Talk:Richard Chandler/Archive1

From WikiFur, the furry encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search

Hoisted By His Own Petard[edit]

In 20/20 hindsight, it is a bit ironic that for all the bile and invective Rich hurled at other people for giving interviews about fetishes, he had no reservations at all about doing it himself. But I guess it's also ironic that he tried to portray me as some great publicity nightmare, and instead I ended up being quoted in some of the best press this fandom's gotten. It's a strange world. —Xydexx 03:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

You're just pissed because Gates thought you were so weird, you had to be making it up and left you out of her book. I only talked to her for damage control purposes. You were not privy to the interview, so attempting to post about it is pure speculation, and therefore not proper for a Wiki. It's interesting to see that you are STILL obsessing over me 7-1/2 years later. Your Lie-by-omission-fu is strong, but your word games matter not.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).

Um, no. I'm not pissed about anything. Gates left me out of her book because I cancelled the interview with her. The interview isn't speculation, you yourself admit you gave an interview about furry fandom to a sex researcher, all the while hypocritically pointing the finger of blame at others. (Hey, I've still got a copy of it lying around here somewhere... maybe I should repost some excerpts so folks on the wiki can see what a bang-up job you did at "damage control" as you claimed?) The facts, embarrassing though they may be, are certainly on my side here. And no, I'm not obsessing over you, I just don't like seeing misinformation spread (i.e., your delusional and unsubstantiated claim about the "anything goes" policies I allegedly support... I'd ask you to back that claim up with facts, but I know you can't). I mean, seriously, you're obviously still seething in frustration at my supposed "word games" (a favorite tactic of yours, IIRC) because it allows you to shift attention from the fact that you're wrong. Then again, I suppose admitting you're wrong would be a bit of a blow to your ego, wouldn't it? It's probably why you never really could play well with other furry fans... why you never apologized to anyone... why you always went on increasingly desperate witch-hunts looking for Enemies Of The Fandom until pretty much everyone didn't want to listen to you anymore. (Really, Dr. Cat said it best.) It's really sad to see you're still making these little snipes at the fandom after 7-1/2 years. You used to be a big name in the fandom, and you squandered it all away on some Quixotic crusade against people who, at the end of the day, did nothing wrong. For shame. —Xydexx 05:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


Take the personal part of the discussions to email/aim/irc/skype, etc,... limit the talk pages to direct (really direct) discussions to the article at heart. This has been going for years now, ever since a.f.f., gents,... no need to continue this never-ending mutual verbal sparring on Wikifur's talk pages - Spirou 07:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

