Creative Commons license icon

Flayrah marks a decade of furry news

Edited by mwalimu as of Wed 9 Mar 2011 - 10:57
Your rating: None Average: 4.5 (8 votes)

Ten years ago today, Aureth launched, a service providing "news, commentary, reviews, interviews, and user interactivity."

A lot has changed since then. Furry conventions have grown four-fold, both in size and number. A multitude of comics, artists and websites have come and gone. Many fans have left the community for good – and many more have joined us and made it their home.

But the need for a good source of furry news remains.

In the last decade, more than 3000 stories were posted by our 250 contributors; over 300 in the last 365 days. And these stories have an audience. Each month, 5000 people visit the site, and many take the time to contribute their thoughts on the fandom.

Of course, they're not always the same people. Of those posting stories and comments in 2001, only a few remain. (Thanks for sticking with us.)

The technology changes, too. In prior years, most read by visiting or subscribing to the LJ feed. Today we use RSS, Twitter, Facebook, and other sites. We've just upgraded to a new server, although you shouldn't notice much of a difference. And tomorrow? Who knows what it will bring.

Hopefully Flayrah will endure another decade – the domain, at least, is registered until 2019. As for the details, I look forward to finding out with you.


Your rating: None Average: 5 (2 votes)

Happy 10th anniversary Flayran! :) And here's to another decade of furry news.

Your rating: None Average: 4.8 (4 votes)

Well done for 10 years. Hopefully it will be here in another 10 years time.

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

Your rating: None Average: 3.2 (5 votes)

IMHO, you guys here aren't the best in furry are the ONLY furry news :) Keep up the good work, you guys never fail. :)

PS: Rumor has it the cake may be telling the truth! MUAHAHAHA!!!!

Your rating: None Average: 2.2 (9 votes)

The only problem is Flayrah is no longer a Furry news site; it's just a blog about Furry events (primarily GreenReaper's personal opinions of such). A responsible Furry news site would post corrections when they get their facts wrong.

Hopefully newcomer FurryNewsNetwork will be able to fill the gap that the once-great Flayrah left in its wake.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (2 votes)

I'm not sure what other news source you are using as a standard of comparison, but I've seen more updates to articles here than the newspaper I used to read, and the opinion pieces seemed milder than the stuff the newspaper printed (plus it seems a lot of the opinion pieces were from people other than GreenReaper).

Your rating: None Average: 3.8 (4 votes)

I believe his view is coloured largely by this piece, which Anthrocon's board (including Xydexx) took great exception to.

Anthrocon was unwilling to discuss the matter on the record, made it clear they did not consider it in the public interest, and later cut off communication to the extent that I could not even tell them why their "correction" would not be made.

Looking back, the whole thing was a regrettable mix of conflicting duties, strong egos, and sharply differing opinions. Sometimes even good intentions can have bad results.

Our dispute was unfortunate on a personal level, too. I served Anthrocon for three years and counted many of their staff among my friends. I was disppointed with their group's actions, and I imagine the feeling was mutual. My door is open to those wishing to put it in the past.

As for Flayrah, I feel this year compares favourably to the nine before it. Our complete archives are there for you to decide for yourself.

Your rating: None Average: 2.1 (8 votes)

I think it's a valid concern, since Flayrah's gotten its facts wrong enough times in recent years that its credibility has suffered as a result. One hopes that FurryNewsNetwork will do their own fact-checking rather than just repeat and disseminate inaccurate information from Flayrah.

Your rating: None Average: 3.8 (5 votes)

And if they don't perform to your satisfaction, will you help them, or just make snarky remarks from the sidelines?

Get up out of your armchair and start writing the news. You've done it before, I'm sure you can manage a few stories.

Your rating: None Average: 2.3 (8 votes)

I'm sure I'll get around to it in my Copious Free Time. Right now it ranks somewhere below scrubbing the bathroom floor on my list of priorities.

On the other hand, you seem to have enough free time to acquire a stranglehold over most of the Furry information resources (WikiFur, Flayrah, Furtean Times... even DMOZ). So theoretically, you'd be in a much better position to improve the quality of news coverage. One would think it'd be in your best interest to do so.

But it isn't, because you're playing a zero-sum game. Your apparent desire to remain neutral at all costs means your ability to write decent, factual articles of interest to the community has been at odds with your ability to give soapboxes and megaphones to kooks, and your credibility has (rightfully) suffered for it as a result.

There's an old saying that one shouldn't attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity. Despite what you and your pals on the anti-furry site Vivisector (last I checked you were among the top ten users there) say, I don't think you're part of some Monolithic Antifurry Conspiracy. And considering your position and history, I think the alternative to maliciousness is not only possible, it's probable.

Your rating: None Average: 4 (2 votes)

Your apparent desire to remain neutral at all costs means your ability to write decent, factual articles of interest to the community has been at odds with your ability to give soapboxes and megaphones to kooks...

That sounds familiar, as I hear many scientist complain similarly about mainstream news coverage of science, and have heard similar complaints from other fields. Of course there are some confirmation biases, as it is easier to notice over-hyped and wrong articles. And at least some of those people have put significant effort into trying to fix things themselves.

In the past, I've noticed here occasional, seemingly out of the blue complaints often worded as if the site was near the bottom of the quality scale. But I think at the least, the site is functional and most of the time does ok, which puts it well above the bottom even if there is room for improvement and disagreement about its quality above that level.

At least unlike with traditional media, anyone can make a correction visible with a comment. The effort used to write complaints I've seen would have been more than enough to point out inaccuracies. Even brief, half-assed suggestions of inaccuracies would probably result in someone else digging up the details if they knew what to look for. But I seem to remember more abstract complaints than concrete corrections (and a lot the arguing in comments mostly on matters of opinion and point of view, which I don't think counts as corrections). My memory might be biased, but I get the feeling so is the memory of a lot of other people around here.

In the end, such comments left me confused and wondering how many were based on actual problems, how many were otherwise serious, and how many were just trolling.

Your rating: None Average: 2.8 (8 votes)

I've seen complaints about Flayrah's accuracy here before too, and GreenReaper's response was to argue about it in the comments instead of making the correction. And while anyone can make a correction in the comments, it puts an unnecessary burden on the reader to wade through pages of comments to get the facts, rather than having them in the original article where they belong. You yourself admit you're confused by having to do so.

I feel this is an attitude GreenReaper brings over from WikiFur, which has similar credibility problems due to the same attitude of favoring argument over making corrections. I didn't always feel this way, but after months of making solid, fact-based edits in an effort to get some simple vandalism/trolling rolled back, I'd say the criticism is well-founded and well-deserved. What was surprising to me was that a lot of other people felt the same way.

