Burned Fur: Not A Flame Group?
Xydexx Squeakypony
Burned Fur on this newsgroup, and yeah, it would be nice if that
discussion moved to alt.fan.furry.politics instead of cropping up here,
but c'est la vie... if other folks are gonna talk about it on AFF, I've
got just as much right to be heard there as well.]
Darrel L. Exline wrote:
> The Burned Furs for themost part are not actively vocal. That would go against
> some of what they believe in. The most common misconception of the Burned Furs
> is that they are a flame group. THIS IS NOT THE CASE.
It isn't?
"If I ever run into [Xydexx] at a con, I'll put his fucking
head through a wall."
---Clint Forrester
"Shutup, Xydexx... Shut up, Xydexx... You sir, yes YOU, Xydexx
Squeakypony, are a troll, a coward, a hypocrite, and most of
all, a complete FUCKHEAD... You make me sick. Shut the fuck
up, Xydexx."
---Clint Forrester
"Xydexx, shut your goddamn patronizing mouth and go back
to fucking your pool toys."
---Hangdog
I think that's enough examples for the moment.
Darrel Exline has said what he wants most from the Burned Fur Movement
is for everyone to enjoy being furry, however they define it. That's a
nice thought, but since Burned Fur has a longstanding history of being
(and continues to be) downright hostile towards even a modicum of
tolerance or compromise, it'll be a cold day in hell before that
changes.
"'Can't we all just get along?' No. No, we can't."
---Squee Rat, author of the Burned Fur Manifesto
I think I'll leave off with this quote regarding the whole CF10 mess
from someone who, despite his claims that "a friend" was using his
account when he posted as Sir Yiffnot a few days before CF10, posted
something surprisingly similar to the Burned Fur newsgroup only days
earlier:
"I must say when I heard the news, I almost died laughing.
Finally! Someone is smart enough to say "No way!" to porn!
Man of man, it's funny watching all these over-sexed freaks
of nature bitch about the loss of "Pornferance". Artists
will have to acutally USE THEIR IMAGINATIONS for a change!"
---Ottergame
____________________________________________________________
Xydexx Squeakypony, not a Burned Fur [ICQ: 7569393]
"The only problem with not participating in flamewars is
that nobody notices you're not participating in them." -Me
Kamika-Z
> [DISCLAIMER: Y'know, I'm aware most everyone is tired of hearing about
> Burned Fur on this newsgroup, and yeah, it would be nice if that
> discussion moved to alt.fan.furry.politics instead of cropping up here,
> but c'est la vie... if other folks are gonna talk about it on AFF, I've
> got just as much right to be heard there as well.]
>
Notta prob, Squeak's, seeing as how I'm guilty of it, as are almost everyone
here.
And you're as entitled as any of us to put forth yer $.02 on the subject...
>
> Darrel L. Exline wrote:
> > The Burned Furs for themost part are not actively vocal. That would go against
> > some of what they believe in. The most common misconception of the Burned Furs
> > is that they are a flame group. THIS IS NOT THE CASE.
>
> It isn't?
>
> "If I ever run into [Xydexx] at a con, I'll put his fucking
> head through a wall."
> ---Clint Forrester
>
Yick..(o.o)
>
> "Shutup, Xydexx... Shut up, Xydexx... You sir, yes YOU, Xydexx
> Squeakypony, are a troll, a coward, a hypocrite, and most of
> all, a complete FUCKHEAD... You make me sick. Shut the fuck
> up, Xydexx."
> ---Clint Forrester
>
Yowtch! (O.o)
>
> "Xydexx, shut your goddamn patronizing mouth and go back
> to fucking your pool toys."
> ---Hangdog
>
Deities...that's -past- reasonable. (O.O)
>
> I think that's enough examples for the moment.
>
Um...yeah...<nods, not quite certain to make of the previous statements...>
> Darrel Exline has said what he wants most from the Burned Fur Movement
> is for everyone to enjoy being furry, however they define it. That's a
> nice thought, but since Burned Fur has a longstanding history of being
> (and continues to be) downright hostile towards even a modicum of
> tolerance or compromise, it'll be a cold day in hell before that
> changes.
>
Maybe if they were more like Darrel, from what I've read, there'd be some chance
of that. He's put forth his views reasonably, logically, and has refrained from
using emotionally charged language for sake of incomplete or innacurate logic. But
that's my views. There've been a few others, but shamefully, I can't recall their
names at present...
>
> "'Can't we all just get along?' No. No, we can't."
