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.

Channeleven or REMRadioheadfan96 - His Bio and Online Profiles Coming Soon? - Updated

This is an update:
Apparently, he claims that the Facebook found was 'accidental' (Is that even possible?), but either way, Channeleven posting it on that article isn't an accident, or a 'random' accidental thing.
Since it's posted, it's fair to consider that action 'stalking'.
Funny too, this bigot (who thinks he's right about wwwarea just because) always whine about "There is nothing on it!" as an "excuse" to attempt to stalk and while it's not an excuse, I bet if there was anything on it, he would still post it.
Oh, and hi Channel/Stalker.
Updated info done.

Well it's been a while now. He's been doing some evil things (And recently I was suggested to not talk about a certain area to avoid fueling the trolls, but this is just sad.) to 'wwwarea' lately.

REMRadioheadfan96/Channeleven (DA profile here.) has always been trying to stalk many people and just loves to stalk 'wwwarea' online all the time.
And I mean.. all the time.

According to some info, Most of that is directly against 'wwwarea' Including  some of the ones without 'wwwarea' in it.

Some time recently he tried to stalk and find his Facebook according to this journal and in the history.
Kinda creepy...

And of course! All the other stalking around it.

Channel seems to stalk so much, to the point that he now tries to look up 'wwwarea' in an archive for old unnecessary profiles that are not only unnecessary, but are probably not even his (Just like many of the links already in the External Links section on that snapshot..)
Also recently he's also very butthurt about admin action on DeviantArt about the removal of disturbing post purposes on DeviantArt



What the hell is wrong with this guy?
He always started drama with people, but I never knew he goes this insane with people like this!
Remember the words that's said: "Abusers don't deserve respect."

Oh yeah, this history is found here.

So yeah, that's that. I wonder how he likes it if someone fights and does this back to him?
According to info, his online and RL life is known so much, that the home of where he lives is known too (somehow..?). However from a talk, I do not want to go to the house part.
Though, it's remembered that his RL girl (Or that's his sister or friend) was found on a photo site.
I mean, I would not harass him or her, but just like Channel would do to, I would just link to it because it connects to his life somehow.
I wonder if I should actually link it? I know Channel would do that if he knew one of his RL friends (As he tried to find before).

REMRadioheadfan96 or Channeleven - The History

Note

Channeleven and REMRadioheadfan96 is the same guy.
deenapeter and Channeleven on Youtube is the same. Name was probably changed to Channeleven after that name.

In a Nutshell

REMRadioheadfan96/Channeleven is a highly delusional selfish cyberbully who always create drama with people, war, and etc.

In real life, he doesn't have much of a skill. He is a photographer, but alas, he isn't very good at it.

He cyberbullies people with any 'fetish' he finds disturbing, posts snapshots about it, videos, and etc.

He also attacks people whenever someone disagrees and judge them back.

He's very obsessed with people who likes to defend what he hates (e.g. Alpha and Omega) and will possibly make up more lies about it and the fans.

Considering he expresses his "I have a right to express my views" type of text (Somewhere he did that) but whenever someone does the 'same thing' to him back, he freaks out about it, claim "attack", etc.

Anyone who calls him out for his cyberbullying will most likely lead to REM uploading his content in reaction or directly to the criticizer with a possible rotten side of slander for his white knights.

Did I also tell you that he doesn't believe cyberbullying exist?

Probably as a reaction to something that mostly does nothing but quoting (researching stuff).

He will also twist the meanings up and most likely blame the wrong people.

Just like the time he claims I'm a "stalker" for checking content directed at me in reaction to the real fact that he's the stalker himself for looking up my activity and constantly update the article about me.

Anyway, it's time to reveal his history with people online.

Note though that some of it won't have links of proof. But if I find proof to one, I may update it.

The First Time I've Met Him in Drama I Think.

It was when he made a journal about some of my content; he called me personality insulting names like 'Wolfaboo', etc, etc. Because of my freedom of speech for criticism.

That's the first time he's started a fight with me.

