The Energon Pub

TRANSFORMERS
more THAN MEETS the EYE

Saber Prime trying put his defination on to the movieverse, but the movie's have their own already.Both the humans and cybertronians have agree they are organisms.

"
In the movie it is Ratchet who provides the name Autobot, claiming it is an abbreviation after Optimus' line, "We are autonomous robotic organisms from the planet Cybertron". This may imply that "Autobot" is the species name for the Transformers (or at least a name they probably used to refer to their kind before the war). "

And Maggie Madsen can tell that it was a DNA based computer from the hack. It litterally became part of the system. "

Meaning the movieverse in it's own words is a robotic organims. Regardless what you wanna call it. If Lucas wants say Wookies are closer to bears than humans, then thats fact with in this made up universe regardless of real world science cause we have no real subjects to compare and quantify them against to have a basis to say otherwise. Plus it's science fiction, not science fact. May be one day someone will discover or create beings simliar to cybertronians and then we can say those are organic or purely robots, but the movieverse is whatever it says it is. If wasn't why would it say it was? hehe.

That isn't debateable, it's canon to said universe, as they didn't leave a blank for you draw your own conclusion what they are. It might not make sense or be what you'd like but the answer is clear as day besides the mountain of stuff Stov said hehe.

Lastjustice wrote:Saber Prime trying put his defination on to the movieverse, but the movie's have their own already.Both the humans and cybertronians have agree they are organisms.

"
In the movie it is Ratchet who provides the name Autobot, claiming it is an abbreviation after Optimus' line, "We are autonomous robotic organisms from the planet Cybertron". This may imply that "Autobot" is the species name for the Transformers (or at least a name they probably used to refer to their kind before the war). "

And Maggie Madsen can tell that it was a DNA based computer from the hack. It litterally became part of the system. "

Meaning the movieverse in it's own words is a robotic organims. Regardless what you wanna call it. If Lucas wants say Wookies are closer to bears than humans, then thats fact with in this made up universe regardless of real world science cause we have no real subjects to compare and quantify them against to have a basis to say otherwise. Plus it's science fiction, not science fact. May be one day someone will discover or create beings simliar to cybertronians and then we can say those are organic or purely robots, but the movieverse is whatever it says it is. If wasn't why would it say it was? hehe.

That isn't debateable, it's canon to said universe, as they didn't leave a blank for you draw your own conclusion what they are. It might not make sense or be what you'd like but the answer is clear as day besides the mountain of stuff Stov said hehe.

Thank you very much

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote: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.

No, that's NOT the issue, the issue is that no matter what I say now you're still going to continue responding to what I said several posts ago. Obviously the issue is not my wording or comprehention skills but your inability to move past a mistake that was corrected AGES ago. You're not even reading anything I'm saying now are you that's why you keep responding to claims I haven't made and that's why multiple times you have completly and totally failed to see this.

I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT WEATHER OR NOT A CRITERIA IS OR ISN'T A MESURE OF FACT. YOU CAN STOP EXSPLAINING THAT IT'S NOT A MESURE OF FACT BECAUSE I UNDERSTOOD THAT THE FIRST TIME YOU SAID IT AND IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING I'VE SAID SENCE THEN!

Get that threw your freaking head. It's you that doesn't understand, not me. You're the one who keeps responding to crap that I'm not even talking about and I've given up trying to exsplain anything to you because you'll never understand what I'm saying till you can pull your head out of your @$$ and actully read what I'm saying now insted of what I said and corrected several posts ago.

You do the same.

Sorry but I understood you.

No you haven't. That's painfully clear when you repeatedly respond to stuff that I haven't even said.

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.

Actully it does.

The criteria you posted for growth spicifically states, pharaphraiseing ahead, that adding parts to something does not qualify as growth. So in order to actully qualify as growth you have to be able to prove that something is ACTULLY growing.

The Nanobots side of the argument would fall under the catigory of adding parts which because Nanobots are so small it would appear to be growth without actully being growth.

Sence we have no way of knowing if they are actully capable of growth or if it's a technological simulation caused by the use of Nanobots then we have no way of evaluating weather or not Transformers actully fit that catigory.

Simply put, if they use nanobots which is a possibility then if that possibility was ever proven a fact in a future movie it would allso prove that they would not qualify for the catigory of growth. As it stands now there is no way of telling weather or not they can actully grow as defined by the criteria you posted which means that by stateing that Transformers fit the catigory for growth you are claiming that you know for a fact that no parts have been added to them as stated to qualify for the catigory of growth.

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.

Half true allthough I don't recall seeing a can opener.

In the Growth criteria... If something actully gains or even loses new parts like how a tadpole develops into a frog that is growth. But if something is simply "adding on" parts like how I added a new graphics card to my computer this would not qualify as growth.

Now if something is appearing to grow eyes that wouldn't normally have anything that could be rebuilt to function as eyes this isn't nessisarily a sign of actual growth. Lets say for a moment that maybe the AllSpark is actully built up of many millions of thousands of microscopic nanobots. This would allso exsplain how it was able to transform and mass shift into a smaller cube. So lets say that when the AllSpark brings a piece of Earth's technoligy to life that what it's actully doing is sending nanobots to rebuild it. These things are small but they could potentially combine togeather in a simular fassion to Reedman's formation. (The balls that look like Destroiyer droids who turned into a razor thin robot.) This would mean that their eyes were actully made up of tiny nanobots and did not grow from them.

The thing is we can't prove anything one way or another and at least with growth we do know that adding parts does not qualify. And again by saying that they do you are saying that you know for a fact that no parts have been built onto them.

And?

AND?

Annnnnnnnnnnnndddd?

And what????

That's what I was asking you. If you don't know I surely can't tell 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.

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.

Wow you still don't get it do you?

That was merly an example of a possible situation not a statement of fact.

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".

Sorry but no. Even when repeating him allmost word for word you fail to understand.

Yes that's what I just said. If he doesn't understand MY way of looking at it that means he doesn't fully understand me and is trying to get me to rephraise and be more clear which is really what you should be doing too.

Or he could just be wanting a better understand of my opinion without trying to claim right or wrong which if anyone actully had any complete understanding of anything I've said in this topic they'd realize there is no right or wrong, there is only opinions.

And that comment was directed at you. And note it says USEUALLY not ALLWAYS.

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.

Doesn't matter.

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.

Maybe but you definatly need to practice what you preech. You're worse than I am when it comes to paying attention to what's actully been posted as I pointed out in the begining of this post.

Rial Vestro wrote:No, that's NOT the issue,

Yes it is and you just proved it again.

I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT WEATHER OR NOT A CRITERIA IS OR ISN'T A MESURE OF FACT. YOU CAN STOP EXSPLAINING THAT IT'S NOT A MESURE OF FACT BECAUSE I UNDERSTOOD THAT THE FIRST TIME YOU SAID IT AND IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING I'VE SAID SENCE THEN!

Yes it does.

And the fact that you cant understand that is proof of whos not getting it threw their "freaking head".

No you haven't.

I have.

Its why I've been able to correct you every step of the way.

Actully it does.

The criteria you posted for growth spicifically states, pharaphraiseing ahead, that adding parts to something does not qualify as growth. So in order to actully qualify as growth you have to be able to prove that something is ACTULLY growing.

No.

There's no proving at all.

All I have to do is point out something that looks like growth that cant be also explained as the adding of parts.

And eyes on a can opener fit that bill.

So theres no need to adress the rest of this part.

Half true allthough I don't recall seeing a can opener.

Even if half true it fits the critira.

And it may have been a blender.

Now if something is appearing to grow eyes that wouldn't normally have anything that could be rebuilt to function as eyes this isn't nessisarily a sign of actual growth.

I can agree with that.

Maybe its not a sign of "actual growth"

But it would still fit the critira....because the critira calls for signs of what "MAY" be described as growth not proof positive of actual growth.

So again theres no need to adress the rest.

The thing is we can't prove anything one way or another and at least with growth we do know that adding parts does not qualify. And again by saying that they do you are saying that you know for a fact that no parts have been built onto them.

And again you just dont understand what the critira represents.

Get this threw your head

The critria is not asking for proff positive of any of its categories.

Its asking us to look for signs of certin traits that can and may be described as being similar to that of organic traits.

So to fit the critira all I have to do is point out something that "looks like it could be growth"

That's what I was asking you. If you don't know I surely can't tell you.

Another failure of yours to understand.

Wow you still don't get it do you?

No your the one not getting it.

I fear you never will.

What a shame.

That was merly an example of a possible situation not a statement of fact.

And your "posible senerio" was self defeating.

Sorry but no.

Sorry but yes.

Sorry if that hurts your feelings or pride.

Yes that's what I just said. If he doesn't understand MY way of looking at it that means he doesn't fully understand me and is trying to get me to rephraise and be more clear which is really what you should be doing too.

And when he told you he was on [paraphrased] "my side of the argument" and that things arent "as black and white" as you think it was a sutble way of telling you that he thought your way of thinking was limited an or wrong. [

Doesn't matter.

It does.

Maybe but you definatly need to practice what you preech. You're worse than I am when it comes to paying attention to what's actully been posted as I pointed out in the begining of this post.

Sorry but no.

As has already been proven by others here and on other treads......I was fully understood and I responded to each of your post as they were read.

The issue is you always chose the wrong words to expesss yourself.

And even after my asking you to clear thing up you either repeat the same stuff or find words that are synonymous with the original statement.

So you might change the words but you dont change how it reads.

Thats something I [and others here] have been telling you for years you need to work on.

