"Hybrids =/= wolves. Hybrids are just dogs with some wolf genes if anything."

Well honestly that's kinda true. But like you said, they are part wolf. Hell, isn't 'wolf' and 'dog' man made? I mean, then again, genes are probably different though, but they all may have very close intelligence to learn. I think I once heard that wolves have even more intelligence more than dogs, but I still need to research that one.

So you agree, yet you disagree...?

"Did you even read?"

I think. But I think I heard criticism that the 'discovery' was false.
After all, it could be said that 'nobody knows'.

Which might apply to your stance as well.

"So basically you are saying a tiger or lion is the same as your pet cat now?"

Believe it or not, people has been getting close to success with 'owning' a tiger these days.. Not sure on Lions though.

Ironic how you're one to claim we're in no position to speak without evidence, yet you don't provide a link referring to the ownership of a tiger.

"Because hybrids are pretty much closer to dogs."

Proof? And still, dogs were probably still once wild, etc.

Ironic since you didn't provide proof in your previous statement.

"No, they had a common ancestor that is now extinct."

Which is a theory perhaps? And of course it's 'extinct'.
And considering, this ancestor, probably looked like a wolf. (Look at some dogs)
OH, I was just looking for 'oldest dogs' in terms of evolution and accidentally found this: news.discovery.com/animals/pet…
Oops.
Other things:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_o…
factsanddetails.com/world/cat5…

Still extinct.

"Once again, a common ancestor that is extinct."

It's only a theory still. And heard that it was criticized (if I'm thinking of the same thing) and also, this 'ancestor' could of came from a wolf too...

But it's likely not a theory. Don't be afraid to assume the worst.

"Huskies are not wolves."

Missed the point, I was talking about that in terms of 'evolution' and the fact that huskies are a very old dog type. Which looks close to a wolf. While 'not a wolf', the shape and evolve looks close.

For all we know, you missed the point and you're just making stuff up to make it look like you have a point.

"Which also means dogs =/= wolves."

Missing the point again.
I'm saying that a wolf could become a 'pet' more safe in terms of another evolution, etc.
Like the possible last time.

Which is likely impossible.

"Afraid of the term 'wolfaboo'? How sheltered are you?"

I do not want it to be used against people who has a right to defend (Freedom of Speech, debate) and only allow 'haters' to speak (That's not fair).
I do not want it to be used against anthropomorphic freedom.
I do not want it to be used against people who (in a harmless way) wants to be a wolf, or so.
I do not want it to be used against any other freedom.
The term is so over-used that it's became an unfair term that did nothing but tries to make the wolf fandom look very boring, while cats, dogs, etc. are all open and free because assholes like you didn't fucking ruin (or tried ruining) them.

You've just represented why the term is used in the first place.

"He was being sarcastic."

Can you be sarcastic and mocking at the same time?

No. I was being sarcastic, and you took it seriously before.

"Cataboos, horsaboos, foxaboos. They exist. But their numbers are much less than those of wolfaboos."

And I already said "Oh yes the terms exist I believe, but it's never much used."
And no. Cats for example are very popular, etc. And 'no one' cares.'

Wolfaboos are still much more common. The former three are indeed uncommon.

"Do you even know what he means by that?"

Acting like your lifestyle is "normal" and calling others "weird" is unfair.

Normal is normal, and it certainly isn't fueled by disturbing actions.

"Fapping to naked children and believing to be married to a cartoon horse is totally normal!"

Guess what? It is. (I do not know about naked children though) but being married to a cartoon horse? Yes because it's a reflection off personality, and having a personality IS the normal thing; being who you are. You can have the "grossest" "fetish" and it's still normal. (Gross is subjective, not a fact).
People are different, and even the things you selfishly hate counts.

Do I even need to explain this...?

"But they are NOT the same. So stop pretending like they are."

1. 'Dog' and 'Wolf' are terms. 2. I already figured they have different terms in times in there genes, etc. So why are you saying I'm believing they are 100% the same? They "are" in terms of similar stuff in at least some ways. 3. They both are still canine.
I already know that the wild wolf is very different than a dog, but it's all a mental evolution too. Like I am depending on how it works, etc.

1. They're of separate species.
2. It sounds like you are.
3. Yet one is a domesticated creature while the other is more feral.

