The Energon Pub

News Credits: 3 · by **Damolisher** » Thu Sep 20, 2007 5:39 pm

Do you know why none of these speciafically say not robots? Probably because they didn't think people would be stupid enough to think a machine counted as an organism. Read it again, nimrod, it clearly says ANIMAL OR PLANT. You know, as in, we have pet animals, and you've clearly been smoking too much 5-leaved plants if you think a mechanism is an organism.

Anyway, I'm done being RIGHT, you're not worth wasting my time on. Seriously, none of these mod warnings about being a know-it-all have sunken in, have they?

by **Tramp** » Thu Sep 20, 2007 5:48 pm

Damolisher, read the definitions. Definition number one : 1. A form of life consisting of mutually dependent parts that maintain various vital processes.
Do Transformers meet this definition? Yes they do. They are a form of life consisting of various mutually dependent parts that maintain vital processes. Transforers are life forms. They are made up of multiple mutually dependent systems which maintain their life functions. By definition, that makes them organisms. Under definition three a governmental body is an organism. And I didn't even post definition 4: Philos. Any complex thing or system having properties and functions determined not only by the properties and relations of its individual parts, but by the relations of the parts to the whole. Thus, also by this definition, Transformers meet the definition of an "organism". Transformers meet at least three out of four definitions of "organism", if not all four definitions.

News Credits: 3 · by **Damolisher** » Thu Sep 20, 2007 5:52 pm

Oh, ok, so they HAVE to meet all the "Definitions" of life by your standard, but in order to be "Organisms," they don't have to meet all criteria? Once again, you're just proving how much you love grasping for straws, Tramp. Just knock it off and stop trying to be Mr Right all the time.

by **Tramp** » Thu Sep 20, 2007 5:55 pm

Damolisher wrote:Oh, ok, so they HAVE to meet all the "Definitions" of life by your standard, but in order to be "Organisms," they don't have to meet all criteria? Once again, you're just proving how much you love grasping for straws, Tramp. Just knock it off and stop trying to be Mr Right all the time.

I'm not the one grasping at straws. Life does not have to be "organic". I gave you the dictionary definition of "organism" which matches precisely what the Transformers are. They meet those definitions, and thus, Prime's use of the word in describing himself and the other Autobots as "autonomous robotic organisms is 100% accurate.

News Credits: 3 · by **Damolisher** » Thu Sep 20, 2007 6:44 pm

Yeah, it's only correct because of your double standards, and your incorrect interpretation. It scares me how little you actually know for a 37 year old. Going by you, a Transformer has to make a baby, because it has to meet all of your 7 laws of life to be a lifeform, however, it doesn't have to meet all the criteria for being an organism? How does that work, meat head? So it meets a couple of open ended criteria, big stinkin' whoop. I meet 4 of the 7 criteria for being a heroin addict, and I'm straight edge. Doesn't mean I'm going against my beliefs. You just want everyone to follow what you THINK is right. (And I'm warning you one last time, lay off the bolding. It's starting to get on my bloody nerves. You're delibrately doing it to talk down to people.)

by **Tramp** » Thu Sep 20, 2007 7:14 pm

Damolisher, what are you rambling about? No definition of the word "organism" requires that it be organic; that it be carbon based. No definition of life form, or of life requires that the entitiy be carbon based organics. Only you believe that is a requirement. There is no double standard.

News Credits: 3 · by **Damolisher** » Fri Sep 21, 2007 1:49 am

Do you even know how to read? Because it's becoming painfully obvious you don't know how. Ah, screw it, i'll reread it to you and I'll try to use small words this time so you can understand.

You said in the other topic that Transformers have to meet all criteria for (Organic) life (As in, no-one was applying any life laws to cartoon robots, but that's beside the point.) Now. You are saying it doesn't have to meet all the criteria to be an "organism." (You know, Transformers aren't animals or plants, they're robots, which, for some reason, you don't seem to understand.)

You can't apply all the criteria in one category and not the other. Oh, wait, if you ignore the fact they're robots, the fact there's no organics, and that they are neither animal nor plant, and the fact that one of these definitions could be interpreted to include computers, because a computer's parts meet the definition exactly, then yeah, Tramp, you're right. But when you go by what you've said IS YOUR STANDARD, then obviously, you're wrong. Good day. Now, stop correcting people when you're wrong in the future. Go away and learn some humility.

by **Tramp** » Fri Sep 21, 2007 2:01 am

No, Damolisher. The criteria I gave in that previous debate was not for organic life, it was for all life, regardless of if it were organic, silicon-based, mechanical, techno-organic, crystaline, or whatever. Never once did I say that criteria was limited to carbon-based, "organic" life. You did. Therefore, there is no double standard. Secondly, a mechanical based animal life form is still an animal. A mechanical-based plant life form is still a plant. Once again, there is no double standard. You perceive a double standard because you wish to perceive one.