IAWTC. –Xydexx 07:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
"I agree with this comment" for readers not familiar with the acronym - Spirou 08:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Apparently agreeing with the comment does not equate to stopping with the malicious edits. Just back off Karl.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).
I'd say malicious edits are those which remove historically accurate information, and I have done no such thing. YMMV. —Xydexx 01:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
What part of Just Back Off didn't you understand? You know what you're REALLY doing, as do I. Stop playing games. I mean really for someone who spends SO much time delving through decade old usenet posts, SURELY you could find something useful, like some of those needed citations. But instead YOU are deleting quotes and substituting others. So yes, you are, by your own definition, making malicious edits. Just stop. Now. And look at your contribution history and see how much it makes you look like an obsessed stalker. It's OVER. It's been Over since 2001. Give it a F*cking rest. Go away. Get some fresh air. Read a book. Get a life.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).
Personal attacks and temper tantrum editing are not conducive to good wiki karma. I have provided all necessary references as requested. If you have further comments on the article itself feel free to make them, but leave your personal vendetta against me out of it. As Spirou said above—and I agreed—this isn't the place for it. —Xydexx 02:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
A vendetta takes two. --GreenReaper(talk) 02:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, no vendetta here. Just stating the facts and backing it up with evidence. Rich is certainly welcome to point out if I've said anything that is untrue, but I've been exercising due diligence in providing references when requested. I think the real issue here is what he said in his own words makes him look bad. I don't really see how I'm responsible for what he said. —Xydexx 02:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
the Bias is in WHICH words you choose. Your selective quoting ONLY chooses the quotes that make me look bad. I wonder how you would fare under the same treatment (not that I'm obsessive enough to wade through a.f.f to find it all). But what was inaccurate about the quotes you DELETED? Nothing. They came from the exact same messages. Your pretense at due diligence rings hollow.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).
The same charge of bias could easily be leveled against you, Rich, so don't even try to play the bias card. The fact remains there was nothing inaccurate in the quotes you deleted. It's not my fault your own words (or actions, vis-à-vis your interview with Deviant Desires) make you look bad. —Xydexx 03:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Pointing out my bias does not excuse your own. But here's the thing, you keep posting conjecture. And I'm the one with the superior knowledge about the facts of my life and my motivations. You don't know what was actually said in the interview. You don't know what the actual catalyst for my quitting was. Furthermore, there was that bit with the post from Banner, which was clearly designed to impute that I quit in a little puff of logic over a post you wrote. (Don't deny it.) The fact remains that you have been dogging me for years, and since I quit the fandom, you've been using my entry here and your insipid Hiroshima Cluehammer post as your personal whipping boys by proxy. And I'm fucking sick of it, and you, trying to drag me down. Your fixation with me, and your use of my entry for your personal gratification ends here and now. If, after this gets unlocked and I remove your last bits of vandalism, I find out that you have edited it even ONE more time, I will request that the admins delete my entry entirely. We'll see just how much you really respect history, if you can keep your filthy hands off it in order to preserve it. If you want to re-live your glory days of arguing with me on Usenet (how sad is that?) well, you're going to have to do it somewhere else. I am not going to play your stupid little games.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).
Glad to see you admit your bias, but I'm not posting conjecture: You yourself said you talked to Katherine Gates about people who were into ponygirl stuff and giantesses, and said the information you gave her was heavily used. Were you lying? You're right, I don't know what your catalyst for quitting was. What I do know is that you were all gung-ho to ban people who talked about fetishes to the media until I mentioned you were guilty of the very same thing you wanted to ban people for. A mere four hours later, you made your "I Quit" post. Coincidence? Maybe. Did I say that was your catalyst for quitting? No. I understand Wikifur isn't a place to make claims like that. There's also nothing wrong with providing all the facts and letting people make up their own minds. Exercising due diligence by providing verifiable facts and references to back them up isn't vandalism, sorry. —Xydexx 05:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not here to debate ancient shit. I'm not falling into your typical trap of turning every discussion into a discussion about what was discussed before. You've already made it clear that the purpose of your edits is to make me look bad. This goes against the principle of Neutral point of view. This Wiki is not for your personal grudges. But here's a clue for you. Again, you don't know what was in the interview. But the Three places in DD that my information was "Heavily used" were three places where she made qualifications about not all furries being like the ones she was talking about. It had nothing to do with "my fetishes". As usual, you don't know what you're talking about. But that's irrelevant. Clearly you're STILL all butthurt over stuff that happened a decade ago. Even after I left the fandom, my mere existence in its history causes you all kinds of angst. For a guy who was all about "We should just be able to enjoy the fandom", even with me being long gone, you're still a whiny little punk. Well man the hell up. Grow up. Get a life.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).
I'll remind you that Spirou requested this talk page is not the place to air personal grudges, it's for focusing on the article. I have complied with that request by providing historically-accurate facts backed up with sources. All you've done thus far is post accusations and insults and made threats and demands and whine about the past instead of focusing on the article. Clearly, you're upset about this article and it's affecting your judgement. Maybe you need to take a Time Out for a few days and come back when you can discuss the article calmly and rationally without the chip on your shoulder and associated ad hominem. Calling me names might make you feel better, but it isn't constructive and this isn't the place for it. —Xydexx 17:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Say, Karl, while you're dwelling on the past and dredging up ancient usenet postings, how about the thread where you accused me of screwing up your Gates interview, until we finally got the timeline out of you and proved that you had withdrawn about a month before I ever started talking to her? You were SO humiliated by the facts there. That's one I'd like to read again.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).

The Mass Graves editorial and the Take Back Our Fandom movement[edit]

"This eventually led to the creation of the Take Back Our Fandom movement, an effort to drive those he and others considered undesirables out of the fandom."

