I ain't the only one...
Florian
the NG seems down lately, and this will add some (even if many consider
it noise).
Tatter_D wrote:
>
> In article <710j7d$oss$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, fka...@my-dejanews.com says...
> > The bare bones of the matter is that an overwhelming majority of
> >respondents (83%, in fact) felt that zoophiles are an undesireable tumor
> >attatched to the fandom.
> > These aren't my opinions, per se- these are the opinions of the fans who
> >chose to vote. The poll was constructed in such a way to make "ballot box
> >stuffing" all but impossible.
I seen that poll when I was at your site, but forgot to vote. Oops.
> I don't suppose that the poll might have been skewed by the fact that the only
> people who visit your page are your fellow Stalin worshippers and Hitler
> wannabees?
Hmmm, I visited the page, but hate both of them. Especially Stalin.
Hitler wannabee? Which part? The power of character, being insane, or
being dead (no tabloid talk please)?
The vote would have a better chance of being representative if it was
advertised. The wording has something to be desired also.
My puny opinion: Z is not part of the definition of furry. Under that
premise, my opinion about z is irrelevant, so I abstain, at least for
now.
----------------------------------------------------
e_raschk...@hotmail.com remove .nospam
No official affiliation with lifestylers, Burned Fur,
or any other 'camp' of this whole business.
Fur code 1.3: FCF/MSa A->+ C+ Dm H>+ M- P+++ R+ T++ W- Z+ Sm#
RLE/CT* a cn++++ d e+ f iw+ j* p+ sm#
www.coredcs.com/~raschka/
fka...@my-dejanews.com
Over the last five weeks, I have conducted an informal poll concerning the
fandom-at-large's attitudes concerning the "zoophile" question. I decided to
field this poll after the flurry of sniping that resulted from my "Open
Letter to the SFBG," as well as a number of other posts which characterized
my attitudes towards such elements to be intolerant, fascist in nature, and
inapropriate.
Well- let the numbers speak for themselves:
The question was: "What DO zoophiles deserve?"
The answers, and their corresponding percentage of the vote follows:
1: A bullet to the back of the head- 20%
2: Rehabilitation if possible, euthanasia if necessary- 17%
3: An eternity of pain and torment- 14%
4: All of the above- 32%
5: Peace, love, and understanding- 17%
As you can see, the most popular, single solution favored by respondents
was "A bullet to the back of the head." The most popular choice was "all of
the above." considering the nature of the "above", I can only comclude that
the solution proposed by such an answer was rehabilitation, which, if
unsuccessfull, was followed by a bullet to the back of the head, after which
they would suffer an eneternity of pain and torment. But this is all
academic...
The bare bones of the matter is that an overwhelming majority of
respondents (83%, in fact) felt that zoophiles are an undesireable tumor
attatched to the fandom.
These aren't my opinions, per se- these are the opinions of the fans who
chose to vote. The poll was constructed in such a way to make "ballot box
stuffing" all but impossible.
Have fun!
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Tatter_D
>was "A bullet to the back of the head." The most popular choice was "all of
>the above." considering the nature of the "above", I can only comclude that
>the solution proposed by such an answer was rehabilitation, which, if
>unsuccessfull, was followed by a bullet to the back of the head, after which
>they would suffer an eneternity of pain and torment. But this is all
>academic...
> The bare bones of the matter is that an overwhelming majority of
>respondents (83%, in fact) felt that zoophiles are an undesireable tumor
>attatched to the fandom.
> These aren't my opinions, per se- these are the opinions of the fans who
>chose to vote. The poll was constructed in such a way to make "ballot box
>stuffing" all but impossible.
I don't suppose that the poll might have been skewed by the fact that the only
people who visit your page are your fellow Stalin worshippers and Hitler
wannabees?
Nah, that couldn't be it... <grin>
Don Sanders
>Enzil-Zah, Bubby!
> Over the last five weeks, I have conducted an informal poll concerning the
>fandom-at-large's attitudes concerning the "zoophile" question. I decided to
>field this poll after the flurry of sniping that resulted from my "Open
>Letter to the SFBG," as well as a number of other posts which characterized
>my attitudes towards such elements to be intolerant, fascist in nature, and
>inapropriate.
>
>Well- let the numbers speak for themselves:
No thanks, I would rather have those behind the numbers speak for themselves.
Why hide behind numbers?
>The question was: "What DO zoophiles deserve?"
>
>The answers, and their corresponding percentage of the vote follows:
>
>1: A bullet to the back of the head- 20%
>2: Rehabilitation if possible, euthanasia if necessary- 17%
>3: An eternity of pain and torment- 14%
>4: All of the above- 32%
>5: Peace, love, and understanding- 17%
>
> As you can see, the most popular, single solution favored by respondents
>was "A bullet to the back of the head." The most popular choice was "all of
>the above." considering the nature of the "above", I can only comclude that
>the solution proposed by such an answer was rehabilitation, which, if
>unsuccessfull, was followed by a bullet to the back of the head, after which
>they would suffer an eneternity of pain and torment. But this is all
>academic...
> The bare bones of the matter is that an overwhelming majority of
>respondents (83%, in fact) felt that zoophiles are an undesireable tumor
>attatched to the fandom.
Perhaps what you wrote could have been worded a little better. Comparing
Zoophiles to Cancer Tumors don't sit well with a lot of folks.
> These aren't my opinions, per se- these are the opinions of the fans who
>chose to vote. The poll was constructed in such a way to make "ballot box
>stuffing" all but impossible.
Maybe so, it would have been better if they voiced their opinions themselves
than having the results represented here. Either way, Tact would have been
better.
Don Sanders
Dsan Tsan on #furry of Yiffnet
Artist at Roll Yer Own Graphics
http://www.dreamscape.com/dsand101/dsan.htm
(my furry page) Email dsan...@future.dreamscape.com
ilr
> The question was: "What DO zoophiles deserve?"
>
> The answers, and their corresponding percentage of the vote follows:
>
> 1: A bullet to the back of the head- 20%
> 2: Rehabilitation if possible, euthanasia if necessary- 17%
> 3: An eternity of pain and torment- 14%
> 4: All of the above- 32%
> 5: Peace, love, and understanding- 17%
>
It takes a lot to push me over the edge and this did it. :(
It's kind of like running into your idol and he cuts a nice juicy
one in your handicapped-friend's face and proceeds with the Zippo.
I'll save the Rant and just quietly withdraw all support
I had for Blumrich.
Sincerely,
-ilr
B.T. McCammon
fka...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> As you can see, the most popular, single solution favored by respondents
> was "A bullet to the back of the head." The most popular choice was "all of
> the above." considering the nature of the "above", I can only comclude that
> the solution proposed by such an answer was rehabilitation, which, if
> unsuccessfull, was followed by a bullet to the back of the head, after which
> they would suffer an eneternity of pain and torment. But this is all
> academic...
> The poll was constructed in such a way to make "ballot box
> stuffing" all but impossible.
>
>
Being from Chicago, I voted early and voted often to show my unwavering support
for "An eternity of pain and torment." The fact that the choice was far behind in
the final count attests to the truth of the statement that ballot-box stuffing was
not allowed. It reminds me of the good old days when Eugene V. Debs was on the
rolls.
Keep on smokin' there, "Kafka."
M. Mitchell Marmel
On Mon, 26 Oct 1998, Don Sanders wrote:
> >Well- let the numbers speak for themselves:
>
> No thanks, I would rather have those behind the numbers speak for themselves.
> Why hide behind numbers?
Fair enough. I didn't get a chance to vote, so put me down (publically)
as voting for "All of the above".
> > The bare bones of the matter is that an overwhelming majority of
> >respondents (83%, in fact) felt that zoophiles are an undesireable tumor
> >attatched to the fandom.
>
> Perhaps what you wrote could have been worded a little better. Comparing
> Zoophiles to Cancer Tumors don't sit well with a lot of folks.
Quite so. It's a blatant insult to every cancer patient out there.
> > These aren't my opinions, per se- these are the opinions of the fans who
> >chose to vote. The poll was constructed in such a way to make "ballot box
> >stuffing" all but impossible.
>
> Maybe so, it would have been better if they voiced their opinions themselves
> than having the results represented here. Either way, Tact would have been
> better.
I agree. I think we're gonna hear from a lot of slandered tumerous growths.
> Don Sanders
Say, didn't I see a post from you stating that you were going to lurk
mode? If so, welcome back!
-MMM-
Cassie Foxx
If you are advocating removing all the zoophiles from anything to do with
Furry, I assume you have a fool-proof way of telling if someone is actually
a zoophile? If they know you're out to get them, wouldn't there be those who
would hide this, just to evade your efforts? And thusly, what of all the
legitimate lifestylers who happen to think that zoophilia should not be a
part of their group, and would probably be very upset if you were to start
lumping them in to the same barrel as the zoophiles?
I think you'd better try and define who you're after. There are a lot of
Furry fans out there who also like some of the things that a Furry lifestyle
has to offer. Admittedly, the Lifestylers have been invaded (I won't say
corrupted) by those trying to find a way of legitimising their "unusual"
behaviors, but does that mean you think every one of us should give up our
desire to be part of something that means something to us?
BTW, to me, plushies are to be collected and maybe hugged occasionally when
one is feeling a little down or depressed, but nothing more than that.
This has been to try and make those out there, who hate Furry being a
blanket description, stop covering a big part of Furry with a similar( but
rather fouler-smelling) blanket.
Cassie Foxx
fka...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <710j7d$oss$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>Enzil-Zah, Bubby!
>
> Over the last five weeks, I have conducted an informal poll concerning
the
>fandom-at-large's attitudes concerning the "zoophile" question. I decided
to
>field this poll after the flurry of sniping that resulted from my "Open
>Letter to the SFBG," as well as a number of other posts which characterized
>my attitudes towards such elements to be intolerant, fascist in nature, and
>inapropriate.
>
>Well- let the numbers speak for themselves:
>
>The question was: "What DO zoophiles deserve?"
>
>The answers, and their corresponding percentage of the vote follows:
>
>1: A bullet to the back of the head- 20%
>2: Rehabilitation if possible, euthanasia if necessary- 17%
>3: An eternity of pain and torment- 14%
>4: All of the above- 32%
>5: Peace, love, and understanding- 17%
>
> As you can see, the most popular, single solution favored by
respondents
>was "A bullet to the back of the head." The most popular choice was "all
of
>the above." considering the nature of the "above", I can only comclude
that
>the solution proposed by such an answer was rehabilitation, which, if
>unsuccessfull, was followed by a bullet to the back of the head, after
which
>they would suffer an eneternity of pain and torment. But this is all
>academic...
> The bare bones of the matter is that an overwhelming majority of
>respondents (83%, in fact) felt that zoophiles are an undesireable tumor
>attatched to the fandom.
