bonesiii

Could you provide an example, Munkiman? Utopia told me the word this may have changed, and I've added a note about that (as well as fixed some typos). Do they fire them at the Barraki themselves ever? And they blow up in the Barraki's faces? By the way -- didn't see a good way to work this into the entry -- I think I should clear up my own view of explosions being used against biomehcanical creatures. Personally I see nothing wrong with it. In my own fanfics, I have explosions being one of the main tools used to fight infected Rahi. An explosion of the proper magnitude can, in these stories, simply knock off the infected mask, and not injure the Rahi enough that it can't heal on its own. In the RPG, Nabmaia's Bomb Shop and other places sell bombs designed for this, and there are three variants of a weapon that you can (and would want to ) fire against Rahi this way. (Well, Nabmaia's bomb shop is in the Le-Koro level that's not yet released, but consider that a little spoiler for my RPG fans. ) These are biomechanical beings; their armor can handle the explosive force, IMO, so that it only weakens them or knocks the wind out of them (or knocks masks off), rather than killing them. However, there is an incident in my second epic where an explosion kills a being, much to Nabmaia's regret. Not glorified, obviously. So my view is, basically, that explosions are like any other kind of violence. As long as unjust use of it is not glorified, they're fine. Even gore is no different, but I think only a very few people have the taste where seeing gore doesn't harm you, in the target audience, so I think this should always stay out of Bionicle. And still there are huge numbers of adults who dislike gore (like me). It is still a matter of taste though, as long as not glorified.

Good point, GB! How did I forget the biggest death of them all? XD BTW, Ojhilom says the Madu Cabolo in the GBA game actually could be fired at Rahi. We're not sure if it ever had to be though. I know the stone blockade I mentioned had to be blasted with that weapon. (Anybody know?) I'm assuming that I forgot that, because I never used it on Rahi, since there was a very limited amount of ammo on that weapon. I mean, I mean, because that would be mean!

No, that's a common misconception. One that Greg and I end up debunking over and over, lol. Bionicle focuses on the same age group it always has. I'm curious though, on what do you base it? I've only seen two basises, so far, neither of which logically lead to that conclusion: 1) The the upper age range of the sets went up. That may be true, but the lower age range is what the focus of any toy is always on. Think about it -- if you made a toy aged from five years old to fifty years old, and the toy focused only on what is appropriate for fifty year olds, like with adult material and all, do you really think the five year olds could be in the age range? No, of course they wouldn't be. The lower age range is the focus. The upper is just there to sort of say "Hey, you older guys are allowed in too." 2) The darkness increase itself. This one is circular reasoning. Since it went up specifically to focus on the younger fan's tastes, as I mentioned, it makes no sense to use it as evidence that LEGO's targeting the older groups. It's true that older fans often want more violence/darkness. However, the darkness increase was always stated to be towards what the younger fans wanted. So this isn't relevant. Yes, however, those warriors were later freed from the ice (in my opinion, but it's a well-backed up opinion). This is a major thing I've spent a lot of time researching. A lot of people assume that those people died, but in the actual game, it's made clear that Jaller actually gives you a mission to find out what happened to them. You do -- Kopeke, who you find frozen alive in ice, tells you that the North March guards were frozen in ice as well. He says if they are not rescued early enough, they will die. So your point stands. But Jaller also makes clear that he cannot leave Ta-Koro to help because so many of his guards are gone. After you find that out, however, Jaller shows up, with many guards, at the end. My theory has always been that those are the North March guards. Since Kopeke was freed, it's reasonable to assume he went out and rescued them, then they returned to Ta-Koro. Also of note is that Greg confirmed no Matoran died, but this would get back to the whole MNOG-officiality thing. You do raise a good point, I just want to make it clear I do not believe the MNOG designers intended to say "these guys died."

