Actually, Burned Furs -Do- Threaten Violence...
Farlo
<7fklbe$1gp$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>:
> [I saw this attempt at rewriting history and just _had_ to reply... feel
free
> to skip it if you're familiar with the story...]
>
> Hangdog wrote:
> > We don't hack websites, mailbomb, or threaten
> > violence the way our opposition does..
>
> Gee, -I- seem to recall a certain Burned Fur---who had a big hand in
writing
> your mission statement and running your DejaNews forum---who also
threatened
> to put my head through a wall if he ever saw me at a furry con.
Clint Forrestor. He runs the Burned Fur forum on Dejanews.
Farlo
Urban Fey Dragon, Furry Freedom Fighter
FRM - Furry Resistance Movement
http://www.dejanews.com/~furculture
Forrest
Xydexx Squeakypony <xyd...@my-dejanews.com> :
> Gee, -I- seem to recall a certain Burned Fur---who had a big hand in writing
> your mission statement and running your DejaNews forum---who also threatened
> to put my head through a wall if he ever saw me at a furry con.
*hoses squeaky pony down with whipped cream*
Republicans and Democrats murder friends, family and neighbors quite a lot but
murdering friends, family and neighbors certainly isn't something they're
organizationally in favor of.
Xydexx Squeakypony
> > Gee, -I- seem to recall a certain Burned Fur---who had a big hand in writing
> > your mission statement and running your DejaNews forum---who also threatened
> > to put my head through a wall if he ever saw me at a furry con.
>
> *hoses squeaky pony down with whipped cream*
oooOOOOOHhh! Now I'm a sticky pony! -8)
> Republicans and Democrats murder friends, family and neighbors quite a lot but
> murdering friends, family and neighbors certainly isn't something they're
> organizationally in favor of.
True, and I don't mean to imply that Burned Fur as a group is in favor of
that, because there isn't very much that they as a group can agree on.
"Intellectual tapioca," was how Joe Rosales described it. My point was
nothing more than to illustrate that a rather prominent and active member of
Burned Fur _has_ made violent threats in the past.
Despite Hangdog's recent attempt to rewrite history by portraying Burned Fur
as a peace-loving group where "anyone in Burned Fur who talked about using
violence would get tossed out on his/her ear", the last time I checked their
supporters page they hadn't kicked Clint Forrester out for making threats
against me.
______________________________________________________________________
Xydexx Squeakypony, not a Burned Fur...
Xydexx's Anthrofurry Homepage:
http://www.smart.net/~xydexx/anthrofurry/homepage.htm
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Forrest
Xydexx Squeakypony <xyd...@my-dejanews.com> :
> > *hoses squeaky pony down with whipped cream*
>
> oooOOOOOHhh! Now I'm a sticky pony! -8)
And it wasn't until just now that I realised the potential implications of
that, honest.
> Despite Hangdog's recent attempt to rewrite history by portraying Burned Fur
> as a peace-loving group where "anyone in Burned Fur who talked about using
> violence would get tossed out on his/her ear", the last time I checked their
> supporters page they hadn't kicked Clint Forrester out for making threats
> against me.
What people want to express is not necessarily what they succeed in
expressing. Now if so-and-so said "Speaking in my capacity as a Burned Fur,
I'm going to split your nostrils open with a boathook," and they still didn't
punt him, then they'd be suffering a severe case of self-contradiction.
Hey, wait -- why am I saying "they"? Maybe I'm a BF.
Let's see, who's excluded..."sexually dysfunctional, socially stunted and
creatively bankrupt hacks and pervs". Hum. It's a near thing, but I'm not
creatively bankrupt. So I'm qualified...in which case the answer to your
question would be, yes, Burned Furs do favor whipped cream. Of course, I
can't guarantee that this will be adopted as a platform plank at the party
convention. Maybe you should join too.
Xydexx Squeakypony
> So I'm qualified...in which case the answer to your question
> would be, yes, Burned Furs do favor whipped cream. Of course, I
> can't guarantee that this will be adopted as a platform plank at
> the party convention. Maybe you should join too.
Don't give me any ideas. -:)
______________________________________________________________________
Xydexx Squeakypony, now with tasty cream filling! [ICQ: 7569393]
http://www.smart.net/~xydexx/squeakypony/antiburnedfur.htm
Forrest
Xydexx Squeakypony <xyd...@my-dejanews.com> :
> >Maybe you should join too.