> These aren't my opinions, per se- these are the opinions of the fans
who
>chose to vote. The poll was constructed in such a way to make "ballot box
>stuffing" all but impossible.
>
Don Sanders
>
>
>On Mon, 26 Oct 1998, Don Sanders wrote:
>>
>
>> Why hide behind numbers?
>
>Fair enough. I didn't get a chance to vote, so put me down (publically)
>as voting for "All of the above".
>
>> >respondents (83%, in fact) felt that zoophiles are an undesireable tumor
>> >attatched to the fandom.
>>
>> Zoophiles to Cancer Tumors don't sit well with a lot of folks.
>
>Quite so. It's a blatant insult to every cancer patient out there.
>
> who
>> >chose to vote. The poll was constructed in such a way to make "ballot box
>> >stuffing" all but impossible.
>>
>> than having the results represented here. Either way, Tact would have been
>> better.
>
>I agree. I think we're gonna hear from a lot of slandered tumerous growths.
>
>> Don Sanders
>
>Say, didn't I see a post from you stating that you were going to lurk
>mode? If so, welcome back!
>
>-MMM-
Hmm, no smilies, no indication that a jest was made. Well, I guess that means
you are quite serious about your answers. Ok. Thanks for voting, and heres
your sign. The union card and the white hood will be coming later. :)
Oh yea, I only meant I would be lurking when it came to matters of art.
Lifestyles and other fandom matters will be fair game to me.
David Formosa
[...] There are a lot of
>Furry fans out there who also like some of the things that a Furry lifestyle
>has to offer. Admittedly, the Lifestylers have been invaded
Given that the furry lifestyle movement was foundered with the support
of a number of furry zoo's I would have to say that invaded is the wrong
word.
However Furry Lifestyles has never ment to cover one concept as a the way
to live your life. One of the goals is to show mutial tolerence of all
the verious ways that peaple express there furryness.
--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See the URL in my
header to find out more.
David Tapia
n...@spam.please (Tatter_D) wrote:
>
> I don't suppose that the poll might have been skewed by the fact that the only
> people who visit your page are your fellow Stalin worshippers and Hitler
> wannabees?
>
> Nah, that couldn't be it... <grin>
Heh. While I can't speak for everyone else who has paid a visit to Eric's
website, you most certainly have me pegged!
Ideal things to spin in your CD player:
Current 93- Hitler as Kalki
Current 93- Swastikas for Goddy
Death in June- Rose Clouds of Holocaust
Puissance- "Totalitarian Hearts"
and a CD by the band Mussolini Headkick.
...And yes these are actual band and album names. Although in actuality I
own only one CD by one of the above mentioned acts ;-)
--
David Tapia
xyd...@my-dejanews.com
> Enzil-Zah, Bubby!
GO AWAY, TROLL.
-------
Rev. Xydexx Squeakypony, K.S.C., T.D.S.F.A.
[ICQ: 7569393]
M. Mitchell Marmel
> Hmm, no smilies, no indication that a jest was made. Well, I guess that means
> you are quite serious about your answers.
Reasonably serious, yes.
> Ok. Thanks for voting, and heres
> your sign. The union card and the white hood will be coming later. :)
"Look-for the union la-bellll..." :)
> Oh yea, I only meant I would be lurking when it came to matters of art.
> Lifestyles and other fandom matters will be fair game to me.
Fair enough.
-MMM-
Tatter_D
>
>In light of this rather dubious survey, There is one question I have.
>
>If you are advocating removing all the zoophiles from anything to do with
>Furry, I assume you have a fool-proof way of telling if someone is actually
>a zoophile? If they know you're out to get them, wouldn't there be those who
>would hide this, just to evade your efforts? And thusly, what of all the
>legitimate lifestylers who happen to think that zoophilia should not be a
>part of their group, and would probably be very upset if you were to start
>lumping them in to the same barrel as the zoophiles?
Who cares about foolproof ways? Use the same method all great hate-mongers
have used throughout the centuries... shoot 'em all and let God sort 'em out.
<grin>
>I think you'd better try and define who you're after. There are a lot of
>Furry fans out there who also like some of the things that a Furry lifestyle
>has to offer. Admittedly, the Lifestylers have been invaded (I won't say
>corrupted) by those trying to find a way of legitimising their "unusual"
>behaviors, but does that mean you think every one of us should give up our
>desire to be part of something that means something to us?
He's after anyone who doesn't worship the Big Three of Hate (Hitler, Stalin,
and Farrakhan). Visit his page at http://vision.nais.com/~blumrich/ for more
info. Don't bother flaming, he enjoys it.
victry_'vixy'_hyzenthlay
>He's after anyone who doesn't worship the Big Three of Hate (Hitler,
Stalin,
>and Farrakhan). Visit his page at http://vision.nais.com/~blumrich/ for
more
>info. Don't bother flaming, he enjoys it.
I remember browsing over to that page. I remember my first impression
was, what a SICK individual that person is. I remember leaving without
voting or reading any of his garbage. I remember my only departing
thought... I don't want anything someone like that has to offer.
================================================================
Victry 'love long and perspire; Vixy' Hyzenthlay
Technofox and personal Vixen. "YIP!"
_____________________
/ \
| Vivacious Vixen II | _
)""""\___ |- - - - - - - - - - - -| |_\____
)----| |\-| Home of Techno Tails |-/| | |\
)____|___|=============================| """|_)
`----' \|http://members.xoom.com/Vixy |/"""""
"""|"""""""/"""""\"""""""|"""
Victry{nospam}@- `=++++=" "=++++=' -@{remove}usa;net
FCF/Wc3admrwA>++C->+Dm+H-M++++P++R+T+++W+>+++Z++Sf++RLE$acn++d++e++f++h+iwf+
j*-
p+sf++
Please post any response to this newsgroup. Thanks.
Locandez
dfor...@zeta.org.au (David Formosa) wrote:
>[...] There are a lot of
>>Furry fans out there who also like some of the things that a Furry
>>lifestyle has to offer. Admittedly, the Lifestylers have been invaded
>
>Given that the furry lifestyle movement was foundered with the support
>of a number of furry zoo's I would have to say that invaded is the wrong
>word.
I agree. The only group of people who have ever 'invaded' the furry
lifestyle 'camp' (arf) are trolls like Richard Chandler.
Locandez
--
My -true- email address is: lyndale [at] argonet [dot] co [dot] uk
A blank copy of the 'Furvey'; and information, links, guides, documents
and reference material relating to alt.lifestyle.furry and the furry
lifestyle culture can be found at "Lifestyles Of The Cute And Furry":
http://www.argonet.co.uk/users/lyndale/lotcaf/
"Canine, feline; Jeckle and Hyde. Wear your fake fur on the inside" - "A Change Will Do You Good"
med...@my-dejanews.com
xyd...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> Eric "Undesirable Tumor" Blumrich wrote:
> > Enzil-Zah, Bubby!
>
> GO AWAY, TROLL.
>
> -------
> Rev. Xydexx Squeakypony, K.S.C., T.D.S.F.A.
> [ICQ: 7569393]
Good lord. Someone who publicly advertises that they boink inflatable toys
calling Blumrich a troll.
There's the pot calling the kettle black...
Tatter_D
>
>
>
>Tatter_D wrote:
>
>> He's after anyone who doesn't worship the Big Three of Hate (Hitler, Stalin,
>> and Farrakhan). Visit his page at http://vision.nais.com/~blumrich/ for
more
>> info. Don't bother flaming, he enjoys it.
>
man
>had written, you would realize what a complete ignoramus you sound like. Once
you
>get past all the commie iconography there's some dynamite art and incredible
>opinions on this page folks. Don't let all the red flags scare you off.
>
Sound like? I'll have you know I *AM* an ignoramus. <grin>
But there is still the fact that Blumrich has made it quite clear that anyone
who doesn't hate is unworthy of his attention. He even claims "Hate" as his
middle name. Yes, he's a kickass artist, but then just because he's an artist
doesn't make him God Almighty. And, as my dad used to say, "Just because you
smell like ape shit, doesn't mean you're Tarzan." (Which can be extended to
mean "Just because you piss people off, doesn't mean you're Socrates.")
Nate Patrin
> I don't suppose that the poll might have been skewed by the fact that the
only
> people who visit your page are your fellow Stalin worshippers and Hitler
> wannabees?
>
> Nah, that couldn't be it... <grin>
Yeah yeah yeah! Stalin's the fuckin' BOMB, foo'! Commies in the hizzouse!
Heh. Eric's alleged Nazism is probably on the level of, say, Joey Ramone
when he sang "Today Your Love, Tomorrow the World". (Though I'm not sure
what Eric'd think about being referred to as a "shock trooper in a
stupor".)
--
-Nate Patrin, Jewish Commie Nazi Hippie Raver Punk Bastard
======================================================
"Will I be drawing these damn rabbits forever?" -Matt Groening, 1990
n8r...@pioneerplanet.infi.net
Don Sanders
>In article <712ass$mll$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> xyd...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>> Eric "Undesirable Tumor" Blumrich wrote:
>> > Enzil-Zah, Bubby!
>>
>> GO AWAY, TROLL.
>>
>> -------
>> Rev. Xydexx Squeakypony, K.S.C., T.D.S.F.A.
>> [ICQ: 7569393]
>
>Good lord. Someone who publicly advertises that they boink inflatable toys
>calling Blumrich a troll.
>
>There's the pot calling the kettle black...
>
who is not pure in his book should be lined up and shot, and someone who finds
inflatable pool toys attractive, I would go with the inflatipony anyday.
StukaFox
: GO AWAY, TROLL.
You first . . .
I thought you weren't posting here anymore.
StukaFox
--
"We are not liars, we are telling the 100% truth (with some xceptions)"
-- Sean Jorden on the validity of racist
claims made on alt.politics.white-power
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
writes:
> Oh yea, I only meant I would be lurking when it came to matters of art.
> Lifestyles and other fandom matters will be fair game to me.
Well, except that Lifestyles are off topic for a.f.f. Be sure to direct
followups on Lifestyle stuff to the appropriate group.
--
Due to GTE's new 100 Hour monthly limit, I am now looking for an ISP in
the Everett/Lakes Stevens WA area that will not Bait and Switch me on the Unlimited PPP time, who has decent web services, fewer DNS breakdowns and
will stick to their <$20 /month fee schedule.
I am NOT a "Granny's got E-mail now" casual web surfer.
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
> In article <712ass$mll$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> toys calling Blumrich a troll.
>
> There's the pot calling the kettle black...
Not really. Eric has far more right to be on a.f.f than Karl. Eric is a
Furry Artist, has been involved with the fandom nearly as long as I have, and
works for a furry publisher. Karl, well, he has a web site, which, the last
time I looked at it, had instructions on the best way to TS with him on
FurryMuck.