Now then. Beyond 0.

1. He has uploaded snapshots about people's fetishes of humiliation or mock purposes. Example of him going to humiliate or mock one guy:
   
2. Uploaded a snapshot about someone liking some fictional thing from a show called Kid's Next Door - Leading to so many white knights to attack him to the point of suicidal thoughts.
3. Made hate videos about people because of expressing 'fetishes' (Check out channeleven's youtube videos if you dare want to see them) (deenapeter is his channel url.)
4. While all that creates fights, apparently he starts fights with 'journals' (On his DA page), and blog posts.
5. Has agreed to people to find out where 'wwwarea' lived and I think attempted to post (maybe) personal identifiable information. PROOF: Here, maybe here, and here. - On Maybe here, DA told me that the comment had 'my name' and 'city'.
6.  Clearly has no respect to anyone who used Freedom of Speech to criticize his rude behavior toward people - Look here too
7. Started fights with 'SpaceOmega5000' on Youtube by going in a random review and talking shit about 'SpaceOmega5000 in connection with 'wwwarea'.
   
8. Always complain about 'fetishes' so many times (check some of this history too and look at some of his journals)
9. Went into a fan group (On a site) and started yet another fight (This was before the SpaceOmega5000 thing) with a 'Are you fucking kidding me' meme face. (Somewhere here, but he hid the comment)
10. Forcing his hatred to Alpha and Omega fans (Kinda like the meme face). Examples One, and Two
11. Personality insult fans of a movie by calling them: "Autistic Wolfaboos"
    
    Might of been on a review involving a movie called Alpha and Omega.
12. 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:
    
    https://web.archive.org/web/*/remradioheadfan96.deviantart.com This could help, but I am having trouble checking some snapshots because the Internet here is very bad. Sadly I looked at more, I guess archive can't save pictures very good, but here is this admit before the admins took down nearly every snapshot and banned him for a while: http://channeleven.deviantart.com/journal/Dammit-533047398
13. Has made an ED article against 'wwwarea', for cyberbullying purposes, and has possibly attempted illegal action by doxing on there (I think). - He is also serious about 'wwwarea', showing the article is no joke.
14. Stalks 'wwwarea' many times and constantly updating that ED article about 'wwwarea'.
    
    
    
15. Twist the meaning of stalking and blamed 'wwwarea' for "stalking" an article that is directed at 'wwwarea'.
16. Makes hate posts involving that wolf movie he never watched because of 'wwwarea'.
17. Blames his victims after what he did to them.
18. Insults misanthropic people because 'wwwarea' is a misanthropic
19. Makes fun of 'wwwarea' for making commentary journals in self-defense even though he does it too.
20.  Admits to being a bigot about people's own differences:
    
21. Expresses something like "I have the right to express my views" but attacks anyone else who "expresses his views" on him (While he was expressing his views on others in the first place
22. Recently insulted the whole Alpha and Omega fanbase again.
23. Admitted to call the dictionary 'my bible' and claim I attack people for not believing in science, possibly admitting that REM himself is actually denying the dictionary, and science, fighting for stupidity and bigotry.
24. Attacks me for standing up with a lot of speech, probably because he hates it when I stand up and fight for myself.
25. Slander people - Example, that anti-Alpha and Omega post that slanders fans claiming they "attack" people for not liking art-styles when in reality, it's just defending.
26. Has no meaning of what 'Wolfaboo' means and continuously calls me one even though I'm not. He only calls me that for defending wolves, loving, wolves, etc. Even though I don't go 'over-obsessed' with them nor do I treat them as superior in morality.
27. Even though he claims I "attack" him by talking bad about him and his review, or am "immature" for that, (or both), he talks bad about Nostalgia Critic for his attempt of what he thinks is legit (just like mine). < This mistake is about hypocrisy. Heck, I only argued his claim and talked bad about him for mainly other reasons, and since he possibly attacked defenders in his review.
28. Attacks spirituality by attacking others for having spiritual believes, possibly with the mixes of religion, etc. - They attack me for having them, etc. Pretended they know everything about it, etc.
    