Today, the Bones Blog provides some much-needed perspective on the issue of the "violence level" in Bionicle. Often lately members have made false claims about certain types of "violence" nowadays compared to 2001 or other years. So I'd like to provide a list of the real story on the history of violence in Bionicle, subject by subject. This will be set up like a Myths and Misconceptions article, listing the subject or accusation that is false in bold then the explanation following. Note, that I put "violence" in quote marks because I am including whatever other members have seen as violence. Personally I see things like swordfights and gunfights and acrobatic fighting as "action" and gore and actual injury as "violence". But for this entry I'm looking at what others have alleged, so let's set that aside for now. From here on in this entry, "violence" means any physical force being used against an opponent, mainly if I've seen other members calling it violence. Also note, I'm including semi-official and official storyline together, since most members bring up even non-official story such as Bionicle Heroes in this debate. But for this entry, I will not include non-official story like that game, since I haven't played most of those (I have played Heroes, but I'm looking farther back in history here). Basics Violence is only a moral issue -- A rarer claim, but I'd like to clear up my view of this off the bat. Violence can certainly be a moral issue. However, in entertainment, there is one type of violence where the amount of it used and shown is actually only a matter of taste, not morals (in my opinion, please note, on this one). That is, "moral violence", as opposed to "unjust violence." The real moral issue in entertainment is whether or not violence is "glorified". When a villain uses violence against the innocent, it is clearly wrong, and showing that as wrong does not glorify it (Bionicle passes this test; this is what we have Toa heroes for). If a good guy uses violence for no good reason, it is also wrong, and it's not glorifying it if this is clearly shown as wrong too (Bionicle passes this test; MOL Poisoned Tahu for example or MNOG Infected Lewa, or the fight-to-the-death test in Inferno). If, on the other hand, a good guy uses violence where he or she must to stop a bad guy before the bad guy causes more violence, this is good and just. (Bionicle obviously passes this test as well; again, the whole point of the Toa.) So Bionicle's got it right on the moral issues. The other question, the one that is generally a concern to member is "How much violence is OK for the age group?" so that's what I'll look at for the rest of this entry. Again, this one is only my opinion, unlike everything that follows, so if you disagree, don't take this as set-in-stone. It is, however, the most logical conclusion I believe that can be reached, being a logician who has studied this issue and debated it several times with some who see it completely differently. It's also based on my religious beleifs, which many may differ from, since just violence is clearly seen as good in the religious text for my religion. 2001 was not violent -- Very wrong. 2001 actually contained many examples of violence. A Muaka was frozen to death, Makuta was hit with a blast of fire (and the other elements too), Rahi punched (Tarakava), bit (Muaka), dropped from heights (Rama), swiped with their claws (Muaka, Rama, etc.), rammed with their heads (Muaka, Kane-Ra), lunge-attacked (Manas), shot poison (Jaga), and done who-knows-what-other-violence in the thousand years that they terrorized the Matoran. Makuta tried to drown Lewa (the plants in the comic), and kill the Toa (the final face-off). Infected Lewa sliced a bird's wing with his axe, sending it and its riders (Kongu and Takua) crashing. Infected Lewa fought Onua by punching, clanking weapons. Onua threw a huge clump of earth at Rahi. Finally, Kopaka even clanked his sword against a Muaka (just before it bit him--and a Muaka-bite is no walk in the park). Even all this only scratches the surface. 2001 was very violent. It is simply faded memory at best, or selective memory at worst, that causes this misconception. These things aren't up for debate--they happened. The claim that 2001 wasn't violent is quite simply false. It is illogical to argue that what is OK in 2001 is somehow not OK in 2007; we must be consistent if our arguments are to be taken seriously. The real question is, was it less violent than later years? Violence Level is going up and up -- Actually, while this is to a degree subjective, the violence or darkness level increased in 2004, and it has stayed roughly the same since then. The style or method of violence has simply varied each year, for the most part. This increase was in response to BZP complaints and LEGO research that revealed that previously, Bionicle had been holding off a little too much on the level for what the target age group could handle/wanted. For example, the characters held bladed weapons, but rarely actually used them in melee combat, which was a source of annoyance for many fans. The basic change in level began with the "plant-death" of Morbuzahk and the real, violent death of Lhikan in 2004, not to mention the first really horrible catastrophe, the Great Cataclysm. Other lesser examples of this basic level are clear in the books, starting with Voyage of Fear. Since then, although not everyone agrees, not much has happned to "up" the level at all (read on for details). Now, one caveat to that is that with Pridak's "blood", if it had panned out as we originally thought, that would have introduced gore to Bionicle (although it would only have been fish blood), but this has not ended up being the case; it is simply red markings officially. Violence level has raised as fans have aged -- Absolutely not. Bionicle targets the same age-range in 2007 as it targeted in 2001. This is a totally unfounded myth that is contradicted by every available fact. For one, the vast majority of those complaining about violence are much older fans than most fans, even than many BZPers, so upping the violence level would be the opposite of what they want. Secondly, it was always clearly stated that the violence level was raised in 2004 because that is what the target audience was seen as wanting. Bionicle is a toyline; it targets kids, not teens. This myth is usually one of the main points made by those complaining about violence, usually coming in unaware of anything that's been said in previous debates on the issue and simply assuming it from the start, rather than thinking it through. It's understandable; many other franchises do this (Harry Potter, for example), but Bionicle has never done it that way, is not now, and never will or could. All the changes that have been made are tested