Horse News Interviews: wwwarea by

Twilight meets Clarence the hippopotamus.

 In a hole in the ground there lived wwwarea. Not one of those comfortable hobbit-holes, mind you: just your regular hole filled with the ends of worms and an oozy smell that can be easily explained by his damp, moldy clothes. Day after day he sat alone, miserable, until one day he started a revolutionary new blog named Multiverse Feeling that brought him widespread fame and admiration from thousands of adoring bronies who were fed up with the fandom's general intolerance. Given his startling rise to horse fame, we at Horse News felt obligated to interview this fascinating figure about his opinions on criticism, copyright law, murdering children, and furries (among other such fascinating topics).

Q: Have you ever heard of Roger Ebert?

A: I was talking about the other article, but from your article, that doesn't look anything like criticism, because it looks very unclear

Q: ...Alright, here's an extremely important question. How many critics do you actually pay attention to?

A: Not a lot, but I read some, especially from this one thing that inspired me to bring this whole thing out in public before - Argueing [sic] critics which is actually legit. I think there is a difference between "Fan or User Feedback" than a "Critic".

Q: Can you give me an example of somebody who you consider to be a "legit critic"?

A: Sure, hang on a sec, could take a while or do you want me to make one up?

Q: So wait: you can't actually think of any "legit critics" off of the top of your head?

A: Look at the bottom comment for example btw.. Anyway.. "I think this MLP Book needs more work for the purpose.. So Rainbow Dash went to the moon, but it doesn't explain how, it just skipped the cutscene and made no sense! Also, there is a huge plot-hole from what happens between the whole scene" - Good critic
"I think this MLP Book needs to be ban, I HATE IT!! Why did they put Rainbow Dash to the moon??? Why can't it be Spike?" - Bad critic

Several donkeys, shitting in the wind.
After this there was a bit of break, followed by some general questions from various HN writers.


A: Why did you say that? What got you the idea? :D

Q: To suddenly claim that people are infringing on your rights because they made a joke about you that you didn't like is childish and stupid.

A: And I find going against murder is childish and stupid then.

Q: So please shut the fuck up about that because you're so wrong it hurts.

A: Who saids so? God? - I don't want to be here for 2 - 3 reasons. One of them is way too fucking far and way too rushed

Q: wwwarea how did you get your name

A: From a game I grew up with long ago. It was simply based off a "location" in the game, and I just love it a lot. Though, I could use it for my own thing, like I once consider the 3 Ws to mean something other than World Wide Web to me.

Q (from wwwarea this time): Where did you get your name?

A (me): Walmart.

Q: Why you are more excited to make everything nonfree when he claims he is for freedom, and have you heard of the GPL?

A: I could guess it's from a Tuxedo from Walmart? And I could explain, but doing so on a chat room with hyper, active idiots isn't the best way.. I could just explain this on another blog post instead, so I can have time to think and write. I'm a Introvert, remember? And no

Q: Ivan is also wondering why you effectively claimed earlier in this interview that insulting someone is the same as child murder. [Editor's note: Ivan meant  "murder in general", not "child murder"]

A: I don't know, I don't think I was comparing it as the same (Never said child though), I meant it was an issue, like another issue is

Q: Do you like family guy?

A: You asked, so I added you, if you are a random troll or just a plain ass after adding me, then I could just remove.. -No risk. And yeah I do

Q: That show is sexist.

A: *Puts glasses on* Hmm, yeah, I like it but only for the old episodes more, not much for culture jokes, sexist, or disability jokes.... or more
Q: I think you would like Edge of Tomorrow, if you want a movie with a strong female lead. It is also the best movie I have seen in a long time, I'm serious.
So which did you think was the best Tonight Show host: Leno, Fallon, or Conan? Carson was terrible so he doesn't count.
A: Oh, I'm personality not interested, and I'm not a women in case you were thinking
Q: Fed wanted me to ask if you liked these, by the way:
A: Why ask that? I'm not a fan of the idea that these need to have more human parts in order to be anthro though considering they already are. >_> Also, can you ask FedYourPony if He/She likes this:
I can probably tell where this is going to.. He/She's expecting me to say yes so that person could possibly act even more of a bigot, and bring this out.. Then I would say "Then it's discusting to like those nasty human models you see all over the place".
Coming from a fucked up idiot who believes in non-scientific terms like "normal" and shit. Even Physoligy [sic] Today is against it (Yes I spelled it wrong, but I'm typing fast). The term normal I mean
Q: He doesn't like it, since it doesn't have hooves.
A: Really? Or is he just responding to my idea of anthro? I also wonder how the person found those images because I think I've actually stumbled near them before
Q: Nope, studies indicate that 25% of bronies and rising are unable to climax while masturbating to anything without hooves. 25% sounds like a lot.. And yeah but every being has a thing for something, they require something to "clop" or something. Can you please give me a source though, not that I'm agaisnt [sic] it or anything. lol
A really stupid chart.
Totally legit.
Q: Here, found it. [See above chart]

A: You just went out, and made that yourself, and pretended it was a year ago.. I was right, I think Fedyourpony was reacting against my idea of anthro after all.. Seriously the copyright thing just told me it was you

Q: Actually, he just doesn't dig anthro, plain and simple.

