WikiFur - User contributions [en]

Talk:Richard Chandler

2009-02-08T10:23:18Z

74.61.5.121:

<div style="float:right; border:2px solid #bbbbbb; width:150px;">
<center>'''Discussion Pages'''</center>
*[[/Archive1|Archive 1]] (December 2008)
</div>
== Unlock and Restore ==

Addressing this unresolved issue once again: 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. —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 04:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
:Give it up Karl. Cease your stalking. Forget me, forget your decade-old grudge, and go off and "Enjoy Fandom". You keep saying you have better things to do in your life, why not go and do them?
:And there is consensus. That's why this is still locked, and will remain locked. This is a wiki, not your personal grudge site.
:And I reiterate. If you get your little hobby-horse crowbared back into this, I will reinstate my request for deletion. Either way, you will not get your way.{{unsigned|74.61.5.121}}
::Y'know, the funniest part of this is that you keep saying you've left the fandom—yet you're still here.
::No, there is not consensus. There is disagreement and controversy over the content of this article. This is in fact an unresolved issue, as per the notice at the top of the article: ''"This page has been locked due to a dispute over its contents. Until the dispute has been resolved, please discuss its contents on the article's discussion page."''
::It's not my "hobby-horse" or grudge or any of the other little snipes you're making to try to take the focus off you (a tactic which isn't going to work, so you may as well give it a rest already)... it's a matter of historical accuracy and telling the whole story. In light of that fact, this is a page for discussing the article, not making paranoid and groundless accusations against me. Lose the huge chip on your shoulder and stop making personal attacks and threats already. As long as you haven't retracted the statement and think the fandom is a cesspool, I'm entitled to disagree.—[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 22:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
:::Defending myself against your constant attacks on my reputation constitutes participation in Furry Fandom? Interesting.
:::How much of your activity on this Wiki in the last three months has centered on you trying to ensure this term which I only used once, and which you have made your own is inserted into this entry? In fact, how many entries on this Wiki mention me that you have had a hand in creating or editing? Yeah, it's a hobby horse. You are the ONLY person committed to this issue. To elevate TWO WORDS out of the tens of thousands I've written to historical significance defies logic, especially when it was only your subsequent use that attached any symbolic meaning. The term is FAR more linked to you than to me. Why is there no mention of it in YOUR bio? Surely you could devote a paragraph or two to it there.
:::It's funny, you had your retraction at one point, and you managed to convince me to take it down when you attacked it.
:::This issue is as resolved as it's going to get. Either it stays out, or the whole thing goes. Period.
::::What "constant" "attacks" exactly? Is your definition of "constant" like your equally-amusing interpretation of "frequent"?
::::I'm sure I could add a paragraph or two to my bio, but—despite your ironic attempt to try to pass off this albatross you yourself created—it isn't about me, and it really isn't that important to me (or, to put it in perspective, not as important as talking about monkeypants). No, Rich... you coined the term, you get the credit for it.
::::And no, sorry, you've never posted a retraction. You did post a flimsy attempt at rewriting history where you tried to glom onto the improvements in the fandom, but quickly took it down when I finally got around to debunking it a few years later (which, if nothing else, demonstrates exactly how low it was on my list of priorities).
::::And no, sorry, I'm not the only person committed to this issue. In fact, I know someone who is so committed to this issue they [http://furry.wikia.com/index.php?title=Hiroshima_Cluehammer&diff=prev&oldid=237277 decided to rekindle it] a month after I was gracious enough to move on. So, log in your eye there.
::::It seems to me what's really bothering you is that someone's disagreeing with you on the internet. Or that you're embarrassed by your own words and don't want to take responsibility for them. Or you don't want to admit your wrong. Or something.
::::Maybe you need to take a break from the temper-tantrum editing and calm down a bit. All the bombast and bluster isn't impressing anyone. —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 02:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::Funny, I only see six days between the edits, when you self-servingly deleted an example showing how you took ownership of the term. It's like you're trying to distance yourself from it.
::::::The "example" you cited was a hamfisted troll. Since I was enjoying our ceasefire over the holidays and decided I wasn't going to pursue adding the "Hiroshima Cluehammer" quote to your article, it would be fair enough to remove it from that one. This, apparently, was an unacceptable compromise to you. The silver lining is that this a smoking gun that shoots a big hole in your claims that you just want to be left alone and you're just trying to "defend" yourself. This proves that if I give an inch, you'll try to take a yard. So be it. —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 07:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::::He wouldn't be able to troll you on that phrase if it weren't something that you were known for. Even a Troll, like a stopped clock, can be right twice a day. Attacking the source does not disprove his statement. And furthermore, the section is on "Further use of the term", and since the term appears in that quotation, its inclusion is perfectly valid in the context of that article.
::::::::Correct, and by that logic inclusion of the Hiroshima Cluehammer quote in your article in the context of your overly-dramatic departure is also perfectly valid. You can't have it both ways. —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 08:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::And yet, you want it both ways, you want to delete the JinxMouse quote, AND link it here. You claim you were "Enjoying the Truce" and then you decided to go in and delete an addition of mine, and then you claim to be the injured party when I restore the entry to its State at the truce. You knew it would provoke a response, and you used that as a pretext to make your demands here.
::::::::::This is incorrect. I was enjoying the truce by ''not pursuing linking the Hiroshima Cluehammer quote to your article''. I deleted the JinxMouse quote based on assumption that you had some sense of fairness and could understand equal application of this standards you are insisting upon. Ergo, I only re-opened the issue here ''after your attempt to restore the JinxMouse quote'', and that blows a big hole in your claim that your only edits here are to "defend" yourself. —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 04:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::The flaw in the above "Reasoning" is that the quote is already included by reference. It's been there all along.
:::::And I find it funny how the very points I raised in the "Where is the Hiroshima Cluehammer?" post have somehow made it into your article, claiming them for yourself. If I "Rewrote history", then so have you.
::::::The difference here is that the points you raised in the "Where is the Hiroshima Cluehammer?" post—increased media control at conventions, et al.—are all things I supported which you attempted to take credit for, all the while accusing me of supporting "anything goes" policies. The reason I didn't re-write history is because unlike you, I actually provided references to Usenet posts to back up my statements. I've never been able to find a single post where you supported the idea of having a media liaison, and considering my mad Google skills you can consider that quite an accomplishment. —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 07:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::::Hmmm, interesting that you ONLY cite Media Liaison. Since those other elements absolutely ARE things I advocated, you lie by omission. I'll admit, I don't live in my past Usenet arguments like you, so I don't have a well-indexed archive. But at this point, I cannot accept anything you say about my posting history as honest.
::::::::And you don't have to. I'm comfortable letting the reader decide for themselves since I'm the only one who has been providing verifiable, publicly-accessible links to your posting history.
::::::::And your posting history shows you never supported policies to control exploitative media crews. I did. My posting history shows I was the one who first suggested furry conventions have a media liaison. I supported taking a pro-active stance and sending press releases to the media so they would have accurate information about furry fandom. I've actually invested the time and effort in creating press kits and press badges for the media to use and escorted them around. I've actually been quoted in positive news articles about furry fandom. I'm the guy who has consistently stated furry fandom is about the appreciation of anthropomorphic animals and not about fetishes. I'm the guy who supports countering misinformation by distributing accurate information about furry fandom as far and wide as possible. I'm the guy who doesn't misbehave at furry conventions or try to "freak the mundanes." I'm the guy who is on record—exhaustively—as being opposed to BDSM gear in hotel lobbies. I'm the guy who tells people wearing leashes at conventions to remove them because it violates the convention's Standards of Conduct.
::::::::Your ludicrous claim that you supported these things would have a lot more credibility if you didn't spend so much time flaming me—even years later in your obsessive little attack essay where you tried to take credit—by claiming I supported "anything goes" policies.
::::::::Got any evidence to back that up? Of course not, and the real reason you can't provide links is because you know you don't. And the worst part is you won't even apologize when you've been proven wrong, you just keep digging yourself a deeper and deeper hole.
::::::::You're a dishonest and reprehensible coward, Rich. —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 08:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::And again, you're ignoring the three other policies under discussion because you KNOW I backed them. Talk about cowardice. And ludicrous claims "you never supported policies to control exploitative media crews." Really. Show one post where I opposed such a policy. Did I, or did I not support enforcing standards of public behavior? Let's try just that one. Did I, or did I not advocate banning certain troublemakers? Did you ever make a Slippery Slope argument in opposition to that idea? Oh, why do I bother, you'll just lie.
::::::::::I didn't say you opposed them, I said never supported them. Nice try at twisting my words around. —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 04:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::I'm sure I could find posts where I proposed dealing with the Media. I'm certain I made posts about banning troublemakers and enforcing standards of behavior. I'm sure you know about them and have them in your little index. You're just depending on me not to look them up. But you know the truth, even if you won't admit it (Like by dodging the questions).
:::::I took it down because I'm trying to not give you material and excuses for your stalking of me. That's also why I made all my LJ entries private.
:::::I have a little project for you, why don't you count the number of times you've tried to link this little obsession of yours to me. Count up the number of times you've edited articles related to me. Count up just how many times you've typed those two words. And then try to convince me that you're not obsessed with me.
::::::I don't need to convince you of anything because I know any evidence, no matter how well-researched and documented, means nothing to you. Be that as it may, counting words in order to "prove" your point seems dubious at best; you're just as active a participant in this as I am (and to my credit, the scope of my edit history ''does'' include articles unrelated to you, whereas yours ''does not''). Looks like you're the one who's really obsessed here. —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 18:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::::I'm only editing things that related to me. That's only natural. Especially when you're editing them to smear me. That the preponderance of your work here is related directly to me proves my point. And it's interesting how you normally document everything, even your comments in talk pages with links, and now all of a sudden you eschew evidence. I can only surmise that this is because the evidence is not in your favor. Try me.
::::::::Way to move those goalposts, Rich, but you're not in a position to talk about editing things to smear people when you've proven you're willing to do it yourself. —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 08:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::I'm only including properly footnoted facts, EXACTLY like you were. Or are you now admitting your purpose was to smear....
::::::::::My purpose is to be historically accurate. If you want to include the JinxMouse quote I have no problem with that, but by the same rationale the Hiroshima Cluehammer quote should be included here. —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 04:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::The flaw in the above "Reasoning" is that the quote is already included by reference. It's been there all along.
:::::I think you keep trolling after me because you miss our arguments. I don't. I want you to go away and stop trying to smear me. You say it's not important, and yet, here you are, begging the admins to change their decision about locking the entry so you can stick it in again. Well, you're not getting it this time.
::::::Your argument falls flat because, I'll point out again, [http://furry.wikia.com/index.php?title=Hiroshima_Cluehammer&diff=prev&oldid=237277 you're the one who decided to rekindle this whole shebang]. I was content to let sleeping dogs lie, but instead I have to deal with your lying. Take some responsibility for your actions, Rich.
:::::::How is that edit a lie? And if you say it's unimportant, why are you back with such vehemence? And why are you going after my bio instead of just that article? Your actions belie your words.
::::::::The lying was in reference to your compulsive habit of making shit up without any supporting evidence, but that's beside the point. If you don't want quotes in your bio that make you look bad, then you shouldn't be doing it to others. Fair's fair. —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 08:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::Talk about making shit up.... WHAT LIE? How is that edit (and be clear about it, we're talking about the Jinx Mouse quote) a lie? And your double standard is showing yet again. Oh yeah, and I missed pointing out before, the link proves that you were NOT letting sleeping dogs lie, you were editing. More lies from you.
::::::::::I've already debunked your inaccurate interpretation of the word "frequent", and I was letting sleeping dogs lie by ''leaving you alone and not editing your bio''. —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 04:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::Fail. The Jinx Mouse quote as factual. You dodged the question. Further Fail, you had no choice in not editing my entry because it was locked. Were it not locked, you would have continued the edit war. Strike Three, Frequent meant you used it more often than any other person, in fact, all other persons combined on a.f.f.
::::::The fact is these are statements you said and opinions you still hold. If they make you look bad, that's nobody's fault but your own, nobody's problem but your own, and all your baseless accusations and attempts at obfuscation aren't going to change that. —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 07:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::::This is logic? I restore a perfectly valid element in a different article, so you come over HERE and demand to edit my bio? You say it's my "Problem", but you ARE the problem. If it's a problem, you are the one who insists on inflicting it upon me. Your words are further proof that your purpose is not "Historical" but vindictive.
::::::::No, I am merely ensuring there is no double-standard. Sure, it was a perfectly valid element—but by that logic so was the Hiroshima Cluehammer quote in your bio. So what's good for the goose is good for the Chandler. Ergo, the problem really is on your end. —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 08:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::Correction, you're trying to ensure that there WAS a double standard by deleting legitimate quotes that make you look bad and demanding to be able to edit them into mine. If you had left the quote in and made your demand, at least you'd have "Tit for Tat" on your side. But by deleting it, you also eliminated your grounds for demanding to make the edit. On the other hand, by claiming that the Jinx Mouse quote makes you look bad and using that as your justification, it makes clear the already transparent lie that your motivation is anything but your personal grudge. Seriously, you're not fooling anyone. This is why you've lost this battle. Every round in this little flare up has resulted in defeat for you, and the resulting changes have only improved things for me.
::::::::::See, this is why you're such a sad little man, Rich... you can't admit when you're wrong. I only re-opened this issue ''after'' you tried to apply a double-standard by restoring the JinxMouse quote. It's ''really simple'': If the JinxMouse quote gets restored, so does the Hiroshima Cluehammer quote. What's so difficult for you to understand about this? —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 04:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::The flaw in the above "Reasoning" is that the quote is already included by reference. It's been there all along.
:::::::And what is there to be "wrong" about? All I said was I don't want to be there when something really bad happens. How is that wrong? What would a retraction mean, that I really do want to be there when something really bad happens? Just because you imbued the phrase with more meaning after I left doesn't reflect upon my original usage. I thought it was fairly clever when I said it. My only objection to including it here is because of what you've turned it into, an attack on me. And I will not allow you to use my bio, or this Wiki (if I can help it) as your weapon.
::::::::Riiiiiiight.
:::::::::Yes, Right. "I don't want to be there when the HC hits" means exactly that. I don't want to be there when disaster strikes. English IS your first language, right?
::::::::You do realize the only reason you think it's an attack on you is because it makes you look bad, and the only reason it makes you look bad is because it's a position you still hold, right?
:::::::::No, I know from your history that this is your aim. You've been doggedly dragging my name through the mud ever since I quit. It's so similar to the vehement reaction gays have to people who've been to one of those "Turned Straight" camps. It's as if the idea of someone giving up Furry causes some existential angst, and therefore must be destroyed. It's really simple to see. If Xydexx is talking about me, the ONLY reason he could be doing it is to make me look bad. EVERYBODY knows that, even the Trolls.
::::::::::You make yourself look bad without my help. The Hiroshima Cluehammer is a self-inflicted wound. You were hoisted by your own petard there. Be that as it may, can you ''prove'' I've been dragging your name through the mud? Because I noticed in my essays I don't call you out by name, and in fact specifically pointed out that I wasn't going to carelessly toss your name around the way you did in "Where's The Hiroshima Cluehammer?" I did call you out by name in the rebuttal to that (which in your paranoid little mind you believe still exists online somewhere), but since you were willing to trash me by name it was only fair I got to return the favor. —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 04:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::It's not a wound. You merely tried to turn it into one. I still don't know why you put so much effort into it. Why do you care? Don't answer that, I don't need to know, but you really need to figure out why you couldn't just let me go. (Sure, you didn't use my name on your Axiom pages, just the Cluehammer one and lots of usenet posts, and the Wiki entries you created here. Really, do you think you were fooling anyone? Your obsession with me is well known, and it's part of why you're so pathetic.)
::::::::What would a retraction mean? Gee, I don't know. It might mean that you finally recognize that the so-called "crop of losers" you were so happy to leave behind actually did have some real solutions to the media problems and they managed to implement them without your help. It might mean that you finally realize it was a mistake to go on a pointless (and entirely unnecessary) crusade against everyone—even fans who were trying to fix the problem. It might mean you regret all the resulting fallout and burned bridges you caused by alienating an ever-increasing number of fans. I don't know, Rich; I'm not the one who needs to write a retraction.
:::::::::I regret nothing. But it appears now that the "Crop of Losers" and not the "Hiroshima Cluehammer" was what really bugged you. And apparently you assumed that it included you. Well, I still think you're a loser. And I think the folks who have stepped up are not the same people I was talking about then. You really seem to have built up my quitting announcement into some gigantic mythical thing all out of proportion to what I actually said in it. Maybe that's why, 8 years later, you're still going on and on and on about it.
::::::::::'''And so are you.''' -:) —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 04:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::If it weren't for your constant efforts to smear me, I wouldn't have to be here. Stop whining about your success.
::::::::If, on the other hand, being a bitter ex-fan is the kind of thing that makes you happy, then all I can say is good luck with that. —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 08:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::I don't identify as an ex-fan, and I'm certainly not bitter about it. That's your fantasy. I've got a lot going on in my life, a lot that you can't see from obsessively monitoring my LJ. Although this business of having to deal with you here certainly is a source of stress, and confirmation that my decision to leave the company of people like you was the correct one. I mean seriously, what you consider the climax of sexual satisfaction is an event that causes great unhappiness to children, the destruction of a toy. What a monster you are.
::::::::::Well, turnabout being fair play and all, at least I'm not an abusive and self-destructive misogynist with a bad attitude who's chronically unsuccessful at picking up women at BDSM bars. -:) —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 04:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::Hahah! That's what you think. Sorry buddy, THOSE entries were NEVER public. THERE DO exist pictures of me in a hot tub full of fetish models, and you will never see 'em. But even if you were right, I could still look down on you.
:::::::Hmm, and apparently neither will the Mods. I see now that this entire discussion is moot. It ends here. Now go off and enjoy the fandom or whatever you do.
::::::::Glad to see the Mods put the kibosh on your malicious edits as well. Fair enough. Be well. —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 08:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::More of that weird Projection habit. And of course, you just CAN'T resist trying to get the last word in.
::::::::::PKB on ya. You're the one who keeps claiming you don't want to re-hash old AFF arguments, yet you keep coming back for more. Nobody's forcing you to post here, and it's not like your comments here have been anything other than desperate personal attacks at me anyway. You're not impressing anyone, Rich. —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 04:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::Q.E.D.
:::::::::::This from the man who put so much effort into enshrining those arguments both here and on his own site.
:Let's try a different Tack.
:The edit you wish to make is unnecessary because the quotation is already incorporated by Reference. That is, Link 4, the link to the original post.