News Credits: 3 · by **Damolisher** » Fri Sep 21, 2007 2:15 am

That's funny, because last time I checked, a robot isn't an animal, you know, being made of metal and circuits?

by **Tramp** » Fri Sep 21, 2007 2:23 am

Damolisher wrote:That's funny, because last time I checked, a robot isn't an animal, you know, being made of metal and circuits?

If it acts like an animal, moves like an animal, functions like an animal. It's an animal. It doesn't matter what its base composition is. Movie Skorponok is described as being little more than an animal in his tech spec bio. HE is a robotic animal. A turbofox on Cybertron is an robotic animal. Need I give more examples? Your logic is flawed because you equate life only to carbon-based organic life. You equate "organism" only to carbon-based organic life forms, when neither is true. You have a very limited viewpoint. You place limitations on what is possible with life and with machines based upon what we have here on Earth today, and can't imagine that there could be true Mechanical-based life. You see Transformers as nothing more than simple programmed machines like on Earth, when both the movie and pre-exisitng canon shows otherwise.

by **Jar Axel** » Fri Sep 21, 2007 2:27 am

Damolisher quit arguing. There is a difference between a mechanism and a mechanical organism:

Turret Lathe = mechanism; Osmo = mechanical organism

Car = mechanism; Mars Rover = mechanical organisim

Looking at those modern and non scifi examples I would say that TFs are definatly mechanical organisms for the simple fact that they are highly advanced intelligent machines.

News Credits: 3 · by **Damolisher** » Fri Sep 21, 2007 2:29 am

No, my logic isn't flawed, my logic is that of someone who isn't a complete horse;s arse who likes to think that robots go under the same classifications as humans. They're mechanisms, case closed. hence why Galvatron tells Starscream in Ghost in the Machine point blank: YOu're a dead MECHANISM. Christ almighty, go back to school and stop forcing your idiotic beliefs on others. You clearly don't understand what robots actually are. You think they can have sex, grow and be classfied as organisms, when a robot is not an animal. A robot animal is still a machine, not an organism. It is not a biological creature, it is an artificial lifeform made of metal. Get a clue, get a life, and stop being such an obsequious chump in near future. Damolisher Wins, fatality, flawless victory.

by **Jar Axel** » Fri Sep 21, 2007 2:31 am

Damolisher wrote:No, my logic isn't flawed, my logic is that of someone who isn't a complete horse;s arse who likes to think that robots go under the same classifications as humans. They're mechanisms, case closed. hence why Galvatron tells Starscream in Ghost in the Machine point blank: YOu're a dead MECHANISM. Christ almighty, go back to school and stop forcing your idiotic beliefs on others. You clearly don't understand what robots actually are. You think they can have sex, grow and be classfied as organisms, when a robot is not an animal. A robot animal is still a machine, not an organism. It is not a biological creature, it is an artificial lifeform made of metal. Get a clue, get a life, and stop being such an obsequious chump in near future. Damolisher Wins, fatality, flawless victory.

And yet scientists call them organisims; Odd isn't it

News Credits: 3 · by **Damolisher** » Fri Sep 21, 2007 2:32 am

It cannot be an organism without being organic. Otherwise, why not just call it a "Nism?" And that's funny, when did a scientist call a robot an organism? Oh, and Tramp, Optimus isn't a turbofox, is he? And he hardly classfies as whatever Scorpy is. So maybe you're right about the animal thing, but you just backpeddled your way out of the real matter here.

by **Tramp** » Fri Sep 21, 2007 2:35 am

Jar Axel wrote:

And yet scientists call them organisims; Odd isn't it

Thank you very much Jar. Scientists do still call them organisms.

Damolisher wrote:

Yes, something can be an organism without being organic. I have already proved this, witn the dictionary definitions, and science backs this up. You alone think otherwise because you have such a narrow viewpoint.

News Credits: 3 · by **Damolisher** » Fri Sep 21, 2007 2:38 am

Ugh, fine, no logical thought AT ALL in this one. At least I'll admit I'm wrong according to youse two, which is more than you ever do Tramp.

by **Jar Axel** » Fri Sep 21, 2007 2:39 am

Damolisher wrote:It cannot be an organism without being organic. Otherwies, why not just call it a "Nism?"

Damolisher the "organ" in organism does not denote "organic" but organ as in a heart, or a liver, or a tibula, or a Jarvic artificial heart.