A: Yeah and Ponies are already anthropomorphic anyway.. Which was my point.. Yet his dumb point is describing what everyone has for anything really.  Couldn't find the article, but I did save the picture before it was too late: [below]
A nonsensical chart comparing the worst news sites.
At least he's finally figured out how to make a half-decent graph.
Q: The utter originality astounds me. Anyhow, I think that's about enough for tonight.

A: Alright, seeya.

And then he probably left to admire his framed RMS portrait or something

Comments (90)

  1. This retarded joke has worn thin. This isn't fucking funny

    > inb4 wwwarra plz leave

    1. wwwarra kill yourself

    2. Promoting suicide huh? While I believe in the right to suicide, I will say however that you proved my point about how negativity/hate is connected with this. :)

    3. dick butt

    4. If you believe in the right to suicide, do you also believe in the right to tell others to kill themselves? If you don't pls kill yourself.

    5. @Ura Faget
      Your horrible.
      I was saying "The right to suicide" for those who WANTS it. Those who wants to end a painful life?
      Telling others to do it when they don't plan it sounds fucking horrible.

  2. That's some quality interview right here.

  3. I STILL can't tell what this motherfucker is saying for most of this interview. If anybody here speaks idiot and can translate this, just answer me one question:

    Does he say anything of value at any point?

    1. Not really and also, if you try to make any reasonable point that is critical of his views on anything, he will say you're being offensive and either censor your comment (if you go on his blog and comment on his drivel) or will nonsensically try to argue that you don't have a right to disagree with him.

      Basically, he's a dumbass who barely has a grasp on the English language who will try to censor you if you disagree with him or criticize him.

    2. Well, I already knew all of that, so I guess nothing was really learned here. Thank you for confirming, though.


      Your the one non-sense, not only for embarrassment posts, but even pretending that I "can't" be offended (If you are the same guy).
      You are taking that deleted comment way too seriously.

    4. Lrn2english

    5. That's not part of the argument.

    6. I'm not having an argument with you. I was talking with another gentleman, and you butted in. Fuck off.

    7. Apparently he's also really paranoid, because he thinks that I'm you and that I'm just trying to flood the comments denouncing him because he deleted a comment of mine on his shitty-ass excuse for a blog. While it is quite pathetic that he did something like that, I work a 25-hour-a-week job, so I don't quite have the time to be constructing an elaborate ruse/conspiracy like that against him.

      What a paranoid, idiotic freak.

    8. I think it's more of an ego thing. I think he just likes to believe that he's such a master of debate, that everyone else somehow feels threatened by him, and everyone else thinks it's necessary to samefag endlessly. I mean, what's the alternative? That multiple people independently came to the conclusion that he's a fucking tool? That can't be right. That implies that there might be some truth to what we've been saying.

    9. "I'm not having an argument with you. I was talking with another gentleman, and you butted in. Fuck off."

      You were talking about me, so I wanted to "butt" in for that reason and explain how stupid you are once again.


      Ladies and gentlemen, may I direct your attention to this screen capture? There's something blatantly wrong with one part of that, namely the part where wwwarea claims that no one has to disprove his theories and that he basically has free reign and is protected because it's his opinion.

      The amount of self-delusion is overwhelming. PROCEED WITH CAUTION.

    11. He also recently changed the comments to use IntenseDebate.

  4. I've went to Six Flags for one day and then this appears after coming back.

    Even if I was a bigot, and decided to abuse humor and laugh at others, I would say. This isn't even fucking funny. It's just pointless trolling or whatever this is.. Also, Tuxxy said he wouldn't send this to random people, but nope. He lied, and decided to post this on Horse Shit. That same delusional site that has no idea how to argue, or even be truly funny. This is why I gave this a bad review, because of it's big ass lie. Especially Equestria Gaming. I had to warn people that Tuxxy will take things out of private. THIS article once again, further proves my point. Try calling me dumb because you are seeing the evidence right here on this very page (horse-news). This is even similar when someone has told me that he would take stuff out of private chatting.. Which is what he did. :)
    One of the worst part of this, is the fact that this post I've made, was written before this happened too.. Guess I need to warn people about going to Tuxxedo even fucking more.

