Writing Opinionate me this! [E]

[Mimmsicle]

[CENTER][B]Author's notes[/B][/CENTER]
[SIZE=1]
You may recognize this from the thread I posted in the Lounge. However, after taking the helpful advice from John and Indifference into consideration (as well as my initial doubts), I realized the idea would be better implemented in Anthology. That way I can run this as it was intended to, not to mention [strike]go on a major power trip[/strike] keep it more controlled without excluding too many people/anyone. Right now the rating is [B]E [/B] but that doesn?t necessarily mean it will stay kiddy friendly. It all depends on what subject pops up and the Opinionater?s answer.[/SIZE]

[CENTER]
[FONT=Tahoma][B]The way this?ll work is as follows:[/B][/CENTER]

[B]1)[/B] I?ll PM a specific person (kudos to Indifference), asking if they?d like to play along.

[B]2) [/B]They get a subject to Opinionate on.

[B]3)[/B] Once they've PM'd me back with their answer I'll insert the Q&A into this thread.

[B]4)[/B] Now the floor is open for audience reaction/participation until my next [strike]victim[/strike] Opinionater has been interviewed (kudos to John).
[/FONT]

---

[B]Opinionater: [/B]John

[B]Subject:[/B] "General Thread Making"

[B]Question:[/B] What is your opinion on threads with guidelines/set rules vs. open floor, when it comes to member participation?

[B]John -[/B] [I]Well, I think rules in a place like OB do more to extend the discussion than limit it. Most of the threads around here just lay down a topic, and the thread takes its course. Having parameters set on what you can do and where you can go and such tend to keep the discussion, game, or whatever more focused in a particular area, and it excels more in that area as a result.

That doesn't mean open-floor threads aren't as good, though. It's really just a matter of balancing the two, I guess. For example, I'd like to see more open-floor contests or games in the Art forum, instead of having to sign up for most everything like you do. It'd be fun to have more threads around there where you can just submit a contribution on a whim.[/I]

[DeadSeraphim]

[COLOR=Indigo][SIZE=1][FONT=Arial]Open floor threads can turn into an orgy of pointless noise and spam, so you should probably avoid them, especially if they involve the posting of pictures and have even the remotest possibility of insecure women finding them and abusing it for an ego boost. I mean, I'm not mentioning any threads in particular, just a general comment. Honest.

On the other hand, strict rules, when applied, can also make threads suck. I remember once Acheron spent half his post telling people to follow the rules or they'd die a horrible death, and got burned for it at least 4 times for being too damn stringent. It needs to be a middle ground, where you set up a topic with some kind of structured, not-stupid question to keep it going but allow enough space for growth and general forum rubbishing on.[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]

[Mimmsicle]

[B]Opinionater:[/B] Deathknight

[B]Subject:[/B] "Authority"

[B]Question:[/B] What quality/qualities, in your opinion, make/s a great leader?

Deathknight - [color=crimson][I]The idea or ideals he campaigns for.

Intelligence, charisma, personality, dedication and numerous other traits are all important factors that are necessary but they die with the leader, they go with him into the grave. Unfortunately many great leaders meet early demises, lol.

However, his ideas, goals and dreams pass on to others- the people under him, future generations and otherwise. It influences their thoughts and aspirations. The very landscape can be affected for centuries to come just because of the things he called for and believed in, the things he fought bitterly for. Even without victory those things stay in the minds of the people and, generally, a group of inspired people can become one of the most powerful forces on Earth.

A man's ideas are more impactful than the man himself to me.[/I][/color]

[Retribution]

[size=1]I think that's pretty much right, however an essential characteristic of a great leader must be that he works for the people. He must be selfless, a servant to his people. If he is not, no matter what your dreams or ideals are, you are a poor leader.