    
29.  Even though he abused me several times, but now he's attacking my friend by promoting an article against my friend:
     
    
    
30.  Goes even more insane. Stalks at least one Facebook account of someone:
    
31. Continues to stalk more people. To the point that he tries to look up 'wwwarea' in an archive.
32. Started a fight with a random ROBLOX fan and continue to harass the person even with offensive hate speech based off disability:
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
33.  Has made more ED articles against other people.
34. Attempted to find this person's Facebook again. 
35. Has no idea what Fair Use is: 
    
    
    
    I'm not defending the idea of Copyright. Just exposing the stupidity of Channeleven for this one.
    
36.  Posted this:
    
    
37.  Posted doxxed information.
    
    

    
    
     
    I saved a video too.
38. Obviously treating his opinions as fact by what he prefers:
     
    
    
39. Possibly More

I may feel like I didn't list it out so well. But I'll keep it updated if I find more mainly.

In a nutshell: He's a cyberbully who attacks people for expressing their fetishes, attacks people for disagreeing and defending, attacks people for self-defense toward him, etc.
Either by emotional abuse, (Could be part of cyberbullying), cyberbulling, etc. He will post content about other people for his 'white knights' to possibly attack them or to see many assholes agree to him. Obviously he posts stuff about others for other people to see.
He depends on popularity, and not logic.

Admits in many ways to be a bigot as he possibly denies the dictionary, possibly science, ignores the law, etc.
Proving he admits to make things up about others and expresses his feelings as a "fact" over others.
And of course, anyone who judges him back for that, will get abused by REMRadioheadfan96/Channeleven.

He's also an emotional abuser and for all the things I've said about him, he will blame his victims and not himself for the mistakes he's done.

And his non-sense "I can express my views" (but others can't according to him), he's a possible hypocrite.

Also Safety Suggestion:
It's best to not even try to argue this bigot. He will never listen, nor listen to his links (He may rarely give out links that are either (out-dated, with new discoveries updating over them) or links that miss the point.
But at all times (or very, VERY mostly. He won't be open to listen to any links you send him, because he can't stand any open criticism, he won't listen to the dictionary, etc. He's just a bigot as history tried to prove and probably proved it.
Now for your own safety, I highly suggest to STAY away from this guy or else you may:

• Get a cyberbullying article on ED
• Get mocked by snapshots with slander
• Slander you
• Have his white knights attack you
• May post hate art
• Support (Such as faving hate pictures about you)
• May agree to people to find out where you live
•  Personality insult you
• Make cyberbullying journals
• and probably more.

Possible exception: If you are a sheep of him, and listens to everything he said, he probably won't do that.
Also be warned he is also a possible hypocrite. If you are inspired by his speech with 'I share my own views' but you post your own against his claims, he may do what I listed.

RE: ED and Other against wwwarea

Hello people! Some may have wondered about 'wwwarea' from DeviantArt.

Due to a lot of issues, I felt like I would help the account person of this site by helping to spread this info from one of his 'stamp posts' (Note: The stamp layout is not owned by wwwarea).

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

Most of the info is under this "bar":

============================================

"ALSO, when I add the 'NEW:' parts, please note that each one will be after a certain amount of people adding this to favorites. Just to avoid another misunderstanding. Need to be safe. This includes this update here. Edit: I edited the update on 7/16/2015 and will add this:
The 'NEW' list will have dates by them, some may not be very clear though.
UPDATE DONE

May I suggest looking at this too?
www.deviantart.com/art/U-told-…
Some parts sound very similar to what happened to me.

OK, I know this section is about me, but if anyone keeps listening to there offensive crap, slander, etc. I want you to hear me out.
First of all, I have the RIGHT to defend myself, and defending yourself and/or bringing out rude things of other people is NOT bullying, nor is it "attacking".
Second, before anyone thinks, I suggest looking here:
General Message About the Past 3 Months - UPDATE 3


≈═■▪■═╣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.


