Housepets!

Posted: **Fri Jan 29, 2010 4:49 pm**

Teh Brawler wrote:
Zeru wrote:About Nunday, ya'll.

Nunday was the proposed follow up to Caturday, to take place on Sunday. The idea is that people would post captioned pictures of nuns, but unfortunately the internet doesn't love nuns as much as it loves cats. So, it fell into obscurity.

Or at least that is what I have gathered in the past from lurking.
I WAS SO FREAKING CLOSE!!!!!!!!!

AHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted: **Sat Jan 30, 2010 5:51 am**

Oh... Posting pictures of nuns? Don't you find it to be a little weird?

Posted: **Sat Jan 30, 2010 10:43 am**

RaptorAnton wrote:Oh... Posting pictures of nuns? Don't you find it to be a little weird?

coming from a furry, that question is all too ironic.

Posted: **Sat Jan 30, 2010 11:57 pm**

Speaking of furry, I'm really disappointed that Buck killed that thread. I really would have liked to have offered my opinion, so I'll do it here:

*Ahem* Furries are people who are fascinated with anthropomorphic animals, like the ones depicted in Housepets, and are willing to share that interest with others. It is no surprise that they would be lurking on the forums. I am a furry myself, and have been since August 20, 2008 (when I signed up for DeviantArt). I've done things to other people (in the form of commenting) that I regret to this day. I have even gone so far as to be called a troll. However, I have since learned that furries take their criticism seriously, and to tread lightly when it comes to commenting on art.

>The Encyclopedia Dramatica article is a horribly inaccurate description of the fandom, and is by no means funny. Please don't use fake reference sources to get your information. Wikipedia is one good source. Wikifur's is even better. Just be cautious with anything marked "Citation needed."

>I have not participated in the fandom aside from the commenting of art. However, I have thought of writing stories about my character and fursona Henry, and his girlfriend Ginger (both based on deceased pets). I've been thinking about this guy long before reading Housepets, or even entering the fandom. If I had the money, I'd also buy an art commission on him.

>Anthrocon is only 230 kilometers away from my house. It would only take a few hours to get there. I hope I can attend this year. I want to meet other furs, as well as buy art and comic books. Tentative summer plans are the only setback, and once I know my schedule is clear, my parents would be more than happy to take me (I've checked). I have a limited time window that will let me stay in a hotel.

>There needs to be tighter control of the members within the fandom. Currently, it will take anyone. I have no problems with fursuiters and people who view art for their enjoyment, but when it comes to abusing animals in which the fandom is based on, they should be kicked out and reported to the authorities. Unfortunately, the United States has the misfortune of having laws on the matter being determined by the state, and is one giant loophole caused by the Supreme Court's Lawrence v. Texas ruling, which originally had good intentions.

Posted: **Sun Jan 31, 2010 12:02 am**

as an EDiot, i am a bit upset, but not surprised you hated the article. however, furries wrote it, and it's not meant to be accurate. we make fun of things for the sake of perpetrating stereotypes, cause stereotypes ARE BASED OFF OF SOMETHING. we did not make up the stereotypes about furries. Furries and furries alone are responsible for their public perception. people think furries are creepy and weird because they are.

as a furry, i wish it wasn't so much like that, but it sure as hell gives me something to laugh about.

Posted: **Sun Jan 31, 2010 12:15 am**

loudhawaiianshirt wrote:as an EDiot, i am a bit upset, but not surprised you hated the article. however, furries wrote it, and it's not meant to be accurate. we make fun of things for the sake of perpetrating stereotypes, cause stereotypes ARE BASED OFF OF SOMETHING. we did not make up the stereotypes about furries. Furries and furries alone are responsible for their public perception. people think furries are creepy and weird because they are.

as a furry, i wish it wasn't so much like that, but it sure as **** gives me something to laugh about.

I mentioned ED because TheGame wanted a reference in the original thread, but now I see that his mind has already been polluted since you gave him that one. When I want somebody to know about something, I'm interested in them learning facts instead of stereotypes or lies. I'm not saying it shouldn't be there, I just hope TheGame can separate fact from fiction.

More importantly, I was hoping people would focus more on the rest of what I had to say.

Posted: **Sun Jan 31, 2010 12:38 am**

Hmmhmm, I didn't kill the furry opinion thread, I simply told everyone to avoid discussion on the portion of the fandom that's sexual in nature. (For very good reasons, obviously.) When people still skirted around the topic I had asked everyone to avoid, Rick slapped a padlock on it.

Encyclopedia Dramatic is not meant to be taken seriously. It's hyperbole taken to the most extreme possible, born from the depths of people's thoughts, combined with the internet. It's supposed to be...funny. Though there are many people who find it too extreme for their tastes, myself being one of those people.

