HOME | DD
wwwarea — Nobody does too
#article #ed #information #wwwarea #dramatica #encyclopedia #encyclopediadramatica
Published: 2016-01-06 03:31:43 +0000 UTC; Views: 3522; Favourites: 25; Downloads: 3
Redirect to original
Description
I don't want to re-type everything. I already explained things against a lot of bullshit against me. I will also use them as to why I don't deserve one:
General Defense --- Not a Wolfaboo --- A&O Movie explanations
Now that's out of the way. That article that one person made was serious, and actually thinks he's right about me when in reality he has no evidence, and only uses his personal opinion and brutal honesty as a "fact" and calls it "criticism" when it's actually not.
Now I know what some of you may think. Some of you may think that it's a joke. That it shouldn't be taken seriously.
Well one of the problems to that is what I already said: He/she wrote it for serious reasons against me.
The other problems is that other people take ED seriously too:
Some say "He/She deserves an ED article."
Some believe people or at least some people were "stupid" to get one.
Some uses articles as "facts" and thinks the brutal honesty on some articles are "criticism".
In as a bonus, even if an article is just a joke, it can promote harassment, stalking, etc. and possibly damage someone's life.
---
For me, I don't deserve one.
I had the right to defend animal rights, I had the right to criticize Copyright, I had the right to defend things I liked, I had the right to disagree, I had the right to defend harmless things against harmful things such as bullying, cyberbullying, harassment, etc., I had the right to openly share new ideas, I had the right to spirituality, and I had the right to BE MYSELF.
Just because you wrote something on ED bitching about what I like to do, being myself, etc. or anyone similar, doesn't mean you're right.
That article lacked any good reasoning to say I was a "bad" person or what I did was "flawed". Again, some of you may think it's a joke still, but remember, that article about me wasn't a joke. It was a hate article.
I know I've done SOME legit mistakes at times (e.g. I wish someone died of a heart attacked) but at least I'm open to understand that and regret.
But when it comes to a person who tries to find someone's sister on Facebook, trying to find my Facebook (Including with the sister stalking), who bullies people for fetishes, advocate harassment toward random individuals, treats personal preferences as "fact", lies to people about not leaving people alone, etc. and isn't sorry, it sickens me to see people like that get away (at least for a while).
Even though I think NOBODY deserves an ED article, if I had to agree that someone does, it's people who do this type of crap.
Also, I think this is my last stamp for a long time.. I may or may never come back. If I do come back, it's probably just for a couple things here and there.
Related content
Comments: 94
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
No I don't. You're basically defending harassment toward someone for having the right to have like a legal film for their life, and the right to defend it legally.
Just because you're offended, doesn't mean I "deserve" one.
Also calling crap "criticism" doesn't mean I should bow down and pretend their always "right".
👍: 2 ⏩: 1
Oh, so if I go out there to defend a movie I like, and I mean I straight up turn that defense into an obsessive, annoying, and outright whining to everyone and everything that criticizes it even one bit; all while I bring all this attention to myself without even TRYING to avoid making myself look like an idiot, I don’t deserve the attention I bring to myself? I don’t somehow turn that into an ED-worthy article?
And who said anything about being offended or legality? You didn’t get the article because you defended the movie “legally”, which outright FURTHER proves why you got it, and that you clearly miss the point to why in the first place. You got the article because you brought all the attention upon YOURSELF; because all you do it whine, cry, and harass others who do NOT agree with you (case in point: A&O). And yes, I’ve seen ALL your arguments, not just the ones in ED. Someone criticizes you or your movie or your idiotic methods of whining? You complain, complain, complain. When it doesn’t work, you complain more.
You constantly claim how others can’t judge what others like, yet there you go COMPLAINING to them why they aren’t allowed to not like what you like (case in point, again: A&O).