with target age-groups, or done because of what the target age group wants, not the rare older fans. Most kids lose interest in toylines when they grow up, so there would not be enough to sustain that kind of targeting. Yet Bionicle's sales have gone up, not down, which can only happen if the target age group likes the change. Specifics Explosions -- First, remember that explosions are the answer. That aside, the allegation is that things like the Cordak Blaster are new increases of violence. In truth, the Cordak blaster is only used to blast the stone cord apart, not to attack the Barraki directly. Even if it was, a fiery explosion is no more violent than a blast of actual fire sent at an enemy. Tahu did this in 2001 (MNOG Makuta battle), in 2003 (versus Rahkshi in MOL, and when poisoned, against Gali), and perhaps most notably in 2002 (when he built up heat pressure to literally explode a Bohrok lair). And as far as actual explosive weapons, two words: Madu Cabolo. These explosive fruit were featured in 2001 (the first GBA game). And like the Cordak Blaster, they were used to blast through rock, not characters. [Note: Ojhilom says they actually could be fired at Rahi in the game -- I apparently forgot that myself. Not sure if you ever had to or not -- if so, that would change this quite a bit, but I do not want to just assume that. If anyone knows, please comment.] Fireworks were also featured in MNOG, presumably powered by Cabolo or something similar, though these are not weapons (but they could be used as them, as I have used them in one of my epics, for example). And let's not forget that all an explosion really is is a wave of high pressure expansion and/or in most cases, high heat as well. Tahu demonstrates both or just heat sometimes, but high pressure expansion is the same idea as powerful punches, which is seen all over since 2001. There are also many "explosions" not of fire but of some other power as well. Probably most notable is the "explosion" of Makuta himself at the end of MNOG. Pieces fly all over--and as far as we knew at the time, that "explosion" actually killed him. It didn't, but regardless, it hurt. Other examples include some of the Kal's demises, the explosions that seemed to blast dismembered Toa out of their canisters (a very violent-appearing opening to Bionicle itself, notice!), the explosions that blasted Takua across the island (big island, note) and made him lost his memory on impact it was so strong (if that's not a violent explosion, what is? He survived only because he landed on loose sand, really), Pohatu exploding a hill of rock (which then buried Kopaka alive), and many more. Note: There is some dispute more recently over whether the Cordak are used to fire at Barraki or not. I'm not sure what the correct answer is yet, but take note of this confusion for now. The primary purpose is, however, still to fire at the stone cord, and again, Tahu did the equivalent of it several times. Guns/Projectile Weapons -- When the Kanoka Disks came in 2004, we heard cries of outrage and dissapointment. "Bionicle shouldn't have projectile weapons" we were told. Well, many of us seemed to forget that we had projectile weapons in 2001 and 2002. In 2002, we had the clearly gunlike weapon of the Exo-Toa, and in 2001, we had powerless versions of Kanoka; bamboo throwing Disks. The bamboo throwing disks were specifically shot from a mechanical device mounted on the back of a Gukko (Kewa, as it was called then), shooting down flying Rahi (Nui-Rama). Both of these are projectiles, and essentially "guns". There have been two changes, however: 1) The style of the projectiles has varied. The only point I've ever seen someone raise against the Exo-Toa launchers, for example, was that they did not "feel" like a gun to that person. This shows that it's a matter of style, not actually of violence level; that is a matter of taste for that person. Now, note that Bionicle has, for now, a "no actual guns" rule, but this is done purely for style reasons, for the same reason wheels were originally not allowed. It just isn't seen as fitting the Bionicle style as well as more inventive weapons like Zamor launchers or Cordak Blasters. But there is no rule against weapons that resemble guns, which is why Hakann's lava launcher and the Cordak itself look like guns. Neither is technically a real gun, because explosive force does not fire them in the story; they are simply launchers much like the Zamor launcher, with a different shape, so the projectiles are not going at bullet-deadly speeds. 2) Projectiles have replaced collectibles in sets. This is important, because most Bionicle fans like "guns" or projectiles, much more than they like collectibles, and so Bionicle has adjusted accordingly. There are, of course, more projectiles now than 2001-2003. However, they aren't really new. Swordfights -- The first fully official swordfight was featured in 2006, when Zaktan fought Tahu. Swords were clanked, and when Tahu lost, Zaktan's sword turned into protodite form and "stabbed" underneath Tahu's armor, forcing him to lose consciousness so he could be captured. Those that don't like this might want to know that I take some of the "blame" on this one as I was actually one of the people arguing for this change. I based that on the fact that, as many had pointed out previously, the bladed weapons really would be used, and as long as they aren't actually used to cut anyone up (Zaktan didn't do that, notice) and thus there was no gore, it was "action", not "violence". Others may disagree, of course. But something that has stood out to me about most disagreement with this swordfight is total silence on the same thing in 2001. In MNOG, Lewa and Onua were swinging axes and claws at each other (Lewa was infected), and clanking them. At one point, Lewa actually swipes Onua so hard Onua flies backward and slams into a wall. This is essentially a swordfight. The only difference is that one weapon was an axe, and the other was bladed claws. The concept is the same, though. Kopaka, on the other hand, has a real sword. And he used it in MNOG. In what was probably the most violent action used by a good against a bad guy in 2001 (other than blasting Makuta to pieces, perhaps), Kopaka turned invisible with a Noble Huna, and swung his sword at the Muaka beast that was attacking him. It hit. Three times, once on the face! The animation shows dark lines on impact, implying strongly that the Muaka's armor was chipped. Curiously, those complaining about the 2006 swordfight never bring this up, and when questioned, they appear never to have taken objection to it, or they had brushed it aside for whatever reason and forgotten it. Now, one caveat can reasonably be applied here. MNOG was not totally official, and Kopaka's use of the Huna in this scene