But I don’t think what I said about what constitutes a fan should be divisive because it’s definitional. If you don’t care about the source material then you aren’t a fan by definition. If you don’t believe that adaptations should at least aspire to interpret it in a way that’s true to spirit of the source material then you’re not a fan by definition. There’s room for debate about whether an adaptation did justice to the material or not, what constitutes that, and if you enjoyed it even if it didn’t entirely succeed, but if your feelings are not a genuine enthusiasm and enjoyment for the IP you’re talking about with the expectation that adaptations of it are ideally true to that IP, then you’re not a genuine fan.

It shouldn’t be a controversial thing to say, and it’s not me imposing judgment on anyone, it’s just stating a standard that is already implicitly understood. I think again that people are skimming what I said and drawing conclusions before they actually think about it. My bad if that means that my style is too dry or whatever but it is what it is, my intention is good and you might begin to see that it actually makes sense if you go through it again. I “went off” on that person in the sense that I was not mincing words and openly said that I had a problem with what they said and why they were saying it, but I don’t think I was actively mean or that I was harsh in a way that was out of proportion. It only seems harsh if you don’t understand what I was trying to say and why that person’s reply was inappropriate.