By the way, since this Discussion has devolved into anything BUT a discussion of the Bio, I'm going to see about having it deleted.
:It's not my fault you wanted to re-hash old AFF arguments and dig yourself a deeper hole. Give my regards to the earth's core! -:) —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 04:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
::This from the man who put so much effort into enshrining those arguments both here and on his own site.

== Why don't you both just drop it? ==

Am I the only one who wonders why this discussion is still going on? Richard, I ask you this question seriously, as a random observer who's never heard of you outside of Wikifur: Why do you care about this enough to continue this pointless debate? I understand wanting to protect one's reputation and all, but I have a hard time believing that anyone other than you and Xydexx care about this article enough to warrant the multiple-page quibbling over quotes. And Xydexx, do you really have nothing better to do?

I know y'all will probably flame me for this post, but I think I speak for everyone who's not you two when I say: Could y'all please find a resolution to this?

--A Wikifur member who's tired of deleting these entries from their RSS reader, [[User:FelixSoftpaw|Felix Softpaw]] 04:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
:I'm well aware Rich and I are the only ones interested in this and everyone else is sick of it. That's the way these things usually pan out. The only reason I'm responding to any of this at the moment is to counter his paranoid accusations and half-baked personal attacks. Other than that there isn't really a resolution to be had, which means I'll just have to be the bigger man and walk away from it (again) like I usually end up doing. Thanks for your comments. —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 07:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

:There's an RSS feed that even includes this? Felix, I'm sorry about that. That must be the unseen Audience Karl thinks he's impressing. "I understand wanting to protect one's reputation and all" is exactly it. I guess my mistake is in ever thinking that reasoning can stop Karl's quest to enshrine his hatred of me (for quitting? for daring to disagree with him?) in any place he can. If you see this in your feed after this last edit of mine, you can blame Karl for inflicting it on you.
:And Karl, "You'll walk away", hah! How many times have we seen that before? "Personal attacks" Like "You're a dishonest and reprehensible coward, Rich" perhaps? Or the Misogyny thing you've misappropriated out of ONE LJ post? PKB. Every single word written here is all about you wanting to get your licks in over what I said when I quit. And you're completely wrong about the meaning of those words. You're responsible for your own torment over them. Seriously, if you don't want to inflict these things on other people, and if you think that you and I are the only ones who care (You're half right), then why are you worried about my "accusations"? (Hell, why are you worried about this whole issue period?) We'll see soon if you really can walk away or if you're lying again. But if I know you, like I unfortunately do, you will be unable to resist coming in to put your spin on this again. If we see one more Xydexx in the edit history, we'll know you're too weak to resist.

Talk:Richard Chandler

2009-02-07T10:27:11Z

74.61.5.121: /* Unlock and Restore */

<div style="float:right; border:2px solid #bbbbbb; width:150px;">
<center>'''Discussion Pages'''</center>
*[[/Archive1|Archive 1]] (December 2008)
</div>
== Unlock and Restore ==

Addressing this unresolved issue once again: 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. —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 04:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
:Give it up Karl. Cease your stalking. Forget me, forget your decade-old grudge, and go off and "Enjoy Fandom". You keep saying you have better things to do in your life, why not go and do them?
:And there is consensus. That's why this is still locked, and will remain locked. This is a wiki, not your personal grudge site.
:And I reiterate. If you get your little hobby-horse crowbared back into this, I will reinstate my request for deletion. Either way, you will not get your way.{{unsigned|74.61.5.121}}
::Y'know, the funniest part of this is that you keep saying you've left the fandom—yet you're still here.
::No, there is not consensus. There is disagreement and controversy over the content of this article. This is in fact an unresolved issue, as per the notice at the top of the article: ''"This page has been locked due to a dispute over its contents. Until the dispute has been resolved, please discuss its contents on the article's discussion page."''
::It's not my "hobby-horse" or grudge or any of the other little snipes you're making to try to take the focus off you (a tactic which isn't going to work, so you may as well give it a rest already)... it's a matter of historical accuracy and telling the whole story. In light of that fact, this is a page for discussing the article, not making paranoid and groundless accusations against me. Lose the huge chip on your shoulder and stop making personal attacks and threats already. As long as you haven't retracted the statement and think the fandom is a cesspool, I'm entitled to disagree.—[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 22:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
:::Defending myself against your constant attacks on my reputation constitutes participation in Furry Fandom? Interesting.
:::How much of your activity on this Wiki in the last three months has centered on you trying to ensure this term which I only used once, and which you have made your own is inserted into this entry? In fact, how many entries on this Wiki mention me that you have had a hand in creating or editing? Yeah, it's a hobby horse. You are the ONLY person committed to this issue. To elevate TWO WORDS out of the tens of thousands I've written to historical significance defies logic, especially when it was only your subsequent use that attached any symbolic meaning. The term is FAR more linked to you than to me. Why is there no mention of it in YOUR bio? Surely you could devote a paragraph or two to it there.
:::It's funny, you had your retraction at one point, and you managed to convince me to take it down when you attacked it.
:::This issue is as resolved as it's going to get. Either it stays out, or the whole thing goes. Period.
::::What "constant" "attacks" exactly? Is your definition of "constant" like your equally-amusing interpretation of "frequent"?
::::I'm sure I could add a paragraph or two to my bio, but—despite your ironic attempt to try to pass off this albatross you yourself created—it isn't about me, and it really isn't that important to me (or, to put it in perspective, not as important as talking about monkeypants). No, Rich... you coined the term, you get the credit for it.
::::And no, sorry, you've never posted a retraction. You did post a flimsy attempt at rewriting history where you tried to glom onto the improvements in the fandom, but quickly took it down when I finally got around to debunking it a few years later (which, if nothing else, demonstrates exactly how low it was on my list of priorities).
::::And no, sorry, I'm not the only person committed to this issue. In fact, I know someone who is so committed to this issue they [http://furry.wikia.com/index.php?title=Hiroshima_Cluehammer&diff=prev&oldid=237277 decided to rekindle it] a month after I was gracious enough to move on. So, log in your eye there.
::::It seems to me what's really bothering you is that someone's disagreeing with you on the internet. Or that you're embarrassed by your own words and don't want to take responsibility for them. Or you don't want to admit your wrong. Or something.
::::Maybe you need to take a break from the temper-tantrum editing and calm down a bit. All the bombast and bluster isn't impressing anyone. —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 02:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::Funny, I only see six days between the edits, when you self-servingly deleted an example showing how you took ownership of the term. It's like you're trying to distance yourself from it.
::::::The "example" you cited was a hamfisted troll. Since I was enjoying our ceasefire over the holidays and decided I wasn't going to pursue adding the "Hiroshima Cluehammer" quote to your article, it would be fair enough to remove it from that one. This, apparently, was an unacceptable compromise to you. The silver lining is that this a smoking gun that shoots a big hole in your claims that you just want to be left alone and you're just trying to "defend" yourself. This proves that if I give an inch, you'll try to take a yard. So be it. —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 07:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::::He wouldn't be able to troll you on that phrase if it weren't something that you were known for. Even a Troll, like a stopped clock, can be right twice a day. Attacking the source does not disprove his statement. And furthermore, the section is on "Further use of the term", and since the term appears in that quotation, its inclusion is perfectly valid in the context of that article.
::::::::Correct, and by that logic inclusion of the Hiroshima Cluehammer quote in your article in the context of your overly-dramatic departure is also perfectly valid. You can't have it both ways. —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 08:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::And yet, you want it both ways, you want to delete the JinxMouse quote, AND link it here. You claim you were "Enjoying the Truce" and then you decided to go in and delete an addition of mine, and then you claim to be the injured party when I restore the entry to its State at the truce. You knew it would provoke a response, and you used that as a pretext to make your demands here.
:::::And I find it funny how the very points I raised in the "Where is the Hiroshima Cluehammer?" post have somehow made it into your article, claiming them for yourself. If I "Rewrote history", then so have you.
::::::The difference here is that the points you raised in the "Where is the Hiroshima Cluehammer?" post—increased media control at conventions, et al.—are all things I supported which you attempted to take credit for, all the while accusing me of supporting "anything goes" policies. The reason I didn't re-write history is because unlike you, I actually provided references to Usenet posts to back up my statements. I've never been able to find a single post where you supported the idea of having a media liaison, and considering my mad Google skills you can consider that quite an accomplishment. —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 07:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::::Hmmm, interesting that you ONLY cite Media Liaison. Since those other elements absolutely ARE things I advocated, you lie by omission. I'll admit, I don't live in my past Usenet arguments like you, so I don't have a well-indexed archive. But at this point, I cannot accept anything you say about my posting history as honest.
::::::::And you don't have to. I'm comfortable letting the reader decide for themselves since I'm the only one who has been providing verifiable, publicly-accessible links to your posting history.
::::::::And your posting history shows you never supported policies to control exploitative media crews. I did. My posting history shows I was the one who first suggested furry conventions have a media liaison. I supported taking a pro-active stance and sending press releases to the media so they would have accurate information about furry fandom. I've actually invested the time and effort in creating press kits and press badges for the media to use and escorted them around. I've actually been quoted in positive news articles about furry fandom. I'm the guy who has consistently stated furry fandom is about the appreciation of anthropomorphic animals and not about fetishes. I'm the guy who supports countering misinformation by distributing accurate information about furry fandom as far and wide as possible. I'm the guy who doesn't misbehave at furry conventions or try to "freak the mundanes." I'm the guy who is on record—exhaustively—as being opposed to BDSM gear in hotel lobbies. I'm the guy who tells people wearing leashes at conventions to remove them because it violates the convention's Standards of Conduct.
::::::::Your ludicrous claim that you supported these things would have a lot more credibility if you didn't spend so much time flaming me—even years later in your obsessive little attack essay where you tried to take credit—by claiming I supported "anything goes" policies.
::::::::Got any evidence to back that up? Of course not, and the real reason you can't provide links is because you know you don't. And the worst part is you won't even apologize when you've been proven wrong, you just keep digging yourself a deeper and deeper hole.
::::::::You're a dishonest and reprehensible coward, Rich. —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 08:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::And again, you're ignoring the three other policies under discussion because you KNOW I backed them. Talk about cowardice. And ludicrous claims "you never supported policies to control exploitative media crews." Really. Show one post where I opposed such a policy. Did I, or did I not support enforcing standards of public behavior? Let's try just that one. Did I, or did I not advocate banning certain troublemakers? Did you ever make a Slippery Slope argument in opposition to that idea? Oh, why do I bother, you'll just lie.
:::::I took it down because I'm trying to not give you material and excuses for your stalking of me. That's also why I made all my LJ entries private.
:::::I have a little project for you, why don't you count the number of times you've tried to link this little obsession of yours to me. Count up the number of times you've edited articles related to me. Count up just how many times you've typed those two words. And then try to convince me that you're not obsessed with me.
::::::I don't need to convince you of anything because I know any evidence, no matter how well-researched and documented, means nothing to you. Be that as it may, counting words in order to "prove" your point seems dubious at best; you're just as active a participant in this as I am (and to my credit, the scope of my edit history ''does'' include articles unrelated to you, whereas yours ''does not''). Looks like you're the one who's really obsessed here. —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 18:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::::I'm only editing things that related to me. That's only natural. Especially when you're editing them to smear me. That the preponderance of your work here is related directly to me proves my point. And it's interesting how you normally document everything, even your comments in talk pages with links, and now all of a sudden you eschew evidence. I can only surmise that this is because the evidence is not in your favor. Try me.
::::::::Way to move those goalposts, Rich, but you're not in a position to talk about editing things to smear people when you've proven you're willing to do it yourself. —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 08:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::I'm only including properly footnoted facts, EXACTLY like you were. Or are you now admitting your purpose was to smear....
:::::I think you keep trolling after me because you miss our arguments. I don't. I want you to go away and stop trying to smear me. You say it's not important, and yet, here you are, begging the admins to change their decision about locking the entry so you can stick it in again. Well, you're not getting it this time.
::::::Your argument falls flat because, I'll point out again, [http://furry.wikia.com/index.php?title=Hiroshima_Cluehammer&diff=prev&oldid=237277 you're the one who decided to rekindle this whole shebang]. I was content to let sleeping dogs lie, but instead I have to deal with your lying. Take some responsibility for your actions, Rich.
:::::::How is that edit a lie? And if you say it's unimportant, why are you back with such vehemence? And why are you going after my bio instead of just that article? Your actions belie your words.
::::::::The lying was in reference to your compulsive habit of making shit up without any supporting evidence, but that's beside the point. If you don't want quotes in your bio that make you look bad, then you shouldn't be doing it to others. Fair's fair. —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 08:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::Talk about making shit up.... WHAT LIE? How is that edit (and be clear about it, we're talking about the Jinx Mouse quote) a lie? And your double standard is showing yet again. Oh yeah, and I missed pointing out before, the link proves that you were NOT letting sleeping dogs lie, you were editing. More lies from you.
::::::The fact is these are statements you said and opinions you still hold. If they make you look bad, that's nobody's fault but your own, nobody's problem but your own, and all your baseless accusations and attempts at obfuscation aren't going to change that. —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 07:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::::This is logic? I restore a perfectly valid element in a different article, so you come over HERE and demand to edit my bio? You say it's my "Problem", but you ARE the problem. If it's a problem, you are the one who insists on inflicting it upon me. Your words are further proof that your purpose is not "Historical" but vindictive.
::::::::No, I am merely ensuring there is no double-standard. Sure, it was a perfectly valid element—but by that logic so was the Hiroshima Cluehammer quote in your bio. So what's good for the goose is good for the Chandler. Ergo, the problem really is on your end. —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 08:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::Correction, you're trying to ensure that there WAS a double standard by deleting legitimate quotes that make you look bad and demanding to be able to edit them into mine. If you had left the quote in and made your demand, at least you'd have "Tit for Tat" on your side. But by deleting it, you also eliminated your grounds for demanding to make the edit. On the other hand, by claiming that the Jinx Mouse quote makes you look bad and using that as your justification, it makes clear the already transparent lie that your motivation is anything but your personal grudge. Seriously, you're not fooling anyone. This is why you've lost this battle. Every round in this little flare up has resulted in defeat for you, and the resulting changes have only improved things for me.
:::::::And what is there to be "wrong" about? All I said was I don't want to be there when something really bad happens. How is that wrong? What would a retraction mean, that I really do want to be there when something really bad happens? Just because you imbued the phrase with more meaning after I left doesn't reflect upon my original usage. I thought it was fairly clever when I said it. My only objection to including it here is because of what you've turned it into, an attack on me. And I will not allow you to use my bio, or this Wiki (if I can help it) as your weapon.
::::::::Riiiiiiight.
:::::::::Yes, Right. "I don't want to be there when the HC hits" means exactly that. I don't want to be there when disaster strikes. English IS your first language, right?
::::::::You do realize the only reason you think it's an attack on you is because it makes you look bad, and the only reason it makes you look bad is because it's a position you still hold, right?
:::::::::No, I know from your history that this is your aim. You've been doggedly dragging my name through the mud ever since I quit. It's so similar to the vehement reaction gays have to people who've been to one of those "Turned Straight" camps. It's as if the idea of someone giving up Furry causes some existential angst, and therefore must be destroyed. It's really simple to see. If Xydexx is talking about me, the ONLY reason he could be doing it is to make me look bad. EVERYBODY knows that, even the Trolls.
::::::::What would a retraction mean? Gee, I don't know. It might mean that you finally recognize that the so-called "crop of losers" you were so happy to leave behind actually did have some real solutions to the media problems and they managed to implement them without your help. It might mean that you finally realize it was a mistake to go on a pointless (and entirely unnecessary) crusade against everyone—even fans who were trying to fix the problem. It might mean you regret all the resulting fallout and burned bridges you caused by alienating an ever-increasing number of fans. I don't know, Rich; I'm not the one who needs to write a retraction.
:::::::::I regret nothing. But it appears now that the "Crop of Losers" and not the "Hiroshima Cluehammer" was what really bugged you. And apparently you assumed that it included you. Well, I still think you're a loser. And I think the folks who have stepped up are not the same people I was talking about then. You really seem to have built up my quitting announcement into some gigantic mythical thing all out of proportion to what I actually said in it. Maybe that's why, 8 years later, you're still going on and on and on about it.
::::::::If, on the other hand, being a bitter ex-fan is the kind of thing that makes you happy, then all I can say is good luck with that. —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 08:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::I don't identify as an ex-fan, and I've certainly not bitter about it. That's your fantasy. I've got a lot going on in my life, a lot that you can't see from obsessively monitoring my LJ. Although this business of having to deal with you here certainly is a source of stress, and confirmation that my decision to leave the company of people like you was the correct one. I mean seriously, what you consider the climax of sexual satisfaction is an event that causes great unhappiness to children, the destruction of a toy. What a monster you are.
:::::::Hmm, and apparently neither will the Mods. I see now that this entire discussion is moot. It ends here. Now go off and enjoy the fandom or whatever you do.
::::::::Glad to see the Mods put the kibosh on your malicious edits as well. Fair enough. Be well. —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 08:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::More of that weird Projection habit. And of course, you just CAN'T resist trying to get the last word in.
:Let's try a different Tack.
:The edit you wish to make is unnecessary because the quotation is already incorporated by Reference. That is, Link 4, the link to the original post.

By the way, since this Discussion has devolved into anything BUT a discussion of the Bio, I'm going to see about having it deleted.