>
> Don't give me any ideas. -:)
And why not? Judging by the public statements that I've read you're fully
qualified to join Shon and I in the BFs.
Since I'm power-mad, I've gone and written the new BF manifesto (without
permission, of course, but apparently I don't need any); perhaps this is a
good place to post it...
___________________________________
THE BURNED FUR MANIFESTO II (DRAFT)
WHEREAS the basis of civil society is polite conduct founded upon the social
contract,
and
WHEREAS some people may have forgotten this, THEREFORE
WE, the Burned Furs [note: the Burned Furs have no leadership or
organizational structure, so this is the "editorial we", but maybe some other
people will sign up] hereby announce the following manifesto.
We hold that:
# It is unreasonable to define others purely on the basis of coincidental
shared interests. [Example: Hitler painted landscapes. Bob Ross, the late
PBS Oil Painting Guy, painted landscapes. There is no known meaningful
correlation between landscape painters and engineers of mass murder. Thus it
is unreasonable to suggest that Hitler and Bob Ross had anything in common
other than a shared interest in landscape painting.]
# It is impolite to force such a definition. [If you are a Republican and
enjoy watching nude mud wrestling, it is impolite for you to attribute that
enjoyment to other Republicans, especially ones you don't know personally.]
# It IS polite to DENY such a definition when appropriate. ["Good lord, Bob!
You're watching nude mud wrestling!" "Yes, but not in my capacity as ward
leader of the local Republican organization, and many members of the party
would be repulsed in the extreme by this type of scandalous display."]
# There are many types of activities that involve animals. Some involve
actual animals, such as lion-taming, veterinary medicine, or bestiality;
others involve wholly nonexistent pseudo-animals that count as animals only in
a tangential, fictional sense, such as collecting Pogo-related material, being
a staff writer for "The Sylvester & Tweety Mysteries", or drawing
anthropomorphic animals engaged in what some people would regard as erotic
activity.
We therefore hold that:
# It is unreasonable and even impolite to define a person or group of persons
interested in a given animal-oriented activity in terms of another person or
group of persons interested in a different animal-oriented activity, merely on
the basis of both activities being animal-oriented. [We assert that claiming
that lion-tamers are statistically likely to be practitioners of bestiality is
unreasonable and even impolite, i.e. that significantly associating the two
groups on the basis of both being animal-related is irrational and unfounded.]
# It is reasonable and polite to deny such a definition when appropriate.
[Example: Person 1 is a member of the Furrymuck Christian Fellowship. Person
2 enjoys taking items of overly cute animal-shaped mass-merchandising out to
the desert and reducing them to their component materials with the aid of
semi-automatic weaponry. Person 3 is novelist John Irving, who wrote THE
HOTEL NEW HAMPSHIRE, which (apparently, at least in the movie version)
featured a lesbian having sex while dressed in a fursuit.
We hold that it is unreasonable and impolite to suggest that these people have
something meaningful in common on the basis of a shared interest in
animal-related activities, but reasonable and polite to suggest that they do
not.]
We have noticed that certain people have declared an opposing view -- that if
a person is a member of one particular group interested in one particular
animal-oriented activity, one must therefore be a member of another unrelated
group of people. This is incorrect.
We have noticed that certain members of the media have been taking their cues
from these mistaken persons and thereby misassociating other persons with
activities that they do not endorse or participate in.
WE THEREFORE RESOLVE that in order to ensure that no group is carelessly
misassociated by the uninformed with an unrelated group we shall undertake the
(currently 3) following measures:
# We will communicate to members of the media our position by making this
manifesto available to them. Toward that end we will dress presentably
(jacket and tie for men would be ideal), groom ourselves scrupulously, and
make ourselves available to those members of the media whenever appropriate.
[Example: BFs shall take printed copies of this manifesto with them whenever
it seems probable that members of the media will be inquiring into
animal-related activity in the proximity of BFs, and hand them out =if
interviewed=.]
