The Energon Pub

In this clip Prime tells Sideburn that the Allspark chose him as the leader and the Matrix was givin to him.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSX_w2BDVCA

Yea I found the clips (or rather one of them) before I even realized you had allready posted them.

Anyway you still never SEE the Matrix in RID and the lines are entirely sugestive, they can be easily warped to mean anything the viewer wants them to mean.

Saber Prime wrote:Yea I found the clips (or rather one of them) before I even realized you had allready posted them.

Anyway you still never SEE the Matrix in RID and the lines are entirely sugestive, they can be easily warped to mean anything the viewer wants them to mean.

Your right we never see the Matrix in RID and some of the lines are sugestive.....but not the word IT. UM says that THE MATRIX chose to inpower Primes being with IT'S energy.

Here is the definition of the word it from websters
[quote=]
that one —used as subject or direct object or indirect object of a verb or object of a preposition usually in reference to a lifeless thing <took a quick look at the house and noticed it was very old>, a plant <there is a rosebush near the fence and it is now blooming>, a person or animal whose sex is unknown or disregarded <don't know who it is>, a group of individuals or things, or an abstract entity <beauty is everywhere and it is a source of joy.[/quote]

And you yourself said before that in Armada it was called The Matrix to try to prove your point..

Saber Prime wrote:But the Armada cartoon actully does show Prime remove the thing from his chest and he calls it the Matrix. The thing in RID Prime's chest is not ever refered to as such.

Maybe the Car Robots version calls it the Matrix but Robots in Disguse does not.

Now that I have showen you proff that they do infact call it the Matrix in RID and referr to the Matrix as an IT your going to try to double back and change your way of judgeing the issue????????

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Saber Prime wrote:Yea I found the clips (or rather one of them) before I even realized you had allready posted them.

Anyway you still never SEE the Matrix in RID and the lines are entirely sugestive, they can be easily warped to mean anything the viewer wants them to mean.

Your right we never see the Matrix in RID and some of the lines are sugestive.....but not the word IT. UM says that THE MATRIX chose to inpower Primes being with IT'S energy.

Here is the definition of the word it from websters

And you yourself said before that in Armada it was called The Matrix to try to prove your point..

Saber Prime wrote:But the Armada cartoon actully does show Prime remove the thing from his chest and he calls it the Matrix. The thing in RID Prime's chest is not ever refered to as such.

Maybe the Car Robots version calls it the Matrix but Robots in Disguse does not.

Now that I have showen you proff that they do infact call it the Matrix in RID and referr to the Matrix as an IT your going to try to double back and change your way of judgeing the issue????????

Who says "it" has to be a physical object?

that one —used as subject or direct object or indirect object of a verb or object of a preposition usually in reference to a lifeless thing <took a quick look at the house and noticed it was very old>, a plant <there is a rosebush near the fence and it is now blooming>, a person or animal whose sex is unknown or disregarded <don't know who it is>, a group of individuals or things, or an abstract entity <beauty is everywhere and it is a source of joy.

The last example in your quote here refers to "beauty" as an "it" and beauty is not an object. Beauty is a description of a person place or thing but beauty in itself is not an object. Look at that I just called beauty an it.

Ultra Magnus allso said "What is this, where is all this extra energy comming from?" right before zapping the Autobot Brothers with their super modes.

"this" could be refering to an object just as "it" can but in this case "this" is refering to extra energy.

He doesn't actully say this but just for the hell of it I'll edit that line to include the word "it"

"What is this, I have so much extra energy, where did it come from?"

See what I mean? Useing the word "it" does not automatically mean it is a physical object. "It" is just a descriptive word that can be used for anything, you can even call the air you breath "it" doesn't mean air is a physical object. Just means it's there and you can breath it.

Saber Prime wrote:

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Saber Prime wrote:Yea I found the clips (or rather one of them) before I even realized you had allready posted them.

Anyway you still never SEE the Matrix in RID and the lines are entirely sugestive, they can be easily warped to mean anything the viewer wants them to mean.

Your right we never see the Matrix in RID and some of the lines are sugestive.....but not the word IT. UM says that THE MATRIX chose to inpower Primes being with IT'S energy.

Here is the definition of the word it from websters

And you yourself said before that in Armada it was called The Matrix to try to prove your point..