Chose your words more carfully.

BTW...............

I just thought a a REALLY EASY almost juvenile way to explain it to you.

So lets say we are both in kindergarten as students and were given a series pictures of a farm to look at.We are then told to look carefully because the teacher is going to ask us questions to morrow.

The pictures contain different animals and equiments that can be found on the farm.

The next day the teacher asks us if we saw anything that "LOOKED" ike it could be a snake.

[so the critira is "looked like it could be a snake]

I point out a long green item at the side of the barn and say...."there is something that looks like it could be a snake".

Did my answer fit the critira????

YES

Is it a statement of fact????

No.

Because the question was about how it looked and not what it actully was.

Now lets say you answer the same question by saying...."no stupid,thats not a snake..... thats a garden hose".

Does your answer fit the critira????

Yes it does as well.

But is your answer a statement of fact?????Yes because you are saying what it is "definitively" and excluding the possibility of it still being a snake.

For you to say its "not a snake...its a garden hose" meens you know for a fact that its not a snake.

And thats pretty much what you have been doing here.

Because thats pretty much what the critira is asking.

"Does it look like it has traits of what is considered organic???"

And the answer to that question is.....YES.

Also......Does your "alternative" answer change the ,how or why my ,answer fit the dritira of the question????

No.

Because what something looks like to you may look different to me.

You saw a garden hose....I saw a possible snake.

Both of our answers fit the critira of the question.

And just in case you go there.....

Lets say it really was a garden hose.....does your answer change, the how or why, my answer fit the question????

No.

Because the question was how it looked to me from my point of view.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Rial Vestro wrote:No, that's NOT the issue,

Yes it is and you just proved it again.

I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT WEATHER OR NOT A CRITERIA IS OR ISN'T A MESURE OF FACT. YOU CAN STOP EXSPLAINING THAT IT'S NOT A MESURE OF FACT BECAUSE I UNDERSTOOD THAT THE FIRST TIME YOU SAID IT AND IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING I'VE SAID SENCE THEN!

Yes it does.

And the fact that you cant understand that is proof of whos not getting it threw their "freaking head".

Yeah, it's you because you have absolutly no understanding of any thing I've been trying to exsplain. I doubt that you've even read anything I've said sence then because non of your responces have anything to do with it.

It's this freaking simple. A criteria is not a mesure of fact. OK good fine I understand that. I've said and exsplained that multiple times but you still don't get it. I'm not talking about that so you don't need to keep repeating it.

Why is this so complicated? Because you can't get it threw your freaking head that I understood you the first time and I've been talking about something totally DIFFERENT!

TRYING ACTULLY READING THIS FOR A CHANGE!

A criteria is not a mesure of fact. OK good fine I understand that.

No you haven't.

I have.

Its why I've been able to correct you every step of the way.

You haven't corrected anything for a while as I've pointed out abouve and just in case here's some more for you.

A criteria is not a mesure of fact. OK good fine I understand that.

Actully it does.

The criteria you posted for growth spicifically states, pharaphraiseing ahead, that adding parts to something does not qualify as growth. So in order to actully qualify as growth you have to be able to prove that something is ACTULLY growing.

No.

There's no proving at all.

All I have to do is point out something that looks like growth that cant be also explained as the adding of parts.

WRONG! There is proveing to be to be done because it CAN allso be exsplained as the adding of parts as I just exsplained with the nanobot theory.

Now if something is appearing to grow eyes that wouldn't normally have anything that could be rebuilt to function as eyes this isn't nessisarily a sign of actual growth.

I can agree with that.

Maybe its not a sign of "actual growth"

But it would still fit the critira....because the critira calls for signs of what "MAY" be described as growth not proof positive of actual growth.

So again theres no need to adress the rest.

No again because it specifies what growth is. As long as it specifies spicific details you have to actully provide evidence of each little detail includeing weather or not the eyes could of been added parts formed by nanobots.

The thing is we can't prove anything one way or another and at least with growth we do know that adding parts does not qualify. And again by saying that they do you are saying that you know for a fact that no parts have been built onto them.

And again you just dont understand what the critira represents.

And again...


A criteria is not a mesure of fact. OK good fine I understand that.

Wow you still don't get it do you?

No your the one not getting it.

A criteria is not a mesure of fact. OK good fine I understand that.

That was merly an example of a possible situation not a statement of fact.

And your "posible senerio" was self defeating.

The only way it could be self defeating is if the sinerio itself proved it wasn't a possibility which it hasn't done hence there is no self defeating.

Yes that's what I just said. If he doesn't understand MY way of looking at it that means he doesn't fully understand me and is trying to get me to rephraise and be more clear which is really what you should be doing too.

And when he told you he was on [paraphrased] "my side of the argument" and that things arent "as black and white" as you think it was a sutble way of telling you that he thought your way of thinking was limited an or wrong.

And there you go again talking for others. I'm sure he's more than capable of speaking for himself.

Maybe but you definatly need to practice what you preech. You're worse than I am when it comes to paying attention to what's actully been posted as I pointed out in the begining of this post.

Sorry but no.

As has already been proven by others here and on other treads......I was fully understood and I responded to each of your post as they were read.

As they were read? No, no you haven't. Because I have clear said this...

A criteria is not a mesure of fact. OK good fine I understand that.

More times in the last 3 pages of this topic than I have in this post alone and you still respond to it as if I was saying this...

A criteria is a mesure of fact.

Which I have not been saying at all so you have not really responded to anything as it read and I'm kinda doubting that you have read anything which I why I'm continueing to repeat this...

A criteria is not a mesure of fact. OK good fine I understand that.

BTW sence I know you're going to take it literally as you allways do, when I made the comment about saying this more in the last 3 pages than I have in this post, that was an exadgeration.

The issue is you always chose the wrong words to expesss yourself.

That's ONE of the issues and one that at least I'm able to admit to. And again you really don't need to point that out to me because I've allready admitted to haveing that fault and by pointing it out now you look like an ass.

And even after my asking you to clear thing up you either repeat the same stuff or find words that are synonymous with the original statement.

So you might change the words but you dont change how it reads.

Thats something I [and others here] have been telling you for years you need to work on.

Chose your words more carfully.

Same as abouve and I have been trying but pulling stupid crap like this is really not helping matters any. Right now you're comming off as insulting me for my faults rather than trying to help me inprove on them. This might work for some people like calling a kid fatso to give him motivation to work out and eat better but it's not a motivational technique anyone should intentionally try to use because if it doesn't work then well, there's a flip side to the coin I'd rather not go into.

I just thought a a REALLY EASY almost juvenile way to explain it to you.

So lets say we are both in kindergarten as students and were given a series pictures of a farm to look at.We are then told to look carefully because the teacher is going to ask us questions to morrow.

The pictures contain different animals and equiments that can be found on the farm.

The next day the teacher asks us if we saw anything that "LOOKED" ike it could be a snake.

[so the critira is "looked like it could be a snake]

I point out a long green item at the side of the barn and say...."there is something that looks like it could be a snake".

Did my answer fit the critira????

YES

Is it a statement of fact????

No.

Because the question was about how it looked and not what it actully was.

I've given up trying to exsplain anything to you. All I'm going to do is keep repeating this till you stop the crap and actully try to understand what it is I'm actully telling you.

A criteria is not a mesure of fact. OK good fine I understand that.

Now lets say you answer the same question by saying...."no stupid,thats not a snake..... thats a garden hose".

Does your answer fit the critira????

Yes it does as well.

But is your answer a statement of fact?????Yes because you are saying what it is "definitively" and excluding the possibility of it still being a snake.

For you to say its "not a snake...its a garden hose" meens you know for a fact that its not a snake.

And thats pretty much what you have been doing here.

Because thats pretty much what the critira is asking.

"Does it look like it has traits of what is considered organic???"

And the answer to that question is.....YES.

Also......Does your "alternative" answer change the ,how or why my ,answer fit the dritira of the question????

No.

Because what something looks like to you may look different to me.

You saw a garden hose....I saw a possible snake.

Both of our answers fit the critira of the question.

And just in case you go there.....

Lets say it really was a garden hose.....does your answer change, the how or why, my answer fit the question????

No.

Because the question was how it looked to me from my point of view.

And sence you still don't understand anything I've said...

A criteria is not a mesure of fact. OK good fine I understand that.

Surely you must be getting it by now. I'm not going to even try and exsplain anything else to you untill you can understand at least that much.

And yes I realize I'm spamming now but frankly you're just going to keep makeing me repeat this anyway so I really don't care anymore. "Treat others how you would like to be treated." Well this is not really the intention behind that quote but this is my version of it. "Treat others how they treat you." In other words you're treating me like a child and acting somewhat childish yourself so my attitute has agested to it causeing me to react like this. This allso falls under the "for every action there is an equil and oppisite reaction" as I'm not acting, I'm reacting to you. As well as "an eye for an eye." Everyone has their own interpretations of these quotes and mine is justify my actions in this post.

Rial Vestro wrote:Yeah, it's you because you have absolutly no understanding of any thing I've been trying to exsplain.

I understand fine.

The issue is "what" your implying with your words.

You claim that you understand that......

A criteria is not a mesure of fact. OK good fine I understand that.

And then you follow it up with......

BTW its "The" not "A"

There is proveing to be to be done because it CAN allso be exsplained as.....

Which only proves that you still dont understand what the critira represents.

Even thou I've posted this a million times already I'm going to post the "GOAL" of the critira 1 more time in hopes that you......

ACTUALLY TRY READING THIS FOR ONCE!

