Talk:Mexican Mating Machine
From LGPedia
Australia & New Zealand
Okay, before another vet comes in an blows up irratated that this note has been blanked once more, let me just say that yes WE ALL KNOW that Australia and New Zealand are COMPLETELY different. Shoot, you don't even call a native of New Zealand a "New Zealander" like you would an Australian from Australia -- you would refer to them as a "Kiwi." Even I know that. The note is significant and FUNNY because hey, if Gina IS Bree's sister, you'd almost expect her (at least from the Creators' mind) to have a Kiwi accent, almost in a way to remind us that yes, she IS Bree's sister and we're here to remind you of that! But nope: Instead we have Gina speak in an Australian accent -- which, IMHO was totally funny and (I would even argue) ironic. The note was NEVER seen (in my eye) as comparing the two cultures together. It'd be like comparing Canada to the United States, or Italy to Spain. (sigh) well, that's my rant for the month. :) --Pheon 14:58, 16 March 2008 (CDT)
- For the love of god, the next person who blanks the comment is getting banned for a week, I'm not even kidding. As Pheon said, WE KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND. This does not mean you can randomly blank the notes section. There is a reason this one exists! (You can add to it, or clarify if you want; I don't care about that.) - Shiori 18:51, 16 March 2008 (CDT)
- If you know the difference between Australia and New Zealand, then why do you continue to act as though they're the same? How is Gina's Australian impression a reference to Jessica Rose if Jessica isn't from Australia?
- Like we said, we're NOT. We are simply pointing out that it's funny that with all the the recent connections to Bree in the storyline, the Creators decided to give us a little surprise twist and have Crystal perform with an Australian accent. That's all there is to it. :) --Pheon 13:29, 17 March 2008 (CDT)
And Gina shouldn't have a Kiwi accent (unless she lived there as well), since she and Bree were raised different and in different places. --72.241.128.34 16:54, 17 March 2008 (CDT)
What is wrong with note number two
- This conversation is officially over. It's just running around in circles over semantics anymore. Per admins backing this comment, it is to stay intact. - Shiori 06:47, 19 March 2008 (CDT)
Many have commented on Gina's accent sounding odd - There are two things wrong with this part. First, the attributing subject (many) is ambiguous. How many is many? Who are these people? Why do we care? Second, the wording is clunky and awkward.
which is amusing - is it amusing? who says it is amusing? i don't need to explain why this part is wrong, do i?
Crystal Young is of Native American and Australian descent - her native american heritage has nothing to do with this video.
In addition to this, the actress who played Bree, Jessica Rose,hails from New Zealand, which is located near Australia. - bree has nothing to do with this video. also, there is no reason to point out that new zealand is near australia.
in the past, i have always been a fan of analysis and many of my notes have been removed and i have been equally upset. at some point, i have had to learn to drop it.
i have not cleared the note because Renegade has threatened to ban my IP from the wiki. however, i stand by my reasoning. this note is not noteworthy because it provides basic analysis into user commentary.
- platy march 17
- It may be ambiguous, but what's your proposal? Go through all comments and forum threads and make a "List of people that commented on Gina's accent"?
- Same basic reply - do you want us to make a list or what? Humor is subjective. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not there. Plus, even if the statement "it's amusing" were incorrect, that'd still not be a reason to remove the entire note.
- Proposed change? "Crystal Young is of Australian descent"? Feel free to change it, but I'll personally move every comment how incorrect that is to your talk page. Not to mention, should Crystal or the crew complain, we'll be sure to drop your name.
- If you don't see the relation between Bree occasionally slipping into a New Zealandian accent, and Bree's sister doing an Australian accent, then I guess it's clear why you just don't get that note.
- obviously i don't expect you to cite every forum member. further, i would argue that the comments of forum members are not note wrothy. subjectivity is the issue and my proposed solution is to not make note of it. above all, it is nothing more than an analysis of fan commentary.
- i see the connection but if you want to make a note that says "gina, like bree, likes to slip into her native accent for comedic effect" ...then i guess you can. but that is a much different note.
