I noted that there might be an apology on Twitter that, at that point, I hadn't seen. I wasn't attempting to pick a fight with you, I was attempting to say, "No, look, the way that article was written didn't frame it as speculation, and the update didn't contain either a correction or an apology, it just contained a note that Dragoneer disputed a claim in the article." As for assertion vs. speculation, well, I wasn't trying to be catty. The original claim didn't come across like it was framed as speculation, and I think that was the source of a lot of the drama. If it had been written more like "We don't know whether FA: United had to be shut down in order for Dragoneer to afford to be able to buy back Fur Affinity" or "It's possible that FA: United was shut down in order for Dragoneer to afford to be able to buy back Fur Affinity, although this is just speculation," it's at least plausible that everybody's day would have been better.
Beyond that, I wasn't aware you've been nursing a serious greivance against me since August 2012 for a four-sentence paragraph in which I wrote "Tolkien has a lot of unexplained hobbits running around, yet as impossible as this may be to believe, the story seems to work anyway." I don't think from the context of my article that you can say I was arguing against the very concept of worldbuilding; I was arguing against the idea that a furry story has to, in its own text, explain why it's a furry story. A story only needs to do that if it's important to the story it needs to tell. If my flippant reference to Tolkien specifically undercut my point, I'm sorry; I had a tendency toward abrasiveness in my writing then that I try to at least tamp down now.
I will say that, given in that article when I contrasted your position with Sparf's and said "these positions aren't mutually exclusive; in fact, they're probably both right," it seems super weird to be this angry at me for nine years over a short article whose conclusion—that the interesting question for a furry story is how you show that the characters being furry matters—is to a large degree supportive of your position.
I noted that there might be an apology on Twitter that, at that point, I hadn't seen. I wasn't attempting to pick a fight with you, I was attempting to say, "No, look, the way that article was written didn't frame it as speculation, and the update didn't contain either a correction or an apology, it just contained a note that Dragoneer disputed a claim in the article." As for assertion vs. speculation, well, I wasn't trying to be catty. The original claim didn't come across like it was framed as speculation, and I think that was the source of a lot of the drama. If it had been written more like "We don't know whether FA: United had to be shut down in order for Dragoneer to afford to be able to buy back Fur Affinity" or "It's possible that FA: United was shut down in order for Dragoneer to afford to be able to buy back Fur Affinity, although this is just speculation," it's at least plausible that everybody's day would have been better.
Beyond that, I wasn't aware you've been nursing a serious greivance against me since August 2012 for a four-sentence paragraph in which I wrote "Tolkien has a lot of unexplained hobbits running around, yet as impossible as this may be to believe, the story seems to work anyway." I don't think from the context of my article that you can say I was arguing against the very concept of worldbuilding; I was arguing against the idea that a furry story has to, in its own text, explain why it's a furry story. A story only needs to do that if it's important to the story it needs to tell. If my flippant reference to Tolkien specifically undercut my point, I'm sorry; I had a tendency toward abrasiveness in my writing then that I try to at least tamp down now.
I will say that, given in that article when I contrasted your position with Sparf's and said "these positions aren't mutually exclusive; in fact, they're probably both right," it seems super weird to be this angry at me for nine years over a short article whose conclusion—that the interesting question for a furry story is how you show that the characters being furry matters—is to a large degree supportive of your position.
— Chipotle