Talk:Therianthropy/Archive 2

This archive page covers approximately the dates between Aug 2, 2005, and Aug 25, 2005.

Merge with Otherkin?

Is there a difference between the subculture aspect of therianthropy and Otherkin? Sounds to me like they should be merged. Friday 03:13, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

It looks to me like the word "therianthropy" is a neologism. The first two dictionaries I checked did not even have the term. To me, this strongly suggested that this word should not be used for the name of an article, and it should (at best) be a redirect. Friday 03:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Errr... you realize that there are a lot of words that are so specific to a field that they aren't going to be in standard dictionaries, right? The term is definitely not a neologism, it's been around for at least a century under the scholarly definition. You'll also note that the scholarly definition has no business at all being merged with otherkin. The subculture term has been around a lot longer than the term otherkin has been, so it's silly to call this one a neologism and suggest merging to the other when if anything that one would be more neologistic. DreamGuy 05:25, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

OK, well I at least see that the merge tag isn;t in the scholarly area... of course if the subsculture part goes away (which I am not recommending), the scholarly part may as well redirect to lycanthropy since sloppy usage over the last couple of centuries has that term being used for what this one means. DreamGuy 05:29, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

(Edit conflict, but here's my response anyway) I know that this article asserts a scholarly definition. If this can be supported, by all means this is no neologism. However the internet is so overun with the subculture-related term that I couldn't easily verify the scholarly version. I was trying to figure out what the most generic name for this phenomenon was. The closest scholarly definition I could verify so far is "lycanthropy". Friday 05:33, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

PS. What field would "therianthropy" be specific to? I suppose that's a stupid question, it must be folklore, anthropology or mythology? Still, a source would be great. If we're going to assert a scholarly definition for a word that's not in any dictionaries I can find, we should source it with a scholarly source. Friday 05:36, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, mostly mythology I guess. It's referenced in a number but heck if I can think of a specific source offhand that's guaranteed to have it. There are quite a few that specifically break it down into the proper word for specific animal forms changed into, simply by swapping in the appropriate prefix, and then with therianthropy as the blanket term. Good candidates would be Sabine Baring-Gould's The Book of Were-wolves (which is online a few places) and some of Montague Summer's work (probably online)... and I'm sure I ran across some of these alternates in some anthropology works discussing the beliefs of various tribes, I just wouldn't know where to start there. DreamGuy 09:50, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I've never seen the term used in mythology. It's use is almost completely in referring to the modern community; therefore, I would think ethnology or anthropology. Wolf VanZandt 6:33 March 2, 2006

Yeah, and I have seen it used in scholarly sources on mythology, in real books, whereas the references to the "modern community" are almost without exception only online. Which, then, is more reliable? That's right, the real books. DreamGuy 03:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Um... there might be some similar aspects between theriantropy and otherkin, but those are generally two distinct topics, and I don't see how they should or could be merged into one article. For example, someone could propose to merge Werewolf to Wolf or Fenris to any of the former two, and it would make about the same sense like this merge proposal. (Although I must acknowledge this particular article is heavily biased towards Otherkin and clynical lycantropy, rather than to theriantropy in the classical sense) --Arny 03:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Appropriate pronouns

(I would like to revert the change from "someone...they" to "someone...he or she", does everyone agree? Evidence from Fowler's Modern English Usage, 2000 ed.:)

they, their, them. 1 one, anyone, everybody, nobody, etc. followed by they, their, them. Over the centuries, writers of standing have used they, their, and them with anaphoric reference to a singular pronoun or noun, and the practice has continued in the 20c. to the point that, traditional grammarians aside, such constructions are hardly noticed any more or are not widely felt to lie in a prohibited zone. Fowler (1926) disliked the practice ("few good modern writers would flout the grammarians so conspicuously") and gave a number of unattributed "faulty" examples, including the following: The lecturer said that everybody loved their ideals; Nobody in their senses would give sixpence on the strength of the promissory note of that kind.

