FUR: drug use at Anthrocon
Dr. Samuel Conway
raised in excess of $13,000. The feedback I have had so far has been
overwhelmingly positive. We had press coverage that was a little
scornful, but no more so than any coverage of any SF or Trek con in
the early days. I owe the success of the convention to a crew of over
100 staff and volunteers who worked themselves into exhaustion, some
of them for multiple shifts that left them without food or rest, all
for zero pay and tons of headaches. But they did it, they did it
well, and I am proud of them.
I will be damned if I will let a handful of dope-heads ruin everything
these people worked so hard for.
Drugs have no place at Anthrocon. Through reports from other members
and staffers, through my own detective work, and through other sources
that provided reliable details and named names, we have identified
five individuals that were trafficking in Ecstasy at our convention or
who were involved in the organization of a party that promoted the
trafficking of that material. Those individuals have been asked not
to return to Anthrocon. I speak for the entire Board of Directors
when I state that we will not have the convention put in an awkward
legal position, and we sure as heck will not tolerate anyone putting
the life or health of any of Anthrocon's members in jeopardy.
I've always told people not to post to Usenet when they are mad. I
would follow my own advice, but it's going to be quite a long time
before I am not mad anymore over this, so I thought it better to put
the word out while the issue was still timely. It's really a very
simple message: don't bring drugs to the con. If you do, don't let
me even remotely find out that you have them. If you deal drugs at
Anthrocon, I guarantee you that it will be the last time you attend
the convention for as long as you live.
-- Uncle Kage
PS: a few closing points
1) Don't ask who they were. It's not anyone's business.
2) Don't try to debate with me on whether or not "E" is "safe." Show
me your doctorate in pharmaceutical chemistry and then maybe we'll
talk.
3) If you have a problem with our policy, then I apologize, but it
will not be changed. After they gave so much, I do not think it is
fair to ask the people who worked so hard for the convention also to
bear the burden of prosecution.
4) Don't let me catch you with drugs at Anthrocon.
Kathmandu
--
Kathmandu
Sculptor, artist and writer.
http://www.cableone.net/kathmandu
Be sure to read Salt and Foam
http://www.cableone.net/kathmandu/salt.htm
Also the author of the Sabrina Online Fanfic, The Studio: Photogenisis
http://www.cableone.net/kathmandu/studio.htm
Be sure to check out the Uncle Kat's Story Hour at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Uncle_Kats_Story_Hour/
"Dr. Samuel Conway" <flog...@you-know-the-drill.bellatlantic.net> wrote in
message news:8dugjug3ir24mde4p...@4ax.com...
Alexsandyr Troutnoodler
Hash: SHA1
Dr. Samuel Conway wrote in message
<8dugjug3ir24mde4p...@4ax.com>...
>I will be damned if I will let a handful of dope-heads ruin everything
>these people worked so hard for.
Ermmmm...that would be "E-tards"....
And I fully agree with you on this one. Zero Tolerance.
I support the legalization of cannabis, but UNTIL it is legal, I will support
and uphold the law.
======O <==[IonOtter, LogOut]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBPTi22JHtUWscYsN3EQJJHgCaAwcLECC9ATBU9ZelxjWX2yGfJNgAoLxp
tydZI/qdB3EIRlj/bWy90XXZ
=J1yI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Gabriel Gentile
flog...@you-know-the-drill.bellatlantic.net wrote on 7/19/02 4:25 PM:
> we sure as heck will not tolerate anyone putting
> the life or health of any of Anthrocon's members in jeopardy.
Unless it involves the use of body lubricants.
Steve Carter
"Dr. Samuel Conway" <flog...@you-know-the-drill.bellatlantic.net> wrote in
message news:8dugjug3ir24mde4p...@4ax.com...
> sources
> that provided reliable details and named names
Aah! You mean men or women of INTEGRITY and PROFESSIONALISM, and not this
"a friend who will remain anonymous, you deal with it" horseshit.
> If you deal drugs at
> Anthrocon, I guarantee you that it will be the last time you attend
> the convention for as long as you live.
And getting authorities involved is not bad either. Remember, the fuzz are
furries be default! :o)
batty den
>five individuals that were trafficking in Ecstasy at our convention
Were they fur-E?
I support your stand. Drugs are illegal. The screw with the body. People
die.
One day I'll be able to talk abount friends I lost.
den
--
Credendo Vides
Bat Rescue Diaries soon at http://www.ozemail.com.au/~denbat
_____________________________________________________________
I know this might sound strange,|www.battyden.net
but all I want is a normal life |denbat at ozemail dot com.au
_____________________________________________________________
slu...@earthlink.net
> I will be damned if I will let a handful of dope-heads ruin everything
> these people worked so hard for.
You put your trust in half heard rumors that have no bearing on
reality, which makes you about as Furry as they come, admittedly.
I also heard rumors that you didn't want to admit that you played
Toy on FurryMUCK, but who would believe in such rumors? Or excuse me,
was that Rogue? Whatever your size fetish is.
Newsflash, fuckwit! You banned a few casual users at best. I
seriously doubt if any real drug dealer would also be a Furry fan. I
mean, Furries don't do drugs right? JUST SAY NO! Mew mew mew.
Actually it's really hard to see how you can stomach a Furry
convention without being high or stoned. I mean, how else are you
going to enjoy wallowing in such glorious mediocrity? But I digress...
Something else for you to digest. I actually know a number of
people who fancy themselves as being Furry, and they certainly do not
fit into your neat little paradigm. Sorry to burst your bubble and
all, but in the real world some people can and do use drugs
responsibly. They're not all coke addicts and potheads. Add to that,
whatever they do outside of the con space or in their own rooms isn't
any of your concern either. If you don't like that then I suggest you
close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears and hum real loud.
slu...@earthlink.net
> I will be damned if I will let a handful of dope-heads ruin everything
> these people worked so hard for.
Oh, and it was E, for the record.
OH NO!!!!! THEY MIGHT AS WELL HAVE BEEN SHOOTING UP THEIR HEROIN!
Buster
You don't get it, if you run an event and something illegal is going
on there, you could get in serious legal trouble. Imagine you ran a
night dance club and people came and dealed E without you knowing.
The cops come and the city blames you for being a venue for drug
trafficking. *This has happened many many many times in my home
city*.. I'm a frequent clubber and I know plenty of club owners who
have lost their businesses and livelihoods because some a-holes dealed
drugs near their business. In almost every case, the club is cleared
of all charges but they still go out of business coz of some jackass
who dealt nearby. The surviving club owners make this big hulabaloo
about how they don't tolerate drugs and throw out anyone even remotely
*supected* of possessing them... just to keep legal troubles away.
No matter if these people are guilty or not, you HAVE to ban them AND
make it very public that you did so in order to avoid any stigma in
your organization. It's that simple. These people worked hard and
some a-hole comes in and destroys the whole thing just coz he wanted a
fix? Screw that, get rid of them fast, doesn't matter who they are.
I'd throw your ass out if you even mentioned the words "have some pot"
even if you were joking, I wouldn't take *any* chances, no sir.
AC isn't a police unit or authority, it's just a small non-profit
organization. It cannot possibly bear the burden of legal troubles,
it has to push shit like this as far away as it can to keep itself
going. You've heard of strict rules in schools or wherever, such as
if you are caught with a bottle you are expelled without question of
your guilt or innocence. It just has to be done in order to deter and
also avoid legal crap. Every con from every type of fandom has the
same rules. I go to plenty of different cons (mostly non-furry) and
it's no different. There are some things the police care about -
drugs is one of them. You don't want to piss off the police. If you
don't like it, then that's too bad.
No, I don't have anything to do with AC management. I don't even know
who Kage is. As a matter of fact, I really didn't have a good time at
AC. I thought it sucked. Not anything the con did, I just thought it
was boring. I'm not a furry lifestyler, I'm not into porn, and I
don't really have tons of furry pals, I just like cartoons and comics.
The major reason I was there was to visit a close friend of mine I
hadn't seen in years. If she wasn't there, I would never have gone.
slu...@earthlink.net
> You don't get it, if you run an event and something illegal is going
> on there, you could get in serious legal trouble. Imagine you ran a
> night dance club and people came and dealed E without you knowing.
> The cops come and the city blames you for being a venue for drug
> trafficking. *This has happened many many many times in my home
> city*.. I'm a frequent clubber and I know plenty of club owners who
> have lost their businesses and livelihoods because some a-holes dealed
> drugs near their business. In almost every case, the club is cleared
> of all charges but they still go out of business coz of some jackass
> who dealt nearby. The surviving club owners make this big hulabaloo
> about how they don't tolerate drugs and throw out anyone even remotely
> *supected* of possessing them... just to keep legal troubles away.
No I think you missed the point. Not that they were dealing, mind
you. They brought the stuff to use amongst themselves. Kage would
have you believe that they were in the dealers room exhanging bottles
of ecstacy for wads of cash.
They were in their own room. Correct me if I'm wrong, but some
guy running a con, no matter how meglamaniacal he might be, doesn't
have any sayso over what happens in someone's room. Nor does he have
any responsibility over what they do. Oh if he wants to be a jerk, he
can call the cops on them and say someone's doing drugs in
such-and-such a room. Even though they weren't bothering anyone else.
But then again, he didn't have any idea about it until after the con
was over, did he?
> No matter if these people are guilty or not, you HAVE to ban them AND
> make it very public that you did so in order to avoid any stigma in
> your organization. It's that simple. These people worked hard and
> some a-hole comes in and destroys the whole thing just coz he wanted a
> fix? Screw that, get rid of them fast, doesn't matter who they are.