- what is this about personally moving comments? and who is the we that will drop my name? is renegade a committee or are you taking the initiative to voice the opinion of a group of people? - platy
- First of all, the comments of individual forum members can indeed be noteworthy, Jo's spanish translation is proof of that. In this case, however, it's not a question of singular posts in one medium, but of general perception within the community. A subjective average, if you will.
- Your proposed note is a) factually unproven, and b) besides the point. It's about the fact that she's Bree's sister, shows similar behavior, but is yet not quite her - kinda like New Zealand and Australia are pretty close, but still different things. And don't give me crap about the factual accuracy of New Zealand close to Australia, it's a question of world-wide stereotype, not scientific facts. No matter how much the Kiwis may hate it, a large majority of people outside of New Zealand and Australia see practically no difference between them. That's what makes it funny. That's what makes it subtle. In public perception, both Gina and Bree and Australia and New Zealand are pretty fucking close, and yet, they are entirely different things. Like sisters. (And I do find it frightening that I actually have to explain this to you at length.)
- As for your last question, we are all those who will get additional work, annoyane and crap should your deliberate destruction of the factual accuracy (as a removal of Native American would be) lead to trouble with the Administration or the Creators. Because should you fuck around with the note in such a way, people will complain to the Administration and the Administration will complain to us, not to you. In addition, we're the ones who'd have to protect your wrong note from the people who'd like to fix it (i.e. everyone else in the community).
- I, personally, am me - what that means, is a different question.
- ~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 01:39, 18 March 2008 (CDT)
- i find it frightening how serious you take yourself. and no, the opinions of forum members are not noteworthy. on occasion, a forum member might contribute something to the storyline but these are separate situations. the forum discussion regarding the actresses and their racial history are not relevant to the plot. removing the native american detail would not compermise accuracy because it is not a relevant detail. are you an admin? because unless you are an admin, you have no business threatening to ban my account or flagging my account for spam. and now all the language. please take the night off. is st.patrick's day getting the best of you? - platy march 17
- ~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 01:39, 18 March 2008 (CDT)
- Then your gathering skills fail.
- The opinions of individual forum members are, in most cases, not noteworthy. The average opinion of the community is. Or would you also argue that it is not noteworthy that the community generally regards The Human Ransom the best LG15 episode to date, just because there are singular dissenting opinions, and the cumulative average is irrelevant because it consists of a group of individual opinions? You are the only person advocating removal of this note. In a community of thousands. That should tell you something. Just because you, personally, don't find the note noteworthy doesn't mean you have the right to remove it for everyone. If the outcome of this discussion is that the majority agrees with your position, fine. But so far, I've seen three people opposing your changes (me included), and only you defending yourself, even basically starting an edit war over this. You may think you're right, and we're all wrong and stupid. Good for you. But as long as we're the majority, and neither the administration nor the Creators say something different, the note stays.
- Given that the background of this note is based on Jessica Rose's accidental slips into New Zealandian accent and Crystal Young's partial Australian descent, the "racial history" of the actress, at least to the extend noted, is indeed noteworthy. Of course you are right, it is not relevant to the plot - but it has never been policy to only allow plot-related notes on LGPedia, and there are in fact dozens, if not hundreds of plot-unrelated and still noteworthy notes on episode pages. (Production-related notes about disappearing and re-cut videos, changed actresses, etc. would be examples, but there are also lots of interesting trivia facts.)
- Removing the Native American part would paint her as a full Australian instead of a partial one. If you don't get the difference between "one" and "a half", that explains your difficulties to understand the difference between "one sole complainee" and "an entire community that found it noteworthy". It's factually wrong, and we do not willfully and consciously broadcast false information on LGPedia.
- First of all, any user has the right to flag an account for spamming. That was always LGPedia's policy, and we even have a template to help with it. Secondly, you're wrong. Plain and simple. If you don't get why, maybe you should actually spend some time getting to know the pedians around you, get to know the administrative process, and all that. You can point to the number of your contributions all you want now, the fact that you submit a high number of revisions does not mean that you actually know LGPedia. Not to mention that disputed edits like this and the ensuing discussions also count into your edit score, and those are certainly not revisions supporting your position as a good pedian.