To be fair, I have seen other inaccuracies on Flayrah and WikiFur get corrected in a timely manner without a six-month argument to do so, so the possibility that GreenReaper just has a personal problem with me isn't out of the question. But if he's letting his personal problems getting in the way of running the site efficiently that's certainly something to take note of.

Your rating: None Average: 4.8 (4 votes)

You yourself admit you're confused by having to do so.

You might not have understood what I was referring to as confusing me. Reading comments for more details, personal perspectives, and sometimes corrections hasn't confused me and is something I expect out of a lot of news websites depending on their format and nature. I was confused by the abstract complaints that had no examples, no corrections, or no otherwise concrete basis given. Having not noticed comparable problems myself, whether I simply have missed the problems inciting such complaints or the complaints were baseless is indistinguishable.

Your rating: None Average: 4 (6 votes)

I thank you for your time writing these comments, apparently at least the bathroom floors can wait on those. :)

Your rating: None Average: 2.1 (8 votes)

Not really. Bathroom floors were cleaned before writing these comments.

But that's okay, you've been wrong before. -:P

Your rating: None Average: 3.7 (3 votes)

Sure have, haven't we all?

Your rating: None Average: 5 (2 votes)

And by the way the original intent of your scrubbing the bathroom floor was a procrastination excuse to not writing your own news articles, since you now seem done with this, what is your excuse now?

Your rating: None Average: 1.6 (7 votes)

Playing Minecraft has a higher priority than writing articles for Flayrah.

Although I suppose I could find the time to write up an article about WikiFur's mismanagement, since such things are a matter of public interest and I doubt many people are aware of it. I kinda doubt it'd be published on Flayrah, though. (OTOH, it might be interesting fodder for GreenReaper's pals over on Vivisector to paw through, but it's sort of a double-edged sword... the only reason they put up with him is because he listens to them even if nobody else does.) -;)

Then again, GreenReaper claims when a story is published on Flayrah it's primarily because its author thought the topic was worth noting, and he doesn't go around assigning stories or exercise a heavy hand over topics. I think the WikiFur scandal is definitely worth noting. After all, GreenReaper can't really run an encyclopedia that bills itself as the encyclopedia by and for the Furry community and not expect people to talk about his decisions. It's just not reasonable, especially when so many people use WikiFur as a resource.

Your rating: None Average: 3.5 (4 votes)

Then please do, I'd rather have comments about the wiki be in an article about the wiki instead of an article about Flayrah.

Your rating: None Average: 3.5 (6 votes)

To further note, I see in no way how that link proves the relationship between Vivisector and GreenReaper. Your links seem to do that a lot, you seem to be using links like Glenn Beck uses a chalk board. Are you inferring that just because something is linked it's evidence? Are you hoping no one actually reads what you link?

Your rating: None Average: 2.4 (8 votes)

Last time I checked, GreenReaper was one of the top ten posters on the anti-furry site Vivisector.

Either he posts there frequently, or their readership is so miniscule that it's just really easy to get into the top ten. Probably a little of both.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (5 votes)

Check again. I have a stunning 0.063 posts/day. Perhaps you were thinking of "time online"?

But certainly, I'm there. I'm also on Anthrocon's forums, and, and Furtopia, and Furry Teens, and furrydrama_2, and Second Life, and a myriad of other furry hangouts, many written in tongues that I can only read through the grace of Google.

News may break anywhere. I noticed a recent update because it was posted to Vivisector.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (2 votes)

I don't even see your name on their at all... in fact here are your stats:;area=statistics;u=14

You actually probably dropped to #11th in time on there...

Your rating: None Average: 2.3 (8 votes)

Check again. I have a stunning 0.063 posts/day. Perhaps you were thinking of "time online"?

No, it was in fact Top Ten Posters, but as I said, "last time I checked." I obviously don't frequent the place as often as you do. -:P

News may break anywhere. I noticed a recent update because it was posted to Vivisector.

Admitting Vivisector is among your news sources probably isn't the smartest thing to do when people are pointing out you have credibility issues, but I guess even a broken clock is correct twice a day.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (5 votes)

Linking to a link that was linked on Vivisector doesn't make the link any less credible if the link is from an actual news site, which in this case it is.

Just because something is said on Fox News doesn't make it wrong by default, like for example:

As you said, a broken clock is right twice a day. But also remember even a working clock is wrong twice a year.

Your rating: None Average: 1.7 (6 votes)

Yeah... if you're comfortable putting your trust in the Furry equivalent of FOX News...

Your rating: None Average: 4.8 (4 votes)

Humanity is one big Fox News, a bunch of people sitting around talking about things they don't understand but act like they do. Because the only real fact about humanity is that which Socrates discovered long ago, and that is that nobody knows anything really.

But, on that mark, the context of my remark was toward Vivisector, I'm sure you weren't trying to spin that to try and make it look like I was trusting their judgment, or that Flayrah was pulling articles directly from Vivisector, or that somehow makes Flayrah like Fox News (they linked an article that was linked on Vivisector, an article which was not biased or written by a Vivisector member). Because if you did I would assign you comment the most ironic of the year, for isn't that kind of a spin on context your comment just did the very thing that you loathe about Fox News?

Your rating: None Average: 2.3 (7 votes)

One would hope Flayrah isn't pulling articles directly from Vivisector considering how out-of-the-loop those guys are. They're hardly a source of reliable information.

But then again, GreenReaper does tend to give soapboxes and megaphones to kooks, so it's not outside the realm of possibility.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (3 votes)

Wow... I rest my case...

What I said was: he LINKED to a NEWS article that was LINKED on Vivisector.

What I did not say was: He linked to an article directly on Vivisector.

I think you and Fox News have more in common then you're like to admit, but I think they're better at spinning personally.

According to that logic that would mean if someone linked one of your blog posts on Vivisector, it makes everything in your blog post wrong?

Your rating: None Average: 5 (2 votes)

Hold on a second, you're lying! If you scrubbed the bathroom floor prior to making the comment that scrubbing the bathroom floor was higher on you list of things to do... then how come you commented that the bathroom need to be scrubbed when you are claiming you already did it before you commented on it?

I've been wrong before, but wow... I've never made a claim that bad... took me long enough to notice that inconsistency...

Your rating: None Average: 2.4 (7 votes)

What inconsistency? I said it ranks below scrubbing the bathroom floor on my list of priorities. This is based on past performance. Kind of like how replying here ranks below rescheduling my dentist appointment. In other words, lower priority things get done after higher priority things get done. You can tell what priority they're in by the order they're done in.

(Sorry for taking this long to reply, MineCraft's server is down at the moment.)

Your rating: None Average: 3.7 (3 votes)

But then if then writing a news article ranked lower doing the bathroom floor, and you seemed to have done that, it seems it also falls below complaining about how much the articles suck in the comments.

