|
Post by Creshosk on Sept 26, 2006 18:50:45 GMT -5
I have seen this claim one too many times on one too many forums, so I am joining the crusade to once and for all end the rumor that Rei and Minako are lesbians in the manga. ...Ok that may have sounded a bit over-dramatized, but seriously, hear me out. There's a scene in the manga the people often reference in which Minako and Rei tell the Starlights, "We already have just one person to whom we've dedicated our lives. We don't need men." In that scene (vol. 16 ch.45 in the Stars manga) Rei and Minako are not saying that they are lovers. They are saying that they don't need men because they have a destiny to protect Usagi. They will live for their princess and no one else. (This, sadly, also killed all the dreams of Senshi/Shitennou shippers like me.) A lot of people misinterpreted this because they only read the translation, and out of context it does sound like Minako and Rei are talking about each other. But while they're talking there's an image of Usagi with angel wings shown, confirming that they are referring to her. Look, I'm not saying that people can't write MinaxRei fanfiction if they really want to. But please, stop calling it canon! Ok, I'm done ranting... until next time! At least the ReixMinako fans do have a basis for romance citing the manga scenes. Though the basis for ReixUsagi and even GalaxiaxUsagi is much much weaker. I don't have a problem with senshixsenshi romance either, just the abrupt pairing of them for the sake of it with weak arguements is not my cup of tea. Not really. Citing that scene is subjective validation. They see what they want to see. Much like in the Harry Potter world anything that the H/H shippers cite is subjective validation. They see something that is not there.
|
|
|
Post by Zyppora on Sept 27, 2006 3:29:18 GMT -5
One that indexes emotions on a scale of natural numbers? Please do. onelook.com/?w=platonic&ls=aFree from (meaning zero) physical desire. Take your pick. Uuh, I see a list continuously stating 'platonic'. Where does 'romantic' show up? Page 2? Heterosexual. Minako was arroused at the thought of Yaten(thinking Yaten is male). She even got a bloody nose, which you know what that means in anime. You have any evidence to the contrary? I refer to one of the few episodes of Pokemon that I've seen. One of the Team Rockets had dressed up as Sister Joy and Brock's babe alert did NOT go off. Disguising from the eye often does not cut it. Refer to post #12... Duh. Which part? The one where you take a quick escape by making a difference between the manga and the anime? Or where you start ranting about it being subjective? So yea ... Sorry, but every romantion relationship has at least a little physical attraction. I disagree. So the only thing you're chaning is the amount of physical attraction. No physical attraction means that it's platonic. I'm sorry but you're trying once again to create something that doesn't exist. Sorry, but that's not the way I see it. I doubt your three year old bro would have much of a concept of lust... at least I sure as hell hope not. For your information I don't have a 3 year old brother. Why not? You seem to do that with every post. No, I'm just being stubborn. But this is about Rei-Minako, not about being stubborn or making yourself look dumb. To get you emotional so you screw up even more than you normally do. I'm not sure if you understand yet that my ad hominem personal attacks have no emotional attachtment for me. But they do for you, so you get emotional. Not me. Yea, that worked out so well for you in the recent past. Refer to the Concerns ... thread in the Admin Only section. Gee, I didn't know that... I get the distinct feeling you didn't pick up the sarcasm of my statement. Tell me you didn't take me seriously when I said I'm something that I'm not? Reference to my 3 year old brother who does not exist. Please don't let me stop you from making a post that shows you don't understand what the hell I just said. Oh wait, too late... You just did. Yea, we seem to have a communication problem. But that's offtopic, not to mention ad hominem (or should I say, ad fundum?) Yeah, once again you contradict yourself. "You're just jealous I can get us on a tangent when you can't " "ONLY I'M ALLOWED TO TAKE US OFF TOPIC!" You gonna give me sources for these or no? Right... and I'm the queen of scotland. After it being proven false, you keep claiming such things. Doesn't that make you a ... *gasp* liar? Or a ... *gasp* fantast?
