The Energon Pub

Name_Violation wrote:i've understood whats been said.

Thank you very much

Name_Violation wrote:
i like the "keep digging for answers" philosophy.

Same here.

Name_Violation wrote:
while its said the simplest solution is usually right, i've never had good experience with that.

Its also been said that the more complex the issue is the more complex the answers are.

And in my experance thats more often true then not.

Name_Violation wrote:
besides i like seeing all the veiw points and being able to draw my own conclusions. its all theory and BS anyway.

Agreed.

Name_Violation wrote:
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

Name_Violation wrote:
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)

Exactly my point.

The evidence we got supports all these theories.

Name_Violation wrote:
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

Good theory.

Tekka wrote: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.

I can see what you mean

Rial Vestro wrote: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.

Fine.

Rial Vestro wrote:You know I'll give you the benifit of the doubt that maybe I'm remembering something YOU said wrong.

OK....thanks.

Rial Vestro wrote: But me on the other hand, I know exactly what I said and I never said that you had too many senerios.

Since you gave me the benifit of the doubt I'll return the favor in kind.

Maybe I misred your words or I might be mixxing up different points you tried to make.

This has be rather lengthy so maybe I am at fault.

Rial Vestro wrote: I said that your senerios didn't answer any questions and created more questions.

Theres nothing wrong with finding new questions.

Rial Vestro wrote: I said they didn't make any sence with the facts we have.

But they do.

Rial Vestro wrote: No they don't and I've allready tried to exsplain to the best of my ability why they don't make any sence

Yes they do, and the fact that they do is why you have failed to disprove any of them.

You havent been able to disprove the possibility that the TF we originally created for some other reason other then slavery.

You havent been able to disprove that free will may have been by intent.

You werent able to disprove that the first TF may have been part of a project to created AI.

The "FACT" we have fit many senerios.....equally.

Rial Vestro wrote:A. There's no proof the Transformers were intended for anything other than what they were used for.

And theres no evidence that what they were used for was their original intended purpose.

And the fact that the Quints ran different projects that would have had different outcomes is an indication that "slaves" isint what they really wanted.

Rial Vestro wrote: Their use is evidence of intent and without evidence agenst it the use and intent are the same.

Thats one of the most illogical statements you have ever made.

"Absence of evidence is no evidence of absence"

We can not know the Quints true intent with out direct evidence to say what it was.

And no such evidence exsists.

Evidence of the aftermath of their creation can not prove motive.

Rial Vestro wrote: 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.

All I need do is provide resonable doubt that slaves were the intent.

And the Transorganics and Mara-Al-Utha cast that doubt.

Neither experiment would have come close to producing the same results the robots did.

That suggest a different motive then just wanting slaves.

Rial Vestro wrote:B. You are contridicting yourself.

I guess you failed to read carefully...even when I said you should.

Heres it is again.

Please read carfully.....again.
I'm not saying either senerio is more likely.

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

Theres no contradiction because I'm not claiming either senerio is the case.

They all have as much chance as being right as the other.

I havent been arguing that either senerio is right, I've been arguing that you and your senerio is wrong because your ruling out the other senerios with out any evidence to do so.

So the scene with the disobedient robot supports both arguments.

Rial Vestro wrote: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?

No I didnt because your wrong.

And how is wether or not I support 1 senerio over the other irrelevent???

Your making no sence at all.

Try to follow.

The scene show us what was done with a robot when it failed to do as told.

Thats it.

It didnt give us a clear understanding as to what the Quints thought was the cause of the problem.

Disobedience alone is not an indication of Free will.There could be millions of reason why a machine wouldnt follow orders.

So were left with 2 most likely possibilities.

A.It was not noticed as free will but was seen as some kind of defect.

B.It was known to be free will because they were aware of it, or intended on free will, or expected free will to develope.

The scene does support both senerios equally.

A.The Quints would recycle a malfunctioning robot.

B. The Quints would recycle a disobedient free willed robot

No it doesn't as exsplained abouve.

Your explaination failed.

Yeah that bold statement doesn't change the meaning. It just makes it look overly exadgerated or sarcastic.

Then you need to touch up your readding skills.

To say, it was "far too late" by the time the rebellion started means it was already to late for a long time before the rebellion.

If you want to say "before the rebellion started" then just say it that way insted of "by the time the rebellion started".

Dont presume to suggest that I have to lower my literary skills to that of grammar school just so that you can understand.

Saying "far too late" is an indication that it had be too late for a long time already.

What kind of a writter are you????

You really don't understand the nature of the beast do you?

I do, you apparently dont.

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.

I dont think I said the group would form sooner.

I said they would most likely act sooner.

And forming alone is not really an act of a group.

So the rest of this is pointless.

It doesn't matter, it gets the same results.

It does matter.

I never said killed.

And theres no reason to assume a recycled bot doesnt have the memories and personality he had before he was recycled.

And I still say that's NOT the only thing they could of done.

And yet you have failed to provide a likely course of action that would have resulted in stopping a revolt of some kind from taking place.

Yes you suggest some senerios that "MIGHT" put it off for a while but they could have just as likely ignighted the revolt sooner.

I said COMMITED not attempted. Two different subjects there.

No they really arent.

98% of those that have committed have a long history of multiple attempts at suicide.

So the study applies.

No it doesn't.

Yes it does, because my point was that there is always someone to take the place of a fallen warrior.

I said nothing about before or after.

How does killing the leader = dissadvantage?

Nature of the beast again.

Kill a leader and you run the risk of making him a martyer.

You run the risk that by killing the leader you might inspire 100's, maybe 1000's, to take up his cause.

I think you're a bit mixed up.

I'm not.

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.

Yeah but thats kind of irrelivent to what I'm saying.

Again, what makes you think that Beta would be a capable leader if she had never met A-3.

Whos to say the Quints could have killed him before he met Beta???

Your senerios all require a very specific series of events.

In my opinion....the only way they could have stop their meating would have been to kill A-3 when he was firdt created.

I say that because it seems logical that she was created soon after A-3 because A is short for Alpha and her name was Beta.

Seems logical they were created close together.

You're talking about things that she was capable of doing because of A-3.

Your assuming facts not in evidence.

We never saw enough of her to say what she was or wasnt capable of on her own.

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.

If you werent assuming facts not in evidence you wouldnt be willing to believe that it was A-3 that taught her everything she knew.

As I said above we dont have enough info on her to assume what she learned or didnt learn from A3

That's a doubt you should have.

Why???So I can be small minded????

Now if there was a way to take away that power and show their true desity Vison would still be stronger.

Even with out the power the skinn of the MM's natural state is strong enough to with stand the pressures of out deepest ocean.

In short even with out the power MM would be able to hold his own with the Vision.

It a not to well known fact that MM is as strong as Superman.

You're makeing this too easy for me.

You wish.

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.

The word "appears" was in read for a reason.

And that reason was because it was the key word in the sentence.

I said it was a fact that it appears to be 20% organic.

How something appears is subjective,its open to interpretation, open to the viewers point of view.

None of that means the presentage was presented as a fact.

It ment that "appearance wise" they didnt look completly organic.

Theres no contradiction.

But I do see how it could have been confusing.

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%".

If you jumped to that conclusion with out asking a quilfying question thats your mistake.

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?

I mentioned earlier in this debate what the creator intent was.

And in many different topics I also mentioned it and linked you the proof in the form of the 86 movies production notes as well as the production bible for season 3.

I'm going to assume that this is a case of your bad memory coming into play

Nope,

Yep.

it was YOU who pointed out that a human was able to over power a quintesson.

A] that has no bearing on how strong the Quints flesh is.

B] I said Spike got the upper hand.

Has nothing to do with me assumeing quint flesh is as weak or weaker than a humans,

Yes it does.

you're the one who proved quints were weaker than humans.

Actully no.

I said theres no reason to assume that Quints are stronger then humans.

But theres also no reason to assume that they are weaker then humans.

Theres also no reason to assume that they are as strong as humans.

Are you getting it yet???

Theres no reason to assume anything about them.

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.

Not at all.

I may have provided you with the evidence to make your theories but its your limited imagination that lets you see only one path.

I never change my argument on those event because I presented no argument on those event in the first place.

I tried present to you with a different way to look at those events which formed your misconceptions.

I tried to show you that your assumption are wrong because they all rely on facts not in evidence.

I've been trying to show you that the few facts we have dont point to any conclusive answers.

This entire time I've been playing "Devils Advocate" with the issues and somehow you keep missing that.

As I said abouve, you're just changeing your argument because the evidence you provided no longer suports you.

As said above and countless times in this debate, I supported no 1 senerio.

So there was no change in argument because I did not provide an argument.

I provided the events an a few ways to look at them.

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.

Incorrect on both points.

A] we were told that only the Autobots ancestors revolted.

B] the Gladiator that acted on hos own was not part of the miletery hardware robots.The gladiator that took action was the same robot that was recycled and he was consumers goods.

Unless your suggesting that he was recycled into a militery robot.

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.

I'm saying that its positive because your enjoy doing your job.

And I know your not happy when you dont have a show to work on.

Not nessarily.

Maybe.....but with the guys on this site its almost assured.

The same still applys. No one said anything confirming or denying that I didn't make sence either.

Thats not exactly true, but lets drop it.

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.

I think your misunderstanding me.

Wow your logic fails.

Hardly.

I don't where to begin to tell you how little that fire annaligy makes any sence.

Its a stretch but it applies.

Hence you're sticking a square peg into a round hole.

No, I'm just tring to give you a greator understanding of things, but your not capable of grasping it.

- = 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?

I wasnt speaking for others.

But his claim that he understands me is an indication that its your reading skills or that your ignoring my posts that are preventing you from understanding.

Do me a favor would ya? There's a couple different quotes I've said I'd go and look for when I had time but I think they're spread across different posts now so could you just remind me of everything that I'm supose to be looking for.

I don't have to leave for work till 5 pm tomarrow so I'll look for the quotes in the morning. I think there's 3 of them that I'm looking for but I can't remember at this point.

Rial Vestro wrote:Do me a favor would ya? There's a couple different quotes I've said I'd go and look for when I had time but I think they're spread across different posts now so could you just remind me of everything that I'm supose to be looking for.

I don't have to leave for work till 5 pm tomarrow so I'll look for the quotes in the morning. I think there's 3 of them that I'm looking for but I can't remember at this point.

How bout we just forget that crap and try to focus on the pain topics of debate????

I've been getting ready for surgery at the end of the mounth and to be honest looking up old post just seems like a waste of time to me.

Its no secret that we have had problems understanding each other in the past....this is just an other case.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:And the fact that the Quints ran different projects that would have had different outcomes is an indication that "slaves" isint what they really wanted.

Not really. Even in real life there are companys that make many different products. One product is not an indication of what other products are going to be.

For example, the Transorganics may not of been created for slavery but that doesn't mean that the Transformers weren't either.

In real life, Transformers are toys. More spicifically they are action figures. But Hasbro allso makes board games, card games, and several other things that do not have the same use as Transformers. Hasbro allso produces several cartoons and movies with Transformers and G.I. Joes being owned by them. Again not the same thing as an action figure.

I'd like to come up with a better real life example but I'm just too tiard.

Rial Vestro wrote: Their use is evidence of intent and without evidence agenst it the use and intent are the same.

Thats one of the most illogical statements you have ever made.

"Absence of evidence is no evidence of absence"

We can not know the Quints true intent with out direct evidence to say what it was.

And no such evidence exsists.

Evidence of the aftermath of their creation can not prove motive.

It offten does even in real life. If someone is found with a dead body it's automatically assumed that you killed that person and without evidence to suport that you didn't then you did.

Or like my case when me, my brother, and his upstairs neibor all got arrested assumeing that one of us was involved because there's was no evidence that anyone outside the apartment could have gotten in. Simple fact is they were looking for signs of a break in which wouldn't of been found because the door wasn't locked.

You know after saying that I just realized before that happened I would of thought that whole situation to be really stupid if someone exsplained it to me but haveing lived it seems to have changed my entire outlook on things.

Rial Vestro wrote: 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.

All I need do is provide resonable doubt that slaves were the intent.

And the Transorganics and Mara-Al-Utha cast that doubt.