And I suppose it's best we don't get too caught up in the overvaluing of ideas over the actions themselves. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, so they say.[/size]

[Sakura]

[COLOR=Navy]I'm going to have to apologise for this short post, but there is one thing I feel I have to add to this opinion on Authority. Even though both Ken and Alex have sort of mentioned it in a way in their opinions, I think another important trait of a leader is that they have to be respectable in all senses of the word. Respectable in their morals as per mentioned, and the people he's leading must also respect him because if not then there'll be the whole over-ruling type thing, mutinies and what-not.

Yeah, but this thread is a really nifty idea.[/COLOR]

[Lady Asphyxia]

[font=Arial][size=2][color=DarkGreen]I'd like to add on to Sakura's post and say that, in addition to respect from followers, a good leader should also respect his followers. Respect is earned by giving respect; if you don't treat those around you with respect, at most all you'll get is subservience born of fear -- and that [i]isn't[/i] leadership.

I also think that respect for others is a big part of the charisma factor that so many good leaders have had. Otherwise they'd just be smarmy gits, no?

[size=1]P.S. Mimmi, I love this idea -- it's great fun! -- and I love you. I haven't seen you in ages. Where have you been?!?![/size]
[/color][/size][/font]

[Mimmsicle]

[FONT=Tahoma]Bweee, it's good to see people are finding this fun. That is the purpose .... along with intelligent conversation, of course *cough*

If you think I'm moving along too fast, please tell me so. My fingers are just so itchy to [strike]attack[/strike] Opinionate more people and make sure they get their time in the spotlight :animeswea

Sandy is up after Aaryanna . Look forward to that!

[SIZE=1]@ Lady A: I <3 you too! Unfortunately I've not been on AIM lately because of near-narcoleptic attacks, heh. You can't hold much of a conversation when every few minutes your brain knocks off -.-[/SIZE][/FONT]

---

[B]Opinionater:[/B] Boo

[B]Subject: [/B]"Food"

[B]Question:[/B] In your opinion, what would the Universal dish/course of Earth be?

Boo - [size=1][I]I would love to say that the universal dish or course of the planet Earth would be waffles, cookies, (dutch) pancakes, pie and other delightful baked things. However, I would know that it wasn't the right answer, so I will have to say [i]fish[/i]. (Ew.)

People all over the world eat [i]fish[/i]. Even a large amount of vegetarians eat [i]fish[/i], which I find a bit ridiculous, myself. There are so many kinds of fishes, that even [I]I[/I] ? someone who dislikes fish/fishes in general ? find at least one kind of fish tasty. The oceans, seas, lakes, rivers, ponds and a lot of other things with water in it, are full of them. Fishes are about everywhere (which in a way is incredibly frightening, but not really relevant to the question). I don?t know anyone who hasn?t had fish, or at least had the opportunity to do so, nor do I know of a place where they don?t have fish (though ?the desert? kind of made me doubt).

If you ask me, fishes are aiming for world domination.[/I][/size]

---

[B]Opinionater[/B]: Aaryanna

[B]Subject[/B]: "Animals"

[B]Question[/B]: What is your opinion on zoos and private owners who domesticate wild animals?

Aaryanna - [COLOR=SeaGreen][I]For starters I don?t like Zoos. I hate seeing the animals penned up in such small spaces. However at the same time I think Zoos are a good thing. They provide an excellent education tool for children to learn about animals that otherwise they would never get to see. And they can be used to conserve threatened or endangered species. They also provide a format for research and rescue of animals that have been threatened by the loss of their habitat.

On the bad side the animals would be better off out roaming freely, but for many of them that is becoming more and more difficult as humans keep building on and destroying their habitat. And what visitors see in a Zoo is far different from how an animal truly lives in the wild. Ideally I would prefer to see them in a much larger preserve instead of penned up in little cages that rob them of a more rich life.

What I think of private owners who domesticate wild animals depends upon why they have done so. Those who raise orphaned wild babies who are trained rehabilitators are often doing so with the intention of eventually releasing them back into the wild. They have the training and skills necessary to meet the orphan?s needs. So I think what they are doing is a good thing.

For those who are not, I think it?s bad to keep wild animals and attempt to turn them into pets. They often have special nutritional needs and an inadequate diet can do a lot of harm to the animal. Feeding them the same food you would feed your pet is not good enough as it was never designed for a wild animal.

