The Energon Pub

[Sabrblade]

Saw "Where is thy Sting" yesterday and damn, Shockwave gets more awesome every episode! First he took out Blurr, then he went solo and took out Ultra Magnus. How badass.

What about this morning's episode "Five Servos of Doom"?

I'll watch it soon. Hopefully Jazz will get a higher role in the show.

Oh, don't worry about that. You'll be impressed by this one.

[Saber Prime]

Megatron is important part of Sari's origins but it unkown for what purpose or why.

How do you figure???

So far there isint any evidence to support that.

That's not entirely accurate. Sari's eye's were a shade of Decepticon Red before she upgraded herself, her Protoform was found in Sumdac's lab where we know he was keeping Megatron's head at the time he found her, and the AllSpark showed her an image of Megatron along with the DNA strand when she had interactions with it so there actully is evidence to suport there's a conection between Megatron and Sari but there's allso just as much evidence agenst it.

Megatron was, as far as we know, not functional at the time Sari appeared. Megatron himself has never shown any sign of knowing who she is. He's refered to her as "Human Child" and that was about it. There's allso the big room of Protoforms where she could of come from.

Unless Transformers have the ability to generate protoforms while in stasis lock and without a body I don't think Megatron has any conection to her. It does seem like a weird coincidence that she just happen to appear right in the same room where Megatron's head was being kept.

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

That's not entirely accurate. Sari's eye's were a shade of Decepticon Red before she upgraded herself,

Which is evidence of nothing.

her Protoform was found in Sumdac's lab where we know he was keeping Megatron's head at the time he found her,

Again not evidence of a connection to Megatron.

and the AllSpark showed her an image of Megatron along with the DNA strand when she had interactions with it so there actully is evidence to suport there's a conection between Megatron and Sari

Thats not evidence of a connection to Megatron either.

All it is is evidence that she has a connection to Cybertronions.

but there's allso just as much evidence agenst it.

Megatron was, as far as we know, not functional at the time Sari appeared. Megatron himself has never shown any sign of knowing who she is. He's refered to her as "Human Child" and that was about it. There's allso the big room of Protoforms where she could of come from.

Unless Transformers have the ability to generate protoforms while in stasis lock and without a body I don't think Megatron has any conection to her. It does seem like a weird coincidence that she just happen to appear right in the same room where Megatron's head was being kept.

My theroy is that the All Spark sent the protoform to the lab.And I believe its no coincidence.....the All spark would have sent the protoform to where it had the best chance to develope.What better place on earth would there have been then a lab that had Cybertronion tech in it.

[Jazz Reborn]

I saw "Five Servos of Doom". At first I thought it was about the Quintessons because of the Season 3 episodes, "Five Faces of Darkness". The 2 names were kind of the same.
I hope Lugnut and Blitzwing come back. At least Jazz did something this episode.

[Sabrblade]

I saw "Five Servos of Doom". At first I thought it was about the Quintessons because of the Season 3 episodes, "Five Faces of Darkness". The 2 names were kind of the same.
I hope Lugnut and Blitzwing come back. At least Jazz did something this episode.

More like the old movie "Five Fingers of Death".

The episode was named after one of Prowl's and Yoketron's ninja moves.

[Saber Prime]

That's not entirely accurate. Sari's eye's were a shade of Decepticon Red before she upgraded herself,

Which is evidence of nothing.

her Protoform was found in Sumdac's lab where we know he was keeping Megatron's head at the time he found her,

Again not evidence of a connection to Megatron.

and the AllSpark showed her an image of Megatron along with the DNA strand when she had interactions with it so there actully is evidence to suport there's a conection between Megatron and Sari

Thats not evidence of a connection to Megatron either.

All it is is evidence that she has a connection to Cybertronions.

How do you figure that?

Red eyes, being found with Megatron's head, and the AllSpark showing her an image of Megatron could all be evidence of a conection to him. I'm not saying there is going to be a conection between them I'm just saying the evidence is there to suport it as a possibility.