    I kind of wish we got along and he would apologize, and maybe I would for doing certain things to Him. I probably would of left him alone, if he could just stop it with his "bitching" and what not. All I did was criticize his claims about how something work. Even if he was joking, he should of just honestly say that to me, rather than making it worse.

    Doing this Tuxxy makes you look like a fucked up bigot, and a very delusional man. I'm also curious why you even put your name as anonymous in some comments? To hide your shitty rude self so you can be seen as "good" by other bronies?

    Seriously, he is very "butt-hurt" over my review and other things.. Yet he is the one that claims "critics" are allowed to have bias but then quoted my review in quotes or was that MLPcritic? Can't remember.


    Also, if anyone is wanting me to go out on Copyright.. Well, I'll say this. Satire isn't protected by Fair Use. EFF said so. Then again, there may not be Copyrighted content on here by me anyway. So you are fucking "free", but that doesn't make this article positive, or any less fucked up.. Especially the claim that this was an "interview". It wasn't and I don't care if it's a joke. Privacy? An issue but can't find an answer on the legality anywhere.

    I did learn a lesson though, the fact that I shouldn't talk to pretty much anyone who works for this site in private. I shall also warn other people too.

    Way to look bad for this fandom Tuxxy, way to fucking go.
    I also wonder if he will delete this comment if he can?

    1. That comment is wrong in so many ways that I couldn't list them all if I tried. For serious, kid, save up some money, buy a dictionary, read it from cover to cover, and then go see a psychotherapist.

    2. Prove it. Just fucking prove it. I already did on one part, and another. Yet, some of this post isn't even an argument. O_-
      Yet, your saying Satire (for example) is protected by fair use?

      Your just another one of those guys who only say "Your wrong" and that's it.. This is what Tuxxy did in an email to me at least once.

    3. What? Where did I talk about fair use? What the fuck are you talking about? This is the second time now I've replied to one of your comments and you've gone off raging at me assuming I'm somebody else. Seriously, this comments section isn't all just one samefag continuously harassing you. LOADS of people think you're fucking dumb. I am just one of many.

    4. You just claim that my comment was wrong.. The whole thing. Which must mean that I'm also "wrong" about the fair use part in the same comment, you claim was wrong. >_> <_<

      "samefag continuously harassing you. LOADS of people think you're fucking dumb. I am just one of many."
      Loads of people (On here and other parts of the same old fandom) are closed minded, and most of them are from this website, that attracts nothing but trolls and low-educated people.

      And sure, probably did but it wasn't a big deal. I said that because it just sounded like the same guy. >_> But thanks to a recent chat, that's not true.

    5. I said that your comment was wrong in a number of ways. I did not say shit about fair use. You're putting words in my mouth. But I'm sure that as a high-educated open-minded person, you will realise your error and apologise for this transgression, right?

    6. "I said that your comment was wrong in a number of ways."
      I don't think you get it. That's exactly what your saying. You are including Fair Use too because it was PART of the comment. You said "your comment"..... "was wrong in a number of ways". That means claiming my WHOLE comment, is all wrong, for a few numbers. Besides, you failed to prove your point on any part of that comment.

      This website is very delusional, and not even funny.

    7. Oh, and nor is it news.

    8. Notice that at no point did I say the word "all". I have said nothing on the subject of fair use. You are saying that I did. You are wrong. Where is my apology?





    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    2. Man, you can't just rewrite copyright laws to protect your feelings. Parody can be satirical. Oh also, Anti-Social =/= introverted. Anti-social behavior disorder is on par with exhibiting sociopathic tendencies. Get good, pleb.

    3. Identity Theft..................

      IZ THAT A PONIZ MY SOUL IS HARDENING, besides I didn't complain about it, just against the thing that every anthro fan would put it out in a certain style, I don't even know if I'm making it clear anymore. I complained for the heck of it that anthro has different styles or something.

      Pretending to be someone else makes you look very immature.

    4. @Kanga Deux
      Calling it a disorder is way too far though (But I agree that breaking crimes to hurt others, etc is screwed up).. Also Asocial ≠ Anti-social too in case you were saying..

    5. So what? Are you gona sue NBC for making fun of you on Saturday Night Live, for example? Man, you are pathetic.

    6. What the hell is NBC, are you talking about ABC news?

    7. No, antisocial behaviour is definitely considered that bad. Ever heard of antisocial personality disorder? It's a thing.

    8. The term "disorder"'s been consider a "delusional" by some people, nothing but man-made thought. I only agree that certain behaviors of it (The main point of it) is a big problem to me. Also, there is no such thing as a "personality disorder" for sure.

    9. delusion* not "delusional" on my first part. lol

      Besides if it exist, then I find the need to hurt others on here a "personality disorder".