|
|
|
Post by Creshosk on Sept 27, 2006 5:16:18 GMT -5
Uuh, I see a list continuously stating 'platonic'. Where does 'romantic' show up? Page 2? Those are links to different dictionay's definitions of "Platonic". You'll note that they say that its a relationship without or free from physical attraction or desire. I refer to one of the few episodes of Pokemon that I've seen. One of the Team Rockets had dressed up as Sister Joy and Brock's babe alert did NOT go off. Disguising from the eye often does not cut it. That has nothing to do with either the topic at hand or what I just said. Nor does anything from anything other than Sailor Moon constitute evidence to any relationship other than platonic existing between The two characters being discussed within this thread. Which part? The one where you take a quick escape by making a difference between the manga and the anime? Or where you start ranting about it being subjective? So yea ... the entire post as it disputes your "refer to post #11" argument. I already deal with post 11 in post 12. Doesn't matter if you disagree or not. That's just the way things are. It's not a subject that is up for debate. The very definition of platonic states that any relationship without physical desire or attraction is platonic. Sorry, but that's not the way I see it. Doesn't matter. The words are already defined they way they are. You can disagree but its the same thing as saying that cheese is a wheat product that comes from the underside of a rock in the middle of the night in June. For your information I don't have a 3 year old brother. Then why did you lie about having one? No, I'm just being stubborn. But this is about Rei-Minako, not about being stubborn or making yourself look dumb. Indeed. It would be nice if you could remember that. Yea, that worked out so well for you in the recent past. Refer to the Concerns ... thread in the Admin Only section. Indeed it did. I got you quite upset in that thread. Reference to my 3 year old brother who does not exist. I thought this was about rei-minako and not your nonexistent family members? Yea, we seem to have a communication problem. Indeed. You dont' seem to understand the English language very well. You gonna give me sources for these or no? This very thread. And the next one is what you are saying by gloating over an ability to take threads off topic AND trying to enforce that I stay on topic. After it being proven false, you keep claiming such things. Doesn't that make you a ... *gasp* liar? Or a ... *gasp* fantast? Yes, because I was being serious. you really should brush up on the English language some more. You might actually be capable of making a point then. But until such time all you're succeeding in doing is making yourself look foolish.
|
|
|
Post by Zyppora on Sept 27, 2006 12:21:40 GMT -5
Uuh, I see a list continuously stating 'platonic'. Where does 'romantic' show up? Page 2? Those are links to different dictionay's definitions of "Platonic". You'll note that they say that its a relationship without or free from physical attraction or desire. Yes, well, to borrow your words: the uninformed masses are experts in the field arn't they? And even the news is wrong, so why would a set of dictionaries be right? That has nothing to do with either the topic at hand or what I just said. Nor does anything from anything other than Sailor Moon constitute evidence to any relationship other than platonic existing between The two characters being discussed within this thread. Nice escape. Calling me offtopic. Very inventive. the entire post as it disputes your "refer to post #11" argument. I already deal with post 11 in post 12. Yea, you used an escape by claiming the difference between anime and manga and ranted about subjectivity. Doesn't matter if you disagree or not. That's just the way things are. It's not a subject that is up for debate. The very definition of platonic states that any relationship without physical desire or attraction is platonic. Doesn't matter. The words are already defined they way they are. You can disagree but its the same thing as saying that cheese is a wheat product that comes from the underside of a rock in the middle of the night in June. 'Doesn't matter'. Another great escape. Then why did you lie about having one? Hey, I'm a liar, remember? Not to mention a hypocritical, sneaky, schitzophrenic, paranoid, contradictory, deceiving prick. But wow, nice going offtopic there. Indeed. It would be nice if you could remember that. Well, you posting this is another opening for going offtopic again. You're not helping kiddo. Indeed it did. I got you quite upset in that thread. Yea man ... like grr, I'm angry (btw, I took the liberty of fixing a typo, rather than quoting you directly. Hope you don't mind). But that's again going offtopic. I thought this was about rei-minako and not your nonexistent family members? Then why even ask? Indeed. You dont' seem to understand the English language very well. And you don't seem to write it very well. But that's also offtopic. This very thread. And the next one is what you are saying by gloating over an ability to take threads off topic AND trying to enforce that I stay on topic. Nope, the next one is demanding a post number. Sources, kiddo, sources which I know you can't provide. After it being proven false, you keep claiming such things. Doesn't that make you a ... *gasp* liar? Or a ... *gasp* fantast? Yes, because I was being serious. you really should brush up on the English language some more. You might actually be capable of making a point then. But until such time all you're succeeding in doing is making yourself look foolish. Yea, I'm a fool everyone! Come laugh at me! Why not keep it ontopic, kiddo? Trying to start a personal tangent again?
