Check out his history here:
http://multiversefeeling.blogspot.com/2015/08/remradioheadfan96-or-channeleven-history.html
Anyway, this cyberbully who won't leave me alone for standing up for myself just continues to make more "commentary" journals that are nothing but 'butthurt' WWWAREZ WOLFAOZZ BECAZUE I SAIZ SO!!" crap. Little to no value, etc.
Anyway, he made '3' journals in reply to something (Which was all based off something I didn't start)
Here,
here, and
here.
Time to get to work! I will defend who I am, and I will defend that he has NO right to treat me like that online with slander.
NOTE: Some quotes may not be well know to what it's coming from, so some information some people see may be missing what it's talking about.
The shifted quotes in black are REMRadioheadfan98's (Or Channeleven's) comments.
The '<REM' quotes are just 'translations' I did.
I may update this article to make it look better. Maybe.
---------
"Filth: Anything that goes against my narrow mindset (in wwwarea's eyes anyways)"
It's arguable, I'm a victim (People calling me "wolfaboo, etc." and directed at me in those bad articles), I have a right to call it that and since it's arguable to do that.
"Which is a load of wolf shit, proven by your history."
Oh you mean the history that I had a right to speak my mind about wolves, etc? The right to defend a movie, etc?
That doesn't make me a wolfaboo, even if I defend out of love. You clearly don't understand the meaning of it.
Also, I do have history of yours, clearly proving you are a bad, insane, non-tolerable person and that stamp you faved, you don't do anything like that. Especially if people were to look at YOUR history.
"It started with the EXE thing. Also, to point out some hypocrisy, you
claim that it's wrong to hate something using popularity alone, yet you
defended EXE by using popularity."
You do realized that's a different thing right? I'm talking about debates. Not possible feedback, etc.
That's a whole different theory. Yet, popularity counts fair in art if the intention got a lot of people to love it.
And nah, it actually started when you made a journal about my stamps, attacking me for speaking my mind.
Regardless of past time, you are not Funnel. End of story.
Knowing you, kindness was hardly applied.
Because you said so, right?
I heard that you spammed him because he didn't want to put up with
your shit. I'd make a remark based around Sonicfaggotry, but,
ironically, he hates Sonic because of me. Imagine that.
Must be a liar or a dumbass because 'replying =/= spam'.
You are actually one of the rabid sonic fans. You act like Sonic is better than every artist style or some, etc. That's rabid.
In fact, you know those rare Alpha and Omega fans who goes out and claim that the movie is the "best" (All movies are equal in a way) in the world? You are basically similar.
If by kindly disagreeing, you mean spamming him and acting like an ass, then you'd be right.
Like I said, all I did was ask why he hid my comments. And disagreeing/arguing means "ass"?
Like I said folks, REM cannot take criticism, and if DA did not do any action to him.. then well..:
"Posted snapshots for the purposes of mock, humiliate, harassment,
etc. (Either one or two, etc. of those) of people's and their criticism
toward him. Example maybe:
"
"Translation: NO U. At least Funnel keeps his replies to a minimal length, as opposed to you."
You really should look in a mirror for a person who thinks they know how to debate.
Not only the poor behavior of replying with bad "translations", but it's still very long.
And I need to type long to get a good explanation through.
But alas, you don't like it when a person sends you a super long truth research debunking your stupidity, over and over again.
Your laughable responses to your critics says otherwise.
Nothing laughable, it's a disagreement. Fans and even non-fans are allowed to have an 'opinion' just like the 'critics' (Just possible arguable opinions like everyone else). Otherwise you say, critics can say what they want,
but nobody can say anything back? You calling that a problem and acting like that as "proof" is laughable, however.
It was actually a very accurate representation of you.
Actually no it wasn't. And no matter how much you want to believe so, it doesn't change that fact.
So it still failed to argue because for example: The idea that I'm "delusional" is pretty much delusional it's self.
"
Still doesn't change the fact that REM could of ignored it.And you could of too." < MINE
"You're like a train wreck wwwarea, it's hard to look away from your faggotry"
This is why you're a cyberbully and a bad person. Clearly hiding your faults once again.
"What's the key word in over obsessed and obsessed? That's right, obsessed. The slander you receive is usually just."
No, 'over-obsessed' means being
more than just obsessed. And actually it's not just. You really do slander people buddy, and it doesn't matter how much white knights or so are on your side.
If I had to agree, then I say you're obsessed with Knuckles, and therefor, you are a
sonicaboo (or a
sonicfag in your world).
Because they're harming themselves, and someone has to help them before they make the wrong decision.