Neither experiment would have come close to producing the same results the robots did.

That suggest a different motive then just wanting slaves.

Actully that just sugest that the "company" they were running produced many different products which is not uncommon. No reason to think one product has any bareing on another.

So the scene with the disobedient robot supports both arguments.

Doesn't. It suports one argument and contridicts the other. Again weather or not you suport it as fact is irrelivent. The simple fact that you think it's possible is still a contridiction unless you can provide any kind of valid comprehendable argument to make the sinerio fit into the scene. As it is the sinereo makes no sence and only contridicts the scene.

Rial Vestro wrote: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?

No I didnt because your wrong.

You didn't understand what I said... because... I'm wrong. That doesn't make sence. How can being wrong be a reason for not understanding what it is I've said? And how can you know I'm wrong if you don't even understand what it is I've said? That just doesn't make sence. You can't understand it so it's wrong?

Maybe it is wrong but you should be able to understand what it is I'm saying in order to make such a claim. How can you say it's wrong if you don't know what I said?

And how is wether or not I support 1 senerio over the other irrelevent???

Your making no sence at all.

Because weather or not you support the senerio doesn't change the fact that it contridicts the scene. The simple fact that you even sugested it as a possibility makes you contridict yourself weather or not you suport it as fact.

Disobedience alone is not an indication of Free will.There could be millions of reason why a machine wouldnt follow orders.

Is an indication. There could be millions of reasons why a machine wouldn't function but there's only one reason why a machine would dissobey like an organic.

Dissobediance and failer to function are two different things. One is by choice, the other isn't but it can be difficult to tell the difference at times.

If you want to say "before the rebellion started" then just say it that way insted of "by the time the rebellion started".

Dont presume to suggest that I have to lower my literary skills to that of grammar school just so that you can understand.

Saying "far too late" is an indication that it had be too late for a long time already.

What kind of a writter are you????

"It had be"? I'm going to guess that was a typo and you ment "it had been".

At any rate, "by the time the rebellion started" no matter what you add to it still reads as "by the time the rebellion started." And your literary skills are obviously not that great. You tend to make alot and I mean ALOT of the same mistakes I do. Includeing typos and just plain not knowing how to spell.

You allso tend to make alot of mistakes that I don't make and useually ignore because I could care less about them. But being that you're all high and mighty all the sudden I'd just like to point out that you make alot of spelling errors with 1st grade words such as the fact that you allmost never use apostiphys. In the quote abouve you spelled don't and writer wrong.

I sertainly don't claim to be perfect nor do I think you need to "dumb down" your posts so that they can be understood. What I do think is that you need to speak as clearly as possible by actully speaking at your own level rather than trying to sound smarter than you really are because you're totally failing at it.

Just to clairify I don't really think you're any dumber or smarter than I am. As I've allready pointed out I make just as many spelling errors as you do. In fact there are about 15 spelling errors in this reply alone and even though I know that I'm not going to try and fix them.

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.

I dont think I said the group would form sooner.

I said they would most likely act sooner.

And forming alone is not really an act of a group.

So the rest of this is pointless.

If you didn't say the group would form sooner then you must have some how missunderstood me when I clearly said "if A-3 had died before his group was formed." not once but multiple times.

I said COMMITED not attempted. Two different subjects there.

No they really arent.

98% of those that have committed have a long history of multiple attempts at suicide.

So the study applies.

Doesn't and I'll tell you why.

I myself have come to the conclusion that if I don't tell anyone that I'm going to commit suicide than no one can stop me. If others who have commited suicided reached the same conclusion before they acted that means they didn't tell anyone what they were going to do.

Now obviously several attempts earlier they told someone what they were going to do but not the last time when they actully did it.

How does killing the leader = dissadvantage?

Nature of the beast again.

Kill a leader and you run the risk of making him a martyer.

You run the risk that by killing the leader you might inspire 100's, maybe 1000's, to take up his cause.

That's true if the group is allready formed. But not if the leader is killed before the group is formed.

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.

Yeah but thats kind of irrelivent to what I'm saying.

No it isn't. You argued that she wasn't there to kill him because he was allready dead in the future. My argument was that wasn't reason because she still tryed to kill him anyway. The only reason she wasn't innitally after him was because he couldn't be traced when she first arrived.

Again, what makes you think that Beta would be a capable leader if she had never met A-3.

Whos to say the Quints could have killed him before he met Beta???

They might not of but had they killed TFs in larger numbers they might have.

Your senerios all require a very specific series of events.

Not at all. It's just by pure chance. If they killed the witnessess along with the dissobediant ones maybe A-3 was a witness to such an event. He would of been disposed of and then he'd never be able to form the rebels and never would of inspired Beta.

In my opinion....the only way they could have stop their meating would have been to kill A-3 when he was firdt created.

I say that because it seems logical that she was created soon after A-3 because A is short for Alpha and her name was Beta.

Seems logical they were created close together.

Yes but it's a big planet. Who's to say they were created in the same place? A-3 and Beta could of met years after their innital creation.

One of my friends has the exact same birthday as me but I didn't meet him till high school. There's actully a video on YouTube about the likelyhood of meeting someone with the same birthday as you.

At any rate the point is that just because they were created close to the same time doesn't nessisarly mean that they would meet right away.

You're talking about things that she was capable of doing because of A-3.

Your assuming facts not in evidence.

We never saw enough of her to say what she was or wasnt capable of on her own.

Not assumeing anything. You listed one thing after another that all said A-3 so if anyone is assumeing it's you, I just replyed to what you wrote.

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.

If you werent assuming facts not in evidence you wouldnt be willing to believe that it was A-3 that taught her everything she knew.

As I said above we dont have enough info on her to assume what she learned or didnt learn from A3

As I said above, I'm not assumeing, you are. I just replyed to what you said about them.

That's a doubt you should have.

Why???So I can be small minded????

Why, because you're doing alot of what you accused me of.

It's not a sign of small mindedness. Total oppisite in fact.

But I do see how it could have been confusing.

Well as long as you understand that I'm not going to keep debateing that one.

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?

I mentioned earlier in this debate what the creator intent was.

And in many different topics I also mentioned it and linked you the proof in the form of the 86 movies production notes as well as the production bible for season 3.

I'm going to assume that this is a case of your bad memory coming into play

Maybe I missed it. I've been haveing problems with my mouse so it's possible I may have scrolled passed it and not even realized it.

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.

Incorrect on both points.

A] we were told that only the Autobots ancestors revolted.

B] the Gladiator that acted on hos own was not part of the miletery hardware robots.The gladiator that took action was the same robot that was recycled and he was consumers goods.

Unless your suggesting that he was recycled into a militery robot.

No I'm stateing a fact that was said in the cartoon. The robots who participated in the gladiator battles were part of the millitary hardware line. The consumer goods line weren't built for battle and couldn't of participated in the gladiator matches.

When exactly were we told that only the consumer goods revolted? That would contridict the fact that we saw a gladiator attack the quints as well and the Gladiators were millitary hardwear.

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.

I'm saying that its positive because your enjoy doing your job.

And I know your not happy when you dont have a show to work on.

You know this subject actully came up at the theater of how some compliments can easily be taken as insults. Like "you look pretty today" can easily be missinterpreted as "but only today, every other day you're ugly." Or in high school one of my drama teachers managed to take everything I said as an insult even when it was ment as a compliment. For example he was actully a really good artist and made the designs for our show's posters by hand so I made the mistake of saying "you should be an art teacher" and he took it as "because you're no good at drama."

He's preddy much the reason I try to watch what I say now because now I'm more aware of how things can be missinterpreted. Still screw up offten. Anyway I just brought this up because I just got the wrong meaning from what you said before but I kinda figured as much.

Was just trying to show you how that could be missinterpreted when you're not being verry spicific.

- = 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?

I wasnt speaking for others.

But his claim that he understands me is an indication that its your reading skills or that your ignoring my posts that are preventing you from understanding.

Not at all.

You have 1 person who can't understand you and 1 person who can. We're efectively tied.

Can we get a show of hands here? How many people can actully understand the Klingon and how many are just as confused as I am?

I'll give you this, it's likely that my reading skills are a factor in my not understanding you but given you're wrighting skills it's definatly not the only factor. Like I've said before, you're no better at makeing yourself understood than I am.

Allso given you're recent post I'm betting you're on medication again and you're useually harder to understand while on drugs. I hope your surgery goes well.

I'm going to cut this short

Rial Vestro wrote:Not really.

Yes really.

It suggest the possibility of a different motive.

It offten does even in real life.

the opposite is more times true.

If someone is found with a dead body it's automatically assumed that you killed that person and without evidence to suport that you didn't then you did.

Which would be an assumption not proof of fact.

Much like what you've been saying.

Or like my case when me, my brother, and his upstairs neibor all got arrested assumeing that one of us was involved because there's was no evidence that anyone outside the apartment could have gotten in. Simple fact is they were looking for signs of a break in which wouldn't of been found because the door wasn't locked.

They made an assumption based on the facts they had.

But that doesnt make them right.

And its the same with the issue were talking about.

Theres no evidence on what they were created for.

Yes we can assume it was for slavery because that was what they were used for but that wouldnt make us right.

Maybe its even a safe assumption, but it still doesnt make it a fact.

And assumption is never an absolute fact.

Actully that just sugest that the "company" they were running produced many different products which is not uncommon. No reason to think one product has any bareing on another.

It still opens the idea of motive for debate.

What did the Quints want, what did they need, what did they intend????

These are all questions that are raised by an examination of what factswe have.

Doesn't.

Does....and so far you cant disprove that.

The scene supports both a senerios of dealing with a disobedient few willed robot and it supports the idea of how they may have delt with a malfunctioning robot.

Its 2 theories to the same event.

You didn't understand what I said... because... I'm wrong. That doesn't make sence.

Yeah I misworded that.

I'm tired.

Because weather or not you support the senerio doesn't change the fact that it contridicts the scene.

Tell me how it contradicts the scene.

Is an indication.

It is not on its own.

There could be millions of reasons why a machine wouldn't function but there's only one reason why a machine would dissobey like an organic.

That is incorrect.Further more it implies that you have first hand knowlidge.

We dont know how a robot with "life like" behaivors would malfunction.

Even a glitch could present itself as definence when really the issue is a bad fuse.

Dissobediance and failer to function are two different things.

Again your implying you have first hand knowlidge.

I repeat, we dont know how such a maching, that been programed to mimic human like behaivor, would behave from a simple malefaction.

And further more theres no reason to assume what the Quints would have thought.

"It had be"? I'm going to guess that was a typo and you ment "it had been".

Correct.

At any rate, "by the time the rebellion started" no matter what you add to it still reads as "by the time the rebellion started." And your literary skills are obviously not that great.

They far surpass yours.

Your focusing on only one part of the sentence.

When reading its suggest that you read every word in the sentence so you can fully understand what your reading.

"By the time the rebellion started it was FAR too late"

Thats no different then saying.

"By the time the cancer was diagnose it was far too late to save him"

or

By the time I got to the store it was far too late to get the sale price.

As for the rest... most my spelling mistakes come from never being taught how to type.

And thats a far cry from not being able to follow a sentence.

If you didn't say the group would form sooner then you must have some how missunderstood me when I clearly said "if A-3 had died before his group was formed." not once but multiple times.

Who knows.

Doesn't and I'll tell you why.

Does and I'll tell you why.

I myself have come to the conclusion that if I don't tell anyone that I'm going to commit suicide than no one can stop me. If others who have commited suicided reached the same conclusion before they acted that means they didn't tell anyone what they were going to do.

Now obviously several attempts earlier they told someone what they were going to do but not the last time when they actully did it.

You never specified "the last time they did it".

You simplely said that those that commit didnt talk about it.

Which is wrong in most cases.

Even in the final cases.

In more then 75% of the cases of commited suiside, family members and friends reported that the victom admited to thinking about doing it but they thought they wouldnt.

That's true if the group is allready formed.

That can be true no matter what.

A murdered speaker can inspire a group to form around the ideal of the speaker.

No it isn't.

Now your presuming to try to tell me what point I was trying to make????

You argued that she wasn't there to kill him because he was allready dead in the future.