    10. Right. Yes. I forgot. Of course you're smarter than the American Psychiatric Association. I apologise for my mistake. Carry on.

    11. Just because they claim something from that site, doesn't mean there smarter than everyone else.
      What a low argument. Yet, coming from the same place that once labeled Homosexuality as a "disorder".

      Please keep in mind that US stuff isn't perfect and can also be argued.

    12. Fair cop. So I will also respond that I do not believe you are perfect either, and that you can also be argued against. Furthermore, since the APA's past views on homosexuality is grounds to say that their knowledge of psychiatry is invalid, I wish to put forth an argument that your inability to properly construct a sentence is proof that you don't know anything about psychiatry either.

    13. So your saying that website always right and can't be argued...

      Anyway, no one is perfect. But I know that there is no such thing as a "personality disorder" and I gave you links to articles that judge that claim, but then you turn blind and pretend that a website you talked about is "right" which really isn't. Yet, that website once thought Homosexuality was a disorder and you said that they were wrong in the future, which means they can be wrong about shit like "personality disorder" in the future too.

    14. >Websites can be wrong.
      >The website you are linking is wrong, and therefore you are wrong. I am right.
      >I will link you to a website that proves I'm right.

      Seriously, wwwarea. Even you must be able to see the contradiction here.

  6. Oh yeah, guys. wwwarea is totally for free speech and everything. Like totally, it says at the top of the blog that he is. Except when it doesn't fit his worldview or it hurts his feelings or offends him.

    Just go down to the part where my comment was removed before it even had a chance to go up and where he cherry picks part of my argument (which he never let anyone see the original text of because god forbid someone might actually agree with a differing opinion) and continues to conflate hate speech with being mean or offensive or being "negative."

    Bastion of freedom of speech and free thought my fucking ass. wwwarea is a mental case.

    1. You may notice my icon changing****


      "The place of interesting theories, and a place that supports freedom, and loving tolerance. It does not tolerate hatred, bigotry, nor ignorance. "
      Don't see anything that saids "Freedom of Speech". I just said "Freedom" as in people should be free to be themselves and enjoy life. Not cross the line and violate other Freedoms.

      Keep trying...

    2. Well, I'm pretty sure that you're violating my "freedom" to look critically upon your theories or criticize them. See, the problem with your logic is you're just using freedom as a catch-all term, the meaning of which you can change to suit your own worldview. Sorry man, but that isn't how freedom works. If you're going to support "freedom," don't just going cherry-picking what types of "freedom" are allowed and what types are not. What moral or social authority or experience do you have to claim that your view is what should be promulgated/followed? What makes you think you can denounce criticisms of your theories merely on the grounds that people disagree with them or try to show you that your logic/way of thinking might be flawed.

      You almost seem one of those guys who was so sheltered as child/is still sheltered as an adult that you don't even realize that your attitude is a bit childish and naïve. Don't get me wrong, wwwarea. I hate bigotry, ignorance, and hatred as much as any sane, decent person does. But you're mistaking criticism and argument for hatred or bigotry. You're not only moving the goalposts in any argument you get into with anyone (, but you often argue fallaciously according to the following fallacies: (e.g. When you've responded to my claims against your theories by saying that I've failed to prove them wrong.) (e.g. Claiming that I'm a bigot merely because I disagree with you and trying to put yourself out there as "holier" [nicer/more tolerant] than I am.) (e.g. You often do this with anyone you argue with. I don't know if it's intentional, or you just really aren't all that bright)
      Hedging – using words with ambiguous meanings, then changing the meaning of them later (found under "Informal fallacies" on this page: (You seem to do this when you say that criticism/something that offends you/negativity = hatred)

      I could go on and on. Seriously, wwwarea. Do you want to know why no one on Horse News takes you seriously and why you're a joke to them? Not just because your arguments are almost exclusively based on fallacious premises (and painfully obviously so), but that you take your own views so seriously that you feel the need to defend them so ardently. If you feel so confident and secure in your views/criticisms of the world, why do you feel the need to be so defensive about them? If you really believe that Horse News isn't credible and doesn't actually put out any valid criticism/articles, then why even bother rallying against them? Why are you actively crusading to get Google to take Horse News taken off the search engine if HN is so obviously horrible? It just makes me think that you're incredibly insecure in your views and that you feel the need to censor any opposing views because you fear that you might actually learn something from the other side.

      Seriously, I'm not even trying to be mean. I actually really pity you at this point. You're unaware of how incredibly absurd your behavior and actions appear to others who are more well-adjusted, and it's actually kind of sad.

