The Energon Pub

Rial Vestro wrote:And the way you worded your post made it sound like it was.

Sorry but No.

Your reading and comprehension skills are the problem.

No offense intended.

Not really.

Yes really.

As long as the robots have not yet figured out their own capabilitys the Quints still had a chance to prevent the rebellion from happening.

First....what capabilities are you talking about???

Second.... it was too late once they could grow past their programing, once they learned the value of freedom,one they learned to plan and conspire.

The only chance the Quints really had was to shut them all down.And its obvious that they were either not willing to do that or did not consider that the robots had learned to bypass their programing.

But the slaves do have the ability to overpower their masters they just have to learn that they're stronger in numbers first.

Which is pretty much what I said.

Being that they are robots I really don't think conspireing togeather was really all that much of an issue. I just think they didn't really understand the difference in strength between them and the Quints yet.

And even with that, planning and conspireing would have come into play.

They wouldn't really have to do it all at once. They would after the rebellion started if they were even capable of doing so which I don't think they ever were.

The Quints were capable of shutting them all down at once.The episode "5 faces of Darkness" proves that.

There was a "master shut down switch" near the center of Cybertron.

But any time before the rebellion they could have prevented it. It's not a matter of what they were willing to do but what they were capable of doing. And they were obviously capable of disposing of robots in small numbers.

Again I disagree.

Yes they were capable of dealing with disobedent robots in small numbers.Thats what lead to the rebellion to begin with.

Either 1 or small numbers rebelled, the quints disposed of them, the remaining robots planed,plotted and conspired to over threw the Quints.

If the Quints started destroying larger numbers of robots it would have lead to the rebelion taking place sooner, it would have forced the planning robots to step up their plans.

Again the Quints only real hope would have been to shut them all down at once.

They were allso capable of stopping the production of more robots, unless of course the robots themselfs continued to produce more of their own kind regardless of weather or not the Quints wanted to keep makeing them.

Stopping further production would have still left them with the functioning ones to deal with.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Rial Vestro wrote:And the way you worded your post made it sound like it was.

Sorry but No.

Your reading and comprehension skills are the problem.

No offense intended.

Nope, you simply just weren't verry clear as to what you ment. I've even gone back and reread everything and it still reads exactly the same now as it did the first time. And this time around I've read it with sleep and not at 1 am.

Your original statement simply said that "free will may not of been noticable" paraphraised and it had nothing what so ever mentioned about "untill it was too late" till much much later and even then that part doesn't really apply because that's the start of the rebellion.

As long as the robots have not yet figured out their own capabilitys the Quints still had a chance to prevent the rebellion from happening.

First....what capabilities are you talking about???

You're asking a question that's allready been answered. I went into greater details about it later in the same post and even if I hadn't of that should be obvious. I've only mentioned it about 100 times before this. (that's an exadgeration)

Second.... it was too late once they could grow past their programing, once they learned the value of freedom,one they learned to plan and conspire.

The only chance the Quints really had was to shut them all down.And its obvious that they were either not willing to do that or did not consider that the robots had learned to bypass their programing.

It wasn't too late because everything you just described hadn't actully happened yet. If it had happened that's the rebellion that you're describeing. Not all of it but the last part is, "learned to plan and conspire" that's the rebelion in a nut shell and there was no planning and conspireing at that time. That would require more than 1 robot to be dissobediant. You do know what "conspireing" means right? It's something done in a group not by yourself.

But the slaves do have the ability to overpower their masters they just have to learn that they're stronger in numbers first.

Which is pretty much what I said.

No actully what you said was about ONE robot. We're talking about a scene where ONE robot became dissobediant and was recycled on the spot and you have said that it was too late then to do anything about it which that was doing something about it which is why you're not makeing any gawd damn sence.

I keep telling you it's not too late untill the rebellion actully starts and it starts when they learn they're stronger than their masters. But that's not what we're talking about, we're talking about an event much earlier and you're talking about it like the rebellion has allready started with that one robot that got recycled. And you've allso said you think that happened 100s of years before the rebellion started which that I can agree with but if that's what you think I don't understand why you keep insisting that it would of been too late to stop the rebellion 100s of years before it ever started.

Again, my reading skills are fine just nothing you say makes any sence.

You're either...

A. Trying to dissprove the exsistance of a scene you pointed out in the first place.

or

B. Saying that the rebellion started 100s of years before it started.

Neither of which makes any sence but thoughs are the only 2 ways I can translate anything you say when you're constantly contridicting yourself.

One moment you say that it was too late to do anything and the next moment you say they had 100s of years to prevent it.

Being that they are robots I really don't think conspireing togeather was really all that much of an issue. I just think they didn't really understand the difference in strength between them and the Quints yet.

And even with that, planning and conspireing would have come into play.

It definatly did come into play sence A-3 was their leader. I was just saying I don't think it was really nessisary for them to work as a team when any one of them was allready stronger than the quints.

They wouldn't really have to do it all at once. They would after the rebellion started if they were even capable of doing so which I don't think they ever were.

The Quints were capable of shutting them all down at once.The episode "5 faces of Darkness" proves that.

There was a "master shut down switch" near the center of Cybertron.

Then why didn't they ever use it? Surely someone was at the switch just in case unless the Transformers knew about it and took out the quints who would of been stationed there before starting a full scale assult on the rest of the Quints.

They were allso capable of stopping the production of more robots, unless of course the robots themselfs continued to produce more of their own kind regardless of weather or not the Quints wanted to keep makeing them.

Stopping further production would have still left them with the functioning ones to deal with.

Yes, but it would stop their numbers from growing.

I can only describe it as the Hydra effect. A Hydra starts off with only 1 head but for every head you cut off 2 grow in it's place. The more heads you have to deal with the more dangerous the Hydra is. Even if you can't kill it you can still lower the risk it poses by preventing it from multiplying any further.

Rial Vestro wrote:

No offense intended.

Nope, you simply just weren't verry clear as to what you ment.[/quote]

Nope, you simply need to improve on your reading and comprehension skills.

Something I've been telling you for years.

Again I'm not trying to insult you in any way.

I've even gone back and reread everything and it still reads exactly the same now as it did the first time.

Which only serves to prove my point about the true issue here.

I never said anything that can be misconstrued in "the event of the disobedient robot never accrued"

Your original statement simply said that "free will may not of been noticable" paraphraised and it had nothing what so ever mentioned about "untill it was too late" till much much later and even then that part doesn't really apply because that's the start of the rebellion.

Now you need to learn how to follow post as well.

None of this was part of "free will".

It was about wether the event of disobedience happened.You claimed I said something that ment it never did.

And I said nothing like that.

And BTW.....

"untill it was too late" till much much later and even then that part doesn't really apply because that's the start of the rebellion.

Are you trying to imply that the event with the disobedient robot was the start of the rebellion???

Or are you trying to imply that the start of the rebellion itself was when it was too late for the Quints to do anything????

Because both are wrong.

[

You're asking a question that's allready been answered. I went into greater details about it later in the same post and even if I hadn't of that should be obvious. I've only mentioned it about 100 times before this. (that's an exadgeration)

The only thing you mention was their streanght.

If thats what you ment by "capabilities" it wasnt that obvious.

And besides, the Autobot ancestors that conducted the rebellion werent all that strong.For most of them, I doubt they were much stronger then the Quints

It wasn't too late because everything you just described hadn't actully happened yet.

Yes it was too late and everything I mentioned had happened.

The disobedient robot we saw proves that some robots had learned to by pass their programing.

The fact that he attacked his masters proves that some robots had learned the value of freedom.

The fact that the Quints had taken to whipping their slaves into doing the work, and that they would recycle some robots is proof that there was more then one indecent.

And the episode "Forever is a long time coming" proves that they were planning for some time, that they were conspiring, that they were meating in secret to discuss issues.

You do know what "conspireing" means right? It's something done in a group not by yourself.

Now your either being an a$$ of your more ignorant of the facts then I originally thought.

Do you really thing that disobedent robot was the only one????

Do you think the rebellion took place with out any planning???with out any conspiring????with out groups of robots meeting in secret to plan out the attacks???

Like I said above, the episode "Forever is a long time coming" proves that they were meeting in secret ,planning and conspiring for some time to rebel.

When A-3 [Alpha Trion] was taken trew the time window he was on his way to the final meeting with Beta and the other rebels.

Now I doubt that A-3 was the onlt Autobot that was conduction such meetings all over Cybertron.But even if he was there were those attending and he would have been conductiong those planning meetings all over the planet.

Either by traveling or by transmission of some sort.But they were meeting, planning and conspiring.

No actully what you said was about ONE robot.

I never said anything about "ONE ROBOT".

Again your reading and comprehension skills betray you.

We're talking about a scene where ONE robot became dissobediant and was recycled on the spot and you have said that it was too late then to do anything about it

Thats right.

By that time it was already too late to do anything about the problem in all the robots.By that point they already had 100's millions of robots.

I doubt that robot was the only one to feel the way he did, even if he was the first to rise up against the quints, which BTW I also doubt he was the first to do so.

By that point in time they were out numbered by robots with free will, that learned the value of freedom, that had learned to bypass their programming.

The only thing keeping the robots in check was "FEAR".....and that doesnt last forever.

By the time a single robot attacked its master it was too late in the grand scheme of things because if one robot had the curage to attack there were 100's thinking about it.

And short of shutting them all down, the Quints had already lost control.

which that was doing something about it which is why you're not makeing any gawd damn sence.

It was doing something about "1 disobedient robot".

Which did nothing to adress the real problem that was already widely spreading.

The situation is like curing one person who drank poison water from the towns water supply, but doing nothing to stop the poison at the source.

I keep telling you it's not too late untill the rebellion actully starts and it starts when they learn they're stronger than their masters. But that's not what we're talking about, we're talking about an event much earlier and you're talking about it like the rebellion has allready started with that one robot that got recycled. And you've allso said you think that happened 100s of years before the rebellion started which that I can agree with but if that's what you think I don't understand why you keep insisting that it would of been too late to stop the rebellion 100s of years before it ever started.

It was too late the first time a robot learned to disobey.

That lead to the rest.

Wether that one indecent we saw was the first or not is irrelevant.

The first time a robot learned to over come his programming and disobey, and say "NO", and attack his mater, it was already too late.

"Where there's smoke there's fire"

If one robot took action there were million thinking the very same thing.

And since the Quints were to lazy,arrogant and depended on the robots they would have been unwilling to do what was necessary to trully deal with the issue.

And what was necessary was to shut down all robots and halt production

Again, my reading skills are fine just nothing you say makes any sence.

You're either...

A. Trying to dissprove the exsistance of a scene you pointed out in the first place.

Nope

or

B. Saying that the rebellion started 100s of years before it started.

And nope again.

Your reading skills suck.

One moment you say that it was too late to do anything

yep

and the next moment you say they had 100s of years to prevent it.

Because they were unwilling to do what was needed.

It definatly did come into play sence A-3 was their leader. I was just saying I don't think it was really nessisary for them to work as a team when any one of them was allready stronger than the quints.

They needed to work as a tem no matter what.

The Autobots of the time weren't fighters, and I doubt they were much stronger then the quints.

And the Quints had superior weapons and the dark guardians.

Working as a teem was essential.

Then why didn't they ever use it? Surely someone was at the switch just in case unless the Transformers knew about it and took out the quints who would of been stationed there before starting a full scale assult on the rest of the Quints.

I say arrogance.

I believe their arrogance was so profound that they left the "switch" room un-manned.

But even if I'm wrong about that, I'm sure some of the older robots like A-3 knew about it and would have planned to take out who ever was stationed in that room.

Yes, but it would stop their numbers from growing.

And again they still would have had to deal with the robots they had already built for nearly a million years.

And I cant imagine how many they must have built in that many years.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Your original statement simply said that "free will may not of been noticable" paraphraised and it had nothing what so ever mentioned about "untill it was too late" till much much later and even then that part doesn't really apply because that's the start of the rebellion.

Now you need to learn how to follow post as well.

None of this was part of "free will".

It was about wether the event of disobedience happened.You claimed I said something that ment it never did.

And I said nothing like that.

And BTW.....

No I don't.

This IS part of free will. The robot would not have been dissobediant if he didn't have free will.

You just pointed out why you said it never happened. Thanks for proveing my point.

You said that "free will may not of been noticeable" yet dissobediance is only possible WITH free will and it was in fact noticeable. To say free will wasn't noticeable is to say that they never noticed when the robot became dissobediant and they never dissposed of him for it sence they didn't notice it.

"untill it was too late" till much much later and even then that part doesn't really apply because that's the start of the rebellion.

Are you trying to imply that the event with the disobedient robot was the start of the rebellion???

No I said that's what YOU'RE implying.

Or are you trying to imply that the start of the rebellion itself was when it was too late for the Quints to do anything????

That's not wrong.

"Untill it was too late to do anything" would be the rebellion. At any time before that it would not have been "too late" because they still could have prevented it from happening. They could in fact have done something and were in fact doing things that maybe they thought would have worked but didn't.

If it was in fact "too late to do anything" then there would be no way to prevent the rebellion from happening and if there was no way to prevent it then that means it's allready started.

It's like cooking. Is it too late to do anything to prevent your food from burning when you start to smell it burning or is it too late when the smoke sets off the fire alarm. Useually if you smell it burning it hasn't actully been completly burnt yet and you may still be able to salvage whatever it is that you're cooking.

You're asking a question that's allready been answered. I went into greater details about it later in the same post and even if I hadn't of that should be obvious. I've only mentioned it about 100 times before this. (that's an exadgeration)

The only thing you mention was their streanght.

If thats what you ment by "capabilities" it wasnt that obvious.

And besides, the Autobot ancestors that conducted the rebellion werent all that strong.For most of them, I doubt they were much stronger then the Quints

I have to say that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard you say. Earlier in this you claimed the Quints were weaker even than humans. The Autobot ancestors may have been weaker then their decendents but they'd still be stronger than any organic life form.

For the most part the Quintessons themselse were organic allthough they seemed to be in varrious borg states or prehaps just wearing armor. In either case the Quints were not machines.

There's no possible way the robots could of been weaker than the quints. In order for that to be true the robots would have to be constructed of a verry weak metal like aluminum. That's about the only metal I can think of that a human can crush with their bare hands. Everything else is nice and solid and would hurt like hell if you got hit with it.

It wasn't too late because everything you just described hadn't actully happened yet.

And the episode "Forever is a long time coming" proves that they were planning for some time, that they were conspiring, that they were meating in secret to discuss issues.

Which is how the rebeillion started which didn't happen in the scene we're talking about.