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.

Do you see the 2 sets of key words that lay out the goal of the critira???

Here they are again.

no unequivocal definition

current understanding is descriptive

and again........

no unequivocal definition

current understanding is descriptive

No you haven't.

I have.

Its why I've been able to correct you every step of the way.

You haven't corrected anything for a while as I've pointed out abouve and just in case here's some more for you.

A criteria is not a mesure of fact. OK good fine I understand that.

Actully it does.

The criteria you posted for growth spicifically states, pharaphraiseing ahead, that adding parts to something does not qualify as growth. So in order to actully qualify as growth you have to be able to prove that something is ACTULLY growing.

No.

There's no proving at all.

All I have to do is point out something that looks like growth that cant be also explained as the adding of parts.

WRONG! There is proveing to be to be done because it CAN allso be exsplained as the adding of parts as I just exsplained with the nanobot theory.

Now if something is appearing to grow eyes that wouldn't normally have anything that could be rebuilt to function as eyes this isn't nessisarily a sign of actual growth.

I can agree with that.

Maybe its not a sign of "actual growth"

But it would still fit the critira....because the critira calls for signs of what "MAY" be described as growth not proof positive of actual growth.

So again theres no need to adress the rest.

No again because it specifies what growth is. As long as it specifies spicific details you have to actully provide evidence of each little detail includeing weather or not the eyes could of been added parts formed by nanobots.

The thing is we can't prove anything one way or another and at least with growth we do know that adding parts does not qualify. And again by saying that they do you are saying that you know for a fact that no parts have been built onto them.

And again you just dont understand what the critira represents.

And again...


A criteria is not a mesure of fact. OK good fine I understand that.


and 1 more time for good luck......


no unequivocal definition

current understanding is descriptive

Dont you get it????

There is no positive definition.....its all vague.

The current guide lines are descriptive.....and even the descriptions are vague.

Theres nothing to prove when the guide line is only asking for examples that vaguely fit ther description.

Any and all alternative explanations may one day prove they arent organic but it can NEVER effect how they originally fit the critira.

The only way it could be self defeating is if the sinerio itself proved it wasn't a possibility which it hasn't done hence there is no self defeating.

It was self deffeting the minute you suggested it.

You said that maybe the TF's mistranslated the word "organic" and applied it to them selfs by mistake.

And in that "MAYBE senerio" you also then have to consider the possibility that they mistranslated the word "robot" and applied it to them selfs by mistake.

Its an argument that cuts both ways which meens its self defeeting.

And there you go again talking for others. I'm sure he's more than capable of speaking for himself.

Sorry but I was qouting his words.

As they were read?

Yep.

No, no you haven't.

Yes I have.

That's ONE of the issues and one that at least I'm able to admit to. And again you really don't need to point that out to me because I've allready admitted to haveing that fault and by pointing it out now you look like an ass.

Your able to admit it but you refuse to do anything to correct it.

And now you intentionally insult me for pointing out your mistakes, but its ok for you to try to point out mine????

How childish of you.

Even if you took my words as an insult , they werent intentionally worded that way.

I've given up trying to exsplain anything to you.

Why because you were finally confronted with an explanation you cant double talk your way out of?????

And sence you still don't understand anything I've said...

Because you failed.

As always.

This allso falls under the "for every action there is an equil and oppisite reaction" as I'm not acting, I'm reacting to you. As well as "an eye for an eye." Everyone has their own interpretations of these quotes and mine is justify my actions in this post.

Sure right..............your just being chidish.

You cant wiggle out of the last explanation.

You either have to admit you never understood the basics or you have to admit your dead wrong.

And your ego wont allow you to do either.

So continue being a child.

Its hurting no one else but you.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

The only way it could be self defeating is if the sinerio itself proved it wasn't a possibility which it hasn't done hence there is no self defeating.

It was self deffeting the minute you suggested it.

You said that maybe the TF's mistranslated the word "organic" and applied it to them selfs by mistake.

And in that "MAYBE senerio" you also then have to consider the possibility that they mistranslated the word "robot" and applied it to them selfs by mistake.

Its an argument that cuts both ways which meens its self defeeting.

I'm going to exsplain this one last time sence you still don't get it.

It is 1 possible sinerio that's all, a possibility, not a fact. A possibility can only be defeated if it's proven wrong and once it's proven then it's no longer a possibility, it becomes a fact. So if you want to claim that it's self defeating then you have to make the claim that the other possible sinerio, that they misstranslated robot, is a fact which has not been done so the sinerio does not defeat itself.

Both are equilly possible and neither can be proven facts so niether is defeating of the other.

You have to be able to prove one sinerio as a fact to defeat the other.

And there you go again talking for others. I'm sure he's more than capable of speaking for himself.

Sorry but I was qouting his words.

No, you were reinterpreating his words for your own use.

That's ONE of the issues and one that at least I'm able to admit to. And again you really don't need to point that out to me because I've allready admitted to haveing that fault and by pointing it out now you look like an ass.

Your able to admit it but you refuse to do anything to correct it.

And now you intentionally insult me for pointing out your mistakes, but its ok for you to try to point out mine????

Excuse me? I've been trying to correct myself and rather than accepting that you just seem to be insulting me insted.

And that's different because I'm pointing flaws that you don't seem to be aware of rather than pointing them out after you've allready become aware and started trying to fix them.

I've given up trying to exsplain anything to you.

Why because you were finally confronted with an explanation you cant double talk your way out of?????

No because you're never going to understand a damn thing I try to exsplain untill you can understand this part first.

I KNOW A CRITERIA IS NOT A MESURE OF FACT AND IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT I'VE BEEN TRYING TO EXSPLAIN.

This allso falls under the "for every action there is an equil and oppisite reaction" as I'm not acting, I'm reacting to you. As well as "an eye for an eye." Everyone has their own interpretations of these quotes and mine is justify my actions in this post.

Sure right..............your just being chidish.

Exactly, but do you get why I'm being childish? You started acting like and treating me like a child so if you're going to do that then I'm going to do the same right back to you. Maybe if you actully stoped and read this...

I KNOW A CRITERIA IS NOT A MESURE OF FACT AND IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT I'VE BEEN TRYING TO EXSPLAIN.

... insted of repeatedly responding to me as if I didn't allready know it you might actully figure out what I'm trying to tell you instead repeating the broken record of basically calling me a dumb ass over and over again.

That's another reason you're comming off as insulting because even though I'm telling you clear as day that I understand something you continue to belive that I don't and that it's not you who doesn't understand. We've allready been over the "I'm not good at comunicating to others." and I've allready tryed to exsplain myself more ways than I care to count and I know for a fact that you still have no freaking clue what it is I'm trying to say.

Even though you know I'm not able to exsplain things well you do nothing about it. This is a two way street you know, reader and wrighter. As a reader the verry least you could do is actully try to understand what I was trying to say insted of focusing so much on what I actully said. Or at least stay focused on the current post and not the post from 3 pages ago. I am actully trying to correct myself over here, you just never notice because you allways stay focused on my mistakes and don't even pay any attention at all when I correct it and you never do a damn thing as a reader to let me know how I can correct my mistakes any faster. I'm left to do everything on my own which is why it useually takes you more than 10 pages to understand anything I say and for once I'd really rather not let it get that far. I'm not letting you focus on the mistakes like you allways do. I'm going to keep posting this untill you actully accept it and stop treating me like a dumb ass.

I KNOW A CRITERIA IS NOT A MESURE OF FACT AND IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT I'VE BEEN TRYING TO EXSPLAIN.

Rial Vestro wrote:I'm going to exsplain this one last time sence you still don't get it.

I understand you perfectly but you still dont get it.

It is 1 possible sinerio that's all, a possibility, not a fact.

And I'm going to explain this one more time since you still dont get it.

Even as a possibility its self defeating.

Because to acknowledge the possibility that they misused or misunderstood the meaning of the word "organic" you have to also acknowledge that they either misused or misunderstood the word "robot".

As a matter of fact your "possibility" calls every word spoken in english by a TF into question.

Thats why your theory is self defeating.

A possibility can only be defeated if it's proven wrong and once it's proven then it's no longer a possibility,

Sorry but no.

A possibility can be defeated if its illogical to begin with.

Now the idea of characters from an other country or world not fully understanding our words or language isint necessarily illogocal.

But trying to use it in a debate is self defeating since it can then be applied to every word spoken in English by a TF.

No, you were reinterpreating his words for your own use.

Sorry but no.

It was his exact words.

Excuse me?

There is no excuse for you or your behavior.

I've been trying to correct myself and rather than accepting that you just seem to be insulting me insted.

And that's different because I'm pointing flaws that you don't seem to be aware of rather than pointing them out after you've allready become aware and started trying to fix them.

There's no excuse for insults what so ever.

If you felt it "seemed" like I was insulting you you should have said something.

You know me well enough by now to know when I'm actually being insulting.

You wouldnt "seem" like an insult ,you would know it.

And I doubt you have actually done anything to correct the issues you exhibit over the years.

No because you're never going to understand a damn thing I try to exsplain untill you can understand this part first.

I KNOW A CRITERIA IS NOT A MESURE OF FACT AND IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT I'VE BEEN TRYING TO EXSPLAIN.

But you just dont get it.

Its not "A CRITERIA IS NOT A MESURE OF FACT" its "THE A CRITERIA IS NOT A MESURE OF FACT".

What you also dont get is what the "criteria" actually is in this case.

And before I go and repeat my self again I'm going to ask you a question.

And please answer it.

