Check out our Event Calendar! View birthdays, holidays and upcoming tournaments!
Quote from: Master KChief on July 07, 2009, 11:53:02 PMno? because by self-admission you did not know?What does that have to do with which Constructicons I was talking about?exactly? i said there were obviously constructicons in the movie, and you spin off on how some were not the 'originals'. AGAIN, what you stated was not being debated.Quoteagain, no, because you didnt even know if there was a constructicon in the movie to begin with.What does that have to do with which Constructicons I was talking about?again, what you stated has absolutely nothing to do with the fact there were several constructicons in the movie.QuoteQuote184 citations is far more reliable than the whopping zero you've provided...from another forum, at that... You actually have made zero citations, but it's pretty cool that you're willing to give other people their props for doing all of their homework, even if you couldn't be bothered. Sadly, that means I have no way to confirm what you claim.no, i could easily provide all 184 citations here, but for the sake of my time, decided to leave the legwork to you since you were inquiring about it. BTW, if I made a claim from another forum, that would have to be at least one, right? Not zero? And I guess it's not relevant to you either that they guy said he spoke directly to Bay for that information. So here's some more.no, that would still make it zero. its not a verifiable, reliable source...much like you'd be hard-pressed to prove anything on these forums (can i trust you're THE schaef??? )http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0418279/goofsQuoteIn the movie the Decepticon tank is called Devastator; in all other promotional materials, it is called Brawl. Hasbro do not actually own a trademark on the name "Devastator" and re-issues of the old Devastator toy [a huge robot made of multiple pieces of construction equipment] have had to be called "Constructicon Devastator." Michael Bay changed it because he thought it "sounded better;" Hasbro and Roberto Orci have both stated the name is an "error."And don't let the fact that this is the actual screenwriter distract you from the source: LOL FORUM:http://boards.transformersmovie.com/showpost.php?p=368555&postcount=4479:QuoteQuoteApparently, Bay said something about there being a big error in the film prior to the screening; do you know if the Devastator/Brawl mixup was it, or something else? Thanks Roberto!It's gotta be, because we pointed it out twice in the editing room!http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1808716430/video/2701721/20070418/2048/2701721-300-wmv-s.35907855-,2701721-300-flash-s.35907881-,2701721-100-wmv-s.35907849-,2701721-100-flash-s.35907874-,2701721-1000-wmv-s.35907866-,2701721-1000-flash-s.35907894-,2701721-700-flash-s.35907887-,2701721-700-wmv-s.35907861-Webcast with the writers. They call him Brawl @ around 7:50And a hundred other links I googled all say the same thing: the writers wanted Brawl, Bay changed it to Devastator. I don't know what else to tell you.thank you for finally providing legitimate citations. i still dont know what you're trying to prove to me by this, as i also claimed there was an error in regards to brawl/devastator.
no? because by self-admission you did not know?
again, no, because you didnt even know if there was a constructicon in the movie to begin with.
Quote184 citations is far more reliable than the whopping zero you've provided...from another forum, at that... You actually have made zero citations, but it's pretty cool that you're willing to give other people their props for doing all of their homework, even if you couldn't be bothered. Sadly, that means I have no way to confirm what you claim.no, i could easily provide all 184 citations here, but for the sake of my time, decided to leave the legwork to you since you were inquiring about it. BTW, if I made a claim from another forum, that would have to be at least one, right? Not zero? And I guess it's not relevant to you either that they guy said he spoke directly to Bay for that information. So here's some more.no, that would still make it zero. its not a verifiable, reliable source...much like you'd be hard-pressed to prove anything on these forums (can i trust you're THE schaef??? )http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0418279/goofsQuoteIn the movie the Decepticon tank is called Devastator; in all other promotional materials, it is called Brawl. Hasbro do not actually own a trademark on the name "Devastator" and re-issues of the old Devastator toy [a huge robot made of multiple pieces of construction equipment] have had to be called "Constructicon Devastator." Michael Bay changed it because he thought it "sounded better;" Hasbro and Roberto Orci have both stated the name is an "error."And don't let the fact that this is the actual screenwriter distract you from the source: LOL FORUM:http://boards.transformersmovie.com/showpost.php?p=368555&postcount=4479:QuoteQuoteApparently, Bay said something about there being a big error in the film prior to the screening; do you know if the Devastator/Brawl mixup was it, or something else? Thanks Roberto!It's gotta be, because we pointed it out twice in the editing room!http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1808716430/video/2701721/20070418/2048/2701721-300-wmv-s.35907855-,2701721-300-flash-s.35907881-,2701721-100-wmv-s.35907849-,2701721-100-flash-s.35907874-,2701721-1000-wmv-s.35907866-,2701721-1000-flash-s.35907894-,2701721-700-flash-s.35907887-,2701721-700-wmv-s.35907861-Webcast with the writers. They call him Brawl @ around 7:50And a hundred other links I googled all say the same thing: the writers wanted Brawl, Bay changed it to Devastator. I don't know what else to tell you.thank you for finally providing legitimate citations. i still dont know what you're trying to prove to me by this, as i also claimed there was an error in regards to brawl/devastator.
