A belated post, but needed, nonetheless.
fka...@my-deja.com
Excuse me- but this post deals with an event that happened a few
weeks ago- the event being the airing of the "gay sci-fi con" segment
on Comedy Central's "Daily Show." I know the more pedantic and trite
among you might say that this is an example of BF (and I in particular)
re-opening an issue that's long past.
Well- yes, and no (more of the latter than the former, but I
digress.) It's not re-opening old wounds, as the issues surrounding
the airing of this segment, as well as the implications for the fandom
at large, were never addressed properly. In fact, I found the
deafening silence that followed in the wake of this media atrocity
almost as infuriating as the segment itself.
Now, truth be told, when I ran a draft of this past the BF rank-and-
file, a few actually objected- they said I was being too heavy-handed,
and one person timidly put forward that I was wrong to be offended by
this segment (I'm still in wonder over that...) Keeping this in mind,
I will make the following statement to placate those within the BF
movement, as well as it's detractors that:
These are MY statements, reflecting MY views. This post, in no way,
reflects the policies nor the agenda of BF, and I am willing to accept
every bit of fallout and inevitable abuse that the stating of pure,
simple fact incurs in these, the most silent and relativist of times.
Begin transmission:
I told you so.
Over two years ago, I posted my embryonic website to the collective
joke known as the internet, with one of its core principles being the
warning that the fandom that I had enjoyed for almost half my life was
in mortal danger. I wrote an essay, entitled "What Is To Be Done",
lamenting the degenrate elements which had infiltrated our fandom, and
warning of the dire consequences to our fandom, should these elements
continue in their ascendency.
I warned that if the world at large should encounter our fandom
through these elements, the fandom would be irreperably damaged-
tainted as a haven for the sexually degenerate. I warned that the
proliferation of pornography depicted to the world a fandom aberrant
and despicable.
This was followed almost a year later by Squeerat's "Manifesto"-
a text which stated the facts of the matter far more bluntly and
accurately than I could have. This document led to the formation of a
core group with no ideology, no cohesive structure- other than the
common desire to bring about a change in the fandom- an effort to bring
the fandom back to it's roots- the art, the animation, the fiction, the
wonderous joy that lights a child's eye when he sees Disney's "Robin
Hood" for the first time, and the inspiration and groundbreaking
innovation that brought Albedo, TMNT, and an entire rennaisance in the
genre of Funny Animals to life.
Noble goals- simple goals. Squeerat, I, and (as we found later)
hundreds of others shared our deep sense of dissapointment that
Lifestylers, Plushophiles, Bestialists, and their ilk had taken
something we had held so dear, wiped their asses on it, and mounted the
resulting mess on a flagpole for all to see. This was a theft not of
property, or a simple fraudulent theft of ideas. This was a case of a
group of people swaggering into a house that we and many other had
built, taking over, and thrusting us to the rear, scornfully telling us
that we were no longer needed, nor wanted. They took our home, turned
it into a brothel, and spat insults at us when we objected.
Of course, our rewards for our efforts were met with
condemnation. We were called nazis, fascists- and those were the nice
names they chose for us. On the other hand, nihilists like random
(small r- he doesn't merit capitals), and rackety (ditto) said we were
taking this all too seriously.
But for two years, we pushed on as best we could. We started a
webring, which became the second-largest in furry fandom. We took to
whatever media was available to us- for the most part, we were
restricted to the internet. We started mailing lists, newsgroups, and
websites. At every turn, we were confronted with two facts: We were
not alone, yet there were people who would stop at nothing to enforce
their "open mindedness" and "tolerance" within the fandom, even if it
meant destroying it. Their purile pursuit of selfish pleasure and self-
gratification was more important, they maintained, than the efforts
that I and literally thousands of others had put into this fandom.
We had great victories- we saw our opponents humbled and
marginalized. When random tried posting our Burned Fur site to the
Portal of Evil, it ended within mere days as the farce that it was.
New anthro cons started cropping up that had rules regarding behavior
and the display of adult art. Ou webring continues to grow, as do the
ranks of our supporters.
But we didn't go far enough, fast enough. Our opponents were so
brazen, and so ubiquitous, that our efforts, restricted as they were to
the internet and a few cons, were unable to maintain and thicken the
dangerously thin veil that seperated our tainted fandom from public
scrutiny. We saw that on The Daily Show. There he was- Kevin Duane,
proudly displaying his filth to the prying cameras of comedy central.
There they were- the artists (term used very loosely) who owed their
lifeblood to the sick elements who had stolen our fandom- glibly
humiliating both themselves and waving our fandom's worst shame to
millions of households.
To a certain extent, pinheads like rackety and random had a
point- we weren't going far enough. We were pussyfooting around some
of the largest issues behind the dire straits the fandom was in. We
rarely went after the ringleaders- the few champions of the degeneracy
that was at the core of the cancer that has been steadilly gnawing away
at fandom since ConFurEnce 3.
Well- in the wake of recent events, it has become clear that this
will not do. We must acknowledge our bully pulpit, and take on the
forces that would destroy our fandom by name. We must have the courage
the mount the ivory tower, accept the uncomforatble mantle of
authority, and state unequivocably our accusations against these foul
excuses for human beings...
These people need to be exposed for what they are- they must be
hounded- persecuted, and driven back into the maggot-ridden depths from
which they emerged. Until they are, we cannot hope to make any
progress towards the rehabilitation of the fandom they so gleefully and
selfishly destroyed.
I ACCUSE:
Mark Merlino- who masterminded the debacle that was ConFurEnce 3-
advertised almost exclusively through Gay and Lesbian rescources.
The "man" who came up with the egregiously vile decision to give every
confirmed memeber of FurryMuck a free pass to the con.
I ACCUSE:
Kevin Duane- who mas hallmarked himself as perhaps the greatest
degenerate within the fandom- a despicable porn merchant who has never
shirked from displaying and pushing his wares to children.
I ACCUSE:
Steve Martin, who has steadily produced an endless stream of
questionable pornographic treacle that has catered to every whim of the
unwanted elements within the fandom. This man is a true whore to the
dollar and the anithesis of everything that stands for artistic
integrity.
I ACCUSE:
Xydexx, Oral Rinse, and the endless ranks of subhuman filth who
have subordinated the truth and the good of this fandom to their own
twisted world view- a view in which nothing is held under the light of
scrutiny, and everything is permissable, as long as it serves their own
selfish needs. It is these people who have stood in defense of the
crimes perpetrated by those listed above, and dozens of others who
would pervert our fandom into a pool of purile and hubristic self-
gratification.
I ACCUSE:
Every collar-wearing, tail-strapped-to-the-ass degenerate who
turned what was once a respectable corner of sci fi fandom into a
virtual singles bar for the sexually dyfunctional. They are little
more than craven beasts, wallowing in their own excretia, and
questioning the "tolerance" of anyone who complains about the smell.
I ACCUSE:
The Nihilists and fence sitters who sat by and let this all
happen. A single word, a statement of principle, and a little courage
was all that it took- but they found themselves incapable of mustering
the will nor the backbone such an action required. They are truly the
most craven, the most despicable of them all.
The question is staring me in the face: do I give up? Do you
folks ENJOY this? Does having your work denegrated and your fandom
dragged through the mud make you HAPPY? Does the knowledge that you've
been made the laughing stock of fandom at large, and now, the national
media, fill you with a sense of fulfillment and pride?
If I have one flaw in my addled synapses, it's my propensity to
give a damn. In a world where each new day sees a new atrocity, in a
country where more than half the population can't bother to work up the
effort to vote, and living next to a city that's drowning in it's own
cultural and moral schizophrenia, I try to stay aloof- but it's a
sham. Deep down within me there are the words and memories of people
Like Martin Luther King, John Rabe, and a thousand others who stood up
against the inevitable, and truimphed. I don't see myself as anything
like their equals- such would be hubris on a biblical scale. But their
principles are something I shall always strive to emulate and
champion. In the face of the hatred and bile spewed at me by a
thousand knee-jerk lifestylers, and the machinations of demons like
Merlino, I cannot help but march doggedly on.
The gauntlet fell when Steve Carrell exposed you for what you are-
you didn't throw it- it slipped from your addled, palsied fingers. YOU
started this- remember that. Be certain that I will.
-T'ieh Pi Pu Kai.
Stand your ground, this is what we are fighting for-
for our spirit and laws and ways.
Cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war
for heaven or hell, we shall not wait...
Shall I think of Honour as lies,
or lament it's aged, slow demise?
Shall I stand, as a total stranger
on this day, in this stone chamber?
-VNV Nation (Honour)
--
Buchanan 2000!
Nader 2000!
Make your vote count!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Doug Winger
[Large Snip]
> Deep down within me there are the words and memories of people
> Like Martin Luther King, John Rabe, and a thousand others who stood up
> against the inevitable, and truimphed.
They were fighting for basic human rights, the freedom of people, principles
of equality, an end to persecution and working to reshape the very foundations
of society into something just and fair.
You're fighting for a bloody fandom, which is nothing more than some people
sharing a small set of interests, and making it sound like it's some
world-shattering fight to the end against dread forces of evil bent upon
destroying the world. You're also forced to dredge deep into the past to work
up the proper outrage. I also think that your pulling up the name of King and
comparing your battle to his is an insult to his memory and work.
I will throw my opinion into this, and it's that you're so deep-down worried
and afraid that someone will point at you and say, "He's one of THEM!" and so
scared that people might think you a weirdo, a pervert, adnormal and outside
of decent society, you'd toss a Molotov cocktail into a crowded con just to
show them that, no, I'm NORMAL, dammit! I think the biggest fear driving you
to this extreme is that you're deathly afraid it might be you saying those
things about yourself.
Sorry, but I'll stay a nilhilistic filth-mongering fence sitter in this
matter, because the people that said you were taking this too seriously were
dead on. In my humble opinon, of course.
I do feel you'd do better to take some of that outrage and political
aspirations and find something that deserves it.
Later!
- Doug, Having A Time Here, Wish You Were Real
Farlo
>There he was- Kevin Duane,
>proudly displaying his filth to the prying cameras of comedy central.
Oh, no! Not on Comedy Central!
What will people think???
They might LAUGH!!!
>We must have the courage
>the mount the ivory tower,
Ewwww ... that image I did not need.
=P
>I ACCUSE:
...
>I ACCUSE:
...
>I ACCUSE:
...
>I ACCUSE:
...
>I ACCUSE:
...
>I ACCUSE:
The list of his targets ends here.
I don't even make the list.
>Cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war
... the puppies of purgatory ...
... the kittens of chaos ...
... Phil, prince of insufficient light ...
Someday this boy needs to get a hobby or something, you know?
--
Farlo "the ubiquitous"
Urban fey dragon
Do not stand in my way -
I will walk around you.
m>^_^<m
Smart Ass
> Excuse me- but this post deals with an event that happened a few
> weeks ago- the event being the airing of the "gay sci-fi con" segment
> on Comedy Central's "Daily Show." blahblahblah mew mew mew mew mew mew
> mew mew mew mew mew mew mew
Pathetic fellow. He has neither a lifestyle, or a life!
HEE HAW! and MERRY CHRISTMAS!
Akai
To the contrary, he is a professional artist and has published work. So
he does have a life and has contributed to the fandom and does have a
right to gripe; not to say that his words aren't a wee harsh.
--
-Akai
"Life is like nothing, because it is everything."
-William Golding
Cerulean
>you'd toss a Molotov cocktail into a crowded con just to
>show them that, no, I'm NORMAL, dammit!
You might mean that as a metaphor for his rhetoric, but after reading
Blumrich's post, which has a definite foaming-at-the-mouth quality, I
am willing to believe he would literally do that. He's off the end.
Advice to anyone who wants to wear a tail to a furry convetion: Eric
Blumrich could be attending, and he has inexplicably made it a symbol
of everything that puts him into a blind rage. You might be the first
to die. If you want to wear a tail, do so somewhere safe, like among
the general public, who will just think it's cute.
--
___vvz /( Cerulean = Kevin Pease http://cerulean.st/
<__,` Z / ( DC2.~D GmAL~W-R+++Ac~J+S+Fr++IH$M-V+++Cbl,spu
`~~~) )Z) ( FDDmp4adwsA+++$C+D+HM+P-RT+++WZSm#
/ (7 ( hjjnp - ,,77ej +snw shep awos +y6!u H)e3 o+uI,,
Random
himself should stand as a warning to new artists coming into the
fandom. His talent has been pissed away and wasted in this fandom and
see where he is? He's the kind of fellow who protests war by joining a
mob and burning down an army recruitment office. On top of that, he's
been more than happy about bragging about such mindless vandalism. And
now, he's gonna save furry. He can't even save himself.
In article <8tlj9b$u59$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <fka...@my-deja.com> wrote:
< Bit snipped>
> I told you so.
> Over two years ago, I posted my embryonic website to the collective
> joke known as the internet, with one of its core principles being the
> warning that the fandom that I had enjoyed for almost half my life was
> in mortal danger. I wrote an essay, entitled "What Is To Be Done",
> lamenting the degenrate elements which had infiltrated our fandom, and
> warning of the dire consequences to our fandom, should these elements
> continue in their ascendency.
A naive statement. The fandom was created by fetishists. The fandom
from the first organized convention on has been about sex with animals
(in real and imaginary forms). It's an 'adult' fandom and has always
been so. Get over it. And Blumrich HIMSELF told me that the neither he
nor the BFs were against spooge.
> I warned that if the world at large should encounter our fandom
> through these elements, the fandom would be irreperably damaged-
> tainted as a haven for the sexually degenerate. I warned that the
> proliferation of pornography depicted to the world a fandom aberrant
> and despicable.
The fandom was, is and always will be something anyone looking in on it
will find to be carnival of bestiality and other animalcentric fetishs.
Accept that and move on.
>
> This was followed almost a year later by Squeerat's "Manifesto"-
> a text which stated the facts of the matter far more bluntly and
> accurately than I could have. This document led to the formation of a
> core group with no ideology, no cohesive structure- other than the
> common desire to bring about a change in the fandom- an effort to bring
> the fandom back to it's roots- the art, the animation, the fiction, the
> wonderous joy that lights a child's eye when he sees Disney's "Robin
> Hood" for the first time, and the inspiration and groundbreaking
> innovation that brought Albedo, TMNT, and an entire rennaisance in the
> genre of Funny Animals to life.
The Burned Furs were a bunch of disgruntled furries who were just
looking for something to bitch about. The smarter members who were't
entrenched in the fandom realized the truth about it and left the BFs
and the Fandom entirely. Several of whom tired to help Blumrich to
leave, but alas he's hardcore furry.
> Noble goals- simple goals. Squeerat, I, and (as we found later)
> hundreds of others shared our deep sense of dissapointment that
> Lifestylers, Plushophiles, Bestialists, and their ilk had taken
> something we had held so dear, wiped their asses on it, and mounted the
> resulting mess on a flagpole for all to see. This was a theft not of
> property, or a simple fraudulent theft of ideas. This was a case of a
> group of people swaggering into a house that we and many other had
> built, taking over, and thrusting us to the rear, scornfully telling us
> that we were no longer needed, nor wanted. They took our home, turned
> it into a brothel, and spat insults at us when we objected.
Uh, the fetishists ARE the fandom. There is no real non-sexual part.
Oh, there are some smoke and mirrors to hide that fact like Yerf, but
most of the Yerf artists still draw the spooge and post it to other
furry archives. The most damning evidence against the fandom is the
existence of a movement to 'clean it up' and the fact they had to make
a special archive for 'clean' furry art.
> Of course, our rewards for our efforts were met with
> condemnation. We were called nazis, fascists- and those were the nice
> names they chose for us. On the other hand, nihilists like random
> (small r- he doesn't merit capitals), and rackety (ditto) said we were
> taking this all too seriously.
Doesn't 'merit' capitals? Eh? 'random' and 'Random' are two different
things. But then drunks are never good with language.
> But for two years, we pushed on as best we could. We started a
> webring, which became the second-largest in furry fandom. We took to
> whatever media was available to us- for the most part, we were
> restricted to the internet. We started mailing lists, newsgroups, and
> websites. At every turn, we were confronted with two facts: We were
> not alone, yet there were people who would stop at nothing to enforce
> their "open mindedness" and "tolerance" within the fandom, even if it
> meant destroying it. Their purile pursuit of selfish pleasure and self-
> gratification was more important, they maintained, than the efforts
> that I and literally thousands of others had put into this fandom.
Uh.. Those 'thousands' who put forth that effort were for the most part
the same fetishist you were railing against. They ARE the fandom. Hell,
the BFs are full of spoogers like MMM and even Rich Chandler hangs out
with them. The fact alone that someone like Chandler hob-nobs with them
PROVES they failed.
> We had great victories- we saw our opponents humbled and
> marginalized. When random tried posting our Burned Fur site to the
> Portal of Evil, it ended within mere days as the farce that it was.
> New anthro cons started cropping up that had rules regarding behavior
> and the display of adult art. Ou webring continues to grow, as do the
> ranks of our supporters.
You're an idiot, Blumrich. I didn't give shit to PoE. Someone named
'Pooperdoo' did. Oh, I posted to the forum, but I didn't give the BF
website to PoE. And exactly how did it end? Oh, wait. That's right.
Your brain has been addled by years of drug and alcohol abuse. You see,
everyday new featured sites are added to PoE, so the old featured sites
vanish off the main page, but are still in the archives. A simple
search on 'Burned Fur' finds it. You can view the forum about the
burned furs at
http://www.portalofevil.com/wc.dll?poe~showforum~000003295~0~PORTALOFEV.
Blumrich even posted his drunken ramblings there, so it's liable to
heat up.
>
> But we didn't go far enough, fast enough. Our opponents were so
> brazen, and so ubiquitous, that our efforts, restricted as they were to
> the internet and a few cons, were unable to maintain and thicken the
> dangerously thin veil that seperated our tainted fandom from public
> scrutiny. We saw that on The Daily Show. There he was- Kevin Duane,
> proudly displaying his filth to the prying cameras of comedy central.
> There they were- the artists (term used very loosely) who owed their
> lifeblood to the sick elements who had stolen our fandom- glibly
> humiliating both themselves and waving our fandom's worst shame to
> millions of households.
What the fuck kind of lifeless loser owes their 'lifeblood' to ANY
fandom? That's pathetic. Besides, the furry fandom is only about the
furry fethists. What they showed on the Daily Show was what anyone
would see at any con. They prolly see a lot worse online.
> To a certain extent, pinheads like rackety and random had a
> point- we weren't going far enough. We were pussyfooting around some
> of the largest issues behind the dire straits the fandom was in. We
> rarely went after the ringleaders- the few champions of the degeneracy
> that was at the core of the cancer that has been steadilly gnawing away
> at fandom since ConFurEnce 3.
Well, the fact they you yourself declared that spooge was okay
hamstrings your 'movement'. For the most part, many current bfs seem to
be spooge artists who only do heterosexual spooge. So, perhaps, the BFs
are just antigay spooge. Of course, all spooge has a definite
bestiality undertone. I'd go so far as to characterize it as softcore
bestiality.
> Well- in the wake of recent events, it has become clear that this
> will not do. We must acknowledge our bully pulpit, and take on the
> forces that would destroy our fandom by name. We must have the courage
> the mount the ivory tower, accept the uncomforatble mantle of
> authority, and state unequivocably our accusations against these foul
> excuses for human beings...