- In addition, in case you didn't notice, Pheon was of the same opinion, and you yourself admitted that Zoey wanted to ban you before. In other words, there are constantly people on the verge of banning you, and you still seek the fault with others. No offense, but that sounds a little arrogant and delusional to me.
- Come to terms with the fact that you're all alone and no one agrees with you. Yes, it has happened before that the entire world was wrong, but on a general basis, that's rather rare.
- Post-conflict: Nice attempt on a personal attack in the end, but given that my country doesn't celebrate St. Patrick's Day, and I'll not give you a free pass to oppress the majority, I'll post this anyway.
- ~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 02:57, 18 March 2008 (CDT)
- You can't flag my account for spamming because I wasn't spamming! I voiced my opinion twice and you are threatening to ban my account.
- Its bogus bringing up past offenses because they don't involve you and you are not familiar with the situations. I have previous citations for doing what you are doing now, making a big stink about people removing my notes and making personal attacks. I have since corrected my ways.
- I'm not a complainer but a critic. I have provided logical reasons for my objections, which I have already provided. You are the complainer, kicking and screaming and directing fowl language and personal insults. I suggested that you take a break and let things cool off because you seem worked up.
- Finally, I have no method of evaluating how many people agree are against me and how many people are with me. I had no idea that I was alone in my opinion, nor do I care. - platy march 18
- ps: although fans regard The Human Ransom as the best episode, that fact is not included in the notes. and not because i removed it. do you care to add it? fan opinion is not noteworthy unless it adds to the plot... - platy march 18
- ~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 02:57, 18 March 2008 (CDT)
- Post-conflict: Nice attempt on a personal attack in the end, but given that my country doesn't celebrate St. Patrick's Day, and I'll not give you a free pass to oppress the majority, I'll post this anyway.
- Your removal of the note had been disputed by multiple users, including an admin - yet you still went in there and removed it again and again, knowing full well you were causing trouble. You may want to call it "trolling" just to try safe your butt, but I don't think anyone is going to argue that repeatedly removing content is just as much spamming as repeatedly adding random gibberish.
- You wanted to remove something, your removal has been disputed. Show some courtesy and, for once, adhere to common standard and stop removing the note until the dispute is settled.
- Nice attempt, but if my points were just personal attacks and no valid points, why aren't you arguing any of the points I made? Why are you picking around minor details and keep trying to question my right to interrupt you in your trolling?
- Oh, and for the record: As far as I'm concerned, in all jurisdictional systems of this planet, real world or internet, including LGPedia, it makes a big fucking difference if someone if a first-timer or a repeat offender. It's far from bogus - it's showing up a pattern. It does make a difference if you were always do-goody and never offended anyone, or if you have been warned and almost banned before.
- And what the hell is this argument "it doesn't involve me"? Should I not be concerned if, one street from here, somebody got violently murdered, simply because "it doesn't involve me"? If you have a history of LGPedia offenses, and now you're at it again, that very well involves me - because it means there's a high chance you'll do it again, causing grief and work for yet another group of pedians.
- Funny...given that I destructed all your points and your entire post is nothing but "You can't flag me! Your points are bogus! YOU'RE a complainer! :P". How about you actually do return to reason and attempt to reply to my points instead of trying to put my style of argumentation into doubt?
- What, the fact that you alone are the one removing and supporting the removal, whereas no one but you complains about the note, and multiple people restored it, is not a dead giveaway?
- Again, nice attempt to lead away from the factual part of the discussion. But given that I a) never claimed such a note exists, and b) it was clearly and obviously an example demonstrating the validity of making statements about the average community opinion, how about you reply to the actual point I was making instead of nitpicking unrelated details?
- Or are you someone who also bursts out "But Alice and Bob aren't really e-mailing!!!" in cryptography examples?
