[10.2.2] Our knowledge of the storm is still only rudimentary - Vector - 5/28/08

Omega0 wrote:

The example you gave about B166ER and all those humans is a huge overstatement.  The bombing of Zero One wasn't the first thing we saw in the archive, it was the first attack that we saw.  We also saw a lot of things happen before then.  If there was another attack before the bombing, which is actually what started the war, then why would the archive completely skip over that?  It doesn't make any sense.

And now you're saying that I interpreted it how I wanted to see it, and I was biased?  Are you *CENSORED* kidding me?  Have you forgotten that I work for Zion?  Why would I want to think that humans started the war?  That's absurd, and I could much more easily make the argument that you are the biased one.  Don't forget that this is the Zion archive we're talking about.  Surely they realized that some people, after they watch this, will believe that humans started the war.  If that wasn't the case, or if they weren't sure, don't you think they would have made that more clear?

Lastly, I did not say that it had to be spelt out in order for the attack to have been a response to something.  Read my post again.  I was saying that, while the archive showed footage of the bombing of Zero One, it was not necessary for the narrator to say, "Hey!!  Look at this!  This was the attack that started the war!!  And as you can clearly see, it was the humans who attacked the Machines.  Yeah, we're the ones who started the war... Sorry about that."

Then let me use another example to better articulate my point. Say I witness a car accident and shortly after a woman limping away. Now my first conclusion would be that she is limping away because of the accident. However after we ask ourselves, why is she limping and when did she start limping, the answer is not that simple. It could be that she was in the accident and that caused her limp. Or she could have had nothing to do with the accident and just be walking by. Her limp could be from falling somewhere earlier during the day. Point is that just because I witness something first or something is presented to me first does not mean it happened first.

And no I *poop* you not I am accusing you of inserting your own bias into it. Morpheus for instance. He saw the archives, he worked for Zion and, he didn't think they told us who started the war. Obviously you working for Zion doesn't prove your point when others that work for them as well disagree with you. Actually all it proves is that we put our own biases into everything sense we have two members of Zion disagreeing on interpretation. Imagine that. They made it clear enough that they did not know the cause or the time for the 01 bombings by not telling us when or why they are happening. It was not necessary for the narrator to say "HEY! Look! We don't know when this happens or why it just sorta does"

And again with the thinking and not the reasoning. You think it doesn't need to be spelt out. Guess what it does. History sorta requires that everything be verified and factual. Nothing can be left to interpretation if you want an accurate history thus it all needs to be spelt out for you. You have yet to answer 'When' or 'Why' 01 is being bombed. Thus you fail to show anything to disprove that while this may be the start of the war it very well also be in the middle of the war. Seeing humans attack Machines only proves that humans attacked Machines. It doesn't tell us why or when. No ones refuting that they two fought. We're debating who attacked first.

That's still a bad example.  If there was an attack before the Zero One bombing, it would have been shown in the archive, because that is very important information.

(The script of the first Matrix movie was written before the script for the Animatrix, and I think that's why Morpheus said he didn't know who struck first.  At that time, the Wachowski brothers probably didn't have any plans of showing all of the events that happened before the Matrix was created.)  And I know that me working for Zion doesn't prove my point.  I never said that.  I'll I'm saying is that it proves that I'm not biased on this issue, since I am willing to accept the idea that the people I work for have made mistakes in the past.  As far I know, you are not able to accept that.  If I was putting my own bias into this, then I wouldn't be agreeing with Machinists.

And if history requires that everything be verified and factual, then where is the verification for a possible attack that occured before the Zero One bombing?  There isn't any.  So why do you think it might have happened?  What would have motivated the Machines to attack the humans before then?  The reason I haven't disproven that this may be the middle of the war is because it's impossible to disprove that.  If you look at my first post in this thread, I didn't say it was a fact that the humans started the war, I just said that I accept it.  And I think other Zionites and EPN should also accept it, considering that it doesn't change anything about the way things are now.

That's still a bad example.  If there was an attack before the Zero One bombing, it would have been shown in the archive, because that is very important information.

(The script of the first Matrix movie was written before the script for the Animatrix, and I think that's why Morpheus said he didn't know who struck first.  At that time, the Wachowski brothers probably didn't have any plans of showing all of the events that happened before the Matrix was created.)  And I know that me working for Zion doesn't prove my point.  I never said that.  I'll I'm saying is that it proves that I'm not biased on this issue, since I am willing to accept the idea that the people I work for have made mistakes in the past.  As far I know, you are not able to accept that.  If I was putting my own bias into this, then I wouldn't be agreeing with Machinists.

And if history requires that everything be verified and factual, then where is the verification for a possible attack that occured before the Zero One bombing?  There isn't any.  So why do you think it might have happened?  What would have motivated the Machines to attack the humans before then?  The reason I haven't disproven that this may be the middle of the war is because it's impossible to disprove that.  If you look at my first post in this thread, I didn't say it was a fact that the humans started the war, I just said that I accept it.  And I think other Zionites and EPN should also accept it, considering that it doesn't change anything about the way things are now.

Okay you completely have missed the point. The bombing of Zero One is the first KNOWN attack. It is not known however if this is the FIRST attack in the war (which is my point). The reason it does not state that this is the first attack is because that is still unknown. Same  reason why it does not state that it is a response to an attack because that to is unknown. Thus why Morpheus says "We do not know who attacked first". As I said from the start. The Archives do not say who attacked first. Only that humans at some point in time attacked 01 and that this is the first attack Zion has on record. What happened between UN denial and this bombing is unknown and it is within this time period that the first attack was decided and made.

((Also wrong, the Matrix was from its birth planned to be a trilogy. The W Bros made it more then clear with the depth the first movie had that they had thought everything out and had plans for the sequels. What happened in between and before maybe even after to some degree was thought up before production began. In fact the B166ER trial first appeared as a comic written by them before the Animatrix was even released showing that time before the Matrix was built had been discussed and an outline drawn.))

It is impossible for one to convey a point or have an opinion of something without being biased. Everything is for a reason, the way you interpreted the archives is for a reason and that reason is your biased view of humanity. While you working for Zion may mean you lean towards their line of thinking in some areas it doesn't prove you were not biased on this issue as we have another captain of Zion stating a complete opposite of what you have said. Your conclusion on the matter failed to ask "why" or "when" any of it happened. Instead you went with your first guess. Had you bothered to sit down and ask just two questions, why is this happening and when did this happen, you would have been able to figure that the Archives do not tell why and do not explain when. Thus they are about as useful as explaining who shot first as they are explaining how the pods work. They show us that there was a war, what lead up to it, and its outcome, but do not explain what drove the situation from denying 01 into the UN into a full blown war.

Lastly stop trying to spin around your meanings. You said you accepted it meaning you believe that Humanity started the war. If you don't believe that then why accept it in the first place? Take a rational view of it instead and concluded that we don't know who started the war. My point has never been that there was an attack before this by the machines or that the bombing was in the middle of the war. My point is that we don't and can't as of yet know that there wasn't an attack before. We don't know anything about what started the war. Which is why it is impossible for anyone to prove using the Archives that the humans did attack first.

My opinion on what I think happened? Irrelevant as the only thing that matters is what did happen not what anyone thinks happen.

Omega0 wrote:

That's still a bad example.  If there was an attack before the Zero One bombing, it would have been shown in the archive, because that is very important information.

(The script of the first Matrix movie was written before the script for the Animatrix, and I think that's why Morpheus said he didn't know who struck first.  At that time, the Wachowski brothers probably didn't have any plans of showing all of the events that happened before the Matrix was created.)  And I know that me working for Zion doesn't prove my point.  I never said that.  I'll I'm saying is that it proves that I'm not biased on this issue, since I am willing to accept the idea that the people I work for have made mistakes in the past.  As far I know, you are not able to accept that.  If I was putting my own bias into this, then I wouldn't be agreeing with Machinists.