Saber Prime wrote:But the Armada cartoon actully does show Prime remove the thing from his chest and he calls it the Matrix. The thing in RID Prime's chest is not ever refered to as such.

Maybe the Car Robots version calls it the Matrix but Robots in Disguse does not.

Now that I have showen you proff that they do infact call it the Matrix in RID and referr to the Matrix as an IT your going to try to double back and change your way of judgeing the issue????????

Who says "it" has to be a physical object?

that one —used as subject or direct object or indirect object of a verb or object of a preposition usually in reference to a lifeless thing <took a quick look at the house and noticed it was very old>, a plant <there is a rosebush near the fence and it is now blooming>, a person or animal whose sex is unknown or disregarded <don't know who it is>, a group of individuals or things, or an abstract entity <beauty is everywhere and it is a source of joy.

The last example in your quote here refers to "beauty" as an "it" and beauty is not an object. Beauty is a description of a person place or thing but beauty in itself is not an object. Look at that I just called beauty an it.

Ultra Magnus allso said "What is this, where is all this extra energy comming from?" right before zapping the Autobot Brothers with their super modes.

"this" could be refering to an object just as "it" can but in this case "this" is refering to extra energy.

He doesn't actully say this but just for the hell of it I'll edit that line to include the word "it"

"What is this, I have so much extra energy, where did it come from?"

See what I mean? Useing the word "it" does not automatically mean it is a physical object. "It" is just a descriptive word that can be used for anything, you can even call the air you breath "it" doesn't mean air is a physical object. Just means it's there and you can breath it.

I can see what your saying but I just found something you cant twist around.In the final episode, While Omega Prime is fighting Galvatron Fortress Maxius transfers energy to Omega Prime and OP says and I qoute......

"Its Fortress Maximuss....hes sending me his power to re-energize the Matrix"

Here is the clip
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqjQEJfaQ74

The Matrix was an object in RID.....theres many exsamples of this in dialoge......its called THE,IT ...UM states he wants to remove it from Prime and its energy needed to be re-energised...... can you give me one exsample of proff that suggests that it is only an energy...........

and by the way air is a physical object.

Having not seen the episodes I can't say either way but looking at your arguments (which are a fun read) I have to say that the word "it" doesn't have to denote a tactile, tangible object. Even in the definition that sto_vo_kor_2000 quoted it says that 'it' can refer to an abstract entity.

Leonardo wrote:Having not seen the episodes I can't say either way but looking at your arguments (which are a fun read) I have to say that the word "it" doesn't have to denote a tactile, tangible object. Even in the definition that sto_vo_kor_2000 quoted it says that 'it' can refer to an abstract entity.

I agree with that but when used in a conversation ,is where any word with multible meaning, is how one would difine its meaning.
One exsample is when UM says to Prime that ....the Matrix chose you to impower with its energy.
If the Matrix was energy only then the line should have gone like this........you were chosen to carry the Matrix energy.
There are plenty of lines that referr to the Matrix as an object in RID.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Leonardo wrote:Having not seen the episodes I can't say either way but looking at your arguments (which are a fun read) I have to say that the word "it" doesn't have to denote a tactile, tangible object. Even in the definition that sto_vo_kor_2000 quoted it says that 'it' can refer to an abstract entity.

I agree with that but when used in a conversation ,is where any word with multible meaning, is how one would difine its meaning.
One exsample is when UM says to Prime that ....the Matrix chose you to impower with its energy.
If the Matrix was energy only then the line should have gone like this........you were chosen to carry the Matrix energy.
There are plenty of lines that referr to the Matrix as an object in RID.

Yes, there probably are, I don't remember the episodes too well. I do think that the line you quoted implies that the Matrix is some sort of container or recepticle for the energy, rather than the energy itself, but from your exchanges with Saber Prime I think it's open to speculation.

Ah, the fun we have, eh?

Leonardo wrote:

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Leonardo wrote:Having not seen the episodes I can't say either way but looking at your arguments (which are a fun read) I have to say that the word "it" doesn't have to denote a tactile, tangible object. Even in the definition that sto_vo_kor_2000 quoted it says that 'it' can refer to an abstract entity.