indicates that it may not be totally official. Officially, the Toa could borrow the Turaga's collected masks via the Suva, but they didn't collect their own, as the web team seemed to think. This case is a toss-up. Nuju wears a Matatu, not a Huna, so Kopaka could reasonably have switched. But the mask is shown gold in the scene, which is incorrect. The gold Kanohi could only change to the other Great Mask shapes/powers, not the Nobles. So it's possible the Muaka sword-clanking episode never happened in the actual story. But we also must keep in mind that since MNOG is semi-official, and also is mistaken for official story by many fans (and most, including me, assumed that in 2001), the perception that Kopaka used his blade on an animal is still protrayed, coming from LEGO. So just as someone might take issue with Toa blasting creatures in Bionicle Heroes, it would be consistent for them to take issue with this even if it wasn't official. And one final note; the Lewa Infection scene is known to be official, though it is less emphasized than his later Krana-ization which was featured in fully official story sources. Also of note is that the endscene with Makuta is official, and he is blasted to bits, which is arguably worse than clanking weapons that cause no major damage. So this caveat is not worth much; the point is that if what amounts to "swordfights" are okay in 2001, they must be okay in 2006. Deaths -- The first permanent death was in 2004 with Lhikan killed violently by Makuta (or Morbuzahk killed by the Toa, if you count smart plants), and other deaths have followed, with Visorak killed by Roodaka and Sidorak killed by Keetongu in 2005, Matoran being killed by Piraka in 2006, as well as deaths such as the messenger from Mahri Nui dying due to lowered pressure on the surface. Probably the biggest death imaginable is Mata Nui's death, which will occur this year (it's not even considered a spoiler, it is that huge). It's true that prior to Lhikan, no sapient being had ever been permanently killed. However, we should not forget that death is not new to Bionicle. It began, like most things, in 2001. Kopaka froze a Muaka to death. It was just a Rahi, true, but then in 2004 we learned that some Rahi are actually intelligent, such as Kikanalo, and mistaken by Matoran for dumb beasts -- Kopaka had no way of knowing for sure that the Muaka he killed was not sapient like himself. Makuta, as mentioned above, appeared to be blasted to bits. Dead as a shapeshifting doornail. It wasn't until 2003 that we learned he had only seemed to die (we even saw a corpse!). Several Bohrok were destroyed, as well as the Kal and Rahkshi armor, although these were not "alive". But more importantly, Jaller died in 2003. "But bones, but bones," you say, "he didn't stay dead." This is true. But an injury to somebody's skin by, say, a sword that cuts, can heal as well. Does this make the swordcut or the gore that, for example, a violent movie shows, any less violent? No, of course not. Death is death. It hurts, you die. Unless you're undead, your death is just as bad whether you are later revived or not. Jaller died; death of sapient beings began in 2003, not 2004. Takanuva died in that year as well; he was also revived. It's fair to say that here, yes, there was a change. Permanent death certainly has more of an impact on us as readers over the long haul. Many of us liked Lhikan, and wish he could still be around (although it's worth pointing out that he's actually gotten far more story features since his death than many characters who are still alive, lol--but that's just one example). So yes, this is one where we can say without question "it's changed from 2001." However, let's not kid ourselves into thinking it's changed all that much -- and let's be consistent. If these things are OK in what we assumed happened in 2001, or what happened in 2003, they must also be OK in 2007. Also, again, let's keep in mind that just because it changed, it isn't necessarily bad. If the deaths are not glorified and the age group can handle it, there isn't really a problem. Gore -- Actually, Al has never been in Bionicle. Just kidding. Obviously, Bionicle has never had any actual blood and guts, but this is an issue that is often on people's minds. Personally, this is where I draw the line, as do many others. Many wonder, "if the violence level is going up, will it include this, and go too far?" We had a scare recently. When the first images of Pridak came out, members noticed that the teeth and mouth, and blades, had red markings that appeared like blood. Official word was unclear at first, and there were rumors of set designers saying the equivalent of "let's have blood on this guy". For a while, Greg could provide no official answer, leaving it to fan imagination. It could be seen simply as red markings, or as fish blood, depending on the fans' choice. Since Pridak is a shark, he does eat fish, many of which in the surface Ocean being totally organic, not biomechanical, so reasonably could be assumed to have blood. (Most Bionicle characters/creatures do not have blood.) It would be reasonable to assume it was fish-blood stains, just like real sharks' mouths. If it had been this, even though it is "gory" to a degree, it could be considered to not cross the line, since it is simply a shark eating fish. However, recently it has been decided that it was merely red markings, not blood at all. So this is now a non-issue. Also there was a scene in one book where a Toa was fighting with Zaktan, and after the battle, there was a puddle of some sort of liquid and pieces of armor--some have claimed that this was offscreen violence or Zaktan "eating" the Toa. However, officially it is not stated what occurred. This is a case of readers reading violence into a scene where it may not actually be, not a case of actual gore, which speaks more to where the fan's imagination is at than what Bionicle is doing. We know that Zaktan did not "eat" the Toa; it is possible that some inorganic armor was simply chipped off in a swordfight (like the Kopaka 2001 example), and a stun liquid weapon was used on him. In any case, it was "offscreen", and clearly not glorified. The main change since 2001 is that armor-damage is clearly depicted now. However, remember that Kopaka's sword clank in MNOG seems to have damaged the Muaka's armor too, so the only change is that this is in official storyline now. There are certainly other issues, but these are the biggies that have been in people's posts the most. But if I've missed anything major, by all means, please comment. I hope this helps us keep in mind the actual history of Bionicle and violence/action. Regardless of your opinion on this issue, you can form a better opinion about just about anything when you keep its history in mind.