This hardly scratches the surface, but just enough as to WHY you really did deserve the article. If you can’t comprehend that, and even bother to avoid adding more to it then that’s frankly your problem. But don’t argue with people about the obvious.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
This all depends how one defends it. I am allowed to argue people who claim that creative legal artistic styles are "flawed", and I'm allowed to focus on that and be inspired to spread the fact that it's stupid to say "The wolfz art style is ugly! CHNAGE CHANGE IT CHANGE IT!". It's not even criticism, it's mainly biased. I don't have a problem with simply disliking an art style, but the moment someone argues, people are allowed to disagree with it. Even if disagreeing lasts for such a long time. And I'm no idiot for stating the fact that saying something legal and intentional as "flawed" stifles creativity in an arguable stance. You're defending harassment for the rights to freedom of speech. That's the main problem with your argument.
And I wouldn't be surprised if you're one of them yourself.
Victim blaming. The article exists because butthurt exists from those who hates it when people like me disagree. They had the choice. I didn't "bring it to myself", they did because they had the choice.
Who's to blame? Me for complaining at people's "speeches" that are *AHEM*, complain at OTHER people's "speeches"? Or those who b***h about the "speeches" that is the Alpha and Omega movie.
Yeah think about it. I'm the guy who complains at something that might be freedom of speech... for complaining about freedom of speech in the first place! And it seems YOU'RE complaining about my freedom of speech, making your comment partly hypocritical. -Logic is on myside here and if you believe in it, you might see a little something.
Again, I don't "deserve" the article. It was made because some people hated freedom of speech. And even if part of the reason was due to a couple of things screwed up if any, that still doesn't excuse it (revenge isn't justice).
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
Nobody is attacking your “freedom of speech” 
This response from you just further solidifies why you have the article
Note: No, I don’t have an ED either, it’s just an amusing website.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Trying to harass me, troll me, and other certain things because they are upset that I defend an art style they do not like is clear disrespect of freedom of speech.
Is it a violation of freedom of speech per, see? I am not sure on all, but regardless it's still disrespectful in another way.
Art style isn't supposed to be about realism. And I'm not surprised that you're one of those biased people.
www.merriam-webster.com/dictio…
Art style isn't supposed to be realistic, so to say it's a flaw because it doesn't fit with "realism" is, biased, and as it's idealistically judging a certain creative vision to be something it's not.
If you're seriously arguing that I "deserve" an ED article because I simply defend a type of wolf art style of a specific cartoon animated movie because some people argue it's "flawed" then it shows that you can't take criticism from me, and that you probably deserve one lawfully.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It can be as disrespectful as you want to call it, but it’s not violating neither your or their freedom of speech. That’s a fact whether you like it or not.
You’re obviously missing the main point of the “realism” argument, and I’ll just end it there knowing I know what I’m talking about when it comes to that subject.
Oh no, I don’t think you deserve an article’s for defending anything, and me explaining to you why you got one in the first place is clearly going over your head. You didn’t get it because you defended the shitty movie, you got because your defense of that movie went ABOVE AND BEYOND, to the point where you attracted the attention you whine about all the time. From your hypocrisy, to your outright constant complaint, after complaint about anyone who goes against you or against your favorite shitty movie. You got an article, for one, because you do NOT allow people to hate it (with justification) because apparently only YOU understand why it’s good, and you will whine to anyone about it.
Do you want to know what I’m talking about? That would be like me talking shit on EVERY anti-Twilight stamp, art, journal, etc. To the point where I’m becoming noticed in all the wrong ways, all because I don’t know when to quite talking shit on a movie I like (that’s just an example, as whether I like Twilight or not is irrelevant). Do you think all that trash talking, numerous journals, constant comment after comment, and whining isn’t going to get me the attention of ED and people? That’s a big YES. So if I don’t realize the stupidity I’m bringing upon myself and see an ED article of me, then YES, I deserved one, and by complaining about it or not learning my lesson (as several people who have a page on there have actually) will only make it worse.
That’s why you got the article, and that’s why it only adds further. You simply don’t get it, and that’s not my or anyone’s problem.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It can be as disrespectful as you want to call it, but it’s not violating neither your or their freedom of speech. That’s a fact whether you like it or not.
You don't get it do you? By "disrespect", I mean people are clearly showing that they hate it when people use their freedom of speech to disagree with certain beliefs. Violation or not. Complaining about me seems to show they just don't idealistically respect that right (regardless if it's a violation of the USA first amendment.) and deserves to be exposed as something non-civil lawfully. If it were "Hey, I disagree, I think the art style is a flaw." it would be a totally different situation, even though I wouldn't agree with such statement.
