Barney: Purple or Fuschia??

Here, we shall discuss the most controversial topic of all....
THE COLOR OF THE MOST BELOVED DINOSAUR ON TV, BARNEY.

Maris, I am thoroughly ashamed.
First you flaunt your stance on Barney's true color in the comfort of our own homes and at safe, secure places such as our education facilities, but now on the internet?
I shall not partake in any such activites!

I think you are all overlooking a very important detail.
Direct your attention to the chart below, please. I think we can all agree that our dinosaur friend closely resembles the color described here as Red-violet (or perhaps fandango). Now, as this diagram reveals, that is a shade of violet. (If you would still prefer to think of Barney as fuchsia, note that this color is also included in the chart.)



Now, kindly take a gander at the definition of mauve. Look closely at the synonyms.



If mauve is synonymous with violet, and the definition of mauve is purplish color, then the definition of violet must also be purplish color. Following? Let's backtrack, shall we? It has been proven that Barney is a shade of violet, and this new evidence indicates that violet is purple. Therefore, we must conclude that Barney is, in fact, purple!

Gentlemen, I believe you have been owned.

yes young emily, he is not fuschia. i had not known of these other shades of purple. BUT. you cannot simply argue that barney is PURPLE. he is a SHADE of purple. i believe that that is the proper way to address his coloring. also samira, this issue is quite important whether you are in the comfort of your own homes OR NOT. children are being taught incorrect lessons about the color wheel, which is important. i dont know why its important. it just is. so samira, you have been SUPER OWNED. and emily, i agree with you but i think that it should be known as a shade of purple, not simply as purple because just saying purple is politcally incorrect.

thanks for agreeing with me unlike everyone else on this APPLESAUCED EARTH.

Okay, class, SETTLE DOWN!!
I have a few points to highlight at this moment:
1. Emily, your research is phanomanal, and I applaude you for that. But must you even stoop down to Maris's level and actually argue this?!
2. And also-
Wait wait wait, I just realized something
Let's stop for a sec and go back to #1
1.5. I guess going so deeply into color research to show Maris that her argument has no proper backbone to be even debatalbe is a worthy exercise and use of your time. I was wrong, Emily. You have not stooped down to Mairs's level, but in actuality raised yourself onto a pedestal of achievement and superiorty to show Maris who is boss, and that Barney is simply purple, no questions asked. Good work, Sheriff.
And now back to #2.
2. Do we hear ourselves?!?! We are arguing over the color of Barney's complextion!
And might I add, Maris, Barney is called "Barney the Purple Dinosaur." Must we argue with the WTTW Channel 11 Children's Educational Television writing team on what color they dub Barney to be? Must we insult the costume designers of this friendly dinosaur's outfit?!
No. There is simply no use for it.
And finally, #3.
3. Gosh darn it, Maris, must you include applesauce in ALL of your forum posts?!
Geesh.

Thank you for recognizing my awesomeness, both of you.
While I'll respect that some might prefer to be more specific in identifying the color of television dinosaur icons, it is not an incorrect statement to say that Barney is purple, nor is it to say that he is red-violet. One description is not superior, but since children can more easily understand the former, it is not surprising that the television show's creators chose to identify Barney as "purple".
As for you, Samira, I must say that I'm surprised at your constant aversion to discussion of the aforementioned dinosaur's hue. I would think that you, of all people, could appreciate passionate debate over such a controversial topic. In fact, I have a growing suspicion that you might be a spy from HIT Entertainment, attempting to end a conversation that could potentially damage Barney's sterling reputation.
Also, you are in no position to complain about Maris's usage of the word applesauce when you continue to post pictures of fruit art everywhere on this godforsaken forum!