1. You can't decide when something is harmful over people not you. 2. Justice is about victims, not themselves.
"You and maturity don't mix. Your history proves so."
Again, I don't have a history of violating the maturity. You probably believe in the REM bible suggesting that arguing you = "immature". But welcome to the real world buddy where people are allowed to disagree and argue things like that!
And no, despite SOME mistakes I've had, that has nothing to do with the disagreement while arguing.
So stop picking straws.
"They could like the art style, but by pulling a holier than thou
complex, it;s hard to respect, especially considering how people like
you shudder at the very thought of someone being vocal over their
disfavor of something you obsess over."
What the hell does that even mean? I'm sorry but those people
are allowed to disagree, and call out others as bias. Calling critics or non-critics like you bias is not only allowed, but it's an argument that has happened in the past with many people for years.
In other words too, doing that has nothing to do with attacking them because they 'dislike it'. In fact, you even admit that 'even if you liked it' you would still call it a flaw, proving that you admit that there is a difference. Yet if I argued you for your claims while you like it,
then,
does that mean I'm attacking you for 'liking' the art-style? Even though I argued the "It's a flaw!" claim?
Uh, yes I do. I called out Sonic fans, for one. Also, you never
attacked anyone? Ironic since you've stalked me and gave me grief
because I didn't like your precious art style.
Oh boy, you called out all sonic fans, as if they were all rabid!
Nah dude, I "stalked" you because of your actions (
History) with me.
And considering I found your review thanks to Panther giving me a link to it. :)
Oh and funny, you found my reaction article by yourself.. didn't you? Oh and since you stalked my DA page, starting another fight with your cyberbullying 'wwwarea is a wolfaboo, I will MAKE people think that.' stuff.
If you do, it's more or less him whining over my very existence.
Oh boo hoo, your history of actions (rather than because of you existing it's self) doesn't change. 'Whining' about them is fair.
"
If something looks ugly, or doesn't translate well with the animation
style, then it's a flaw. If we had it your way, people would be
praising shows like Mr. Pickles and Allen Gregory."
"Ugly" is subjective so you are biased for saying that, and actually, the animation is cartoony (On purpose) and can be argued that it does fit. Besides, what you call a "flaw" is still intentional. And clearly you admit
funnel was wrong on this part.
And no, the movie is nothing like those (Though I do not thin I've heard the second one). Besides, there are people who like the style (and yes, anyone counts regardless of who you think) and since it was intentional with the cartoon style animation, fitting will.
Sorry REM, but their exist animation style and other intentions.
Oh and your opinion on "when" it's a flawed is questionable.
"And you don't know anything about sarcasm? Alright then. Also, it's
ironic you cite freedom of speech, when you basically censor people who
don't like certain art styles or fetishes."
'Sarcasm' isn't a legit way to figure out, due to the fact that 'sarcastic' speech is exactly the same as serious speech it's self.
Arguing =/= censorship and sense the hatred against people with 'fetishes' is cyberbullying (Not protected speech or shouldn't be) and the fact that people are allowed to stand up against that for freedom (Since speech of that promotes censorship/restrictions/etc), etc. Oh and disagreeing doesn't stop your journals it's self, and the fact that
you attack people for FREEDOM of EXPRESSION.
Also otherwise.
"You censor me when I don't like homosexuality" =Compared= to what you said.
" 1st, you seem to be obsessed with wolves from fiction, which would
still count. 2nd, considering what you've proven to us, the last
sentence is a load of bull."
But those fiction wolves are different than the ones here.
Actually no, and hmm, I thought your the moron who thinks 'over' isn't a word? And that both are the same?
"Your statements and attitude prove otherwise."
I see, so some attitude you hate so much of me somehow automatically means I said "Wolves are superior than all other animals!"?
I just don't want to live on this planet anymore...
"You're more of the former, and your denial is simply astounding."
That doesn't debunk my claim. Try harder.
I also noticed I forgot to reply to one part.. But treating non-human animals as equel doesn't make me an 'aboo'. That is incredibly selfish to say and fucked up.
"Massive contradiction to what we've already seen from you."
I already argued this somewhere in this article.
"And your reason makes you a wolfaboo. If it wasn't based
around wolves, you wouldn't give two shits (which is why you never said
anything about Gnomeo and Juliet.)"
No it wasn't. People have personal reasons to like something, and personality =/= wolfaboo.
You don't have a right to dictate when or how it's "right" to like something. They all counts and just because your bigoted mind doesn't like that (You don't tolerate personal opinions of liking something you hate after all again), doesn't automatically make you right.
