Jacob B Is the "Cult Leader" of the Propagenda Against wwwarea/Another-Realm

Note that "cult leader" is a slight joke I think.

Jacob B is also known as Tribond Kuba, Golf for Life, eneloop1, and many more usernames. He has had an agenda (mainly propaganda) against "wwwarea" or "Another-Realm" for multiple years. He continues to this day as the biggest stalker against him. He's been banned so many times from DeviantArt that I have forgotten what his original ban even was for, assuming I knew before.

He is known for insulting me, harassing me directly, threatening illegal activity against an article (that was also from him) exposing his disgusting behavior, and is likely against furries enjoying anthropomorphic characters that are less human than what he's used to. He himself has an obsessive dragon fetish and judging by some favorites that he usually has a pattern of, he appears to be into inflation, giant breasts, and even some cases of vore (likely tamed down safe vore). He's basically a furry against certain furries, showing how much of a sh*t stain the "furry fandom" usually is.

He has had a history of direct harassing, less direct harassing, insults (as I already said), and has done many other certain bad things. Judging by the evidence, he's not only part of the 'agenda' or 'propaganda' (that he and some other claims to not exist) against me, but he might as well be considered the biggest of them of all. Some people who was part of the propaganda has actually moved on and one of them even claims to apologize for being part of it as well. However, Jacob B has never quit, and he's been obsessed for as long as way back in likely 2017. He keeps on trying to ruin me online, and still refuses to move on from me to enjoy a lawful life, and despite the consequences he's gotten, he still appears to not understand them.

Examples of such propaganda has already been exposed at the other article, but I might as well post some here as well as the main focus. Here are a few with no date order for the whole thing:

At this point, most of his YouTube channel is intended to target me, at the time of this writing likely.

Note the right folder.

Him admitting that he's against me with some of my specific speech.

Of course, those examples are the tip of the iceberg and as I already mentioned in the past, he's also been attempting to contact me online through different accounts, including him bypassing block systems and bans on DeviantArt. He has many debunked beliefs against me, and he can't seem to be reasoned with by me no matter how I try it so far. A lot of the information and some of my arguments can be found on that other article I've linked to.

I may not be a legally defined psychologist, despite that, I honestly think this is signs of an actual illness.

JaredtheFox92 Is an Abusive Disgusting Person

 

I can't believe nobody bothered making an article about this lunatic. This person has been harassing different users (usually via snapshot "callout" posts) and has been dangerously giving out false information toward some users. For example, the person started drama with a person that liked anthropomorphic specific dogs, has uploaded a screenshot on DeviantArt against the person (a form of harassment) and even tried acting as if the person was into bestiality for preferring "vore" fantasies over at least one (not so sure) sapient emotional dog. That's just the tip of the iceberg...

I've dealt with this user for so long, and this person has been causing so much drama. He's also likely friends with a person that has directly harassed me from times I can't count, and that person he's friends with has also threatened illegal activity. They both have been talking to each other against me. Recently, the person has been falsely claiming I "slandered" the person over a silly joke comment I've made as a way of telling the person to f*** off (who was also attacking me for my preference involving anthro wolf fantasy stuff), and now recently this person has been flat-out falsely accusing me that I accused him (JaredtheFox92) as someone who abuses animals. I feel that this person is desperate about trying to get rid of me ever since I made a political opinion about prisons and certain victimless outlets and ever since I exposed further of the person for his past that he shows no regret of.

Whenever some people ask him for proof of a lot of stuff, he usually acts like he doesn't need proof, so of course he refuses to even try with that.

This person has a mentally derange mindset who refuses to take any criticism from what I know. This person is a narcissist that probably can't even handle the most basic form of criticism and has twisted so much stuff up. He's been acting like a lunatic trying to get away with his horrible behavior with little to no proper consequences.

Examples of Bad Behavior

Note: A lot of these usually involves false statements that JaredtheFox92 has stated.

Section 1 | False Statements

Note: Some were in response to existing things from me.

Him claiming that I want certain criminals out just so they can offend again (trying to reference highlighted text).

Claiming that I am advocating sexual crimes.

Flat out claiming that I accused JaredtheFox92 as someone who abuses animals. He even defends it because he thinks zoophilia and bestiality is the same (saying this because of a part-ironic joke comment involving his fetish for at least one anthro fox). He denies the evidence that it's not.

 

Him defending it and making a bunch of empty claims without evidence.

 

I have no words of what to describe this.

 

Claim that "wwwarea" is "harassing".

He's claiming that I think christians are nazies, over a picture of a specific church I've made years ago.