> These people need to be exposed for what they are- they must be
> hounded- persecuted, and driven back into the maggot-ridden depths from
> which they emerged. Until they are, we cannot hope to make any
> progress towards the rehabilitation of the fandom they so gleefully and
> selfishly destroyed.
That's like trying to rehabilitate Hustler or Penthouse. Furry art is
primarly spooge and the fandom is about the furry fetishs. If you
remove the fetishs, you'd have nothing.
> I ACCUSE:
>
> Mark Merlino- who masterminded the debacle that was ConFurEnce 3-
> advertised almost exclusively through Gay and Lesbian rescources.
> The "man" who came up with the egregiously vile decision to give every
> confirmed memeber of FurryMuck a free pass to the con.
Merlino organized the first CF which was the first real furry
convention. He set the tone for the whole fandom which was about fetish
sex.
>
> I ACCUSE:
>
> Kevin Duane- who mas hallmarked himself as perhaps the greatest
> degenerate within the fandom- a despicable porn merchant who has never
> shirked from displaying and pushing his wares to children.
He's pretty universally reviled within the fandom, strangely. Other
porn pushers like Blinkie and Winkler are better regarded. Gonna go
after them?
> I ACCUSE:
>
> Steve Martin, who has steadily produced an endless stream of
> questionable pornographic treacle that has catered to every whim of the
> unwanted elements within the fandom. This man is a true whore to the
> dollar and the anithesis of everything that stands for artistic
> integrity.
Why single him out? He's but one spooger amoung thousands.
> I ACCUSE:
>
> Xydexx, Oral Rinse, and the endless ranks of subhuman filth who
> have subordinated the truth and the good of this fandom to their own
> twisted world view- a view in which nothing is held under the light of
> scrutiny, and everything is permissable, as long as it serves their own
> selfish needs. It is these people who have stood in defense of the
> crimes perpetrated by those listed above, and dozens of others who
> would pervert our fandom into a pool of purile and hubristic self-
> gratification.
>
Xydexx is one amoung the majority of the fandom. Sure, he's a more
visible target, but he's by no means the exception. He's the rule.
> I ACCUSE:
>
> Every collar-wearing, tail-strapped-to-the-ass degenerate who
> turned what was once a respectable corner of sci fi fandom into a
> virtual singles bar for the sexually dyfunctional. They are little
> more than craven beasts, wallowing in their own excretia, and
> questioning the "tolerance" of anyone who complains about the smell.
That'd be the furry rankinfile, I think. You'd have as much luck trying
to get Hugh Hefner to change his lifestyle as get the furry fandom to
change its collective lifestyle.
> I ACCUSE:
>
> The Nihilists and fence sitters who sat by and let this all
> happen. A single word, a statement of principle, and a little courage
> was all that it took- but they found themselves incapable of mustering
> the will nor the backbone such an action required. They are truly the
> most craven, the most despicable of them all.
You mean me? Well, fuck you, too. I'm not a part of the furry fandom. I
never was. I'm just someone who happened by to jeer at the freaks.
Until you summoned me back to AFF with my name, I'd pretty much quit
jeering, however. But TRY to get it thru your alcohol-fortified thick
head that the fandom is just a collection of associated fetiths and not
something you can 'fix'.
> The question is staring me in the face: do I give up? Do you
> folks ENJOY this? Does having your work denegrated and your fandom
> dragged through the mud make you HAPPY? Does the knowledge that you've
> been made the laughing stock of fandom at large, and now, the national
> media, fill you with a sense of fulfillment and pride?
Their work is what Kevin Duane was displaying. And they SHOULD be a
national laughing stock. It's what they've earned with their sick
little fetishes. If you're in with them, Blumrich, as you sure seem to
be, you deserve being laughed even more because you're a drunken naive
fool.
> If I have one flaw in my addled synapses, it's my propensity to
> give a damn. In a world where each new day sees a new atrocity, in a
> country where more than half the population can't bother to work up the
> effort to vote, and living next to a city that's drowning in it's own
> cultural and moral schizophrenia, I try to stay aloof- but it's a
> sham. Deep down within me there are the words and memories of people
> Like Martin Luther King, John Rabe, and a thousand others who stood up
> against the inevitable, and truimphed. I don't see myself as anything
> like their equals- such would be hubris on a biblical scale. But their
> principles are something I shall always strive to emulate and
> champion. In the face of the hatred and bile spewed at me by a
> thousand knee-jerk lifestylers, and the machinations of demons like
> Merlino, I cannot help but march doggedly on.
Damn right you've a flaw in your addled synapeses. You're an alcoholic.
And instead of getting treatment for that, you just rail against a
fandom which is happy being about fetishs. Don't you also suffer from
depression? Have you sought treatment for that? Don't you realize that
alcohol makes depression WORSE? You can't even take care of yourself
and your own problems, Blumrich. How the fuck do you think you're gonna
reform an adult fandom? You might as well try to flatten the Rocky
Mountains with a small rockhammer. How dare you even mention those men?
You cheapen them and their work by even hinting a similarity with your
idiotic and hopelessly stupid 'movement and theirs.
> The gauntlet fell when Steve Carrell exposed you for what you are-
> you didn't throw it- it slipped from your addled, palsied fingers. YOU
> started this- remember that. Be certain that I will.
They sure did, Blumrich. They started the furry fandom. They made it a
place where people who have fetishes based on animals can come and be
safe. You'd be best served by joining AA and seeking help for your
depression instead of making an ass of yourself by trying to fix
something which isn't broken. It's just not what your alcohol and drug
ruined mind thinks it is.
--Random
ilr
How's life goin for ya?
Yesterday I thought to myself, "Ya know, something's missing here.
Must be that crazy Mark Loggins kid. Things just ain't as funky-fresh
around here without him. *sigh* I miss him. His wonderful wit, never-ending
love and patients, and creamy white thighs" =)
Ah....
M e m o r i e s ...... ...Like the color of my mind....
-Ilr
Bahumat
Blumrich. Neither of those a bad thing. But this truly slips into
lunacy.
Bahumat
Tatter_D
Japan, it's the people who "give a damn" who cause the most damage.
The people who care enough about their religion that they're willing
to die for it, the people who care enough about their tribe that
they're willing to slaughter their enemy's babies to defend it, the
people who are so determined to fulfill a prophecy that they will
happily drop nerve gas bombs to bring it about... these are the people
that need to be watched closely. They may claim to be interested in
the people's salvation, but ultimately all they care about is
themselves, and they will make any sacrifice - including your life -
for their so-called "greater good."
Hundreds of Americans have died, in Jonestown, Waco, Oklahoma City,
and most recently, on the U.S.S. Cole, all at the hands of people who
"give a damn." Think about it.
Brian O'connell
"Tatter_D" <n...@spam.please> wrote in message news:39fea042.37038850@news...
<snippity>
> Hundreds of Americans have died, in Jonestown, Waco, Oklahoma City,
> and most recently, on the U.S.S. Cole, all at the hands of people who
> "give a damn." Think about it.
Erm... The folks who died at Waco did so at the hands of the FBI/ATF, as
we all know, they never give a fuck... And Jonestown was mass suicide,
technically those guys died at their own hands...;)
Mike & Carole
projects I should be working on, but nontheless here I am. There are some
things that should be addressed immediately, instead of waiting for a
convenient time. In my opinion, this is one of those subjects.
Hi Eric. Didn't know it was you until someone replied.
Now, I've been very noncommittal regarding the Burned Furs, not really
understanding what they're for, and not getting involved.
But I do not like to see my friends knocked around. And (hold the trumpets)
FOR THE FIRST TIME I AGREE WITH RANDOM ON SOMETHING.
First, from your post:
> I ACCUSE:
>
> Mark Merlino- who masterminded the debacle that was ConFurEnce 3-
> advertised almost exclusively through Gay and Lesbian rescources.
> The "man" who came up with the egregiously vile decision to give every
> confirmed memeber of FurryMuck a free pass to the con.
Now let's see what Random (notice I spelled his name with a capital letter.
Every man deserves respect.)
> Merlino organized the first CF which was the first real furry
> convention.
Basically our whole fandom owes it's organized existance to people like
Mark, Steve Gallacci, Marc Schirmeister, Jim Groat and others. Mark did a
thankless and hated job for many years, with Confurence.
I hope he is now enjoying his retirement from running it. I learned from
his experiences that if anyone asked me to organize a furry con and run it,
I should run like hell.
Steve Martin I do not know very well. He's a talented artist, but not
really worthy of singling out as a "who has steadily produced an endless
stream of questionable pornographic treacle that has catered to every whim
of the unwanted elements within the fandom. This man is a true whore to the
dollar and the anithesis of everything that stands for artistic integrity."
Actually that describes most every dealer in the dealer's room. You had a
table at Anthrocon as I recall.
> " Kevin Duane- who mas hallmarked himself as perhaps the greatest
>degenerate within the fandom- a despicable porn merchant who has never
>shirked from displaying and pushing his wares to children."
Now, believe it or not, we like Kevin Duane. Granted, we've never had a
fight with him. We've never sat next to him at a con, although we have sat
across from him and have asked him to tone down language - which he did.
Our tables are next to his at FurtherConFusion this year. We'll see how it
goes. We've never had balloons and blinking lights going at us from his
booth. If we did, we would have no hesitation in asking him to turn them
off because blinking lights are one of the things that set off Carole's
migraines.
By the same token, when we hear stories about his behavior from Kage, or
others, we don't contradict them, because we weren't there.
But one thing I do know. Or, in fact, Carole does.
She and Kevin were at tables in the lobby because Duckon had made a mistake.
They told Carole that she couldn't have a table because she wasn't selling
her own material...even though we were publishing at that time. "Someone"
had NOT told them that she was a writer and publisher, "Someone" had told
them that she was a dealer only. It was finally straightened out and they
each were allowed to have a small table under the stairway. He was being
circumspect at that point, making sure his video screen wasn't visible when
children and mundanes were around. He had also been circumspect in the
lobby, and had toned down language and volume when politely asked to by
Carole.
"Someone" (and we won't say who) tried to get him ejected for showing Kiddie
Porn.
Now if he does that kind of stuff, I've never even heard it rumored. He
wasn't at that time, and was definitely innocent of the charge.
Carole stood up and went to bat for him. She has never regretted it and I
stand behind her. She has a Master's Degree in Educational Media and
Library Science, and had a quite interesting discussion with the lady who
was running that section of the con - who was also a librarian - and the
several security guards who accompanied her over copyright, infringement,
publisher's rights, etc. One of the security guards did buy a CD and later
told her that he found no evidence of kiddie porn on it. He said that he
could not see how any of this had even started on the basis of that CD.
Besides, compared to some of the stuff we've seen at REGULAR cons, Kevin is
Mister Rogers, or at least lives in his neighborhood.
I don't know or am not familiar with many of the other people you accuse.
But if Mark, Kevin and Steve are pornographers you better accuse Antarctic,
Mu, Radio, Arclight, United and SFA too. As well as most of the attendees
at furrycons.
<But their
> principles are something I shall always strive to emulate and
> champion. In the face of the hatred and bile spewed at me by a
> thousand knee-jerk lifestylers, and the machinations of demons like
> Merlino, I cannot help but march doggedly on.
Let's take a look at something that happened at Anthrocon this year. As you
and most everyone knows, I was going up to people I barely knew and giving
them a sheet about IN THE ZONE. If there's a nobler cause to get involved
in in furrydom lately, I don't know it.
Almost EVERYONE I talked to and a LOT I didn't came through. You were one of
the ones that promised to help (and Daphne Lage and Jose Calderon were there
to see it) and you were one of the ones that didn't.
Now the only person I WAS upset about regarding their absence was Reed
Waller. He doesn't like me, and I'm okay with that. But a lot of the names
in IN THE ZONE were in his TWO cancer benefit books, like Stan Sakai and
others. In my opinion, he OWED it back to the fandom which had supported
him to help someone else with cancer, since doing a contribution was not
hazardous to his health. Several emails received no response, after he
agreed to be in the book.
Reed, if you're reading this, I regard your action, or rather lack of
action, as very low.
But Eric, saying you will do all you can to help our fandom, and then
agreeing to be in this cancer benefit book to help someone who I have never
met, but have heard that he has no enemies, and then reneging while still
praising your principles to the sky....
Well, it goes right along with the political ads we're being flooded with.
Empty promises.
Your ideals are lofty. But you must act on them responsibly, not just
pontificate.
Mike and Carole
Xydexx Squeakypony, KSC
>[Trick Or Treat!]
Oh, what a delightful little troll costume! Did you make it yourself?
*drops a few Snickers bars into Eric's Trick or Treat bag*
There ya go. Run along now. Watch out for cars.
Hope everyone has a safe and happy Halloween. -:)
--
_________________________________________________
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen, dressed like Mary Pickford
Sign the petition to keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
Farlo
>...Like the color of my mind....
Creamy white? =)
--
Farlo
Farlo
>And Jonestown was mass suicide,
>technically those guys died at their own hands...;)
There where goons with machine guns ... it was drink tainted Kool Aid or
risk a couple dozen bullets. Not much of a choice.
Farlo
>Eric Blumrich wrote:
>>[Trick Or Treat!]
>
> Oh, what a delightful little troll costume! Did you make it yourself?
Frankly, he did. =)
> Hope everyone has a safe and happy Halloween. -:)
Happy Halloween!! =D
Richard de Wylfin
(Farlo) wrote:
> Brian O'connell wrote:
>
> >And Jonestown was mass suicide,
> >technically those guys died at their own hands...;)
>
> There where goons with machine guns ... it was drink tainted Kool Aid or
> risk a couple dozen bullets. Not much of a choice.
Exactly. A great many of those who died at Jonestown were small
children who were much too young to understand what was going on.
A big percentage of the "mass suicide" was really murder.
Don't want Bush elected? See http://www.nadertrader.com
mudd...@aol.com
Try decaf.
.
Elf Sternberg
>These are MY statements, reflecting MY views.
And they are a cheap and trite yawn, Eric. You're losing it.
And your rant ('Begin transmission'-- gack. What, were you raised on
a steady diet of bad s/f and bile?) is ineffective.
YOU are no longer needed here, not in your current guise.
Move along. There's nothing to see here.
Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg, Immanentizing the Eschaton since 1988
http://www.halcyon.com/elf/
As he lay dozing beside me, a little voice said, "Relax. You're not the
first doctor to sleep with a patient." Then another little voice said,
"But Rebecca, you're a veterinarian."
Doodles
> Excuse me-
Not bloody likely, pissface.
You lost it, Eric, about a hundred miles back.
> Nader 2000!
> Make your vote count!
Only part of your screed worth keeping...
ilr
<mudd...@aol.com> wrote in message news:83qtvsg7b6ohs4q61...@4ax.com...
> .
>
>
> Try decaf.
>
They make decaffeinated Crack/Cocaine now?
C.C. Cooper
Until I see some carpenter's son with a crown of thorns nailed to the
cross at some con for preaching the virtues of clean art, I really can't
take any of this THAT seriously.
All the people dying in this world for things they believe in...
Whether it be the right to believe certian concepts, or the right to
oppress others for what they believe.
Am I supposed to believe that whether my pencil draws a Disney-esque
action scene, or waste half a lead on 6 pages to draw one giant phallus
(Appologies to Mr. Winger;) is somehow going to end world hunger? End
the violence in the Middle East maybe?
Bullshit.
I like to draw, as does every artist who ever picked up a pen. What I
draw, which will be 99% tame, is my choice to make and mine alone.
I've read the BF's 'Mission Statement' and manefesto before... There
are a few things that strike me as irritating. Most obviously is this
notion that somehow less talented artists who draw spooge are just
perveted fanboys... While folks on par with Doug and Nakira are somehow
forced into it. As if talent somehow made you pure, and only the whips
and chains of grabbing fanboys with too much cash to burn keeps pulling
more and more of them into the depths of depravity and waste.
Oh heavens, get me a vial of holy water to fend them off
Does this also mean that just because I draw anthro now and then that
I'm somehow in the spooge file, just by association? I damn well hope
not. Everyone deserves to be judged on their own skill and content by
EACH PERSON VIEWING THEIR WORK. No one man, or small group, can decide
what everyone else should and shouldn't like. So please, stop.
I think more people need to worry less about what's on everyone
else's sketchbook and take more pride in whats on their own. You can
only create with your own hands, try and control everyone else's too and
you cheapen your own integrity.
This other notion that bugs me... Lets see if I can find the quote.
> Their purile pursuit of selfish pleasure and self-
gratification was more important, they maintained, than the efforts
that I and literally thousands of others had put into this fandom.
You mean to tell me somewhere there's at least 2000+ artists, writers
and fans still steamed about the introduction of smut into the works?
I'd say much less. You can't just pull random numbers out of the air and
call them proven statistics. 74.3% of all people know that.
Look, it seems to me people really just want to stick to their
corner. They pick their favorite artists and weed through the stuff they
don't want. Funny how these programs even come with filters to do just
that.
I'm new to all this. Still just poking around to see what all of you
are like and make sure I won't get creamed by an obsesive fan base. I
can't say my fears are abated, though you haven't run me off screaming
into the night yet.
Take this advice. Ask yourself if maybe you aren't in a little too
deep? Maybe some of you have forgotten that this all started out as a
quirky hobby? There will always be extremists and elitists on the
various political ends of every issue... Don't be one of them.
Raise your hand if you're still in this for fun!
Well, anyway... Dunno who I'm even talking to. To those who read this
far I'm probably preaching to the converted.
BTW, to artists like Doug and Nakira... I have a lot of respect for
your work even when I kind of shrug at the content. No hard feelings. :)
I'm sure your used to being made into people's examples by now, I just
hope I did so in a positive light.
Until the next rant...
C.C.Cooper
Don Sanders
i...@rof.net says...
Actually, this may sound strange, but I agree with
Random this time, despite the many times he
dragged me through the coals. (in a sense
refreshing, it make me think.) Oh well, time to
crawl back under my rock and wait out the coming
storm which is the current state of the fandom.
--
Don Sanders.
Dsan Tsan on #furry of Yiffnet
RoadKill Fur (Sun baked sorta but not burned!)
Currently Retired Amateur Artist at Roll Yer Own
Graphics
http://www.dreamscape.com/dsand101/dsan.htm
my furry page) Email
dsan...@future.dreamscape.com
My Directory on Velar, (or Vile-ar to some):
http://velar.ctrl-c.liu.se/vcl/Artists/Don-
Sanders/
Mike & Carole
things that should be addressed immediately, instead of waiting for a
convenient time. In my opinion, this is one of those subjects.
Hi Eric. Didn't know it was you until someone replied.
Now, I've been very noncommittal regarding the Burned Furs, not really
understanding what they're for, and not getting involved.
But I do not like to see my friends knocked around. And (hold the trumpets)
FOR THE FIRST TIME I AGREE WITH RANDOM ON SOMETHING.
First, from your post:
> I ACCUSE:
>
> Mark Merlino- who masterminded the debacle that was ConFurEnce 3-
> advertised almost exclusively through Gay and Lesbian rescources.
> The "man" who came up with the egregiously vile decision to give every
> confirmed memeber of FurryMuck a free pass to the con.
Now let's see what Random (notice I spelled his name with a capital letter.
Every man deserves respect.)
> Merlino organized the first CF which was the first real furry
> convention.