> I'd throw your ass out if you even mentioned the words "have some pot"
> even if you were joking, I wouldn't take *any* chances, no sir.
You're afraid of Furry Fandom having a stigma? Pardon me while I
laugh. =)
Sad to say that Furry Fandom already has a reputation and it isn't
a very good one. Gee, but I guess they can call themselves drug free.
Hooray for them.
Now pardon me while I get drunk. ;D
Allen Kitchen
slu...@earthlink.net wrote:
> They were in their own room. Correct me if I'm wrong, but some guy
> running a con, no matter how meglamaniacal he might be, doesn't have any
> sayso over what happens in someone's room. Nor does he have any
> responsibility over what they do.
Okay; you are wrong.
They were there in a room purchased at a discount because they
were part of the con. As such, they must obey the rules of the
convention. They must also obey the laws of the city, state,
and country in which they are in, and whether you agree or not
the laws _of the United States_ make the drug Ecstasy illegal
no matter which hotel or which convention or which room they are
in. The hotel frowns on people doing things that brings Vice to
storm into their property. And if AC has that problem often, then
they'll find themselves without a hotel pretty quickly. It's
that simple.
> Oh if he wants to be a jerk, he can
> call the cops on them and say someone's doing drugs in such-and-such a
> room. Even though they weren't bothering anyone else. But then again,
> he didn't have any idea about it until after the con was over, did he?
I didn't go to AC this year for reasons that are not important.
But even I, sitting here alone and not scanning for anything in
particular, heard about drugs in the convention around Saturday
evening. If they were being so discrete and "not bothering
anybody," then just how did I hear about it halfway across the
country? Had they really been quiet and kept their RecPharm to
themselves in their room then nobody anywhere would have been the
wiser. But they didn't, and now they will pay the price for their
actions. They should count themselves very lucky that someone
did NOT call the cops on them.
Allen Kitchen (shockwave)
http://www.blkbox.com/~osprey/
Tim Gadd
> I also heard rumors that you didn't want to admit that you played
>Toy on FurryMUCK, but who would believe in such rumors? Or excuse me,
>was that Rogue? Whatever your size fetish is.
I remember attending a SIG where Kage introduced himself (or was
introduced) as Rogue. In fact it was a SIG about macrophilia and he was a
panelist (or possibly even the chair.) I also seem to remember at last
year's story hour he mentioned he was a macrophile - which was not only
said in public, but in front of video cameras (which is indeed how I saw
it) What other revelations do you have: Oscar Wilde was gay?
>Something else for you to digest. I actually know a number of
>people who fancy themselves as being Furry, and they certainly do not
>fit into your neat little paradigm. Sorry to burst your bubble and
>all, but in the real world some people can and do use drugs
>responsibly. They're not all coke addicts and potheads. Add to that,
>whatever they do outside of the con space or in their own rooms isn't
>any of your concern either.
Kage doesn't have to have a rule against having illegal drugs in your room
at a con. They're illegal. It's already illegal to have them in your room.
However, he would be completely within his rights to have such a rule even
if they weren't illegal.
--
Tim Gadd | fluke .com.au
Hobart, Tasmania | @southcom
Homepage: http://www.fortunecity.com/victorian/university/222/
'We see the moon but cannot remember its meaning.'
- Edward Brathwaite
Matt J. McCullar
<slu...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3D393E7C...@earthlink.net...
> You put your trust in half heard rumors that have no bearing on
> reality, which makes you about as Furry as they come, admittedly.
Really? Do you have any evidence that these are "half-heard rumors"? It
takes a great deal of work and trust to just put a convention together, much
less run one for an entire weekend. That takes people you can trust, whose
word you can depend on far more than some people you don't know who come
from far away and seem to have no concern other than trying to spoil the fun
for everyone else.
It does seem to defy logic for anyone to use drugs at a furry con or even a
sci-fi con in general. With one, you get to escape reality temporarily,
without any side effects or legal troubles. The other puts your health and
even your life in jeopardy.
I'm not a drug user, and never have been. I, too, have lost some friends
over the years because they fried their brains or overdosed. What a waste.
Think about this: Why in this world would anyone want to buy drugs at a
convention, or anywhere else, when there are no controls on quality or
purity? One could easily buy gypsum or some other substance resembling
cocaine and now you're out mucho bucks. Then what are you going to do?
Call the cops? Worse thought: It could be pure poison and you'd never know
it.
Anyone with brain cells running a con has to put anti-drug rules in place,
or there would be no convention to hold. One whiff of drugs and not only do
you have the cops rushing in (they were already there, actually; I saw a
Philly cop in the art show Saturday night), but you've also got the hotel
pissed off in a big way and then you've suddenly found yourself with no
hotel in which to hold the con ever again. What's more, they'll tell other
hotels and they won't let you have your con in them, either. What was the
final attendance figure for AC this year? 1,600 or thereabouts. It only
takes one bad apple to spoil all the fun for 1,599 others who enjoy life
without having to fry their brains on illegal drugs. Do you want to have
over a thousand people pissed off at you?
Anybody risking his health this way is a Darwin Award waiting to happen.
The cemeteries are full of these people already. Famous last words: "How do
they make a profit on this stuff at a dollar a quart?" Just two days ago,
in fact, right here in my home town, some doofus swiped a case of beer from
a convenience store, ran out the door with it, and was instantly struck and
killed by a car in the parking lot.
So if anybody in the fandom is just absolutely hell-bent on using this junk,
then at least have the common courtesy to do it in your own home where you
won't take anybody with you. What good does using drugs do for you, anyway?
LancerAdvancd iBuck
>guy running a con, no matter how meglamaniacal he might be, doesn't
>have any sayso over what happens in someone's room.
And all Kage did is bar them from future attendance of the con, which is
-perfectaly- within his rights as a convention organizer... he didn't throw
them in jail, get them kicked out of the hotel, he didn't call the cops... he
told them they wern't welcome as convention members anymore, which is just
fine by me...
iBuck
Homepage at http://lanceradvanced.com/Furry
"You can have it these ways :Fancy,Correct,Quickly- Pick 2"
Atara
> Sorry to burst your bubble and
>all, but in the real world some people can and do use drugs
>responsibly.
Yippie for them. They can do it at home.
> Add to that,
>whatever they do outside of the con space or in their own rooms isn't
>any of your concern either.
Anything within the hotel IS conspace, by definition. If they wanted to
stay at another hotel (one where they are not getting the con discount), it
would be a different story. That would be outside of the con, and so long
as they didn't show up at the con high, I don't think anyone would know or
care what they were doing.
But they were making it painfully obvious what they were doing at AC. There
were complaints. The staff acted upon them properly, by setting a precedent
and banning the individuals involved. End of story. Break the rules, and
you get tossed. I don't see what the confusion is here.
--
Atara
"Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus."
http://www.FurNation.com/Atara/
***What doesn't fit in my email addy? NADA.***
Hannah Kincaid
> >people who fancy themselves as being Furry, and they certainly do not
> >fit into your neat little paradigm. Sorry to burst your bubble and
> >all, but in the real world some people can and do use drugs
> >responsibly. They're not all coke addicts and potheads. Add to that,
> >whatever they do outside of the con space or in their own rooms isn't
> >any of your concern either. If you don't like that then I suggest you
> >close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears and hum real loud.
> No matter if these people are guilty or not, you HAVE to ban them AND
> make it very public that you did so in order to avoid any stigma in
> your organization. It's that simple. These people worked hard and
> some a-hole comes in and destroys the whole thing just coz he wanted a
> fix? Screw that, get rid of them fast, doesn't matter who they are.
> I'd throw your ass out if you even mentioned the words "have some pot"
> even if you were joking, I wouldn't take *any* chances, no sir.
*stupid announcer voice:*
Wait, kids! You're both right! The people who got kicked out of AC did
something foolish, and Kage was right to protect himself and the con he's
worked so hard to build. But they're friends of friends of mine and I have
reason to believe all the facts of the story haven't come out yet. I can
forgive Kage dismissing them in the heat of anger -- god knows I've lost my
temper here too -- but simply dismissing them as losers or villains without
bothering to know the circumstances, well, given that our Glorious Leader
didn't EVEN hide his habits as well as them and we're trusting him with
command of our army, that's a pretty good indication these people
might have some good potential in them too, right?
Okay, maybe Bush isn't the least controversial example I could've picked.
But you get the idea.All I'm gonna say is that I think it's plainly obvious
that Kage responded to a real threat to his con, or at least what he thought
was, and there's no question there. But furries are vicious little bastards,
and tend to have even
more "gonna turn my brain off now" buttons than the general population. Drug
use is one of them and some of you are already beginning to show that.
Just try to think this through and get all your facts instead of just doing
the "drug user = complete waste of human flesh" equation. It might be true
in
many cases, but it's too easy and if I were you I'd be real suspicious of
it, because it leaves you very easy to manipulate.
By the way, anybody who has ever taken a single drink of alcohol at a con
can just shut the fuck up about drug safety, no matter what kind of degree
you have. You know who you are. Just because you plowed through grad school
doesn't mean you have a whit of common sense.
Hannah Kincaid
GHB, even
though it used to be a weightlifting supplement, is crack. DMT is crack. LSD
is
crack. In a few years, kava kava and ephedrine will probably be crack, and
every
will forget it was every any different.
And if you think this is just a pro-drug post, you're on crack. It's a last,
desperate
plea for people to think critically. On AFF. I must be on crack, too.