Rich deleted this statement because he denies he was directly behind the TBOF movement. The Mass Graves editorial he wrote in Gallery #25, however, illustrates his call to action quite definitively:

Talk:Richard Chandler/Archive1
Well, frankly, I think it's time we collectively said "Enough is Enough!" Things are not going to get better by themselves. Tolerance and political correctness and even manners be damned, we have to reclaim our fandom. —Rich Chandler, Gallery #25
Talk:Richard Chandler/Archive1

I propose the deleted material be restored to the article in light of this fact. —Xydexx 19:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

And other than writing that, I didn't actually Organize a movement. My point still stands.— (talkcontribs).
It was the call to action which kicked off the whole contentious and unnecessary TBOF movement, Q.E.D. —Xydexx 01:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
"A call to action" is not the same as creating a group/movement/ideology. My saying "let's do something about white bread!" does not make me the founder of the " Paramilitary Wheat Ideological Brigade" that somebody else put together/came to be consciously, based on my remark.
It came together as a result of discussions between like minded individuals, but, looking through all archived data, no one seems to have claimed exact responsibility on this matter =/ - Spirou 02:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for deletion[edit]

Well, as Karl has just made abundantly clear, he can not respect the principle of a Wiki, and chooses to use this entry (And others) to grind his personal axe against me. Therefore, as we discussed, Greanreaper, I submit a request that this entry be deleted in its entirety, including its history and discussion pages, as if it was never here. Please contact me at for whatever identity verification you require.— (talkcontribs).

I think Rich's fusillade of personal attacks, baseless accusations, ad hominem insults and unwillingness to respect the admin's suggestions demonstrate he has no respect for wiki etiquette and he is unable to discuss this in a civilized manner. That being said, I have no objection to his wishes for deletion of this entry. —Xydexx 01:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
"I think Rich's fusillade,"... No, Xydexx, is been a long year of mutual fussillades,... All though the thought of keeping an article's accuracy is commendable, this slooooow edit war has been very painful and tedious to watch, and it was a matter of time before Mr. Chandler just gave up. Yes, he omitted some data on the article that he did not feel it should be there for X reasons, but there was enough reference links to fill in the gaps by any reader perusing the article.
This is not to say that you don't/didn't have the right to make those edits, perish the thought, but, knowing the tousle you gents have been at for the last dozen years, and knowing what reaction your edits would cause him to respond to like, you may have strived to accomplished a thoughtful neutral stance on the editson the article without selling your principles, or, even, have discussed with him on the talk pages what would have been the best way to present both your views/edits in a balanced way.
So, no, Xydexx, this has been a two way brawl, and, I'm surprised it took Mr. Chandler this long to request exclusion. Wish it didn't end this way, as he, as you, have contributed much to the fandom, good and/or bad.
Request for Exclusion will be granted as soon as verification is confirmed. Talk page will be archived, but not deleted - Spirou 02:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I for one would like to discuss whether to grant this request for personal exclusion. At the least, the considerale information in this article about activities this person was involved with (BBS, con staffing detail, and so forth) needs to be preserved, and dispersing it to appropriate places elsewhere in WikiFur should be done before any exclusion, with preservation of a note of who wrote what if not the full edit history. -- Sine 06:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I will suspend this request for exclusion for now, as long as Xydexx makes no further modifications that are not vetted first by me or say, Greenreaper, whose judgment I consider to be fair.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).


I've rewritten the article. I wouldn't exactly call it a masterpiece - it still focuses too much on the controversial aspects, and where's the picture? - but it's a fair sight better than some of the ones we have around here.

