- November 3rd, 2011, 5:11 pm#358284
For clarification (I know things can get muddled in text) I am not trying to flame the OP, only trying to get us all on the same level regarding the issues popping up in this thread.
The Cinefex article for RoboCop 2 referred to the titular creature as "RoboCop 2", "The Monster" and the "The Cain Monster". If we were as slavish to the Cinefex descrip as you are, we'd be calling RoboCop 2 the Cain Monster.
Do you know what we in the RC fandom call it? RoboCain. Why? It's not official. It doesn't even work within the context of the universe. But it'd be damn confusing to start talking about the character RoboCop 2, and have people thinking you're talking about the movie RoboCop 2, and vice versa. It works because it's a descriptive name, and there's absolutely no doubt what you're talking about. Anybody who starts calling RoboCain the "Cain Monster" is going to get a lot of strange looks.
What you've been attempting to do is introduce new terminology where none is needed, on the basis that it is somehow a more "official" description when there's much more evidence in support of other alternate names. If you cannot see the problems people are having with both the basis of what you are doing and the way you're going about it, I simply don't know what to say beyond this.
RoboTrap wrote:... If you hadn't been around here for so long, I'd assume you were trolling
- Highly selective discussion of other members points.
Cyland Props wrote:Actually I've been around for far longer than you think, starting out on Ghostbusters Homepage web board back in 1995-96ish....Exactly what I'm talking about. Of all the things in my post you chose to respond to, it was a single comment remarking that you've been here long enough to make me doubt that you're trolling. One of the primary reasons why this thread has gone the route it has.
Cyland Props wrote:To be honest I'm not sure who came up with the term Tripod Traps but it started way back on that Ghostbusters Homepage web board, it might have been me who knows? So if I did I'm changing it. End of story.Congrats? Changing the name you personally refer to the devices with is no cause for your reactions.
The Cinefex article for RoboCop 2 referred to the titular creature as "RoboCop 2", "The Monster" and the "The Cain Monster". If we were as slavish to the Cinefex descrip as you are, we'd be calling RoboCop 2 the Cain Monster.
Do you know what we in the RC fandom call it? RoboCain. Why? It's not official. It doesn't even work within the context of the universe. But it'd be damn confusing to start talking about the character RoboCop 2, and have people thinking you're talking about the movie RoboCop 2, and vice versa. It works because it's a descriptive name, and there's absolutely no doubt what you're talking about. Anybody who starts calling RoboCain the "Cain Monster" is going to get a lot of strange looks.
What you've been attempting to do is introduce new terminology where none is needed, on the basis that it is somehow a more "official" description when there's much more evidence in support of other alternate names. If you cannot see the problems people are having with both the basis of what you are doing and the way you're going about it, I simply don't know what to say beyond this.
Yes. I am awesome.