Author Topic: Transformers: Midnight Release (Read 19735 times)

Master KChief · « **Reply #75 on:** July 08, 2009, 02:37:03 AM »

Quote from: The Schaef on July 08, 2009, 12:48:28 AM

Quote from: Master KChief on July 07, 2009, 11:53:02 PM
no? 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.

Quote
again, 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.
Quote

Quote
184 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/goofs
Quote
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."

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:
Quote
Quote
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!
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 7:50

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.

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.

The Schaef · « **Reply #76 on:** July 08, 2009, 07:30:33 AM »

Quote from: Master KChief on July 08, 2009, 02:37:03 AM

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.

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.

Quote

again, 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?

Quote

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.

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.

Quote

no, 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".

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.

Quote

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.

Quote
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.

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. 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.

Master KChief · « **Reply #77 on:** July 08, 2009, 02:55:15 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on July 08, 2009, 07:30:33 AM

Quote from: Master KChief on July 08, 2009, 02:37:03 AM
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.

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.

Quote
again, 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.

Quote
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.

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.

Quote
no, 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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

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.

The Schaef · « **Reply #78 on:** July 08, 2009, 03:24:48 PM »

Quote from: Master KChief on July 08, 2009, 02:55:15 PM

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.

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.

Quote

and 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?

Quote

what 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.

Can you tell me what your 184 citations are supposed to tell me, if you're supposedly not suggesting any factual information at all?

Quote

i suggest you check those sources again.

What sources? You gave me nothing to check a first time, much less again.

Quote

i 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, 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...

Quote

THAT was the first time i ever said anything about a citation.

... flatly incorrect.

Quote

my verifiable, reliable source is wiki; i've obviously stated that several times in this thread.

Yeah you "stated" it, but you haven't even attempted to identify which wiki, or where it's to be found, or what this information is supposed to be. "Stating a wiki is your source" is the ONLY thing you've done, you haven't provided one shred of information. The whole point of "verifiability" is that other people can see it for themselves. Well guess what: if you keep it to yourself, WE CAN'T.

And the open, vulnerable nature of a wiki is exactly what does NOT make it either verifiable or reliable. That is why no college professor worth their salt is going to let you cite it on a term paper.

Quote

wiki trumps the random musings of a random person on a random forum on the internet.

That would be true if any of your applications of the word "random" were true. To put forth any one of them suggests you dismissed the entire thing without even trying to understand the data involved. I notice you did not pull this same nonsense when the author in question was one of the screenwriters himself.

Quote

did i ever say bay didnt change the name?

That's been the entire discussion here. I said he changed it and gave a source. There was no other information in that sentence at all. NONE. They wrote Brawl, he liked Devastator. that's it. You said it was "obviously wrong". OBVIOUSLY. WRONG. If you're not arguing against Bay changing the name, then please educate me on the part of my statement that was not only wrong, but obviously so.

Master KChief · « **Reply #79 on:** July 08, 2009, 06:34:11 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on July 08, 2009, 03:24:48 PM

Quote from: Master KChief on July 08, 2009, 02:55:15 PM
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.

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.

Quote
and 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.

Quote
what 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.

Quote
i 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.

Quote
i 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.

Master KChief · « **Reply #80 on:** July 08, 2009, 06:35:33 PM »

Quote

THAT was the first time i ever said anything about a citation.

... flatly incorrect.

um, no? because i know what i said in regards to your citation, and when i said it? ok.

Quote

my verifiable, reliable source is wiki; i've obviously stated that several times in this thread.

Yeah you "stated" it, but you haven't even attempted to identify which wiki, or where it's to be found, or what this information is supposed to be. "Stating a wiki is your source" is the ONLY thing you've done, you haven't provided one shred of information. The whole point of "verifiability" is that other people can see it for themselves. Well guess what: if you keep it to yourself, WE CAN'T.

i've pointed you in the direction numerous times. you're just choosing to ignore it.

And the open, vulnerable nature of a wiki is exactly what does NOT make it either verifiable or reliable. That is why no college professor worth their salt is going to let you cite it on a term paper.

are you a college professor? have you attempted to use a wiki on term papers? because even though there are some that do not allow it, there are still many that do.

