The Energon Pub

[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.

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.

Trying to figure this crap out are the inherent problem you get from humanizing robot I guess.

[Saber Prime]

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.

That doesn't make any sence. I'll exsplain why after the next quote.

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.

As I just said, I may not of done a good job exsplaining this but I am not confusing the two and you are in fact exsplaining to me the exact same thing I was trying to exsplain to you which is why your last quote doesn't make any sence. My quote before that was basically just saying the same thing I'm saying now. You're doing nothing but exsplaining to me what I allready knew and was trying to exsplain to you.

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.

No I do understand. What you don't understand is that they are both the same word with 2 different meanings. Circumstantial evidence is two words not one. One of thoughs words being "evidence" so unless you specify which definition you're useing just saying "evidence" eliminates them both.

You said "there is no evidence" sence evidence is a single word with two meanings I said "that is not entirely true because there is circumstantial evidence". Now if you had said that "there was no proof" or "there's no concret evidence" then you wouldn't of left any room for missinterpretation. You only said "evidence" which could mean either concret or circumstantial if there's nothing else specifing what definition of the word you're useing.

"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.

But they are circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial or not the word "evidence" is still in use either way so you can't eliminate one without the other unless you specifiy which one you're talking about.

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.

Now you're not makeing sence again. possibility of a theory? What the hell is that supose to mean.

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.

I don't even know how to respond to that one.

So again, you're being contridicting.

Nope

Yes.

You're saying that something is a possibility while at the same time saying it isn't, how is that not contridicting? That's the verry definition of contridicting and you've been doing it quite alot for the last few months.

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.

No, I'm not, you're failing to see that both definitions use the same word and that by saying one isn't there without first specifing what definition you're useing you're eliminating both uses of said word.

"There is no evidence" means both circumstantial and concret.

You could of said that "there is no concret evidence" or "there is no direct evidence" and that would of been more clear about what you ment to say.

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.

You say that now but that's not what your original statement said. And I stated that your original statement was wrong because there was circumstantial evidence. Allso you're original post asked how Rodimus came to that conclusion without any evidence so I pointed out all the circumstantial evidence that could of lead him to that conclusion. Then you started this argument claiming circumstantial evidence was not evidence and it sure as hell looks like the same word to me. Different definitions, yes but the same word.

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

1. I don't see where it implyed anything but it was Rodimus who posted it. And I never said there was any direct evidence I only said "evidence" as did you which would include BOTH uses of the word.

2. There is no DIRECT evidence but there is evidence. It is CIRCUMSTANTIAL but it is still evidence. How do you keep failing to grasp a simple concept like the fact that you're useing the SAME WORD in two completly different and CONTRIDICTING statements. Here's your quote again without any words specifiying the defintion of the word you're useing.

There is no evidence there is only evidence

Here it is one more time in a way that doesn't sound contridicting.

There is no concret evidence there is only circumstantial evidence

See how much more clearly that read. Insted of saying there is and isn't at the same time like the first quote the second is clearly refering to two completly different things where the first looks like you're only talking about one thing.

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

I figured it should have been obvious.

Hey, that's my trade maked exscuse, you owe me a quarter.

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.

2 different defintions, 1 word, "EVIDENCE" you say there is no evidence that means no, none, zero, not even circumstantial evidence remains. If there is "no evidence" that exscludes BOTH circumstantial AND direct not ONLY direct. You can eliminate direct evidence only by spicifically stateing it otherwise you're getting rid of circumstantial evidence at the same time.

There is evidence. The evidence is circumstantial but it is there so your original statement was wrong.

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.

You did have to. Circumstantial evidence is TWO WORDS not one. Evidence has TWO DEFINITIONS not one. Adding circumstantial to it doesn't make it a new word, it only specifies which definition you're useing. The word evidence on it's own doesn't specify anything and it could mean either of the two definitions.

It's called circumstantial evidence not circumstantialevidence. See the space there, it's two words, not one. You can use the word evidence without useing the word circumstantial and still mean the same thing as circumstantial evidence as long as you specify in some other way that the evidence is circumstantial.

