The Energon Pub

slycherrychunks wrote:

Tramp wrote:As for Marrissa Fairborn and Jazz in issue #8 of the DW comics, there is nothing romantic. IT's playful banter between two comerads in arms. She was making a jibe at him to break the tension. I just went through it.

If we apply your own logic to this - it is clear evidence of a full blown sexual relationship

No, it isn't. I have the issue right in front of me. There is clear differences. Fairborn and Jazz are both comrads in arms, in a very tense situation, one which could very easily result in a very messy and painful demise. They aren't long-time lovers, nor is there sexual attraction between them. She is breaking the tension by teasing him. The fact that she is female, and he is male is what makes her choice of how to tease him possible. And that is the only part that is sexual. There is nothing serious. Firestar and Inferno, and Ironhide and Chromia are both examples of full-blown romantic relationships. Long-distance ones at that. Canon has stated that they were all romantic pairs. Others have confirmed this. Chromia is Ironhide's life-mate. Firestar is Inferno's girlfriend, Moonracer is Powerglide's girlfriend. Elita-1 is Prime's mate. These are not just implied, they were the writer's [b]full intent[b]. The intent of the writer was that these were long-standing romantic relationships.

Yeah, and Batteries Not Included isn't Transformers, either. And how do you know what the "intent of the writer" is? Are you psychic now?

slycherrychunks wrote:

Tramp wrote:[i]Batteries Not Included[/b]

You know in that film, the Daddy robot cut up tin cans and put them into the Mummy robot. There was no exchange of genetic material. The Mummy Robot was essentially a mobile factory unit.

Actually, she ate cans and such to provide the raw materials, just as we eat food, and why a Pregnant woman eats more food to provide for the development of her offspring. The raw materials the little female consumed went into the development of her offspring. They went into forming the little circuits, and diodes, and the shell, limbs, etc. They grew inside her. The pregnancy itself was a result of their mating. When the babies were born, they did not look like they were "built" out of tin cans and scraps of metal. They looked like their parents. They looked like a combination of their mother and their father. Not something made out of scraps of metal.

And it's not Transformers!

Damolisher wrote:Yeah, and Batteries Not Included isn't Transformers, either. And how do you know what the "intent of the writer" is? Are you psychic now?

No, Batteries Not Included is not TransFomrers, but it is still a clear example of sexual reproduction in a robotic life form, which seems to be the entire crux of your argument, which is that robots cannot have sexual reproductive capability. That argument is 100% bogus. They can be sexually reproductive.

But it's not Transformers, is it? You were quick to debunk my evidence about Red Dwarf. And besides, that's ONE occurance of Robosex. And I love the way THAT counts as evidence since it supports your incorrect argument, but anything of mine 'goes against the laws of science,' etc al. Since when is Batteries not Included reality, either? That's not real either.

Damolisher wrote:And it's not Transformers!

It still shows the possibility of a robotic life form reproducing through sexual means. which blows your argument out of the water completely.

Damolisher wrote:But it's not Transformers, is it? You were quick to debunk my evidence about Red Dwarf. And besides, that's ONE occurance of Robosex.

Yes, it is. It a perfect example. Just as the Lithonians from the 86 movie are. Just as the Manga version of Victory is. These are all clear evidence of sexual reprodiction being possible in a robotic species. There is also a clear difference between Red Dwarf and Batteries Not Included and that ios the intent of the story, and the level of realism involved. There is nothing realistic in Red Dwarf. It is one absurd moment after another. and that is the intent. Batteries Not Included is not. It is humerous, yes, but it is also a touching story of people helping each other out to save theior homes, with the helkp of these little aliens they meet and take in. It is a touchting "what if" story, like ET.

The hell it does. Who made the writers of that movie the authority on robots? Therefore, robots STILL can't have sex, since they're made of circuits and metal. You're only using Batteries not included because it supports your theory. Red Dwarf supports mine, and it doesn't count. Yeah, that's fair. Notice that anything that doesn't support your theory that debunks it doesn't count, yet anything that does is alright. I fail to see how Batteries no Included is realistic either.

Damolisher wrote:But it's not Transformers, is it? You were quick to debunk my evidence about Red Dwarf. And besides, that's ONE occurance of Robosex.

Its called cherry-picking. Glyph already mentioned that. You take the bits of evidence that agree with your theory, and disregard the ones you dont.

As for Batteries not Included - didnt Daddy robot put the bits of metal in the top of the Mummy robot's head? If she was eating them - the director would have had to anthropomorphise the process (ie shown the chunks going into her "mouth") - because I just don't think audience's would've bought into the idea of nanites and machinery "growing" back in the mid eighties. (although I havent seen it since about then) As a ten-year-old, I certainly got the impression that the little robots were built by the mother and the whole thing was an allegory of sex.