You do know what "conspireing" means right? It's something done in a group not by yourself.

Now your either being an a$$ of your more ignorant of the facts then I originally thought.

Do you really thing that disobedent robot was the only one????

Depending on what you're asking either...

In that scene, yes he was and that's a fact.

Or

The only one who ever rebelled, no I never said any such thing.

Do you think the rebellion took place with out any planning???with out any conspiring????with out groups of robots meeting in secret to plan out the attacks???

Never said that either.

What I said was that it takes more than 1 robot to conspire and in the scene we're talking about there was only one robot who rebelled at that time. By talking about conspireing you make it sound as if other robots rebelled with him, at the same time, and that was the start of a full scale rebellion but it wasn't, it was ONE count him, ONE robot at that time. The conspireing and planning happened much later.

Like I said above, the episode "Forever is a long time coming" proves that they were meeting in secret ,planning and conspiring for some time to rebel.

When A-3 [Alpha Trion] was taken trew the time window he was on his way to the final meeting with Beta and the other rebels.

Now I doubt that A-3 was the onlt Autobot that was conduction such meetings all over Cybertron.But even if he was there were those attending and he would have been conductiong those planning meetings all over the planet.

Either by traveling or by transmission of some sort.But they were meeting, planning and conspiring.

Again, this all happens much LATER after the scene we're talking about. There was no conspireing, no planing of any kind involved when ONE robot desided that he was done takeing orders and got recycled. Granted that was not the only insident like that but for that time period 1 robot at a time acting out would not constitute as "conspireing".

Even in real life slaves would offten rebel as individuals years before they'd ever think or learn to work togeather. There may be 1 person out of 100 who's brave enough to risk his life for freedom. Even fewer who's smart enough to realize that everyone who's lost their life for freedom did so because they acted as an idividual and if someone smart enough to realize that can make others realize it and ban togeather, that's when the real trouble starts. Even still at this point there may be thoughs who aren't brave enough to risk there lives.

Given all that it's no wonder slavery lasted for so long before it was abolished.

No actully what you said was about ONE robot.

I never said anything about "ONE ROBOT".

Again your reading and comprehension skills betray you.

Again, you need to be more clear what you're saying. As far as I know we're still talking about a scene in which only ONE ROBOT became dissobediant so you did in fact say something about ONE ROBOT. Now if you were talking about something else then the problem isn't with my reading, the problem is you never bothered to specify you were talking about something other than the scene with the ONE ROBOT.

And from what I can tell from the reply before this you were talking about something that happens much later in the time stream but still you never specified anything different than the scene in question which only showed ONE ROBOT.

Again, nothing wrong with my reading. You're just not clear on what the hell you're talking about.

We're talking about a scene where ONE robot became dissobediant and was recycled on the spot and you have said that it was too late then to do anything about it

Thats right.

By that time it was already too late to do anything about the problem in all the robots.By that point they already had 100's millions of robots.

I doubt that robot was the only one to feel the way he did, even if he was the first to rise up against the quints, which BTW I also doubt he was the first to do so.

By that point in time they were out numbered by robots with free will, that learned the value of freedom, that had learned to bypass their programming.

The only thing keeping the robots in check was "FEAR".....and that doesnt last forever.

By the time a single robot attacked its master it was too late in the grand scheme of things because if one robot had the curage to attack there were 100's thinking about it.

And short of shutting them all down, the Quints had already lost control.

And here's where your logic fails.

Yes there were probly 100s if not more THINKING about doing what that one robot did. Yes he was not the only one. But what you're failing to realize is that at that time there's no evidence to suport that robots were allready conspireing togeather.

It seemed to be only small insidents of INDIVIDUALS not groups. It would have grown to groups later on but it starts off with individuals acting out and failing to accomplish anything but end their miserable lives.

Durring this time when only small numbers are acting out it's still possible to prevent the larger numbers from doing the same. You even said it yourself. Fear was keeping them in check. There comes a time when even the possibility of freedom is greater then the fear of death and when that time comes is when an individual acts out agenst his or her master. It's still a long time comming AFTER that when someone is smart enough to rally the troops togeather. People who aren't brave enough to act on their own can offten be perswaded to act as a group. The chance of actully surviving is greater in groups than on your own after all.

The simple fact is that there's no evidence to suport any groups exsisted at the same time as that individual. He may have died 100s of years before any groups were formed.

I keep telling you it's not too late untill the rebellion actully starts and it starts when they learn they're stronger than their masters. But that's not what we're talking about, we're talking about an event much earlier and you're talking about it like the rebellion has allready started with that one robot that got recycled. And you've allso said you think that happened 100s of years before the rebellion started which that I can agree with but if that's what you think I don't understand why you keep insisting that it would of been too late to stop the rebellion 100s of years before it ever started.

It was too late the first time a robot learned to disobey.

That lead to the rest.

Wether that one indecent we saw was the first or not is irrelevant.

The first time a robot learned to over come his programming and disobey, and say "NO", and attack his mater, it was already too late.

No it wasn't. The first time a single robot dissobeys means nothing except that one robot dissobeyed. It MAY of lead to the rest but that was not the only possible outcome. They still could have prevented everything else from ever happening in the first place.

A long as they could have prevented it that means it wasn't too late. Too late would mean that no matter the outcome would be the same and that simply isn't true.

If someone has a deadly illness it's not "too late" for them till they actully die. Even someone with cancer may not be able to completly cure the illness but they can slow the spred of it to live longer. Other illnesses that do have cures can be cured at any time before the actual death.

The way you make it sound if someone finds out they're going to die they might as well allready be dead. Weather or not it can be cured or at least slowed it's allready "too late" by your standards of "too late" a person is allready dead the moment a docter tells them that they have a fatal illness.

"Where there's smoke there's fire"

If one robot took action there were million thinking the very same thing.

And since the Quints were to lazy,arrogant and depended on the robots they would have been unwilling to do what was necessary to trully deal with the issue.

And what was necessary was to shut down all robots and halt production

What they were willing or unwilling to do is irrellivent. It's what they were capable of doing that matters. It's not "too late" to do anything till they "can't" do anything.

I'll use the fatal illness thing again.

You're allready well aware of my feelings on this subject and you probly realize that if I knew for a fact that I had a fatal illness I would not do anything about it. That doesn't mean that it's "too late" to save my life. I might be unwilling to do so but that doesn't mean the capability doesn't exsist. It's not "too late" to save my life till I'm dead, any time before I die anyone could do something to exstend my life. Hell by your standards of "too late" I've died at least 16 times allready.

One moment you say that it was too late to do anything

yep

and the next moment you say they had 100s of years to prevent it.

Because they were unwilling to do what was needed.

Too late to do anything means that they were not capable to do anything not that they were unwilling.

As I said abouve, by you're standards of "too late" I've died multiple times sence you seem to think being unwilling to do anything is the same as being unable to do anything.

It definatly did come into play sence A-3 was their leader. I was just saying I don't think it was really nessisary for them to work as a team when any one of them was allready stronger than the quints.

They needed to work as a tem no matter what.

The Autobots of the time weren't fighters, and I doubt they were much stronger then the quints.

And the Quints had superior weapons and the dark guardians.

Working as a teem was essential.

I just think they never realized how storng they really were or how weak their masters were. Hell even when the Autobots are on Earth I still don't think they understand quite how weak organic life forms are compaired to them. They may have gone on not realizeing till at least when they met Chip Chase assumeing that he wasn't born paralized.

Speaking of which in a movie comparision to G1. Sam and Mikala are obviously Spike and Carly. But there was Sam's friend who showed up in one scene of the first movie climbing a tree. I wonder if he'll end up in a wheel chair later in the movie universe to be the movie version of Chip Chase?

I don't know why I though of that just now but I did. Has nothing to do with the current topic but just thought I'd through that out there before I forget it.

Yes, but it would stop their numbers from growing.

And again they still would have had to deal with the robots they had already built for nearly a million years.

And I cant imagine how many they must have built in that many years.

How do you know it took that long for the first robot to dissobey? For all you know the first to do that could of been one of the first 13. And now we're back to square one.

I find it ironic that earlier you accused me of makeing assumetions and in this statement you're makeing an assumetion that it took millions of years for any transformer to dissobey it's Quintesson master.

Rial Vestro wrote:
No I don't.

This IS part of free will. The robot would not have been dissobediant if he didn't have free will.

You just pointed out why you said it never happened. Thanks for proveing my point.

You do need to learn to follow post, and you've proven my point twice over.

A] I said nothing in that post that proves I said the event never happened.

B] the conversation wasnt about "free will" of how it contributes to disobedience or any possible cause of disobedience..

Its was simply about your claim that I said the event never happened.

You need to go back to school.

You said that "free will may not of been noticeable" yet dissobediance is only possible WITH free will

Thats completely false and illogical.

Millions upon millions of modern day devices, equipment, conveyances, vehicles and technology malfunction every single day and free will is never a factor.

and it was in fact noticeable.

Not till it was too late to really deal with it.

To say free will wasn't noticeable is to say that they never noticed when the robot became dissobediant and they never dissposed of him for it sence they didn't notice it.

No.

To say free will may not have been notice by the Quints is to simple say they may not have noticed.That they were to arrogant to consider their creations had grew past their programing, that they were too self involved to notice that their creations had learned the value of freedom and were planning a revolt.

You need to stop trying to "read past" whats been said.

Your inability to see the big picture and your inability to see multiple senerios always lead you to the wrong conclusions.

No I said that's what YOU'RE implying.

I implied no such thing.

That's not wrong.

Yes it is.

By the time the rebellion started they were severely out numbered with discontented robots.

It was far too late to deal with the problem.

"Untill it was too late to do anything" would be the rebellion. At any time before that it would not have been "too late" because they still could have prevented it from happening. They could in fact have done something and were in fact doing things that maybe they thought would have worked but didn't.

False.

The only thing the Quints could have really done was shut down every robot they ever made.

And they were obviously unwilling to do that.

Either because of their laziness, dependentness and arrogance or because they feared reprisal from all the customers they sold robots too.

If it was in fact "too late to do anything" then there would be no way to prevent the rebellion from happening and if there was no way to prevent it then that means it's allready started.

It was too late the second the first cog was set in motion.

The minute the robots learned to bypass their programing plan it was inevitable that their would be a rebellion.

It's like cooking. Is it too late to do anything to prevent your food from burning when you start to smell it burning or is it too late when the smoke sets off the fire alarm. Useually if you smell it burning it hasn't actully been completly burnt yet and you may still be able to salvage whatever it is that you're cooking.

That is the most idiotic and illogical analogy you have ever made.

Its nothing like cooking because your food cant do anything to help them self's.

And thats why it was too late for the Quints long before the rebellion.

Any action the Quints could have taken to truly deal with the issue would have been met with a counter action.

If the Quints started recycling robots in larger numbers it would have inspired the conspiring robots to attack earlier and start the rebellion much sooner then they originally did.

Althu they may have lost.

I'll say it again, the only hope the Quints had was to shut them all down, something they were not willing to do....obviously.

I have to say that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard you say.

Then you need to do more research.

Earlier in this you claimed the Quints were weaker even than humans.

What I actually said was that they seemed weaker then humans, considering how Spike over powered a Quint.

But that doesnt necessarily mean they were definitely weaker then humans.

And in either case it doesnt mean that most of the original Autobots were much stronger then the Quints.

The Autobot ancestors may have been weaker then their decendents but they'd still be stronger than any organic life form.

1] thats not necessarily true.
They would only be as strong as they were designed to be and theres no reason to assume the Quints would have designed all of them with great strength.

2]The Quints were not totally organic.
As a matter of fact I appears they were bearly 20% organic.

For the most part the Quintessons themselse were organic

You need to do more research.

Not only were they described in the comic bios as mostly cybernetic but the shows/movie character description also makes the same claim.

There's no possible way the robots could of been weaker than the quints. In order for that to be true the robots would have to be constructed of a verry weak metal like aluminum. That's about the only metal I can think of that a human can crush with their bare hands. Everything else is nice and solid and would hurt like hell if you got hit with it.

Now your trying argue construction methods????

How strong and dence their metal was is not a factor in their strengths.

What is a factor is the power in their internal moters,gears and hydraulics .

And those are all factors that could have been designed to be weak or strong.They are also upgradable...to a degree.

I repeat what I said earlier....theres no reason to assume the old Autobots were that much stronger then the Quints.

Which is how the rebeillion started which didn't happen in the scene we're talking about.

Nobody claimed it happened in that scene.

But I repeat......if one robot acted there were millions thinking the same way.

Which means the Quints were already outnumbered by discontented robots and the Quints were unwilling to do what was needed to stop them.

Depending on what you're asking either...

In that scene, yes he was and that's a fact.

And the dialog given indicates your wrong.

"In time the Quintasons endowed their products with a simulated intelligence. NOW the machines could manufacture them self's....and before long they grew to lazy and greedy to bother even with that.

There were simple ways to wring performance out of their slaves."

To me that sounds like the early robots "grew to lazy and greedy to bother manufacturing them self's."

Which is a dialog acknowledgment that the disobedient robot we saw was not the first.

Or

The only one who ever rebelled, no I never said any such thing.

Seems like thats what your implying.

Never said that either.

It is what you implied by this statement.

You do know what "conspireing" means right? It's something done in a group not by yourself.

other statements also implied as such.

What I said was that it takes more than 1 robot to conspire and in the scene we're talking about there was only one robot who rebelled at that time.

Why do you keep focusing on that scene???

We're not just talking about "just" that scene.

We're talking about every inevitable event that lead to the rebellion.

Again, this all happens much LATER

Actually we don't know for a fact that it happened "MUCH LATER" even thou I happen to believe it did.

But in either case my point is made.

I never said that the scene of the disobedient robot showed conspiracy, I said it proved a sentiment that was spreading to all robots which lead to conspiracy.

Even in real life slaves would offten rebel as individuals

Which all leads to conspiracy, just as I said.And just as the dialog indicates.

"The Quintasons also used the robots for entertainment.Machine was pitted against maching in gladiatorial combat.

Some of us however,found this pointless combat repellent and sought to put a stop to it.

We failed, but the seeds of revolt had been planted and would one day yeald a terrible harvest"

Now keep in mind....one of the gladiators robots was the recycled robot from the preceding scene and he was also the one that attacked the Quint and was ,presumably, the voice speaking at the time.

And it also appeared that the "Gladiator scene" took place not to long after the recycling scene.