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
writes:
> Hmm, If I had a choice between a HateMonger who openly suggests
> that anyone who is not pure in his book should be lined up and shot,
> and someone who finds inflatable pool toys attractive, I would go with
> the inflatipony anyday.
Well, there's no accounting for tastes.
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
writes:
> In light of this rather dubious survey, There is one question I have.
>
> If you are advocating removing all the zoophiles from anything to do
> with Furry, I assume you have a fool-proof way of telling if someone
> is actually a zoophile? If they know you're out to get them,
> wouldn't there be those who would hide this, just to evade your
> efforts?
If they do a really good job of hiding their Zoophilia, effectively they HAVE
removed themselves now, haven't they?
> And thusly, what of all the legitimate lifestylers who happen
> to think that zoophilia should not be a part of their group, and
> would probably be very upset if you were to start lumping them in to
> the same barrel as the zoophiles?
Well the lifestylers HAVE their own group, and they're welcome to keep all the
bestialists they like.
And I don't like what you're implying with the use of the word "Legitimate"
there.
> I think you'd better try and define who you're after. There are a lot
> of Furry fans out there who also like some of the things that a
> Furry lifestyle has to offer. Admittedly, the Lifestylers have
> been invaded (I won't say corrupted) by those trying to find a way
> of legitimising their "unusual" behaviors, but does that mean you
> think every one of us should give up our desire to be part of
> something that means something to us?
I think the subject of Eric's survey was pretty narrowly defined.
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
pos...@argonet.co.uk> writes:
> I agree. The only group of people who have ever 'invaded' the
> furry lifestyle 'camp' (arf) are trolls like Richard Chandler.
Ooog, Ooog, that Winnowill one hell of a elf-babe. :-)
GothTiger
Tatter_D wrote:
> >And if you had done anything as novel as actually sit down and READ what the man
>
> >had written, you would realize what a complete ignoramus you sound like. Once
> you
> >get past all the commie iconography there's some dynamite art and incredible
> >opinions on this page folks. Don't let all the red flags scare you off.
> >
>
> Sound like? I'll have you know I *AM* an ignoramus. <grin>
>
> But there is still the fact that Blumrich has made it quite clear that anyone
> who doesn't hate is unworthy of his attention. He even claims "Hate" as his
> middle name. Yes, he's a kickass artist, but then just because he's an artist
> doesn't make him God Almighty.
I'm not saying that he is god almighty, and I'm not saying that I agree with
everything he says. What I am saying is that too many people take one look at his
site, see the big picture of Lenin on the front page, and immediately slap a
'hatemonger' label on the man without actually taking the time to read his material
and make an informed opinion. He obviously has some strong opinions about things,
and a lot of them ruffle some proverbial feathers. Every group or subculture needs
someone to occasionally point out that scenes shortcomings: SF has Harlan Ellison,
comics have Evan Dorkin, the goth scene has Andrew Eldritch, and furry has Eric
Blumrich. It's the way the world works.
GothTiger (tig...@execpc.com)
((Who has just noticed that all the people He's mentioned above have at least one
of their names begin with an 'E'. Coincidence? I think not!))
GothTiger
Richard Chandler - WA Resident wrote:
> In article <713pch$hgm$1...@eve.enteract.com>, Karl Meyer <fer...@enteract.com>
> writes:
>
> <actually doesn't matter much WHAT he writes. He cracks me up.>
>
> Maybe it's just you. Eric is so angry because he gives a shit. Anyone who
> cares about the fandom, especially if you were around when you got a good
> glimpse of what it could have become, is either disillusioned, sad, or angry.
> And if they care, they fight to bring it up to that goal.
Yes, and the mutant offspring of the 'live and let live' school will hate you for it.
GothTiger (tig...@execpc.com)
GothTiger
Tatter_D wrote:
> He's after anyone who doesn't worship the Big Three of Hate (Hitler, Stalin,
> and Farrakhan). Visit his page at http://vision.nais.com/~blumrich/ for more
> info. Don't bother flaming, he enjoys it.
And if you had done anything as novel as actually sit down and READ what the man
had written, you would realize what a complete ignoramus you sound like. Once you
get past all the commie iconography there's some dynamite art and incredible
opinions on this page folks. Don't let all the red flags scare you off.
GothTiger (tig...@execpc.com)
(("Too many people read, not enough understand." --me, ten seconds
ago))
Michael Pena
Sincerely,
Michael Angel Peña(AKA Sparrow..A Rabbit)
http://lonestar.texas.net/~sparrow/sparrow.htm
PS-I think animals are beautiful!
fka...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>Enzil-Zah, Bubby!
>
> Over the last five weeks, I have conducted an informal poll concerning the
>fandom-at-large's attitudes concerning the "zoophile" question. I decided to
>field this poll after the flurry of sniping that resulted from my "Open
>Letter to the SFBG," as well as a number of other posts which characterized
>my attitudes towards such elements to be intolerant, fascist in nature, and
>inapropriate.
>
>Well- let the numbers speak for themselves:
>
>The question was: "What DO zoophiles deserve?"
>
>The answers, and their corresponding percentage of the vote follows:
>
>1: A bullet to the back of the head- 20%
>2: Rehabilitation if possible, euthanasia if necessary- 17%
>3: An eternity of pain and torment- 14%
>4: All of the above- 32%
>5: Peace, love, and understanding- 17%
>
> As you can see, the most popular, single solution favored by respondents
>was "A bullet to the back of the head." The most popular choice was "all of
>the above." considering the nature of the "above", I can only comclude that
>the solution proposed by such an answer was rehabilitation, which, if
>unsuccessfull, was followed by a bullet to the back of the head, after which
>they would suffer an eneternity of pain and torment. But this is all
>academic...
> The bare bones of the matter is that an overwhelming majority of
>respondents (83%, in fact) felt that zoophiles are an undesireable tumor
>attatched to the fandom.
> These aren't my opinions, per se- these are the opinions of the fans who
>chose to vote. The poll was constructed in such a way to make "ballot box
>stuffing" all but impossible.
>
>Have fun!
xyd...@my-dejanews.com
> I thought you weren't posting here anymore.
You are obviously mistaken.
-------
Rev. Xydexx Squeakypony, K.S.C., T.D.S.F.A.
[ICQ: 7569393]
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
David Formosa
[...]
>Good lord. Someone who publicly advertises that they boink inflatable toys
>calling Blumrich a troll.
Nope, a troll is one who stirs up trubble. A person who boink's
inflatables is a person who boink's inflatables. I don't think
its invaid for the one who boinks inflatables to accuse Blumrich
of trying to sture up trubble.
Cerulean
>Heh. Eric's alleged Nazism is probably on the level of, say, Joey Ramone
>when he sang "Today Your Love, Tomorrow the World".
When someone is advocating the extermination of a group of people, it
doesn't much matter how authentic the superficial trappings are.
--
___vvz /( Cerulean http://home.att.net/~kevinpease
<__,` Z / ( DC.D/? fs+h++ Gm CB^P a$m++d+++l*g-e!i
`~~~) )Z) ( FDDmp4adwsA+++$C*D>+HM-P-RT+++WZ?Sm#
/ (7 ( uewuhaj-,,`aas noh 'p7Jom ay+ pue+sJapun o+ a^ey I,,
Don Sanders
>In article <711rkp$i6k$1...@chaos.ao.net>, noo...@myemail.com (Don Sanders)
>writes:
>> Oh yea, I only meant I would be lurking when it came to matters of art.
>> Lifestyles and other fandom matters will be fair game to me.
>
>Well, except that Lifestyles are off topic for a.f.f. Be sure to direct
>followups on Lifestyle stuff to the appropriate group.
>
off topic! When I meant what I said, I meant posts like this thread. Which
being discussed here on Alt.Fan.Furry! I would like to have the general
audience of A.F.F state right now, right here that all discussions involving
lifestyles is forever banned from this forum!!! Either that or at least list
in a guideline what can be discussed here.
Yes, this is a hostile tone I have taken, and in this case, well justified! I
will agree to refrain from discussing lifestyles in references to replies to
threads if you agree to!
I for one do not stir up trouble, I express my right to comment on subjects
that are presented here. If anyone can show me, In stone! that I can't then
I will refrain from partaking in such discussions!!!
I've already censored myself from making comments and discussions on furry
art, I am not about ready to do the same on the rest!
(Apologies to everyone else out there who had to see this side of the chow, it
could be worse!)
PigCop
>
> StukaFox wrote:
> > I thought you weren't posting here anymore.
>
> You are obviously mistaken.
Wishful thinking on the part of the masses, I guess. One can always
hope.
PigCop
>
> Tatter_D <n...@spam.please> wrote:
>
> > I don't suppose that the poll might have been skewed by the fact that the
> only
> > people who visit your page are your fellow Stalin worshippers and Hitler
> > wannabees?
> >
> > Nah, that couldn't be it... <grin>
>
> Yeah yeah yeah! Stalin's the fuckin' BOMB, foo'! Commies in the hizzouse!
>
> what Eric'd think about being referred to as a "shock trooper in a
> stupor".)
How about a stormtrooper... and I'm not talking the Nazi type, I mean
Imperial navy. Those kickass white underwear-lookin' armor suits.
Bonus points for that big orange snack tray the sandtroopers have.
Double Jeopardy stakes if you hit your head on a door, too.
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
writes:
> Woah, hold on there!! If that was the case, then your reply to this
> post was off topic!
Discussions about what is on or off topic for a group are often called "Meta"
threads. They are necessary, even if they aren't strictly on topic.
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
<actually doesn't matter much WHAT he writes. He cracks me up.>
Maybe it's just you. Eric is so angry because he gives a shit. Anyone who
cares about the fandom, especially if you were around when you got a good
glimpse of what it could have become, is either disillusioned, sad, or angry.
And if they care, they fight to bring it up to that goal.
Eric and I are cordial. It must be a problem with you.
Tatter_D
>
>I'm not saying that he is god almighty, and I'm not saying that I agree with
>everything he says. What I am saying is that too many people take one look at
his
>site, see the big picture of Lenin on the front page, and immediately slap a
>'hatemonger' label on the man without actually taking the time to read his
material
>and make an informed opinion. He obviously has some strong opinions about
things,
>and a lot of them ruffle some proverbial feathers. Every group or subculture
needs
>someone to occasionally point out that scenes shortcomings: SF has Harlan
Ellison,
>comics have Evan Dorkin, the goth scene has Andrew Eldritch, and furry has
Eric
>Blumrich. It's the way the world works.