Another reason why I think it?s wrong is wild animals need to be with their own kind as it is by observing the behavior of others that they learn how to find food and how to interact with other members of its own species.

They also are not vaccinated for diseases and don?t see a vet regularly so they carry infections diseases and parasites that can be harmful to other domesticated animals like dogs and cats. And some are dangerous to humans as well like Rabies. And when they are with humans they lose their wariness of people which is dangerous as they don?t understand the dangers of cars and other problems. [/I][/COLOR]

[Aaryanna]

[COLOR=SeaGreen]Interesting. I would have never thought of fish as being the Universal dish of Earth. I was thinking it would be things like bread, beans or rice. Stuff that is grown pretty much everywhere. Bread because of wheat and the others seem like they would have been a staple of people?s diets as well. I also would have thought that eggs were used pretty much everywhere too. Especially since even though fish are everywhere, not everyone has the means to actually get them.

As for everyone having a fish, yup I?m guilty. ^_~ I?ve even been fishing and caught my own rainbow trout! And when you catch it yourself and fix it the same day it?s very, very tasty! ^_^[/COLOR]

[DeathKnight]

[color=crimson]Not sure if it's considered a dish/course or not but I would have said alcohol, lol. Alcoholic beverages have been made by humans since the dawn of our very first civilizations and even before that, into pre-historic times. It provided needed nutrients and calories beyond being just a thirst quencher or social lubricant.

Next time you have some fish, have a beer with it. Consider it a compromise. :P[/color]

[Gavin]

[SIZE=1]Interesting, most interesting.

I have to admit I wasn't sure what to make of this originally but now that I've read it fully at a decent hour I'm quite intrigued by the concept, though now I have a feeling that I'll be receiving a PM asking me to participate [D'oh]. Can't wait to read a few more, if only to hear friends rant.[/SIZE]

[Shy]

[size=1]I personally loathe fish. They taste decent enough, but many of them come across as standoffish and anti-social. Anyone who would bother to keep fish as a pet confuses me.

Excellent work, Mimmi.

-Shy[/size]

[Mimmsicle]

[B]Opinionater:[/B] Sandy

[B]Subject:[/B] "Language"

[B]Question:[/B] In your opinion, do you think [the majority of] words take on a negative or positive spin when the original meaning changes, and do we try too hard to jazz up our vocabulary or is it just a natural step in the development of languages?

Sandy - [I]I can only assume the question means things like politic correctness. In that case, in my opinion more and more words are getting negative nuances in them, and using many of the words that once were part of common talk are actually frowned upon nowadays (like ******, jew, ***, etc.). Obviously many of those were once a nickname to a minority that people started to use in an offending sense. After that, new words were included to the language to replace the ones gone bad (like black, gay, etc.), but I have a fear that one day those will come forbidden as well.

In my opinion we sometimes go over the top with P.C. issues, thinking that words can hurt others. The truth is that it's not the words that offend, it's the way they are said.[/I]

[Sandy]

Heh, nice going me! XD Using words that I didn't even know would be censored off... Well, the first line of asterisks was supposed to be the "n-word" and the second line with three asterisks sounds like FAQ.

Just saying so that my message is clear...

[Horendithas]

[COLOR=DeepSkyBlue]I think Sandy hit it right on with the statement that it?s not the words but the way they are said. And then once a word is associated with a certain negativity it just spreads until the word carries that meaning even if that isn?t what it originally meant. Or rather people start to see the word as having the negative meaning instead of the orginal meaning. [/COLOR]

[Shinmaru]

[quote name='indifference][COLOR=DeepSkyBlue']I think Sandy hit it right on with the statement that it?s not the words but the way they are said. And then once a word is associated with a certain negativity it just spreads until the word carries that meaning even if that isn?t what it originally meant. Or rather people start to see the word as having the negative meaning instead of the orginal meaning. [/COLOR][/quote]

Bingo. I think a nice (reversed) example of this is the way that 'nigger' (or 'nigga' I guess) is used by many African-Americans now. The manner in which they're using it is essentially a giant fuck you to everyone who used it, and continues to use it, as such a horrid symbol of racial hatred. African-Americans are taking that word away from the racists and diluting its power. Obviously the word itself still holds some power (or, rather, the [i]feeling[/i] behind it holds the power), but a weapon is being taken away. In my view, anyway.

