Showing posts with label wwwarea. Show all posts
Showing posts with label wwwarea. Show all posts

Thursday, September 21, 2017

Why JettTheWolf696 is an Online Bully + History

This article may get edited in the future.
There is a possible glitch forcing some text to be small. I suggest using the zoom tool if there is one.
Hello, I am a victim of the abuse this person did to me in the past.
The person has continued making mentions in the past, lied, and actually sent a disturbing comment toward me before. I am also a witness of the abuse this person has done to several other people. 

 Why I'm Doing This
Well I already explained kinda above this smaller title, but I think another reason why this needed to be made was because I am filled with so much weird pain and past abuse he's done to me and possibly another guy. Recently, this person couldn't stop mentioning me with crap, refused to change for the better, then I found a bigoted post from him complaining about other people being happy with what he finds "disturbing" and started dictating that it's wrong for others to express harmless "disturbing" stuff because of what haters think. Note that "haters" who hate on furries don't have a good reason.

I just don't really know how to say this so well, but from my own experience, he's just a terrible, lying, hypocritical, a nut and a cyberbully I've met in the past.
Sadly, this is also complicated because it's a big type of history type of post too.

 Main Info About JettTheWolf696
Also known as: RedPyramid206, JettAshfeild, JettAshfield, ValtielWolf, and possibly more.
According to an old comment found, his real name might be Chris Ashton but I'm not sure.
JettTheWolf696's farthest history I believe is that he used to use a name called "RedPyramid206" and I believe he was a fan of Silent Hill. Today, he generally loves BlackBlood Alliance (best credit?) but also according to stories, he's also had a trolling history of trolling an entirely different wolf character area having nothing to do with BlackBlood Alliance. He's also known for enjoying cyber abuse sites that has the word "dramatica" in the title.
His possible main profile is located here at

At this time (8/28/2017?), he doesn't know very much skill on how to draw, and the stuff he uses are not his but were possibly requested drawings from him.

He also doesn't tolerate freedom of expression as the moment someone expresses something harmless and is considered "disturbing", he will try to make the person look bad, and publicly attempt to shame anyone who uploads anything he consider "disturbing" or "offended".
Why he's a Bad Person
While he should still be respected as a person, he shouldn't be viewed as a good one.

JettTheWolf696 (Chris Ashton) has had a major diseased past involving other people in the past. He's trolled other groups because he hated the groups for whatever reason he's had, he's posted so much crap not being true, he's also acts like he would be "nice" to other artists but bashes some other artists because it's not his thing, he's lied, he's played as other accounts and lied about it, he's promoted harassment, possible libel, started drama with other people, attempted to dictate a group, and teamed up with other jerks against people like me.

Will this article just be left like this? Of course not! There will be sections.


He's Trolled Another Wolf Group in 2011
Sadly it's very hard to find evidence but I remember hearing something that he was part of a troll attack toward an Alpha and Omega group somewhere. I may need to do further research on this later.

He's Lied and Trolled and/or Promoted Trolling   
I'm afraid to say I don't know everything he's done on the internet. However I've been experiencing some problems with him on some years. He's trolled the Alpha and Omega Fanpop fan club with several accounts and usually in those times he's used other account names and attempt to hide his identity.
One of his trolling was under an account name called Sound_Wave_. Though he never directly admit it from his main account except this one time:
(Comment is now hidden by JettTheWolf696 (also the same JettAshfeild account).
About a year later, it was discovered that "JettAshfield" has posted a comment on Reddit:
Sadly though Kishin_Kira (JettTheWolf696) apparently claimed this person isn't him. He claimed he was a stalker of his... even though it's very questionable as to why this person believed a certain user was "wwwarea" and how similar the behavior was. He claimed he wasn't him when the same "certain user" just went on and said that he founded something on Google (The Reddit post) without even mentioning him.


