»Seriously, I wanna ask two questions...«

Aether wrote:

Surprised wrote: They didn't need to change their minds - in fact, they didn't. Rather, their curiosity for why Neo wasn't going around trying to damage Machine City merely needed to exceed their desire to kill him at that moment. So instead, they tried to kill him right up until he got into the heart of the machine city, with an EMP no less, and then just let him hang out while Trinity died.

If Neo wanted to use his EMP in Machine City, he could have even if the machines did everything they could possibly do to stop him. But machines quickly find out that Neo wasn't even bothering to go to the area of his ship that has the EMP. Before that, all Machines knew is that a ship with an EMP is traveling to Machine City. But once in Machine City, no EMP went off. Your EMP point only strengthens my point. No EMP going off was all the proof machines needed to understand that Neo wasn't there to fight.

Aether wrote:

Surprised wrote: You're right that I can't prove this theory, but neither can you prove any other theory. You're right we can't ultimately "prove" any theory in the history of the universe. I can't prove I'm not just a monkey at a keyboard or that you're not just a horse with a translator.

I like how you equate proving your theory to proving that I'm not just a horse with a translator. Ok, I can play this game too: I can't prove my theory about Neo and Trinity, and neither can I prove that you and everyone around me are not clever cardboard cutouts. Such comparisons only tell me that you think very highly of your own thoughts about this, which you've already made abundantly clear to me several times.

Aether wrote:

If you take this thinking out to its logical conclusion and see that Merv, who controls that, is seen opposing The Source at every turn then there is no reason to believe The Source would send Neo back to the Matrix at all LET ALONE using Merv's secret getaway. I'm not saying I have a better solution but I don't think yours fits the bill on any level.

Please let me know when you do have a better solution other than just saying, "I have no idea how Neo got into Mobil Avenue and I'm happy to leave it at that." I believe you are in the minority there. I've watched the movies with several friends, and my theory made absolute perfect satisfying sense to all of them. I'm not saying you're wrong and we're all right (majorities don't prove rightness) - but I'm also saying that I'm not off the deep end like you seem to think I am when other people so easily see the logic of the theory.

- Surprised

Surprised wrote:

Aether wrote: You're right we can't ultimately "prove" any theory in the history of the universe. I can't prove I'm not just a monkey at a keyboard or that you're not just a horse with a translator. I like how you equate proving your theory to proving that I'm not just a horse with a translator. Ok, I can play this game too: I can't prove my theory about Neo and Trinity, and neither can I prove that you and everyone around me are not clever cardboard cutouts. Such comparisons only tell me that you think very highly of your own thoughts about this, which you've already made abundantly clear to me several times.

Dude... you really have an issue with reading in context. Look. I called myself a monkey, but all you read is me calling you a horse and get pissed. Where'd that chip on your shoulder come from? I purposefully said something negative about myself as well. That was carefully worded. The point was to agree with you on a fundamental level, there is no proof at some level of minutia, at some level everything requires faith.

Surprised wrote:

Aether wrote: If you take this thinking out to its logical conclusion and see that Merv, who controls that, is seen opposing The Source at every turn then there is no reason to believe The Source would send Neo back to the Matrix at all LET ALONE using Merv's secret getaway. I'm not saying I have a better solution but I don't think yours fits the bill on any level. Please let me know when you do have a better solution other than just saying, "I have no idea how Neo got into Mobil Avenue and I'm happy to leave it at that." I believe you are in the minority there. I've watched the movies with several friends, and my theory made absolute perfect satisfying sense to all of them. I'm not saying you're wrong and we're all right (majorities don't prove rightness) - but I'm also saying that I'm not off the deep end like you seem to think I am when other people so easily see the logic of the theory.

I didn't say I was happy to leave it at that, I said your theory doesn't make me want to stop looking for one at all. I don't think your theory is off the deep end, I just don't think it fits any facts at all. Your (and your friends's) perogative though. What happened to your "stick to the facts" approach to arguementation though? You didn't address any of my counter-points at all, you just told me that your friends bought off on your theory the first time you presented it to them. How about drinking some of your own kool-aid.

Aether wrote:

Dude... you really have an issue with reading in context. Look. I called myself a monkey, but all you read is me calling you a horse and get pissed. Where'd that chip on your shoulder come from? I purposefully said something negative about myself as well. That was carefully worded. The point was to agree with you on a fundamental level, there is no proof at some level of minutia, at some level everything requires faith.

Actually, I wasn't offended at all about the horse thing. I wasn't even "offended" - I was simply calling you on the idea that you are equating disproving my theory with disproving something completely absurd. It didn't matter to me whether I quoted your monkey or my horse - I chose the horse because it seemed even more absurd than the monkey... my apologies for choosing the wrong one. It's just a debate tactic that serves no qualitative purpose other than telling everyone that you think very highly of the points you are trying to make, which everyone here already knows.