Falsely saying that I "harass", "blackmail", and "slander", and "stalk" anyone who gives Alpha and Omega (that this derange person thinks it's bad as objective probably) a bad review. He also falsely claims I "attacked" Bobsheaux and "Raven" (who actually did personally attacked me, and tried promoting suicide for thousands), and also falsely claims that I tried to "demonetize" them. He also falsely claims I "attacked" Dumbsville. Those claims he said is all false, and he has no evidence to back his delusional claims up. Note he thinks disagreeing with a few critics is the same as "attacking" judging by the fact that he said that involving Dumbsville for likely things like this and this. By the way, here's something interesting.

Not only yet another claim(s) but just flat out personally attacking the person for defending a fictional movie he doesn't like. Basically kinda like "STOP LIKING WHAT I DON'T LIKE." in this.

Before he claimed "I" "slandered" him. What a f*cking hypocrite. This cannot be hidden!

It's really funny and sad that the person went out of his way to accused me as someone that "slandered" by part joking that he's a zoophilia for his furry fox fetish (which BTW, didn't work), yet he's OK with saying things like this. Also need to point out that he may have victimized yet another person (HSJProductions or Hardial).

JaredtheFox92 doesn't deserve to be on the streets.

Now he's claiming out of nowhere that I want to "dox" him. He's worse or just as bad as a dangerous conspiracy theorist nut. I wouldn't be surprised if he believes in that pizza conspiracy theory, whatever it's called.

In a nutshell involving me kinda, JaredtheFox92 has claimed that I wanted to kill people, claimed I wanted to dox him, that I thought Christians are nazies, said I advocated certain crimes, said that I wanted certain people to reoffend certain crimes, claimed that I am an otherkin that is a wolf f*cker, that I believe in weird magical specific stuff going to happen to this world I think, has claimed I "attacked" certain critics, has claimed that I accused JaredtheFox92 as someone who f*cks animals, and likely some other stuff against me. None those claims from him are true. This person shouldn't get a right to get away with those.

I'm hated by some people, but I'm mainly hated by these f*cked up people. Some hate me out of false believing too. Maybe I'm usually noticed due to how big of a mouth I have.

Section 2 | Starting Drama

Note: Might be combined with other specific stuff. Some might be in Section 1 of this.

JaredtheFox92 starting drama with a "vore" picture involving Donald Trump and some fictional dog character. After some conversation, JaredtheFox92 uploaded a screencap (gone now, maybe deleted by a DeviantArt staff) and acted like he's into bestiality.

First note this:

Not only with the empty and unproven claims (he's also "white-knighting" a couple of abusive people), but he's acting like he never went to my page out of no-where and started drama. Sadly the comment of him starting drama on a stamp having nothing to do with him likely is gone from public, so I can't show it. But I can show theses:

Note that there was nothing said to JaredtheFox92 for months. Then that happened.

JaredtheFox92 was denied roleplay assuming that's the case, then this person threw a typical fit and started harassing the person via public snapshot with messages like this. There might even be a big chance that this person is stating false statements toward the person, and I think this due to what may be obvious on this article...

Section 3 - Main Hypocrisy

His main hypocrisy involving this drama is that he thinks he's alright to spread wild assumptions based off unrelated context (e.g. accusing me as wanting to rape animals just because of a furry vore fantasy involving a four-legged anthropomorphic wolf). So a status was made to partly imitate his level of insanity just to make a point. And the same status was not actually serious about those four "quotes", and was trying to explain it. Those four messages being "quoted" was to also help express that it wasn't based off any real intention of spreading that as true.

Want to know how he responded?

He took it seriously, and accused me that those four things were "slanders", despite the clear context as to why the messages were said, and despite no known name was even being used there. 

In other words maybe, he thinks he can falsely accused people as being into immoral things based off no actual confirmation context, even when the context is so far off, but if someone does the same thing to him, he calls it "slander" or "slanders". Pathetic.

This is part of his main journal further exposing his hypocrisy.

Another thing I want to point out is that if I am thinking right, he even gave out less context false claims against me toward one (and maybe some more) person, yet he went crazy claiming that I "slandard" him because of a comment that part joked called hom a "zoophilia" without giving out the reason being of his "fox" furry character thing he has.

For anyone's information as to what the claim was toward that other person, it was the comment (that I already uploaded here) claiming that I wanted to rape animals.

Section 4 - Possible Victims

I'm already a victim of this lunatic, but there might be more.

Dog-lover22 was one I think. Note to him I will remove mentions of him here if he requests so or I decide too earlier.