  • Richard: Despite extensive media coverage and eight years under one of the more repressive regimes in recent memory, the furry fandom has emerged roughly three times the size and stronger than ever. You were wrong. It happens to the best of us. Welcome back, if you're staying. Please try not to leave as much of a mess coming back in as you did on the way out.
  • Xydexx: We're editors here, not social columnists. If you leave an article sounding more like an angsty LiveJournal post than you find it, you're doing it wrong. This also applies to edits like this, pretty much all of this, and a good amount of that as well. And what about this? Ask yourself why you're spending your time talking about things you dislike, and then go and read this.
  • Both of you: I really shouldn't have to say this, since you're both over a decade older than me, but please stop squabbling and grow up. You're better than this. If you can't learn to get along, stay the hell away from one another. That includes WikiFur. --GreenReaper(talk) 11:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Good work on the rewrite. With all due respect, I think I demonstrated remarkable patience by not responding to the attacks and insults, but instead focusing only on the entry. It's a dirty job, but someone has to do it.
For the record, I harbor no ill will against Rich Chandler and—as before—hope he's devoting his time to woodworking or whatever it is that makes him happy these days.—Xydexx 14:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Rather than re-starting the edit war, I'd just like to point out something here, and let Greanreaper moderate any edits, that while the Vanity Fair article was contemporanious (At least as much as a monthly magazine article can be) with my departure, it was not the reason or the trigger. That came in a private e-mail discussion that certainly can't be cited here. So I would suggest that the line " until 2001, when the Vanity Fair article hit the newsstands." be changed to something like " until 2/13/2001, when he announced he was quitting the fandom, giving up his directorship of the Conifur Art Show, and recycling all of his MUCK characters, but would continue to publish Gallery."
Oh, and furthermore, as for "Xydexx accused him of linking the fandom to unrelated fetishes," if you read further down the thread, you'll find the timeline established indicates that Gates found Furry Fandom on her own, and decided to send out her survey about it well before I ever contacted her. Xydexx's accusation was proven to be false. Of course, he also leveled the same accusation at Scott Malcolmsen a few weeks earlier. This should be worked in there somewhere, or else removed. And as it seems to have been lost in the edits, the only reason I spoke to her was to do damage control, and there are at least three passages in the book that I can directly tie to things I said to her in the interview that eased the impact on the fandom. Oh, and Karl, as for references to Giantesses and such, those were references to HUMAN Giantess fetishists, and human ponygirl fetishists, etc. You went off half-cocked there.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).
I could point out where some of your accusations were proven false as well, but I don't think this needs to be dragged out longer than necessary. Thanks for the clarification. Be well. —Xydexx 17:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
You always could have asked before making assumptions. But you have never asked me for any clarifications ever. You have jumped to a lot of conclusions. By the way, I was thinking of adding a few items to YOUR pages. Like maybe an entry about the Peek TV prank, or the Inflatable Clydesdale Project, and your involvement with Catherine Gates. Might add a little balance to the scales, don't you think?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).
Well, I'd say for someone who was so eager to stop playing these "stupid little games" you seem awfully eager to play them again. Don't assume my benevolence is a sign of weakness.Xydexx 03:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
(...) *migraine headache* Xp - Spirou 03:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
No, it's only a potential thing if you decide to play games with my profile again. But I'm still surprised you've bothered. You won. I left the fandom. You've had 8 years to do whatever it is happy squeaky ponies do. You wanted to just be able to "Enjoy the Fandom", and instead you've spent that time dogging me, even though I was gone. Just put it behind you, take your watch off this article, and go out and have fun, enjoy the fandom, and forget all about me. The 1990's are long gone. Look to the future of a Chandler-less Furry fandom and make the most of it. Simply leave me alone and you'll never have to deal with me again. I know I'd prefer things that way. You've got the fandom all to yourself, and I don't care what you do, as long as it doesn't involve me.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).
It was never my intention to get you to leave, Rich. When I said I wanted furry fandom to be a cool place for everyone who likes anthropomorphic animals, that included you—despite our disagreements. *shrug* In any event, be well. —Xydexx 22:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Shall we try again?[edit]

Spirou 03:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, depends on what you mean by "Try again"? :-) I see a certain person has been editing it again. But I can't really squawk about fixing a typo. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 21:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
It was indeed a necessary edit - 21:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
There's no legitimate reason I can't edit this article, after all. —Xydexx 22:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
This depends on whether Rich can resist making personal attacks this time around. Just my $0.02. —Xydexx 22:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, as you say, if it can be linked back to your actual words, it's not a personal attack, it's a fact. But seeing how much work this is, I can't imagine the dedication it takes to do this all the time. However, at some point it would probably be easier to delete everything about online flamewars and just include a link to the whole of a.f.f on Google. I'll grant that the inclusion of Deviant Desires could be argued for, as it was about something in an actual book. But on the other hand, all of the post publication debate on it is kind of pushing it when it comes to relevance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 12:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I was referring to your personal attacks here on the talk page, not anything you imagine I said elsewhere.—Xydexx 19:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Deviant Desires[edit]

In your edit you say " It has never been necessary to goad me into apologizing. -:)" If you read the thread, you asserted that there was nothing to apologize for, and changed the subject to "Nothing to see here" and so on until several others posted that they too were waiting for you to apologize. So yeah, I'd say "Goad" was a good word. There is no question that you were unwilling to do so until pressured. But that one I'll let slide, since it sounds judgmental.