And if history requires that everything be verified and factual, then where is the verification for a possible attack that occured before the Zero One bombing?  There isn't any.  So why do you think it might have happened?  What would have motivated the Machines to attack the humans before then?  The reason I haven't disproven that this may be the middle of the war is because it's impossible to disprove that.  If you look at my first post in this thread, I didn't say it was a fact that the humans started the war, I just said that I accept it.  And I think other Zionites and EPN should also accept it, considering that it doesn't change anything about the way things are now.

Okay you completely have missed the point. The bombing of Zero One is the first KNOWN attack. It is not known however if this is the FIRST attack in the war (which is my point). The reason it does not state that this is the first attack is because that is still unknown. Same  reason why it does not state that it is a response to an attack because that to is unknown. Thus why Morpheus says "We do not know who attacked first". As I said from the start. The Archives do not say who attacked first. Only that humans at some point in time attacked 01 and that this is the first attack Zion has on record. What happened between UN denial and this bombing is unknown and it is within this time period that the first attack was decided and made.

((Also wrong, the Matrix was from its birth planned to be a trilogy. The W Bros made it more then clear with the depth the first movie had that they had thought everything out and had plans for the sequels. What happened in between and before maybe even after to some degree was thought up before production began. In fact the B166ER trial first appeared as a comic written by them before the Animatrix was even released showing that time before the Matrix was built had been discussed and an outline drawn.))

It is impossible for one to convey a point or have an opinion of something without being biased. Everything is for a reason, the way you interpreted the archives is for a reason and that reason is your biased view of humanity. While you working for Zion may mean you lean towards their line of thinking in some areas it doesn't prove you were not biased on this issue as we have another captain of Zion stating a complete opposite of what you have said. Your conclusion on the matter failed to ask "why" or "when" any of it happened. Instead you went with your first guess. Had you bothered to sit down and ask just two questions, why is this happening and when did this happen, you would have been able to figure that the Archives do not tell why and do not explain when. Thus they are about as useful as explaining who shot first as they are explaining how the pods work. They show us that there was a war, what lead up to it, and its outcome, but do not explain what drove the situation from denying 01 into the UN into a full blown war.

Lastly stop trying to spin around your meanings. You said you accepted it meaning you believe that Humanity started the war. If you don't believe that then why accept it in the first place? Take a rational view of it instead and concluded that we don't know who started the war. My point has never been that there was an attack before this by the machines or that the bombing was in the middle of the war. My point is that we don't and can't as of yet know that there wasn't an attack before. We don't know anything about what started the war. Which is why it is impossible for anyone to prove using the Archives that the humans did attack first.

My opinion on what I think happened? Irrelevant as the only thing that matters is what did happen not what anyone thinks happen.

Listen to me.  I watched the Zion archive again, and I had my eyes open and ears listening.  Shortly before Zero One was bombed, the United Nations approved initiatives for both economic sanctions and a naval blockade of the region.  The reason they did that is because the human nation's credit rating was plummeting, and Zero One's currency was soaring.  However, I don't think that the United Nations' actions completely stopped that.  On the other hand, destroying Zero One would definitely stop that.  I've seen footage of Zero One being nuked, and I can understand why the humans did that (even if we assume that was the start of the war).  I haven't seen any evidence of a Machine attack that happened prior to that, nor can I understand why the Machines would do that, therefore I don't believe there was a prior attack.  I may not be able to prove this, and I don't know this for a fact, but that doesn't stop me from believing it.

(And I really don't think I'm wrong about the Animatrix script being written after the first movie script.  The Matrix came out in 1999, and the Animatrix came out in 2003.  If The Matrix hadn't done well, then the Animatrix probably would never have been made.  And you think they wrote the script for the Animatrix first?  That's *CENSORED*.  The fact that the Matrix was planned to be a trilogy has nothing to do with this.)

I'm not trying to put any spin on my meanings.  I never said that I know who started the war.  All I'm saying is that I believe that humans started the war.  There is a difference between knowing and believing.  I'm not trying to prove that humans attacked first.  I'm just trying to make the argument that there is evidence which might lead a rational-minded person to believe that.  You need to realize that just because someone doesn't interpret things the same way you do, that doesn't mean they are biased, or irrational, or they weren't paying close enough attention.  I find that insulting.

Listen to me.  I watched the Zion archive again, and I had my eyes open and ears listening.  Shortly before Zero One was bombed, the United Nations approved initiatives for both economic sanctions and a naval blockade of the region.  The reason they did that is because the human nation's credit rating was plummeting, and Zero One's currency was soaring.  However, I don't think that the United Nations' actions completely stopped that.  On the other hand, destroying Zero One would definitely stop that.  I've seen footage of Zero One being nuked, and I can understand why the humans did that (even if we assume that was the start of the war).  I haven't seen any evidence of a Machine attack that happened prior to that, nor can I understand why the Machines would do that, therefore I don't believe there was a prior attack.  I may not be able to prove this, and I don't know this for a fact, but that doesn't stop me from believing it.

(And I really don't think I'm wrong about the Animatrix script being written after the first movie script.  The Matrix came out in 1999, and the Animatrix came out in 2003.  If The Matrix hadn't done well, then the Animatrix probably would never have been made.  And you think they wrote the script for the Animatrix first?  That's *CENSORED*.  The fact that the Matrix was planned to be a trilogy has nothing to do with this.)

I'm not trying to put any spin on my meanings.  I never said that I know who started the war.  All I'm saying is that I believe that humans started the war.  There is a difference between knowing and believing.  I'm not trying to prove that humans attacked first.  I'm just trying to make the argument that there is evidence which might lead a rational-minded person to believe that.  You need to realize that just because someone doesn't interpret things the same way you do, that doesn't mean they are biased, or irrational, or they weren't paying close enough attention.  I find that insulting.

Obviously you are not listening to me. The naval blockade was shortly before the bombings you said. Well prove it. No time stamp anywhere on when these events are takeing place makes it a bit hard to account for any amount of time passing (agian there is your own bias creeping in). But lets play with the idea a bit.

The narrator points out that humans would rather have the world divided. What do you know we have a blockade go figure, hmm what else was she referring to oh that's right the UN denial. The narrator does not say that humans would rather have the machine destroyed. Well that explains why there is only a blockade and denying UN acceptance and not a full blown attack.  On to part 2. No mention at all of them saying that the blockaded didn't work. Or that they rethought things and decided they wanted them all dead. In fact no mention at all as to why they are bombing the Machines. You would think that sorta info might be important and enclosed in the file wouldn't you? Again you thinking is the problem. What you think or your opinion of the humans or machines motive is irrelevant. What you can't understand is irrelevant. I have no idea how quantum physics works and can hardly understand them but guess what they still work. I can think Elvis is still alive but guess what, he's still dead and in the dirt. Just because you can or can't imagine how something happened does not mean that is how or how it could not have happened. Point is your belief is put into something that you can not prove and we call that stupid. Especially when you try and use it as a foundation for other beliefs.

(Not saying they wrote the script. I'm saying they had the story planned from day one. Before the first film was even casting they had a story and knew how deep they wanted it to go. Shoot in the first film we see foreshadowing all over the place about the next two films. Sure had the first film not done so god we would have never seen these but the point is the story was already written and planned to be a trilogy.)

Right so you admit that you believe in something that you can not prove and cling to personal interpretation rather then rational thought or logic. Rational thinkers ask who, what, when, where, why, how, etc. and don't proclaim they know the answers when not all of these have been given. The fact that you admit that it is only what you believe and not what you know only proves my point that your only useing your own bias/opinion/interpretation. Yes you have one and yes that is all your using to back you up. I see thought this discussion coming from you "I think" stop thinking! It doesnt matter what you think, all that matters is what happened which is something that you can not prove. Sorry if you find the truth insulting.