That's very nice, but rest assured that I have been to his page, read all his
propaganda, and come to the conclusion that he is in the rather pitiable
position of being a purveyor of hate. At least I find it pitiable; Blumrich
himself wears it like a badge, and every comment I've made about him, he would
likely take as a compliment.
And yes, every fandom has it's "rebels without causes." And they also have
people like me, who amuse themselves by mocking them. Mental masturbation it
may be, but at least it doesn't leave as much of a mess as the physical
equivalent. And I suppose they even have people like you, who leap to the
defense of the "poor, misunderstood rebels," only to either get smacked down by
cold hard fact, or stabbed in the back by the rebels themselves, who neither
need nor want, and often prey upon, those who defend them.
"It's always the same, it's just a shame, that's all..."
Don Sanders
>In article <713m1n$k4b$1...@chaos.ao.net>, noo...@myemail.com (Don Sanders)
>writes:
>> Woah, hold on there!! If that was the case, then your reply to this
>> post was off topic!
>
>Discussions about what is on or off topic for a group are often called "Meta"
>threads. They are necessary, even if they aren't strictly on topic.
>
here. First of all, I salute you for being well versed on the ways and means
of communication via a public forum, dispite what was said, you still came out
smelling like a rose.
Now to the matter at paw here. In the orginal post titled, "I ain't the only
one..." The main topic was tabled, which was a response to the poll about
(Due to the nature of the topic and how I was squashed when mentioning the
word, I will not repeat the word here.) I submitted what I thought was my
honest thoughts as per my surposed right to free speech in a open public
forum. In turn I was notified that by replying to the thread, I was wrong to
invoke the said topic, and this was not the right newsgroup to respond to such
a topic.
I am not going to point fingers and shout names here. I do recall a little
mess that happened, and I do beleive is still happening on Alt.(Not to be
named because of tabo topic) Furry. I am not going to discuss their charter
and FAQ here cause it is once again a tabo subject. However, I will state
here that even though it was a forbidden subject to reply to (now it seems) I
still submit that I require proof, either a FAQ written for this newsgroup, or
a bound and honored Charter stating that such subjects are forbidden and shall
not be discussed in this open public forum.
Until such proof exist, I will continue to voice my opinions on this assumed
outlawed subject seeing that I can no longer respond to posts dealing with
furry art, which is on topic with this group.
Ok, I am finished with what I have to say on this matter, I now open the
discussion to this open public forum and await the reply from those who view
it.
Farlo
>And yes, every fandom has it's "rebels without causes." And they also have
>people like me, who amuse themselves by mocking them.
<grin> Yes, I have mocked more than a few of these people.
>"It's always the same, it's just a shame, that's all..."
Indeed.
-------------------
Farlo m>*_*<m
Urban Fey Dragon
Standard XXXX
@abac.com XXXX
-------------------
xyd...@my-dejanews.com
Xydexx's Anthrofurry Homepage[1]:
Richard Chandler wrote:
> Karl, well, he has a web site, which,
[...can't be mistaken for a White Supremacist homepage, and...]
> the last time I looked at it,
[...about two years ago...]
> had instructions on the best way to TS with him on FurryMuck
[...but wasn't part of his introduction to furry fandom pages.]
At this point, one may start to wonder if Rich Chandler has
anything more substantial or recent to criticize than some
outdated links on a webpage from two years ago?
I haven't checked Gallery's pages lately, so I don't know if
it's still a few easy clicks to the Unofficial Guide to CyberSex
and the Aryan Youth Dating Service from there...
People in glass houses and all...
-------
Rev. Xydexx "Teflon-Coated" Squeakypony, K.S.C.
[ICQ: 7569393]
[1] Is Rich Chandler misrepresenting the facts?
Don't take my word for it... decide for yourself:
Xydexx's Anthrofurry Homepage
http://www.smart.net/~xydexx/anthrofurry/homepage.htm
Florian
Of all people here, who do I trust the most?
Xydexx wrote on 9/18/98: "After some careful consideration, I've
decided to unsubscribe from
alt.fan.furry. Effective immediately."
answer: trick question.
----------------------------------------------------
e_raschk...@hotmail.com remove .nospam
victry_'vixy'_hyzenthlay
<981026212...@mauser.at.gte.net>...
>Not really. Eric has far more right to be on a.f.f than Karl.
Oooooo... I LOVE this argument! :D
Who has more right to post on AFF?
If we base the standard on Ego, Richy would be close to, or at the top.
And in his own mind, I'm sure he is already. He publishes a fanzine <sounds
of ooooos in the background> and he's soooo articulate. But wait...
something doesn't add up... let's see... of course, there HAD to be a fan
base *before* his little zine took off.
Sorry Richy... everyday joe/jane fan is above even you and Blumreich.
After all, this IS alt.FAN.furry. Not alt.fan.furry-publisher or
alt.fan.furry-artist. If yer a furry fan, that's all the personal
requirement you need to post here as much as anyone else (content is another
HUGE discussion). What you want is alt.fan.furry-ego, Richy. Fortunately
that does not exist... yet.
Disclaimer: I'm not in support of Xydex, nor am I against him. Just given
the choice of having someone who is a little strange vs. someone who spews
hate or those who try to dictate our furriness with no good reason except
it's how their ego has decided we should be, I'll have to accept Xydex.
================================================================
Victry 'love long and perspire; Vixy' Hyzenthlay
Technofox and personal Vixen. "YIP!"
_____________________
/ \
| Vivacious Vixen II | _
)""""\___ |- - - - - - - - - - - -| |_\____
)----| |\-| Home of Techno Tails |-/| | |\
)____|___|=============================| """|_)
`----' \|http://members.xoom.com/Vixy |/"""""
"""|"""""""/"""""\"""""""|"""
Victry{nospam}@- `=++++=" "=++++=' -@{remove}usa;net
FCF/Wc3admrwA>++C->+Dm+H-M++++P++R+T+++W+>+++Z++Sf++RLE$acn++d++e++f++h+iwf+
j*-p+sf++
Please post any response to this newsgroup. Thanks.
Tatter_D
>
>
> I’ve never quite understood that statement.
>
>
> "I’m an ass about things because I care so very deeply about furry"
>
And I've never understood it's real life equivalent,
"I loved you so much, I had to kill you."
Oh well, I guess people like me who have such tiny brains will never understand
paradoxes like these...
Nate Patrin
> Quoth Nate Patrin:
>
> >Heh. Eric's alleged Nazism is probably on the level of, say, Joey Ramone
> >when he sang "Today Your Love, Tomorrow the World".
>
> When someone is advocating the extermination of a group of people, it
> doesn't much matter how authentic the superficial trappings are.
Does it matter how reprehensible the activities of said "group of people"
is? Would you be so quick to judge if Eric called for the extermination of
white supremacists (which, in some cases, he does come pretty damn close to
doing- surprise surprise)? And seeing as how most of Eric's detractors are
too damned busy recoiling in terror at all the communist iconography (you
*can* differentiate between Commies and Nazzies, cantcha?) to even read
most of his writing, can you even begin to understand the context of his
remarks against bestiality?
This may paint me as some sort intolerant fascist thought police SS member,
but I hold zoophiles in the same regard as child molesters. I mean, how
sick is it to take sexual liberties with something that can't even say
"no"? "But my dog/horse/sheep/kinkajou had a stiffy! It didn't seem to
mind!", ya say. Hey, dumbass! Animals get stiffies inadvertantly, just like
people- a nature book I read even pointed out how some species get aroused
when they're about to kill some other critter and eat it. It's the simple
wiring of an animal's mind that does it- general excitement, not sexual
feelings, are what provokes this particular sexual arousal in most animals.
(And for those of you who try and get freaknatch with female critters: try
humping 'em when they're 'out of season'. Then call me a few weeks later
when the doctors remove the stitches.) If an animal doesn't bite you or run
away if you try to molest it, it's only because it's too dumb to realize
it's being molested. It's like trying to seduce a mentally retarded sixth
grader. I'm sorry, but where I come from, "pigfucker" is a pejorative.
I'd ponder what this fandom would be like if necrophilia was tolerated (and
celebrated by some), but I just ate...
--
-Nate Patrin
======================================================
"Will I be drawing these damn rabbits forever?" -Matt Groening, 1990
n8r...@pioneerplanet.infi.net
Farlo
>I'd ponder what this fandom would be like if necrophilia was tolerated (and
>celebrated by some), but I just ate...
I'm curious ... whom did you eat?
<grin> That's a joke, Nate ...
M. Mitchell Marmel
-MMM-
PigCop
> Does it matter how reprehensible the activities of said "group of people"
> is? Would you be so quick to judge if Eric called for the extermination of
> white supremacists (which, in some cases, he does come pretty damn close to
> doing- surprise surprise)? And seeing as how most of Eric's detractors are
> too damned busy recoiling in terror at all the communist iconography (you
> *can* differentiate between Commies and Nazzies, cantcha?) to even read
> most of his writing, can you even begin to understand the context of his
> remarks against bestiality?
Blumrich's site doesn't even smack of real communizm, nazism,
whatever. He's been dubbed the poster boy for the furry thought
police. Looking at his site, I figure he dresses it in the trappings of
that stuff to make a bigger joke of the name-calling he suffers.
> This may paint me as some sort intolerant fascist thought police SS member,
> but I hold zoophiles in the same regard as child molesters. I mean, how
> sick is it to take sexual liberties with something that can't even say
> "no"? "But my dog/horse/sheep/kinkajou had a stiffy!
The character profile for a zoophile fits that of a pedophile- the only
difference really being the victim is an animal, rather than a child.
> It didn't seem to
> mind!", ya say. Hey, dumbass! Animals get stiffies inadvertantly, just like
> people- a nature book I read even pointed out how some species get aroused
> when they're about to kill some other critter and eat it. It's the simple
> wiring of an animal's mind that does it- general excitement, not sexual
> feelings, are what provokes this particular sexual arousal in most animals.
> (And for those of you who try and get freaknatch with female critters: try
> humping 'em when they're 'out of season'. Then call me a few weeks later
> when the doctors remove the stitches.) If an animal doesn't bite you or run
> away if you try to molest it, it's only because it's too dumb to realize
> it's being molested. It's like trying to seduce a mentally retarded sixth
> grader. I'm sorry, but where I come from, "pigfucker" is a pejorative.
There was an incident of bestiality reported in the paper where I
live. Apparently, the onwers of a 5-month old female boxer noticed the
dog was missing from the backyard this weekend. After searching for it
for quite some time, they found the dog, covered in dishwashing liquid.
coming back to their home down the dirt road they lived on. The dog was
acting very nervous and shying away from humans. The owners became
concerned because they had kids and didn't want the dog freaking out
around them. They took it to the vet, who discovered the dog had
suffered sexual abuse and was severely injured as a result of it.