You’re obviously missing the main point of the “realism” argument, and I’ll just end it there knowing I know what I’m talking about when it comes to that subject.You seem to partly expose yourself as complaining toward the "looks" of the wolves just because they look wrong to you. If this isn't about "realism", then why are you saying they are bad because of skinny legs, and a few other things? And of course, why are you comparing them with an "actual wolf"?
Oh no, I don’t think you deserve an article’s for defending anything, and me explaining to you why you got one in the first place is clearly going over your head. You didn’t get it because you defended the shitty movie, you got because your defense of that movie went ABOVE AND BEYOND, to the point where you attracted the attention you whine about all the time. From your hypocrisy, to your outright constant complaint, after complaint about anyone who goes against you or against your favorite shitty movie. You got an article, for one, because you do NOT allow people to hate it (with justification) because apparently only YOU understand why it’s good, and you will whine to anyone about it.I can be as "ABOVE AND BEYOND" if I want to as long as it's lawful. So honestly, making one because some people don't like it when I am more inspired to defend the art style is not anymore of a higher or lower level than making one because I defend a lawful movie they do not like. Also, I allow people to "hate it", my concern was that if they make an argument out of their bias, then I can disagree with it and point out the biased in it (since there is a difference between disliking than making an argument out of it).
Do you want to know what I’m talking about? That would be like me talking shit on EVERY anti-Twilight stamp, art, journal, etc. To the point where I’m becoming noticed in all the wrong ways, all because I don’t know when to quite talking shit on a movie I like (that’s just an example, as whether I like Twilight or not is irrelevant). Do you think all that trash talking, numerous journals, constant comment after comment, and whining isn’t going to get me the attention of ED and people? That’s a big YES. So if I don’t realize the stupidity I’m bringing upon myself and see an ED article of me, then YES, I deserved one, and by complaining about it or not learning my lesson (as several people who have a page on there have actually) will only make it worse.So let me allow you something here: can you prove that my arguments are stupid? It partly seems like you are defending the making of an ED article, JUST because one doesn't like what one were to say on the stamp. I.e. "You deserve an article because I hate your arguments!"(?). What exactly is there to "learn"? Why would I need to stop practicing my right to disagree and point out criticism myself. If the stamps allowed comments, then I can f***ing comment as many damn times as I want to as long as it doesn't truly go too far.
And if you argue my comments go too far, then you need to prove it.
Saying "You're wrong that an art style in that wolf movie is flawed because it's not supposed to be realistic." isn't a stupid argument. And neither is posting the same comment on another stamp that does the same thing.
If I were to post the art style thing sentence ten times in a row on the same stamp for example of something that is understandably likely to be too far, then maybe that would be more reasonable to suggest that the ten thing is too far.
That’s why you got the article, and that’s why it only adds further. You simply don’t get it, and that’s not my or anyone’s problem.
If you're trying to say "There will be people that will make it." then that might be true, but I don't think the "who deserves" argument is about that.
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
Instead of just an ED article, just call them out. Simple!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Fuck ED and everyone who likes it. Never liked that place and never will. The people who are fans of it are scum and are just as bad as anyone who is enthusiastic about 4chan.
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
smH I literally just found it and my heart dropped. I tried to take it down but didn't know how. This is NOT okay and don't worry, you have people who support and love you. Someone contacted me asking why I supported you, and I kindly turned them away, blocked them, and apologized for doing so. It's unfortunate that people really like ruining other people. Well, hey, maybe someone will make ED illegal someday.
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
I hate ED for what they did to me and my friends!
