the organic criteria is not as clear cut as just picking a number but I can't think of a better one and I'd like to go to bed soon.

I know it wasnt the best example but it was an easy one that I was hopeing you would understand.

And you almost did.

Your right....with the numbers its clear cut.

But the critira itself for organic is not clear cut.Its vauge.

Something may fit all the critrra and yet still not be organic.

So since the critra is elusive and not clear cut,meaning no facts can really come from it, saying that something fits it is not a statement of fact either.

I'm going to try to give you an other example with numbers.

But this time the numbers themselfs arent the focus but the "GOAL" is.

Ok???

Lets say you are given a test with 150 questions and your "GOAL" is to score 100%.

To score your "GOAL" of 100% you have to answer all 160 questions correctly.

Right???

And if your given a test with 25 questions and your "GOAL" is to score 100% you must answer all 25 questions correctly.

Do you see how that can be a bit vague if you werent paying attention to what I wrote???

In one example 150 ='s 100% and in the other example 25 ='s 100% because the critra of your goal has changed because each test had a different amount of questions.

Now when one makes a statement of how something applies its evaluated in a similar way.

Do you understand???

I hope you do so I'm going to move on.

When I say they fit the "critira" for organic it is not a statement or fact.....because the ciritira itself if not a "tool" of facts but a guide in description.

It is a guide in trying to identify new form of life, not a list to dispute it.

I posted this well over 7 times already but for some reason you obviously arent reading it carefully.

So here it is again.Please read carefully.

Since there is no unequivocal definition of life, the current understanding is descriptive. Therefore, life is a characteristic of organisms that exhibit all or most of the following phenomena.

I hope you see it now.....but I'll explain anyway.

Now remember what I said about "GOALS" above ok......

I said they fit the "CRITRIA".

The Critira" is a list of discriminative characteristics.

So to be correct, to reach my "GOAL" in this argument, all I have to do point out examples of characteristics that can be described as "similar" to as the following phenomena.

Homeostasis
Organization
Metabolism
Growth
Adaptation
Response to stimuli
Reproduction

Again the ultimate "GOAL" of the critria" is to find traits that can be described as similar to the 7 different categories in the list.

So all I have to do is find characteristics in Bays TF's that can be described as traits of most of the 7 phenomena.

Here it is again in case your not getting it.

All I had to do to reach my "GOAL" was show "CAN IT APPLY".

I did not have to prove "HOW" it definitively applied because the cirtira itself is notdifinitve.

You on the other hand, in saying they dont fit, need to prove with out a doubt, what does traits are to be correct.


So yes, the TF's fit a citriea that is vague to begin with.

What reasons would thoughs be?

The same reasons your always given.

A poor imagination

poor reading and comprehension skills

an inability to admit when you made a mistake

an inability to see past the "black & white"

and a indifference to learning anything new.

First off I didn't ACCUSE them of anything.

Actually you did...of bad language translation.

I said they MIGHT have not that they DID..

Thats still accusing.

Secondly, exsplain please. .

You need to to explain to you how your "language" argument goes both ways????

Technically at least one of them said he didn't even have a clear understanding of my way of thinking and that might be true for all of them. Hell, I don't even think you have a grasp on it yet.

Evidence of what I've been saying.

[quoteHell if I know, I don't prosume to know or even understand how other people think and react to eachother.[/quote]

They wouldnt just single you out.

You know that argument works both ways right? It might not be a car fluid found on Earth but could be regular mechanical fluids found on Cybertron.

I can see that....not that it effects the argument much.

I'm going to blame my bad eye sight on this one and move on. I didn't see anything liquid come out when Jazz was ripped in half.

I did.

Has nothing to do with my poor reading.

Yes it does.

Yes it is

No its just not.I explained above.

If you dont get it this time your hopeless asnd doomed to ignorance.

as I've allready exsplained twice and here it is again.

As you failed each time.

I just thought of a better example.

Actually it was worse.

While yes I do have admittidly poor wrighting skills that is still no exscuse for what you have done.Once you start argueing with a wrighter about what they wrote then you're no longer talking to them about what they wrote but are actully trying to tell them what they INTENDED to wright which you as a reader have no right to do.

Nonsense.

I've done nothing but tell you.....

what and how what you wrote read like.

How it came off.

how it reads.

Thats it.No argument.

It that wasnt what you intended then I suggest you put more thought into the words you chose and how you use them.

I have every right to tell you howyour words sounded .read or came off.

For every action there is an equil and oppisite reaction. A reaction is not nessisarily a sign of addaption.

It is when we're talking about behavior.

And thats the case here.

Exsplained abouve somewhere.

Failed.

Well then it's just another example of you not being verry clear then.

No its an example of your poor reading and comprehension skills.

I posted a number of times that the "critra" was a list descriptive categories.

You failed to understood what that ment.

Theres no reason to address the rest because its all just more of the same.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Rial Vestro wrote:OK, you've just made this really easy for me. I never asked what material they were made of I asked weather they as a race were a technoligy based or an organic based one. Which if they are technoligy, if they are robots, they are not organic. They may have organic componants sure, but that was never what I was trying to find out.

Not sure how that got easy for you.

Since you still havent established that "robots" can not be organic.

It's as simple as this. Robots are artifically created while they may be BUILT of organic material they did not naturally develop togeather.

Like useing a potato as a battery for a clock. The potato is organic but the clock and wires did not naturally develop from the potato, they were built into it. The completed product is a working machine powered by organic means but the fact that the clock is being powered by a patato does not make the clock itself organic. Only the potato is.

To say something can simultaniously be both Natural Organic and Artifical Machine you have to be saying that it as a whole was both naturaly developing and was artifically construced which is an impossibility to do both at once.