Now sence you think it's not a possibility at all how do you exsplain the reasoning behind her red eyes, her being found in the lab with Megatron's head, and the AllSpark showing her Megatron's image.

Really only one of thoughs events has another exslination. The AllSpark showing her Megatron could have nothing to do with a conection to him but just be like in the movie when Optimus Prime was exsplaining to Sam and Mikala who Megatron was.

They showed the protoforms on Cybertron in 5 Servos of Doom and there's speculation now that Sari is one of thoughs Protoforms but there's really no evidence to suport that and even if it were true it's too much of a coincidence that she just happen to appear right by Megatron's head.

And the eyes I can't exsplain at all other than to say she was technically a Decepticon without even realizing it.

My theroy is that the All Spark sent the protoform to the lab.And I believe its no coincidence.....the All spark would have sent the protoform to where it had the best chance to develope.What better place on earth would there have been then a lab that had Cybertronion tech in it.

One problem with that theory, technically sence all technoligy is reverse enginered from Megatron that still wouldn't exsplain how she ended up in the lab with a dissembodied head. And there's no evidence to suport the AllSpark had anything to do with her being there.

[Shadowman]

My theroy is that the All Spark sent the protoform to the lab.And I believe its no coincidence.....the All spark would have sent the protoform to where it had the best chance to develope.What better place on earth would there have been then a lab that had Cybertronion tech in it.

But you have to ask: Why would it teleport her to Earth to being with? And why would it plant her right next to the tyrannical leader of a militaristic faction that was hellbent on taking over Cybertron? And even though it sent her to the only place on Earth with decent Cybertronian technology, why not just put her on Cybertron, which has all Cybertronian technology?

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

How do you figure that?

Simple.....if no clear determination can be made from any of the examples then its not "EVIDENCE" of anything.

Red eyes, being found with Megatron's head, and the AllSpark showing her an image of Megatron could all be evidence of a conection to him. I'm not saying there is going to be a conection between them I'm just saying the evidence is there to suport it as a possibility.

"EVIDENCE" by definition is ,something that furnishes proof.

I'll admit there's a possibility, they have layed the ground work of clues.

But there is no evidence.

Now sence you think it's not a possibility at all

I never said that.

how do you exsplain the reasoning behind her red eyes,

Her regular eye color is a redish brown....if they were going to lite up it would look a shade of red.

And besides that not all of the Decepticons have red eyes and when she was armored up her eyes were blue.

her being found in the lab with Megatron's head, and the AllSpark showing her Megatron's image.

I guess you didnt read all of my last post.

The showing of Megatron image is really proof of nothing and I believe the All Spark sent the photoform to the one place on earth that it had any hope of being understood.

Really only one of thoughs events has another exslination. The AllSpark showing her Megatron could have nothing to do with a conection to him but just be like in the movie when Optimus Prime was exsplaining to Sam and Mikala who Megatron was.

Actually they can all be easily explained...as I just did.

They showed the protoforms on Cybertron in 5 Servos of Doom and there's speculation now that Sari is one of thoughs Protoforms but there's really no evidence to suport that

Whos speculating that????

and even if it were true it's too much of a coincidence that she just happen to appear right by Megatron's head.

See above.

And the eyes I can't exsplain at all other than to say she was technically a Decepticon without even realizing it.

You have a poor imagination then.

One problem with that theory, technically sence all technoligy is reverse enginered from Megatron that still wouldn't exsplain how she ended up in the lab with a dissembodied head. And there's no evidence to suport the AllSpark had anything to do with her being there.

Evidence..... no but there is a strong hint.

The All Spark is a "god force" in this series.And Sudamc said it himself she just appeared out of no where.

The All Spark would be capable of such a feet.

But you have to ask: Why would it teleport her to Earth to being with?

Dude the all spark was already on earth at the time....it would have only been a temptation from Lake Erie to Sumdec labs.

And why would it plant her right next to the tyrannical leader of a militaristic faction that was hellbent on taking over Cybertron?

The All Spark would have sent her to the only place on earth that had plenty of Cybertroion tech.

