(no subject)

[strredwolf]

I was going through the logs for my comic strip, and found something intresting.  The Parents for the Online Saftey of Children (POSC) has a two-line entry, which of course, they screwed up the HTML formatting of, so one character fix and I quote from their blog:

Of course, sometimes we found the sick and devious editors who don’t stop at contributing articles. Some contribute through pornography or sexually explicit material.

When STrRedWolf isn’t defending animal-rape on wikipedia, he is busy drawing a weasel entertaining a mutated tiger [1] and some sort of poorly drawn animal fondling the beach balls of another animal [2]. This material is downright disgusting and vulgar, and these kind of people are allowed into wikipedia freely.

[1] is of course, the 3D rendered "rehearsal" of this strip and [2] is the prelude to Ergo Strobbling, a refresher of Return to Sender.

I've read their blog a bit, and it comes off as picking and choosing various entries of Wikipedia and my comic, and not reviewing it in context.  If they reviewed the entire setup, they'll know that Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, and Stalag '99 is a science fiction comic strip!

Geesh.  I betcha they had problems with Funk and Wagnals and the orgional Star Trek...  

Comments

[mulethunder.livejournal.com]

Let's be honest with ourselves here. I have no idea what you supposedly did on the wikipedia, so I'll just gloss over that bit. My point here is that the [1] and [2] are both described with reasonable accuracy. Naturally that's not in any way a weasel, but I can see how someone not familiar with you would get that idea.

The real problem here isn't with how they've described the latter parts. And, before you call me a troll, it's not that you created such content, either. The problem is that things that you (and I, to some extent) find innocuous and charming are, to them, horrible affronts to The Creator (tm).

I'm not exactly sure I can explain why I'm posting this. It seems like an important distinction to me. And it frames a question nicely: What DID you do on the wikipedia?

[strredwolf.livejournal.com]

Mostly post on talk pages of various non-furry articles, and created the "Cupaquoeso" entry that was later deleted.

I think they were scanning Wikipedia for guys who were furry.

[dashutri.livejournal.com]

Animal rape. o.O?

[strredwolf.livejournal.com]

I do not condone bestiality. I hate it. I'd rather have anthro-to-anthro relationships. I even have problems with anthro-on-nonanthro (but still sentient), which made me back off a bit from a particular peice by Paf.

[dashutri.livejournal.com]

Oh Where's the blog?

[strredwolf.livejournal.com]

You'll have to Google for that peice of rubbish.

[dashutri.livejournal.com]

I did. Little luck. Mostly get pointed to OTHER articles about people writing about them, and the relation to pedophiles.

screenshot, crop, cut, paste, crop again, save

[kesarra.livejournal.com]

POSC really fears PG-13, don't they? Don't worry, Wikipedia's Google ads support you.

(This would have to be my easiest icon made to date as the Google ad already supplied the wording.)

Re: screenshot, crop, cut, paste, crop again, save

[prismo.livejournal.com]

Your icon wins the Internet!

And why yes, I DO need to find a hermaphrodite! I am glad for so many choices! Can you order bulk quantities? *^,^*

[atomiccoon.livejournal.com]

~adds the POSC to the list of "People who don't know shit" list~

My job here is done.

[priestofraven.livejournal.com]

ahahaha buncha wankers. I bet they'll also exaggerate their claims at me for illustrating universal libel and hardcore animal guro sex if i had my comic up online.