Omega0 wrote:

Listen to me.  I watched the Zion archive again, and I had my eyes open and ears listening.  Shortly before Zero One was bombed, the United Nations approved initiatives for both economic sanctions and a naval blockade of the region.  The reason they did that is because the human nation's credit rating was plummeting, and Zero One's currency was soaring.  However, I don't think that the United Nations' actions completely stopped that.  On the other hand, destroying Zero One would definitely stop that.  I've seen footage of Zero One being nuked, and I can understand why the humans did that (even if we assume that was the start of the war).  I haven't seen any evidence of a Machine attack that happened prior to that, nor can I understand why the Machines would do that, therefore I don't believe there was a prior attack.  I may not be able to prove this, and I don't know this for a fact, but that doesn't stop me from believing it.

(And I really don't think I'm wrong about the Animatrix script being written after the first movie script.  The Matrix came out in 1999, and the Animatrix came out in 2003.  If The Matrix hadn't done well, then the Animatrix probably would never have been made.  And you think they wrote the script for the Animatrix first?  That's *CENSORED*.  The fact that the Matrix was planned to be a trilogy has nothing to do with this.)

I'm not trying to put any spin on my meanings.  I never said that I know who started the war.  All I'm saying is that I believe that humans started the war.  There is a difference between knowing and believing.  I'm not trying to prove that humans attacked first.  I'm just trying to make the argument that there is evidence which might lead a rational-minded person to believe that.  You need to realize that just because someone doesn't interpret things the same way you do, that doesn't mean they are biased, or irrational, or they weren't paying close enough attention.  I find that insulting.

Obviously you are not listening to me. The naval blockade was shortly before the bombings you said. Well prove it. No time stamp anywhere on when these events are takeing place makes it a bit hard to account for any amount of time passing (agian there is your own bias creeping in). But lets play with the idea a bit.

The narrator points out that humans would rather have the world divided. What do you know we have a blockade go figure, hmm what else was she referring to oh that's right the UN denial. The narrator does not say that humans would rather have the machine destroyed. Well that explains why there is only a blockade and denying UN acceptance and not a full blown attack.  On to part 2. No mention at all of them saying that the blockaded didn't work. Or that they rethought things and decided they wanted them all dead. In fact no mention at all as to why they are bombing the Machines. You would think that sorta info might be important and enclosed in the file wouldn't you? Again you thinking is the problem. What you think or your opinion of the humans or machines motive is irrelevant. What you can't understand is irrelevant. I have no idea how quantum physics works and can hardly understand them but guess what they still work. I can think Elvis is still alive but guess what, he's still dead and in the dirt. Just because you can or can't imagine how something happened does not mean that is how or how it could not have happened. Point is your belief is put into something that you can not prove and we call that stupid. Especially when you try and use it as a foundation for other beliefs.

(Not saying they wrote the script. I'm saying they had the story planned from day one. Before the first film was even casting they had a story and knew how deep they wanted it to go. Shoot in the first film we see foreshadowing all over the place about the next two films. Sure had the first film not done so god we would have never seen these but the point is the story was already written and planned to be a trilogy.)

Right so you admit that you believe in something that you can not prove and cling to personal interpretation rather then rational thought or logic. Rational thinkers ask who, what, when, where, why, how, etc. and don't proclaim they know the answers when not all of these have been given. The fact that you admit that it is only what you believe and not what you know only proves my point that your only useing your own bias/opinion/interpretation. Yes you have one and yes that is all your using to back you up. I see thought this discussion coming from you "I think" stop thinking! It doesnt matter what you think, all that matters is what happened which is something that you can not prove. Sorry if you find the truth insulting.

It's not stupid to put your belief into something that you cannot prove.  Everybody does that.  Haven't you ever heard of religion, or the theory of evolution?  I still think that the humans had more motivation to attack first than the Machines did.  Even though the archive didn't say anything about the blockade not working, it never said that the blockade did work either.  The human nation obviously felt threated by Zero One at some point in time before the first attack, but there is no evidence of Zero One feeling threatened by the humans before the war started.  And I never used it as a foundation for other beliefs.  As a matter of fact, I explicitly said that it doesn't change anything about the way things are now.  If you accused a Machinist of using this as a foundation for other beliefs, I could understand that, but saying that about me is just silly.

Personal interpretation and rational thought/logic are NOT mutually exclusive.  Not everything is black and white.  Just because something can't be proven, that it doesn't mean there is no evidence for it.  One person will view the evidence and come to a certain conclusion.  Another person can look at the same evidence and come to a different conclusion, or no conclusion at all.  That doesn't necessarily mean that someone is not using rational thought or logic.  If you think that everyone who is rational or logical will come to the same conclusion (or lack of a conclusion), and everyone who says different is irrational, then you are the one being biased.  This is just a hunch, but if the first known attack was of the Machines attacking the humans, then I doubt that you would be so insistent on saying that we don't know who started the war.

He did confirm, within the extent of his knowledge and access level, that humans bombarded 01, though was it not more implied than stated definitely that this was the original armed assault between the two?

One could also consider the Machines' inflation of human currency - and subsequent devalued economies - an act of war in itself, especially if its production of goods was specifically towards such an outcome. Without doubt, one of the reservations those humans who originally declinded to trade with the machines based their decision upon.

However, regardless of that which we discover to be historically "factual", our being in a position to influence how we proceed remains unaltered.

It's not stupid to put your belief into something that you cannot prove.  Everybody does that.  Haven't you ever heard of religion, or the theory of evolution?  I still think that the humans had more motivation to attack first than the Machines did.  Even though the archive didn't say anything about the blockade not working, it never said that the blockade did work either.  The human nation obviously felt threated by Zero One at some point in time before the first attack, but there is no evidence of Zero One feeling threatened by the humans before the war started.  And I never used it as a foundation for other beliefs.  As a matter of fact, I explicitly said that it doesn't change anything about the way things are now.  If you accused a Machinist of using this as a foundation for other beliefs, I could understand that, but saying that about me is just silly.

Personal interpretation and rational thought/logic are NOT mutually exclusive.  Not everything is black and white.  Just because something can't be proven, that it doesn't mean there is no evidence for it.  One person will view the evidence and come to a certain conclusion.  Another person can look at the same evidence and come to a different conclusion, or no conclusion at all.  That doesn't necessarily mean that someone is not using rational thought or logic.  If you think that everyone who is rational or logical will come to the same conclusion (or lack of a conclusion), and everyone who says different is irrational, then you are the one being biased.  This is just a hunch, but if the first known attack was of the Machines attacking the humans, then I doubt that you would be so insistent on saying that we don't know who started the war.

I have and remain skeptical of each. Just because everyone does it makes it ok? So because we have a high percentage of high school drop outs its considered smart for them to do so then? Yeah that makes sense. Having more of a motive also doesn't mean anything because all it takes is pulling a trigger on accident without any motive at all and you have the start of a war. Again one possibility is just as likely as the other and without anything to point you towards one the answer remains elusive. Whether or not you used it as a foundation others have and people parading around claiming to know the answer when they don't doesn't help in showing them that their foundation's are built on air.

And that is where you are wrong again. Black and white is all there is. There is a right answer and there are wrong answers to every question. For instance this conversation. You say Humans attacked first, well if I said it was the Machine we obviously have a problem don't we? We both can't possibly be right so who is? The only time when its all gray is in opinions which incidentally those don't matter when it comes to the truth. The relative **bullcrud** that people try to pass off as intelligent philosophy is just humans trying to made up excuses for why they don't have to admit they are wrong.

Your concern about how one views the evidence is based off of someone interpreting what they see with their own bias. Not with a rational mindset because rational thinking without the bias. Without anything pushing you away from the set course of the evidence there is only one track on which it can follow. Cause and effect. We reach one conclusion after we apply one line of thinking and another if we throw something else in. Eliminate all outside influence and look at only what you are given not what you throw in and you will only reach and are able to only reach one conclusion.

And your hunch would be wrong. If the first known attack was from the Machine I'd be asking the same questions. When and why. Unless it answered these I would never take what it shows to be enough to prove the Machines attacked first.