"What exactly is the criteria in this case"?????

Exactly.

Good you reconize the problem.

Now maybe you can get some help.

but do you get why I'm being childish? You started acting like and treating me like a child so if you're going to do that then I'm going to do the same right back to you..

Sorry but no.

I've done nothing but plainly and politely tired to answer your questions and provide you with the correct info.

Yes I have told you where I believe you are wrong and what I think you need to improve....but I havent resorted to useing insults.

I've done nothing childish.

That's another reason you're comming off as insulting because even though I'm telling you clear as day that I understand something you continue to belive that I don't and that it's not you who doesn't understand..

Because its evident you dont understand.

Because you keep saying "A" instead of "THE".

.

Even though you know I'm not able to exsplain things well you do nothing about it. This is a two way street you know, reader and wrighter..

Sorry but no.

I've done everything I can do about it.

I tried to give you the correct info.

The issue here is that your too stubborn to ever admit that your wrong or mistaken.

You'll hold onto your ignorance till the cows come home.

And when its finally proven with out a doubt that your wrong or mistaken you leave the thread and never return to the topic.

Never apologizing for your rude behavior or even acknowledging your mistake.

Basicly you tuck tail and run.

And its been that way with you since the beginning.

Since the first time I proved you wrong.

Ever since you have been on a mad quest to try to prove me wrong

.

As a reader the verry least you could do is actully try to understand what I was trying to say insted of focusing so much on what I actully said..

Excuse me???

How am I to understand what you said with out focusing on what you actually said????

Theres no logic in that statement.

stop treating me like a dumb ass.

Someone in your life may be treating you like a "DUMB ASS" but it certainly is not me.

If thats how I thought of you I would say it.

Thanks for a good two hours of entertainment. Your debate reminds me of some I had with my philosophy professors. And my father too, come to think of it. I wish I had put more effort into presenting clear, articulate ideas back then.

Optimist Prime wrote:Thanks for a good two hours of entertainment. Your debate reminds me of some I had with my philosophy professors. And my father too, come to think of it. I wish I had put more effort into presenting clear, articulate ideas back then.

So.....who, between Rial and myself, is playing your role and who's in the role of your philosophy professors/father????.

BTW....your welcome.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:So.....who, between Rial and myself, is playing your role and who's in the role of your philosophy professors/father????.

I thought that would be pretty obvious to anyone who's read the thread. Let me just say that I learned spelling and grammar in a hurry. It comes in handy to present a reasonable argument.

Optimist Prime wrote:

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:So.....who, between Rial and myself, is playing your role and who's in the role of your philosophy professors/father????.

I thought that would be pretty obvious to anyone who's read the thread. Let me just say that I learned spelling and grammar in a hurry. It comes in handy to present a reasonable argument.

I feel its quite obvious too.

But the "student" here seems to need everything spelled out for him for some reason.

So just to be clear.....and only if your conferable answering, which argument did you find more reasonable, logically supported, opened minded and well presented????

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:So just to be clear.....and only if your conferable answering, which argument did you find more reasonable, logically supported, opened minded and well presented????

While at times you did get a bit short, your argument was well presented. Intellectual possibilities can be a bit tough to get across to someone unwilling to accept your definition of terms. I had the same problem when arguing with my father. He was not a Sci-fi fan at all, so he thought some possibilities were absurd, thus not worth discussing. It was kind of funny actually when my mom would point out that many times we were arguing the same thing but using different terms. Semantics are the spice of life, eh?


(Woot! Post 500)

Your continueing habbit of repeating things I've allready answered is getting annoying and driveing us in circles.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:to acknowledge the possibility that they misused or misunderstood the meaning of the word "organic" you have to also acknowledge that they either misused or misunderstood the word "robot".

As you obviously missed or didn't understand when I answered this the first time. Who says I haven't acknowledged that they either misused or misunderstood the word robot? As I exsplained like 3 times allready, it's ONE count them, ONE possible sinerio that I was useing as an EXAMPLE. It does not in any way exclude other possible sinerios which is the only way that it can be self defeating.

You're saying that it's self defeating because it excludes any other possibility but that's not the case. It excludes nothing simply because it is a possibility and not a fact. So I'll say again, do I actully have to say "and vice versa" in order for you to understand what I was saying or are you capable of understanding that it was implied.

A possibility can only be defeated if it's proven wrong and once it's proven then it's no longer a possibility,

Sorry but no.

A possibility can be defeated if its illogical to begin with.

Now the idea of characters from an other country or world not fully understanding our words or language isint necessarily illogocal.

But trying to use it in a debate is self defeating since it can then be applied to every word spoken in English by a TF.

Not self defeating sence I never said it couldn't. The transformers do seem to have some concept of the English language but there are some things spoken by them that don't make any sence.

Look at the History of the Autobots and Decepticons for example. If the Transformers are actully translating correctly then the history doesn't make any sence at all. Wheelie said that the Decepticons predate the Autobots which would mean that Decepticons exsisted before Autobots ever did. In the first movie Optimus exsplained that Megatron started the Decepticons which would imply that all Cybertronians were originally Autobots at one time as Autobot was the description they used for their race not for their faction. And Jetfire said that the Fallen was the original Decepticon which if what Wheelie said was right that would be impossible sence all 7 Primes would be Decepticons if Autobots didn't yet exsist.

Basically throughout both movies different characters are giveing completly different historys and definitions for each group and how long they have exsisted. I'll break down the abouve...

1. Optimus Prime and Ratchet exsplain that they as a race, are Autobots, Autonimus Robotic Organisums. Optimus and Megatron use to rule over Cybertron togeather untill they were Decived by Megatron and his "Decepticons". Which would imply that all Transformers are Autobots and thoughs under Megatron's command are Decepticons.

2. When trying to translate the symbols Sam was seeing they determined that the symbols were so old that only a Decepticon could read them stating that the Decepticons PREDATE the Autobots which is totally the oppisite of what was said in the first movie. Wheelie was then used to try and translate but he wasn't able to read the symbols either and showed the location of the Seekers who could leading them to Jetfire. And plot hole, even though they allready knew they needed a Decepticon to read the symbols everyone seemed suprised to discover that Jetfire was a Decepticon. Maybe because they were allso haveing a hard time with the whole, who came first Autobots or Decepticons thing.

3. Jetfire stated that the Fallen was the first Decepticon and he betrayed the other 6 Primes in a simular fasion to how Megatron betrayed Optimus which would again imply that Autobots came first or all 7 Primes would of had to be Decepticons in order for the whole Decepticons predate Autobots thing to be true.

So given that they can't seem to get their own history straight in English doesn't that kind of prove that they might not understand English all that well?

No, you were reinterpreating his words for your own use.

Sorry but no.

It was his exact words.

The quote was his exact words. When you were exsplaining what you thought it implied that was your own interpretation of his words.

I've been trying to correct myself and rather than accepting that you just seem to be insulting me insted.

And that's different because I'm pointing flaws that you don't seem to be aware of rather than pointing them out after you've allready become aware and started trying to fix them.

There's no excuse for insults what so ever.

If you felt it "seemed" like I was insulting you you should have said something.

You know me well enough by now to know when I'm actually being insulting.

You wouldnt "seem" like an insult ,you would know it.

And I doubt you have actually done anything to correct the issues you exhibit over the years.

What the hell do you think I keep rephraiseing my words for? I'm not changeing my agument, I'm only trying to correct mistakes in my wording so that you see what my original intentions were rather than how it originally read. Allthough you never seem to get that as you continue to focus on the mistakes long after I've made several attempts at correcting them and I've only recently figured this out which is why I'm repeating the same line multiple times trying to draw your attention AWAY from the mistakes I've made and to the corrections I'm trying to make that you allways ignore.

And I'll exsplain again. It's not insulting if you point out something that I'm not aware of, that's actully helpfull but when you point out flaws as I'm attempting to fix them it becomes insulting because if I'm allready aware of it and you can see I'm trying to correct it you don't help anything by pointing it out. All you're doing then is calling out how dumb I am by pointing out a flaw while I'm in the proccess of fixing it.

It's like telling someone they stink right after they just got out of the shower and put clean cloths on. Before is ok, after is not.

Yes I have told you where I believe you are wrong and what I think you need to improve....but I havent resorted to useing insults.

I've done nothing childish.

Repeatedly exsplaining to me what a Criteria represents and that I don't understand it after I've told you several times that I do understand and that you don't need to exsplain it is childish and is treating me like a child.

Continueing to insist that you understand me when I'm telling you that you don't understand and knowing the whole time that I'm not great at getting my point across is allso childish. I'm not saying it's your fault that you don't understand me but I am telling you that what you think I'm saying is not what I'm actully saying. Or however you're reading it is not how I've intended it.

Not once have you even stopped to consider that it's you who doesn't understand even though I've told you several times I understand what you're telling me and it has nothing to do with what I'm telling you. Rather than listening to me you're insted insulting my comprehention skills. And you have blantantly said that my comprhention skills suck, not in thoughs exact words but you said it.

My comunication skills suck, that much is true but my comprehention skills, well simply put, I'm better at reading than wrighting. The chances of me missunderstanding something I've read is not nearly as great as someone else missunderstanding what I've wrote simply because I do not comunicate to others quite as much as others communicate to me. Any comunication that goes threw me does not translate well when I have to paraphraise. It's like a sick twisted game of teliphone.

Come to think of it, we should actully try that just as an exsperiment. Just say some random thing that I have to repeat in my own words and I'll respond to it. You do the same back and I'll bet you that mine is closer to what you intended then yours is to what I intended.