Your rating: None Average: 2.5 (6 votes)

Complaining's easier, but rearranging pixels in an imaginary world is more productive.

Your rating: None Average: 2.8 (5 votes)

So which part of that comment was about MineCraft and which one was about your commenting on the internet? I'm afraid you lost me.

Your rating: None Average: 2.1 (7 votes)

Yeah, well, you seem to be confused about a lot of things.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (2 votes)

You see, now that I'm actually really bored and reading the links you are providing I noticed something. Here you used the term "Monolithic AntiFurry Consiracy" in a serious manner... which the term itself seems to have been generated as some kind of sarcastic term to joke about furries oversensitivity to "fursecution". In other words it's a title they gave themselves because they felt that's what we'd call them because we are so 'sensitive'.

By using a term such as this seriously only proves that the parody is actually something more factual. Just because someone disagrees with you or your posse's way of doing things, doesn't make them anti-furry, for one individual, or subgroup, is not the entirety of furry. I think Pi is a bit arrogant, but he's still a furry. Just as I think Glenn Beck is a bat crazy wingnut, but he's still an American.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (6 votes)

Bah. Fursecution doesn't exist.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (2 votes)

Says the man who called a furry group "Anti-Furry". And I normally put silly slang like that in quotation marks so people don't wah about it, but I guess nothing can stop you from doing it.

Your rating: None Average: 2.7 (6 votes)

I don't wah about it. I bah about it. Although my attitude could probably better be summed up as feh, for the sake of accuracy.

Also: Who, exactly, is this "posse" you claim I have? What "way of doing things" do they disagree with? As I've said elsewhere in this thread, folks have a lot of weird ideas about what exactly I believe, but I suppose they're just afraid to ask me directly for some reason. Fear my squeaky hooves of power and all that. Whatev.

Your rating: None Average: 3.7 (3 votes)

When did I claim you have a posse? I remember saying something about you claiming there are "others who felt the same way" yet they are deafly silent. Nor do I recall saying anything about the way you do things.

Your rating: None Average: 2.6 (7 votes)

Just because someone disagrees with you or your posse's way of doing things, doesn't make them anti-furry —Sonious, Feb 19.

When did I claim you have a posse? I remember saying something about you claiming there are "others who felt the same way" yet they are deafly silent. Nor do I recall saying anything about the way you do things. —Sonious, Feb 23

Again: Who, exactly, is this "posse" you claim I have and what "way of doing things" do people disagree with?

People are always coming up with all kinds of netkooky things to say about me, so I'm just curious which variation you're hawking.

Your rating: None Average: 4 (4 votes)

We all have posses, which are our particular circle of friends. Just because a furry is doing something an individual or the circle the individual hangs around with disagree with doesn't make them any less a fur fan

We can claim that person X or Y is kooky of course, doesn't make them anti-furry despite what we believe their motives to be or how kooky they are, because facts are not what we choose to believe after all.

But in the end, I was mistaken that I didn't use that term, though it's intent wasn't as subversive as you thought as if the word posse had some sort of secret meaning to it. To say one isn't influenced by the group of people they develop relationships or speak with is delusional, and when people these days want to make others seem weak because other people can have an impact over them, that is a sad society indeed. It's called being a social person.

Your rating: None Average: 2.7 (6 votes)

Cool. So I have a posse. I'll get right to work on the membership cards and secret decoder rings, and then you can really complain about my "way of doing things"...

Your rating: None Average: 5 (2 votes)

I was using the posse as in the slang definition, not the proper definition, the context above kind of explained that. As I said, I could have worded it better.

Your rating: None Average: 2.4 (9 votes)

Obviously, we should form an opossum.*

Hi, Xydexx, you've been furry white-knighting since before I was active on the Internet; you have accomplished ABSOLUTELY nothing in all that time that makes non-furries like furries any more. In fact, your incredible skills at being annoying have turned more people off furry than Vivisector, CYD, or any other "anti-furry" group Green Reaper is secretly puppet controlling, combined.

Okay, I know you haven't implied Green Reaper is secretly puppet controlling anything, but it's funny to say it, and I think that's a good enough reason to. I'm explaining the joke here because I really don't think you're smart enough to get it, and I don't want to have waste my time reading a reply from you saying you haven't claimed Green Reaper is etc. because you can't UNDERSTAND sarcasm.

I disagree with Green Reaper very strongly on certain points, but the thing is, he tries to understand my position. He responds to my criticisms. And he doesn't let them get in the way of treating me like a fer-Chrissakes person, instead of as a faceless enemy. The reason he is on Vivisector is not because he agrees with those people, but because maybe they have valid criticisms that, when gleaned from the trash, can be put to use to make this fandom better, instead pretending like everything's tickety-boo.

What he doesn't do is continue to blindly attack incessantly NEARLY A FREAKING MONTH after the thread dies, because that is FREAKING ANNOYING.



*Rango joke. Go see it, people. I'll try and put up a review tomorrow.

Your rating: None Average: 2.7 (6 votes)

Thank you for sharing your opinions.

I especially like how it proves my point that people are always coming up with all kinds of netkooky things to say about me.

(Except the part about not understanding sarcasm. You're totally on the mark there, man.)

Your rating: None Average: 5 (2 votes)

While maybe not polite, that was an example of "netkooky?" That seems to be a low threshold and I guess helps put other complaints into perspective.

Your rating: None Average: 2.5 (6 votes)

Wait, the grasping-at-straws speculation that I'm everything that's wrong with the fandom but Vivisector is the guiding light that will save us all isn't netkooky enough for ya? Sure, it's not on par with the guy on WikiFur who thought I was the leader of some shadowy fetish mafia (HA HA I WISH!), but ya gotta admit it's still pretty delusional.

Your rating: None Average: 3.3 (3 votes)

The common opinion that infighting has been more damaging to the fandom than anti-furry groups aside, you do seem to have shown a pattern of misinterpreting and emphasising less relevant parts of posts. So it is not surprising he took time to point out some sarcasm, even if it would have been better if he just dropped it instead. But if people are crazy just because they are bad at making their point...

Your rating: None Average: 2.7 (6 votes)

I dunno, I think people are crazy if they think the Russian Popper Mafia is sneaking into their home at night or while they're asleep (but they never leave any evidence because they're just that good!) to cause mischief and mayhem.

But you know what's even crazier? Letting someone like that use a Furry encyclopedia as a battleground against imaginary enemies after being kicked off no fewer than two other sites prior to that, and telling anyone who disagrees that they need to reach "consensus" with such lunacy in the name of maintaining NPOV. That's certifiable.

Your rating: None Average: 4 (3 votes)

Once again, alot of claims without alot of details: What sites was he kicked off of, and for what purpose? What evidence do you have that he believes the "Russian Popper Mafia" exists?