Sometime (months?) later there was another troll in the name of  MRMCPANCAKE69 on the same fan club trolling the place. When the hero "certain user" went in and said another Google comment without being specific again, out of nowhere Kishin_Kira (JettTheWolf696) complaint to the comment and acting like he's not the troll or a similar comment maybe and also acted like a jerk.

What was found in Google?
A disqus account of Jett Ashfeild with a very similar icon.

The snapshot is showing two different accounts but put together to show how silly this became and the comparison.

It's not 100% proof according to the snapshot but just look at it and you tell me!

As of recently, it's very possible he came into the "wwwarea" account on DeviantArt disguised as an Alpha and Omega 7 (or 8) sequel fan to defend himself against the criticism calling out a mention I think. The account had favorites filled with pictures of wolves from BBA (A thing JettTheWolf696 is a very big fan of) in favorites, has commented on journals randomly defending JettTheWolf696, and acting hypocritical with the whole "opinion" thing like JettTheWolf696 often acts on. Then soon after, the account was closed.
Problem though is that it's still not very strong evidence to me... but I just wanted to put this out there.

He Doesn't Respect Personal Opinion
The trolling can of course, be part of this. But I wanted to show a bit more of this title and have it as a main focus in this section of the article.
 He usually claims he "respects opinions" or in a similar title. Here is a snapshot of him claiming he "respects" opinions:

An example too. So anyway as he often acts like he "respects" opinions. He doesn't and plus the moment someone slightly disagrees with his argument, he goes out and complain to the person disagreeing with the person. I might show an example of that in a little bit.

Examples of his Hypocrisy and bad Behavior with no Order:
Him complaining about a victimless fictional legal fan fiction because he finds it disturbing.

The same guy complaining about the victimless fictional because he's offended.

Agreeing to others complaining about the same creator's opinion of the fanfiction.

All because HumphreyWolfMan disagreed nicely and had an opinion by defending a completely victimless fictional story.
Recently too, just showing more anything he's offended and disturbed by, he refuses to tolerance other's personal opinion that are different than his.

He's Hypocritical
I've already shown some examples above this title.
He generally acts like he "respects" opinions but then doesn't.
Another example of this is that he goes on and accuses me of not respecting him because I didn't tolerate his opinions that is already intolerant to others, yet when I say my opinions as to what he believes, he doesn't tolerate it. 

He goes out against anything he finds super disturbing to him and makes up a reason against so-called "pedophilia" stories because (correct me if I'm wrong) he has children of his own and wants to become a father, but yet he makes fan stories about wolves and humans in loving relationship ways.
So he minds what he believes to be pedophilia against cubs that don't look like humans out of fear, yet he's fine with Zoophilia like things when people like me can have a fear of him raping animals?
And uhhhhh...

He also goes on accusing someone like me of mentioning him and say he hasn't talked to me in months.. Yet, he make mentions about me just like how the journals are mentioning him. He basically is acting that he can make mentions but I can't. Not sure if this is exactly hypocritical but still pretty sad.

Also did I mention that when HumphreyWolfMan talks bad about a certain fanfiction of JettTheWolf696's, he goes on and attempt to directly contact the person and complain?

He Might Discriminate and Personally Attack Others
Already mentioned some discrimination and personal attacks above somewhere.
If he knows anyone who's even slightly attractive to fictional cubs that don't look like humans, he might harass you, attempt to publically call it out, and/or personally attack you by saying "get help", "that's wrong", and/or other forms of discrimination. Even to people who are not attractive to children at all, and/or has a main attraction to adult things.

He Wants People in Prison for Having Certain Thoughts
Along with personal attacks and false lies.
The fact that he wants to hurt people by desiring non-consensual imprisonment for a victimless act such as thought is disgusting.

He Wants to Throw People in Prison for Just Attraction
He has expressed several hints of this and one comment was very clear, but however, I cannot show that commit as it was found under a post that encourage unlawful killing. Which I reported to the site.
Other comment(s):
 Along with personal attacks.