<slu...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3D39453E...@earthlink.net...
Atara
<ahbs2n$44l$1...@raccoon.fur.com>:
>By the way, anybody who has ever taken a single drink of alcohol at a con
>can just shut the fuck up about drug safety, no matter what kind of degree
>you have.
Alcohol is legal. Ecstacy is not.[1] Therein lies the difference. If you
break the law at a con, you are - very rightly - not welcomed back, no
matter what the particular law you broke was. If someone had been busted
for serving alcohol to minors, I would support banning those people as
well.
[1] Please, lets not get into the "Why is alcohol legal, and
pot/ecstacy/whatever not legal" arguement... That's not the issue here.
Hannah Kincaid
news:eBd_8.10157$M9.528...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
> So if anybody in the fandom is just absolutely hell-bent on using this
junk,
> then at least have the common courtesy to do it in your own home where you
> won't take anybody with you. What good does using drugs do for you,
anyway?
*sigh* I'm sure this is going to give people all sorts of horrible ideas
about me, but what the hell, one more won't hurt. I have absolutely no
interest in arguing this point out here, because I know it would be a
complete waste of time. There are too many people here who argue with their
fingers in their ears. But I respect you, Matt, because you've always been
fairly reasonable, and if you'd care to contact me at post...@lycos.com,
maybe we can talk about this. Drugs aren't really a part of my life
anymore, but I can at least give you the opposing viewpoint in a way that I
think will be fairly coherent and complete.
For now, I would recommend liberal doses (both puns intended) of Aldous
Huxley, Alexander Shulgin, and selected chapters of Richard Feynman's
autobiography
_Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman_. Feynman, who was a Nobel prize-winning
physicist, treasured his intellect as his single greatest possession. It was
the basis of his career and all his hobbies. For most of his life, Feynman
had a strict no-drug policy because he didn't want to risk all that --
until he met Dr. John C. Lilly, the
animal psychologist (and, I admit, completely loonie :) ). He experimented
with ketamine, marijuana, and sensory deprivation tanks. He had a good
experience and
when he'd learned all he could, he stopped. If his work suffered, the
students who continued to hail him as the finest physics lecturer in the
USA didn't seem to notice. He died of lung cancer a few years back -- but
that probably had more to do with fact he was a few hundred feet from the
Trinity bomb test. The man was not exactly something out of Trainspotting.
This, of course, is because "using drugs" is a very weak category that
refers to hundreds of completely different substances with totally different
effects, as I'm sure our resident neurochemists will be happy to tell you.
I would also refer you to a recent Wired article -- I think it was an
excerpt from his book _Uncle Tungsten_ -- where noted neurologist Dr.
Oliver Sacks relates
a period of LSD experience in his life, and how it helped him get over his
clinical detachment and develop a healthy sense of empathy for his patients.
Whether there's some alternate universe where these great intellects burnt
themselves out and went to waste, God only knows. You asked a question, and
I answered it. *shrug*
John Urie
>
> Sad to say that Furry Fandom already has a reputation and it isn't
> a very good one. Gee, but I guess they can call themselves drug free.
> Hooray for them.
>
> Now pardon me while I get drunk. ;D
You post with all the intelligence of someone who's ALREADY wasted...and
with all the maturity of a spoiled kid insisting that if he isn't allowed to
pitch, he's taking his bat and ball and going home.
Let me explain this very simply:
1. Dealing or no dealing, if the ppl doing E at the con had been busted by
the federales, the folks at the Adam's Mark would have suggested that Kage
take his convention elsewhere next year, even in a best case scenario. Got
that? If you run a furry convention, YOU are held responsible for what
goes on there...period.
2. Kage's con...Kage's rules. Simple as that. You don't like 'em? Go
organize your own con.
3. Drugs are not welcome at ANY furry convention. Don't believe me? Try
bringing Ecstacy into MFM, Conifur NW, Further Confusion, or Confurence.
The rest of us will be putting our money down in the betting pool, trying to
guess how long it takes you to get the bum's rush.
4. Anthrocon is not about YOU.
5. Whining about how 'it-was-only-casual-users' will not get anyone invited
back to Anthrocon next year. ( Yeah, right...and Bill Clinton did not
inhale. )
6. Even casual drug use is not a right...not God-given, not Constitutional,
not ANY kind of right.
7. Life is unfair. Deal with it.
8. The ppl asked not to return to AC were NOT victims.
9. Not even Vanity Fair or MTV give a rat's ass what a druggie thinks of the
furry fandom.
10. Kage's record on Furry Muck is completely irrelevant to the subject of
drug use at Anthrocon.
That's life in the big ol' ugly real world, pal. Can't deal with it?
Welcome to Earth, now go home.
John Urie
Hannah Kincaid
of the accused by people who don't even know them or a damn thing about the
facts, but I'm forced to come to the conclusion Kage was perfectly right to
boot them out. They themselves seem to be coming to that conclusion. That
much is over and done with, and I'm sure that it will have the intended
chilling effect on drug use at AC -- which is fine, because the uncareful
people shouldn't do it, and the really careful people will never be noticed
under any circumstances. Now, it's in the hands of the fandom and whether
the rumormongers, handwringers, and self-styled moral arbiters want to rub
salt on people's wounds for their own amusement. 10:1 odds they do.
LancerAdvancd iBuck <lncra...@aol.comstar> wrote in message
news:20020720094842...@mb-ff.aol.com...
Ink Fox
> Mister Cockroach wrote:
>
> > I will be damned if I will let a handful of dope-heads ruin everything
> > these people worked so hard for.
>
> You put your trust in half heard rumors that have no bearing on
> reality, which makes you about as Furry as they come, admittedly.
These aren't half-heard rumors with no bearing on reality. The problem
was that these users were openly talking about this in their
LiveJournals. One of the banned individuals posted the letter they
received, which included the quoted portions.
Further, the individual who posted the letter acknowledges the truth
of the situation, expresses their regret, and seems far less upset at
Kage than many here.
Their most recent posting:
>>> Well, I sent a formal apology and all that. I don't expect it to
>>> magically fix things, but I definitely felt it was necessary. I
>>> made a mistake, yes, but this would never have been blown up to
>>> ridiculous proportions and caused this much drama if a certain
>>> individual hadn't felt the need to point out an entry on this
>>> website [livejournal] that I should have made private.
>>> At that, you won't see me writing about blatant illegal activity
>>> in a public entry anymore, since there are apparently people out
>>> there who dislike me enough to do something like this. Thank you,
>>> whoever you are, for being an asshole when I didn't do a goddamned
>>> thing to you. You are the reason I loathe and distrust
>>> humanity. Now please, everyone pull in your claws, stop fighting,
>>> and let this rest.
>>> Goodnight.
Dale Farmer
rules of conduct that you like. There is nobody stopping you, and several
examples of folks who have done so successfully. While I think that the
current holy war on some drugs in the US is more based on propaganda
than fact, the illegal drug trade draws down on it lots of unwelcome and
intrusive police interest wherever it is. Hotels quite rightly value their
good reputation, and when a group that attracts police attention wants
to book space, it is perfectly valid, legal, and normal for them to say,
'We don't want your business.'. This is especially true for a hotel that
is literally across the street from two of the big local TV stations, which
the Adam's Mark is. So anything that happens there is more likely to
make the six O'Clock news than one that happens across town.
I enjoyed myself at Anthrocon this year, and I plan on being there
next year. Please don't pee in our soup, go and make your own
someplace else.
--Dale, speaking strictly for myself.
Matt J. McCullar
experiment concerning "recreational" drugs at AnthroCon. Whatever you want
to do in your own home is your concern, not mine or anyone else's. But we
were all in someone else's home at the time, and it wasn't Richard
Feynman's.
I have here before me the official AnthroCon program book, and it says quite
clearly on page 53:
"Substance Abuse... AnthroCon takes a dim view of the sale or use of
illegal narcotics or other controlled substances, which are considered to
have no place at the convention. For the safety and comfort of our members,
any individual noted to be visibly intoxicated or otherwise under the
influence of mind-altering substances will be asked to retire to a private
hotel room until the effects have passed. No further action will be taken
if the party in question agrees to retire.
"The sale or other distribution of any controlled substances will not be
tolerated, nor will any warnings be given. Any individual found to be
distributing intoxicating substances will be subject to immediate and
permanent revocation of Anthrocon membership and will be reported directly
to the Philadelphia Police."
Seems cut and dried to me. To make sure, everyone attending the convention
had to sign a statement, certifying that "I have read the rules, understand
them, and agree to abide by them." Some folks apparently didn't think this
applied to them, and now they don't get to join the fun anymore. Too bad.
Jim and Rebekah Groat
slu...@earthlink.net wrote on 7/20/02 6:10 AM:
Well hell, why don't you just organize a stoners convention, invite all the
dopers, wasters, pot-heads, E freaks and drunks and just waste the time
getting your minds (or whats left of them) blown away.
That way YOU don't have to whine how mean ole kage was about booting folks
who did drop 'E' at the con. age has enough on his plate not having to have
somebody getting blasted out of their minds on some drug or another and
possibly putting the con at risk with either the hotel or police. They
already had a major embarrassment Saturday night with a drunken fight.
Personally I don't blame Sam one tiny bit for doing what he did, it's his
name on the rental papers, alot of his money went into it, plus time, sweat
and alot stress organizing such an event without having to deal with twinks
doing drugs. Furthermore even if it was in the privacy of said offenders
hotel Room, THEY were part of the con by getting said room at Con rates. had
it been mundanes pulling off that shit, safe bet the cops whould have done
all the dirty work.