Your rating: None Average: 4.7 (3 votes)

If it makes you feel better Green, I like your site and the news items you and others maintain. :)

I dunno, all this controversy is a very US orientated affair, it goes over my head since I'm from the UK and don't have the benefit of context.

Your rating: None Average: 4 (3 votes)

But... that was 9 years ago when he was a young squeaky pony and not a bitter old dinosaur.

Your rating: None Average: 2.7 (6 votes)

My essays have always been misinterpreted as "don't complain" when in reality they're actually "complain to someone in a position to do something about it." Says so right on the introductory page.

So if GreenReaper isn't able to fix inaccuracies on WikiFur/Flayrah, who do you think is?

Your rating: None Average: 5 (2 votes)

But if you're incapable of sharing what inaccuracies you're talking about, who do you think is?

Your rating: None Average: 2.7 (6 votes)

I didn't say I was incapable of pointing out the inaccuracies; I said others had pointed them out and they were argued about rather than corrected.

I can do it, but if it's just going to lead to a six-month argument anyway, why not spend that time focusing on the underlying issue that caused the problem in the first place?

(Not that I have any illusion that's going to be addressed either, but it's the thought that counts!) -=)

Your rating: None Average: 3 (5 votes)

Focusing would be nice, we've been trying to get you to point out the inaccuracy you keep talking about, every time you avoid doing so make you seem incapable whether you say you are or not.

Your rating: None Average: 2.5 (6 votes)

I'm capable of pointing them out, but it's a futile effort to do so when GreenReaper has indicated that pointing out the inaccuracies will only result in a six month debate about the inaccuracies rather than corrections.

Your rating: None Average: 4 (4 votes)

I'm seeing the indications too of how you could end up in a six month debate with GreenReaper that doesn't go anywhere, considering the arguing here for over a month now without actually saying anything new and on-topic that wasn't in your first post. Oddly, there isn't much involvement here from GreenReaper but yet the fruitless endlessness is still present.

Your rating: None Average: 2.7 (6 votes)

I dunno, GreenReaper seems pretty content to stonewall the issue rather than debate it. Considering how pointing out inaccuracies would have just resulted in a six month debate anyway, why not cut to the chase and debate the underlying problem of GreenReaper not correcting inaccuracies instead? Heck, six months is a drop in the bucket compared to the alternate possibility.

One would think GreenReaper would at least offer some reasonable excuse for his behavior and mismanagement of WikiFur and Flayrah, but apparently there isn't one.

Your rating: None Average: 3.3 (4 votes)

GreenReaper seems pretty content to stonewall the issue rather than debate it

I don't think he is the one that has been stonewalling and refusing debate here...

Your rating: None Average: 4 (3 votes)

I would have to agree in this case, it is pretty much a founding principal of the Scientific Method that when you get a result and you have a hypothesis that variable X is the cause of the result, and you then remove the variable X and the same results happen the hypothesis is pretty much voided at that point, it's time to come up with a new one.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (2 votes)

While maybe not a proper example of the scientific method, there is definitely an ongoing experiment in human perseverance here...

Your rating: None Average: 4.7 (3 votes)

Once again I'm sure he could offer a "reasonable excuse" for his "mismanagement" of Flayrah, if you provided at least one example of what you found "mismanaged".

Your rating: None Average: 2.8 (8 votes)

That's really rich, Xydexx, because you and I both know the reason you don't like this place is because they're not a stenography service for Kage and his goons. You don't like them precisely because they ARE news- that is, they report on things that might challenge your views on furry.

Or rather, the views on furry that you try so hard to push on others.

Your rating: None Average: 2.6 (8 votes)

Actually, you don't know beans and the reason I don't like this place, as previously stated, is because GreenReaper has a habit of giving soapboxes and megaphones to kooks. It's a bad habit he brings over from WikiFur and has nothing to do with my views on Furry or whatever other half-baked conspiracies you're imagining about me these days.

Your rating: None Average: 2.9 (9 votes)

I guess kook is a subjective term. You might see some people as kooks, others might see them as people who say things you don't like about furry, or Anthrocon in particular. In fact I suspect the big reason you don't like this place or WikiFur is because they won't play Kage's dictatorial PR games, and they make their own decisions about what to publish and what not to publish. There's a lot of legitimate criticism to be made about editorial decisions in both places, but you're not making it. Don't pretend like you are.

Your rating: None Average: 3.1 (7 votes)

Well, you're entitled to your opinion, but the reason I don't like WikiFur is because—again, as I've previously stated—GreenReaper takes NPOV to such an extreme that what qualifies as truth is based on "what you believe" to be true rather than facts. He's told me so himself. You and GreenReaper are free to disagree with me on what constitutes a kook and what sort of credence we should lend to them.

For example, if someone believed a shadowy global network of ninjas was sneaking into his home at night while they were asleep, damaging their inflatable collection, and departing without leaving any evidence they had done so, I'd call that person a kook. Ironically, so would (and has) GreenReaper. Occam's Razor being what it is, it's almost certain there isn't any grand conspiracy and the guy is either trolling or needs psychological help. But the devil's in the details: While I think that sort of patent lunacy has no place on WikiFur, GreenReaper actively defends it. For months. Because, again, WikiFur isn't for what's actually true, just what you believe is true.

By all means you're perfectly welcome to believe the guy isn't a kook and I "just don't like" the things he's saying because he's threatening to expose the Russian Popper Mafia or whatever. It won't be the first time made some sort of wacky claim about me. Probably won't be the last.

But I digress. I think the fact that GreenReaper (and suprisingly, even other admins) lends credence to kooks on WikiFur is very legitimate criticism of its editorial decisions, especially in light of the fact that he's claiming to an encyclopedia about Furry fandom but includes that sort of irrelevant lunacy which IMHO doesn't belong there. That's my problem with WikiFur.

Now, you can argue that it's okay for GreenReaper to publish that sort of patent lunacy (not that it matters, because nobody's arguing he shouldn't make his own decisions about what to publish and what not to publish) but I don't think defending kooks or GreenReaper's tendency to do so puts you in a very tenable position.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (2 votes)

Stephen of Ockham's observation was sort of predicated on the idea that people would not ignore reality or make up their own reality.

Stephen of Ockham is obviously an idiot.

Your rating: None Average: 3.3 (9 votes)

So wait, then you also hate Livejournal, forums, and pretty much any interactive media where people can let their voice?

Let me summarize and tweak my comment from your own axiom on furry fandom. If you're going to only focus on the idiots making stupid claims in a comment section on the internet, you're going to miss out the parts which make the Internet a great place to interact with others.