I argued that she wasnt there to kill John because thats not what she was sent to do.

The fact that she went after John once she learned he was near by is unimportant to my point.

They might not of but had they killed TFs in larger numbers they might have.

More senerios that rely on specifice.

I'm done with these because theres no real way to debate them.

Yes but it's a big planet. Who's to say they were created in the same place?

1 Vector Sigma.

Vector Sigma designated names by gifting them with personaloties..

Seems logical they would have come on line together.

But thats my opinion.

Not assumeing anything.

You are.

As I said above, I'm not assumeing,

As I said above... you are.

Why, because you're doing alot of what you accused me of.

Hardly.

Your jumpping to assumptions with little facts.

I'm leaving the ball park open.

Well as long as you understand that I'm not going to keep debateing that one.

Maybe I missed it. I've been haveing problems with my mouse so it's possible I may have scrolled passed it and not even realized it.

But I know you didnt miss it in the past.

We had a nice debate over it.

But you must have forgottem.

No I'm stateing a fact that was said in the cartoon. The robots who participated in the gladiator battles were part of the millitary hardware line. The consumer goods line weren't built for battle and couldn't of participated in the gladiator matches.

None of that was ever directly stated.

Regardless of contradiction in the story both Gladiator types were shown to be consumer goods.

The one that acted was the recycled both from the earlier scene.

The other one was later shown to be an Autobot matrix beaerr.

When exactly were we told that only the consumer goods revolted?

Dewier in the depths.

That would contridict the fact that we saw a gladiator attack the quints as well and the Gladiators were millitary hardwear.

Only if you assume that the Gladiators were militery robots.

Which the evedence suggest they werent.

As I pointed out, the one that acted was the recycled bot.

The other was a future Matrix bearer.

Was just trying to show you how that could be missinterpreted when you're not being verry spicific.

No prob.

Not at all.

You have 1 person who can't understand you and 1 person who can. We're efectively tied.

I can tell you this.

No one here has ever mentioned not understanding me.

On the contrey I've been told I'm one of the most insightful posters here.

Dont believe me.....just read the Quotes in my sig.

Those are just the ones I could fit.

Allso given you're recent post I'm betting you're on medication again and you're useually harder to understand while on drugs. I hope your surgery goes well.

I wish I was.

I am a bit distracted thou.

I'm going for surgery on the 3rd and were dissuing a transplant.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

There could be millions of reasons why a machine wouldn't function but there's only one reason why a machine would dissobey like an organic.

That is incorrect.Further more it implies that you have first hand knowlidge.

Not and I'll exsplain the second part after this...

We dont know how a robot with "life like" behaivors would malfunction.

Even a glitch could present itself as definence when really the issue is a bad fuse.

This is not accurate. These are robots with free will. They have emotions, free thought, individual personalitys, ect. just like any human being. So by that standard we do in fact know how a robot with life like behaivors would malfuction.

Their physical nature would be exactly the same as a drone, a robot without free will. But their metal state would be like a human's.

Defiance can not come from a "glitch" it has to come by choice. The pure nature of definace is choice. You chose not to go to work today. You choose not to clean the house. That is what definace is. You chose to do it.

Now just because the robots can choose doesn't mean that EVERYTHING is going to be by choice. They'd still be subseptible to to normal glitches and malfuctions of any other machine that can't decide for itself. Hence it would simply fail to function.

This is why I said earlier that you're compairing to real life malfuctions was total failer. You can't compair something that is by choice to something that just happens. Because of the "choice" they are more compairible to humans than to machines.

Humans are subseptible to malfuctions and glitches too but for us it's sickness and injury. A person like Cisco (the actor who broke his foot on stage) has simply stoped being able to function properly. He's out of the show due to injury not by choice, not by defiance.

Simply put defiance, dissobediance, whatever you want to call it is allways an act of free will, it's allways a choice.

Malfuctions, glitches, sickness, injury, any number of reasons can cause thoughs things to happen but they are not compairable to defiance. It can be hard to tell the difference at times because thoughs with free will can easily fake this and are really just being defiant.

In any case there is in fact a distinct difference between a glitch and dissobediance. That difference is choice. You failed to see that because you were trying to compair the Transformers to real life technoligy when the only thing that can compair to them is us.

Dissobediance and failer to function are two different things.

Again your implying you have first hand knowlidge.

I repeat, we dont know how such a maching, that been programed to mimic human like behaivor, would behave from a simple malefaction.

And further more theres no reason to assume what the Quints would have thought.

Again, we do know how a machine with human like behaivor would behave. You just said it in your own sentence and didn't even realize. They would behave like a human.

And again, you fail because you tried to compair an act of choice with the malfuctions of a real life machine. We don't have anything in real life advanced enough to make choices on it's own except for a human. And sence the Transformers are "human like" they can be compaired to humans. Hence, dissobediance is allways by choice, allways a result of free will.

At any rate, "by the time the rebellion started" no matter what you add to it still reads as "by the time the rebellion started." And your literary skills are obviously not that great.

They far surpass yours.

Your focusing on only one part of the sentence.

When reading its suggest that you read every word in the sentence so you can fully understand what your reading.

And how does that help if you stick a word in a sentence that doesn't belong there? It just causes the sentence to not make any sence at all.

"By the time the rebellion started it was FAR too late"

It's preddy common when people talk to use the word "far" in a sentence like that to exadgerate. Hence I assumed you were simply exadgerating or being sarcastic by adding that to the end of the sentence. And how can you exspect me to take the comment seriously if it reads as being sarcastic. Hence I read it and ignored it as "not important to the structure of the sentence".

So I say again, if you ment before you should of said before but you didn't say before you said when.

I myself have come to the conclusion that if I don't tell anyone that I'm going to commit suicide than no one can stop me. If others who have commited suicided reached the same conclusion before they acted that means they didn't tell anyone what they were going to do.

Now obviously several attempts earlier they told someone what they were going to do but not the last time when they actully did it.

You never specified "the last time they did it".

You simplely said that those that commit didnt talk about it.

Which is wrong in most cases.

Even in the final cases.

In more then 75% of the cases of commited suiside, family members and friends reported that the victom admited to thinking about doing it but they thought they wouldnt.

I didn't think I would have to specify "the last time" because I said "commited" which would therefore be the same thing. They sertainly can't try again after they've allready done it.

There are other ways I probly could of worded that better but I don't think that's one of them.

That's true if the group is allready formed.

That can be true no matter what.

A murdered speaker can inspire a group to form around the ideal of the speaker.

Yeah, that's what causes the group to form when he's alive. I'm talking about him getting killed BEFORE that can happen.

How do they allways show rebellions starting in movies? One guy makes a big speach that gets everyone togeather. Remove that one guy and then how can ban togeather without him? They can't know about his ideals because he was never around to make them known.

You argued that she wasn't there to kill him because he was allready dead in the future.

I argued that she wasnt there to kill John because thats not what she was sent to do.

The fact that she went after John once she learned he was near by is unimportant to my point.

That's not what you said. You said and I quote "because he was allready dead in the future." The fact that she still went after him may not be important to YOUR point but it was important to mine. If she didn't care about him because he was allready dead then why did she still go after him?

They might not of but had they killed TFs in larger numbers they might have.

More senerios that rely on specifice.

I'm done with these because theres no real way to debate them.

I'm not imagineing this right? You started out by argueing that there were multiple sinerios that could fit into what we know to be true in the cartoon. And now you want to back out of an argument that there are multiple sinerios that could of changed history and prevented the rebellion from ever happening.

And you're entire arguement was based on "we don't know enough" when we do have several facts presented in the cartoon. And now you're backing out of an argument because "we don't know enough" to debate it.

All righty then...

Yes but it's a big planet. Who's to say they were created in the same place?

1 Vector Sigma.

Vector Sigma designated names by gifting them with personaloties..

Seems logical they would have come on line together.

But thats my opinion.

Now this another confuseing thing about your argument. I'm going to backtrack ALOT here so bare with me a moment.

You originally stated that Vector Sigma was used for mass production. All robots would then have to be brought to that one computer in order to be brought online. Now in a smaller factory this would make perfect sence. But I don't understand is that the entire planet of Cybertron was originally a factory. So essentally they had all that space for construction of robots and still had to bring them to one computer? How exactly does that help mass production?

Think about it this way. McDonald's is a fast food chain that exsists all around the world but how convient would it be if the food was made all around the world but there was only 1 McDonald's we could order food from? Even though there's a McDonald's in your home town you'd have to travel half way around the globe in order to eat there.

So the big question still remains as to weather or not the quints even knew Vector Sigma exsisted because I kinda doubt they would take over an entire planet to turn it into a mass production line if all they needed was the computer.

Why, because you're doing alot of what you accused me of.

Hardly.

Your jumpping to assumptions with little facts.

I'm leaving the ball park open.

Nope. Your jumping to assumptions with little facts.

I'm looking at whatever little facts we have.

There is no leaveing the ball park open, there is only look at the facts, ignore them, or jump to conclusions. I've been looking at facts the whole time. You started out by ignoreing them and now you're jumping to conclusions. What conclusion are you jumpping to? The one that no matter what the Quints did the Rebellion would of still happened.

Maybe I missed it. I've been haveing problems with my mouse so it's possible I may have scrolled passed it and not even realized it.

But I know you didnt miss it in the past.

We had a nice debate over it.

But you must have forgottem.

Sounds like it. I have no idea what you're refering to.

That would contridict the fact that we saw a gladiator attack the quints as well and the Gladiators were millitary hardwear.

Only if you assume that the Gladiators were militery robots.

Which the evedence suggest they werent.

As I pointed out, the one that acted was the recycled bot.

The other was a future Matrix bearer.

Someone made a mistake somewhere.

I don't assume that the Gladiators were military hardware it was actully said in the cartoon. Consumer Goods who would later be known as Autobots were never designed for battle. Allthough that was kind of allready a contridiction to begine with sence all the Autobots have guns and stand up preddy well in fights with the Decepticons.

In any case the way they make it sound is that
Consumer Goods = Autobot
Miltary Hardware = Decepticon

But I think the line between them is not so easily distiguished. It's more like transformers like Wheeljack, Ratchet, Perceptor and others who aren't designed for battle are really all that's left of the Consumer Goods.

I think I'm just going to leave it with, it's G1 and just another of thoughs darn contridicting origins.

BTW, In terms of not understanding you. I would generally agree with the posters in your sig. However you've had thoughs there for quite a while and being aware of your medical problems I don't blame you. Truth is, it's only within the last few months I've noticed a major decline in your clarity.

Oddly enough I still remember back when the only errors you ever made was missing quote tags. Which you haven't really done verry offten if at all for a long time.

I'll ignore the fact the Rial has chosen to not respond to my last post to present the following.

The quints were only thrown in during the movie in order to have an additional protaganist, and then in the third season for unknown reasons they decided to make them the creators of the Cybertronions. Likely as the race had already been introduced and the Decepticons at that point were hardly strong enough to be the key villians thru an entire season.

Once we moved forward in the stories to Beasties and the concepts of Primus were re-introduced from the comics, the setting for G1 shifted and majority of canon releases since then have stated that Primus is the creator for the Cybertronions, and exists in all the facets of the TF multiverse.

From this the basis becomes that Primus created Cybertron and the being who spawned there, beginning with the 13. At some point the Quints show up, take-over, enslave the population and set upon using those resources for their own uses. Under this setting than the whole argument is moot, as the rebellion is simply a case where slaves grew tired of their oppression, gained the strength to say enough is enough and sent the Quints packing. In their special case, it just happens that they are mechanical creatures.

Now before anyone wants to start ripping into this idea as It's not what said in the G1 cartoon!!! I am presenting this as a possibility that is more in line with the current understanding of the greater mythos, and I am happy to accept other uses.

But to explore it further:
a) Why if they truly wanted to recapture their "Former Slaves" why didn't they do it in the years Cybertron was in open to attack with the strongest fighters trapped on Earth?
b) The quints have shown up in Shattered Glass and they are a benevolent race seeking to exist in a universe of harmony. They also had nothing to do with the creation of the TF's there either as if they had then Cybertron would have been created as part of their federation, rather than on it's own.