He Spreads False Information About me
Kinda did show some snapshots showing. But generally I found a comment from him and I could of swear it claimed that I said "Children consent" when I never said that. If he's talking about the post where I researched and heard a child might say "yes", he's still wrong I argue because I thought I argued that it's not enough to consent? I cannot show snapshot because it's under a terrible post I don't want to share. Here is this however:


The irony. I know this isn't the section... but while he's worried about someone raping children over a fanfiction involving fictional cubs looking nothing like children, I'm worried about his life when it comes to his love for wolves, and these comments.
Of course, I'm not saying I don't tolerate his personal likes for fictional characters and other things legal, but I mainly wanted to expose how bias he is and compared mine as the same in general which he doesn't tolerate maybe.


There you have it. I've suffered from his delusions and hypocrisy before. He's a cyberbully, he's a liar, he's hypocritical, he doesn't take criticism, he may depend on popular haters, he's clearly an asshole (probably connected with some of the things I've said on here), and he's possibly bigoted.

Research Stuff

This article is probably protected by the First Amendment:

Friday, February 12, 2016

wwwarea - Wolfaboo and Other Myths

Helping out someone. Since I'm leaving this blog, it's best to leave this last page out and to spread the truth against garbage trash based off things only appealing to emotion.

For months people has been abusing definitions, has been slandering, has been bullying, and promoting more abuse against 'wwwarea' on DeviantArt, since the Internet just lets pure garbage rise and the truth more hidden, it's time to help spread the truth again.
If you can't read the quotes, I suggest going to the links.

Spreading links and quoting the main parts from 'wwwarea' on DeviantArt:


 ≈═■▪■═╣Myths and Facts About Me╠═■▪■═≈
NEW: "You created this drama yourself" (7/16/2015)
No. Did I choose to make that video about me, choose to make that article, choose to make so much bigoted, untrue and slander about me, etc?
No I didn't. Those sick people are trying to blame the victim again, in a "You made me do this too you!" fashion.

"You're a bully/cyberbully."Now how am I a bully?
I been called a "bully" for standing up for myself, and standing up for others. I also been called one for simply bringing out there rude behavior over people not them.
I brought a person out for trying to humiliate others for having a 'fetish' over random things. But that's called constructive criticism, and for defending purposes
I been attacked and humiliated for having a different opinion about imaginary things.
I do not (or at least try a lot to not):

  • Make ED articles over random individuals
  • Mock, shame, etc. people for any part of their sexuality (This counts to 'fetishes' too)
  • Tell people what to think about themselves just because I said so
  • Bash furries
  • Slut-shame
  • Upload things like this, this, this, or even this for example. (btw, at least one of those contain defamatory.)
  • Mock, defame, humilate, expose secrets, insult, or some others about individuals publicly (All is not a requirement) for what they do, what they like, etc.
  • Depend on the majority about other people in a negative way
  • Force my personal opinions about a movie on others
  • More

"You're a wolfaboo!"Now while Humanaboo is the mirror side of Wolfaboo, I apparently did defend 'Wolfaboo' at least until I heard that 'Wolfaboo' is meant to be about speciesism (just like Humanaboo), and that you must be OVER-obsessed with wolves and other requirements.

Though some say it's about treating wolves as equal (WTF?! Why is that "bad"?)?, but heard it's really about treating wolves as superior. I'm NOT so sure about this one: Official Wolfaboo Definition
Though, this does have some superior claim and of course, OVER-obsessed things. Like simply being 'obsessed' =/= wolfaboo. It's much more. Even Bean said something like that to me (Correct me if wrong of course).

Besides, me falling in love with 'imaginary' anthropomorphic talking wolves from a 'wolf movie' and personality like them as 'Gods' it's self, doesn't make me a wolfaboo.
I even acknowledge that RL wolves here is very different maybe. Though I DO believe that yes, not all wolves are dangerous (And I think it's stereotype to say they are too, just as much as the opposite) and they CAN learn from humans, and may have 'secret spirits' like you know, that cool 'animal spiritually' thing?
btw, I know a bully who denies news (which reports actual science research too) and continue to cause more bigoted views.