Quote

wiki trumps the random musings of a random person on a random forum on the internet.

That would be true if any of your applications of the word "random" were true. To put forth any one of them suggests you dismissed the entire thing without even trying to understand the data involved. I notice you did not pull this same nonsense when the author in question was one of the screenwriters himself.

uh, yes i did. 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. there is no proof whatsoever those postings are indeed from a screenwriter, bay, you, me, a decepticon, whatever. forum postings are not reliable, citable sources. shall we see if a 'college professor worth his salt' would let you use forum postings in a term paper?

Quote

did i ever say bay didnt change the name?

That's been the entire discussion here. I said he changed it and gave a source. There was no other information in that sentence at all. NONE. They wrote Brawl, he liked Devastator. that's it. You said it was "obviously wrong". OBVIOUSLY. WRONG. If you're not arguing against Bay changing the name, then please educate me on the part of my statement that was not only wrong, but obviously so.
[/quote]

again, you're misconstruing what i say. i did not say YOUR point was wrong. I BELIEVE YOU SCHAEF. I BELIEVE MICHAEL BAY USED DEVASTATOR INSTEAD OF BRAWL AS A PERSONAL CHOICE. im just saying the fact that brawl was named devastator was obviously wrong. why? because brawl = brawl...brawl =/= devastator. that is what im saying when i say 'obviously wrong'. not you. not your sources. not bay, the screenwriters, whatever.

The Schaef · « **Reply #81 on:** July 08, 2009, 07:26:22 PM »

Quote from: Master KChief

i 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?

Quote

i 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.

Quote

you 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.

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.

Quote

i 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=15715.0
http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=15833.msg248670#msg248670
http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=15153.msg237007#msg237007
http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=13389.msg208689#msg208689
http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=14327.msg223490#msg223490
http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=12435.msg189745#msg189745

Quote

um, no? because i know what i said in regards to your citation, and when i said it? ok.

So do I. You mocked the citation at 5pm forum time July 7, and my rhetorical question about your double-standard appeared four hours later, four posts down. Explain to me how that makes mine first.

Quote

i've pointed you in the direction numerous times. you're just choosing to ignore it.

Have you? Let's examine from the time you moved past simply listing who appeared in the film.

Quote

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

There's everything you said about your "sources". Feel free to show me where you specified ANYthing that could tell me where to BEGIN looking. WHAT citations? WHAT wiki? WHERE?

Quote

are you a college professor? … because even though there are some that do not allow it, there are still many that do.

I don't have to be a college professor, you are the one who brought qualifiers into this. And I can't remember the last time I saw a professor allow the use of wikipedia. I can't even remember the last time I sourced it myself in a forum debate without getting dressed down for using it.

Quote

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.

I see, so the only thing I need to do in order to discount these firsthand accounts is to be unreasonable.

Quote

shall we see if a 'college professor worth his salt' would let you use forum postings in a term paper?

We don't have to. I would be happy to let both stand for an informal discussion. You are the one who demanded a qualified source.

Quote

I BELIEVE YOU SCHAEF. I BELIEVE MICHAEL BAY USED DEVASTATOR INSTEAD OF BRAWL AS A PERSONAL CHOICE.

Then what have you been jumping my butt for all week? If you believe me, why can't that be good enough, why do I have to jump through all these stupid hoops just to get the smallest acknowledgment from you?

Master KChief · « **Reply #82 on:** July 08, 2009, 08:18:54 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on July 08, 2009, 07:26:22 PM

Quote from: Master KChief
i 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.

Quote
i 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.

Quote
you 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.

Quote
i 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=15715.0
http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=15833.msg248670#msg248670
http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=15153.msg237007#msg237007
http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=13389.msg208689#msg208689
http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=14327.msg223490#msg223490
http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=12435.msg189745#msg189745

lol, 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'...

Master KChief · « **Reply #83 on:** July 08, 2009, 08:21:16 PM »

Quote

um, no? because i know what i said in regards to your citation, and when i said it? ok.