184 citations is far more reliable than the whopping zero you've provided...from another forum, at that...
In the movie the Decepticon tank is called Devastator; in all other promotional materials, it is called Brawl. Hasbro do not actually own a trademark on the name "Devastator" and re-issues of the old Devastator toy [a huge robot made of multiple pieces of construction equipment] have had to be called "Constructicon Devastator." Michael Bay changed it because he thought it "sounded better;" Hasbro and Roberto Orci have both stated the name is an "error."
QuoteApparently, Bay said something about there being a big error in the film prior to the screening; do you know if the Devastator/Brawl mixup was it, or something else? Thanks Roberto!It's gotta be, because we pointed it out twice in the editing room!
Apparently, Bay said something about there being a big error in the film prior to the screening; do you know if the Devastator/Brawl mixup was it, or something else? Thanks Roberto!
exactly? i said there were obviously constructicons in the movie, and you spin off on how some were not the 'originals'. AGAIN, what you stated was not being debated.
again, what you stated has absolutely nothing to do with the fact there were several constructicons in the movie.
no, i could easily provide all 184 citations here, but for the sake of my time, decided to leave the legwork to you since you were inquiring about it.
no, that would still make it zero. its not a verifiable, reliable source.
Quote...Michael Bay changed it because he thought it "sounded better...And a hundred other links I googled all say the same thing: the writers wanted Brawl, Bay changed it to Devastator. I don't know what else to tell you.Quotethank you for finally providing legitimate citations. i still dont know what you're trying to prove to me by this, as i also claimed there was an error in regards to brawl/devastator.
...Michael Bay changed it because he thought it "sounded better...
thank you for finally providing legitimate citations. i still dont know what you're trying to prove to me by this, as i also claimed there was an error in regards to brawl/devastator.
Quote from: Master KChief on July 08, 2009, 02:37:03 AMexactly? i said there were obviously constructicons in the movie, and you spin off on how some were not the 'originals'. AGAIN, what you stated was not being debated.What I said was that some were Constructicons and some were not. That is an accurate assessment of the information you provided in response to my inquiry. So yes, it is exactly what was being debated. Frankly, I don't see any reason it needs to be debated. It's only a statement of fact, and you just can't stop yourself from trying to tear it down.im not trying to tear it down. im simply saying IT HAD NOTHING AT ALL to do with my very first original statement, which was saying devastator was indeed in the movie, and indeed a constructicon.Quoteagain, what you stated has absolutely nothing to do with the fact there were several constructicons in the movie.I never said there were no Constructicons in the movie. What exactly are you arguing about here?and i never said that you did. moot point.Quoteno, i could easily provide all 184 citations here, but for the sake of my time, decided to leave the legwork to you since you were inquiring about it.I did the legwork and haven't found anything like what you're suggesting. Your blustering statements do not automatically make something true, so I lend no weight to this claim until you return some hint of the fairness I have shown you.what did i exactly suggest? what, of what i've said, seems to be fabricated to you? everything that i already did not know came from wiki. i suggest you check those sources again.Quoteno, that would still make it zero. its not a verifiable, reliable source.You said I provided zero citations... then mocked the source. So you're still ignoring the fact that logically one cannot have zero of something and at the same time have a source, since having a source at all suggests having a citation; and you're moving the goalposts by changing your claim from zero citations to zero "verifiable, reliable sources".i think its rather funny that you say i mocked your source when you mocked wiki first. the first time i ever mentioned a citation from you was in regards to your attempt at a forum post. forum posts are NOT verifiable, reliable sources, and i called you out on it. THAT was the first time i ever said anything about a citation.And sidestepping the fact that you have provided zero verifiable, reliable sources. All you've done is mock the citation of a forum, make a vague reference to an unidentified wiki without even citing it, and miss the irony even when it was pointed out bluntly.my verifiable, reliable source is wiki; i've obviously stated that several times in this thread. wiki trumps the random musings of a random person on a random forum on the internet.QuoteQuote...Michael Bay changed it because he thought it "sounded better...And a hundred other links I googled all say the same thing: the writers wanted Brawl, Bay changed it to Devastator. I don't know what else to tell you.Quotethank you for finally providing legitimate citations. i still dont know what you're trying to prove to me by this, as i also claimed there was an error in regards to brawl/devastator.As you can see from the post which you quoted but apparently did not process, the claim was not that there was an error, but that Bay changed the name at the last minute. I assumed you knew this, since your entire argument with me has been over whether Bay changed the name. really? your source at http://boards.transformersmovie.com/showpost.php?p=368555&postcount=4479: has 'error' written all over it, and apparantly verified by orci. unless, of course, your 'source' is not 'verifiable' or 'reliable'.So your suggestion that we're saying the same thing is wrong, and you've glossed right over the meat of what I've told you: I've found article after article after article saying Bay changed the name, and I have yet to find one that says he did not.And you refuse to provide any.did i ever say bay didnt change the name? i merely suggested it was the WRONG name for the WRONG decepticon. THAT is what i mean by error.