----------------------------

And of course, there is more other things about me that's wrong. And of course, I am allowed to handle this, as this is my business.

Please also note, that I have made some mistakes on DA too, so don't expect me to be perfect.

I want to warn anyone who sees anyone talk about me.They will twist up many meanings, etc. about me. Try to show you snapshots of behavior that aren't even bad (Despite a couple of possible mistakes I've done), but tries to effect your emotions on trying to make it look "bad", etc.
They will try to say that I'm "wrong", "bad", etc. just because I am 'whining' about this, even though I have the right to, and since that doesn't debunk anything, etc.
Be warned, they will also say things about me in a 'just because' form; meaning they will say call me "delusional" without any good links, comparisons, etc.

They may also defend their bullying content as "critique" which clearly makes no sense at all. Critique isn't: Mocking, defame, and.. you know the others.

-----------------------

In the end, here, I have the RIGHT to be concern about my own social life, and I have the right to be VERY concern, no matter how "crazy" it seems the trolls, cyberbullies, etc.
Please understand anyone that I am just worried about myself, people seeing garbage about me, my personal likes, etc.
This is my life to worry about, and I have a reason to protect it.
And honestly, this crap about me was making me very upset, very depressed, etc.

I may also add more stuff too here.
___________________________________________________

Stamp Template - kencho.deviantart.com/art/Stam…
I have a feeling I forgot which template it was. Oh well, I didn't make the template part for sure.
I think this one might of been edited. Not sure if I have the correct credit.."

Dreams - Why are they so Effected?

www.pinterest.com?

I have indeed talked about dreams before, based off my own experiences as a gamer and such.

I always wondered about dreams, and I always believed that dreams take place in another area outside of the physical body.

I have had dreams where I've seen similar outside later. Lot's of the times, it's not exact; some can barely be exact and some can be more close.


More Effects

I've had more dreams (duh), and I now noticed more predictions kinda came to pass.
Now please note, as I said, these are all based off my own life. I like to share my own experiences as a very "different" person.

Banned Account
I remember on a forbidden website, I had a fight about someone, and I one time I was trying to get someone banned due to problems.
At one day, when I went to bed, I had this dream where my account has gotten banned.
But when I woke up, I was wrong, but the other person I've fight has gotten banned.

It's as if I was the person in my dream, like how you go outside of your body and transfer yourself (soul) to another body.

If I could remember, "I" (the person) had a panic and some anxiety in the dream.

Or this was a future of when my wwwarea account got banned months later. idk.


Future Fights with Jett
Well first not all readers know that that name "Jett" is. But it's a person who's been bothering me and talking crap behind my back, and expecting people to not listen to me.

Anyway, in this dream. Something was wrong with the profile of this guy, and a fight happened in the dream. Unclear now of what it was.

One day, he became some hater of something, and had something going on in his favorite gallery and possibly his own. Then we fight.

Movie Predictions
This is one of the most interesting things recently.
A while back ago, I think I've had dreams about the forth movie involving a series called 'Alpha and Omega', and some might of matched.. Even Lilly (Probably).

NOW the most very shocking prediction clearly matched something at least general.
It wasn't 100% a match, but let me explain the fact that in that dream, the wolves escaped in a vehicle from some people, and before, it took place by some man-made structure which I thought was some kind of abandoned office or something.

What happened in the movie??
There was a part of a movie where the wolves found this man made structure, and after a while there, the wolves and a human escaped in a vehicle. From some people.
In my dream, Humphrey drove probably. Sadly in the movie he didn't but the lady wondered if Humphrey wanted to drive...
Not only that the general thing did happen, but even the vehicle looked similar to the one in my dream (Or it was a vehicle near it, not too sure).
Not only that, but it was the same general time: Day. Even the color environment was the same.

Not only that, but for the fifth movie, I think I seen a river, forest, and a waterfall in that same dream (before the structure part of my dream?)
And of course, the plot talked about a 'waterfall', and a 'creek'.