Damolisher wrote:The hell it does. Who made the writers of that movie the authority on robots? Therefore, robots STILL can't have sex, since they're made of circuits and metal. You're only using Batteries not included because it supports your theory. Red Dwarf supports mine, and it doesn't count. Yeah, that's fair. Notice that anything that doesn't support your theory that debunks it doesn't count, yet anything that does is alright. I fail to see how Batteries no Included is realistic either.

And who made you authority on robots? You're a 19 year old kid. You canot prove that robots cannot have sex. or be sexually reproductive. Theoretically it is very possible. Just because our robots, our non-living robots on Earth can't because we lack the technology, does not mean that is is impossible. There is an old saying: That which can be conceived and believed can be achieved. FI we can conceive of the idea of robotic life which is capable of sexual reproduction, and we can believe it possible, it is possible.

Ah, yeah, that's right. Hence why there's allegedly "More evidence" in his favour when he's only got 4 or 5 pieces, and we've got multiple pieces in our favour. An Tramp., you're a man in your "Mid-30's" who's getting out argued by a 19 year old, so what does that make you? And as I said before, show me evidence of a Transformer with sexual organs. Where is it? And robots cannot have sex, because they are simply machines with personalities.

slycherrychunks wrote:

Damolisher wrote:But it's not Transformers, is it? You were quick to debunk my evidence about Red Dwarf. And besides, that's ONE occurance of Robosex.

Its called cherry-picking. Glyph already mentioned that. You take the bits of evidence that agree with your theory, and disregard the ones you dont.

As for Batteries not Included - didnt Daddy robot put the bits of metal in the top of the Mummy robot's head? If she was eating them - the director would have had to anthropomorphise the process (ie shown the chunks going into her "mouth") - because I just don't think audience's would've bought into the idea of nanites and machinery "growing" back in the mid eighties. (although I havent seen it since about then) As a ten-year-old, I certainly got the impression that the little robots were built by the mother and the whole thing was an allegory of sex.

She ate them. I don't remember exactly where he mouth was, it could very well have been the top of her head, but she did eat those parts for raw material. You don't need to anthropomorhize them to achive that. animals come in all shapes and sizes. The little aliens in the movie aren't supposed to be antrhopomorphic, just alive. They aren't even humanoid, so the location of the mouth does not have to corrispond to our own.

Damolisher wrote:Ah, yeah, that's right. Hence why there's allegedly "More evidence" in his favour when he's only got 4 or 5 pieces, and we've got multiple pieces in our favour. An Tramp., you're a man in your "Mid-30's" who's getting out argued by a 19 year old, so what does that make you?

Damolisher, your "evidence" consists of the Marvel US and UK camics where female TransFormers do not exist except for a single individual who was built for a human relations ploy. That is the entirety of your evidence.
The evidence that most G1 TransFormers are created from factory built protoforms and imbued with a spark is not evidence against sexual reproduction being possible.
The very fact that other methods exist for gcreating new TransFormer life, is proof enough of that. Therefore, you do not have overhwelming evidence against sexual reproduction being possible among TransFormers.

Incoming message from Dr Cox:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=WrjwaqZfjIY

For the hundreth time, just so you know, maybe it'll sink in. (Doubt it, it's intelligent logic, but hey, miracles can happen.) TRANSFORMERS ARE NEVER SHOWN TO BE BORN, AND NEVER, IN ANY MEDIA HAS A TRANSFORMER MENTIONED ANYTHING ABOUT THEIR "BIRTH." THEY HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO BE BUILT, AND HAVE MENTIONED BEING BUILT.

Based on this alone, any intelligent person would've picked it up that Transformers don't have sex. That, and that they're machines. No child would ever come to the conclusion Transformers are born, because it's never told to them. Hell, it's never explicitly stated to us, but you come to your conclusion from a few little MINUTE excuses that you feel shows Transformers are born. I mean, sure, these pieces of evidence go against everything every cartoon ever shows us, and it goes against what the writer whom Hasbro respects, Simon Furman, or even Bob Budiansky before him ever wrote, and Furman himself debunks genetics in transformers, but hey, you know better than him, don't you? Even though he debunks anything which leads to your stupid birth theory, he has to follow the laws. Well guess what? He doesn't.

Just because you state these laws "have to be there" doesn't mean they do. here's a newsflash, buddy: There are people who are paid to write Transformers stuff. They know what they're doing. You don't write for Transformers. Which means Simon Furman is right, and YOU are WRONG!

No. She didnt eat them. She recycled them into little bots. The function of the Daddy robot was to gather raw materials. The function of the mummy unit was to process the raw materials into baby units. The characters were anthropomorphised because they had faces that could look happy or angry.

The whole thing was an allegory of the cycle of life.

There is no hard evidence one way or another, which is why *Batteries not Included cannot be used as a piece of evidence in this debate, unless someone gets on YouTube like, now.