Basically our whole fandom owes it's organized existance to people like
Mark, Steve Gallacci, Marc Schirmeister, Jim Groat and others. Mark did a
thankless and hated job for many years, with Confurence.
I hope he is now enjoying his retirement from running it. I learned from
his experiences that if anyone asked me to organize a furry con and run it,
I should run like hell.
Steve Martin I do not know very well. He's a talented artist, but not
really worthy of singling out as a "who has steadily produced an endless
stream of questionable pornographic treacle that has catered to every whim
of the unwanted elements within the fandom. This man is a true whore to the
dollar and the anithesis of everything that stands for artistic integrity."
Actually that describes most every dealer in the dealer's room. You had a
table at Anthrocon as I recall.
> " Kevin Duane- who mas hallmarked himself as perhaps the greatest
>degenerate within the fandom- a despicable porn merchant who has never
>shirked from displaying and pushing his wares to children."
Now, believe it or not, we like Kevin Duane. Granted, we've never had a
<But their
> principles are something I shall always strive to emulate and
> champion. In the face of the hatred and bile spewed at me by a
> thousand knee-jerk lifestylers, and the machinations of demons like
> Merlino, I cannot help but march doggedly on.
Let's take a look at something that happened at Anthrocon this year. As you
Al Goldman
<Snip - everything>
consider:
1) Many new furry cons.
2) Major rise in public decorum at furry cons
3) More discreet access, without banning, constitutionally protected adult
material.
4) Plenty of G rated material, for those who want it.
5) Inability of fandom based groups to force there agenda on the fandom.
6) Inability of media exposure to damage the fandom since everything we do is
legal.
We never had it so good - it's a great time to be a furry!
Al Goldman
Laws are sand, Customs are rock. Laws can be evaded and punishment excaped, but
an openly transgressed custom brings sure punishement.
- Mark Twain
Xydexx Squeakypony, KSC
> Happy Halloween!! =D
Happy howwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwlloween! -:D
> Do not stand in my way -
> I will walk around you.
-;)
--
_________________________________________________
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen / Xydexx Squeakypony, KSC
ilr
> FOR THE FIRST TIME I AGREE WITH RANDOM ON SOMETHING.
>
Well I sure as hell know it wasn't this statement:
Rust
> Actually, this may sound strange, but I agree with
> Random this time, despite the many times he
> dragged me through the coals. (in a sense
> refreshing, it make me think.) Oh well, time to
> crawl back under my rock and wait out the coming
> storm which is the current state of the fandom.
It was cruelly put in places, but very astute.
-Rust
--
We are the instruments of creation - what we dream, is.
Remove ".netspam" from my address to reply
Rust
>
> In article <8tlj9b$u59$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, fka...@my-deja.com writes:
>
> <Snip - everything>
>
> consider:
>
> 1) Many new furry cons.
> 2) Major rise in public decorum at furry cons
> 3) More discreet access, without banning, constitutionally protected adult
> material.
> 4) Plenty of G rated material, for those who want it.
> 5) Inability of fandom based groups to force there agenda on the fandom.
> 6) Inability of media exposure to damage the fandom since everything we do is
> legal.
>
> We never had it so good - it's a great time to be a furry!
Damn, just when I had a good negative mindset going.
Kyle L. Webb
<fka...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8tlj9b$u59$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
>
> Excuse me
*Truly excellent example of self inflicted foot wound deleted*
Keep up the good work, Eric.
Kyle L. Webb
Hartree Fox on yiffnet
Mike & Carole
ilr <i...@rof.net> wrote in message news:8tntd7$vjc$1...@raccoon.fur.com...
You're right. The only part we agreed on was that Mark Merlino started
Confurence.
Mike
anarc...@my-deja.com
Par-dessus il y a deux ans, j'ai posté mon website embryonnaire à
la plaisanterie collective sue comme le internet, avec celui de ses
principes de noyau est l'avertissement qui les poissons que j'avais
apprécié pour presque demi ma vie était dans le danger mortel. J'ai écrit
un essai, autorisé "que que Devrait Etre Fait", lamenter les éléments
poopi-caca qui avaient infiltrated notre chevre, et l'avertissement des
conséquences de dire à notre nez, devoir ces éléments continuent dans
leur ascendency. Jerry Lewis.
J'ai averti que si le monde à grand devrait rencontrer notre
chevalle par ces éléments, le fromage serait irreperably endommagé- bâti
comme un eu pour le sexuellement dégénéré comme les garçon dans l’eau
chaude. J'ai averti que le proliferation de portopotty a peint au monde
de la fondue aberrante et despicable. Milton Berle.
Ceci a été presque suivi une année plus tard par Queerast
"Manifesto"- un texte qui a déclaré les faits de la question loin plus
sans ménagements et précisément que je pourrais avoir. Ce document mené à
la formation d'un groupe de noyau avec aucune idée, aucune structure
cohésive- autrement que le désir commun à provoque un changement dans la
oreille- un effort à rapporte le pomme de terre à il est des racines-
l'art, l'animation, la friction, la joie de wonderous qui allume un oeil
de l'enfant quand il voit Deniro "Robin des bois" tomber le sien halète
pour la première fois, et l'innovation d'inspiration et
groundbreakingCela a apporté Libido, SCAG, et un rennaisance entier dans
le genre d'Animaux Drôles et delicious à la vie. Bob Hope.
Les butts nobles- les butts simples. Queerast, je, et (beacoup de
dwarves et buerre) les centaines d'autres ont partagé notre sens profond
de dissapointment qui Lifesavers, Popcorn, Butterfinger, et leur ilk
avaient pris quelque chose que nous avions tenu si cher, a essuyé leur
oeufs, et a monté dessus les oeufs résultant sur un frappacino pour tout
la monde! Ceci était un vol pas des oeufs, ou un vol de fraudulent simple
de la fromage. Ceci était un cas d'un groupe de swaggering de gens dans
une poisson qui nous et beaucoup d'autre avait construit, prendre par-
dessus, et pousser nous à l'arrière, méprisamment dire nous que nous
étions non plus longs nécessaires, ni voulus. Ils ont pris notre maison,
le tourné dans un Howard Johnsons, et les insultes de demi-guêtre à nous
quand nous nous sommes opposés leur pommplemousses. Jim Nabors.
Bien sûr, nos récompenses pour nos efforts ont été retrouvé le miel.
Nous avons été appelés zombi, figuier- et ceux-là étaient les noms
agréables qu'ils ont choisis pour nous. D'autre part, nihilists comme
fait au hasard (petit r- il ne mérite pas de capitale), et raquettement
(encore) a dit que nous ceci prenions tout trop cereal. e.e. cummings.
Mais pour deux années, encore et encore et encore nous avons poussé
sur comme mieux nous pouvons. Nous avons commencé une orgie, qui est
devenu le plus deuxième-grand dans ma culotte. Nous avons pris à quoi que
le presse était disponible à nous- pour la plupart, nous avons été
limités au internet. Nous avons commencé mailing énumère, newsgroups, et
websites. A chaque virage, nous avons été confrontés avec deux faits:
Nous n'étions pas seul, pourtant il y avait des gens qui ne reculerait
devant rien à applique leur "ouvre tétement" et la "tolérance" dans ma
culotte, même s'il a signifié détruire il. Leur poursuite de purile de
plaisir égoïste et soi- gratification était plus important, ils ont
maintenu, que les efforts qui je et littéralement milliers d'autres
avaient mis dans leur pantalons. Leona Helmsley.
Nous avons eu de grandes voitures- nous avons mange les têtes des
enfants. Quand fait au hasard a essayé de poster notre A Brûlé le site de
Fourrure au Portal de Diabolique, il a terminé dans les simples jours
comme mes temps dans la lycee. Nouveau chevaux frappe commencé qu'eu en
haut des règles en ce qui concerne le comportement et l'exposition d'art
adulte. Nos anneau de baignoire continue à grandit, comme faire les rangs
de nos support hose. Sherman Hemsley.
Mais nous ne sommes pas allés loin assez, rapidement assez. Nos
adversaires étaient si brazen, qui est plus infinitessement mait aussi
donc ubiquitous, qui nos efforts, limité comme ils étaient au internet et
à quelques cons, étaient incapable à maintenir et épaissir le voile
dangereusement mince J'ai commencé à choisir mon nez et mes oreilles.
Nous avons vu que sur Le Grand Show Quotidien des Pomplimousse et
Poissons. Là-bas il était- Kevin Bacon, fièrement montrer son creme
fraische aux appareil-photos qui forcent de comédie l'ouest. Là-bas ils
étaient- les artistes (le terme utilisé très oueffment) qui a dû leur
licorice aux éléments malard qui avait volé notre coulettes- humilier de
glibly se et onduler notre chevre l'honte pire aux millions de ménages.
Jamie Farr.
Dans ma petite tete, poissons comme raquettement et fait au hasard
sont dans mon pantalon. Nous pussyfootiions vers une partie des plus
grandes questions derrière les étroits de dire le great big heaving
knockers était dans. Je veux, je veux mon MTV. Je veux. Je veux mon
MTV. Nous avons le ringworm- les peu de champion du degeneracy qui était
au noyau du crabe qui a été ronger de steadilly loin à groin depuis
Concombre 3. Shecky Greene
Je prend mes oeuffs pour rein et mas enfants pour libre! Bien- à la
suite des événements récents, il s'est éclairci que ceci ne fera pas.
Nous devons reconnaître notre chaire de brute, et prendre les forces qui
détruiraient notre fromage par le nom. Nous devons avoir le courage le
mont la tour d'ivoire, accepterons avoir un mont de chien mon derrière,
et unequivocably qui déclare nos accusations contre ces excuses poulet
pour les êtres hummus... Buddy Hackett.
Ces gens ont besoin d'être exposé pour ce qu'ils sont- ils doivent
être hounded- persecuted, et le dos conduit dans les profondeurs maggot-
voyagés de qui ils ont émergé. Ces gens doivent me fournir les victimes
j'ai besoin de pour mon six enfant une habitude de jour. Jusqu'à ce
qu'ils font, je dois habiter avec soi-abuse de. Buddy Ryan.
J'ACCUSE!:
Marky Mark- Où est-ce que le paquet de funky est maintenant? Nolan
Ryan.
J'ACCUSE!:
Kevin Kline- Vous ne pouvez pas faire un accent italien, et je veux
au sens votre langue entre mes orteils et pousser ses guerres aux
enfants. Stormin' Norman Schwartzkopf.
J'ACCUSE!:
Steve Martin, La Secousse, sûre, mais quel était le traiter des Sous
du Ciel? Cet homme est un vrai whore au dollar et le anithesis de
poissons dans les oreilles des chevre. Baby Jessica.
J'ACCUSE!:
Xavier Cougat, le Rinçage Oral, Comme si cela est votre vrai nom! Où
est-ce que la ferme de poisson est? Est-ce qu'il est hors là-bas avec les
chèvres et le pamplemousse? Je veux au rocher et roule toute nuit, et
tout parti tous les jours. Cleavon Little.
J'ACCUSE!:
Chaque gars en sueur qui a refusé à lui me permets de donner un
travail de bord basé uniquement sur ma personnalité. Un jour je lancerai
votre salade! M. Nêt.
J'ACCUSE!:
Le sitters de Nihilists et clôture qui a assis par et a laissé ceci
tout arrive. Quand j'assieds sur la clôture, je m'assure que j'assieds
sur la poste de clôture! J'aime le sens d'une poste de clôture forte
derrière moi. Earnest Borgnine.
La question me dévisage dans la face: est-ce que je renonce? Vous
folklorique APPRECIE ceci? Fait avoir votre denegrated de travail et
votre pomme de terre traîné par la boue vous font HEUREUX? Est-ce que la
connaissance que vous a a été a fait le stock qui rit de bibliotheque à
grand, et maintenant, le presse national, vous remplir avec un sens
d'accomplissement et de fierté? Yul Brenner.
Je fais! Parce que quand il fait, cela signifie je suis le fromage.
Et je suis le fromage! Je suis le grand fromage! La grande plus grande
roue de fromage! Fromage! Fromage! Je suis le grand fromage! Le fromage
me! Ne vous fera pas s'il vous plaît me si ne vous faites pas le fromage
me! Jimmy Swaggart.
Le gauntlet est tombé quand Steve and Edie vous a exposé pour ce que
vous êtes- vous n'avez pas lancé il- il a glissé de votre a addled, les
doigts de palsied. VOUS avez commencé ceci- se souvient de cela. Et quand
vous êtes fait dans votre réalité, je n'aurai pas besoin des reste parce
que j'ai fabriqué mon propre. Avec le fromage! Je suis l'homme de réalité
de fromage! Et je lancerai vos salades et souffle vos enfants! Elvis
Presley.
-Tout le mieux, Rico Suavez.
Elf Sternberg
Doodles <dood...@pacbell.net> writes:
>> Nader 2000!
>> Make your vote count!
>Only part of your screed worth keeping...
What? And vote for the only candidate who's actively interested
in my early demise? No thank you.
M. Mitchell Marmel
Best read to Stan Freberg's "C'est Si Bon".
-MMM-
gbres...@my-deja.com
"Mike & Carole" <shan...@cyberback.com> wrote:
> > >> "The fandom was, is and always will be something anyone looking
in on
> it
> > >> will find to be carnival of bestiality and other animalcentric
fetishs.
> > >> Accept that and move on."
> You're right. The only part we agreed on was that Mark Merlino
> started
> Confurence.
Whew! You had me worried.
As fan of anthropomorphics since about 1966, I think I can say, without
any qualification, that it has NOT always been, nor is it even always
NOW about sex. I was brought into it by authors such as A.A. Milne and
Thornton W. Burgess.
Simply stop by the Tai-Pan table at either ConiFur (this weekend) or
MFF later in the month, and we can show you over a decade of publishing
PG-rated material (heck, a lot of it is G-rated). (And the three
R-rated supplements we've published don't have any actual sex in them
either; that will with the next one, but both stories in question are
still definitely in the R-rated range).
--
--Gene
"Everybody wants to be a cat, 'cause a cat's the only cat who knows
where it's at."
--O'Malley the alley cat, The Aristocats.
Ostrich
> Deep down within me there are the words and memories of people
> Like Martin Luther King, John Rabe, and a thousand others
What about Emile Zola? I think Zola's "words and memories" may have
played into this somehow...
And in general, what is it about the Burned Furs and French history?
First the "Manifesto", now "J'Accuse".
--
-Ostrich! <") http://www.furnation.com/ostrich
"You cannot be Napoleon! *I* am Napoleon!!"
Bahumat
There's caffeine in Crack Cocaine? Damn, might have to get me some of
that. ;)
Bahumat,
caffeine-free for 2 too many hours.
Bahumat
Bien oui, c'est magnifique! :D
Bahumat,
bilingual dragon
gbres...@my-deja.com
allan...@aol.comNARF (Al Goldman) wrote:
> consider:
>
> 1) Many new furry cons.
> 2) Major rise in public decorum at furry cons
> 3) More discreet access, without banning, constitutionally protected
adult
> material.
> 4) Plenty of G rated material, for those who want it.
> 5) Inability of fandom based groups to force there agenda on the
> fandom.
> 6) Inability of media exposure to damage the fandom since everything
> we do is legal.
>
> We never had it so good - it's a great time to be a furry!
I agree. Completely.
Thank you for putting a little perspective on things, Mr. Goldman. And
for posting something postive, uplifting, and on-topic.
--
--Gene
"Everybody wants to be a cat, 'cause a cat's the only cat who knows
where it's at."
--O'Malley the alley cat, The Aristocats.
Ostrich
say so again. I like Kevin Duane. I'm not entirely sure that I'd
call him a perfect gentleman (and I'm not entirely sure that he'd
appreciate it if I did) but he's intelligent, opinionated, and a lot
of fun to talk to. He attends more cons than anyone else I know,
and has in consequence amassed a fund of bizarre con stories.
He'd be a great talk-show guest. Ask him to tell you about Harlan
Ellison's cowboy hat sometime.
I can't think of a single furry con I've been to in the past 5 years or
so where Kevin hasn't been passing out free food. Sometimes it's
an ice cream party, sometimes pizza or hot sammiches, but it's
always something. Knowing what I do of some folx's con-going
habits, I'll guarantee that there's more than a handful of furs who've
had their only hot meal of the con courtesy of Kevin and his free
pastrami or burgers. I can't think of anyone else who's made a habit
of feeding the poor and hungry at furry cons.
Food's not the only area where his generous character shows. He
gave me a CD once when I begged off buying one on the grounds
that my money ought to be spent on a new drive instead of on media.
His most agreeable trait is that he doesn't view the fandom as a
life and death matter the way that some folx do. I'm not sure
sometimes that he takes anything all that seriously (and certain
things might go more smoothly for him if he *did* treat some
issues with more gravity) but I can guarantee that he's not one
of those dreary people who spend all their time obsessing over
"our public image". He understands that a fandom is something
you participate in for fun.
--
-Ostrich! <") http://www.furnation.com/ostrich
"Data Control and IBM shine as mankind's brothers."
Cerulean
>In article <39FEEF44...@pacbell.net>
> Doodles <dood...@pacbell.net> writes:
>
>>> Nader 2000!
>>> Make your vote count!
>
>>Only part of your screed worth keeping...
>
> What? And vote for the only candidate who's actively interested
>in my early demise? No thank you.
Oookay, tell me why you think Ralph Nader wants you dead.
Are you just taking the sudden association with Blumrich too
seriously? I mean, if I endorse Nader (and I do) does that mean Nader
likes dragons and hates the taste of strawberries? No.
--
___vvz /( Cerulean = Kevin Pease http://cerulean.st/
<__,` Z / ( DC2.~D GmAL~W-R+++Ac~J+S+Fr++IH$M-V+++Cbl,spu
`~~~) )Z) ( FDDmp4adwsA+++$C+D+HM+P-RT+++WZSm#
/ (7 ( hjjnp - ,,77ej +snw shep awos +y6!u H)e3 o+uI,,
Xydexx Squeakypony, KSC
> 1) Many new furry cons.
> 2) Major rise in public decorum at furry cons
> 3) More discreet access, without banning, constitutionally protected
adult
> material.
> 4) Plenty of G rated material, for those who want it.
> 5) Inability of fandom based groups to force there agenda on the
fandom.
> 6) Inability of media exposure to damage the fandom since everything
we do is
> legal.
>
> We never had it so good - it's a great time to be a furry!
*shrug* It's always been a great time to be Furry.
It's just getting better. -:)
--
_________________________________________________
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen / Xydexx Squeakypony, KSC
Sign the petition to keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
ilr
> Oookay, tell me why you think Ralph Nader wants you dead.
> Are you just taking the sudden association with Blumrich too
> seriously? I mean, if I endorse Nader (and I do) does that mean Nader
> likes dragons and hates the taste of strawberries? No.
>
Nope, it's cuz the 'Gang of Steves' is Nader's secret identity.
Elf Sternberg
ma...@cerulean.st (Cerulean) writes:
>Quoth e...@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg):
>
>>>> Nader 2000!
>>>> Make your vote count!
>> What? And vote for the only candidate who's actively interested
>>in my early demise? No thank you.
>Oookay, tell me why you think Ralph Nader wants you dead.
It's not just me. It's you, too.
While the Green Party may be made up of sincere people, Nader
himself endorses the bioethics of The Hasting's Center, one of the larger
bioethics think tanks, and one dedicated to a highly conservative view
of bioethics.