- Even if you were right, which I still contest, that would only justify removal of the "this is amusing" part, not of the entire note, and not rephrasing it into a totally different meaning. Your personal opinion about the personal opinion of others is not a criterion to decide about the noteworthyness of a meta-reference.
- i removed your comment twice before you complained. twice! look at the history. but whatever. if you insist on making a note of it, you can word it something like... 'crystal is an descendant of australia, acting the roll of a girl who is not from australia, impersonating an australian accent' and that does not at all imply that crystal is completely australian. also, it takes all the focus off the subjective funniness. - platy march 18
- "My" comment? I didn't touch that note. I have no idea who added it.
- It's gracious that you allow me to phrase it that way, alas, once more, your re-phrased note fails to convey the meta-referential context of her impersonation, focussing instead on her Australian heritage.
- ROFL...do you actually expect this to work? You just tell me "quit this" and I go away? Nice try, really. Although I which you'd return to that logical, reasonable discussion you cherish so much instead.
- ~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 18:30, 18 March 2008 (CDT)
- i've told you everything i've had to say. to be fair, you've never responded to my points, either. so what's the point? we're just a couple of jerks in a pissing contest. that isn't want the wiki is for. if you're still concerned, send me an aim or an msn. my info is on my profile. - platy march 18
- Wth kind of stupid tactic is this? "discussion" is the fucking name of this tab. Your public actions initiated a public discussion. If you don't want to discuss anymore, fine. Your choice. But then the fact stands that at least 3 people opposed the removal, and only one (you) supported it, so by democratic standards, the note stays.
- This is a public discussion related to public actions at the very space dedicated to such discussions - the talk page of the page in question. I see no reason at all to take this discussion to an independent, private medium, especially given that that'd take away other pedians' ability to add their opinion.
- And I am not aware of not having replied to any of your points. If you want them answered, show which ones you mean, and I'll either show you the answer I gave or write one.
- ~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 22:30, 18 March 2008 (CDT)
- this is the third time i told you that i'm done. i made my points and i'm satisfied with them. if you don't buy them thats your thing and there isn't anything i can do to convince you otherwise. but if you continue to belittle me, i am sure an admin would love to contribute their opinion. and from someone who's been cited before, i can tell you that you are on your way. i'm not going to be the one to do it, but i'd be disappointed if someone didn't do it. - platy march 18
- ~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 22:30, 18 March 2008 (CDT)
- ~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 18:30, 18 March 2008 (CDT)
- ROFL...do you actually expect this to work? You just tell me "quit this" and I go away? Nice try, really. Although I which you'd return to that logical, reasonable discussion you cherish so much instead.
- (Ignoring the entire argument above me): I think it's pretty worthwhile mentioning here that not just the three people commenting here are supporting the note as it currently is. Getting it to its current wording, where it at least makes more sense than saying "This thar is funnah 'cause Bree's from NZ" was a group effort, involving numerous people in the chat. Even a certain someone (I'm not naming names) who loves to find fault with stuff found the changes to the note satisfactory. Why is it not so?
- Also, saying "Gina, like Bree, often uses her native accent for comedic effect" is VERY inaccurate. It's proposing four inaccurate statements in one: that Crystal's native accent is Aussie, that Jessica was purposefully slipping into her accent for comedic effect, that both characters have the same native accent as their actors, and that Gina has done this more than once. It is most certainly not a good proposal for a change. - Shiori 07:06, 18 March 2008 (CDT)
- Wait... I'm confused. Gina and Bree are sisters so they are both Australian. But Crystal the actress, is from New Zealand. Is that right? - platy march 18
- No. Bree and Gina, as sisters, are Russian with American accents (or are supposed to be). Crystal the actress playing Gina is from the US, but is half Native American, half Australian. Jessica the actress that played Bree is from New Zealand. - Shiori 11:51, 18 March 2008 (CDT)
- Right. So confusing... So Gina the character isn't supposed to have anything to do with New Zealand or Australia? So when Crystal did her acting as Gina, a girl who has nothing to do with Australia, she was pretending to be an outsider commenting on her own country? - platy march 18
- No, it was basically nothing but the Steve Irwin impersonation. Doesn't mean people weren't talking about Crystal's Australian accent or heritage as a result, though, which is why it's there. - Shiori 12:17, 18 March 2008 (CDT)
- I just think the latter sentence is irrelevant to the the video as a whole. Meaning as trivia or whatever. I mean, yeah, Bree is the sister, but...why is their location relevant right now....