You either have to grow it or build it. If you can find a way to grow a potato with a clock allready built onto it or if a person is somehow born with plastic limbs then you can defy all logic and say that they're both at once but till then it's an impossibility.

And yet you keep stateing them as facts as if they are proven.

Sorry but no.

You really need to do something about your comprehension skills.

Nope. Your exact words that you've repeated over and over again. "They do fit." They do makes a statement of fact which no matter what even if you're saying it to something you claim can't be proven you're still wording it as if it can and has been proven by saying "they do".

BTW the number thing is kind of a bad example as the organic criteria is not as clear cut as just picking a number but I can't think of a better one and I'd like to go to bed soon.

I know it wasnt the best example but it was an easy one that I was hopeing you would understand.

And you almost did.

Your right....with the numbers its clear cut.

But the critira itself for organic is not clear cut.Its vauge.

Something may fit all the critrra and yet still not be organic.

So since the critra is elusive and not clear cut,meaning no facts can really come from it, saying that something fits it is not a statement of fact either.

I'm going to try to give you an other example with numbers.

But this time the numbers themselfs arent the focus but the "GOAL" is.

Ok???

Lets say you are given a test with 150 questions and your "GOAL" is to score 100%.

To score your "GOAL" of 100% you have to answer all 160 questions correctly.

Right???

And if your given a test with 25 questions and your "GOAL" is to score 100% you must answer all 25 questions correctly.

Do you see how that can be a bit vague if you werent paying attention to what I wrote???

In one example 150 ='s 100% and in the other example 25 ='s 100% because the critra of your goal has changed because each test had a different amount of questions.

Now when one makes a statement of how something applies its evaluated in a similar way.

Do you understand???

I hope you do so I'm going to move on.

When I say they fit the "critira" for organic it is not a statement or fact.....because the ciritira itself if not a "tool" of facts but a guide in description.

It is a guide in trying to identify new form of life, not a list to dispute it.

I posted this well over 7 times already but for some reason you obviously arent reading it carefully.

So here it is again.Please read carefully.

Since there is no unequivocal definition of life, the current understanding is descriptive. Therefore, life is a characteristic of organisms that exhibit all or most of the following phenomena.

I hope you see it now.....but I'll explain anyway.

Now remember what I said about "GOALS" above ok......

I said they fit the "CRITRIA".

The Critira" is a list of discriminative characteristics.

So to be correct, to reach my "GOAL" in this argument, all I have to do point out examples of characteristics that can be described as "similar" to as the following phenomena.

Homeostasis
Organization
Metabolism
Growth
Adaptation
Response to stimuli
Reproduction

Again the ultimate "GOAL" of the critria" is to find traits that can be described as similar to the 7 different categories in the list.

So all I have to do is find characteristics in Bays TF's that can be described as traits of most of the 7 phenomena.

Here it is again in case your not getting it.

All I had to do to reach my "GOAL" was show "CAN IT APPLY".

I did not have to prove "HOW" it definitively applied because the cirtira itself is notdifinitve.

You on the other hand, in saying they dont fit, need to prove with out a doubt, what does traits are to be correct.


So yes, the TF's fit a citriea that is vague to begin with.

I got all that the first time. You're the one who's not getting it.

I didn't say that they DON'T FIT I said that there's a POSSIBILITY that they don't.

If the criteria is that their bodied can develop liquids then you have to prove that they can in order to reach your goal. Can it apply is a definate yes or not question. Either, yes it apply or no it doesn't.

To put it simply, the criteria for growth was basically that it it's exsisting parts got bigger rather than adding parts to make it bigger. So if we knew for a fact that Transformers grew they would fit that criteria but the same is true for the oppisite, if we can prove that they only get bigger by adding parts onto them then they wouldn't fit.

Now if the criteria for growth changed to simply say, "they got bigger" and doesn't specify how then both natural development and building onto it would count.

To give you a pysical example. If you build or add on an extra room to a house, you're technically makeing the house bigger. Under the ACTUAL criteria for Growth a house would not fit the criteria but under the criteria EXAMPLE I CREATED for this it would fit.

So to say that a Transformer does fit the criteria for growth then you are saying it's a fact that they do grow and if they can fit then a house can fit even though it's a fact that houses do not grow. Houses can be built onto which is not part of the criteria for Growth and there's no way of knowing if Transformers can grow or if they're simply built onto hench there's no way of knowing if they fit the criteria.

First off I didn't ACCUSE them of anything.

Actually you did...of bad language translation.

Saying it's a possibility is not an accusation. If I accused them of it then I would be saying that they did as a fact with no or little evidence to back it up.

I said they MIGHT have not that they DID..

Thats still accusing.

See Abouve.

Secondly, exsplain please. .

You need to to explain to you how your "language" argument goes both ways????

You said if I didn't understand to ask so I did and this is the answer I get?

Technically at least one of them said he didn't even have a clear understanding of my way of thinking and that might be true for all of them. Hell, I don't even think you have a grasp on it yet.

Evidence of what I've been saying.

You've been saying that they're all telling me that I'm wrong. How can someone claim I'm right or wrong if they don't even have a full understand of what it is I'm saying?

While yes I do have admittidly poor wrighting skills that is still no exscuse for what you have done.Once you start argueing with a wrighter about what they wrote then you're no longer talking to them about what they wrote but are actully trying to tell them what they INTENDED to wright which you as a reader have no right to do.

Nonsense.

I've done nothing but tell you.....

what and how what you wrote read like.

How it came off.

how it reads.

Thats it.

No argument.

And I corrected my mistake pages ago when you first pointed it out yet you have continued to tell me what it is I wrote. That's going beyond just pointing out a mistake in my wrighting and has turned into telling me what I INTENDED to wright and that is argueing which you are still doing now and I told you last time not to continue this arguement if that wasn't what you intended and you have so I'm done.