Samples of material collected from the dog confirmed the abuse was
suffered by a human.
Nate Patrin
<363650e0...@news.fysh.org>...
> Nate Patrin did speaketh thus:
>
> >I'd ponder what this fandom would be like if necrophilia was tolerated
(and
> >celebrated by some), but I just ate...
>
> I'm curious ... whom did you eat?
That's vorarephilia, dimwit.
> <grin> That's a joke, Nate ...
Thanks for pointing that out. I couldn't really tell because I always have
this unfair preconception that for something to be a joke, it has to be
"funny".
--
-Nate Patrin- audiophile.
Nate Patrin
(That reminds me... gotta hit the local SuperAmerica and get my caffiene
fix. They got a fountain with Coke *and* Pepsi, so I can go half-and-half.
Peace and love and unity for all soft drinks!)
> There was an incident of bestiality reported in the paper where I
> live. Apparently, the onwers of a 5-month old female boxer noticed the
> dog was missing from the backyard this weekend. After searching for it
> for quite some time, they found the dog, covered in dishwashing liquid.
> coming back to their home down the dirt road they lived on. The dog was
> acting very nervous and shying away from humans. The owners became
> concerned because they had kids and didn't want the dog freaking out
> around them. They took it to the vet, who discovered the dog had
> suffered sexual abuse and was severely injured as a result of it.
> Samples of material collected from the dog confirmed the abuse was
> suffered by a human.
The dog suffered psychologically- well, there ya go right there. Damn it,
and people *wonder* why those of us who oppose zoophilia are so angry about
it...
--
-Nate Patrin
Peter da Silva
Nate Patrin <n8r...@pioneerplanet.infi.spammers.smoke.crack.net> wrote:
>Farlo <stan...@abac.com> wrote in article
><363650e0...@news.fysh.org>...
>> Nate Patrin did speaketh thus:
>> >I'd ponder what this fandom would be like if necrophilia was tolerated
>(and
>> >celebrated by some), but I just ate...
>> I'm curious ... whom did you eat?
>That's vorarephilia, dimwit.
It's also a fucking label.
--
This is The Reverend Peter da Silva's Boring Sig File - there are no references
to Wolves, Kibo, Discordianism, or The Church of the Subgenius in this document
"The GCOS GERTS interface is so bad that a description here is inappropriate.
Anyone seeking to use this interface should seek divine guidance."
Anonymous
Herr Nate Patrin hat geschreibt:
>
>I'm sorry, but where I come from, "pigfucker" is a pejorative.
<voice = Homer Simpson>
"Hey, I know dat one! Dat's easy:"
<recites>
"I'm not a pigfucker
I'm a fig plucker's...D'OH!!!..."
--Hangdog
Peter da Silva
> I guess you're not fond of sheepskin condoms, then. Now
>there's a socially acceptable form of necrophiliac bestiliaty.
I could have gone my whole life without that image in my head.
Geeze.
Thanks.
(hasn't anyone finished flogging this dead horse yet?)
PigCop
> >That's vorarephilia, dimwit.
>
> It's also a fucking label.
Yeah- Down with Chiquita! They label their bananas! And what's this
price-tag crap! It's reprehensible how my groceries are labeled!
Wanderer
>> In article <712ass$mll$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
>> xyd...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>> >
>> > GO AWAY, TROLL.
>>
>> Good lord. Someone who publicly advertises that they boink inflatable
>> toys calling Blumrich a troll.
>>
>
>Not really. Eric has far more right to be on a.f.f than Karl. Eric is a
>Furry Artist, has been involved with the fandom nearly as long as I have,
and
>works for a furry publisher. Karl, well, he has a web site, which, the
last
>time I looked at it, had instructions on the best way to TS with him on
>FurryMuck.
>
I have, as of this week, seen the art of Eric Blumrich.
As an artist, I approve of him. I find his work to be very good.
As a person, based upon what I have seen of him in my few short years of
posting on this newsgroup, I find him detestable.
Yours briefly,
The forthright,
Wanderer**wand...@applink.net
Where am I going?I don't quite know.
What does it matter where people go?
Down to the woods where the bluebells grow.
Anywhere! Anywhere! *I*don't know!
Wanderer
(snip)
>And, as my dad used to say, "Just because you
>smell like ape shit, doesn't mean you're Tarzan." (Which can be extended
to
>mean "Just because you piss people off, doesn't mean you're Socrates.")
>
Can we feed him hemlock anyway ... ?
Yours barely believing he said that,
The wolfishly-grinning,
Cassie Foxx
Richard Chandler - WA Resident wrote in message
>
>And I don't like what you're implying with the use of the word "Legitimate"
>there.
>
Really? What do you think I meant when I said it? Don't you think you're a
legitimate Furry Fan?
(Wondering about this all the way through the thread)<^_^>
And what constitutes a "Legitimate" Furry Fan and/or a "Legitimate" Furry
Lifestyler? Are there as many differences as you claim? Why not try and do
something constructive and list them for me, so I (And everyone else here)
have a clear understanding as to your definitions of both.
Or are you unsure of that now, too?
Cassie Foxx.
Elf Sternberg
"Nate Patrin" <n8r...@pioneerplanet.infi.spammers.smoke.crack.net> writes:
>Does it matter how reprehensible the activities of said "group of people"
>is? Would you be so quick to judge if Eric called for the extermination of
>white supremacists (which, in some cases, he does come pretty damn close to
>doing- surprise surprise)?
>This may paint me as some sort intolerant fascist thought police SS member,
>but I hold zoophiles in the same regard as child molesters. I mean, how
>sick is it to take sexual liberties with something that can't even say
>"no"?
*Gasp* Nate, you've just branded me a rapist. I once slept
with a woman who spoke no English (and I no Italian). Nevertheless,
consent was possible... and pretty damned clear!. It makes no difference
to me if the language is spoken or somatic or some other clear
signal-- consent *is* possible among two creatures who don't speak the
same language.
Besides, I have yet to see someone who can show me how
"bestiality" is somehow more crippling to the animal than
"carnivorism" or "horse racing" or the Iditarod.
I have no particular love for zoophiles or their pets, but
before anyone starts arguing about the reprehensibility of such
patterns, examine the benefits _being cruel to animals_ has had within
your own life. And tell me if you would rather live without it.
After all, thanks to animal testing of vaccines and medicines, you're
able to bitch for an average 20 years more than your ancestors.
Eric stands somewhere between a brilliant artist and a
pathetic whiner. His problem is that far too often he, like you,
falls into the second category. And apparently unlike Eric, you don't
even have the capacity to think your conclusions through. Eric may
feel damned because he's a member of a "community" (such as it is; I
would never call myself a member of the furry community-- one
dysfunctional relationship is enough for any lifetime) that has a
lousy reputation, and maybe he (and furrydom) would be better off if
he left. He's certainly not getting anywhere with the Yoda routine,
and certainly nobody here is learning anything.
>If an animal doesn't bite you or run away if you try to molest it,
>it's only because it's too dumb to realize it's being molested. It's
>like trying to seduce a mentally retarded sixth grader. I'm sorry,
>but where I come from, "pigfucker" is a pejorative.
*Laugh* You're so fucking shortsighted, Nate, you haven't
even begun to think things through. If animals were "mentally
retarded sixth-graders," they'd have the same legal protections. But
they don't; we give animals the benefit of the doubt. They're not
immature humans, they're _animals_, with their own mature needs once
they reach their own adult stages. And yet we still slaughter them
for food.
People who love "nature" as much as you pretend should strip
naked and try to live in the Amazon for two weeks. I'd be willing to
congratulate the survivors.
>I'd ponder what this fandom would be like if necrophilia was
>tolerated (and celebrated by some), but I just ate...
I guess you're not fond of sheepskin condoms, then. Now
there's a socially acceptable form of necrophiliac bestiliaty.
Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg, rational romantic mystical cynical idealist
If you're so smart, why aren't you naked?
http://www.halcyon.com/elf/
Farlo
>Farlo <stan...@abac.com> wrote in article
>> I'm curious ... whom did you eat?
>
>That's vorarephilia, dimwit.
Eeeew.
>> <grin> That's a joke, Nate ...
>
>Thanks for pointing that out. I couldn't really tell because I always have
>this unfair preconception that for something to be a joke, it has to be
>"funny".
"Funny" as in "What's that funky smell?"?
"Funny" as in "Funny, she doesn't look Druish?"?
"Funny" as in "Ha Ha?"?
Which sort of funny are we talking about, anyways ... ?
xyd...@my-dejanews.com
> Just because he said he was unsubscribing doesn't mean he said he's
> never REsubscribe, right? :)
Bingo. -:)
-------
Rev. Xydexx Squeakypony, K.S.C., T.D.S.F.A.
[ICQ: 7569393]
xyd...@my-dejanews.com
> Xydexx wrote on 9/18/98: "After some careful consideration, I've
> decided to unsubscribe from
> alt.fan.furry. Effective immediately."
Nothing in that statement says that I was
never going to post here again. -:)
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
Victry 'Vixy' Hyzenthlay> writes:
> He publishes a
> fanzine <sounds of ooooos in the background> and he's soooo
> articulate. But wait...
> something doesn't add up... let's see... of course, there HAD to be a
> fan base *before* his little zine took off.
>
> Sorry Richy... everyday joe/jane fan is above even you and
> Blumreich. After all, this IS alt.FAN.furry. Not
> alt.fan.furry-publisher or alt.fan.furry-artist.
Hmmm, Very interesting logic. Here, let me suggest a secondary test to see if
it holds up. Why don't you go over to rec.arts.science-fiction.babylon5 and
try to tell them that Joe Straczynski has no right to be on that group, since,
as the producer of the show, he can't possibly be a FAN of the show.
I was a fan before I became a publisher. I became a publisher BECAUSE I was a
fan and wanted to do more, to contribute.
Which is a damned sight better than those who just want to leech off our
conventions as a place to do RL versions of their TS sessions.
--
Due to GTE's new 100 Hour monthly limit, I am now looking for an ISP in
the Everett/Lakes Stevens WA area that will not Bait and Switch me on the Unlimited PPP time, who has decent web services, fewer DNS breakdowns and
will stick to their <$20 /month fee schedule.
I am NOT a "Granny's got E-mail now" casual web surfer.
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
> In article <981027014...@mauser.at.gte.net>,
>
> "I'm an ass about things because I care so very deeply about
> furry"
Because if he got this pissed off and didn't care about the genre, he'd just
leave.
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
> What Richard Chandler doesn't want anyone to know about
> Xydexx's Anthrofurry Homepage[1]:
>
> Richard Chandler wrote:
<red Herring>
> > the last time I looked at it,
> [...about two years ago...]
I bet you have the log of that access enshrined.