Personally had I caught somebody dealing drugs at the con I wouldn't
hesitate a second handing them over to security (Personally I'd rather drag
their asses outside and shoot them, zero tolerance to drug dealers...but
that too is against the law).
If you don't like the con rules...DON'T GO!!
Jim Groat
Steve Carter
"Mathue" <mathu/e...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:200720020908256611%mathu/e...@mac.com...
> Heck, I'm sure there are casual murderers out there that can kill
> without risk to themselves, but it is also illegal :D
It was a casual drinker who killed my little brother in 1991, six weeks
before his ninth birthday.
>What part of
> Berkeley are you from?
You've noticed that about Berkeleyans too, eh?
Sillyfur Rainbow Wagglebum
<post...@lycos.com> wrote:
> All non-prescription drugs are crack. Salvia is crack. Ecstacy is crack.
> GHB, even
> though it used to be a weightlifting supplement, is crack. DMT is crack. LSD
> is crack. In a few years, kava kava and ephedrine will probably be crack, and
> every will forget it was every any different.
>
> And if you think this is just a pro-drug post, you're on crack. It's a last,
> desperate plea for people to think critically. On AFF. I must be on crack, too.
Did someone say CRACK? I'll bring the lube!
Michael Campbell
been easy for you to say "Oh, people were doing stuff at my con? I honestly
didn't know." And left it at that. I'm glad to see that you didn't, and
you've handled the situation in a professional manner. More people in this
community could learn from your example.
Kiala Tekalal
wrote:
>Tell you what. You go and organize your own convention and set whatever
>rules of conduct that you like. There is nobody stopping you, and several
>examples of folks who have done so successfully. While I think that the
>current holy war on some drugs in the US is more based on propaganda
>than fact, the illegal drug trade draws down on it lots of unwelcome and
>intrusive police interest wherever it is. Hotels quite rightly value their
>good reputation, and when a group that attracts police attention wants
>to book space, it is perfectly valid, legal, and normal for them to say,
>'We don't want your business.'. This is especially true for a hotel that
>is literally across the street from two of the big local TV stations, which
>the Adam's Mark is. So anything that happens there is more likely to
>make the six O'Clock news than one that happens across town.
> I enjoyed myself at Anthrocon this year, and I plan on being there
>next year. Please don't pee in our soup, go and make your own
>someplace else.
>
> --Dale, speaking strictly for myself.
>
>
>Hannah Kincaid wrote:
Somehow I'm doubting that Hannah really wrote that message.. it lacks
her usual.. wordyness ;>
-Kiala
JESSUP
about what I did and why I was banned from the convention, I would like
to correct some things in your post. Mainly because I have heard so much
of what I can safely call "Total Bullsh*t" from -all over- about what
actually went on inside the walls. I've had a lot of response on my
livejournal [which I didn't even post illegal mentionings on so you
could say I've been "judged through the grapevine"] and emails from
total strangers about this affair. Such is life.
--
The use of the term "Dope-heads": A little drastic. We did a few drugs.
I know this doesn't matter, you can have one beer or thirty and still be
a beligerant drunken slut if you get caught. But being in the company of
actual "Dope-heads" for some part of my life this is offensive to me. I
don't condone the use of drugs to anyone who can't handle it. I don't
condone the use of drugs by minors or anyone who isn't responsible
enough to handle the drug itself or the consequences or the risks.
I nor anyone in the writings which caused us to be banned are "drug
dealers". Recreational drug users, yes. You can't deny a brick when you
see it. There was no selling of alchohol to minors. The ongoings in room
909 consisted entirely of alcohol consumption and by the looks of the
creatures I'd say they were all well over 21. They were on a party floor
and yes, they were a very loud party. That is why their reputation got
spread around the convention. And inevitably twisted into something all
too untrue.
The "Selling to minors" probably had a lot more to do with the ongoings
in room 420. I'm not going to name names, especially because I was in
there. The fact was a 19 year old drank out of somone elses smirnoff ice
bottle, in the hallways, and got caught. We got a very good verbal
spanking from Mr.Groat himself for this and that was that. I personally
did not know this girl was underaged. Which changes nothing now. I
apologized for that one, too.
Drugs have no place -anywhere-. They are illegal. People forget that
sometimes. People will also do them regardless of the rules. So we broke
the rules, and eventually you do get caught for breaking the rules. And
you either keep doing it or you don't. I'm thankful you didn't
immediately shuffle us all over to the authorities. Same with the 420
incident. If it happens now because of how loud this has become, then so
be it.
Maybe this is a plea for people to stop talking about it when only Kage
and Jim and maybe that guy over their have any right to do so.
Heather Reedy, aka Jessup Columbia
http://livejournal.com/users/urbanharpy/ ;)
Buster
> No I think you missed the point. Not that they were dealing, mind
>you. They brought the stuff to use amongst themselves. Kage would
>have you believe that they were in the dealers room exhanging bottles
>of ecstacy for wads of cash.
> They were in their own room. Correct me if I'm wrong, but some
>guy running a con, no matter how meglamaniacal he might be, doesn't
>have any sayso over what happens in someone's room. Nor does he have
>any responsibility over what they do. Oh if he wants to be a jerk, he
>can call the cops on them and say someone's doing drugs in
>such-and-such a room. Even though they weren't bothering anyone else.
> But then again, he didn't have any idea about it until after the con
>was over, did he?
He can be as big a jerk as he wants. He doesn't need a judge and jury
to find out what these people were doing, he can ban whoever he wants
to keep the legal trouble away from the con. I could care less about
what those people were doing or what Kage thinks, and the cops don't
either. What he did was the rational thing to do in order to
publically keep up the appearance that AC is not connected to drugs.
You don't understand that if Kage misleads the public into thinking he
banned some drug dealers from AC, that's *perfectly fine*. It's not a
court of law. No one wants the authorities to believe their
organization has anything to do with drugs. It's simple public
relations move that every legitimate organization in america would do.
AC is NOT a public event, and the rulemakers can do whatever they
want. How old are you, 15? You sound like a teenager debating school
rules.
>> No matter if these people are guilty or not, you HAVE to ban them AND
>> make it very public that you did so in order to avoid any stigma in
>> your organization. It's that simple. These people worked hard and
>> some a-hole comes in and destroys the whole thing just coz he wanted a
>> fix? Screw that, get rid of them fast, doesn't matter who they are.
>> I'd throw your ass out if you even mentioned the words "have some pot"
>> even if you were joking, I wouldn't take *any* chances, no sir.
>
>
> You're afraid of Furry Fandom having a stigma? Pardon me while I
>laugh. =)
>
> Sad to say that Furry Fandom already has a reputation and it isn't
>a very good one. Gee, but I guess they can call themselves drug free.
> Hooray for them.
I could care less about the furry fandom's reputation. I'm the one
who thought AC was a boring lump of shit, remember? I'm talking about
running a non-profit organization that could potentially be in danger
of stopping because of a few drug users being in, near, or around it.
Remember, legitimate moneymaking businesses have closed down simply
because drug use was happening near them. This is a logical, business
argument I was talking about. Apparently, you have a lot vested in
furry fandom or something about it pisses you off. You have some kind
of personal beef with furries, I do not. I used to hate the furry
fandom and still do to a small extent, but frankly it's not worth my
energy anymore and besides I now have close friends who are furries.
I'm just letting you know that what AC did in banning those people was
basically a logical "business" type decision with a real legitimate
concern behind it.
slu...@earthlink.net
>>>>At that, you won't see me writing about blatant illegal activity
>>>>in a public entry anymore, since there are apparently people out
>>>>there who dislike me enough to do something like this. Thank you,
>>>>whoever you are, for being an asshole when I didn't do a goddamned
>>>>thing to you. You are the reason I loathe and distrust
>>>>humanity. Now please, everyone pull in your claws, stop fighting,
>>>>and let this rest.
Oh, yes. I can certainly see that. Far, far less upset. Uh-huh.
Right.
JESSUP
what she was saying, was she was tired of ranting about it. Though I've
heard a lot of people say that and keep on going. I haven't mentioned it
myself but yes. Whoever "Turned us in" can take a flying f--- into a
rolling donut. A DONUT FULL OF SPIKEY BAD THINGS.
Its just rude.
If I wasn't a legal adult I'd... Probably sit here and rant because my
parents wouldn't let me leave the house if I wasn't a legal adult.
Heh.
------------------------------
slu...@earthlink.net
> Personally had I caught somebody dealing drugs at the con I wouldn't
> hesitate a second handing them over to security (Personally I'd rather drag
> their asses outside and shoot them, zero tolerance to drug dealers...but
> that too is against the law).
Because murder is less illegal than doing drugs? What Groat-logic
is this?
Please, just... go kill a Smurf or something.
And no, I wasn't at this con. You wouldn't catch me within ten feet of a Furry Con.
Otter
<post...@lycos.com> wrote:
>All non-prescription drugs are crack. Salvia is crack. Ecstacy is crack.
>GHB, even
>though it used to be a weightlifting supplement, is crack. DMT is crack. LSD
>is
>crack. In a few years, kava kava and ephedrine will probably be crack, and
>every
Additionally, this... (_Y_) is also crack. :p
-- Otter
Stahi
Livejournals about it.