I gave my evidence and stated that it could lead someone to belive that Sari had a conection to Sari which that sentence alone specifies that the evidence is circumstantial because I never claimed it proved anything I only said it could lead to that conclusion. So in my post I did not have to specify circumstantial or otherwise because my wording made it clear I was talking about circumstantial evidence despite never haveing said it.

Your post was a generic statement that could of meant either of the two definitions. There was nothing in your original statement to let me know you weren't exscludeing circumstantial evidence because your statement was so veague and generic.

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.

You used a generic word with two different uses without specifiny any use in particular.

It is your fault sence there's nothing obvious about it.

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.

That is how it reads because both terms use the same word.

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

Not even

Yes 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.

I didn't even know how to answer this one. I don't even see how your reply here has any relivence to the quote it's attached to. This looks like it was ment as a reply to the quote before it sence you mentioned the indisputable evidence again. That being the case why wasn't this posted abouve with "not even" insted of down here where it doesn't make any sence.

[Saber Prime]

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.

To be fair, Ratchet seemed preddy old even in his flashbacks so it's likely he was still around long before Prowl.

Even still I didn't picture Prowl being that old either because as I stated before the episode is a huge plot hole. Wasn't it spicifically stated in the first season that Ratchet was the only one on the team around durring the war?

The plot holes I mentioned before had more to do with Yoketron's helmet but I forgot to even mention the fact that Prowl's flash backs should of taken place much later.

Allso Prowl has said several times that he never finished his Ninja Training and from what was shown in the flash backs it sure looked to me like he did. He even mentioned that he never mastered processor over matter and yet he actully did.

It seems like... Prowl's flashbacks should of taken place at a much later date maybe sometime in between Ratchet's and "Bootcamp" because he does seem to be a bit older than Bulkhead and Bumblebee. And they never should of had him come back from his vison quest in the flash backs, it should of been he left and ended up on Optimus' team right after that. Then he should of returned in the present.

I think I've overanilized that episode so much, some people seem to think it's a great episode. Honestly I think it's the worst episode to date. It doesn't make any sence and completly ruins the continuity. I'm going to pretend it never even happened because it hurts to much to try and make sence out of it.

There are some other preddy bad episodes in this series but not because of continuity errors but rather because they were episodes in the first 2 seasons with human bad guys who really sucked at being bad. (Nanosec, Angry Archer, Professor Princess, ect.) Meltdown and Slowmo were the only villains I liked. Headmaster was a nice concept but was poorly done and continues to be poorly done every time he makes a come back.

[Newtilator]

I think, from the preview, my guess about Predacons rising is accurate.
Blackarachnia somehow hears Wasp saying "all friends turn on Wasp.."
She not only recognises a kindred spirit, life ruined by Autobot comrade, but also someone who Optimus won't bother saving. She sends Dinobots to kidnap Wasp, promising him power and allegiance in getting revenge on the Autobots. She tries ridding herself of organics into Wasp,but only makes him stronger and indestructible, which he at first revels in, but then realises there is now no escape from his pain. The Beast-bots, name themselves Predacons, and rampage on a mission of vengeance and SMAAASH!!!-ing throughout Detroit.
Thats my guess, and the Teaser kinda comfirmed it.
Cannot wait! I loove Wasp!

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

I'm going to try to make this short.My health has robbed me of the stamina for a prolonged debate.

No I do understand.

No you dont........

What you don't understand is that they are both the same word with 2 different meanings.

No they are not.They are 2 very different legal terms that share 1 word.

Circumstantial evidence is two words not one.

No kidding.

One of thoughs words being "evidence" so unless you specify which definition you're useing just saying "evidence" eliminates them both.

No it doesnt....as since Rod was trying to make a case for a connection between the two characters, my use of "evidence" should have been obvious to understand.

But they are circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial or not the word "evidence" is still in use either way so you can't eliminate one without the other unless you specifiy which one you're talking about.

The difference between the 2 can are as different then an Apple is from a Banana.

They may both be fruit but you wouldnt mix them up would you???

Now you're not makeing sence again. possibility of a theory? What the hell is that supose to mean.

That your theory of a crime is possible.

I don't even know how to respond to that one.

Whats not to understand????