And either way the events are linked because it was the same robot.

years before they'd ever think or learn to work togeather. There may be 1 person out of 100 who's brave enough to risk his life for freedom. Even fewer who's smart enough to realize that everyone who's lost their life for freedom did so because they acted as an idividual and if someone smart enough to realize that can make others realize it and ban togeather, that's when the real trouble starts. Even still at this point there may be thoughs who aren't brave enough to risk there lives.

None of that effects what I've been saying.

The start of it all is still when the first robot learned to bypass his programming.

Thats when it all started, thats what got the ball rolling, thats the seed that grew into the harvest of rebellion.

With out "A" first robot bypassing his programing none of the other events would have come to past.

And again by the time other robots learned to bypass their programing it was too late for the Quints because they were not willing to do what was necessary.

Given all that it's no wonder slavery lasted for so long before it was abolished.

"Slavery" has not been abolished world wide.

And in case your just referring to North America, to be completely accurate, "Slavery" wasnt in practiced for "so long" before it was abolished.

This is by no means a comment designed to discredit the suffering by slaves, I am a decedent of slaves, my great grandmother was a slave.

But slavery was only legal of 200 years and abolished in 246 years.

In the grans scheme of things thats not really that long.

Again, you need to be more clear

Again, nothing wrong with my reading. You're just not clear on what the hell you're talking about.

I'm going to say this again....and hopefully for the last time.

I was clear,So clear that no one else questioned what I was saying.

If I was wrong or unclear "Name Violation" would have said something, just as he has when you were wrong or unclear.

And the issue is your readding skills.

This is not the first debate where you have had this kind of problem and I am "FAR" from the first person to tell you about it.

Between your poor reading and comprehension skills and your habit of assuming what others mean instead of asking for qualification when your confused is a wonder you still bother debating.

Not only that but your inability to grasp simple concepts and poor understanding of characters and their motivations leads to you making bad assumptions.

And here's where your logic fails.

Really???Lets see whos logic really fails.

Yes there were probly 100s if not more THINKING about doing what that one robot did. Yes he was not the only one. But what you're failing to realize is that at that time there's no evidence to suport that robots were allready conspireing togeather.

Which is irrelevant.

As long as there was discontent there was the potential for disobedience.

As long as there was a number of dissatisfied robots there was the potential for conspiracy.

And the minute there was the potential for disobedience and conspiracy ,revolt and rebellion was inevitable.

And by that point it was already too late for the Quints because they were unwilling to take their only chance and shut them all down.

Durring this time when only small numbers are acting out it's still possible to prevent the larger numbers from doing the same.

No it really wasnt........

You even said it yourself. Fear was keeping them in check.

And fear doesnt last for ever.

The Quints only chance to "nip it in the bud" was to shut them all down.

And they were not willing to do so.

The simple fact is that there's no evidence to suport any groups exsisted at the same time as that individual.

I never suggest that at all.

I said it proved a sentiment that was growing.

And a sentiment is like a growing tree.

You need to attack the roots to really kill it.

The only way the Quints could attack the "roots" of the rebellion was to stop the sentiment from growing.

And the only way they could do that was to shut them all down.

No it wasn't.

Yes it was.

The first time a single robot dissobeys means nothing except that one robot dissobeyed.

No its proof that one robot learned to over come his programing.

Which suggest the possibility that others might as well.

Its arrogance that lets one believe that its a fluke.

It MAY of lead to the rest but that was not the only possible outcome.

Doesnt matter if it was the "ONLY" possible outcome.

It was a likely outcome is not most likely.

They still could have prevented everything else from ever happening in the first place.

Only by shutting them all down, which they werent willing to do.

If someone has a deadly illness it's not "too late" for them till they actully die.

Thats completely and totally false.

Even with the illnesss we can cure and treat there is a point of no return.

There is a point that if the illness in not discovered by a certin stage, it can not be cured or treated.

Even someone with cancer may not be able to completly cure the illness but they can slow the spred of it to live longer.

Again, only if discovered by a certin point.

Other illnesses that do have cures can be cured at any time before the actual death.

Completely and totally untrue.

You should refrain from making comment on issues you know little to nothing about.

There are a number of illnesses with cures ,that for the cure to be effective it must be given by a certin time frame long before the final stage of the illness.

Your ignorance has risen to a new level.

What they were willing or unwilling to do is irrellivent.

Nonsense.

What they were willing to do is at the very heart of the matter.

They only had one viable cource of action to prevent the inevitable.

The fact that they were unwilling to take that action proves it was too late for them.

It's what they were capable of doing that matters.

Capability means nothing if your not willing to take the action.

Its the same reason why I told you Batman winns in every "free willed" fight with Superman.

Yes Superman has the capability and the powers to just fly up in space and melt Batman.....but he doesnt have the "will" to do it.

You're allready well aware of my feelings on this subject and you probly realize that if I knew for a fact that I had a fatal illness I would not do anything about it. That doesn't mean that it's "too late" to save my life. I might be unwilling to do so but that doesn't mean the capability doesn't exsist. It's not "too late" to save my life till I'm dead, any time before I die anyone could do something to exstend my life.

There is a point with many illness that it becomes "too late" to do anything....even when theres a cure.

There is a point with some illnesses that a cure becomes ineffective.

A point when the "collateral damage" caused by the illness is irreparable.

"Sífilis" being just one of those types of illness.1 injection of penicillin G will cure Sifilis is detected early.

But if it spreads to the heart,the kidnys or the brain before the cure is given then your dead.

Its too late.
It will kill you.
Its inevitable.
Its only a matter of time.

And "Sífilis" is far from the only illness that functions in this way.

I repeat, you should refrain from making comments about subjects you know little to nothing about.

Too late to do anything means that they were not capable to do anything not that they were unwilling.

Cababilities mean nothing with out the will to use them.

I just think they never realized how storng they really were or how weak their masters were. Hell even when the Autobots are on Earth I still don't think they understand quite how weak organic life forms are compaired to them. They may have gone on not realizeing till at least when they met Chip Chase assumeing that he wasn't born paralized.

I'll say again.

A] the Quints were bearly organic.
B] theres no reason to assume the Autobots of the time were much stronger the the Quints.

Speaking of which in a movie comparision to G1. Sam and Mikala are obviously Spike and Carly. But there was Sam's friend who showed up in one scene of the first movie climbing a tree. I wonder if he'll end up in a wheel chair later in the movie universe to be the movie version of Chip Chase?

I dont think so.

I dont think Bay cares to make that many G1 nods.

How do you know it took that long for the first robot to dissobey?

You misunderstood again.

The rebellion took place after a million years of slavery.

Thats why I said nearly a million years.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:You do need to learn to follow post, and you've proven my point twice over.

A] I said nothing in that post that proves I said the event never happened.

B] the conversation wasnt about "free will" of how it contributes to disobedience or any possible cause of disobedience..

Its was simply about your claim that I said the event never happened.

You need to go back to school.

No, you need to learn to follow posts.

A. You did and you did again allthough you seem rather ignorant to how the two things connenct as shown in your B statement.

B. The conversation IS about EXACTLY that. You have said several times in other posts that free will may not be noticeable. Dissobediance is only possible WITH free will. You pointed out a scene in which a robot was dissobediant and was disposed of for being so which the scene itselfs proves that free will is noticeable. Hence if free will is not noticeable the scene never happened.

You need to go back to school.

You said that "free will may not of been noticeable" yet dissobediance is only possible WITH free will

Thats completely false and illogical.

Millions upon millions of modern day devices, equipment, conveyances, vehicles and technology malfunction every single day and free will is never a factor.

That is a rather piss pore comparison. When was the last time your computer out right told you it wasn't going to work anymore? How about never. When our technoligy "malfuctions" it simply stops working or stops functioning properly it doesn't say to us, hey I don't want to work anymore the way a human would if they quit their job.

Not only that but you allso said "free will may not be seen as a defect" and now you're compairing it to defects of real life technoligy so either way you're still contridicting yourself. Trying to fix one contridiction with another contridiction, total fail.

To say free will wasn't noticeable is to say that they never noticed when the robot became dissobediant and they never dissposed of him for it sence they didn't notice it.

No.

To say free will may not have been notice by the Quints is to simple say they may not have noticed.That they were to arrogant to consider their creations had grew past their programing, that they were too self involved to notice that their creations had learned the value of freedom and were planning a revolt.

You need to stop trying to "read past" whats been said.

Your inability to see the big picture and your inability to see multiple senerios always lead you to the wrong conclusions.

Excuse me?

That whore paragraph there, looks like an attempt to prove the scene never happend.

My inability? I wish that was true because if it was I would actully be able to sleep at night. How many conversations have had about this. The main reason I don't sleep is because I can't shut my brain off. (that statement is not ment to be taken literally thank you verry much) Multiple senerios is all I can think about.

The real problem here is your inability to narrow down the likelyhood of each sinerio to the one that makes the most sence. You seem to view every sinerio equilly as possible weather it makes any more or less sence than another.

I'm able to see every possible sinerio, every possible outcome, of every possible event. However unlike you I'm able to narrow the possibilitys down to the most likely one by actully illimateing anything that doesn't make any gawd damn sence.

That's not wrong.

Yes it is.

By the time the rebellion started they were severely out numbered with discontented robots.

It was far too late to deal with the problem.

WTF? You totally lost me here. It looks like you're agreeing with me to prove that I'm wrong? How the hell does that work?

"Untill it was too late to do anything" would be the rebellion. At any time before that it would not have been "too late" because they still could have prevented it from happening. They could in fact have done something and were in fact doing things that maybe they thought would have worked but didn't.

False.

The only thing the Quints could have really done was shut down every robot they ever made.

And they were obviously unwilling to do that.

Either because of their laziness, dependentness and arrogance or because they feared reprisal from all the customers they sold robots too.

You know for someone who just accused me of not being able to see multiple possible outcomes you sure are insistant that this is the only possible outcome.

If it was in fact "too late to do anything" then there would be no way to prevent the rebellion from happening and if there was no way to prevent it then that means it's allready started.

It was too late the second the first cog was set in motion.

The minute the robots learned to bypass their programing plan it was inevitable that their would be a rebellion.

Yup there it is again.

I like how you accuse ME of not being able to see multiple possibilitys then 2 min later YOU insist that there is only ONE POSSIBILITY.

It's like cooking. Is it too late to do anything to prevent your food from burning when you start to smell it burning or is it too late when the smoke sets off the fire alarm. Useually if you smell it burning it hasn't actully been completly burnt yet and you may still be able to salvage whatever it is that you're cooking.

That is the most idiotic and illogical analogy you have ever made.

Its nothing like cooking because your food cant do anything to help them self's.

And thats why it was too late for the Quints long before the rebellion.

Any action the Quints could have taken to truly deal with the issue would have been met with a counter action.

If the Quints started recycling robots in larger numbers it would have inspired the conspiring robots to attack earlier and start the rebellion much sooner then they originally did.

Althu they may have lost.

I'll say it again, the only hope the Quints had was to shut them all down, something they were not willing to do....obviously.

Wow, that was the most idiodic thing you have ever said.

Simply killing transformers in larger numbers is not the only thing the quints could of done and the Transformers could not of counteracted everything they were capable of doing.

Pluse the first time a single robot dissobeys does not mean that groups of robots are allready starting to form. So if insted of killing off the dissbediant robots they killed off all the witnessess as well they may lower the number of robots even greater. If they stop the production of more robots, again, even greater numbers illiminated. And all the while the larger resistence groups would not of even begun to form yet.

Hell they could even get lucky and in killing larger numbers at a time they may end up killing the resistance groups leaders and without the leaders the groups will fall apart.

There might be a chance that a new leader could take their place but in groups like that the leader tends to be the one who rallyed them togeather in the first place. The one who gave them a boost in confidence. The one who taught them that they were stronger in numbers. Without that leader to keep up moral the group is useless.

Thank about how all the Autobots felt with Optimus Prime gone in the movie and then later when they thought Ultra Magnus had been killed too. Whenever the leader of the group dies the rest of the team basically give up all hope of survival.

Why do you think in the Terminator movies they allways want to kill John Conner. He's the leader of the human resistance group and the machines understand the fact that without him his troops would be rendered useless. In Terminator 3 when John Conner wasn't traceable the terminator insted went to plan B, assassinate his generals who were all killed much more easily than he ever was. Allthough once she found out that John was in tracking distance she went back to plan A, kill John Conner.

So if by chance the Quints could of killed A-3 before he formed his rebel group that group may never of exsisted at all or it would be a smaller group lead by someone else. But there is a chance that without A-3 the group may never of been formed. There's allso the possibility that rather than the rebellion starting SOONER it could of started LATER if the group leaders were killed before the groups were ever formed.

If A-3 were not around to start a rebel group there's still a chance that someone else would start the group insted but there's no garantee that a group will be formed at the same time as it would of with A-3 as the leader. But I can garantee that the group would not be formed earlier than A-3 would of formed it.

Now if the groups are allready formed then the rebellion has allready started. The rebellion simply means that multiple transformers have banded togeather into rebal groups which would happen years later after several transformers have made solo attempts at gaining freedom and failed.

What makes a rebelian is not an attack but a group of rebels. Basically killing more transformers could prevent thoughs groups from ever being formed in the first place. Or at least prolong it.

I found this funny at fist but now it's just pathetic. Yeah and I'm the one who can't see multiple different outcomes. RIGHT... That's what you're doing when you keep insisting that not matter what the quints did the rebellion would of still happened. That simply isn't true. They could if prevented it or at least prolonged it longer than they did.

The Autobot ancestors may have been weaker then their decendents but they'd still be stronger than any organic life form.

1] thats not necessarily true.
They would only be as strong as they were designed to be and theres no reason to assume the Quints would have designed all of them with great strength.

2]The Quints were not totally organic.
As a matter of fact I appears they were bearly 20% organic.

1. That is true. It doesn't matter how "weak" they were designed to be. Simple matter of metal is stronger than flesh. If you're hit with something that is made of metal, it doesn't matter how hard or soft it hits you that's going to hurt. If you try to hit something made of metal I don't care how hard or soft you hit it the metal is not going to be damaged at all but you will.

2. You can't prove that and even if you could your percentage would be wrong. It was never really said or shown what the quintessons were. It's possible that they were either cyborgs or were simply wearing armor, maybe even some combination of the two. In any case the amout of organic if they are part machine verrys between them. Some quints seem to only have orgainic tenticles while others have more of their green flesh showing through their "armor".

There's no possible way the robots could of been weaker than the quints. In order for that to be true the robots would have to be constructed of a verry weak metal like aluminum. That's about the only metal I can think of that a human can crush with their bare hands. Everything else is nice and solid and would hurt like hell if you got hit with it.

Now your trying argue construction methods????

How strong and dence their metal was is not a factor in their strengths.