That's another reason you're comming off as insulting because even though I'm telling you clear as day that I understand something you continue to belive that I don't and that it's not you who doesn't understand..

Because its evident you dont understand.

Because you keep saying "A" instead of "THE".

Doesn't make a difference and even if it did I copied that from you. You said that I "didn't understand what a criteria represents" so if you want to make a big deal about me saying a insted of the then maybe you should correct yourself first before you correct others.

Even though you know I'm not able to exsplain things well you do nothing about it. This is a two way street you know, reader and wrighter..

Sorry but no.

I've done everything I can do about it.

I tried to give you the correct info.

The issue here is that your too stubborn to ever admit that your wrong or mistaken.

You'll hold onto your ignorance till the cows come home.

And when its finally proven with out a doubt that your wrong or mistaken you leave the thread and never return to the topic.

Never apologizing for your rude behavior or even acknowledging your mistake.

Basicly you tuck tail and run.

And its been that way with you since the beginning.

Since the first time I proved you wrong.

Ever since you have been on a mad quest to try to prove me wrong.

That's not entirely true. I have admitted to my mistakes and the only time I run from a topic and never return is when you've failed to prove me wrong and because you refuse to admit your mistakes. A few times you've repeated mistakes you point out that I have done and when I point out that you've done it too you make up some half assed excuse for why it's OK for you spell something wrong or missuse a word but not for me or you ignore it completly and never even acknowlage it like you're doing now.

The only thing you really got right is yes I'm on a mad quest to try and prove you wrong about something which I have never done. But I have pointed out errors in your spelling and grammar which you have never tried to correct and whenever I point something out you just turn it around on me like I'm the only one with spelling and grammar problems around here. The only thing you've ever corrected that I had to point out to you and the only thing you even addmit to when it's pointed out is the accasional missplaced or misslabled quote tag.

In fact I think I pointed out a while back how you never use proper contractions and you still haven't done anything to fix that nor did you ever acknowlage it when I brought it up. And by proper contractions I mean words like don't, haven't, doesn't, we'll, ect. that you tend to spell as dont, havent, doesnt, well, ect.

Thing is, neither one of us is all that great and I know I can't spell well or even word things correctly but I have addmitted to. You haven't and insted you automatically blame me for every single problem in comunication. Not everything is my fault and it's not allways your fault either. Hell some times we can both be to blame either by my wrighting and/or reading or your righting and/or reading. And in this particular case I do belive it was YOUR righting proventing me from understanding you but that has been cleared up now and for a still undertermined reason you are not understanding me.

As a reader the verry least you could do is actully try to understand what I was trying to say insted of focusing so much on what I actully said..

Excuse me???

How am I to understand what you said with out focusing on what you actually said????

Theres no logic in that statement.

Simply put it means don't focus on what I said 3 pages ago and insted look at what I'm saying now to try and correct it.

This line...

I understand what the criteria represents, it has nothing to do with what I'm trying to exsplain to you.

If you can just understand that line and what that means you can rephraise everything else so that it fits what my intentions were insted of what I actully said because at this point I've rephraised the same damn thing so many times I really have no clue how to word it correctly. I've run out of ways to rephraise the damn thing so all I have left is to make you understand that one line and everything else should hopefully fall into it's correct place.

Optimist Prime wrote:

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:So just to be clear.....and only if your conferable answering, which argument did you find more reasonable, logically supported, opened minded and well presented????

While at times you did get a bit short, your argument was well presented. Intellectual possibilities can be a bit tough to get across to someone unwilling to accept your definition of terms. I had the same problem when arguing with my father. He was not a Sci-fi fan at all, so he thought some possibilities were absurd, thus not worth discussing. It was kind of funny actually when my mom would point out that many times we were arguing the same thing but using different terms. Semantics are the spice of life, eh?


(Woot! Post 500)

Congrats on your post count

And thank you for the rest.

I never got the opportunity to have such debates with my father....he died when I was young.

Rial Vestro wrote:Your continueing habbit of repeating things I've allready answered is getting annoying and driveing us in circles.

Sorry but you still dont seem to grasp the basics.

And I'm hardly alone in repeating myself.

Lets see how it goes at the end of this post???

As you obviously missed or didn't understand when I answered this the first time.

Its not I that doesnt understand.

You're saying that it's self defeating because it excludes any other possibility but that's not the case.

I said no such thing about exclusions.

I'll make this really simple.

[paraphrasing and time/post laps]

At the beginning of this debate I said "in the film they called them selfs organic"

Your answer was "they also called them robots"....."so maybe they only called them self organic because of a mistranslation"

My answer to that is ...."that possibility is self defeating because if we are to assume they mistranslated the word organic....then we have to accept the possibility that they mistranslated the word robot"


I'm not saying the possibility is self defeating but trying to argue it is.

Not self defeating sence I never said it couldn't.

covered above.

Look at the History of the Autobots and Decepticons for example. If the Transformers are actully translating correctly then the history doesn't make any sence at all.

Why is that???

Wheelie said that the Decepticons predate the Autobots which would mean that Decepticons exsisted before Autobots ever did.

I think your remembering it wrong.

I'll check later.

In the first movie Optimus exsplained that Megatron started the Decepticons which would imply that all Cybertronians were originally Autobots at one time as Autobot was the description they used for their race not for their faction.

I think your jumping to erroneous conclusions.

Its quite possible that they all just thought them selfs as "Cybertronions" or "Autonomous robotic organisms" and only started useing the anogram "Autobot" after the war started.

And Jetfire said that the Fallen was the original Decepticon which if what Wheelie said was right that would be impossible sence all 7 Primes would be Decepticons if Autobots didn't yet exsist.

Just because the Fallen is called the first Decepticon does not meen that all the Primes were Decepticons.

The Fallen turned on the Primes and was either given or took the name Decepticon.

Megatron then formed an army and then named them after the symble he worshiped.

Basically throughout both movies different characters are giveing completly different historys and definitions for each group and how long they have exsisted. I'll break down the abouve...

1. Optimus Prime and Ratchet exsplain that they as a race, are Autobots, Autonimus Robotic Organisums. Optimus and Megatron use to rule over Cybertron togeather untill they were Decived by Megatron and his "Decepticons". Which would imply that all Transformers are Autobots and thoughs under Megatron's command are Decepticons.

Again I think your jumping to wrong conclusions.

To give you the correct history as I know it.........They are Autonomous Robotic Organisms from the planet Cybertron. Optimus and Megatron ruled cybertron for a long time, till Megatrons we cruppted by something the Fallen left behind.

Megatron formed an army under the ideals of the Fallen and named them the Decepticons.

Optimus ?Prime put together his own defense force and named them the Autobots...short for "Autonomous Robotic Organisms"

It still fits what we were told.

2. When trying to translate the symbols Sam was seeing they determined that the symbols were so old that only a Decepticon could read them

Who determined that????

I only remember them saying that they needed an old TF to translate or that it was in an old Cybertronion language.

"The language of the Primes" if I remember right.

Wheelie was then used to try and translate but he wasn't able to read the symbols either and showed the location of the Seekers who could leading them to Jetfire. And plot hole, even though they allready knew they needed a Decepticon to read the symbols everyone seemed suprised to discover that Jetfire was a Decepticon. Maybe because they were allso haveing a hard time with the whole, who came first Autobots or Decepticons thing.

I think your remembering it wrong.

I'm going to check in a little while to be sure.

But I admit....the script was rather confusing.

3. Jetfire stated that the Fallen was the first Decepticon and he betrayed the other 6 Primes in a simular fasion to how Megatron betrayed Optimus which would again imply that Autobots came first or all 7 Primes would of had to be Decepticons in order for the whole Decepticons predate Autobots thing to be true.

I think your mixxed up.

First there were the primes.The Fallen then decived them gaining the name Decepticon.

Years later [who knows how many] Megatron started an army in the image of the first Decepticon.

The quote was his exact words. When you were exsplaining what you thought it implied that was your own interpretation of his words.

Dude he gave his own explanation of what he ment...and it mirrored my interpertation almost exactly.

Stop denying it.

What the hell do you think I keep rephraiseing my words for?

Sorry but thats not the kind of "corrections" I'm talking about.

I'm talking about trying to improve your communication skills from the start so we dont continue to have these kinds or problems.

remember when we first met here???

You went out of your way to point out every mistake I made with the "quote buttons".

And I tried to improve on that and now I hardly ever make those kinds of mistakes....but even when I do, once in a blue moon, you still point it out.

Well you have had these same communication skill issues for all these years and I havent found 1 onuce of improvement.

As for the rest....I'm sorry if you felt insulted.

Repeatedly exsplaining to me what a Criteria represents and that I don't understand it after I've told you several times that I do understand and that you don't need to exsplain it is childish and is treating me like a child.

I repeated it because, even thou you claim to understand, the evidence of your argument shows other wise.

Either way I asked you a question in my last post....the answer should tell me if you trully understand.

Doesn't make a difference

Ohh it makes a very big difference.

This is why I say you dont understand.

See here is how it should read.

"The critira is not a mersure of fact"

But "A critira CAN be a mesure of fact"

More on this later after I read your answer to my question.

and even if it did I copied that from you. You said that I "didn't understand what a criteria represents" so if you want to make a big deal about me saying a insted of the then maybe you should correct yourself first before you correct others.

Sorry but No.

Even thou I admit its a "possibility" that I said A CRITERIA a few times I know I said THE CRITERIA more often.