You dont need evidence to suggest a possibility......but if there's evidence suggesting its not possible your theory of the crime is null and void.


Here's an example.

Your wife is found dead.You guys have a long history of hitting each other and you have tried to kill her before.You guys faught the night she was killed and witnesses heard you threaten to kill her......and shes killed with your hunting knife.

Plenty of circumstantial evidence for the detectives to theorize that you possibly killed your wife right?????

But then they find out that local police picked you up for DUI 5 minutes after the fight with your wife and your still in custody.

Which would be evidence that you could not have killed your wife.

So again.....
"A possibility does not require evidence of fact"

"it only requires that there isint evidence that excludes it"

Yes.

No

You're saying that something is a possibility while at the same time saying it isn't,

Never said that at all.

I said there's no evidence to support the idea.

A possibility does not require evidence.

No, I'm not, you're failing to see that both definitions use the same word and that by saying one isn't there without first specifing what definition you're useing you're eliminating both uses of said word.

It doesnt matter that the 2 terms share a word.

The addition of the word "circumstantial" alters the definition of the term.

The word "circumstantial" is an adjective.And I'm sure you know that an adjective is a word that is used to describe or alter a noun or pronoun,Which in turn states more information about the noun or pronoun's definition.

The two legal terms have different definitions, and I used the one that applied to what I was saying.

You say that now but that's not what your original statement said. And I stated that your original statement was wrong because there was circumstantial evidence. Allso you're original post asked how Rodimus came to that conclusion without any evidence so I pointed out all the circumstantial evidence that could of lead him to that conclusion. Then you started this argument claiming circumstantial evidence was not evidence and it sure as hell looks like the same word to me. Different definitions, yes but the same word.

And what matters is the definition of the terms not that they share a word.

1. I don't see where it implyed anything but it was Rodimus who posted it.

Right here.....

We know it is going to happen eventually is it going to be a father/daughter moment will Sari snap and go out of control again or will she turn on the Autobots once she releazizes what her true origins really are.

And here...

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

I only said "evidence" as did you which would include BOTH uses of the word.

No it wouldnt because the addition of the word "circumstantial" alters the definition and the use of the word.

2. There is no DIRECT evidence but there is evidence. It is CIRCUMSTANTIAL but it is still evidence. How do you keep failing to grasp a simple concept like the fact that you're useing the SAME WORD in two completly different and CONTRIDICTING statements.

I wont repeat myself any more in this post.

See how much more clearly that read.

I find it redundant.

Hey, that's my trade maked exscuse, you owe me a quarter.

I'll make it a drink for all your troubles

You did have to.

No I didnt.

You can use the word evidence without useing the word circumstantial and still mean the same thing as circumstantial evidence as long as you specify in some other way that the evidence is circumstantial.

Either way you would be altering the definition of "evidence".

Your post was a generic statement that could of meant either of the two definitions.

No it could not.I'm going to have to repeat myself now.....adding the word "circumstantial" alters the definition and the use of the word "evidence".

It changes what the word its describing.The word "evidence" alone can not be used in the same way as "circumstantial evidence".

In short a video tape of you committing the crime would never be called "circumstantial evidence".

That is how it reads because both terms use the same word.

See above.

As I said at the start of this I no longer have the strength for long debates....so I'm planning for this to be my final post on this little argument.

Sorry if that disappoint you.

[Sabrblade]

Predacons Rising, remember? Tomorrow! Finally! Watch it! This, I Command!

[DavidT]

I think "Predacons Rising" should have been called "Predacons Falling". Overall it was a so-so episode. Not real bad. Finally see Wasp turn into Waspinator.

Oh, and a lil' Beast Wars easter egg and the very end. A Gorilla, Rhino, Cheeta, and a Rat LOL!

.

[Saber Prime]

I think "Predacons Rising" should have been called "Predacons Falling". Overall it was a so-so episode. Not real bad. Finally see Wasp turn into Waspinator.

Oh, and a lil' Beast Wars easter egg and the very end. A Gorilla, Rhino, Cheeta, and a Rat LOL!

.

There was more than that.

Waspinator's power overload was reminicent to all the Beast Wars characters being overloaded by over exsposer to the raw energon while in robot mode. And then Waspinator being in pieces reassembleing himself.

