I apologize for taking us even more off-topic, but I think it might be helpful to clarify the question of whether an opinion can be wrong. Actually, I don't really think it will help the major actors in this drama, but I think it might be more educational for the innocent bystanders than the actual drama. As such, it might be more appropriate in Epcot vs MK, but what the heck.
One definition of
opinion that I think is useful when discussing it pedantically is:
a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge
This stands in greatest contrast to a
belief, which is:
an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists
So in short, it's generally true that you hold
opinions about things that aren't facts and
beliefs about things that could be validated as objectively true or untrue. Note that we shouldn't get hung up over the fact that linguistically you can also hold
beliefs about the existence of people or things that are generally non-verifiable like Santa Claus.
For example, you could hold a belief that 15 is greater than 5, but to hold an opinion of that fact is nonsensical.
Thus, when
@DisneyExpert says that opinions can be neither right nor wrong, he is correct. The real question is whether
@jpeden is expressing an opinion or making a statement of fact:
BTMRR is far superior to all other versions in any other park. You will not dissaude me from this opinion. The load on the shore and the tunnel that dives under the river and propels you onto the island where the entire ride occurs makes for an extremely unique and far superior ride experience.
Additionally, I'd argue that Phantom Manor is the superior version of any Haunted Mansion.
I mean, in my opinion, he's expressing an opinion, which means he can't be wrong, but you're allowed to disagree and express a contrary opinion or argue objectively for them to change their opinion by pointing out things you think they should weight more heavily.
Note: It's generally fun to argue about disagreements about our opinions only when we agree that they are opinions (obviously on matters of taste). The argument becomes broken when one side or the other believes that they are arguing about matters of a factual, objective nature.
Note: I'm not saying that we need to be ultra-precise in our wording, but you can usually work out from context whether someone is acting like they're expressing an opinion or whether they are expressing a belief in a verifiable fact.
Now, back to the mist screen. I'm actually amazed that we have a decent example of an attraction that's improved by the removal of an element. (adding the voiceover notwithstanding) I wonder if there are other examples where this could be true. Previous examples include "the hat" and "the wand", in my opinion.
To the skies and C