Daniel Callahan, leader of the center, has said, "There is
no known social good coming from the extension of human life beyond
its current limits." In his 1998 book False Hopes, Callahan laments
that the spirit of contemporary medicine "is that of unlimited horizons,
of infinite possibilities of ameliorating the human condition." He
wants "sustainable" medicine that has "embraced finite and steady-state
health goals and has limited aspirations for progress and technological
innovation." (Sound familiar?)
Neocon Leon Klas, another contributer to the center, has likewise
written, "The finitude of life is a blessing. The desire to prolong
youthfulness is not only a childish desire to eat one's life and keep it;
it is also an expression of a childish and narcissistic wish incompatible
with devotion to posterity."
I can't help but wonder what these gentlemen, and Ralph Nader,
who apparently subscribes to their views, will do when death is fast
upon them. Nader's populist notions regarding the pharmaceutical and
medical industries will hamper the ongoing quest for longer, more
productive and pleasurable lives.
I, for one, would rather that we keep our eyes on unlimited
horizons and infinite possibilities. We have one infinite resource,
our very creativity, and Nader's gang would leash that in the name of
an unproven and stagnant "sustainibility."
I can't vote for that. As much as I can't stand either Gush
or Bore, at least they don't actively stand between me and a long life.
Ben_Raccoon
--
For a brief time I was here; and for a brief time I mattered. - Harlan
Ellison.
Shameless website plug. :) http://www.furnation.com/ben_raccoon/
Ben_Raccoon
For a brief time I was here; and for a brief time I mattered. - Harlan
Ellison.
Shameless website plug. :) http://www.furnation.com/ben_raccoon/
"Ben_Raccoon" <Ben_R...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8tqf0a$640$1...@raccoon.fur.com...
Chuck Melville
Random wrote:
>
>
> A naive statement. The fandom was created by fetishists. The fandom
> from the first organized convention on has been about sex with animals
> (in real and imaginary forms).
Wrong, all the way through. It was a fandom organized by various
individuals who all had an interest in general anthropomorphics, ranging from
traditional funny animal cartoons like DONALD DUCK and TOM AND JERRY to new
and less traditional material like ALBEDO; yes, that -included- adult
material like OMAHA and R Crumb's FRITZ THE CAT.
>
>
> The fandom was, is and always will be something anyone looking in on it
> will find to be carnival of bestiality and other animalcentric fetishs.
>
Wrong again. There are plenty of websites existant to prove otherwise,
as well as numerous fanzines and comics of varied content. There is a danger
of being misinterpreted otherwise because -of- the adult material that -does-
exist, and because of those with obsessive and excessive tastes who have
little to no real connection with the fandom, other than their own
insistance... but a misinterpretation is all it is. And thank you for
continuing to prove my point about how influential even a small quantity of
such material can be.
> Accept that and move on.
No, I will not meekly accept people's mistaken and uninformed
assumptions. So step aside.
> The Burned Furs were a bunch of disgruntled furries who were just
> looking for something to bitch about.
Wrong. The BF are a radicalized segment of the fandom fighting for what
they believe is a beter quality of fan anthropomorphics, being fed up with an
overabundance of material they perceive as irrelevant or grossly excessive
and repugnant.
>
> Uh, the fetishists ARE the fandom. There is no real non-sexual part.
Still wrong. There is a -lot- of furry fandom that is G or PG rated. (I
hesitate to say 'non-sexual, since that seems to imply neutered.)
> Oh, there are some smoke and mirrors to hide that fact like Yerf, but
> most of the Yerf artists still draw the spooge and post it to other
> furry archives.
Nobody ever claimed that they -didn't- draw more adult pictures. Point
is that they relegate it to more appropriate sites. And your statement is
too broad, because there are a number of artists on Yerf who -don't- draw
Adult material.
> The most damning evidence against the fandom is the
> existence of a movement to 'clean it up' and the fact they had to make
> a special archive for 'clean' furry art.
Still wrong. The clean archives that exist are because there are those
who do not want work archived with Adult work. Maybe because they don't like
such work, but many simply wanted sites where they could display it where
they wouldn't have to worry about whether or not the other material would
offend them. That would be a concern regardless or not it the material were
furry.
> Uh.. Those 'thousands' who put forth that effort were for the most part
> the same fetishist you were railing against. They ARE the fandom. Hell,
> the BFs are full of spoogers like MMM and even Rich Chandler hangs out
> with them. The fact alone that someone like Chandler hob-nobs with them
> PROVES they failed.
Wrong. A lot of folks in the fandom take neither side... or at least are
just not aligned with one group or the other, for whatever reason. At any
rate, you keep the erroneous belief that Furry Fandom and fetishism are
somehow equivalent, and obviously they are not.
>
> . Of course, all spooge has a definite
> bestiality undertone. I'd go so far as to characterize it as softcore
> bestiality.
Yes, but we all know what an idiot you are already. Especially in making
such a stupid statement like that.
>
> That's like trying to rehabilitate Hustler or Penthouse. Furry art is
> primarly spooge and the fandom is about the furry fetishs. If you
> remove the fetishs, you'd have nothing.
Wrong again. There is plenty of furry art on and off the web that have
nothing to do with fetishes. A lot more that have nothing to do with sex.
>
>
>
>
> (Kevin Duane's) pretty universally reviled within the fandom, strangely.
> Other
> porn pushers like Blinkie and Winkler are better regarded. Gonna go
> after them?
You are misinformed. Elin Winkler is not a porn pusher.
>
>
> Xydexx is one amoung the majority of the fandom.
Xxydex is unique amongst himself.... for which I remain grateful.
> Well, fuck you, too. I'm not a part of the furry fandom. I
> never was. I'm just someone who happened by to jeer at the freaks.
Of course you have; it's typical thirteen year-old humor from a jaded,
smartass thirteen year-old.
>
> Until you summoned me back to AFF with my name, I'd pretty much quit
> jeering, however. But TRY to get it thru your alcohol-fortified thick
> head that the fandom is just a collection of associated fetiths and not
> something you can 'fix'.
And once more, wrong again.
Don't be a stranger, now.
airwo...@my-deja.com
31100010...@1cust160.tnt2.ind1.da.uu.net>,
thetal...@mailandnews.com (Richard de Wylfin) wrote:
> In article <8FDE43470...@news.fysh.org>,
hall...@worldnet.att.net
> (Farlo) wrote:
>
> > Brian O'connell wrote:
> >
> > >And Jonestown was mass suicide,
> > >technically those guys died at their own hands...;)
> >
> > There where goons with machine guns ... it was drink tainted Kool
Aid or
> > risk a couple dozen bullets. Not much of a choice.
>
> Exactly. A great many of those who died at Jonestown were small
> children who were much too young to understand what was going on.
> A big percentage of the "mass suicide" was really murder.
>
> Don't want Bush elected? See http://www.nadertrader.com
>
FYI. Those who "gave a damn" create important things and save real
lives. They are Doctors and Cops and Firemen and social workers. The
persons he is talking about are fundamentalist/extremists. Always watch
out for those that KNOW the TRUTH.
Rust
> FYI. Those who "gave a damn" create important things and save real
> lives. They are Doctors and Cops and Firemen and social workers. The
> persons he is talking about are fundamentalist/extremists. Always watch
> out for those that KNOW the TRUTH.
I think there's two kinds of "giving a damn". There's the type that
helps, and the type that harms. You see both at work all over the
world. And really, I suppose we can be thankful that most[1] of us are
windbags as opposed to honest-to-goodness extremists.
[1]: If not all, but you can't get too cocky when there's someone
yelling bullets at the back of your head.
fka...@my-deja.com
I was gonna sit back and watch the fireworks, but that was just
plain retarded, "elf."
Ralph Nader is a sterling individual who has spent his entire
professional life in defense of the american citizen. He's selflessly
devoted himself over the past 35 years to improve the quality of life
in America. If it weren't for him, we wouldn't have seatbelts, we
wouldn't have the clean air act- nor the freedom of information act- we
woulnd't have the simple right to know what food companies put into the
porducts we buy.
He is a man of unimpeachable moral and ethical character who has,
within his lifetime, become a pop icon on the basis of public advocacy.
I think all of you should take this as an example of what lengths
BFs opposition will go to defame our effort, and our goals:
In an effort to defame his own non-existent ethical standard, "elf"
here has thrown metaphorical red paint on this century's greatest
public advocate. He doesn't even have the courage to go after Ralph
personally- he chauvinistcally equates a distant green party advocate
(and the green party, as all parties do, have a wide range of opinions
within their ranks.)
Be ashamed, "elf"- be VERY ashamed.
I had the pleasure of seeing Ralph speak in NYC this last week-
and I am not ashamed to say that it brought tears to my eyes- here was
a man who won't lie to get your vote- a man who was not for sale- a man
who I know for certain, whether he wins or not- will continue to fight
for what is right. One day, I hope I can be 1/100th as great as he is,
and yet display the humility and honor that he does.
-NADER 2000!
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen
> Xxydex is unique amongst himself.... for which I remain grateful.
Yeah. Me too. -:)
--
_________________________________________________
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen / Xydexx Squeakypony, KSC
Anthrofurry Infocenter:
http://www.xydexx.com/anthrofurry
Rust
> I think all of you should take this as an example of what lengths
> BFs opposition will go to defame our effort, and our goals:
And I think you should shave your eyebrows, for the betterment of
Humanity at large. Martin Luther King would've done it!
Farlo
>I can't think of anyone else who's made a habit
>of feeding the poor and hungry at furry cons.
That is generous! If he makes a habit of bringing food and good cheer to
cons, I can only praise him.
--
Farlo
Urban fey dragon
Do not stand in my way -
I will walk around you.
m>^_^<m
Farlo
>Chuck Melville wrote:
>> Xxydex is unique amongst himself.... for which I remain grateful.
>
>Yeah. Me too. -:)
Mass-produced Xydexi ... fear the inflatable pony herd!
Wow ... Xydexx in, like, MAJOR stereo ...
"Life is like, living in stereo"
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen
> Karl Xydexx Jorgensen wrote:
> >Chuck Melville wrote:
> >> Xxydex is unique amongst himself.... for which I remain grateful.
> >
> >Yeah. Me too. -:)
>
> Mass-produced Xydexi ... fear the inflatable pony herd!
Cry havoc, and let slip the Bouncing Rubber Ponies of Offensive
Ky00teness!
Muahahaha.
Cerulean
> I think all of you should take this as an example of what lengths
>BFs opposition will go to defame our effort, and our goals:
Your defense of Nader is admirable, but you lose twice as many points
for the assumption that this has anything to do with _you._ Ralph
Nader is not part of "your effort" and "your goals," nor do I think
anyone is under such a delusion. I even asked Elf as much, and he
supplied a completely different reason for his position, which means
the answer was no. And yet still, you managed to read this silliness
about how we should throw money at crackpot pseudoscientists who think
they can make us all immortal (so that there soon wouldn't be enough
standing room for us in the Universe, much less the Earth), and decide
that it was an attack on _you_ and Burned Fur.
I doubt it's so much paranoia as an incredibly inflated perception of
your own importance. If anybody is basing their vote for President of
the United States on the infighting in fvcking _furry_fandom,_ they
have bigger psychological problems than any of us have ever witnessed
in the history of the hobby. Nobody is that far gone, I should hope.
Random
That's cool. Time again to face the great furry lie.
In article <3A00CDA8...@zipcon.com>, Chuck Melville
<cp...@zipcon.com> wrote:
<snip>
> Wrong, all the way through. It was a fandom organized by various
> individuals who all had an interest in general anthropomorphics, ranging from
> traditional funny animal cartoons like DONALD DUCK and TOM AND JERRY to new
> and less traditional material like ALBEDO; yes, that -included- adult
> material like OMAHA and R Crumb's FRITZ THE CAT.
Here's part of the lie right off the bat. Melville wants to pretend
that the furry fandom is some of kind of generalized fandom for
anthropomorphic and funny animals. This is dead wrong and the facts
bear that out. If it were, it would be a lot more like the sci fi and
comic fandoms. All the sci fi authors, actors from sci fi related shows
and movies and others involved with sci fi on a professional level go
to sci fi cons. It's part of their marketing efforts. The same goes for
the comic fandom and ther cons. Hell, even the RPG gamers and their
cons do that. But with furry, there is no professional element. In
fact, no one from Disney, WB or any other legit animation company
wouldn't be caught dead at a furry con. It's career suicide for any
artist who wants to work outside furry to be associated with it. Why?
Because it's a seedy adult fandom based on fetishes.
<snip>
>
> Wrong again. There are plenty of websites existant to prove otherwise,
> as well as numerous fanzines and comics of varied content. There is a danger
> of being misinterpreted otherwise because -of- the adult material that -does-
> exist, and because of those with obsessive and excessive tastes who have
> little to no real connection with the fandom, other than their own
> insistance... but a misinterpretation is all it is. And thank you for
> continuing to prove my point about how influential even a small quantity of
> such material can be.
Small quanity? Uh.. Searching on most any websearch engine for furry
will get you a bunch of furry site and they're all full of adult
content and worthy of submitting to PoE. If there are any other kind of
furry websites, they're VERY well hidden.
> > Accept that and move on.
>
> No, I will not meekly accept people's mistaken and uninformed
> assumptions. So step aside.
Uh, that message as actually directed toward Blumrich. You're a die
hard nyce furry apologist. The dick you have permanately lodged in your
ass belongs to the furry fandom, so you ain't going anywhere.
> > The Burned Furs were a bunch of disgruntled furries who were just
> > looking for something to bitch about.
>
> Wrong. The BF are a radicalized segment of the fandom fighting for what
> they believe is a beter quality of fan anthropomorphics, being fed up with an
> overabundance of material they perceive as irrelevant or grossly excessive
> and repugnant.
No, those aren't Burned Furries. Those are the people who leave the
furry fandom. I know a bunch of them. And in fact, I've helped people
who felt that way leave. The Burned Fur are just another group of
whiney furries doing one of the things furries love to do-- infight.
> >
> > Uh, the fetishists ARE the fandom. There is no real non-sexual part.
>
> Still wrong. There is a -lot- of furry fandom that is G or PG rated. (I
> hesitate to say 'non-sexual, since that seems to imply neutered.)
What a furry calls 'G' or 'PG' rated is what the rest of America knows
as 'R' rated. Furries have a weird scale of acceptablity. The only
'clean' spot is Yerf and you get away with murder there if you
Arsenault's pal.
<snip>
> Nobody ever claimed that they -didn't- draw more adult pictures. Point
> is that they relegate it to more appropriate sites. And your statement is
> too broad, because there are a number of artists on Yerf who -don't- draw
> Adult material.
The only people still active on Yerf who haven't drawn spooge yet are
the ones who haven't gotten around it. The ones who WON'T draw spooge
wind out leaving the fandom.
<snip>
> Still wrong. The clean archives that exist are because there are those
> who do not want work archived with Adult work. Maybe because they don't like
> such work, but many simply wanted sites where they could display it where
> they wouldn't have to worry about whether or not the other material would
> offend them. That would be a concern regardless or not it the material were
> furry.
You wish. Other fandoms have special resources and lables for the adult
elements. Trek has slash and anime has hentai. Furry is backwards.
Unless you look at Yerf, you're guaranteed to see spooge when you look
at a furry archive.
<snip>
>
> Wrong. A lot of folks in the fandom take neither side... or at least are
> just not aligned with one group or the other, for whatever reason. At any
> rate, you keep the erroneous belief that Furry Fandom and fetishism are
> somehow equivalent, and obviously they are not.
Actually, since the fandom is an adult one, you can safely assume that
they're there to satisfy their carnal desires for which every style of
animal they have it for. It's like saying people read playboy for the
articles to assume anything else.
> >
> > . Of course, all spooge has a definite
> > bestiality undertone. I'd go so far as to characterize it as softcore
> > bestiality.
>
> Yes, but we all know what an idiot you are already. Especially in making
> such a stupid statement like that.
Oh, you might as well said 'You're right' as made that lame insult.
Every other point I've made you try to make a counterpoint, but not
this one. Oh, I'm sure you'll come back with a 'it was so lame, it
wasn't worth it' line to save face, but it's too little too late. But
I'll explain my point further. Bestialists anthropomorphize their
victims in such a manner that they can rationalize their abusive deeds
by claiming their victins consent and enjoy sex as a human does. In
depicting animals in human shapes having sex with humans and even other
animals (in human shapes or not) you create a literal graphic
representation of the way bestialists rationalize their perversion.
> >
> > That's like trying to rehabilitate Hustler or Penthouse. Furry art is
> > primarly spooge and the fandom is about the furry fetishs. If you
> > remove the fetishs, you'd have nothing.
>
> Wrong again. There is plenty of furry art on and off the web that have
> nothing to do with fetishes. A lot more that have nothing to do with sex.
Of course. And there really is a Santa Claus, too. 'Clean' furry art
comes in the forms of pin-ups and more strongly implied sexuality.
<snip>
> You are misinformed. Elin Winkler is not a porn pusher.
She isn't? Since when did she stop selling spooge filled fanzines like
Genus?
> Xxydex is unique amongst himself.... for which I remain grateful.
Are you unfamilar with the lifestyler element of the furry fandom? He's
quite typical of them.
>
> > Well, fuck you, too. I'm not a part of the furry fandom. I
> > never was. I'm just someone who happened by to jeer at the freaks.
>
> Of course you have; it's typical thirteen year-old humor from a jaded,
> smartass thirteen year-old.
Well, I'm sure you have much more experience with thirteen years olds
than I do, so I can't argue about what they do or are like. And I'm not
accusing you of luring any of them into a van with pokeyman cards or
candy, of course. But I can't help but wonder what sort of vehicle you
do drive.
--Random
ilr
So what Elf? When was the last time a cure for a major disease was discovered?
Jonas Saulk's if I'm not mistaken. Think about what the majority of Pharmaceuticals
are out there on the market these days. I'll give ya a hint, "Lifestyle Drugs". The
Drug Market(whether you're talking about the drugs created by companies like
Pfizer, and endorsed by approval from the Government *cough* "lobbyism" *cough*
OR the truly illegal drugs that make up the second highest level of income for IRS--
via the DEA), WANTS life-time customers. Curing people is not the goal of the
major "medical" drug companies. Everyone's seen atleast one of those commercials,
the one for the frivolous drug that has twice as many side-effects as a Thunder-Fuck
Blunt! And I'd bet that the only reason they actually have to list all their side-effects
is because of the hard work of people like Nader. That's not living longer, that's
just one more huge monthly bill disguised as "comfort" and "convenience".
Though I've heard of work being done by scientists to develop a drug that
stops the break-down of DNA. They said that simply put, Old Age is a cancer.
Its probably not that simple since that "cancer" is hard-wired into our DNA.
But Nader and his cronies would have to be real KOOKS to try and stop the
development of a drug like that. In fact, I'm sure they'd support any drug that
fights cancer of any type, since most cancers have been proven to be caused by
environmental pollutants and contaminants.
And the worst side to today's drug industries are the one's being produced for
animals. Growth hormones, aka, Steroids, and about a million other agricultural
drugs that are supposed to improve foods, but the only things they actually do
are boost profits for investors of pork bellies and agricultural drug companies.
Oh yeah, they also make your food taste shitty-bland.