And I did, the story isn't 100% the same as that by the way. Yet, you are allowed to like movies for other parts more.
Besides, you only like Sonic games for story rather than the main point of the 'video game'.
Storyaboo.
"ou engage in wolf related drama, so.... Also, he's only responding to you, as you continue to cry like a little bitch."
Nah he could of ignored it still. And yet, wolf drama it's self doesn't make it wolfaboo.
"like a little bitch" - Again, only an immature bully like you would say that while also making journals that attack me for standing up.
Welp, you've basically proven that everything that was said against you is true.
No it doesn't. The problem of this guy is that he picks off-topic stuff and try to stuff it as an attempt to 'connect' and somehow makes the person thinks he's "right".
""Freedom of speech also only applies to mean I only use it to benefit my crazy points.""
"I think wwwarea is crazy because I want to believe that." < REM
">Runs a group called Anti-Humanaboo
Yes....?"
>Calls wwwarea a wolfaboo because he disagreed with me.
And no, that was to people who keep acting like 'humans' are better and was a reaction to such an overused term called "wolfaboo".
"Don't you mean getting annoyed that you whine because people dared to criticize an otherwise shitty Creepypasta."
"I guess whiners/disagreeing people are immature and must be blocked then and because I think honest criticism is annoying." < REM
"Nah, he's pretty sane, and a hell of a lot more intelligent than you. Pretty much why I consider him to be my second in command."
Actually no, and you saying when in reality you can't debunk the idea that's he's 'dumb', doesn't change that.
"And nonexistent."
"Fuck the law, fuck the dictionary, and fuck the truth of what happened, I will decide when something doesn't exist, even though wwwarea's bible of sense, and science goes against me"
<Rem
Guess I better decide that science, math, schools, assholes, rabid, sonic fans, etc. doesn't exist then.
The earth is flat, because I said so.
*sarcasm*
Yet you weren't really disagreeing, but crying because not everyone shares your mindset.
*crying* =/= violation of Freedom of Speech.
Considering too, criticism based off defending (including homosexual rights, race rights, heterosexual rights, etc. is based off the same thing I have.
Shitty: Any review that doesn't praise my precious art style (to wwwarea, at least)
It was more of 'why', and how you attack those who defend it, and how you act to people for going in and disagreeing by arguing you.
No, the real Mythbusters are actually more proactive, as opposed to you.
Because you say so, I see.
We can't respect your freedom of speech because you can't respect
ours and you use yours to get away with your terrible behavior.
Clearly I didn't say "Take down this" on non-cyberbullying posts (Which isn't freedom of speech), etc. And my behavior (Standing up for myself, the freedom to criticize back, etc) isn't terrible.
>Cites sarcasm
>Can'y understand sarcasm at all.
Making an immature sarcasm message like that in a debate isn't civil either.
How nice of you to glance over his point. Humanaboo was only made as a butthurt rebuttal by wolfaboos.
Even if that's "true" but isn't, it still counts and since "wolfaboo" was made up by butthurt 'humanaboos' then if I had to agree.
"Dat salty ignorance."
That doesn't make any sense.
When did he imply that? Also, they're animals that are known to kill,
so if one were to kill a wolf because of, say, self defense, would you
still defend said attacking wolf?
Humans have more of the ability to choose. Gee REM I think you were against treating wolves as equal as humans? Wolves and others don't have the same morals. Yep, I said that, because by 'equal', they have natural rights, etc. But they don't have all what humans have while humans don't have what wolves have.
And no REM, self-defense is fine. I agree to that.
No, because the examples you've listed actually matter more over your petty internet drama.
The idea that 'internet drama' is different is idiotic. The words were basically "getting deffensive = lunatic" or something. So it was fair to compare it.
"
Irony."
REM's favorite word.
"Thanks for proving that you treat your statements as fact, something that a bigot is known for doing."
Said the guy who does the same thing.
And considering some statements are actually facts.
If I said "You have did was the law said was illegal", that's a fact.
If I said "The designs are superior to all styles", it's not. But it is a fact to personality find it that.
END OF PART 1 *sigh*
PART 2
wwwarea: "STOP CRITICIZING ME WHILE I TOTE FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND HYPOCRITICALLY PREVENT YOU FROM EXPRESSING YOURS.
"Damage control."
REMRadioheadfan96/Channeleven: "STOP DEFENDING WHAT I HATE, OR ELSE YOU VIOLATED MY SPEECH AND SINCE I HATE IT WHEN YOU STOP HATE THAT ATTACKS OTHERS AND STOP FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!"