At any rate, I think "The Wasp and the Spider" would be a better title sence they never formed a team of any kind. Blackarachnia was just useing Wasp but they didn't team up she just tricked him. The name "Predacons" was never used in the dialog of the episode, only the title.

BTW Waspinators robot mode looks OK but the beast mode looks NOTHING like his toy and is fat as all hell. How does something that fat turn into something that skinny?

[Sabrblade]

I think "Predacons Rising" should have been called "Predacons Falling". Overall it was a so-so episode. Not real bad. Finally see Wasp turn into Waspinator.

Oh, and a lil' Beast Wars easter egg and the very end. A Gorilla, Rhino, Cheeta, and a Rat LOL!

.

There was more than that.

Waspinator's power overload was reminicent to all the Beast Wars characters being overloaded by over exsposer to the raw energon while in robot mode. And then Waspinator being in pieces reassembleing himself.

At any rate, I think "The Wasp and the Spider" would be a better title sence they never formed a team of any kind. Blackarachnia was just useing Wasp but they didn't team up she just tricked him. The name "Predacons" was never used in the dialog of the episode, only the title.

BTW Waspinators robot mode looks OK but the beast mode looks NOTHING like his toy and is fat as all hell. How does something that fat turn into something that skinny?

Don't forget when Sentinel called Snarl "Horn Head." Rattrap called Rhinox that at least once in BW.

Plus, the transwarp device thing that BA used to turn Wasp into Waspinator looks kinda like the device that BW Megatron used to create TM2 Dinobot.

[Newtilator]

Wheres Predacons rising? I can't waaaiiit!!!
I hear some people have watched it. Is there a link yet?
And were my predictions kind of right?

[Wheeljack35]

Oh, and a lil' Beast Wars easter egg and the very end. A Gorilla, Rhino, Cheeta, and a Rat LOL!

.

I loved that part

My mouth dropped when I first seen it

[Tristar]

Did anyone besides me notice that the transwarp chamber BA used looked like the chamber used in the Movie the Fly.

[Marcdachamp]

Loved the Easter Egg at the end. Came a day early, too

Anyone think they'll be coming back to this?

[Badass Grimlock]

What I want to see is a leaked episode. I missed it.

[oldskooltf]

So where is BlackArachnia & Waspinator at the end of the episode? Did they transport back in time? I wouldn't think there'd be an Ape, Rhino, and Cheetah (well... a Rat is possible) on that remote island in Detroit. But back in time... possibly.

Or did they transport to a different planet? I'm thinking "no way" on that idea.

I doubt we'll see any of those (the Ape, Rhino, Cheetah, and Rat) end up as Maximals in this series. I think Derrick Wyatt said something to debunk the rumor on his blog -- but I could be wrong.

Liked the episode overall -- just wish Waspinator's voice would have stayed the same.

[Archanubis]

So where is BlackArachnia & Waspinator at the end of the episode? Did they transport back in time? I wouldn't think there'd be an Ape, Rhino, and Cheetah (well... a Rat is possible) on that remote island in Detroit. But back in time... possibly.

Or did they transport to a different planet? I'm thinking "no way" on that idea.

It's more likely that they just ended up transported to the heart of Africa.

[Random]

Did anyone besides me notice that the transwarp chamber BA used looked like the chamber used in the Movie the Fly.

What I was thinking too. Come to think of it, the whole premise for that scene came from the Fly movie....

[Name_Violation]

Did anyone besides me notice that the transwarp chamber BA used looked like the chamber used in the Movie the Fly.

What I was thinking too. Come to think of it, the whole premise for that scene came from the Fly movie....

yup.


also the homage to beast wars at the end made me roflmao

[Nico]

I thought I would have never said that but...Waspinator is SCARY! Well, scary as far as it can be for a cartoon. Seeign a thing like that in real life would be as scary as any movie-continuity decepticon.

I mean, he's outright monstruous. His face, and the voice. Its creepy. He look almost demonic.

[shortround]

I loved the homage to beast wars at the end of episode.

[Dr. Caelus]

Oh, and a lil' Beast Wars easter egg and the very end. A Gorilla, Rhino, Cheeta, and a Rat LOL!