Wow, did you really just say that? OK then so if I hit you with my bare hand and then I hit you again on the other side with a metal rod the pain should be the same on both sides then right? Sence the material that you're being hit with is not a factor according to you my fist hitting you would hurt just the same as me hitting you with a metal rod.

Or even better sence the power of my hit would be impaired by the weight of holding the metal rod as apposed to holding nothing the metal rod should hurt LESS than me hitting you with my fist.

Sorry but no, it doesn't work that way. The material you're being hit with is just as much a factor as the power behind the hit and I'm addmittedly not that strong so me hitting you with my fist probly wouldn't hurt at all but me hitting you with a metal rod will hurt like hell.

Which is how the rebeillion started which didn't happen in the scene we're talking about.

Nobody claimed it happened in that scene.

But I repeat......if one robot acted there were millions thinking the same way.

Which means the Quints were already outnumbered by discontented robots and the Quints were unwilling to do what was needed to stop them.

The problem there is how many of thoughs millions were actully willing to ACT on their thoughts. Willing meaning that the hope of freedom outweighed the fear of death. The feelings of hope and fear are going to be present in every robot but which one is the more pronounced of the two emotions is going to determine weather or not a robot is going to act on thoughs thoughts.

Or

The only one who ever rebelled, no I never said any such thing.

Seems like thats what your implying.

How in the hell am I implying that he was the only one? What have I ever said that you managed to missread as that? Lets see here?

You do know what "conspireing" means right? It's something done in a group not by yourself.

My gawd you totally took that one out of context. I was talking about him being the only one IN THAT SCENE not the only one EVER. You were talking about him "conspireing" which would require other robots to be IN THAT SCENE with him.

other statements also implied as such.

What I said was that it takes more than 1 robot to conspire and in the scene we're talking about there was only one robot who rebelled at that time.

This one I don't even get how you think that translates as he was the only one who ever rebelled.

How much more clearly could that possibly be. It was only ONE robot in that scene. Conspireing requires MULTIPLE robots to of been there with him. He did not act as a GROUP he acted ALONE. How hard is that to understand?

Why do you keep focusing on that scene???

We're not just talking about "just" that scene.

We're talking about every inevitable event that lead to the rebellion.

Because you talked about that scene as if the bellion had allready started. You talked about that robot as if he acted as part of a group and not on his own. And you're wrong on both counts.

I never said that the scene of the disobedient robot showed conspiracy, I said it proved a sentiment that was spreading to all robots which lead to conspiracy.

Actully, you did. Would you like me to go back and quote you on it?

Even in real life slaves would offten rebel as individuals

Which all leads to conspiracy, just as I said.And just as the dialog indicates.

"The Quintasons also used the robots for entertainment.Machine was pitted against maching in gladiatorial combat.

Some of us however,found this pointless combat repellent and sought to put a stop to it.

We failed, but the seeds of revolt had been planted and would one day yeald a terrible harvest"

Now keep in mind....one of the gladiators robots was the recycled robot from the preceding scene and he was also the one that attacked the Quint and was ,presumably, the voice speaking at the time.

And it also appeared that the "Gladiator scene" took place not to long after the recycling scene.

And either way the events are linked because it was the same robot.

Weather or not one event lead to another was never in question. What was in question was that you implyed the rebellion had allready started with ONE robot. You implyed that conspireing was possible with ONE robot.

years before they'd ever think or learn to work togeather. There may be 1 person out of 100 who's brave enough to risk his life for freedom. Even fewer who's smart enough to realize that everyone who's lost their life for freedom did so because they acted as an idividual and if someone smart enough to realize that can make others realize it and ban togeather, that's when the real trouble starts. Even still at this point there may be thoughs who aren't brave enough to risk there lives.

None of that effects what I've been saying.

The start of it all is still when the first robot learned to bypass his programming.

Thats when it all started, thats what got the ball rolling, thats the seed that grew into the harvest of rebellion.

With out "A" first robot bypassing his programing none of the other events would have come to past.

And again by the time other robots learned to bypass their programing it was too late for the Quints because they were not willing to do what was necessary.

Again, weather or not one event leads to another is not the issue. The issue is you speak of multiple events as if they're the same.

Just because you plant the seeds doesn't mean anything will grow from it.

Anything can stopped so long as it hasn't allready happened yet.

The future isn't wrighten in stone.

Given all that it's no wonder slavery lasted for so long before it was abolished.

"Slavery" has not been abolished world wide.

And in case your just referring to North America, to be completely accurate, "Slavery" wasnt in practiced for "so long" before it was abolished.

This is by no means a comment designed to discredit the suffering by slaves, I am a decedent of slaves, my great grandmother was a slave.

But slavery was only legal of 200 years and abolished in 246 years.

In the grans scheme of things thats not really that long.

246 years is not that long? That's at least 6 generations of slaves. And I wasn't speaking only of the U.S. nor was I speaking world wide.

Probly every country on the globe has had slaves at some point in history and slavery has laster much longer in other parts of the world than it has in the U.S. the Pyrimids in Egypt were built by slaves. And back then slavery wasn't limited to a single race like it was in the U.S. in fact the slaves were from the same race and culture as their masters. Slaves were simply pesents. If you weren't born into a family rich enough to own a slave you were a slave, simple as that.

At least in that type of slavery it was possible to climb the social ladder and get out of being a slave. It was a matter of luck and talent more than anything else. If someone in power thought you were more usefull to them in a more dignifed position you could get a job as a royal adviser. Maybe a sultan thinks you're funny, allows you to speak, and you end up giveing them some decent advice, soon after you're the sultains best friend. Allthough that can go bad as quickly as it got good. First time you give him bad advice that fails you're killed.

I'm going to say this again....and hopefully for the last time.

I was clear,So clear that no one else questioned what I was saying.

No one has agreed with anything you've said either. In fact no one has replyed at all so that doesn't mean anything.

If someone wants to come in here and back you up that's fine but you speaking for them when they haven't said anything either way is rather pathetic.

Yes there were probly 100s if not more THINKING about doing what that one robot did. Yes he was not the only one. But what you're failing to realize is that at that time there's no evidence to suport that robots were allready conspireing togeather.

Which is irrelevant.

As long as there was discontent there was the potential for disobedience.

As long as there was a number of dissatisfied robots there was the potential for conspiracy.

And the minute there was the potential for disobedience and conspiracy ,revolt and rebellion was inevitable.

And by that point it was already too late for the Quints because they were unwilling to take their only chance and shut them all down.

OK you think my reading skills suck. Well lets look at what you just said there.

"the minute there was the potential for disobedience and conspiracy ,revolt and rebellion was inevitable."

Like I keep telling you a thousand times. If you didn't speak in contridictions maybe I could actully understand you. In the same sentence you used the words "potential" and "inevitable". And here is where the problem lies. These words contridict eachother. Potential means it COULD happen. Inevitable means it WILL happen.

If revolt and rebellion was inevitable then disobediance and conspiracy are as well. There's no "potential" about it. It either will or it won't.

If there is only a potential for disobediance and conspiracy than revolt and rebellion is not inevitable. All things are only a POSSIBILITY. If you can't garante one thing you can't garante the other.

Again, my reading is fine. Maybe you should use a dictionary so you stop useing words that contridict eachother. I can garantee you that whatever you think you're saying is not what you're actully saying. What you're saying makes no sence. I tell you it makes no sence, I tell you why it makes no sence and you continue to say it anyway.

At least when you let me know I'm not makeing any sence I try to reword what I'm saying so you can understand it.

The simple fact is that there's no evidence to suport any groups exsisted at the same time as that individual.

I never suggest that at all.

Did.

It MAY of lead to the rest but that was not the only possible outcome.

Doesnt matter if it was the "ONLY" possible outcome.

It was a likely outcome is not most likely.

If it doesn't matter then why do you keep insisting that it was the only possible outcome?

Holly hell, and you think this is clear? That's not only a contridiction it looks like a factured sentence. I can't even begine to comprehend what the hell "it was a likely outcome is not most likely" is supose to mean. I've read that statement about 8 times now and it still reads like a 5 year old wrote it.

Ball rolled down did not roll down stairs.

Rial Vestro wrote:That's not only a contridiction it looks like a factured sentence. I can't even begine to comprehend what the hell "it was a likely outcome is not most likely" is supose to mean. I've read that statement about 8 times now and it still reads like a 5 year old wrote it.

People living in glass houses should not throw stones.

Tekka wrote:People living in glass houses should not throw stones.

I thought that was "People living in glass houses should allways wear pants."

If that were true, the analogy wouldn't work properly.

...Hey... We could turn this into a 50 page debate on pants vs stones. That'd be beyond awesome.

I' preferr being stoned to being pantsed

you never hear of people being pantsed to death

pants the final frontier?

But pants clearly have a comedy edge over stones. There's nothing funny about a man with no stones.

Or maybe there is... But you wouldn't know unless you also had no pants!

Tekka wrote:If that were true, the analogy wouldn't work properly.

...Hey... We could turn this into a 50 page debate on pants vs stones. That'd be beyond awesome.

On behalf of the stick wielding people wearing shorts, I must ask that our voices be heard in that debate.


On topic.

Real, (and my god what the hell am I doing wading into another of these) so much of your issues seem to be attached to treating the original show (and at times the others after it as canon. And no, I don't mean canon in the usual usage it gets here, but that everything said MUST be taken at word.

Look at the source material for G1, it's a bloody cartoon for kids to bug their parents to buy toys.
- Writers would work on episodes without seeing the work of others so contradictions would occur often.
- Different studios worked on episodes and gave us multiple looks for the same character.
- Voice actors were replaced/recast if needed.
- Scripts for one show could be reworked for other shows, One G1 episode was rewritten into an episode of TMNT.

Suffice to say the people working on these were not setting out to create works that would stand the test of time.

I have said before that whatever personal canon you want to apply to TF's is fine, as long as you keep it personal, and not try to win lofty debates because you feel that items are not open to interpretation.

In the case of Primus, Unicron and the 13. As far as my personal canon is effected, I couldn't care less. they really don't influence a damn thing. Thusly I accept that the OTFCC and Hasbro have their explanation and I'm fine with it.

They are absolute, Primus is a force of creation and good who watches over the multiverses, taking a larger presence in some than others. Unicron is a force of evil and destruction, that is constant in all versions we have seen, Is it so hard to believe that he could choose multiple ways to effect things, trying different ones in different facets of the multiverse? The 13, well as it stands we aren't even sure of that full roster, so we can't fully address them as a whole yet.

But within the scope of Shattered Glass, If we are told that this mirror-verse is just another facet of the TF multiverse, than it is fully understandable that Primus is still good (but forgotten) Unicron is evil and unseen, and the 13 (as far as current fiction, and what we know of them goes) have yet to appear as well.

Rial Vestro wrote:
No, you need to learn to follow posts.

No you do.

A. You did and you did again

I never dis and so far you have failed to show me how you even took it that way.

B. The conversation IS about EXACTLY that.

No it wasnt.

You have said several times in other posts that free will may not be noticeable.

Correct.

Dissobediance is only possible WITH free will.

Already proven to be false.

Disobedience could have been seen as a "malfunction", as a "glitch" in the programing, as a "electrical short" somewhere in the robots system.

Such things effect or modern devices.

In short there's no reason to assume the Quints would have considered that it was "Free Will".

You pointed out a scene in which a robot was dissobediant and was disposed of for being so which the scene itselfs proves that free will is noticeable.

That scene only proved that they recycled malfunctioning robots.

There was no indication that noticed free will till it was too late.

Hence if free will is not noticeable the scene never happened.

Hence your conclusions are wrong because you cant see past your limited ideas.

You need to go back to school.

Not me my friend.

Your capacity for analytical thought is surely lacking.

You keep jumping to conclusions and assumptions with out factoring in all the possibilities.

School should be in your future.

That is a rather piss pore comparison.

The hell it is.

The robots were tools to the Quints back then, no different to them then a assembly line robot is to us today.

Its the perfect comparison.

When was the last time your computer out right told you it wasn't going to work anymore? How about never. When our technoligy "malfuctions" it simply stops working or stops functioning properly it doesn't say to us, hey I don't want to work anymore the way a human would if they quit their job.

Talk about a piss poor comparison.

We havent endowed our modern devices with a simulated intelligence as sophisticated as a TF yet.

Whos to say how they will malfunction when we can create something as sophisticated.

Not only that but you allso said "free will may not be seen as a defect" and now you're compairing it to defects of real life technoligy so either way you're still contridicting yourself. Trying to fix one contridiction with another contridiction, total fail.

Sorry but the failure is yours.....or more precisely the failure is in your reading and comprehension skills.

I said theres no reason to assume the issue would have been seen as a defect because we dont have enough info on the Quints intent.

That still stands.So theres no contradiction.

The point is both senerios are equily possible and we dont have enough information to assume either is the case or rule either out.

You just dont get it.

I'm not arguing one series of events over the other.

I'm arguing that your wrong for claiming any senerio is more likely then any other.

I'm arguing your assumptions are wrong beause there isint any reason to think they are more likely.

I'm arguing that your wrong for passing off your opinions as most likely and in some cases as facts.

You keep leaping to one conclusion which is illogical considering our lack of facts.

Excuse me?

Your excused.

That whore paragraph there, looks like an attempt to prove the scene never happend.

"Whore paragraph"?

I know this was a typo I just thought it was funny

My inability?

Yep

I wish that was true

Then your wish has been granted.

because if it was I would actully be able to sleep at night. How many conversations have had about this. The main reason I don't sleep is because I can't shut my brain off. (that statement is not ment to be taken literally thank you verry much) Multiple senerios is all I can think about.

You claim that now but just a few days ago you accused me of coming up with too many senerios.

The real problem here is your inability to narrow down the likelyhood of each sinerio

Its not an inability.

Its that there arent enough facts to rule out many of the possibilities.

I'm able to see every possible sinerio, every possible outcome, of every possible event. However unlike you I'm able to narrow the possibilitys down to the most likely one by actully illimateing anything that doesn't make any gawd damn sence.

And you do so by eliminating likely possibilities with out solid evidence, by taking your preconceptions and making false assumptions on whats likely.

WTF? You totally lost me here. It looks like you're agreeing with me to prove that I'm wrong? How the hell does that work?

You said it wasnt too late till the rebellion started.

I'm saying by that time the Quints were already outnumbered a billion to 1.

It was already "FAR TOO LATE" by the time the rebellion started.

You know for someone who just accused me of not being able to see multiple possible outcomes you sure are insistant that this is the only possible outcome.

Because it was.

The Quints were outnumbered.