Second, if you have actual EVIDENCE that I said anything to Gates about you other than the excerpts I've released, then bring it. But citing your "Burned Fur, an Assessment" post, which only contains the same supposition is proof of nothing. The fact is, Gates released her survey, which mentioned inflation, I said roughly "Oh, you must have been speaking to Xydexx" and I speculated that your whole Inflatable Clydesdale thing was probably an attention seeking stunt (in light of the PEEK TV prank), and all she said about you was that you seemed to be full of hot air and she was wary of people who claimed to be so wild. That's the full extent of the exchange related to you. I don't release any more than I have because there isn't any more. (There was, of course, discussions of other topics). And I note that you deleted a perfectly legitimate quote.

As for the dates, we know the date of Malcomson's post, and we know the date she sent out the survey. Without a time machine, it's impossible for them to be in the reverse order. Oh and rune.raion nails you pretty good with this post:

My "Involvement with Gates" spans a few months and about 18 e-mails. Yours was 2 years, and you avoid mentioning it. That probably should be fixed. (And you've released none of it. Plank in your eye).

Of course, it's probably a good thing you canceled the interview either way. With an association to furry fandom, you would have been as excoriated as Ostrich or Galen. Without the association with Furry Fandom, you would still be known as the guy who spent two years working on his own "Dutch Wife" for urban horse-fuckers. Did you ever finish it?

Nothing about this argument looks good for you. And this isn't the place to re-fight a Usenet flame war. The best thing to do is remove that whole bit, since the reality is, you weren't in the book at all. And my contribution was un-named, and minor compared to say, Robert Hill's.

So, we can let this rest by say, deleting everything from Reference 4 to the end. Agree? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 01:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Some comments:
  • I maintain my willingness to apologize has more to do with benevolence than being goaded. I'll just note you never apologized for accusing me of linking my fetishes to furry fandom and leave it at that.
  • I don't see how Rune's wild speculations based on private e-mail conversations he wasn't party to "nails" me in any way. There's no evidence to back up any of his claims.
  • My involvement with Gates is pretty much a non-issue: Xydexx canceled an interview that wasn't about furry fandom. What more can be said about that?
  • Yes, after four years I finally finished the inflatable clydesdale and sold the Damned Thing for $200 via private auction, thanks for asking.
Otherwise, I agree this isn't the place to re-fight a Usenet flamewar that probably only the two of us are interested in anyway, and agree with deleting everything from Reference 4 to the end of the subsection. —Xydexx 05:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Deal. and Done. Perhaps I should duplicate this to the Deviant Desires article that currently makes it look like I was the sole source for the Furry section.... That's just badly written.
In retrospect, it's a pretty stupid argument about stuff that never actually appeared in the book.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 05:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Amen. --GreenReaper(talk) 10:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Hiroshima Cluehammer[edit]

Rich's little snipes about his quote aside, I've restored it in the interest of telling the whole story. If Rich has retracted this statement anywhere since then, please provide the necessary citation. —Xydexx 01:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