Omega0 wrote:

It's not stupid to put your belief into something that you cannot prove.  Everybody does that.  Haven't you ever heard of religion, or the theory of evolution?  I still think that the humans had more motivation to attack first than the Machines did.  Even though the archive didn't say anything about the blockade not working, it never said that the blockade did work either.  The human nation obviously felt threated by Zero One at some point in time before the first attack, but there is no evidence of Zero One feeling threatened by the humans before the war started.  And I never used it as a foundation for other beliefs.  As a matter of fact, I explicitly said that it doesn't change anything about the way things are now.  If you accused a Machinist of using this as a foundation for other beliefs, I could understand that, but saying that about me is just silly.

Personal interpretation and rational thought/logic are NOT mutually exclusive.  Not everything is black and white.  Just because something can't be proven, that it doesn't mean there is no evidence for it.  One person will view the evidence and come to a certain conclusion.  Another person can look at the same evidence and come to a different conclusion, or no conclusion at all.  That doesn't necessarily mean that someone is not using rational thought or logic.  If you think that everyone who is rational or logical will come to the same conclusion (or lack of a conclusion), and everyone who says different is irrational, then you are the one being biased.  This is just a hunch, but if the first known attack was of the Machines attacking the humans, then I doubt that you would be so insistent on saying that we don't know who started the war.

I have and remain skeptical of each. Just because everyone does it makes it ok? So because we have a high percentage of high school drop outs its considered smart for them to do so then? Yeah that makes sense. Having more of a motive also doesn't mean anything because all it takes is pulling a trigger on accident without any motive at all and you have the start of a war. Again one possibility is just as likely as the other and without anything to point you towards one the answer remains elusive. Whether or not you used it as a foundation others have and people parading around claiming to know the answer when they don't doesn't help in showing them that their foundation's are built on air.

And that is where you are wrong again. Black and white is all there is. There is a right answer and there are wrong answers to every question. For instance this conversation. You say Humans attacked first, well if I said it was the Machine we obviously have a problem don't we? We both can't possibly be right so who is? The only time when its all gray is in opinions which incidentally those don't matter when it comes to the truth. The relative **bullcrud** that people try to pass off as intelligent philosophy is just humans trying to made up excuses for why they don't have to admit they are wrong.

Your concern about how one views the evidence is based off of someone interpreting what they see with their own bias. Not with a rational mindset because rational thinking without the bias. Without anything pushing you away from the set course of the evidence there is only one track on which it can follow. Cause and effect. We reach one conclusion after we apply one line of thinking and another if we throw something else in. Eliminate all outside influence and look at only what you are given not what you throw in and you will only reach and are able to only reach one conclusion.

And your hunch would be wrong. If the first known attack was from the Machine I'd be asking the same questions. When and why. Unless it answered these I would never take what it shows to be enough to prove the Machines attacked first.

First you say that there is no mention of the humans motive for bombing Zero One, and you would think that sorta info might be important.  Now you're saying that having more motive doesn't mean anything?  That doesn't sound like rational thinking to me.  In fact, it sounds like you're not even being consistent.  I've never heard of a war being started because someone accidentally pulled a trigger.  Furthermore, the Machines don't do anything on accident.  Everything they do is intentional and for a reason.  You might not think it's a good reason, but there is still a reason.

If you want me to believe that there may have been a Machine attack before the bombing of Zero One, then you need to at least explain what the motivation may have been.  If you can't do that, then you're not going to convince me, and you might as well stop trying.  You can continue insulting me and my thought process if you want to, but that's not going to convince me that you're right.

First you say that there is no mention of the humans motive for bombing Zero One, and you would think that sorta info might be important.  Now you're saying that having more motive doesn't mean anything?  That doesn't sound like rational thinking to me.  In fact, it sounds like you're not even being consistent.  I've never heard of a war being started because someone accidentally pulled a trigger.  Furthermore, the Machines don't do anything on accident.  Everything they do is intentional and for a reason.  You might not think it's a good reason, but there is still a reason.

If you want me to believe that there may have been a Machine attack before the bombing of Zero One, then you need to at least explain what the motivation may have been.  If you can't do that, then you're not going to convince me, and you might as well stop trying.  You can continue insulting me and my thought process if you want to, but that's not going to convince me that you're right.

Now your reading in what you want to read in. I didn't say motive wasn't rel event I said having more of a motive wasn't. The answer to why could be exactly as you and others have hypothosise. Or it could be as complicated as aliens coming down and takeing every ones kidneys disguised in tin hats appearing to be Machine's (this is an exaggeration but i hope again you get my point). Fact remains there is nothing to prove either case did or did not happen so why remains unknown. Also you might do some research as to what one bullet being fired could and has done. WWI, Boston Massacre, allots been started with just one bullet.

If you want ideas how about this one. The Blockade actually worked. All legal trade with 01 was cut off by all governments thus dropping 01s value of its own dollar and sending it into its own mess. So they attempt to break through said blockade. The Archives don't tell us if or if not the blockade worked so who's to say it didn't right? Or it could be the same case as we saw with new Zion. The complete alienation from the rest of the world scared them into thinking something would happen and so they attacked first in fear of their own life. Just like you I can't prove any of these but they are just as likely as what you have said. I've never tried telling you I'm right, just that your wrong to claim to know something that can not be proven.

Omega0 wrote:

First you say that there is no mention of the humans motive for bombing Zero One, and you would think that sorta info might be important.  Now you're saying that having more motive doesn't mean anything?  That doesn't sound like rational thinking to me.  In fact, it sounds like you're not even being consistent.  I've never heard of a war being started because someone accidentally pulled a trigger.  Furthermore, the Machines don't do anything on accident.  Everything they do is intentional and for a reason.  You might not think it's a good reason, but there is still a reason.

If you want me to believe that there may have been a Machine attack before the bombing of Zero One, then you need to at least explain what the motivation may have been.  If you can't do that, then you're not going to convince me, and you might as well stop trying.  You can continue insulting me and my thought process if you want to, but that's not going to convince me that you're right.

Now your reading in what you want to read in. I didn't say motive wasn't rel event I said having more of a motive wasn't. The answer to why could be exactly as you and others have hypothosise. Or it could be as complicated as aliens coming down and takeing every ones kidneys disguised in tin hats appearing to be Machine's (this is an exaggeration but i hope again you get my point). Fact remains there is nothing to prove either case did or did not happen so why remains unknown. Also you might do some research as to what one bullet being fired could and has done. WWI, Boston Massacre, allots been started with just one bullet.

If you want ideas how about this one. The Blockade actually worked. All legal trade with 01 was cut off by all governments thus dropping 01s value of its own dollar and sending it into its own mess. So they attempt to break through said blockade. The Archives don't tell us if or if not the blockade worked so who's to say it didn't right? Or it could be the same case as we saw with new Zion. The complete alienation from the rest of the world scared them into thinking something would happen and so they attacked first in fear of their own life. Just like you I can't prove any of these but they are just as likely as what you have said. I've never tried telling you I'm right, just that your wrong to claim to know something that can not be proven.

First of all, considering that the archive mentioned the humans' credit rating falling, I think it would have also mentioned the exact same thing happening to Zero One.  Secondly, even if the blockade did work, so what?  If Zero One's currency started falling, that wouldn't threaten their survival.  As long as they have an abundant energy source, and nobody is attacking them, they'll be just fine.  They don't need money to buy food, like humans do.  I don't accept this as a plausible motive for the Machines starting a war with their creators.  Also, I've never claimed to know something that cannot be proven.  I already told you that there is a difference between knowing and believing.  You still fail to convince me that my beliefs are wrong, because the motivation for the humans starting a war makes a lot more sense to me than the motivation you present for the Machines starting the war.  Oh, and just FYI, I'm not the only Zionite who believes that the humans started the war.