|
|
|
Post by Creshosk on Sept 27, 2006 13:03:23 GMT -5
Those are links to different dictionay's definitions of "Platonic". You'll note that they say that its a relationship without or free from physical attraction or desire. Yes, well, to borrow your words: the uninformed masses are experts in the field arn't they? And even the news is wrong, so why would a set of dictionaries be right? Because those dictionaries include the oxford dictionary and the merium-websters dictionary. as well as others... You didn't even bother to look at any of them did you? So no those aren't the "uniformed masses". Nice escape. Calling me offtopic. Very inventive. Why not, you do it all the time. Yea, you used an escape by claiming the difference between anime and manga and ranted about subjectivity. Which pretty much took care of your post #11. 'Doesn't matter'. Another great escape. Actually simply calling my points "escapes" is more of an escape. Because I've already disproven your argument and you can't argue against it. Hey, I'm a liar, remember? Not to mention a hypocritical, sneaky, schitzophrenic, paranoid, contradictory, deceiving prick. What's your point? But wow, nice going offtopic there. You do it all the time, so sure why not? Well, you posting this is another opening for going offtopic again. You're not helping kiddo. You see this is why you're a hypocrite. You get on others cases for things you do all the time. Yea man ... like grr, I'm angry (btw, I took the liberty of fixing a typo, rather than quoting you directly. Hope you don't mind). But that's again going offtopic. Yeah it would be. Again you're going off topic. And you don't seem to write it very well. But that's also offtopic. You still have yet to make an on-topic point in this entire post you realize that right? You make a snide little comment and then point out its going off topic. Nope, the next one is demanding a post number. Sources, kiddo, sources which I know you can't provide. Wrong. AS I said the second one was you gloating about your ability to go off topic... Oh look at that you're still off topic. Yea, I'm a fool everyone! Come laugh at me! Why not keep it ontopic, kiddo? Trying to start a personal tangent again? Because you weren't on topic this entire post. I should just delete it because not once in it were you on topic. IT was just a bunch of snide comments so you could get out of providing any evidence for a relationship other than platonic between Rei and Minako. So once again, Stay on topic. And provide some valid evidence of your case.
|
|
|
Post by Zyppora on Sept 28, 2006 3:34:39 GMT -5
Wow, that's one big offtopic post, Cresh. I hope your consciounce doesn't haunt you. Anyway, If you don't see my point in me proclaiming myself to be hypocritical, only minutes before actually pointing out just how hypocritical I am, then yea ... why am I even discussing stuff with you? There's a gap between us that's miles wide.
Second, you keep claiming I should provide evidence, but you can't even back up a claim yourself. You were talking about hypocritical?
Lastly, I don't have to prove anything to you. You know why? Because you keep hammering on the fact that just because I like the idea of a relationship between Rei and Minako, you feel I should prove it, using canon examples. In case you missed me saying it (twice), Rei-Minako is not canon. And yes, for your information, that IS ontopic.
|
|
|
Post by Creshosk on Sept 28, 2006 4:06:24 GMT -5
Wow, that's one big offtopic post, Cresh. I hope your consciounce doesn't haunt you. Anyway, If you don't see my point in me proclaiming myself to be hypocritical, only minutes before actually pointing out just how hypocritical I am, then yea ... why am I even discussing stuff with you? There's a gap between us that's miles wide. Second, you keep claiming I should provide evidence, but you can't even back up a claim yourself. You were talking about hypocritical? I did back up what I claimed. You dismissed the oxford dictionary and merrium websters dictionarys. You however have not backed up one thing you've said. So yeah, You're a hypocrite. Lastly, I don't have to prove anything to you. You know why? Because you keep hammering on the fact that just because I like the idea of a relationship between Rei and Minako, you feel I should prove it, using canon examples. In case you missed me saying it (twice), Rei-Minako is not canon. And yes, for your information, that IS ontopic. So we're done here then? They are not a couple? Good.
|
|
|
Post by Zyppora on Sept 28, 2006 5:13:16 GMT -5
Wow, that's one big offtopic post, Cresh. I hope your consciounce doesn't haunt you. Anyway, If you don't see my point in me proclaiming myself to be hypocritical, only minutes before actually pointing out just how hypocritical I am, then yea ... why am I even discussing stuff with you? There's a gap between us that's miles wide. Second, you keep claiming I should provide evidence, but you can't even back up a claim yourself. You were talking about hypocritical? I did back up what I claimed. You dismissed the oxford dictionary and merrium websters dictionarys. "ONLY I'M ALLOWED TO TAKE US OFF TOPIC!"Yea, but this is what I was talking about. You however have not backed up one thing you've said. So yeah, You're a hypocrite. Very specific. And how am I supposed to know just what you're talkin about? Lastly, I don't have to prove anything to you. You know why? Because you keep hammering on the fact that just because I like the idea of a relationship between Rei and Minako, you feel I should prove it, using canon examples. In case you missed me saying it (twice), Rei-Minako is not canon. And yes, for your information, that IS ontopic. So we're done here then? They are not a couple? Good. Did I ever say they were in the anime or the manga?