"You attack people who don't like this Alpha and Omega movie!"Now when the flying f*** did I actually ATTACK anyone for not liking this movie? Oh wait, because I wanted to disagree with some reviewers? Because I wanted to simply argue them, and give my opinion back? Since when is giving actual disagreement an "attack"? And considering, I am allowed to do that, especially to unfair criticism.
"But you attacked an anti-Alpha-and-Omega group!"Well maybe it's because the group allowed to give an opinion on it? And that it was more of a 'disapproval' opinion and criticism? And considering the one who made the group went to actual fan groups and attacked them, and forcing the hatred opinion on others who liked it? And tried to get people who were not forcing anyone 'there thing' to read that hate message about fans, while fans on the other hand, DON'T make others like it. Or for that one harmless side.

I'll admit, I might of reacted a bit 'too much' about that group, like when I said 'Go boycott it' during an upload or something. I think I deleted that. But remember, the guy who made the group pretty much was not behaving about it either. And called all fans 'autistic wolfaboos', yes, an offensive anti-disability message and offensive directly to fans. While at least some fans didn't do that to those who simply disliked it.
And besides, during that time and outside of the time, I never once MADE ANYONE actually LIKE it. I was completely fine for those who disliked it I think, but there is a difference of 'disliking' vs 'going out and acting on that'. And take a guess of what I was focusing on. Go on, take a guess...

"You are a bad person for defending furries and fetishes!"
How am I a bad person for defending Freedom of Expression?
Simply being a furry and/or having a 'fetish' as one or not, doesn't hurt anyone, but trying to shame people for being either one (or both) does hurt, and according to a lot of psychology research, 'Emotional Abuse' is linked to 'actual pain'.
I'm sorry, but if people are allowed to talk crap about people with a harmless 'fetish', then I'm sure those people are allowed to talk bad about you back, or stand up for themselves. (or both).
Note: The only reason why they call them "sick" is because it's not their fetish, and that maybe they depend on the majority, which btw, is all just biases, which is clearly no different than a anti-gay/hetero person going out and calling 'Homosexuality and Heterosexual' sick.
I see no different as they are both based off the same 'personality'.
If having (for example) a 'furry fatty' fetish is disgusting, then it's clearly fair for me to say that "Two humans kissing is far worse than scat" then. They are both valid as they are all based off personality traits then. And no, 'popularity' =/= good argument. Who said it is?

"But you defend ALL fetishes, and that includes pedophile!"Let's preach again: Having a fetish is fine, as long if you don't go out and bloody hurt ANYONE. And that includes the so-called 'common' stuff.
The only pedophiles I would defend are: Those who don't go out and hurt, and/or those who regret. And I accept based off some criticism out there that arresting someone for doing something completely 'fictional' is f***ed up. Because nobody should be arrested for something so bloody victimless! It's wrong! It's just arresting someone for only thought-crime.
Seriously, and hell, I'm not the only one who has this idea as a careful thinker. (Well sometimes I'm not careful on everything)

"Fetishes are risky, so therefor, it's bad to have any one; bad to defend it"In the common heterosexual and homosexual world, there is so much more rape reports than those having a 'foot fetish', I'm sure.
But I'm sure it's about control in all. If I had to blame something you can control, then you might as well ban kids (so they don't get raped), ban traffic to avoid accidencts, ban ALL sexualities including Homosexuality and Heterosexuality, etc.

"You're not perfect"That's obvious due to some actual mistakes, but neither are you. (Yes, this myth is true)

"Defending fetishes, recolors, etc. violate my speech"
Now how on earth does using Freedom of Speech to defend something you hate violate yours? Are you bloody serious?!

"You're a bigot!"
For trying my best to argue? If that's true anyway, then everybody is a bigot!