Kory Anders
wrote:
If an ad telling you to 'Just Say NO To Crack' reminds you to pull up
your pants, you maybe be a Redneck. -- Jeff Foxworthy
:)
Skytech
> raised in excess of $13,000. The feedback I have had so far has
been
> overwhelmingly positive. We had press coverage that was a little
> scornful, but no more so than any coverage of any SF or Trek con in
> the early days. I owe the success of the convention to a crew of
over
> 100 staff and volunteers who worked themselves into exhaustion, some
> of them for multiple shifts that left them without food or rest, all
> for zero pay and tons of headaches. But they did it, they did it
> well, and I am proud of them.
>
There was the deliscious pizza. I consitered that and a good time
working
with old and new friends pay enough. I went to the con for fun and
that
included my volunteer time.
> I will be damned if I will let a handful of dope-heads ruin
everything
> these people worked so hard for.
>
I have seen the damage elsewhere and totally agree. Drugs and alcohol
are
for the selfish.
> Those individuals have been asked not
> to return to Anthrocon. I speak for the entire Board of Directors
> when I state that we will not have the convention put in an awkward
> legal position, and we sure as heck will not tolerate anyone putting
> the life or health of any of Anthrocon's members in jeopardy.
>
You were too kind. That stuff could have killed.
> If you deal drugs at
> Anthrocon, I guarantee you that it will be the last time you attend
> the convention for as long as you live.
>
Maybe they need to be reminded they should be arrested for dealing or
using. Users are often not thinking straight with that junk in thier
brain and need help. Dealers are just greedy.
> 4) Don't let me catch you with drugs at Anthrocon.
Don't let *us* catch you with drugs! You think it's funny and cool?
Maybe spending the con behind bars will give a new POV. Go home with
a record. I'm serious!I have suffered from friends and family who
used.
I'm not pleased and have no reason to be 'kind'.
--
Skytech
Skytech
> raised in excess of $13,000. The feedback I have had so far has
been
> overwhelmingly positive. We had press coverage that was a little
> scornful, but no more so than any coverage of any SF or Trek con in
> the early days. I owe the success of the convention to a crew of
over
> 100 staff and volunteers who worked themselves into exhaustion, some
> of them for multiple shifts that left them without food or rest, all
> for zero pay and tons of headaches. But they did it, they did it
> well, and I am proud of them.
>
There was the deliscious pizza. I consitered that and a good time
working with old and new friends pay enough. I went to the con for fun
and
thatincluded my volunteer time.
Skytech
> No I think you missed the point. Not that they were dealing,
mind
> you. They brought the stuff to use amongst themselves. Kage would
> have you believe that they were in the dealers room exhanging
bottles
> of ecstacy for wads of cash.
> They were in their own room. Correct me if I'm wrong, but some
> guy running a con, no matter how meglamaniacal he might be, doesn't
> have any sayso over what happens in someone's room. Nor does he
have
> any responsibility over what they do. Oh if he wants to be a jerk,
he
> can call the cops on them and say someone's doing drugs in
> such-and-such a room. Even though they weren't bothering anyone
else.
> But then again, he didn't have any idea about it until after the
con
> was over, did he?
>
What people will do to excuse drug use. It was illegal, period.
Ecstacy
hurts *and* kills. If Kage knew, if anyone of us knew, we are
obligated
to report, period. Incredible what dopers and alchoholics say....
>
> Now pardon me while I get drunk. ;D
>
Your Honor, I rest my case.
--
Skkytech
Tim Gadd
>Jim and Rebekah Groat wrote:
>
>
>> Personally had I caught somebody dealing drugs at the con I wouldn't
>> hesitate a second handing them over to security (Personally I'd rather drag
>> their asses outside and shoot them,
Anyone else who deserves killing? I think I might be losing count.
--
Tim Gadd | fluke .com.au
Hobart, Tasmania | @southcom
Homepage: http://www.fortunecity.com/victorian/university/222/
'We see the moon but cannot remember its meaning.'
- Edward Brathwaite
NeuroManson
that Hunter S Thompson HIMSELF wants to pay me for my corpse once I die, so
he can smoke it!"
Oy, what that brings to mind...
-----------------------------------
"Stahi" <st...@lionking.org> wrote in message
news:45hjjugcqhhcv7t5f...@4ax.com...
R.A. Clemson
<elka...@mailbag.com> wrote:
> Personally I don't blame Sam one tiny bit for doing what he did, it's his
> name on the rental papers, alot of his money went into it, plus time, sweat
> and alot stress organizing such an event without having to deal with twinks
> doing drugs. Furthermore even if it was in the privacy of said offenders
> hotel Room, THEY were part of the con by getting said room at Con rates. had
> it been mundanes pulling off that shit, safe bet the cops whould have done
> all the dirty work.
Personally, I think it's Kage's new badass haircut. His new 'do is so
badass that it's taken control of his brain and turned Uncle Kage into
a badass mofo!
Say...wasn't that a Simpson's episode?
slu...@earthlink.net
> What people will do to excuse drug use. It was illegal, period.
> Ecstacy
> hurts *and* kills. If Kage knew, if anyone of us knew, we are
> obligated
> to report, period. Incredible what dopers and alchoholics say....
Okay then.
Furries like guns, at least a lot them do, including Groat. Guns
kill people, so Furries condone homocide? Especially the killing of
people who make Furries look bad. Hummm...
Oh wait! It looks like they do. And homocide, in case you didn't
know, is illegal as well.
Be careful what you wish for.
slu...@earthlink.net
>> They were in their own room. Correct me if I'm wrong, but some
>>guy running a con, no matter how meglamaniacal he might be, doesn't
>>have any sayso over what happens in someone's room.
>>
>
> And all Kage did is bar them from future attendance of the con, which is
> -perfectaly- within his rights as a convention organizer... he didn't throw
> them in jail, get them kicked out of the hotel, he didn't call the cops... he
> told them they wern't welcome as convention members anymore, which is just
> fine by me...
He could not have had them thrown in jail. First, he had no
physical proof of what they were doing. People told him after the
fact what was going on. So he was relying on hearsay.
Indeed, he still has no proof of what they did. He only has what
were posts in some people's livejournals.
I could say I went to AC and sold crack to little kids while I was
dressed up in a kangaroo costume. It's not sworn testimony.
slu...@earthlink.net
Buster wrote:
I am rather surprised that you would even bother to retort, if you
actually thought that was the case. However, sometimes I forget the
nature of Usenet, where there's a lot of talk but not much communication.
I'm not about to explain or apologize for the irrationality of my
earlier posts. I'm rather sure you'd not be interested in the
explainations, and they are not relevant to this matter anyway.
No, of course he can do whatever the hell he wants. It's his
show. But that doesn't mean I'm kept from giving my opinion on it. I
think it stinks. I think -he- stinks. It was a pure knee-jerk
reaction on his part. If certain LJ readers hadn't snitched to him,
he probably wouldn't have been any wiser.
Indeed, I've been aware of illicit drug use at Furry cons for
quite some time, and it's never caused a 'problem' until now. I find
it funny that a group of people who identify with such concepts as
'free love' (within their ranks at least), alternative lifestyles, and
have been accused of such things as bad as child pornography, though
they hardly bat an eyelash in response, would suddenly become so
paranoid over something like some casual drug use. And yes, it was
casual. The drug lord of Philly did not attend Anthrocon.
Perhaps it is not so surprising though, if I think about it, given
that Furry Fandom as a whole has now been under the media microscope
more than once, and they are getting rather skittish. They are
therefore afraid of any kind of scrutiny? To the point that they will
grossly overreact, sometimes in violent ways, towards anything that
even remotely threatens their apparent sanctity?
Mister Conway could have decided to be more diplomatic and less
reactionary. He could have made inquiries to these people first, and,
descreetly told them never to do that sort of thing again, since he
had no physical proof of what they were doing. He could have found a
way to deal with the matter that not only would show the local
authorities that he was doing everything possible, and that saved face
for everyone involved.
He decided not to do that and instead pull a 'Nancy Reagan',
effectively saying to these people (and I know who some of them are,
they are not just anyone) that he doesn't care about them and that
they are absolutely worthless. Why? Because they use drugs. And
people who use drugs are evil, worthless human beings who deserve your
scorn and should be shunned.
Now these people did owe up to what they did, and they are
genuinely sorry for it. Yes, they should have been much more descreet
about it. I'm stopping short of saying they should not have done it,
because I don't believe that doing something like that is wrong.
Right now, it's illegal, but that doesn't mean it is amoral, or inethical.
Matt Harpold
>
> I have seen the damage elsewhere and totally agree. Drugs and alcohol
> are
> for the selfish.
Again with the alcohol. What is it with furries and teetotalers? You all
will suck down sugar and carbs and fat, and drink Mountain Dew until your
corpse is more well preserved than anything at the damn Smithsonian, but SAY
NO TO A DAMN BEER, because we're being selfish.
I drink. I enjoy it. It tastes good. Getting drunk can be fun. You've been
on this earth for a few dozen years, tops. Beer's been around for centuries.
Beer will outlast you. Beer is culture. To say nothing of wine.
> > Those individuals have been asked not
> > to return to Anthrocon. I speak for the entire Board of Directors
> > when I state that we will not have the convention put in an awkward
> > legal position, and we sure as heck will not tolerate anyone putting
> > the life or health of any of Anthrocon's members in jeopardy.
> >
>
> You were too kind. That stuff could have killed.
A hamburger can kill you if you eat it wrong.
> > If you deal drugs at
> > Anthrocon, I guarantee you that it will be the last time you attend
> > the convention for as long as you live.