> > had instructions on the best way to TS with him on FurryMuck
> [...but wasn't part of his introduction to furry fandom pages.]
So what. It was easily accessible. One step up to your main page, and one
step down (or was it two, the years have faded my memory) to the How to Boink
Xydexx FAQ. Not once did one have to leave your pages.
Besides, I never said it was part of your introduction pages. Another red
herring. You must be a part of the fandom's *seal* problem with your fondness
for the fish.
> At this point, one may start to wonder if Rich Chandler has anything
> more substantial or recent to criticize than some outdated links on
> a webpage from two years ago?
Oh, I was merely illustrating your pattern of obfuscation and lies of
omission.
> I haven't checked Gallery's pages lately, so I don't know if it's still
> a few easy clicks to the Unofficial Guide to CyberSex and the Aryan
> Youth Dating Service from there...
>
> People in glass houses and all...
Yeah, Right. If you're going to criticise me about links to links to links
from my site (you never DID enumerate the path you took for such things, we
probably should not trust your word that it is true without proof.), then you
are the one in a glass house when I criticise things that you put on your very
own pages.
Heaven help us! Anyone who has a link on their site to Yahoo or Deja News can
be condemned for every single ill thing on the net!
So, does that page or the contents still exist anywhere on the web?
Somewhere else you say that we only criticize you for saying things like
"Furry Fandom is about anthropomorphics." But asking you about what you mean
by anthropomorphics is about as fruitful as asking Bill Clinton what is meant
by "sexual relations". You remind me of the joke about the pilot and the
Microsoft help tech.
Oh yeah, just how many years ago was it that you found those "interesting"
sites that were at least two steps from mine? Why, I'll wager that the first
time was way back, say, two years ago?
Glass houses an' all....
(And if you can change your mind about unsubscribing to a.f.f, I can change my
mind about replying to you. Hell, it IS a different address, does that count?
:-)
David Formosa
Resident wrote:
[...]
>Not really. Eric has far more right to be on a.f.f than Karl.
This is usenet there are no rights.
--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See the URL in my
header to find out more.
David Formosa
WA Resident wrote:
[...]
> Anyone who
>cares about the fandom, especially if you were around when you got a good
>glimpse of what it could have become, is either disillusioned,
>sad, or angry.
Yes, but whos vision of what it could become? I have my vision of what
it could have become, and I strongly susspect thaty my vision is nothing
like yours. But I don't run about suggesting that there be a bullet put
threw your head.
>And if they care, they fight to bring it up to that goal.
And by there methods the worth of there goals shall be known.
David Formosa
Resident wrote:
[...]
>Which is a damned sight better than those who just want to leech off our
>conventions as a place to do RL versions of their TS sessions.
So spending all that money on furry comics is leeching?
xyd...@my-dejanews.com
say "furry fandom is about anthropomorphics" for the past two
years, but some people still seem to have trouble understanding
what I mean by that...
So here it is (again). Feel free to skip it if you heard me
the first time. -:)
Xydexx's definition of anthropomorphics:
Anthropomorphics are human qualities or characteristics ascribed
to animals or objects.
Specific to furry fandom, anthropomorphics are:
1. animal characters with human qualities and/or characteristics,
[i.e., Scooby Doo, Simba, Mr. Ed]
2. humanoid characters with animal qualities and/or characteristics.
[i.e., Bugs Bunny, Tony the Tiger, Booga]
When explaining anthropomorphics to people, I use more well-known
examples of anthropomorphic characters from cartoons or advertising,
as they provide point of reference most people are familiar with.
Anyone who says I believe otherwise is a liar and a troll.
And while we're on the subject...
Xydexx's definition of furry fandom:
Furry fandom is about the creation and/or appreciation of
writing/artwork [and/or miscellaneous other media] devoted to the
previously-mentioned anthropomorphic animal characters.
Anyone who says I believe otherwise is a liar and a troll.
Locandez
Chandler - WA Resident) wrote:
>In article <na.d83dda489b...@argonet.co.uk>, Locandez <
>pos...@argonet.co.uk> writes:
>> I agree. The only group of people who have ever 'invaded' the
>> furry lifestyle 'camp' (arf) are trolls like Richard Chandler.
>
>Ooog, Ooog, that Winnowill one hell of a elf-babe. :-)
Aieee! Run, goatfurs, run! :}
Locandez
--
My -true- email address is: lyndale [at] argonet [dot] co [dot] uk
A blank copy of the 'Furvey'; and information, links, guides, documents
and reference material relating to alt.lifestyle.furry and the furry
lifestyle culture can be found at "Lifestyles Of The Cute And Furry":
http://www.argonet.co.uk/users/lyndale/lotcaf/
"It was a day they would never forget - even if their brain were erased with mind rubbers."
Nate Patrin
> Note the designation, "sexual abuse" has two components, "sexual" and
> "abuse". I have met animals involved in human-animal sexual
> relationships which showed no signs of distress whatsoever,
Sure. They even went on the Ricki Lake show and talked about it.
> This suggests to me that if your
> interest is in actually helping animals, you would be better advised
> to direct your bile towards "abuse of" rather than "sex with" animals.
Sex with animals IS abuse of animals, dammit!
> I'd also note that "this is an example of zoophilia which is clearly
> abusive, therefore all zoophilia is abusive" is exactly the same
> flawed logic as "this is a furry fan who is a zoophile, therefore all
> furry fans are zoophiles".
I'm sorry, but I severely doubt you can give me *any* proof that
human-animal banging had, at least in one incident, beneficial
psychological results for the animal. What're you gonna do, show your
German Shepherd Rorshach tests?
> I refer you to Monty Python's witch sketch
> (from Holy Grail) for a more entertaining example :)
There's life outside of Monty smegging Python, you know. Christ, *I* loved
that movie until the fanboys quoted it to death...
Nate Patrin
> *Gasp* Nate, you've just branded me a rapist.
I did? Naw, I could find plenty of other nasty things to brand you. At
least *I* don't write stories where Jasmine gets laid by the tiger from
"Aladdin"...
> I once slept
> with a woman who spoke no English (and I no Italian). Nevertheless,
> consent was possible... and pretty damned clear!. It makes no difference
> to me if the language is spoken or somatic or some other clear
> signal-- consent *is* possible among two creatures who don't speak the
> same language.
That's the most half-assed argument I've seen in this thread. I mean, of
course she consented- she was a human, and she *knew* how and why you were
gonna "sleep with" her. There *is* a difference between unspoken
communication as it regards to humans versus animals, in case you didn't
know. Unless you actually go around sniffing peoples' asses, that is.
> Besides, I have yet to see someone who can show me how
> "bestiality" is somehow more crippling to the animal than
> "carnivorism" or "horse racing" or the Iditarod.
Shit, at this point I'm just as- if not more- worried about the
psychological well-being of the human. BEING SEXUALLY ATTRACTED TO AN
ANIMAL IS FUCKING DISEASED, ALRIGHT? If you don't trust my profanity-laden
opinion, ask anybody on the street. Ask a shrink. Ask yer doctor or
pharmacist. (Of course, you can't trust THEM... they're MUNDANES.)
> I have no particular love for zoophiles or their pets, but
> before anyone starts arguing about the reprehensibility of such
> patterns, examine the benefits _being cruel to animals_ has had within
> your own life.
Let's see. Eating meat has a fairly important purpose (though you vegans
out there don't seem to be much worse off without it). Medical testing has
an important purpose. FUCKING SHEEP DOES NOT HAVE ANY SORT OF PURPOSE
WHATSOEVER! Okay?! NONE!
> Eric stands somewhere between a brilliant artist and a
> pathetic whiner. His problem is that far too often he, like you,
> falls into the second category.
Pathetic whiner? Judge not, wanker. The people who accuse Eric and me and
others of our ilk of being such do so in a tone that can only be described
as the most self-righteous, whiny prattle imaginable. "Ewic doesn't wike me
pwayin' wif my goat! He's a Nawtzeee poopoohead!" Fuck, show me someone on
the OTHER side of this argument (i.e. yours) who isn't coming across as
"whiny" somehow to someone and I'll sell all my Beck albums and join a
convent.* One man's whine is another man's catharsis.
*Not a binding guarantee.
> And apparently unlike Eric, you don't even have the capacity to think
your conclusions through.
...the fuck?
> Eric may
> feel damned because he's a member of a "community" (such as it is; I
> would never call myself a member of the furry community-- one
> dysfunctional relationship is enough for any lifetime) that has a
> lousy reputation, and maybe he (and furrydom) would be better off if
> he left.
Shit, furrydom would be better off if *everyone* left.
> He's certainly not getting anywhere with the Yoda routine,
Still, it's worth it to see him bitch-slap people with a staff and say
"Mine! Or I will help you not."
> >If an animal doesn't bite you or run away if you try to molest it,
> >it's only because it's too dumb to realize it's being molested. It's
> >like trying to seduce a mentally retarded sixth grader. I'm sorry,
> >but where I come from, "pigfucker" is a pejorative.
>
> *Laugh* You're so fucking shortsighted, Nate, you haven't
> even begun to think things through.
Gee, thanks dad.
> If animals were "mentally
> retarded sixth-graders," they'd have the same legal protections.
Is bestiality illegal in at least 30 of the 50 states? YES. THANKS FOR
PLAYING.
> They're not immature humans, they're _animals_,
Who get screwed by immature humans.
> People who love "nature" as much as you pretend
I don't love nature as much as I hate the assholes who abuse it.
> should strip naked and try to live in the Amazon for two weeks.
And what the fuck does this have to do with stickin' your soft-on up a
Shih-Tzu's poop chute, pray tell?
> >I'd ponder what this fandom would be like if necrophilia was
> >tolerated (and celebrated by some), but I just ate...
>
> I guess you're not fond of sheepskin condoms, then. Now
> there's a socially acceptable form of necrophiliac bestiliaty.
Since I'm a stupid 21 year-old who's only been exposed to this fandom a
mere three years, can someone please untwist the pseudologic of that
statement for me while I sit here, whine, smoke dope, listen to the Beastie
Boys, leech off my parents, remain unemployed and draw pictures of Chester
Ringtail getting his face stomped in?
(Hell, if people wanna hate me, I better pull out all the stops.)
> Elf M. Sternberg, rational romantic mystical cynical idealist
Fuck labels.
> If you're so smart, why aren't you naked?
Because, believe it or not, THAT'S illegal in public, too.
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
> In article <981028013...@mauser.at.gte.net>, Richard Chandler - WA
> Resident wrote:
> >Which is a damned sight better than those who just want to leech off
> >our conventions as a place to do RL versions of their TS sessions.
>
> So spending all that money on furry comics is leeching?