Further more I pointed out that you were saying "A" a few times and this is the first time you responded....evidence that your not reading carfully.

And even if you were only copying my mistake.......what have we been over about quoting info you dont fully understand????

That's not entirely true. I have admitted to my mistakes and the only time I run from a topic and never return is when you've failed to prove me wrong and because you refuse to admit your mistakes..

Totally false.

Althou you have, once or twice , admitted to a mistake....you more often then not run from topics one your argument has failed.

I've never had a problem admiting mistakes or being wrong , as many who know me here can attest too.

.

A few times you've repeated mistakes you point out that I have done and when I point out that you've done it too you make up some half assed excuse for why it's OK for you spell something wrong or missuse a word but not for me or you ignore it completly and never even acknowlage it like you're doing now..

Flat out lies.

The only thing you really got right is yes I'm on a mad quest to try and prove you wrong.

Good you finely admit it.

.

about something which I have never done. But I have pointed out errors in your spelling and grammar which you have never tried to correct and whenever I point something out you just turn it around on me like I'm the only one with spelling and grammar problems around here..

Sorry but no.

I fully admit my bad spelling and grammar.

Every one knows that.

And I never, I repeat NEVER, give others crap for bad spelling and grammar.

In fact I think I pointed out a while back how you never use proper contractions and you still haven't done anything to fix that nor did you ever acknowlage it when I brought it up..

thats an other lie.

Yes you brought it up and I explained to you that I was never thought how to type and dont know where proper buttons are by memory.

And no,I havent done much about it.Because whats needed is a typing class....and you will have to forgive me , I have been a bit busy with failing kidneys and dialysis.

Simply put it means don't focus on what I said 3 pages ago and insted look at what I'm saying now to try and correct it.

This line...

I understand what the criteria represents, it has nothing to do with what I'm trying to exsplain to you.

If you can just understand that line and what that means you can rephraise everything else so that it fits what my intentions were insted of what I actully said because at this point I've rephraised the same damn thing so many times I really have no clue how to word it correctly. I've run out of ways to rephraise the damn thing so all I have left is to make you understand that one line and everything else should hopefully fall into it's correct place.

Ok fine.

You claim you understand....but when I asked you to tell me what it was you done even answer the question.

So I ask you again.

"What exactly is the criteria in this case"?????

Taking this topic in a slightly different yet still relevant direction, I have a question.

Why is it that whenever the Allspark imbues something with life in the Bayverse, that life is always malicious and hostile right from the getgo? Examples include the Nokia bot, the Dew bot, the face-grabbing steering wheel, the Xbox bot, and the appliance bots. Psycho right from the start.

Why is it that the appliance bots didn't flock to Sam like goslings seeking a mother figure instead of attacking him? Or simply scatter out the nearest windows or doors like a gaggle of puppies?

One can argue that there is the self preservation instinct acting here, but not all creatures start biting and clawing at anything that moves right from the womb. Many of these tendencies are learned over time through experience. Even instinctual behaviors take a bit of time to become automatic. A newborn grizzly will likely not automatically try to maul you.

And given that Bay makes this latent bloodlust the common occurrence, how did any kind of civilization evolve on Cybertron at all with nothing but feral, instantly hostile organisms that were more likely to just kill each other on sight?

Cobalt Prime wrote:Taking this topic in a slightly different yet still relevant direction, I have a question.

Why is it that whenever the Allspark imbues something with life in the Bayverse, that life is always malicious and hostile right from the getgo? Examples include the Nokia bot, the Dew bot, the face-grabbing steering wheel, the Xbox bot, and the appliance bots. Psycho right from the start.

Why is it that the appliance bots didn't flock to Sam like goslings seeking a mother figure instead of attacking him? Or simply scatter out the nearest windows or doors like a gaggle of puppies?

One can argue that there is the self preservation instinct acting here, but not all creatures start biting and clawing at anything that moves right from the womb. Many of these tendencies are learned over time through experience. Even instinctual behaviors take a bit of time to become automatic. A newborn grizzly will likely not automatically try to maul you.

And given that Bay makes this latent bloodlust the common occurrence, how did any kind of civilization evolve on Cybertron at all with nothing but feral, instantly hostile organisms that were more likely to just kill each other on sight?

Your question was asked about a million times when the first film came out [not saying its not a good one ]

And I dont think an official answer will ever be given.....but as fans we have come up with a number of possibilities.

One of possibilities that I put some stock into is the "Megatron theroy.

It was said that most of the inventions of the modern world were, in part, made from reversed engineering and studying Megatron.

So maybe all of earths modern inventions have some of Megatrons DNA....so to speak.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:My answer to that is ...."that possibility is self defeating because if we are to assume they mistranslated the word organic....then we have to accept the possibility that they mistranslated the word robot"


I'm not saying the possibility is self defeating but trying to argue it is.

Then you're not makeing any sence because the only way it can be self defeating is by exscludeing all other possibilitys.

Look, I'll make this really simple.

You just said right there that "we have to accept the possibility that they mistranslated the word robot." and I'm saying this for about the third time now. I HAVE ACCEPTED THAT POSSIBILITY. I'm not exscludeing it.

It's the same argument just worded differently. You either accept every possibility or exclude every other possibility. If you're agree that I haven't exscluded anything then you have no reason to make the argument that I'm not accepting everything, it's the same thing and in either case not self defeating.

Wheelie said that the Decepticons predate the Autobots which would mean that Decepticons exsisted before Autobots ever did.

I think your remembering it wrong.

Actully, I am a little bit. I realized after I posted that the Decepticon predateing the Autobots thing was the reason they took Wheelie out of his trunk so he couldn't of been the one to say it sence he wasn't in the scene yet but it was said. I just can't remember who said it now which is the only reason I haven't tryed to fix it yet.

In the first movie Optimus exsplained that Megatron started the Decepticons which would imply that all Cybertronians were originally Autobots at one time as Autobot was the description they used for their race not for their faction.

I think your jumping to erroneous conclusions.

Its quite possible that they all just thought them selfs as "Cybertronions" or "Autonomous robotic organisms" and only started useing the anogram "Autobot" after the war started.

Autobot was shortened from Autonomous robotic organisms so they're the same thing. They used Autonomous robotic organisms as the description for their race and then shortened that to Autobot but the Decepticons are part of their race as well so all Decepticons in the movie universe would technically be Autobots. That is assumeing that everything they said was correctly translated to English.

And Jetfire said that the Fallen was the original Decepticon which if what Wheelie said was right that would be impossible sence all 7 Primes would be Decepticons if Autobots didn't yet exsist.

Incorrect again.

Just because the Fallen is called the first Decepticon does not meen that all the Primes were Decepticons.

The Fallen turned on the Primes and was either given or took the name Decepticon.

Megatron then formed an army and then named them after the symble he worshiped.

Not quite.

If you think about it there are only 2 known factions in this continuity. Autobots and Decepticons.

From what they said in the first movie it seemed like all TFs were Autobots. Some Transformers turned into Decepticons. From what it looked like in the second movie the Fallen would have turned Decepticon the same way Megatron did but according the dialog the Decepticons exsisted BEFORE the Autobots so either.

A. The Fallen didn't become a Decepticon when he betrayed the other Primes, he was allready a Decepticon and so were the other Primes sence Autobots suposidly didn't exsist yet.

or

B. The Primes are a faction of their own that predate the Decepticons and Autobots.

B is something I just now thought of but if a Decepticon is a name given to traitors like Megatron and the Fallen as both movies show and the Autobots didn't yet exsist then the Primes either had to be Decepticons themselfs or a different faction that hasn't really been exsplained yet.

Basically throughout both movies different characters are giveing completly different historys and definitions for each group and how long they have exsisted. I'll break down the abouve...

1. Optimus Prime and Ratchet exsplain that they as a race, are Autobots, Autonimus Robotic Organisums. Optimus and Megatron use to rule over Cybertron togeather untill they were Decived by Megatron and his "Decepticons". Which would imply that all Transformers are Autobots and thoughs under Megatron's command are Decepticons.

Again your jumping to conclusions.

To give you the correct history as I know it.........They are Autonomous Robotic Organisms from the planet Cybertron. Optimus and Megatron ruled cybertron for a long time, till Megatrons we cruppted by something the Fallen left behind.

Megatron formed an army under the ideals of the Fallen and named them the Decepticons.

Optimus ?Prime put together his own defense force and named them the Autobots...short for "Autonomous Robotic Organisms"

It still fits what we were told.

You seem to have that a little backwords there.

You started out by saying I was jumping to conclusions which sence I see about 3 or 4 different possible sinerios happening here I don't see where as I'm the one jumping to any conclusions. Then you follow that statement with "It still fits what we were told." which kinda sounds like you're the one jumping to a conclusion.

And yea it fits but that's not exactly what was exsplained in the movies. You kinda filled in some gaps there on your own.

2. When trying to translate the symbols Sam was seeing they determined that the symbols were so old that only a Decepticon could read them

Who determined that????

I only remember them saying that they needed an old TF to translate or that it was in an old Cybertronion language.

Again, don't remember who but they didn't just say "old" they had mentioned that they needed a Decepticon because they predated the Autobots which is why they tried to get Wheelie to read them. The Seekers were allso Decepticons from what I understood which is why I thought it didn't make any sence when they seemed surprised to find out Jetfire was a Decepticon. They just said in the previous sceen that only a Decepticon could read the symbols then it was all "holly crap, he's a Decepticon!" It was just as bad as Megatron's "Even in death I am the leader" and 2 sec. later "How may I serve you my master." Preddy much thoughs scenes I just mentioned were the only scenes that really killed this movie for me but thankfully they were both really short and really easy to ignore.