Any attempt to deal with the issue by the Quints would have resulted in more robots getting together sooner rather then later.

Althou if the Robots had acted sooner they may have lost.

Wow, that was the most idiodic thing you have ever said.

Your just in denial.

Simply killing transformers in larger numbers is not the only thing the quints could of done and the Transformers could not of counteracted everything they were capable of doing.

"Wow, that was the most idiodic thing you have ever said"

A] I said nothing about "killing robots".

B] the robots did, IN FACT, counter everything the Quints trew at them.

The Quints sent in the Dark Gurdians, one of their most powerfull creations at that time.

And the robots [A-3] countered it.

Pluse the first time a single robot dissobeys does not mean that groups of robots are allready starting to form..

Thats not exactly what I said.

But a well trained slave doesnt disobey on his feelings alone.

Such an act is pretty much evidence of a growing sentiment of discontent.

Its an indication that the robots have discussed their discontent with each other.

Its basic physiology.

So if insted of killing off the dissbediant robots they killed off all the witnessess as well they may lower the number of robots even greater..

And you think those killed witneses would go unnoticed to other robots???

To their friends????To their mates????

Such an act would only inspire more discontent,more disobedience,and insure the rebellion started sooner rather then later.

Hell they could even get lucky and in killing larger numbers at a time they may end up killing the resistance groups leaders and without the leaders the groups will fall apart..

Such "leaders" would be replaced by the friends in morning.

Althou, with out the right leaders the rebellion could have failed.

Thank about how all the Autobots felt with Optimus Prime gone in the movie and then later when they thought Ultra Magnus had been killed too. Whenever the leader of the group dies the rest of the team basically give up all hope of survival..

And theres always one to take there place.

"Hot Rod" any one???

Hot Rod never gave up hope.

Why do you think in the Terminator movies they allways want to kill John Conner..

Not just John Conner.

In Terminator #3 they also wanted to kill his future wife and they killed a number of the future resistence leaders.

As you pointed out.

So if by chance the Quints could of killed A-3 before he formed his rebel group that group may never of exsisted at all or it would be a smaller group lead by someone else. But there is a chance that without A-3 the group may never of been formed. There's allso the possibility that rather than the rebellion starting SOONER it could of started LATER if the group leaders were killed before the groups were ever formed..

Both are possible.

But neither change the fact that it would have been too late to prevent the rebellion from ever happening.

But I can garantee that the group would not be formed earlier than A-3 would of formed it..

Actuality you cant guarantee that.

And this is why I say you cant see the big picture.

Killing off A-# could have lead Beta, or any of his friends, to form a group earlier the A-3 did.

But whos to say if that group would have been as effective.

Now if the groups are allready formed then the rebellion has allready started..

No...sorry.

The rebellion only starts when those groups start taking action of some kind.It doesnt have to be an attack but it has to be something in furtherance of the cause.

Just lumping together in groups does not make a rebelion if that group never takes any kind of action to help their cause.

I found this funny at fist but now it's just pathetic. Yeah and I'm the one who can't see multiple different outcomes..

THATS RIGHT.

.

That's what you're doing when you keep insisting that not matter what the quints did the rebellion would of still happened..

Because it would have.

But it may not have been successful.

or at least prolonged it longer than they did..

Prolonging it doesnt effect my point about it being too late.

1. That is true. .

I know.

It doesn't matter how "weak" they were designed to be. Simple matter of metal is stronger than flesh..

Again.....Not necessarily true.

Metal is stronger then human flesh but its not stronger then the flesh of every living creature on the planet earth.

Further more we cant say how strong the flesh of an alien race could be.

Just look at Superman,The Martian Manhunter or even Aquaman [althou he's no alien] for an example of that.

And as I pointed out.....the Quints arent totally organic.

2. You can't prove that.

I can prove that they are mostly cybernetic.

.

and even if you could your percentage would be wrong..

I'll admit my presentige was an opinion.

But theres no way you can prove it wrong.

Close to 80% of most Quints appeared to be metallic.

Yes it could be body armor but to prove my opinion wrong you need to "PROVE" it was body armor.

It was never really said or shown what the quintessons were..

Didn't you one argue that creator intent was valid evidence??

Why am I asking....I know you did.

Wow, did you really just say that?.

Yes I did.

Because your assuming that Quint flesh is as dence and weak as ours.

OK then so if I hit you with my bare hand and then I hit you again on the other side with a metal rod the pain should be the same on both sides then right?.

Poor anlogy for the reasons I posted above.

There is no reason to assume that Quint flesh is as weak as ours.

Different environments will evolve flesh to different thickness and density.

Again your not seeing every possibility.

Sorry but no, it doesn't work that way..

Sorry but since you neglected to factor in what we dont know about Quint flesh.

The problem there is how many of thoughs millions were actully willing to ACT on their thoughts.

Actully thats not much of a problem.

"Time" would have doubled the number of those willing to act.

World History proves that.

Anytime there is discontent its only a matter of time before some act.

My gawd you totally took that one out of context.

Maybe I did.

But it was that statement and a combination of a few others that lead me down that path.

You've had issues with wording post the way you intened before.

So maybe I misunderstood you because I falsely anticipated more of the same.

If so you have my apologies.

You were talking about him "conspireing" which would require other robots to be IN THAT SCENE with him.

Actually I was talking about his willingness to act as an indication of a sentiment of discontent that was growing and would lead to conspiring.

Which the dialog of the following scene indicated.

Because you talked about that scene as if the bellion had allready started.

No you misunderstood.

I talked about that scene as a indication that the rebellion could not be prevented any more.

You talked about that robot as if he acted as part of a group and not on his own.

And again no.

I talked about that scene an an indication of a growing movement of discontened robots.

Actully, you did. Would you like me to go back and quote you on it?

Go right ahead.

Either you misunderstood or I misworded myseld....but I would like to see which.

Weather or not one event lead to another was never in question.

It may not have been in question but that was the point I was making.

What was in question was that you implyed the rebellion had allready started with ONE robot.

Again I never implied that.

What I implied was the actions of that "ONE" robot was an indication that the rebellion was inevitable.

You implyed that conspireing was possible with ONE robot.

Again no as explained somewhere above.

The future isn't wrighten in stone.

Some things are unavoidable.

246 years is not that long?

No its really not in the grand scheme of things.

When you factor in the worlds recorded history and compare it to how long humans have been on the planet, 246 years is nothing.

No one has agreed with anything you've said either.

Its not an issue of being agreed with.

I was clear enough to be understood by others.

And "Name Violation" has agreed on a few points.

In fact no one has replyed at all so that doesn't mean anything.

Again "NV" has replied a few times...and each to tell you , you were wrong.

So I'm not lone here.

If someone wants to come in here and back you up that's fine but you speaking for them when they haven't said anything either way is rather pathetic.

I spoke for no one but my self.

OK you think my reading skills suck.

Yep

Well lets look at what you just said there.

ok

"the minute there was the potential for disobedience and conspiracy ,revolt and rebellion was inevitable."

Yep I said that.

Like I keep telling you a thousand times. If you didn't speak in contridictions maybe I could actully understand you. In the same sentence you used the words "potential" and "inevitable". And here is where the problem lies. These words contridict eachother. Potential means it COULD happen. Inevitable means it WILL happen.

Theres no contradiction.

One it was possible for the robots to bypass their programing it was only a matter of time before they did so.

And by the time they started bypassing their programing it was only a matter of time before they rebelled.

"Potential" can lead to the "Inevitable" once that "Potential" has been achieved.

So yes your reading skills suck.

Maybe you should use a dictionary

No you just need to take a reading and writting class.

Did

....not.

If it doesn't matter then why do you keep insisting that it was the only possible outcome?

I ment... "it was a likely outcome if not most likely."

"Is" was a typo.

i'll give you guys credit. you both really stick to your guns.

its like watching a samurai vs a paladin in slow motion

Tekka wrote:People living in glass houses should not throw stones.

I know you didnt intend to take sides but thanks.

Rial Vestro wrote:I thought that was "People living in glass houses should allways wear pants."

Are you joking???

Editor wrote:
Real, (and my god what the hell am I doing wading into another of these) so much of your issues seem to be attached to treating the original show (and at times the others after it as canon. And no, I don't mean canon in the usual usage it gets here, but that everything said MUST be taken at word.

Look at the source material for G1, it's a bloody cartoon for kids to bug their parents to buy toys.
- Writers would work on episodes without seeing the work of others so contradictions would occur often.
- Different studios worked on episodes and gave us multiple looks for the same character.
- Voice actors were replaced/recast if needed.
- Scripts for one show could be reworked for other shows, One G1 episode was rewritten into an episode of TMNT.

Suffice to say the people working on these were not setting out to create works that would stand the test of time.

I couldnt agree more.

Name_Violation wrote:i'll give you guys credit. you both really stick to your guns.

its like watching a samurai vs a paladin in slow motion

Which one of us is which???

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Name_Violation wrote:i'll give you guys credit. you both really stick to your guns.

its like watching a samurai vs a paladin in slow motion

Which one of us is which???

klingon/samurai kinda go hand in hand. they rage but they got honor.


Rial sticks to his opinion like a religious zealot.

i don't know how you 2 can post like that. i can barely string together a paragraph half the time.

Name_Violation wrote:

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Name_Violation wrote:i'll give you guys credit. you both really stick to your guns.

its like watching a samurai vs a paladin in slow motion

Which one of us is which???

klingon/samurai kinda go hand in hand. they rage but they got honor.


Rial sticks to his opinion like a religious zealot.

Kool.

I'd rather be the Samurai.

i don't know how you 2 can post like that. i can barely string together a paragraph half the time.

It sometimes takes me hours to make post like that.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:Disobedience could have been seen as a "malfunction", as a "glitch" in the programing, as a "electrical short" somewhere in the robots system.

You know this statement only further proves how much you contridict yourself. You allso said in earlier posts that if they did notice it they may not have seen it as a malfuction and now you're saying they would have seen it as a malfuction.

In short there's no reason to assume the Quints would have considered that it was "Free Will".

I never said they would notice it as free will. In fact earlier in this debate I argued that free will would be noticed as a glitch and you argued that free will would either not be noticed at all or wouldn't be seen as a glitch. So basically as of now you're not only contridicting yourself but you're agreeing with me while contridicting yourself.

When was the last time your computer out right told you it wasn't going to work anymore? How about never. When our technoligy "malfuctions" it simply stops working or stops functioning properly it doesn't say to us, hey I don't want to work anymore the way a human would if they quit their job.

Talk about a piss poor comparison.

We havent endowed our modern devices with a simulated intelligence as sophisticated as a TF yet.

Whos to say how they will malfunction when we can create something as sophisticated.

I'm not sure what your argument is here. It looks like you're just further proveing why your comparison sucked.

Not only that but you allso said "free will may not be seen as a defect" and now you're compairing it to defects of real life technoligy so either way you're still contridicting yourself. Trying to fix one contridiction with another contridiction, total fail.

Sorry but the failure is yours.....or more precisely the failure is in your reading and comprehension skills.

I said theres no reason to assume the issue would have been seen as a defect because we dont have enough info on the Quints intent.

That still stands.So theres no contradiction.

The point is both senerios are equily possible and we dont have enough information to assume either is the case or rule either out.

You keep leaping to one conclusion which is illogical considering our lack of facts.

That wasn't how you worded it the first time. The failer is still on how you worded your posts not my reading of them.

That whore paragraph there, looks like an attempt to prove the scene never happend.

"Whore paragraph"?

Favorite typo ever.

Sorry, but that was funny and yes I realize I'm laughing at myself for makeing it. That was supose to be whole not whore.

because if it was I would actully be able to sleep at night. How many conversations have had about this. The main reason I don't sleep is because I can't shut my brain off. (that statement is not ment to be taken literally thank you verry much) Multiple senerios is all I can think about.

You claim that now but just a few days ago you accused me of coming up with too many senerios.

I said nothing about too many senerios. What I did say was that non of the senerios you came up with fit into what know to be true in the cartoon. I allso said that rather than filling exsisting plot holes that your sinerios filled nothing and created even more plot holes. Simply put non of them made any sence. But I never said that you created TOO MANY sinerios.

The real problem here is your inability to narrow down the likelyhood of each sinerio

Its not an inability.

Its that there arent enough facts to rule out many of the possibilities.

There are facts that you seem to just be ignoreing.

For example your claims that

A. Free Will may not be noticed.

and

B. Free Will may not be seen as a defect.

Which the scene where a robot is recycled for being dissobediant is proof that both are wrong.

A. Free will was the reason he was able to be dissobediant.

and

B. It was obviously seen as a defect or they wouldn't of recycled him.

WTF? You totally lost me here. It looks like you're agreeing with me to prove that I'm wrong? How the hell does that work?

You said it wasnt too late till the rebellion started.

I'm saying by that time the Quints were already outnumbered a billion to 1.

It was already "FAR TOO LATE" by the time the rebellion started.

And?

I said it wasn't too late till the rebellion started.

You're saying it was allready far too late by the time the rebellion started.

Different phraiseing, same meaning. So what's your argument?

You know for someone who just accused me of not being able to see multiple possible outcomes you sure are insistant that this is the only possible outcome.

Because it was.

The Quints were outnumbered.

Any attempt to deal with the issue by the Quints would have resulted in more robots getting together sooner rather then later.

Althou if the Robots had acted sooner they may have lost.

There's no reason to assume that the robots would of learned to ban togeather any sooner if the Quints had delt with the problem any differently. Now if the groups had allready been formed and they were allready working as teams than yes they would of planed an attack sooner but like I've allready said, that would mean the rebellion has allready started.

What I mean by the "rebellion starting" is the formation of the rebal groups not the attack on the Quintessons. If the rebellion has not started yet there are no groups to plan an attack any sooner.

Simply killing transformers in larger numbers is not the only thing the quints could of done and the Transformers could not of counteracted everything they were capable of doing.

"Wow, that was the most idiodic thing you have ever said"

A] I said nothing about "killing robots".

B] the robots did, IN FACT, counter everything the Quints trew at them.

The Quints sent in the Dark Gurdians, one of their most powerfull creations at that time.

And the robots [A-3] countered it.

A. Yes you did "If the Quints killed the robots in larger numbers that would have just forced them to act sooner." Paraphraised

B. We are not talking about what the Quints DID we are talking about what they COULD HAVE DONE DIFFERENTLY.

Pluse the first time a single robot dissobeys does not mean that groups of robots are allready starting to form..

Thats not exactly what I said.

But a well trained slave doesnt disobey on his feelings alone.

Such an act is pretty much evidence of a growing sentiment of discontent.