> >
>
> Maybe they need to be reminded they should be arrested for dealing or
> using. Users are often not thinking straight with that junk in thier
> brain and need help. Dealers are just greedy.
>
> > 4) Don't let me catch you with drugs at Anthrocon.
>
> Don't let *us* catch you with drugs! You think it's funny and cool?
Funny and cool? Depends on the drug. Widmer Hefeweizen is DEFINITELY cool.
Super skunk is pretty cool, but you need to go to Amsterdamn to partake of
it. See, the issue should NOT be this moralist gasbagging about drugs. The
issue should be LAW. That is important. Anthrocon is threatened if it is
liable for unlawful actions taken during the convention. The fact that it
was drugs at con is not really the point. The point is that folks being
unlawful while in the care of the convention is bad for the convention. Coul
d have been drugs, could have been stat rape, coupld have been SELLING PORN
TO MINORS (which, given the environment, is a greater concern than E), could
have been assault and battery. Kage is concerned for EXACTLY THE RIGHT
REASON, which is all the hard work that goes into the convention being
threatened by unlawful activities. The people involved made a stupid
mistake, they were nailed for it, end of story.
Please, folks. Don't try and parlay this into some kind of drugs-are-evil
thing, with your Nyqil and your nitrous and your Jolt Cola and your codeine
and your caffeine and your triple lattes and your herbal energy drinks and
your nicotine and your anti-depressants and your Quarter Pounders and so on
and so on.
We all put junk and bad stuff in our systems. Why? Many reasons. Furries
seem to go easy on the drugs, heavy on the junk food. Neither are good for
you. We're all basically self-destructive people, in some fashion or
another. So please cool it.
-Matt/Turbine Divinity
Gabriel Gentile
> And no, I wasn't at this con. You wouldn't catch me within ten feet of a
> Furry Con.
Then why are you so concerned about this one?
Gabriel Gentile
Wagglebum at si...@bottomsford.uk wrote on 7/20/02 11:03 AM:
... I could just cry.
slu...@earthlink.net
Gabriel Gentile wrote:
That's easy to answer. I'm not concerned about the con. I'm
concerned how this fiasco has hurt some of my friends, who did go to
this con. And legalities aside, some people out there apparently had
some kind of axe to grind, and not all of the stories that are roaming
about this alleged travisty are even true.
This is why I used the word 'rumor' earlier. Yes, some rumors are
being spread. Yes, some people are exaggerating the truth. Yes, some
people are lying.
But they're all druggies, right? Who cares about them? They
deserve it.
Daniel Gill
<slu...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:3D3A4DD...@earthlink.net...
area, and bragging about it. Case closed. Anthrocon rules bar use of drugs.
You get caught (this includes bragging about it) and you get punished. My
personal feelings aside about the legalization of drugs, Dr Conway reacted
in a calm and sane manner. He took action that he felt was justified, and I
agree.
Steve Carter
<slu...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3D3A4241...@earthlink.net...
> I'm stopping short of saying they should not have done it,
> because I don't believe that doing something like that is wrong.
> Right now, it's illegal, but that doesn't mean it is amoral, or inethical.
Does that mean you are volunteering to pay all the fines, go to prison, and
support the wrecked families that will result when--not if--one of your
compatriots can't handle his high? Because that's what you're demanding of
us, all for the sake of your political crusade.
Even assuming your answer would be yes, it would be symbolic only because
you have no authority or accountability at Anthrocon.
How does it feel, wanting to sacrifice others' lives to your political
ideal?
slu...@earthlink.net
Daniel Gill wrote:
While it's true that it's his call and he can do however he
pleases about the issue, I do not agree that he was in any way calm or
sane when he decided to take action. Indeed, he as much admitted that
he was -still- very angry when he made the original post in this
thread. Indeed, when I got word of the whole affair, I became pretty
upset myself and as a result came off sounding very irrational. I
hope you can see the parallel here.
I am not here to apologize for the actions of the users. They
should have been more descreet. That was a bonehead move on their
part. However, people are still accusing them of things they didn't
actually do. No one cares because what they did was illegal to begin
with and so, they 'deserve whatever they get'. No, they deserve to be
treated fairly. They made a stupid move and they've owned up to it
and they've all apologized. Sam Conway, on the other hand, has gotten
on his high horse and has refused to budge.
Sure, he doesn't have to do anything now. But you know, it'd be
awfully nice if he did. That might even change my opinion of the man.
slu...@earthlink.net
> <slu...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:3D3A4241...@earthlink.net...
>
>
>> I'm stopping short of saying they should not have done it,
>>because I don't believe that doing something like that is wrong.
>>Right now, it's illegal, but that doesn't mean it is amoral, or inethical.
>>
>
> Does that mean you are volunteering to pay all the fines, go to prison, and
> support the wrecked families that will result when--not if--one of your
> compatriots can't handle his high? Because that's what you're demanding of
> us, all for the sake of your political crusade.
Please spare me this rhetoric, unless you also happen to believe
in banning alcohol as well. Guns, while you're at it. Abortion, too.
You know, people -can- be responsible adults. It's called freedom
of choice. That was once something rather cherished in this country.
>
> Even assuming your answer would be yes, it would be symbolic only because
> you have no authority or accountability at Anthrocon.
>
> How does it feel, wanting to sacrifice others' lives to your political
> ideal?
How does it feel, wanting to sacrifice the quality of others'
lives to yours? Which is the bigger attrocity? Would life be worth
living in a police state? Would you want the state to control each
and every aspect of your life and leave you with absolutely no choices?
Michael Campbell
> Okay then.
>
> Furries like guns, at least a lot them do, including Groat. Guns
> kill people, so Furries condone homocide? Especially the killing of
> people who make Furries look bad. Hummm...
But one doesn't see various furs waving around guns at cons and/or popping
off caps in convention hotel rooms, do you?
Kiala Tekalal
> I am not here to apologize for the actions of the users. They
>should have been more descreet. That was a bonehead move on their
>part. However, people are still accusing them of things they didn't
>actually do. No one cares because what they did was illegal to begin
>with and so, they 'deserve whatever they get'. No, they deserve to be
>treated fairly. They made a stupid move and they've owned up to it
>and they've all apologized. Sam Conway, on the other hand, has gotten
>on his high horse and has refused to budge.
Jessup has appologised and gotten on with her life, asking folks to
just drop it, why can't you?
Jessup, I for one apllaud the way you handled this. Anyone can throw
accusations, but it takes a strong person to own up to their own
mistakes and move on with life..
As for the rest of you? Please drop it.. You all have beat the horse
to a bloody pulp, killed it, shredded it, then examined it's entrails
looking for anything left to chew on.. People'll think you're a buncha
crazy people or something ;>
-Kiala
Chris Johnson
"Skytech" <sky...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> I have seen the damage elsewhere and totally agree. Drugs and alcohol
> are for the selfish.
Um. I guess I could be convinced of that, maybe- when I used, it
tended to take priority over other stuff. I didn't set out to be
selfish, it was just... splitting drugs with my best (almost only)
friend back then, one of us had to divide and the other choose. And it
was a pain, some bad feeling, but it seemed the most natural thing in
the world. For some of us it's about survival, it's a matter of fuel.
Still would be for me if I used, and I find I'm that way about other
stuff, to some extent.
Me, I'm an addict. Means I can't use. That's pretty much it really...
but it does give me a bit of perspective I don't think everybody's
showing. If we are talking about dope fiends, like me (if it helps think
of it as 'like I used to be' though I could be that again at any point),
it is the most natural thing in the world to be high at the con. It is
slightly more important than, say, food. Exchanging drugs with others is
thought of very much like exchanging food- it's considered about as evil
and wrong as making a run to Denny's for a friend who hasn't eaten.
Maybe this seems like a total bizarro world, but I lived in it for
years. Don't ascribe motivations to these people that aren't relevant.
Dope fiends are some of the best people. Unfortunately this may not
be particularly noticable unless they end up clean and sober...
And as far as Kage and AC goes- nothing else he could have done even
if he wanted to act differently. Real world isn't bizarro world. Any
good dopefiend would understand this. If you're busted you accept the
consequences
> Maybe they need to be reminded they should be arrested for dealing or
> using. Users are often not thinking straight with that junk in thier
> brain and need help. Dealers are just greedy.
I never knew a dealer- just other users. Granted, some were using
stuff like heroin and their need for money was more intense, but back
when I was into that scene, the idea of 'dealers' preying on innocent
users while not partaking themselves was pretty laughable. It was a
whole nod-and-a-wink world, in which of COURSE it mattered that there
was no real proof of drug use at AC, of COURSE the people talking might
have just been joking *wink*, and so on. By the same token, of COURSE
person X could pick up some E from person Y if it was available, money
could change hands or not, it wouldn't really matter. It wouldn't count
as dealing- to the people involved.
Of course out in reality, people won't understand this, so again,
Kage couldn't really have done otherwise even if he wished. No, I lie-
he could have turned the weak 'evidence' in the LJ posts over to the
police. I like him better for not doing so- after all he can't really
expect to change peoples' minds, so he just dealt with that aspect that
was on his turf, and let go of the rest.
I'm just glad it wasn't my concern. If I was still using, I'd have
been right in there- and I'd have had less of a fun time because I'd
have been stressing on where I could get, use, get more etc. Don't have
to live that way, now.