WOW.

I never met someone so content with his ignorance and poor imagination that they are unwilling to learn new things.

I'm going to make this very short.

Rial Vestro wrote:It's as simple as this. Robots are artifically created while they may be BUILT of organic material they did not naturally develop togeather.

Simple as this.You are wrong.

Robots, as we defined them, as we HUMANS understand them, as we humans use the word ,are artificial.

But wether a robot can develop naturally on an other world is un-known.Its possible.

Nope.

Yep.

Your exact words that you've repeated over and over again. "They do fit." They do makes a statement of fact

No it is not because the critria it self is not a mersure of fact.

I got all that the first time.

Obviously you didnt if your still arguing.

You're the one who's not getting it.

As I said...ignorance.

I didn't say that they DON'T FIT I said that there's a POSSIBILITY that they don't.

Actully you said that they dont fit.

But fine....if you want to change your argument.

If the criteria is that their bodied can develop liquids then you have to prove that they can in order to reach your goal.

No....and that proves you just dont understand what the crtria repersents.

To fit the critria all I have to do is provide evidence of coolant.....thats it.

To prove they are organic I need to show that the coolent [at least in part] develops naturally.

To put it simply, the criteria for growth was basically that it it's exsisting parts got bigger rather than adding parts to make it bigger. So if we knew for a fact that Transformers grew they would fit that criteria but the same is true for the oppisite, if we can prove that they only get bigger by adding parts onto them then they wouldn't fit.

Actually any kind of growth would apply.So lets say a can opener growing eyes.

And adding parts would fit the "addapting catagory.

Saying it's a possibility is not an accusation.

The way you worded it came off as an accusation.

But what ever.

You said if I didn't understand to ask so I did and this is the answer I get?

I thought that once I pointed out it was about your language argument it would be very simple for you to put the rest together.

But forgive me for expecting that from you.

Your argument, bascily, was that maybe they called them selfs organic because they didnt fully understand what that word ment, or that it was the closest translation.

Well maybe "robot" is the closest word in out language to what they are.

Maybe our language doesnt have a word for exactly what they are.

There was a situation like that on Star Trek TNG.They showed us a race that had no gender called the J'naii.When getting to know them Riker kept refering to them as "her or him" and so forth.

Soren, one of the J'naii, explained that with a race with no gender there was no he and she's.So he asked what should he say and Soren's answer was that they use a "pro-noun" that is neutral.

So maybe its the same with TF's.

Maybe they either dont have a translation for exactly what they are and accept being called "robots" because its the closet word we have in our vocabulary to exactly what they are.

You've been saying that they're all telling me that I'm wrong.

Thats not exCTLY WHAT i SAID.

i SAID THAT OTHERS HERE HAVE SAID THAT YOUR WAY OF LOOKING AT IT IS RATHER LIMITED.

AND SO FAR EVERY ONE PARTICIPATING HERE HAS SAID WORDS TO THAT EFFECT.

[quote]
And I corrected my mistake pages ago[quote]

And then pretty much repeated those same mistakes.

You still dont understand what the critra represents.

I'm not going to drag this part out any further.

You don't even realize it but in two quotes you have just supported my side of the argument which you seem incapable of comprehending. More on this later...

Your exact words that you've repeated over and over again. "They do fit." They do makes a statement of fact

No it is not because the critria it self is not a mersure of fact.

Do you even realize you are doing the exact same thing you accused me of doing? Weather or not the criteria is a mesure of fact has absolutly nothing to do with it. You are saying "they do" which makes it a statement of fact regardless of what the criteria represents.

I got all that the first time.

Obviously you didnt if your still arguing.

Because you don't understand what I'm argueing agenst. We're talking about two different but related topics which you seem incapable of seperating.

I didn't say that they DON'T FIT I said that there's a POSSIBILITY that they don't.

Actully you said that they dont fit.

But fine....if you want to change your argument.

I've changed nothing and I did not say that they don't. I said that they can't be proven.

If the criteria is that their bodied can develop liquids then you have to prove that they can in order to reach your goal.

No....and that proves you just dont understand what the crtria repersents.

To fit the critria all I have to do is provide evidence of coolant.....thats it.

To prove they are organic I need to show that the coolent [at least in part] develops naturally.

Here's why you're not even being clear or have changed your argument.

You orginally posted the criteria to which I responded that even mechanical things need liquids. You then responded by specifying that they had to be produced by the body. Now I took it as that was ment to be part of the criteria which you left out which if it was then you would have to prove they are produced by the body in order to fit the criteria. After I stated this you claimed you didn't have to prove which means that being produced by the body is not part of the criteria. At this point you've changed the argument so many times that I don't even know what the hell the criteria is anymore. Every time I argue agenst it, it appears like you change the criteria to fit your argument.

So, which is it, does it have to be produced by the body in order to fit the criteria or not? I've probly failed to exsplain this properly but either you're not clear on what the hell the criteria is or you're just changeing it every time I argue agenst it.

To put it simply, the criteria for growth was basically that it it's exsisting parts got bigger rather than adding parts to make it bigger. So if we knew for a fact that Transformers grew they would fit that criteria but the same is true for the oppisite, if we can prove that they only get bigger by adding parts onto them then they wouldn't fit.

Actually any kind of growth would apply.

Actully no it wouldn't. In your original quote it was verry spicific about that one saying that simply "adding onto" it would not qualify as growth.

Now, remember what I said in the begining of this post? Well, now I've come back to it.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:Robots, as we defined them, as we HUMANS understand them, as we humans use the word ,are artificial.

Well maybe "robot" is the closest word in out language to what they are.