-Ilr
Elf Sternberg <e...@halcyon.com> wrote in message news:8tq37h$29r$1...@brokaw.wa.com...
Timothy Fay
Center; Thomas Murray is President and CEO (though Callahan is a
former president and co-founder of the Center).
Secondly, to characterize the Center as "conservative" is naive,
at best; it's own charter states that, "the Hastings Center brings
together a broad range of people from many disciplines." Such
an oranization, based on interdisciplinary research, will represent
a variety of opinions. A quick review of some of the centers'
literature supports that ( http://www.thehastingscenter.org/ ).
Callahan's views aren't necessarily those of the Hastings Center,
and it is unfair to both the Center and Ralph Nader to insinuate
otherwise. I don't *automatically* assume George W. Bush is a
homophobe just because the leaders of his party include mindless
bigots like Trent Lott and Jesse Helms. Likewise, I have *never*
heard Ralph Nader endorse any of the ideas or positions you allege
in your post.
This information has all the earmarks of the last-minute smear
campaign being waged against Nader by so-called liberals in the
Democratic party. Coupled with the misinformation about the
Hastings Center, I have to wonder just where you got this alleged
dope on Ralph. A man who has spent decades fighting against
life-threatening corporate negligence and greed does not turn
around and dismiss peoples' desire to live a long, healthy life
as "narcissitic." And far from hampering that goal, Nader's
"populist notions regarding the pharmaceutical and medical
industries" stand out in sharp contrast to the corporate-
controlled candidates of the Republican and Democratic parties.
It makes no sense to have the best health care system in the
world if no one can afford to use it, and neither Bush nor Gore
have any real desire to change the status quo.
--
http://www.umn.edu/~fayxx001
"Bowl a strike, not a spare -- revolution everywhere!" -RABL motto
fka...@my-deja.com
I cannot believe how thick-headed you are. I knew I was casting
pearls before swine, but this takes the cake...
I shall be magnanimous and spell it out in terms that a five-
year old can understand- so that maybe in a few years, you can look
this up and be at the level to understand it...
In making the statement:
> > I think all of you should take this as an example of what lengths
> >BFs opposition will go to defame our effort, and our goals:
I was not making any parallels or comparisons between the sterling
efforts of Ralph Nader and BF. I was stating that this is an example
of how deluded our detractors are: that they exist in a mindset so
twisted, so divorced from reality, that they even believe such a benign
and charitable person as Ralph is an evil boogeyman.
Got that? Or do all of the polysyllabic words confuse you?
Be grateful that I wasted two minutes of my life addressing your
inane statements- you can be sure it won't happen again...
Ostrich
>
> While the Green Party may be made up of sincere people, Nader
> himself endorses the bioethics of The Hasting's Center, one of the larger
> bioethics think tanks, and one dedicated to a highly conservative view
> of bioethics.
Elf makes a really good point here. The Hastings Center website
is at http://www.thehastingscenter.org/, if you'd like to see for
yourselves. They describe themselves a nonpartisan group
addressing the ethics of the problems caused by medical and
scientific advances, and I suppose that in the sense of traditional
left/right politics they probably are nonpartisan. In all my life,
however, I can't think of a single scientific or medical advance
that an "ethics expert" approved of. In that sense bioethicists
are strictly partisan. They're opposed to Progress.
Think back on the times you've read newspaper or magazine
articles about an advance in medicine or science. The generally
make a habit of quoting an 'ethicist', and the ethicist always says
the same thing. They want to go slow. They want to put
deployment of the new technology on hold indefinitely, while
they study all the ethical ramifications. If anyone can cite a
single instance where an ethicist actually favoured advancing
technology, I'd be delighted to hear of it.
I'd not been going to vote for Nader anyway, as I was pretty
sure on general principle that he'd cut funding for science
even further than Bush or Gore would. To find that he's
connected with something like the Hastings Center just
confirms my misgivings.
For those who want to see (or become) RL furries in your lifetimes,
you'd do well to realize that bioethicists are the biggest block in
the road.
Chuck Melville
Random wrote:
> Oh, look.. A nyce widdle fuwwy apologyst cock sucker wants some of me.
> That's cool. Time again to face the great furry lie.
Oh, good! Another intellectual discourse -- I can tell by the level of the
dialogue offered thus far.
>
>
> In article <3A00CDA8...@zipcon.com>, Chuck Melville
> <cp...@zipcon.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Wrong, all the way through. It was a fandom organized by various
> > individuals who all had an interest in general anthropomorphics, ranging from
> > traditional funny animal cartoons like DONALD DUCK and TOM AND JERRY to new
> > and less traditional material like ALBEDO; yes, that -included- adult
> > material like OMAHA and R Crumb's FRITZ THE CAT.
>
> Here's part of the lie right off the bat. Melville wants to pretend
> that the furry fandom is some of kind of generalized fandom for
> anthropomorphic and funny animals. This is dead wrong and the facts
> bear that out. If it were, it would be a lot more like the sci fi and
> comic fandoms. All the sci fi authors, actors from sci fi related shows
> and movies and others involved with sci fi on a professional level go
> to sci fi cons. It's part of their marketing efforts. The same goes for
> the comic fandom and ther cons. Hell, even the RPG gamers and their
> cons do that. But with furry, there is no professional element. In
> fact, no one from Disney, WB or any other legit animation company
> wouldn't be caught dead at a furry con. It's career suicide for any
> artist who wants to work outside furry to be associated with it. Why?
> Because it's a seedy adult fandom based on fetishes.
>
Wrong again. Besides the fact that several of the pro furries work or have
done work for several animation studios or major mainstream comic companies, we
have also had non-furry professionals attend the cons as special guests. We've
had the director of Disney's animated TV series attend Confurence (wish I could
recall his name just now), as have SF authors S Andrew Swan and Alan Dean Foster.
We've had famed SF illustrator Frank Kelly Freas come to a few cons (and, by his
own word, was absolutely delighted by the experience). Syndicated cartoonist Bill
Holbrook (FASTRACK, KEVIN AND KELL) is a regular attendee. Further Confusion just
announced that SF author Poul Anderson will be one of their GOHs next year. What
part of this are you not getting?
> > Wrong again. There are plenty of websites existant to prove otherwise,
> > as well as numerous fanzines and comics of varied content. There is a danger
> > of being misinterpreted otherwise because -of- the adult material that -does-
> > exist, and because of those with obsessive and excessive tastes who have
> > little to no real connection with the fandom, other than their own
> > insistance... but a misinterpretation is all it is. And thank you for
> > continuing to prove my point about how influential even a small quantity of
> > such material can be.
>
> Small quanity? Uh.. Searching on most any websearch engine for furry
> will get you a bunch of furry site and they're all full of adult
> content and worthy of submitting to PoE. If there are any other kind of
> furry websites, they're VERY well hidden.
Then you're not looking hard enough, and settling only for the first few sites
that come your way. They -are- out there. Of course, you continue to exhibit an
attitude that considers a very wide definition of adult content anyway, as in
"Look! There's a guy and there's a girl! Goddamm sex perverts!" And by your
given statement (All Furry sites are fetish sites, etc), then even a single
g-rated site proves you wrong; that's the problem with being an absolutist. Want
G-rated furry? Try the Carspeckens, or the Ozy and Millie site or Mark Stanley,
or maybe even the Tai-Pan web site, to name a few.
>
> > > Accept that and move on.
> >
> > No, I will not meekly accept people's mistaken and uninformed
> > assumptions. So step aside.
>
> Uh, that message as actually directed toward Blumrich. You're a die
> hard nyce furry apologist. The dick you have permanately lodged in your
> ass belongs to the furry fandom, so you ain't going anywhere.
Wrong. I'm just somebody who -isn't- a furry, who nevertheless doesn't like
juvenile smartass dickhead bullies who know absolutely nothing about what they're
talking about but bluster ahead with their own missassumptions and make absolutely
stupid statements and pronoucements as if it were the God-given truth, flying in
the face of the facts about them. We call that Lying, by the way. And you're on
a public forum; you want to direct a statement to Eric, take it to e-mail. Here,
you're fair game.
> > > The Burned Furs were a bunch of disgruntled furries who were just
> > > looking for something to bitch about.
> >
> > Wrong. The BF are a radicalized segment of the fandom fighting for what
> > they believe is a beter quality of fan anthropomorphics, being fed up with an
> > overabundance of material they perceive as irrelevant or grossly excessive
> > and repugnant.
>
> No, those aren't Burned Furries. Those are the people who leave the
> furry fandom. I know a bunch of them. And in fact, I've helped people
> who felt that way leave. The Burned Fur are just another group of
> whiney furries doing one of the things furries love to do-- infight.
>
Wrong. The Burned Furries are as I described them: a radicalized faction
within the group. Infight!? What group doesn't? But don't judge the whole by
this sampling here; as anyone else will be quick to tell you, most furries don't
even -read- AFF. What you see here is a miniscule portion of the whole; most post
to other, private NGs, or on mailing lists, staying far wide of this place; most
others don't post at all.
>
> > >
> > > Uh, the fetishists ARE the fandom. There is no real non-sexual part.
> >
> > Still wrong. There is a -lot- of furry fandom that is G or PG rated. (I
> > hesitate to say 'non-sexual, since that seems to imply neutered.)
>
> What a furry calls 'G' or 'PG' rated is what the rest of America knows
> as 'R' rated. Furries have a weird scale of acceptablity. The only
> 'clean' spot is Yerf and you get away with murder there if you
> Arsenault's pal.
Can't speak to the charges against Scotty because I have no idea what you're
talking about. But your own myopia is showing, as it usually does. We consider G
or PG to be -exactly- what the rest of America considers it... more accurately, we
define it the way the Movie Rating Boards do, since that's the example generally
followed. Regionally, America itself has a dozen or more different ideas what
constitutes G, PG, R and X. But your own bias shows everytime you open your
mouth; you basically consider anything that's anthropomorphic to be Adult
matieral, so what does -that- tell us?
>
>
>
> > Nobody ever claimed that they -didn't- draw more adult pictures. Point
> > is that they relegate it to more appropriate sites. And your statement is
> > too broad, because there are a number of artists on Yerf who -don't- draw
> > Adult material.
>
> The only people still active on Yerf who haven't drawn spooge yet are
> the ones who haven't gotten around it. The ones who WON'T draw spooge
> wind out leaving the fandom.
>
Well that's about the most -obviously- assinine and imbecillic thing you've
said thus far. The only ones who haven't drawn spooge are those who haven't
gotten around to it yet!? Wow! That means that most celebrities aren't murderers
simply because they haven't gotten around to it yet; most American Presidents
aren't sexual predators simply because they haven't gotten around to it yet; most
Blacks aren't druggies because they haven't gotten around to it yet...
Do I really need to go on?
>
>
> > Still wrong. The clean archives that exist are because there are those
> > who do not want work archived with Adult work. Maybe because they don't like
> > such work, but many simply wanted sites where they could display it where
> > they wouldn't have to worry about whether or not the other material would
> > offend them. That would be a concern regardless or not it the material were
> > furry.
>
> You wish. Other fandoms have special resources and lables for the adult
> elements. Trek has slash and anime has hentai. Furry is backwards.
> Unless you look at Yerf, you're guaranteed to see spooge when you look
> at a furry archive.
>
Sucker bet, since there are only four or five archives (to my knowledge.) You
also have to keep in mind that Furry is smaller and younger; we're still creating
those specialized niches the other fandoms have, and that's one of the reasons why
there's so much tension here. You think maybe the other fandoms didn't have the
same growing pains? Try working on a few SF cons and watch how the infighting
grows when it comes to specific interests and how (or whether) they should be
included. Even so, my statement stands.
> >
> > Wrong. A lot of folks in the fandom take neither side... or at least are
> > just not aligned with one group or the other, for whatever reason. At any
> > rate, you keep the erroneous belief that Furry Fandom and fetishism are
> > somehow equivalent, and obviously they are not.
>
> Actually, since the fandom is an adult one, you can safely assume that
> they're there to satisfy their carnal desires for which every style of
> animal they have it for. It's like saying people read playboy for the
> articles to assume anything else.
You're saying you -don't- read the articles? Pity; the interviews are often
one of the best things in the mag.
No, you can't safely assume that; there's always a danger when you make blind
assumptions. You -can- assume that -some- do so, and you can safely assume that
there -is- a strong probability because there -is- adult material. Your biggest
problem is your myopia; you continue to pigeonhole the fandom and expect that
everyone is going to do exactly as you fully expect them to do. The interest of
the Adult material varies from individual to individual: some want nothing but;
others want nothing to do with it; some like some Adult stuff, but prefer more of
the non-adult. Your assumptions tell us more about -you- than it does about Furry
Fandom.
>
> > >
> > > . Of course, all spooge has a definite
> > > bestiality undertone. I'd go so far as to characterize it as softcore
> > > bestiality.
> >
> > Yes, but we all know what an idiot you are already. Especially in making
> > such a stupid statement like that.
>
> Oh, you might as well said 'You're right' as made that lame insult.
> Every other point I've made you try to make a counterpoint, but not
> this one. Oh, I'm sure you'll come back with a 'it was so lame, it
> wasn't worth it' line to save face, but it's too little too late. But
> I'll explain my point further.
Not lame at all. I simply wanted to make it clear that I -do- consider you to
be an idiot, and that your statement that 'all spooge has a bestiality undertone'
and that you'd characterize it as 'softcore bestiality' is one of the most idiotic
statements you've made. Ranks right up there with the one you made earlier in
this post. Again, it tells us a good deal more about -you- and what -you-
consider to be sexually improper, and how -you- define sexuality than it does
about Furry Fandom.
> Bestialists anthropomorphize their
> victims in such a manner that they can rationalize their abusive deeds
> by claiming their victins consent and enjoy sex as a human does. In
> depicting animals in human shapes having sex with humans and even other
> animals (in human shapes or not) you create a literal graphic
> representation of the way bestialists rationalize their perversion.
But, again, you're -assuming- this to be the case. And while I've no doubt
this was true among the elements we've been trying to weed out, you certainly
cannot make this case against the main of the fandom. I mean, someone who's
drawing Sonic the Hedgehog fan art is creating a graphic representation that they
can fantasize sex with!? You read too much into it.
>
> > >
> > > That's like trying to rehabilitate Hustler or Penthouse. Furry art is
> > > primarly spooge and the fandom is about the furry fetishs. If you
> > > remove the fetishs, you'd have nothing.
> >
> > Wrong again. There is plenty of furry art on and off the web that have
> > nothing to do with fetishes. A lot more that have nothing to do with sex.
>
> Of course. And there really is a Santa Claus, too.
Gasp! You mean... there's not!?
> 'Clean' furry art
> comes in the forms of pin-ups and more strongly implied sexuality.
> <snip>
I would consider pin-ups to be essentially harmless. But I wasn't referring
to that. There are a large number of artists who draw cartoons, sketches and
scenarios involving SF or fantasy worlds with anthropomorphic characters, a lot of
times just drawing themselves and their friends. No sex involved. You need to
get around more.
>
> > You are misinformed. Elin Winkler is not a porn pusher.
>
> She isn't? Since when did she stop selling spooge filled fanzines like
> Genus?
First off, GENUS is a comic, not a fanzine. Secondly, publishing one Adult
book (or even two) against a regular schedule of five or six regular titles does
not make her a porn pusher. Get real. If she published nothing but, I could
accept the definition, but she's a comic publisher with a niche market who
publishes a range of varied interests -within- that niche. Might as well call
SPORTS ILLUSTRATED a porn zine because it does an annual swimsuit issue.
>
>
> > Xxydex is unique amongst himself.... for which I remain grateful.
>
> Are you unfamilar with the lifestyler element of the furry fandom? He's
> quite typical of them.
>
And even among them he's unique. Trust me, I'm not complimenting him.
>
> >
> > > Well, fuck you, too. I'm not a part of the furry fandom. I
> > > never was. I'm just someone who happened by to jeer at the freaks.
> >
> > Of course you have; it's typical thirteen year-old humor from a jaded,
> > smartass thirteen year-old.
>
> Well, I'm sure you have much more experience with thirteen years olds
> than I do, so I can't argue about what they do or are like. And I'm not
> accusing you of luring any of them into a van with pokeyman cards or
> candy, of course. But I can't help but wonder what sort of vehicle you
> do drive.
I take public transit.
Hey, if the shoe fits and all that. I have yet to see anything from you that
doesn't reek of juvenile intent or intellect; you've said yourself that you've
only come to 'jeer at the freaks', and that is hardly the act of a mature
individual. Nor has any of your previous visitiations here proven otherwise. The
evidence thus far is that you're nothing more than a bored adolescent who enjoys
pulling wings from flies. Not having a fly at hand, you drop by here, complete
with all of your infantile wit, arrogance, preconceptions and emotional baggage.
Just don't expect us to be fooled.
Enjoy your stay.
M. Naschatya
I appreciate people with strong opinions and great passions, who
really care about what they're doing. But I can't help but wonder if
those passions are turned to the right things, sometimes. Eric, I've
admired your artwork since I met you about a million years ago, but I'm
not sure your way of handling what you dislike is having the result you
desire. Burned Fur and organizations like it simply promote the things
they dislike by pointing fingers at them. Why do you think the most
outrageous artists craved negative attention? It gave them free
advertising in newspapers and by word-of-mouth, and people would come
to their exhibits out of curiosity. 'What's all the fuss about?'
I, too, want a fandom that I would enjoy. I work toward creating
that fandom. My philosophy? I want to hang out with people who enjoy
good art and writing, commercial or fan-created. I want to be part of a
fandom that enjoys the anthropomorphic themes that come up in
mainstream culture. I want to be able to listen to discussions about
how ancient religions incorporated the animal aspect into their daily
rituals, or about how the latest movie has a talking computer, or
whether aliens with fur are 'furries' as such, or something else.
I try to create this fandom by contributing what I'd like to see to
it. I write stories and send them to magazines, professional, semi-
professional and non-paying. I draw art I'd like to see, send it to
conventions, make it available on my website and other sites. I give my
art to magazines and fanzines and APAzines. I try to encourage creators
that I like. I send book reviews and articles to places like Fuzzy
Logic E-Zine because I'd like to see Fuzzy Logic continue. I buy books
from commercial and small press book houses that have furry themes. I
go to mainstream sf conventions and show them what I like to think of
as furry--without labels, because labels aren't needed if the work is -
good-. And I try to do all these things in a way that reduces entropy:
not by fighting with others. Not by pointing out that they're wrong.
Not by participating in politics that have nothing to do with why I
hang out in the fandom's circles. I'm here to enjoy anthropomorphics .
. . not to argue from a pulpit.
Hang out with the people you like. Do the things you'd want others
to do. Disregard what you dislike. If you really want to be a positive
force for change, one that doesn't operate by destroying, one that
doesn't burden itself with the consequences of personality conflicts
and politics, then be the creator or the fan you'd want to keep in the
fandom. I bet you'll make a bigger difference that way.
--
-- M. Naschatya
Buy Alysha's Fall at Amazon!
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0970280505/
Visit my webpage, updated weekly. http://www.stardancer.org
Random
<cp...@zipcon.com> wrote:
Hot damn. Furries just can't learn. You slap them and they always come
back for more.
<snip>
>
> Wrong again. Besides the fact that several of the pro furries work or
> have
> done work for several animation studios or major mainstream comic companies,
> we
> have also had non-furry professionals attend the cons as special guests.