As you can see, discussion about the fandom is naturally volatile. The slightest difference in opinion can ignite a powder-keg with a chain reaction follow up. Things can especially go wrong when you're arguing with people you would not call "reasonably sane." Lucky, everyone here is reasonably sane, and a small discussion in this thread won't become a big one, and so won't cause any problems.

Right?

Please say I'm right...

Posted: **Sun Jan 31, 2010 12:44 am**

Buckdida wrote:Hmmhmm, I didn't kill the furry opinion thread, I simply told everyone to avoid discussion on the portion of the fandom that's sexual in nature. (For very good reasons, obviously.) When people still skirted around the topic I had asked everyone to avoid, Rick slapped a padlock on it.

Encyclopedia Dramatica is not meant to be taken seriously. It's hyperbole taken to the most extreme possible, born from the depths of people's thoughts, combined with the internet. It's supposed to be...funny. Though there are many people who find it too extreme for their tastes, myself being one of those people.

As you can see, discussion about the fandom is naturally volatile. The slightest difference in opinion can ignite a powder-keg with a chain reaction follow up. Things can especially go wrong when you're arguing with people you would not call "reasonably sane." Lucky, everyone here is reasonably sane, and a small discussion in this thread won't become a big one, and so won't cause any problems.

Right?

Please say I'm right...

I'm well aware that ED wasn't to be taken seriously, I just wanted TheGame (and others) to be aware of that as well. The reason I posted something on furry is because somebody mentioned furry (which is on-topic) and because I wanted to share my views. I'm disappointed that the thread had to come to a close, but that's why I posted it here.

Posted: **Sun Jan 31, 2010 12:46 am**

it wont. and i was gonna say rick locked it, but i didnt. hehe.

personally i think its dangerous to repress any mention of sexuality in terms of anything, but i do understand that this is a pg rated board and webcomic, so we aren't really allowed to talk about it.

still, this is my problem with ratings in general. sexuality is sort of demonized in comparison to other things, like violence. like this webcomic can have cartoonish violence, but any sort of mention of sex raises eyebrows. violence has caused a lot more pain and suffering than sex has (if we are talking about the repression of sex, then that also causes violence).

and discussion about the fandom is explosive because people are unwilling to accept some of the darker stuff. just because something is too freaky for you doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

and Encyclopedia Dramatica is doing people a service. if you are getting shaken up by something we say or post, maybe you'll be spurred to change it (and i mean societally, not the article).

Posted: **Sun Jan 31, 2010 1:59 am**

I think it is a little sad that we cannot seem to discuss furries without focusing on sexuality. There is an appropriate context for that discussion, but is it on these forums? I cannot say with any measure of certainty, but I can say that going much further on this topic might not be terribly productive for us.

Furry is as furry does. There is no "correct" definition for a furry because a furry can be one or more of a preposterously large (and probably unknowable) number of things.

Also, for BlueArmy, I feel the need to inform you that TheGame is female.

Posted: **Sun Jan 31, 2010 4:27 am**

Oh, COME ON

Like being TOLD MANY TIMES and having a TOPIC LOCKED isn't enough for you guys. Don't get another locked.

CHANGING SUBJECT NOW

I am actually going back to school tomorrow. It's so weird, it's like I've been on holidays my whole life! ...Okay, not really. But still, I'm definitely going to need some time to get back into it. *shakes self*

Does anyone else find that it takes them a heck of a long time to get back into routine, or is that just a personal difference? I know people who can adapt to new routines in a snap.

Posted: **Sun Jan 31, 2010 5:01 am**

I can usually adapt fairly quickly, but it really kind of depends on whether I want to change. *laughs* I am sure it is the same for many people.

Posted: **Sun Jan 31, 2010 9:38 am**

Dissension wrote:Also, for BlueArmy, I feel the need to inform you that TheGame is female.

The gender bender strikes again!Also, yes, I do have problems getting into different routines.

Posted: **Sun Jan 31, 2010 9:55 am**

BlueArmy wrote:
Dissension wrote:Also, for BlueArmy, I feel the need to inform you that TheGame is female.
The gender bender strikes again!Also, yes, I do have problems getting into different routines.

Maybe it is a teenager thing?

Posted: **Sun Jan 31, 2010 9:57 am**

no i have trouble adjusting to new routines too. but i get used to it in about a week.

Posted: **Sun Jan 31, 2010 5:35 pm**

UUUUUUUUUUUUUUGH, routines! The bane of my existence.

Posted: **Sun Jan 31, 2010 6:01 pm**

what kind of routines are we talking about?

Posted: **Wed Feb 03, 2010 5:08 am**

that topic of discussion seems to have died. next one.

the reason you should never use google translate.