    3. Then I say making a law against Murder is a violation of Free Will/Freedom then.
      Trust me, if we had 100% Free Will/Freedom, then there would be no Government, Laws, Police, or any enforcement other than the natural acts based on our own bodies. EVERY law pass is based off an opinion... The term: "Right or Wrong" isn't anything different.

      I deleted a comment because of how idiotically rude it was. As the title of the blog doesn't allow. Yet, sometimes I may delete comments that are so ridiculous. Also Tuxxy censored my comments for me arguing.

      IDEA, if your comment was less rude, and you still argued your main idea, then I probably wouldn't delete it.

      "mistaking criticism and argument for hatred or bigotry"
      Actually some "criticism" and "arguments" can be consider "bigotry" and "hatred". All isn't though.
      Example: Criticizing someone for having there own life-style is hatred. Criticizing someone for being Gay is hatred. It's probably "criticism" but it's still hate speech.

      "Seriously, I'm not even trying to be mean. I actually really pity you at this point. You're unaware of how incredibly absurd your behavior and actions appear to others who are more well-adjusted, and it's actually kind of sad."

      You don't even prove your points well. You are the same guy who claim that I couldn't be offended, you claim that negativity isn't a form of hatred, (Which doesn't even make any sense!) and pretend that "law" is official for the whole world.
      Yet, I've made other claims that were never argued.

    4. I've heard of self-delusion before, but this right here is the stuff that legends are made of.

    5. When you put low-cutted replies like that without further arguing, then that would be you.
      Your emotions get bashed unexpected, or your common belief you been taught by Social Media got violated.

      I can't believe you think that criticizing someone for being Gay "isn't" hatred. What in the name of fuck.

    6. Did I SAY that I believe criticising someone for being gay is fine? Because I don't remember saying that. I said that you were deluded. And you are. This is the proof right here. You're utterly convinced that I'm espousing hate speech, when I've said nothing even relating to sexuality or criticism thereof, and in fact you are talking to an actual gay man.

      Are you putting words in my mouth and tellies lies about me because I'm gay? Is that what this is? Are you homophobic or something, wwarea? Because you're offending me right now with how you're criticising my comment.

    7. No, you claim that "criticizing" someone isn't hatred it's self. When yet, negativity is hatred.. Before you claim that it's "not" hate speech, then I'll paste this:

      Also, the Law shouldn't define that "Hate Speech" only includes what's some US law meanings mean. Hate speech should be consider any message that's pretty much "hatred": I.e. Speech base off hating anyone or anything from the person. Or anything for that matter.

      The legal meaning is based off "opinion" (Yet, partly right). Yet, there are those who don't include "Religion" and there are those who do include "Religion". Yet again, these are just names some people decided to add, so therefor, it would be legit to include "lifestyle" and more things..

      For the last part, it's really not anything different.

    8. You know, if I were a psychologist, I'd be very interested to dig deeper into your mind and discover where this notion that "criticism", "negativity" and "hate speech" are all synonyms of each other came from. I bet there's quite the story behind it. It must be fascinating to live life with this thought process.

      Tell me, wwwarea, when was the first time you were ever criticised? Was it a teacher, perhaps? Maybe giving you bad marks on a creative writing piece? Your mother or father having some less than nice things to say about a drawing you made for them? Or some punk kid saying that a sculpture you made looked dumb? Seriously, tell me this story. I want to know.

    9. Every big thing and idea came from somewhere, so you may be right that it may be from a story, or so but it doesn't matter. The point is about the content outside of the "inner self". No matter why, won't change anything.

      I don't know if it's like that.. I was criticize before, but only for critique senses. My arguments of this didn't come from that, mainly because the type of criticizing that directly involve me was actually legit, and less bias. I'm open for non-critique abuse.

      My reasons came from experiencing the fact that artists been attacked for there style, just because some low-life "critics" brought out styles, just because they personality hate it.
      It's like watching an anime movie and criticizing it for being anime. I've seen examples of this around me and I wanted to talk about how that's a fucking problem and the fact that is serves nothing but negative "value".

      Hate speech/negativity? I fucking hate seeing people for who they are being told what they can't do, just because some find it weird, for example. It's even led to physical attacks because of the "normal religion". Even suicide probably.

      Honestly, I don't think answering further is going to do anything, as it doesn't change my own content outside.

    10. "for non-critique abuse."
      I mean I'm open for actual critique bring outs, like finding real errors that isn't from a personal bias standpoint for example.

      Critique abuse on the other hand, is disgusting.

    11. Hey, wwwarea, would you like to participate in a thought experiment with me? No going off on tangents. Let's forget whatever other arguments are going on right now. Let's just see if you can give me a straight answer to this question, because I'm curious as to how you respond.

      A man is given a test paper and asked to answer a series of simple mathematic equations. Multiplication, division, etc. He gets seven questions correct out of ten. The man then takes his test paper to three different people and asks them to mark it for him.