And even though it sent her to the only place on Earth with decent Cybertronian technology, why not just put her on Cybertron,which has all Cybertronian technology?

Too far away from the All Spark is one reason...the other would be that, as was said in Beast wars/Machines, The All Spark releases sparks in an attempt to learn from the life of its children.

The All Spark would have wanted to learn as much about life on earth as it could. So it sent a photoform out into the new world it was on.

[Shadowman]

But it still doesn't make sense: Why would it need a protoform to watch life on Earth when it's right next to Teletran-1's SkySpy, and five perfectly functioning full-grown Autobots? Why send a defenseless protoform when it has no knowledge of Earth's society and whether or not it was actually safe? Why not teleport it to the ship, seeing as how the ship IS Cybertronian tech? And once more, why teleport it right in front of the leader of the Decepticons?

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

But it still doesn't make sense: Why would it need a protoform to watch life on Earth when it's right next to Teletran-1's SkySpy,

Experience life...... not watch it.

and five perfectly functioning full-grown Autobots?

That were in stais lock or what ever you may want to call it.

And even if they were active, it wouldnt be the same as experiencing life as a human.

Why send a defenseless protoform when it has no knowledge of Earth's society and whether or not it was actually safe?

To learn.

Its what the All Spark [or the Matrix as it was called in BW] was said to do.It released sparks into the world so that when they returned the All Spark itself could grow and evolve.

Why not teleport it to the ship, seeing as how the ship IS Cybertronian tech?

Not much of a teleport since it was already in the ship.But thats not really the point.

Why would it want to send the protoform in the ship???What could it really learn about the human condition by creating just an other robot.

Its my theroy that the All Spark intended for the photoform to adapted human DNA so that it could learn about this new form of life.

And once more, why teleport it right in front of the leader of the Decepticons?

Again it was the only place on earth where the photoform may be understood.

[Shadowman]

To learn.

Its what the All Spark [or the Matrix as it was called in BW] was said to do.It released sparks into the world so that when they returned the All Spark itself could grow and evolve.

Of course, that's assuming that the AllSpark in Animated performs the same function. It has been shown to bring machines to life, but it has NOT been shown to reabsorb sparks.

[Sabrblade]

Besides, the AllSpark in this series is much different from the Allspark in Beast Machines.

The "Allspark" in Beast Machines is the afterlife dimension in which all Transformers go to after they die. It can give sparks through Vector Sigma (or the Matrix of Leadership too, as I've heard some say), and it can take sparks when their time is up (probably through the Oracle).

The "AllSpark" in animated is a mystical object capable of giving life to the dead, healing the injured, and granting uber power to the destructive (as seen when Screamer used it to fire energy blasts, and when Megs put it in his chest). It's basically like a mixture between Vector Sigma, the Matrix of Leadership, and the "All Spark" from the movie.

The afterlife dimension in Animated is The Well of All Sparks.

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

Of course, that's assuming that the AllSpark in Animated performs the same function. It has been shown to bring machines to life, but it has NOT been shown to reabsorb sparks.

True....but my guess is that it does and we'll learn that soon.

The afterlife dimension in Animated is The Well of All Sparks.

Which I believe shares a connection with the All Spark.

[Saber Prime]

"EVIDENCE" by definition is ,something that furnishes proof.

I'll admit there's a possibility, they have layed the ground work of clues.

But there is no evidence.

No, you're just being contridicting again. Clues and evidence are the same thing.

Evidence is (going to spell this wrong) sircumstancial. It doesn't allways prove something to be true. There was plenty of evidence in the series up till the end of "A Bridge to Close" to say that Sari was completly organic but look how that turned out.

If you're found with a murder weapon in your hand and standing over a dead body that is evidence that you killed that person but that doesn't mean you actully did it. There are other aternative reasons you could end up in that position and have nothing to do with the murder but it's still evidence you commited a murder just because that's how you were found.

Now sence you think it's not a possibility at all

I never said that.

You did say that. Saying that there's no evidence of it is the same as saying it's not even a possibility.

I will and have addmitted that the evidence is sercumstancial but sercumstancial evidence is still evidence.