What the hell do you think I keep rephraiseing my words for?

Sorry but thats not the kind of "corrections" I'm talking about.

I'm talking about trying to improve your communication skills from the start so we dont continue to have these kinds or problems.

remember when we first met here???

You went out of your way to point out every mistake I made with the "quote buttons".

And I tried to improve on that and now I hardly ever make those kinds of mistakes....but even when I do, once in a blue moon, you still point it out.

Well you have had these same communication skill issues for all these years and I havent found 1 onuce of improvement.

As for the rest....I'm sorry if you felt insulted.

That's a piss poor comparison. As if changeing the way I have been speaking and wrighting for all these years is really as easy as learning how to press a quote button.

And when I first pointed out the quote tag issues you were haveing I belive you were new to fourms at the time or at the verry least had not used them in quite a while and you improved a great deal allmost over night. I actully took the time to exsplain to you what the problem was and how to fix it. It's not like I just said "hey your quote tags are fed up" and exspected you to fix it on your own, I was nice about it and was trying to help you. And I highly doubt that your quoteing issues is something you've had deal with for your entire life.

I have tried my best to change how I word things when I realize I'm not being understood with no or little help from you or anyone else. So if you think I'm not showing any sign of inprovement then do something to actully help me or stop complaining about it. I'm doing all I can which isn't much.

Repeatedly exsplaining to me what a Criteria represents and that I don't understand it after I've told you several times that I do understand and that you don't need to exsplain it is childish and is treating me like a child.

I repeated it because, even thou you claim to understand, the evidence of your argument shows other wise.

Either way I asked you a question in my last post....the answer should tell me if you trully understand.

And that right there is the problem. "My argument shows other wise." You don't even understand what my argument is or you wouldn't be responding that way but you're refuseing to belive that you're the one that doesn't understand. I can't do a damn thing to correct myself untill you realize that. I can't even answer your answer your question untill you realize that. I'm not doing and can't do a damn thing untill you can at least accept and exsplore the possibilty that you do not understand what the true intentions are behind what I have wrighten.

Basically. I know what what my intentions, I know you are FAR from actully understand them, and I know what the hell the criteria represents. What I don't know is how to word my intentions correctly so that you can actully read them and understand them properly as I intended them to be read and I've given up guessing so now it's up to you to figure it out on your own and when you do then you can tell me how I should of worded it because I don't have a freaking clue how to make you understand me.

I've never had a problem admiting mistakes or being wrong , as many who know me here can attest too.

I can't recall a single time when you have ever admitted to anything but I know that everyone makes mistakes some times and you had to made some mistakes, just non that you've actully addmitted to. Or non that I can remember.

A few times you've repeated mistakes you point out that I have done and when I point out that you've done it too you make up some half assed excuse for why it's OK for you spell something wrong or missuse a word but not for me or you ignore it completly and never even acknowlage it like you're doing now..

Flat out lies.

Oh yeah? You constantly tell me that I need to choose my words more carefully and yet you can be just as bad at times but you've never admitted to it. Even when I tell you how you came off as insulting to me in this topic you just shruged it off with some lame ass excuse. You haven't really said much of anything to appoligize or even rephraise what you were saying that I found offencive.

Yet another thing that sets us apart, if I say something to something and they took offence to it I appoligize to them even though I never intended to be offencive. I never set out to insult anybody but it does happen unintentionally and belive it or not ALOT less offten then when it was first pointed out to me somewhere around late 2002 early 2003.

Simply put, while you may not of intended to insult me, you did. Have you appoligized? No. Have you even tried to rephraise yourself? Nope. What have you done? Turn it around on me so I look like the bad guy and make up lame ass exscuses for why it's ok for you to insult me.

Really really short version, while you might not of intended it the way you've worded your responces is basically reading as you're calling me a dumb ass and I really don't feel like sitting here and being belittled like that weather you intended to or not.

The only thing you really got right is yes I'm on a mad quest to try and prove you wrong.

Good you finely admit it.

Finally? I admitted that a long time ago but this may be the first time I've said it publicly.

about something which I have never done. But I have pointed out errors in your spelling and grammar which you have never tried to correct and whenever I point something out you just turn it around on me like I'm the only one with spelling and grammar problems around here..

Sorry but no.

I fully admit my bad spelling and grammar.

Every one knows that.

And I never, I repeat NEVER, give others crap for bad spelling and grammar.

Spelling, yeah, you're right. But Grammer, you give me crap about my grammar all the time. You've done it in this verry post. What do you think you're whole "you said A when you should of said THE" argument is if not a grammar correction?

I verry rarely if ever correct anyone in spelling and grammar and I only do it when I know I'm right. If I can't correctly spell a word myself I won't point it out to someone else if I don't think their spelling looks right because for all I know their spelling probly is right. Someone once corrected me on the spelling of theory as I use to and some times still do spell it as thery or therie.

In fact I think I pointed out a while back how you never use proper contractions and you still haven't done anything to fix that nor did you ever acknowlage it when I brought it up..

thats an other lie.

Yes you brought it up and I explained to you that I was never thought how to type and dont know where proper buttons are by memory.

And no,I havent done much about it.Because whats needed is a typing class....and you will have to forgive me , I have been a bit busy with failing kidneys and dialysis.

You don't need a typeing class. I never learned how to type myself nor do I know where all the buttons are by memory. In case you forgot, my memory is near non exsistant. I look at the key board and hunt and peck. If you can't type well you could allways look at the key board to find the keys you need.

I'm the one that basically needs to retake all my wrighting classes from the 3rd grade all the way threw high school and you'll have to forgive me, I've been a bit busy trying to keep my life togeather.

We've both got problems Sto, and I hope you'll be OK but please don't think you're any worse off than I am. In fact I'm worse than you are just knowing about your failing kidneys and dialysis. I've got problems of my own I have trouble focusing on because I'm too buisy worrying about everyone else and I can't really do anything to help anyone else till I can learn to take care of myself first so I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place. Part of the reason I went to Idaho was so I could stay away from my family and have only myself to worry about and hell even from a different state with no friends or family to destract me I accomplished verry little in fixing the problems in my own life.

You allready know what problems I'm dealing with so don't bother asking and sorry for the rant.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Cobalt Prime wrote:Taking this topic in a slightly different yet still relevant direction, I have a question.

Why is it that whenever the Allspark imbues something with life in the Bayverse, that life is always malicious and hostile right from the getgo? Examples include the Nokia bot, the Dew bot, the face-grabbing steering wheel, the Xbox bot, and the appliance bots. Psycho right from the start.

Why is it that the appliance bots didn't flock to Sam like goslings seeking a mother figure instead of attacking him? Or simply scatter out the nearest windows or doors like a gaggle of puppies?

One can argue that there is the self preservation instinct acting here, but not all creatures start biting and clawing at anything that moves right from the womb. Many of these tendencies are learned over time through experience. Even instinctual behaviors take a bit of time to become automatic. A newborn grizzly will likely not automatically try to maul you.

And given that Bay makes this latent bloodlust the common occurrence, how did any kind of civilization evolve on Cybertron at all with nothing but feral, instantly hostile organisms that were more likely to just kill each other on sight?

Your question was asked about a million times when the first film came out [not saying its not a good one ]

And I dont think an official answer will ever be given.....but as fans we have come up with a number of possibilities.

One of possibilities that I put some stock into is the "Megatron theroy.

It was said that most of the inventions of the modern world were, in part, made from reversed engineering and studying Megatron.

So maybe all of earths modern inventions have some of Megatrons DNA....so to speak.

This might be a little bit off subject here but the same idea of reverse engeneering technology from Megatron was reused in Transformers Animated so applying the same logic how come the AllSpark bots in Animated are nothing at all like the ones in the movie? Both AllSparks seem to be the same, both Megatrons seem to be the same, so why are the AllSparkers so different.

Actully I'll make this really simple (or hard depending on how you look at it) I'm looking for an answer that doesn't resort to the useual "they're two different continuitys" answer. I'm just wondering if anyone can think of a theory that might fit both continuitys.

Seekers were never decipticons from the start. Assuming that there was never an autobot or decipticon from the beggining, but just autonomous robotic organisms. If you've read the comic book adaptation of the movie and if I remember correctly. The allspark created the primes, they were the first orginal transformers that couldn't transform but could open space bridges. Then came the seekers, they had the ability to transform and open space bridges, they were tasked with finding a sun so that the harvester could be used to convert the energy from a sun to energon. The primes didn't want to end up destroying the earth because life depended on the sun, then came the war with the fallen being the first decipticon and anyone following him. The other primes ended up hiding the matrix and the seekers under the fallens command was tasked with finding the matrix.

Rial Vestro wrote:Then you're not makeing any sence because the only way it can be self defeating is by exscludeing all other possibilitys.

I am making sence....your just not getting it.

"Look, I'll make this really simple."....and I said this twice already.

I'm not saying your excluding anything.

My point is, "AS AN ARGUMENT" or "AS A POINT OF DEBATE" your possibility is self defeating since it calls into question every word spoken in english by a TF.

If you were going to use your possibility in an argument insteed of just bringing it up in passing.

Actully, I am a little bit. I realized after I posted that the Decepticon predateing the Autobots thing was the reason they took Wheelie out of his trunk so he couldn't of been the one to say it sence he wasn't in the scene yet but it was said. I just can't remember who said it now which is the only reason I haven't tryed to fix it yet.