Posted: **Wed Feb 03, 2010 5:53 am**

Ebly wrote:that topic of discussion seems to have died. next one.

the reason you should never use google translate.

I especially like part "10. Eleven."

Posted: **Wed Feb 03, 2010 7:03 am**

oh wow. that is great. ... i got nothing more to say.

Posted: **Wed Feb 03, 2010 2:00 pm**

Ebly wrote:that topic of discussion seems to have died. next one.

the reason you should never use google translate.

+1 internet to you sir

Posted: **Wed Feb 03, 2010 2:08 pm**

so i was thinking how people use the phrase "sands of time" a lot but the way i see it, time, is more like wind then sand, if anything at all. you know what i mean? i think time passes us by a lot more like wind then sand.

(side note: where are these things "," suppose to go?!?!! i hate you you little within the automobile!! (talking about this: , ))

Posted: **Wed Feb 03, 2010 4:00 pm**

Hmm, "," or commonly known as "commas," are put into a sentence when you want the reader to pause for a moment, but the sentence is not yet over.

You usually see commas when there's a list of things, or before a connector words like "but," "or," "then" and other such words. Occasionally, a writer will simply put one in to make something "sound more powerful" or pronounced.

You shouldn't put a comma in when it wreaks the flow of the sentence; i.e. it just doesn't sound quite right when you read it aloud with the pauses in place.

Posted: **Wed Feb 03, 2010 4:55 pm**

oh. :O ok. thanks.

so about the sands of time and stuff, any thoughts on that?

Posted: **Wed Feb 03, 2010 5:01 pm**

Here's something we should be talking about that's perfectly on-topic and is not controversial whatsoever:

Why were so many of you online last Friday? According to the site, we broke our Christmas Eve attendance record on that date (I remember that night because I was there). Unfortunately, I don't remember me being on last Friday for the current record, so sadly I missed out when a lot of you guys were here

. Did something significant happen that I need to be aware of?

Posted: **Wed Feb 03, 2010 5:12 pm**

Sands of time makes me think of, "The Prince of Persia." Otherwise, I don't think I've really heard the saying in proper context. XD

Friday...I don't know, maybe it was a slow night on Friday, and we all came on at once? Maybe there was a bot-mini swarm. I'm not sure. really.

Posted: **Thu Feb 04, 2010 3:23 am**

Bot swarm. I have a screenshot lying about somewhere of it.

Posted: **Thu Feb 04, 2010 3:34 am**

Gets a can of raid ready

Posted: **Thu Feb 04, 2010 3:39 am**

Jack wrote:so i was thinking how people use the phrase "sands of time" a lot but the way i see it, time, is more like wind then sand, if anything at all. you know what i mean? i think time passes us by a lot more like wind then sand.

That saying refers at least in part to the flowing sands of an hourglass, by which some people have measured time. As time moves forward, the sands pour from upper to lower chamber... *giggles*

Posted: **Thu Feb 04, 2010 2:42 pm**

we broke a record? cool!

Dissension wrote:
Jack wrote:so i was thinking how people use the phrase "sands of time" a lot but the way i see it, time, is more like wind then sand, if anything at all. you know what i mean? i think time passes us by a lot more like wind then sand.
That saying refers at least in part to the flowing sands of an hourglass, by which some people have measured time. As time moves forward, the sands pour from upper to lower chamber... *giggles*

hmm... thats true, but time is still more like wind if you ask me.

Posted: **Thu Feb 04, 2010 8:23 pm**

Okay! New idea everyone.

Whenever you feel like you're going off topic, post here instead, and then link the post you're referring to! This way, you can go as off topic as you want, and everything stays neat and tidy! To get a direct link to a post, simply click on the little arrow with a circle on the top right corner of the post, next to the subject line. I shall now demonstrate!

_____________

https://www.housepetscomic.com/forums/v ... 043#p17043

*eye twitches*

Brawler, I'm going to KILL YOU!

I saw this at school, and I'm serious, my eye started twitching!

Posted: **Thu Feb 04, 2010 9:52 pm**

Buckdida wrote:Okay! New idea everyone.

Whenever you feel like you're going off topic, post here instead, and then link the post you're referring to! This way, you can go as off topic as you want, and everything stays neat and tidy! To get a direct link to a post, simply click on the little arrow with a circle on the top right corner of the post, next to the subject line.

I like it, but if you have something to say on a topic then doesn't that mean it is relevant to it? Even so according to the rules, you can get a little off topic, but for only a post or two.

"Do not derail the thread. Especially with arguments (that quickly devolve from what the post WAS about to . . . arguing), but also don't overtly change the topic for more than a post or two."