Its an indication that the robots have discussed their discontent with each other.

Its basic physiology.

That's not entirely true. Depending on the individual it could be true but some people need less perswasion to act than others, some people need more perswasion to act than others.

On average you're probly right, but do you think that people who have committed suicide have ever talked about before doing it? They acted on their feelings alone. Had they ever talked about their issues the suicided could have been avoided. And being someone who has made several attempts myself I can say that for a fact. Had I kept my mouth shut and no one known about it I could be dead right now.

Basically just because one robot acts out doesn't nessisarly mean that it was planed or that anyone else includeing other slaves knew he was going to. Now there's a POSSIBILITY other slaves knew he THOUGHT about it but there's allso a possibility that they may not of wanted to talk about work unless they had to. And the simple fact that he acted alone means that the attack wasn't planed and was an outburst of his own emotion. No one would ever plan to have a single robot make an attack like that. It would be suicide to send someone for a job like that and serve no purpus. Now sending a single robot to do a job with a purpos is a possibility and getting someone to do it would again be an act of an idividuals emotions. Who's brave enough (or stupid enough) to risk their own neck for the safty of others.

In any case it all depends on the individual. How much they want freedom vs. how much they're willing to risk for it. Some people may actully be willing to take the risk alone while others may be more willing with a group than alone and others still may not be willing no matter how good the odds are for them.

Thank about how all the Autobots felt with Optimus Prime gone in the movie and then later when they thought Ultra Magnus had been killed too. Whenever the leader of the group dies the rest of the team basically give up all hope of survival..

And theres always one to tale there place.

"Hot Rod" any one???

Hot Rod never gave up hope.

Not allways. The Autobots in the movie just got lucky. It could of been years before they found someone else willing to take his place. Hell technically neither Ultra Magnus nor Hot Rod even wanted to replace Optimus. Ultra Magnus took over because Optimus told him too and Hot Rod took over because the Matrix gave him an upgrade and people stated calling him Rodimus Prime.

Anyway the point is you can gain a HUGE advantage simply by killing a leader and it may take the group days, weeks, months, or even years to recover from a loss of that magnitide. Especially if the "leader" isn't technically not even a leader yet when he's killed.

Why do you think in the Terminator movies they allways want to kill John Conner..

Not just John Conner.

In Terminator #3 they also wanted to kill his future wife and they killed a number of the future resistence leaders.

As you pointed out.

Yes and as I pointed out the reason for that was because John Conner was in hideing at that time and there were no records in the future of his location at that time. He didn't leave a paper trail. Credit cards, checks, anything that could be used to trace his wearabouts had been out of use for years before Terminator 3. He said so himself in the opening monolog of the movie and it was said again later in the movie when Arnold exsplained why the new lady was killing his LT.s.

But I can garantee that the group would not be formed earlier than A-3 would of formed it..

Actuality you cant guarantee that.

And this is why I say you cant see the big picture.

Killing off A-# could have lead Beta, or any of his friends, to form a group earlier the A-3 did.

But whos to say if that group would have been as effective.

And what makes you think that? When groups are formed in situations like that (at least this is how it's normally shown in fiction) one person or in this case robot gives a big speach to boost moral and confidence. Obviously A-3 was able to do this as the leader of his rebel group but what if A-3 was never around to accomplish that task. What makes you think Beta could of done the same thing? Maybe Beta was hopeless without A-3 around to boost moral.

See again, for someone who accuses me of not being able to see multiple sinerios you sure seem unable to see any other sinerio besides what actully happened. You don't have any doubt in your mind that if A-3 was not there than some other robot would of taken his place but no, there's no garantee of that. In fact the odds of that happening are preddy freaking low. The odds of someone takeing his place would be higher if he was killed AFTER the rebel group had allready been formed but not before.

In real world terms this is why we have a vice president and so on. If the present dies we have someone who can take his place at a moments notice. However if we did not have this system there's no telling when we'd be able to get a replacement or if we would get one at all.

That's basically how it would be for a group that hasn't even formed yet. There's no telling how long it would of taken for the rebel groups to form or if they would have formed at all if their leaders like A-3 were never around to form them.

Now if the groups are allready formed then the rebellion has allready started..

No...sorry.

The rebellion only starts when those groups start taking action of some kind.It doesnt have to be an attack but it has to be something in furtherance of the cause.

Just lumping together in groups does not make a rebelion if that group never takes any kind of action to help their cause.

Last I checked forming a rebel group was in itself an action. That would require planing the first group meeting the moment the group was formed and group meeting is the second action.

That's what you're doing when you keep insisting that not matter what the quints did the rebellion would of still happened..

Because it would have.

But it may not have been successful.

Sorry but no. It could have been prevented. It would not happen in every possible sinerio.

It doesn't matter how "weak" they were designed to be. Simple matter of metal is stronger than flesh..

Again.....Not necessarily true.

Metal is stronger then human flesh but its not stronger then the flesh of every living creature on the planet earth.

Further more we cant say how strong the flesh of an alien race could be.

Just look at Superman,The Martian Manhunter or even Aquaman [althou he's no alien] for an example of that.

And as I pointed out.....the Quints arent totally organic.

Technically Superman was only stronger on Earth. Kyrptonians on their home planet were not any different than humans. Martain Manhunter on the other hand has a power to change the density of his body so there's no telling how strong he really is. And sence you've brought up Superman, I've allways wondered if doing the reverse would have the same effect. Meaning that if a Kyrptonian can get super powers by comming to Earth can a human get super powers by going to Krypton if it still exsisted.

I guess the only real life comparison to that would be how humans are able to jump higher on the moon because the gravity isn't as strong there. Sucks on the way back though just like it sucks for Superman whenever he's reintroduced to a red sun. You get use to haveing sertain abilitys and when they're suddenly taken away it takes a while to reajest.

and even if you could your percentage would be wrong..

I'll admit my presentige was an opinion.

But theres no way you can prove it wrong.

Close to 80% of most Quints appeared to be metallic.

Yes it could be body armor but to prove my opinion wrong you need to "PROVE" it was body armor.

Well sence you stated it as fact before all I need to prove it wrong is to prove it wasn't a fact.

And BTW 80% of most quints sounds a bit more accurate than what you said before. Alot of them did seem to only have organic tenticles. I was just trying to account for the ones who were more organic than machine and account for the possibility that some parts may just be armor.

Example, Darth Vader. It was said in the original movies that he was more machine than man but untill Episode 3 came out the only part of him we knew was still organic was his head. From what the prequills show we now know that his torso was still organic as well allthough he may of lost more of that in surgery when the artifical lung was installed. In any case, under the suit there's no way of telling what's mechanical and what's organic.

It was never really said or shown what the quintessons were..

Didn't you one argue that creator intent was valid evidence??

Why am I asking....I know you did.

I'm not sure how that reply is relivent to the quote it's replying to? I didn't say anything in the quote about creator intent or evidence. I was talking about if the Quintessons were organic beings wearing armor, cybornetic beings (partally organic and patially mechanical), or some combination of the two.

OK then so if I hit you with my bare hand and then I hit you again on the other side with a metal rod the pain should be the same on both sides then right?.

Poor anlogy for the reasons I posted above.

There is no reason to assume that Quint flesh is as weak as ours.

Different environments will evolve flesh to different thickness and density.

Again your not seeing every possibility.

Nope, again, you just weren't being clear what you ment. If you meant to talk about the desity of the alien's skin then you should of said so to begin with insted of saying "the material the robots are made of isn't a factor" which BTW is still really stupid of you to say.

And even still we know that a human is able to over power a Quintesson but is not able to over power a full sized Transformer. (had to specify full sized sence a human has managed to over power "the red guy" who I'm fairly sure is Rumble once.) So if a human CAN overpower a Quintesson and CAN NOT over power a full sized robot it's a preddy safe bet that a full sized robot CAN overpower a Quintesson.

The problem there is how many of thoughs millions were actully willing to ACT on their thoughts.

Actully thats not much of a problem.

"Time" would have doubled the number of those willing to act.

World History proves that.

Anytime there is discontent its only a matter of time before some act.

Here's the problem with TIME it's unpredicable. It's never set in stone. And with robots, if the Quints could stop production of them the numbers would continuasly shrink. With organics the only way to stop production would be to keep male and female slaves seperated so they can't over populate. Well actully no there are other ways but lets not go into all the other details.

You were talking about him "conspireing" which would require other robots to be IN THAT SCENE with him.

Actually I was talking about his willingness to act as an indication of a sentiment of discontent that was growing and would lead to conspiring.

Which the dialog of the following scene indicated.

And that's not how you wording it when I posted the posted the responce. The way you originally worded it made it sound like he was conspireing on his own which sence conspireing takes more than one would be impossible.

Actully, you did. Would you like me to go back and quote you on it?

Go right ahead.

Either you misunderstood or I misworded myseld....but I would like to see which.

I don't know when at this point but I'll get back to you on this one. "Damn Yankees" is eating up alot of my time lately. Even though we opened a week ago we're still in a constant state of rehersals. One of our actors broke his foot on stage the second day and the last week we've been getting early calls for rehersals for his replacement. Hopefully after tomarrow everything can go back to abnormal sence the new guy is going on stage for the first time tomarrow.

246 years is not that long?

No its really not in the grand scheme of things.

When you factor in the worlds recorded history and compare it to how long humans have been on the planet, 246 years is nothing.

The only factor that really matters (to me at least) is the average life span. Anything longer than 100 years is a REALLY long @$$ time for a human. For the Transformers who have MUCH longer life spans 246 years really wouldn't be that long for them. For a fruit fly anything over 24 hours is a really long @$$ time.

Grand scheme of things doesn't matter when you think about the concept of time. What does matter is the perspective life span of the race contimplateing time. (not that a fruit fly is even inteligent enough to contimplate the aspect of time but just thinking from that perspective if it was.)

No one has agreed with anything you've said either.

Its not an issue of being agreed with.

I was clear enough to be understood by others.

And "Name Violation" has agreed on a few points.

You really missed the point there. I was basically saying how can you be so sure other have or haven't understood you when no one has said anything confirming or denying it. You're just ASSUMEING that they can understand you.

In fact no one has replyed at all so that doesn't mean anything.

Again "NV" has replied a few times...and each to tell you , you were wrong.

So I'm not lone here.

Before that post Name Violation only had one post that I ever saw. He's made a few posts afterwords but still has said anything about weather or not he can understand you. He's repyed to me but that doesn't automatically mean he agrees or even understands what you're saying.

Again no one has said anything either confirming or denieing that you could be understood.

If someone wants to come in here and back you up that's fine but you speaking for them when they haven't said anything either way is rather pathetic.

I spoke for no one but my self.

Um... when you claim that EVERYONE can understand you perfectly execept me that's not speaking for yourself that's speaking for EVERYONE who has not even involved themselfs in this conversation.

Like I keep telling you a thousand times. If you didn't speak in contridictions maybe I could actully understand you. In the same sentence you used the words "potential" and "inevitable". And here is where the problem lies. These words contridict eachother. Potential means it COULD happen. Inevitable means it WILL happen.

Theres no contradiction.

One it was possible for the robots to bypass their programing it was only a matter of time before they did so.

And by the time they started bypassing their programing it was only a matter of time before they rebelled.

"Potential" can lead to the "Inevitable" once that "Potential" has been achieved.

So yes your reading skills suck.

Nope you just suck at forming a coherent sentence.

Potential can never lead to inevitable. Once potential has been achived there is no more potential it's allready happened.

So now you're basically talking about something that has allready happened as if it was going to happen later on.

If something is suposidly inevitable there was never any potential for it to happen, it was allways inevitable.

Potential events can be prevented.

Inevitable events can't.

It's one or the other, not both.

If it doesn't matter then why do you keep insisting that it was the only possible outcome?

I ment... "it was a likely outcome if not most likely."

"Is" was a typo.

You had a quote tag missing here and the reply doesn't go with that quote anyway.

At any rate that makes alot more sence now.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Rial Vestro wrote:I thought that was "People living in glass houses should allways wear pants."

Are you joking???

Actully, yes I was and it apperently started a stones vs. pants debate. Why do you ask? Did you actully think I was serious?

being the main witness to this train wreck, i understand where both points of view come from.

while i agree more with sto, i can see how Rials train of thought has been workin
(post wise).

very condensed version
rial (understandably) doesn't see the point of the tfs being sentient in the first place, and sto sees the tfs having more of a master plan in action.

i think after the quints found out tfs were free thinking they didn't care as long as it wasn't in the way. kill them if they were the slightest bit disobediant. eventually a coordinated uprising freed them.

remember the golden rule; if you cant explain it, a wizard did it.

I'm going to try to shorten this since its clear you havent been paying attention to my arguments.

Rial Vestro wrote:You know this statement only further proves how much you contridict yourself. You allso said in earlier posts that if they did notice it they may not have seen it as a malfuction and now you're saying they would have seen it as a malfuction.

There is no contradiction.

And your statement only further proves how much your reading skills are lacking and that you dont pay attention.

When I entered this debate I said 2 important things.[But not in the following's exact words]

1] your assumptions are based on facts not in evidence.

2] we dont have enough info or evidence to state which senerio was most likely.

What you continue to fail to understand is that I am not supporting any of these senerios.

I'am merely stating them as possibilities because they all fit the facts that we do have.

What I have been arguing is that you are wrong to cast out other possible senerios because they dont fit your limited understanding and imagination.

I never said they would notice it as free will.

Actually you pretty much did when you said "disobedience in robots can only come from free will"

you argued that free will would either not be noticed at all or wouldn't be seen as a glitch.

No sir I did not.

If your going to try to quote me try and get it right.

I said theres no reason to assume it would be noticed till it was too late.

And I said theres no reason to assume it would be considered a "glitch" because we dont know if free will was intended or expected.

So basically as of now you're not only contridicting yourself but you're agreeing with me while contridicting yourself.

Please, please, please go back to school, then maybe you can follow my post.

Theres no contradiction because I havent supported and senrio.

I stated they are all possibilities.

I'm not sure what your argument is here. It looks like you're just further proveing why your comparison sucked.

More evidence of your poor reading skills.

That wasn't how you worded it the first time.

Actully thats pretty damn close to my exact words.

The intent of my words was still clear....if you we're reading carefully.

If you were paying attention, so the failure is still yours.

Favorite typo ever.

Same here

I said nothing about too many senerios.

Yes you did.

You said I had to many senerios that posed to many new questions instead of answering them.

What I did say was that non of the senerios you came up with fit into what know to be true in the cartoon.

You said that to.

There are facts that you seem to just be ignoreing.

I'm ignoring nothing.