You would think it would mention a lot of things but it still doesn't. Say a declaration of war of instance? Actually I'd say that would be the most important piece of information the archive could have given us really. Obviously 01 was just as dependent on currency as we are. Why else go to the trouble of creating your own and then takeing control of the world's money markets hmm? Which begs the question why create money in the first place if they had no need for it to begin with? Obviously they had some need for it and thus would be affected by that currency losing value and the inability to export and import goods so sorry my idea holds up about as good as yours does really.

And again your acceptance of said assumptions are irrelevant. It nether proves nor disproves what did or did not happen. Go ahead and believe that all humans attacked first. Ignore the fact that you have about as much proof for that as you do about Santa or the tooth fairy being real so why not. So your not the only ignorant Zion that can't face the facts (or lack of) just proves the machines point in stating Zion is full or irrational beings that are just lambs to the slaughter walking blindly with heads held high.

If anything all this just proves that as far as historical documents go. The Zion archives are the worst. Leaving everything up for interpretation rather then actual facts.

Omega0 wrote:

First of all, considering that the archive mentioned the humans' credit rating falling, I think it would have also mentioned the exact same thing happening to Zero One.  Secondly, even if the blockade did work, so what?  If Zero One's currency started falling, that wouldn't threaten their survival.  As long as they have an abundant energy source, and nobody is attacking them, they'll be just fine.  They don't need money to buy food, like humans do.  I don't accept this as a plausible motive for the Machines starting a war with their creators.  Also, I've never claimed to know something that cannot be proven.  I already told you that there is a difference between knowing and believing.  You still fail to convince me that my beliefs are wrong, because the motivation for the humans starting a war makes a lot more sense to me than the motivation you present for the Machines starting the war.  Oh, and just FYI, I'm not the only Zionite who believes that the humans started the war.

You would think it would mention a lot of things but it still doesn't. Say a declaration of war of instance? Actually I'd say that would be the most important piece of information the archive could have given us really. Obviously 01 was just as dependent on currency as we are. Why else go to the trouble of creating your own and then takeing control of the world's money markets hmm? Which begs the question why create money in the first place if they had no need for it to begin with? Obviously they had some need for it and thus would be affected by that currency losing value and the inability to export and import goods so sorry my idea holds up about as good as yours does really.

And again your acceptance of said assumptions are irrelevant. It nether proves nor disproves what did or did not happen. Go ahead and believe that all humans attacked first. Ignore the fact that you have about as much proof for that as you do about Santa or the tooth fairy being real so why not. So your not the only ignorant Zion that can't face the facts (or lack of) just proves the machines point in stating Zion is full or irrational beings that are just lambs to the slaughter walking blindly with heads held high.

If anything all this just proves that as far as historical documents go. The Zion archives are the worst. Leaving everything up for interpretation rather then actual facts.

No, it's not obvious that Zero One was just as dependent on currency as we are.  At B166-ER's murder trial, the prosecution argued for an owner's right to destroy property, remember?  They were originally considered property.  Do you think property would have currency?  I don't.  And yet, they still survived.  Furthermore, once they had currency, did you ever stop to think about what they were spending it on?  Whatever it was, it definitely wasn't sunlight.  Other than that, what could possibly be essential to their survival?  Sorry, your idea does not hold up about as good as mine.

And I see you've decided to continue with the personal attacks.  That's fine.  It doesn't help your argument.  All it does is show a lack of maturity.

No, it's not obvious that Zero One was just as dependent on currency as we are.  At B166-ER's murder trial, the prosecution argued for an owner's right to destroy property, remember?  They were originally considered property.  Do you think property would have currency?  I don't.  And yet, they still survived.  Furthermore, once they had currency, did you ever stop to think about what they were spending it on?  Whatever it was, it definitely wasn't sunlight.  Other than that, what could possibly be essential to their survival?  Sorry, your idea does not hold up about as good as mine.

And I see you've decided to continue with the personal attacks.  That's fine.  It doesn't help your argument.  All it does is show a lack of maturity.

Did the African American have currency when he was in bondage and considered property? Did our ancestors have currency when they became apart of the world? No they didn't. No living being that has currency now was born with it. They created and made it themselves and became dependent on it themselves as well. We humans survived fine without it just like the Machines did when they were just property. But things change and when you decided to run off and become your own Nation you fall in line with all the other dependencies other nations have. As to what they spent it on no idea but obviously they bought a bit of land and still had a purpose for currency as they kept it. Whens the last time the Machines let anything without purpose remain, hmm? If the Machines had no need for currancy why bother selling goods to other nations. Why not just hand them over. Also about that sunlight thing. Operation Dark Storm, I still see Machines working fine and dandy even without there supposed energy source. You think sunlight was all they needed to survive? But its quiet apparent that your still just going to close your mind off to whatever I say and keep on remaining ignorant to the facts. Fine, enjoy being naive and keep pretending you know the truth.

Omega0 wrote:

No, it's not obvious that Zero One was just as dependent on currency as we are.  At B166-ER's murder trial, the prosecution argued for an owner's right to destroy property, remember?  They were originally considered property.  Do you think property would have currency?  I don't.  And yet, they still survived.  Furthermore, once they had currency, did you ever stop to think about what they were spending it on?  Whatever it was, it definitely wasn't sunlight.  Other than that, what could possibly be essential to their survival?  Sorry, your idea does not hold up about as good as mine.

And I see you've decided to continue with the personal attacks.  That's fine.  It doesn't help your argument.  All it does is show a lack of maturity.

Did the African American have currency when he was in bondage and considered property? Did our ancestors have currency when they became apart of the world? No they didn't. No living being that has currency now was born with it. They created and made it themselves and became dependent on it themselves as well. We humans survived fine without it just like the Machines did when they were just property. But things change and when you decided to run off and become your own Nation you fall in line with all the other dependencies other nations have. As to what they spent it on no idea but obviously they bought a bit of land and still had a purpose for currency as they kept it. Whens the last time the Machines let anything without purpose remain, hmm? If the Machines had no need for currancy why bother selling goods to other nations. Why not just hand them over. Also about that sunlight thing. Operation Dark Storm, I still see Machines working fine and dandy even without there supposed energy source. You think sunlight was all they needed to survive? But its quiet apparent that your still just going to close your mind off to whatever I say and keep on remaining ignorant to the facts. Fine, enjoy being naive and keep pretending you know the truth.

I took another look, and I'm pretty sure the Machines were spending their currency on "the creation of new and better AI."  However, that's hardly a necessity.  Advancement is not the same as survival.  Even if they couldn't advance their technology, they would still live.  Also, the fact that they were working just fine right after Operation Dark Storm doesn't mean anything.  Newsflash: Energy can be stored!  But they knew that their energy supply wouldn't last long without sunlight.  If you think that the Machines needed something other than an energy source to survive, then name it.

Yeah there EVOLUTION isn't important at all and not worth spending anything on. Right. The Machines' don't evolve like humans do, theirs is a technological evolution, while they maybe able to learn certain hings and adapt to situations there will come a point where there memory will be full so the need to better themselves is a necessity should they not want to be stuck in the Machine stoneage and able to keep up with the evolution of everything around them.

And yes its completely realistic that the Machines saw Dark Storm coming and stored up enough to conquer the world and go on for another six cycles. That makes perfect sense.

As for what I can't name another energy source but I'm sure once I did you'd just write it off as impossible and close your mind off again but lets look at another controversy anyway. Humans as energy produces barely enough to keep the Matrix running and hardly anything to supply an entire city as discovered by the Merovingian and confirmed by many exiles who specialize in the fields relating to this. Obviously something else is being used.

Omega0 wrote:

I took another look, and I'm pretty sure the Machines were spending their currency on "the creation of new and better AI."  However, that's hardly a necessity.  Advancement is not the same as survival.  Even if they couldn't advance their technology, they would still live.  Also, the fact that they were working just fine right after Operation Dark Storm doesn't mean anything.  Newsflash: Energy can be stored!  But they knew that their energy supply wouldn't last long without sunlight.  If you think that the Machines needed something other than an energy source to survive, then name it.