- free2liv4evr 22:47, 18 March 2008 (CDT)
- I agree. There are so many people who think that the note should be affected. Renegade has made great points of why it should stay, but platy, you are just being stuborn. You are the one of the only ones who disagrees so far in the community, and just because 2 or 3 people say they don't like something doesn't get it removed. It's like someone saying that they don't like the actress who plays Sarah. This doesn't mean the creators are just going to cast a new actress as the role. And these "logical" points you bring up are nonexistant. All you've said was that you don't like it, put a spin on all of Renegade's points (which doesn't even make sense whatsoever) and change the topic. Then tried to bring the topic to AIM, which is pointless. Obviously we discuss problems about the 'pedia on the discussion section of the 'pedia. You are just trying to change topics and move it along because you know that you are wrong and don't want to admit it. But please stop now. You are just making yourself look more stuborn and arogant! Love, Randy (Say Wha'? | Whachu Doin'?) [Mar., 18 '08 - 11:33 PM, Central Daylight]
- it amuses me that you said many people think the note should be changed... but my points don't make sense? i never spun anything. i removed a note twice and all a sudden he's flagging my talk page for spam. then i try to explain my reasoning and he just argues against me, using vulgar language towards me and talking at me as if i'm retarded. i might not understand but that doesn't make me retarded. and for gods sake, my attempt to verbalize my feelings articulately is not arrogant or stubborn.
- 1) it is of the unattributed subjects' opinion that gina's steve erwin voice is odd
- i'm guessing these steve erwin voice critics are experts on the steve erwin voice and are not satisfied with gina's performance. but i'm not sure.
- 2) it is the opinion of the note's authors that this is funny because crystal is australian and native american
- opinions of pedians are not noteworthy unless the are central to the plot. as pedians, we should already know our opinions and don't need the pedia to reinforce our opinions.
- 3) jessica rose is from new zealand! which is kind of like australia only not because (insert history of new zealand / australia rivalry)
- okay... i still don't see the connection. i think it is obvious that the creators decided to get gina to do the erwin voice because it would remind us of bree. but the ethnic heritage of the actresses truly has nothing to do with the video.
- if renegade has a point at all, it is this: gina, the character, presumably has nothing to do with australia or new zealand, so crystal's campy impersonation of erwin is brilliant acting - an expert pretending to be a novice! drop the vague attribution and the opinions and go strait to the meat of the observation. what is so arrogant about that? i am trying to see the value of your ideas and i just get shot down like i'm retarded. - platy march 19
- I'm sure you don't even see the irony of that statement.
- How dare I?!
- Which words I use is irrelevant as long as the logical point I'm trying to make gets conveyed as I want it. The whole concept of "vulgar language" is flawed in itself - it doesn't matter if you talk of stool, poo, shit or crap - the substance meant Is the same in all four cases. Randomly declaring a word "vulgar" is ridiculous, and this ridiculousness is basically proven by the euphemism treadmill. I am certainly not going to let myself be forced in a speech pattern unnatural to me, giving myself a disadvantage, just because you have been socially trained to feel awkward around certain representations of a fact.
- intelligent people don't need feces or fornication to make a point. - platy march 29
- Not as if you're retarded - as if I have to repeat and rephrase the same answers over and over again because you keep evading the answer, nitpicking small details in phrasing instead.