Talk:Richard Chandler

2009-02-07T10:18:37Z

74.61.5.121: /* Unlock and Restore */

<div style="float:right; border:2px solid #bbbbbb; width:150px;">
<center>'''Discussion Pages'''</center>
*[[/Archive1|Archive 1]] (December 2008)
</div>
== Unlock and Restore ==

Addressing this unresolved issue once again: 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. —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 04:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
:Give it up Karl. Cease your stalking. Forget me, forget your decade-old grudge, and go off and "Enjoy Fandom". You keep saying you have better things to do in your life, why not go and do them?
:And there is consensus. That's why this is still locked, and will remain locked. This is a wiki, not your personal grudge site.
:And I reiterate. If you get your little hobby-horse crowbared back into this, I will reinstate my request for deletion. Either way, you will not get your way.{{unsigned|74.61.5.121}}
::Y'know, the funniest part of this is that you keep saying you've left the fandom—yet you're still here.
::No, there is not consensus. There is disagreement and controversy over the content of this article. This is in fact an unresolved issue, as per the notice at the top of the article: ''"This page has been locked due to a dispute over its contents. Until the dispute has been resolved, please discuss its contents on the article's discussion page."''
::It's not my "hobby-horse" or grudge or any of the other little snipes you're making to try to take the focus off you (a tactic which isn't going to work, so you may as well give it a rest already)... it's a matter of historical accuracy and telling the whole story. In light of that fact, this is a page for discussing the article, not making paranoid and groundless accusations against me. Lose the huge chip on your shoulder and stop making personal attacks and threats already. As long as you haven't retracted the statement and think the fandom is a cesspool, I'm entitled to disagree.—[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 22:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
:::Defending myself against your constant attacks on my reputation constitutes participation in Furry Fandom? Interesting.
:::How much of your activity on this Wiki in the last three months has centered on you trying to ensure this term which I only used once, and which you have made your own is inserted into this entry? In fact, how many entries on this Wiki mention me that you have had a hand in creating or editing? Yeah, it's a hobby horse. You are the ONLY person committed to this issue. To elevate TWO WORDS out of the tens of thousands I've written to historical significance defies logic, especially when it was only your subsequent use that attached any symbolic meaning. The term is FAR more linked to you than to me. Why is there no mention of it in YOUR bio? Surely you could devote a paragraph or two to it there.
:::It's funny, you had your retraction at one point, and you managed to convince me to take it down when you attacked it.
:::This issue is as resolved as it's going to get. Either it stays out, or the whole thing goes. Period.
::::What "constant" "attacks" exactly? Is your definition of "constant" like your equally-amusing interpretation of "frequent"?
::::I'm sure I could add a paragraph or two to my bio, but—despite your ironic attempt to try to pass off this albatross you yourself created—it isn't about me, and it really isn't that important to me (or, to put it in perspective, not as important as talking about monkeypants). No, Rich... you coined the term, you get the credit for it.
::::And no, sorry, you've never posted a retraction. You did post a flimsy attempt at rewriting history where you tried to glom onto the improvements in the fandom, but quickly took it down when I finally got around to debunking it a few years later (which, if nothing else, demonstrates exactly how low it was on my list of priorities).
::::And no, sorry, I'm not the only person committed to this issue. In fact, I know someone who is so committed to this issue they [http://furry.wikia.com/index.php?title=Hiroshima_Cluehammer&diff=prev&oldid=237277 decided to rekindle it] a month after I was gracious enough to move on. So, log in your eye there.
::::It seems to me what's really bothering you is that someone's disagreeing with you on the internet. Or that you're embarrassed by your own words and don't want to take responsibility for them. Or you don't want to admit your wrong. Or something.
::::Maybe you need to take a break from the temper-tantrum editing and calm down a bit. All the bombast and bluster isn't impressing anyone. —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 02:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::Funny, I only see six days between the edits, when you self-servingly deleted an example showing how you took ownership of the term. It's like you're trying to distance yourself from it.
::::::The "example" you cited was a hamfisted troll. Since I was enjoying our ceasefire over the holidays and decided I wasn't going to pursue adding the "Hiroshima Cluehammer" quote to your article, it would be fair enough to remove it from that one. This, apparently, was an unacceptable compromise to you. The silver lining is that this a smoking gun that shoots a big hole in your claims that you just want to be left alone and you're just trying to "defend" yourself. This proves that if I give an inch, you'll try to take a yard. So be it. —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 07:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::::He wouldn't be able to troll you on that phrase if it weren't something that you were known for. Even a Troll, like a stopped clock, can be right twice a day. Attacking the source does not disprove his statement. And furthermore, the section is on "Further use of the term", and since the term appears in that quotation, its inclusion is perfectly valid in the context of that article.
::::::::Correct, and by that logic inclusion of the Hiroshima Cluehammer quote in your article in the context of your overly-dramatic departure is also perfectly valid. You can't have it both ways. —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 08:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::And yet, you want it both ways, you want to delete the JinxMouse quote, AND link it here. You claim you were "Enjoying the Truce" and then you decided to go in and delete an addition of mine, and then you claim to be the injured party when I restore the entry to its State at the truce. You knew it would provoke a response, and you used that as a pretext to make your demands here.
:::::And I find it funny how the very points I raised in the "Where is the Hiroshima Cluehammer?" post have somehow made it into your article, claiming them for yourself. If I "Rewrote history", then so have you.
::::::The difference here is that the points you raised in the "Where is the Hiroshima Cluehammer?" post—increased media control at conventions, et al.—are all things I supported which you attempted to take credit for, all the while accusing me of supporting "anything goes" policies. The reason I didn't re-write history is because unlike you, I actually provided references to Usenet posts to back up my statements. I've never been able to find a single post where you supported the idea of having a media liaison, and considering my mad Google skills you can consider that quite an accomplishment. —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 07:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::::Hmmm, interesting that you ONLY cite Media Liaison. Since those other elements absolutely ARE things I advocated, you lie by omission. I'll admit, I don't live in my past Usenet arguments like you, so I don't have a well-indexed archive. But at this point, I cannot accept anything you say about my posting history as honest.
::::::::And you don't have to. I'm comfortable letting the reader decide for themselves since I'm the only one who has been providing verifiable, publicly-accessible links to your posting history.
::::::::And your posting history shows you never supported policies to control exploitative media crews. I did. My posting history shows I was the one who first suggested furry conventions have a media liaison. I supported taking a pro-active stance and sending press releases to the media so they would have accurate information about furry fandom. I've actually invested the time and effort in creating press kits and press badges for the media to use and escorted them around. I've actually been quoted in positive news articles about furry fandom. I'm the guy who has consistently stated furry fandom is about the appreciation of anthropomorphic animals and not about fetishes. I'm the guy who supports countering misinformation by distributing accurate information about furry fandom as far and wide as possible. I'm the guy who doesn't misbehave at furry conventions or try to "freak the mundanes." I'm the guy who is on record—exhaustively—as being opposed to BDSM gear in hotel lobbies. I'm the guy who tells people wearing leashes at conventions to remove them because it violates the convention's Standards of Conduct.
::::::::Your ludicrous claim that you supported these things would have a lot more credibility if you didn't spend so much time flaming me—even years later in your obsessive little attack essay where you tried to take credit—by claiming I supported "anything goes" policies.
::::::::Got any evidence to back that up? Of course not, and the real reason you can't provide links is because you know you don't. And the worst part is you won't even apologize when you've been proven wrong, you just keep digging yourself a deeper and deeper hole.
::::::::You're a dishonest and reprehensible coward, Rich. —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 08:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::And again, you're ignoring the three other policies under discussion because you KNOW I backed them. Talk about cowardice. And ludicrous claims "you never supported policies to control exploitative media crews." Really. Show one post where I opposed such a policy. Did I, or did I not support enforcing standards of public behavior? Let's try just that one. Did I, or did I not advocate banning certain troublemakers? Did you ever make a Slippery Slope argument in opposition to that idea? Oh, why do I bother, you'll just lie.
:::::I took it down because I'm trying to not give you material and excuses for your stalking of me. That's also why I made all my LJ entries private.
:::::I have a little project for you, why don't you count the number of times you've tried to link this little obsession of yours to me. Count up the number of times you've edited articles related to me. Count up just how many times you've typed those two words. And then try to convince me that you're not obsessed with me.
::::::I don't need to convince you of anything because I know any evidence, no matter how well-researched and documented, means nothing to you. Be that as it may, counting words in order to "prove" your point seems dubious at best; you're just as active a participant in this as I am (and to my credit, the scope of my edit history ''does'' include articles unrelated to you, whereas yours ''does not''). Looks like you're the one who's really obsessed here. —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 18:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::::I'm only editing things that related to me. That's only natural. Especially when you're editing them to smear me. That the preponderance of your work here is related directly to me proves my point. And it's interesting how you normally document everything, even your comments in talk pages with links, and now all of a sudden you eschew evidence. I can only surmise that this is because the evidence is not in your favor. Try me.
::::::::Way to move those goalposts, Rich, but you're not in a position to talk about editing things to smear people when you've proven you're willing to do it yourself. —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 08:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::I'm only including properly footnoted facts, EXACTLY like you were. Or are you now admitting your purpose was to smear....
:::::I think you keep trolling after me because you miss our arguments. I don't. I want you to go away and stop trying to smear me. You say it's not important, and yet, here you are, begging the admins to change their decision about locking the entry so you can stick it in again. Well, you're not getting it this time.
::::::Your argument falls flat because, I'll point out again, [http://furry.wikia.com/index.php?title=Hiroshima_Cluehammer&diff=prev&oldid=237277 you're the one who decided to rekindle this whole shebang]. I was content to let sleeping dogs lie, but instead I have to deal with your lying. Take some responsibility for your actions, Rich.
:::::::How is that edit a lie? And if you say it's unimportant, why are you back with such vehemence? And why are you going after my bio instead of just that article? Your actions belie your words.
::::::::The lying was in reference to your compulsive habit of making shit up without any supporting evidence, but that's beside the point. If you don't want quotes in your bio that make you look bad, then you shouldn't be doing it to others. Fair's fair. —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 08:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::Talk about making shit up.... WHAT LIE? How is that edit (and be clear about it, we're talking about the Jinx Mouse quote) a lie? And your double standard is showing yet again. Oh yeah, and I missed pointing out before, the link proves that you were NOT letting sleeping dogs lie, you were editing. More lies from you.
::::::The fact is these are statements you said and opinions you still hold. If they make you look bad, that's nobody's fault but your own, nobody's problem but your own, and all your baseless accusations and attempts at obfuscation aren't going to change that. —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 07:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::::This is logic? I restore a perfectly valid element in a different article, so you come over HERE and demand to edit my bio? You say it's my "Problem", but you ARE the problem. If it's a problem, you are the one who insists on inflicting it upon me. Your words are further proof that your purpose is not "Historical" but vindictive.
::::::::No, I am merely ensuring there is no double-standard. Sure, it was a perfectly valid element—but by that logic so was the Hiroshima Cluehammer quote in your bio. So what's good for the goose is good for the Chandler. Ergo, the problem really is on your end. —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 08:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::Correction, you're trying to ensure that there WAS a double standard by deleting legitimate quotes that make you look bad and demanding to be able to edit them into mine. If you had left the quote in and made your demand, at least you'd have "Tit for Tat" on your side. But by deleting it, you also eliminated your grounds for demanding to make the edit. On the other hand, by claiming that the Jinx Mouse quote makes you look bad and using that as your justification, it makes clear the already transparent lie that your motivation is anything but your personal grudge. Seriously, you're not fooling anyone. This is why you've lost this battle. Every round in this little flare up has resulted in defeat for you, and the resulting changes have only improved things for me.
:::::::And what is there to be "wrong" about? All I said was I don't want to be there when something really bad happens. How is that wrong? What would a retraction mean, that I really do want to be there when something really bad happens? Just because you imbued the phrase with more meaning after I left doesn't reflect upon my original usage. I thought it was fairly clever when I said it. My only objection to including it here is because of what you've turned it into, an attack on me. And I will not allow you to use my bio, or this Wiki (if I can help it) as your weapon.
::::::::Riiiiiiight.
:::::::::Yes, Right. "I don't want to be there when the HC hits" means exactly that. I don't want to be there when disaster strikes. English IS your first language, right?
::::::::You do realize the only reason you think it's an attack on you is because it makes you look bad, and the only reason it makes you look bad is because it's a position you still hold, right?
:::::::::No, I know from your history that this is your aim. You've been doggedly dragging my name through the mud ever since I quit. It's so similar to the vehement reaction gays have to people who've been to one of those "Turned Strait" camps. It's as if the idea of someone giving up Furry causes some existential angst, and therefore must be destroyed. It's really simple to see. If Xydexx is talking about me, the ONLY reason he could be doing it is to make me look bad.
::::::::What would a retraction mean? Gee, I don't know. It might mean that you finally recognize that the so-called "crop of losers" you were so happy to leave behind actually did have some real solutions to the media problems and they managed to implement them without your help. It might mean that you finally realize it was a mistake to go on a pointless (and entirely unnecessary) crusade against everyone—even fans who were trying to fix the problem. It might mean you regret all the resulting fallout and burned bridges you caused by alienating an ever-increasing number of fans. I don't know, Rich; I'm not the one who needs to write a retraction.
:::::::::I regret nothing. But it appears now that the "Crop of Losers" and not the "Hiroshima Cluehammer" was what really bugged you. And apparently you assumed that it included you. Well, I still think you're a loser. And I think the folks who have stepped up are not the same people I was talking about then. You really seem to have built up my quitting announcement isn't some gigantic mythical thing all out of proportion to what I actually said in it. Maybe that's why, 8 years later, you're still going on and on and on about it.
::::::::If, on the other hand, being a bitter ex-fan is the kind of thing that makes you happy, then all I can say is good luck with that. —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 08:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::I don't identify as an ex-fan, and I've certainly not bitter about it. That's your fantasy. I've got a lot going on in my life, a lot that you can't see from obsessively monitoring my LJ. Although this business of having to deal with you here certainly is a source of stress, and confirmation that my decision to leave the company of people like you was the correct one. I mean seriously, what you consider the climax of sexual satisfaction is an event that causes great unhappiness to children, the destruction of a toy. What a monster you are.
:::::::Hmm, and apparently neither will the Mods. I see now that this entire discussion is moot. It ends here. Now go off and enjoy the fandom or whatever you do.
::::::::Glad to see the Mods put the kibosh on your malicious edits as well. Fair enough. Be well. —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 08:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::More of that weird Projection habit. And of course, you just CAN'T resist trying to get the last word in.
:Let's try a different Tack.
:The edit you wish to make is unnecessary because the quotation is already incorporated by Reference. That is, Link 4, the link to the original post.

By the way, since this Discussion has devolved into anything BUT a discussion of the Bio, I'm going to see about having it deleted.

Talk:Richard Chandler

2009-02-06T06:42:39Z

74.61.5.121:

Talk:Hiroshima Cluehammer

2009-02-06T06:19:34Z

74.61.5.121: /* Suggested for Deletion */

<div style="float:right; border:2px solid #bbbbbb; width:150px;">
<center>'''Discussion Pages'''</center>
*[[/Archive1|Archive 1]] (July 2006 - December 2008)
</div>
'''Older conversations have been archived. Please view the links on the right review old threads.'''
== Article trim and talk archival ==

I finally went through the article, added the context to what did the term really meant, its origins, and the follow-ups to the term. It's not the final, definite edit, but superfluous and POV data has been removed. Valid or not, it had spilled into a personal argument with information that was starting to overshadow what the article was about, the term itself, its origin and story.

This spillage continued into the talk page, becoming an extension of the POV points and counterpoints, old grudges and non-related ancient lore, mostly by gents Chandler and Xydexx. All thought meritous that the right, proper and truthful data be presented, the information had become muddy and redundant in the article, and repetitious and bickering on the talk page, so,... Article trimmed, talk page archived, let's try to make this a clean fight.

Round Two - [[User:Spirou|Spirou]] 08:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

== Reverting 74.61.5.121's change ==

I reverted [http://furry.wikia.com/index.php?title=Hiroshima_Cluehammer&diff=230718&oldid=230716 this change] since the summary was misleading. For example, the link at http://www.xydexx.com/journal/cluehammer.htm is perfectly valid.

The post that was originally at http://mauser.livejournal.com/192031.html does seem to have been marked as protected, however. I am unsure of how to proceed, since that reference is no longer valid. --[[User:Dmuth|Douglas Muth]] 01:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

:Not much point in there being a rebuttal of something that doesn't exist, that's why I took them both out. Besides, it's not so much a rebuttal as a collection of ad hominem's. {{unsignedIP|74.61.5.121|13:02, 16 December 2008}}