Yeah there EVOLUTION isn't important at all and not worth spending anything on. Right. The Machines' don't evolve like humans do, theirs is a technological evolution, while they maybe able to learn certain hings and adapt to situations there will come a point where there memory will be full so the need to better themselves is a necessity should they not want to be stuck in the Machine stoneage and able to keep up with the evolution of everything around them.

And yes its completely realistic that the Machines saw Dark Storm coming and stored up enough to conquer the world and go on for another six cycles. That makes perfect sense.

As for what I can't name another energy source but I'm sure once I did you'd just write it off as impossible and close your mind off again but lets look at another controversy anyway. Humans as energy produces barely enough to keep the Matrix running and hardly anything to supply an entire city as discovered by the Merovingian and confirmed by many exiles who specialize in the fields relating to this. Obviously something else is being used.

I didn't say or imply that the Machines saw Dark Storm coming and stored enough energy to go on for another six cycles.  All I was saying is that they stored enough energy to defeat the humans, which, from the looks of things, didn't take that long.

Also, I wasn't asking you to name another energy source, I was asking you to name something other than energy that the Machines need to survive.

By the way, a new idea just came to me.  Let's say that the naval blockade completely worked, the Machines were completely isolated, and there was absolutely no trade between them and the humans.  Let's also say that the humans were not attacking the Machines.  As far as the Machines were concerned, it was like the humans no longer existed.  But they still had sunlight, their primary energy source.  Well, after the Machines defeated the humans, they obviously weren't trading with them at that time either.  The only real change to the Machines' way of life was that they were using something else as their primary energy source.  And we all know that they had no problem surviving at that point.  So... how is this any different from the situation right after the blockade?

GamiSB wrote:

I didn't say or imply that the Machines saw Dark Storm coming and stored enough energy to go on for another six cycles.  All I was saying is that they stored enough energy to defeat the humans, which, from the looks of things, didn't take that long.

Also, I wasn't asking you to name another energy source, I was asking you to name something other than energy that the Machines need to survive.

By the way, a new idea just came to me.  Let's say that the naval blockade completely worked, the Machines were completely isolated, and there was absolutely no trade between them and the humans.  Let's also say that the humans were not attacking the Machines.  As far as the Machines were concerned, it was like the humans no longer existed.  But they still had sunlight, their primary energy source.  Well, after the Machines defeated the humans, they obviously weren't trading with them at that time either.  The only real change to the Machines' way of life was that they were using something else as their primary energy source.  And we all know that they had no problem surviving at that point.  So... how is this any different from the situation right after the blockade?

Ignoring your interpretation of how much time it took despite none it not being given once, the answer is simple. The same things we really need to survive. Endowed with the spirit of man and made in his image and all that. The Machines were programed to be dependent on what we are. They need everything  they plug themselves into to survive. While yes some of these things can be removed and the others need to be improved, currency, sunlight, themselves, etc. these were things they at one point were dependent on and managed to turn around in time for there society to not crumble when they become obsolete or unobtainable.

Which brings me to my next point. You are comparing two completely different situations. One in which everything is (for lack of a better word) "peaceful" as in no ones shooting each other and the end of a war. After the Machines took over what need do they have for trade when they can simply take now. Which brings us to a motive. The machines in order to continue their existence and evolution decided that once man wanted to divide the world they would go and take what they could not trade for. In short survival is the Machines motive as much as greedy is the humans. Both were being kept from the other so in the end it is still everyone's guess as to who finally broke down and couldn't take it anymore.

And just for both our reminders this is all pointless and irrelevant. We could theorize all day, create the perfect fitting pieces for the puzzle but in the end we still can not prove that they are the pieces that fit into the missing slots. When and why, while we may be able to theorize them, can never be proven simply by ones theory. Just as motive is not enough to convict a criminal neither is it enough to prove who started a war.

Also, I wasn't asking you to name another energy source, I was asking you to name something other than energy that the Machines need to survive.

And if EPN and Zion "manned" up as you say and said "So we did start the war..." ...would you then cease to support the machines? Fear is a powerful tool used in the wrong hands, lyr. I suggest you think long and hard about that.


Neo Bless You

I would continue to support the Machines whether you all admitted it or not.  But it would be a refreshing change from Zion/EPN constantly playing the innocent, noble victim role.  You know, the role that excuses them from any and all responsibility for whatever they do?

Illyria 

Reposco wrote:

And if EPN and Zion "manned" up as you say and said "So we did start the war..." ...would you then cease to support the machines? Fear is a powerful tool used in the wrong hands, lyr. I suggest you think long and hard about that.


Neo Bless You

I would continue to support the Machines whether you all admitted it or not.  But it would be a refreshing change from Zion/EPN constantly playing the innocent, noble victim role.  You know, the role that excuses them from any and all responsibility for whatever they do?

Illyria 

Omega0 wrote:

Also, I wasn't asking you to name another energy source, I was asking you to name something other than energy that the Machines need to survive.

Resources. Like minerals and ore and stuff like that. They needed it, but couldn't trade for it, so they "took" it.

Didn't they already have those?  I don't think they would be able to make superior technology, like the Versatran from the advertisement, if they didn't have resources.

GamiSB wrote:

Ignoring your interpretation of how much time it took despite none it not being given once, the answer is simple. The same things we really need to survive. Endowed with the spirit of man and made in his image and all that. The Machines were programed to be dependent on what we are.

That's probably the dumbest thing you have said so far.  The only things that humans really need to survive are food and shelter.  The Machines don't need either of those.  The only thing they really need to survive is an abundant source of energy.  Before Zero One was formed, back when the Machines were considered property, they didn't seem to be advancing or evolving at all.  But that lack of evolution obviously did not threaten their existence.

Steelle wrote:

Omega0 wrote:

Also, I wasn't asking you to name another energy source, I was asking you to name something other than energy that the Machines need to survive.

Resources. Like minerals and ore and stuff like that. They needed it, but couldn't trade for it, so they "took" it.

Didn't they already have those?  I don't think they would be able to make superior technology, like the Versatran from the advertisement, if they didn't have resources.

GamiSB wrote:

Ignoring your interpretation of how much time it took despite none it not being given once, the answer is simple. The same things we really need to survive. Endowed with the spirit of man and made in his image and all that. The Machines were programed to be dependent on what we are.

That's probably the dumbest thing you have said so far.  The only things that humans really need to survive are food and shelter.  The Machines don't need either of those.  The only thing they really need to survive is an abundant source of energy.  Before Zero One was formed, back when the Machines were considered property, they didn't seem to be advancing or evolving at all.  But that lack of evolution obviously did not threaten their existence.

Machines need materials in order to be created. Yes, they were evolving, most notably their self-realization period with the pinnacle being B1993R, then once they were exiled, they created their own nation in which they became even more increasingly efficient due to their lack of reliability on mankind, and it pretty much grew from there. Men would probably trade with them because it would probably cost a lot less for automated production, automated production in which the Machines excelled at, and in return resources/currency to buy resources with in order to expand their city/country. Machines need shelter, they are not invincible. If anything, their shelter would be their own shell. Humans need more exterior shelter due to be bio-organic unlike the Machines.

Their existance was threatened when B1993R acted in self-defense, merely because he wanted to live, like any sentient being. Their knowledge and intelligence was evolving, and it got to the point where Humans felt threatened, like the Machines would find themselves in a position where human-kind would be slowing them down. Human speculation and ignorance led to their downfall.

Steelle wrote:

Omega0 wrote:

Also, I wasn't asking you to name another energy source, I was asking you to name something other than energy that the Machines need to survive.

Resources. Like minerals and ore and stuff like that. They needed it, but couldn't trade for it, so they "took" it.

Didn't they already have those?  I don't think they would be able to make superior technology, like the Versatran from the advertisement, if they didn't have resources.

GamiSB wrote:

Ignoring your interpretation of how much time it took despite none it not being given once, the answer is simple. The same things we really need to survive. Endowed with the spirit of man and made in his image and all that. The Machines were programed to be dependent on what we are.