I do remember talking about a dream about Lilly and the hopes that the wolves will meet humans and be nice. In the fifth movie, it finally happened (With just one though). However in the dream, I saw Lilly and Lilly wasn't in it. But that hope and wishing of the human thing worked..

The dreams happened months before the movie. And I'm NOT making this up.

____________________________

So it's like you must trust your dreams sometimes because they connect with many results.

So why does dreams effect reality so much?

Well, has anyone heard the idea of the theory that 'YOU' create your own reality?
I believed I talked something like that in my other dream article.

Well, after studying, I figured that there is a state you need to be in, to help effect your reality faster.
It's.. IT'S.... theta.

Because the more calm your physical brain is, the more deeper you go to the being that always creates reality.
Theta is one of the most effected things that links to two forbidden powers:
Forbidden 2. Gaining information
Forbidden 1. Creating Reality
It is said that we already create it, but depending on beliefs, being in beta can be slow, but the more deeper you go from Beta, to Delta, you effect it faster.
Also, why do I say 'Forbidden'? Because I guess it's something the governments don't want people to hear. Or even the main media.

So the reason why dreams really seem to effect a lot is because when you are having a dream, you are in the theta state.

It's a theory. It's also said that 'beliefs' create reality. Try to get rid of limiting beliefs, and be open with your dreams more, and see what happens now. Not sure if that's a good suggestion.

So anyway, I have heard very shocking stories about this 'Theta' state.
Let me link to some, to what I believe connects with this idea:
https://masteryofself.wordpress.com/2010/10/23/a-step-by-step-law-of-attraction-system-to-win-the-lottery-my-complete-secret-theta-method-revealed/

http://www.wealthbeyondreason.com/flightwaves/
Talks about theta.

http://www.mind-your-reality.com/brain_waves.html#Part_2

There was also other info suggesting that being in the 'theta' state can really help you get outside information by using a certain technique that I don't feel comfortable sharing for personal reasons.

A link to subconscious: http://helpfromhypnosis.com/change-reality-using-subconscious-mind



______________

Well, I think I'm done writing today. The idea of 'Theta' isn't very popular at this time.. Sometimes due to all the trouble I went through with terrible people I've seen through the Internet, I'm sometimes glad that it's not.. As long if I am in that unpopular area... :)

The idea of being awake and theta is also unpopular probably. Everyone gets into this state when they sleep, but being aware and still being in this state, can be rare.
There does exist ways to do it.
Look it up yourself because I am afraid to tell how for a reason.

Realism Doesn't Mean Better

 Inspired by a "Little" Personal Journey I've Had

This focuses on one example of a major problem.

If they go more closer, or don't bring back all the elements from the first movie, then I hope they get rid of Lilly, and maybe the other two..

I've been browsing some huge hypocrisy and claims that I've seen no evidence on around a movie called Alpha and Omega, and the worst part was that it was some fan, or fans.

I been one of the guys serving feedback by wanting the next sequel to bring back some of the styles from the first movie, then some other guy completely attacked me by claiming that "Your bias" (Whatever it was) and then act as if "realism" is better as if the guy thinks that he or she wasn't bias. Obviously the other guy who claim bias was bias, and since the first movie was all about anthropomorphism, it would be bad and unfair to the fans to change it to something it's not.

Worse was that he or she blamed the style for haters (Yes, actually respecting the bias reviewers) and blamed that it was the "style's fault" for haters.

How much non-sense can this get? This message was so bad as it was a deep negative energy effect on me and makes me wants to hate critics more.. Now let's analyze this whole thing and teach that critique isn't supposed to be bias.