> ---Squee Rat, author of the Burned Fur Manifesto
>
Well, that summed it up rather succinctly. All the more reason for me to not
agree with 'em. Flamed though I may get, I don't think anyone has a right to say
what can and can't be in the fandom. After all, the fandom has the word Furry at its
core, and that label applies to the art and literature of the Fandom. To me, it
doesn't mean your sexuality, or your preferred partner, or even what your diet
consists of; that's just part of what makes an individual. What I don't get,
personally, is why Furry is taken more as a noun than as an adjective, like in Furry
Art, Furry Stories, Furry Gay (although that could far, FAR too easily lead into
creative misinterpretations), Furry Zoophile...if there's so many flavors of Furry,
who's to say who can't tack furry on the front because it describes them as well?
They wanna do their thing? Let'em, so long as it don't harm you, and so long as they
don't impose what they are into the definition of Furry, because, let's face it, the
concept of Furry is -FAR- too diverse to be so narrowly pidgeonholed into a single
noun. It makes a far better descriptor.than object. At least to me. IMNSHO, YMMV.
>
> I think I'll leave off with this quote regarding the whole CF10 mess
> from someone who, despite his claims that "a friend" was using his
> account when he posted as Sir Yiffnot a few days before CF10, posted
> something surprisingly similar to the Burned Fur newsgroup only days
> earlier:
>
> "I must say when I heard the news, I almost died laughing.
> Finally! Someone is smart enough to say "No way!" to porn!
> Man of man, it's funny watching all these over-sexed freaks
> of nature bitch about the loss of "Pornferance". Artists
> will have to acutally USE THEIR IMAGINATIONS for a change!"
> ---Ottergame
>
I've seen a few similar inanities such as this one, and while I don't have a
killfile established, simply because I, unlike many, don't filter out everytrhing and
leave only what I want to hear or see, I find myself wishing, for once, I had set on
up. A *plonk* would be utterly satisfying, in light of the evinced 'two-facing' and
especially the callous attitude towards those who have put forth their efforts into a
fandom intent on tearing itself to shreds by providing that which the fandom is
willing to pay for, or that they enjoy doing, simply for sake of creating, and being
told that, in essence, they are neither wanted nor needed for having thoughts that
cover the full range of adult emotive capability. Even though many would like for
such to be true, the world is not sugar, popsicles, Pikachus, and sweetness; it a
complex, involving thing in which sex at one point or another plays a pivotal part;
after all, someone had to have boinked in order for you to be here...
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> Xydexx Squeakypony, not a Burned Fur [ICQ: 7569393]
> "The only problem with not participating in flamewars is
> that nobody notices you're not participating in them." -Me
Much as I hate to set myself up for immense flammability, I think that your quiet
reasoning, simple point making, and sense of humor more than make up for the rampant
virtriol and virulence that seems to be intent on choking off all intelligent life in
this newsgroup.Were it not for the fact that I hate to be stingy with my stuff, I'd
have gone mad in this fandom. :)
Kamika-Z <...who sares, regardless of talnet or lack thereof!>
Xydexx Squeakypony
> Xydexx Squeakypony wrote:
> > Darrel Exline has said what he wants most from the Burned Fur Movement
> > is for everyone to enjoy being furry, however they define it. That's a
> > nice thought, but since Burned Fur has a longstanding history of being
> > (and continues to be) downright hostile towards even a modicum of
> > tolerance or compromise, it'll be a cold day in hell before that
> > changes.
>
> Maybe if they were more like Darrel, from what I've read, there'd be some chance
> of that. He's put forth his views reasonably, logically, and has refrained from
> using emotionally charged language for sake of incomplete or innacurate logic. But
> that's my views. There've been a few others, but shamefully, I can't recall their
> names at present...
I think there's probably a few Burned Furs that are reasonable.
Unfortunately, they rarely speak up... which is understandable
considering Burned Fur's reputation. I've gotta give GothTiger credit,
he can be civil and seems to be aware that there's a few bad apples in
Burned Fur. He's got initiative, and just needs to turn that in a
positive direction.
Know what would be a good idea? If the moderate Burned Furs broke off
and formed their own group under a new name. There's probably a lot of
people in Burned Fur who only support it reluctantly because while it
isn't perfect, it's the closest thing out there to what they want.
There's certainly quite a few who've said they agreed with the [alleged]
goals of Burned Fur, but not their tactics.
Consider, which group would accomplish more:
* A hateful, vitriolic group with extremists like SqueeRat
and Clint Forrester as "leaders"[1], which seems to
pride itself in being nasty...
...or...
* A reasonable, logical group with "moderates" like Darrel
Exline and GothTiger at the helm, which wants to
improve furry fandom's image?
I think it's good idea on the sole fact that they'd probably
be able to accomplish twice as much with half the flames.
____________________________________________________________
Xydexx Squeakypony [ICQ: 7569393]
Xydexx's Anthrofurry Homepage:
http://www.smart.net/~xydexx/anthrofurry/homepage.htm
[1] Yeah, I know, I know, Burned Fur doesn't have any
"leaders"... and that seems to be part of the problem.