You’re right, this isn’t a court, but subtext/implications are also not considered acceptable for, say, a wiki like BS01. The fact that we are being mandated a specific type of sword because TTV asked if Tuyet wielded any sword at all is just a ridiculous gap in logic. I don’t understand why they could’ve have just asked “Did Tuyet use the barbed broadsword?” That question would still have been asked in an invalid way and yet the conclusion would’ve been more solid.
They for some reason went out of their way to not specify “barbed broadsword” in the previous sentence. Greg has no context except a story he wrote fourteen years ago that he definitely doesn’t have on hand, remember, or much care about.
Except that BS01 has said Tuyet’s canonical weapon is a Barbed Broadsword for as long as I remember, because that’s the glaringly obvious conclusion when you consider subtext.
They asked “Alternate reality Tuyet wielded a sword”, which refers to the Barbed Broadsword. Greg knows this. He invented the character. The next clause “did main universe Tuyet wield the same sword” is still referring to that weapon. It’s weird that they didn’t use the proper noun. It is. But you know that it is not? Worth continuing the discussion over. Clear intention with subtext is good enough for me if we don’t have explicit statement.
Anyone who has engaged with Gregory Farshtey for more than five minutes regarding bionicle canon knows that this is famously incorrect and he is famously incongruent with his own understanding of his characters
No. That is not how the question is worded. They literally say, “Teridax wielded a sword. We want to know if Tuyet also wielded a sword.” There is no “the same sword we just mentioned.” There is definitely no “the special barbed broadsword.”
I like how we argue and plead over the barbed broadsword and if Tuyet did or didn’t wield it or if only her evil counterpart did and now that we have canon confirmation directly from the man himself and direct rule posting we are STILL arguing over the dang thing.
When a question points out a sword wielded by AU Tuyet, and then asks if Prime Tuyet also wielded a sword
Do you seriously think any sane person is going to read that as “oh, they just want to know if she wielded a sword, not if she wielded the same sword we just mentioned?”
That’s the whole problem, dude. They didn’t “point out” the sword. They said the AU Tuyet (disguise) wielded a sword. The holy subtext for that is actually different. The answer provided is not concrete.
I’m not super against this ruling, but the basis for it needs to be acknowledged as unstable.
Look Keplers not to be blunt but it’s decided. Set in stone etc
It is now objective fact both versions of Tuyet wielded a sword that is by all accounts and with evidence is the BB. I don’t see how Tuyet’s relation to the BB is still up for argument.
If you don’t like it that’s fair I get that but subjective vs objective and yadda yadda yadda all that stuff.
I am not dissatisfied with Greg’s answer, and even feel that this is the moment when the long debate and war is settled.
However, if I am unhappy with the answer, it is because our discussion has not been able to find a solution for a long time.
It was a struggle in the name of discussion, where we only impose our preferences on each other.
Yeah, you’re right. They should have said “in Dark Mirror, Teridax disguised as Tuyet wielded a sword. Oh, by the way, this is the sword we’re talking about, not any other sword wielded by some other Teridax in some other Dark Mirror. Also, it has barbs, in case you forgot. Did Prime Tuyet also wield a sword? And by that we mean the same sword, not some other sword that we weren’t talking about.”
“Do you want to get fish tacos man?”
“Sure, I could go for a taco”