where’s mantrid ? (bit like where’s wally?)
[b][i]Nothing is true. Everything is permitted. [/i][/b] — Hassan i Sabbah
We’re getting bogged down in heavy philosophical territory, here, Bonnee. Which makes me wonder if it’s all worth it, when what we’re basically discussing is an approach to an evaluation of the worthiness of a TV show.
What I’m basically saying is this: the “truth” of your opinion can only exist within yourself. What holds fast in your view may crumble in the reality tunnel of one with a different viewpoint. I don’t mean to imply that all opinions are equally valid, however: there are such things as well-informed and poorly-informed opinions. While this is the case, though, both ultimately say little about the object, and reveal more about the subject. What I consider closest to “fact” are those things that are generally quantitative, and not qualitative (though even the quantitative is not as hard and fast as one would think): “This is a clock” over “this clock is ugly.” “This season contains 24 episodes” over “most of these episodes are filler.” The quantitative, we can essentially all agree upon. Michael McManus essays the role of Kai. Brian Downey is in the role of Stan. Etc. The rest (“I feel that Prince is a better villain than His Divine Shadow,” for example) is opinion and, while may be said to be true *inside* one’s own reality tunnel, must be approached as neither true nor false (and, ultimately, more malleable than a quantitative statement) when entering this view into the public arena. This is where debate and argument come in. The purpose of argument is to exchange views, to present counterpoints to those views, and ultimately, to expand or perhaps alter those views — not neccessarily to a view identical to one’s own, but perhaps to a view that can acknowledge the validitiy or invalidity of the opposing viewpoint, depending on how well said viewpoint is supported. *This* is what I was trying to point out in addressing your stance: You were stating the qualitative as quantitative. “Season 4 sucks” may be true in your own mindset, but if your intention was to get people to remind you of LEXX’s inherent worth, you could possibly do no worse than present your subjective view as a hard objective fact. If, perhaps, you’d said something along the lines of “I’m extremely disappointed in the episodes of LEXX I’ve seen so far, and here’s why…what do you think of it?” — then, maybe, a dialogue could have been better engaged. If I were to, say, go onto a music discussion board and say “DEVO are the greatest band to *ever* walk the face of this puny planet, and kick the Beatles’ collective ass,” I’m sure I’d get my share of people replying “What planet are you writing from, anyway, you shmuck?” If, however, I said “DEVO are my favorite band of all time,” people would more likely engage in a conversation about why I’d think so, who their favorite bands were, etc.
As Dennis Miller says, though, “That’s just my opinion…I could be wrong.”
–Aleck