TheLittledDemonCat

??? - https://www.deviantart.com/comments/4/8814768/3787835505

*****gaminggiantess - Partly censored for personal reason.

HSJProductions (Or Hardial)

Section 5 - He Can't Prove Anything Against "wwwarea" and Me

He's often said a lot of crap toward me, and never could prove it. He's the same person that thinks I "attacked" Dumbsville if I'm thinking correctly, yet there is no evidence that I went in and attacked him. I only made some disagreement involving some review points and some bad points toward me.

 

Section 6 - His Main DeviantArt Account

JaredtheFox92 - DeviantArt 

Section 7 - Special

The person is defending the message claiming that I am a "wolf ******" along with some other specific claims without evidence.
As one might recall, here was the message I called out:

Here is the person trying to defend it (I have a right to notice things like this):

Also note the other false claims, including the claim that I tried to "demonetize" two people.

Here is the rest of his mainly disgusting structure before the dog pictures he posted (which is also filled with personal attacking):

I've made a video of this journal too.

I have reported it. Not only this person thinks it's alright to defend false statements and says them, but this person even personally attacks me for preferring anthropomorphic wolf characters from an animated movie, including the bulls*** that it's "not" normal. This is coming from a person who likes anthropomorphic foxes based off real fox parts in some way. Note that the "wolves" I like don't even look like real-wolves either.

Let's face it Jared, you've gone off the deep end...

Picture found from here: https://youtu.be/JcdAlkfS9QI
 

Also, for some reason he keeps saying my first name wrong. Though he did this lot's of times before that journal. Anyway, the name is "Jesse", not "Jessie".  

_________________

This blog post might get updated.

Flayrah is a Terrible Furry Site - Review

Don't know what happened to it's unique design. It used to have a style for it's title.

Flayrah is a site that delivers news, opinion, reviews, fiction, artwork, and "original" work.
The general motto is "furry food for thought", which is based off "food for thought".

Is Flayrah really an interesting furry site that considers "food for thought" to a lot of people though? Is it a healthy site for communities to be treated as welcoming people? Does it have a fair system for debate? And is the news usually about interesting furry stuff?

No, no, no, and... kinda? For the "kinda" part, it's not exactly what you would expect.

Some Is Interesting, Many Aren't
Many parts of the website does indeed talk a lot about furry stuff, after all, it's a furry focused site, which includes four-legged anthropomorphic characters.
However, I do not agree that just showing a furry art piece is itself interesting, and the sad problem about the site is that most of the posts are usually reviews, news of random crime, and possibly other things with little to no interesting information.
Perhaps maybe at least most of the reviews can have interesting content in them?

Sadly I so far failed to find any interesting criticism in a review I think.
One of the worst reviews I've seen was an Alpha and Omega review (the first movie's) which clearly stifles creativity by trying to call out the designs because it's not the person's thing. One of the worst parts about such review is this:

"Most characters don't stand out on their own in any way; the exceptions are sometimes for the wrong reasons. Eve (Kate's mother), for example, stands out for having a nose at least twice the size of anyone else in the film."

Even though, many movies has always had "wacky" designs on different characters of the same species before. The reason is likely because if you make them look too similar, they won't look as unique.

Many parts of the review does nothing but insult the creator's creativity and then suggesting a message which stifles creativity instead. There is nothing "food for thought" about the review, it's just a person who is being biased and unfair.

Speaking of "biased", another person made another review with a title in reaction to me talking about the subject of "biased" here. Was that one an interesting message? Well, it sounded nothing new, that argument is based upon what most people would think.

I think this should be considered food for thought for example: https://another-realm.deviantart.com/journal/Objective-of-Critiquing-Exists-725881839
Even though it's my article, I still argue it's a good argument despite me not being that good at writing. The article (or journal) linked argues a main belief that has barely been addressed and attempts to show something a lot of people may have never thought of before. It's *ahem*... something to think about, isn't it?

There are some articles that at least try to give criticism, but does that automatically make it food for thought? Are they alone interesting?

The Main Community
What counts as the main community? That would probably be anyone who comments and has an account. Guests might however count too especially if they have an account already. On here though, we may depend on the majority for this one and who is more known and is active. It's really impossible for a website to have everyone who is part of the community to behave the same. There may always be that one person who does disruptive behavior.

When it comes to many active and more known people commenting, it's not so good. Most of the time, it's one sided, and anyone who attempts to criticize a point may cause emotional uproar just like an average social media site where a questionable opinion is more popular than the other and anyone who disagrees will get bashed. In fact maybe, some people act like I wasn't allowed to disagree with a point in a review because they think reviews can't be questioned maybe. This emotional problem can cause drama, and if there is such system, some may attempt to rate comments to a low score out of an irrational mindset instead of an rational one. Some systems can have a "hide" system within it, and many good interesting comments can be hidden while irrational garbage comments gets praised instead. This tries ruins a good healthy relationship within the community.
Another problem is that some members are clearly assholes, as some are more for personal insults.
Yet, another problem is that the site tries to give this illusion of "reputation" and possibly another sense, making many users feel scared of possibly posting interesting criticism. This is perhaps one of the most depressing feelings to ever have on this site, and the main issue here is that some of the major problems mentioned in this sub section of the article may cause such bad feeling.

