Talk:Hiroshima Cluehammer/Archive2

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

Article trim and talk archival[edit]

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 - Spirou 08:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Reverting's change[edit]

I reverted this change since the summary was misleading. For example, the link at is perfectly valid.

The post that was originally at does seem to have been marked as protected, however. I am unsure of how to proceed, since that reference is no longer valid. --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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 13:02, 16 December 2008
I have an archived copy of Rich's original collection of ad hominems if necessary. —Xydexx 00:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Of course you have, you obsessed stalker you.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 23:34, 16 December 2008
See, that's your problem, Rich. You can never admit when you're wrong. -=) —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?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 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. —Xydexx 06:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
So says the man with the website dedicated to slamming me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 21:24, 18 December 2008

Note To Giza[edit]

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. —Xydexx 18:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

So, will you do the same? - Ah, apparently you have. Good enough. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 22:53, 24 December 2008

Valid Quote Is Still Valid[edit]

For the record, I've restored quote which explains the then (and now) opposition to Rich's histrionics. —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. 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 did in fact answer the question, and you 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. —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? —Xydexx 04:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Hmph. Apparently not. Thought so. —Xydexx 04:11, 8 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, wished you a Merry Christmas, and left it at that. So while I was enjoying myself out at FC, you chose to act on 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? —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 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. —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. —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. —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. —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. —Xydexx 07:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I think it's time to make this something that is more than only fair. --GreenReaper(talk) 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 giving up and quitting.
Because at the end of the day, it's fans that make a fandom.—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. —Xydexx 07:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Trolling Is "Proof"?[edit]

And gullible isn't in the dictionary! -=) —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 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. —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. —Xydexx 03:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggested for Deletion[edit]


  1. A previous request for deletion was denied because it was thought that this term had entered the "Furry Lexicon".
  2. In the context of the fandom, The originator only used it once.
  3. 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.
  4. 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. —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. —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? --GreenReaper(talk) 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. —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.