So do I. You mocked the citation at 5pm forum time July 7, and my rhetorical question about your double-standard appeared four hours later, four posts down. Explain to me how that makes mine first.

i never said yours was first. i said that was the first time i ever mentioned anything about a citation. i believe that was what we were debating about, not who mocked who first.

Quote

i've pointed you in the direction numerous times. you're just choosing to ignore it.

Have you? Let's examine from the time you moved past simply listing who appeared in the film.

Quote

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

There's everything you said about your "sources". Feel free to show me where you specified ANYthing that could tell me where to BEGIN looking. WHAT citations? WHAT wiki? WHERE?

as stated before, the main tf:rotf wiki page. begin there.

Quote

are you a college professor? … because even though there are some that do not allow it, there are still many that do.

I don't have to be a college professor, you are the one who brought qualifiers into this. And I can't remember the last time I saw a professor allow the use of wikipedia. I can't even remember the last time I sourced it myself in a forum debate without getting dressed down for using it.

either way, its subjective. some people like it, some people dont, some people allow it, some dont. im just trying to stress that i feel a wiki source is far more reliable than just some forum post from gosh knows who. if you dont share that sentiment, ok then, we're both entitled to our opinion. lets move on.

Quote

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.

I see, so the only thing I need to do in order to discount these firsthand accounts is to be unreasonable.

no, its called not believing everything you read on the internet.

Quote

shall we see if a 'college professor worth his salt' would let you use forum postings in a term paper?

We don't have to. I would be happy to let both stand for an informal discussion. You are the one who demanded a qualified source.

somehow i have a gut feeling a professor would instantly discount forum postings from a term paper before they discount a wiki source.

Quote

I BELIEVE YOU SCHAEF. I BELIEVE MICHAEL BAY USED DEVASTATOR INSTEAD OF BRAWL AS A PERSONAL CHOICE.

Then what have you been jumping my butt for all week? If you believe me, why can't that be good enough, why do I have to jump through all these stupid hoops just to get the smallest acknowledgment from you?

i havent been jumping your case over that, and i have acknowledged that over SEVERAL posts. you said something to the effect of wanting constructicons for the next movie, i pointed out there was already some in the new movie, and then you move on to how they all weren't the 'originals' as if to discredit me or the fact there are constructicons. at least, thats the way i took it. the only point i cared about was proving to you there are constructicons in the new movie. its irrelevant if they're not the originals, its irrelevant if bay changed names in the first movie, all this rambling filler for the past two pages is irrelevant. all i wanted to say is there are constructicons in the new movie. THAT IS IT.

The Schaef · « **Reply #84 on:** July 08, 2009, 08:45:56 PM »

Quote from: Master KChief on July 08, 2009, 08:18:54 PM

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.

And I'm just saying that you've been arguing with me all week over nothing.

Quote

Quote
if 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.

Quote

actually, i dont remember what we're even arguing about. thats how trivial this has become.

Then why do I still have to prove myself over and over again just to get to this point?

Quote

right, because i find wiki to be leaps and bounds more reliable than just a random forum quote that could be fabricated by anybody.

Wikis can also be fabricated by anybody. THAT'S THE POINT.

Quote

lol, six posts on this forum certainly does not disqualify wiki.

You're doing it again.

The point, which you're too busy mocking me to realize, is that the questionable nature of wikipedia as a reliable source for important topics IS NOT A NEW THING. So laugh all you want about unrelated points, it only shows that you're not ashamed to be disrespectful when it suits you.

Quote

i never said yours was first.

Quote

i think its rather funny that you say i mocked your source when you mocked wiki first.

Quote

as stated before, the main tf:rotf wiki page. begin there.

Yes, I know that now that you've finally said it. That does not answer my question. Tell me how I am supposed to know this, or what website you're referring to, or ANYthing, based on the TOTAL of all the times you talked about your citations. Tell me how you pointed me in that direction, so that I could have been ignoring your responses instead of simply not finding any help in them.

Quote

no, its called not believing everything you read on the internet.

It's also called keeping perspective. Do you seriously want to tell me that this bit of information was worth this much headache?

Quote

somehow i have a gut feeling a professor...

... is not having this discussion. You still miss the point.