Armitage got pregnant though.

slycherrychunks wrote:No. She didnt eat them. She recycled them into little bots. The function of the Daddy robot was to gather raw materials. The function of the mummy unit was to process the raw materials into baby units. The characters were anthropomorphised because they had faces that could look happy or angry.

The whole thing was an allegory of the cycle of life.

There is no hard evidence one way or another, which is why *Batteries not Included cannot be used as a piece of evidence in this debate, unless someone gets on YouTube like, now.

Armitage got pregnant though.

Yes, she did. The point about BnI though, is that the male and female did mate. He didn't just gather parts. There is nothin anthropomorphic about them Even animals have faces.

And once again, another unarguable post by Damolisher is completely ignored, and now I've pointed it out, will be subjected to the generic speech about life. Here's how I be tit goes, OK, Tramp, correct me if I'm wrong, but this is what you would probably post, right? You would say that you AREN'T Simon Furman, but the facts of life must come into play, even though it's not real, and it's not something that HAS to be done. You will once again use your now non-canon MTMTE 8, and your non-canon Manga, along with this non-Transformers movie, and the Wheelie thing, despite no parents ever being shown, and despite the fact age with Transformers may be relative to how old their internal equipment is. You will then use another bit of 'evidence' already posted, and yet will miss one of my main points of my post AGAIN.

Tramp wrote:male and female did mate. He didn't just gather parts.

No. Allegory. 80's audiences wouldn't have bought into anything else.

Even animals have faces.

Irrelevant. There was no reason to give the robots faces other than to serve as some sort of reference point with which they could emote to the audience. Anthropomorphisation. You can't really read an animal's emotions by looking at its face unless you're Steve Irwin or something.

Damolisher wrote:And once again, another unarguable post by Damolisher is completely ignored, and now I've pointed it out, will be subjected to the generic speech about life. Here's how I be tit goes, OK, Tramp, correct me if I'm wrong, but this is what you would probably post, right? You would say that you AREN'T Simon Furman, but the facts of life must come into play, even though it's not real, and it's not something that HAS to be done. You will once again use your now non-canon MTMTE 8, and your non-canon Manga, along with this non-Transformers movie, and the Wheelie thing, despite no parents ever being shown, and despite the fact age with Transformers may be relative to how old their internal equipment is. You will then use another bit of 'evidence' already posted, and yet will miss one of my main points of my post AGAIN.

Damolisher, MtMtE is just as canon as anything else produced under the TF license, as is the manga. Just because it does not agree with [i]your limitied view[/b] does not make it uncanon. As for Wheelie, his tech spec bio specifically refers to him as an orphan. The sole survivor of a colony ship thta crash landed. Hie MtMtE bio says he was abandoned by a society falling apart at the seems. He grew up alone without aid or guidance. Your only argument is that TransFormers are machines and as such, it is physically impossible for them reproduce sexually. And that argument it completely false. It does not matter if they were mechanical or organic. There is nothing impossible about mechanical life being capable of sexual reproduction. And you have not shown any ecvidence which says that it is.

More than meets the Eye isn't canon, and Dreamwave Themselves ignored the work. This has been stated many times, stop lying to yourself, and stop reiterating the same things over and over again. It's getting ridiculous.

slycherrychunks wrote:

Tramp wrote:male and female did mate. He didn't just gather parts.

No. Allegory. 80's audiences wouldn't have bought into anything else.

Even animals have faces.

Irrelevant. There was no reason to give the robots faces other than to serve as some sort of reference point with which they could emote to the audience. Anthropomorphisation. You can't really read an animal's emotions by looking at its face unless you're Steve Irwin or something.

Actually, yes, there is a reson. First off, it is the face where the primary senses of sight, smell, and hearing are located. It is the face where the mouth is located to better allow for the consumption of food. It has nothing to do with anthropomorhism, and eveything to do with simple practicality. That is why most animals have their eyes,m noses, mouths, and ears all concentrated on their faces. There is nothing anthropomoric about it.

Damolisher wrote:More than meets the Eye isn't canon, and Dreamwave Themselves ignored the work. This has been stated many times, stop lying to yourself, and stop reiterating the same things over and over again. It's getting ridiculous.

NO, they didn't ignore it. and yes, it is canon. Just because it doesn't agree with you, does not make it non-canon.

They did ignore it, it's been stated repeatedly, not just by myself, but by Glyph and many others. And I think Glyph would know A HELL of a lot more than you on this issue, buddy.

Tramp wrote:Actually, yes, there is a reson. First off, it is the face where the primary senses of sight, smell, and hearing are located.

Give the ROBOTS faces. I can understand why animals have faces.
As for your argument, an aparatus resembling a camera, a microphone and a speaker could have served these purposes. And yet, we are presented with an emotive face. Thats anthropomorphisation.