(It should aslo be noted that the term organic itself is misleading as it should, and I do belive origionaly did, mean that some thing was composed of organs not bio degradeable

by **Tramp** » Fri Sep 21, 2007 2:56 am

Actually you're only partially right on that second statement. The term "Organic" does have something to do with carbon-based life and compounds, at least the first definition does from the Unabridged Dictionary I own. The other definitions do not, though there are way too many to copy verbatum (15 definitions). Definition 2 says, " Characteristic of, petaining to, or derived from living organisms. Definition 3 though does say "of or pertaining to an organ or the organs of an animal or plant." Some of the definitions though have nothing to do with life itself though, but like I said, there are too many to copy.

These are the definitions I found from the Merriam-Webster online Dictionary(their order is different than in my copy of the dictionary, which isn't too hard to believe):

Main Entry: 1or·gan·ic
Pronunciation: or-'ga-nik
Function: adjective
1 archaic : INSTRUMENTAL
2 a : of, relating to, or arising in a bodily organ b : affecting the structure of the organism
3 a (1) : of, relating to, or derived from living organisms (2) : of, relating to, yielding, or involving the use of food produced with the use of feed or fertilizer of plant or animal origin without employment of chemically formulated fertilizers, growth stimulants, antibiotics, or pesticides b (1) : of, relating to, or containing carbon compounds (2) : relating to, being, or dealt with by a branch of chemistry concerned with the carbon compounds of living beings and most other carbon compounds
4 a : forming an integral element of a whole : FUNDAMENTAL b : having systematic coordination of parts : ORGANIZED c : having the characteristics of an organism : developing in the manner of a living plant or animal
5 : of, relating to, or constituting the law by which a government or organization exists

Main Entry: 2organic
Function: noun
: an organic substance: as a : a fertilizer of plant or animal origin b : a pesticide whose active component is an organic compound or a mixture of organic compounds c : a food produced by organic farming

News Credits: 104 · by **Cyber Bishop** » Fri Sep 21, 2007 4:47 am

Alright Tramp... This "I'm always right" and wanting to argue your point over and over attitude has finally gotten to myself and the staff..

You just bought yourself a 3 day.
The email explaining the details of the suspension will be there shortly.

by **Auto Bot** » Fri Sep 21, 2007 6:57 am

Organism is a living entity made up of cells and tissues.

The writer of Transformers Movie knows this. That's why they use the term NBE - Non-Biological Entity.

Otherwise, they would have used NBO - Non-Biological Organism. This is easier to understand. But it will be all wrong.

Addendum:

The origin of the word Organism is NOT organisation.

It came from the word ORGAN. Meaning parts, made up of tissues and cells, that perform specific functions.

by **Malikon** » Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:26 am

by **Sonray** » Fri Sep 21, 2007 3:23 pm

You suspended tramp for expressing his opinion?

As far as i saw he never broke any TOS rules, he never swore or flamed anyone or baited them, he just wouldnt shut up about something that wasnt a pressing issue that hadnt had a mod step in prior to tell people to shut up about, so why did you suspend him?

If anything the other guy should be suspended for calling him an "arsehole", that alone beats anything tramp may have done.

Im not really trying to stand up for tramp here as he gets on my nerves too but i cant ignore the fact that i did not see him break any TOS rules here.

Seems like you just suspended him cos you can...

News Credits: 6 · by **City Commander** » Fri Sep 21, 2007 3:47 pm

Alex Kingdom wrote:
Tramp wrote:Actually, it is dead on. Even in the comics and such, Before Megatron created the Decepticon faction, all Cybertronians were considered Autobots. They're the "default" element of the Cybertronian society. This is mentioned on page 3 of MtMtE #8.

Re-he-ealy...do you remember when MTMTE didn't exist? I do and seeing as Dreamwave went under screwing several revered TF artist and writers over in the process the Dreamwave continuity is null and void and no longer considered canon.

Yours AK

ZING!

Also,

News Credits: 104 · by **Cyber Bishop** » Fri Sep 21, 2007 8:07 pm

Sonray wrote:You suspended tramp for expressing his opinion?

As far as i saw he never broke any TOS rules, he never swore or flamed anyone or baited them, he just wouldnt shut up about something that wasnt a pressing issue that hadnt had a mod step in prior to tell people to shut up about, so why did you suspend him?

If anything the other guy should be suspended for calling him an "arsehole", that alone beats anything tramp may have done.

Im not really trying to stand up for tramp here as he gets on my nerves too but i cant ignore the fact that i did not see him break any TOS rules here.

Seems like you just suspended him cos you can...

I suspended him because I had a mountain of complaints about him and his "I am right" attitude. He refused to respect others opinions and argued constantly.
I don't care what you saw or if you agree with it quite frankly, I and other staff are the ones that got the PM complaints about him not you.
I suspended him because we (the Staff) have had enough of his constant arguing with everyone that did not see his point..
If you don't like it then I am sorry.
End of story.