"Oh the glorious research!"

So.. I guess research doesn't count and your making up mind does instead?

He's likely making fun of your method of research.

"An extinct common ancestor"

Skipping as I already explained this.

"I'm sure taming wolves and having a long range of evolution (like last time) could eventually 'change' that.
There is also history of wolves themselves being trained a time." < Mine

"Really?"

I feel like I or you are saying the same things twice.
But yes, otherwise.. how did we get dogs? Or cats? (Cats were wild too)

A now extinct common ancestor.

"Because it doesn't support me."

While it still doesn't change the fact that you can still get evidence on your side..
And you are no different.

"Again, ignoring logical stuff because it defeats my arguments."

"I read it, the results seem pretty skewed."

And how? Funny though when I say that to REM's links, you freak out. But I guess it's alright if you do it because of you hmm? *sarcasm*

Maybe because your responses show a heavy amount of ignorance and immaturity.

"DISREGARDING!"

Really?

Yes.

"Wolves and dogs are not the same."

Remember what I said: "Of course, it's not surprising to believe they are not 100% the same"
If you are saying they are 100% separated, then that gives dogs AND wolves a bad name. I am explaining it's like a mix between 25% to 75% maybe.

Closer to 25% due to conflicting evolutions.

"What you are not showing is what often happens to people who interact with wolves, or wild animals in general. I am sure these people in the pictures are fine, but only because they most likely have tranquilizers and medical supplies on standby. This does not change the fact wolves are still wild animals, not matter how "tamed" they may be."

You don't know that.

It's common sense.

And just because they are "wild" doesn't mean it's different all of a sudden.

Yes it does, because wild animals are not always friendly around humans.

Some wild animals in the real world has been taken care of fine, etc.

I'll bet that a bulk of those animals aren't wolves.

And again, wild or not, it's still possible at times (Maybe it depends on a wolf due to some research) humans can still interact with them at times. Especially thanks to that research (Learn from humans) you now deny.

Though not all interactions may end positively.

"Turn off your computer"

Can't stand the truth I see. That argument does not help for many reasons.

He was only giving you a helpful suggestion. He wants you to get off the internet and stop taking petty internet drama so seriously.

Many peolpe need a social life, uploading doxing information won't stop, talking and leaving shit about others won't stop, speech can effect people's brain and 'choice', etc.

Which is why you're laboring away on the internet.

"Because the dictionary is my bible!"

Since you will say the same thing, I'll just say the same thing again:
""Fuck the dictionary, I will decide what I want English and meaning to be over other people because I want to!" < You
Thanks for admitting to be bigoted as you don't accept real words and their meanings and instead admitted to make up stuff out of your own ego head."

Again, way to prove us right.

"Are you seriously still rambling on about this?" 

Ever heard of conclusion messages before?

Yes, and they aren't long as hell.

"Not as much as wolves can be."

I think I heard reports that there was more kills with dogs than wolves.

Proof?

"Hybrids are not wolves. They are more dog than wolf. I said this before."

Missing the point.

Aren't you, with your ignorance?

"Because they are?"

Bullshit. The only fucking animal in the world that people are overly strict about are wolves. Even more than human animals probably.
Strict may lead to a lot of this maybe. And strict did lead to a lot of hatred.

Because they'd likely kill you with no reluctance.

"Spirituality relates to this, how?"

Spirituality can connect to new discoveries about wolves, dogs, etc.. Example: I hear a dog was able to save someone (An idea that dogs have souls and free will?). ..Even wolves maybe (I can't remember the stories so much though however). Note: I still believe all creatures have souls.

Not all souls are the same.

"Like you should be doing?"

I am with REM's, sometimes even mine maybe.

Not from what we've seen.

"Will you just move on to something else, already? This is getting old."

Oh are we done now? Are we on another journal?
It's my journal still, my style (Bad grammar isn't a style I think), etc.

Knowing you, you'll never be done.

"Rude? RUDE? RUDE!?
www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-ne…
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/artic…
Yeah, I think this is a little more than being "rude""

I meant attacking, killing, etc.
And like I said. That's a 'some' report.

"Which is why I said they were only rude."

"Please note the "maybe""

Just being honest and safe.

Honest that you don't know what you're talking about?