Like all those other mediums on the internet GreenReaper here is not giving a podium to specific people, he's letting everyone have their say. And yes, everyone's going to include the people you don't like. It's something you have to deal with, for if they can't be free to express themselves just because you don't like them, then really why should I care about your rights or if someone oppresses them?

Your rating: None Average: 2.7 (6 votes)

I don't know where you keep getting the idea that I "hate" LiveJournal or forums where people can "let their voice". If anything, it's a little ironic that you're attempting to champion free speech while at the same time trying to shout down voices you disagree with.

Also not sure where you get the idea that I "focus" on the idiots making stupid claims on the internet; they show up in my e-mail box due to Flayrah's comment settings. I respond to them when I have nothing better to do. Most of the time I don't. When the weather is nice, this is known as "pulling a Xydexx." You should try it sometime.

I also don't get the strawman argument that this is about people I (in your words, not mine) "don't like." I've said from the get go this is about inaccuracies on WikiFur and Flayrah and not some imagined personal vendetta you think I have. If you're incapable of debating that without getting sidetracked by whatever it is you think I believe, that's your choice, but it's pretty obvious you haven't the slightest inkling what you're talking about.

Your rating: None Average: 3.6 (7 votes)

So you spend 20+ paragraphs here voicing criticism that a community written and rated news source allows people in the community to post things. This includes writing up a hypothetical kook scenario, deconstructing it logically in a simple, concise way in another comment. Yet how much do you put into deconstructing actual kook arguments then if they were so critically flawed and important? For complaining that kooks get unfair weight here, you seem to be putting a lot of effort and all of your weight into your own esoterica. Is it actually surprising to you that people question your priorities and motives?

Your rating: None Average: 3 (5 votes)

No, he can just preach an axiom and at the same time completely ignore it.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (5 votes)

First, I'm not shouting, anyone with a literacy degree (or heck a high school student) will tell you since there is no exclamation point anywhere in my statements. Nor are their caps anywhere but the start of the sentences which is grammatically proper. If my words speak those kind of volumes to you then it is all in your head.

Second off, you can't shout down someone on the internet, it's impossible because they always have a chance to fully respond to you, it's a feat that is impossible. Shouting down requires the ability to interrupt someone... which you cannot do here.

Third off, trust me I comment on enough stuff on the internet because I have as well too much free time, so telling me to try what I'm already doing is a waste. And quite frankly it seems when I'm doing that something someone feels I'm oppressing and shouting them down. Which if you want real oppression try living in the middle east sometime. I'm sure you'd see your complaints of some lonely guy on the internet with no real power "slapping down your ability to speak" will seem childish when you see the blood of individuals on the streets who are actually oppressed by someone with actual power.

Fourth, the "Don't like" is a translation of calling someone a kook, unless I misunderstood you and you see that as a term of endearment, and if so I apologize.

Your rating: None Average: 2.8 (6 votes)

Nowhere in this entire thread did I call anyone a kook because I "don't like" them.

I did call someone a kook because he thought there was some sort of clandestine international cabal out to get him and control all the inflatable fetish sites, and even though he was booted off two previous sites for that madness, for some [still-inexplicable] reason GreenReaper thought WikiFur was an appropriate forum for it.

I had asked what exactly this guy's wacky conspiracy theories had to do with Furry fandom, but GreenReaper apparently felt they were "interesting" and worthy of inclusion.

I'd ask you to get your facts straight, but again, it's pretty obvious you haven't the slightest inkling what you're talking about and just want to argue about whatever it is you've convinced yourself I believe.

Your rating: None Average: 2.7 (6 votes)

I would actually agree that the article wasn't too newsworthy and I do believe alot of people agreed that since it was rated so low. Whoever posted that probably was giving it more prompt then deserved, but this has happened on Flayrah long before GreenReaper took over. There always has been the articles on events which have been and still are the majority, but every once in awhile a controversial topic would arise. Maybe in the future there would be some fading system like the comment's system does. But new articles come in pretty regularly, so it wouldn't even make the front page for more then a day.

Then again, this isn't a "Digg" type site.

And I will point out that according to your history, it was those exceptional articles where you commented on the most, and I would be a liar if I too were to try and deny that I had commented on my fair share of controversial stories, or stories about controversy. For example this opinion piece:

What you believe is irrelevant, as I've always felt people's beliefs are irrelevant. Every human being on this planet is biased to their own experiences, so what I do is try and learn about peoples perspectives, not treat people differently because they have different tastes, and thusly while doing so will openly admit that sometimes my own perspectives get the best of me.

The article about the 'hug list' by the way I commented on, and I did so by trying to turn lemons into lemonade, asking myself why this is such a controversial topic, why furries are back and forth on the issues of sexual fur suits, and the possible reasons it's so heated.

Of note also is that when the comments did get out of hand, which I will admit I contributed to, they were locked, so I guess there is a line somewhere that is defined for such things.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (5 votes)

So let's get specific. Are we talking about this story, to which you appear to have already objected, albeit anonymously?

Note the author. Isn't it a little misleading to call me out for a story brought up and written entirely by a third party? Someone who has no connection with the subject of the article?

Flayrah's contributors have their own opinions on what is news, and in this case I'd hardly call their choices sensational. If you disagree, that's your call – but your disagreement is with a significant portion of the fandom, not just me.

Your rating: None Average: 2.4 (7 votes)

Isn't it a little misleading to assume I'm calling you out for a specific story when I haven't even mentioned which one I have a problem with? Jump to conclusions much?

Since we're asking questions, care to explain to the Flayrah readership your reasoning behind letting a kook use WikiFur as a soapbox to trumpet his insane theories for well over a year? Seriously, what's up with that? Because if you want to know where you got the reputation for giving soapboxes and megaphones to kooks, your handling (or mishandling, as the case may be) of that whole situation pretty much speaks for itself.

I mean, after seeing how much effort it takes just to get you to take action1 against someone who is clearly batshit insane on WikiFur, you can understand how people might not want to bother trying to make corrections on Flayrah because you'd rather argue with them than make the corrections.

1 I'm being overly generous here; you inexplicably never actually took action against him. (But you did ban the guy who didn't want WikiFur used as platform for wacky non-Furry conspiracy theories! Nice work!)

Your rating: None Average: 3.2 (5 votes)

You were blocked for two days by another WikiFur administrator after creating several hoax pages - disrupting the site to make a point. Our discussions on this topic are in the public record; I have nothing to add.

If you have a factual complaint about a Flayrah article, please make it. If you are here to snipe, please leave.

Your rating: None Average: 2.7 (6 votes)

A WikiFur admin blocking me for creating hoax pages seems a bit contradictory, considering you allowed Wolfkid23 to do so for an entire six months prior to that. I had merely be doing my best to abide by WikiFur's contradictory and mercurial standards, based on the sparse clarification I was able to wrest from the WikiFur admins themselves.