I agree with that but when used in a conversation ,is where any word with multible meaning, is how one would difine its meaning.
One exsample is when UM says to Prime that ....the Matrix chose you to impower with its energy.
If the Matrix was energy only then the line should have gone like this........you were chosen to carry the Matrix energy.
There are plenty of lines that referr to the Matrix as an object in RID.

Yes, there probably are, I don't remember the episodes too well. I do think that the line you quoted implies that the Matrix is some sort of container or recepticle for the energy, rather than the energy itself, but from your exchanges with Saber Prime I think it's open to speculation.

Ah, the fun we have, eh?

What exchanges???? He just offered up his opinion with no exsamples to back it up.The only thing he was right about is that we never see it in the show.His claim that they never referr to it as "THE MATRIX" have been proven wrong.He hasnt givin us one exsample to prove his point.

See, this is where I got confused by Saber Prime. He must have known it was called the Matrix because he posted this:

Saber Prime wrote:The Matrix in RID, I guess I should have said this earlier, is not an object like in G1, the Unicron Trilligy, or the movie. The Matrix is just an energy that surgest through the body of the leader and can be drained or passed on by a hand shake apperently.

But then said:

Saber Prime wrote:Maybe the Car Robots version calls it the Matrix but Robots in Disguse does not.

Anyway, I thought he was also arguing that, whatever it was called, it wasn't necessarily a physical object.

Leonardo wrote:See, this is where I got confused by Saber Prime. He must have known it was called the Matrix because he posted this:

Saber Prime wrote:The Matrix in RID, I guess I should have said this earlier, is not an object like in G1, the Unicron Trilligy, or the movie. The Matrix is just an energy that surgest through the body of the leader and can be drained or passed on by a hand shake apperently.

But then said:

Saber Prime wrote:Maybe the Car Robots version calls it the Matrix but Robots in Disguse does not.

Anyway, I thought he was also arguing that, whatever it was called, it wasn't necessarily a physical object.

Thats one of the points that I've proven wrong.But like I said....he hasnt offered up any proff.I'm opened to the idea but I have watch these shows a few times and there no reason to beleave it only energy.Its more likely that its more closly related to how the G1 matrix was referred to in Japan.....as a battery....not a source of wisdom or a fragment of Primus like in the Marvel books.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:Thats one of the points that I've proven wrong.But like I said....he hasnt offered up any proff.I'm opened to the idea but I have watch these shows a few times and there no reason to beleave it only energy.Its more likely that its more closly related to how the G1 matrix was referred to in Japan.....as a battery....not a source of wisdom or a fragment of Primus like in the Marvel books.

I can see that you've proved him wrong about what they called it but by saying "it's more likely" aren't you implicitly agreeing that there's room for speculation? As far as I can see, the quotes you've provided don't concretely prove it is a physical object, battery or not, just as Saber Prime's argument doesn't prove it isn't.

Leonardo wrote:

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:Thats one of the points that I've proven wrong.But like I said....he hasnt offered up any proff.I'm opened to the idea but I have watch these shows a few times and there no reason to beleave it only energy.Its more likely that its more closly related to how the G1 matrix was referred to in Japan.....as a battery....not a source of wisdom or a fragment of Primus like in the Marvel books.

I can see that you've proved him wrong about what they called it but by saying "it's more likely" aren't you implicitly agreeing that there's room for speculation? As far as I can see, the quotes you've provided don't concretely prove it is a physical object, battery or not, just as Saber Prime's argument doesn't prove it isn't.

Theres always room for speculation I'm not pigheaded nor do I have to be right,but.....it would be hard to see it any other way.First ....one of the quotes from UM says "the Matrix chose to impower your being with its energy" If the Matrix was only energy then what UM is really saying is "the energy chose impower your being with its energy" That just doesnt make sence to me....does it to you??????And trew out the other episodes there are very simular lines, that would mean that all the dialog is wrong.

Yep, I totally agree with that, that's why I said it implies the Matrix is some sort of container for the energy as opposed to the energy itself. That makes perfect sense to me.

Leonardo wrote:Yep, I totally agree with that, that's why I said it implies the Matrix is some sort of container for the energy as opposed to the energy itself. That makes perfect sense to me.