There was more than that.

Waspinator's power overload was reminicent to all the Beast Wars characters being overloaded by over exsposer to the raw energon while in robot mode. And then Waspinator being in pieces reassembleing himself.

Don't forget when Sentinel called Snarl "Horn Head." Rattrap called Rhinox that at least once in BW.

Plus, the transwarp device thing that BA used to turn Wasp into Waspinator looks kinda like the device that BW Megatron used to create TM2 Dinobot.

Waspinator's final line in the episode also referenced his last line in Beast Machines and several lines in Beast Wars.


I wonder if Black Arachnia will be sans helmet from now on (assuming we ever see her again), and whether we'll get a remold of the figure?


I was disappointed that the "Hiccups" didn't turn out to be Tarantulas, Scorponok, and Inferno. Or Rampage, Quickstrike, and Dinobot II.

And yeah, how did a scrawny bot combined with a scrawny insect result in such a chubby techno-organic?

[Saber Prime]

Oh yeah, I allmost forgot about Blackarachnia's face being reviealed. We allways knew she picked that helmet up in the cave to cover her face. We saw it before she even became Blackarachnia. (well some of us did, if you missed it you need to watch her origin episode again.)

Anyway, I think it would of been better though if Blackarachnia was made to look so ugly but insted ended up looking like BM Blackarachnia. Basically make her look pretty so that everyone goes into shock and starts asking her why she ever covered that up but she doesn't belive them and still thinks she's hidious no matter what anyone tells her.

And I like the idea of her getting a remold but I hope they include the helmet as a removeable accessory with her. I never even bothered to get the first version sence I knew they were going to do this eventually. I may not even get the second one but I'd be willing to if I had the money to get her with a removeable helmet.

[Sabrblade]

You guys remember this, right?



Of those objects, the ones we've seen so far are:

1. Jennifer Witwichky (Human Error, Part 1)
2. Blitzwing's helmet (Five Servos of Doom)
3. Red Alert's left arm tool (TransWarped)
4. Laserbeak's guitar mode (Human Error, Part 1)
6. A mailbox automaton (TransWarped)
7. Cancer (Human Error, Part 1)
8. Waspinator's exposed head (Where is Thy Sting?)
9. A rat (Predacons Rising)
10. Lugnut's arm with his explosive mod removed (Five Servos of Doom)
11. An x-ray of Hot Shot's leg (TransWarped)
12. A plasma dynamic thruster (TransWarped)
13. A retrieval beacon generator (TransWarped)

And the ones that are remaining are:

1. Porter C. Powell sporting a new fur coat
2. Energon Popcicle (ON A STEECK!)

[Scatterlung]

I don't think she should ever have removed her helmet really.

To me it was one of those things you would always want to know, but would never find out, just like "Where does Prime's trailer go?" or "What's behind Prime's faceplate?". So to now reveal it is a little off, I thought. The question was raised a couple of times about how she looks under there but I thought the writers would agree it was "too hideous to go into" and leave it.

Still, interesting nonetheless.

I haven't read back through this thread so I'm gonna ask. Did anyone conclude that BA and Waspinator were sent back in time? Looking through a TFW2005 thread, someone firmly said that they'd been taken back "as you can tell by the flora and fauna". It makes sense when you consider the transwarp explosion, but then we haven't heard of Transwarp in this universe having anything to do with Time Travel where it did in the Beast Wars.

[Sabrblade]

"Where does Prime's trailer go?"

Subspace.

"What's behind Prime's faceplate?"

A mouth.

I haven't read back through this thread so I'm gonna ask. Did anyone conclude that BA and Waspinator were sent back in time? Looking through a TFW2005 thread, someone firmly said that they'd been taken back "as you can tell by the flora and fauna". It makes sense when you consider the transwarp explosion, but then we haven't heard of Transwarp in this universe having anything to do with Time Travel where it did in the Beast Wars.

Well, while it may be possible that they were warped into the heart of Africa, the script of the episode calls that setting a "primitive Earth-like planet". But, Derrick J. Wyatt encourages us not to read too much into the scene.

In other words, he says it's not important, so let's not worry about it.