![roflmao :roflmao:](./images/smilies/ROFLMAO.gif)
-- Vilkacis
Im with you on that one.Renorei wrote:
However, I think that my ideas of what a werewolf should be like physically are fairly close to those of the average werewolf fan. The idea that werewolves should conform to the laws of conservation of mass is one that I NEVER heard anywhere, until I came here, and am still completely opposed to. I think werewolves should gain mass, and a lot of it. I can't be certain, but I think the average werewolf fan probably agrees with me.
If this were a typical furry chat board, it would be dominated by other sorts of topics (see The Furtopia Forum as an example).Set wrote:Excuse me, but just what attitude is a "typical" furry supposed to have?Jamie wrote:I've noticed a lot of attitudes in a lot of people on this forum that are untypical of furries.
So you're saying a group of people who seem relatively nice that chat about cute animals is scary? I must be quite a nightmare then.Jamie wrote:An example of a typical furry attitude (not one shared by EVERY furry, of course) would be favoring the rainbows-and-bunnies variety of werewolf far more than most people here do.
...
The reason I brought up typical (or stereotypical) furry attitudes is because I think this board would have to visibly and obviously display typical furry attitudes in order to scare away new casual visitors.
No.23Jarden wrote:hmm... Is anyone here really normal?
My guess would be...Vuldari wrote:Where did you get that definition from?Set wrote:monster, n.Vuldari wrote:Honestly...as Cool as that could be, (depending on what kind of werewolf you are talking about), that IS a little creepy. ...wishing to be something that most people consider a "Monster" and all...
Latin monstrum, that which is shown forth or revealed
What point?...Vilkacis wrote:In any case, I'm pretty sure Set was trying to make a point, not misinterpret anyone.
-- Vilkacis
Yes. I know nothing about Latin, however, so if it's wrong you can't blame me for that.Vilkacis wrote:My guess would be...Vuldari wrote:Where did you get that definition from?Set wrote:monster, n.
Latin monstrum, that which is shown forth or revealed
The book, Monsters, by John Michael Greer.
Yet another who thinks my statement was about them...are you that vain? My post wasn't meant to be a response to you - it was aimed towards those who would view us as weird for wanting to be a "monster".Vuldari wrote:What point?...Vilkacis wrote:In any case, I'm pretty sure Set was trying to make a point, not misinterpret anyone.
-- Vilkacis
(snip)
That was my point. What was yours again?
You wanted to become a werewolf all this time?Set wrote: it was aimed towards those who would view us as weird for wanting to be a "monster".
Things aren't always what they seem. In fact, they almost never are. So many people tend to forget that.
Quit being lazy. Do it yourself.dnl wrote:I want some one to look this up "Anjing Ajak"
The wolf god would be Wepwawet, though according to this he was a jackal. The god, or goddess I should say, of war was the lioness headed Sekhmet. Keep in mind however that there are many deities in the Egyptian pantheon, many of which have similar attributes.dnl wrote:here a quistion some what realted to werewolves..what is the name of the wolf god worshiped by the ancient Egyptain world.Also there god of war.
I'd much rather be a werewolf than a human. If I had my choice of animals wolf wouldn't be on the top of my list by any means, but it wouldn't be at the bottom either.Shadow Wulf wrote:You wanted to become a werewolf all this time?Set wrote: it was aimed towards those who would view us as weird for wanting to be a "monster".
Things aren't always what they seem. In fact, they almost never are. So many people tend to forget that.Your right when you say thing arent always as they seem.
First of all, you are leapfroging the point and purpose of this thread...Set wrote:Yet another who thinks my statement was about them...are you that vain? My post wasn't meant to be a response to you - it was aimed towards those who would view us as weird for wanting to be a "monster".
Things aren't always what they seem. In fact, they almost never are. So many people tend to forget that.
IMO, yes.Vuldari wrote: * Do we have an image problem?
This will depend on who you're talking to. Personally, I don't care how others see me for my sake. But, I do care how they see me for Freeborn's sake. If they see me (and other members of the forum) as a scary furry (yeah, I know furries aren't actually scary...but the average person is at least a little freaked out by the notion of furries, especially since their view of furries is based on what they see on CSI and MTV), but join the forum nonetheless and offer their comments and views without regard to ensuring they 'fit in', then I don't care. If that happens, I'm happy. But, if they see me as a scary furry and decide not to join the forum because they're afraid their views have no place here (when they most certainly do), that's when I'm concerned. I think that, if the views of the members of this forum don't accurately represent the views of the average werewolf fan, then I think that's a problem.Vuldari wrote: * Do we care about how others see us?
Nobody on the forum should feel compelled to change their ideals in order to fix this problem. Everyone is entitled to their views and the right to defend them fiercely. But, I do think that we might could attempt to get more of the 'average werewolf fan' type people to join. I think that this might correct the problem. I don't know how we would go about this, but it is one step we could take to make the majority views of this forum more closely reflect the majority views of werewolf fans.Vuldari wrote: * Is there anything we can do about it without sacrificing our ideals?
Uh...maybe. One problem (if we went with my above solution) would be figuring out where to look for people like that. Personally, I have no idea where to find them.Vuldari wrote: * Do we want to take the trouble to make our group more inviting to hesitant outsiders?