      The first is an professor of mathematics, who looks over the paper and coldly tells the man, "Three wrong. You got seven out of ten." The second person is a kindly old woman, perhaps his grandma. She takes the paper, looks it over, and after furrowing her brow and adjusting her glasses, taking five minutes to read it through, she eventually comes to the conclusion that he got seven questions correct out of ten. She smiles and hands it back to him, genially. The third person who marks the paper is none other than Adolf Hitler himself. Old Adolf suspects that the man may be of Jewish descent, and so proceeds to shout racial obscentities at him for half an hour. He makes it very clear that he hates the man, but agrees to mark the paper. Once done with it, he gives it a big red stamp, proclaiming that the man got three questions wrong out of the ten he answered.

      My question is this:

      In this scenario, which of the three people who marked the test paper gave valid criticism of his answers?

  7. Replies
    1. Oh hey, it's the guy who can't draw.

    2. You just insulted MLP critic by calling him "the guy who can't draw". To me, that looks a lot like "hate-speech".

    3. check your artist privilege

    4. I, for one, am shocked and appalled by your behaviour, wwwarea. Criticising people! In polite company! Such hatred and bigotry against unskilled artists on display! If I were wearing it, my monocle would pop right off from the sheer scandal of it all!

    5. I said that because he did the same shit to me for other things, so I didn't give a single fuck.

    6. You DIDN'T give a single fuck? So you DO give a single fuck right NOW, but you didn't BEFORE?

      See, this is why tenses are important, kids. English is one complicated language. You gotta pick words that make sense and go together in the right order, otherwise you change the entire meaning of the sentence. And that's when communication breaks down.

    7. What the fuck is wrong with you?
      When I said "I didn't give a single fuck.", I was referring to unnecessary crap right back to MLPcritic only. Why? Because he did the same shit to me in the first place.
      So I don't give a single fuck that I'm doing it right back at him, because it's better than nothing!

      I feel so sad for you being way too "butt-hurt" for this horrid site.

    8. Being "way too butthurt for this horrid site" implies that the natural state of this site is a lack of butthurt, and that I am an abberation. It works as an insult against me personally, but if you were attempting to insult Horse News commenters as a whole there, you actually said the opposite of what you intended.

      See, this is what I was talking about when I said that poor English changes the entire meaning of a sentence.

    9. No, when you are wasting energy for a generally sadistic website, that's still "butt-hurt".
      You are so mad that I attacked the site for doing this to other people. That's "butt-hurt". Anyone who claims "i'm butthurtz" but then they are not, the same people who freaked out for giving this site a bad review, is hypocritical.

      I don't remember blaming every single person here. When I meant this site, I meant that as a general way, including MOST of the community.

      And honestly, every horrid website has at least one word that's not bad, but that doesn't make it bad to blame the whole site generally. I think when people do that, they are reacting to the general theme of it and there purposes. Since this website is mostly about abusive "humor", then I think it's safe to blame this site as a general whole, fucked up.

    10. You seem to be missing the point. I'm mocking your English skills, not your hilarious misconceptions about what an internet slang word means. Speaking of which:

      >Anyone who claims "i'm butthurtz" but then they are not, the same people who freaked out for giving this site a bad review, is hypocritical.

      The literal meaning of this sentence, as you've written it, is that the people who freaked out for your bad review claim to be butthurt, but are in fact not. By placing the first quotation mark before "I'm" instead of before "butthurt", you changed the meaning of this sentence from "They are claiming that I am butthurt, but I am actually not," referring to you, to "They are claiming to be butthurt, but they aren't really," referring to them.

      Until you learn to type properly, I can do this forever.

    11. "The literal meaning of this sentence, as you've written it, is that the people who freaked out for your bad review claim to be butthurt, but are in fact not."

      "bad review".. Woooow... Did I say my review was bad in my sentence?

      I was saying: Anyone claiming I'm "butthurt" are the same people who thinks they weren't "butthurt" when they bitched about my blog.

      And you know what, I think I did made a mistake in my comment, but it's so unnecessary to bring that out for the purpose of "humiliation on others". Especially when it comes to a comments section.
      I know I type more better than that.

      Besides the term "butthurt" doesn't serve any value or less value.

    12. >Did I say my review was bad in my sentence?

      Indeed you did. Your exact words were "the same people who freaked out for giving this site a bad review". At least, I'm assuming that you're referring to your own review there. Whether it was actually a bad review or not, either in the sense of being a negative critique or in the sense of being shit quality, I couldn't say. I never read it.

      > I think I did made a mistake

      Make a mistake.

      >the purpose of "humiliation on others"

      Quotation mark misuse.

      >I know I type more better than that.