Maybe our language doesnt have a word for exactly what they are.

In these two quotes you have managed to agree with the argument I originally made which you have spent all this time argueing agenst. You probly don't even realize you did it because like I've been saying all this time, you've completly failed to even understand what my argument was in the first place. But there it is, stairing you right in the face and you wrote it.

There was a situation like that on Star Trek TNG.They showed us a race that had no gender called the J'naii.When getting to know them Riker kept refering to them as "her or him" and so forth.

Soren, one of the J'naii, explained that with a race with no gender there was no he and she's.So he asked what should he say and Soren's answer was that they use a "pro-noun" that is neutral.

There was allso a race on Enterprise with a 3rd gender who, I belive it was Tucker, kept refering to as a female as whatever it was classified as on their world looked more female than male. One of the others of their race exsplained that it's impossible for their species to reproduce with only a male and female and they have to use this 3rd gender as a mettiary between them in order to reproduce. The trouble is that the 3rd gender was appearently rare and not treated as equils with the rest of their race so it was basically a sex slave that a couple bought in order to reproduce. At least that's what I remember, I'm sure I'm mixing up alot of this.

You've been saying that they're all telling me that I'm wrong.

Thats not exCTLY WHAT i SAID.

Actully it is exactly what you said and here's the proof.

Every one here as commented on you being wrong or misunderstanding.

Thats one person thats told you twice you were wrong.

Thats someone that at the very least is telling you your way of looking at it is incorrect.

Oh MY f@€#ing G@D you two, what the hell is the matter with you? Get a room! hahaha other than this one, I meant.

Now i havent seen the first movie in awhile, i was watching the second.

It's cold outside, and that's where I am. And that's fine. I'm fine with shivering my bony @$$ off out here, because I was watching transformers Revenge of the Fallen and saw the part where shia reads the text book and flips out and starts talking about einstein.

E = mc2, although I dont know how to make a small 2 this 2 will have to do. and that rhymes.
as you all should know this means that all matter at a certain velocity is Energy.

Lets take a small step back for a minute. Back when the "transformers" (I say transformer meaning alien robotic things which even if my toaster transformed and started killing it's still be alien because it was infused with champion stuff of the allspark) were in space, long ago, on their planet, what did they value? The Allspark, which I like to call the cosmic cube. mwaha. This cube is filled with energy and information, but where does all of this energy come from?

There were other primes, yes? were they created by the all spark, or maybe the energy or information of the allspark, or were they grown in batches like starscream and the fallen had? or were they created another way? And what of megatron, or the fallen and his original cohorts? I certainly cannot say. That large felinesque "transformer" was shot down to earth, as well as quite a few others who ended up fighting the autobots, and in turn vomited up another transformer to steal a shard. Where did the decepticon from space originate? did it have it's own energon supply?

So many questions.. I think that in the world of the transformers organic and machine are so integral and sybiotic, so closely connected to one another that they're the same thing to them.

That is to say, I think that all transformers have some mechanical and some organic together, no matter how they were created, because I think that if there ever was a time when the transformers' race were able to surpass einstein's science without knowing of einstein, if there were a time when they were just organic or cyborg or just a robot, I think that would have been such an extremely long time ago that it's almost irrelevant. I think that now they are all both and will really always be both unless their "race", the race of intelligent beings who had stored various energy and information as the allspark, as it's called, find some way to outwardly expand in evolution.

And who knows what that would be, right?

OH YEAH, I almost forgot... Don't quote me in a bunch of boxes. If you're gonna respond to what i have to say, just say it. I don't need all this frickin regurgitation on the web, and nobody else does either. Not only are You Two wasting each other's time, you're wasting your own time, and the time of every other person who ever browses this thread. I was watching an awesome movie, having a great time and i just wanted to see what some other internet savvy folks would have to say about a question or 2 that arose, and at first I was actually reading your guys' lovechat thing here about natural organic or artificial machine, but then i realized it was just a facade for your apparently ongoing internet duel. You two dont even care anymore about hearing the new fresh perspectives and opinions of others, you just have to pretend to change somebody's mind and have a competition of who can quote the other person more times in a single post, or who can make the word fail bigger and redder and more times than the other person. I can't believe how mych of that crap i just syphoned through for so little posts. you guys seriously have taken up a page and a half of 2 pages of forum for what i would expect to be a reasonable discussion and made it a peculiar and unhelpful bickering session. You two should back off each other and allow yourselves room to grow. I just joined this place because you annoyed me so much. I don't even care if you respond to me because i'm not going to read it. Heck, I stopped reading yourguys' battleofthehandz at the beginning of page one, it's just meaningless to me. Someone in here knew what was up. What, do you guys do this in every thread or something? Do you follow each other around?.

everyone else in here is being quite worthwhile.

You know who you are.

Rial Vestro wrote:You don't even realize it but in two quotes you have just supported my side of the argument which you seem incapable of comprehending. More on this later...

Doubtful.

My queses is that its your poor reading skills again that is failing you and you dont realise it.

But we'll see.......

Do you even realize you are doing the exact same thing you accused me of doing? Weather or not the criteria is a mesure of fact has absolutly nothing to do with it. You are saying "they do" which makes it a statement of fact regardless of what the criteria represents.

Just what I thought......you still dont understand.

If the critria is not a mesure of fact [which it isint] and the standard to be met is descriptive then all I have to do to fit the critra is point out examples of attributes Bay's TF's have that can be "described" as fitting most of the listed catagories.

Which I did for all 7 catagories.

So again to fit the critria all I have to do is point out traits that aappear similar to the listed caragories.

Not "proven the same but appear similar.

Again...I did that.

Because you don't understand what I'm argueing agenst.

No because you just dont understand the basices.....as you just proved.