Thats was my point the whole time.The only thing that was in the show that might have been taken as the Matrix being energy was in the last episode.Fort Max's energy combined with The Matrix's energy after re-energising it to form the Matrix sword witch by the way was also a physical object.

Leonardo wrote:See, this is where I got confused by Saber Prime. He must have known it was called the Matrix because he posted this:

Saber Prime wrote:The Matrix in RID, I guess I should have said this earlier, is not an object like in G1, the Unicron Trilligy, or the movie. The Matrix is just an energy that surgest through the body of the leader and can be drained or passed on by a hand shake apperently.

But then said:

Saber Prime wrote:Maybe the Car Robots version calls it the Matrix but Robots in Disguse does not.

Anyway, I thought he was also arguing that, whatever it was called, it wasn't necessarily a physical object.

You missed a huge part of the conversation between thoughs two posts and missunderstood me.

The "it" I was refering to in the second quote was the object inside the super mode chest on the toy and that was only said AFTER he mentioned the Japanise version calls it the Matrix but the US version does not. (and he did agree with me on the fact the US version of the toy does not say anything about the Matrix)

I allso said "Maybe the Car Robots..." because I know nothing of the Japanise series and simply decided to agree with him on that without really agreeing ad not wanting to start another discussion on the Matrix from another series.

I just got this weird dejavu feeling like I've wrighten this exact same post before...

Looking through the rest of the posts here...

There are several people who will argue that G1 Megatron and Galvatron are two different characters even though the dialog and the fact you can watch Megatron being turned into Galvatron say without a doubt that Megatron and Galvatron are in fact the same person. Yet there's still some room for speculation?

Yet some simple lines that can be argued as being true either way to my point or yours has no room for speculation?

There are even some of your own posts where it looks to me like you're contridicting yourself. "There's room for speculation" "I don't have to be right" yet you sit there and argue the speculation as fact to be right in your favor?

You allso say I have not provided proof that the Matrix is not a physical object. You like wise have not provided proof that it is. The only proof you could provide that could not be argued as speculation would be an actull picture of the object from the RID cartoon series which you have admitted was never seen.

Anything beyond physical evidence is just speculation. Neither one of us can really be proven right or wrong in this case so to this I say "Agree to dissagree" and "To each his own."

Yes, after re-reading it appears I took that sentence out of context. Sorry about that. You were referring to the object in the chest compartment.

It still seems that the Matrix being a physical object is open to debate. Saying "the Matrix chose to impower your being with its energy" does suggest the Matrix is not merely the energy itself, but then love can infuse someone with energy and love isn't a physical object.

Saber Prime wrote:

Leonardo wrote:See, this is where I got confused by Saber Prime. He must have known it was called the Matrix because he posted this:

Saber Prime wrote:The Matrix in RID, I guess I should have said this earlier, is not an object like in G1, the Unicron Trilligy, or the movie. The Matrix is just an energy that surgest through the body of the leader and can be drained or passed on by a hand shake apperently.

But then said:

Saber Prime wrote:Maybe the Car Robots version calls it the Matrix but Robots in Disguse does not.

Anyway, I thought he was also arguing that, whatever it was called, it wasn't necessarily a physical object.

You missed a huge part of the conversation between thoughs two posts and missunderstood me.

The "it" I was refering to in the second quote was the object inside the super mode chest on the toy and that was only said AFTER he mentioned the Japanise version calls it the Matrix but the US version does not. (and he did agree with me on the fact the US version of the toy does not say anything about the Matrix)
I allso said "Maybe the Car Robots..." because I know nothing of the Japanise series and simply decided to agree with him on that without really agreeing ad not wanting to start another discussion on the Matrix from another series.

I just got this weird dejavu feeling like I've wrighten this exact same post before...

The U.S. toy instruction doesnt say anything about the Matrix but it does picture it and how to open the chest peace to see it.

Psted while I was editing, go back and read the rest of my last post under the little dude

Saber Prime wrote:
Looking through the rest of the posts here...

There are several people who will argue that G1 Megatron and Galvatron are two different characters even though the dialog and the fact you can watch Megatron being turned into Galvatron say without a doubt that Megatron and Galvatron are in fact the same person. Yet there's still some room for speculation?

Yet some simple lines that can be argued as being true either way to my point or yours has no room for speculation?