> We've
> had the director of Disney's animated TV series attend Confurence (wish I
> could
> recall his name just now), as have SF authors S Andrew Swan and Alan Dean
> Foster.
> We've had famed SF illustrator Frank Kelly Freas come to a few cons (and, by
> his
> own word, was absolutely delighted by the experience). Syndicated cartoonist
> Bill
> Holbrook (FASTRACK, KEVIN AND KELL) is a regular attendee. Further Confusion
> just
> announced that SF author Poul Anderson will be one of their GOHs next year.
> What
> part of this are you not getting?
Uh, starting off with a blatant lie is pretty slick there, hoss. I'm
amazed you didn't make up some names you could tell me that I needed to
'get out more' when I said I hadn't heard of them. I seriously doubt
your assertion about Swan, Foster, etc., but I HOPE you're not making
up the thing about Anderson. He's a pretty devout Catholic, so when he
sees the sicko furry pervos at FC, they'll be a shitstorm.
<snip>
> Then you're not looking hard enough, and settling only for the first few
> sites
> that come your way. They -are- out there. Of course, you continue to
> exhibit an
> attitude that considers a very wide definition of adult content anyway, as in
> "Look! There's a guy and there's a girl! Goddamm sex perverts!" And by your
> given statement (All Furry sites are fetish sites, etc), then even a single
> g-rated site proves you wrong; that's the problem with being an absolutist.
> Want
> G-rated furry? Try the Carspeckens, or the Ozy and Millie site or Mark
> Stanley,
> or maybe even the Tai-Pan web site, to name a few.
Assuming you're not just making those up, they're prolly the only 4
clean furry site on the web.
<snip>
> Wrong. I'm just somebody who -isn't- a furry, who nevertheless doesn't
> like
> juvenile smartass dickhead bullies who know absolutely nothing about what
> they're
> talking about but bluster ahead with their own missassumptions and make
> absolutely
> stupid statements and pronoucements as if it were the God-given truth, flying
> in
> the face of the facts about them. We call that Lying, by the way. And
> you're on
> a public forum; you want to direct a statement to Eric, take it to e-mail.
> Here,
> you're fair game.
You're not a furry? Oh, man. That's rich. An ex-peddler of spooge ISN'T
a furry. Good one. You're a stone cold liar, bitch boy. You started off
your post making shit up, but this is beyond outrageous. Next you'll
tell me up is down and left is right.
<snip>
>
> Wrong. The Burned Furries are as I described them: a radicalized faction
> within the group. Infight!? What group doesn't? But don't judge the whole
> by
> this sampling here; as anyone else will be quick to tell you, most furries
> don't
> even -read- AFF. What you see here is a miniscule portion of the whole; most
> post
> to other, private NGs, or on mailing lists, staying far wide of this place;
> most
> others don't post at all.
Heh. Furries have a reputation for infighting. Every group infights,
sure, but not every group does it with the zeal and frequency that
furries exhibit.
<snip>
> Can't speak to the charges against Scotty because I have no idea what
> you're
> talking about. But your own myopia is showing, as it usually does. We
> consider G
> or PG to be -exactly- what the rest of America considers it... more
> accurately, we
> define it the way the Movie Rating Boards do, since that's the example
> generally
> followed. Regionally, America itself has a dozen or more different ideas what
> constitutes G, PG, R and X. But your own bias shows everytime you open your
> mouth; you basically consider anything that's anthropomorphic to be Adult
> matieral, so what does -that- tell us?
Oh, look. A glaring self-contradiction. Did you say you weren't a
furry? Why, I think you did. Yet, here you are happily including
yourself in the furry 'we'. You know... If you're gonna make outrageous
claims and tell obvious lies, you should at least try remail consistant
enough not to give yourself away so quickly. And that's another
standard furry logic error--assuming furry refers to anthropomorphic in
general. It's to anthropomorhpic and funny animals what hentai is to
anime.
<snip>
> Well that's about the most -obviously- assinine and imbecillic thing
> you've
> said thus far. The only ones who haven't drawn spooge are those who haven't
> gotten around to it yet!? Wow! That means that most celebrities aren't
> murderers
> simply because they haven't gotten around to it yet; most American Presidents
> aren't sexual predators simply because they haven't gotten around to it yet;
> most
> Blacks aren't druggies because they haven't gotten around to it yet...
> Do I really need to go on?
Oh, another slick tactic. Ignore half of what I said because it kills
the only counter you can think of. You seem to have neglected the fact
(not that you let silly things like 'facts' get in your way) that I
used the 'active' to denote the yerfers who would draw spooge and
further narrowed them down by pointing out that people who didn't want
to draw spooge would simply leave the fandom. You'd been more accurate
to say that I was assuming that someone who was an active member of
NAMBLA was a pedophile was stupid.
<snip>
>
> Sucker bet, since there are only four or five archives (to my knowledge.)
> You
> also have to keep in mind that Furry is smaller and younger; we're still
> creating
> those specialized niches the other fandoms have, and that's one of the
> reasons why
> there's so much tension here. You think maybe the other fandoms didn't have
> the
> same growing pains? Try working on a few SF cons and watch how the infighting
> grows when it comes to specific interests and how (or whether) they should be
> included. Even so, my statement stands.
Excuses, excuses. 'Uh, yea, there are mostly only spooge filled
archives, but it's not because furries are sicko fetishists. No, it's
because the fandom is NEW!' The sci fi fandom started out with only
erotic stories, movies and tv shows. Oh, wait. It didn't. You're an
idiot.
<snip>
> You're saying you -don't- read the articles? Pity; the interviews are
> often
> one of the best things in the mag.
You're saying you do? You're a pathological liar, aren't you?
> No, you can't safely assume that; there's always a danger when you make
> blind
> assumptions. You -can- assume that -some- do so, and you can safely assume
> that
> there -is- a strong probability because there -is- adult material. Your
> biggest
> problem is your myopia; you continue to pigeonhole the fandom and expect that
> everyone is going to do exactly as you fully expect them to do. The interest
> of
> the Adult material varies from individual to individual: some want nothing
> but;
> others want nothing to do with it; some like some Adult stuff, but prefer
> more of
> the non-adult. Your assumptions tell us more about -you- than it does about
> Furry
> Fandom.
Heh. What a vague statement. You could say the same thing about the
traditional porn industry (the one based around naked humans, not the
furry one) and be just as correct.
<snip>
> Not lame at all. I simply wanted to make it clear that I -do-
> consider you to
> be an idiot, and that your statement that 'all spooge has a bestiality
> undertone'
> and that you'd characterize it as 'softcore bestiality' is one of the
> most idiotic
> statements you've made. Ranks right up there with the one you made
> earlier in
> this post. Again, it tells us a good deal more about -you- and what
> -you-
> consider to be sexually improper, and how -you- define sexuality than
> it does
> about Furry Fandom.
Heh. Thanks for proving my prediction correct. You make it too easy,
Melville. The fact you don't is frightening. I suspect you just might
believe that a man and a boy can have a HEALTHY sexual relationship.
> But, again, you're -assuming- this to be the case. And while I've no
> doubt
> this was true among the elements we've been trying to weed out, you certainly
> cannot make this case against the main of the fandom. I mean, someone who's
> drawing Sonic the Hedgehog fan art is creating a graphic representation that
> they
> can fantasize sex with!? You read too much into it.
Hah! You're as stupid at that drunk fuck Blumrich, but at least he has
the excuse of having drank and drugged his mind into oblivion. That
'element' is the core of the fandom, moron. If you weed it out, the
fandom will cease to exist. Which would suit me just find, of course
<snip>
> I would consider pin-ups to be essentially harmless. But I wasn't
> referring
> to that. There are a large number of artists who draw cartoons, sketches and
> scenarios involving SF or fantasy worlds with anthropomorphic characters, a
> lot of
> times just drawing themselves and their friends. No sex involved. You need
> to
> get around more.
As an ex-spooge peddler, I'm sure you do think it's harmless. And there
is that clever 'it's really there, but, uh, you've just not found it'.
Sorry, bright boy, I don't go on snipe hunts.
<snip>
> First off, GENUS is a comic, not a fanzine. Secondly, publishing one
> Adult
> book (or even two) against a regular schedule of five or six regular titles
> does
> not make her a porn pusher. Get real. If she published nothing but, I could
> accept the definition, but she's a comic publisher with a niche market who
> publishes a range of varied interests -within- that niche. Might as well call
> SPORTS ILLUSTRATED a porn zine because it does an annual swimsuit issue.
Genus is a comic? Heh. So, if I dress a donkey up in women's clothing,
does it make is a fine lady? And, uh, Bob Guiccioni, the publisher of
Penthouse, publishes all kinds of magizines including Omni. He's still
a pornographer just as Winkler is.
<snip>
> Hey, if the shoe fits and all that. I have yet to see anything from you that
> doesn't reek of juvenile intent or intellect; you've said yourself that you've
> only come to 'jeer at the freaks', and that is hardly the act of a mature
> individual. Nor has any of your previous visitiations here proven otherwise. The
> evidence thus far is that you're nothing more than a bored adolescent who enjoys
> pulling wings from flies. Not having a fly at hand, you drop by here, complete
> with all of your infantile wit, arrogance, preconceptions and emotional baggage.
> Just don't expect us to be fooled.
Ah, the lovely irony. This is a good sign of just how stupid you are,
Melville, because if it's true, it makes you worse since you're
'lowering' yourself to my level. And by your own logic, I win just by
you soiling yourself in the act of crawling into the mud with me. But
the true, again, is different from your story. That seems to be a
reoccuring event. You're just a nyce furry apologist attacking the 'bad
old troll Random' because you know I'm right and it burns you, so in
attacking me, you hope prove to yourself that I'm wrong. I'm sure
you'll keep trying. I eagarly await your next reply.
> Enjoy your stay.
If I didn't, would I be here, would I? Moron.
--Random
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
nake...@hotmail.com> writes:
> But with furry, there is no professional element. In fact, no one
> from Disney, WB or any other legit animation company wouldn't be
> caught dead at a furry con. It's career suicide for any artist who
> wants to work outside furry to be associated with it. Why? Because it's
> a seedy adult fandom based on fetishes.
Lie.
At Furry Conventions I have met people like Frank Kelly Freas - a multiple
Hugo award winning SF artist, Tad Stones - Producer from Disney Television
animation, Mercedes Lackey and Larry Dixon - best-selling fantasy author and
her Illustrator husband, Steven Boyett - another author, Alan Dean Foster -
another author, numerous other animators from both Disney and WB. And the
Guest of Honor at ConFurence 12 is Jymn Magon, another top level producer at
Disney.
In short random, you're full of shit.
--
"if Marylin Manson has more of an influence on a kid than the kid's parents
do, then maybe the parents need to look at how they're raising their kids."
-- Charlie Clouser, Keyboardist, Nine Inch Nails.
Spammer Warning: Washington State Law now provides civil penalties for UCE.
Elf Sternberg
Mathue <mathu/e...@my-deja.com> writes:
>In article <8tq37h$29r$1...@brokaw.wa.com>, Elf Sternberg
><e...@halcyon.com> wrote:
>> I can't vote for that. As much as I can't stand either Gush
>> or Bore, at least they don't actively stand between me and a long life.
> All I could think of to say here is have you seen 'Clonus Horror'?
Saw the MST3K version of it. Personally, I thought the
premise was terrible and inhumane. Why create replacement organs
attached to brains? It would be much less worrisome, from an ethical
standpoint, if you just actively prevented the development of
mentation and consciousness in the first place.
Random
- WA Resident <mau...@kendra.com> wrote:
> And the
> Guest of Honor at ConFurence 12 is Jymn Magon, another top level producer at
> Disney.
Heh. I wouldn't hold my breath about that one since chances are Magon
will do the same thing the other top level producer from disney did for
CF9--cancel because of a 'schedule conflict'.
--Random
Chuck Melville
Random wrote:
> In article <3A017FD2...@zipcon.com>, Chuck Melville
> <cp...@zipcon.com> wrote:
>
> Hot damn. Furries just can't learn. You slap them and they always come
> back for more.
Same can be said for arrogant shitheads, apparently. Ready for another round?
You can doubt all you like; I take no responsibility for your overwhelming
ignorance. Swan and Foster were indeed Geusts of Honor at past Confurences, and I got
to meet and talk with Freas myself. (Freas had done a cover for us at MU just the year
before.) I'm quite sure Anderson knows what he's getting into, and has probably seen
much of the same sort of thing at SF conventions; if you doubt my word as to whether
he'll be attending, you can check Further Confusion's website. All were chosen and
asked because of furry-related works they had done over the years.
>
>
> > Then you're not looking hard enough, and settling only for the first few
> > sites
> > that come your way. They -are- out there. Of course, you continue to
> > exhibit an
> > attitude that considers a very wide definition of adult content anyway, as in
> > "Look! There's a guy and there's a girl! Goddamm sex perverts!" And by your
> > given statement (All Furry sites are fetish sites, etc), then even a single
> > g-rated site proves you wrong; that's the problem with being an absolutist.
> > Want
> > G-rated furry? Try the Carspeckens, or the Ozy and Millie site or Mark
> > Stanley,
> > or maybe even the Tai-Pan web site, to name a few.
>
> Assuming you're not just making those up, they're prolly the only 4
> clean furry site on the web.
>
That's the best comeback you can come up with!? Pshaw... they were simply the
first four to come to mind. Go do your own research and stop looking -specifically-
for sex.
>
>
> > Wrong. I'm just somebody who -isn't- a furry, who nevertheless doesn't
> > like
> > juvenile smartass dickhead bullies who know absolutely nothing about what
> > they're
> > talking about but bluster ahead with their own missassumptions and make
> > absolutely
> > stupid statements and pronoucements as if it were the God-given truth, flying
> > in
> > the face of the facts about them. We call that Lying, by the way. And
> > you're on
> > a public forum; you want to direct a statement to Eric, take it to e-mail.
> > Here,
> > you're fair game.
>
> You're not a furry? Oh, man. That's rich. An ex-peddler of spooge ISN'T
> a furry. Good one. You're a stone cold liar, bitch boy. You started off
> your post making shit up, but this is beyond outrageous. Next you'll
> tell me up is down and left is right.
>
That's right, I'm not a furry. I disowned the term quite a while back because of
the negative connotations the word took on as a result of the extreme and irrelevant
elements that had become associated with the fandom. Say 'Furry' and outsiders,
especially assholes like yourself, automatically associate us with weird shit like
bestiality. I've made the point countless times over the past few years; ask around,
check for yourself. Doesn't mean I don't still like and enjoy anthropomorphics, just
that I don't give as wide an interpretation to what it includes as some do.
And yeah, I've done Adult material. I don't deny it. But I deny being a spooge
peddler. The adult stuff is a small percentage of the overall extent of my works.
Kinda like real life, y'know.
You say I'm a liar, huh? Go ahead, asswipe; prove it. Everything I've said can be
verified; if you think otherwise, get up off your hands and find proof. Otherwise,
you're just breaking wind through two orifices instead of just one.
>
>
> >
> > Wrong. The Burned Furries are as I described them: a radicalized faction
> > within the group. Infight!? What group doesn't? But don't judge the whole
> > by
> > this sampling here; as anyone else will be quick to tell you, most furries
> > don't
> > even -read- AFF. What you see here is a miniscule portion of the whole; most
> > post
> > to other, private NGs, or on mailing lists, staying far wide of this place;
> > most
> > others don't post at all.
>
> Heh. Furries have a reputation for infighting. Every group infights,
> sure, but not every group does it with the zeal and frequency that
> furries exhibit.
Just means we're more passionate about our hobby than most. What's your excuse?
>
>
> > Can't speak to the charges against Scotty because I have no idea what
> > you're
> > talking about. But your own myopia is showing, as it usually does. We
> > consider G
> > or PG to be -exactly- what the rest of America considers it... more
> > accurately, we
> > define it the way the Movie Rating Boards do, since that's the example
> > generally
> > followed. Regionally, America itself has a dozen or more different ideas what
> > constitutes G, PG, R and X. But your own bias shows everytime you open your
> > mouth; you basically consider anything that's anthropomorphic to be Adult
> > matieral, so what does -that- tell us?
>
> Oh, look. A glaring self-contradiction. Did you say you weren't a
> furry? Why, I think you did. Yet, here you are happily including
> yourself in the furry 'we'. You know... If you're gonna make outrageous
> claims and tell obvious lies, you should at least try remail consistant
> enough not to give yourself away so quickly. And that's another
> standard furry logic error--assuming furry refers to anthropomorphic in
> general. It's to anthropomorhpic and funny animals what hentai is to
> anime.
Wrong again. The term Furry was -always- meant to include general
anthropomorphics, especially since the fandom came together not only as an appreciation
of the newer Adult books like OMAHA and ALBEDO (and I use Adult in the case of ALBEDO
in the sense of mature themes rather than sex) but also as appreciation of classic
cartoons. I can't help it if -you- didn't understand that. -Your- standard error is
to pretend that you have any idea of what you're talking about, especially since you
weren't around when the fandom came together. Your prejudices and misconceptions are
-your- problem. And I use the imperial 'we' throughout the conversation because a)
it's simpler, and b) I've been involved in the Fandom for quite a long time, before and
since I relinguished the term Furry.
>
>
> > Well that's about the most -obviously- assinine and imbecillic thing
> > you've
> > said thus far. The only ones who haven't drawn spooge are those who haven't
> > gotten around to it yet!? Wow! That means that most celebrities aren't
> > murderers
> > simply because they haven't gotten around to it yet; most American Presidents
> > aren't sexual predators simply because they haven't gotten around to it yet;
> > most
> > Blacks aren't druggies because they haven't gotten around to it yet...
> > Do I really need to go on?
>
> Oh, another slick tactic. Ignore half of what I said because it kills
> the only counter you can think of. You seem to have neglected the fact
> (not that you let silly things like 'facts' get in your way) that I
> used the 'active' to denote the yerfers who would draw spooge and
> further narrowed them down by pointing out that people who didn't want
> to draw spooge would simply leave the fandom.
Except that it isn't true, and it isn't verifiable. You can say that, perhaps
-some- have done so, and I could believe it. But it isn't true that -all- who
refrained from spooge leave the fandom, anymore than it's true that -all- who leave the
fandom do so because of the presence of spooge. (And you're a fine one to talk of
'facts' since you haven't yet presented even -one- in all your arguments.)
> > Sucker bet, since there are only four or five archives (to my knowledge.)
> > You
> > also have to keep in mind that Furry is smaller and younger; we're still
> > creating
> > those specialized niches the other fandoms have, and that's one of the
> > reasons why
> > there's so much tension here. You think maybe the other fandoms didn't have
> > the
> > same growing pains? Try working on a few SF cons and watch how the infighting
> > grows when it comes to specific interests and how (or whether) they should be
> > included. Even so, my statement stands.
>
> Excuses, excuses. 'Uh, yea, there are mostly only spooge filled
> archives, but it's not because furries are sicko fetishists. No, it's
> because the fandom is NEW!' The sci fi fandom started out with only
> erotic stories, movies and tv shows. Oh, wait. It didn't. You're an
> idiot.
And neither has Furry Fandom started out with only erotic stories, movie, tv etc.
The statement continues to stand.
>
>
> > You're saying you -don't- read the articles? Pity; the interviews are
> > often
> > one of the best things in the mag.
>
> You're saying you do? You're a pathological liar, aren't you?