Even if proven that there was no conection to Megatron that doesn't mean the evidence wasn't there. That being like saying the man who was proven inocent of murder was never found with the murder weapon in the first place which if that was the case why even put him on trial?

[Mkall]

Here's a long shot observation, which is probably going to be way off mark.

Protoforms were taken from Yokotron's sanctuary (long time ago but still...) and a protoform was found in Sumdac's lab.

Am I the only one that thinks there may be a connection?

[Ragnorok64]

Here's a question. When did Prowl's flashbacks take place? The great war and project Omega and everything were supposed to take place 4 million years ago right? Yet Sentinel says noone's seen seen Yoketron for a million years. I doubt that Prowl took 3 million years to train as a ninja, so are we to assume Sentinel had no idea what he was talking about?

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

No, you're just being contridicting again.

Or really???Thats one of your favorite lines about me but you can never prove it.Lets see if you did this time.........

Clues and evidence are the same thing.

Far from it.

A clue or a hint can be misread or be misleading.

Evidence is absolute.

Evidence is (going to spell this wrong) sircumstancial. It doesn't allways prove something to be true. There was plenty of evidence in the series up till the end of "A Bridge to Close" to say that Sari was completly organic but look how that turned out.

Circumstantial evidence and evidence are two completly different things.

Just look at the defintions of the terms.

Circumstantial evidence
Also called indirect evidence.

1: evidence that tends to prove a fact by proving other events or circumstances which afford a basis for a reasonable inference of the occurrence of the fact at issue

2:proof of facts offered as evidence from which other facts are to be inferred (contrasted with direct evidence )

Evidence
Also known as direct evidence

1:that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof. something that furnishes proof

2:: something that furnishes proof (contrasted with circumstantial evidence ).

While I personally always felt the term "circumstantial evidence" was a oxymoron, the common uses of both terms is quite different.

If you're found with a murder weapon in your hand and standing over a dead body that is evidence that you killed that person but that doesn't mean you actully did it.

No that would be circumstantial evidence that I killed that person not evidence that I did.It may be enough to convince a judge and a jury but it wouldnt be evidence.

Maybe you should do some research as to how these terms are legally used before you try to argue them.

There are other aternative reasons you could end up in that position and have nothing to do with the murder but it's still evidence you commited a murder just because that's how you were found.

Again it would be circumstantial evidence not evidence.

You did say that.

No I didnt....I never spoke of possibilities.

Saying that there's no evidence of it is the same as saying it's not even a possibility.

Far from it.

I said there is no evidence because there isint any.

There isint one peace of circumstantial evidence that cant be explained in an other fashion....hence there is no evidence that there IS a connection.

I will and have addmitted that the evidence is sercumstancial but sercumstancial evidence is still evidence.

"circumstantial evidence" and true direct "evidence" are 2 different things.

Even if proven that there was no conection to Megatron that doesn't mean the evidence wasn't there.

See above.

That being like saying the man who was proven inocent of murder was never found with the murder weapon in the first place which if that was the case why even put him on trial?

"circumstantial evidence" is sometimes strong enough to bring a person to trile, but it is never the same as direct evidence.

circumstantial evidence leaves room for doubt....evidence does not.

Here's an example based on the senrio you provided.

If you're found with a murder weapon in your hand and standing over a dead body that is circumstantial evidence that you killed that person but there is room for doubt because there's no way of knowing for sure.

But if a video tape of you killing that person is discovered that is "evidence" that you did in fact kill that person.

The video tape leaves no room for doubt that you killed the person....motive is something else altogether.

So it looks like you failed once again to prove I was being contradicting.

[Saber Prime]

Clues and evidence are the same thing.

Far from it.

A clue or a hint can be misread or be misleading.

That much is true but...

Evidence is absolute.

No it isn't. Evidence is just another word for clue. Evidence is presented in court rooms but it is not absolute and can be missleading as I allready pointed out.

Evidence is (going to spell this wrong) sircumstancial. It doesn't allways prove something to be true. There was plenty of evidence in the series up till the end of "A Bridge to Close" to say that Sari was completly organic but look how that turned out.