"You're obese because your diabetic!"
I found this in a so-called "fact" list on that non-joke page about me. Apparently the OP creates the stereotype that all diabetics are 'fat'.
I am Type 1. Type 1 doesn't have a known cause, and this can happen to even skinny people. Though because of Type 1, I do suffer some weight issues now. But I'm still not what you think an obese person looks like...

"You're Selfish, Egoist, and 'Self-Centered'"
More bullcrap about me.
I don't really understand why someone thinks I'm those things for defending myself, disagreeing with people, and defending my friends.
"Yeah, I'm a really horrible person for doing that." *sarcasm*

"You don't back up any arguments!"
Umm, remember the time I linked to news side that actually had USEFUL information, news of actual science reports, definitions, etc?

"You are just like yourself on Fanpop"
Perhaps I cannot change my fights for Freedom and such.
But I never went back on there and did the same thing. The only thing I defend is idea of bypassing your ban just for the sake of your life, but only at the same time, regretting what you did and trying to start over yourself, even though Fanpop doesn't like ban evaders. But morally, I find nothing wrong with that.
As for here, I am allowed to make journals and stand up for myself, to avoid bullcrap about me, etc. It's within my rights, I have the Free Speech to speak up for myself, and etc.
For doing that, I am considered the "same person". Wow.

"You're delusional!"
How am I delusional? Anyone who said that to me, just wants to say it because they can't stand it when someone makes a good point about them.
Considering too, I was also called "delusional" for believing in the right to suicide.

NEW: "You support bestiality because you define four legged creatures as anthropomorphic!"  (Somewhere between 7/16/2015 and 7/14/2015 I think)
K, first of all, there actually is evidence of consent after doing research as a person who questions taboos, (and apparently the other way around is real, should that guy really be considered a rapist?)
But apparently, bestiality is actually a means to a creature who is 100% NOT human. If a four legged creature happens to talk, (especially show other human characteristics), then guess what? It doesn't count as bestiality. The feel and relationship seems to lean toward a creature who's really more different than a "dumb" animal (RL non-human animals) that has the same feelings as a human or beyond. Regardless of that, if they can talk like a human, then that should obviously be accepted by consent.
It does NOT MATTER if they 'Look' like a very different shape, what matters is the consent, and that's it. Otherwise, why the fuck should you judge an 'intelligent' looking creature that crosses species? It's still just a "human" inside of another shape's body. Just like walking dogs.
AND CONSIDERING, a walking anthropomorphic has 'parts' of an animal while this is kinda the same thing.

NEW: "__________John was right about wwwarea" (7/17/2015 - night)
He could never figure out how to make his claim "right".
Please don't ever listen to him (And I have the right to say that as he is involving me/my business)., he also accepted slanderous things about me, including a murder desire slander (Truth, I do not want to), made horrid harassing encouragement comments about me:…, (May report in ticket soon), and the fact that he keeps pretending his opinion is "right" over me, and etc.
He cannot argue, but he keeps dictating people about me just because, he thinks his opinion is "fact" over me when it can be argued that it's not, but he refuse to accept any debating; so in all, he's bigoted; look up "bigoted meaning" on Google.
He thinks I'm a "bad person" for making stamps, standing up against rude behavior against me (Standing up for myself), pretends I'm the same person from 'Fanpop', etc, etc. And his only possible argument is "Because he depends on 'who' and 'why'; he doesn't like it when I give my word.

BTW, if he says anything about me, then I am allowed to say anything about him back.

And sorry but I had to post this.

NEW: "I want to kill humans" (7/17/2015 - night)
Now when the hell did I say that? Because I am a misanthropic? Being a misanthropic =/= want to kill.

NEW: "You're not a victim" (7/17/2015 - night)
I didn't start it with the ED article, the video, etc. And sure, I made a mistake about the death thing, but I'm still one as I'm not the one who upload journals, articles, snapshots, etc, etc. about others in negative opinion ways.
EXAMPLE: I am a victim in THIS.