Yeah, man, I thought you forgot! This was very good -- that is the best idea I've ever gotten, even from many of your posts, of what pleases you most in sets. Well done. But pics would help, yes.

No, I still have more to do, heh.

Hello, all. I'm posting this entry for two reasons. 1) To assure yall that this blog is not dead. Just overloaded by homework (summer classes...), the latest BZPower Reference Project, which is very time-consuming (wish I could say more--but you'll find out hopefully this summer!), and #2: 2) News on the RPG (Bionicle Paracosmos: The Map of Mata Nui). The topic may be dead, but the RPG is not--Ojhilom and I are hard at work getting that skeletal version of the Le-Koro Level ready for this summer. We're connecting as much of the storyline and boss battles as humanly possible together, so it should be possible to play through the next update to the end. Minor enemies are being neglected for now as well as some side-graphics, and all mini-games (although we've got a complete roster for music ready). But wait, there's more. That image in the banner above is not part of the Le-Koro Level. It's Kini Nui Hall-- the last level. That's right--we're going to have this update finish the RPG (minus the minor stuff for later updates). Sometime this summer if all goes as planned, Bionicle Paracosmos fans will get to play through to the end of the RPG's storyline. And if you're curious about the BP's mysteries, you're really gonna wanna play this. It's digging deeper than any of you have even guessed yet, and hopefully will leave you wanting more. Also has credits at the end, and a lot of you guys are on it--thanks for everything yall have done to help. The story ends then, but you can still explore and unlock some bonus content. The plan then will be to put up Epic 3 ASAP after that update of the RPG (which will obviously be a new topic). The storyline from here on out will be all written--no more RPGs. Just too time consuming for us--and this RPG is the most important storyline that could work for the format. In a hurry so won't make this an essay -- I'll just leave you with two teaser screenshots, these two from Le-Koro. First is my favorite graphic other than some of the bad guys (these are Rahi that Guard Tohunga ride; Towerleg birds--infected ones were in Epic 2), and second is the Main Pad in the Koro--that's Matau's hut, and that's everybody's favorite hovering Air Toa nearby. Click images for large size.

The way I see it is that you are still redefining the word "opinion". Hello, guardianoftime. I'm glad to see someone out there (and hi, McSpork!) is still reading my mostly-dead blog, XD. I have not redefined anything, at least not by the standard English definitions that I pointed out. If I was "redefining", that would mean I would be making up my own definition, and using it, either for myself, or to hope that others would use it too. I do believe that that is acceptable as long as we make it clear it's only meant as our own definition; this is what my Ruthless Elegance entry was about. But this entry is simply a report on what the standard definitions and the important meanings of them are, logically speaking. So no, it's not a redefinition. Nobody said all opinions were wrong, lol. That would make no sense--just as little sense as saying all opinions are right. To say an opinion can be wrong makes it clear that it isn't necessarily wrong. You have to put it past the logic tests to find out if it is or is not, as well as do research into the evidence for/against, etc. I'm with you so far. That would be an opinion (whether it was right or wrong). It fits the definition of opinion--again, let's put the dictionary.com definitions here, both of which it fits with: 1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty. 2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal. Here you lost me. If the opinion is not "mistaken", then how can it be wrong? What you said there amounts to saying "It's not mistaken for fact, it's mistaken for fact." Because "believing it is fact and being wrong" is synonymous with being "mistaken". The dictionary.com definitions of "mistaken": –noun 1. an error in action, calculation, opinion, or judgment caused by poor reasoning, carelessness, insufficient knowledge, etc. 2. a misunderstanding or misconception. –verb (used with object) 3. to regard or identify wrongly as something or someone else: I mistook him for the mayor. 4. to understand, interpret, or evaluate wrongly; misunderstand; misinterpret. –verb (used without object) 5. to be in error. All of the above, except mistaking a person, action, or calculation, apply to your example. So it is most definately an opinion mistaken as fact. Correct; if you're using the scientific definitions of those words. Hopefully it would be a theory (as in, that has some evidence but isn't totally proven), but many people hold opinions that are merely hypotheses as well, yes. You mean this? 3. the formal expression of a professional judgment: to ask for a second medical opinion. Yes, we aren't talking about that definition here; it's irrelevant to this discussion. We're not dealing with "formal expressions" in Bionicle debates, heh. Another what? Logic opinion? Isn't that obvious? Person? I'm not sure what you mean by this. Could you explain? Not to take you out of context; I'll continue your quote in a second, but let's not forget that it isn't a matter of "to go by", as if we can just say "hey, I feel like believing opinions can be wrong". It's that logic proves that opinions definately can be wrong, so we must realize that they indeed can. What do you mean by "can"? There's a huge difference between what you said above; which amounts to this: 1) "Believing that opinions are wrong" and what you said here: 2) "Believeing that opinions can be wrong" Which one do you mean? If you mean the former, it completely changes your meaning, from if you mean the latter. You used the former earlier, but now are using the latter. Which is it? Nobody is arguing for the former here. Nobody's saying all opinions are wrong. I am saying the latter; that opinions can be wrong. Anything that is not inherently proven (such as the statement that "There are absolutely absolutes", which proves itself true) is certainly up for debate. It's healthy for us all to realize that all our own opinions might be wrong; and so we should logically test even our own, and that way we are more likely to find the actual truth. It would not, of course, be healthy to say "eh, all opinions can be wrong, so yours must be." That would be a logical fallacy, lol. The point is, you shouldn't just assume things. Again, I'm not sure what you meant by "can", and why would it be a bad thing if we all realized that any opinion can be wrong, but isn't necessarily wrong and has to be logically tested to find the truth? You're certainly not saying we should assume our own opinions are always right, are you? If you mean, it could lead to believing that all opinions are wrong, then no, logically it could not. That would be an opinion that inherently defeats itself; it is an opinion therefore that declares itself wrong. It could be worded this way: "In my opinion, all opinions are wrong." See the mistake there? But I'm not sure that's what you meant...