Circumstantial evidence and evidence are two completly different things.

Just look at the defintions of the terms.

Circumstantial evidence
Also called indirect evidence.

1: evidence that tends to prove a fact by proving other events or circumstances which afford a basis for a reasonable inference of the occurrence of the fact at issue

2:proof of facts offered as evidence from which other facts are to be inferred (contrasted with direct evidence )

Evidence
Also known as direct evidence

1:that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof. something that furnishes proof

2:: something that furnishes proof (contrasted with circumstantial evidence ).

While I personally always felt the term "circumstantial evidence" was a oxymoron, the common uses of both terms is quite different.

Thanks for telling me what I just told you in my last post.

If you're found with a murder weapon in your hand and standing over a dead body that is evidence that you killed that person but that doesn't mean you actully did it.

No that would be circumstantial evidence that I killed that person not evidence that I did.It may be enough to convince a judge and a jury but it wouldnt be evidence.

Maybe you should do some research as to how these terms are legally used before you try to argue them.

I allready knew how the terms were used. I may not of done a good job exsplaining them to you but I tried.

There are other aternative reasons you could end up in that position and have nothing to do with the murder but it's still evidence you commited a murder just because that's how you were found.

Again it would be circumstantial evidence not evidence.

You're being contridicting again. If it's "not evidence" than it's "not circumstantial evidence" either.

"Not" is an absolute. "evidence" as you yourself just pointed out has two different uses. One as "proof" and the other as "clue" to say that there is no "evidence" excludes both uses saying that there is no "proof" which would be right and that there's not even a "clue" to be found which would be wrong.

BTW that seems to be something else you keep doing. Useing a word in a single definition when it has multiple different uses. You can say there's no "proof" of a conection to Megatron but you really can't say there's no "evidence" because there is "evidence", it's "circumstantial" but it's still there.

Saying that there's no evidence of it is the same as saying it's not even a possibility.

Far from it.

I said there is no evidence because there isint any.

There isint one peace of circumstantial evidence that cant be explained in an other fashion....hence there is no evidence that there IS a connection.

Whatever you just said made no sence what so ever. I don't even know how to begin to exsplain how badly you worded that.

circumstantial evidence points to a possibility of a fact that has yet to be proven. You just said the evidence didn't exsist so that means you're saying there isn't a possibility.

You said there isn't any circumstantial evidence that can't be exsplained in another fashion which all circumstantial evidence CAN be exsplained in another fashion so you might as well of just said there's no evidence. And oh wait you did say that.

So again, you're being contridicting. You're argueing with me and agreeing with me at the same time, exsplain how that's not contridicting.

You have agreed that there is a possibility of a conection to Megatron. You have agreed that there have been clues to lead to that conclusion. (being found near Megatron's head, the red eyes, ect.)

Yet at the same time you're argueing that there isn't any possibility of a conection to Megatron. You have made the claim that there are not any clues to start this argument.

Can you choose a side allready.

I will and have addmitted that the evidence is sercumstancial but sercumstancial evidence is still evidence.

"circumstantial evidence" and true direct "evidence" are 2 different things.

Yeah, I know that but no one ever claimed there was any true direct evidence.

Remember you started this argument when you claimed there was no evidence. You never specified what definition of the word evidence you were useing.

I pointed out that there was circumstantial evidence which proved your statement to be wrong because you never specified any spicific type of evidence.

That being like saying the man who was proven inocent of murder was never found with the murder weapon in the first place which if that was the case why even put him on trial?

"circumstantial evidence" is sometimes strong enough to bring a person to trile, but it is never the same as direct evidence.

Again you never specified "direct" evidence you only said that there was not any "evidence" which could allso be refering to "circumstantial" evidence.

circumstantial evidence leaves room for doubt....evidence does not.

Here's an example based on the senrio you provided.

If you're found with a murder weapon in your hand and standing over a dead body that is circumstantial evidence that you killed that person but there is room for doubt because there's no way of knowing for sure.