Chris Johnson
M. Mitchell Marmel
Dr. Samuel Conway <flog...@you-know-the-drill.bellatlantic.net>
wrote:
> Drugs have no place at Anthrocon. Through reports from other members
> and staffers, through my own detective work, and through other sources
> that provided reliable details and named names, we have identified
> five individuals that were trafficking in Ecstasy at our convention or
> who were involved in the organization of a party that promoted the
> trafficking of that material. Those individuals have been asked not
> to return to Anthrocon. I speak for the entire Board of Directors
> when I state that we will not have the convention put in an awkward
> legal position, and we sure as heck will not tolerate anyone putting
> the life or health of any of Anthrocon's members in jeopardy.
Bravo. Good show.
-MMM-
Skytech
> > I have seen the damage elsewhere and totally agree. Drugs and
alcohol
> > are for the selfish.
>
> Again with the alcohol. What is it with furries and teetotalers? You
all
> will suck down sugar and carbs and fat, and drink Mountain Dew until
your
> corpse is more well preserved than anything at the damn Smithsonian,
but SAY
> NO TO A DAMN BEER, because we're being selfish.
>
Sugar, carbs, and fat don't cause massive highway deaths or turn
people into
unthinking and violent lunatics, alcohol does. Eat too much sugar at a
sitting
doesn't turn you into a useless and difficult to live with or be
around. Alcohol is a poison, not a foodstuff and abusing it causes
serious problems not a personal nutrition alert. And it's never *a*
beer.
> I drink. I enjoy it. It tastes good. Getting drunk can be fun.
You've been
> on this earth for a few dozen years, tops. Beer's been around for
centuries.
> Beer will outlast you. Beer is culture. To say nothing of wine.
>
I notice you forgot to mention all the problems associated with
alcohol use
through history even before the discovery of distillation.
> > You were too kind. That stuff could have killed.
>
> A hamburger can kill you if you eat it wrong.
>
Incredible. Comparing food to poison.
>
> Please, folks. Don't try and parlay this into some kind of
drugs-are-evil
> thing, with your Nyqil and your nitrous and your Jolt Cola and your
codeine
> and your caffeine and your triple lattes and your herbal energy
drinks and
> your nicotine and your anti-depressants and your Quarter Pounders
and so on
> and so on.
>
> We all put junk and bad stuff in our systems. Why? Many reasons.
Furries
> seem to go easy on the drugs, heavy on the junk food. Neither are
good for
> you. We're all basically self-destructive people, in some fashion or
> another. So please cool it.
>
You still try to compare foods and medicines to poison. Incredibly
lame excuse for the weak of mind and will.
I've seen the ugliness when others close to me decide to screw up
thier brains and lives. It never just affects them. I got hurt too
often. I have little mercy because, quite frankly, none was given.
--
Skytech
Ink Fox
> haven't mentioned it myself but yes. Whoever "Turned us in" can take a
> flying f--- into a rolling donut.
*gasp!*
> A DONUT FULL OF SPIKEY BAD THINGS.
Mind your language! For shame!
Skytech
> Okay then.
>
> Furries like guns, at least a lot them do, including Groat.
Guns
> kill people, so Furries condone homocide? Especially the killing of
> people who make Furries look bad. Hummm...
>
> Oh wait! It looks like they do. And homocide, in case you
didn't
> know, is illegal as well.
>
> Be careful what you wish for.
>
I am not thrilled with guns and have never owned one. I see no problem
with guns as a form of target sport. I've always been against shooting
animals for trophies rather than an actual need for food. I stopped
fishing when water pollution made my catches inedible. Guns, like
alcohol, are legal, unfortunately, and are also abused to insane
levels. Homicide is far different from target practice. That's when a
tool becomes a weapon. Guns in our modern world are ment to kill
people. I would like to believe furs who own guns, such as Groat, are
responsible and sensible rather than homicidal maniacs.. right Jim?
I'd like to believe they never pointed a gun at someone else for the
feeling of power and life and death over another or pulled a trigger
in a fit of rage, stupidity, or hysteria. A bullet is too remote,
clean, quick, and easy compared to a fist or knife. A point and pull
and your troubles are over.
What wish did you think I had?
--
Skytech
Skytech
> Okay then.
>
> Furries like guns, at least a lot them do, including Groat.
Guns
> kill people, so Furries condone homocide? Especially the killing of
> people who make Furries look bad. Hummm...
>
> Oh wait! It looks like they do. And homocide, in case you
didn't
> know, is illegal as well.
>
> Be careful what you wish for.
>
I am not thrilled with guns and have never owned one. I see no problem
Dragon Magic
> in banning alcohol as well. Guns, while you're at it. Abortion, too.
> You know, people -can- be responsible adults. It's called freedom
> of choice. That was once something rather cherished in this country.
You seem to have this notion that if alcohol's legal, all drugs should be
legal. Here's the problem, alcohol is legal only to those who are of
legal age in public areas. You want to drink booze, stay home and
have your parents give it to you.
Ecstacy and other such drugs are NOT legal. Whether you believe in
that or not is completely irrelevant. Personally, I find it very funny that
tobacco, which kills hundreds of thousands of people a year, is legal,
and marijuana, which has yet to document a kill technically, is illegal.
But it is, and until that changes, I don't see how Anthrocon should
sacrifice itself or its convention goers to make a political statement.
And it's not consenting adults doing what they please in private. They
are in the hotel gathering at Anthrocon. If they want to do drugs, find
somewhere else to go or stay the fuck home. Anthrocon has a
responsibility to keep its con safe and clean if possible, and to ensure
that it abides by the laws.
Next you'll say that if people want to buy it and dealers want to sell
it, then bootleg items should be perfectly okay in the dealers room?
Hannah Kincaid
Kage's decision from that. I'm sorry if this makes me come off like an even
bigger snot, but it kinda proves my point -- you come out saying one vague
line in support of the idea that not all drugs are exquivalent to each
other, and people assume everything from "you don't think there should be
any drug laws in place at all" (At the _least_ they should be regulated, and
addicts should be packed off to treatment programs -- addiction is not a
lifestyle choice people make IMHO) to "hey, why do you have a problem with
Kage protecting his con from legal consequences" (I object to Kage's failure
to question more strongly just how many of the charges were hearsay -- but
they were caught dead to rights about the one that matters, and I can't
object to that at all. I mean, ferchrissake, it's right in the con policies)
to "you're a crackhead" (Good -- I can get treatment, but you'll still be
stupid naturally.)
I agree 100% with Kage's decision, and about 85% with his methodology, and
maybe I'll take it up with him once calmer heads are prevailing -- or maybe
not, since it's just a matter of principle. But please, please, don't jump
to conclusions about other people's ideas. Thinking about these things in
terms of "sides" hurts everybody in the long run. >.<
Kiala Tekalal <ki...@lycanthrope.schpam.net> wrote in message
news:3d399ecf...@news.critter.net...
> On Sat, 20 Jul 2002 11:06:22 -0400, Dale Farmer <Da...@cybercom.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Tell you what. You go and organize your own convention and set whatever
> >rules of conduct that you like. There is nobody stopping you, and
several
> >examples of folks who have done so successfully. While I think that the
> >current holy war on some drugs in the US is more based on propaganda
> >than fact, the illegal drug trade draws down on it lots of unwelcome and
> >intrusive police interest wherever it is. Hotels quite rightly value
their
> >good reputation, and when a group that attracts police attention wants
> >to book space, it is perfectly valid, legal, and normal for them to say,
> >'We don't want your business.'. This is especially true for a hotel that
> >is literally across the street from two of the big local TV stations,
which
> >the Adam's Mark is. So anything that happens there is more likely to
> >make the six O'Clock news than one that happens across town.
> > I enjoyed myself at Anthrocon this year, and I plan on being there
> >next year. Please don't pee in our soup, go and make your own
> >someplace else.
> >
> > --Dale, speaking strictly for myself.
> >
> >
> >Hannah Kincaid wrote:
>
> Somehow I'm doubting that Hannah really wrote that message.. it lacks
> her usual.. wordyness ;>
>
> -Kiala
LancerAdvancd iBuck
> He could not have had them thrown in jail.
Fine, my bad so he's not a cop, he just could have called them, had he found
out at the con, and -they- could have thrown them in jail
First, he had no
>physical proof of what they were doing. People told him after the
>fact what was going on. So he was relying on hearsay.
>
> Indeed, he still has no proof of what they did. He only has what
>were posts in some people's livejournals.
>
> I could say I went to AC and sold crack to little kids while I was
>dressed up in a kangaroo costume. It's not sworn testimony.
I'm gonna be very blunt, it's hearsay, so the fsk what?
Anthrocon Con Staff decisions of banning people from future conventions are
not the decisions of a court of law, and they in no way shape or form have to
meet a "sworn testimony", or "physical proof" standard. It's a private action
by a private individual. People have no inalienable right to obtain a
Anthrocon Membership. In fact I think they'd be hard pressed to show any
damages or caused by their inability to do so.
Case dismissed on sumary judgement...
iBuck
Homepage at http://lanceradvanced.com/Furry
"You can have it these ways :Fancy,Correct,Quickly- Pick 2"
R. A. Clemson
<sky...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Sugar, carbs, and fat don't cause massive highway deaths or turn
> people into
> unthinking and violent lunatics, alcohol does. Eat too much sugar at a
> sitting
> doesn't turn you into a useless and difficult to live with or be
> around. Alcohol is a poison, not a foodstuff and abusing it causes
> serious problems not a personal nutrition alert. And it's never *a*
> beer.
Yes and it's not against the law in the U.S. to be fat. It is against
the law to drive drunk or be involved with controlled substances.
LancerAdvancd iBuck
>treated fairly. They made a stupid move and they've owned up to it
>and they've all apologized.