      "More and better are both comparatives. It's impossible - even in English with all its wild exceptions - to have a comparative like 'more' qualify another comparative, 'better'." -

  8. Hmm, on the first picture? Why does Tuxxy on the left look funny?

  9. Tuxxy wants me to stop bothering him, and he claimed that "he stopped bothering me".

    Here's the deal:
    If YOU deleted those offending articles that are still getting at least one view every week, then you officially stopped bothering me, and I will finally leave you alone hopefully. It's very stupid to say that right after posting something like this on here Tuxxy.

    You only say that probably because you already "wish fulfilled" your duty to get attention to "mock" me, and you feel like you "won" or whatever.

    He said that after I sent him this:
    "Also, if I was like you, who enjoys making "fun" of people and there things for your prejudice opinion (also consider sadistic, look it up), then it would of probably been funnier if that actually was an interview. Nope, all you did was make up a lie, just to get more attention for your crappy "humor". If it's even humor of course!"

    1. Hey, Tuxxxy, if you want to take down the articles and appease this retard, it's all cool. The articles are already saved in their entirety, along with comments, via the Wayback Machine. Check it out. Now they're a part of internet history forever.

      Are you happy now, Miss Streisand?

    2. Your a sadistic too.

      Besides, WBM can actually take down posts. They listened to me though.

      What you are trying to do serves no value in this fandom.

    3. "He said that after I sent him this:"
      Sorry, I meant he said "he stopped bothering me".
      I'm the one who made the deal.

    4. >Besides, WBM can actually take down posts.

      Really now? I'd best get to work with screencapturing all the articles and comments too, then. Actually, thinking about it, that might be even better. Because as screencaptures they can be easily disseminated across the web via imageboards, image-sharing sites, internet humour sites that like making fun of morons, and I can send them across Skype to some friends who might get a kick out of it. Shame that the links won't work, but hey, we all gotta make sacrifices.

    5. I did it, by the way. I screencapped all three articles and all their comments. Not because I actually believe you're going to succeed in getting anything taken down, but just to prove my point about the Streisand Effect. You insist on acting like a drama queen to get your articles taken down? Now those articles have backups of their backups. Now you can take down Horse News AND Wayback Machine's pages if you want, and it won't even matter. I'll still have them, and I'll put them up again just to spite you. Because as hilarious as you are, I don't like you.

    6. Not true, sometimes pictures on less popular places can be forgotten.. One picture was taken down, and now forgotten or isn't seen as much anymore..

      Seriously the need to save these pictures though, is honestly sadistic. It doesn't make you look good pal. It really doesn't. Your need to show big lies and bullshit articles like this is pathetic, bigoted, and pretty sad.

      By the way, this thing on the article isn't even a real interview (Mainly why I called this a lie I think). It's nothing but a made up title that Tuxxy did, to get more attention.
      It's like the episode of Spongebob where Spongebob had to make up stories after taking "boring snapshots" in order to find the news paper stories interesting...

      Also, it's not going to stop me from wanting these OP articles to be taken down on here.

    7. >sometimes pictures on less popular places can be forgotten

      DUH. Have you not been paying attention? Streisand Effect: If you leave shit well enough alone, eventually people will stop caring and it'll be forgotten. It's only if you throw a massive shitfit (say for example by hanging around on the site that badmouthed you for months afterwards, shitting up the comments), that people remember you and keep coming back to this drama.

      If you replaced "pictures" with "articles", the sentence I quoted would still be just as true. You think Horse News is popular? It's really not. It's actually pretty damn obscure compared to most of the big names. So the same principle applies. Given enough time, people will forget about your HN articles. Or, at least, they WOULD, if you weren't such a drama-llama and didn't keep calling attention back to them just when everyone else was ready to move onto greener pastures.

      I've laughed at and forgotten about a hundred people just like you, and almost none of them inspired me to actively antagonise them like I have been doing to you. But that's what makes you different. You're so easy to provoke, so easy to get a rise out of, that you make trolls out of people who otherwise wouldn't have given a shit about you. The great irony is that you want nothing more than for what HN said about you to be forgotten, but the only person who keeps reminding everyone of their words is YOU.

    8. I didn't leave that shitty blatant edit of the slight funny chart I made about the fandom alone, and now it's forgotten. And the actual, edited version of it may no longer exist anymore.

      Also this website isn't obscure, it gets at least 1,000 a views a day and this article gets about 30 (at least?) a day in early times of it. That's actually a fair amount of numbers for an average site.

      The big god-damn problem is how these shitty articles get found in search engine really easily.. Like if you were to type "multiverse feeling" in Google. That one sadistic article would show on the front page. If those shitty articles were gone, but yet, it may be saved by low popular people, then I don't think many people would find those easily..