The evidence presented in the OED points in another direction altogether. From the 16c. onward they has often been "used in reference to a singular noun [or pronoun] made universal by every, any, no, etc., or applicable to one of either sex ( = "he or she")". The examples cited by the OED include: Every Body fell a laughing, as how could they help it- Fielding, 1749; If a person is born of a... gloomy temper... they cannot help it- Chesterfield, 1759; Nobody can deprive us of the Church, if they would- W. Whewell, 1835; Now, nobody does anything well that they cannot help doing- Ruskin, 1866. Similar constructions are presented in the OED for their (from the 14c. onward) and them (1742-). All such "non-grammatical" constructions arise either because the notion of plurality resides in many of the indefinite pronouns or because of the absence in English of a common-gender third person singular pronoun (as distinct from his used to mean "his or her" or the clumsy use of his or her itself).

Modern examples of they, their, and them used with singular reference may be found in this book in the articles for several of the indefinite pronouns, and also in the separate articles for THEIR and THEM. The process now seems irreversible.

Vashti 09:22, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

id fix it myself, but i cant, ive already changed that page today, and im rying to be good with the whole 1rr thing, but i do agree with what youve written, Vashti. Gabrielsimon 09:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I already fixed it as part of a series of fixes... of course Gabriel if you hadn;t just blindly reverted my changes it would have already been right, because I fixed to by going back to the way I had it. DreamGuy 09:41, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

blaming me for your mistakes is not a healthy way to be, it prom,otes delusion. Gabrielsimon 09:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

DreamGuy, you changed it *from* "someone...they" *to* "someone...he or she". I want to put it back to "someone...they". Vashti 09:53, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

your proof probly is enoug to allow you to make that change with enuogh evidance to back it up, i saw go for it. Gabrielsimon 09:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Probably, but there have been several recent reverts here and I'd rather go for consensus first. Vashti 10:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

you and i are two, to his one, that sounds like majority, plus you brought some lovly proof. Gabrielsimon 10:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

My mistake, I assumed when we were talking "appropriate pronouns" that we'd actually be discussing appropriate pronouns and not totally messed up pronouns. I read the first line and he said he wanted to revert to the he or she version, which is what I did, but I see now that his first line was worded ambiguously and that he didn't want to revert it to he or she but from he or she.

I am completely flabbergasted that there is actually a source out there claiming that they is singular pronoun. I can't see that flying here at all... if you strongly object to he or she than I suggest we find some other way to say the sentence in question, because this rule is firmly established in the rules of English usage. DreamGuy 10:11, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

a group, being singular, is still also referred to as they. Gabrielsimon 10:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Not only is that wrong (groups are it, not they...), but it has absolutely nothing to do with what's being discussed. DreamGuy 10:23, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

nmemebers of a group are they, even if a group is an it, thus there is some leeway, now , if you cant see that, perhaps its time to go to sleep. Gabrielsimon 10:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're just plain wrong. The group itself is an it, if you refer to plural things within the group it's a they, but that's not the group. There's a difference. DreamGuy 10:38, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

DreamGuy, the source I quoted is one of the authoritative references for English usage, with historical references. What's your source? Vashti 10:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Chicago Manual of Style, AP Stylebook, APA Stylebook, Scott Foresman Guide are all my sources. It's not unusual for some to sometimes recommend something different. If Fowler's says that they are completely out in left field... That's a pretty fundamental rule there, and it appears that they are confusing the fact that errors are frequently made with the idea that that makes it right. Parallel structure is key. They is a plural pronoun. It's uses as a singular pronoun is sloppy and incorrect. I don't know of a single English or journalism professor who would have let a somene be a they. DreamGuy 10:38, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

outdated, sorry. Gabrielsimon 10:39, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

"OUTDATED"??? All four of those sources are outdated? Where did you come up with that idea? Gee, mighty convenient there. DreamGuy 10:42, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

And, heck, reading the section quoted above for contextt, it's clear that they consider he or she preferrable. DreamGuy 10:42, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

just give it a rest, child. Gabrielsimon 10:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Calling someone a child is a very insulting thing to do. You need to give your abusive comments a rest and only reply when you have something on topic to say. DreamGuy 11:13, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