The word's increasingly common use in comedy is reflective of that as well. More comedians are becoming less afraid of using it and treating 'nigger' (and the feeling behind it) as the joke it really is. Because, honestly, racial hatred is such an absurdity, and while it does need to be taken seriously, it's nice to know that people can also take a step back and laugh at how utterly bizarre it is.

It's the same for other slurs as well. You have no idea how often (and how casually lol) I hear my friends drop 'wetback' into conversations. The term is just so silly to us lol. "Oh, those darned illegals - we'll show those bastards, why, we'll think up a stupid name for them all like they're some vague menace coming to destroy us! Damn wetbacks! Ooh, I should write that one down!" Forgive me if my ego isn't fazed by your idiotic phrases, buddy. :rolleyes:

I'll give this to racial slurs, though - they sure as hell make it a lot easier to know who I shouldn't give a rat's ass about.

[BlueYoshi]

[quote name='Shinmaru']It's the same for other slurs as well. You have no idea how often (and how casually lol) I hear my friends drop 'wetback' into conversations. The term is just so silly to us lol. "Oh, those darned illegals - we'll show those bastards, why, we'll think up a stupid name for them all like they're some vague menace coming to destroy us! Damn wetbacks! Ooh, I should write that one down!" Forgive me if my ego isn't fazed by your idiotic phrases, buddy. :rolleyes:[/quote]

[color=#8B0000]I'm just curious as to who makes these terms up. I mean, the term "giny wop" (derogatory for an Italian), which you might have heard in many films, stands for "going in New York with-out passport". Really, what the hell is the point of this? The very fact that the term is dumbed down to an acronym [i]spells out[/i] that it's suppose to be offensive, and that anyone who uses it in a casual manner to an Italian is just rubbing their nose in it.

I've had the term "sand-nigger" thrown at me by friends as a joke, which is suppose to be offensive towards Arabs. When I hear it from them, I laugh -- at them, because if you saw me you'd think I'm Jewish. And there's nothing "nigger" about me... I'm milk white.

Honestly. A lot of these terms are just stupid.[/color]

[Mimmsicle]

[B]Opinionater:[/B] DeadSeraphim

[B]Subject:[/B] "Nature"

[B]Question:[/B] We?re taught that it?s up to the individual to make a difference but where does the majority of responsibility lie when it comes to improving the environment, in your opinion? The Individual Consumer or The Corporate Producer?

DeadSeraphim - [COLOR=Indigo][SIZE=1][FONT=Arial][I]A corporation has somewhat of a responsibility to the environment, but it's also largely in the hands of the individual. I mean, the corporation should only have to deal with things that they are directly responsible for affecting, and it's unfair to expect them to extend themselves further than they have to. The individual, however, has as much or as little power as they want (or claim to want) to do things that can improve the environment. They can recycle if they choose to, they can join activist groups to help change living conditions and standards if they care enough, they can choose to not water [i]every[/i] day.

So, basically, I think the corporation has a predetermined amount of responsibility, but the individual can take up as much or as little as they want, for better or worse. Ideally, everyone should work towards taking more responsibility, but that's not about to happen. People are lazy, and people suck. Along with death and taxes, they're the only definites in our world.[/I][/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]

[JCBaggee]

[color=darkred][size=1]Corporations, while largely to blame, are a nigh impossible force to contend with. Lets face it, how many of us are able to storm into GE and tell them that they're destroying the Earth? And be taken seriously?

