heavyweaponsbot | 62nd Transmission - Audio (Backdated to the morning of the 22nd)

--guilty as charged! _{One of them.} You came from them, you were one of them once. You _knowyou were. Why not just let it all out? You were _{a Decepticon} once--

[A loud thwack interrupts - metal impacting metal. Someone dislikes what he's hearing. Nevertheless, the voice continues speaking, albeit cut off by the Autobot's snarling.]

--hat's why you can't _{keep them safe.} You worry you can't. _{You're right}. Optimus. Jazz. _{The little one}. Can't keep the female safe either. She _{blames you}, they all do--

[This time, it's cut off by an engine revving.]

--what about _him, you say? Is that why it's supposed _{to be secret}? It's not. Everyone already knows. _{You can't hide it}. He's _disappointed in you. You're going to _fail him like you did everyon--

[Ironhide doesn't bother answering the voice verbally. Not at that. All there is, is a roar and the sound of a heavy fist impacting a wall. Or a bee.]

--you can't even _{say it}. Can't even say you love hi--

[And the transmission is forcibly ended.]

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I really have to question both of your methods!

Do you always treat people like this? Since when is it acceptable to tell someone they're not a person? I think my problem is really with your whole kind! Even Mister Kage thought I have a ghost— he said I wouldn't be here, if I didn't!

I bet you make a lot more enemies than you do friends— not that there's much a difference. You're really terrible at looking after humans, you know that?

What methods? Methods of dealing with a pest? A murderous AI?

If you were at all observant, you would know that no, I do not "always treat people like this". I do not believe you are alive. You lack a spark. You are not organic. Why should you care what I think? Never said it to your face... thing... before now - despite your accusations.

You dislike me, I dislike you. Why should either of us care about the other's opinion?

I have no desire to make friends with a murderer. And if you are merely going to repeat the taunts of the captain's illusion, taunts that have nothing to do with this so-called discussion, I have no further reason to listen to anything you spit out.

If you're going to keep saying I'm nothing more than a drone, you could at least keep your argument straight. A robot isn't capable of murder.

Murder, as defined in common law countries, is the unlawful killing of another being with "malice aforethought", and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide! Either you think I'm alive or I'm not.

You really think I care what "comon law countries" define it as? It is murder, in my optics. And that is what I will call it.

What do you know? You can't even admit it when you love someone!

You are changing the subject to something that, yet again, has no bearing on the discussion.

Some intelligence.

...

...

I hate you.

[It sounds....sad?]

[click]

If it's not really alive, how can it murder someone?

... Are you really trying to argue semantics?

Except it isn't semantics. If it's not truly alive and not truly a sentient, sapient being, that it cannot be held responsible for it's actions. It's just a tool. _{A really advanced tool, but still a tool.}

If that's the case, then ultimate responsibility lies with it's programmer or commander, rather than with it. If you get run over by a vehicle, you don't blame the vehicle, do you?

If you're going to argue about it, at least be consistent with your opinion. Feh.

A vehicle is not an AI. It requires a driver. An AI does not. The fault lies in the programming. It can have killer programming, if you are so intent on correct word choice.

I am consistent. I fail to see why my opinion matters so much to parties who dislike me.

If it's limited by it's programming, then it can't really take responsibility for it's actions, because it doesn't have a choice in the first place. Therefore it cannot be responsible for murder because murder requires the ability to choose.

And no, you're really not. You can't say it isn't a person, then turn around and accuse it of a crime which requires choice and sapience in the first place. It's like calling an animal which kills someone a murderer - it just doesn't work.

And I'm arguing with you because you're too much of an idiot to see that you're wrong.

I said it was AI. AIs are capable of making extrapolations of logic. Flawed logic... in this case.

I will call it what I want to call it. The creature killed people. Your language lesson has no bearing on my opinion. It will not change it.

And you are too much of a fool to see that I do not care for what you think.

But if there's a flaw in it's logic, then that fault still lies with the programmer.

Like I said, start caring.

Not if its program has changed beyond intended parameters. Happens in AI.

Hmnf. I doubt I will.

[/Click.]

62nd Transmission - Audio (Backdated to the morning of the 22nd)

[audio]

Text

Text

Text

[ audio ]

Text

no subject

Text

Text

Text

Text

Text

Text

Re: Text

Text