In short, if disrupting WikiFur by creating hoaxes is a blockable offense, why was no action taken against WolfKid23 for an entire six months?

I've several factual complaints about inaccuracies on Flayrah; at issue is the fact that based on past experience on WikiFur (as well as on Flayrah) the way to deal with corrections is to argue about them rather than correct them.

What assurances do I have, exactly, that attempting to correct misinformation on Flayrah won't result in the same six-month-long argument that resulted from attempting to correct misinformation on WikiFur? Because as I've been saying all along, if correcting inaccurate information when it was pointed out had been your policy from the beginning we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.

Your rating: None Average: 2.7 (6 votes)

It seems you are here to snipe. Please stop. This is the last time I will ask.

Your rating: None Average: 2.3 (6 votes)

Your "love it or leave it" attitude toward criticism doesn't really seem compatible with your alleged goal of running websites "by and for" the Furry community, and the difficulty in getting inaccurate information on WikiFur/Flayrah corrected is something you should rectify instead of attempting to sweep it under the rug (again).

Your rating: None Average: 5 (2 votes)

Can you show me an example of an article that was corrected/updated prior to GreenReaper being the owner? I can't find a single example.

Your rating: None Average: 2.3 (6 votes)

Maybe there weren't articles that needed corrections before GreenReaper took over... -:P

(Man, surprisingly razor wit from a squeaky pony. Who knew?)

Your rating: None Average: 3.5 (6 votes)

Seeings as the laws of probability show that to be an impossibility since no human being is perfect, and thus no creation of them will be, it's more likely maybe someone's perspective of a website changed simply for change in ownership.

It's not perfect now, I doubt it was perfect then.

(Yes, Razor sharp . But on that note this seems to be a serious issue to you, if it's not why are you here? Are you not taking this seriously as you first claimed you did? Then why should anyone take you seriously when you claim there to be a problem?)

Your rating: None Average: 5 (2 votes)

All I see in this is an argument between two wiki users, which if flayrah is supposed to be avoiding the dramafulness of things, and a news site isn't the place for it, why introduce these elements in the very place you feel they shouldn't be?

And why are they slower to take action against some no named individual then someone who has at least some status in the fandom? Probably the same reason we castrate politicans over sex scandels more then some homeless guy, or even a middle class worker... people expect alot more from people who are central figures.

Do you think you should be treated like some commoner or don't you want to live by higher standards?

Your rating: None Average: 3 (4 votes)

How can he be arguing with others and "too neutral" at the same time?

Your rating: None Average: 1.8 (5 votes)

Because you need a hobby.

Your rating: None Average: 4 (3 votes)

I have one, and I enjoy it a lot. It's commenting on news articles that have nothing to do with me. I think that and being furry are probably the only things we have in common.

That and thinking ED sucks... both the website and the disease.

Your rating: None Average: 3.3 (4 votes)

Isn't it a little misleading to assume I'm calling you out for a specific story when I haven't even mentioned which one I have a problem with? Jump to conclusions much?

If you had just gave actual examples of problems, from this website, from the start, you would have looked a lot more reasonable and may have made relevant points (unless the problems are actually kind of minor, contrary to the built up hype). And I would assume the first sentence I quoted was badly worded and you didn't mean to imply there is only one article you have a problem with. Otherwise, if there is just one article with serious issues, that is practically an endorsement for most news sources.

Your rating: None Average: 2.3 (7 votes)

If you had just gave actual examples of problems, from this website...

Except that past experience has shown that pointing out examples of inaccuracies on this website resulted in argument, not corrections.

It's easier to point out the website is inaccurate than get involved in a six-month-long war of attrition to try to get the information corrected.

Your rating: None Average: 3.5 (4 votes)

I think your problem is is that you think this is Wikifur... last I checked this is Flayrah.

Just because something is owned by the same person doesn't mean it's the same product.

It'd be like me going on the Iams website to complain to Proctor & Gamble about Pringles... go to the Pringles website...

Your rating: None Average: 2.2 (5 votes)

No, my problem is that GreenReaper would rather debate corrections rather than make them.

I never claimed WikiFur and Flayrah were the same thing, but they're run by the same person and they do suffer from the same problem.

Your rating: None Average: 3.8 (4 votes)

Then what article on Flayrah needs a correction?

Your rating: None Average: 2.5 (6 votes)

I could tell ya, but others already have, and all it would do (has done) is make you and Greepy argue about it rather than actually do anything about it.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (2 votes)

So asking a question is an argument? I thought it was simply asking a question.

And this "Others already have", have they done it here or only to you? Because that's the thing about conversation, you can have it if the only person being talked to isn't sharing what is being said. If they have done so here wouldn't that be a great example to share when you were asked to provide on multiple times?

Your rating: None Average: 2.7 (6 votes)

Other folks have already attempted to correct inaccuracies here on Flayrah and gotten nowhere. Providing examples would—much like the fiasco over on WikiFur—just be an invitation for argument rather than an opportunity for correction.

Your rating: None Average: 4.7 (3 votes)

I've been an admin on Flayrah since well back into the days when Aureth was running it and you occasionally contributed articles, and at the moment I honestly don't have a clue what inaccuracies you may be referring to. You've been asked several times in this thread to provide examples of inaccuracies on Flayrah, but the only replies you've given sound a lot like the proverbial argument between a couple: "Why are you mad at me?" "If you can't figure it out I'm not going to tell you." Sure, you've mentioned Wikifur, again and again and again, but you've offered nothing but vague generalizations about Flayrah.

Your rating: None Average: 2.3 (7 votes)

Let's review, then:

As previously stated, others have pointed out the inaccuracies on Flayrah before. GreenReaper opted to argue about them rather than do what any responsible news source would do and make corrections. Granted, it's his site and he can run it however he wishes. I'm not sure why he expects running a site magically exempts him from legitimate criticism about his actions.

And when those actions include giving soapboxes and megaphones to kooks and allowing them to rewrite history... well, I sure hope I'm not the only one who sees a problem with that and is willing to speak up about it.

Your rating: None Average: 4.2 (6 votes)

And as previously inquiried about "others" is a meaningless word because you were asked who these "others" were, in which you did not respond. Therefore "others" is probably a meaningless weasel word used to exaggerate one's case.

In fact your last sentence kind of proves that "You hope you aren't the only one", didn't you just SAY there were "others"? Why would you have to hope you aren't the only one if you know there are "others"?

Are their "others" or are there not?

Your rating: None Average: 2.5 (6 votes)

Others have a problem with it, but aren't willing to speak up about it. And if it isn't worth their time, perhaps in the grand scheme of things I overestimate Flayrah/WikiFur's importance.