::I have an archived copy of Rich's original collection of ad hominems if necessary. —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 00:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
:::Of course you have, you obsessed stalker you.{{unsignedIP|74.61.5.121|23:34, 16 December 2008}}
::::See, that's your problem, Rich. You can never admit when you're wrong. -=) —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 04:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::Why not consider this a retraction then? I've taken the essay down. No point in responding to it then. I hereby retract the idea that the cluehammer has been averted. Happy? It still hangs over your head. Who knows what form it takes. Maybe a Cub-art aficionado turns up as a child molester and the fandom gets smeared that way by a zealous reporter. Who knows? Of course, your article is full of attacks on me personally (ad hominem), out of context stuff lifted from my LJ, and that bit where you tried to make it seem like I was the sole source for Gates, and did you correct your mistake about assuming you were the one I was talking about having to ban from it? Surely you're better than me and can admit you are wrong and correct all that stuff, right?{{unsignedIP|74.61.5.121|01:17, 18 December 2008}}
::::::Considering your comments around talk pages on Wikifur have been full of attacks on me personally (no doubt to draw the attention away from yourself and your own words that you're attempting to distance yourself from), you're not exactly in a position to be complaining about it. Glass houses and all. —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 06:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::::So says the man with the website dedicated to slamming me. {{unsignedIP|74.61.5.121|21:24, 18 December 2008}}
== Note To Giza ==
Considering Rich has taken down his webpages dedicated to slamming me, I have no objection to the section on Chandler's 2006 follow-up being deleted. —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 18:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
:So, will you do the same? - Ah, apparently you have. Good enough. {{unsignedIP|74.61.5.121|22:53, 24 December 2008}}
== Valid Quote Is Still Valid ==
For the record, I've restored quote which explains the then (and now) opposition to Rich's histrionics. —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 04:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
:Yet, the quote is three years PRIOR to the thing you're citing it as a response to. Tell us the secret of time travel please. And the other quote is still valid. It's one of the FEW instances of someone on a.f.f using the term other than you. Perhaps someone should index them all, just to be fair and accurate. Although that might put to lie the very premise of this entry that it is a pervasive term.
:And "Histrionics"? really now.[[Special:Contributions/74.61.5.121|74.61.5.121]] 23:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
::No time travel is necessary; I ''still'' believe furry fandom is best improved by Working Together instead of scapegoating and infighting. Doesn't matter if I said it three years prior or three seconds ago if it's at the crux of my opposition to you and your hysterical doomsaying.
::: And you never were able to answer the question I always asked. "Working together to do what?"
:::: As usual, you are incorrect. Google Groups shows that I [http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.furry/msg/6e0ab910ddf16182 did in fact answer the question], and you [http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.furry/msg/dc4b49e2e3a6f258 replied to it]. You also said it would be kind of amusing to engage in a volley of words with competing web pages. Watch what you wish for, I guess. —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 04:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
::Indeed, this is the main difference between me and you. I put my money where my mouth is.
::: Just how much DID you Liase when you were that press liaison at that con? Even though I've been gone since 2001, I'd say my contributions still outweigh anything you've done.
:::: Yeah, but you'd say that even if your contributions didn't, because to do otherwise would mean you'd have to acknowledge I'm not the Menace To The Fandom you've hopelessly deluded yourself into believing I am. I was media liaison pretty much all of 2006, assisted in 2007, and I missed pretty much the whole con in 2008 because I was escorting the ''National Geographic'' folks around the convention for three days. There's a surprising number of pictures (and news footage) with me in the background while folks are being interviewed, if you ever bothered to do a scintilla of research—but I guess it's easier for you to be in full on denial mode than deal with reality. There's also a few articles where I'm quoted and mentioned by name, including the one that said the furry convention brings $3 million to the local Pittsburgh economy. For the past three years I've been making up press kits and badges, meeting and escorting reporters, answering questions, getting ''good'' press for furry fandom, and being a model ambassador to furry fandom—even though it isn't even part of my position description. And based on these successes, staff members of other conventions solicit my advice on dealing with the media. The ideas I support have been implemented by other conventions, whereas the tried-and-failed policies you favor haven't. Heck, Rich, you never even once supported the idea of having a press liaison.
:::: Turnabout being fair play and all, I look forward to reading about ''your'' extensive contributions in wrangling the media. Surely it includes something ''other'' than giving that interview to sex researcher Katherine Gates? —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 04:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
:: When I say I care about the fandom, I put forth the effort necessary to help solve its problems. I stick around when things get rough to help fix things. Despite people like you who tried everything possible to drive me out, I'm still here. ''You're'' still Chicken Littling about how the fandom's leaders are oblivious to problems, how one day your big bad Hiroshima Cluehammer is going doom us all, how the fandom is a cesspit, how you're so glad you left (yet somehow you're '''STILL HERE'''), and generally puffing yourself up and trying to take credit for issuing a wake-up call to the fandom when in reality you ''threw a temper tantrum and ran away''. You've only yourself to blame for that.
:::So, you bitch and whine until I take down the "Where's the Hiroshima Cluehammer" post, just to get you to leave me alone (Which clearly wasn't successful) and now you turn around and say "See, he hasn't retracted the original!" I'm only checking in on this stuff to defend myself from your hateful obsession with me.
::::It's hilarious how you throw accusations at me of things you yourself are guilty of. For example, you complain that I'm not leaving you alone, when in fact out of sheer benevolence I took down the webpage you were complaining about, [http://furry.wikia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Hiroshima_Cluehammer&diff=prev&oldid=232278 wished you a Merry Christmas], and left it at that. So while I was enjoying myself out at FC, you chose to act on [http://furry.wikia.com/index.php?title=Hiroshima_Cluehammer&diff=237278&oldid=237277 your hateful little obsession with me], which I am fully justified in defending myself from. I mean, for someone who is so eager to be left alone, you certainly do like to instigate and stir things up.
::::The problem with you, Rich, is that you're a bully. You always have been. You're like the kid on the playground who throws rocks at everyone, and then when someone throws a rock back you run off to teacher and whine about it. If you don't like the way you're being treated, might I suggest you '''stop throwing rocks'''? I mean, seriously, didn't your long self-destructive spiral out of the fandom teach you anything? Why can't you learn from your mistakes? —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 04:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
::Seriously, Rich, what's wrong with you? You used to be such a big name in the fandom and did a lot of good things until you self-destructed and squandered it all away on [[TBOF|your pointless little crusade against everyone in the fandom]], digging yourself a deeper and deeper hole until you finally alienated so many people you quit. Now here you are agreeing with trolls and harboring a ten-year grudge on a wiki for a fandom you keep saying you want nothing to do with.
:::Wow, you know, I was just noticing your habit of projecting your own behavior on people, like your "Hate site" comment above, but this is a really prime example. What's wrong with me? Well, one thing was sick fucks like you kept hounding me. One of the best things about finally having a reason to quit a.f.f was no longer having to deal with you attacking every thing I said. And yet, here you are, demanding to get into locked entries to put your attacks back in, putting up personal articles attacking me. Putting up your won web pages attacking me. And you have the gall to say this?
:::That troll was perfectly correct about your obsession with that term. It is the very CORE of your campaign against me.
::::That's a mighty big log in your eye, Rich. —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 04:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
::All I can say is wow, how the mighty have fallen.
:::If only that were all you could say. You have been on an constant effort to insure that fall.
::::We've already determined your bass-ackward definition of "constant" is like your bass-ackward definition of "frequent". Try again. —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 04:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
::I mean, you keep going on about this imagined grudge I have against you... but for that to be true, I'd have to be angry at you. And I'm not. My attitude could probably be more accurately summed up as pity.
:::Prove it. Back off. Never say another thing about me again, and I'll believe you're not being malicious (any more).
::::At the risk of stating the obvious, I stopped caring what you think of me a long time ago. I've got nothing to prove to you. —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 07:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
::Because seriously, Rich, you are one very sad, sad little man.
:::Not as sad as a grown man who wants to fuck pool toys. Not as sad as a man who keeps ARCHIVES on all of his old Usenet foes so he can relive their arguments decades later. You trolled my LiveJournal looking for things to add to your constantly-updated hate-page dedicated to me. And you deny you're obsessed.
::::I'm as entitled to make my opinions on this issue known as you are. Fair's fair. The only difference is I'm not backpedaling and I can back up my opinions with actual facts. —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 07:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
::Heh. Y'know... maybe one day your vaunted Hiroshima Cluehammer will show up. Then you'll finally be able to jump around and spitefully point fingers and say "I told you so!" and feel vindicated.
:::Hmmm, maybe if I un-hide that post, suddenly history will re-revise itself and that particular paragraph will become inoperative. That article WAS an "I told you so". All those things I said needed to be done to protect and improve the fandom and help stave off disaster were done. And it's surprising how many of those things we agreed on. How we were ever able to argue about them escapes me.
::::No, you didn't tell us so. You wanted inflexible and unworkable solutions which involved trying to kick people you deemed undesirable out of the fandom. Those people you tried so desperately to get rid of are still here and still active, and the fandom is still growing and thriving. In the end, cooler heads prevailed rather than the angry mob mentality you tried to rally up.
::::I disagreed, and suggested the media problems would be better addressed through press releases, media liaisons, and distributing accurate information about furry fandom as far and wide as possible. Oh, and also fixing the problems by ''handling them with discretion'' rather than broadcasting them to the world at large. The #1 reason we argued so much? It's because you constantly insisted on arguing me over '''things I never said''', and when I pointed out you were arguing with me over things I never said, you claimed I was playing "silly word games" when you should have been admitting '''you were wrong'''. We argued because you would '''make shit up about me''' and '''never once apologized for doing so'''.
::::So be it. If you don't want to take back the things you said, then you don't get to pretend you didn't say them. Seems pretty fair to me. —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 07:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::I think it's time to make this something that is [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMmaKsjfN1Y more than only fair]. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]<sup>([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]])</sup> 09:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
::The thing is, if it does, we'll deal with it with the same way we've dealt with all the other problems we've had to face as our fandom has grown: Working Together to improve the fandom instead of [http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.furry/browse_frm/thread/5ff04125abc44985 giving up and quitting].
::Because at the end of the day, it's ''fans'' that make a fandom.—[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 23:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
:::And when one stops being a fan (it happens) it's a good time to leave. I stopped liking the fandom, so I quit. What's wrong with that? It's not like I left Islam and must be killed as an Infidel or something, but you have spent all this time trying to highlight all the negatives and none of the positives about my time in the fandom. That's what makes it very easy to derive your motivation. Somehow my quitting the fandom has disturbed you in a way that you must address by attacking me over it. As if the concept of someone not liking the fandom invalidates your own commitment to it, and therefore must be attacked, minimized, and derided. Your insecurity is somehow focused on me. And I do not enjoy the attention. All I ask, all I've BEEN asking is for you to leave me alone, and you just CAN'T.
:::Please. Stop.
::::Your attempt to play the victim card and claim you're just "defending" yourself would be laughable if they weren't so transparent, especially in light of the fact that YOU decided to rekindle this whole argument after I left you alone after Dec 24. Don't blame me for the big log in your eye. —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 07:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

== Trolling Is "Proof"? ==
And gullible isn't in the dictionary! -=) —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 00:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
:Was he right, or not? Did you say it a lot, or not? If not, then the whole premise of the inclusion of this article in the WIKI is called into question.
::Sorry, I can't help but laugh a little at your desperate grasping-at-straws attempt at providing evidence by claiming that "the trolling is proof that this was a fact."
::What puzzles me more is how if this term you yourself coined embarrasses you so much, why not just admit you were wrong and retract it? You've got such a huge chip on your shoulder about how clueless we all are and how you're gonna show us the light and all, but the fact remains we've been doing great without you.
::It almost makes one wonder if you just miss furry fandom and are thinking of making a return, but don't want people to be reminded that you're That Guy who burned all his bridges when he made the big dramatic exit so many years ago. At least that's what it looks like from this end. Seriously, man, what's your motivation? Inquiring minds want to know.
::Anyway, since you're unwilling or unable to back up your claims with data (understandable, as the data doesn't support your claims, but this is no surprise), I'll be a good sport and do it for you. I guess whether or not Jinx is right depends on what your definition of "frequent" is. Doing a quick analysis of my LiveJournal archive, I mentioned it in only .001% (i.e., one-one thousandth) of time from 2001-2007 (about once a year from 2004-2006). 3 entries out of 2512. That doesn't really fit any [http://www.answers.com/frequent definition of frequent] that I'm aware of. YMMV.
::I don't have any data handy for 2007-2009, but to the best of my knowledge I haven't mentioned it or you in years. But as I've said before, I'm not really in the habit of carelessly throwing your name around the way you always did with mine.
::For the record, things I talk about more frequently than the Hirsoshima Cluehammer include: Rigel (659 hits), my weekend activities (402 hits), pictures (368 hits), inflatable things (295 hits), Anthrocon (294 hits), abandoned places (241 hits), bowling (182 hits), and my recumbent bike (129 hits). The words "enthusiastic", "bellybutton", "monkeypants", and "abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz" get mentioned in my journal more often than Hiroshima Cluehammer does. —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 02:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
You wish I was coming back. It ain't happening. Wait, I can think of one possible scenario. Shakira shows up on my doorstep, and says she will be my love slave forever if only I will lead her around a Furry Convention on a leash. Oh, wait, that's impossible because the cons don't allow that any more. Nope, guess it can't happen.

Oh, and you're lying when you say "but to the best of my knowledge I haven't mentioned it or you in years." One need merely look at the edit history of this article, or my Bio, or either discussion page, or what about that page you took down (or more likely moved). Those are all down the memory hole, eh? Mere days ago in some cases. Of course, they and your livejournal are not relevant to the Jinx Mouse quote, since they post date it. But if you search a.f.f between those dates, you are the person who says it more than anyone else, by a factor of at least 4. I doubt he would have made that remark if your use of the term weren't noticeable. You made the term your own as a satirical comment on "The Imminent Death of the Fandom". I may have coined it, but you own it. And because it's associated with you, I don't want it associated with me. You make me feel sick.

:Wild accusations and paranoid speculation will get you nowhere, Rich. You coined the term, you refused to retract it, so you can take full responsibility for it. This is the legacy you left behind. Deal. —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 03:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

== Suggested for Deletion ==
Given:
# A previous request for deletion was denied because it was thought that this term had entered the "Furry Lexicon".
# In the context of the fandom, The originator only used it once.
# The most prodigious user, Karl Jorgenson, denies that he uses it very much at all. In fact, he has exhaustively proven that he uses the term "Monkeypants" more often that this term.
# No other significant user has been identified.
Therefore:
This term is not, in fact, a part of the Furry Lexicon, is not in common usage, and the inclusion of this article in this Wiki is an error. It is a leftover stub from something that has since been moved to a personal article.
:It's certainly curious how you accuse me of using the term so often and then out of the other side of your mouth say I've proven I don't. —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 03:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
::Well, you claim to have exhaustively proven it. Should I think that you're lying?
:::You'll think I'm lying no matter what I say, even with proof. Makes me wonder why I'm the only one who maintains the burden of providing evidence. —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 07:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
:If this were 2001, I'd have redirected it to the article about you, added a brief mention there, and be done with it. Today, that seems inappropriate. One coining does not a currency make, and Xydexx has spent much time using the term to argue against a (somewhat fanciful) version of you in your absence.
:That said, I've trimmed things down heavily. This article is about the term: its meaning, use, and criticism of that use - not about the beliefs of those using it. The bit about "losers and misfits" seems ''barely'' relevant as the cause of the post; as far as I'm concerned it deserves no more than a footnote, though.
:After all's said and done, this whole debacle boils down to two short paragraphs of actual content; probably one more than the number of people actively using the term today. Perhaps now might be a good time to retire it, before you both spend another decade arguing over the meaning of a term that nobody else really cares about? --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]<sup>([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]])</sup> 09:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
::Not sure how the version of Rich Chandler I'm describing is "fanciful", especially considering I'm the only one backing up my statements with facts. Just my $0.02. —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 14:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
::I'm perfectly happy with the current revision. It appears to be a neutral, third-party view of the exchange, rather than a vindictive enshrinement of a disagreement. - Rich.

Talk:Richard Chandler

2009-02-06T06:11:36Z

74.61.5.121:

Talk:Hiroshima Cluehammer

2009-02-05T04:06:07Z

74.61.5.121: /* Suggested for Deletion */

Talk:Hiroshima Cluehammer

2009-02-04T11:01:54Z

74.61.5.121:

Talk:Richard Chandler

2009-02-04T10:48:19Z

74.61.5.121: /* Unlock and Restore */

User talk:Xydexx/Hiroshima Cluehammer

2009-02-04T08:08:16Z

74.61.5.121:

> * the fandom has grown by 72%

You cannot draw that conclusion from your graph. For all you know, the 50% increase in cons means that there's more cons proximal to the same home base, and therefore people go to more cons. Take a detailed survey on how many cons people have gone to over the years, and you can account for this one way or the other.

> * furry fans have raised record-breaking amounts for charity

record-breaking among furries, anyway.

> * furry fandom has gotten some of the best press coverage ever

It could only go up!

> * respected artists and illustrators attend furry conventions and have a great time

respected among furrydom, sure. with 99% of furry artists, nobody outside the fandom has ever heard of them. So this is a cyclic argument. You respect them because they're furry artists.

> * furries are defined in the press as "cuddly talking animals" and "cartoon-animal-loving fans"

there's still plenty of lukewarm and "heh, look at these bozos" press out there.

> * furry fandom is on the verge of becoming The Next Big Thing.

DREEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAM ONNNNNNNNNNN, buddy. Soccer is probably the next big thing. Furry fandom is on the verge of... the basic trend it's been on for 30 years.

> The evidence would strongly suggest we're not as doomed as the naysayers like to say we are.

Well, first, you haven't really presented "evidence" of any sort. Saying things does not make them so. However I'm not one to say the fandom is "doomed" by any measure. It will continue to be a fun niche hobby for a fair number of people. But that's all it will ever be... so be happy with that and move on.

:I agree that it is specious to directly apply total convention turnout to estimate the size of the fandom, given the increase in conventions. However, I feel it is also quite ''possible'' that the fandom has grown 72% in 5 years.

:Let's look at some specific figures from [[AFCIS]]:
:* [[Anthrocon]]: 1457 (2001) to 2489 (2006) - 71% increase
:* [[Further Confusion]]: 1114 (2001) to 1911 (2006) - 72% increase
:* [[Midwest FurFest]]: 513 (2001) to 1066 (200'''5''') - '''108%''' increase, perhaps more later this year
:* [[Mephit Furmeet]]: 397 (2001) to 601 (2006) - 51% increase

:Now, it's important to note that [[ConFurence]] and [[Conifur]] have both stumbled in that period - both apparently through inability to find a hotel suitable to their/their attendees' needs, ''not'' lack of interest from fans - but [[Califur]] and [[FurFest Northwest]] have sprung up to take their places, along with various smaller cons (Conifur may be back in '07, we'll see . . .). The overall number has gone up from 12 -> 18, or more if you count ones like [[とらんすふぁ ]] and [[FranFurence]] which haven't been picked up by AFCIS yet.

:Five years is a long time for ideas to spread, especially given the Internet now connects a huge "target market", and those new conventions wouldn't have setup unless they thought they could attract a crowd. Look around you, and see how many young faces there are. It's not '''just''' because the [[greymuzzle]]s are getting old. ;-)

:The point with the quality and tone of press coverage is that it's not going down, or just staying there. And yes, I agree, the "bozo" stuff still exists - but it is being tempered with more moderate coverage - at least in Pittsburgh, where we can provide 2500 people with disposable income for half a week. As for the artists, I believe Xydexx is referring to people like [[Scott Shaw!]], who is definitely [[Wikipedia:Scott Shaw (artist)|notable outside the fandom]].