im simply saying IT HAD NOTHING AT ALL to do with my very first original statement, which was saying devastator was indeed in the movie, and indeed a constructicon.
and i never said that you did. moot point.
what did i exactly suggest?
i suggest you check those sources again.
i think its rather funny that you say i mocked your source when you mocked wiki first.
THAT was the first time i ever said anything about a citation.
my verifiable, reliable source is wiki; i've obviously stated that several times in this thread.
wiki trumps the random musings of a random person on a random forum on the internet.
did i ever say bay didnt change the name?
Quote from: Master KChief on July 08, 2009, 02:55:15 PMim simply saying IT HAD NOTHING AT ALL to do with my very first original statement, which was saying devastator was indeed in the movie, and indeed a constructicon.The original Devastator was a combined form of Constructicons. I stated I did not know if the movie version combined a). all constructicons, b). some constructicons, or c). no constructicons. That's a logical assessment of the possibilities.Upon learning the names of the robots, some of them did not match up with the Constructicons as they originally existed, meaning b). was either true due to the nature of the robots involved, or true because Bay took some other robots and recast them as Constructicons, as he had recast a few robots in the first movie. As it turns out, the second of those is true.All of these are simple logical assessments bolstered by additional facts brought to light, and nothing I have said is even remotely controversial. I really don't understand what the problem is, that we need to be having this conversation at all.exactly. i never debated any of those points with you. like i've been saying, it has nothing at all to do with my original post.Quoteand i never said that you did. moot point.Then what's the point of saying "I said there were constructicons in the movie"? Just to restate the obvious?yes. exactly. what i've been preaching for the past two pages.Quotewhat did i exactly suggest?I know you're not arguing with me over the course of two days only to turn around and say you were never arguing with me. You said my citation was "obviously wrong", you mocked it because the person who spoke with Bay posted it on a forum, and you said you had 184 citations that proved you were right.i said the brawl/devastator subject was 'obviously wrong'. i said YOUR source was neither verifiable nor reliable. two completely different things.Can you tell me what your 184 citations are supposed to tell me, if you're supposedly not suggesting any factual information at all?my 184 citations envelope everything i've been discussing these past 2 days with you. you can find them on the transformers: rotf wiki page.Quotei suggest you check those sources again.What sources? You gave me nothing to check a first time, much less again.see above. i figured it was pretty self-explanatory and obvious, but apparantly not.Quotei think its rather funny that you say i mocked your source when you mocked wiki first.That's not even remotely possible, because my reference to the wiki was a deliberate point in response to your dismissal of the citation. The point was not a mockery of the wiki, 'LOL wiki' proves otherwise.which apparently you missed the rhetorical nature of that question, but the double-standard of crying foul on reliable sources and then going to a wiki. All of which makes this...i believe alot of people consider wiki to be a very reliable source and tool. except you, apparantly.
i never debated any of those points with you.
i said the brawl/devastator subject was 'obviously wrong'. i said YOUR source was neither verifiable nor reliable. two completely different things.
you can find them on the transformers: rotf wiki page.
'LOL wiki' proves otherwise.
i believe alot of people consider wiki to be a very reliable source and tool. except you, apparantly.
um, no? because i know what i said in regards to your citation, and when i said it? ok.
i've pointed you in the direction numerous times. you're just choosing to ignore it.
as far as my citations, feel free to sift through all 184 of them on the main wiki page. ..184 citations is far more reliable than the whopping zero you've provided …i could easily provide all 184 citations here…everything that i already did not know came from wiki …my verifiable, reliable source is wiki
are you a college professor? … because even though there are some that do not allow it, there are still many that do.
just as you cannot prove to me today that you are indeed THE schaef, i can only take what is said on any other forum with a grain of salt.
shall we see if a 'college professor worth his salt' would let you use forum postings in a term paper?
I BELIEVE YOU SCHAEF. I BELIEVE MICHAEL BAY USED DEVASTATOR INSTEAD OF BRAWL AS A PERSONAL CHOICE.