The facts we have fit all the senerios I posed.

For example your claims that

A. Free Will may not be noticed.

and

B. Free Will may not be seen as a defect.

Which the scene where a robot is recycled for being dissobediant is proof that both are wrong.

It does not prove I'm wrong.

A. the scene only indicates what was done with disobedient robots.
which is not proof it was viewed as a defect.The only way to prove it was seen as a defect is to find proof of the Qyints intent.

and

B. the scene only indicates how they delt with malfunctioning robots.But it is not an indication that the malfunction was considered or noticed as free will.

And before you say I'm contradicting myself......READ THAT POST CAREFULLY AGAIN!!!!!

I'm not saying either senerio is more likely.

What I'm saying is the facts of that scene support both senerios equally.

A. Free will was the reason he was able to be dissobediant.

and

B. It was obviously seen as a defect or they wouldn't of recycled him.

Same as above.

A. theres no reason the Quints would have seen it as disobedience and not a malfunction.And if they saw it as a malfunction they would have never considered the problem was free will.

and

B.Theres no reason to assume they viewed it as a defect because we dont know if they intended or planned on free will.And again we cant prove either with out knowing their intent.

And gain.........I'm not saying either senerio is more likely.

What I'm saying is the facts of that scene support both senerios equally.

And?

I said it wasn't too late till the rebellion started.

You're saying it was allready far too late by the time the rebellion started.

Different phraiseing, same meaning. So what's your argument?

You really need to touch up those reading skills.

I said it wasn't too late till the rebellion started.

Meaning at the start of the rebellion.

I'm saying by the time the rebellion started it was already far too late.

Meaning it had been already too late for some time before the rebellion started.

Maybe 100's of years too late.

Different statements, different meanings.

There's no reason to assume that the robots would of learned to ban togeather any sooner if the Quints had delt with the problem any differently.

Theres is.

"The nature of the beast"

And I dont mean an animal.

Once the robots learned the value of freedom, learned to bypass their programing it was only a matter of time before they planned a revolt.

Any actions from the Quints would have forced the robots to ban together sooner.

The only thing really in question is the outcome.

A. Yes you did

No I did not.

"If the Quints killed the robots in larger numbers that would have just forced them to act sooner." Paraphraised

Incorrectly.

I said "delt with" and "recycled" I never said killed.

B. We are not talking about what the Quints DID we are talking about what they COULD HAVE DONE DIFFERENTLY.

Your brought both into play.

And I say again the only thing they really could have done that would have left them with out a rebellion on their hands was to shut them all down.

On average you're probly right,

Well since we're talking about "most likely senerios" an advrage right helps my argument.

but do you think that people who have committed suicide have ever talked about before doing it? They acted on their feelings alone.

Astudy into the minds an motivation of those that attempted suicide indicates your wrong.

In the study well over 90% of those that tried suicide did in fact talk about it to friends and family before trying.

And in 605 of the cases they had planed to do it with someone who back out of the deal.

Now I dont want to sound rude but I dont like talking about this topic in public so I wont go further.

Not allways.

Always.

The only realy questions are, wether he'll be where he's needed, will he be effective.

It could of been years before they found someone else willing to take his place.

Which still proves my point.

Hot Rod took over because the Matrix gave him an upgrade and people stated calling him Rodimus Prime.

Actually the "ghost" of Optimus renamed Hot Rod into Rodimus Prime.

Anyway the point is you can gain a HUGE advantage simply by killing a leader

And it could be a disadvantage.

Again bot senerios are possible.

Yes and as I pointed out the reason for that was because John Conner was in hideing at that time and there were no records in the future of his location at that time. He didn't leave a paper trail. Credit cards, checks, anything that could be used to trace his wearabouts had been out of use for years before Terminator 3. He said so himself in the opening monolog of the movie and it was said again later in the movie when Arnold exsplained why the new lady was killing his LT.s.

I believe you got it a bit mixed up.

The She-terminator was sent back to get the other resistance leaders because they had already killed John Conner in the future but the resistance continued.

And what makes you think that?

Because she has already proved she was willing to fight with out him.

What makes you think Beta could of done the same thing? Maybe Beta was hopeless without A-3 around to boost moral.

A-3 was a wonderful judge of character.He saw potencial in others that even they didnt subspect them selfs.

A person like A3 surrounds himself with capable people, not the type of people that fall apart when the chips are down.

And Beta proved to be very capable.

When A3 disappeared she went looking for him.

When she saw the time lost Autobots under attack she single handedly effected their recure escape from the battle.

She then asked those Autobots for help and then lead the attack on the Quints.

Thats what make me believe Beta would have gathered rebels with out A3.

Because she was very capable.

See again, for someone who accuses me of not being able to see multiple sinerios you sure seem unable to see any other sinerio besides what actully happened.

I accuse you of not seeing the big pictore and other senerios because you neglect to consider every factor.

I couldnt even believe why you asked me why I felt Beta was able to do as I suggest.

If you had considered all she had done you wouldnt have asked the question.

You don't have any doubt in your mind that if A-3 was not there than some other robot would of taken his place

Your right, I dont doubt that someone would have taken his place.

what I doubt is if that someone would have gotton the job done.

In real world terms this is why we have a vice president and so on. If the present dies we have someone who can take his place at a moments notice. However if we did not have this system there's no telling when we'd be able to get a replacement or if we would get one at all.

Thats not all exactly right but I have no interest in teaching a class right now.

Last I checked forming a rebel group was in itself an action.

Then you need to check again.

I can gather a group of nuts and claim we're going to rebel against our country, but if all we do is sit in the basement and eat donuts we arent taking any action.

Sorry but no.

Sorry but yes.

It could have been prevented.

Only by shutting them all down....which the Quints werent willing to do.

Technically Superman was only stronger on Earth.Kyrptonians on their home planet were not any different than humans

Incorrect.

Krypton had a stronger gravity field.

A natural born and rasid Kryptonian would have "thicker skin and bone structure" [so to speak] then a human.So yes on there planet they are a bit stronger.

Althou DC has not ben consistane with the idea when telling stories.

Martain Manhunter on the other hand has a power to change the density of his body so there's no telling how strong he really is.

Point is he's still "flesh and blood".

And sence you've brought up Superman, I've allways wondered if doing the reverse would have the same effect. Meaning that if a Kyrptonian can get super powers by comming to Earth can a human get super powers by going to Krypton if it still exsisted.

Yeah its a thought every comic geek has had.

But they have done stories wher Batman went to Krypton of the past...and no, he didnt get powers.

Well sence you stated it as fact before all I need to prove it wrong is to prove it wasn't a fact.

I did not state it as a fact before.

My exact words before was "As a matter of fact I appears they were bearly 20% organic"

And I ment "It" another typo.

But either way that couldnt be taken as a fact.

So you have proven nothing.

And BTW 80% of most quints sounds a bit more accurate than what you said before.

I really dont see how but what ever.

I'm not sure how that reply is relivent to the quote it's replying to? I didn't say anything in the quote about creator intent or evidence.

The point is in the past you have argued that writter\creator intent is as good as actual evidence.

But now your saying that since theres no actul evidence we cant say what the Quints really were.And in doing so your ignoring the writer\creators intent for the Quints.

Nope, again, you just weren't being clear what you ment.

Theres no reason why I have to hold your hand and guide you all the way.

It was you that compared Quint flesh to that of ours with out considering that their flesh may not be as weak.

The failure is yours for making an assumption with out considering all the possibilities.

I was more then clear enough.

And even still we know that a human is able to over power a Quintesson

Know what we know was that one human got the upper hand.

Thats not an idication that he was completely over powered.

Here's the problem with TIME it's unpredicable. It's never set in stone. And with robots, if the Quints could stop production of them the numbers would continuasly shrink.

Again stoping production would have still left the Quints with billions of pissed off robots to deal with.

Not to mentioned what might have happened if the consumer goods robots convinced the militery hardwere robots to join the fight.

And that's not how you wording it when I posted the posted the responce.

As I said above to a similar claim.....its pretty damn close.

I don't know when at this point but I'll get back to you on this one.

Please do.

"Damn Yankees" is eating up alot of my time lately. Even though we opened a week ago we're still in a constant state of rehersals. One of our actors broke his foot on stage the second day and the last week we've been getting early calls for rehersals for his replacement. Hopefully after tomarrow everything can go back to abnormal sence the new guy is going on stage for the first time tomarrow.

I'm gl you have something positive to occupy your time.

The only factor that really matters (to me at least) is the average life span. Anything longer than 100 years is a REALLY long @$$ time for a human. For the Transformers who have MUCH longer life spans 246 years really wouldn't be that long for them. For a fruit fly anything over 24 hours is a really long @$$ time.

To me, time is all relitive to the subject at hand.

And since the subject was "slavery" I felt 200+ years wasnt a long time because other societies have practiced slavery for longer then that.

You really missed the point there.

No I didnt...but you have.

Its evident that most understood because when you say something confusing or wrong they call you on it.

Again no one has said anything either confirming or denieing that you could be understood.

If they question your post when its wrong or not understood they would have done the same to me.

Um... when you claim that EVERYONE can understand you perfectly execept me that's not speaking for yourself that's speaking for EVERYONE who has not even involved themselfs in this conversation.

Its speaking to the obvious based on the actions and inactions of those here.

Nope you just suck at forming a coherent sentence.

Nope you just suck at reading them.

Potential can never lead to inevitable.

Yes it can.

Once potential has been achived there is no more potential it's allready happened.

We are taking about a series of events.

And in a series of events you go from the potential for an event to the event happening or not happening.

In this case it happened.

So now you're basically talking about something that has allready happened as if it was going to happen later on.

No, I'm talking about something that happened, before it actully happened.

If something is suposidly inevitable there was never any potential for it to happen, it was allways inevitable.

No.

Even an inevitable even requires a set of variables.

Its inevitable that a fire will burn, but if theres no oxygen theres no fire so theres no burn.

Even an inevitable event requires that a series of variables are in play.

Potential events can be prevented.

Inevitable events can't.

It's one or the other, not both.

In this case the needed to be stoped was the robots learning to bypass their programing....henc potential.

Once they learned that the ultimate outcome [revolt] was unavoidable....hence inevitable.

Actully, yes I was and it apperently started a stones vs. pants debate.

Ok kool.

Why do you ask? Did you actully think I was serious?

Yes I did.

Some of your recent statement lead me to conclude that you just might be serious.

BTW it looks like I failed to shorten this

Name_Violation wrote:being the main witness to this train wreck, i understand where both points of view come from.

while i agree more with sto, i can see how Rials train of thought has been workin
(post wise).

very condensed version
rial (understandably) doesn't see the point of the tfs being sentient in the first place, and sto sees the tfs having more of a master plan in action.

i think after the quints found out tfs were free thinking they didn't care as long as it wasn't in the way. kill them if they were the slightest bit disobediant. eventually a coordinated uprising freed them.

remember the golden rule; if you cant explain it, a wizard did it.

Thank you.

I do have one question.

And I'm not asking you to take sides , but have you understood what I'm saying.......for the most part????

i've understood whats been said.

i like the "keep digging for answers" philosophy.

while its said the simplest solution is usually right, i've never had good experience with that.

besides i like seeing all the veiw points and being able to draw my own conclusions. its all theory and BS anyway.

i fully agree that by the time the quints could realize the tf's could be a problem they were too dependant on slaves to cut their losses

the whole free thinking aspect could initially be a glitch, or an experiment that got out of hand, robo evolution, or intelligent design (enough people say god made them, so robot god made robots, just as believable). Or maybe they were intended to be free thinking tools (makes more sense for autobots, a friendly car to drive you, or a scientist that doesn't have to ask permission every 2 seconds)

i look at the quints slavery in compairison to human slavery. it was a common practice that didn't work out. a few revolts didn't serve as a warning, and snowball effect...

If only they had domesticated tf's instead of enslaved

magic + technology + time travel = everyone confused

I'll go back and answer the rest when I actully have the time to look for the exact quotes. I'm not skipping or ignoreing anything, I'm simply setting it aside till I have time to address the issues.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

I said nothing about too many senerios.

Yes you did.

You said I had to many senerios that posed to many new questions instead of answering them.

You know I'll give you the benifit of the doubt that maybe I'm remembering something YOU said wrong. But me on the other hand, I know exactly what I said and I never said that you had too many senerios. I said that your senerios didn't answer any questions and created more questions. I said they didn't make any sence with the facts we have. But I never said you came up with too many different senerios.

If I have to I'll go back and quote myself as well but I shouldn't need to because I allready know what I have and have not said. And sorry but you do tend to add and take away from I've said ALOT. Maybe not intentionally but you do. And I'm betting the "too many senerios" thing is just another one of thoughs things that you're adding but I've never actully said.

There are facts that you seem to just be ignoreing.

I'm ignoring nothing.

The facts we have fit all the senerios I posed.

No they don't and I've allready tried to exsplain to the best of my ability why they don't make any sence and you just don't get it because you fail to grasp the simpleist concepts. I'm not even going to try to exsplain why they don't make sence anymore because I've allready accepted the fact that you're never going to understand it.

For example your claims that

A. Free Will may not be noticed.

and

B. Free Will may not be seen as a defect.

Which the scene where a robot is recycled for being dissobediant is proof that both are wrong.

It does not prove I'm wrong.

A. the scene only indicates what was done with disobedient robots.
which is not proof it was viewed as a defect.The only way to prove it was seen as a defect is to find proof of the Qyints intent.

and

B. the scene only indicates how they delt with malfunctioning robots.But it is not an indication that the malfunction was considered or noticed as free will.

And before you say I'm contradicting myself......READ THAT POST CAREFULLY AGAIN!!!!!

I'm not saying either senerio is more likely.

What I'm saying is the facts of that scene support both senerios equally.

A. There's no proof the Transformers were intended for anything other than what they were used for. Their use is evidence of intent and without evidence agenst it the use and intent are the same. In other words, the issue is not proveing weater or not they were intended to be slaves the issue is proveing weather or not they were intended for something else.

B. You are contridicting yourself. I have said that free will may not be noticed AS free will but as a malfuction and you replyed with B1. I have said that dissobediance is only possible with free will and you replyed with B2.
B1. Free Will may not be seen as a malfuction.
B2. The scene shows how they delt with malfuctioning robots.

Now follow me for a min. here. If a robot is dissobediant it is because he has free will. A Quint may not notice it as Free Will but rather as a malfuction. Are you with me so far?

You originally argued agenst this by saying that they may not of noticed free will. I have continuasly said that they would but may not see AS free will. You still argue agenst it saying that it won't be noticed at all neither as free will or as a malfuction. Because of this argument the scene in which a robot was recycled for being dissobediant could never have happened because you're insistance that the quints would not of noticed him.