Gee, I don't see anything about buying comics being leeching in that post, so
I guess your answer might be... "NO".
mok...@hotmail.com
e...@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) wrote:
> I have no particular love for zoophiles or their pets, but
> before anyone starts arguing about the reprehensibility of such
> patterns, examine the benefits _being cruel to animals_ has had within
> your own life. And tell me if you would rather live without it.
> After all, thanks to animal testing of vaccines and medicines, you're
> able to bitch for an average 20 years more than your ancestors.
>
Interestingly enough, you avoided the issue of utilitarian purposes. There
is a noticeable difference between taking sexual liberties with an animal as
opposed to skinning and eating it. You see, the first is entirely a leisure
activity (and the concept of sex as a leisure activity is something else I
have a problem with, but I won't go into that here..), whereas the second
fulfills the biological necessities of food and clothing. Sex with animals
is not conducive to the propogation of either species.
b.root
ilr
>
> Interestingly enough, you avoided the issue of utilitarian purposes. There
> is a noticeable difference between taking sexual liberties with an animal as
> opposed to skinning and eating it. You see, the first is entirely a leisure
> activity (and the concept of sex as a leisure activity is something else I
> have a problem with, but I won't go into that here..)
I'll agree with that. Those suckers who have recreational orgies
with their pets and tape it should get a cap-in-they-ass's.
There's no excuse for leisure sex, even though some of us
wouldn't be here today without it.
> whereas the second
>fulfills the biological necessities of food and clothing. Sex with animals
>is not conducive to the propogation of either species.
If you think about it, that's a plus, IF you believe there's no
difference between Z-philes and Pedophiles. I mean, hey, hey!,
atleast they won't have any children of their own to abuse.
Either way, I'm just glad someone on the anti-zoo side is
finally using some logic on this tired_old_dead_horse_discussion.
-ilr
The Saprophyte
(snip)
>
> Xydexx's definition of anthropomorphics:
>
> Anthropomorphics are human qualities or characteristics ascribed
> to animals or objects.
>
> Specific to furry fandom, anthropomorphics are:
> 1. animal characters with human qualities and/or characteristics,
> [i.e., Scooby Doo, Simba, Mr. Ed]
> 2. humanoid characters with animal qualities and/or characteristics.
> [i.e., Bugs Bunny, Tony the Tiger, Booga]
>
> When explaining anthropomorphics to people, I use more well-known
> examples of anthropomorphic characters from cartoons or advertising,
> as they provide point of reference most people are familiar with.
I really, really, Reeaally don't want to start this up again but...
By your definition, If a talking horse is considered 'morphic, than
would an animal with a human mind (i.e. "Fluke", "the shaggy Dog",etc.)
also be considered 'morphic? If so, then conversly, would a human with
an animal mind be considered 'morphic as well? (I can't think of any
dead-on examples at the moment. Mind transfers always have the other
side of the coin to think about though.) Technically this would probably
be theropomorphism(?) but since human-based 50/50 or less admixtures are
generally excepted as morphic , if you can go to one extreme in one
direction, how far can you reasonably go in the other direction?
The Saprophyte, Mad thinker. (actually just mildly perturbed)
--
thesap...@fillers.usa.net
this address contains no spam,
artificial preservatives
or added fillers.
ilr
> Is bestiality illegal in at least 30 of the 50 states? YES. THANKS FOR
> PLAYING.
>
Mary-J? Even in Puerto-Rico, right? I guess reefer's even
worse than getting-knotty-with-da-doggy.
In a somewhat related topic: Has anyone seen Blumrich's
pic that was in 'HighTimes'? I'd just like a rough description
of it to know if I should order the back issue.
Was it a Skunk?
-ilr
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
writes:
> Can we feed him hemlock anyway ... ?
Socrates last words. "I drank WHAT?!"
Don Sanders
>In article <slrn73e1l7....@godzilla.zeta.org.au>,
>dfor...@zeta.org.au (David Formosa) writes:
>> In article <981028013...@mauser.at.gte.net>, Richard Chandler - WA
>> Resident wrote:
>> >Which is a damned sight better than those who just want to leech off
>> >our conventions as a place to do RL versions of their TS sessions.
>>
>> So spending all that money on furry comics is leeching?
>
>Gee, I don't see anything about buying comics being leeching in that post, so
>I guess your answer might be... "NO".
Ok, since everyone has been sidestepping what I think they mean to say, I
guess I will have to say it to get it out in the open!
"We don't want your kind here!!"
There, I think that was much better than all the fancy words and dancing
everyone else has been doing. Although it might offend a few out there, I
figured it was best said now. Although I don't really agree, I've either
given the hint that the discussion on the matter is real stale and should be
buried, or it should take a more positive note so some folks out there can at
least calm down and think for a change.
If I put it any more bluntly, I would have to involve some mighty nasty words,
which I am not used to using.
Drop it, Let it die, and lets get on with our lives!
Enough said.
Don Sanders
Dsan Tsan on #furry of Yiffnet
Artist at Roll Yer Own Graphics
http://www.dreamscape.com/dsand101/dsan.htm
(my furry page) Email dsan...@future.dreamscape.com
David Formosa
>In article <slrn73e1l7....@godzilla.zeta.org.au>,
>dfor...@zeta.org.au (David Formosa) writes:
>> In article <981028013...@mauser.at.gte.net>, Richard Chandler - WA
>> Resident wrote:
>> >Which is a damned sight better than those who just want to leech off
>> >our conventions as a place to do RL versions of their TS sessions.
>>
>> So spending all that money on furry comics is leeching?
>
>Gee, I don't see anything about buying comics being leeching in that post, so
>I guess your answer might be... "NO".
So if I come to a convention we the dule perposes of getting layed and
buying commics then I would be OK in your eyes?
David Formosa
[...]
>Interestingly enough, you avoided the issue of utilitarian purposes.
I think you would have to first learn what utilitarianism is. Utility
is the greatest pleasure to the greatest number. So under these rules
sex with an animal is a utilitarian purpos.
khr...@my-dejanews.com
> Until such proof exist, I will continue to voice my opinions on this assumed
> outlawed subject seeing that I can no longer respond to posts dealing with
> furry art, which is on topic with this group.
Considering that there _is_ no FAQ or charter or approved rules for this
newsgroup, you might as well not hold your breath. :3
My personal beliefs aside, I think you are correct that you have the right to
post anything that can be considered 'topical' to fandom here... just be
prepared with the nomex and the powerhose when the torches come out to
'correct' you....
-- ermine
==================================
home email: KhromatAtInOrbitDotCom
khr...@my-dejanews.com
> <actually doesn't matter much WHAT he writes. He cracks me up.>
>
> Maybe it's just you. Eric is so angry because he gives a shit. Anyone who
> cares about the fandom, especially if you were around when you got a good
> glimpse of what it could have become, is either disillusioned, sad, or angry.
Then there are the rest of us Old Men who continue what we've been doing in
hopes that others pick it up and carry it on, spreading the good word.
Am I disillusioned? No, because I had no illusions to begin with.
Am I sad? Well, on occasion I can moan all this vitro and regret lost
opportunities, but I don't despair about the whole of fandom and its future.
Am I angry? Change that to "frustrated" and you'll be closer. I'm not venting
blindly at perceived problems in the vain belief that my words will convince
anyone to change. I actively participate in positive positions to promote a
better fandom (whew, try saying that 5 times fast!).
Eric was angry when _I_ knew him... on a good day I can respect him and his
opionions, and on a bad day I chalked it up to attitude and ignored it.
The same for you, Rich, for Chuck and for _everyone else_ who expresses an
opinion publicly that has negative ramifications -- regardless of intent. I
know you all care about fandom in your own ways and I can respect your
viewpoints without ever having to agree with them. I think it's the 'respect'
part that is missing in all this....
Allen Kitchen
khr...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<71a36r$816$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>My personal beliefs aside, I think you are correct that you have the right
to
>post anything that can be considered 'topical' to fandom here... just be
>prepared with the nomex and the powerhose when the torches come out to
>'correct' you....
>
>-- ermine
I no longer consider the flamers of this channel to be representative
of the fandom. Thus I don't worry about what they approve/disapprove
of. Don, you , and I have as much right to discuss whatever furry topic
we like here. I ignore those who do nothing but cry. I'll listen to others
who say "ew" and I'll be considerate. But I won't leave. Richard and
Chuck are not in charge of the fandom, and they never will be.
Allen Kitchen (shockwave)
M. Mitchell Marmel
> mere three years, can someone please untwist the pseudologic of that
> statement for me while I sit here, whine, smoke dope, listen to the Beastie
> Boys, leech off my parents, remain unemployed and draw pictures of Chester
> Ringtail getting his face stomped in?
No, but I want copies of the pictures.
Incidentally, one of the worse slum cities in the Philadelphia area is named
Chester. Until recently, I'd never given the matter much thought, but now I
think it's kind of nifty.
-MMM-
M. Mitchell Marmel
> I think you would have to first learn what utilitarianism is. Utility
> is the greatest pleasure to the greatest number. So under these rules
> sex with an animal is a utilitarian purpos.
Er...which dictionary are YOU using?
From the American Heritage Dictionary, Third Edition:
u0til0i0ty (yá-t*l2*-tT) n., pl. u0til0i0ties.
1. The quality or condition of being useful; usefulness.
2. A useful article or device.
3. Abbr. util. a. A public utility. b. A commodity or service, such as
electricity, water, or public transportation, that is provided by a public utility.
Noun: The quality of being suitable or adaptable to an end. use, account,
advantage, benefit, profit, usefulness, avail
u0til0i0tar0i0an (yá-t*l1*-târ2T-õn) adj.
1. Of, relating to, or in the interests of utility.
2. Exhibiting or stressing utility over other values; practical.
3. Of, characterized by, or advocating utilitarianism.
—u0til0i0tar0i0an n.
One who advocates or practices utilitarianism.
Adjective: Serving or capable of serving a useful purpose. practical,
useful, functional, handy, practicable, serviceable.
u0til0i0tar0i0an0ism (yá-t*l1*-târ2T-õ-n*z1õm) n.
1. The belief that the value of a thing or an action is determined by its utility.
2. The ethical theory proposed by Jeremy Bentham and James Mill that all
action should be directed toward achieving the greatest happiness for the
greatest number of people.
3. The quality of being utilitarian.
Now, how does doggie-diddling fit into this, precisely?
-MMM-
M. Mitchell Marmel
> Ok, since everyone has been sidestepping what I think they mean to say, I
> guess I will have to say it to get it out in the open!
>
> "We don't want your kind here!!"
Neatly and succinctly put. I couldn't have put it better, myself.
-MMM-
Don Sanders
Needless to say, I am kinda shocked. But I guess I proved a point to myself.