All hail Brave Knight Binkmeister! Lord Survurlode is just gonna have to learn that Binkmeister is a force to be reckoned with. Here's to Binky's magical sword! *cheers*

Well, I'll go ahead and answer, but I'm a little confused how anything I have posted here makes the definition of opinion sound anything like fact? I ask because if I've said something unclear, I wish to know so that I can correct it. Opinion -- a viewpoint that cannot be 100% confirmed, with the info available. It can be wrong. Fact -- a viewpoint that can be 100% confirmed, with the info available. It cannot be wrong (except for the rare instance where we get new info we could not get before (see below, though, for a note on this)). See the difference? What you might be thinking is what people mistake their own opinions for fact. But that is a logical fallacy on the part of the individual; it is not supported at all by what I'm saying. In fact, I'm pointing out that people make that mistake. When they think that their opinion cannot be wrong they are confusing opinion with fact. (Logic opinions, that is.) In other words, if a "fact" is later found to be wrong, then it was not truly a fact, but an opinion that almost everybody confused with fact. I'd love to rant about tons of examples of this confusion in popular culture even today... but won't. Anyways, DV had summed that up well above. Judge in each case; something like set sales is a fact, definately, unless of course sales reports lied or made mistakes, as an example. Something like "This set will sell poorly" is an opinion, even if it does turn out to be correct, because there's no way to be 100% certain ahead of time. Make-a sense-a?

You'd seriously need to give an example man. If you mean emoticon spam, then you're slamming the hammer to the proverbial nail... But in general, on the 'net emoticons are important because nobody can hear voices so it's often ambiguous how a post is intended. If you find them annoying, then I must ask, in real life, do you talk like a robot and never smile or make any facial expression? And instead of using the *shrugs* emote I would normally use up there to communicate what I mean, I will add this note to make it clear that I am not being sarcastic--or condescending in any way. And... well, I hope you can see the mistake you're making--look how much more text I had to include to make that clear. Brevity is the soul of wit--if that means using emotes for more than just the kind of example you gave, so be it.

Thanks, E. BTW, I'd like to suggest to you that since you use that tactic, you're not as much of a defensive debater as you think, XD.

Real quick right now-and-hoping-to-have-time-to-reply-better-later post: See my newest reply there now, DV. I thank you for the kind words.