There are even some of your own posts where it looks to me like you're contridicting yourself. "There's room for speculation" "I don't have to be right" yet you sit there and argue the speculation as fact to be right in your favor?

Its not a contridiction to say that "There's room for speculation" and still ask for you to show me one exsample of why you believe what you do.I just want to understand why you think it to be true.And the fact that I myself provided an exsample as to why I thought you beleaved what you belieave proves that I dont have a need to be right.This is what I said....."The only thing that was in the show that might have been taken as the Matrix being energy was in the last episode.Fort Max's energy combined with The Matrix's energy after re-energising it to form the Matrix sword".

Saber Prime wrote:You all so say I have not provided proof that the Matrix is not a physical object. You like wise have not provided proof that it is. The only proof you could provide that could not be argued as speculation would be an actull picture of the object from the RID cartoon series which you have admitted was never seen.

Maybe I should have worded it better.....I was not trying to say your way of seeing the Matrix in RID is wrong....I just wanted to know why you think its energy and not an object.And while I may not have provided concret proff on my view I have deffanitly provided plenty of surcumstanshel evidence for my case.I'm still waiting for any from you.Like I daid I'm open minded.

Saber Prime wrote:Anything beyond physical evidence is just speculation. Neither one of us can really be proven right or wrong in this case so to this I say "Agree to dissagree" and "To each his own."

No argument here.

Since we're talking about the Matrix, I found this letter while looking around online and thought it was funny......a little anyway....




A LETTER TO
OPTIMUS PRIME
FROM HIS GEICO
AUTO INSURANCE
AGENT.
BY JOHN FRANK WEAVER
- - - -

Dear Mr. Prime,

We have received your accident-claim reports for the month of June—they total 27. I regret to inform you that GEICO will not be able to reimburse you for any of those repairs. I feel that I have sent the same letter to you once a month for the last six months, and I am now sending it again.

Since becoming a GEICO customer in January of this year, you have reported 131 accidents, requesting reimbursement for repairs necessitated by each one. You have claimed not to be responsible in any of them, usually listing the cause of the accident as either "Sneak attack by Decepticons" or "Unavoidable damage caused by protecting freedom for all sentient beings."

The only repairs for which you were reimbursed were the replacement of a cracked fender and a headlight, required after a Mr. I. Ron Hide backed his van into your truck; these cost $1,286.63. Our own investigation concluded that you were not at fault and that Mr. Hide had been drinking prior to the accident. Though police were unable to test his blood-alcohol level—Mr. Hide claimed that it would be impossible for police to examine his blood-alcohol content with a Breathalyzer, because he "doesn't breathe"—under Washington-state law, refusal to take a Breathalyzer test is equivalent to returning a result above the legal level.

But, I repeat, those were the only repairs for which you have been reimbursed, and it was a very minor accident in comparison to your other claims. I mention a few to illustrate the larger trend:


$379,431.34 requested reimbursement for repairs to your truck cabin. You claimed the damage was caused by attacking fighter jets.

$665,789.11 requested reimbursement for repairs to your trailer. You claimed the damage was caused by a giant mechanical scorpion, which I can only assume is some amusement-park ride, although I question the wisdom of bringing your mobile home so close to such dangerous equipment.

$6,564,239.44 requested reimbursement for repairs to a truck part called the "Autobot Matrix of Leadership." You stated this occurred in "an ultimate confrontation between good and evil," with a Ms. Meg Atron and a Mr. U. Nicron causing the damage in question. Mr. Prime, I have checked every known car- and truck-part catalog published in the United States and have found nothing even resembling that part, never mind any part so expensive. Whatever disagreements you had with Ms. Atron and Mr. Nicron, I suggest that next time you either settle things peaceably or leave your Autobot Matrix of Leadership at home so it doesn't break. GEICO does not cover Autobot Matrix of Leaderships.
And the list goes on. Mr. Prime, I am going to remind you again: Your policy with GEICO only reimburses you for accidents that occur while you are engaged in the reasonable use of your truck and trailer. As I told you when you originally purchased the policy, GEICO does not offer Megatron coverage, Starscream coverage, Soundwave coverage, Decepticon coverage, or Energon-blast coverage. Those are just not the types of damages we would expect from reasonable use.