Aether wrote:

I didn't say I was happy to leave it at that, I said your theory doesn't make me want to stop looking for one at all. I don't think your theory is off the deep end, I just don't think it fits any facts at all. Your (and your friends's) perogative though. What happened to your "stick to the facts" approach to arguementation though? You didn't address any of my counter-points at all, you just told me that your friends bought off on your theory the first time you presented it to them. How about drinking some of your own kool-aid.

There are several reasons I haven't responded to you (and others in other threads) about various things.

First, the problem with the objections you raise is that NO THEORY around the Merovingian's origin can be supported by facts. There are very little facts surrounding the history of the Merovingian, Mobil Avenue and the train station. My theory about Neo is supported by all kinds of quotes and situations from the movies - all you have to do is read the "Neo's Powers" and "Neo" sections of my website. Since NO THEORY of the Merovingian is really "supportable" (therefore all theories are "equal") other than the fact that the Merovingian was an operating system, I just use the theory that makes the most sense with other theories until we are hopefully given more information in the future about these things.

Second, I've already been through some of these discussions last year with other people. I'm very busy teaching privately 6 days a week and watching my two kids many mornings while my wife goes to school. I don't have time to argue with people who don't have anything better to offer than what I offer. As I have already exhaustively proven by the fact that I've updated my site to reflect probably 8 or 10 of my mistakes that people here have pointed out, I'm here not only to give people answers they're looking for, but also to perhaps improve my own "answers", even if it means changing a major part of my "grand theory". I'm happy to do that, but the problem is, nobody here has given me any remotely decent reason to change it yet. I'm still as open as I've always been to new information and new lines of reasoning.

The problem is, people get so attached to their theories that after they argue with my site with their theories, if I point out why I think their theory is wrong or less supportable, they get defensive and accuse me of wanting to clutch onto my own theories when actually the opposite is true. Just so you know, I don't feel attached to any of the theories on my website. I've changed them way too many times to feel "attached" to any of them - they are just ideas.

Not only that, many of last year's discussions I had caused me to change my mind about something (and beileve me, it was no easy task to change my mind since it involved updating an entire website, often having to tweak things on 4 or 5 different pages since the entire site is intertwined with itself). For that reason, I'm the last person in this entire forum who can be accused of grasping on to my own theories and looking for things to confirm what I already believe. I have devoted my website to presenting whatever seems to be the most logical explanation for various plotline questions that people have, and on several pages I even quote people who say things I disagree with - things that are still interesting enough even when I don't think they're true.

Just keep in mind that I do have a life outside of this forum, and if you were in my shoes, you would be no more motivated than I am to respond to the flurry of messages that have been coming my way with no better "alternate" solution presented. But many users here know (including yourself) that I HAVE updated my site when people point out things that are truly legitimate.

If you truly want to change my mind about something, then quote some things from my website (please tell me what page they come from too), and don't just criticize it - actually show me a better theory that is more supported than the theory currently there. If you can't do that much, then that means my theory is no more criticizable than any other theory you have at the moment.

You could also try reading the Merovingian page on my site. You will see by the end of the page that I've already hashed through these discussions before - you're not offering me any new information that I haven't already chewed on and digested quite a bit in coming up with the theories on my site.

Surprised wrote:

Actually, I wasn't offended at all about the horse thing. I wasn't even "offended" - I was simply calling you on the idea that you are equating disproving my theory with disproving something completely absurd. It didn't matter to me whether I quoted your monkey or my horse - I chose the horse because it seemed even more absurd than the monkey... my apologies for choosing the wrong one. It's just a debate tactic that serves no qualitative purpose other than telling everyone that you think very highly of the points you are trying to make, which everyone here already knows.

Wow, you missed it again. But thank you for reitterating.

Aether wrote:

There are several reasons I haven't responded to you (and others in other threads) about various things. ...

Woah. That was just a really long-winded way of saying that you're open-minded and you're not gonna respond to my points. That's fine.

Surprised wrote:

Just keep in mind that I do have a life outside of this forum, and if you were in my shoes, you would be no more motivated than I am to respond to the flurry of messages that have been coming my way with no better "alternate" solution presented. But many users here know (including yourself) that I HAVE updated my site when people point out things that are truly legitimate.

I have a life outside the forum too. Congrats.

1) You solicited feedback in other places.
2) This my thread.
3) You engaged me.

Here's the chronology:

1) I make a statement.
2) Other people make a statement.
3) People agree and agree to disagree.
4) You disagree with me.
5) I disagree with you with specific points.
6) You say you're not going to address those points cause I don't have another theory stated and you don't have time and your friends agree.
7) The discussion devloves into a squabble about the circle jerk of being stuck in your own theories.
8') The pot calls the kettle black.
9) The cow jumps over the moon.