:Personally, I'm happy with the fandom as it is, but I'd also be happy to have more people to share it with. I think there ''is'' a big potential market for it out there, that could be tapped given the right conditions. I'm willing to keep dreaming until it happens - but meanwhile I'll be doing what I think it takes to help '''make''' it happen, too. It's one reason I founded WikiFur. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]<sup>([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]])</sup> 05:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

:Thank you for your feedback. As a result I've gathered evidence that supports my claims and will make the revised essay stronger. — [[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 13:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Hmmm "There are policies to control exploitive {sic exploitative) media crews, standards of conduct have been enforced, troublemakers have been banned from conventions, and we have panels at the larger furry conventions for the continuing influx of new attendees we've been getting as the fandom grows. " Other than the newbie classes, it sounds like almost everything the Burned Furs were asking for. Glad to see you endorse their agenda and cite it as responsible for the success of the Fandom.
:Nice attempt at revisionist history there. I supported policies to control media crews, et al. ''before Burned Fur even existed''. This doesn't sound like anything Burned Fur was asking for—it was never part of their agenda, so you can't give them credit for it—they just wanted to "kick the perverts out." I know waxing eloquent about Burned Fur's imagined victories is all the rage for bitter ex-fen who want to save face, but seriously, Rich, you're really losing it here. —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 22:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
::It's not revisionist history. Sure, the idea was floating around before, in fact, most of their agenda was floating around before (Surely you're familiar with earlier forms of TBOF, right?). But negative media attention was definitely one of their foci, as well as bad public behavior, and they wanted to ban the freaks from the conventions. So I really don't see what you're driving at. Are you denying that they were in favor of any of these things?
:::Let me know when you find supporting evidence for your claim that included implementing stricter controls on the media, etc., because it never was part of Burned Fur's agenda. Trying to kick out the perverts (thereby counter-productively drawing ''more attention'' to them) isn't the same as creating media liaison positions, sending out press releases, and other workable solutions which were implemented without Burned Fur's help.
:::One key difference between my position and Burned Fur's (and, by extension, yours) is that I'm not in favor of banning the "''freaks''" (and indeed, to the best of my knowledge Foxwolfie Galen and Ostrich still harmlessly attend furry cons and have a great time)—I'm in favor of banning the ''troublemakers'', i.e., people who actually break the rules. Not the harmless freaks. Not the harmless perverts. Not the harmless lifestylers. Just folks who cause problems for the convention. I think there's a pretty clear dichotomy between that and your scorched-earth policies of scapegoating entire groups of fans simply because you don't like them. That's probably also why other fans solicit my advice on appropriate ways to handle media attention instead of yours.
:::For all your wild accusations about what a horrible ambassador to the fandom I supposedly am, I must be doing something right. -:) —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 00:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
::::Proof that the Burned furs were concerned with the media can be found right here on the entry on them [[Burned Furs]] {{fact}}
::::As far as me having a scorched earth policy, I seem to recall that I personally called for public decorum. I spoke out against the people who publicly linked their freakish (and sometimes illegal) preference to the fandom, and I protested against things like Blowjob in the lobby of the Atrium hotel. I personally stopped a woman from conducting a flogging at CF8 at the registration desk in front of a family who was checking in. And I never claimed to be a member of the Burned Furs.
:::::I'm sorry, I should have clarified: Please provide evidence from Burned Fur's founding documents, not an unsupported claim on a wiki. —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 02:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
::::::Way to move those goalposts. Sorry, I won't play that game.

Talk:Hiroshima Cluehammer

2009-02-04T08:05:22Z

74.61.5.121: /* Trolling Is "Proof"? */

Talk:Richard Chandler

2009-02-04T07:52:03Z

74.61.5.121: /* Unlock and Restore */

Talk:Richard Chandler

2009-02-04T02:03:22Z

74.61.5.121:

User talk:Xydexx/Hiroshima Cluehammer

2009-02-04T00:42:50Z

74.61.5.121:

> * the fandom has grown by 72%

You cannot draw that conclusion from your graph. For all you know, the 50% increase in cons means that there's more cons proximal to the same home base, and therefore people go to more cons. Take a detailed survey on how many cons people have gone to over the years, and you can account for this one way or the other.

> * furry fans have raised record-breaking amounts for charity

record-breaking among furries, anyway.

> * furry fandom has gotten some of the best press coverage ever

It could only go up!

> * respected artists and illustrators attend furry conventions and have a great time

respected among furrydom, sure. with 99% of furry artists, nobody outside the fandom has ever heard of them. So this is a cyclic argument. You respect them because they're furry artists.

> * furries are defined in the press as "cuddly talking animals" and "cartoon-animal-loving fans"

there's still plenty of lukewarm and "heh, look at these bozos" press out there.

> * furry fandom is on the verge of becoming The Next Big Thing.

DREEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAM ONNNNNNNNNNN, buddy. Soccer is probably the next big thing. Furry fandom is on the verge of... the basic trend it's been on for 30 years.

> The evidence would strongly suggest we're not as doomed as the naysayers like to say we are.

Well, first, you haven't really presented "evidence" of any sort. Saying things does not make them so. However I'm not one to say the fandom is "doomed" by any measure. It will continue to be a fun niche hobby for a fair number of people. But that's all it will ever be... so be happy with that and move on.

:I agree that it is specious to directly apply total convention turnout to estimate the size of the fandom, given the increase in conventions. However, I feel it is also quite ''possible'' that the fandom has grown 72% in 5 years.

:Let's look at some specific figures from [[AFCIS]]:
:* [[Anthrocon]]: 1457 (2001) to 2489 (2006) - 71% increase
:* [[Further Confusion]]: 1114 (2001) to 1911 (2006) - 72% increase
:* [[Midwest FurFest]]: 513 (2001) to 1066 (200'''5''') - '''108%''' increase, perhaps more later this year
:* [[Mephit Furmeet]]: 397 (2001) to 601 (2006) - 51% increase

:Now, it's important to note that [[ConFurence]] and [[Conifur]] have both stumbled in that period - both apparently through inability to find a hotel suitable to their/their attendees' needs, ''not'' lack of interest from fans - but [[Califur]] and [[FurFest Northwest]] have sprung up to take their places, along with various smaller cons (Conifur may be back in '07, we'll see . . .). The overall number has gone up from 12 -> 18, or more if you count ones like [[とらんすふぁ ]] and [[FranFurence]] which haven't been picked up by AFCIS yet.

:Five years is a long time for ideas to spread, especially given the Internet now connects a huge "target market", and those new conventions wouldn't have setup unless they thought they could attract a crowd. Look around you, and see how many young faces there are. It's not '''just''' because the [[greymuzzle]]s are getting old. ;-)

:The point with the quality and tone of press coverage is that it's not going down, or just staying there. And yes, I agree, the "bozo" stuff still exists - but it is being tempered with more moderate coverage - at least in Pittsburgh, where we can provide 2500 people with disposable income for half a week. As for the artists, I believe Xydexx is referring to people like [[Scott Shaw!]], who is definitely [[Wikipedia:Scott Shaw (artist)|notable outside the fandom]].

:Personally, I'm happy with the fandom as it is, but I'd also be happy to have more people to share it with. I think there ''is'' a big potential market for it out there, that could be tapped given the right conditions. I'm willing to keep dreaming until it happens - but meanwhile I'll be doing what I think it takes to help '''make''' it happen, too. It's one reason I founded WikiFur. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]<sup>([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]])</sup> 05:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

:Thank you for your feedback. As a result I've gathered evidence that supports my claims and will make the revised essay stronger. — [[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 13:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Hmmm "There are policies to control exploitive {sic exploitative) media crews, standards of conduct have been enforced, troublemakers have been banned from conventions, and we have panels at the larger furry conventions for the continuing influx of new attendees we've been getting as the fandom grows. " Other than the newbie classes, it sounds like almost everything the Burned Furs were asking for. Glad to see you endorse their agenda and cite it as responsible for the success of the Fandom.
:Nice attempt at revisionist history there. I supported policies to control media crews, et al. ''before Burned Fur even existed''. This doesn't sound like anything Burned Fur was asking for—it was never part of their agenda, so you can't give them credit for it—they just wanted to "kick the perverts out." I know waxing eloquent about Burned Fur's imagined victories is all the rage for bitter ex-fen who want to save face, but seriously, Rich, you're really losing it here. —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 22:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
::It's not revisionist history. Sure, the idea was floating around before, in fact, most of their agenda was floating around before (Surely you're familiar with earlier forms of TBOF, right?). But negative media attention was definitely one of their foci, as well as bad public behavior, and they wanted to ban the freaks from the conventions. So I really don't see what you're driving at. Are you denying that they were in favor of any of these things?
:::Let me know when you find supporting evidence for your claim that included implementing stricter controls on the media, etc., because it never was part of Burned Fur's agenda. Trying to kick out the perverts (thereby counter-productively drawing ''more attention'' to them) isn't the same as creating media liaison positions, sending out press releases, and other workable solutions which were implemented without Burned Fur's help.
::One key difference between my position and Burned Fur's (and, by extension, yours) is that I'm not in favor of banning the "''freaks''" (and indeed, to the best of my knowledge Foxwolfie Galen and Ostrich still harmlessly attend furry cons and have a great time)—I'm in favor of banning the ''troublemakers'', i.e., people who actually break the rules. Not the harmless freaks. Not the harmless perverts. Not the harmless lifestylers. Just folks who cause problems for the convention. I think there's a pretty clear dichotomy between that and your scorched-earth policies of scapegoating entire groups of fans simply because you don't like them. That's probably also why other fans solicit my advice on appropriate ways to handle media attention instead of yours.
::For all your wild accusations about what a horrible ambassador to the fandom I supposedly am, I must be doing something right. -:) —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 00:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
::::Proof that the Burned furs were concerned with the media can be found right here on the entry on them [[Burned Furs]]
::::As far as me having a scorched earth policy, I seem to recall that I personally called for public decorum. I spoke out against the people who publicly linked their freakish (and sometimes illegal) preference to the fandom, and I protested against things like Blowjob in the lobby of the Atrium hotel. I personally stopped a woman from conducting a flogging at CF8 at the registration desk in front of a family who was checking in. And I never claimed to be a member of the Burned Furs.

Talk:Hiroshima Cluehammer

2009-02-04T00:34:59Z

74.61.5.121: /* Valid Quote Is Still Valid */

Hiroshima Cluehammer

2009-02-03T23:51:41Z

74.61.5.121: Undo revision 238909 by Xydexx (talk) Trolling trolls and the trolling trolls who troll them, fixed redundancies.

The '''[[Wikipedia:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki|Hiroshima]] Cluehammer''' is a term coined by former [[greymuzzle]] [[furry fan]] [[Richard Chandler]] that refers/alludes to a hypothetical apocalyptic event/occurrence/media article so detrimental to [[furry]] and its reputation that it would finally:
{{q|(wake) people up to what idiots they've been for the things they've allowed and tolerated in the fandom}}
In the hopes of causing a massive, and disruptive, reorganization in the fandom.

== Origin ==

The reasons/events that lead to the term's creation was the publicly stated belief by Richard Chandler (prior to [[Leave the fandom|leaving the fandom]] in 2001) that:
{{q|Furry Fandom's potential will never be realized with the current crop of losers and misfits who infest it and drag it down<ref>[http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.furry/msg/f1e9f6cdb63cd104?dmode=source&hl=en ''I Quit''] – post on a.f.f. by Richard Chandler (February 14 2001)</ref>}}
Referring particularly to [[fursuiter]] [[Ostrich (person)|Ostrich]] and [[plushophile]] [[FoxWolfie Galen]], whose mainstream media interviews had been featured in what many saw as unfavorable [[:Category:Media coverage|media coverage]] of the fandom, most notably the [[Vanity Fair]] article ''Pleasures of the Fur'', which had just been released at that time, as well as those people who supported them and their practices.

== Further use of the term ==

The term was later used in a [[Wikipedia:Satire|satirical]] manner<ref>[http://www.xydexx.com/journal/archive.htm Xydexx's ''Axiom Of Fandom Enjoyability''] – by the author on Xydexx.com</ref> by [[Xydexx]], who opposed Chandler's view, and believed that:
{{q|Furry fandom's potential would be realized by working together instead of scapegoating and infighting<ref>[http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.furry/msg/72223ffabf997051 ''Xydexx's Positions On Furry Fandom''] – post on a.f.f. by Xydexx (March 25 1998)</ref>}}

Xydexx's frequent use of the term was pointed out on alt.fan.furry, when noted troll and [[Crush Yiff Destroy]] regular [[Jinx_Mouse]] remarked: {{q|Why ? Because I seen that once he said that, you never seemed to shut up about it. You just could not let it go. Also things like your whole 'hiroshima cluehammer', which you kept bringing up apparently for years after it stopped being said (and most likely still do periodically)<ref>[http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.furry/msg/c46e3f72c4cc92cb ''Re: "Furry" Population''] – post on a.f.f. by mouse (November 11 2004)</ref>}}

== References ==
<references />

== See also ==

* ''[[User:Xydexx/Hiroshima Cluehammer|Hiroshima Cluehammer]]'', personal article by [[Xydexx]]

[[Category:Terms]]

Burned Furs

2009-02-03T23:31:51Z

74.61.5.121: /* Threats of Violence */ Wikified more.

{{cleanup}}
[[Image:Burnedfurs.jpg|right|200px|Burned furs logo]]
'''Burned Furs''' was the name of a movement to counter public acts of perversion within the [[furry fandom]] which was active from 1998 to 2001. In November of 2005, [[Burned Furs II|a new group]] was created using the same name and logo as the original, by persons unaffiliated with the original group. BFII has since changed its name to [[Improved Anthropomorphics]] specifically "to avoid further confusion and drama".

== Founding and History ==
The '''Burned Furs''' were founded in 1998 by [[Squee Rat]] and [[Eric Blumrich]], because, according to their Mission Statement, "[http://web.archive.org/web/20000619152635/members.tripod.com/burnedfur/bf_missn.html Anthropomorphics fandom is being overrun by sexually dysfunctional, socially stunted and creatively bankrupt hacks and pervs.]" According to co-founder Eric Blumrich, the group's goal in a nutshell was "we wanna kick all the degenerates out."{{fact}}

{{q|I'd certainly want to do more to the degenerates than simply kick 'em out. But if I were to post any of those wishes here I'd very likely end
up arrested.<ref>[http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.furry/browse_thread/thread/7f8659b4ca7d6fc9/d1711020fa41086a?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=I%27d+certainly+want+to+do+more+to+the+degenerates+than+simply+kick+%27em+blumrich#d1711020fa41086a ''Burned Fur: judge for yourselves.'' post by Kimba W. Lion on a.f.f. (December 2nd, 1998)]</ref> —Eric Blumrich, Burned Fur co-founder}}

The group was composed of, in the words of Squee, "furs who have spoken up against fandom perversion and been 'burned at the stake' for it." Years before the creation of Burned Fur, those in the fandom who complained about the possible public-image backlash that could be produced by the high profile of fursuit sex, plushophilia, and to a lesser extent bestiality, were derided as "intolerant" and "hateful" by practitioners of those lifestyles {{fact}}. Calls for overtly sexual displays to be prohibited in public areas at furry events such as [[ConFurence]] were met with even more strident reactions {{fact}}, as evidenced in a heated December 1997 alt.fan.furry thread titled "An Appeal to [[Mark Merlino]]" (the convention's primary organizer). Most of these disputes occurred on USENET in the [[:Category:Newsgroups|newsgroups]] [[alt.fan.furry]] and [[alt.lifestyle.furry]].

Negative press coverage of the fandom, including articles in which furry convention attendees discussed these and other sexual practices with reporters, as well as their intent to use the conventions to promote their lifestyles, caused further distress amongst those not wishing the fandom as a whole to be associated with such practices. Many originally-prominent members of the fandom left or otherwise sought to hide public knowledge of their involvement with the fandom in order to avoid possible backlash in their personal and professional lives.

It was in this pre-existing atmosphere of mutual intolerance that the debate over the furry fandom's public image was waged, and subsequently buried under rampant acts of (often mutual) demonization. Burned Fur was, if anything, a symptom of the schisms that had been raging in the fandom to that point.

=== Burned Fur Beliefs ===
Many disputes over the exact nature of Burned Fur beliefs arose. The group was often accused of wanting to impose some sort of anti-sexual vision on the rest of the fandom despite most members of the organization being gay or bisexual {{fact}}, and many of whom also were creators of furry erotica. Certain members of the group were intolerant of [[gay]]s, [[Christian Furs]], obscure fetishes, and/or [[erotic]] artwork; these were generally held up as [http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.furry/msg/9117856b21766d68 examples of overall Burned Fur ideology] by various of the group's opponents. For example, when Burned Fur founder Hangdog made [http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.furry/msg/c42bd69572b99236 homophobic and libelous remarks on alt.fan.furry in August 2000], he refused to apologize for them. The only Burned Furs to comment on this did not denounce him, but rather [http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.furry/msg/5076f22e1476d5a4 made excuses ] for his poor behavior.

In more general terms, the Burned Furs were intolerant of those people who voluntarily sought public acceptance of unusual [[fetish|kinks]] or ideologies via "grafting" them onto the fandom, especially when those persons used media exposure to further such agendas. The fandom's public image, as Burned Fur saw it, was always a paramount concern {{fact}}.

Throughout the Manifesto, Squee Rat made clear that personal fetishes and unusual lifestyle choices were not a problem if kept as a private matter, in private areas and within the law; she opposed the public flaunting of what most would consider socially-unacceptable behaviors. In particular she derided the small minority of fans who insisted that a person could not be "furry" without, for example, having an "animal spirit" or practicing [[Veganism]].

Many critics considered Burned Fur a hate group due to the Manifesto's harsh tone and the production of a number of t-shirts targeting lifestylers bearing the slogan "I don't have a lifestyle, I have a life".

=== Press Coverage ===
The group was mentioned in underground media articles with ''Disinformation.com'' and the ''Philadelphia Weekly'' (in the latter case, four years after the group effectively dissolved). Burned Fur has also been written up in Lore Sjöberg's now-defunct ''Brunching Shuttlecocks''.

In the case of the ''Disinformation'' and ''Weekly'' coverage, the focus of the articles was about the sexual fetishes to be found in the fandom, with Burned Fur being mentioned specifically as opposition to these practices. The ''Weekly'' author ended with the hope that the Phillie Phanatic (a sports mascot) would be abducted and gang-raped by fursuiters at a convention. The ''Disinformation'' author concluded his article with the statement that furry fandom "truly has something for everyone...to stare at with a peculiar mixture of horror and intrigue".

The latter author later wrote an article for the ''Greenwich Village Gazette'' attacking certain of the [[Reform Party]]'s Election 2000 candidates, including Burned Fur member [[Scott Malcomson]], who was running for Governor in Arizona. The author also attacked him for roleplaying a unicorn character on [[FurryMuck]] and drawing erotic furry art. In 2003, the author formally renounced statements {{fact}} made in this article to the effect that Burned Fur was "homophobic".

=== Threats of Violence ===

Burned Fur was often accused of threatening and making physical attacks against their opponents, including death threats and sabotaging convention events. For example, [[Eric Blumrich]], one of the original co-founders of the Burned Furs, maintained an "A Bullet to the Back of the Head Enterprises" webpage, which proposed extermination of all plushophiles in the fandom, stating: "Our crack teams of liquor-plied sharpshooters work side-by-side with expert public relations specialists, graft-taking politicians, and a sizeable payola reserve." Burned Fur [[Scott Malcomson]] noted that Blumrich "hates, apparently, for the sheer pleasure of hating," and noted Blumrich's extremist attitude was one reason many Burned Fur members left the group.