You think the clumsy use of his or her itself is indicative that they consider "he or she" preferable? Vashti 10:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that "not widely felt to lie in a prohibited zone" (which I would disagree with strongly, and so would other manuals of style) is not at all the same thing as saying "is not only OK but the way you should do it instead of the other way". DreamGuy 11:13, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Okay. Well, is it okay now? Vashti 11:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Not the smoothest, but at least it's not wrong, so OK. DreamGuy 11:24, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

This is truly disturbing. People here want to revert from he "he or she" to "they"? Am I getting this right? While we're at it, let's stop conjugating our verbs, remove the word "the" completely, write the entire article IN ALL CAPS, and get rid of any pucntuation marks that might exist here.

They, them, their, etc. are always plural, period. And to say hardly anyone notices them? Bull. Seeing such deplorable manglings of the English language is so jarring and jolting that I cringe every time I hear them, and seeing even one singular they in an article or book makes the rest of it seem as though it were written in crayon by a 4 year old. --Corvun 18:39, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

People interested in this controversy may want to check out Singular they and Disputed English grammar. FreplySpang (talk) 22:01, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Manual of Style archive (gender-neutral_pronouns) and Wikipedia:Civility might also prove informative. Vashti 22:15, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

recent changes b me

include the deletion of he derogatory strange, and the changeing of controversial to difficult, becasue there doesnt seem to be any edidance of a controversy, and since its npot all westernes who beleive tis a mental illness, insterion of SOME, and becasue its clear that most who think its a mental illness do not know enough about therianthropy to make a fair call, i interted the word Uninfomred. Gabrielsimon 02:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

"Uninformed" appears POV in this context, in my opinion. It suggests that people who pass off therianthropy as an "mental illness" simply don't understand the situation, and that if they were to learn more they'd change their minds. You imply above that some people who think it's a mental illness do know enough about therianthropy to make a fair call, what about them?

As for the word "controversial", that seems more informative to me than "difficult" or "interesting" - "difficult" and "interesting" don't specify what sort of difficulty or interest is involved, "controversial" at least indicates that the difficulty in question is a controversy. This is a pretty minor clarification, but it seems reasonable to me since we're having a controversy about it right now. Bryan 05:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with Bryan... "uninformed" is about as POV as possible, and the other edits Gabriel violated the 3RR (not to mention the 1RR he agreed to as a result of his RfC) equally made the language less precise and accurate. DreamGuy 06:35, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

comment above was deleted by Gabriel twice -- STOP DOING THAT -- you know you aren't allowed to erase other people's comments from article talk pages, and trying to rationalize that it was justified because I forgot to sign is ludicrous. DreamGuy 06:42, August 4, 2005 (UTC) - nmope, once, first comments ewere deleted becasue they were UNSIGNED. Gabrielsimon 06:44, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

uninformed might be a bit harsh, i admit, how would "usually underinformed" do instead? Gabrielsimon 06:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Still way POV... it's not usual, it's not underinformed, it's not any of that. DreamGuy 06:35, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

yes, it is USUAL, and yes it is underinformed individuals liek yourself whpo dont get it, who insisit on reading half of things and lilly understanding les. go read more, then come back. besides, i wasnt asking you, i was asking bryan Gabrielsimon 06:44, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

As it happens, I agree with DreamGuy - you're not removing the POV by trying to find other synonyms for "uninformed", it's the meaning that's the problem. What happens if DreamGuy reads more, comes back, and still thinks you're wrong? If you're concluding that he's "underinformed" simply because he disagrees with you, that's more than just POV, that's a pretty serious logical fallacy. It means you're able to dismiss his position without actually addressing his arguments. Bryan 07:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

because hesannoyingly tryingto get me blockedand banned, i no longer take anytthing he has to sat seriously, thoughj im perfectly willing to discuss thingsw ith you.Gabrielsimon 07:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, we're saying pretty much the same things in this case. The change you were trying to make was biased. Bryan 07:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Protection