Surprised wrote:

If you truly want to change my mind about something...

If you want to change my mind about something, then address my points to me even if you have to go pull quotes off your site and paste em in. Again, this not your link thread this is my thread. I didn't know I had to meet your unwritten demands to have a discussion with you on a topic, let alone that I had to commit your entire site to memory before responding to you. Nor did I know it was necessary to be constructive when I admitted straight away that I don't have a better theory, it doesn't mean I haven't considered yours and rejected it completely.

Or how about this, before you can engage me again, you have to tell me what the difference between negativity and pragmaticism is. Why? Because I've chewed over this question many times, have written a paper on it and don't have time to detail to you what the difference is. (That whole paragraph is a joke btw. Hope you got it. )

Aether -

Every message I've posted has been nothing but responding to your points. Mainly you believe Trinity's death was planned, while I think it was just the way things worked out. Our discussion there got sidetracked when we both misunderstood each other with the stupid monkeys and horses. You think that Neo accidentally (via magic or by the hand of our lord and savior Jesus Christ) hacked his way into Mobil Avenue, while I believe the system put him there. If you want to introduce the idea that the Matrix movies are not only science fiction movies but also fantasy where the audience is expected to suspend belief in favor of things happening that are simply "unexplained" or "magic" or "necessary plot device", then we are guaranteed to get nowhere faster than the speed of light.

Morpheus and Hamman believe in miracles, but the movies are still part of the science fiction genre, not the fantasy genre - the fact that the Wachowskis never require the audience to believe in fantasy elements in order to buy into the story is part of what makes the movies so brilliant.

Perhaps the best example of this point, if you care to read:

FAQ: M1: Mirror Replication

Surprised wrote:

Our discussion there got sidetracked when we both misunderstood each other with the stupid monkeys and horses. You think that Neo accidentally (via magic or by the hand of our lord and savior Jesus Christ) hacked his way into Mobil Avenue, while I believe the system put him there.<snip>

Dude, are you purposefully ignoring what I write? How many times do I have to tell you that I don't have a better explanation? Why is it necessary that if I don't agree with you that I have to believe it's a miracle? What kinda crap is that? You saying there's no other conclusion to come to but yours? Give me a break...

Surprised wrote:

Morpheus and Hamman believe in miracles, but the movies are still part of the science fiction genre, not the fantasy genre - the fact that the Wachowskis never require the audience to believe in fantasy elements in order to buy into the story is part of what makes the movies so brilliant.

Is this some kinda joke? What kinda horrible arguementation is that? Are you now saying that the arbitrary nature of the genre that it's placed under (and what makes you so sure that only sci-fi applies) dictates how we view the story elements? How do you know the W's don't require that?

You're basing that deduction on this?

Surprised wrote:

ThedrickFel: What exactly was the mirror made of? Was it the same stuff they injected into Morpheus? Why silver? WachowskiBros: The mirror is actually a mirror. When Neo sees it, it's a hallucination, but it's the direct result of the pill Morpheus has given Neo. Reflections in general are a significant theme in the film. The ideas of worlds within worlds.

Wow. This is more likely to hint that Zion is another Matrix than it is to tell people that what you're saying is right. I slowly but surely lose all respect for the clarity of your reasoning the more I get clarification on your site.

What they're talking about here is that Neo has a hallucination because Morpheus gives him a red pill. The pill alters his code or his ability to deal with his ROI, not clear which but I'd say the later based on other information.

Reflections are a theme a la "as above, so below." This has nothing to do with the comments made in MxO regarding "this is a case of you creating mysetery where there is none." Not even CLOSE to sayin the same thing. Why? Becuase they pruposefully take the time in the movies to point out that while it is Neo's hallucination, others can see the changes his halluciation are causing. The red pill enables it, and Neo causes the world to change for everyone to see. Where did you get off on this other tangent about miracles and religious zealotry other than through second level inference?

Other people see Neo's hallucination. His lucidity is made real by means of alteration to his code. Neo could have done the same thing to get to Mobil Avenue even because he was given domain to do so and NOT because the Source had to do it for him. He touched the Source, realized his own power, wasn't ready to let go of his body, tried to return to the Matrix so he could jack back out because it's the only place he knows how to get to when his RSI or code base or what have you is disconneted from his body and in so doing, gets stuck trying to get there as all other Exiles do, in the train station since it's the only non-Machine controlled bridge between the two worlds.

"You got yourself in here, you can get yourself out." And then he starts visualizing his way back to the Source. THINK DUDE, THINK!

There ya go, two birds with one stone. That's not a "miracle" explanation, it makes sense to me.

Donno im pretty sure its not tho.

Blue_ninja wrote:

Donno im pretty sure its not tho.

Hello and welcome.

So what it is it that you don't think is what?