Frequently Asked Forum Questions
Search the HBO News Archives Any All Exact		Search the Halo Updates DBs Halo Halo2		Bungie Webcam HBO XBL Gamertags *Ar's Simple HTML Guide Shishka's Guide for Newcomers The Lowdown on Download Accelerators Red Loser's Anti-Spamming Guide Egg FAQ | More Egg Stuff c0ld's Movie Starter Guide Shishka's HaloPC Pre-Release FAQ 3.1 AutoMagic 117 StripzMaker
Search Older Posts on This Forum: Posts on Current Forum | Archived Posts

Re: Summa Canonica
Posted By: Bernard Strauss <Hornblower58@gmail.com>	Date: 1/31/11 3:36 p.m.
I've read through the Purpose section. I'm not impressed with the way he actually calls Halo products he doesn't like "unholy". He even calls 343i the "Denigrators of Our Magnificent Canon." Sheesh. It's like he hopes that by jamming negative terms into your head, you'll just start to agree with him. His "Reply to Objection I" section is...Disturbing. He says that canon was not created, it was simply revealed. As if Halo is not a work of fiction that was planned out from some point, but that the writers were just divinely inspired to give us this "revelation" that is the Halo story. He's talking about the Halo canon as if it is a religion. I'm not even kidding. I honestly found that part somewhat disturbing. He goes like this: "(insert term) is such and such that I haven't explained. Now, the reason I dislike x, y, and z is because it violates the aforementioned term. Thus it is proved." He just comes up with a term to refer to something he thinks and then pretends to make an argument. That's like if I wanted to prove that the sun was blue, when by blue I meant yellow. I'm just redefining terms. Playing silly word games. He's perverting the use of language. It's pathetic. Sigh...Look, I'll still give him a chance. He claims that he will define his terms later. Maybe. But seriously...

Message Index