Okay, you got me. Truth is, I haven't read a copy of Playboy in over a decade.
(Sarcasm is so lost on you...)
>
> > No, you can't safely assume that; there's always a danger when you make
> > blind
> > assumptions. You -can- assume that -some- do so, and you can safely assume
> > that
> > there -is- a strong probability because there -is- adult material. Your
> > biggest
> > problem is your myopia; you continue to pigeonhole the fandom and expect that
> > everyone is going to do exactly as you fully expect them to do. The interest
> > of
> > the Adult material varies from individual to individual: some want nothing
> > but;
> > others want nothing to do with it; some like some Adult stuff, but prefer
> > more of
> > the non-adult. Your assumptions tell us more about -you- than it does about
> > Furry
> > Fandom.
>
> Heh. What a vague statement. You could say the same thing about the
> traditional porn industry (the one based around naked humans, not the
> furry one) and be just as correct.
Wrong again. The porn industry is centered and focused -entirely- on creating and
selling porn, and nothing else. Now, what part of all this are you failing to fully
understand?
>
>
> > Not lame at all. I simply wanted to make it clear that I -do-
> > consider you to
> > be an idiot, and that your statement that 'all spooge has a bestiality
> > undertone'
> > and that you'd characterize it as 'softcore bestiality' is one of the
> > most idiotic
> > statements you've made. Ranks right up there with the one you made
> > earlier in
> > this post. Again, it tells us a good deal more about -you- and what
> > -you-
> > consider to be sexually improper, and how -you- define sexuality than
> > it does
> > about Furry Fandom.
>
> Heh. Thanks for proving my prediction correct. You make it too easy,
> Melville. The fact you don't is frightening. I suspect you just might
> believe that a man and a boy can have a HEALTHY sexual relationship.
You'll have to clarify if you're speaking of a gay relationship or a pedophilliac
one. There's nothing healthy in the latter, but if you're denigrating the former, then
I'll leave it to the others to address your homophillia. (Not being Gay, I'm not best
suited to comment on it, other than to again point out it tells us more about -you-
than us.)
>
> > But, again, you're -assuming- this to be the case. And while I've no
> > doubt
> > this was true among the elements we've been trying to weed out, you certainly
> > cannot make this case against the main of the fandom. I mean, someone who's
> > drawing Sonic the Hedgehog fan art is creating a graphic representation that
> > they
> > can fantasize sex with!? You read too much into it.
>
> Hah! You're as stupid at that drunk fuck Blumrich, but at least he has
> the excuse of having drank and drugged his mind into oblivion. That
> 'element' is the core of the fandom, moron. If you weed it out, the
> fandom will cease to exist. Which would suit me just find, of course
Wrong again. The Adult element is a -part- of the fandom, but it is not the sole
or even the core element. Weed it out, it'll continue, even if only at a general
audience level. Since you have no connection and have never participated in any
fashion, you have no real understanding or conception of this or of anything else about
it; instead you mouth away on your own fantasies about it. What's that say about your
own level of intelligence?
>
> > I would consider pin-ups to be essentially harmless. But I wasn't
> > referring
> > to that. There are a large number of artists who draw cartoons, sketches and
> > scenarios involving SF or fantasy worlds with anthropomorphic characters, a
> > lot of
> > times just drawing themselves and their friends. No sex involved. You need
> > to
> > get around more.
>
> As an ex-spooge peddler, I'm sure you do think it's harmless. And there
> is that clever 'it's really there, but, uh, you've just not found it'.
> Sorry, bright boy, I don't go on snipe hunts.
Yeah, right; now pull the other one. If this isn't a snipe hunt, then what is?
See above for my denial of being a 'spooge peddler'.
>
> > First off, GENUS is a comic, not a fanzine. Secondly, publishing one
> > Adult
> > book (or even two) against a regular schedule of five or six regular titles
> > does
> > not make her a porn pusher. Get real. If she published nothing but, I could
> > accept the definition, but she's a comic publisher with a niche market who
> > publishes a range of varied interests -within- that niche. Might as well call
> > SPORTS ILLUSTRATED a porn zine because it does an annual swimsuit issue.
>
> Genus is a comic? Heh. So, if I dress a donkey up in women's clothing,
> does it make is a fine lady? And, uh, Bob Guiccioni, the publisher of
> Penthouse, publishes all kinds of magizines including Omni. He's still
> a pornographer just as Winkler is.
You are correct; Guccione is a publisher. Elin is a publisher. Flynt is a
pornographer. Get it straight.
GENUS is a comic. If you want to post a critical review of it and it's material
and how it doesn't live up to your standards of approval, then do so. I use the
clinical definition: it's printed on a web press, not a photocopier, and is distributed
nationwide, not solely through conventions, and has a publication of a few thousand
copies, instead of maybe a hundred or two. That's the difference between a fanzine and
a comic publication.
>
>
> > Hey, if the shoe fits and all that. I have yet to see anything from you that
> > doesn't reek of juvenile intent or intellect; you've said yourself that you've
> > only come to 'jeer at the freaks', and that is hardly the act of a mature
> > individual. Nor has any of your previous visitiations here proven otherwise. The
> > evidence thus far is that you're nothing more than a bored adolescent who enjoys
> > pulling wings from flies. Not having a fly at hand, you drop by here, complete
> > with all of your infantile wit, arrogance, preconceptions and emotional baggage.
> > Just don't expect us to be fooled.
>
> Ah, the lovely irony. This is a good sign of just how stupid you are,
> Melville, because if it's true, it makes you worse since you're
> 'lowering' yourself to my level.
Oh, I don't mind. I love putting bullies through their paces, showing them up for
the small-minded mean-spirited morons they truly are. You obviously got the time to
waste, right?
> And by your own logic, I win just by
> you soiling yourself in the act of crawling into the mud with me. But
> the true, again, is different from your story. That seems to be a
> reoccuring event. You're just a nyce furry apologist attacking the 'bad
> old troll Random' because you know I'm right and it burns you, so in
> attacking me, you hope prove to yourself that I'm wrong. I'm sure
> you'll keep trying. I eagarly await your next reply.
HAH! I don't even -have- to prove you wrong; that's the beauty! You manage it all
by yourself everytime you post or respond. All I have to do is lead you through the
hoops, and you willingly trip over yourself to show how ignorant you are. Not once do
you offer a significant fact -- hell, not once do you even steer vaguely -close- to a
fact -- but just blithely spew away on whatever bullshit pops into your... well,
'brain' is hardly the word.
Attacking you? Oh, pshaw... I'm -responding- to you. You were so nice to come
visit and share yourself with us, it would only be impolite -not- to. I apologize for
nothing (go ahead, ask around); I simply know more of what's going on around here than
you apparently do.
>
> > Enjoy your stay.
>
> If I didn't, would I be here, would I? Moron.
I suppose not; you're so predictable. Come again!
Chuck Melville
Richard Chandler - WA Resident wrote:
> In article <021120000131441406%nake...@hotmail.com>, Random <
> nake...@hotmail.com> writes:
> > But with furry, there is no professional element. In fact, no one
> > from Disney, WB or any other legit animation company wouldn't be
> > caught dead at a furry con. It's career suicide for any artist who
> > wants to work outside furry to be associated with it. Why? Because it's
> > a seedy adult fandom based on fetishes.
>
> Lie.
>
> At Furry Conventions I have met people like Frank Kelly Freas - a multiple
> Hugo award winning SF artist, Tad Stones - Producer from Disney Television
> animation, Mercedes Lackey and Larry Dixon - best-selling fantasy author and
> her Illustrator husband, Steven Boyett - another author, Alan Dean Foster -
> another author, numerous other animators from both Disney and WB. And the
> Guest of Honor at ConFurence 12 is Jymn Magon, another top level producer at
> Disney.
>
> In short random, you're full of shit.
>
Jymn Magon! That's the guy from Disney whose name I couldn't recall;
thanks, Rich!
Chuck Melville
Random wrote:
IIRC, it's the same guy... and he -has- been to Confurence previously, back
around CF5 or 6; can't recall which. He came with a preview of one of the new
DISNEY AFTERNOON shows which were airing at the time.
Duncan da Husky
>IIRC, it's the same guy... and he -has- been to Confurence
>previously, back around CF5 or 6; can't recall which.
He was also the Furry Guest of Honor at Duckon in 1999 - very nice fellow,
and he seemed to have a fine time.
-Duncan da Husky
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Brady tab...@concentric.net http://www.technomancer.com/~duncan
Furry: Duncan da Husky SCA: Duncan MacKinnon of Tobermory
"I spent most of my childhood being terrified by the question 'Am I
normal?' I'm relieved now that I now know for sure that I am not."
- Tom Limoncelli
ilr
> Think back on the times you've read newspaper or magazine
> articles about an advance in medicine or science. The generally
> make a habit of quoting an 'ethicist', and the ethicist always says
> the same thing. They want to go slow. They want to put
> deployment of the new technology on hold indefinitely, while
> they study all the ethical ramifications. If anyone can cite a
> single instance where an ethicist actually favoured advancing
> technology, I'd be delighted to hear of it.
Penicillin?
>
> For those who want to see (or become) RL furries in your lifetimes,
> you'd do well to realize that bioethicists are the biggest block in
> the road.
And I'd argue that a real living breathing Furry created through genetics
would never come from the US. The entire Medical and Chemical research
prerogative of nearly all US research centers that have the power and
funding to actually accomplish something, work almost solely on projects
that their corporate investors would benefit most from. That's why the
only really far-out genetic experiments we hear of come from the
UK and surrounding countries. Such as cloned sheep and pigs.
-Ilr
ilr
<fka...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8trt4f$2t0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Umm, Wow.
Last week I made this statement:
"Eric Blumrich shows up every now and then and would be pretty cool if he
just hung out and shared more art with everyone"
I would now like to retract that statement please.
-Ilr, backing away very slowly.
***Filler***
I hate that stupid "More quotes than content" proxy.
I hate that stupid "More quotes than content" proxy.
I hate that stupid "More quotes than content" proxy.
I hate that stupid "More quotes than content" proxy.
I hate that stupid "More quotes than content" proxy.
I hate that stupid "More quotes than content" proxy.
I hate that stupid "More quotes than content" proxy.
I hate that stupid "More quotes than content" proxy.
Cerulean
with you, using the statement of one person. "Elf is a non-BF. Elf is
deluded about national politics. Therefore, all non-BFs are deluded."
It was still quite a non-sequitur in order to bring the topic back to
being all about you. Oh, and it would have been only one minute you
wasted, if you had left out the gratuitous, generic insults.
Dave Huang
>yo...
>
> I was gonna sit back and watch the fireworks,
Textbook definition of a troll.
--
Name: Dave Huang | Mammal, mammal / their names are called /
INet: kh...@bga.com | they raise a paw / the bat, the cat /
FurryMUCK: Dahan | dolphin and dog / koala bear and hog -- TMBG
Dahan: Hani G Y+C 25 Y++ L+++ W- C++ T++ A+ E+ S++ V++ F- Q+++ P+ B+ PA+ PL++
Ostrich
>
> > If anyone can cite a
> > single instance where an ethicist actually favoured advancing
> > technology, I'd be delighted to hear of it.
>
> Penicillin?
>
professional ethicist who thought it a good idea when it was discovered?
Ben_Raccoon
news:3A00E6...@bmts.com.netspam...
> airwo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> I think there's two kinds of "giving a damn". There's the type that
> helps, and the type that harms. You see both at work all over the
> world. And really, I suppose we can be thankful that most[1] of us are
> windbags as opposed to honest-to-goodness extremists.
>
> [1]: If not all, but you can't get too cocky when there's someone
> yelling bullets at the back of your head.
Actually, in today's society, you'd be surprised at how much effect words
can have on people. Windbags like the infamous Dr. Laura, and all sorts of
politicians urging people to do one stupid act after another without
actually doing anything themselves except blow wind. :P
Rust
I'd like to say a few simple words about the difference there, but I
have no doubt I'd be slitting my own societal throat if I did.
-Rust
--
We are the instruments of creation - what we dream, is.
Remove ".netspam" from my address to reply
Al Goldman
>> Well, fuck you, too. I'm not a part of the furry fandom. I
>> never was. I'm just someone who happened by to jeer at the freaks.
Bullshit. You're as furry as the rest of us.
Your ex-Muck friend Vixy's posting of your confession to her of your
pathetic personal problems is still on Deja.com, but I can't find the
five pictures you had artists draw of yourself as a sleek, sexy black
panther.
I think the depiction of yourself as a panther king with a Persian
cat queen at your side was my favorite.
Got the URL for the drawings?
Al Goldman
Laws are sand, Customs are rock. Laws can be evaded and punishment excaped, but
an openly transgressed custom brings sure punishement.
- Mark Twain
Daniel Gill
>
>
> IIRC, it's the same guy... and he -has- been to Confurence previously, back
> around CF5 or 6; can't recall which. He came with a preview of one of the new
> DISNEY AFTERNOON shows which were airing at the time.
Yeah, I met Jymn Magnon at my first (and so far, only) appearance at CF, back in 7.
He was a really neat, personable guy, and I enjoyed talking to him! So to Random,
there are those who do furries that would never show up at a convention, but there
are quite a few that go as well! Ah, CF7...got to meet and greet with quite a few
cool folks...S. Andrew Swann, Magnon, and Omaha Sternberg sat on my face. but that's
a completely different story...
(Is pretty sure he's gonna get flamed for that last comment...)
Daniel Gill
Bahumat
indicator of what a privileged life we live in first world countries.
This man, finding himself with some free time and access to a writing
implement, decided that the topic of furry fandom and his dissapointment
in it was important enough in his life that it warranted the time and
effort it took to write it.
Give such an oppourtunity to someone in a 3rd world country, they may
well create an essay on the flagrant abuse of their government towards
their citizens, the lack of protection of their rights, the economic
abuse they take from other countries, civil unrest, racism, ethnic
cleansing, etc.
Fortunately, here in the first world, our problems are so minimal that
complaining about the state of a fandom seems the best idea to certain
privileged citizens of certain privileged countries.
Just a bit of ironic perspective.
Bahumat,
who has been there, seen it, lived with it, and can actually grasp how
lucky we in the first world are.
fka...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> Excuse me- but this post deals with an event that happened a few
> weeks ago- the event being the airing of the "gay sci-fi con" segment
> on Comedy Central's "Daily Show." I know the more pedantic and trite
> among you might say that this is an example of BF (and I in particular)
> re-opening an issue that's long past.
> Well- yes, and no (more of the latter than the former, but I
> digress.) It's not re-opening old wounds, as the issues surrounding
> the airing of this segment, as well as the implications for the fandom
> at large, were never addressed properly. In fact, I found the
> deafening silence that followed in the wake of this media atrocity
> almost as infuriating as the segment itself.
> Now, truth be told, when I ran a draft of this past the BF rank-and-
> file, a few actually objected- they said I was being too heavy-handed,
> and one person timidly put forward that I was wrong to be offended by
> this segment (I'm still in wonder over that...) Keeping this in mind,
> I will make the following statement to placate those within the BF
> movement, as well as it's detractors that:
>
> These are MY statements, reflecting MY views. This post, in no way,
> reflects the policies nor the agenda of BF, and I am willing to accept
> every bit of fallout and inevitable abuse that the stating of pure,
> simple fact incurs in these, the most silent and relativist of times.
>
> Begin transmission:
>
> I told you so.
> Over two years ago, I posted my embryonic website to the collective
> joke known as the internet, with one of its core principles being the
> warning that the fandom that I had enjoyed for almost half my life was
> in mortal danger. I wrote an essay, entitled "What Is To Be Done",
> lamenting the degenrate elements which had infiltrated our fandom, and
> warning of the dire consequences to our fandom, should these elements
> continue in their ascendency.
> I warned that if the world at large should encounter our fandom
> through these elements, the fandom would be irreperably damaged-
> tainted as a haven for the sexually degenerate. I warned that the
> proliferation of pornography depicted to the world a fandom aberrant
> and despicable.
>
> This was followed almost a year later by Squeerat's "Manifesto"-
> a text which stated the facts of the matter far more bluntly and
> accurately than I could have. This document led to the formation of a
> core group with no ideology, no cohesive structure- other than the
> common desire to bring about a change in the fandom- an effort to bring
> the fandom back to it's roots- the art, the animation, the fiction, the
> wonderous joy that lights a child's eye when he sees Disney's "Robin
> Hood" for the first time, and the inspiration and groundbreaking
> innovation that brought Albedo, TMNT, and an entire rennaisance in the
> genre of Funny Animals to life.
>
> Noble goals- simple goals. Squeerat, I, and (as we found later)
> hundreds of others shared our deep sense of dissapointment that
> Lifestylers, Plushophiles, Bestialists, and their ilk had taken
> something we had held so dear, wiped their asses on it, and mounted the
> resulting mess on a flagpole for all to see. This was a theft not of
> property, or a simple fraudulent theft of ideas. This was a case of a
> group of people swaggering into a house that we and many other had
> built, taking over, and thrusting us to the rear, scornfully telling us
> that we were no longer needed, nor wanted. They took our home, turned
> it into a brothel, and spat insults at us when we objected.
>
> Of course, our rewards for our efforts were met with
> condemnation. We were called nazis, fascists- and those were the nice
> names they chose for us. On the other hand, nihilists like random
> (small r- he doesn't merit capitals), and rackety (ditto) said we were
> taking this all too seriously.
>
> But for two years, we pushed on as best we could. We started a
> webring, which became the second-largest in furry fandom. We took to
> whatever media was available to us- for the most part, we were
> restricted to the internet. We started mailing lists, newsgroups, and
> websites. At every turn, we were confronted with two facts: We were
> not alone, yet there were people who would stop at nothing to enforce
> their "open mindedness" and "tolerance" within the fandom, even if it
> meant destroying it. Their purile pursuit of selfish pleasure and self-
> gratification was more important, they maintained, than the efforts
> that I and literally thousands of others had put into this fandom.
>
> We had great victories- we saw our opponents humbled and
> marginalized. When random tried posting our Burned Fur site to the
> Portal of Evil, it ended within mere days as the farce that it was.
> New anthro cons started cropping up that had rules regarding behavior
> and the display of adult art. Ou webring continues to grow, as do the
> ranks of our supporters.
>
> But we didn't go far enough, fast enough. Our opponents were so
> brazen, and so ubiquitous, that our efforts, restricted as they were to
> the internet and a few cons, were unable to maintain and thicken the
> dangerously thin veil that seperated our tainted fandom from public
> scrutiny. We saw that on The Daily Show. There he was- Kevin Duane,
> proudly displaying his filth to the prying cameras of comedy central.
> There they were- the artists (term used very loosely) who owed their
> lifeblood to the sick elements who had stolen our fandom- glibly
> humiliating both themselves and waving our fandom's worst shame to
> millions of households.
>
> To a certain extent, pinheads like rackety and random had a
> point- we weren't going far enough. We were pussyfooting around some
> of the largest issues behind the dire straits the fandom was in. We
> rarely went after the ringleaders- the few champions of the degeneracy
> that was at the core of the cancer that has been steadilly gnawing away
> at fandom since ConFurEnce 3.
>
> Well- in the wake of recent events, it has become clear that this
> will not do. We must acknowledge our bully pulpit, and take on the
> forces that would destroy our fandom by name. We must have the courage
> the mount the ivory tower, accept the uncomforatble mantle of
> authority, and state unequivocably our accusations against these foul
> excuses for human beings...