Why precicely is this page protected? There is no clear reason for this in the talkpage: the only conclusion I can draw is that an editor was placing false protection tags. Is this not counterproductive in that case? Falcon 08:11, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Gabrielsimon placed a false protection tag and then SlimVirgin made it real, presumably because there was indeed a revert war going on. The section above this one includes debate on the subject of the war. Normally I'd agree that protection isn't warranted for something like this, but Gabrielsimon has been particularly active tonight and I've been so busy trying to keep the RfC on him tidy that I've been secretly pleased that I don't have to think about this page any more for the time being. :) I'll unprotect it tomorrow, unless someone beats me to it or something dramatic happens to warrant leaving the protection on. Bryan 08:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

thisisgonnasoundstrange, but ihavnt edited my RFC more then once tonight... what the hecks goin on... ( so verty glas i changed my pasword)

Gabrielsimon 08:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC) Dreamguy isat his oldtricksofmaking drasticchanges without asking anyone and then edit warring . Gabrielsimon 08:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Did anybody file the 3RR report on Gabrielsimon? He had like 5 reverts in 24 hours here... seems to me the proper action would have been to block Gabriel and leave the article, so the editors actually working to iprove it could do so. DreamGuy 08:26, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

what the hell are you tslkin about? Gabrielsimon 08:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Three-revert rule (commonly abbreviated to 3RR), which states that if an editor reverts an article more than three times within a 24 hour period that editor can be blocked from editing Wikipedia for 24 hours. You should read this rule, it's very important and you're probably going to encounter it often. Bryan 08:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

i kmnowthat rule, but, its usually thje SAME version thatgetsreverted that is the complanant andblokableversion() ivebeen dinged like ten times, i know)andas forthisarticle, there weresignificantdiferences. ( i alsohope significantenough) Gabrielsimon 08:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Going through and splitting your changes up into more than one edit in order to revert things does not count as significant differences... you continuously changed back the same sections... at least four if not five times. You supposedly agreed as part of your RfC to not make more than one revert to an article in 24 hours... and you do five times that? Give me a break. DreamGuy 09:09, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

I believe this is the second time in only a couple weeks he has made about five reverts. I just read his RfC yesterday. I hope ArbCom gets to him soon; its got to the point where I get a headache every time I see him. Falcon 05:12, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Therianthropy & Otherkin

Basically, the subcultural phenomenon of therianthropy is a subset of Otherkinship. A Therianthrope belive s/he has is psychologically, emotionally, or spiritually more connected to non-human animals, such as wolves, dogs, kangaroos, crows, or potentially even non-avain dinosaurus, than with humans. An Otherkin has similar beliefs, but greatly expandedn. The Otherkin may feel s/he has the psychological, emotional, or spiritually of any number of "mundane" species or "arcane species'. Kitsunes, Faes, Elves, Dragons, Gryphons, Vampyres, Gnomes, whatever.

So while a therianthrope would be considered a form of Otherkin, an Otherkin about be just about anything -- not just a therianthropel --Corvun 08:59, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

it canalso be sargued, specially by therians, thaa therians are based on natural animals, or tend to be, weathe extinct or not, and Otherkin are based on , by and large, more of the supernatural sort of creature. Gabrielsimon 09:01, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

That's a very useful distinction. I was merely pointing out the overlap between the two. For instnace, the Crow can be seen as both a natural and supernatural creature, do its signifcance in mythology and folklore. Some people may even believe in Unicrons as real animals. Theough Otherkin and Therianthropes are distinct from on another, there are many people who "compromise" the two --Corvun 09:19, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Raven and coyotee are two tohers alongthe lines you might be trying to speakof, andif that is the case then i understnad completely. Gabrielsimon 09:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd suggest having a look at the Crow page. Generally between the two, Crows are most associated with the spiritual realm. Ravens are more conserned with the negative aspects of death; decay, decomposition, etc. Ad far as the coyotes you mentionedl I agree.--Corvun 09:39, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

no no, notthe eurpoean thoughts of Raven, the Haida Raven, the Trickster :) " raven who stole the moon" etc Gabrielsimon 09:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Page protection