- "no, the opinions of forum members are not noteworthy", "please take the night off. is st.patrick's day getting the best of you?", "[...] because they don't involve you and you are not familiar with the situations", "I suggested that you take a break and let things cool off because you seem worked up.", "I had no idea that I was alone in my opinion, nor do I care.", "quit this. if you want to argue further, send me a message on aim or msn. see my profile ", ...
- Constantly treating people like they're stupid, drunk, or little children is normal for you, then?
- this is an example of something i would rather talk to you in a private forum about. it has nothing to do with this space. most of your responses have nothing to do with this space. - platy march 29
- OK...for the...what? third time? (and you wonder why I sound like I'm explaining it to a retard): Gina-Bree -> close resemblance, but not equal, like siblings. Actress of Bree -> Spent time in New Zealand, thus New Zealandian speech patterns for Bree/Actress of Gina -> Half-Australian, thus Australian speech patterns for Gina. Public image of Australia/New Zealand -> close resemblance, but not equal, like siblings. The emphasis in that part is on "public image" - it's not fucking important how distant from each other Australia and New Zealand in reality are, because in the public stereotype of almost the entire world, Australia and New Zealand are basically the same thing - just slightly different.
- The cultural heritage of each actress, either intentionally or not, lead to the inclusion of distinct speech patterns in their dialogue. In the public eye, the stereotype of the world, the countries they originate from as well as their accents sound very close, and are yet different. This is remarkable given the fact that the same basic fact is often attributed to siblings - they are superficially very similar, in many cases easily identifiable as siblings, and yet, under the surface, they are very different. Thus, the relation between the cultural heritages of the actresses of the characters mirrors the relation between their characters. That is a fact that several of us find noteworthy, and would like to have included on episode page.
- In addition to the fact that it this interesting to note as a trivia fact, some of us also find that relation amusing, especially in light of constant reminders of the characters how much they think the two are alike.
- That is what we want, that is what we mean - there is no way to explain it any clearer, so I'm not going to do it again. If you still don't get it, try harder.
- i see the connection between new zealand and australia. i'm a traveled person and have traveled to both of those countries. i just don't see the connection of all that sophistry to this video. if you want to write an essay about the casting of lg15 then go ahead and do it. but i don't feel that these ideas are best represented in a single sentence and attached to this video. - platy march 29
- also, i made other points here that you have failed to address. such as opinions of pedians are not noteworthy unless the are central to the plot. as pedians, we should already know our opinions and don't need the pedia to reinforce our opinions. or i'm guessing these steve erwin voice critics are experts on the steve erwin voice and are not satisfied with gina's performance. but i'm not sure. - platy march 29
- The fact that you think that is "meat of the observation" is the root of the problem.
- i'm a professional journalist. would you prefer i call it the nut? haha - platy march 29
- Like I said before ...... and that is the problem right there. That everything has been explained to you multiple times, and you still sit there repeating the same basic crap, spinning our words, instead of at least trying to understand why we find the cultural heritage of the actresses noteworthy. Adding to that is, like I said before, that you complained that I hadn't replied to multiple of your points, yet, even after multiple requests, you are still unwilling to produce said points. Either you want answers, or you don't. But if you don't, stop discussing and wasting our time.
- ~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 04:45, 19 March 2008 (CDT)
- you are the arrogant one because you insist on placing yourself at the nut of your point. if you want to talk about the cultural heritage of the actresses then do it. just leave out the many and the funny because those are weak points. - platy march 29
- ~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 04:45, 19 March 2008 (CDT)
- Okay, I think we've all seen enough of this. The past four or five posts have become argumentative simply for the sake of argument of it, with each person basically telling the other to cease and desist (and if I'm wrong with the numbers, forget it, you get the point). The current note (as far as I can gather) is fine with the majority here, so it stays as is. This discussion has gone on far longer than I think anyone wanted/prefered. So seriously, the discussion's over. --Pheon 16:12, 19 March 2008 (CDT)
Just so you know...
I'm an actual New Zealander. And contrary to what the original comment states, we actually do go by the title "New Zealander". Kiwi is just a nickname thing. Like Pom for Brits or Yanks for the Americans.