To sum up, GEICO has been unable to reimburse you for any repairs, but due to the high number of accidents you have been a party to this month, combined with the many accidents you have had in the preceding five months, your premium has increased to $235,567.50 per month. While that may seem like a lot, I remind you that it is a savings of $137 over Progressive and $98 over State Farm. Please have your check into our main office by the end of July.

Regards,

Simon Furman
GEICO Agent

- - - -

OTHER McSWEENEY'S FEATURES:

lol! nice letter.

I'll have to read that letter when I get off work. It's a little long and no internet access at Fallen (I know it's a state park but they really need to discover the internet up there) so I'll read it tonight.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:Since we're talking about the Matrix, I found this letter while looking around online and thought it was funny......a little anyway....




A LETTER TO
OPTIMUS PRIME
FROM HIS GEICO
AUTO INSURANCE
AGENT.
BY JOHN FRANK WEAVER
- - - -

Dear Mr. Prime,

We have received your accident-claim reports for the month of June—they total 27. I regret to inform you that GEICO will not be able to reimburse you for any of those repairs. I feel that I have sent the same letter to you once a month for the last six months, and I am now sending it again.

Since becoming a GEICO customer in January of this year, you have reported 131 accidents, requesting reimbursement for repairs necessitated by each one. You have claimed not to be responsible in any of them, usually listing the cause of the accident as either "Sneak attack by Decepticons" or "Unavoidable damage caused by protecting freedom for all sentient beings."

The only repairs for which you were reimbursed were the replacement of a cracked fender and a headlight, required after a Mr. I. Ron Hide backed his van into your truck; these cost $1,286.63. Our own investigation concluded that you were not at fault and that Mr. Hide had been drinking prior to the accident. Though police were unable to test his blood-alcohol level—Mr. Hide claimed that it would be impossible for police to examine his blood-alcohol content with a Breathalyzer, because he "doesn't breathe"—under Washington-state law, refusal to take a Breathalyzer test is equivalent to returning a result above the legal level.

But, I repeat, those were the only repairs for which you have been reimbursed, and it was a very minor accident in comparison to your other claims. I mention a few to illustrate the larger trend:


$379,431.34 requested reimbursement for repairs to your truck cabin. You claimed the damage was caused by attacking fighter jets.

$665,789.11 requested reimbursement for repairs to your trailer. You claimed the damage was caused by a giant mechanical scorpion, which I can only assume is some amusement-park ride, although I question the wisdom of bringing your mobile home so close to such dangerous equipment.

$6,564,239.44 requested reimbursement for repairs to a truck part called the "Autobot Matrix of Leadership." You stated this occurred in "an ultimate confrontation between good and evil," with a Ms. Meg Atron and a Mr. U. Nicron causing the damage in question. Mr. Prime, I have checked every known car- and truck-part catalog published in the United States and have found nothing even resembling that part, never mind any part so expensive. Whatever disagreements you had with Ms. Atron and Mr. Nicron, I suggest that next time you either settle things peaceably or leave your Autobot Matrix of Leadership at home so it doesn't break. GEICO does not cover Autobot Matrix of Leaderships.
And the list goes on. Mr. Prime, I am going to remind you again: Your policy with GEICO only reimburses you for accidents that occur while you are engaged in the reasonable use of your truck and trailer. As I told you when you originally purchased the policy, GEICO does not offer Megatron coverage, Starscream coverage, Soundwave coverage, Decepticon coverage, or Energon-blast coverage. Those are just not the types of damages we would expect from reasonable use.

To sum up, GEICO has been unable to reimburse you for any repairs, but due to the high number of accidents you have been a party to this month, combined with the many accidents you have had in the preceding five months, your premium has increased to $235,567.50 per month. While that may seem like a lot, I remind you that it is a savings of $137 over Progressive and $98 over State Farm. Please have your check into our main office by the end of July.

Regards,

Simon Furman
GEICO Agent

- - - -

OTHER McSWEENEY'S FEATURES:

Oh my gawd Ms. Meg Atron, MS. Meg Atron. I know an easy way Optimus could avoid paying that bill. Send the letter to Megatron and the verry same day Megatron reads it he'll show up at the GEICO Office and blast it with HIS fusion cannon.