      Listen pal, I'm still not giving up on getting rid of these fucked up, lying, unfunny articles. They are also effecting viewers with the lying garbage these articles contain.

    9. They're not really lies. They just show how silly and stupid some of your ideas are. Can't take the criticism? Then get off the internet, you noob.

    10. And in addition to Mr. Mond's words, I'd like to also add that no, really, Horse News is NOT big. A thousand views a day may seem big to you, because nobody reads your blog, but it's absolutely nothing on the grand scale of things. Compare it to Encyclopedia Dramatica. That's a wiki specifically dedicated to mocking people like you, and it's a name known across the entire internet. Horse News is not even a name that the majority of bronies know. Even bronies that have heard of /mlp/ more often that not don't know about HN.

      I don't think you appreciate how fucking lucky you are that we're the ones who took notice of you rather than them. Because I promise you, if you got an ED article, that's attention that ain't EVER going away. Forget thirty people a day. You'd be fucking WORLD FAMOUS for your retardery. And like I said, the more of a stink you make, the more people will smell it. Keep this up, and there's still time for an ED article to result from this.

      Hell, I'm almost considering writing it myself. I certainly have enough material for one.

    11. If you feel like it, go ahead.

    12. I might just, actually. It did used to write a few articles back in the day for ED and sites like it.

      Hm. Okay. If I find myself a free afternoon and wwwarea hasn't fucked off by then, I'll sign up again and start drafting it. Might be a little rusty after all this time, but I'll try not to make too epic ween nigger-jew le meme humour.

    13. It's big enough. It effected the search engines of my main blog name (or old name for that matter). It's not a popular MEDIA site, no. I was referring that it's kind of popular within a large fandom and effected enough.

      Also, no one has prove that I was "retarded" besides for a couple of tiny mistakes I've made with this guy. That's it.
      Oh and it's proven that Tuxxy lied, yet made a really too loose statement to pretend this was a "interview".. I guess everything is a interview.. Still, even if this was an interview, it would of been, sadistically funnier if I knew it "was". Yet, I only talked to Tuxxy most of the time and I was force to join a HN chat for like 2 minutes. Most of this isn't "horse news interviewing me".

      Seriously, this website does nothing but promote hatred based off "divisibility" and other things, it's sadistic, and has no real value into proper scientific media. It's crap, garbage, and not any real news. Hell! Even "Before it's News" is better than this crap. I'm sorry but it's kind of true.

      This site serves no value into the good side of this FUCKED UP fandom in general.

    14. ""divisibility" I've meant "disability". wtf
      Had to say that before some stupid "butthurt" trolls come and yell:

  10. I think it's time to stop giving this drama whore attention. He refuses to use the GPL despite it being the only truly free license. Truly a formidable foe hiding behind a mask of something that seems nice.

    1. "The GPL is a copyleft license, which means that derived works can only be distributed under the same license terms. This is in distinction to permissive free software licenses, of which the BSD licenses and the MIT License are the standard examples." -Dictionary?
      CC:0 would probably be really free.

      Honestly, I don't want attention, the reason why I'm still here generally is because I want these articles gone. Tuxturd for all I care made a really stupid theory that he thinks would happen.
      First he goes out and suggest that no-one will care about these articles but then when I suggested deletion anyway (Because of the effects of search engines), he then suggest that people will wonder, and then probably try to find me in real life.. Showing that people DO care about this garbage still.

      If this website ever does promote things like "doxing" then this website could get in high trouble by Google and other things. I'm not simply saying that to be rude, I'm serious. Doing things like this is highly illegal and I would blame tuxxy for starting this whole fucked up mess for promoting this crap.

  11. Wow Tuxxy, you need to take down this article, you are ruining your own reputation.

    Lying for attention, insulting those for attention.
    I though cyber bullying was illegal or something?
    I heard from a site that "using someone's name to make fun of in public" or something actually is consider "cyber-bullying".

  12. Im loving all of this. I know wwwarea from some other site, and he pretty much thinks that his opinion is correct and everyone elses is wrong, but he tries to disguise it by saying "opinions can be argued" or a bunch of other shit that doesn't make sense.

  13. @Im loving all of this.
    Well it's true. They can. If someone claims shit about me, then I have the right to reply with my freedom of speech and say that they are wrong about me. Besides, this idiot (Tuxxy) was pretending his opinion was "fact" over me. So it was fair to do so back.

    And yes they are arguable; if one belief had better evidence then the other, then that opinion is stronger.
    E.g. Earth is flat argument.

    I know it's an old comment to reply, and I don't clearly know who you are. If it's who I think, I am not sure if you still hold that idea or not. I will not say who, and I am not intending to insult anyone here.