One known case of a Burned Fur actually threatening an opponent of the movement with harm was the maintainer of the Burned Fur homepage, who in 1998 stated he would "put his head through a wall" if he ever met [[Xydexx]] at a convention. Another Burned Fur member, [[GothTiger]] chimed in and stated he would "like nothing better in the world than to watch mister too-many-consonants get what's coming to him." The Burned Fur who threatened [[Xydexx]] formally apologized in May 2004 and stated he'd wished he'd never gotten involved with them.

When Burned Furs weren't making blanket threats against groups of people or members of the opposition, they would even threaten their fellow Burned Furs. One such occurrence took place in September 2001 on the Yerf newsgroups, when Burned Fur founding member [[Hangdog]] threatened [[Eric Blumrich]] on the [[Yerf]] newsgroups and was summarily banned: "[http://furry.wikia.com/wiki/Talk:Eric_Blumrich The next time I see you I will kill you with my bare hands]."

=== Opposition ===
[[Image:BFRing.gif|thumb|right|Burned furs web-ring logo]]

As soon as Burned Fur launched, it was subjected to harsh criticism. The most extreme example of this occurred on alt.fan.furry in February 1999 with [[Furry_Jihad]]'s statement "You know about the Six Shallow Graves - how it's said that all of fandom's problems could be solved if we found the right people to fill those 6 graves? Seems to me we need about 26 now, so we could fill them with all of the Burned Furs." Only one of Burned Fur's detractors posted comments which could be considered supportive of the statement. Most forum regulars, including Burned Fur Scott Malcomson, considered it an "obvious troll."

Some of the opposition joined a group called [[Freezing Furs]], which considered Burned Fur a hate group. Other opposition groups included [[Nonaligned Furs]] and [[Furry Peace]], which were formed on the basis of inclusion and non-alignment in the factional conflicts. Aside from producing websites and link buttons meant to indicate solidarity amongst members, none of these groups are known for having done anything specific to advance any particular agenda.

Burned Fur eventually became a liability and public relations nightmare for anyone involved with them. For example, many fans stopped attending [[ConFurence]] after [[Darrel Exline]] took over specifically due to rumors that it was a Burned Fur con—a rumor which was bolstered by remarks from Burned Fur members [[Hangdog]] and [[Mitch Marmel]]. Other fans decided not to patronize artists who had joined Burned Fur, as they understandably didn't want to see their money going to people who wanted to make them feel unwelcome in furry fandom.

Toward the end, Burned Fur was losing members as fast as they were gaining them. Most former Burned Fur members have distanced themselves as far as possible from the group to avoid the stigma it continues to carry even today, and many understandably do not want even their names to be associated with having been members. By about 2001, the Burned Furs had faded into history, many of them having [[Leave The Fandom|left furry fandom]] altogether, and the countergroups formed to oppose them became defunct by default.

== Points of Discussion ==
{{Controversial}}
* By the time Burned Fur was founded, individual convention-goers were already boycotting [[ConFurence]] due to lewd behavior that the convention's organizers insisted on turning a blind eye to. CF was finally turned over to a group dedicated to cleaning up the convention's image in 1999 {{fact}}, but because the new Chairman was a Burned Fur, many of the people who felt they had been targeted by Burned Fur refused to attend. In his own words, "The main problem wasn't necessarily that there was too much sex in fandom... but rather that from the outside, that was *all* people could see. {{fact}}"

* Although former attendees were beginning to return to CF due specifically to the change in management {{fact}}, attendance levels continued to decline until ConFurence officially closed its doors on April 27, 2003.

* Ironically enough, once abandoned, the original "Burned Furs" website was picked up by a [[pornography]] merchandiser. Some claim it was because the domain contained the name and keyword "furry", but there has never been any evidence of this. The more likely explanation is it was picked up because it is [http://internet-filter-review.toptenreviews.com/tricks-pornographers-play.html common practice for pornographers to purchase expired domains] regardless of content.

== C.H.A.F.E ==

'''C.H.A.F.E''' (Aka '''Chicagoland Hatemongers Against [[Furgot]]s Everywhere'''. June 6, 2000. Proponent: [[Gabriel Gentile]]) was a fake Chicago and/or Great Lake area anthropomorphic fans [[Anti-Furries]] group initially proposed in jest in the [[Burned Fur]] message board as the group's own "Fake [[Anti-Furries]] group," in response to such groups as [[PISOC]] or [[FAB]].

No further actions past the discussion phase transpired.

== See also ==
* [[Furs Against Furs]]
* [[Improved Anthropomorphics]]
* [[Baked Furs]]
* ''[[SKORCH]]''
* [[Ladder Trick]], a column by [[Nick Mamatas]], which mentioned Burned Furs in a 2000 column

== References ==
* [http://web.archive.org/web/19991007144053/members.tripod.com/burnedfur/ Original Burned Fur website, archived by Wayback Machine]
* ''[http://burnedfur.mv.com/manifesto.html This Sordid Little Business (The Furry Manifesto)]'', Squee Rat, 1998
* [http://web.archive.org/web/20000118084741/members.tripod.com/burnedfur/bf_missn.html Archived copy of Burned Fur Mission Statement]
* [http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/articles/9880/a-e--a-list Philadelphia Weekly: Fur Better or Worse]
* [http://www.disinfo.com/archive/pages/dossier/id381/pg1/ Disinformation.com: Furry Fandom]
* [http://www.brunching.com/furries.html A somewhat amusing discussion of the implications of the Burned Furs] by the [[Wikipedia:Brunching Shuttlecocks|Brunching Shuttlecocks]]
* ''Burned Fur: Retarded Infighting Trainwreck! [http://crushyiffdestroy.com/show-article.php?file=burnedfurs Part 1] - [http://crushyiffdestroy.com/show-article.php?file=burnedfurs2 Part 2]'', [[Computolio]], [[Crush Yiff Destroy]], 2004

== External links ==
* [http://burnedfur.mv.com/ Mirror of Burned Fur website]
* [http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?q=burned+furs Burned Furs on Google groups]
* [http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.furry/browse_thread/thread/d485c61d8f9b50b2/59d6e6bfce763e84?q=merlino&lnk=ol& "An Appeal to Mark Merlino"]
* [http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.furry/browse_thread/thread/cf505610ca541af9/8fd5f4f9a725fb43?q=calbeck&lnk=ol& "6 Shallow Graves? more like 26 now": an example of an anti-Burned Fur thread]
{{Featured article}}

[[Category:Ideological groups]]
[[Category:Critics]]
[[Category:1998 births]]
[[Category:2001 deaths]]

[[ru:Burned Furs]]

User talk:Xydexx/Hiroshima Cluehammer

2009-02-03T23:26:02Z

74.61.5.121:

User talk:Xydexx/Hiroshima Cluehammer

2009-02-02T23:24:53Z

74.61.5.121:

Talk:Richard Chandler

2009-02-02T23:20:18Z

74.61.5.121: /* Unlock and Restore */

Talk:Richard Chandler

2009-02-02T23:19:10Z

74.61.5.121: /* Unlock and Restore */

Talk:Hiroshima Cluehammer

2009-02-02T23:11:52Z

74.61.5.121: /* Valid Quote Is Still Valid */

Talk:Hiroshima Cluehammer

2009-02-02T23:10:35Z

74.61.5.121: /* Valid Quote Is Still Valid */

Hiroshima Cluehammer

2009-02-02T23:05:11Z

74.61.5.121: Undo revision 238520 by Xydexx Do you deny using the term frequently? The trolling is proof that this was a fact.

The '''[[Wikipedia:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki|Hiroshima]] Cluehammer''' is a term coined by former [[greymuzzle]] [[furry fan]] [[Richard Chandler]] that refers/alludes to a hypothetical apocalyptic event/occurrence/media article so detrimental to [[furry]] and its reputation that it would finally:
{{q|(wake) people up to what idiots they've been for the things they've allowed and tolerated in the fandom}}
In the hopes of causing a massive, and disruptive, reorganization in the fandom.

== Origin ==

The reasons/events that lead to the term's creation was the publicly stated belief by Richard Chandler (prior to [[Leave the fandom|leaving the fandom]] in 2001) that:
{{q|Furry Fandom's potential will never be realized with the current crop of losers and misfits who infest it and drag it down<ref>[http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.furry/msg/f1e9f6cdb63cd104?dmode=source&hl=en ''I Quit''] – post on a.f.f. by Richard Chandler (February 14 2001)</ref>}}
Referring particularly to [[fursuiter]] [[Ostrich (person)|Ostrich]] and [[plushophile]] [[FoxWolfie Galen]], whose mainstream media interviews had been featured in what many saw as unfavorable [[:Category:Media coverage|media coverage]] of the fandom, most notably the [[Vanity Fair]] article ''Pleasures of the Fur'', which had just been released at that time, as well as those people who supported them and their practices.

== Further use of the term ==

The term was later used in a [[Wikipedia:Satire|satirical]] manner<ref>[http://www.xydexx.com/journal/archive.htm Xydexx's ''Axiom Of Fandom Enjoyability''] – by the author on Xydexx.com</ref> by [[Xydexx]], who opposed Chandler's view, and believed that:
{{q|Furry fandom's potential would be realized by working together instead of scapegoating and infighting<ref>[http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.furry/msg/72223ffabf997051 ''Xydexx's Positions On Furry Fandom''] – post on a.f.f. by Xydexx (March 25 1998)</ref>}}

Xydexx's frequent use of the term was once used as a joke on alt.fan.furry, when noted troll and [[Crush Yiff Destroy]] regular [[Jinx_Mouse]] remarked: {{q|Why ? Because I seen that once he said that, you never seemed to shut up about it. You just could not let it go. Also things like your whole 'hiroshima cluehammer', which you kept bringing up apparently for years after it stopped being said (and most likely still do periodically)<ref>[http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.furry/msg/c46e3f72c4cc92cb ''Re: "Furry" Population''] – post on a.f.f. by mouse (November 11 2004)</ref>}}

== References ==
<references />

== See also ==

* ''[[User:Xydexx/Hiroshima Cluehammer|Hiroshima Cluehammer]]'', personal article by [[Xydexx]]

[[Category:Terms]]

Hiroshima Cluehammer

2009-01-25T05:32:13Z

74.61.5.121: "As Noted" must be a leftover. Removed quote that predates the origination of the term. Fixed math error.

The '''[[Wikipedia:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki|Hiroshima]] Cluehammer''' is a term coined by former [[greymuzzle]] [[furry fan]] [[Richard Chandler]] that refers/alludes to a hypothetical apocalyptic event/occurrence/media article so detrimental to [[furry]] and its reputation that it would finally:
{{q|(wake) people up to what idiots they've been for the things they've allowed and tolerated in the fandom}}
In the hopes of causing a massive, and disruptive, reorganization in the fandom.

== Origin ==

The reasons/events that lead to the term's creation was the publicly stated belief by Richard Chandler (prior to [[Leave the fandom|leaving the fandom]] in 2001) that:
{{q|Furry Fandom's potential will never be realized with the current crop of losers and misfits who infest it and drag it down<ref>[http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.furry/msg/f1e9f6cdb63cd104?dmode=source&hl=en ''I Quit''] – post on a.f.f. by Richard Chandler (February 14 2001)</ref>}}
Referring particularly to [[fursuiter]] [[Ostrich (person)|Ostrich]] and [[plushophile]] [[FoxWolfie Galen]], whose mainstream media interviews had been featured in what many saw as unfavorable [[:Category:Media coverage|media coverage]] of the fandom, most notably the [[Vanity Fair]] article ''Pleasures of the Fur'', which had just been released at that time, as well as those people who supported them and their practices.

== Further use of the term ==

The term was later used in a [[Wikipedia:Satire|satirical]] manner<ref>[http://www.xydexx.com/journal/archive.htm Xydexx's ''Axiom Of Fandom Enjoyability''] – by the author on Xydexx.com</ref> by [[Xydexx]], who opposed Chandler's view.

Xydexx's frequent use of the term was once used as a joke on alt.fan.furry, when noted troll and [[Crush Yiff Destroy]] regular [[Jinx_Mouse]] remarked: {{q|Why ? Because I seen that once he said that, you never seemed to shut up about it. You just could not let it go. Also things like your whole 'hiroshima cluehammer', which you kept bringing up apparently for years after it stopped being said (and most likely still do periodically)<ref>[http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.furry/msg/c46e3f72c4cc92cb ''Re: "Furry" Population''] – post on a.f.f. by mouse (November 11 2004)</ref>}}

== References ==
<references />

== See also ==

* ''[[User:Xydexx/Hiroshima Cluehammer|Hiroshima Cluehammer]]'', personal article by [[Xydexx]]

[[Category:Terms]]

Hiroshima Cluehammer

2009-01-25T05:29:11Z

74.61.5.121: Undo revision 236512 by Xydexx (talk) It's still a Usage. Also, further Wikification.

The '''[[Wikipedia:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki|Hiroshima]] Cluehammer''' is a term coined by former [[greymuzzle]] [[furry fan]] [[Richard Chandler]] that refers/alludes to a hypothetical apocalyptic event/occurrence/media article so detrimental to [[furry]] and its reputation that it would finally:
{{q|(wake) people up to what idiots they've been for the things they've allowed and tolerated in the fandom}}
In the hopes of causing a massive, and disruptive, reorganization in the fandom.

== Origin ==

The reasons/events that lead to the term's creation was the publicly stated belief by Richard Chandler (prior to [[Leave the fandom|leaving the fandom]] in 2001) that:
{{q|Furry Fandom's potential will never be realized with the current crop of losers and misfits who infest it and drag it down<ref>[http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.furry/msg/f1e9f6cdb63cd104?dmode=source&hl=en ''I Quit''] – post on a.f.f. by Richard Chandler (February 14 2001)</ref>}}
Referring particularly to [[fursuiter]] [[Ostrich (person)|Ostrich]] and [[plushophile]] [[FoxWolfie Galen]], whose mainstream media interviews had been featured in what many saw as unfavorable [[:Category:Media coverage|media coverage]] of the fandom, most notably the [[Vanity Fair]] article ''Pleasures of the Fur'', which had just been released at that time, as well as those people who supported them and their practices.

== Further use of the term ==

The term was later used in a [[Wikipedia:Satire|satirical]] manner<ref>[http://www.xydexx.com/journal/archive.htm Xydexx's ''Axiom Of Fandom Enjoyability''] – by the author on Xydexx.com</ref> by [[Xydexx]], who, as noted, opposed Chandler's view, and believed that:
{{q|Furry fandom's potential would be realized by working together instead of scapegoating and infighting<ref>[http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.furry/msg/72223ffabf997051 ''Xydexx's Positions On Furry Fandom''] – post on a.f.f. by Xydexx (March 25 1998)</ref>}}
Xydexx's use of the term was once used as a joke on alt.fan.furry, when noted troll and [[Crush Yiff Destroy]] regular [[Jinx_Mouse]] remarked: {{q|Why ? Because I seen that once he said that, you never seemed to shut up about it. You just could not let it go. Also things like your whole 'hiroshima cluehammer', which you kept bringing up apparently for years after it stopped being said (and most likely still do periodically)<ref>[http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.furry/msg/c46e3f72c4cc92cb ''Re: "Furry" Population''] – post on a.f.f. by mouse (November 11 2004)</ref>}}

== References ==
<references />

== See also ==

* ''[[User:Xydexx/Hiroshima Cluehammer|Hiroshima Cluehammer]]'', personal article by [[Xydexx]]

[[Category:Terms]]

Talk:Leaving the Fandom

2008-12-29T03:31:00Z

74.61.5.121: Created page with 'I'm not sure if the Ironic tone of this article is appropriate. And the linked CYD article lists a number of people, and I don't think any of them have actually come back to the...'

I'm not sure if the Ironic tone of this article is appropriate. And the linked CYD article lists a number of people, and I don't think any of them have actually come back to the fandom, which undermines the idea that it's temporary.[[Special:Contributions/74.61.5.121|74.61.5.121]] 03:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Hiroshima Cluehammer

2008-12-25T02:53:49Z

74.61.5.121: /* Note To Giza */

Talk:Hiroshima Cluehammer

2008-12-25T02:50:32Z

74.61.5.121: /* Note To Giza */

Talk:Richard Chandler

2008-12-21T20:54:40Z

74.61.5.121: /* Unlock and Restore */

<div style="float:right; border:2px solid #bbbbbb; width:150px;">
<center>'''Discussion Pages'''</center>
*[[/Archive1|Archive 1]] (December 2008)
</div>
== Shall we try again? ==

[[User:Spirou|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. {{unsignedIP|74.61.5.121|21:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)}}
::It was indeed a necessary edit - [[Special:Contributions/63.204.227.202|63.204.227.202]] 21:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
:::There's no legitimate reason I can't edit this article, after all. —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 22:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
::::This depends on whether Rich can resist [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks making personal attacks] this time around. Just my $0.02. —[[User:Xydexx|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. {{unsignedIP|74.61.5.121|12:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)}}

::::::I was referring to [http://furry.wikia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Richard_Chandler&diff=229981&oldid=229941 your personal attacks] here on the talk page, not anything you imagine I said elsewhere.—[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 19:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

== Deviant Desires ==

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: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.furry/msg/12a0ec884ff642f2

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? {{unsignedIP|74.61.5.121|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. —[[User:Xydexx|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.{{unsignedIP|74.61.5.121|05:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)}}

:::Amen. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]<sup>([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]])</sup> 10:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

== Hiroshima Cluehammer ==
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. —[[User:Xydexx|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? <small>—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.61.5.121 ([[User talk:74.61.5.121|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/74.61.5.121|contribs]]) 01:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)</small> 
::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, [http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.furry/msg/2c10db98484cc2e4 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. —[[User:Xydexx|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. <small>—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.61.5.121 ([[User talk:74.61.5.121|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/74.61.5.121|contribs]]) 03:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)</small> 
::::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? —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 15:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

==Lock==
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. <small>—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.61.5.121 ([[User talk:74.61.5.121|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/74.61.5.121|contribs]]) 02:53, 16 December 2008</small> 

==Unlock and Restore==
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. —[[User:Xydexx|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.