NEW: "You're a loony for what you believe in!" (9/13/2015 - night)
Apparently I been considered a "loony" by horrible people online (Including those who promote cyberbullying articles that advocate harassment, stalking, bigotry, etc).
All because I was being more open minded and more of a possible free thinker in spirituality, science, and maybe religion (sort of? idk).
Anyway, since when is it "loony" for having beliefs based off evidence, spiritual possibilities, and maybe more? It's natural and normal to reach this far out, and it's not delusional to be open minded by having faith based off evidence.
Clearly nobody clearly knows (maybe) about the spiritual world, souls, etc. Anyone callings someone "loony" for having "new" ideas makes that 'someone' who claims that, a huge selfish rabid brat as he/she are claiming he/she know everything about it when he/she doesn't and considering the way this spirituality free thinking goes, is no different than how other spiritual theories get formed. - Something almost off: We have the traditional way of meditating, but new ideas came and suggest that you can meditate by laying down in bed.


MYTH Other 1"Being defensive involving wolves is wolfaboo!"
FACT and Possibly Explanation:Umm no. Defending an obvious 'normal' part of a human. Considering though, it's not really respectful to be interfering with other stuff from your own opinion.

MYTH Other 2
"Having a cool creative wolf fursona makes you a wolfaboo!"
FACT and Possibly ExplanationUmm no it doesn't. Yet, while it's not exactly like a "real" wolf, this is more of an aesthetic style involving the animal.
People are allowed to do that with any animal. And people always did. It's an excuse to be creative. I would rather have that than a boring, generic four legged plain colored, and fully non-anthropomorphic wolf. What's the point of having that personally?
If that's "wolfaboo", then the 'aboo' term should apply to all animals, including humans. Or hell.. anything.. Proud scienceaboo.MYTH Other 3"Having only wolf drawings makes you a wolfaboo!"
FACT and Possibly ExplanationOh yeah? So it's "wolfaboo" to have that, but not "humanaboo" to have only humans?

MYTH Other 4"Wolf media fanbases are wolfaboos!"
FACT and Possibly ExplanationHow? Being a fan of some wolf media stuff doesn't make you a wolfaboo. Not even if you liked something because of wolves.
Having a personal reason counts. Just like liking something just for the story, the graphics, etc.


╠═╣Myths and Facts About Me╠═╣

Myth 1:
"You attack others for disliking Alpha and Omega!"
As much as the trolls and other cyberbullies (and maybe other) wants to believe that, that's not true.
I never cared whenever someone disliked the film it's self.
What I got upset about is not because someone simply dislikes the film it's self, I got upset about the claims around the dislike.

So for example. Even if someone LOVED the film, but made the same claims, I would still be upset.

I wouldn't be so damn upset about critics if it was proven to not be an effect into the industry who likes to spread it, and other effects.
Critics can be biased, they are not always right.

As for attacking in general. Disagreeing with them and arguing for the sake of the healthy environment isn't attacking.
If it was, then isn't judging someone for an intentional creative work (I.e. Art styles, story themes, etc.) the same thing?
Some people even attack fans for disagreeing and simply defend what they like, and cyberbully, and call them "wolfaboos" or another stupid term such as "butthurt". <That doesn't deserve much respect.

Myth 2:
"You force people to like the film!"
I do not know where this claim came from and I don't fully remember if someone ever said that (but I'm just being safe).
Offering and sharing the film =/= force.
Me arguing someone's arguable opinion =/= force.
I do not force people to personally like what I personally like, nor do I make people personally hate what I hate.

Myth 3:
You treat this as the best movie in the world.
Well, what is a 'best movie' in the world then? Isn't that all subjective?
Critique wise, there can probably be a perfect critique (legit critique) thing, but that can probably apply to 10 second films too..