Now when I argued that you were makeing that contridiction you replyed by AGREEING with my original arguement that you argued agenst to make the contridiction in the first place. Which rather than clearing up any missunderstanding I may have had simply added more contridictions.

Weather or not you suport either sinerio as fact is rather irrelivant because of the scene in which a robot is recycled for being dissobediant. The sinerio I originaly brought up actully fits what was happeing in the scene while the one you used to argue agenst it contridicts the scene and trys to prove that it never even happened.

Did you understand any of that?

What I'm saying is the facts of that scene support both senerios equally.

No it doesn't as exsplained abouve.

And?

I said it wasn't too late till the rebellion started.

You're saying it was allready far too late by the time the rebellion started.

Different phraiseing, same meaning. So what's your argument?

You really need to touch up those reading skills.

I said it wasn't too late till the rebellion started.

Meaning at the start of the rebellion.

I'm saying by the time the rebellion started it was already far too late.

Meaning it had been already too late for some time before the rebellion started.

Maybe 100's of years too late.

Different statements, different meanings.

Yeah that bold statement doesn't change the meaning. It just makes it look overly exadgerated or sarcastic.

If you want to say "before the rebellion started" then just say it that way insted of "by the time the rebellion started".

There's no reason to assume that the robots would of learned to ban togeather any sooner if the Quints had delt with the problem any differently.

Theres is.

"The nature of the beast"

And I dont mean an animal.

Once the robots learned the value of freedom, learned to bypass their programing it was only a matter of time before they planned a revolt.

Any actions from the Quints would have forced the robots to ban together sooner.

The only thing really in question is the outcome.

You really don't understand the nature of the beast do you?

The reason they ban togeather is not as simple as that. It takes a leader to form the group in the first place. Sure they all have a reason to ban togeather but you're failing to realize here is the natures of the individuals who would join such a group. Simple fact is not everyone is capable of being or willing to be a leader and if no one is capable or willing the group can not exsist. Hence my statement that if A-3 had been killed before his team was formed the team may never of exsisted or a different team may of been formed and possibly much later.

If there was any possibility of a group forming sooner without A-3 then they really wouldn't of needed A-3 to begin with.

Now once a group has ALLREADY baned togeather that's different because they allready have the lessons of their former leader to keep them going after he's gone. If the leader was never there they have nothing to even get them started.

The leader is not JUST the leader, he's a motivator. The conditions they live in, slavery, is only the FIRST motivator, the first reason they ban togeather. The second motivator, the second reason they ban togeather is because someone among them was smart and brave enough to speak out and get the attention of his fellow slaves. Someone was able to motivate them as a team.

Basically rather than motivated them to ban togeather sooner it would only motivate more individuals to act on their own before another "leader" type could be found.

You can basically catigorize the different personalitys in slavery by the level of fear vs. will. (fear of death, will to stand up for what's right.)

When individuals act alone...

1. Fear is the dominate emotion in the majority of individuals.

2. Will is the dominate emotion in the minority of individuals.

When they ban togeather...

3. Will is the dominate emotion in the majority of individuals.

4. Fear is the dominate emotion in the minority of individuals.

Now every one of them has both emotions but this is just about which one is the most dominate. Now in the examples abouve, I'll break it down even more.

Groups 3 and 4 are formed by the same individuals in group 1. Group 2 is dead by the time 3 and 4 are formed sence group 2 has allready acted as individuals.

Group 1 which was a majority of individuals splits into 2 groups. 3 which is made possible only with a "leader" type individual. And 4 which alot like group 1 but alot smaller.

Now the leader type person is a group all on his own. He's the one where will is so dominate over fear than he's able to hide fear from others and inspire them to be greater than they are.

To break this down even further...

Lets say you've got 100 individuals. 10 of them will act on their own and get killed leaveing 90 others. Out of thoughs 90, 1 person will try to ban them togeather. That leaves 89 individuals. Out of thoughs 89, 80 will follow that leader. That leaves 9 who are still dominated by fear.

So that's 89 for group 1, 10 for group 2, 80 for group 3, and 9 for group 4.

Now that's just a rough estimate/example and no where near what the actual numbers would be but it's to give you an idea of what it might be.

Now if there was any possiblity of someone else being able to take A-3s place before A-3 even started then anyone at any time could of done the same thing A-3 did weather he was there or not and that simply defys the nature of the individual. No one before A-3 could of done what he did. Someone after him may have been able to but not before him.

"If the Quints killed the robots in larger numbers that would have just forced them to act sooner." Paraphraised

Incorrectly.

I said "delt with" and "recycled" I never said killed.

It doesn't matter, it gets the same results.

B. We are not talking about what the Quints DID we are talking about what they COULD HAVE DONE DIFFERENTLY.

Your brought both into play.

And I say again the only thing they really could have done that would have left them with out a rebellion on their hands was to shut them all down.

And I still say that's NOT the only thing they could of done. It might be the only thing that would for sure work but you can't dissprove that other possibilitys wouldn't of worked to prevent it.

but do you think that people who have committed suicide have ever talked about before doing it? They acted on their feelings alone.

Astudy into the minds an motivation of those that attempted suicide indicates your wrong.

In the study well over 90% of those that tried suicide did in fact talk about it to friends and family before trying.

And in 605 of the cases they had planed to do it with someone who back out of the deal.

Now I dont want to sound rude but I dont like talking about this topic in public so I wont go further.[/quote]

I said COMMITED not attempted. Two different subjects there.

It could of been years before they found someone else willing to take his place.

Which still proves my point.

No it doesn't. Your point was that someone could of taken his place before he was even around.

Anyway the point is you can gain a HUGE advantage simply by killing a leader

And it could be a disadvantage.

How does killing the leader = dissadvantage?

Even in a sinerio where it could cause the group to attack sooner they may not be as prepaired for battle and would most likely be attacking out of pure emotion without thinking about stratigy.

The only way it could be a dissadvantage is if there is another leader to take his place and the new leader turns out to be better than the original.

Yes and as I pointed out the reason for that was because John Conner was in hideing at that time and there were no records in the future of his location at that time. He didn't leave a paper trail. Credit cards, checks, anything that could be used to trace his wearabouts had been out of use for years before Terminator 3. He said so himself in the opening monolog of the movie and it was said again later in the movie when Arnold exsplained why the new lady was killing his LT.s.

I believe you got it a bit mixed up.

The She-terminator was sent back to get the other resistance leaders because they had already killed John Conner in the future but the resistance continued.

I think you're a bit mixed up. Even if they killed John Conner in the future they'd still try to kill him in the past if they knew where he was which she did when she found out he was there.

Killing him in the past before he could form the resistance group would cause far more damage than killing him in the future after the group had allready been formed. This is what you seem to not understand.

What makes you think Beta could of done the same thing? Maybe Beta was hopeless without A-3 around to boost moral.

A-3 was a wonderful judge of character.He saw potencial in others that even they didnt subspect them selfs.

A person like A3 surrounds himself with capable people, not the type of people that fall apart when the chips are down.

And Beta proved to be very capable.

When A3 disappeared she went looking for him.

When she saw the time lost Autobots under attack she single handedly effected their recure escape from the battle.

She then asked those Autobots for help and then lead the attack on the Quints.

Thats what make me believe Beta would have gathered rebels with out A3.

Because she was very capable.

Again, what makes you think that Beta would be a capable leader if she had never met A-3.

You're talking about things that she was capable of doing because of A-3. Even though he wasn't around she still had the knowlage of him and everything she learned from him. A-3 saw her potential early on and helped her to reach it, if he wasn't there to do that for her Beta wouldn't be the same capable robot we saw in the cartoon.

See again, for someone who accuses me of not being able to see multiple sinerios you sure seem unable to see any other sinerio besides what actully happened.

I accuse you of not seeing the big pictore and other senerios because you neglect to consider every factor.

I couldnt even believe why you asked me why I felt Beta was able to do as I suggest.

If you had considered all she had done you wouldnt have asked the question.

If you had considered all she may have learned from A-3 you wouldn't be so willing to belive she'd be just as capable if she'd never known him.

Whatever she did in the cartoon is irrelivent. We're not talking about what she's capable of in a time with A-3 we're talking about how capable she would be in a time line where she had never known A-3.

You don't have any doubt in your mind that if A-3 was not there than some other robot would of taken his place

Your right, I dont doubt that someone would have taken his place.

what I doubt is if that someone would have gotton the job done.

That's a doubt you should have. Because the chances of any other robot being able to take A-3's place had he never formed the rebel group are verry slim.

Martain Manhunter on the other hand has a power to change the density of his body so there's no telling how strong he really is.

Point is he's still "flesh and blood".

Vison from the Avengers has the same ability to change density and he's a robot. Now they both have other abilitys that they don't share but the desity thing is present in both of them. Now if there was a way to take away that power and show their true desity Vison would still be stronger. With the power I doubt either one of them could out power the other but Vison would probly be able to out smart the Martain.

Well sence you stated it as fact before all I need to prove it wrong is to prove it wasn't a fact.

I did not state it as a fact before.

My exact words before was "As a matter of fact I appears they were bearly 20% organic"

And I ment "It" another typo.

But either way that couldnt be taken as a fact.

So you have proven nothing.

You're makeing this too easy for me.

Your trying to prove that you DIDN'T state something as a "fact" by quoteing yourself saying "as a matter of fact".

You blantantly just said it was a fact while trying to prove that you never said it was fact.

And so the contridiction marathon continues.

And BTW 80% of most quints sounds a bit more accurate than what you said before.

I really dont see how but what ever.

Because before you simple said "80%" which would mean of the entire race. This time you said "of most" which leaves room to belive that not everyone in their race fits into that same "80%".

I'm not sure how that reply is relivent to the quote it's replying to? I didn't say anything in the quote about creator intent or evidence.

The point is in the past you have argued that writter\creator intent is as good as actual evidence.

But now your saying that since theres no actul evidence we cant say what the Quints really were.And in doing so your ignoring the writer\creators intent for the Quints.

No. I don't even know what the writer/creators intent for them was so how can I ignore something I don't even know about? So now you're claiming I'm ignoreing evidence that wasn't even presented?

Nope, again, you just weren't being clear what you ment.

Theres no reason why I have to hold your hand and guide you all the way.

It was you that compared Quint flesh to that of ours with out considering that their flesh may not be as weak.

The failure is yours for making an assumption with out considering all the possibilities.

I was more then clear enough.

Nope, it was YOU who pointed out that a human was able to over power a quintesson. Has nothing to do with me assumeing quint flesh is as weak or weaker than a humans, you're the one who proved quints were weaker than humans. When I used the quint vs human comparison to prove that quints were weaker than robots it was based on evidence that YOU provided.

That's twice now that you have provided evidence to try and help your case and then when I use it agenst your argument you change it. You provided the scene of a robot being recycled for dissobediance and you provided the evidence that humans were able to over power Quints and both times when I use that evidence to prove a point you go back on it as if you never provivded the evidence in the first place.

I guess it's only valid if it helps your case then is that it? But if the evidence helps me then it's wrong and you never provided it. OK I get it now, I see how this works. Everything I saw is wrong regardless weather or not the evidence suports it.

And even still we know that a human is able to over power a Quintesson

Know what we know was that one human got the upper hand.

Thats not an idication that he was completely over powered.

As I said abouve, you're just changeing your argument because the evidence you provided no longer suports you.

Not to mentioned what might have happened if the consumer goods robots convinced the militery hardwere robots to join the fight.

And there's no evidence that they didn't. We know at least one gladiator which would be part of militery hardwear, acted on his own to attack the quints in the stands.

In that time period the Autobot and Decepticon wars hadn't yet started so there's a good possibility that A-3 may of had a few "Decepticons" in his ranks durring the rebellion. (and "Decepticons" is in quotations because they didn't actully have that name yet but the millitary hardware robots are what would later be the Decepticons.)

"Damn Yankees" is eating up alot of my time lately. Even though we opened a week ago we're still in a constant state of rehersals. One of our actors broke his foot on stage the second day and the last week we've been getting early calls for rehersals for his replacement. Hopefully after tomarrow everything can go back to abnormal sence the new guy is going on stage for the first time tomarrow.

I'm gl you have something positive to occupy your time.

I just talked about how an actor broke his foot on stage and had to be replaced and you responded with "something positive"? Would you like to rephraise that because I would sure hope that by "something positive" you're not talking about looseing an actor.

You really missed the point there.

No I didnt...but you have.

Its evident that most understood because when you say something confusing or wrong they call you on it.

Not nessarily. I've ignored several posts that I thought were confusing. Mostly to avoid long debates like this. The only reason these start is when I say something confusing or wrong and someone calls me on them, useually you. Allthough whenever someone else does it the conversation normally ends ALOT faster when I have no trouble what so ever understanding others. It seems you're the only one I can't understand so the problem must be the way you word your posts not how I read them.

Again no one has said anything either confirming or denieing that you could be understood.

If they question your post when its wrong or not understood they would have done the same to me.

The same still applys. No one said anything confirming or denying that I didn't make sence either.

Once potential has been achived there is no more potential it's allready happened.

We are taking about a series of events.

And in a series of events you go from the potential for an event to the event happening or not happening.

In this case it happened.

Yes and no.

You have the right train of thought to begine with but then your train crashes when you assume that what happened in one sinerio would happen in ALL sinerios.

Again, this is what you accused me of doing earlier and you're the only one doing it.

If something is suposidly inevitable there was never any potential for it to happen, it was allways inevitable.

No.

Even an inevitable even requires a set of variables.

Its inevitable that a fire will burn, but if theres no oxygen theres no fire so theres no burn.

Even an inevitable event requires that a series of variables are in play.

Wow your logic fails. I don't where to begin to tell you how little that fire annaligy makes any sence.

Potential events can be prevented.

Inevitable events can't.

It's one or the other, not both.

In this case the needed to be stoped was the robots learning to bypass their programing....henc potential.

Once they learned that the ultimate outcome [revolt] was unavoidable....hence inevitable.

Hence you're sticking a square peg into a round hole.

- = edit = -

Oh and apperently Name Violation has just confirmed that he can in fact understand both points of view but agrees with you more. Still doesn't change the fact you claimed that EVERYONE could understand you but me and as a result you were speaking for others who have not posted to confirm or deny either case.

So, NV can you translate for me?

As far as understanding goes, the whole debate would be so much more comprehensible if it wasn't fragmented by masses and masses of quotes. And as far as I can grasp, things have become inanely circular, which means really it's effectively over anyway.