Quote from: Master KChiefi never debated any of those points with you.That's all you've been doing, is debating these points with me. My curiousity about Devastator isn't good enough. My idea of the original Constructicons being the "actual" Constructicons isn't good enough. I didn't "verify" the right way for you. I didn't give the right kind of source for you. And even in this response you are arguing every aspect of my reply to you. And you tell me now that you haven't been debating these points with me? Are you joking?you're mixing two completely different tangents here. when i say i never debated any of your points, im alluding to the 'original' constructicons and whatever else you said in reference to that. i KNEW what the original constructicons were. i KNOW which constructicons make up michael bays devastator. im just SAYING what you said had nothing to do with my original post, which was (again): devastator is a constructicon. devastator is in the new tf movie.Quotei said the brawl/devastator subject was 'obviously wrong'. i said YOUR source was neither verifiable nor reliable. two completely different things.They are different things. Which is why when your paragraph consists of the following two sentences: "your source stinks" and "it's obviously wrong", there is only one subject to which "it" can point backwards. THE SOURCE.If there was a misunderstanding, I apologize for my part in that, but be advised that all I did was read exactly what you wrote.if you can point me to the paragraph in question where i stated this, that would be terribly helpful. i also apologize if seemed like that was what i meant. its not my place to judge if your source 'stinks' or is 'wrong'...its up to me to decide for myself if its reliable or not. im sorry, but forum citations just dont do it for me.Quoteyou can find them on the transformers: rotf wiki page.THANK you. The first actual reference to the location. But "enveloping everything" does not quantify where your disagreement with me lies. I want to know exactly what you think is worth arguing about, and how your sources prove you right and me wrong. actually, i dont remember what we're even arguing about. thats how trivial this has become. im pretty sure we both agree on the same points.Quote'LOL wiki' proves otherwise.If that was all I said, that WOULD prove otherwise. But you can't prove anything without chopping up my words. "LOL wiki" was not a statement I made. "Is this the part where I go 'LOL wiki'?" is the rhetorical question I asked after you mocked my citation, because of the double-standard involved.right, because i find wiki to be leaps and bounds more reliable than just a random forum quote that could be fabricated by anybody.Quotei believe alot of people consider wiki to be a very reliable source and tool. except you, apparantly.Except a lot of people. You brought "verifiable" and "reliable" into this, which is what disqualifies the use of the wiki. This is not news.http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=15715.0http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=15833.msg248670#msg248670 http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=15153.msg237007#msg237007http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=13389.msg208689#msg208689http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=14327.msg223490#msg223490http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=12435.msg189745#msg189745lol, six posts on this forum certainly does not disqualify wiki. so six users out of (how many total users?) disagree with wiki. wow. if that is what you equate to 'alot of people'...
you're mixing two completely different tangents here. when i say i never debated any of your points, im alluding to the 'original' constructicons and whatever else you said in reference to that.
Quoteif you can point me to the paragraph in question where i stated this, that would be terribly helpful.i also find it hard to quote another forum as a reliable, citable source. nonetheless, its obviously wrong.
if you can point me to the paragraph in question where i stated this, that would be terribly helpful.
actually, i dont remember what we're even arguing about. thats how trivial this has become.
right, because i find wiki to be leaps and bounds more reliable than just a random forum quote that could be fabricated by anybody.
lol, six posts on this forum certainly does not disqualify wiki.
i never said yours was first.
as stated before, the main tf:rotf wiki page. begin there.
no, its called not believing everything you read on the internet.
somehow i have a gut feeling a professor...
you said something to the effect of wanting constructicons for the next movie
the only point i cared about was proving to you there are constructicons in the new movie.
somehow i have a gut feeling a professor would instantly discount forum postings from a term paper before they discount a wiki source.
Quote from: Master KChief on July 08, 2009, 08:21:16 PMsomehow i have a gut feeling a professor would instantly discount forum postings from a term paper before they discount a wiki source.If you find this professor, let me know. Sounds like an easy 'A'.Forum posts can be made by a legitimate author. I am part of a couple filmmaker boards that have directors and DPs on them (nobody that you'd know, sorry), and I can trust what they say about a decision made because I know they are a reliable source. Not the way they chose to relay the info, but because I know that they are saying it. yes, people you know. not people i know. nor people the rest of the world knows. how is that in the least bit an objective, reliable source?Wikipedia entries are made by a group of people of unknown reliability; although they are often right, it is nearly impossible to verify sketchy material because there isn't a reliable author. thats why authors provide citations. thats why wiki often removes material unless it is cited by a reliable source. they stress this part very much.I'd trust a post from Rob or one of the mods far, far more than a ruling posted on Wikipedia.thats probably because all of us already know rob on the boards, and it isnt a hard decision for us. any other ignorant person from the outside looking in would more than likely use google or wiki to get the information they want.