Well, Emily, I am most pleased that you recognize my zeal for debate, most particularly the controversial specimen. However, at this time I must confirm the fact that although debate is always a healthy workout for the mind and a appropiate use of vacationing periods thereof, I must conclude that this one discussion being held is an unworthy and therefore useless topic to be continued, for various reasons.
Debate was established years ago as a way to yes, as mentioned before, discuss and create settlements on topics with a wide reputation for trouble and possible mass destruction of species, community, humanity, you name it. As the technological age at hand progressed, so did the content and true subject of such debates. This goes hand in hand with the fact that as technology improved, so did the ways for information and entertainment to be dished out to the general public, creating but more topics to be debated and fought over in upmost INappropiate ways, straying from the original, concrete ways shaped from the art of debate. Science, global concepts and issues, goverment power and ruling, evolution, war tactics, and peace among nations among many other topics went from being the crowning jewel of debate, to second best, as foolish individuals brought no-brainer topics into play. Which brings us back to the very discussion at hand in this very forum: Barney's coloring and complexiation.
Controversial? HA! You call that a controversial debate?
Mind-boggling, perhaps.
Confusing and interesting, if you are within the right group of individuals.
But controversial? I don't think so.

And by the way? At least I am using a variation of food art, and not just one irritating word constant.

Not controversial? Possibly, but topics like this can always lead to more profound discussion, such as what I'm about to bring up.
Might I make a rather extreme comparison? I'm sure you have all heard of a certain Kim Jong Il, tyrannical leader of North Korea. At least 50,000 citizens under his control are sent to camps that the North Korean government calls "re-education camps" for their political crimes. Among these prisoners are many people who merely failed to completely worship him, the supreme leader. Everyone under this man's control must believe exactly what he chooses for them, must adore him, and never consider revolution.
Perhaps, Samira, if you lived in North Korea, you would not find it so useless to protect Maris's right to speak out against a statement that she feels is an unjust. If she feels that HIT Entertainment offers an insufficient description of Barney the Dinosaur, who are you declare that her opinion is not worthy of discussing?
Speaking of which, is the topic controversial enough for you now?

Let me get this as straight as possibly achievable.
At this very moment in time, you are supporting Maris's way of aruging the hue of Mr.Barney's outer shelling? Really?
And, despite that, taking it to the extremity of comparing this meager and backeboneless chat to seriously controversial and worthy debatable topics?
Really? Really truly?
Hm.
I would suspect on more than a few occasions you would be above such discussion of the likes of this one topic in particular, or others that could be considered within its rrange or seriosity. I would assume that you would use your superior speech skills and knowledgable repetoire to your advatage in the liberal and litatrical arts.
Hm. Shame.
And I see you are playing the childish game of ifs.
Do we live in North Korea?
No.
Should we feel pity on those that do?
Yes.
Should we reach out to them?
If we can.
But we are NOT
I repeat
NOT
in
such
a
SITUATION
We are living in America, considered by some a free country.
One of our very amendments is freedom of speech, yes,
but to what degree will we stretch this privelege?
Freedom of speech is in place to allow us as Americans to stand on our soap box and share with our nation our strong, valuable, and USEFUL opinions.
Will the shade of Barney be considered a trial and be brought to the Supreme Court?
No.
Any court? Anywhere? Ever?
No.
Will it be used as a precedent for other cases to come in the future?
NO.
Will we look back at this very discussion 50 years from this date and say,
"Hey! Weren't we controversial kids?"
Absolutely not.
We have much better use of our highly valuable time.
In fact, I am reconsidereing the endless hours I have wasted on discussing values and political correctness on this topic with you. I have tried to prove my point, and gosh darn it I'll keep trucking.
I am regretting it?
Every minute.
Will I keep asking questions meant for no one but myself and then press "Enter" and then add a one or two word answer?
Oh yeah.