I've changed nothing and I did not say that they don't. I said that they can't be proven.

Thats a change from your original argument.

Here's why you're not even being clear or have changed your argument.

You orginally posted the criteria to which I responded that even mechanical things need liquids. You then responded by specifying that they had to be produced by the body. Now I took it as that was ment to be part of the criteria which you left out which if it was then you would have to prove they are produced by the body in order to fit the criteria. After I stated this you claimed you didn't have to prove which means that being produced by the body is not part of the criteria. At this point you've changed the argument so many times that I don't even know what the hell the criteria is anymore. Every time I argue agenst it, it appears like you change the criteria to fit your argument.

Sorry but all of that only proves its your poor reading and comprehension skills thats the issue here.

I'm going to paraphrase here a bit.....

Your right, I originally posted the criteria and the explanation of Homeostasis.

To which you responded "even mechanical things need liquids so that [b]doesnt prove they are organic"[/b]

To which I replied " to prove they are organic they must make some of the fluids naturally Homeostasis meens they must produce the liquids them selfs."

Now I hope you see where "YOU" changed the cource of the conversation.

When you said "doesnt prove they are organic" you left the critira behind.

To fit the critria all I have to do is prove signs of coolent.

To prove they are organic I need to prove some of the coolents are developed naturally.

Next time read more carfully and chose your words better.

Actully no it wouldn't.In your original quote it was verry spicific about that one saying that simply "adding onto" it would not qualify as growth..

Actulluy yes it would.

I'm not talking about adding parts from an external force.

But the growing of eyes when there wasnt any original part that even resembeled or functioned as an eye before would be growth

.

Now, remember what I said in the begining of this post? Well, now I've come back to it..

I remember it....but like I guessed it was your poor understanding at issue.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:In these two quotes you have managed to agree with the argument I originally made which you have spent all this time argueing agenst. You probly don't even realize you did it because like I've been saying all this time, you've completly failed to even understand what my argument was in the first place. But there it is, stairing you right in the face and you wrote it..

I didnt agree with it.

I was pointing out that your argument cuts both ways.

You claimed the possibility that the TF's called themselfs "organic" because of a bad language translation.

And I was pointing out that maybe it was the accepting of the word "robot" that was the sign of the bad language translation.

It was staring you in the face the whole time and you didnt see it.

Your argument was self defeeting because it can then be applied to every word spoken by a TF.

There was allso a race on Enterprise with a 3rd gender who, I belive it was Tucker, kept refering to as a female as whatever it was classified as on their world looked more female than male. One of the others of their race exsplained that it's impossible for their species to reproduce with only a male and female and they have to use this 3rd gender as a mettiary between them in order to reproduce. The trouble is that the 3rd gender was appearently rare and not treated as equils with the rest of their race so it was basically a sex slave that a couple bought in order to reproduce. At least that's what I remember, I'm sure I'm mixing up alot of this. .

Your memory was pretty spot on this time

Actully it is exactly what you said and here's the proof.

Every one here as commented on you being wrong or misunderstanding.

.

That just proved me right.

Look at the large read words.

Its a fact that everyone here.....and I meen everyone, has either told you you were wrong in some way or that you were misunderstanding things.

Thats one person thats told you twice you were wrong.

.

That person did say you were wrong.
.

Thats someone that at the very least is telling you your way of looking at it is incorrect.

Exactly what I said.

Zanzibarninja wrote:Oh MY f@€#ing G@D you two, what the hell is the matter with you? Get a room! hahaha other than this one, I meant.

Now i havent seen the first movie in awhile, i was watching the second.

It's cold outside, and that's where I am. And that's fine. I'm fine with shivering my bony @$$ off out here, because I was watching transformers Revenge of the Fallen and saw the part where shia reads the text book and flips out and starts talking about einstein.

E = mc2, although I dont know how to make a small 2 this 2 will have to do. and that rhymes.
as you all should know this means that all matter at a certain velocity is Energy.

Lets take a small step back for a minute. Back when the "transformers" (I say transformer meaning alien robotic things which even if my toaster transformed and started killing it's still be alien because it was infused with champion stuff of the allspark) were in space, long ago, on their planet, what did they value? The Allspark, which I like to call the cosmic cube. mwaha. This cube is filled with energy and information, but where does all of this energy come from?

There were other primes, yes? were they created by the all spark, or maybe the energy or information of the allspark, or were they grown in batches like starscream and the fallen had? or were they created another way? And what of megatron, or the fallen and his original cohorts? I certainly cannot say. That large felinesque "transformer" was shot down to earth, as well as quite a few others who ended up fighting the autobots, and in turn vomited up another transformer to steal a shard. Where did the decepticon from space originate? did it have it's own energon supply?

So many questions.. I think that in the world of the transformers organic and machine are so integral and sybiotic, so closely connected to one another that they're the same thing to them.

That is to say, I think that all transformers have some mechanical and some organic together, no matter how they were created, because I think that if there ever was a time when the transformers' race were able to surpass einstein's science without knowing of einstein, if there were a time when they were just organic or cyborg or just a robot, I think that would have been such an extremely long time ago that it's almost irrelevant. I think that now they are all both and will really always be both unless their "race", the race of intelligent beings who had stored various energy and information as the allspark, as it's called, find some way to outwardly expand in evolution.

And who knows what that would be, right?