I've protected this page because the reverting started up again between DreamGuy and Gabrielsimon, which has affected a number of pages recently. When other editors are ready to start editing it again, please leave a note on my talk page, or if I'm not around, go to WP:RFPP. I also see there's an allegation of a 3RR violation, so if anyone wants to write up the diffs for WP:AN/3RR, I'll take a look. Please include a link to the version reverted to, as well the diffs to the four reverts. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:14, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

i was trying to avoid anedit conclict wheni suggested protection. please dont blame me for the very sutbborn other user. Gabrielsimon 09:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Gabriel, you are being just as stubborn as DreamGuy here. Anyway, I'll be removing the protection when I get home tonight and can spend some time paying attention to the page; page protection is a very blunt instrument to use in cases like this, when there's a problem with two editors revert-warring the 3RR is a more suitable instrument to reduce disruption. Bryan 14:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I have unprotected the page. I'm watching it closely now with the 3RR at the ready, and I plan to be liberal with its interpretation if this same argument starts right back up again; nobody think they can slip "complex" reverts past, if a particular bit of wording is flip-flopping back and forth I'll consider it a revert even if other stuff is going on at the same time. There's no hurry to "fix" this article either way, please take future disagreements straight here to talk. Bryan 23:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, so much for my project for the evening. Jayjg requested that I reprotect the page since I had made an edit to the article previously that was related to the argument. I'm putting an unprotect request on RfP instead. Bryan 00:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I've unlocked the page following Bryan's request on RfPP. Please try to reach consensus on the talk page. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:39, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Question

"When people believe they change into an animal form (theriomorphosis), or possess supernatural non-human animal traits, the term clinical lycanthropy is often used. This classification is a form of mental illness, though many anthropologists would point out that the belief has extensive religious precedent in shamanic cultures."

Well, firstly, the classification is not a form of mental illness... clinical lycanthropy would be the illness. Subtle distinction, but as it is currently worded it sounds strange. Anyway, my question is what is the source for the anthropologists, and which shamanic cultures have this religious precedent? It would be good to clarify this, if only for NPOV and citation reasons. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Otherkin merge

I've removed the merge tag because from what I can see here, the explanation here is not limited to the Otherkin subculture. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

That's why I suggested a merge on the subculture section, not the entire article. Friday 02:46, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Given how the subculture reacts to the words (A person claiming to a 'dragon' therianthrope would likely be laughed at, while a 'dragon' otherkin would be more accepted), I don't think a merge would be particularly justified. They two words are no more synonyms than "Green Party" and "left-wing" are. 65.31.59.176 00:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC) Blueeyes

Good analogy. To continue it, if there were only a few paragraphs of verifiable information on either the left wing or the Green Party, I'd be in favor of merging them, too. Friday 03:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

But since the "left wing" and "Green Party" are far from synonymous, I'd split an article that was about both of them into two. There's absolutely nothing wrong with an article only being a few paragraphs long. Bryan 04:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Friday, I'd say we've got enough information here to stop the entry from becoming a stub, so it seems reasonable to keep the two sections apart. Well, that and an 'otherkin vs. clinical lycanthropy' section just seems a bit out-of-place to me. The otherkin entry also specifically says that it focuses on mythological or legendary creatures, which might also make the reference to the furry fandom, which has a good deal of wolves, tigers, and other existing animals including. 65.31.59.176 15:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC) Blueeyes

rem clinical lycanthropy

I do not beleive that THerianthropy has anything to do with clinical lycanthropy, simply becaasue Clinical Lycanthropy is a medical condition, andTherianthropy is more of a spiritual beleief, most of the timeGavin the Chosen 16:45, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Stop pushing your bias onto articles left and right when you know they go against consensus. DreamGuy 17:25, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

your consensusof one is not consensus to anyone else, please stop claiming consensus when you have nbo such thingGavin the Chosen 17:31, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Multiple people reverting your edits nearly instantly whenever they see them because they all agree your POV-pushing ways will not be tolerated clearly means that consensus has been made. You may be in denial of that, but that doesn't change facts. DreamGuy 17:37, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