Once again, you have failed to comprehend the underlying meaning in my argument.
I disagreed with you not because I believe that a fictional character's color is the most important topic in the world, but because I feel that it is unjust to disregard and even look down upon a person's opinion simply because it is not what you would consider worthy or a constructive use of time.
While it is true that I am slightly guilty of playing the devil's advocate in this particular situation, and would not normally view this issue as one of the utmost importance, if another individual wishes to draw attention to what they believe is incorrect, I will continue to stand by their right to do so.
Now, perhaps we do not live in North Korea, and perhaps we do live in a society where our first amendment privileges are already protected.
Should this not be all the more reason to exercise the rights that our forefathers fought so hard to secure for us?
Freedom of speech was meant to allow the people to express ideas that were valuable - on this point, you are correct.
However, who is to determine what is and is not valuable?
If one individual is allowed to deem another's opinion invalid, (and thereby prevent said opinion from being shared) then freedom of speech does not really exist at all.
So, maybe this issue will never be brought to court.
Maybe it will not set a precedent for cases to follow.
However, if you try to take away someone's right to peacefully discuss what they consider counterfactual, then I'll see you in court.

((By the way, Samira, I thought we agreed that we would alert each other before unleashing the rhetorical questions. I was taken aback by the concentration of them in your last post. ))

Yes, Emily, you are without a doubt correct by taking the stance of saying that one's argument and discussion should be held in the highest respect without any disregard as what a bystander might have to say or add. This is only politically correct and the morally right thing to do, and I realize I might have been harshing Maris's argument so far, but not in a demeaning form, only to share my thoughts on the topic.
Additionally, if you are saying that is unappropiate to disrespect one who finds something incorrect, then why you won't stand by and respect me in my stating that this is an unworthy topic to be debated on? I have the freedom to do so if I so choose to do so. And don't begin saying that I am missing the point yet again dear chap, because you said it yourself and I quote:
"...if another individual wishes to draw attention to what they believe is incorrect, I will continue to stand by their right to do so." -Emily E.
So although you might seem to find that I am one to harsh someone's opinion and look down upon them because I am to disagree, it is merely my opinion showing through and I am attempting to show what my morale has to say and what is going through my mind when asked to contribute(although at this time unwillingly) to this topic. Freedom of speech applies to my argument as well, and you said yourself that you would not usually find a case such as this held in utmost importance, which my opinion clearly shows that it is not.
I admit, I was a bit harsher than necessary in previous remarks in past posts, however, at no time whatsoever was I trying to degrate or demean Maris because of her point of view. Maris is a fond pal of mine, and I would never wish to convey hurtful feelings to her, but merely show honesty at all times, which in this case is giving her my full and TRUE opinion. Here, that is that Barney's color is a topic in which I do not find enhancing any part of the mind or conveying comfort or entertainment to me, a potenial contributor to the discussion.

And I am sorry for no warning of my rhetorical spazim, but I felt it would enhance my argument quite nicely, and I felt a need for the element of surprise.
But I am telling you here first, there are no rhetorical questons in this post in particular.
And I can not promise that alerts will be issued everytime a rhetorical device is used, for my memory does slip from time to time. Or does it?

You bring up a good point; I should respect your right to share your viewpoint just as I have for Maris.
However, consider this. You have made clear your opinion, but in doing so, you have made a noticeable effort to prevent Maris from voicing hers, and have stated numerous times that you do not believe that hers is as "worthy" as your own.
Therefore, in order to protect my friend's ability to speak her mind, I am forced to side against you in this matter.
Also, notice that I have not told you to stop posting here, but challenged you and pointed out why I believe you are incorrect.
I have not assumed that mine is the only correct stance, but welcomed you to defend your position.
In this way, I have granted you the same courtesy that I would anyone else with whom I do not concur.
Now, you claim that you have never made insulting, demeaning, or degrading remarks? Ha! In fact, as long as we're quoting eachother, I might as well bring up some of your past statements that prove very contradictory indeed.

Samira Mian wrote: Controversial? HA! You call that a controversial debate?

Maris, I am thoroughly ashamed [of you].

Must you even stoop down to Maris's level and actually argue this?!

I believe the preceding quotes are sufficient testimony as to your constant, as you put it, "harshing someone's opinion".

