Talk:Chat on the Internet

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

I'm curious to know what the reason for the revision was. I presented both opinions without bias. --Rootdown 01:28, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

As you yourself have noticed, and wrote in your edit, there are people who DO consider COTI to be "furry-hostile" and/or "anti-furry," caused by the actions of certain "individuals" within it who are furry themselves,... It's these reasons alone (The "Furry" presence, and their fandom hostility) that COTI is recorded in Wikifur, under the "Anti-Furry" category. Duly noted is your point that your site is not Anti-furry itself (Which has been reworded in with elements of your prior edit.) Spirou 03:20, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)
The article now says that it is considered anti-furry (as a general statement) but is isn't considered anti-furry. If only some people have the first opinion, then that should be stated.
Also, what level/percentage/whatever is necessary to have a site be considered to be anti-furry? (Category talk:Anti-furries may be more appropriate for this). --GreenReaper(talk) 03:40, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)
Reworded it again,... As for "what level/percentage/whatever is necessary to have a site be considered to be anti-furry?",... Hmm, I couldn't say. What percentage did we use for the Burned Furs, PoEs, or SA Goons?. =( Spirou 04:06, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)
I don't know that a percentage ever was stated. I've thought about it a bit, though, and I believe there's a big difference. With all the three groups you mention, it is clear that anti-furry sentiment was a major part of their actions (or at least anti-some-furry sentiment - the Burned Furs are tricky because some of them held opinions that others did not, and as a result that article has been contentious). However, CotI is a chat. It is not clear that a focus of the chat was talking about furries in a negative sense. I don't think it's appropriate to say that just CotI as a whole is anti-furry just because some of its members are elsewhere.
It may be that individuals are clearly anti-furry. That's fine, and should be easy to prove, and should probably be mentioned. However, there is no clear evidence presented that the community itself is anti-furry. Without that, it is a very strong label to put on an entire group. --GreenReaper(talk) 04:44, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)
Well, I have to say that some of the threads initiate in their forums, or when somebody post an COTI AIM log about furry, it's not precisely... "helpful" or "constructive" towards fandom. I understand Rootdown's that whatever originates from within COTI is out of his control,... but so does Lowtax,... and Calbeck. Even Rootdown points out that there is a perceived hostility permeating from the group, but, since it's an open forum, if the public forms an "opinion" about the place, the only thing Wikifur is doing is just writing down for perusal the "overall picture."
Without the anti-furry hostility, and the fact that some of it comes from certain furries from within, COTI would be just another chatroom, and a moot point to Wikifur Spirou 07:01, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

COTI as a chat room ceased activity in 2006, and the boards tapered off activity around that time too, despite a few efforts from some of the regulars to kickstart it again. The boards, domain name, wiki, and livejournal are gone now. You may want to update the article to reflect this. Rootdown 18:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)