two people does no multiple make, nor does two people make cnesensus. please stop whining, and go find someething usefull to do.Gavin the Chosen 17:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I have to dispute two things with your claim, Gavin. Firstly, looking through the history of these articles, I can see more than two editors reverting your changes. Secondly, two people do multiple make. Anyway, I'm not big on semantic arguments. I have been watching these changes for a while, quietly. I've given my opinion on the matter at Talk:Clinical_lycanthropy. And Gavin, perhaps you should take your own advice: Stop whining and find something useful to do. Mistercow 17:06, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

how is it not usefull to try to make improovements, even when others tend to disagree, largely becasue i rearly explain myself, because its not easy...Gavin the Chosen 17:09, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I know you think you are being useful. I do not doubt your good faith. I also think that dissent is an important thing, especially to wikipedia. But it is not useful to make POV edits. Once multiple (yes, multiple) editors have told you that the change you want to make violates NPOV, you should start to examine what you are doing. Removing this link is not appropriate. If the article said "Therians are all clinical lycanthropes," you would certainly have a case. But it doesn't. It presents a logical and unbiased comparison of the topics. What you are trying to do is keep the reader from reading on into clinical lycanthropy. This is essentially censorship. Mistercow 17:20, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Deleted section and personal remarks

As an Administrator, I am concerned about the unexplained deletion of an entire section of this article. I believe the customary practice is to copy the disputed text to the talk page - and then discuss it.

Also, let's all try to avoid personal remarks but confine our remarks to the article itself. I object to the tone of remarks like the following:

• pushing your bias onto articles left and right when you know they go against consensus
• stop whining and find something useful to do
• you should take your own advice
• your consensus of one is not consensus to anyone else
• your POV-pushing ways will not be tolerated

This article is about humans transforming into animals - in fiction, legend and (possibly) real life. Let's talk about that subject, and how Wikipedia can present knowledge about it to the world: accurately and without bias. Uncle Ed 17:24, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Good point. I actually didn't mean for my tone to be attacking when I said "you should take your own advice". My intent was to point out that Gavin's statement was inappropriate, not to literally say he should stop editing. Alas, tone is a finicky thing when writing. My apologies. Mistercow 19:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Therians and Vampires.

I appreciate this article which seems to be, generally, accurate. There are a couple of areas that I differ somewhat.

I do not believe that the increased interaction of the Therian and Vampire communities has much to do with White Wolf. Most "graymuzzles" are neutral about Vampires and tend to be open to relationships with them. The younger Therians who begin with a belief that Therians and Vampires are "supposed to be" antagonistic quickly find in the forums that this antagonism doesn't necesarily exist. My own activities carried me onto the old Pathways to Darkness forum back in 2000 and I met a Vampire there with some interesting ideas about the Therian Community. I wanted to know more of his position so I and another Therian drove to Atlanta to meet with him. We developed a friendship which lead to me meeting other members of the Vampire community. It was a fairly natural process and did not involve roleplaying at all. That is the type of experience I've heard other Therians relate. Wolf VanZandt 11/21/05

Therians and Furries

Most of the established Therians that I know do not seem to think that the difference between Therians and Furries is a matter of degree. Briefly, the most commonly held belief that I've run into is that Furryism is a lifestyle and a Furry is a person that's chosen that lifestyle. Therians do not choose to be Therians. It's either a matter of birth or something that happens in early childhood development. Wolf VanZandt 11/21/05

Development of structure in the Therian community

Although it is true that the Therian community worldwide does not have a well defined hierarchy, there is nevertheless some structure - and it is developing over time. I can identify at least two social units developing - Howls would be the oldest and some are very cohesive. For instance the SEHowl has been running consistently for about 8 years and has a very stable core membership.

There also seems to be an ever increasing number of extended family units. Therians are tending more and more to migrate into these groups.

Regardless, there is certainly a shift from Internet interaction to real life interaction and the formation of more cohesive groups. There is also a stable folkways developing. Wolf VanZandt 11/21/05