Talk:Hiroshima Cluehammer

2008-12-19T01:24:47Z

74.61.5.121: /* Reverting 74.61.5.121's change */

Talk:Hiroshima Cluehammer

2008-12-18T05:17:45Z

74.61.5.121: /* Reverting 74.61.5.121's change */

Talk:Hiroshima Cluehammer

2008-12-17T03:34:03Z

74.61.5.121: /* Reverting 74.61.5.121's change */

Talk:Hiroshima Cluehammer

2008-12-16T17:02:24Z

74.61.5.121: /* Reverting 74.61.5.121's change */

Deviant Desires

2008-12-16T06:51:59Z

74.61.5.121: /* External links */ Dead link removed

'''Deviant Desires: Incredibly Strange Sex''' is the title of book about unusual sexual practices, and (previously) its associated website.

== Deviant Desires and furry ==

In early 2000, sex researcher [[Wikipedia:Katharine Gates|Katharine Gates]] published her book ''[[Deviant Desires]]'', covering both furry fandom and the wider realm of other unrelated fetishes. The published result was, overall, seen as non-complimentary. In the section on furries it distinguished between "Furry Fans" and "[[furvert]]"s but then focussed on transvestism, pony play, BDSM, fursuit sex, plushophilia, macrophilia, and the "high percentage" of gay men in the fandom<ref>''[http://web.archive.org/web/20060507121238/http://deviantdesires.com/map/furmain.html Furverts]'' at Fetish Roadmap on Deviantdesires.com (archive link)''</ref>.

[[Rich Chandler]] was one person who gave an interview to Gates. Chandler said that he was responsible for establishing separation between such fetishes and the fandom in the book<ref>''[http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.furry/msg/2502f8b0fb08a358 Re: Looking for an artist's work...]'' "...I talked with her for a few months and gave her some information she actually USED. (I can point to three paragraphs that are clearly based on things from my e-mail). Including stressing repeatedly to her the difference between those who treat Furry as a Fandom, and those who fetishize it."</ref>. Chandler claimed this constituted some "pretty good damage control" and that "everyone at CF who saw the book agreed" he had done a good job<ref>''[http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.furry/msg/31d10a182553cb5b Looking for an artist's work...]'' – post on alt.fan.furry by Rich Chandler (May 8th, 2000)</ref>.

Katherine Gates and ''Deviant Desires'' were later mentioned in the widely-publicized ''[[Vanity Fair]]'' article about the fandom.

== References ==
<references/>

== External links ==

* [http://web.archive.org/web/20060507121238/http://deviantdesires.com/map/furmain.html Furverts] at Fetish Roadmap on DeviantDesires.com (archived link)

{{stub}}
[[Category:Websites]]
[[Category:Internet coverage]]
[[Category:Non-fiction]]

Talk:Richard Chandler

2008-12-16T03:07:02Z

74.61.5.121: /* Hiroshima Cluehammer */

<div style="float:right; border:2px solid #bbbbbb; width:150px;">
<center>'''Discussion Pages'''</center>
*[[/Archive1|Archive 1]] (December 2008)
</div>
== Shall we try again? ==

[[User:Spirou|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. {{unsigned|74.61.5.121}}
::It was indeed a necessary edit - [[Special:Contributions/63.204.227.202|63.204.227.202]] 21:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
:::There's no legitimate reason I can't edit this article, after all. —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 22:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
::::This depends on whether Rich can resist [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks making personal attacks] this time around. Just my $0.02. —[[User:Xydexx|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. {{unsigned|74.61.5.121}}
::::::I was referring to [http://furry.wikia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Richard_Chandler&diff=229981&oldid=229941 your personal attacks] here on the talk page, not anything you imagine I said elsewhere.—[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 19:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
== Deviant Desires ==

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: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.furry/msg/12a0ec884ff642f2

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? {{unsigned|74.61.5.121}}
: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. —[[User:Xydexx|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.{{unsigned|74.61.5.121}}

:::Amen. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]<sup>([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]])</sup> 10:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

== Hiroshima Cluehammer ==
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. —[[User:Xydexx|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?
::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, [http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.furry/msg/2c10db98484cc2e4 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. —[[User:Xydexx|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.

==Lock==
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.

Talk:Richard Chandler

2008-12-16T02:53:22Z

74.61.5.121: /* Hiroshima Cluehammer */

Richard Chandler

2008-12-16T02:40:57Z

74.61.5.121: Giv it a rest Karl.

'''Richard Chandler''', also known as '''Rich Chandler''' and '''Mauser''' (born December 31, 1965), is the former editor of the cartoon and illustration [[fanzine]]/[[APA]] ''[[Gallery]]'', publishing 51 issues from 1989 to its close in 2004. He was also [[art show]] [[director]] for [[Conifur Northwest]], a [[BBS]] sysop, and an often-controversial author of newsgroup posts and editorials on [[furry fandom]].

== Fandom involvement ==

Chandler first became involved with furry fandom in 1985 after being exposed to it at the [[Philadelphia Animation Society]], a club for what was then referred to as "[[Anime|Japanimation]]". At the time, there was a lot of crossover between furry and anime fandoms; through club meetings he was introduced to artists like [[Ken Sample]], [[Joshua Quagmire]], and became friends with [[Mitch Marmel]], [[Ray Rooney]], and [[Ed Zolna]].

Familiarity with the various small press publications and APAs like ''[[Vootie]]'' and ''[[Rowrbrazzle]]'' would eventually lead him to the desire to publish himself.

Chandler's online involvement in the fandom begun through the original [[Furry mailing list]] run by [[Shaterri]]. He was a heavy poster on [[Usenet]]'s newsgroup [[alt.fan.furry]] from the group's foundation until February 13, 2001, when he announced [[Leave The Fandom|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]]''.

=== The Electric Holt ===

Chandler was one of three [[Wikipedia:Sysop|Sysop]]s on the [[The Electric Holt]] BBS, a Philadelphia area bulletin board system catering to [[Wikipedia:ElfQuest|ElfQuest]], furry and anime fandom from 1987 to 1991. Unlike several other furry systems of the era, The Electric Holt was not a part of [[Wikipedia:Fidonet|FidoNet]], due to a lack of compatible software for the [[Wikipedia:Apple computers|Macintosh]] system the BBS ran on.

=== Conifur Northwest ===

Chandler was also director of [[Conifur Northwest]]'s [[art show]] for its first three years (1998-2000), where he instituted policies that led to a smoother organization and fast payouts, creating a numbering system later adapted by [[Further Confusion]] for tracking artists, art, and bidders.

The system created item numbers for each piece in the show prefixed to a number assigned to each artist. This made it easier to track items, artists, and buyers in a [[Wikipedia:relational database|relational database]]. Under his direction, all payments were sent to artists within five days of the close of the convention.

=== ''Gallery'' and other publications ===

From 1989 to 2004, Chandler published 51 issues of the fanzine/APA ''[[Gallery]]'', one of the longest running fan publications. He also wrote the ''[[Sketchbook]] Etiquette'' guide shortly after [[ConFurence 4|ConFurence IV]] (last updated in 2002), in an attempt to codify culture surrounding the care and handling of fans' and artists' sketchbooks.<ref>''[http://home.kendra.com/mauser/sketchbook.html Sketchbook Etiquette]'' – Richard Chandler (July 29, 2002)</ref>

He was also a member of [[Rowrbrazzle]] from issue #61 through #68.

=== ''Deviant Desires'' ===

In early 2000, Chandler gave an interview to sex researcher Katherine Gates for her book ''[[Deviant Desires]]'', covering both furry fandom and the wider realm of other unrelated fetishes. The published result was, overall, seen as non-complimentary.

Chandler said that he was responsible for establishing separation between such fetishes and the fandom in the book<ref>''[http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.furry/msg/2502f8b0fb08a358 Re: Looking for an artist's work...]'' "...I talked with her for a few months and gave her some information she actually USED. (I can point to three paragraphs that are clearly based on things from my e-mail.) Including stressing repeatedly to her the difference between those who treat Furry as a Fandom, and those who fetishize it."</ref>.

=== Departure ===

In 2001, the media climate worsened. Chandler said he "considered closing up shop" after reading the ''[[Vanity Fair]]'' article, but stated that
{{q|...being a rational person, I decided not to for a number of reasons. Not only because there are literally hundreds of people dependent on me, but that I believe all of those folks are on the same side of the issue as me and are just as appalled.<ref>''[http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.furry/msg/6107d08a2132fc03 The Vanity Fair article does not represent me.]'' – post by Rich Chandler on alt.fan.furry (February 10, 2001)</ref>}}
A few days later, he announced his departure from the fandom, citing adverse [[:Category:Media coverage|media attention]] towards controversial fans like [[Ostrich (person)|Ostrich]] and [[FoxWolfie Galen]], and the support he saw expressed for them by others, as well as the exodus of his friends from furry fandom.Richard expressed regret, saying that {{q|It's not any person that makes me want to leave, but the empty spaces left by the people I loved, admired and respected who have left.<ref>''[http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.furry/browse_frm/thread/5ff04125abc44985 I quit]'' – post by Richard Chandler on alt.fan.furry (February 13, 2001)</ref>}}

He says that the actual catalyst for this decision came from a private e-mail conversation.

He returned to alt.fan.furry once in 2002 to respond to posts about ''[[Gallery]]'' and himself.<ref>''[http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.furry/browse_frm/thread/2d94c2b17e9b17b7/d5921142405bf429 A Few Facts About Gallery]'' – thread on alt.fan.furry started by Richard Chandler (April 2002)</ref>

== Controversy ==
=== The ''Mass Graves'' editorial ===

In 1996, Chandler wrote the heavily discussed "''Mass Graves''" editorial in ''Gallery'' #25, described as "a scathing editorial about everything I think is wrong in the Fandom".<ref>[http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.furry/browse_thread/thread/7f549a08a3039e8b ''Gallery #25 ships]'' – post on alt.fan.furry by Rich Chandler (June 13, 1996)</ref>

The editorial was broken into sections addressing specific issues:
*'''Scoundrels''' — including people only in the fandom for money, and those directly ripping off the fans
*'''Net Fans''' — people whose ease of entry to the fandom made them dilettantes, and whose ignorance of the "real fandom" made them think it was an internet phenomenon
*'''Broad Agendas''' — those who used the fandom as a way of furthering their own personal cause to the detriment of the fandom, including those who used the fandom to promote [[bestiality]] and other forms of unusual sexuality, or political agendas
*'''Sex Commissions''' — contrasted the positive aspects of adult artwork in the fandom with its negative impact on artists, who had in some cases been driven off or had their careers ruined by it
*'''"Gay" Furries''' — the most controversial section, attacking those who joined the fandom purely to [[sex|get laid]] ("[[bisexual]]s of opportunity"), those taking advantage of the "sexual free-for-all" environment he saw present at conventions, and particularly those who thought that the fandom was a "closed group" that made [[Wikipedia:safe sex|safe sex]] practices unnecessary, thus placing others at risk
*'''Tolerance''' — summarized by stating that an excess of non-judgmental tolerance allowed the above to thrive in the fandom, and that it was up to community members to "police our own" and control public incidents

Another editorial in the same issue ("A Word on Erotica") defended the existence of [[erotica]], but lamented that since the debate on [[spooge]] had become so divisive, the middle ground had been abandoned.

Chandler wrote a companion editorial in ''Gallery'' #26 entitled "Pedestals", which praised certain aspects of the fandom. It was largely ignored in the controversy created by the previous one.<ref>[http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.furry/search?q=%22Mass+Graves%22+%2B%22richard+chandler%22&start=0&scoring=d& ''Mass Graves''] – topics and discussion on alt.fan.furry (various dates)</ref>

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:People]]
[[Category:Editors]]
[[Category:1965 births]]

Hiroshima Cluehammer

2008-12-16T02:37:55Z

74.61.5.121: /* Further use of the term */ On the pervasiveness of the term.

The '''[[Wikipedia:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki|Hiroshima]] Cluehammer''' is a term coined by former [[greymuzzle]] [[furry fan]] [[Richard Chandler]] that refers/alludes to a hypothetical apocalyptic event/occurrence/media article so detrimental to [[furry]] and its reputation that it would finally:
{{q|(wake) people up to what idiots they've been for the things they've allowed and tolerated in the fandom}}
In the hopes of causing a massive, and disruptive, reorganization in the fandom.

== Origin ==

The reasons/events that lead to the term's creation was the publicly stated belief by Richard Chandler (prior to [[Leave the fandom|leaving the fandom]] in 2001) that:
{{q|Furry Fandom's potential will never be realized with the current crop of losers and misfits who infest it and drag it down<ref>[http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.furry/msg/f1e9f6cdb63cd104?dmode=source&hl=en ''I Quit''] – post on a.f.f. by Richard Chandler (February 14 2001)</ref>}}
Referring particularly to [[fursuiter]] [[Ostrich (person)|Ostrich]] and [[plushophile]] [[FoxWolfie Galen]], whose mainstream media interviews had been featured in what many saw as unfavorable [[:Category:Media coverage|media coverage]] of the fandom, most notably the [[Vanity Fair]] article ''Pleasures of the Fur'', which had just been released at that time, as well as those people who supported them and their practices.

== Chandler's 2006 follow-up ==

In November of 2006 Chandler revisited the topic (and term) on the present state of the fandom on an LiveJournal entry entitled '''''Where's the Hiroshima Cluehammer?''''', where he claimed that leaders in the fandom did get a clue and implemented many of the changes he'd been calling for all along,{{fact}} thus averting the aforementioned "Hiroshima Cluehammer",{{fact}} a claim disputed by some, specially [[furry fan]] [[Xydexx]]<ref>[http://www.xydexx.com/journal/cluehammer.htm ''Rich Chandler and the Hiroshima Cluehammer''] – A rebuttal to "Where's The Hiroshima Cluehammer?"</ref>.

== Further use of the term ==

The term was later used in a [[Wikipedia:Satire|satirical]] manner<ref>[http://www.xydexx.com/journal/archive.htm Xydexx's ''Axiom Of Fandom Enjoyability''] – by the author on Xydexx.com</ref> by Xydexx, who, as noted, opposed Chandler's view, and believed that:
{{q|Furry fandom's potential would be realized by working together instead of scapegoating and infighting<ref>[http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.furry/msg/72223ffabf997051 ''Xydexx's Positions On Furry Fandom''] – post on a.f.f. by Xydexx (March 25 1998)</ref>}}
In fact, Xydexx's continual use of the term became a running joke on alt.fan.furry, to the point where other users remarked on how he would not shut up about it and trolled him just to make him say it again.{{q|Why ? Because I seen that once he said that, you never seemed to shut up about it. You just could not let it go. Also things like your whole 'hiroshima cluehammer', which you kept bringing up apparently for years after it stopped being said (and most likely still do periodically)<ref>[http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.furry/msg/c46e3f72c4cc92cb ''Re: "Furry" Population''] – post on a.f.f. by mouse (November 11 2004)</ref>}}

== References ==
<references />

== See also ==

* ''[[User:Xydexx/Hiroshima Cluehammer|Hiroshima Cluehammer]]'', personal article by Xydexx

[[Category:Terms]]

Hiroshima Cluehammer

2008-12-16T02:17:40Z

74.61.5.121: /* Chandler's 2006 follow-up */ Check your links, buddy.

The '''[[Wikipedia:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki|Hiroshima]] Cluehammer''' is a term coined by former [[greymuzzle]] [[furry fan]] [[Richard Chandler]] that refers/alludes to a hypothetical apocalyptic event/occurrence/media article so detrimental to [[furry]] and its reputation that it would finally:
{{q|(wake) people up to what idiots they've been for the things they've allowed and tolerated in the fandom}}
In the hopes of causing a massive, and disruptive, reorganization in the fandom.

== Origin ==

The reasons/events that lead to the term's creation was the publicly stated belief by Richard Chandler (prior to [[Leave the fandom|leaving the fandom]] in 2001) that:
{{q|Furry Fandom's potential will never be realized with the current crop of losers and misfits who infest it and drag it down<ref>[http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.furry/msg/f1e9f6cdb63cd104?dmode=source&hl=en ''I Quit''] – post on a.f.f. by Richard Chandler (February 14 2001)</ref>}}
Referring particularly to [[fursuiter]] [[Ostrich (person)|Ostrich]] and [[plushophile]] [[FoxWolfie Galen]], whose mainstream media interviews had been featured in what many saw as unfavorable [[:Category:Media coverage|media coverage]] of the fandom, most notably the [[Vanity Fair]] article ''Pleasures of the Fur'', which had just been released at that time, as well as those people who supported them and their practices.

== Chandler's 2006 follow-up ==

In November of 2006 Chandler revisited the topic (and term) on the present state of the fandom on an LiveJournal entry entitled '''''Where's the Hiroshima Cluehammer?''''', where he claimed that leaders in the fandom did get a clue and implemented many of the changes he'd been calling for all along,{{fact}} thus averting the aforementioned "Hiroshima Cluehammer",{{fact}} a claim disputed by some, specially [[furry fan]] [[Xydexx]]<ref>[http://www.xydexx.com/journal/cluehammer.htm ''Rich Chandler and the Hiroshima Cluehammer''] – A rebuttal to "Where's The Hiroshima Cluehammer?"</ref>.

== Further use of the term ==

The term was later used in a [[Wikipedia:Satire|satirical]] manner<ref>[http://www.xydexx.com/journal/archive.htm Xydexx's ''Axiom Of Fandom Enjoyability''] – by the author on Xydexx.com</ref> by Xydexx, who, as noted, opposed Chandler's view, and believed that:
{{q|Furry fandom's potential would be realized by working together instead of scapegoating and infighting<ref>[http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.furry/msg/72223ffabf997051 ''Xydexx's Positions On Furry Fandom''] – post on a.f.f. by Xydexx (March 25 1998)</ref>}}

== References ==
<references />

== See also ==

* ''[[User:Xydexx/Hiroshima Cluehammer|Hiroshima Cluehammer]]'', personal article by Xydexx

[[Category:Terms]]

Richard Chandler

2008-12-16T02:01:21Z

74.61.5.121: Undo revision 230715 by Xydexx (talk)

Talk:Richard Chandler

2008-12-16T01:59:49Z

74.61.5.121: /* Hiroshima Cluehammer */

Hiroshima Cluehammer

2008-12-16T01:13:19Z

74.61.5.121: Removed material from dead link.