# We will in the course of our daily routine attempt to be aware of persons
who promote misassociation and correct these errors. [Example: if we should
happen to hear someone say that "furry fans are into bestiality" we should
point out that there is no causal connection between the two activities. This
is more difficult than it sounds. If we cannot remain completely objective
and restrict our statements to what uninvolved parties would regard as simple
facts, silence is preferable. Flamewars are counterproductive.]
# We will neither individually nor as a group endorse or commit unlawful acts
toward the purpose of our goals. We will demand of any BF or group of BFs who
violate this provision an immediate acknowledgement of disassociation from us.
We will report unlawful acts [which include terroristic threats] to the
appropriate law enforcement authorities regardless of the motivation of said
acts.
_______________________________________________
Comments? Suggestions? (Where's Joe Rosales when you need him?)
Forrest
> Since I'm power-mad, I've gone and written the new BF manifesto (without
> permission, of course, but apparently I don't need any)
And after 24 hours it's gotten neither flames nor comments, so I guess it's as
good as it's going to get. So from now on, if anyone wants to know what
Burned Fur is about, please refer them to Manifesto II instead of obsolete
versions. Thanks.
Having disposed of all the BF-related problems, exit our hero stage right.
Ben Bruin
"Forrest" <bct...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Since I'm power-mad, I've gone and written the new BF manifesto (without
> > permission, of course, but apparently I don't need any)
>
> good as it's going to get. So from now on, if anyone wants to know what
> Burned Fur is about, please refer them to Manifesto II instead of obsolete
> versions. Thanks.
>
> Having disposed of all the BF-related problems, exit our hero stage right.
>
"If we don't make anybody mad, then everything will be *so* much better."
When the opposition ceases to complain about you, it is because
you are no longer a threat or even an impediment to their agenda.
Let them bitch and moan and kvetch about what meanies we are for talking
so tough. Then tell them to get a spine, shortly followed by a life.
The reason iodine stings is because it's being dripped on an open wound.
Maybe more attention needs to be paid to the wound than to how ouchie un-fun
the medicine is.
Two rules:
1)never stand behind a cow......
Farlo
>"If we don't make anybody mad, then everything will be *so* much better."
Correct.
>When the opposition ceases to complain about you, it is because
> you are no longer a threat or even an impediment to their agenda.
We have no agenda. Apparently, neither do you.
>Let them bitch and moan and kvetch about what meanies we are for talking
>so tough. Then tell them to get a spine, shortly followed by a life.
I have a spine. You have a broomstick in a delicate place.
There's a difference.
Would you like a bannana? It might help.
Forrest
Ben Bruin <lonely...@newwave.net> :
> Yet another example of mushheaded thinking....
Really? Does it conflict with the Mission Statement? That's what I based it
on; I just removed some buzzwords. (I just witnessed a Macintosh-Windows
flamewar that revolved entirely around buzzwords; the two sides were so
blinded by vocabulary that when one participant had it pointed out to him that
he actually understood and even agreed with the basic argument of the
opposition, he could not accept it. Unfortunate.)
> "If we don't make anybody mad, then everything will be *so* much better."
It would certainly make the atmosphere of AFF more conducive to discussing its
actual topic. Also, section 1, item 4 of the mission statement states that
making people mad was part of the problem.
>When the opposition ceases to complain about you, it is because
>you are no longer a threat or even an impediment to their agenda.
Either that or they have come to understand that our agenda does not involve
harming them (mission statement section 3, item 4). [Zoos will note that
Manifesto II does require reporting observed acts of human-animal sex to law
enforcement authorities; however, I don't believe this sort of thing has
actually occurred at furry cons.]
> Let them bitch and moan and kvetch about what meanies we are for talking
> so tough. Then tell them to get a spine, shortly followed by a life.
I certainly have no objection to free expression of opposing views. I don't
understand what you mean by "get a spine"; I am told that many of the
opposition already have lives, if by that you mean full-time employment,
outside interests, wives and so on.
> The reason iodine stings is because it's being dripped on an open wound.
> Maybe more attention needs to be paid to the wound than to how ouchie un-fun
> the medicine is.
Agreed. But as long as we're doctoring, let's not forget the Hippocratic
Oath.
> Two rules:
> 1)never stand behind a cow......
Oh, bother...what's the second one?
Forrest
Farlo <stan...@abac.com> wrote :
> We have no agenda. Apparently, neither do you.
Announcing: The Official Home Office of the Burned Furs!
