Something for the "The One True Way Transformers should be" folks to read

[Nevermore]

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.t...6018103a1bd6b/

Very interesting, really.

[Covenant]

Mildly interesting, sure. But do those types actually exist in abundance here? The majority of folks that stop in, wanting this film to be a cg replica of the cartoon of their childhood, generally state that opinion once or twice, then fade to black.

I'd say the majority of folks speaking of items of similar homage to items of the past are open to change rather than the "TOIHAAK Syndrome: The One I Had As A Kid" the writer refers to, and arguments for said items are easily located in the midst of an explanatory post that does it validation and justice.

Quite frankly the piece sounds as though it was written after Dave (the writer) was called a "moron" (his own label of accusation from those of which he speaks) once too many times by those that couldn't turn a valid desire into a constructive explanation.

[RD_Blade]

Who is this @$$hole? I wanted to leave him a STFU reply, but that would be rude and antagonistic.

Anyways...just because a person is a fan of anything, doesn't put them in any of his 'categories'. People have the freedom to think for themselves. We're constantly changing our way of thinking. To be shoved into a category and stamped 'Geewunner', 'Toyhack', 'Armadagonner', or whatever is an insult and pigeon-holes us all. **** fan-nazis, **** Bay-dot-com, and **** the author of 'The March of the Toyhacks'. No wait...I changed my mind. All those guys are top-notch as far as I'm concerned.

[Wishful Thinking]

Originally Posted by RD_Blade

Who is this @$$hole? I wanted to leave him a STFU reply, but that would be rude and antagonistic.

Anyways...just because a person is a fan of anything, doesn't put them in any of his 'categories'. People have the freedom to think for themselves. We're constantly changing our way of thinking. To be shoved into a category and stamped 'Geewunner', 'Toyhack', 'Armadagonner', or whatever is an insult and pigeon-holes us all. **** fan-nazis, **** Bay-dot-com, and **** the author of 'The March of the Toyhacks'. No wait...I changed my mind. All those guys are top-notch as far as I'm concerned.

I disagree. I think Dave's right on the money and people don't typically get shoved into catagories, they tend to create them for themselves without saying it. Most people I run into that behave like what Dave (a really nice guy, to be honest) describes is pretty much dead-on, in that many that act this way, while they may have some good points for their "toyhackiness", once you ask whether they've exposed themselves to any other part of a franchise, they usually reply that they "haven't because it was obviously inferior to THEIR part of the franchise" or "they watched 'a little bit' and thought it was insanely dumb, therefore every aspect of it was dumb".

These people exist (though, admittedly, to varying degrees) and to say they don't is to turn a blind eye to a small section of any fandom.

[Wishful Thinking]

Dave's added to his essay in response to some emails and such.

http://www.eyrie.org/~dvandom/BW/Fanfic/Toyhacks

[Voodoo]

Some good points made, but overall I found it overly opinionated and quite unfair. Hardly a balanced breakdown of it, and I agree with Cov; I think this guys been on the end of one or two bashings - hence writing this piece.

Its rather sad so many people feel such a need to pigeon-hole other people.

[Wreck_and_Rule]

I didn't read it. What pigeonhole would I fit in?

[Voodoo]

Originally Posted by Wreck_and_Rule

I didn't read it. What pigeonhole would I fit in?

'Arrogant genius; possibly has a brass hand'

[Wreck_and_Rule]

Originally Posted by Voodoo

'Arrogant genius; possibly has a brass hand'

Wow, that's more of a fleahole than a pigeon hole. And I may have a brass hand, but it doesn't mean I can't box.

[uraydo]

interesting therory.

[Maidel]

Originally Posted by Wishful Thinking

I disagree. I think Dave's right on the money and people don't typically get shoved into catagories, they tend to create them for themselves without saying it. .

Actually there is a line of psycological thought which says that there is no such thing as a naturaly created group/ category. People assign people into steriotypical groups as their brain works - but you never self assign (unless you are slightly unstable and able to look at yourself in the 3rd person...)


What happens is you display tendancies or leanings towards one idea and someone else calls you into a group (anyone here who likes g1 gets called a geewunner) and one of two reactions take place - either you move towards that group/ role because you are a conformist, or you move away from it, trying to disprove what someone else has said about you.


This is proved psychological reality. They have done these tests on children at school. They took children with low test scores and said that they were doing really well and that the teachers were impressed with their performance. They then took the clever children and told them that they were failing badly.

After doing conformist/ non-conformist tests on the children they were able to show that any conformist who was told they were doing well improved substantially over the following weeks and any person who was told they were failing, despite doing well before had their results fall over the following weeks.

They also had a third group who were told absolutely nothing - their results stayed the same.

Basically here - the more you tell someone that they are a geewunner the more they will fall into the category (or run away from it if they fall into the 10% minority of non-conformists) It is never a concious decision to move into a group, always a decision by the other people around you.

[Wishful Thinking]

Originally Posted by Maidel

Actually there is a line of psycological thought which says that there is no such thing as a naturaly created group/ category. People assign people into steriotypical groups as their brain works - but you never self assign (unless you are slightly unstable and able to look at yourself in the 3rd person...)


What happens is you display tendancies or leanings towards one idea and someone else calls you into a group (anyone here who likes g1 gets called a geewunner) and one of two reactions take place - either you move towards that group/ role because you are a conformist, or you move away from it, trying to disprove what someone else has said about you.


This is proved psychological reality. They have done these tests on children at school. They took children with low test scores and said that they were doing really well and that the teachers were impressed with their performance. They then took the clever children and told them that they were failing badly.