OH YEAH, I almost forgot... Don't quote me in a bunch of boxes. If you're gonna respond to what i have to say, just say it. I don't need all this frickin regurgitation on the web, and nobody else does either. Not only are You Two wasting each other's time, you're wasting your own time, and the time of every other person who ever browses this thread. I was watching an awesome movie, having a great time and i just wanted to see what some other internet savvy folks would have to say about a question or 2 that arose, and at first I was actually reading your guys' lovechat thing here about natural organic or artificial machine, but then i realized it was just a facade for your apparently ongoing internet duel. You two dont even care anymore about hearing the new fresh perspectives and opinions of others, you just have to pretend to change somebody's mind and have a competition of who can quote the other person more times in a single post, or who can make the word fail bigger and redder and more times than the other person. I can't believe how mych of that crap i just syphoned through for so little posts. you guys seriously have taken up a page and a half of 2 pages of forum for what i would expect to be a reasonable discussion and made it a peculiar and unhelpful bickering session. You two should back off each other and allow yourselves room to grow. I just joined this place because you annoyed me so much. I don't even care if you respond to me because i'm not going to read it. Heck, I stopped reading yourguys' battleofthehandz at the beginning of page one, it's just meaningless to me. Someone in here knew what was up. What, do you guys do this in every thread or something? Do you follow each other around?.

everyone else in here is being quite worthwhile.

You know who you are.

Yes we do this quite offten.

Besides the arguing the 2 of us get along pretty well.....we have private conversations all the time about life that almost never get into argument

We just enjoy debating each other in public.Think of it like pro wrestlers.....fighting in the ring and hanging out afterwards.

And I can agree with most of your conclusions.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Do you even realize you are doing the exact same thing you accused me of doing? Weather or not the criteria is a mesure of fact has absolutly nothing to do with it. You are saying "they do" which makes it a statement of fact regardless of what the criteria represents.

Just what I thought......you still dont understand.

If the critria is not a mesure of fact [which it isint] and the standard to be met is descriptive then all I have to do to fit the critra is point out examples of attributes Bay's TF's have that can be "described" as fitting most of the listed catagories.

Which I did for all 7 catagories.

So again to fit the critria all I have to do is point out traits that aappear similar to the listed caragories.

Not "proven the same but appear similar.

Again...I did that.

No YOU still don't get it. Even though I've said it clear as day several times.

WEATHER OR NOT THE CRITERIA IS OR ISN'T A MESURE OF FACT HAS ABSOLUTLY NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.

What you claimed as fact was NOT the criteria itself but what you said fits it.

Multiple times you keep reading what I'm saying as "Criteria is fact" when I have tried to exsplain multiple times that's NOT what I'm saying. You keep argueing that that the Criteria is not a mesure of fact and I keep telling you I understand that and that's not what I'm saying and you just don't get it. I've tried to reword myself a multitude of different ways and no matter how I word it you still have no clue what the hell it is I'm actully trying to say. At this point I give up, I have no idea how to word this so that you'll actully understand.

It should be simple but you've made it verry complicated.

- = edit = -

I've thought of one last way to try and exsplain this and you know how I am, now that I've thought of it I won't be able to sleep till I try it even though I'd really rather just give up.

Your claim = Transformers fit the criteria for being organic but fitting the criteria is not proof of being organic.

My argument = You are stateing a fact that Transformers fit the criteria for being organic.

Your arguement agenst me = You are not stateing a fact because fitting the criteria is not proof of being organic.

Simply put, what you're repeating failing to understand is that you're argueing agenst something that I didn't actully say. To shorten the abouve even more...

Your claim = Transformers fit criteria for organic.

My Argument = Transformers fit criteria.

Your argument agenst me = criteria for organic

Do you see the issue yet? You're incapable of seperating two different but related topics. Your claim that "Transformer fit the criteria for being organic" IF it were a statement of fact which I'm not saying it is would actully be TWO statements of fact.

1. That Transformers are organic which is not the fact if it were a fact I'm saying you made but is the fact that you're argueing that you haven't made and you're right.

2. That Transformers fit the criteria which is the fact that I'm saying you have made but is not the fact that you're argueing that you haven't made and you don't seem to even be aware that it's a seperate fact.

Example: If I were to say that my dad's van fit the liquid criteria for being organic, I would be stateing a fact that it fit the criteria but NOT that is was organic.

Or....

What the criteria is for, in this case weather or not something MIGHT be organic is not a statement of fact. But weather or not something fits that specified criteria IS a fact. Just like you showed with the numbers. If the criteria is 1-10 and you're supose to guess what number I'm thinking of it doesn't matter if you get the right or wrong number because that's not what I'm talking about, it's what you're talking about but has nothing to do with what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that it is a fact that the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 fit that criteria.

The fact I said you claimed was that "The Transformers fit the criteria". The fact YOU THINK I said you claimed was that "The Transformers are organic".

So as I've said over and over again, it's YOU who doesn't understand, not me. And it's preddy clear that you don't understand me when you've spent the last several posts, ever sence the FIRST time you exsplained that the criteria was not proof of being organic, argueing agenst something which I have not even been repeating, you only THINK I'm makeing the same arguement I did before that because you have failed to understand anything I've said sence then or have not even read anything I've said sence then and are mearly responding the same post over and over again like you allways do. I've it before and I'll say it again, keep up in the conversation, don't get hung up on mistakes I made and corrected several pages ago and we might actully be able to move forward faster. All you accompish with this is repeating the same crap over and over again because you read something I didn't intend, I rephraise to try and make myself more clear, and we repeat the cycle for days untill we're both annoyed with eachother. I get annoyed really easily when I'm being forced to repeat the same bloody thing over and over again and that annoyance can turn to anger preddy quickly as well.

- = end edit = -

Because you don't understand what I'm argueing agenst.

No because you just dont understand the basices.....as you just proved.

No you just don't understand what the hell I'm saying. My guess is that you're doing something you tend to do quite offten. That is when I try to correct myself you ignore the correction and continue to focus on the mistake.

I've changed nothing and I did not say that they don't. I said that they can't be proven.

Thats a change from your original argument.