"Damage control" <Which is a completely inaccurate term to use by the way.
It's actually pretty accurate, since you try to defend a certain point while bashing a similar one in the process.
No it's not. I can defend what I want and it's a right.
I will admit, I do kinda bash people for... bashing people for liking and expressing fetishes for example.
"
"Fuck the dictionary, I will decide what I want English and meaning to be over other people because I want to!" < YouThanks
for admitting to be bigoted as you don't accept real words and their
meanings and instead admitted to make up stuff out of your own ego head." <MINE including that I made the translation.
"And thank you, for proving that you do treat the dictionary like the bible."
And I'm proud of it.
I need to make sense for our foundation of English and meaning, and correct people by errors right?
Otherwise, I would be dumb like you who denies it, and goes for stupidity and bigotry instead.
Especially if you deny the "religion" of science.
Your treatment of them proves otherwise.
Clearly that doesn't automatically mean I'm saying they are "better" (All animals are equal).
The stuff you see, are based off personal preferences.
Or at least make statements and always defend wolves no matter what. Kinda reminds me of......
"Save the wolves"?
That can actually promote people to save them though.
Don't except people to be perfect either.
Still not pets.
The off-topic wording here still doesn't change that. And considering it could be possible to have one as a pet by experimenting, etc. Yes, people were table to have wild tigers as pets.
He was pointing out why we went after the people you've blindly defended.
Eh, I probably need to see my older quote..
I wasn't even blind because I think I was suggesting people that if Virus really did hurt people, report the person instead of harassing the person. And if I did do defending, remember you can defend without defending the bad thing.
Translation: Letting the offenders get off scott free while the innocent get punished.
I think you missed the point. Hurting yourselves don't violate anyone's rights (And I don't even agree you hurt yourself with the wolf thing), and focusing on people who do "hurt" themselves violate rights.
Justice is about stopping offenders like you that involves other people. Including that if Virus was a real offender to
real people.
So YoshiWii1 lusting over Amy, PaulandAmy raping young girls because
of Amy and Chris Chan being, well, Chris Chan never caused either three
harm, and the people that called them out were responsible....? LOGIC!
"OMG, Lusing over a fictional person hurts people!! NOOO!!!!" <REM
Seriously is THAT why YoshiWii1 is hated? If so, then I guess Yoshi actually didn't do anything wrong.
For the rest, hurting other people are the only bad thing, and not only lusting for a fictional character is harmless, but not even marrying them.
In before REM treats his opinion as fact without proving how by saying "It's harmful".
Besides I mean more of something that doesn't hurt anyone else only.
Even though some things like fictional stuff is harmless to even the self (unless you make it control your life and make it worse.).
Your funeral. You might as well move to Tumblr.
Really immature of arguing (Like the rest of everything you do).
Otherkin may be a bit taboo thanks to haters, but I've seen some fair defenses for and self-defense.
Yeah, it's pretty unhealthy, and it reflects poorly on their mental state.
Me: "Why?"
You: "Because I said so."
I believe the above statement was rendered bunk with an article I provided in a previous commentary.
Really? So you are saying that 'wolves' are diseases in the wild?
That article could be argued as 'bias'. Yes, it's normal (debate wise) to say that. I also seen people call articles bias before maybe. <Being safe and honest?
Keep this in mind.
More info: It got me to make inspiring music, to draw more, make textures, models, etc.
At least it's far better than photography.
Balto came out in the 90s while Alpha and Omega came out in 2010. I don't know how you missed that.
I think you missed my point, but I could blame myself for not being clear here.
I meant that it didn't come first in my childhood or late teen years. Though I remember seeing it first, but it just wasn't that interesting for me accept for a basic generic non-special 'Oh, a movie.'.
And yes, treating Alpha and Omega for personal reasons counts.
Isn't "Alpha and Omega is good" a personal perception as well?
Hmm you know? 'Bad vs Good' is probably a personal perception, though, sometimes it can tie to legit critique amount, and fairly I could so far (At this time due to a possible problem) give A&O a 6.5 to 7.1 out of 10 in possible terms of 'good' or 'bad'.
Also (or probably the same thing), there are 'good' games I hate, but I would say "good game as they are".
Experience is all the proof you need.
I already did experience. I see fans, but they don't act super rabid who death threat people for defending humans, who try to force people to like wolves, etc, etc.
Depends on how you give a shit.
True maybe, but I'm not one of the possible behavior that would make me one.
You should really look back and re-evaluate your statement.
Don't need to since I don't think I made non-sense.