"I don't want to be there" is just a rhetorical device. Not an actual wish. When I wrote it, I would have LOVED to see it happen. I've looked over your little hate site, and your little archive of every nasty change you've made to this wiki that you were forced to delete. You're obsessed with those two little words, and this is a Wiki, not a redirector to your little hate site. (Have I said little enough?)
Oh, and shame on you for blaming Spirou for the Hiroshima Cluehammer page. The first edit is clearly yours.
You could consider the followup essay a retraction, but it's gone now. If I could delete the original, I'd do it just to shut you up. But it wouldn't change my feelings one bit.
Maybe, when you were advocating that we should just ignore the problems and hang with people who didn't think there were any problems, you think you never advocated against my policies (which, oddly, for someone so obsessed with me, you can't recall) but there were others who did. Who else could I have been arguing with? You weren't the only idiot lifestyler online. Hey, here's an example. I objected to people on leashes and in BDSM gear in the halls. That's not allowed any more. Maybe you were on my side for that one. It's okay, you don't HAVE to slit your wrists over that, but if you really want to, feel free.
The fact is, it's not an interest in telling the whole story that drives this crap. Your sole interest all along has been to vilify me. To portray my departure as a "Descent into madness". I don't know why you're so bent out of shape because I quit the fandom, but I did, and I'm NEVER going to come back, quips about "Leaving the fandom" notwithstanding.
Go get professional help, and stop stalking me. Or do I need to look into getting a restraining order? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 01:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Concise comments and corrections: I wasn't "forced" to delete anything; I'm not obsessed with anything; I didn't blame Spirou for anything; I never advocated ignoring problems (a claim you inexplicably continue to make, against all evidence and reason); you really really really need to stop portraying me as supporting "anything goes" policies and blaming me for the actions of other people, it makes you look desperate and unhinged; I never supported BDSM gear in the lobby (despite your delusional claims); and finally, once again, this talk page isn't the place to air your pent-up hostility toward my alleged Crimes Against The Fandom which only exist in your head.
Perhaps you should take your own advice about seeking professional help. All that anger and denial can't possibly be healthy for you. Seriously. —Xydexx 02:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Denial is not just a river in Egypt. You're the one with 8 pages of continually updated crap all about me. I'm not the one who scoured your livejournal looking for things to misrepresent in your screeds. I'm just protecting myself from your obsession. (And you owe me $5 now.)
Your whole "Axiom" thing is all about ignoring problems, and not hanging with anyone who thinks there are problems. Hell, you ADMIT there are problems when you puff yourself up about the ones you supposedly solved.
And the delusions continue, I didn't say that YOU supported leashes and BDSM gear above. But others did. In fact, reading the text right in front of your eyes, I suggested you agreed with me on that. Why were you unable to see that? Are you reading what you want to see instead of what's there?
But really, if you DO think I need professional help, don't you think it would be wise to not provoke me any further? You need to take a vacation from the 1990's and go out and enjoy the fandom and forget about me. You're really better off that way. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 03:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
You are, as always, entitled to your opinion. It's nice to see you finally acknowledge I admit there are problems and that I've offered and implemented solutions to them (while at the same time you inexplicably accuse me of ignoring them). How's that cognitive dissonance working for ya? —Xydexx 15:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


Please, just keep it locked from now on. There's nothing new to be said. Nothing to add. And clearly Karl can't resist touching it and linking it to his own obsession. Either keep it locked, or delete it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 02:53, 16 December 2008

Unlock and Restore[edit]

I'm not going to be around this weekend (as usual, I have Better Things To Do with my time), and in a good faith effort to reduce everyone's WikiStress levels I'm going to ignore Rich's accusations/demands/threats and just focus on the article itself:

In a nutshell, I think the quote Rich deleted without consensus ought to be restored in the interest of telling the whole story. They are, after all, his own words, and—despite his efforts to deny responsibility for them—he hasn't made any sort of retraction. Considering the belligerence he displayed (and still does) toward other fans and the fandom in his later years, I think this is more than fair.

Just my $0.02. That's all. —Xydexx 01:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Watching the calendar closely, I see.
You're not a disinterested party. You only focus seems to be linking in your Hiroshima Cluehammer attack article. Considering that you are the one who has taken the phrase and run with it, to the point where it is more identified with you than with me, why is there not a link to that article from your own profile?
Considering your edit wars are the reason this article has been locked, TWICE. And considering some of the more egregious edits you've put in like "He claims his information was used heavily in the section on furries, which focuses on transvestism, pony play, BDSM, fursuit sex, plushophilia, macrophilia, and the "high percentage" of gay men in the fandom. He claimed this constituted some "pretty good damage control"" referring to all the negative stuff in the book as if I was the source, you can not be trusted to maintain a neutral point of view. And you have even stated that the quotes you choose to put in are meant to make me look bad.
So no. I will not support your desire to "restore" your smears. If this article is unlocked, I will restore my request to have it deleted. You'll have to content yourself to smearing me on your personal website. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 16:54, 21 December 2008