The individual consumer may not be a huge stepping stone in the goal of preserviing society, but they are a part of it. Lets face it, we're ALL part of that economic ladder that determines the fate of the forests, lakes, oceans, etc. etc. And eventually, somebody's mother or son is going to be that GE head. That's when the difference is made.

Its in all our hands to do good and make the world a better place. To put the blame off on one person or group of people is just passing the blame. Hell, even I'll fess up to destroying the environment a little: I'm just not sane enough for a carpool.

--Chris[/color][/size]

[Lady Asphyxia]

[font=Verdana][size=1][color=darkgreen]You know, I had an [i]entire[/i] post for this, and I almost posted it, too, and then [b]poof[/b], gone. So I'll try again. [/color][/size][/font]

[font=Verdana][size=1][color=#006400]I think what Alan said is interesting. I've done Business Organisation Principles as a subject and a huge part of the coursework is about ethics in business. Corporations are being held responsible for a lot more these days than ever before. Many spend millions each year funding events and sponsorship which won't get them any new customers or income, but will keep them in the 'good books' with those who know them. [/color][/size][/font]

[font=Verdana][size=1][color=#006400]What happens is; they sponsor, say, a "Save the Tasmanian Tiger Foundation", which involves a high publicity fun run. People who care about saving the tasmanian tiger will then see said publicity and go, "Oh, look, they really care about the environment. I'm going to choose them over one of their faceless competitiors." [/color][/size][/font]

[font=Verdana][size=1][color=#006400]It sounds like another marketing scheme, doesn't it? But the thing is, if the companies aren't involved in these schemes, the backlash is huge. People now [i]expect[/i] the company to be involved in charitable contributions that do not directly affect the business.[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Verdana][size=1][color=#006400][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Verdana][size=1][color=#006400]The company should now care about a lot more than it used to, which is definately a good thing. Accountability is good, much better than when they could do what they want and no one could stop them. [/color][/size][/font]
[font=Verdana][size=1][color=#006400][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Verdana][size=1][color=#006400]That said, it really ticks me off when people get up to water their gardens at midnight when we're in a drought, and then get all het up about the 'evil corporations destroying the environment'. Um, hello?[/color][/size][/font]

[Mimmsicle]

[B]Opinionater:[/B] Retribution

[B]Subject: [/B]"Music"

[B]Question:[/B] In your opinion, are artists and bands doing [good/excellent] covers riding on the success already established by someone else or do they deserve the kudos for putting their creative mark on the songs?

Retribution - [size=1][I]I think often artists and bands doing covers are putting their creative mark on songs, but there are also cases when they're doing it to make themselves look good, riding off already established success as you said. The vast majority of the time, though, there are new elements apparent in the cover that were not in the original song and vice versa, which is why I'm inclined to say it's more a creative exercise.[/I][/size]

[Shinmaru]

The only covers that are any good are those in which the band approach the cover in their own style and offer up a fresh interpretation of the song, so, yes, the bands doing good covers deserve praise for their creative work.

Really, the possibilities are nearly limitless when it comes to covers, because there are so many things that a band could do to tweak the feel of the original song: They could change the beat, change the tempo, add/take away instruments, or even just sing the lyrics in a different way so that the entire meaning of a song shifts in a different direction. Covers can become completely new songs depending on what the band does.

For example, there's "Touch Me I'm Sick." [url=http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~ptn/mudhoney/lyrics/tmisick.html][b]Looking at the lyrics[/b][/url], it's obvious that the song is sexual in nature. The original Mudhoney version is played fairly slow, with a lo-fi, grungy quality to it, and is sung by Mark Arm with this weird, growling yowl. The song has a very dirty, sleazy feel to it lol. When Sonic Youth covered it, they sped the song up a [i]lot[/i], and with Kim Gordon practically singing herself hoarse by the end of the track, there's more of a desperate longing in the sexuality. It's a great cover. :)

Sonic Youth did another great cover with "Superstar" (which was actually a cover when The Carpenters released it, though they made the song famous). I like The Carpenters version just fine, but I think that the low-key route that Sonic Youth took with the song connected much better with the kind of yearning that "Superstar" is all about. Karen Carpenter's singing is fantastic in The Carpenters' version, and it hits the heart of the song just right, but the music is too damn happy lol. It really takes me out of the song when I listen to it.