One thing is very true, comparing will always be a threat. It makes no sense.
No, Sonicfag. It's common knowledge.
Just like 'sonicaboo', 'Sonicfag' is just a made up term. But by random internet trolls like you.
And he never said Sonic was better than anything.
If he doesn't believe sonic is shitty and calls A&O shitty, then he actually did.
Don't forget the art style and the cliched story.
An art-style
cannot be a critique flaw, neither is 'cliched' because both of those are intentional.
And considering not everyone will think a story is 'cliche'. That is very subjective to suggest things.
Bugs, plot-holes, and some more, are legit because it makes the intention creative purpose look bad.
And you saying 'art-style' is flaw means you are bashing artists for liking it, and expressing it. This is why I call you out, not because you don't like it, but because you act very bias while trying to make an argument about your so-called "better" quality suggestion.
If I agree, then I guess I can decide that Knuckle's style is flawed because "I don't like it".
If you keep arguing that it's a "flaw" because you said so, then you are treating your personal opinion as a fact. And you know what that means!
Yes it does. It has wolves, and wolfaboos go for it every time.
"YE SIT DOEZ SHUTZ UP!" <REM
And that doesn't make it wolfaboo it's self.
And since those wolves are not really (and not meant to be) realism wolves 100%. (Just like some Disney movies).
If it still does, then I guess sonic is wolfaboo because one wolfaboo may like a creature that isn't 100% wolf (While hands, and feet are something that wolves have too! :D)
Way to ignore the point, as per usual.
Then explain, oh wait. Just leave me alone actually since you started this one becuase you stalked my page and just had to go to that 'Wolfaboo Myths" stamp and makes people to believe I "am" one.
That starts fights by the way.
From what we've seen, that's a load of bull.
Making articles in self-defense is morally fine, but this was more of a site, on-topic apology.
On here, you make articles about people (Hence what created this whole fight here), and personality insult people
"like a little bitch",
"wolfaboo", and maybe more.
I don't even say "bitch", wtf man.
Right, because Fanpop is about Alpha and Omega and nothing more. Plus, I doubt they'd really care.
I heard some off-topic posts (Like on the wall) may be allowed, and people are still doing things like that.
Don't care about people debate? Well I hope they don't care.
No, but treating your views as fact, coldly chewing out others for
not liking what you like and attacking people who call out others for
their disturbing behavior, like you do, is being a dick.
In other words, according to REM, criticism is "dick" after all because disagreement is often based off 'treating your views' as fact'. That's what arguing means it's self. You argue for what you believe in right?
And again, I do not 'chew' people off because they don't like it.
And attacking people because you
think it's disturbing not only starts it, but doesn't deserve respect.
So no, I'm not being a dick. But you are.
And by the way REM, right here (and the rest),
you are treating your views as fact. You are no different than me.
"REM just keeps going around and likes to attack artist intention
and attack people who defend it. That's being a dick. Standing up
against him being a dick =/= dick." < MINE
So not liking an art style means I'm a dick?
Since when does 'not liking' = choosing to attack people who defend it, like it, etc?
I guess according to your "logic", it's OK to attack homosexuality in public because I don't like human gay.
Because going into detail means I've committed an unforgivable felony.
Still different.
As he said, I never did.
Self denial?
Right, because we have a higher level of intelligence than you.
"I'm smarter than wwwarea even though I deny the dictionary, science, etc. and becuase I said so!" <REM
Yeah, you suure are! *sarcasm*
AKA, a very poor effort.
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/effort
You can't decide when something is and isn't an effort over things that are based off 'more work' just because you said so and over things not yours.
It'd have more accurracy, and since it portrays wolves in their
natural habitat, it'd make more sense for the creators to actually do
their research and not just be lazy.
More "accuracy" means making them look the same; loosing the effort of personality, differences, etc.
Actually, they already know a lot (If I don't know, you don't either on your claim). They purposely wanted to have a mix of realism and fantasy, and since it's purposely meant to be an anthropomorphic Disney inspired movie.
Not only Alpha and Omega did this, but so did many other Disney movies, Pixar, etc.
Yeah, a very vocal minority that refuses to take criticism from
anyone. Also, the story is just a cookie cutter Romeo and Juliet story.
That's not value.
They still count, it's more than nothing and not all criticism is fair.
It's a story about wolves this time (That could of been intentional), and not exactly the same.
That's value.
Yeah, it depends on whether or not people like you would remember an otherwise mediocre movie.
'mediocre' again, is personal opinion from you.
Besides, the same could be said for any movie. Especially Frozen, Sonic Shows, etc.