Editor wrote:From this the basis becomes that Primus created Cybertron and the being who spawned there, beginning with the 13. At some point the Quints show up, take-over, enslave the population and set upon using those resources for their own uses. Under this setting than the whole argument is moot, as the rebellion is simply a case where slaves grew tired of their oppression, gained the strength to say enough is enough and sent the Quints packing.

I agree with that.

Wasn't cybertron already a factory planetoid at that point (still expanding and growing)? I always assumed thats why the quints took it over, claiming the factory (vector sigma) as theirs.

i figure when its mentioned that the quints built the transformers, it was ment more akin to "I grew some corn". i may have supplied the circumstance but the soil and seed did work. but if I own the field i say I gre the corn. the quints claimed the planet as theirs, so they claim THey bbuilt the tf's.

maybe in shattered glass the Quints didn't contact/abandoned cybertron BECAUSE of the war.

Rial Vestro wrote:Not and I'll exsplain the second part after this...

Will see......

This is not accurate.

Yes it is...because as always you misunderstand.More in a secon.....

These are robots with free will. They have emotions, free thought, individual personalitys, ect. just like any human being. So by that standard we do in fact know how a robot with life like behaivors would malfuction.

Your speaking from the perspective of a person who knows they had free will....and thats a bad way to look at the issue and make a judgment.

Think about it from the Quints point of view.If they never intended on free will they would have no reason to assume that the issue wasnt anything more then a malfunction.

I'll use a movie you used yourself earlier as an example."Bicentennial Man".

At one point in the Galatea's behavior looked like disobedience, it looked like she was being defiant, it looked like she had full emotions.All of which sounds like free will.

But it wasnt.Andrew manipulated Galatea's personality program so that she was more hostile.....it was sabotage or a sorts.But the same results could have come from a malfunction in the robots or from one of the steps in the production and programing phase.

And it could have also been sabotage.

In short, just because it looks like emotion and fee will doesnt mean it is, and it also doesnt mean the Quints would have considered "feee will" as a possible cause.

A robot that doesnt follow orders could have just been looked upon as a malfunctioning robot.

Their physical nature would be exactly the same as a drone, a robot without free will.

Thats just not true.

As the same movie mentioned above proves, its possible to program robots to simulate some human like behaviors but with out them still having free will.

And with out more info about the first TF's, we dont know enough to say what they were or would have been like.

Defiance can not come from a "glitch" it has to come by choice.

A. it can come from a glitch
B. your assuming things again.

We were never told the nature of the offence of the "recycled" robot.We dont know if he was defiant, we dont know if he refused to work.

As a matter of fact, when he was taken to be recycled , it appeared that he was doing his job.

All your assumptions rely on a series of particular events and certin motivations that we just dont know accured.

Again, we do know how a machine with human like behaivor would behave.

And as I said above theres no reason to assume that behavior would have been viewed as free will and not the result of a malfunction..

You fail because you continue to ignore the fact that we dont know what the Quints intended.

The TF's were "human like" in behaivor, but the Quints could have wanted that.They could have programed them to simulat emotions but never expected them to develope them for real.

Just like in Bicentennial Man.

Those androids were designed t mimic human behaivor.No one expected any of them to develope real emotions.

And how does that help if you stick a word in a sentence that doesn't belong there?

Who are you to tell me what words belong in a sentence I created to get my point across???

The sentence makes sence to anyone with the literary skills past that of grammar school.

"By the time the rebellion started it was FAR too late"

It's preddy common when people talk to use the word "far" in a sentence like that to exadgerate. Hence I assumed you were simply exadgerating or being sarcastic by adding that to the end of the sentence.

That was your mistake.You "ASSUMED" my meaning instead of asking for clarification when you didnt understand.

Never assume anything.Ask questions.

And how can you exspect me to take the comment seriously if it reads as being sarcastic. Hence I read it and ignored it as "not important to the structure of the sentence".

It can only read as "sarcastic" to the un-learned" eye.Like I said, next time dont make an assumption, ask a question.

I didn't think I would have to specify "the last time" because I said "commited" which would therefore be the same thing. They sertainly can't try again after they've allready done it.

There are other ways I probly could of worded that better but I don't think that's one of them.

Thats the problem....you didnt think.

And either way the study indicates your wrong.

Yeah, that's what causes the group to form when he's alive.

And it can also cause a group to form when he's killed.

I remember reading of similar events in history class but in truth they are all a bit subjective....so I'll give you an example from fiction.

Marvel had a summer even a number of years back called "The Age of Apocalypse".In this story David Haller aka "Legion", the Son of Charles Francis Xavier aka "Professor X" , got the bright idea that the world would be a better place if he could kill Erik Magnus Lehnsherr aka "Magneto" before his father formed the X-men.

David felt if he could eliminate his fathers greatest enemy in the past that he father wouldnt need to form the X-men and might be able to spend time with him.

So he used his abilities to travel into the past to kill Magneto, he traveled many years back before Xavier formed his first team, to a few days before he was conceived...in a time when his father and Magneto were friends that debated over the future of man and mutant kind.

Xavier spoke of one day gathering a group of studants but that was the extent of hidplans at the time.Well like I said, David traveled to that point, made out with his mother [weird] and tried to kill Magneto but instead killed his own father by mistake when Xavier tried to save Magneto.

This lead to a big change in history, David was wiped from the time line and Magneto formed the X-men in memory of his friend.

They can't know about his ideals because he was never around to make them known.

As the example I posted above shows, friends and family can make them known.

That's not what you said.

It was.

You said and I quote "because he was allready dead in the future."

Do you understand the difference between being "sent" to do a job and taking it upon your self to do a job???

She wasnt sent back to kill John because he was already killed in the future.But the resistance was still fighting in the future so the She-terminator" was sent back to take out the other resistance leaders.

When she learned that John was near she/it altered her plans to take him out too, but its not what she was sent to do.

I'm not imagineing this right? You started out by argueing that there were multiple sinerios that could fit into what we know to be true in the cartoon. And now you want to back out of an argument that there are multiple sinerios that could of changed history and prevented the rebellion from ever happening.

Theres a difference.

My mulible snerios are different theroies that are supported by the evidence at hand.

Your manufacturing "what if's" that require a specific series of events we know did not happen, and only could have happened if a series of other spcific events also happened.

And you're entire arguement was based on "we don't know enough" when we do have several facts presented in the cartoon.

And those facts support a few different senerios.

Now this another confuseing thing about your argument. I'm going to backtrack ALOT here so bare with me a moment.

You originally stated that Vector Sigma was used for mass production. All robots would then have to be brought to that one computer in order to be brought online. Now in a smaller factory this would make perfect sence. But I don't understand is that the entire planet of Cybertron was originally a factory. So essentally they had all that space for construction of robots and still had to bring them to one computer? How exactly does that help mass production?

When you only have one master computer capable of doing the job what choice do you have.

And keep in mind your still baseing your questions on your misconceptions.

Try to follow.

It was never said that the entire planet of Cybertron was a working factory.We saw a number of areas on Cybertron that werent dedicated to building robots.

The robots were preforming different types of work in different areas, not to mention that there had to be living quarters for the Quints, storage facilities for the robots being sold,holding cages for the slaves.

In short, not every square inch was a factory for robots.

The most logical conclusion is that there were a number of key factories that produced different components and they were all shipped to a central facility to be assembled.

And the fact that Vector Sigma was located at the very center of Cybertron helps that theory.

Being at the center of Cybertron made the distance from every factory on the planet equal.

So the big question still remains as to weather or not the quints even knew Vector Sigma exsisted because I kinda doubt they would take over an entire planet to turn it into a mass production line if all they needed was the computer.

I dont even see that as a question.

Alpha Trion said he was a product of Vector Sigma.Since the Quints built him they must have used Vector Sigma to program Alpha.

And that all fits my other theory.

Vector Sigma wasnt just a computer but part of some primal life giving force the Quints found on Cybertron and corrupted into part of a mass production factory.

That also explains why they wanted Cybertron back so badly, it explains why none of the Quints later creations were never as smart or ever developed such complex personalities.

Because the Quints couldnt reach that level of AI with out Vector Sigma.

Nope. Your jumping to assumptions with little facts.

I've jumped to no assumptions because I have never said one argument is more likely then the next.

I have said that the evidence we have is not conclusive and supports a number of different theories.

You on the other hand have been making assumptions and calling them facts.

Sounds like it. I have no idea what you're refering to.

Dont worry about it.

Someone made a mistake somewhere.

Obviously.

I don't assume that the Gladiators were military hardware it was actully said in the cartoon.

No they did not.

They never said that the militery robots were used for gladiator combat.All they said was that some of the robots were used for gladiator combat.

They never specified which line was used.

Consumer Goods who would later be known as Autobots were never designed for battle.

I dont even see how thats relivent.

Slave masters are notorious for throwing weak slaves to the lions.

I dont see any reason why the Quints wouldnt throw in the weaker slaves into the fights to see if it improve the entertainment value of the fight.

And besides,not being designed to fight didnt prevent them from starting the rebellion.

And like I said, both of the Gladiators we saw were consumer goods robots.I cant speak for every gladiator.

I think I'm just going to leave it with, it's G1 and just another of thoughs darn contridicting origins.

Misunderstood origins is more like it.

BTW, In terms of not understanding you. I would generally agree with the posters in your sig.

Thanks

However you've had thoughs there for quite a while and being aware of your medical problems I don't blame you. Truth is, it's only within the last few months I've noticed a major decline in your clarity.

Well your wrong.

The last one in my sig, the one from T-Macksimus, I only placed there last month....maybe the one before.

And the others I were placed there around March and May.

None of that qualifies as "quite a while" in my book.

Editor wrote:I'll ignore the fact the Rial has chosen to not respond to my last post to present the following.

The quints were only thrown in during the movie in order to have an additional protaganist, and then in the third season for unknown reasons they decided to make them the creators of the Cybertronions. Likely as the race had already been introduced and the Decepticons at that point were hardly strong enough to be the key villians thru an entire season.

Once we moved forward in the stories to Beasties and the concepts of Primus were re-introduced from the comics, the setting for G1 shifted and majority of canon releases since then have stated that Primus is the creator for the Cybertronions, and exists in all the facets of the TF multiverse.

From this the basis becomes that Primus created Cybertron and the being who spawned there, beginning with the 13. At some point the Quints show up, take-over, enslave the population and set upon using those resources for their own uses. Under this setting than the whole argument is moot, as the rebellion is simply a case where slaves grew tired of their oppression, gained the strength to say enough is enough and sent the Quints packing. In their special case, it just happens that they are mechanical creatures.

Now before anyone wants to start ripping into this idea as It's not what said in the G1 cartoon!!! I am presenting this as a possibility that is more in line with the current understanding of the greater mythos, and I am happy to accept other uses.

I see it happening a bit differently.In short......

I see Primus creating the first 13 to combat Unicron.The Fallens betrayal leads to the remaining 13 having to desperate measure's to stop Unicron, which leads to the rest of the 13 going into staiuse [spelling?] and Primus being all but shut down.

The Quints happen on the scene and corrupt Primus's hight functions into mass producing robots.

But to explore it further:
a) Why if they truly wanted to recapture their "Former Slaves" why didn't they do it in the years Cybertron was in open to attack with the strongest fighters trapped on Earth?

It was said that the Quints tried to retake Cybertron a number of times over the years.....and failed.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Editor wrote:But to explore it further:
a) Why if they truly wanted to recapture their "Former Slaves" why didn't they do it in the years Cybertron was in open to attack with the strongest fighters trapped on Earth?

It was said that the Quints tried to retake Cybertron a number of times over the years.....and failed.

so THATS what shockwave was doing for 4 million years

Name_Violation wrote:

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Editor wrote:But to explore it further:
a) Why if they truly wanted to recapture their "Former Slaves" why didn't they do it in the years Cybertron was in open to attack with the strongest fighters trapped on Earth?

It was said that the Quints tried to retake Cybertron a number of times over the years.....and failed.

so THATS what shockwave was doing for 4 million years

Guardian of Cybertron.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-ItfWY3 ... playnext=1

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:Guardian of Cybertron.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-ItfWY3 ... playnext=1

LOL, that was exactly what I was thinking reading NV's post as well.