Myself, it's pretty well known that I don't like seeing misinformation spread. (I get mocked for this by GreenReaper's pals on Vivisector occasionally... "North Korean Tour Guide" I believe the phrase was...)

Your rating: None Average: 4.7 (3 votes)

I find it hard to believe any sane individual would believe you are actually a "North Korean Tour Guide". Clearly the only reason people on Vivisector do it is because it empowers them because it seems to make you talk about them on other forums. They probably love that such a silly claim can make you talk about them on other forums, because if you didn't their word would suddenly be the whole truth. How empowered that must make them feel, to know that if you didn't go all over the net and denouncing such an obvious falsity is in fact false, that somehow it would become true.

ViviSector is not an educational group, they are not there for fact checking, i don't see why you believe they are. Some of their members may post something truthful once in awhile, but as you said, broken watches are right twice a day right?

It takes a keen eye and lots of time and research to know when someone's claiming BS and when they are actually making fact. And everyone will make a mistake once in awhile, which is why it's important when something is wrong people let them know exactly what is wrong and needs to be fixed, not claim that an error will be made and say it's because the person doesn't care, instead of being human and prone to err.

Because in reality, is saying "Green doesn't care about his mistakes" any more fair a claim as those calling you a "North Korean Tour Guide"?

Your rating: None Average: 5 (2 votes)

Ironically I read the word "invitation" as "invention" the first scan through, but that might not be as ironic as I believe it to be.

Your rating: None Average: 3.5 (6 votes)

You are right that it is easier to point out something as inaccurate than to get it corrected. Except you haven't pointed it out as inaccurate. You could have given examples to make your point about inaccuracy without fighting over them being corrected. Instead you've just expended a lot of words to say little more than "I think this website sucks" and "I think what GreenReaper has done on other websites suck."

Some of us were interested in what mistakes may have been missed, if things were worse than they seemed, and might even help try to correct or change things so you wouldn't be in a one person fight that could be easily misconstrued as a personal vendetta. But the more effort you expend without actually showing examples of things being wrong, the more people will think that maybe you don't have any good examples. E.g. the inaccuracies are inconsequential or maybe your issues are a matter of disagreements on statements of opinion and not inaccuracies of fact.

Maybe you are more reasonable than your critics as you said, and maybe this isn't a matter of dragging personal drama over from another site, but so far you've done a really good job of suggesting otherwise.

Your rating: None Average: 1.7 (6 votes)

Except you haven't pointed it out as inaccurate.

Right, but other people have, and GreenReaper's response was to respectfully disagree rather than making the correction. Because much like WikiFur, the truth isn't based on facts, it's based on "what you believe."
Your rating: None Average: 2.8 (5 votes)

Which begs the question, did he actually say that or is that what you believe he believes?

Your rating: None Average: 2.3 (6 votes)

He pretty much said that. He told me the reason I got banned from WikiFur (for making "hoax" articles) and not WolfKid23 is because WolfKid23 actually believed what we was writing.

In a nutshell, you can post whatever raving lunatic nonsense you want to WikiFur as long as you believe it's true.

(However, if you point out it's raving lunatic nonsense, you'll be told to assume good faith and get lectured on how NPOV means including all viewpoints, including ones imported by people who openly admit using a sockpuppet account because the previous two forums they tried it on kicked them off.)

Your rating: None Average: 3.8 (4 votes)

That whole can't be punished for repeating something you thought was truth as truth is actually not exclusive to Wikifur... Look at the paragraph before you sign your tax form. It basically states one cannot be punished if they did not know about an inaccuracy in their form, however if you knowingly do so you can be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

Did you knowingly put up articles that were hoaxs and then later claim they were hoaxs with malicious intent? That is different then doing so just because you're misinformed. One requires knowingly being untruthful, the other is being a victim to one's own ignorance. I wouldn't ban the later outright, but I probably would lock them from the article in question.

Your rating: None Average: 2.2 (5 votes)

I really ought to publish the whole timeline of events (since it's of "public interest" and all) so folks who are unfamiliar with what happened on WikiFur can get the whole story. It'd show people exactly why I wouldn't trust Greepy with a ten foot pole.

I mean, arguments about whether Wolfkid23 was actually mentally unstable or just trolling are irrelevant when you realize there's no excuse for Greepy letting that go on for so long. It's simply indefensible.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (2 votes)

Then please do, it's confusing when you point at something without context and for someone who isn't involved it may be hard to follow what exactly you're seeing. I do that all the time to others, sometimes when you understand alot about a subject, it's not easy to understand a good place to start. If you want to write a detailed timeline article of what had happened then I think that'd be better then expecting everyone to understand when you just put links to things up there that don't really establish a pattern.

Your rating: None Average: 2.3 (4 votes)

Do you need to keep encouraging him to go off-topic about WikiFur here?

Your rating: None Average: 3.7 (3 votes)

When he says "Publish" I'm assuming on his own blog, not here. Posting stuff in a comment place isn't really "publishing" in my mind.

Your rating: None Average: 1.6 (5 votes)

What he's saying, Sonious, is stop feeding the troll.

Xydexx is apparently bored, (or drunk, maybe. I dunno.) and if we leave him alone, he might leave us alone. Maybe. What I tried to tell Xydexx himself was he's only embarassing himself (seriously, if it's off the main page and no replies for at least a week, it's over.). Admittedly, continuing to reply to him is only embarassing us at this point (and I'm just as guilty here).

Continue on if you're bored yourself (or drunk. Whatever.), but realize it ain't winning you any brownie points.

Your rating: None Average: 1.3 (3 votes)

Not so much "don't feed the trolls" as just don't directly encourage or repeat the problematic behaviour. Simply continuing to reply, as long as not making the same mistakes, isn't really embarrassing, as at worse it says some people have too much free time like 99% of the rest of the internet. It not like most of the replies involve much of a strong reaction that would be worthy troll food.

Your rating: None Average: 2.7 (6 votes)

Can't say I'm too worried about being called a troll by a neo-Burned Fur, a former member of CYD/Vivisector, and an anonymous nobody.

I mean, seriously? If these are the guys rooting for the way Greepy's running things, that pretty much sums things up better than any witty comeback I could think of. -:)

Your rating: None Average: 5 (2 votes)

I didn't call you a troll, just saying your off-topic rants about Wikifur don't help anyone here (especially you, it completely waters down your point and suggests this is a personal issue only, and not an actual issue with the site).

And I wouldn't call some of these people as actually rooting for GreenReaper, since some wanted to find something wrong with the site, and originally expected to find something.

But by now, your ability to make your point here is so bad as to be indistinguishable from the actions of a troll, to even people that started on your side. It is unknown whether you are just really bad at communicating and reasoning, or if you have ulterior priorities that makes you waste so much time here instead of making a solid point that should have easily doable with only two or three posts.