Especially Balto, I forgot what happened expect bits of the end.
The lack of effort that leads to a barren shell of creativity that only a minority could appreciate.
Lack = Less
Effort = More
Different personalities, adding hair, etc. = More.
And more = more effort.
Realism likely leads to copy and pastes, recolors, and little to no change in the 3D shapes.
Copying and pasting, but changing there shapes, one by one, = more work; more effort.
Also direction purpose may rule over the 'effort' reasoning in a legit argument.
And the movie just isn't that popular (or is it?), and like I said. The designs did help more people.
If the wolves were all realism, then it would of been forgotten even more. Though it wasn't that popular, and some was just avoiding.
Yet you imply that wolves can be kept as pets. Way to go.
Way to ignore the whole argument there (Like some others), Way to go!
Oh, and actually that could be possible according to what's possible, even though I don't recommend it or at least I don't much.
Whether or not it's always true depends on the situation, but at the
very least, I try to keep my links relevant to the topic at hand and I
don't rely on shit from the news.
Actually the news articles I send is on topic. It connects with the subject of cyberbullying, etc.
If I talk about cyberbullying and a news article talks about it, then that's topic.
Not only that, but the idea of mine was that it can promote suicide.
News: Cyberbullying + suicide due to cyberbullying = On topic.
Actually, they're just off topic stuff that shows your ignorance on the topic at hand, especially considering who you defend.
That really doesn't make any sense. Remember what I said above your quote above this message.
All the proof we need is in your history.
Off topic. Pretty sure depending on behavior you hate involving news and arguing that wolves can learn from humans is very off topic. -_-
END OF PART 2
PART 2
"Well honestly that's kinda true. But like you said, they are part wolf.
Hell, isn't 'wolf' and 'dog' man made? I mean, then again, genes are
probably different though, but they all may have very close intelligence
to learn. I think I once heard that wolves have even more intelligence
more than dogs, but I still need to research that one." <MINE
So you agree, yet you disagree...?
It's a part agree and a part disagreement.
Terms and science is a bit different. By intelligence, they may be close, but at the time while it exist, behavior probably exist due to the belief system of wolves, and dogs.
Which might apply to your stance as well.
What?
Ironic how you're one to claim we're in no position to speak without
evidence, yet you don't provide a link referring to the ownership of a
tiger.
Clearly you do so much more of lack.
But if you asked, here then:
https://www.thedodo.com/american-bar-association-exotic-pets-1033720358.html
Not enough? Search 'owning a tiger' on Google then.
Ironic since you didn't provide proof in your previous statement.
Neither does that guy I think.
Still extinct.
Which link are you talking about?
Either way, I don't think it matters on the 'extinct' idea.
Considering too, the 'extinct' 'wolf' probably has a very similar behavior as grey wolves.
But it's likely not a theory. Don't be afraid to assume the worst.
But you could be wrong on that. Don't be afraid to assume the worst.
For all we know, you missed the point and you're just making stuff up to make it look like you have a point.
Maybe that guy missed the point. Perhaps in the very first place?
Because I never said huskies were wolves themselves.
Which is likely impossible.
And where is your link?
You've just represented why the term is used in the first place.
If that was really true, then I guess I'm a proud wolfaboo then and clearly there isn't anything wrong with being one. It's just a butthurt label for haters who hate seeing freedom of differences, and used to label some harmless Freedom of Expression as "bad" because they hate hearing that.
NOTE: If I agree to you.
No. I was being sarcastic, and you took it seriously before.
Which part?
The mocking part by attempting to imitate me? Or the 'cyberbully' claim while imitating me?
Either way though, you are a cyberbully. :/
Wolfaboos are still much more common. The former three are indeed uncommon.
Cats = Every fucking where of the fucking internet, games, etc.
Wolves = Sometimes.
Normal is normal, and it certainly isn't fueled by disturbing actions.
Normal is subjective, doesn't really exist.
Alternatively, normal is real, but it applies to everyone for being themselves (including those "disturbing" things.) and that you force your personal opinion of "disturbing" down others throat and use it as an argument for your "normal" argument crap.
...bigot.
And no, your life isn't better than them. If you act like your life is because of your beliefs about others, then you really are a selfish ass hole.
Do I even need to explain this...?
In other words, should you open your bigotry book and explain this? You don't need to, I do not want to hear it.
"1. 'Dog' and 'Wolf' are terms. 2. I already figured they have different
terms in times in there genes, etc. So why are you saying I'm believing
they are 100% the same? They "are" in terms of similar stuff in
at least some ways. 3. They both are still canine.