It's also possible some furries have left the site due to the community problems.

Some Pictures

 NEW UPDATE 12/3/2018:
2cross2afflication straight out spreads dangerous false information.
I'm talking about that area with the claim that I am defending something horrible.

Reacting to a comment that had nothing to do with defending having sex with children.

And there are many people on this website who is part of the agenda that promotes ruining a person's life.

Older:

A user leaving due to Flayrah's problems. I do not want to mention who, and I ask anyone else to not speak of the person's name as I assume the person doesn't want that due to a post I've seen. I do not want to drag this person into drama, thanks.

According to the user (2cross2affliction), I've somehow been rude for... having my own criticism?

Also, to be safe, here is a comment from me regarding that porn:

"And it's not that I "defended" child porn, I was making arguments more around it and some that MIGHT sound a little for it, but I never blatantly defended it.
I just wanted to question stuff like "It creates a demand", "it hurts the victim" and/or that it's treated like it's "rape", all in terms of possession alone. Why? Because those arguments can be bad and compared to a LOT of things that may be legal. Those arguments are horrible and dangerous alone. And hell, I even said I hope the person doesn't possess child porn again."

My comment on top, insulting comment below my comment.

Reaction (bottom comment) to my comment.

Telling me to leave. Possible hypocrisy in comment.

2cross2affliction being a complete dick now on another thread.

Part of one of 2cross2affliction's comments.

Speaking of this person (2cross2affliction), he's admitted he's rude, but I don't know if I'm wrong but to me it's as if he gets to be rude, but I can't... While that's stupid, I still argue many of the things he said is "rude" isn't rude. Anyway, this guy is seriously causing a lot of problems. He even said I'm "no victim" as if that's always the case for his mistakes just because of a mistake I could of done on there for example.

Bottom comment.

Insulting me as a writer.

Again, another insult. Coming from a Pokemon fan who gives direct links to Pokemon pornography on Deviantart.

The Rating System and Why It's Flawed

In some snapshots here on this article, you may noticed a row of stars in the count of 5. It's the rating system, a system that allows members and even guests to vote on a comment and/or article. One star is considered the poorest, and five stars is considered "Awesome".

The problem with this system is that it usually allows others to consider interesting criticism to be considered "poor" while terrible comments get praised. When it comes to emotional subjects, it gets rather abused heavily. If someone for example tried to question the popular belief among the majority of the site, the comment will likely be rated as "poor" (one star), even if you give out good links to studies. When it comes to pages like that, a lot of people there seem to be more irrational than rational. That type of behavior attempts to bash anyone who dares question some beliefs, not only reacting badly, and rating the comments down, but when a comment is rated very down, the comment will be "hidden", and you would have to click on it to actually see it, making it easier to miss the comment, and that's censorship.

Here is a snapshot I already posted to show something that's kinda an example:

Note: I probably voted my own comment because of how unfair it was.

"Poor" votes can also happen due to just hatred for the person and I might be a victim of that too.

Why do we even have a rating system in the first place? It's unfair, and by unfair, I mean in this general problem I'm already trying to address. This rating system can also cause others to be scared to post their opinions and/or good solid points. It's mainly a tool to hide others, a tool that causes fear, and a tool that gets used in an attempt to abuse good points, and/or things that may be interesting in a good way.

The only good thing about it, is that it can also be used as a way to recommend good comments and/or comments not good or bad.

I suggest either one of these improvements for the system:

• Ditched the "low ratings" and make a "like" system instead: Have comments have a "liked", or similar function instead.
• Ditched any rating system.
• Allow others to disable the ratings on their comments and article, publicly. Youtube does this for videos, by the way.

Of course, the only time I'm for deleting a comment entirely is if it was illegal.

Here is something GreenReaper (owner of website) partly said in a comment to me:

"It is also not a zero-sum game: in my experience everyone is able to post comments which are considered good enough not to be folded; but often they choose not to. The rating system provides a consequence to that choice."