I am only wondering if that simple little phrase, "We don't want your kind
here!!" will be used, and cheered for everything else beside the zoophiles.
Lets say for examples, Plushiphiles, fursuiters, lifestylers in general,
anyone not of a pure decent background, minority groups, ect ect ect....
Yes, I went extreme on the latter part, but what can I say. it seems like
this is what it is going to lead to sooner or latter. And to think, I thought
folks were better than that. I guess I was wrong, as I usuallly am. Oh well,
I'm done.
Back to reading and possibly replying to more positive threads.
Wanderer
>
>Herr Nate Patrin hat geschreibt:
>>
>>I'm sorry, but where I come from, "pigfucker" is a pejorative.
>
>
>"Hey, I know dat one! Dat's easy:"
>
><recites>
>
>"I'm not a pigfucker
>I'm a fig plucker's...D'OH!!!..."
>
Fur-sonally, it took me fur-*ever* to understand that one on "Are You Being
Served?". You know ...
I'm not a pheasant plucker, I'm a pheasant plucker's mate.
Yours truly,
The naive,
Wanderer**wand...@applink.net
Where am I going?I don't quite know.
What does it matter where people go?
Down to the woods where the bluebells grow.
Anywhere! Anywhere! *I*don't know!
Wanderer
<981028013...@mauser.at.gte.net>...
>In article <E4E7F4032FA4D1119C3...@monoceros.purrsia.com>,
<
>Victry 'Vixy' Hyzenthlay> writes:
>> He publishes a
>> fanzine <sounds of ooooos in the background> and he's soooo
>> articulate. But wait...
>> something doesn't add up... let's see... of course, there HAD to be a
>> fan base *before* his little zine took off.
>>
>> Sorry Richy... everyday joe/jane fan is above even you and
>> Blumreich. After all, this IS alt.FAN.furry. Not
>> alt.fan.furry-publisher or alt.fan.furry-artist.
>
>Hmmm, Very interesting logic. Here, let me suggest a secondary test to see
if
>it holds up. Why don't you go over to rec.arts.science-fiction.babylon5
and
>try to tell them that Joe Straczynski has no right to be on that group,
since,
>as the producer of the show, he can't possibly be a FAN of the show.
>
<Wanderer co-opts the straw man fur a bonfire.>
Sorry, but (with all due respect to the other canine members of this group)
that hound won't hunt. The discussion was not "who has *A* right", but "who
has *MORE* right". And Mr Straczynski has made it publicly clear that he
feels fan groups are for fans.
Nice try, but we need the straw fur more warmth ... it's gettin' chilly out
here ...
Yours truly,
The wolfish,
Wanderer
(snip ... to Xydexx)
>Oh, I was merely illustrating your pattern of obfuscation and lies of
>omission.
>
(snip)
Fine. You may consider the newsgroup sufficiently illuminated, enlightened,
informed, educated, told, retold, re-retold, re-re-retold, re-re-re-retold,
shown, and Washington-leaked.
Now, could you two try and drop this without making bigger fools of
yourselves than you have already, or are you going to rub our collective
noses in this whole mess *AGAIN*? I assure you, we smelled it, saw it, felt
it, and assayed it petrochemically quite well the first 100 times ...
Yours exasperatedly,
The sick-of-this,
Rick Pikul
>David Formosa wrote:
>
>> I think you would have to first learn what utilitarianism is. Utility
>> is the greatest pleasure to the greatest number. So under these rules
>> sex with an animal is a utilitarian purpos.
{Foomph...}
>u0til0i0tar0i0an0ism (yá-t*l1*-târ2T-õ-n*z1õm) n.
>2. The ethical theory proposed by Jeremy Bentham and James Mill that all
>action should be directed toward achieving the greatest happiness for the
>greatest number of people.
>Now, how does doggie-diddling fit into this, precisely?
I do believe that he was refering to the ethical theory from Bentham
and Mill, which you quoted.
{I'm just pointing somthing which should have been clear out, if I
wanted to get into an arguement[1] I'd have asked 'why is it wrong?'}
[1] No, I didn't misspell that, the 'e' is intentional.
Phoenix |Next WATSFIC event:
An official WATSFIC |Games Day -- Nov 7
poster guy |Math and Computer
For more about WATSFIC |Comfy Lounge (Rm 3001)
set your browser to: |University of Waterloo
http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/clubs/watsfic/
WATSFIC AD&D Tourney: Nov 21-22
M. Mitchell Marmel
On Thu, 29 Oct 1998, Rick Pikul wrote:
> >u0til0i0tar0i0an0ism (yá-t*l1*-târ2T-õ-n*z1õm) n.
> >2. The ethical theory proposed by Jeremy Bentham and James Mill that all
> >action should be directed toward achieving the greatest happiness for the
> >greatest number of people.
>
> >Now, how does doggie-diddling fit into this, precisely?
>
> I do believe that he was refering to the ethical theory from Bentham
> and Mill, which you quoted.
Oh, I understand his intent, but I honestly don't see the connection.
How does Rover Rump-Tee-Pump work towards Bentham and Mill's goal?
> {I'm just pointing somthing which should have been clear out, if I
> wanted to get into an arguement[1] I'd have asked 'why is it wrong?'}
Different can of worms, already discussed ad nauseam.
-MMM-
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
all...@blkbox.com> writes:
> Richard and Chuck are not in charge of the fandom, and they
> never will be.
Thank GHOD! I wouldn't want to be in charge or else I'd have to take the
blame for the state of things. I'm just a volunteer. All this stuff I do for
the fandom I don't do for any money.
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
writes:
> Fine. You may consider the newsgroup sufficiently
> illuminated, enlightened, informed, educated, told, retold,
> re-retold, re-re-retold, re-re-re-retold, shown, and Washington-leaked.
Fine by me, but be sure to tell Karl twice. He's the one with the passion for
digging up his posts from two years ago and re-posting them. :-)
Farlo
>If a talking horse is considered 'morphic, than
>would an animal with a human mind (i.e. "Fluke", "the shaggy Dog",etc.)
>also be considered 'morphic?
IMO - Yes - it is "manlike", exhibiting man-like characteristics.
Speaking animals are a prime example.
>If so, then conversly, would a human with
>an animal mind be considered 'morphic as well?
Man is by default Anthropomorphic.
A man with an animal's mind is still Anthropomorphic.
A talking bannana is Anthropomorphic.
If you put cat ears and a tail on that bannana,
it becomes a FURRY anthropomorphic.
-------------------
Farlo m>*_*<m
Urban Fey Dragon
Standard XXXX
@abac.com XXXX
-------------------
mok...@hotmail.com
dfor...@zeta.org.au (David Formosa) wrote:
> I think you would have to first learn what utilitarianism is. Utility
> is the greatest pleasure to the greatest number. So under these rules
> sex with an animal is a utilitarian purpos.
Uh, yeah. Last I understood, sex with animals is not a great pleasure to a
great number of people. If I'm not totally off in my evaluation of the public
psyche, a great number of people would suffer great displeasure at the
revelation of a practicing zoophile in their area.
b.root,
hopelessly semantic
xyd...@my-dejanews.com
an attempt to discuss something more interesting and actually
relevant to the newsgroup instead of wasting everyone's time
replying to threads about Zuuphilia which don't even belong
on AFF anyway. But that's just my not so humble opinion.]
Anyway...
The Saprophyte wrote:
> By your definition, If a talking horse is considered 'morphic, than
> would an animal with a human mind (i.e. "Fluke", "the shaggy Dog",etc.)
> also be considered 'morphic?
Eh? Define "human mind". What would be the difference between an animal
with a "human mind" and, say, an animal that's just really smart?
> If so, then conversly, would a human with
> an animal mind be considered 'morphic as well? (I can't think of any
> dead-on examples at the moment. Mind transfers always have the other
> side of the coin to think about though.)
I'm even more confused by the term "animal mind"...
I said humanoid, not human... I wanted to avoid saying human specifically
because I don't consider anthropomorphic characters to be "human" per se. I
know there's exceptions to every rule, though... the argument could be made,
for example, that a character like the Wolfman is technically "human". That
would be more theriomorphic, however, yes, as you stated below. It's like
anthropomorphics in reverse; humans with animal characteristics.
Since we're on the subject, I might as well clarify: I used "humanoid" mainly
because I was trying to avoid "human with animal characteristics", since that
might have been interpreted as meaning "a human who makes barking noises is an
anthropomorphic [theriomorphic] character". Not really what I had in mind.
> Technically this would probably
> be theropomorphism(?) but since human-based 50/50 or less admixtures are
> generally excepted as morphic , if you can go to one extreme in one
> direction, how far can you reasonably go in the other direction?
Well, I generally start with animals and work from there: On the one end of
the spectrum, there's the characters that have the basic physical appearance
of animals, but have human qualities such as speech---the proverbial "talking
animals", if you will. On the other end of the spectrum, there's the
characters that have a humanoid physical appearance, with animal qualities
such as fur---or, in the most basic terms, "human body with an animal head
stuck on it".
-------
Rev. Xydexx Squeakypony, K.S.C., T.D.S.F.A.
[ICQ: 7569393]
[Another CYA w/Asbestos Disclaimer: This is not a flame.
This isn't even controversial. Everyone agrees with me,
or would if I had actually posted this. In reality, the
words you're seeing now are a hallucination brought on by
too much time on the Internet. Now, in your bewildered,
hypnotized state, you will feel an uncontrollable urge to
start filling this newsgroup with positive threads about
furry fandom, so it'll actually be worth reading again.]
Rick Pikul
>
>
>On Thu, 29 Oct 1998, Rick Pikul wrote:
>
>> >2. The ethical theory proposed by Jeremy Bentham and James Mill that all
>e
>> >greatest number of people.
>>=20
>> >Now, how does doggie-diddling fit into this, precisely?
>> I do believe that he was refering to the ethical theory from Bent=
>ham=20
>> and Mill, which you quoted.
>
>How does Rover Rump-Tee-Pump work towards Bentham and Mill's goal?
I believe it would go something like:
Action A only affects the happiness of person X.
Action A increases X's happiness.
Giving a change in happiness of:
+delta for X
0 for everyone else
Meaning a small overall increase in happiness[1]
>> {I'm just pointing somthing which should have been clear out, if =
>I=20
>> wanted to get into an arguement[1] I'd have asked 'why is it wrong?'}
>
>Different can of worms, already discussed ad nauseam.
You got that right[2].
Personally, I'd like to see what would happen if everyone agreed that
this was a topic that should be dropped here, and if they want to argue about
it to go to a group about bestiality/zoophillia (or whatever term you prefer).
[1] Please don't argue with me about the assumptions, they are not
necessarily my own.
[2] You bet'ya
Tell me about it
Oh'ya oh'ya oh'ya
>
>-MMM-