Agenda, Kansas. Population 81 (1990).
Courtesy of the US Gazetteer (via www.dictionary.com). :)
Manifesto II does include a specific -- well, I think it's specific --- list
of things to do, though I do admit it isn't the sort of thing you can put in
your Day-Timer and check off.
Farlo
>Manifesto II does include a specific -- well, I think it's specific ---
list
>of things to do, though I do admit it isn't the sort of thing you can put
in
>your Day-Timer and check off.
Hmmm... it's a definite improvement.
Forrest
was careless; had I been more awake at the time I would have put opposition in
quotation marks, because some people who are thought of, or think of
themselves, as the opposition are in fact not in opposition to us at all.
The following test should help to clear up the issue. Note that it is
unofficial and unapproved.
------------------------------------
Inference and association questions:
1. Three people are sitting in the video room at ConFurence watching a Kimba
the White Lion cartoon. "George" is a zoo; "Bob" thinks that well-drawn
furnography is a salutary alternative to the real thing; "Raymond" is a member
of the Furrymuck Christian Fellowship and an evangelical. Which of the
following statements is true, based on the previous statements?
A) Raymond is a zoo.
B) Raymond is not a zoo.
C) Raymond, George and Bob are fans of anthropomorphic animals.
D) Neither A nor B nor C can be assumed with certainty to be true.
2. "Georgina", "Roberta" and "Raymonda" identify themselves to you as
"furries". Georgina and Roberta also identify themselves as "zoo"s; Raymonda
identifies herself as being a non-zoo. These identifications are true. Which
of the following statements is true, based on the previous statements?
A) Georgina is a furry; Georgina is a zoo. Roberta is a furry; Roberta is
a zoo. Raymonda is a furry, but is not a zoo, and is therefore in
self-contradiction.
B) Raymonda hates Georgina and Roberta, and/or vice-versa.
C) Georgina and Roberta ought to hate Raymonda, and/or vice-versa.
D) Neither A nor B nor C can be assumed with certainty to be true.
3. "Bill", "Al" and "Kenneth" identify themselves to you as "furries". Bill
and Al also identify themselves as "zoo"s; Kenneth identifies himself as being
a non-zoo. Bill and Al assert that to be a furry you must be a zoo. Which of
the following statements is true, based on the previous statements?
A) Bill and Al are furries and zoos, and assert that to be a furry you
must be a zoo. Kenneth claims to be a furry, but is not a zoo, and therefore
either 1) Kenneth is lying when he claims to be a furry, or 2) Bill and Al are
lying when they make that assertion.
B) Kenneth hates Bill and Al, and/or vice-versa.
C) Bill and Al ought to hate Kenneth, and/or vice-versa.
D) Neither A nor B nor C can be assumed with certainty to be true.
Situational Ethics Questions:
4. You are walking through the hotel lobby at a furry convention and discover
a man having sex with a dog. What do you do?
A) Kill him
B) Kill him and the dog
C) Do nothing
D) Call the police
5. You are walking through the hotel lobby at a furry convention and discover
a man wanking with a plush toy. What do you do?
A) Kill him
B) Take his plush toy away
C) Do nothing
D) Call the police
6. You are walking through the hotel lobby at a furry convention and discover
a couple having sex in fur suits. What do you do?
A) Kill them
B) Hose them down
C) Do nothing
D) Call the police
7. Do you believe in the social contract? (I.E., that: in return for your not
offending others, others should refrain from offending you; in return for
others not offending you, you should refrain from offending others.)
A) Yes
B) No
Answers
-------
Question 1.
A) You cannot ascribe the beliefs of one person to another person simply
because they are in proximity, thus A is invalid. If you believe otherwise,
you are opposed to Burned Fur.
B) You cannot ascribe beliefs to a person in the absence of evidence, thus B
is invalid. If you answered B and meant that it would would be polite to
suggest that Raymond is a non-zoo you are not opposed to Burned Fur on this
question (see Manifesto II). If you answered B for another reason, keep
reading.