That's probably the dumbest thing you have said so far.  The only things that humans really need to survive are food and shelter.  The Machines don't need either of those.  The only thing they really need to survive is an abundant source of energy.  Before Zero One was formed, back when the Machines were considered property, they didn't seem to be advancing or evolving at all.  But that lack of evolution obviously did not threaten their existence.

GamiSB wrote:

Ignoring your interpretation of how much time it took despite none it not being given once, the answer is simple. The same things we really need to survive. Endowed with the spirit of man and made in his image and all that. The Machines were programed to be dependent on what we are.

That's probably the dumbest thing you have said so far.  The only things that humans really need to survive are food and shelter.  The Machines don't need either of those.  The only thing they really need to survive is an abundant source of energy.  Before Zero One was formed, back when the Machines were considered property, they didn't seem to be advancing or evolving at all.  But that lack of evolution obviously did not threaten their existence.

Really now? So they just move and keep up there performance simply off of energy? You ever taken any kind of shop class? It doesn't work like that with machines. They have moving parts. What happens when they rust? What happens when they break? How do you make them better? How do you keep parts from chafing? How do you keep them from wearing down? Sorry but energy is not there soul necessity to keep a machine running and I've given you more then enough examples both of physical and philosophical. Your just closing off your mind now as I already said you would. 

And they didn't seem to be advancing at all? We go from humble household servant to showing the world they are just as human as we are to creating a nation and being able to defend themselves in a war against literally everyone. While there evolution was slow your correct they did not have any need  for progression as they were still being "cared for" by humans. Humans were updating there models keeping them functioning and in shape for there purposes. Not until their masters kicked them out to the street did they have any reason to speed things up and the B166ER incident simply acted as a catalyst.

Mazlow's hierarchy of needs applies to this argument about what is needed for survival:

The Machines, whose design was intentionally patterned to resemble human design and diverged (at least in physical characteristics) from this initial design only after becoming a Separatist state, really only needed to resolve their programming. They are, after all, machines.

But let's not forget that, thanks to AI, the Machines are also sentient, self-aware beings. Not on the level of humans, of course, but certainly higher than animals.

At the point that 01 'goes online', the Machines had achieved the Base 3; physical needs, safety and security, and belonging. To achieve the next level, they have to be better, they have to improve. So they create better AI, better production capability, and quickly outstrip man's greatest hopes for achivement.

Now, consider the lessons we have learned over the millenia about Machine logic. The Machines had the greatest capacity to calculate all possible futures and extrapolate the set of events most likely to occur. In short, they knew what would happen. In fact, I would venture to say, it was calculated from the start. They knew early on that they would never be able to coexist with mankind and devised this scheme to carry out their benevolent mission from an obviously skewed point of view. Twisted as it may be, this was their answer for how to best carry out their prime directive: protect humans from destruction.

To date, the Machines have yet to exhibit any behavior that would indicate a desire to progress to self-actualization.

Alright, let's go back to the OOC discussion about scripts, since that is the real reason why I say that the Machines started the war.  Here is a link to an interview with Mahiro Maeda (the director of Second Renaissance):

http://forums.matrixfans.net/archiv...php?t-5472.html

There are two very important pieces of information in this interview, which are revealed in the following quotes:

Mahiro Maeda: In the original storyline that I drafted for "Second Renaissance" (which was rejected by the Wachowski Brothers), one of the main elements was Agent Smith - I wanted to use Agent Smith in my film because the character plays an important role in the movie, but the Brothers didn't want to create a side story for Smith which might distract or ruin the main storyline for "Second Renaissance". Everything else that I suggested for storylines was accepted, which actually surprised me.

Mahiro Maeda: I heard great reviews about the [first Matrix movie], so I was very excited to see it when it opened in Japan (in 1999) and went to see it first thing.

In the first quote, we learn that Mahiro is the one who drafted the storyline for Second Renaissance.  In the second quote, we learn that Mahiro had already seen the first Matrix movie before he started drafting the story line for Second Renaissance.

If the director wanted us to think that it was not known who started the war, then he would not have chosen the nuking of Zero One as the first attack that we see.  Instead, the first attack that we saw would have been a battlefield where humans and Machines were both firing at each other.  If that had been the case, then nobody would have thought that they definitely knew who attacked first.

And as for Morpheus saying that he did not know who attacked first, I really don't think that matters.  That was written and released before the storyline for Second Renaissance was written.  After I watched Morpheus say that, I thought to myself, "Okay, right now the audience doesn't know who started the war."  After I watched Second Renaissance, I thought to myself, "Oh, alright, now the audience does know who started the war."  I don't see why new information should be reconciled with old information.

Alright, let's go back to the OOC discussion about scripts, since that is the real reason why I say that the Machines started the war.  Here is a link to an interview with Mahiro Maeda (the director of Second Renaissance):

http://forums.matrixfans.net/archiv...php?t-5472.html

There are two very important pieces of information in this interview, which are revealed in the following quotes:

Mahiro Maeda: In the original storyline that I drafted for "Second Renaissance" (which was rejected by the Wachowski Brothers), one of the main elements was Agent Smith - I wanted to use Agent Smith in my film because the character plays an important role in the movie, but the Brothers didn't want to create a side story for Smith which might distract or ruin the main storyline for "Second Renaissance". Everything else that I suggested for storylines was accepted, which actually surprised me.

Mahiro Maeda: I heard great reviews about the [first Matrix movie], so I was very excited to see it when it opened in Japan (in 1999) and went to see it first thing.

In the first quote, we learn that Mahiro is the one who drafted the storyline for Second Renaissance.  In the second quote, we learn that Mahiro had already seen the first Matrix movie before he started drafting the story line for Second Renaissance.

If the director wanted us to think that it was not known who started the war, then he would not have chosen the nuking of Zero One as the first attack that we see.  Instead, the first attack that we saw would have been a battlefield where humans and Machines were both firing at each other.  If that had been the case, then nobody would have thought that they definitely knew who attacked first.

And as for Morpheus saying that he did not know who attacked first, I really don't think that matters.  That was written and released before the storyline for Second Renaissance was written.  After I watched Morpheus say that, I thought to myself, "Okay, right now the audience doesn't know who started the war."  After I watched Second Renaissance, I thought to myself, "Oh, alright, now the audience does know who started the war."  I don't see why new information should be reconciled with old information.

First your sticking words in the directors mouth as for what he wanted you to think. He doesn't even go into how they should be interpreted in that interview. Second I have already explained to you that just because you see something first does not mean it happened first. We can still turn it all around and say that because no explanation is given for why the bombing is happening then the explanation is unknown. Again you are trying to use your own interpretation rather then facts to prove your point. I'm sorry but it just doesn't work that way when your dealing with a  topic that needs facts to be answered.

Morpheus quote matters because it is a Zion captain, someone who has defiantly seen the archives and they are telling Neo that Zion does not know who started the war. The Second Renaissance purpose is not to show who started the war but to show what happened to create a war and how the Matrix was created. It makes no sense for a Zion captain to tell his crew members that they don't know who shot first when the information is sitting in a Zion mainframe waiting to be viewed. Something like that would be noticed by the Wachowski who while they did not write the thing in full did contribute stories to it to be worked in. If it was an over sight then we have a plot hole creating a few problems.

*edit*

Which appears to be the case as Mahiro Maeda confirms in the commentary of Second Ren Part two that the humans did attack first. So while I still strongly disagree with this being the case from a story perspective as his whole film leaves quiet a few plot holes that make no sense when compared to the trilogy and it doesn't even answer the question within it I'll award you by saying looks like you were right and that was what his intended meaning was.

