Unlike you, I am not going to vote "1 star" on your replies simply because I disagree with your opinion. And no, it is not talking both sides of my mouth where I referred to the news articles only commenting on the facts of his death because, as I said, that is the only thing that is newsworthy to the average public. That is what I went over in my response that you say you didn't actually read all of. For the furry public, the only thing that is newsworthy beyond the circumstances of his death is his involvement in furry controversies. So it is certainly logical that an article on a furry news site would then focus on that controversy, and people are likely to put forth their opinions on that. That's just the difference between a general news article and a furry news article. We are interested in the furry connection that is related to his death, and in this case, the furry connection is his involvement in a controversial group and people's opinions about that group.
If you have some inside information about this guy's plans for a furry raider lead convention then you could just put that out there in your response to the article. I don't know how you expect anyone else to know that when you just acknowledged that this person and the furry raiders were keeping it a secret intentionally... But even so, you are saying that it may have never come to fruition, so i'm not sure if it is all that newsworthy that he may have been involved with planning a furry raider lead convention but never got beyond the planning stage?
But yea, if you have this information and can give some sourcing on it, then you should provide it and you could ask Sonious to update his article. I just don't think it helps to complain about Sonious not finding out secret information about this guy's involvement in a potential furry raider con. And if you have any other secret info about this individual's involvement in the community, you should bring that to Sonious' attention as well?
Unlike you, I am not going to vote "1 star" on your replies simply because I disagree with your opinion. And no, it is not talking both sides of my mouth where I referred to the news articles only commenting on the facts of his death because, as I said, that is the only thing that is newsworthy to the average public. That is what I went over in my response that you say you didn't actually read all of. For the furry public, the only thing that is newsworthy beyond the circumstances of his death is his involvement in furry controversies. So it is certainly logical that an article on a furry news site would then focus on that controversy, and people are likely to put forth their opinions on that. That's just the difference between a general news article and a furry news article. We are interested in the furry connection that is related to his death, and in this case, the furry connection is his involvement in a controversial group and people's opinions about that group.
If you have some inside information about this guy's plans for a furry raider lead convention then you could just put that out there in your response to the article. I don't know how you expect anyone else to know that when you just acknowledged that this person and the furry raiders were keeping it a secret intentionally... But even so, you are saying that it may have never come to fruition, so i'm not sure if it is all that newsworthy that he may have been involved with planning a furry raider lead convention but never got beyond the planning stage?
But yea, if you have this information and can give some sourcing on it, then you should provide it and you could ask Sonious to update his article. I just don't think it helps to complain about Sonious not finding out secret information about this guy's involvement in a potential furry raider con. And if you have any other secret info about this individual's involvement in the community, you should bring that to Sonious' attention as well?