Richard Chandler

2008-12-16T00:00:32Z

74.61.5.121: Xydexx's personal hobbyhorse deleted. You've got ten web pages, at least, about the "Hiroshima Cluehammer" Isn't that enough?

Richard Chandler

2008-12-14T20:06:46Z

74.61.5.121: /* Departure */ It Was a quote at one point, and in all the shuffling it got pushed into a note. Since it was the main thrust of the post, it's restored.

Richard Chandler

2008-12-14T06:25:46Z

74.61.5.121: /* Deviant Desires */ deleted "Such" which would refer to other deleted text.

'''Richard Chandler''', also known as '''Rich Chandler''' and '''Mauser''' (born December 31, 1965), is the former editor of the cartoon and illustration [[fanzine]]/[[APA]] ''[[Gallery]]'', publishing 51 issues from 1989 to its close in 2004. He was also [[art show]] [[director]] for [[Conifur Northwest]], a [[BBS]] sysop, and an often-controversial author of newsgroup posts and editorials on [[furry fandom]].

== Fandom involvement ==

Chandler first became involved with furry fandom in 1985 after being exposed to it at the [[Philadelphia Animation Society]], a club for what was then referred to as "[[Anime|Japanimation]]". At the time, there was a lot of crossover between furry and anime fandoms; through club meetings he was introduced to artists like [[Ken Sample]], [[Joshua Quagmire]], and became friends with [[Mitch Marmel]], [[Ray Rooney]], and [[Ed Zolna]]. Familiarity with the various small press publications and APAs like ''[[Vootie]]'' and ''[[Rowrbrazzle]]'' would eventually lead him to the desire to publish himself.

Chandler's online involvement in the fandom begun through the original [[Furry mailing list]] run by [[Shaterri]]. He was a heavy poster on [[Usenet]]'s newsgroup [[alt.fan.furry]] from the group's foundation 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]]''.

=== The Electric Holt ===

Chandler was one of three [[Wikipedia:Sysop|Sysop]]s on the [[The Electric Holt]] BBS, a Philadelphia area bulletin board system catering to [[Wikipedia:ElfQuest|ElfQuest]], furry and anime fandom from 1987 to 1991. Unlike several other furry systems of the era, The Electric Holt was not a part of [[Wikipedia:Fidonet|FidoNet]], due to a lack of compatible software for the [[Wikipedia:Apple computers|Macintosh]] system the BBS ran on.

=== Conifur Northwest ===

Chandler was also director of [[Conifur Northwest]]'s [[art show]] for its first three years (1998-2000), where he instituted policies that led to a smoother organization and fast payouts, creating a numbering system later adapted by [[Further Confusion]] for tracking artists, art, and bidders. The system created item numbers for each piece in the show prefixed by a number assigned to each artist. This made it easier to track items, artists, and buyers in a [[Wikipedia:relational database|relational database]]. Under his direction, all payments were sent to artists within five days of the close of the convention.

=== ''Gallery'' and other publications ===

From 1989 to 2004, Chandler published 51 issues of the fanzine/APA ''[[Gallery]]'', one of the longest running fan publications. He also wrote the ''[[Sketchbook]] Etiquette'' guide shortly after [[ConFurence 4|ConFurence IV]] (last updated in 2002), in an attempt to codify culture surrounding the care and handling of fans' and artists' sketchbooks.<ref>''[http://home.kendra.com/mauser/sketchbook.html Sketchbook Etiquette]'' – Richard Chandler (July 29, 2002)</ref>

He was also a member of [[Rowrbrazzle]] from issue #61 through #68.

==== The ''Mass Graves'' editorial ====

In 1996, Chandler wrote the heavily discussed "''Mass Graves''" editorial in ''Gallery'' #25, described as "a scathing editorial about everything I think is wrong in the Fandom".<ref>[http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.furry/browse_thread/thread/7f549a08a3039e8b ''Gallery #25 ships]'' – post on alt.fan.furry by Rich Chandler (June 13, 1996)</ref>

The editorial was broken into sections addressing specific issues:
*'''Scoundrels''' — including people only in the fandom for money, and those directly ripping off the fans
*'''Net Fans''' — people whose ease of entry to the fandom made them dilettantes, and whose ignorance of the "real fandom" made them think it was an internet phenomenon
*'''Broad Agendas''' — those who used the fandom as a way of furthering their own personal cause to the detriment of the fandom, including those who used the fandom to promote [[bestiality]] and other forms of unusual sexuality, or political agendas
*'''Sex Commissions''' — contrasted the positive aspects of adult artwork in the fandom with its negative impact on artists, who had in some cases been driven off or had their careers ruined by it
*'''"Gay" Furries''' — the most controversial section, attacking those who joined the fandom purely to [[sex|get laid]] ("[[bisexual]]s of opportunity"), those taking advantage of the "sexual free-for-all" environment he saw present at conventions, and particularly those who thought that the fandom was a "closed group" that made [[Wikipedia:safe sex|safe sex]] practices unnecessary, thus placing others at risk
*'''Tolerance''' — summarized by stating that an excess of non-judgmental tolerance allowed the above to thrive in the fandom, and that it was up to community members to "police our own" and control public incidents

Another editorial in the same issue ("A Word on Erotica") defended the existence of [[erotica]], but lamented that since the debate on [[spooge]] had become so divisive, the middle ground had been abandoned.

Chandler wrote a companion editorial in ''Gallery'' #26 entitled "Pedestals", which praised certain aspects of the fandom. It was largely ignored in the controversy created by the previous one.<ref>[http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.furry/search?q=%22Mass+Graves%22+%2B%22richard+chandler%22&start=0&scoring=d& ''Mass Graves''] – topics and discussion on alt.fan.furry (various dates)</ref>

=== ''Deviant Desires'' ===

In early 2000, Chandler gave an interview to sex researcher Katherine Gates for her book ''[[Deviant Desires]]'', covering both furry fandom and the wider realm of other unrelated fetishes. The published result was, overall, seen as non-complimentary. Chandler said that he was responsible for establishing separation between fetishes and the fandom in the book<ref>''[http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.furry/msg/2502f8b0fb08a358 Re: Looking for an artist's work...]'' "...I talked with her for a few months and gave her some information she actually USED. (I can point to three paragraphs that are clearly based on things from my e-mail). Including stressing repeatedly to her the difference between those who treat Furry as a Fandom, and those who fetishize it."</ref>.

=== Departure ===

In 2001, the media climate worsened. Chandler said he "considered closing up shop" after reading the ''[[Vanity Fair]]'' article, but stated that "...being a rational person, I decided not to for a number of reasons. Not only because there are literally hundreds of people dependent on me, but that I believe all of those folks are on the same side of the issue as me and are just as appalled", while noting that "the day one of these articles _directly_ affects me is the day I quit."<ref>''[http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.furry/msg/6107d08a2132fc03 The Vanity Fair article does not represent me.]'' – post by Rich Chandler on alt.fan.furry (February 10, 2001)</ref> A few days later, he announced his [[leaving the fandom|departure from the fandom]], citing adverse [[:Category:Media coverage|media attention]] towards controversial fans like [[Ostrich (person)|Ostrich]] and [[FoxWolfie Galen]], and the support he saw expressed for them by others, as well as the exodus of his friends from furry fandom.<ref>''[http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.furry/browse_frm/thread/5ff04125abc44985 I quit]'' – post by Richard Chandler on alt.fan.furry (February 13, 2001)</ref><ref>Richard expressed regret, saying that "it's not any person that makes me want to leave, but the empty spaces left by the people I loved, admired and respected who have left." He also stated his wish to avoid what he saw as an inevitable cataclysm: "I don't want to be anywhere in the impact zone when the [[Hiroshima Cluehammer]] that finally gets through your thick skulls hits ground zero."</ref> He says that the actual catalyst for this decision came from a private e-mail conversation. He returned to alt.fan.furry once in 2002 to respond to posts about ''[[Gallery]]'' and himself.<ref>''[http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.furry/browse_frm/thread/2d94c2b17e9b17b7/d5921142405bf429 A Few Facts About Gallery]'' – thread on alt.fan.furry started by Richard Chandler (April 2002)</ref>

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:People]]
[[Category:Editors]]
[[Category:1965 births]]

Deviant Desires

2008-12-14T06:19:31Z

74.61.5.121: /* Deviant Desires and furry */

'''Deviant Desires: Incredibly Strange Sex''' is the title of book about unusual sexual practices, and (previously) its associated website.

== Deviant Desires and furry ==

In early 2000, sex researcher [[Wikipedia:Katharine Gates|Katharine Gates]] published her book ''[[Deviant Desires]]'', covering both furry fandom and the wider realm of other unrelated fetishes. The published result was, overall, seen as non-complimentary. In the section on furries it distinguished between "Furry Fans" and "[[furvert]]"s but then focussed on transvestism, pony play, BDSM, fursuit sex, plushophilia, macrophilia, and the "high percentage" of gay men in the fandom<ref>''[http://web.archive.org/web/20060507121238/http://deviantdesires.com/map/furmain.html Furverts]'' at Fetish Roadmap on Deviantdesires.com (archive link)''</ref>.

[[Rich Chandler]] was one person who gave an interview to Gates. Chandler said that he was responsible for establishing separation between such fetishes and the fandom in the book<ref>''[http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.furry/msg/2502f8b0fb08a358 Re: Looking for an artist's work...]'' "...I talked with her for a few months and gave her some information she actually USED. (I can point to three paragraphs that are clearly based on things from my e-mail). Including stressing repeatedly to her the difference between those who treat Furry as a Fandom, and those who fetishize it."</ref>. Chandler claimed this constituted some "pretty good damage control" and that "everyone at CF who saw the book agreed" he had done a good job<ref>''[http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.furry/msg/31d10a182553cb5b Looking for an artist's work...]'' – post on alt.fan.furry by Rich Chandler (May 8th, 2000)</ref>.

Katherine Gates and ''Deviant Desires'' were later mentioned in the widely-publicized ''[[Vanity Fair]]'' article about the fandom.

== References ==
<references/>

== External links ==

* [http://web.archive.org/web/20060507121238/http://deviantdesires.com/map/furmain.html Furverts] at Fetish Roadmap on DeviantDesires.com (archived link)
* [http://www.eroslongisland.com/articles/2003-09-02/plush/ Selfish Fetish] - 2003 zine piece in response to ''Deviant Desires''

{{stub}}
[[Category:Websites]]
[[Category:Internet coverage]]
[[Category:Non-fiction]]

Talk:Richard Chandler

2008-12-14T05:55:27Z

74.61.5.121: /* Deviant Desires */

Richard Chandler

2008-12-14T05:48:31Z

74.61.5.121: /* Deviant Desires */ Removed references to Usenet flamewar about stuff that wasn't in the book.

'''Richard Chandler''', also known as '''Rich Chandler''' and '''Mauser''' (born December 31, 1965), is the former editor of the cartoon and illustration [[fanzine]]/[[APA]] ''[[Gallery]]'', publishing 51 issues from 1989 to its close in 2004. He was also [[art show]] [[director]] for [[Conifur Northwest]], a [[BBS]] sysop, and an often-controversial author of newsgroup posts and editorials on [[furry fandom]].

== Fandom involvement ==

Chandler first became involved with furry fandom in 1985 after being exposed to it at the [[Philadelphia Animation Society]], a club for what was then referred to as "[[Anime|Japanimation]]". At the time, there was a lot of crossover between furry and anime fandoms; through club meetings he was introduced to artists like [[Ken Sample]], [[Joshua Quagmire]], and became friends with [[Mitch Marmel]], [[Ray Rooney]], and [[Ed Zolna]]. Familiarity with the various small press publications and APAs like ''[[Vootie]]'' and ''[[Rowrbrazzle]]'' would eventually lead him to the desire to publish himself.

Chandler's online involvement in the fandom begun through the original [[Furry mailing list]] run by [[Shaterri]]. He was a heavy poster on [[Usenet]]'s newsgroup [[alt.fan.furry]] from the group's foundation 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]]''.

=== The Electric Holt ===

Chandler was one of three [[Wikipedia:Sysop|Sysop]]s on the [[The Electric Holt]] BBS, a Philadelphia area bulletin board system catering to [[Wikipedia:ElfQuest|ElfQuest]], furry and anime fandom from 1987 to 1991. Unlike several other furry systems of the era, The Electric Holt was not a part of [[Wikipedia:Fidonet|FidoNet]], due to a lack of compatible software for the [[Wikipedia:Apple computers|Macintosh]] system the BBS ran on.

=== Conifur Northwest ===

Chandler was also director of [[Conifur Northwest]]'s [[art show]] for its first three years (1998-2000), where he instituted policies that led to a smoother organization and fast payouts, creating a numbering system later adapted by [[Further Confusion]] for tracking artists, art, and bidders. The system created item numbers for each piece in the show prefixed by a number assigned to each artist. This made it easier to track items, artists, and buyers in a [[Wikipedia:relational database|relational database]]. Under his direction, all payments were sent to artists within five days of the close of the convention.

=== ''Gallery'' and other publications ===

From 1989 to 2004, Chandler published 51 issues of the fanzine/APA ''[[Gallery]]'', one of the longest running fan publications. He also wrote the ''[[Sketchbook]] Etiquette'' guide shortly after [[ConFurence 4|ConFurence IV]] (last updated in 2002), in an attempt to codify culture surrounding the care and handling of fans' and artists' sketchbooks.<ref>''[http://home.kendra.com/mauser/sketchbook.html Sketchbook Etiquette]'' – Richard Chandler (July 29, 2002)</ref>

He was also a member of [[Rowrbrazzle]] from issue #61 through #68.

==== The ''Mass Graves'' editorial ====

In 1996, Chandler wrote the heavily discussed "''Mass Graves''" editorial in ''Gallery'' #25, described as "a scathing editorial about everything I think is wrong in the Fandom".<ref>[http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.furry/browse_thread/thread/7f549a08a3039e8b ''Gallery #25 ships]'' – post on alt.fan.furry by Rich Chandler (June 13, 1996)</ref>

The editorial was broken into sections addressing specific issues:
*'''Scoundrels''' — including people only in the fandom for money, and those directly ripping off the fans
*'''Net Fans''' — people whose ease of entry to the fandom made them dilettantes, and whose ignorance of the "real fandom" made them think it was an internet phenomenon
*'''Broad Agendas''' — those who used the fandom as a way of furthering their own personal cause to the detriment of the fandom, including those who used the fandom to promote [[bestiality]] and other forms of unusual sexuality, or political agendas
*'''Sex Commissions''' — contrasted the positive aspects of adult artwork in the fandom with its negative impact on artists, who had in some cases been driven off or had their careers ruined by it
*'''"Gay" Furries''' — the most controversial section, attacking those who joined the fandom purely to [[sex|get laid]] ("[[bisexual]]s of opportunity"), those taking advantage of the "sexual free-for-all" environment he saw present at conventions, and particularly those who thought that the fandom was a "closed group" that made [[Wikipedia:safe sex|safe sex]] practices unnecessary, thus placing others at risk
*'''Tolerance''' — summarized by stating that an excess of non-judgmental tolerance allowed the above to thrive in the fandom, and that it was up to community members to "police our own" and control public incidents

Another editorial in the same issue ("A Word on Erotica") defended the existence of [[erotica]], but lamented that since the debate on [[spooge]] had become so divisive, the middle ground had been abandoned.

Chandler wrote a companion editorial in ''Gallery'' #26 entitled "Pedestals", which praised certain aspects of the fandom. It was largely ignored in the controversy created by the previous one.<ref>[http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.furry/search?q=%22Mass+Graves%22+%2B%22richard+chandler%22&start=0&scoring=d& ''Mass Graves''] – topics and discussion on alt.fan.furry (various dates)</ref>

=== ''Deviant Desires'' ===

In early 2000, Chandler gave an interview to sex researcher Katherine Gates for her book ''[[Deviant Desires]]'', covering both furry fandom and the wider realm of other unrelated fetishes. The published result was, overall, seen as non-complimentary. Chandler said that he was responsible for establishing separation between such fetishes and the fandom in the book<ref>''[http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.furry/msg/2502f8b0fb08a358 Re: Looking for an artist's work...]'' "...I talked with her for a few months and gave her some information she actually USED. (I can point to three paragraphs that are clearly based on things from my e-mail). Including stressing repeatedly to her the difference between those who treat Furry as a Fandom, and those who fetishize it."</ref>.

=== Departure ===

In 2001, the media climate worsened. Chandler said he "considered closing up shop" after reading the ''[[Vanity Fair]]'' article, but stated that "...being a rational person, I decided not to for a number of reasons. Not only because there are literally hundreds of people dependent on me, but that I believe all of those folks are on the same side of the issue as me and are just as appalled", while noting that "the day one of these articles _directly_ affects me is the day I quit."<ref>''[http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.furry/msg/6107d08a2132fc03 The Vanity Fair article does not represent me.]'' – post by Rich Chandler on alt.fan.furry (February 10, 2001)</ref> A few days later, he announced his [[leaving the fandom|departure from the fandom]], citing adverse [[:Category:Media coverage|media attention]] towards controversial fans like [[Ostrich (person)|Ostrich]] and [[FoxWolfie Galen]], and the support he saw expressed for them by others, as well as the exodus of his friends from furry fandom.<ref>''[http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.furry/browse_frm/thread/5ff04125abc44985 I quit]'' – post by Richard Chandler on alt.fan.furry (February 13, 2001)</ref><ref>Richard expressed regret, saying that "it's not any person that makes me want to leave, but the empty spaces left by the people I loved, admired and respected who have left." He also stated his wish to avoid what he saw as an inevitable cataclysm: "I don't want to be anywhere in the impact zone when the [[Hiroshima Cluehammer]] that finally gets through your thick skulls hits ground zero."</ref> He says that the actual catalyst for this decision came from a private e-mail conversation. He returned to alt.fan.furry once in 2002 to respond to posts about ''[[Gallery]]'' and himself.<ref>''[http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.furry/browse_frm/thread/2d94c2b17e9b17b7/d5921142405bf429 A Few Facts About Gallery]'' – thread on alt.fan.furry started by Richard Chandler (April 2002)</ref>

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:People]]
[[Category:Editors]]
[[Category:1965 births]]

Talk:Richard Chandler

2008-12-14T01:06:07Z

74.61.5.121: /* Shall we try again? */