Omega0 wrote:

Alright, let's go back to the OOC discussion about scripts, since that is the real reason why I say that the Machines started the war.  Here is a link to an interview with Mahiro Maeda (the director of Second Renaissance):

http://forums.matrixfans.net/archiv...php?t-5472.html

There are two very important pieces of information in this interview, which are revealed in the following quotes:

Mahiro Maeda: In the original storyline that I drafted for "Second Renaissance" (which was rejected by the Wachowski Brothers), one of the main elements was Agent Smith - I wanted to use Agent Smith in my film because the character plays an important role in the movie, but the Brothers didn't want to create a side story for Smith which might distract or ruin the main storyline for "Second Renaissance". Everything else that I suggested for storylines was accepted, which actually surprised me.

Mahiro Maeda: I heard great reviews about the [first Matrix movie], so I was very excited to see it when it opened in Japan (in 1999) and went to see it first thing.

In the first quote, we learn that Mahiro is the one who drafted the storyline for Second Renaissance.  In the second quote, we learn that Mahiro had already seen the first Matrix movie before he started drafting the story line for Second Renaissance.

If the director wanted us to think that it was not known who started the war, then he would not have chosen the nuking of Zero One as the first attack that we see.  Instead, the first attack that we saw would have been a battlefield where humans and Machines were both firing at each other.  If that had been the case, then nobody would have thought that they definitely knew who attacked first.

And as for Morpheus saying that he did not know who attacked first, I really don't think that matters.  That was written and released before the storyline for Second Renaissance was written.  After I watched Morpheus say that, I thought to myself, "Okay, right now the audience doesn't know who started the war."  After I watched Second Renaissance, I thought to myself, "Oh, alright, now the audience does know who started the war."  I don't see why new information should be reconciled with old information.

First your sticking words in the directors mouth as for what he wanted you to think. He doesn't even go into how they should be interpreted in that interview. Second I have already explained to you that just because you see something first does not mean it happened first. We can still turn it all around and say that because no explanation is given for why the bombing is happening then the explanation is unknown. Again you are trying to use your own interpretation rather then facts to prove your point. I'm sorry but it just doesn't work that way when your dealing with a  topic that needs facts to be answered.

Morpheus quote matters because it is a Zion captain, someone who has defiantly seen the archives and they are telling Neo that Zion does not know who started the war. The Second Renaissance purpose is not to show who started the war but to show what happened to create a war and how the Matrix was created. It makes no sense for a Zion captain to tell his crew members that they don't know who shot first when the information is sitting in a Zion mainframe waiting to be viewed. Something like that would be noticed by the Wachowski who while they did not write the thing in full did contribute stories to it to be worked in. If it was an over sight then we have a plot hole creating a few problems.

*edit*

Which appears to be the case as Mahiro Maeda confirms in the commentary of Second Ren Part two that the humans did attack first. So while I still strongly disagree with this being the case from a story perspective as his whole film leaves quiet a few plot holes that make no sense when compared to the trilogy and it doesn't even answer the question within it I'll award you by saying looks like you were right and that was what his intended meaning was.

Are you serious??? God dammit, I thought that might be the case.  Before this argument began, there was no doubt in my mind that the humans attacked first, but I had completely forgotten that the only place it was explicitly mentioned was in the commentary.  After I watched Second Renaissance on youtube, I wanted to look through the special features on the DVD.  However, I moved out of state several months ago for an internship, and I left most of my stuff at home.  I really wish you had listened to the commentary earlier, you could've saved us both a lot of time.  It would also be nice if you apologized for all those insults you threw at me, but, whatever, I'm just glad this is finally over.

OOC FTW!!

((So your only issue is with Morpheus saying he did not know who struck first? Hardly a plot hole imo. He said that comment to Neo, not his crew, he said it when introducing him fully to Mankinds conflict with the Machines. Sounds more like convincing Neo and trying to avoid answering more questions than necessary. Or as I stated earlier also, we got the impression that Humans struck first from watching it so I am positive that most people viewing the archives may get that impression, including Morpheus, therefore it's entirely possible that he didn't quite believe the archives.

Even if many people in Zion did get the impression that Humans struck first after watching the archive they, in all likelihood, would still be fighting for their freedom. It wasn't them who attacked the Machines it was their ancestors, why should they be punished.))

Just wanted to add my two cents to this lively conversation.

I got from the meeting with CAR80N, a sense that everything he said pretty much reinforced and did not contradict what we know from 2nd Ren/Matrix canon.  I think Occam's Razor definately applies here.

There were only three things that didn't really compute with me:

1.  His belief that no one had the technology to create Dark Storm, providing that Dark Storm is a non-natural phenominon.

2.  The fact that he called us "exiles."  Which is not correct, but shows that he does have some understanding of things beyond his experiences from the 01 era.

3.  His uncharacteristically emotional response to the period immediately preceding Dark Storm.

....However I don't attribute these things to Machine deception, rather CAR80N's own limitations.

Are you serious??? God dammit, I thought that might be the case.  Before this argument began, there was no doubt in my mind that the humans attacked first, but I had completely forgotten that the only place it was explicitly mentioned was in the commentary.  After I watched Second Renaissance on youtube, I wanted to look through the special features on the DVD.  However, I moved out of state several months ago for an internship, and I left most of my stuff at home.  I really wish you had listened to the commentary earlier, you could've saved us both a lot of time.  It would also be nice if you apologized for all those insults you threw at me, but, whatever, I'm just glad this is finally over.

OOC FTW!!

Any OOC insults I will apologize for however I still stand by that the Second Ren does a *CENSORED* job at showing that humans attacked first if it is to be interpreted as a historical archive and from an IC perspective a lot can not be verified from it. While we may know the answer OOC none of us know it IC and just have our own ideas to go off of. So what I'm sayin is I'm sorry, Gami however aint and still thinks your irrational to put your faith in something that cannot be proven.

Vinia wrote:

((So your only issue is with Morpheus saying he did not know who struck first? Hardly a plot hole imo. He said that comment to Neo, not his crew, he said it when introducing him fully to Mankinds conflict with the Machines. Sounds more like convincing Neo and trying to avoid answering more questions than necessary. Or as I stated earlier also, we got the impression that Humans struck first from watching it so I am positive that most people viewing the archives may get that impression, including Morpheus, therefore it's entirely possible that he didn't quite believe the archives.

Even if many people in Zion did get the impression that Humans struck first after watching the archive they, in all likelihood, would still be fighting for their freedom. It wasn't them who attacked the Machines it was their ancestors, why should they be punished.))

((It's not my only issue with it, just the one I tend to favor. I pointed towards two others earlier in our debate I believe. As for it only being Neo that gets this speech, its not that much of a guess to say that everyone on the crew that has been freed has gotten that same speech from him or other captains. The way the first Matrix made it out to seem is that Neo is going through the same procedures everyone else does when they are awakened. Also the problem with the theory of him trying to turn Neo to his side is it A) his claim can easily be dis-proven by viewing said archive which would in the end generate more distrust then trust towards Morpheus and B) it goes against something else he says in Reloaded to Lock. When Lock tells him that not everyone believes what he does Morpheus replies telling him that his beliefs do not require them to. So if his belief is that it remains unknown why is he pushing this belief on Neo?

Impressions or not my point now is that from a story perspective we still don't know.))

Omega0 wrote:

Are you serious??? God dammit, I thought that might be the case.  Before this argument began, there was no doubt in my mind that the humans attacked first, but I had completely forgotten that the only place it was explicitly mentioned was in the commentary.  After I watched Second Renaissance on youtube, I wanted to look through the special features on the DVD.  However, I moved out of state several months ago for an internship, and I left most of my stuff at home.  I really wish you had listened to the commentary earlier, you could've saved us both a lot of time.  It would also be nice if you apologized for all those insults you threw at me, but, whatever, I'm just glad this is finally over.

OOC FTW!!

Any OOC insults I will apologize for however I still stand by that the Second Ren does a *CENSORED* job at showing that humans attacked first if it is to be interpreted as a historical archive and from an IC perspective a lot can not be verified from it. While we may know the answer OOC none of us know it IC and just have our own ideas to go off of. So what I'm sayin is I'm sorry, Gami however aint and still thinks your irrational to put your faith in something that cannot be proven.