""Because you are"

Am I a super rabid wolf fan who will always spread lies about wolves, etc? Just because I said so, and go "lalalalalal" on news, reports, etc.? Does it actually look like that? Even I was open about the source of dogs and wolves, etc.
Do I go out and claim "WOVLZS ARE BETTERZ THAN HUMANS AND OTHERZ ANIMALZ"? Do I?

Just about.

And with that (Yes, a requirement), do I even talk about realism wolves all the time? Do you see that?
Hell, I already am aware that the people (The 'wolves') from Alpha and Omega isn't exactly real life wolves, but are anthropomorphic, etc. In fact, that's what I strongly accept of them and while that, I already know the possible difference.
etc?

Yet you praise them all the same.

"If you seriously think ChannelEleven is fine with those fandoms then you do not know jack shit about him."

Wow. So he's even worse. I guess he wants all of them to be boring, forgettable, and shitty as possible.
And of course I don't know jack shit about him because I don't stalk his life on social media (at least not so much? idk. honest and safe.) unlike him. He documents (stalks) me, and keeps updating the article. Even wrote a journal against me on a stamp that wasn't even directed at him, etc.

"The term has been around a long time."

Either my bad in terms that he 'accepts' the made up term, or he 're-made' it up for his new 'REM dictionary'.

"And yes, since he gets to judge the wolf fandom, people are allowed to judge back considering judging in the first place like that shows you don't respect it." < Mine

"Thanks for finally admitting it."

I'm probably thinking again. But I mean if he gets to, I get to back.
But he doesn't have a right to dictate it and be an ass about it.

"No, only wolfaboos."

Bullshit. It still is. A lot of the things he attacks has nothing to do with wolfaboos it's self.

Nah, he's right. I only go after the rabid wolfaboos.

"Long story short, wwwarea is a wolf fanatic and down right ignorant. He constantly damage controls and downplays the cold hard truth about wolves. 

NOTE: Wolves are not evil by any means, they are animals. Wild animals. While wolves and dogs have a common ancestor, dogs are way different since they have been domesticated for thousands of years. 


I have not done a commentary on this guy before, I normally do not do commentaries on people. But I felt the need to step in this one time."

Long story short? FunnelVortex is a rabid sonic and a rabid hater of other people who is delusional by believing that I'm "delusional" because he/she wants to.

Why call him a rabid Sonic fan when he didn't bring up Sonic once in the commentary? Also, it's been well established that you're the delusional one.

And pretends he/she knows every single part about every single wolf inside and out and pretend she knows the "truth".

Funnel's a guy BTW, he seems to have a better grasp on wolves (and reality) than you.

While 'wild' is just a term, you are basically nearly saying what I was accepting at times of the article. Though the 'ancestor' thing is based off 'theories' and since Funnel has missed the point of some parts of what I said too.

Or you could of just avoided the drama after you blocked me for disagreeing.

He's only doing the right thing and standing up against your bullshit and helping the people that count. Or in layman's terms, being the best damn friend he could be.

--
Also check out the history of REM. It's also updated in case past viewers didn't see them! Might be updated again soon after writing this!
multiversefeeling.blogspot.com…

And yes, I might share it on other article websites.

As if anyone would take you seriously. You'd probably give people more of a reason to go after you.

And now, here's a little bonus. This is a comment wwwarea posted on his own blog.
--
What a bunch of work. 
Funny how I was at least calm most of the time too. 

If that REM guy wants to do a commentary, at least do it on your blog. -_- 

Why should I limit it to my blog?

But honestly, actually no. Don't. You should just ****ing leave me alone. 

It's really up to you. Would you be willing to quit obsessing over something that doesn't matter? Will you apologize to everyone you've attacked? Will you stop getting worked up whenever someone, shock and horror, criticizes Alpha and Omega and its art style?

And yes I made that history because you wouldn't leave me alone, and then you insulted the whole fan base of that "movie". 

AKA, only you since you're the only one who gives a shit about what I have to say.

Maybe I should make the same exact post and make fun of your Nostalgia critic crying (Clearly no different) then. Or a defend, or both.

Crying? I merely brought up flaws that nearly everyone agrees on. If you do decide to do it, it'd make you look even more immature.

Ok, that's it. And now, feel free to check out 's commentary on wwwarea's latest journal: <da:thumb id="557799043"/>