As you've probably noticed (or not noticed, I guess), I've had a totally neutral stance on really any argument concerning HF. Primarily that's because I simply don't have a strong enough motivation to stand at any of its multifarious ends (always wanted to use that word in a sentence. ), but nonetheless that neutral stance has given me a sort of observer's advantage. Like any major decision, there's controversy. And like any controversy, criticism is spawned.

Criticism, conceptually, is not an emotionally fueled action. You don't see movie critics posting reviews that say, 'LORD ABOVE THIS MOVIE FREAKING SUCKED AND NOW I'M GOING TO GO HOME AND BASH MY HEAD INTO A WALL ONCE OR TWELVE TIMES.' There's a development to a criticism, an analytical process that observes what's objectively wrong, not what you personally see as not making sense or as sparking emotion. Along that line, if you feel emotionally sparked by another's opinion, that emotion applies specifically to you--can't go generalizing and applying it to every other Bionicle fan. So, criticism is an objective analysis, not a subjective, personalized bashing, however sophisticated, of the thoughts of another. Bonesiii's got a lot to say on this topic as well; I'd check out his blog for some more info on how to specifically address the thoughts of another you disagree with strongly enough to put it in writing.

The 'how to' part's not quite my major issue with the criticism concerning HF vs. Bionicle. That part's the 'When.' Controversies of smaller magnitudes--such as the lack of discussion in GD, or the best character--don't spark genuine searing emotion. It doesn't take much to recognize when a particular controversy is so large it will spark emotion. And when that happens, don't speak unless spoken to! That's a serious key to stating your criticism of another's opinion when it comes to a major argument. Feel free as a bird to state your own opinion, however strong and detailed. But when strong emotions are involved, don't go criticizing why a select individual--or everyone else--is wrong, unless you're asked to comment. You can be as upright, kind, considerate, and articulate as you want, but people are always offended, even in the slightest sense, when you come around shooting down their opinions and they don't see it coming. In fact, it's probably worse if you do it in an intellectual manner, since you've got actual facts to support why they're wrong. And that's downright embarrassing, and irritating to other bystanders, particularly the neutral ones such as yours truly.

Lemme clarify, I'm not saying don't argue. There are very few issues on BZP that involve very strong emotions, and in every other issue no one will be sincerely offended by an out-of-the-blue criticism. But in a larger-scale, more serious and emotionally involved case, criticism of an opposing opinion as opposed to just stating your own thoughts will get you nowhere but a more heated debate, and people will only stick by their prior thoughts, this time purely on principle. Someone asks you, go for it. Otherwise, stand your ground with your thoughts, and defend against wayward criticism, but don't carry that out yourself.