Talk:Richard Chandler/Archive2

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. —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.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.61.5.121 (talk • contribs) .

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.—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 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. —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. —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. —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. —Xydexx 04:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

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. —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. —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. —Xydexx 04:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

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. —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. —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. —Xydexx 04:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

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, 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. —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. —Xydexx 04:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

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. —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. —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? —Xydexx 04:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

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. —Xydexx 04:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

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. -:) —Xydexx 04:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

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. —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.

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. -:) —Xydexx 04:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

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. —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. —Xydexx 04:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

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! -:) —Xydexx 04:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)