But if a video tape of you killing that person is discovered that is "evidence" that you did in fact kill that person.

The video tape leaves no room for doubt that you killed the person....motive is something else altogether.

So it looks like you failed once again to prove I was being contradicting.

Nope because as I've pointed out you never specified what you were talking about so your statement reads that "there is no evidence" of Sari haveing a conection to Megatron. Meaning that there is not even circumstantial evidence.

At the verry least, you worded your post wrong for not specifiying "indesputable evidence" but even then you asked how Rodimus came to the conclusion that Sari had a conection to Megatron and I pointed out that there was circumstantial evidence that could lead to that conclusion. Had you actully worded your post corectly I still would of pointed out the circumstantial evidence to answer the question of how someone could come to that conclusion.

[Name_Violation]

1ev·i·dence
Pronunciation: \ˈe-və-dən(t)s, -və-ˌden(t)s\
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 a: an outward sign : indication b: something that furnishes proof : testimony ; specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter
2: one who bears witness ; especially : one who voluntarily confesses a crime and testifies for the prosecution against his accomplices
— in evidence
1: to be seen : conspicuous <trim lawns…are everywhere in evidence — American Guide Series: North Carolina>
2: as evidence


1clue
Pronunciation: \ˈklü\
Function: noun
Etymology: alteration of clew
Date: 1596
1: something that guides through an intricate procedure or maze of difficulties ; specifically : a piece of evidence that leads one toward the solution of a problem
2: idea , notion <had no clue what he meant>


[/websters]

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

No it isn't. Evidence is just another word for clue. Evidence is presented in court rooms but it is not absolute and can be missleading as I allready pointed out.

If it is misleading then it is no longer evidence....it is just an other example of information that was misread.

Evidence is not questionable....it is irrefutable....its proof.

Thanks for telling me what I just told you in my last post.

If thats what you got out of all of that then I pity you.

In short there is some "Circumstantial evidence" that Sari may be connected to Megatron but there is no Evidence of it.

There has been no direct statement, there is no story or dialog that has said it.

There are a few indications but no evidence.

I allready knew how the terms were used. I may not of done a good job exsplaining them to you but I tried.

Fair enough but you still seem to be confusing the 2.

Evidence is proof positive of an event.

An example would be Sudamc saying he used parts of Megatron in Sari

Circumstantial evidence is an indication of proof by indirect means.

the list of examples you poster earlier.

You're being contridicting again. If it's "not evidence" than it's "not circumstantial evidence" either.

No you just dont understand that they are 2 different things.

Circumstantial evidence is something that may indicate you committed the crime.

Like in your senerio being found with the body and the murder weapon in your hands.But that is not proof positive that you killed the person so it is not evidence you killed that person.

Evidence that you killed that person would be a video tape of you committing the murder, evidence would be proof positive.

Now I know most cases go to trial and are won on Circumstantial evidence but that does not elevate the status of circumstantial evidence to that of direct evidence.

They are 2 different things that share similar trates.

"evidence" as you yourself just pointed out has two different uses. One as "proof" and the other as "clue"

When did I point that out??

I said a clue and a hint were not evidence.

BTW that seems to be something else you keep doing. Useing a word in a single definition when it has multiple different uses. You can say there's no "proof" of a conection to Megatron but you really can't say there's no "evidence" because there is "evidence", it's "circumstantial" but it's still there.

As I said Evidence and Circumstantial evidence are 2 different things.

circumstantial evidence points to a possibility of a fact that has yet to be proven.

No circumstantial evidence points to a possibility of a theory.

You just said the evidence didn't exsist so that means you're saying there isn't a possibility.

A possibility does not require evidence of fact....it only requires that there isint evidence that excludes it.

You said there isn't any circumstantial evidence that can't be exsplained in another fashion which all circumstantial evidence CAN be exsplained in another fashion so you might as well of just said there's no evidence. And oh wait you did say that.

Because they are 2 different things.

Again Evidence is proof positive.

Circumstantial evidence is something that suggest a possibility.

So again, you're being contridicting.