👍: 2 ⏩: 0
encyclopedia dramatica was literally founded by trolls
the entire point of trolling is to go after easily angered - and typically disgusting - targets because it's amusing
u are a dickeasy target, bruv
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I myself am known for having one (look up Drmusic2-1, that's my old account) but I didn't entirely deserve it either, I just got myself in a situation that went a little under control. I was looking up a favorite artist of mine when at the time Metokur pretty much had a whole piece focused on art of a certain theme, specifically 'raccoons' and the picture that result in me getting an article on THAT place to begin with? A photomanip of someone turning into a racoon, by an artist I pretty much looked up to as one of my heroes. I didn't realize it at the time, but what I was doing was somewhat of a mistake since it got the Metokur admins and then owner at the time to take notice of me and they got to work with trashing my name in an ED article, resulting in a rather unnessary troll-war between me and a bunch of people from there. Even when the troll-war died down, the people on ED pretty much still obsessed over me and made me out to be this disgusting CWC wannabe. Pretty much blowing everything out of proportion.
To the point they talked about it obsessively on their stupid forum - they pretty much gave me a hard time for about 6-8 years and one user obsessively posted on the forum thread after thread about me, saying how they much found me to pathetic and lulzy and that they want horrible things to happen to me, making up ridiculous theories about me like how I have some supposed fetish for overweight people (just because I like Chris Farley, John Candy and John Belushi) and how they think that I honestly do believe I am my own characters (which I don't, they don't know how that my character creations aren't real, I just RP as said characters. True I did get carried away one time, but i've learned from that), that I am some inhuman waste of oxygen, and they also accused me of being racist, when the person in general who was doing that was pretending to be an ethnicity they most likely weren't just for laughs and they had their stupid friend make up a fake origin story about them being this badass savior. And the other time I was being accused of racism was just because of a stupid movie scene, that scene being the voodoo scene in Blues Brothers 20000. I didn't say anything about that scene that sounded even remotely racist, I just said I thought the scene was out of place.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
Pardon my ignorance, but what does ED stand for? ~reads further down the comment section~ Never mind.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Encyclopedia Dramatica
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
you kind of do with the way you handle criticism.
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
It should be!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
That really depends but even by that, I think it's better if they got help (mainly for those kinds of pedophiles) instead of people putting them on an article like that.
If the person is a pedo (I guess) but only likes fictional things then I don't have any problem other than a bit worried, but that's it.
If the person is a pedo but likes real children then I'm much more worried.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
If the person likes only fictional pedophile stuff then I don't mind.
But If a person likes to watch naked real children or fuck them. Then I cross the line.
That's just my opinion.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Jeez, stop hiding those comments. Some of them are actually trying to say something legit.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
Saying I "deserve" one isn't legit.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
What is an ed article? I honestly thought before clicking on this, it meant erectile dysfunction.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh, haha!
The 'ED' I'm talking about stands for Encyclopedia Dramatica. It's a site claimed to be satire, but it's run by trolls and cyberbullies. Some cyberbullies makes articles against other individuals online, and some articles has ruined people's lives online and possibly effected the same lives in RL too.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
Thanks for clarifying it for me.
Those people have no life.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Yeah, follow what THIS guy says.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
You deserve an article then.
I am not a dickwad. But you are being one however.
You saying I deserve harassment, and cyberbullying is a big mistake. Because of that, maybe you deserve one IF I had to agree about someone at least deserve one or more than one.
Besides, it's like what they say, bullying and advocating harassment toward something because of a mistake they have done done (And I'm not saying I did for what I defend) is still wrong and DOESN'T MAKE YOU A BETTER PERSON.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I am being one, with good reason too.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No you're not.
Most of the time, I was defending against real cyberbullies, and other horrible people that always started it. Just because you don't like that, doesn't mean you're right.
You advocating harassment, and cyberbullying does NOT make you a better person.
And I say the same for myself if I said that if someone said something so stupid that I didn't like somewhere.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
ED can be two things:
1. Tells the truth
2. Played for laughs
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well it's far from the truth. Other than some documentary on it's self.
Other than that, it's not even a funny site. Not only it's teenagers trying to be "cool" and "funny" by doing the old "Look, I showed hardcore, and said faggotz, I am cool now" crap. Plus the stuff I mentioned before too.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
Well, here's a little story while I was on ED:
I went to TheAmazingAtheist's ED page, it talked about a sex tape he did, and it turned out to be true.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Remember what I said in the reply though: "Other than some documentary on it's self."
I was talking about the idea that someone is "bad" because (for example) the OP writer didn't like it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>