After doing conformist/ non-conformist tests on the children they were able to show that any conformist who was told they were doing well improved substantially over the following weeks and any person who was told they were failing, despite doing well before had their results fall over the following weeks.

They also had a third group who were told absolutely nothing - their results stayed the same.

Basically here - the more you tell someone that they are a geewunner the more they will fall into the category (or run away from it if they fall into the 10% minority of non-conformists) It is never a concious decision to move into a group, always a decision by the other people around you.

The problem with that example, though, is they were already catagorized by their performances. All that did was show a person's reaction to learning to which category they fell into. In that example, a "Geewunner" is already a "Geewunner", just telling them as such either reinforces those beliefs or they try to deny it through said conformation.

Moreover, I honestly think that if you told someone who believes that "G1 is the one, true Transformers" that they aren't "Geewuners" and that they have a very open view of Transformers as they obviously LOVED Armada, you'd get some very odd replies...

[Maidel]

The problem with that example, though, is they were already catagorized by their performances. All that did was show a person's reaction to learning to which category they fell into. In that example, a "Geewunner" is already a "Geewunner", just telling them as such either reinforces those beliefs or they try to deny it through said conformation.

Yes - you are correct in that situation - however this is another one.

There is a belief that dislexia and autism are not 'real' conditions. You have problems spelling for one of numerous reasons and you will get categorised as dislexic - this has been PROVEN to in almost all cases decrease a persons ability to spell because in almost all cases people feel they now have an 'excuse'.

I am a prime example as I am in the 10% case of non-conformist personality (if someone asks me a question I am more likely to say no than yes - very very rough explanation...) What happened was that my spelling actually improved from being told I was dislexic - however in the other 90% of cases the majority of people actually get worse.

There is a new idea for doctors not to diagnose sypmtoms like this as there is a very real chance that the person will actually 'get worse' because of the diagnosis.


This is exactly like being a 'geewunner'. People display tendancies towards it - and then everyone else categories them and pushes them further towards it.

[Torvus]

So, being a geewunner is synonymous with having a mental condition?

[Wishful Thinking]

Originally Posted by Torvus

So, being a geewunner is synonymous with having a mental condition?

Well, in a way. But then, we all have some sort of mental condition or another...

[Maidel]

Originally Posted by Torvus

So, being a geewunner is synonymous with having a mental condition?

LOL!

great response

[Covenant]

Wouldn't someone that doesn't have a "mental condition" be lacking in a condition of mind altogether, therefore braindead?

[Maidel]

Originally Posted by Covenant

Wouldn't someone that doesn't have a "mental condition" be lacking in a condition of mind altogether, therefore braindead?

that just hurts my head...

[Wishful Thinking]

Originally Posted by Covenant

Wouldn't someone that doesn't have a "mental condition" be lacking in a condition of mind altogether, therefore braindead?

Or at least, socially inert.

[T.V.]

Originally Posted by Covenant

Wouldn't someone that doesn't have a "mental condition" be lacking in a condition of mind altogether, therefore braindead?

To live is to be imperfect.

Although Dave's commentary is a bit harsh, the general gist of it rings true for some people in certain cases.
The thing is, with heavy emotional attachment into play, people often loose the ability to reason objectively and regress to a child like state in certain cases.
Being extremely biased isn't a big problem if you're able to acknowledge that and look past it. Makes it easier to accept (neccesary) change and, in general, enjoy the little things in life.

There isn't "One true way" for all of us, but for each of us individually there is a "Prefered True Way", which form the many ways collectively.

[/Philosophical mode]

[baweepgranaweepninnybon]

Wow...lots of strong feelings over a cartoon. My benchmark is that you can insult the cartoon but don't insult real people (not that I've seen it here)--that is crossing the line.

Of course, I would have liked a tfs movie set in the 80's for nostalgia's sake, but whatever they do...I'll see it and if it stands on its own, fine.

But if I hear bad stuff about it I might wait a while to see it.

[RD_Blade]

Wait a while to see it? Like on DVD?

[uraydo]

Originally Posted by baweepgranaweepninnybon

Wow...lots of strong feelings over a cartoon. My benchmark is that you can insult the cartoon but don't insult real people (not that I've seen it here)--that is crossing the line.

Of course, I would have liked a tfs movie set in the 80's for nostalgia's sake, but whatever they do...I'll see it and if it stands on its own, fine.

But if I hear bad stuff about it I might wait a while to see it.

i wonder if people got made cause spider-man was set in present day?

[Covenant]

Why would they? Spider-Man's still ongoing and set in present day.

[Wishful Thinking]

Originally Posted by Covenant

Why would they? Spider-Man's still ongoing and set in present day.

So is Transformers. Kind of. It is the year 2006, after all, which means we should have funky jumpsuits and riding hoverboards...

[uraydo]

Originally Posted by Covenant

Why would they? Spider-Man's still ongoing and set in present day.

so is transformers.

[Wishful Thinking]

Originally Posted by uraydo

so is transformers.

Echoooooo.....

[uraydo]

Originally Posted by Wishful Thinking

Echoooooo.....

rrrriiiiii-cccccooooo-laaaaaaa

[RD_Blade]

Tooooooyhaaaaaaaacksssssss...

[uraydo]

Originally Posted by RD_Blade

Tooooooyhaaaaaaaacksssssss...

LMAO! that was great

[baweepgranaweepninnybon]

Originally Posted by uraydo

i wonder if people got made cause spider-man was set in present day?

eh? it doesn't bother me...like i said, it would be more of an indulgence, but it doesn't matter as long as it's a good movie.

i could wait for dvd...at the library