I
already know that the wild wolf is very different than a dog, but it's
all a mental evolution too. Like I am depending on how it works, etc." <MINE
1. They're of separate species.
2. It sounds like you are.
3. Yet one is a domesticated creature while the other is more feral.
1.Species can be subjective.
2.But that's not confirmation just because it looks like it to you.
3. 'domesticated' is an effect, which could happen with wolves in time. Both are based off different mental things (I may need to research this).
He's likely making fun of your method of research.
Which might still confirm my point.
"Really?"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolves_as_pets_and_working_animals
Oops, I accidentally found yet
another 'human and wolf' interaction.
A now extinct common ancestor.
Proof? Yet, you may be missing the point.
"Again, ignoring logical stuff because it defeats my arguments."
"wwwarea is wrong because I said so, and the things against area are automatic facts! My personal opinion is fact!!" <REM
Maybe because your responses show a heavy amount of ignorance and immaturity.
1. I don't have ignorance with this debate (or at least mostly if I did missed some points.
2. A debate (especially a partly self-defense debate) isn't immature. And nope, you can't decide that over people not you. -_-
"Really?" <MINE
Yes.
I mean what the hell does it mean? And no actually.
Closer to 25% due to conflicting evolutions.
Proof?
It's common sense.
You say that because you say so.
Yes it does, because wild animals are not always friendly around humans.
No it doesn't. Some wild animals have had behavior of friendly behavior before.
Also, the term 'friendly' is a term. I guess it means trust and like?
If so, well I guess, a lot of those wolf interactions, wolves learning from humans, tigers, etc. don't count then. >_>
I'll bet that a bulk of those animals aren't wolves.
So every animal but a wolf is?
Are you saying wolves are specially different than all animals? Even despite the fact that wolves were nice at times maybe, and the strong research study, etc?
Though not all interactions may end positively.
And not all interactions will.
Stop picking straws.
He was only giving you a helpful suggestion. He wants you to get off
the internet and stop taking petty internet drama so seriously.
It doesn't help.
Part of my activity needs it, and since certain drama can cause major prevention, making people feel bad, etc.
Also effects of doxing, slander, etc.
Which is why you're laboring away on the internet.
Dang it, I meant 'social media' life I think.
Yet, the Internet can help with that too.
"Since you will say the same thing, I'll just say the same thing again:
""Fuck the dictionary, I will decide what I want English and meaning to be over other people because I want to!" < You
Thanks
for admitting to be bigoted as you don't accept real words and their
meanings and instead admitted to make up stuff out of your own ego
head."<MINE though the last quotation mark was made by him or it was me?. Weird. Yeah just being safe.
Again, way to prove us right.
Thanks for proving that I was right about you and your friend being bigots and completely bias out of a lot of things.
Yes, and they aren't long as hell.
Still counts.
"I think I heard reports that there was more kills with dogs than wolves." <MINE
Proof?
Well despite that you don't always try to prove your point (or maybe at all), I actually heard it from a person who helps people. I don't want to find it now, but then again, maybe you need proof for the other way around too?
Aren't you, with your ignorance?
What ignorance? :D
Because they'd likely kill you with no reluctance.
Just like Sharks, Lions, Tigers, etc.
I doubt it's that.
My theory is that it's because of the usual 'hate' that many people have with other people being different.
Not all souls are the same.
Soul =/= Physical body.
You clearly don't know any soul of all animals.
Not from what we've seen.
I don't really remember what this one was about, but I doubt whatever it is, is true unless it's about a story I've seen with some things...
Knowing you, you'll never be done.
Said the guy who does the same thing with people, etc.
You started it with this debate by directly addressing me REM, and you all have the choice to stop, and considering in terms of continuing, you, I, him, and maybe more are no different.
""Which is why I said they were only rude.""
What? I say rude meaning that stuff. I don't even know where you are getting this.
Honest that you don't know what you're talking about?
Like I am not very sure, but what you said really reflects you a lot.
Just about.
Not even close. Yet, if "close" but isn't there, then I'm still not a wolfaboo.
Yet you praise them all the same.
Both limited wolves and them? I praise RL wolves sometimes, but a really like these more. But only personality.
Yet either way, personality praising =/= wolfaboo.
Nah, he's right. I only go after the rabid wolfaboos.
You do realized you skipped some stuff right? I am not sure if you did that on purpose.
Anyway, no you don't. Because I'm not only a rabid wolfaboo, I'm not a wolfaboo at all.
If you call me rabid for the things I said before this message, then you don't really know what actual 'rabid' means. You compare honest criticism to "rabid".