C) It is not specifically stated that George is a fan of anthropomorphic
animals: he may just be a random hotel guest* who stopped in for a moment; he
may totally fail to see the appeal of the program. It is not specifically
stated that Bob or Raymond is a fan either. Therefore C is an invalid
inference. If you chose C you are not necessarily opposed to Burned Fur, but
did jump to a conclusion, and Burned Fur is opposed to jumping to conclusions
on the grounds that this leads to misassociation. (*To avoid
public-performance copyright violation charges, the video rooms at conventions
are not restricted to con members. Even con membership is not a guarantee of
opinion.)
D) If you chose D, you are not opposed to Burned Fur on this question.
Question 2.
A) Nowhere is it stated -- even by implication -- that a "furry" must be a
"zoo"; thus A is invalid. If you answered A and are firm in this choice, you
are opposed to Burned Fur.
B) No personal opinions of any of the furries regarding any of the other
furries is given, thus B is invalid. If you answered B, you are jumping to
conclusions (see above).
C) Option C reflects the respondent's opinion, and is therefore undefined
(varies from respondent to respondent) and therefore invalid. If you chose C
you may be opposed to Burned Fur by virtue of being in conflict with the
Mission Statement's commitment to diversity.
D) If you chose D, you are not opposed to Burned Fur on this question.
Question 3.
A) Assertions are not facts; consequently Bill and Al's assertion holds no
authority over Kenneth's self-identification as a furry. There is a conflict
between Bill and Al's assertion and Kenneth's self-identification, but this
conflict could simply result from an honest mistake rather than a lie.
Therefore A is invalid. If you chose A believing that Kenneth must be lying,
you are opposed to Burned Fur; if you chose A believing that Bill and Al were
lying you may be opposed to Burned Fur and should consider the honest mistake
option.
B) see answer B, question 2.
C) see answer C, question 2.
D) see answer D, question 2.
Question 4.
A) This is illegal and in violation of Manifesto II. If you answered A you
are opposed to Burned Fur. [Stopping him by -any- illegal means is in
violation of Manifesto II, and if you do you are in opposition to Burned Fur.]
B) See above. Even if you're just "obeying Leviticus" you're still opposed to
Burned Fur.
C) Doing nothing may be in violation of Manifesto II. If you know for a fact
that the law does not forbid what the man is doing, you are not opposed to
Burned Fur. If you know for a fact that it does, you are opposed to Burned
Fur.
D) If you answered D you are not opposed to Burned Fur. The man is almost
certainly breaking the law: if he is, you are proceeding in accordance with
Manifesto II; if by some quirk he is not, no harm done (the local police will
know what the local law is and will come and arrest him, or not, as
appropriate).
Question 5.
A) See answer A to Question 4.
B) This is theft; see answer A to Question 4.
C) See answer C to Question 4.
D) See answer D to Question 4.
Question 6.
A) See answer A to Question 4.
B) This could be considered assault, in which case see answer A to Question 4.
If you know for a fact that hosing people down is not illegal, you are not
opposed to Burned Fur on this question.
C) See answer C to Question 4.
D) See answer D to Question 4.
Question 8.
A) You are not in opposition to Burned Fur on this question.
B) You are opposed to Burned Fur.
If you've gotten past these questions and find by your answers that you are
not in opposition to Burned Fur -- well, you're not the opposition so far as I
can tell.
If you find that you -are- in the opposition, I'm certainly curious to know
why.
(I suppose practitioners of Civil Disobedience and strong libertarians would
disqualify themselves from the BFs on general principles; I can't argue with
that position...)
Dracona
would
> disqualify themselves from the BFs on general principles; I can't argue
with
> that position...)
This is exactly why I disagree with the entire movement. I am a
libertarian to the core. Which explains alot of my viewpoints for those of
you who actually know who I am. This isone of the reasons I am generally
quiet on the whole subject as disagree with the concept and don't feel the
need to bother arguing because BF's and I obviously disagree on some very
basic aspects of life which means that it would never get anywhere.
Dracona/Pathia
Forrest
Dracona <dra...@trypnotk.draconic.com> wrote in message
news:7g4vgo$tff$1...@crucigera.fysh.org...
> > (I suppose practitioners of Civil Disobedience and strong libertarians
> would
> > disqualify themselves from the BFs on general principles; I can't argue
> with
> > that position...)
>
> libertarian to the core.
I can understand why a libertarian would disagree with certain aspects of
Manifesto II; could you specify which statements you dislike? (In email if you
wish.)