Editor wrote:

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:Guardian of Cybertron.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-ItfWY3 ... playnext=1

LOL, that was exactly what I was thinking reading NV's post as well.

Great minds think alike...........or is it insane minds think alike

Well both apply to me.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

These are robots with free will. They have emotions, free thought, individual personalitys, ect. just like any human being. So by that standard we do in fact know how a robot with life like behaivors would malfuction.

Your speaking from the perspective of a person who knows they had free will....and thats a bad way to look at the issue and make a judgment.

Think about it from the Quints point of view.If they never intended on free will they would have no reason to assume that the issue wasnt anything more then a malfunction.

I'll use a movie you used yourself earlier as an example."Bicentennial Man".

At one point in the Galatea's behavior looked like disobedience, it looked like she was being defiant, it looked like she had full emotions.All of which sounds like free will.

But it wasnt.Andrew manipulated Galatea's personality program so that she was more hostile.....it was sabotage or a sorts.But the same results could have come from a malfunction in the robots or from one of the steps in the production and programing phase.

And it could have also been sabotage.

In short, just because it looks like emotion and fee will doesnt mean it is, and it also doesnt mean the Quints would have considered "feee will" as a possible cause.

A robot that doesnt follow orders could have just been looked upon as a malfunctioning robot.

You're back tracking again. I've allready said that they might not recognize it as free will.

And when I did I mention Bicentenial man? I used "Short Circut" as an example earlier. I seen Bicentenial Man once when that movie first came out on DVD. I own it but I haven't watched it sence I first got it so I have no idea what you're talking about. That might allso be because you're talking about a different movie but I don't know that for sure.

All I remember about the movie is that Robin Williams was a robot who started out as pure machine and throughout the movie started to develop emotion and had "upgrades" done to himself to make him more human. He was essentally Data from Star Trek in that both characters aspire to be more like the humans who created them but Robin Williams actully succeeded right before he "died".

Their physical nature would be exactly the same as a drone, a robot without free will.

Thats just not true.

As the same movie mentioned above proves, its possible to program robots to simulate some human like behaviors but with out them still having free will.

And with out more info about the first TF's, we dont know enough to say what they were or would have been like.

Um... that is true, we saw them. There were never any organic looking Transformers till Beast Wars. That is what "physical" means. Yes robots can be designed to simulate life both mentally and physically but Transformers were not physically designed that way.

Even in Bicentenialman as I pointed out abouve Robin Williams was not designed to resemble a human. He was upgraded to look like and fuction as a human later in the movie but originally he wasn't.

I didn't think I would have to specify "the last time" because I said "commited" which would therefore be the same thing. They sertainly can't try again after they've allready done it.

There are other ways I probly could of worded that better but I don't think that's one of them.

Thats the problem....you didnt think.

And either way the study indicates your wrong.

What study? The study of people who ATTEMPTED suicied indicates that I'm wrong about people who COMMITED suicied? As I said before, two different subjects. It's kinda hard to do a study on what went through a person's mind before he or she died when we have no way of communicating with the dead. (or at least no way that can be proven.)

Yeah, that's what causes the group to form when he's alive.

And it can also cause a group to form when he's killed.

I remember reading of similar events in history class but in truth they are all a bit subjective....so I'll give you an example from fiction.

Marvel had a summer even a number of years back called "The Age of Apocalypse".In this story David Haller aka "Legion", the Son of Charles Francis Xavier aka "Professor X" , got the bright idea that the world would be a better place if he could kill Erik Magnus Lehnsherr aka "Magneto" before his father formed the X-men.

David felt if he could eliminate his fathers greatest enemy in the past that he father wouldnt need to form the X-men and might be able to spend time with him.

So he used his abilities to travel into the past to kill Magneto, he traveled many years back before Xavier formed his first team, to a few days before he was conceived...in a time when his father and Magneto were friends that debated over the future of man and mutant kind.

Xavier spoke of one day gathering a group of studants but that was the extent of hidplans at the time.Well like I said, David traveled to that point, made out with his mother [weird] and tried to kill Magneto but instead killed his own father by mistake when Xavier tried to save Magneto.

This lead to a big change in history, David was wiped from the time line and Magneto formed the X-men in memory of his friend.

In the normal time line Magneto would of formed his own team anyway under different ideals than Xaiver. Even though they dissagree on the fate of man and mutants the two do still have a great deal of respect for eachother even as enemys so it's not that unlikely to think that if Magneto knew about Xaiver's plans he would want to carrey them out after his death. But what I find hard to belive is that Magneto would run the school under Xaiver's phlosify. I would think that Magneto would open Xaiver's school for mutants but would run the X-Men the same way the main universe Magneto runs the Brotherhood.

At any rate there again, someone has to know about the person's plans in order to carrey them out after that person has died.

You said and I quote "because he was allready dead in the future."

Do you understand the difference between being "sent" to do a job and taking it upon your self to do a job???

She wasnt sent back to kill John because he was already killed in the future.But the resistance was still fighting in the future so the She-terminator" was sent back to take out the other resistance leaders.

When she learned that John was near she/it altered her plans to take him out too, but its not what she was sent to do.

I understand that perfectly.

Do you understand the difference between killing someone in the past as apposed to killing them in the future?

She wasn't sent back to kill John because he couldn't be traced at that point in time.

When she learned that John was near she altered her plans to take him out because killing him may verry well prevent the resistance from being formed in the first place. How hard is this to understand.

What you're saying, he's allready dead in the future so they have no reason to kill him again. So by that logic she wouldn't of waisted time trying to kill someone who was allready dead.

Why did she go after him? Because killing him in the past would do far more damage to the human race than his death in the future. It could prevent the resistance from ever being started.

Simply put she might not even need to kill his Lt.s, all she has to do is kill him and they'll be useless without him. The John Conner in that time didn't even know any of his future LT.s. They weren't friends or family, they were just random straingers who survived the innital attack and would eventually ban togeather as a team. They would ban togeather to save their race and ban togeather because of John Conner.

No John Conner in the past, no resistance in the future. That's why even though he was allready destine to die some unknown years later she still tried to kill him in the past.

I'm not imagineing this right? You started out by argueing that there were multiple sinerios that could fit into what we know to be true in the cartoon. And now you want to back out of an argument that there are multiple sinerios that could of changed history and prevented the rebellion from ever happening.

Theres a difference.

My mulible snerios are different theroies that are supported by the evidence at hand.

Your manufacturing "what if's" that require a specific series of events we know did not happen, and only could have happened if a series of other spcific events also happened.

You're manufacturing what ifs too. I fail to see what the difference is.

And in your case the evidence at hand doesn't suport you. In mine, well there is no evidence sence we're talking about a non-cannon alternate universe.

So the big question still remains as to weather or not the quints even knew Vector Sigma exsisted because I kinda doubt they would take over an entire planet to turn it into a mass production line if all they needed was the computer.

I dont even see that as a question.

Alpha Trion said he was a product of Vector Sigma.Since the Quints built him they must have used Vector Sigma to program Alpha.

That would seem logical but why not say that he as a first generation product of the Quintessons? Just because the Quints built his body doesn't mean they programed his mind. That's going to be missinterpreted, I just know it.

What I mean about programming his mind is that assumeing the Quints didn't know about Vector Sigma A-3 could of been programed much differently when he was first built by the Quints than when he was given life by Vector Sigma. It could even be that the first robots on Cybertron built by the Quints are the ones who disscovered Vector Sigma and possibly activated the computer by misstake.

By this sinerio the robots would of had complete contoll over Vector Sigma early on and the Quints wouldn't even know about it.

Maybe they allso found the Matrix there which allso seems verry odd. And that would actully allow the whole Primus thing to fit sence where did Vector Sigma and the Matrix come from anyway? They came from Primus... or they're allso products of the Quints but...

What use is the Matrix to the Quintessons?

I've just back tracked quite alot here. Anyway, this whole debate has been going around in circles and getting nowhere so I thought I'd ask. What purpos could the Matrix possibly serve for the Quints? Is it something they found on Cybertron or something they created and if they created it why?

I personally think there's a connectio

I love FireFox. Sorry to interupt but I wrote all of the above last night before the power went out in my house and when I restarted the computer this morning and opened FireFox I saw this little message "Restore Previous Session" clicked on it and everything I typed last night came back up on my screen.

Anyway, as I was saying...

I personally think there's a connection between the origins of the Vector Sigma and the Matrix sence neither one of them was ever properly exsplained.

Nope. Your jumping to assumptions with little facts.

I've jumped to no assumptions because I have never said one argument is more likely then the next.

You have jumped to the assumetion that no matter what the Quints did "the rebellion would be inevitable" and you have started that as the only possibility. So yes you have done exactly that.

You on the other hand have been making assumptions and calling them facts.

No, I've made assumptions BASED on facts.

I don't assume that the Gladiators were military hardware it was actully said in the cartoon.

No they did not.

They never said that the militery robots were used for gladiator combat.All they said was that some of the robots were used for gladiator combat.

They never specified which line was used.

How does that fact that gladiators are combat robots and the fact that Consumer Goods were never built for combat = we were never told who was used for Gladiator Matches?

And we were in fact told right out that Millitary Hardware were gladiators. Millitary Hardware were built for combat. Gladiators COMBAT.

How are you not makeing that connection?

Consumer Goods who would later be known as Autobots were never designed for battle.

I dont even see how thats relivent.

Slave masters are notorious for throwing weak slaves to the lions.

I dont see any reason why the Quints wouldnt throw in the weaker slaves into the fights to see if it improve the entertainment value of the fight.

It's relivant because the Gladiators we saw looked to be battle ready. If they were simply Consumer Goods that got tossed in there to be killed there would still be at least 1 Millitary Hardware robot in the area tearing them appart.

You've stated that both robots were Consumer Goods. So neither of them would of been desined for or ready to battle eachother. The Gladiator who attacked the Quints in the stands did so only after beating his opponent so it's possible his opponent was a Consumer Goods but he looked like he'd battled before and was actully built for it which would make him a Millitary Hardware.

Not to mention that the Millitary Hardware robots were slaves allso but were used for entertainment rather than every day work. So in your annology the Millitary Hardware could be either the slaves or the lions depending on how you want to look at it.

Rial Vestro wrote:You're back tracking again. I've allready said that they might not recognize it as free will.

I dont know what you mean by "back tracking" but you keep flip flopping all over the place.

One minute your saying that "disobedience could have only been seen as free will" and the next minute your saying "they might not recognize it as free will".

I wish you would pick an argument and stick to it.

And when I did I mention Bicentenial man?

I believe it was either early in this debate or in one of our many others.If not then I must be mixing you with someone else.

That might allso be because you're talking about a different movie but I don't know that for sure.

No, I'm talking about Bicentennial man.

Um... that is true,

No its not.

we saw them. There were never any organic looking Transformers till Beast Wars.

What the hell does organic looking TF's have to do with this????I never said nothing about what they look like.

Even in Bicentenialman as I pointed out abouve Robin Williams was not designed to resemble a human.

Thats not exactly correct.

He was an "Android".And by definition androids are an advanced form of robot, designed to imitate and appear human-like.

The study of people who ATTEMPTED suicied

No it was a study into suicide in modern culture.So as you can imagine, they spoke to hundreds of those that attempted, and family and friends of those that succeeded.

Some of the "attempties" they spoke to later tried again and died.

So we are on the same subject.

In the normal time line Magneto would of formed his own team anyway under different ideals than Xaiver.

Irrelevant.

The group he formed in the regular timeline was in response to Xavier team.And in the altered time line he gathered many that Xavier would have...and some he never did.

But what I find hard to believe is that Magneto would run the school under Xaiver's phlosify.

Well it wasnt much of a school because of the war.

And besides, in the regular timeline agneto became headmaster of the school when Xavier almost died and was taken into space [long story]

At any rate there again, someone has to know about the person's plans in order to carrey them out after that person has died.

I guess you didnt read carefully.

Xavier had no plans, he mentioned forming a school in passing durring a debate.

I understand that perfectly.

Doesnt look like it.

What you're saying, he's allready dead in the future so they have no reason to kill him again.

