The paragraph about my sexuality is not vandalism and shouldn't be removed.
Peace Officer Note:
The mentioned 'peace officer' is not a 'police officer'. The police reports refer to him as a 'peace officer'.
I'm curious as to how...
I'm curious as to how I can be an Objectivist, and then be shown not to be an Objectivist in the same paragraph? Seems a bit inconsistent, but I'm leaving it up for whoever decided I wasn't an Objectivist to fix it. Perhaps I chose my words poorly when I used the term dogma. I stand firmly against dogmatization of any kind, and in fact separated myself because of my belief of a having a lack of dogma, and of ARI having a dogma. Again, this paragraph is inconsistent but I don't want to touch it because it's one about me and whatever I edit could be seen two ways on this one.
- What is the ARI's dogma? What positions does the institution hold that are not backed up by reason?
- I'm not inclined to answer this question at this time. Thank you for updating my article.
Would not the details of this person's programming experience be more appropriate on his personal page rather than in the body of the article - if, indeed, it's the sort of material that should be on WikiFur rather than a generic personal page in the first place? Tevildo 15:32, 13 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- I'm currently working on some furry related programming projects. If you feel that the information presented in my article is irrelevant until those projects are completed and released then feel free to eliminate them. As well, part of my furry 'personality' that has been come to be known among the furry community is the fact I learn computer languages very quickly. Does that mean a fur who's known for his conlanging but doesn't have a furry conlang should not have the details of his conlanging on the article about him? Just some thoughts. -- ACGLKXH 03:03, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- He's gone all emo due to a car crash and losing his job, so he really does want it deleted, I think. Or it could be because of http://www.livejournal.com/users/squnq/95536.html, but he insisted otherwise during a lengthy and hilarious AIM conversation. -- Squnq 1:41, 14 Dec 2005 (EST)
- Please do not delete the article. I apologize for the hassle -- Gmork7
I did not author the original vandalism of deviant behavior. It was originally deleted due to vandalism (check the history). I put it back. It was false. I lied. The whole 700+ comments of activity on my previous journal was all due to a charade. This was an abuse of the wiki and I apologize. It won't happen again.--ACGLKXH 05:37, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)