And here you prove my point abouve.

Here's why you're not even being clear or have changed your argument.

You orginally posted the criteria to which I responded that even mechanical things need liquids. You then responded by specifying that they had to be produced by the body. Now I took it as that was ment to be part of the criteria which you left out which if it was then you would have to prove they are produced by the body in order to fit the criteria. After I stated this you claimed you didn't have to prove which means that being produced by the body is not part of the criteria. At this point you've changed the argument so many times that I don't even know what the hell the criteria is anymore. Every time I argue agenst it, it appears like you change the criteria to fit your argument.

Sorry but all of that only proves its your poor reading and comprehension skills thats the issue here.

Really? Lets see...

Your right, I originally posted the criteria and the explanation of Homeostasis.

To which you responded "even mechanical things need liquids so that doesnt prove they are organic"

To which I replied "to prove they are organic they must make some of the fluids naturally Homeostasis meens they must produce the liquids them selfs."

Now I hope you see where "YOU" changed the cource of the conversation.

When you said "doesnt prove they are organic" you left the critira behind.

OK but there's still another matter you haven't cleared up yet. If the criteria is not a mesure of fact as you stated claiming only after I proved it doesn't prove the Transformers are organic then why did you post the criteria in the first place. It sure looked like at the time that you were offering it up as proof of Transformers being organic but now I don't know why the hell you posted it.

To fit the critria all I have to do is prove signs of coolent.

To prove they are organic I need to prove some of the coolents are developed naturally.

Next time read more carfully and chose your words better.

You do the same.

Actully no it wouldn't.In your original quote it was verry spicific about that one saying that simply "adding onto" it would not qualify as growth..

Actulluy yes it would.

I'm not talking about adding parts from an external force.

But the growing of eyes when there wasnt any original part that even resembeled or functioned as an eye before would be growth.

I've allready offered up an alternitive exsplination for that one that would not qualify as growth.

And if they were GROWING parts that they didn't originally have to begine with wouldn't they be MUCH bigger than they were originally? Legs especially. They were all roughly the same size.

In these two quotes you have managed to agree with the argument I originally made which you have spent all this time argueing agenst. You probly don't even realize you did it because like I've been saying all this time, you've completly failed to even understand what my argument was in the first place. But there it is, stairing you right in the face and you wrote it..

I didnt agree with it.

I was pointing out that your argument cuts both ways.

You claimed the possibility that the TF's called themselfs "organic" because of a bad language translation.

And I was pointing out that maybe it was the accepting of the word "robot" that was the sign of the bad language translation.

It was staring you in the face the whole time and you didnt see it.

Your argument was self defeeting because it can then be applied to every word spoken by a TF.

First off, on a technical note. Your quote tag was messed up so my quote had your name on it.

You did actully.

And?

AND?

Annnnnnnnnnnnndddd?

Didn't see it? I said it before you?

How is it self defeating? Because you can't understand what it is I've said even after repeating it in your own words? Don't answer that, it was rhtorical.

To some this up, do I really have to say "and vice versa" or are you capable of understanding when it's implied?

There was allso a race on Enterprise with a 3rd gender who, I belive it was Tucker, kept refering to as a female as whatever it was classified as on their world looked more female than male. One of the others of their race exsplained that it's impossible for their species to reproduce with only a male and female and they have to use this 3rd gender as a mettiary between them in order to reproduce. The trouble is that the 3rd gender was appearently rare and not treated as equils with the rest of their race so it was basically a sex slave that a couple bought in order to reproduce. At least that's what I remember, I'm sure I'm mixing up alot of this. .

Your memory was pretty spot on this time

Well that makes me happy.

Actully it is exactly what you said and here's the proof.

Every one here as commented on you being wrong or misunderstanding.

.

That just proved me right.

Look at the large read words.

Its a fact that everyone here.....and I meen everyone, has either told you you were wrong in some way or that you were misunderstanding things.

Nope. As I said before, you might want to read that quote again. He was saying that he wasn't understanding me not that I wasn't understanding someone else.

And pluse, how does that prove you right? You just said that you never claimed everyone said I was wrong and now you're admitting that you have said it.

Thats one person thats told you twice you were wrong.

.

That person did say you were wrong.

Not the point.

Thats someone that at the very least is telling you your way of looking at it is incorrect.

Exactly what I said.

And again, you just claimed right before I posted thoughs 3 quotes that you never said it.

You've been saying that they're all telling me that I'm wrong.

That's not exactly what I said.

So thanks for proveing that you keep changeing your argument. BTW That is word for word what you said, all I did was correct the cap lock sence it went backwords mid sentence.

Rial Vestro wrote:No YOU still don't get it. Even though I've said it clear as day several times.

No you dont understand.

WEATHER OR NOT THE CRITERIA IS OR ISN'T A MESURE OF FACT HAS ABSOLUTLY NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.

It does.

Since the "goal" [the critiria] itself is vague so are the subjects that are going to fit into the critiria.

What you claimed as fact was NOT the criteria itself but what you said fits it.

You just dont understand the basics.

Multiple times you keep reading what I'm saying as "Criteria is fact" when I have tried to exsplain multiple times that's NOT what I'm saying.

I understand exactly what your saying.

And I'm saying that the vagueness of the critira transfers to what can be considered "fitting" in the critiria.

I give up,

Good for you.

Maybe now you can focus your energies on learning something new.

It should be simple but you've made it verry complicated.

Your stuberness and refusal to learn is what made this complicated.

- = edit = -

I've thought of one last way to try and exsplain this and you know how I am, now that I've thought of it I won't be able to sleep till I try it even though I'd really rather just give up.

Untill you understand the basics you'll never get it.