Again I think your remembering a bit wrong....and I know you just admited to that.

I know for a fact they never came right out and said "Decepticons came first" as you just implied.

But I wouldnt doubt that they said something that COULD have lead you to that conclusion or confused you.

Autobot was shortened from Autonomous robotic organisms so they're the same thing.

Sorry but no.

Yes Autobot is the shortened form of Autonomous robotic organisms but that fact is absolutely no reason what so ever to assume that they all called them selfs by the shortened name.

Not quite.

If you think about it there are only 2 known factions in this continuity. Autobots and Decepticons.

From what they said in the first movie it seemed like all TFs were Autobots. Some Transformers turned into Decepticons. From what it looked like in the second movie the Fallen would have turned Decepticon the same way Megatron did but according the dialog the Decepticons exsisted BEFORE the Autobots so either.

Well to correct myself.....I misused the word incorrect that time.

Also I still think your mixing things up a bit with who and what came first.

A. The Fallen didn't become a Decepticon when he betrayed the other Primes, he was allready a Decepticon and so were the other Primes sence Autobots suposidly didn't exsist yet.

You just said 2 different things there alone.

But I would say that The Fallen was called the First Decepticon because he betrayed his brothers.

or

B. The Primes are a faction of their own that predate the Decepticons and Autobots.

Possible.

And a good one.

But I see things a bit differently.

You seem to have that a little backwords there.

Really????

Lets see.

And yea it fits but that's not exactly what was exsplained in the movies. You kinda filled in some gaps there on your own.

I didnt fill in any of the gaps on my own at all.

Think about it this way.

They gave up the history in bits and peaces like a puzzle for us to put together......but never showed us the completed picture.

You [no disrespect intended] put the peaces together as you believed they went but you got some peaces in the wrong places.

I did a better job [not perfect] of putting the peaces together to make a clear picture of what we were told.

And BTW, any of the info your not failure with came from the comics that are tied to the film.

Again, don't remember who but they didn't just say "old" they had mentioned that they needed a Decepticon because they predated the Autobots which is why they tried to get Wheelie to read them.

No.

The sector 7 guy said they may need a Decepticon because he found evidence in very old pictures, and other places, that Decepticons had been here before.

The Seekers were allso Decepticons from what I understood which is why I thought it didn't make any sence when they seemed surprised to find out Jetfire was a Decepticon.

Yes that was a bit of a screw up by the writters.

They just said in the previous sceen that only a Decepticon could read the symbols

They didnt say that exactly.

It was just as bad as Megatron's "Even in death I am the leader" and 2 sec. later "How may I serve you my master."

I had issues with that too.

That's a piss poor comparison.

Nonsense.

I had a problem and I tried to correct it.

You....not so much.

As if changeing the way I have been speaking and wrighting for all these years is really as easy as learning how to press a quote button.

I see no evidence you havent even tried.

And when I first pointed out the quote tag issues you were haveing I belive you were new to fourms at the time or at the verry least had not used them in quite a while and you improved a great deal allmost over night.

I was hardly new........but I didnt use the site much before that, and I hardly improved "over night".

I actully took the time to exsplain to you what the problem was and how to fix it.

Not quite.

Yes you took the time to tell me how to fix it...........after countless times of pointing out the mistake while offering no help at all.

It's not like I just said "hey your quote tags are fed up" and exspected you to fix it on your own,

As a matter of fact thats exactly what you did at the beginning.

It wasnt till I explained to you that I didnt post often that you tried to help.

And like I said, I've tried to do the same, but you refuse every bit of help or corrected info that I give you.

Its like trying to help a brick wall.

And that right there is the problem. "My argument shows other wise." You don't even understand what my argument is or you wouldn't be responding that way but you're refuseing to belive that you're the one that doesn't understand.

No the problem is that by telling me I need to prove something fits" its evidence your not fully understanding what the critira is in this case.

If you fully understoond you would know that I have nothing to prove.

And so far I have asked you the question twice and still no answer.

I can't do a damn thing to correct myself untill you realize that. I can't even answer your answer your question untill you realize that. I'm not doing and can't do a damn thing untill you can at least accept and exsplore the possibilty that you do not understand what the true intentions are behind what I have wrighten.

Then prove me wrong by answering the question.

and I know what the hell the criteria represents.

Prove it by telling me what the critiria is in this case....in your best words.

I can't recall a single time when you have ever admitted to anything but I know that everyone makes mistakes some times and you had to made some mistakes, just non that you've actully addmitted to. Or non that I can remember.

Like I said I dont have issues admitting mistakes.

Oh yeah?

Yes.

You constantly tell me that I need to choose my words more carefully and yet you can be just as bad at times but you've never admitted to it.

A] thats hardly a "half excuse"
B] when its evidendnt that I used a word or term incorrectly I admit it,correct it and apploigise for it.

Even when I tell you how you came off as insulting to me in this topic you just shruged it off with some lame ass excuse.

Nonsense.

I addressed it and told you that I was in no way being insulting.

Heck I even apoligised for it even thou I didnt have too since I never directly insulted you.

Thats hardly shrugging it off.

You haven't really said much of anything to appoligize

Lie.

I did appoligize.

You on the other make direct insults and never apploigize.

Yet another thing that sets us apart, if I say something to something and they took offence to it I appoligize to them even though I never intended to be offencive.

Thats an other lie.

You have insulted me with intent a few times in this debat with out saying sorry.

And you have done that every time we get into a long debate.....with out ever saying sorry.

/quote]Simply put, while you may not of intended to insult me, you did. Have you appoligized?

YES

Have you?????

NO

Have you even tried to rephraise yourself? Nope. What have you done? Turn it around on me so I look like the bad guy and make up lame ass exscuses for why it's ok for you to insult me.

Sorry but no.

Thats how you work not me.

Finally?

Yes finelly.

Because every time I accused you of that in the past you either never replied or flat out denyed it.

I admitted that a long time ago

To your self maybe.

Spelling, yeah, you're right. But Grammer, you give me crap about my grammar all the time.

Never.

You've done it in this verry post. What do you think you're whole "you said A when you should of said THE" argument is if not a grammar correction?

No its not a grammar correction.

Changing the "A" into a "THE" changes the statement.

Like I said before.

"The Critira in question is not a mesure of fact.".....but "A critira can be a mesure of fact"

"Critira's change debending on the person that is formulating the question and the answers being looked for.

And if you fully understood what the critira repersents in this case you would know that.

I verry rarely if ever correct anyone in spelling and grammar and I only do it when I know I'm right.

"Rarely" is an understatement.

I have seen you correct spelling and grammar quite often with others and myself.

You don't need a typeing class.

Thats your opinion.

I never learned how to type myself

which would seem to be a lie.

When we were compairing schools and our education I asked you if you ever taught to type and if it was a reqirement of some of your classes and you said yes.

We've both got problems Sto, and I hope you'll be OK but please don't think you're any worse off than I am. In fact I'm worse than you are just knowing about your failing kidneys and dialysis. I've got problems of my own I have trouble focusing on because I'm too buisy worrying about everyone else and I can't really do anything to help anyone else till I can learn to take care of myself first so I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place. Part of the reason I went to Idaho was so I could stay away from my family and have only myself to worry about and hell even from a different state with no friends or family to destract me I accomplished verry little in fixing the problems in my own life.

You allready know what problems I'm dealing with so don't bother asking and sorry for the rant.

Dont be sorry....and I hate to tell you this but....dont think your problems with your family can compair to what its like to have your body dieing on you.

There is at least a chance you can pull your self up.

If I was to stop treatment I'd be dead inside of a few weeksbod mounths.

Now to get off that topic I'm going to ask you a question.

If you want to prove me wrong so bad why havent you answered this question???

What exactly it st critira in this case?

I have asked you to spell it out a few time but for some reason you keep pussiefooting around it.

Seems to me that with all your insisting that you understand that you would be more then capable and willing to answer this question??

Is it that your afraid you really dont know the answer????Are you fearful of being wrong???

You shouldnt be........admitting to being wrong is the only way to learn from mistakes.

So here's your big chance......here's your bite at the apple.

Prove me wrong by answering the question.

Rial Vestro wrote:This might be a little bit off subject here but the same idea of reverse engeneering technology from Megatron was reused in Transformers Animated so applying the same logic how come the AllSpark bots in Animated are nothing at all like the ones in the movie? Both AllSparks seem to be the same, both Megatrons seem to be the same, so why are the AllSparkers so different.

Actully I'll make this really simple (or hard depending on how you look at it) I'm looking for an answer that doesn't resort to the useual "they're two different continuitys" answer. I'm just wondering if anyone can think of a theory that might fit both continuitys.

I dont think you'll find an answer that doesnt revolve around the fact that they are 2 different continuities.

And the Alspark in the films is a bit different then the one in the Animated series.

And BTW....I dont think you were off subject

natakwm wrote:Seekers were never decipticons from the start. Assuming that there was never an autobot or decipticon from the beggining, but just autonomous robotic organisms. If you've read the comic book adaptation of the movie and if I remember correctly. The allspark created the primes, they were the first orginal transformers that couldn't transform but could open space bridges. Then came the seekers, they had the ability to transform and open space bridges, they were tasked with finding a sun so that the harvester could be used to convert the energy from a sun to energon. The primes didn't want to end up destroying the earth because life depended on the sun, then came the war with the fallen being the first decipticon and anyone following him. The other primes ended up hiding the matrix and the seekers under the fallens command was tasked with finding the matrix.

On point as I remember it.