|
|
|
Post by Creshosk on Sept 28, 2006 6:24:28 GMT -5
I did back up what I claimed. You dismissed the oxford dictionary and merrium websters dictionarys. "ONLY I'M ALLOWED TO TAKE US OFF TOPIC!"Yea, but this is what I was talking about. I already pointed out how you keep telling me to stay on topic, and then you delight in talking the thread off topic. Ergo, you don't want others to be off topic, but you are allowed to. What you have up above is what's known as paraphrasing. They're not your words directly, but they're your words indirectly. Very specific. And how am I supposed to know just what you're talkin about? Take your pick. Did I ever say they were in the anime or the manga? You kept referring to it being possible. This entire thread your true intentions we vaguely veiled. And deceptively hidden behind open statements that they weren't. But when you say "They're not canon, but its possible" you're pretty much just paying lip-service with the first half to make a fall back card that you just attempted to use. Despite that however you kept trying to get a foot in the door. "It's possible" "It's subjective the way you see it." I'm not as stupid as you'd like me to be. I see right through your statements to your intentions. And I will state again. There is not even a possibility without evidence.
|
|
|
Post by Zyppora on Sept 28, 2006 7:23:48 GMT -5
"ONLY I'M ALLOWED TO TAKE US OFF TOPIC!"Yea, but this is what I was talking about. I already pointed out how you keep telling me to stay on topic, and then you delight in talking the thread off topic. Ergo, you don't want others to be off topic, but you are allowed to. What you have up above is what's known as paraphrasing. They're not your words directly, but they're your words indirectly. Two words: BULL and SHIT. If you were paraphrasing, or any other fancy word, you should have said so. But especially the quotes around it make it seem like you were directly quoting me. Same as above. Can't provide any evidence which you so direly claim from me. Did I ever say they were in the anime or the manga? You kept referring to it being possible. This entire thread your true intentions we vaguely veiled. And deceptively hidden behind open statements that they weren't. Of course it's possible. They're 16 years old. I've heard of cases where pplz are 28 and discover their true nature. You wanna dismiss that? But when you say "They're not canon, but its possible" you're pretty much just paying lip-service with the first half to make a fall back card that you just attempted to use. It's valid though. Trying to attack it won't do good, because I'm not going to reciprocate. Despite that however you kept trying to get a foot in the door. "It's possible" "It's subjective the way you see it." I'm not as stupid as you'd like me to be. I see right through your statements to your intentions. And I will state again. There is not even a possibility without evidence. Heh, the subjective part actually went with the whole 'you see what you want to see' story that you conveniently failed to mention here. On a sidenote, you yelled 'subjective' more than I did, in both this thread and anywhere else. So just because there's no evidence of the evolution theory (it is after all, a theory), it's not a possibility? Wake up dude. Ohw and in case it wasn't clear to you: NOTE: EVOLUTION THEORY IS USED AS AN EXAMPLE.
|
|
|
Post by Sailor Mercury on Sept 28, 2006 7:34:22 GMT -5
*sigh*
Ok, I think I've let this go far enough.
Back to the topic at hand, please. If you wish to continue this argument, please take it to PMs.
|
|
|
Post by Creshosk on Sept 28, 2006 15:47:34 GMT -5
Of course it's possible. They're 16 years old. I've heard of cases where pplz are 28 and discover their true nature. You wanna dismiss that? Without evidence yeah. Cause some people like to be in their 90s are are always heterosexual. No evidence, no possability. It's valid though. Trying to attack it won't do good, because I'm not going to reciprocate. No it's not. In order for it to be possible you need evidence. Why is this such a hard concept for you to understand? Even Evolution has a basis of evidence for which the theory is made.
|
|
|
Post by Sailor Mercury on Sept 28, 2006 18:08:13 GMT -5
Are you done? Or was my last post invisible? I can't tell sometimes...
*attempts to steer things back to the topic title* This is a case of Canon versus Fan-"wank". (hehe, gotta love that term). Canon clearly shows that they were never a couple. But if fan-fiction peeps want to write it, then what's stopping them?
However, I think if the creator states that they're not "together" or were never intended to be, we should respect that.
|
|
|
Post by Creshosk on Sept 28, 2006 19:22:05 GMT -5
Are you done? Or was my last post invisible? I can't tell sometimes... My last post was on topic. I removed the off topic comments and didn't respond to them in the thread. *attempts to steer things back to the topic title* This is a case of Canon versus Fan-"wank". (hehe, gotta love that term). Canon clearly shows that they were never a couple. But if fan-fiction peeps want to write it, then what's stopping them? However, I think if the creator states that they're not "together" or were never intended to be, we should respect that. That's what I'm saying.
|
|
|
Post by Zyppora on Sept 29, 2006 3:55:58 GMT -5
*attempts to steer things back to the topic title* This is a case of Canon versus Fan-"wank". (hehe, gotta love that term). Canon clearly shows that they were never a couple. But if fan-fiction peeps want to write it, then what's stopping them? However, I think if the creator states that they're not "together" or were never intended to be, we should respect that. Heh, fan'wank' isn't what I'd call it (I like to reserve that term for the Ami-Makoto relationship ). Anyway, you say the creator never intended for them to be together, but what about all the artwork -that was done by said creator- that do imply similar things? Though not canon, you can't say it's fanwork either.
|
|