> These people need to be exposed for what they are- they must be
> hounded- persecuted, and driven back into the maggot-ridden depths from
> which they emerged. Until they are, we cannot hope to make any
> progress towards the rehabilitation of the fandom they so gleefully and
> selfishly destroyed.
>
> I ACCUSE:
>
> Mark Merlino- who masterminded the debacle that was ConFurEnce 3-
> advertised almost exclusively through Gay and Lesbian rescources.
> The "man" who came up with the egregiously vile decision to give every
> confirmed memeber of FurryMuck a free pass to the con.
>
> I ACCUSE:
>
> Kevin Duane- who mas hallmarked himself as perhaps the greatest
> degenerate within the fandom- a despicable porn merchant who has never
> shirked from displaying and pushing his wares to children.
>
> I ACCUSE:
>
> Steve Martin, who has steadily produced an endless stream of
> questionable pornographic treacle that has catered to every whim of the
> unwanted elements within the fandom. This man is a true whore to the
> dollar and the anithesis of everything that stands for artistic
> integrity.
>
> I ACCUSE:
>
> Xydexx, Oral Rinse, and the endless ranks of subhuman filth who
> have subordinated the truth and the good of this fandom to their own
> twisted world view- a view in which nothing is held under the light of
> scrutiny, and everything is permissable, as long as it serves their own
> selfish needs. It is these people who have stood in defense of the
> crimes perpetrated by those listed above, and dozens of others who
> would pervert our fandom into a pool of purile and hubristic self-
> gratification.
>
> I ACCUSE:
>
> Every collar-wearing, tail-strapped-to-the-ass degenerate who
> turned what was once a respectable corner of sci fi fandom into a
> virtual singles bar for the sexually dyfunctional. They are little
> more than craven beasts, wallowing in their own excretia, and
> questioning the "tolerance" of anyone who complains about the smell.
>
> I ACCUSE:
>
> The Nihilists and fence sitters who sat by and let this all
> happen. A single word, a statement of principle, and a little courage
> was all that it took- but they found themselves incapable of mustering
> the will nor the backbone such an action required. They are truly the
> most craven, the most despicable of them all.
>
> The question is staring me in the face: do I give up? Do you
> folks ENJOY this? Does having your work denegrated and your fandom
> dragged through the mud make you HAPPY? Does the knowledge that you've
> been made the laughing stock of fandom at large, and now, the national
> media, fill you with a sense of fulfillment and pride?
> If I have one flaw in my addled synapses, it's my propensity to
> give a damn. In a world where each new day sees a new atrocity, in a
> country where more than half the population can't bother to work up the
> effort to vote, and living next to a city that's drowning in it's own
> cultural and moral schizophrenia, I try to stay aloof- but it's a
> sham. Deep down within me there are the words and memories of people
> Like Martin Luther King, John Rabe, and a thousand others who stood up
> against the inevitable, and truimphed. I don't see myself as anything
> like their equals- such would be hubris on a biblical scale. But their
> principles are something I shall always strive to emulate and
> champion. In the face of the hatred and bile spewed at me by a
> thousand knee-jerk lifestylers, and the machinations of demons like
> Merlino, I cannot help but march doggedly on.
>
> The gauntlet fell when Steve Carrell exposed you for what you are-
> you didn't throw it- it slipped from your addled, palsied fingers. YOU
> started this- remember that. Be certain that I will.
>
> -T'ieh Pi Pu Kai.
>
> Stand your ground, this is what we are fighting for-
> for our spirit and laws and ways.
> Cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war
> for heaven or hell, we shall not wait...
> Shall I think of Honour as lies,
> or lament it's aged, slow demise?
> Shall I stand, as a total stranger
> on this day, in this stone chamber?
>
> -VNV Nation (Honour)
>
> --
> Buchanan 2000!
> Nader 2000!
> Make your vote count!
Brian O'connell
news:3A0251C3...@dacor.net...
> S. Andrew Swann, Magnon, and Omaha Sternberg sat on my face.
Not nessesarily in that order, I hope? *ducks for cover* (quack quack)
Steve Carter
infighting and there are men and women from the USS Cole who'll never see
their families again. They weren't just sailors, they were somebody's son,
they were somebody's brother, somebody's love, somebody's reason for living.
Some of them were mommy and daddy, and that's the deepest cut of all.
"Bahumat" <bah...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:3A025746...@telusplanet.net...
ilr
Timothy Fay <fayxx001@delete..this..tc.umn.edu> wrote in message news:3A02E3...@tc.umn.edu...
> Ostrich wrote:
> >
> > ...But can you cite any examples of 'ethics
> > experts' approving of it when it was new?
>
> Likewise, can you cite any specific examples of ethicists'
> alleged hatred of technology? After all, you're the one who
> charged that they're "always" standing in the way of
> technological advances, so the burden of proof is on you.
>
> Coincidentally, the "Science Friday" program today on NPR
> ( http://www.sciencefriday.com/ ) will feature a discussion
> of bioethics in their first hour. You might want to tune in.
>
I never really encountered any information about Bioethics in daily life,
not even in biology class, until I came across it in this "AdBusters"
magazine and then on NPR. NPR features it alot. And from what
I've heard, their biggest concern is that the diseases and pests
that get killed off by certain chemicals and anti-bacteria, would start
to evolve up an immunity, and maybe even mutate into much more
of a problematic disease or even a plague. Micro-organisms are
constantly in an arms-race so fighting them with something natural
and abundant makes more sense since it to can evolve and it already
is at war with the parasite and winning too. Synthetic chemicals-and-
anti-biotics are static, and some have trace elements that might even
boost or mutate the disease's immunity, and that's one of the Bio-
ethicists biggest concerns.
Unfortunately, they aren't risk takers, so all they fucking do is
argue about whether something is safe or not for eons and eons, so
it's highly unlikely that you'll find anything written in stone from them.
Though most times in the past, technology did more environmental
damage than good, so they're still very important advocates for the
future of the Earth.
-Ilr
Brian O'connell
is, mutation and evolution are neither predictable nor finite... While I'm
not into macrobiotics or similar new age jazz, I have the feeling that
antibiotics we take in our everyday diets (such as meat and poultry), and
residual toxins from insecticides that make it into our vegetables, well,
lets put it this way... It all goes the same way in the end... Sewage
treatment plants... Which expose bacteria to an environment that's
incessantly hostile (but as we see from the volcanic vents in the pacific,
and the gold mines in South Africa, bacteria can stand quite a bit), after
some already develop slight resistances to what's already been passed
through their host's bodies...
In many cases, genetic randomization takes place within only a few
hundred generations, and here's a group of organisms that go through several
thousand generations every day... So this was bound to happen... Problem is,
science looks for everything in a chaotic environment to exist within
predictable and quantifiable terms... Not that it's a bad thing, but often
it's misdirected...
"ilr" <i...@rof.net> wrote in message news:8tv5ed$h7b$1...@raccoon.fur.com...
Ostrich
certain amount of topic drift, and the discussion is one that interests
me, and that I hope won't be overlooked)
Timothy Fay wrote:
>
> Likewise, can you cite any specific examples of ethicists'
> alleged hatred of technology?
A valid point, Tim. Let's see what I can find...
We've got the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity at
http://www.bioethix.org. (I do like these folx' spelling, I must
admit...)
At http://www.bioethix.org/newsletter/001/001bohlin.htm there's an
article wherein they wring their hands over the "problem" of
"allow[ing] the indiscriminate use of genetic technology to suit
a personal whim". They characterize the issue of allowing humans
to control their own genome for such obviously desireable things
as increased intelligence as 'a problem', 'a pitfall', and 'the messiest
quagmire'. While they don't say a word about stuff like tails or fur,
I think I can probably guess where they'd stand.
At http://health.upenn.edu/~bioethic/center/people/caplan.html we
find the page of the Center for Bioethics for the University of
Pennsylvania.
In http://www.med.upenn.edu/bioethic/press/Dec09_1999.html, they
talk of the necessity for nonhuman genetic research to be subjected
to close public oversight. He seems to assume (although doesn't state
outright) that the oversight should be framed in terms of what
bioethicists find acceptable. He makes the bizarre statement that
this is necessary to prevent a repetition of the "mass hysteria" that
greeted the announcement of the cloning of Dolly the Sheep.
At http://www.midbio.org you find the Midwest Bioethics Center.
They've an article at http://www.midbio.org/mbc-newethicsmay99.htm
which neatly sums up what I find frightening about the whole bioethics
movement. The author starts by asserting that when faced with news
of an advance in science, the proper response ought not to be "what
do I think about this", but rather "what should we think about this".
That's the heart of the whole bioethics agenda right there, at least as
it relates to genetics. They beleive that genetic and medical research
should be steered not by those conducting the research, nor by those
paying for the research, but rather by the deliberations of society, in
terms framed by bioethicists. They're wise enough to tell us what
to think, whereas we'd prolly make the wrong decision without their
guidance. I'm enough of a conservative to beleive that deciding what
to do with one's genes is best left to the individual rather than to
society as a whole.
I've given the URL for the home pages, so that folx can shop through
and look at the rest of the stuff themselves. There's all sorts of
stuff like this in each of them, and links to lots more. I'll be
the first to admit that there's a lot of good ideas, and even more
of good intentions in these pages. In general, any group that
wants me to cede control of any aspect of my life to their wise
and benevolent guidance is one I'll oppose, though.
It's pretty clear what I think. Do YOU beleive that ethicists speed
or slow the advance of genetic engineering and related technologies,
and why?
Artist
"Steve Carter" <mouseboy...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:8ttm70$e98$1...@raccoon.fur.com...
> Strange... I was thinking something similar, earlier. All of this
> infighting and there are men and women from the USS Cole who'll never
see
> their families again. They weren't just sailors, they were somebody's
son,
> they were somebody's brother, somebody's love, somebody's reason for
living.
> Some of them were mommy and daddy, and that's the deepest cut of all.
Ya' know... This is one of the driving reasons I don't take stuff like
RPG'ing, and fantasy literaly. I think that the above metioned
individuals would do well to go and tour a local maximum security
prison. :|
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
>ilr wrote:
[...]
>> Penicillin?
>>
>A wonderful chemical, to be sure. Can you cite an example of a
>professional ethicist who thought it a good idea when it was discovered?
Public sanitation had quite alot of fans.
--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
http://dformosa.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.
Free the Memes.
Daniel Gill
Brian O'connell wrote:
Doh! Only Omaha sat on my face. Swann just shook my hand. Thank God.;)
Ostrich
>
> Public sanitation had quite alot of fans.
Most assuredly it did. But can you cite any examples of 'ethics
experts' approving of it when it was new?
Kyle L. Webb
"Cerulean" <ma...@cerulean.st> wrote in message
news:3a01bbf5...@news.faof.org...
> Oh, and it would have been only one minute you
> wasted, if you had left out the gratuitous, generic insults.
But the insults were the entire point of his post, Cerulean. It gave him a
chance to prop up his own self esteem by insulting someone else. He's really
quite predictable if you keep watching for a bit.
Kyle L. Webb
Hartree Fox on yiffnet
Kyle L. Webb
<fka...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8trt4f$2t0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Be grateful- be very grateful.
>
Get real, Eric.
You're getting more newsgroup attention now than you have in weeks, and
you're eating it up.
Glad to see that you're replying to posts as well as just writing lead
topics. I hope this is a trend.
Kyle L. Webb
"Al Goldman" <allan...@aol.comNARF> wrote in message
news:20001102205056...@nso-fd.aol.com...
>
> I think the depiction of yourself as a panther king with a Persian
> cat queen at your side was my favorite.
Actually I liked Jim Groat's artwork of him the best. He truly captured the
Random we know and preserved him for all to see.
Timothy Fay
>
> ...But can you cite any examples of 'ethics
> experts' approving of it when it was new?
Likewise, can you cite any specific examples of ethicists'
alleged hatred of technology? After all, you're the one who
charged that they're "always" standing in the way of
technological advances, so the burden of proof is on you.
Coincidentally, the "Science Friday" program today on NPR
( http://www.sciencefriday.com/ ) will feature a discussion
of bioethics in their first hour. You might want to tune in.
--
http://www.umn.edu/~fayxx001
"Hey, ho -- let's go!" -Ramones
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
>David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) wrote:
>>
>> Public sanitation had quite alot of fans.
>
>Most assuredly it did. But can you cite any examples of 'ethics
>experts' approving of it when it was new?
I think it predates modern bioethics.
Elf Sternberg
> Ralph Nader is a sterling individual who has spent his entire
>professional life in defense of the american citizen. He's selflessly
>devoted himself over the past 35 years to improve the quality of life
>in America. If it weren't for him, we wouldn't have seatbelts...
Years before Nader came along, Ford offered seat belts in its
models. As options. People didn't want them. They didn't see that
seatbelts were a threat to their health. Nader's effect on seat belt
laws is actually quite minimal; he may have dramatized the effect, but
it was insurance companies that rammed through seat belt laws in many
states. More people wearing seatbelts meant fewer death and accidental
dismemberment payouts. People seem to think that Nader was some kind of
superhero, but he wasn't; he ended up being the right guy at the right
time. He's capitalized on that. More power to him.
And while you may admire him, I do not. I am not spurred by the
American tendency to admire someone who sticks to his guns even when
he's fundamentally wrong. And while Nader may be a great guy, the Green
party is a party that I disagree with on a moral and personal level. I
am convinced, by my own reading of their platform and their position
papers, that they will not create the kind of body politic in which I
want my children to grow up.
Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg, Immanentizing the Eschaton since 1988
http://www.halcyon.com/elf/
As he lay dozing beside me, a little voice said, "Relax. You're not the
first doctor to sleep with a patient." Then another little voice said,
"But Rebecca, you're a veterinarian."
Elf Sternberg
Mathue <mathu/e...@my-doja.com> writes:
>In article <8ts8oj$9k7$1...@brokaw.wa.com>, Elf Sternberg
><e...@halcyon.com> wrote:
>> > All I could think of to say here is have you seen 'Clonus Horror'?
>> Saw the MST3K version of it. Personally, I thought the
>> premise was terrible and inhumane. Why create replacement organs
>> attached to brains? It would be much less worrisome, from an ethical
>> standpoint, if you just actively prevented the development of
>> mentation and consciousness in the first place.
> Which they did to an extent. Most of the clones were pretty 'dense'.
I remember one person mentioning that the 'controls' were
special in that they were not lobotomized.
> The writer may have surmized that growing them seperate from a host
>body was beyond the technology when the story takes place.
What does it take to regularly inject a growth antagonist into
the brain of the developing fetus to inhibit the growth of those
annoying frontal lobes, the ones that give us consciousness? From the
description, they had birthing tanks.
Maybe the real trick was keeping them healthily exercised
without some kind of brain to drive them around.
By the way, did anyone see that the organ stenting technology
now works on human livers? But there's an interesting twist to that.
For a damaged liver, the damaged part is cut away and a plastic stent is
wrapped around where the liver "should" be. The "plastic" is really a
package of long-chain low-soluble sugars embedded with growth hormones.
The hormones encourage the liver to grow out along the latticework
stent, and eventually the entire thing dissolves. They can grow you a
new organ-- inside your own body.
Cool. We're on the verge of curing non-hepatic liver diseases.
Hopefully, by the time they do, Eric will have enough of his left to
grow a new one. His current one is so deeply steeped in bile that it's
probably only got a few years left.
Elf Sternberg
allan...@aol.comNARF (Al Goldman) writes:
>consider:
>1) Many new furry cons.
>2) Major rise in public decorum at furry cons
>3) More discreet access, without banning, constitutionally protected
> adult material.
>4) Plenty of G rated material, for those who want it.
>5) Inability of fandom based groups to force there agenda on the fandom.
>6) Inability of media exposure to damage the fandom since everything we
> do is legal.
>We never had it so good - it's a great time to be a furry!
Bravo! My thoughts exactly. Trying to kill this fandom is a
bit like trying to kill Linux: you can't kill an idea that too many
people are carrying around in their heads. The idea that there's
something fundamentally "wrong" with Furry fandom is simple a silly one.
If there's anything *I* would complain about Furry Fandom, it's
that Furry as a genre seems to get many artists stuck in the first half
of the life cycle of the artist. There are a lot of Furry artists who
are competent surface artists; there are a few craftsmen and very few
who understand the underlying structure of art. Most furry artists are,
in other words, illustrators rather than artists. I can't think of many
of who have gone on to develop unique, idiomatic forms of artistic
expression (especially since "furry" has become rather ossified in the
idioms it represents), and there are damned few artists who go on to
develop unique idioms, and even fewer who actually explore either the
form of Furry art (go Paf!) or the purpose (go Mousehouse!) behind being
an artist.
Very few Furry artists write or draw about the serious question,
"Why am I doing this?"
Furry is a bit of a dead end, as far as being an artist or
writer goes. I think we take it a tad too seriously sometime, when, in
truth, Fur must be viewed as a tool, just one color in the palette, one
voice in the fiction. You can do a lot in monochromatic art, and you
can do a lot with monologues. But they're not the be-all and end-all of
expression, and anyone so desperately wrapped up in a Golden Age That
Never Was idea of Furry fandom that they have to post a "j'accuse" is in
need of our sympathy for his own mental health.
Timothy Fay
>
>In article <8tqrgd$9re$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> fka...@my-deja.com writes:
>>
>> Ralph Nader is a sterling individual who has spent his entire
>>professional life in defense of the american citizen. He's selflessly
>>devoted himself over the past 35 years to improve the quality of life
>>in America. If it weren't for him, we wouldn't have seatbelts...
>
> laws is actually quite minimal; he may have dramatized the effect, but
> it was insurance companies that rammed through seat belt laws in many
> states.
I think the Libertarians have a more credible excuse: They think
mandatory seat belt laws are proof of "creeping Socialism."
( http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/1797/seatbelt.htm )
Next thing you know, they'll be sticking "Quotations From Chairman
Mao" in every glovebox...
As usual, neither of you are right: Nader wasn't solely reponsible
for enacting seat belt laws, and neither were they "rammed through"
by the insurance companies. Mandatory seatbelt laws in most
states were enacted after the Federal government threatened to
withhold millions in transportation funding to the states that
didn't pass seatbelt laws.
I suppose the President might have been acting on behalf of the
insurance companies. But this "creeping socialism" is likely part
of the marching orders he received from the Communist Party after
his visit Moscow in 1968. Alas, our cherished freedoms are doomed,
but at least we won't go through the windshield...
--
http://www.umn.edu/~fayxx001
"Bowl a strike, not a spare -- revolution everywhere!" -RABL motto
ilr
> As usual, neither of you are right: Nader wasn't solely reponsible
> for enacting seat belt laws, and neither were they "rammed through"
> by the insurance companies. Mandatory seatbelt laws in most
> states were enacted after the Federal government threatened to
> withhold millions in transportation funding to the states that
> didn't pass seatbelt laws.
>
Which were recently lifted in 96' or something..
> I suppose the President might have been acting on behalf of the
> insurance companies. But this "creeping socialism" is likely part
> of the marching orders he received from the Communist Party after
> his visit Moscow in 1968. Alas, our cherished freedoms are doomed,
> but at least we won't go through the windshield...
>
Ever seen someone slide 100 feet across pavement?
I have, and I still don't wear mine.