Why call him a rabid Sonic fan when he didn't bring up Sonic once
in the commentary? Also, it's been well established that you're
the delusional one.
I like how you always bring up Alpha and Omega when I try to not even talk to you about it much (before you started to talk about it out of nowhere).
And no, it never was "well" established. I'm not delusional, and just because you want me to be, doesn't mean I am.
I won't give in into popular beliefs from your friends and you, and like almost to all, or just all of everything you said,
it's just your own making up mind, non-sense, etc. You just decide things over me, just because you want to.
You already admit to deny to dictionary, and probably even science, etc.
Why do I often talk about the dictionary, and science? Because it's considered very important, by very smart people.
Funnel's a guy BTW, he seems to have a better grasp on wolves (and reality) than you.
Hmm how do you know? But alright.. Actually he doesn't.
He's only doing the right thing and standing up against your bullshit
and helping the people that count. Or in layman's terms, being the best
damn friend he could be.
He's not doing the right thing, he's just a stalker like you and making up bullshit about me, and you two (and probably more) keeps claiming I make "bullshit" and isn't helping the people, and they don't really count for this stuff. Especially since you guys are cyberbullies who always force your made up definitions on other people not you.
He's your best friend for cyberbullying. Next to jmk98.
As if anyone would take you seriously. You'd probably give people more of a reason to go after you.
And now, here's a little bonus. This is a comment wwwarea posted on his own blog.
Good and smart people would, but your whiteknights and similar trolls would probably use the same old "butthurt, ahahhahha" thing. Which is useless thing to use.
And sure I would, I would piss off people for standing up for the truth of history. Showing how I was right about you guys being very immature, cyberbullying, etc.
Why should I limit it to my blog?
It would low down the drama (You can do that actually). And considering if you keep replying to your page, it's just you contently bitching and cyberbullying me all over your over-stuffed page.
(Seriously your page has too much data in it that it would take out 1 GB of date...
Wait, are you going to attack me for giving you this criticism?
It's really up to you. Would you be willing to quit obsessing over
something that doesn't matter? Will you apologize to everyone you've
attacked? Will you stop getting worked up whenever someone, shock and
horror, criticizes Alpha and Omega and its art style?
Nah it's up to you. You have the choice to stay out of what I do on my profile, and you have the choice to leave me alone as an Alpha and Omega fan, and you have the choice to react like a brat whenever someone judges you (disagree) for claiming that the art-style is a "flaw".
And it does matter to those who matter it. You can't decide that.
Because I do not like it when people selfishly dictate what quality and creativity is. You are basically the one attacking people for 'liking' to make art-styles by claiming there works are "flaws" just because it's... different.
"And yes I made that history because you wouldn't leave me alone, and then you insulted the whole fan base of that "movie". " <MINE
AKA, only you since you're the only one who gives a shit about what I have to say.
I don't think that's true.
Even if it was, that doesn't mean anything special.
"Maybe I should make the same exact post and make fun of your
Nostalgia critic crying (Clearly no different) then. Or a defend, or
both." <MINE
Crying? I merely brought up flaws that nearly everyone agrees on. If
you do decide to do it, it'd make you look even more immature.
Yes you were, this so called "flaw" you claim about him is no different than the flaw of your review; attacking intentional creative styles. Just because it's not your kind of thing.
You judge it for your beliefs, just like I do. Clearly, no different on it's self.
And what's this? "
everyone agrees on". Thanks for admitting to depend on popularity again..
Immature?
Your post is clearly no different than my possible future one.
-----------------------------------------------------
END
I have created the world's longest article didn't I......
Oh well, that doesn't change anything though.
As any viewer can see, REM just makes up stuff about people, admit to being bigots for HIS personal beliefs over other people, admits to ignore the dictionary, and probably science, etc.
Like I said, he is very biases in his arguments about me, and other things, and etc.
You should see the info about him in the 'History' section, etc.
And yes, this whole debate that goes on here?
REM's fault. He started it by making a journal directed at me because of a stamp I made and wasn't even directed at him.
Of course too, this isn't the first time REM started a fight with me. Including some other people.
couldn't handle my response to his previous journal. Even after he was stalking my friend's pages and made a journal about a conversation I had on my friends comment section, and not on his page. Anyways, time to do yet another commentary further disproving this stalking lunatic.
)
and
's respective comment sections? Oh no, can't do that now can we Jesse? No, that would paint you as the person who acted irrational and wrote a slamming journal first now wouldn't it?)
He'll tell you all about why the mutiverse theory isn't what you think it is. )