Just because Frozen is more popular doesn't mean it's better to everyone else. And so on. Everyone will like a movie more than the other.
So Alpha and Omega IS the best... for some. And the same can be said for EVERY movie on some other individuals too.
I am allowed to treat this movie as a spiritual thing whatever I want. And that's a fact.
I'm more about the characters and less than the story anyway.Myth 4:
"You attack others for not liking the art style!"
Not only this is untrue, but I don't even know any fan who did that (also little bit of a reaction to a certain post by a super major egoist bigot somewhere).
Anyway before I explain, isn't claiming an intention art style as a "flaw" against an artist intending to do it, attacking? Isn't it treating personal opinion as "fact" whenever you do that?

For me, I do not attack people for personally dislike what I personally like. I do argue that an intention purpose is not a flaw, for the sake of defending against something that already interferes.I believe it's completely unfair to dictate that a creative choice from someone not you is somehow a "flaw".
But while I defend, I do not attack someone for simply disliking.. As I always say.

Myth 5:
"You personally insult people who gives out a negative review!"
I don't do that. Sure I sometimes said 'bigot' and a few other things, but only under what I believe fits with the term. (I do not say "bigot" on the first time I see something like a review I disagree with, not that I remember.)

So for example, if I said "biased", that's most likely not name calling as it's based off an argument to argue what is fair or not.
Another, if someone claims something that makes no sense, then it's also fair to say something like this: "Isn't that pretty stupid though?"
I do not go like: "WHATZ!! You are a coc suczkerz, ass face, stupid boo boo head!!!".
Nor do I say words that I use out of nowhere for no connecting reason (Which can then be personal insulting?).
So for example, if I said "bigot" to one of those reviews I hate, out of nowhere, that would probably be personally insulting.

NOTE: This could sort of apply to a couple other myths, but I probably am not perfect at this either.

Myth 6:
"You are a wolfaboo for being very defensive over this movie!"
Pretty sure I explained why I am not a wolfaboo.

I am not a wolfaboo for being defensive over this movie. The right to Freedom of Speech such as defending and disagreeing should not be labeled as "problem".
The term 'wolfaboo' (while it's a stupid immature term too) has been abused many, many times.
I feared it would apply to defenders, loving, and some other stuff, and my fears came true since a lot of people has been using that stupid term against me.

I been called a wolfaboo for promoting animal rights, defending wolves, loving wolves, defending wolf media, anthropomorphic wolf media and some more maybe.
In reality, a real wolfaboo is someone who is OVER obsessed, and treats (as arguments) wolves as "superior" over other animals (including humans).
That's the 'at least' part to me I think.

Myth 7:
"You only like this movie because it has wolves in it."
Well, wolves could be one reason why I like it, and the personal characters in it are the main reason. I like the movie for some of the characters.
So I don't know if this myth is true, but even if it was, doesn't everyone have a personal value opinion to like something?
The only problem I see in this part is judging someone on how they like something.
It's no different than liking a movie for it's story and less on characters.

Edit 11/18/2015 - 12:00 AM - I forgot to add this one:
Myth 8:
"You make the A&O look bad!"
This claim is based off blaming someone for doing something some bigot hates and frowns against the fandom for having it.
Most likely the things that so-called is belief to look "bad" are not even bad: Such as fetishes, defending, etc.
Can you believe it, someone claim I make the fandom look "bad" because I express 'fetishes' (A unfair label to random people of being different in sexuality) involving the characters I like. Not only there isn't anything wrong with doing that, I don't even remember expressing a very personal thing I like with the characters..
But if I did, it's NO MORE extreme than expressing boobs with some characters. Yet, it's not even wrong to. And no, a tamed down fetish (e.g. tamed down vore) doesn't make it anymore extreme than showing boobs without showing that part of the boobs. Or more extreme than kissing...

Anyway, I don't make it look bad. Even if I did a real 'bad thing', don't blame the whole fandom for it.
Edit done


Against ignorance, bigotry, and stupidity