Posted: **Thu Feb 04, 2010 11:57 pm**

I always took that to be a reminder that you should stay on topic, not a loophole to allow random, unrelated posts. I think it is meant to suggest that one should try to bring the conversation to the original topic. After all, "one or two" off-topic posts may get a dozen replies. Remember what happened when I joked about not knowing Ebly was male? That thread derailed and spent nine posts discussing Ebly's gender, which probably made him very uncomfortable.

...

Allowing "one or two" off-topic posts seems arbitrary and restricting. Why not allow total chaos? *laughs*

Posted: **Fri Feb 05, 2010 12:11 am**

Buckdida wrote:Okay! New idea everyone.

Whenever you feel like you're going off topic, post here instead, and then link the post you're referring to! This way, you can go as off topic as you want, and everything stays neat and tidy! To get a direct link to a post, simply click on the little arrow with a circle on the top right corner of the post, next to the subject line. I shall now demonstrate!!

Sounds good to me. It gives me a way to be off-topic without being off-topic.

Buckdida wrote:http://www.housepetscomic.com/forums/vi ... 043#p17043
*eye twitches*

Brawler, I'm going to KILL YOU! I saw this at school, and I'm serious, my eye started twitching!

Oh, come on, Buck, you know I was just kidding.

Posted: **Fri Feb 05, 2010 8:04 am**

Dissension wrote:I always took that to be a reminder that you should stay on topic, not a loophole to allow random, unrelated posts. I think it is meant to suggest that one should try to bring the conversation to the original topic. After all, "one or two" off-topic posts may get a dozen replies. Remember what happened when I joked about not knowing Ebly was male? That thread derailed and spent nine posts discussing Ebly's gender, which probably made him very uncomfortable.

...

Allowing "one or two" off-topic posts seems arbitrary and restricting. Why not allow total chaos? *laughs*

Yes, but they still are limited in a way, but i'm not saying completly derail it like you're suggesting, because that already breaks the rule. Even so, people can stay on topic and add someing a little extra and move on.

Posted: **Fri Feb 05, 2010 3:08 pm**

loudhawaiianshirt wrote: still, this is my problem with ratings in general. sexuality is sort of demonized in comparison to other things, like violence. like this webcomic can have cartoonish violence, but any sort of mention of sex raises eyebrows. violence has caused a lot more pain and suffering than sex has (if we are talking about the repression of sex, then that also causes violence).

Sorry I'm so late to comment on this.
I completely agree, and I think that many people are blind to this fact. Kids are always shown and taught that violence is just silly and as long as it doesn't involve them, it's nothing to think about in a serious fasion. The knowledge of sex on the other hand is withheld from children for quite some time. Some people would say that young children couldn't handle the idea, but true as that may be, violence is certainly no better. And until little kids are not molded to laugh when some one is crushed to death and yet flinch away from nudity (come ON, nudity is just as natural as anything else) people will still have a twisted view of the world. I'm still alone on this opinion unfortunatly, even among most of my friends.

Posted: **Fri Feb 05, 2010 9:20 pm**

That would be because most people are opposed to the sexualization of children.

Posted: **Fri Feb 05, 2010 10:16 pm**

Dissension wrote:That would be because most people are opposed to the sexualization of children.

And is illegal.

Posted: **Fri Feb 05, 2010 10:47 pm**

And that's the end of that. Thank you Dylan and Dissension.

Seriously guys, stop talking about that kind of thing here. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm getting sick of it.

Can we go back to talking about off-topicness itself and killing brawlyboy?

Posted: **Sat Feb 06, 2010 1:02 am**

Ebly wrote:And that's the end of that. Thank you Dylan and Dissension.

Seriously guys, stop talking about that kind of thing here. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm getting sick of it.

Can we go back to talking about off-topicness itself and killing brawlyboy?

I missed you, Ebly.

Housepets!

Chat thread

Re: Chat thread

Re: Chat thread

Re: Chat thread

Re: Chat thread

Re: Chat thread

Re: Chat thread

Re: Chat thread

Re: Chat thread

Re: Chat thread

Re: Chat thread

Re: Chat thread

Re: Chat thread

Re: Chat thread

Re: Chat thread

Re: Chat thread

Re: Chat thread

Re: Chat thread

Re: Chat thread

Re: Chat thread

Re: Chat thread

Re: Chat thread

Re: Chat thread: a metaphor for time.

Re: Chat thread

Re: Chat thread

Re: Chat thread

Re: Chat thread

Re: Chat thread

Re: Chat thread

Re: Chat thread: a metaphor for time.

Re: Chat thread: a metaphor for time.

Re: Chat thread

Re: Chat thread

Re: Chat thread

Re: Chat thread

Re: Chat thread

Re: Chat thread

Re: Chat thread

Re: Chat thread

Re: Chat thread

Re: Chat thread