_________________________________________________

First: Critics and users can be extremely bias in there so-called "critique".
Second: The main unfair hatred towards this movie doesn't look like it's because of the animation, more like the plot and the lack of things.
Third: Calling an anthropomorphic movie a flaw because it has anthropomorphism in it is like calling an anime movie a flaw because it has anime.
Forth: Like the third, you cannot bring out a "style", or any other "style/art purpose" in critique, otherwise, what is critique?
Fifth: This movie is not supposed to imitate realism, it's supposed to be a cartoon/mix, the animation was meant to be like that, etc.. I could of also swear that Crest Animation Studios said this themselves. However, I am not so sure. Anyway, calling that a flaw, is the same thing as the "Third:" reason.

As I've said, even if this movie got attacked by some people because they didn't like the animation style, then I will also need to let people know that many other styles got attacked too by just some people and some selfish non-critics (What's the difference?)

1. It's also gotten attacked for the Art Style/Design of the characters
2. It's also gotten attacked just because it was a love story
3. It's also gotten attacked because it has wolves in it
4. It's also gotten attacked because it was a furry movie
5. It's also gotten attacked because they hate the jokes
6. It's also gotten attacked because the characters 'didn't have enough'

I also like to note that many people hates furries just because they are different. So this as a furry movie would probably get bashed by some bullies just because it's furry.

I was so offended (Not that way) how that user just decided to blame the amazing parts of that movie just because haters hated it. The user also hates the style, so I'm guessing the user is extremely selfish.

______________________________________

What is Realism?

From what I can study, realism is about taking away all the new creative ideas, and it's hyper generic, even though some movies with "realism" can be indeed good. (Is SciFi Realism?)

But what does it mean to take out the "less" realism in Alpha and Omega?
Getting rid of all anthropomorphism, including the effects that does indeed effect the story (log riding, certain objections, certain love scenes, no dancing, etc.) From what I can see, since adding anthropomorphism means more, all I can see is a huge downgrade as it takes all the other creative stuff away. Furry/Anthropomorphism effects is not a flaw, as it's another style in art, and in the end, it offers much more creative ideas.. Getting rid of that prevents that, and that's not a good thing.

Not only it means taking out all the human characteristics, it's also about getting rid of the art style/designs of the characters, and getting rid of personality.
Yes, even in the sequels, they still have human characteristics. The way they have personality, and the way they express there faces still counts as "human-characteristics" I think.

"Real Wolves"
Real wolves don't have "games", "tree climbing", "human expressions/personality", "holiday expressions", "rock paper scissors", "dancing", "log riding", "certain objections", etc.. Also, they don't have a "alternative language" to English.

What "real wolves" do is basically limited stuff: Run, Walk, Eat, Make Noises, Hunt, Sleep, Howl, and some more. That's it.

If Alpha and Omega was turned into that, it would indeed ruin what made the first movie and some effects of the sequels great. Yes, the sequels still had anthropomorphism, but not as much as the first.

Everything would just be the exact same but in different locations maybe. Though even in real life, there is some luck, but very limited luck, and a different kind of brain.


Turning Alpha and Omega into "Realism":

I DO NOT WANT THIS TO HAPPEN
 My God, stop ruining Alpha and Omega.

______________________________________

In the end, that website is indeed sloppy. Well, actually it's an area inside the website, not the whole place.
I see members being rude to the guy who types a lot, and when I be careful and learn, I have to say, the active members of that area/group is actually being rude, even though I have seen other people "attack an opinion" as well.. I see the person re-criticizing that, and sadly some members are probably going to act as if the criticizer is the bad guy.
I see the guy trying to explain, then another, no wait the same member, goes in, and refuses to understand that person (once more) and comment like an ass.

I did try to explain and may have did some "too far" messages but at least I can understand that I'm not the only one who criticize another opinion, unlike whoever did post hypocritical crap like the bias idea that "realism" is "better".
Yet that person thinks that "getting rid of Lilly" is unfair but "getting rid of the main theme of the movie" isn't.

What the flying god damn f**k is wrong with people?
Let's change Alpha and Omega into something it's not! But they better not get rid of my favorite characters.
Seriously, ^^^^^^ is extremely bigoted.

Why can't everyone be happy and respect other people's styles that may get added into the future by some company? It's very selfish to take it away from others.