Never said that.

I said he was dead in the future so the she terminator was not sent to kill him.

Nothing more.My post was about what she was "SENT" to do and nothing more.The rest of your post isint even on point.

You're manufacturing what ifs too.

Hardly.

The lack of "conclusive evidence" allows for a million different possibilities.

And in your case the evidence at hand doesn't suport you.

If the evidence at hand truly didnt allow for the possibilities I listed you wouldnt have failed at trying to disprove them.

Simple fact is we have little evidence to begin with, and what evidence we have is not conclusive.The evidence we have does not rule out the other possibilities.

And if the evidence doesn't rule them out, then they support the possibility.

In mine, well there is no evidence sence we're talking about a non-cannon alternate universe.

Excuse me???

I dont recall you ever saying you were talking about a non canon Alt-universe.

That would seem logical but why not say that he as a first generation product of the Quintessons?

Why would he have too???

The context of the scene and dialog at hand at the time would make it senseless and illogical to mention the Quints at that time.

By this sinerio the robots would of had complete contoll over Vector Sigma early on and the Quints wouldn't even know about it.

Thats a nice theory but I dont find it very likely...and heres why.

If one group of robots discovered Vector Sigma and controlled it they would have not allowed for so many of the other line or robots to be given life.

If it was the Consumer goods that had control they would have learned early on that the militery robots were dangerous and couldnt be trusted so they would have refused to let many more come on line.

I'm sure the few that already have personalities would have fought but thats a different story.

If it had been the militery robots to control Vector Sigma then I doubt they would have allowed for so many pacifist to get personalities.

And since Vector Sigma needed a key it seems that it was "built" to preform the function as part of a system.But I guess the robots could have put the "lock" on.

Maybe they allso found the Matrix there which allso seems verry odd. And that would actully allow the whole Primus thing to fit sence where did Vector Sigma and the Matrix come from anyway? They came from Primus... or they're allso products of the Quints but...

What use is the Matrix to the Quintessons?

Are you asking me???

I gave you my senerio for both of these already.

You have jumped to the assumetion that no matter what the Quints did "the rebellion would be inevitable" and you have started that as the only possibility. So yes you have done exactly that.

No.I stated they had one chance, that they werent willing to take.

Nothing else would have prevented the rebellion, but they could have effected the outcome.

No, I've made assumptions BASED on facts.

No, you made assumptions that in some cases you called facts, and other assumptions that were based on facts not in evidence.

How does that fact that gladiators are combat robots and the fact that Consumer Goods were never built for combat = we were never told who was used for Gladiator Matches?

Because they dont.

We're talking about gladiator games, its not uncommon to throw in a person with no combat skills to fight in such a contest.

To put it shortly, not every combatant in a gladiator fight is a fighter.Durring the early days of the Catholic church , priest, nuns and other holy men were thrown into gladiator fights for the entertainment of the Romans.

And we were in fact told right out that Millitary Hardware were gladiators.

No we were not.No direct statement was ever made that definitively indicates only one line of robot was used as Gladiators.

And I challenge you to back that up.

It's relivant because the Gladiators we saw looked to be battle ready..

What they "looked" like is open to interpertation.

If they were simply Consumer Goods that got tossed in there to be killed there would still be at least 1 Millitary Hardware robot in the area tearing them appart.

One might assume that, but again thats what you've been doing...making assumptions.

Tts very possible that a few consumer goods robot found a way to beat all comers.One may not be designed to fight, but one can still learn.

And as I already pointed out, both Gladiators we saw in that scene were consumer goods.

The first Gladiator was the recycled robot, so unless your saying he was recycled into a militery robot then this point is lost to you.

The second Gladiator would become a matrix bearrer.

You've stated that both robots were Consumer Goods. So neither of them would of been desined for or ready to battle eachother.

Thats an other assumption.

We dont know how long either was forced to fight, they may have modified themselves over many fights.

The Gladiator who attacked the Quints in the stands did so only after beating his opponent so it's possible his opponent was a Consumer Goods but he looked like he'd battled before and was actully built for it which would make him a Millitary Hardware.

That same Gladiator that attacked the Quints was the recycled robot.

Not to mention that the Millitary Hardware robots were slaves allso but were used for entertainment rather than every day work.

Yes an other assumption.

They never mentioned which lines were used for which jobs.

Granted it seems like a logical idea but it was never said.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Rial Vestro wrote:You're back tracking again. I've allready said that they might not recognize it as free will.

I dont know what you mean by "back tracking" but you keep flip flopping all over the place.

One minute your saying that "disobedience could have only been seen as free will" and the next minute your saying "they might not recognize it as free will".

I wish you would pick an argument and stick to it.

No what I said was that disobedience could only be CAUSED BY free will not SEEN AS.

we saw them. There were never any organic looking Transformers till Beast Wars.

What the hell does organic looking TF's have to do with this????I never said nothing about what they look like.

You did. I said phisically they were the same as any other robot without free will and you said we don't know that for sure which would mean that that they looked organic.

Even in Bicentenialman as I pointed out abouve Robin Williams was not designed to resemble a human.

Thats not exactly correct.

He was an "Android".And by definition androids are an advanced form of robot, designed to imitate and appear human-like.

Nope. His original design was robotic. As the movie progressed he became more and more human-like installing parts that simulated human organs and artifical skin but originally he was a robot.

At any rate there again, someone has to know about the person's plans in order to carrey them out after that person has died.

I guess you didnt read carefully.

Xavier had no plans, he mentioned forming a school in passing durring a debate.

Mentioning a school = haveing plans for one. Maybe plans is the wrong word to use here more like Idea but the same still applys, if no one knows about it how can they carrey it out for the dead person?

What you're saying, he's allready dead in the future so they have no reason to kill him again.

Never said that.

I said he was dead in the future so the she terminator was not sent to kill him.

Nothing more.My post was about what she was "SENT" to do and nothing more.The rest of your post isint even on point.

You seem to be off point not me. We both agree on what she was sent to do, that has nothing to do with it. It's the reason for why she wasn't sent to kill John Conner that we're argueing about.

Him being dead in the future has nothing to do it. It's because he couldn't be traced in the past.

The deciding factor. She tried to kill him after she discovered him purely by chance. Why did she try to kill him. It wouldn't make scence if he was allready dead in the future so they just didn't care about him in the past. The reason she trys to kill him is because his death in the past would cause far more damage to the resistance than his death in the future. His death in the past could actully prevent the resistance from forming. Hence him being dead in the future has nothing to do with not being sent to kill him in the past. She wasn't sent to kill him because there was no way to track him.

And in your case the evidence at hand doesn't suport you.

If the evidence at hand truly didnt allow for the possibilities I listed you wouldnt have failed at trying to disprove them.

Simple fact is we have little evidence to begin with, and what evidence we have is not conclusive.The evidence we have does not rule out the other possibilities.

And if the evidence doesn't rule them out, then they support the possibility.

I failed to disprove anything only because you've ignored all the evidence and I've given up trying to exsplain it to you.

In mine, well there is no evidence sence we're talking about a non-cannon alternate universe.

Excuse me???

I dont recall you ever saying you were talking about a non canon Alt-universe.

We were talking about a universe in which the Quints killed off Transformers in large numbers and by chance managed to kill off A-3. What would you call that if not a non-cannon alternate universe?

What I mean about programming his mind is that assumeing the Quints didn't know about Vector Sigma A-3 could of been programed much differently when he was first built by the Quints than when he was given life by Vector Sigma. It could even be that the first robots on Cybertron built by the Quints are the ones who disscovered Vector Sigma and possibly activated the computer by misstake.

By this sinerio the robots would of had complete contoll over Vector Sigma early on and the Quints wouldn't even know about it.

Thats a nice theory but I dont find it very likely...and heres why.

If one group of robots discovered Vector Sigma and controlled it they would have not allowed for so many of the other line or robots to be given life.

If it was the Consumer goods that had control they would have learned early on that the militery robots were dangerous and couldnt be trusted so they would have refused to let many more come on line.

I'm sure the few that already have personalities would have fought but thats a different story.

If it had been the militery robots to control Vector Sigma then I doubt they would have allowed for so many pacifist to get personalities.

And since Vector Sigma needed a key it seems that it was "built" to preform the function as part of a system.But I guess the robots could have put the "lock" on.

You might be right about the keeping it to one faction but maybe that's what started the Great War right after the quints were driven off the planet. They never really said what started the war between them and that could be a likely reason.

Come to think of it, does any TF series ever exsplain how the war started or is it allways just "for so long that no one remembers but still fights anyway."

I think the closest we've ever come to a reason remarkably is in the 2007 movie. And I guess in Armada the war was originally over the Mini-cons.

Maybe they allso found the Matrix there which allso seems verry odd. And that would actully allow the whole Primus thing to fit sence where did Vector Sigma and the Matrix come from anyway? They came from Primus... or they're allso products of the Quints but...

What use is the Matrix to the Quintessons?

Are you asking me???

I gave you my senerio for both of these already.

You exsplained Vector Sigma but I don't recall ever saying anything about the Matrix.

You have jumped to the assumetion that no matter what the Quints did "the rebellion would be inevitable" and you have started that as the only possibility. So yes you have done exactly that.

No.I stated they had one chance, that they werent willing to take.

Nothing else would have prevented the rebellion, but they could have effected the outcome.

You're still jumping to a conclusion without any facts. How do you know that nothing else would work?

I'm open to the possibility that some tactic other than shutting them down all at once would work. Chances are they might just prolong the rebellion but if they're able to prolong it then they're not to far away from preventing it completly.

Certain types of cancer now days do have cures but many years ago there were no cures. Other types can only be prolonged and again, years ago they couldn't even do that. Eventually cures will be found for all types of cancer. So while in the 70s haveing breast cancer ment you were going to die now days they can preform surgery to remove infected areas depending on how badly it's spread and you won't die.

You've stated that both robots were Consumer Goods. So neither of them would of been desined for or ready to battle eachother.

Thats an other assumption.

We dont know how long either was forced to fight, they may have modified themselfs over many fights.

And what makes you think they would last long enough to make thoughs modifications?

Not to mention that the Millitary Hardware robots were slaves allso but were used for entertainment rather than every day work.

Yes an other assumption.

They never mentioned which lines were used for which jobs.

Granted it seems like a logical idea but it was never said.

Millitary Hardware, battle, gladiator, any of this conecting?

We were never told exactly what the Consumer goods were used for but I'm betting it was everyday work. The more scientific minded Quints probly used them as lab assistance. Others could of used them to serve drinks at partys who the hell knows.

But the Millitary Hardware line was spicifically stated what they were used for.

Rial Vestro wrote:No what I said was that disobedience could only be CAUSED BY free will

......and that the Quints would not have been able not to notice the cause.

You called it "process of elimination" .

You did.

No I didnt.

Nope.

Yep.

His original design was robotic.

His original designed resembled the humanoid form.

It was in the shape of a man.

I repeat.....Andrew was an "Android"...and by definition androids are an advanced form of robot, designed to imitate and appear human-like.

As the movie progressed he became more and more human-like installing parts that simulated human organs and artifical skin but originally he was a robot.

So you dont know the difference between a regular robot and an android????

This reminds me of when you didnt know that the Terminators were Cyborgs.

Mentioning a school = haveing plans for one.

He mentioned gathering some mutants to tech them to cope.

Never mentioned starting a school, never mentioned plans for starting one.

if no one knows about it how can they carrey it out for the dead person?

Its not really that hard to figure out what a good friend might do some day.

You seem to be off point not me.

So now your telling me I'm off point with the point I was trying to make???

Boy your full of yourself.

We both agree on what she was sent to do, that has nothing to do with it. It's the reason for why she wasn't sent to kill John Conner that we're argueing about.

No thats not what we were arguing about.

You first made a statement that indicated they always came back to kill John and I said thats not what they were all "sent" to do.

You took this in the next direction.

I done with this now.

I failed to disprove anything only because you've ignored all the evidence and I've given up trying to exsplain it to you.

You failed because you werent capable of seeing the big picture.

For example......You claimed that "evidence of use was evidence of intent" and thats just illogical.