Your rating: None Average: 2.5 (6 votes)

I dunno, if you really want to explore who's got a personal issue with who, we could discuss how some vandalism on WikiFur gets corrected in a timely manner, and some vandalism is allowed to remain for the better part of a year via ever-increasing contradictory statements from the Admins to facilitate that.

I've previously chalked that behavior up to simple cluelessness. I don't think my ability to communicate or reason is at issue: I stated in no uncertain terms that someone was importing an argument that had nothing to do with Furry fandom onto WikiFur and that GreenReaper should do something about it. What he chose to do was allow it to continue for months.

Now, if GreenReaper did it out of maliciousness as a result of letting his personal problems with me effect the way he runs WikiFur, I think it's safe to say that backfired on him pretty spectacularly.

Be that as it may, WikiFur is relevant to the topic at hand because it's an attitude GreenReaper has carried over to Flayrah and should definitely be cause for concern.

Your rating: None Average: 3.5 (4 votes)

If it did backfire then why do you feel the need to be here talking about it? Wouldn't the backfire be so obvious that no further comment on it would be indeed necessary?

And we've asked you for evidence of inaccuracy in Flayrah that would support your link to Wikifur's system. You have yet to provide, if you're trying to connect the fact that this is as erroneous, you would think this an easy task. Wouldn't that HELP your cause and not HURT it... you keep saying it's a waste of time, do you believe Flayrah's future is a waste of time? If so why are you here?

You keep saying "this is important", I have yet to see any effort on your part other then blanket complaints that claims you care in the slightest about anything else other then to try and make us think that Green Reaper is a "bad guy".

Your rating: None Average: 3 (3 votes)

My purpose here is not to "win points" with anyone. I don't see the internet in that way.

Your rating: None Average: 2.5 (6 votes)

Well that's a shame. I traded in my points for a new sense of humor after I sold my old one for some magic beans.

Your rating: None Average: 2.6 (5 votes)

Would that explain why you've... "bean stalking" my comments. bud-dum psh.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

It wasn't just that post that you did so. And it is not necessarily about what you say or meant to say, but about how it could be easily misinterpreted too.

Your rating: None Average: 4.3 (6 votes)

Upon return to the discussion, I was expecting to have to apologise for being wrong. As with several subtle, and now direct, requests for actual examples, I was expecting you to give some, whether because you were serious or just to stick it to the critics. You said you didn't want it to turn into an argument that dragged out forever, however you've shown the ability to not reply to posts you don't want to. But instead, worse than arguing about something forever, you've managed to argue about nothing for length. Now it just looks "full of sound and fury."

Your rating: None Average: 1.8 (5 votes)

GreenReaper has not given any assurances that a request for correction will result in anything other than an ad nauseum debate over whether the correction should be made.

(And in fact, he's already been corrected on it by other people, but decided to disagree and argue about it with them rather than make a simple correction, so my suspicions are entirely justified.)

Your rating: None Average: 5 (2 votes)

Well at least you admitted that you're unsure of something, finally.

And where are you links this time? You seem to leave them out when you actually need them and make claims that aren't trivial.

Your rating: None Average: 2.8 (4 votes)

That excuse wears thin, especially after it has been pointed out that: there are other people here than GreenReaper, that you can point to an inaccuracy without asking/debating for a correction, and even if it is interpreted as request for correction and GreenReaper wants to debate it (unlike several corrections I saw in the last little while that were fixed quickly...), an ad nauseam debate requires two people, and can be easily stopped (i.e. ignored) by one person.

Your rating: None Average: 2.5 (6 votes)

Ignoring a lengthy debate and just leaving the inaccuracies on Flayrah is the path of least resistance, sure... assuming that's what you want out of a Furry "news" site...

Your rating: None Average: 3 (5 votes)

Apparently you do want that out of Flayrah because we keep asking you which inaccuracy you're talking about you refuse to answer that question, you just keep talking about them.

Kind of like when you ask a religious person "Why do you believe there is a God?" and they go "Because there is..."

Your rating: None Average: 2.8 (5 votes)

Actually that comment doesn't say to ignore problems, nor does it talk about taking the path of least resistance (which would seem irrelevant, since you seem to be fine taking a pretty high resistance, unproductive path as is). Claiming that your options are either leave inaccurate stories unnamed or to endlessly debate corrections to them is a false dichotomy.

Your rating: None Average: 2.7 (6 votes)

the views on furry that you try so hard to push on others

As an aside, I'm actually kind of curious as to exactly what views you think I'm trying so hard to push on others. The extremists in the fandom think I'm either trying to turn it into a fetish wonderland or whitewash all the sex out of it, but they're both wrong. So it'll probably be pretty funny to hear what you have to say.

I know it's fun for folks like you to try and portray me as Big Bad Xydexx and all, but at the end of the day I'm just a guy on the internet expressing his opinions (wow, just like everyone else!), except the surprising thing is I end up being a lot more reasonable than my critics are.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (2 votes)

It could be both, your fetish is to make is all squeaky clean. Get it, squeaky... yeah, I need more coffee...

Your rating: None Average: 5 (2 votes)

My safeword is MORE.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

As they say, more is less

Your rating: None Average: 5 (2 votes)

One minor comment on the site, is I've noticed the captchas recently being quite aggressive. It would be one thing if some are hard to read, but I've noticed some having punctuation (distorted period and commas overlapping a letter are easy to miss) and even letters with accents. Also, occasionally even when it is rather easy to read, sometimes when submitting a post a red box comes up saying some sort of attack was detected, like a captcha reuse attack, etc. The posts all still goes through though, so I don't know if it actually is causing any problems.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (2 votes)

I think the people who develop reCAPTCHA have been tweaking it to try to defeat spammers. You can refresh it to get a new challenge if you find the words are impossible to fill in. Or try filling it in without accents - if you get just one of the words right, it should let you through.

I disabled that error previously as it seems superfluous, but I recently updated the captcha module and it wasn't in my patches - thanks for the reminder.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

10 years? I'm a noob...

Your rating: None Average: 2 (4 votes)

Are Xydexx-Sonious-GreenReaper the Lizardman-Dragonaide of the 2010s?

Your rating: None Average: 5 (2 votes)

I sadly don't get that reference, the only lizardman I know is from Soul Caliber.

Your rating: None Average: 2.1 (8 votes)

I dunno. I'm just someone expressing opinions on the internet. Just like everyone else does. Gee.

About the author

GreenReaper (Laurence Parry)read storiescontact (login required)

a developer, editor and Kai Norn from London, United Kingdom, interested in wikis and computers

Small fuzzy creature who likes cheese & carrots. Founder of WikiFur, lead admin of Inkbunny, and Editor-in-Chief of Flayrah.