Your claim = Transformers fit the criteria for being organic but fitting the criteria is not proof of being organic.

Not exactly.And just like I said....you still dont understand what the critiria repersents.

I'm saying they fit the critira that is used to identify organic life.

Try to understand this.

When a scientist/researcher is comparing a "SUBJECT ", trying to see if it shows signs of organic life they use the critria to see if the subject has anything in common with organic life.

If it meets the critira other test are done.

So if it show's signs that are or can be similar to most of the phenomenon listed [earlier] then they fit the critiria.

Thats signs and or similar traits of most of the 7 phenomenon......not proven examples of the same traits.

[the rest of your rant is pointless since the initial premise is incorrect]

So do you see the issue yet?

You're not understanding what the critiria is and how it works and what it repersents is whats causing your confusion.


Its not a critiria of "BEING" organic.Its a critira to help find and identify organic life.

Its standers are descriptive not factual.

The coal is to find traits the subjuct has that are similar in description and appearance to traits of organic life.

So as I've said over and over again, it's YOU who doesn't understand.....the basics.

And it's definitly clear that you don't understand since you still can not grasp what the critira is and how it is used even thou I have spent the last several posts trying to explain it to you.

The problem here is tht you are content with being ignorant.

You are complacent with being lazy and ill-informed.

You expect to be spooned everything.

and we repeat the cycle for days untill we're both annoyed with eachother.

I'm not annoyed with you at all

No you just don't understand what the hell I'm saying.

Covered above.

And here you prove my point abouve.

Hardly.

Really?

Yep.

Lets see...

Lets.

Your right, I originally posted the criteria and the explanation of Homeostasis.

To which you responded "even mechanical things need liquids so that doesnt prove they are organic"

To which I replied "to prove they are organic they must make some of the fluids naturally Homeostasis meens they must produce the liquids them selfs."

Now I hope you see where "YOU" changed the cource of the conversation.

When you said "doesnt prove they are organic" you left the critira behind.

OK[/quote]

So you see at leat 1 mistake you made there right????

but there's still another matter you haven't cleared up yet. If the criteria is not a mesure of fact as you stated claiming only after I proved it doesn't prove the Transformers are organic then why did you post the criteria in the first place.

I cleared that up long ago....and if you read things more carfully you would understand.

The original question you posted was [paraphrased] "what are Bay's TF's...organic or artificial?"

Now theres no real way to get a definitive answer to what since those that came from Cybertron may be different then those that came online on earth.

So what do we do to come to an answer?????

We do exactly hat the experts would do.....we compare the TF's to the same standards they use to identify and find all life where ever they are looking.

It sure looked like at the time that you were offering it up as proof of Transformers being organic but now I don't know why the hell you posted it.

It only looked like that to you because you werent reading carfully.

You do the same.

Sorry but I understood you.

I've allready offered up an alternitive exsplination for that one that would not qualify as growth.

And as I told you....alternative explanations dont disquilfy them from fitting the critira because its irrelevant.

Like I said, the goal of the critira to to find traits that "ARE" or "CAN" be seen as in common with organic....not to disprove them.

Alternative explanations can be used in the testing or proving phase, and may eventually prove that they are not organic.

But regardless, it wouldnt change anything about how they fit the critira.

And if they were GROWING parts that they didn't originally have to begine with wouldn't they be MUCH bigger than they were originally? Legs especially. They were all roughly the same size.

I'm not sure what your saying exactly.

To begin with...they all grew bigger by at least 5% TO 20% when they grew head's and legs.They did stand taller.

But I'm not saying that their heads or legs were signs or growth.I can believe that those parts were made from exsisting parts.

On the other hand....a can opener growing eyes is growth because there's nothing in a can opener that can be made into something that resembles or functions like eyes.

First off, on a technical note. Your quote tag was messed up so my quote had your name on it.

Sorry.

You did actully.

Nope

And?

AND?

Annnnnnnnnnnnndddd?

And what????

Didn't see it? I said it before you?

Excuse me???

How is it self defeating? Because you can't understand what it is I've said even after repeating it in your own words? Don't answer that, it was rhtorical.

Its self defeating because if your going to imply they misunderstood the proper translation of being organic then its also possible they misunderstood the proper translation of being a robot.

And if thats the case your entire rant about why the Autobots never corrected the humans they worked with for 2 years was a waste.

To some this up, do I really have to say "and vice versa" or are you capable of understanding when it's implied?

Sorry but your the one with understnding those issues.

Well that makes me happy.

Good for you

Nope. As I said before, you might want to read that quote again. He was saying that he wasn't understanding me not that I wasn't understanding someone else.

Sorry but no.

He was and has told you that he was trying to tell you that he didnt understand they way you were looking at it.

Which is a "not so sutubl" way of saying he thinks your wrong but wants more insight into the way your thinking before he says so.

He even told you afterwards that he fully understands "usually perfectly".

And pluse, how does that prove you right? You just said that you never claimed everyone said I was wrong and now you're admitting that you have said it.

Because I didnt exactly say that "everyone says your wrong".

I said exactly "Every one here as commented on you being wrong or misunderstanding"

Thats "wrong or misunderstanding" not just wrong.

There is a difference.

Not the point.

Sure it is.

And again, you just claimed right before I posted thoughs 3 quotes that you never said it.

You need topay attention to whats actually posted.

So thanks for proveing that you keep changeing your argument.

I changed no argument.

Read carfully.

My exact words were "wrong or misunderstanding"

Thats a different statement from just saying your totally wrong.

BTW That is word for word what you said, all I did was correct the cap lock sence it went backwords mid sentence.

BTW it wasnt since you keeping only pointing out 1 section of my statement.

I said everyone here has said that you were wrong or misunderstanding things

So thanks for proving your poor reading skills.