The out come of an event on its own can only suggest a motive, but it can not prove it.

In short....the fact that they were used as can not be used as evidence that the first TF's were created with the intent to be slaves.

I wont even bring up your other failures.

We were talking about a universe in which the Quints killed off Transformers in large numbers and by chance managed to kill off A-3. What would you call that if not a non-cannon alternate universe?

I thought it was just you bringing up "theories".Brainstorming ideas for a lack of a better way to put it.

You might be right about the keeping it to one faction but maybe that's what started the Great War right after the quints were driven off the planet.

Possibly...but again I find it unlikely.

It would have started fighting between the lines long before they ran the Quints off.

And again I find it unlikely that which ever line had control of VG, would had allowed the other line to drow in large numbers.

They never really said what started the war between them and that could be a likely reason.

Well they did give a rather vague reason.

You exsplained Vector Sigma but I don't recall ever saying anything about the Matrix.

I believe I told you long ago.

But inshort, I believe the Matrix is an "avatar" of Primus.

When Primus was cut off from his higher functions he had to devise a different way to help his children combat Unicron.....who Primus knew would one day return.

So Primus split his spark to infinity, sending parts of it threw out the Multiverse.This is how Primus in each universe is but part of the whole.

In each of the different universes he planted himself in planetoids and grew himself a different Cybertron......and then his children.

In the G1 universe, the damage he insued when the Fallen betrayed him + the modification made by the Quints interfered with Primus's plans so he sent his spark to his children and they fashioned the devise that holds it and called it the Matrix.

You're still jumping to a conclusion without any facts. How do you know that nothing else would work?

I'm open to the possibility that some tactic other than shutting them down all at once would work. Chances are they might just prolong the rebellion but if they're able to prolong it then they're not to far away from preventing it completly.

Sorry but prolonging or delaying the rebellion is no where near the same as preventing it completely.

As long as the Quints continued to mistreat their slaves revolt was inevitable.World history is an indication of that.

But I will add this.....if the Quints started treating their slaves with respect and kindness, they may have prevented the revolt.

And what makes you think they would last long enough to make thoughs modifications?

And what makes you think they wouldnt???

Fact is, the survive of a few is a possibility that cant be denied.

Millitary Hardware, battle, gladiator, any of this conecting?

Those that fight in Gladiator games are not always warriors.....any of that connecting???

But the Millitary Hardware line was spicifically stated what they were used for.

Actually other then being called "military hardware" nothing else "SPECIFICALLY" was ever mentioned.

So I repeat.

It was never said that only one line of robots were used in the Gladiator games.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

His original design was robotic.

His original designed resembled the humanoid form.

It was in the shape of a man.

I repeat.....Andrew was an "Android"...and by definition androids are an advanced form of robot, designed to imitate and appear human-like.

Nope. What about R2-D2? He's a Droid which is shortened from the word Android and he's not the least bit humanoid. In fact most of the star wars droids didn't resemble anything humanoind. There was a medical droid, C3-P0 (and other protocall droids of the same design.) that I can think of off the top of my head that were humanoid but all the other droids weren't. R2-D2 and other droids of his model type are more commonly compaired to trash cans in shape.

No matter how you wanna look at it, Robin Williams was a robot at the start of the movie. He fuctioned like a robot, he looked like a robot, he was a robot.

As the movie progressed he became more and more human-like installing parts that simulated human organs and artifical skin but originally he was a robot.

So you dont know the difference between a regular robot and an android????

As I pointed out above Android does not mean "human-like" sence there are Androids who don't look human at all and there are robots who do look human.

Hell, Honda of all companys has a working robot that looks humanoid but we're FAR from being advance enough to truely duplicate human life in machines.

As far as fiction goes, I don't belive there has ever been a difinitive difference between robot and android, it's preddy much whatever the wrighter wants it to be. Hence all the machines in Star Wars are Droids regardless of weather or not they fit your definition of what a droid should be.

The simple fact is, Robin Williams was robotic to begine with. If he was truely human-like he would of looked like Robin Williams for the whole movie and not looked like this at the begining of it.

Mentioning a school = haveing plans for one.

He mentioned gathering some mutants to tech them to cope.

Never mentioned starting a school, never mentioned plans for starting one.

If he never mentioned a school why did you said he did?

I'm responding to what you're telling me so insted of correct me how about getting your story straight before you tell it to me.

You seem to be off point not me.

So now your telling me I'm off point with the point I was trying to make???

Boy your full of yourself.

No I'm telling you that you're off point because you seem to be argueing a point that we allready agreed on. You kinda blew something else off saying that it didn't matter when it was actully the thing that we were argueing about.

In simple terms you said it didn't matter why she went after John Conner when it actully does matter. And insted you for some reason I don't understand argued that she wasn't sent to kill him which has nothing to do with this argument sence we both agreed on that fact to begin with. So if the point you were trying to make was that she wasn't sent to kill him then why bother makeing the point when I allready knew it?

Even more simply put. The question isn't weather or not she was sent to kill him. We both know she wasn't. The question was WHY wasn't she sent to kill him.

You said because he was allready dead.

I said because he couldn't be traced.

You're version doesn't make sence for why she ended up trying to kill him anyway.

We both agree on what she was sent to do, that has nothing to do with it. It's the reason for why she wasn't sent to kill John Conner that we're argueing about.

No thats not what we were arguing about.

You first made a statement that indicated they always came back to kill John and I said thats not what they were all "sent" to do.

You took this in the next direction.

I done with this now.

No that's not what happen at all. Are you in a completly different universe?

My original statement said that Terminators were normally sent to kill John Conner but in Terminator 3 he couldn't be traced so they went after his LT.s insted.

Then you argued they weren't after him because he was allready dead.

At at some point the arguement changed to weather or not she was sent to kill him when I never said she was. So you did in fact completly loose track of the point you were trying to make. I got verry confused when you started argueing about something completly different mid conversation.

We were talking about a universe in which the Quints killed off Transformers in large numbers and by chance managed to kill off A-3. What would you call that if not a non-cannon alternate universe?

I thought it was just you bringing up "theories".Brainstorming ideas for a lack of a better way to put it.

Yeah that's a preddy good description of it.

They never really said what started the war between them and that could be a likely reason.

Well they did give a rather vague reason.

What would that be?

You're still jumping to a conclusion without any facts. How do you know that nothing else would work?

I'm open to the possibility that some tactic other than shutting them down all at once would work. Chances are they might just prolong the rebellion but if they're able to prolong it then they're not to far away from preventing it completly.

Sorry but prolonging or delaying the rebellion is no where near the same as preventing it completely.

I said nothing about them being the same. I said one is that far off from the other.

As I showed with the cancer compairison. Originally there was no hope for a person with cancer. They were just going to die and there was nothing anyone could do about it. As the years passed they have devolped ways to prolong the effects of cancer but still haven't had any cures. And now days there are cures for sertain types of cancer.

Being able to prolong something is not a cure but it is one step away from a cure.

And what makes you think they would last long enough to make thoughs modifications?

And what makes you think they wouldnt???

Fact is, the survive of a few is a possibility that cant be denied.

Because, and I can't belive I have to say this again, THEY WEREN'T DESIGNED FOR BATTLE.

If you toss a slave in with a lion what do you think the odds are the lion is going to die and the slave is going to live? How about 0.

In a fair fight it's anyone's guess but when one side is significantly weaker than the other, not a chance.

But the Millitary Hardware line was spicifically stated what they were used for.

Actually other then being called "military hardware" nothing else "SPECIFICALLY" was ever mentioned.

So I repeat.

It was never said that only one line of robots were used in the Gladiator games.

Wow, you're being ignorant. What do you think Millitary Hardware was used for? Even if they never told us which they did, it's in there freaking names what they were. They're warriors, fighters, GLADIATORS! How hard is that to understand?

In real life the Greek and Roman Gladiator matches were normally between millitary soldiers. Yeah a few slaves would get tossed in every once in a while and get killed but for the most part it was trained fighters. Slaves would be given verry little if any means of defence to make things more interesting but they'd still get killed. They might be strong enough to even lift a weapon they were given let alone actully be able to use it.

And here's something usefull for you. Slaves weren't gladiators. Yeah they might be thrown into the same arena but the Gladiators were millitary soldiers.

Hence, Millitary Hardware = Gladiators. The freaking gladiator was a millitary hardware robot not consumer goods by pure definition of what a Gladiator is.

An android is a robot or synthetic organism designed to look and act like a human. The word derives from ανδρός, the genitive of the Greek ανήρ anēr, meaning "man", and the suffix -eides, used to mean "of the species; alike" (from eidos, "species"). Though the word derives from a gender-specific root, its usage in English is usually gender neutral. The term was first mentioned by St. Albertus Magnus in 1270[3] and was popularized by the French writer Villiers in his 1886 novel L'Ève future, although the term "android" appears in US patents as early as 1863 in reference to miniature humanlike toy automations.[4]

Thus far, androids have largely remained within the domain of science fiction, frequently seen in film and television. However, some humanoid robots now exist.

The term "droid" - invented by George Lucas in Star Wars (1977) but now used widely within science fiction - although originally an abbreviation of "android", has been used (by Lucas and others) to mean any robot, including distinctly non-humaniform machines like R2-D2.

disambigged

Rial Vestro wrote:Nope.

Yep.

Android:
an⋅droid
–noun
an automaton in the form of a human being.
Origin:
1720–30; < NL androīdēs. See andr-, -oid
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/android

An android is a robot[1] or synthetic organism[2] designed to look and act like a human.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android

You must really enjoy looking the fool considering how many times you've been told to do some simple research before you post....and you never do.

What about R2-D2?

R2-D2 is not an "Android" in the traditional sence.....none of the robots in Star wars were.And thats not my opinion thats the word og George Lucus.

The term "droid" - invented by George Lucas in Star Wars (1977) but now used widely within science fiction - although originally an abbreviation of "android", has been used (by Lucas and others) to mean any robot, including distinctly non-humaniform machines like R2-D2.

The words droid and robot are generally taken to mean the same thing. However, the official definition of a droid is "a mechanical being with a self-aware consciousness, as distinguished from a computer by having a self-contained method of locomotion."

Again just a little research and you could avoid such mistakes.

No matter how you wanna look at it, Robin Williams was a robot at the start of the movie. He fuctioned like a robot, he looked like a robot, he was a robot.

No matter how you wanna look at it, Robin Williams was an Android [which is a type of robot] at the start of the movie. He functioned like an android which is a robot designed to mimic human mannerisms, he looked like an android which is a robot with a human shape , he was an android.

As I pointed out above Android does not mean "human-like"

As I pointed out before and above ......Your wrong".

[/quote]If he never mentioned a school why did you said he did? [/quote]

I never did.

I really suggest you try reading a post carfully for what it says and not try to assume a meaning.

My exact words were...."Xavier spoke of one day gathering a group of students but that was the extent of his plans at the time."

Corrected for spelling.

One can gather students with out having a school.

No I'm telling you that you're off point

You can not tell me I'm off point on the point I was trying to make.

As for the rest of this section....I never made it an argument.I simplely pointed out why she was sent....just to reafirm the reason.

The rest here is you misunderstanding things as normal.

What would that be?

Well in short they said the military robots, Now calling themselves Decepticons, wanted conquest.

Like I said its vague but it doesnt take a big leap in imagination to believe that a militery group of robots wanting conquest would attempt to take control of the planet.

And that would most likely lead to the Autobots defending them selfs.

I said nothing about them being the same. I said one is that far off from the other.

What???

As I showed with the cancer compairison.

I'm going to cut you off right there.

Your "cancer comparison" sucked.As do all your "illness comparisons".You really should stay away from trying to draw comparisons with health issues....particulary since you dont do any back ground research first.

There are many treatments for different types of cancer, some people respond well to these treatments and never suffer from cancer again.

But those people are not "cured" by the text book definition of the word.Those people still need to be checked to see if the cancer has returned or developed somewhere else in the body.

By definition a "cure" is the end of a medical condition.That means the inflicted would never have to worry about that type of cancer again.

It also means that the "cure" would function in no matter what stage the cancer was in.

And to date there is no "cure" for any type of cancer.....at least none the medical comuity is making public.