Quote

you said something to the effect of wanting constructicons for the next movie

As part of a larger point about liking the treatment the G1 Transformers get in the new Animated series. And how I would like to see more of that. I explained this in detail not once, but twice, how the Constructicons unto themselves were in the end not the point.

Quote

the only point i cared about was proving to you there are constructicons in the new movie.

The last time I told you that I NEVER DENIED they were in the movie, you responded by saying you never claimed I did. So what exactly were you trying to prove, if you really knew already where we both stood?

All the stuff you say is irrelevant (in terms of subject matter) was me moving forward with the discussion:
- BEYOND the mere presence of Devastator to his composition,
- BEYOND the robots to whether they were the same as the G1 brand, and
- BEYOND that to desiring a better treatment of G1 robots, and not to just have Bay come in and shuffle the robots around because he wants to see this, or it would be cool to have that, then the writers have to scramble to find some bot from Armada or whatever that maps closely to his vision. Or just go totally off the reservation like they did with Frenzy. That's all I was trying to do, was HAVE A CONVERSATION. Can I have a conversation without composing a bibliography to submit for your approval?

sk · « **Reply #85 on:** July 08, 2009, 10:10:24 PM »

Quote from: Master KChief on July 08, 2009, 08:21:16 PM

somehow 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. 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. I'd trust a post from Rob or one of the mods far, far more than a ruling posted on Wikipedia.

Master KChief · « **Reply #86 on:** July 08, 2009, 11:20:04 PM »

Quote from: sk on July 08, 2009, 10:10:24 PM

Quote from: Master KChief on July 08, 2009, 08:21:16 PM
somehow 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.

crustpope · « **Reply #87 on:** July 09, 2009, 11:00:09 AM »

I Used Wiki as a startign point on nearly all my papers. I looked up the content and then I traced that content back into reputable journals and books. I never once actually cited Wiki as a source in any of my papers because it is not peer reviewed by scholars..it is just peer reviewed by other peers who may or may not be knowledgable in that field. There have been several times that Wiki has been the victim of bogus pages full of bogus material that could have easily been debunked had someone bothered to take the time to trace it down but they didn't (The recent obituary brouhaha that the Guardian in England found its self in and the infamous John Siegenthaler page that lasted over three months)

Wiki is a great source to mine for information, it is just not a credible final source

~Jake of the Wolves~ · « **Reply #88 on:** July 09, 2009, 11:26:42 AM »

Wikis have potential to go either direction. On the one hand, as you said, it can be easily changed by whosoever chooses. But, on the other hand, there is a massive wealth of editors, and there's a good chance one will catch an error and fix it.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #89 on:** July 09, 2009, 02:12:36 PM »

Wikipedia gets a bad rap due to the fact that users have the ability to edit most postings there. However, according to arguably the most prestigious scientific journal, Nature, “Wikipedia comes close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries” (1). In my own experience, I have also found Wikipedia to be very accurate when it comes to any subject that is not popularly controversial. And I have found Wikipedia to actually be at least as objective at reporting both sides of a popularly controversial subject as the mainstream media tends to be.

If I find something there that seems incredulous, then I would check other sources to ensure its accuracy. But in general, I think that Wikipedia is worth trusting.

1 - http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html

The Guardian · « **Reply #90 on:** July 09, 2009, 02:37:11 PM »

Is it just me or did this thread do a little transformin'...

lightningninja · « **Reply #91 on:** July 09, 2009, 02:48:16 PM »

I'm not even gonna pretend I read all those posts.

The Guardian · « **Reply #92 on:** July 09, 2009, 03:00:36 PM »

I considered writing a review of them so other people could decide for themselves if they wanted to read them or not...but I was too lazy to actually read them myself...sorry everyone

lightningninja · « **Reply #93 on:** July 09, 2009, 06:52:10 PM »

Apology accepted.

I think it was something about Transformers... and sex...

crustpope · « **Reply #94 on:** July 09, 2009, 08:48:53 PM »

I think it was about constructicons and whether Devastator was named brawl on purpose or an accident or...

WHO THE HECK CARES!

News:

Author Topic: Transformers: Midnight Release (Read 19735 times)

The Schaef

The Schaef

The Schaef

The Schaef

~Jake of the Wolves~