Linda Hamilton sucked in this movie, and so did her character

"That sounds rather sad to me... Sounds to me like someone who is trying their best to be positive in preparation for what is about to come."

She's fine, and even if that's true, it's irrelevant. A character being "sad" doesn't mean they're a completely different character. We saw a range of emotions from her in T1, and they were all believable.

"Second she still had her kid. It was not until second one where her kid gets taken away. That is another form of trauma. We only see the effects of this trauma in the second film. Losing the man you love, losing your kid, and being locked up in a mental institution would cause trauma."

We see the bullshit effects in T2, not believable effects; not believable unless you're an idiot, that is.

"I said she acted fine, I did not say she was fine."

I didn't say that you said "she was fine," dumbass. I said:

"Now you're contradicting yourself, i.e., if she "seemed so detached" then she wasn't acting fine, but you just agreed that she was acting fine."

She can't "seem so detached" if she's acting fine, because the only way someone can seem detached is if they are acting detached. The only way we can have any idea of what's going on in someone's head is through their actions, i.e., how they are acting.

"Too ignorant to know the difference?"

That's comically ironic coming from someone who just publicly declared both ignorance and stupidity.

"Sad people can act okay while on the inside they are depressed."

And there's no way to know that "on the inside they are depressed" unless they tell you. If you can tell they are depressed on the inside from how they are acting then that inherently means they are not acting okay, obviously.

"Your stupidity on this point is noted."

Comical Irony Alert: Part II

"Someone can completely change without brain damage."

False. Fundamental personality characteristics are hard-wired. Someone can feign being completely different of course.

"Your stupidity is noted."

Comical Irony Alert: Part III

"Translation my point on Alien debunks your point and you have no retort. You lost this point."

Your "point" on Alien, even if it were factual (it isn't), couldn't possibly debunk my point, dipshit, because my point is that a person in Sarah's circumstances wouldn't completely change in reality, which is why it's unbelievable. My point is not that a character can't completely change in other movies, which is why your "point" is utterly irrelevant, i.e., a non sequitur. This is yet another confirmation of your idiocy by the way, because idiots are the sole source of non sequiturs of this type.

"Yes it has been established."

No, it hasn't, numbnuts.

"Terminator two is higher received than the first one by the overwhelming majority."

T2 "is higher received than the first one" only by idiots (typically idiots who are younger than Edward Furlong), and most people are idiots. But regardless of that, your assertion is yet another non sequitur, i.e., even if your assertion is true, it doesn't establish that most people find her becoming a completely different character believable. And even if you did establish that, it wouldn't help your argument, because like I already told your dumbass, it an argumentum ad populum fallacy (look it up, since you obviously don't know what that means).

"You are in the minority in thinking the first is better and not liking Sarah's character arc. Do not take my word for it look up the data."

See above, dullard, and also, it isn't a character arc. It's a character that becomes a completely different character without valid justification.

"Your defeat is accepted. It is your right to be wrong."

Your non sequitur is dismissed, Slow Doug, and also:

Comical Irony Alert: Part IV