I am glad to see that you respect my viewpoints, and I am glad that we have come to a point in our discussing where we can agree that each man has his chance to deliver what he calls his opinion and stance in a topical debate.
However, Emily boy, you have once again misread into what I had to say in contributing to this discussion.
As you can see in my last post, I acknowledged the fact that I had made unnecessarily harsh remarks and it wasn't my place to make such comments, so we should be done with that matter.
You also wrote that I never made insulting, demeaning, etc. remarks, which is not true, obviously, or else why would I have be acknowledging them in my last post? I was clearly very well aware of these remarks, and as I said there really was no other reason except for your pure delight to take another look.
To correct your error, I said that I never meant to be degrading, demeaning, etc. Yes, I might have said things that sounded awful, but they were empty words, not truly backed by emotion or true passion. And how do I know this? Because I am the very one who typed the phrases, dear chap. I know what I said and I know how I said them.
Might I also point out that when you added [of you] to the end of "Maris, I am thoroughly ashamed," you completely changed the context of the sentence and therefore put words into my mouth that were never meant. Yes, it is very much true that "of you" could be latched onto that phrase, but you were incorrect of your addition. When I said "Maris, I am thoroughly ashamed," I did not mean in her; you made that up to make me sound like I had said an even worse comment than already on the page and therefore to support your argument. I meant I was ashamed that she would create such a discussion. I was ashamed of her actions, not of her. And trust me, there is a large difference. I am not ashamed of Maris for as I had written in my last post that Maris is a very dear pal of mine and that I am quite fond of, and no shame added there. You can be upset with what one did at one point or another, but that doesn't mean you are degrading that person or stating you would no longer wish to be seen or associated with them.

It would appear that I misunderstood your previous post, so you can disregard the last few sentences of my response.
Also, excuse my wording in the middle quote - I was not trying to imply that you were being more critical than you were in actuality.
I was merely striving to make readers aware that your comment was directed at Maris, seeing as if the quote was taken out of context, it might sound like you were saying that you were ashamed of yourself.

Now that we have debated for quite some time and, as you pointed out, it appears that we have both had our say in this matter, I suppose this is what it all boils down to:
You believe that Barney's color is not worthy of discussion, and I believe that people should be able to discuss whatever they so choose.

If this summary is adequate to you, I presume that we have, indeed, reached a point at which it is best to simply "agree to disagree", as the late John Wesley once wrote. It has been very amusing to engage in debate with you, and I give you my gratitude for the stimulating conversation.'

((By the way, Maris, I'm sorry but I accidentally used my Admin powers to close the poll...))

You have it, dear boy.
You hit the nail right on the head.
And I must say, I was running out of fancy phrases to use and points to argue, so thanks for summing it all quite nicely.
And was the closing of the poll really accidental?

So, Parcheesi anyone?

If you want to play parcheesi so badly, you should make a thread for it. (Although I don't know how it will work online.)
Also, why must you always refer to me with the blasted nickname, "boy"?!

I never said I wanted to play it SO BADLY, I was just offerin' up some quality game time with my pals!

I like the way it sounds! It fits you nicely.

What do you mean, it fits me?!

I would answer, but that picture intimidates me too much.
I will say this, however: It just does, okay? Not in the sense you are a boy, but I think it sounds all old-time proper England when addressing someone with it, and I lurv proper-talkin' British people!

Forsooth! An thou lovest the proper old-English dialect, then behold! I shall speaketh to thee only in this way, young lad.

Ooh, sorry to burst your floating pool toy, but that isn't how I grill my Wow, Emily is so cool! all old-time British-like.
Yes, that is most definitely old-time English, but not old time British.
I meant stuff like the following tidbit of possible ole-time British talk:
Ah! Jim! I see you've brought home your carryin's worth of fresh trout! That shall indubitibly make a fine chowder, eh, my boy? Fancy a cup of tea and a few crumpets? That's my boy, chap! Like his ole man!