XD! You have no idea how ironic it is that you brought that up, because when I was a little kid I wondered the same thing (not sure why, really, just did), and the subject fascinated me. The short answer, that you could figure out with out thinking about your example at all, was that your example doesn't fall under an "I like" statement, therefore it still falls within logic. Therefore it still could possibly be wrong. Therefore, it could still be an opinion. The long answer is that for them, hypothetically, what you see as orange would be labeled "blue" by them, and they would not be able to distinguish the difference. They would call it blue because they were raised seeing it blue. That was what fascinated me as a kid, because I didn't know enough to know whether others could be seeing reality completely differently. In fact, though that specific example I've never heard of, there are people who are color blind, or blind only to certain colors. Some people might not be able to see blue, so sky would look something else (gray or white, I assume, not sure). Have met someone like that, in fact. However. The standard English and scientific definition of blue is not dependant on what our eyes see. It's actually based on the frequency of light. So regardless of the eye design or how a brain handles it, blue light will be blue. Hypothetically, again, if a person had normal eyes but had some sort of alteration that did what you said, they would know the difference and be able to say "The sky looks orange to me!" However, they wouldn't logically be right if they said "The sky is orange, whether you think it's blue or not!" Because the scientific definition of blue can be measured with objective instruments. Besides, more likely they would realize their eyes were modified, because it would be common sense that if suddenly the sky looked orange (and all other light was also changed, as would happen in that example), and everybody they asked said it was still blue, they'd realize the problem was their eyes, not the sky. Think of it like putting on color glasses. If you look at a blue sky with purple-plastic, you will see purple. Did the sky change? No, just the lense you're using. So, if you had the opinion "the sky is blue, objectively, but I see it differently", you would be right; if you had the opinion "the sky is orange, objectively, because I see it differently" you'd then be wrong. Maka sensa? Anyways, sorry if that was too wordy. I just love that subject. Ah, fond memories of childhood. Fleeting and few as they are, Re: My motto; "Forgetting things since... um...." The point is that "opinions" can be wrong. Even if an example could be shown of something that wasn't an opinion, that is irrelevant to other opinions that can be shown wrong. BTW, I figure it's worth just putting the dictionary.com definitions here for the record: The first one is the one that shows that a logic-opinion can be wrong. The second one can mean both logic-opinion and taste-opinion. The third is also logic-opinion and emphasizes judgement or estimate, which are things that can be wrong. So half of #2, basically, is where taste-opinions fall in, and where some opinions can be exempt from being wrong. How do you know? If it can be stated as an "I like" statement--then it counts as taste-opinion. So, basically, look at those definitions if you wanna know whether any example would be an opinion. In your example, GB, that would, quite literally, be a "view." So it would be an opinion. Only if they say "it looks orange to me." That would be a true statement. But the statement "the sky is orange" can be falsified with scientific instruments, and it would be. For the sake of the hypothetical, yes that's fine. Of course, he'd also talk to other people and ask, if he wasn't born that way (if he was born that way, he would think the word "blue" meant orange so there would be no issue or disagreement). But we'll assume he's highly antisocial too. Thanks for that advice, EW. Could you possibly give a short example of that? Do you mean debate yourself mentally, or do you mean, when you present your argument, include possible rebuttals and your views of them? Or something else, lol? I don't want to assume I've understood it correctly...

*crosses fingers*

Glad you agree, DV. Yep, good way to sum that up.

I did not say he should say "IMO", I said "IMT", lol. As in, "in my tastes." I stated off the bat that it's great to put your tastes in your blog--it's also great to put your opinions in your blog. That doesn't exempt opinions (rather than tastes) from being debated. Advocate--see my latest blog entry, link in sig, for what I'm talking about. It was clear this was his opinion, but not clear originally if he meant it only as his tastes. He's cleared that up (that he did mean just his tastes), so that issue is dealt with. Also, nobody ever said anything like "must" or "need". What I said was DV should consider using those "marker" phrases because they make your intent clearer. The point is, if he had said something like "IMT" to begin with, there would be no cause for confusion. As to the idea that it isn't helpful to add them, I don't buy that--I added the IMT idea to my Ruthless Elegance blog entry, and yet somehow DV is still objecting to me posting that, lol. But since I made it clear, I can point back to the IMT to prove that I made it clear. The idea being, it's wisest to make it clear when you are talking about your tastes. "Personally" or "To me" usually do it. Not hard to do, lol. Usually, when talking opinions, no, you don't really need the IMO marker, but it's considered polite on the Internet to do so anyways, as it usually stomps flames out before they start. It's his choice, certainly, but that doesn't mean one choice isn't better than another... Now, look, I do wanna make something clear. I do this purely to prevent misunderstandings that I've seen in the past that lead to flame wars. It's difficult to communicate the idea--that is why you see replies after my comments like Advocates, or Gman's thinking that I actually meant to put down others' tastes. In fact, the goal is to get others to see that putting down tastes is wrong, to avoid flame wars. Yes, I get plenty of flak for my attempts. Yes, it's frustrating as all get out, especially when they seem to cross a line, as (IMO) DV's accusation has. However, usually, my attempts have had considerable success at helping avoid flame wars, and it's because of my efforts that many debate topics that in the past would automatically get closed due to almost instant flame have managed to stay open. Open for people to complain. (Obviously, the idea that, thus, I'm somehow trying to stifle complaints is nonsense. I'm trying to defend them, XD. However, of course, at the same time, challenge complainers to think before they speak as well. Challenge both sides to do that.) Therefore, I'ma gonna keep doing it. I think complaining is important, and without people like me to "moderate" debate, they almost always degenerate into flame. We don't want that. (You can see why it is frustrating--so often I get flak from complainers, because of my attempts to defend their right to complain! But hey, it happens. Life is confusing, by nature. I don't hold grudges, so I can take it.) DV, at this point, it seems like you're going to refuse to admit you're wrong about the hypocrisy accusation, so I see no point in further refuting it, beyond the total debunking of it posted here. It saddens me that you've chosen to go down this route, and it seems that nothing I try has saved you from it. At this point I'm going to leave that up to the blog staff. Please know that I do not bear any ill feelings about it, and that I respect you as a person in many other ways. It saddens me that it seems we cannot seem to carry out "truth seeking debate" as a debate between friends on this one. So seems it's better simply to end it--my points speak for themselves so I don't need to keep repeating them. On the things you conceded, I thank you. Some other things: As to the idea that I'm the only one confused by this (I wasn't confused by it, actually), that statement simply seems to show ignorance of past debate/complaint topics. I say it specifically because so many have gotten worked up when people don't make it clear. About my "fan" definition, the definition is just a rewording of the dictionary definitions, DV. To say the same thing, except in laymen's terms. Many dictionary definitions use language that often confusing at first glance, and misunderstood (as your reply shows!), so I was attempting to say it in a way that is clearer. Obviously, it didn't work for you. What you did is redefine my definition to make it look like I was saying the opposite of what I was saying. That is not a valid argument. Again, with my definition, it is up to the person to decide what "overall" means to them. You explained why you still consider yourself a fan--that is "overall" to you. Thus, by my definition, you are a fan (according to what you said). About characterization in 2001 being better--that's fine for your preferences. Others see it differently--since the 2001 characters were "comic book" personalities with not much depth, many preferred that Bionicle move more towards 3D characters (and this has been reflected in fanfic a lot too, in my experience; people adding depth to the Toa's characters, and I do this in my own fanfics in fact). Personally I didn't mind either one in the comics in 2001, compared to 2006 & 2007 comics, but I felt the first few Chronicles book series seriously lacked character depth, and the 2002-2003 comics repeated the same ideas over and over. Anyways... I disgress, lol; that is, of course, IMT.