Yes, a consequence which causes multiple problems. Fear is one of those things. There can be some pretty bad arguments that is emotionally supported on the site, but due to ratings, some people are afraid to address it. Backlash can also be an issue.
For example, there is an argument claiming something of "Possession of certain porn creates a demand!" and that argument alone is itself a problem. I could say something like:
"That argument is based upon fear, and if merely possessing such porn "creates" a demand, then what about violence in video games? Doesn't that "create" a demand too? What about fictional certain porn? Won't that "create" a demand as well? What if the person possessed it for crime report? After all, the person DID view it after all, which must of effected the view count, "creating" a demand. I find that demand claim to be a poor argument. Demand should be literally mean what it means if I'm thinking right, not fear."
And what happens then? The comment will likely get 1-stared, then folded, and some making empty claims will get praised. I'm also sure 2cross2affliction will call that "wrong" and "evil" because that's what he does. He doesn't respect free speech (or rather naturally since the website may have legal rights to censor it), and he calls that type of disagreements "evil" and "wrong".

There wasn't really any attempt to make any interesting points back in such likelihood example.

Just recently, I wanted to add a bit more stuff GreenReaper very much said recently in 2019 (note: pasting might make layout slightly off):
 

I think you're trying to say there's an objective measure of quality, based on the construction of argument, and therefore if you're making well-reasoned, well-constructed arguments, you should be rated highly. But you're way off base. Quality is in the eye of the beholder. If they don't agree with your argument, they'll consider it to be a poor comment, or at best OK; certainly not great.
If essentially everyone disagrees with a comment, it's terrible and doesn't require further consideration except by the masochistic. That's what folding tries to do: eliminate suck. Non-controversial comments don't suck, or at least not enough to deserve folding. Even controversial ones tend not to fold - just fade, to represent the weakness of their support by the community.

Not only I argued that quality is not in the eye of the beholder, but even another user went in and stand against the idea that it is in the eye of the beholder.
You can probably guess what happened to comments in terms of ratings system.
I got spammed and censored with the effects of low ratings, no matter how well I try to argue why quality is not in the eye of the beholder.

The News
The news is perhaps slightly interesting. Though is that an excuse to judge it, though?
Well, first many news don't seem to offer any interesting points I think.
But at usual, it does it's job at reporting some furry related stuff. The odd part is that I often see crime reports involving children and I'm not so sure if reporting someone for possessing certain porn because the person is a furry does it's job right.

I also think certain news can rather promote harm to the individuals who need help. It's almost as if Flayrah is expecting a furry to be "perfect" and if not, they expose it like it's breaking news.

Conclusion
It's not a healthy furry site. It's more rotten in general. The community in general is poor, especially how part of the community acts to those who disagree with popular opinion, many "food" in some articles is more rotten, the ratings system is unfair, and creates an unhealthy sense by causing fear. The news is perhaps the only slightly thing useful, but even that has problems sometimes.

The worst part about the site is probably the community. Not everyone is doing bad behavior, of course.

2/10

Terrible

Also I don't think I'm so good at article editing. However I hope my article comes out clear enough. Article may get updated and has already been updated at times.

What a Bunch of Bullcrap

The only reason why I still continue this is because of a story which can be found here:
https://another-realm.deviantart.com/journal/JettTheWolf696-and-Criticism-721296199

These days, I normally don't make sub pages of other people. If I needed to add something, I would just add it to a single page if the single page is more of a general post about such person.

Anyway, according to what this article tries to talk about, this is a bunch of lies.

If he wasn't such a hypocrite on that, his post should of probably said something like this:
"Don't get me wrong, I am all for the freedom in voicing ones opinion, unless you think certain thoughts, like fictional cub porn, has certain opinions that are controversial to me, and/or if the expression is fictional child porn that is protected by the first amendment of the USA according to the 18 USC 1466A writing of that Wikipedia section involving the USA..."
And that's only for what I know so far?

Don't pretend you respect people's rights, JettTheWolf696.

That is all.



Also strongly important: Do not go searching child porn of any kind. That can get you into big trouble. If you are found guilty, you may not only get some form of punishment, but also be added to the sex offender registry for either life, or less (depends).

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 GENERAL AND FACTS

http://wwwarea.deviantart.com/art/The-Right-to-Self-Defence-The-Truth-546045888

 ≈═■▪■═╣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: comments.deviantart.com/1/5467…, (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.

WOLFABOO MYTHS

http://wwwarea.deviantart.com/art/Self-Defense-The-Truth-on-Wolfaboo-565280545

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 ABOUT A MOVIE AND WWWAREA

http://wwwarea.deviantart.com/art/Facts-and-Explaining-About-me-and-Alpha-and-Omega-572862211

╠═╣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

---

http://wwwarea.deviantart.com/art/Wolfaboo-is-VERY-Abused-557139612

-----------

Against ignorance, bigotry, and stupidity