So, yeah, good covers definitely aren't just a band riding on the success of more famous bands.

[2010DigitalBoy]

[COLOR=DarkOrange]Covers can be good and covers can be bad, it depends.

When it comes to doing covers wrong, I give note to [B]Marylin Manson[/B]. Now, mind you I am NOT speaking of [B]Sweet Dreams[/B]. That was an amazing cover and even though he made it a single, it deserved it.

[B]Personal Jesus[/B], though, sounded almost exactly like the origional and that is just tacky, because he actually released it as a single and it didn't really need to be that. To me, that's just exploitation.

Another band who's done some covers is [B]Disturbed[/B] who did [B]Shout 2000 [/B] and [B]Land of Confusion[/B]. Both are awesome remakes and very worthy of album release in my opinion. Land of Confusion was made into a single as well but it didn't have a video or anything. I don't see any problem with the way they do that.

Another variation would be to release a cover and not release it on the album, which I personally find to be the best route because it doesn't take up album space and it isn't tacky.

[B]System of a Down's [/B] cover of[B] Metro [/B] is quite possibly my favorite remake ever, but they didn't release it on any of their CDs (but you can catch it on the [B]Dracula 2000 [/B] album). That's the method I think would be most proficient in releasing remakes.[/COLOR]

[Mimmsicle]

[B]Opinionater:[/B] Japan_86

[B]Subject:[/B] "Life"

[B]Question:[/B] What constitutes maturity, in your opinion? Age, ability, attitude, etc?

Japan_86 - [COLOR=Navy][I]In all honesty, I do not really know as I am still in the process of maturing, as we all do fom one time to another. From my life experiences, however, I feel that it depends on how much willpower and determination you pocess to do the responsible thing. Willpower and determination are not only needed, but the taking of action as well . Just like with getting a job. You must take the step to get one, and then yet another to make sure you perform well so that you can keep it. That is also the same thing with going to college, etc. Taking the right steps to have a life you are satisfied with or taking thge right steps to get back on the path that you sidetracked that constitutes maturity.

Willpower. Desire. Action.

The attitude and action that a person takes constitutes maturity.[/I][/COLOR]

[2010DigitalBoy]

[COLOR=DarkOrange]I agree with Miss [B]Japan_86 [/B] on this one, except in the terminology of 'maturity'. All the things she said detail to me a great person... a 'real' person as I would suffice to call them. What I question, and I don't mean to say that your definition is incorrect as I am no one to judge that, is if this meets the requirements of the term 'mature.' I do not know the dictionary definition of mature, but I know that it is used in many contexts.

The mere fact that people can have their own opinions of the word, which also means that it has a moldable definition, means that it cannot truly be defined. If someone uses it in any context other than it's true definition, it should not be correct. In fact, I think the world would be a better place if the word 'maturity' were just obliterated altogether.

But that's an issue for the category of 'language' not of 'life'.

If asked my 'definition' of the word 'maturity', ignoring the fallacy of language, mine would match hers.

EDIT: rereading your post, you didn't actually ask for her 'definition' so sorry if it felt like an attack ^^;; still, though, the misuse of the word is a pretty big issue with me... almost as much as the horrors the word 'irony' has undergone (which, in it's own respect, is an irony within itself)[/COLOR]

[John]

I think maturity has a lot to do with the suppression of self-centered instinct, myself. Those primitive impulses telling us to do what is best for us, while necessary for survival in our ancestors, have lost their indispensability in modern men because we've got almost no natural threats to our existences. So instead of needs, this instinct apparently manifests itself in wants nowadays: a man cheating another man out of money, a child crying when he doesn't get the toy he wants, an idiot in your class cutting up to get the attention he craves. I think maturity can be measured, at least partially, by a person's willingness to accept that he doesn't need these things and his ability to not go to unusual lengths to get them.