I suggest you ask that question to the blog staff, DV.

That is correct, Wysp--what is considered a "fact" is that which is 100% agreed (or 99.9999% lol; you get the idea) at any given time. With opinions, however, there isn't enough evidence for everybody to agree 100%, so the presence of some people who disagree with the idea makes it an opinion, rather than a fact. Also note, of course, people can hold opinions that are correct and do happen to be considered facts. Don't think this means opinions are always wrong, lol. Also, don't make the mistake of thinking there aren't people who still don't dispute facts--but those would fall into the 1% or so, and unless they provide reasoning that logically argues against the fact (rather than just doubting it, which is fine), that isn't considered to debunk the fact. As one example, a few people have posted doubts about the 2001 Rahi's poor sales. Yet the poor sales are a fact based in real sales results that cannot logically be denied--the doubts indicate honest lack of knowledge, rather than evidence against its "factness." Some facts, however, cannot be reasonably argued with, even as we learn more about the universe, such as the fact that opinions can be wrong. (Because logic itself proves this, with the example in the above reply to Anoobus, and logic is the tool used to determine what is considered fact at any given time. It's impossible to argue the fact that opinions can be wrong, because to do so is to say that -that- opinion is wrong, which is self-defeating.) That is much like the argument that there are no absolutes. It is an absolute fact that there are absolutes, because to argue against that is to assert an absolute (that there are "absolutely" no absolutes). That's a commonly seen example of inarguable facts. However, these are rare, heh. In laymen's terms, it's simplest to think of facts as things that are definately true, as far as anybody can know.

Anoobus--I will reply to the lastest PMs in my inbox later. Been busy. It is a fact that opinions can be wrong. Consider this: It is my opinion that opinions can be wrong. Am I wrong? Or consider if someone said this: "It is my opinion that Anoobus doesn't like the Bahrag." Would they be wrong? Obviously, that person would be wrong, because you just said you did like them. Also, notice that the definition you quoted confirms that opinions can be wrong. It says "Opinions are not facts"--only facts cannot be wrong. It also says "opinions are either not falsifiable, or the opinion has not been proven or verified." Not falsifiable does not mean "correct"--it means there's no known way to figure out one way or the other whether it is. This happens sometimes, as I explain in the Guide, when there is not enough to evidence to prove for sure one way or the other. "Not proven or verified" means that, in fact, it is possible for it to be wrong. Otherwise, there would be no need to prove it. BTW, that definition is close to the official dictionary.com one I quote in the Guide (orange link, sig). I recommend reading the Opinion section there.

Duty forces me to point out that if it is sarcastic, you really should say so in this case, DV. This sort of statement, if meant seriously, comes across very much as trolling (or confirming that much of what you've been posting lately, especially towards me with your hypocrisy accusation, was trolling). We have a rule against that, as you know. You really do not want ambiguity in that respect. Your "infamy" in recent days has come from things you've posted that do not seem to make sense and appear intended to be combative, at least in my view, though I could be biased since some are aimed at me. That should not surprise you. I like the ambiguity, thank you. And I'm confused as to how this would be considered trolling? It was a remark on an observation. <<DV>>