There are many that believe in HOLISTIC CANCER CURES but thats a different debate.

Being able to prolong something is not a cure but it is one step away from a cure.

Hardly one step away.

Because, and I can't belive I have to say this again, THEY WEREN'T DESIGNED FOR BATTLE.

That doesnt matter.

They werent designed for battle when they ran the Quints off Cybertron.

They werent designed for battle when the first civil war broke out.

They were hardly designed for battle when the last civil war broke out.

"Necessity is the mother of invention"

They learned to survive, they learned to out smart their enemy's.

We already know they are capable of such feats.

Our own history is fuul of stories like "David and Goliath".A weaker fighter outsmarting and over coming a bigger,stronger enemy is nothing new.

And let me remind you, theres no evidence the Quints ever used the militery robots in the Gladiator games.

If you toss a slave in with a lion what do you think the odds are the lion is going to die and the slave is going to live? How about 0.

Your ability to calculate odds is not all that great.

History proves you wrong.

In a fair fight it's anyone's guess but when one side is significantly weaker than the other, not a chance.

Ever heard of the war for Americas independence???

Ever hear of Vietnam???

Wow, you're being ignorant.

No, your just jumping to conclusions.

You claimed that there was a direct statement backing your claim.

I challenged you to provide it.

So where is it????

What do you think Millitary Hardware was used for?

Fighting in wars, the occupation of other worlds, attacks on supply ships of enemys or rivals, protection of Quint territories, citizens and property.

You know, what the military is normally used for in most cultures.

Gladiators are usually slaves, crooks, murderers, and the other unfortunate lower members or society.

Even if they never told us which they did,

If they did....PROVE IT

In real life the Greek and Roman Gladiator matches were normally between millitary soldiers.Yeah a few slaves would get tossed in every once in a while and get killed but for the most part it was trained fighters

And here's something usefull for you. Slaves weren't gladiators. Yeah they might be thrown into the same arena but the Gladiators were millitary soldiers.

Here's something useful.

Your wrong.This proves it.

You love looking like a fool.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladiator

A Gladiator (Latin: gladiator, "swordsman", fro DJ m gladius, "sword") was an armed combatant who entertained audiences in the Roman Republic and Roman Empire in violent confrontations with other gladiators, wild animals, and condemned criminals. Some gladiators were volunteers who risked their legal and social standing and their lives by appearing in the arena. Most were despised as slaves,

http://ablemedia.com/ctcweb/consortium/gladiator2.html

Who were the Gladiators?

In general, gladiators were condemned criminals, prisoners of war, or slaves bought for the purpose of gladiatorial combat by a lanista, or owner of gladiators. Professional gladiators were free men who volunteered to participate in the games.

Dude.... really.....If you dont know what your talking about ,and cant be bothered to do a little research your better of not saying anything at all.

No gladiator was a serving member of the military.

Professional gladiators were free men, they were citizens.They may have been military once in their life but no longer were.

Military were not citizens.They served in the military to become citizens.

Also "slaves" were in fact Gladiators.

Hence your conclusions are as wrong as always.

Name_Violation wrote:An android is a robot or synthetic organism designed to look and act like a human. The word derives from ανδρός, the genitive of the Greek ανήρ anēr, meaning "man", and the suffix -eides, used to mean "of the species; alike" (from eidos, "species"). Though the word derives from a gender-specific root, its usage in English is usually gender neutral. The term was first mentioned by St. Albertus Magnus in 1270[3] and was popularized by the French writer Villiers in his 1886 novel L'Ève future, although the term "android" appears in US patents as early as 1863 in reference to miniature humanlike toy automations.[4]

Thus far, androids have largely remained within the domain of science fiction, frequently seen in film and television. However, some humanoid robots now exist.

The term "droid" - invented by George Lucas in Star Wars (1977) but now used widely within science fiction - although originally an abbreviation of "android", has been used (by Lucas and others) to mean any robot, including distinctly non-humaniform machines like R2-D2.

disambigged

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

If he never mentioned a school why did you said he did?

I never did.

You did. At this point there's WAY too many posts to go back and look through and it's way too late at night to try and sort through them but you distinctly said the word "school". That wasn't me assumeing what you ment from "gather students". You actully said school.

No I'm telling you that you're off point

You can not tell me I'm off point on the point I was trying to make.

As for the rest of this section....I never made it an argument.I simplely pointed out why she was sent....just to reafirm the reason.

The rest here is you misunderstanding things as normal.

Then you have no point and shouldn't of said anything at all.

I said nothing about them being the same. I said one isn't that far off from the other.

What???

Typo, fixed it.

As I showed with the cancer compairison.

I'm going to cut you off right there.

Your "cancer comparison" sucked.As do all your "illness comparisons".You really should stay away from trying to draw comparisons with health issues....particulary since you dont do any back ground research first.

There are many treatments for different types of cancer, some people respond well to these treatments and never suffer from cancer again.

But those people are not "cured" by the text book definition of the word.Those people still need to be checked to see if the cancer has returned or developed somewhere else in the body.

By definition a "cure" is the end of a medical condition.That means the inflicted would never have to worry about that type of cancer again.

It also means that the "cure" would function in no matter what stage the cancer was in.

And to date there is no "cure" for any type of cancer.....at least none the medical comuity is making public.

There are many that believe in HOLISTIC CANCER CURES but thats a different debate.

That's not techincally accurate. If a cure meant that you never have to deal with it ever again then there's no cure for anything except Chicken Poxs sence as far as I know Chicken Pox is the only illness that a person can only get once in their life time. Everything elce people can be exsposed to multiple times.

A cure doesn't mean that you never have to deal with that sickness ever again, it means you can get rid of that time around but there's never a garantee that you'll never have it again. If there wasn't a cure there would be no way to remove or kill the illness, you would just have to suffer with it till it went away on it's own or you died.

The common cold still has no known cure. There are known ways to prevent getting it but that's it. And even if you follow that there's no garantee you won't get a cold. There's just no way to get rid of a cold once you have it. All the medication for it is only to help with the symptoms not to cure it.

I think someone once told me though that nothing can really be called a "cure" unless it's devoloped in a lab. So if some found a home remidy that cured something the government would never recognize it as a real cure. I don't remember who I heard that from but I think it's total bull $h!t if that's true.

In real life the Greek and Roman Gladiator matches were normally between millitary soldiers.Yeah a few slaves would get tossed in every once in a while and get killed but for the most part it was trained fighters

And here's something usefull for you. Slaves weren't gladiators. Yeah they might be thrown into the same arena but the Gladiators were millitary soldiers.

Here's something useful.

Your wrong.This proves it.

You love looking like a fool.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladiator

A Gladiator (Latin: gladiator, "swordsman", fro DJ m gladius, "sword") was an armed combatant who entertained audiences in the Roman Republic and Roman Empire in violent confrontations with other gladiators, wild animals, and condemned criminals. Some gladiators were volunteers who risked their legal and social standing and their lives by appearing in the arena. Most were despised as slaves,

http://ablemedia.com/ctcweb/consortium/gladiator2.html

Who were the Gladiators?

In general, gladiators were condemned criminals, prisoners of war, or slaves bought for the purpose of gladiatorial combat by a lanista, or owner of gladiators. Professional gladiators were free men who volunteered to participate in the games.

Dude.... really.....If you dont know what your talking about ,and cant be bothered to do a little research your better of not saying anything at all.

No gladiator was a serving member of the military.

Professional gladiators were free men, they were citizens.They may have been military once in their life but no longer were.

Military were not citizens.They served in the military to become citizens.

Also "slaves" were in fact Gladiators.

Hence your conclusions are as wrong as always.

You know you're quoteing form Wiki right? You know that site that every time I quote something from there you tell me it's wrong because anyone can edit it and post information weather it's right or not.

Can I just point something out to you. My grandmother's maiden name, is HERMES. Yes, the Greek Messenger God. Not only that but the Greeks started the first theaters. You know where I'm going with this right?

Combination of my family history + my job = I've spent a great deal of time reading about the Greeks.

The volunteers mentioned on Wiki were soldiers not citizens. You know where the citizens were? In the stands WATCHING the matches. Slaves and criminals would be thrown to the lions as punishment for their crimes and/or dissobediance.

So now you're claiming I don't know my own family history and/or the history of my chosen profession?

I will admit I don't know as much as I would like. Most of my knowlage has gone to how things opperate in film and theater. But part of my classes did revolve around the colluseum and the gladiators. I studied this for about 6 years.

Rial Vestro wrote:You did.

Nope.

At this point there's WAY too many posts to go back and look through

I already did in the last post.And it wasnt that long ago.

Here it is again.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:Marvel had a summer even a number of years back called "The Age of Apocalypse".In this story David Haller aka "Legion", the Son of Charles Francis Xavier aka "Professor X" , got the bright idea that the world would be a better place if he could kill Erik Magnus Lehnsherr aka "Magneto" before his father formed the X-men.

David felt if he could eliminate his fathers greatest enemy in the past that he father wouldnt need to form the X-men and might be able to spend time with him.

So he used his abilities to travel into the past to kill Magneto, he traveled many years back before Xavier formed his first team, to a few days before he was conceived...in a time when his father and Magneto were friends that debated over the future of man and mutant kind.

Xavier spoke of one day gathering a group of studants but that was the extent of hidplans at the time.Well like I said, David traveled to that point, made out with his mother [weird] and tried to kill Magneto but instead killed his own father by mistake when Xavier tried to save Magneto.

This lead to a big change in history, David was wiped from the time line and Magneto formed the X-men in memory of his friend.

As I said before, I said he mentioned gathering a few students but nothing about a school.

I repeat, one can have studants with out having a school.

That wasn't me assumeing what you ment from "gather students". You actully said school.

Nope it was you assuming again.

You were the first to mantion "school".

Then you have no point and shouldn't of said anything at all.

I had my point and I made it.

If you werent being so argumentative you might have noticed.

That's not techincally accurate.If a cure meant that you never have to deal with it ever again then there's no cure for anything except Chicken Poxs sence as far as I know Chicken Pox is the only illness that a person can only get once in their life time.

Its evident you dont know a lot.

A cure doesn't mean that you never have to deal with that sickness ever again,

As I said before, A cure by definition is the absolute end to the illness.

Some people distort the use of the word thou.

I think someone once told me though that nothing can really be called a "cure" unless it's devoloped in a lab. So if some found a home remidy that cured something the government would never recognize it as a real cure. I don't remember who I heard that from but I think it's total bull $h!t if that's true.

It is pretty much true.

You know you're quoteing form Wiki right?

Wiki wasnt the only site I quoted there.

Besides I remembered that from school and doubled checked my daughters school books and our Roman encyclopedea.

You fail.

You know that site that every time I quote something from there you tell me it's wrong because anyone can edit it and post information weather it's right or not.

Sorry but No.....I never told you you were wrong coley just for quoting that site.

I have told you that the site can not always be trusted and that you should do Independence research to make sure what your quoting is correct.

Which I did.....and you hardly ever do.

Can I just point something out to you. My grandmother's maiden name, is HERMES. Yes, the Greek Messenger God. Not only that but the Greeks started the first theaters. You know where I'm going with this right?

Combination of my family history + my job = I've spent a great deal of time reading about the Greeks.

Funny, one would think with all the avaliable resource you might have gotton something right.

The volunteers mentioned on Wiki were soldiers not citizens.You know where the citizens were? In the stands WATCHING the matches.

They were citizens that were former soldiers.They were citizens that were either in need of money, seeking glory&fame or felt they werent ready to retire from fighting.

They were as much citizens as those watching.

Slaves and criminals would be thrown to the lions as punishment for their crimes and/or dissobediance.

Slaves and criminals were forced to be Gladiators.

They were sold as Gladiators.

So now you're claiming I don't know my own family history and/or the history of my chosen profession?

I am not really making a claim.

Your lack of accurate information about "your own family history and/or the history of my chosen profession" making that claim for you.

I will admit I don't know as much as I would like. Most of my knowlage has gone to how things opperate in film and theater. But part of my classes did revolve around the colluseum and the gladiators. I studied this for about 6 years.

Then I suggest you need an other 6 mounts of study.

No offense intended.