Nope

You're argueing with me and agreeing with me at the same time, exsplain how that's not contridicting.

Because your failing to see how both terms are different.

You have agreed that there is a possibility of a conection to Megatron. You have agreed that there have been clues to lead to that conclusion. (being found near Megatron's head, the red eyes, ect.)

Yet at the same time you're argueing that there isn't any possibility of a conection to Megatron. You have made the claim that there are not any clues to start this argument.

Can you choose a side allready.

I said there is no evidence, proof positive, of a connection....and there isint.

Yeah, I know that

Then what are you finding contradicting????

but no one ever claimed there was any true direct evidence.

Actually the post I was replying to did imply so, as did you when you said that there was "evidence".

There is no evidence there is only circumstantial evidence

Remember you started this argument when you claimed there was no evidence.

Because there is none.

You never specified what definition of the word evidence you were useing.

I figured it should have been obvious.

I pointed out that there was circumstantial evidence which proved your statement to be wrong

Not at all since they are 2 different things.

Better luck next time.

Again you never specified "direct" evidence you only said that there was not any "evidence" which could allso be refering to "circumstantial" evidence.

Because I didnt have to."Evidence" has a different defintion then "circumstantial evidence" because they are 2 different things.

Nope because as I've pointed out you never specified what you were talking about

I used the specific word and its definition as it applied to the discussion.

Its not my fault you failed to see the obvious.

so your statement reads that "there is no evidence" of Sari haveing a conection to Megatron. Meaning that there is not even circumstantial evidence.

Thats not how it reads because both terms have different defintions.

At the verry least, you worded your post wrong for not specifiying "indesputable evidence"

Not even

but even then you asked how Rodimus came to the conclusion that Sari had a conection to Megatron and I pointed out that there was circumstantial evidence that could lead to that conclusion. Had you actully worded your post corectly I still would of pointed out the circumstantial evidence to answer the question of how someone could come to that conclusion.

Which wouldnt have changed what I said.Saying "indisputable evidence" may have made it clearer for you but I find it to be a bit redundant.

Nice try again but no cigar.

[Sabrblade]

"Predacons Rising" looks AWESOME!

That preview has really gotten me wanting more of the episode!

[oldskooltf]

I kind of enjoy seeing people debate TF stuff, but debating definitions of words is boring... IMHO.

IMO I feel you're letting a disagreement on the definition of "evidence" prevent you from debating Sari's origin.

(Not trying to start a fight... just trying to move it back to TF topics...)

[Tristar]

Here's a question. When did Prowl's flashbacks take place? The great war and project Omega and everything were supposed to take place 4 million years ago right?

Prowl's flashbacks took place over a large period of Time. By the time Prowl returned from his spirtual quest it is possible that the great war was over or nearly over.

Yet Sentinel says noone's seen seen Yoketron for a million years. I doubt that Prowl took 3 million years to train as a ninja, so are we to assume Sentinel had no idea what he was talking about?

You do realize that Sentinel is a Jack*** right? It's more than likely that Sentinel said what he said offhandedly as in he could care less. Jazz said it himself he tunes out half of what the jerk says. To which Optimus said "Only half?"

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

Here's a question. When did Prowl's flashbacks take place? The great war and project Omega and everything were supposed to take place 4 million years ago right?

Prowl's flashbacks took place over a large period of Time. By the time Prowl returned from his spirtual quest it is possible that the great war was over or nearly over.

I just didnt picture Prowl being that old to begin with.

[Sabrblade]

Here's a question. When did Prowl's flashbacks take place? The great war and project Omega and everything were supposed to take place 4 million years ago right?

Prowl's flashbacks took place over a large period of Time. By the time Prowl returned from his spirtual quest it is possible that the great war was over or nearly over.

I just didnt picture Prowl being that old to begin with.

Well, I'd say in those flashbacks, Prowl was like a young teenager, and now he's more like a young adult. It's likely that TFs don't age as fast as humans. Perhaps some TF age faster or slower than others. Maybe newer models age at a slower pace than older models, which could explain how Prowl is still much younger than Ratchet, with both having lived around the same time.