Talk:Jennet Wolfskunk

From Encyclopedia Dramatica

We MIGHT want to consider deleting this article. I'm not certain enough of this to bring it to an admin, but the poster may have played directly into Miss Wolfskunk's hands. After some observation(and a brief dialog with the person in question), its quite clear that she not only doesn't give a shit about the existence of this page, but that she finds it very, VERY funny. She apparently considers ED a prime source of her own entertainment, and not because of the evidence is stupidity it shows throughout the 'net, but because she finds it funny that people who have no lives "feel the need to validate themselves not simply by making fun of someone's idiocy, but by actually spending enough time in their mom's basement archiving the bullshit." Additionally, the user's generally low-profile activity both before and after the incident tell me that the journal, be it true or false(god knows I've seen enough weird shit to know that the only reason to NOT believe the story is her refusal to provide proof), was posted SOLELY so she could have reason to laugh at us even more. Personally, I don't think its wise of us to provide such people with what they want.

Then again, perhaps deleting the article is playing into her hands as well.Formula Fox 21:17, 27 March 2008 (CDT)

-fuck that, she's just given us enough butthurt to fuel this article for another year. Everett1911 03:42, 20 June 2008 (CDT)

Looks more to me like she stuck it to ya. I tried to warn you.Formula Fox 10:13, 20 June 2008 (CDT)

the whore's got in trouble and she only wants to look like a smartass. sadly, she fails. Everett1911

You know, it would be so much more believable if she didn't delete the fucking evidence that would prove ED edited anything. Is she just TRYING to look like a dumb cunt or is she really that stupid? Cheez 12:03, 3 July 2008 (CDT)

Given that deleting the original posting was, apparently, meant to clinch the creation of this article, I'd say its a catch-22 issue that she just has to deal with. After all, if even HALF of what she stated in the update is true, and she was trying to prove a point to others, she sure as fuck doesn't care what anyone here thinks. And without a doubt, the truth of the matter is a non-issue when it comes to the folks she DOES care about. I honestly don't think the original article was true, and I definitely have major questions whether she intended it to be what she now claims, but I've seen this site's users cross lines that this site should NOT be crossing - the very lines she's accused us of. We may be interested in the lulz here, but I've seen details of matters purposely altered to make someone look worse for no apparent reason on this site more than once. Its the primary reason I'm an observer here rather than a contributor - I find the stupidity of some people rather entertaining, but my moral compass prevents me from willfully contributing to a site I know has engaged in immoral(even if they are minor) actions to generate a bigger laugh. Whether this issue is true or not, Miss Wolfskunk HAS addressed a genuine problem with this place. Formula Fox 23:11, 14 August 2008 (CDT)

WHY ARE FURRIES SO FUCKING CONSISTENTLY AND COMPLETELY RETARDED IN THE MEMBRANE? YOU'RE ALL FAKES. ALSO, YOU'RE ALL WORTHLESS. nɐ.ɐy 22:52, 16 November 2008 (CST)