What's so "unfair" about being asked not to attend the next anthrocon? By
you're own admission they apparently -did not deny- the charges, and now they
have to take the concequences of their actions. Taking responsibility is more
than just posting "I'm sorry" to the net.
>Sam Conway, on the other hand, has gotten
>on his high horse and has refused to budge.
Kage's pissed of, so what? all he -can- at this point is ban them from the con
areas of furry con that he runs, he can't even keep them from booking a room
at the hotel during the con next year... So he rants and raves a bit, you
can, your freinds can too..
Regardless of how "resposible" your friends are in their recreational use. it
still is illegal, and because of that illegality and the goverment's current
approach to this form of drug use your freinds actions can have SERIOUS legal
concequences for the convention organization. You may treat it as a small and
personal matter, but it's not, your friends are risking getting the entire
convention shut down peremently, and that why the concequences are the way they
are..
Atara
<210720020835118188%r...@ix.netcom.com>:
>Yes and it's not against the law in the U.S. to be fat.
Well, not yet, anyway. ;D
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/68445_fattax30.shtml
--
Atara
"Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus."
http://www.FurNation.com/Atara/
***What doesn't fit in my email addy? NADA.***
Stormfront T. Dragon
> Please spare me this rhetoric, unless you also happen to believe
> in banning alcohol as well. Guns, while you're at it. Abortion, too.
> You know, people -can- be responsible adults. It's called freedom
> of choice. That was once something rather cherished in this country.
I'd note here that weapons (including guns) ARE banned at Anthrocon. And since
Pennsylvania is a concealed carry state, this means that you could be banned for
the con for doing something perfectly legal (carrying a concealed firearm with a
valid permit). Are the gun owners in the fandom whining that the con won't let
them bring guns? No, they realize that as a private convention, Anthrocon has
the right to set any rules it likes. If you don't like their rules, don't come.
This makes it seem all the more silly when you whine about being banned for
something that isn't even legal to begin with.
--
/\ \\ /\ ____________________________________________
/| \ (''-.\ _| Stormfront Thundra Dragon |_
/ | \//""| \ >_\""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""/_<
/ | / | | \
/ |/"(_)) | \ She waits for me at night, she waits for me in silence
"""\|\\(_))\/"""" She gives me all her tenderness and takes away my pain
/W / W And so far she hasn't run, though I swear she's had
/ \ \\ moments
__/ // // She still believes in miracles while others cry in vain
"---" "WWW --- Billy Joel, "All About Soul"
Gabriel Gentile
>> I'm stopping short of saying they should not have done it,
>> because I don't believe that doing something like that is wrong.
>> Right now, it's illegal, but that doesn't mean it is amoral, or inethical.
>
> Does that mean you are volunteering to pay all the fines, go to prison, and
> support the wrecked families that will result when--not if--one of your
> compatriots can't handle his high? Because that's what you're demanding of
> us, all for the sake of your political crusade.
A) How do fines get involved?
B) Dead fanboys can't finger dealers
C) Show me a family nowadays that isn't fucked up to begin with
Kory Anders
> You know, people -can- be responsible adults. It's called freedom
>of choice. That was once something rather cherished in this country.
The operative word here should be 'Responsible'. Being responsible
means not taking illegal drugs to a con, it means not giving alcohol
to minors, it means knowing that exercise of your freedoms comes
within limits, like the proverbial 'swinging your hand ends at my
nose'. Saying that people can be responsible adults and then railing
against them having to take responisibility for their acts is
hypocritical.
Gabriel Gentile
is about something BESIDES fans acting like a bunch of rabbits on
aphrodesiacs?
Rainbow 'Roo
>LancerAdvancd iBuck wrote:
>
>>> They were in their own room. Correct me if I'm wrong, but some
>>>guy running a con, no matter how meglamaniacal he might be, doesn't
>>>have any sayso over what happens in someone's room.
>>>
>>
>> And all Kage did is bar them from future attendance of the con, which is
>> -perfectaly- within his rights as a convention organizer... he didn't throw
>> them in jail, get them kicked out of the hotel, he didn't call the cops... he
>> told them they wern't welcome as convention members anymore, which is just
>> fine by me...
>
>
> He could not have had them thrown in jail. First, he had no
>physical proof of what they were doing. People told him after the
>fact what was going on. So he was relying on hearsay.
>
> Indeed, he still has no proof of what they did. He only has what
>were posts in some people's livejournals.
>
> I could say I went to AC and sold crack to little kids while I was
>dressed up in a kangaroo costume. It's not sworn testimony.
>
Hey - leave the fun-loving and peace-minded roo's out of this. O=)
I know it's just a example you were trying to make..but knowing how
stuff can get spread around in the fandom off of the strangest
things.. I mean - I happen to *have* a kangaroo fursuit, so..
-Rainbow 'Roo
ICQ the 'roo: 93127116
Furry Code:
FMaK3acm A C++ D+++ H++ M++ P+++ R- T+++ W Z Sf+ RLLW a22 cd++ d++ e+ f++++ h* iw++ j p+ sm-
Dale Farmer
slu...@earthlink.net wrote:
> Daniel Gill wrote:
>
> > <slu...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:3D3A4DD...@earthlink.net...
> >
> > But the fact remains that they were using illegal substances in a public
> > area, and bragging about it. Case closed. Anthrocon rules bar use of drugs.
> > You get caught (this includes bragging about it) and you get punished. My
> > personal feelings aside about the legalization of drugs, Dr Conway reacted
> > in a calm and sane manner. He took action that he felt was justified, and I
> > agree.
>
> While it's true that it's his call and he can do however he
> pleases about the issue, I do not agree that he was in any way calm or
> sane when he decided to take action. Indeed, he as much admitted that
> he was -still- very angry when he made the original post in this
> thread. Indeed, when I got word of the whole affair, I became pretty
> upset myself and as a result came off sounding very irrational. I
> hope you can see the parallel here.
>
> I am not here to apologize for the actions of the users. They
> should have been more descreet. That was a bonehead move on their
> part. However, people are still accusing them of things they didn't
> actually do. No one cares because what they did was illegal to begin
> with and so, they 'deserve whatever they get'. No, they deserve to be
> treated fairly. They made a stupid move and they've owned up to it
> and they've all apologized. Sam Conway, on the other hand, has gotten
> on his high horse and has refused to budge.
What high horse? The policy on folks using or distributing illegal drugs
is on the con web site, in the publications, and when you picked up your
convention badge, you agreed to accept those convention policies. When
convention management found someone violating the policies by their own
admission in a live journal, which is a publicly viewable document. The
Board of Directors has no choice but to act as the policy directs. To not
dis-invite these people from coming to the convention again would be a
sign that the Board and the organization won't live up to it's own
standards.
The rules were set well in advance. ( IIRC, the drug portion of the
standards of conduct hasn't changed since it first was put into place. )
When someone violates the rules, then they are accepting the
punishment prescribed for violating those rules. The only question
in the matter is the evidence presented sufficient to convince the Board
that the person in question actually did the deed. A free will confession
is pretty convincing evidence in my book.
Maybe in a few years the individuals could petition the board to
reinstate their ability to become a member of Anthrocon. That is a
question for the future board of directors to take up.
--Dale
Doodles
news:B96058CD.18783%spook...@earthlink.net...
Sex & violence, violence & sex... =};-3
slu...@earthlink.net
> Anthrocon Con Staff decisions of banning people from future conventions are
> not the decisions of a court of law, and they in no way shape or form have to
> meet a "sworn testimony", or "physical proof" standard. It's a private action
> by a private individual. People have no inalienable right to obtain a
> Anthrocon Membership. In fact I think they'd be hard pressed to show any
> damages or caused by their inability to do so.
Yes, that's all nice and good. This might have been a relevant
response if it wasn't for the fact that I was talking about having
them arrested here, not their banishment from Anthrocon.
slu...@earthlink.net
>> Please spare me this rhetoric, unless you also happen to believe
>>in banning alcohol as well. Guns, while you're at it. Abortion, too.
>> You know, people -can- be responsible adults. It's called freedom
>>of choice. That was once something rather cherished in this country.
>>
>
> You seem to have this notion that if alcohol's legal, all drugs should be
> legal. Here's the problem, alcohol is legal only to those who are of
> legal age in public areas. You want to drink booze, stay home and
> have your parents give it to you.
No, not 'all drugs'. Despite what they might have successfully
drilled into your head, someone who thinks that this accross the board
drug ban is idiotic is not some anarchist terrorist who rides with
Osama. They should be regulated, of course. And anyone who uses
them irresponsibly should be penalized. As in, you are responsible
for your own actions.
Say, isn't that what the U.S. does with alcohol now?
> Ecstacy and other such drugs are NOT legal. Whether you believe in
> that or not is completely irrelevant. Personally, I find it very funny that
> tobacco, which kills hundreds of thousands of people a year, is legal,
> and marijuana, which has yet to document a kill technically, is illegal.
> But it is, and until that changes, I don't see how Anthrocon should
> sacrifice itself or its convention goers to make a political statement.
I don't really care about Anthrocon. I've never been to it. It's
on the other side of the coast to me, and I'm not inclined to travel
that far just for yet another Furry con, when I am not even a Furry
myself. So I don't care what they do and do not stand for.
But yes, I understand where you're coming from. You don't want to
see something you like so threatened.
Then again, this did not come from outside your ranks. It came
from within. And banning them from a con doesn't make it go away.
It's just a nice and neat way of sweeping the problem under the rug,
indeed, a way of putting your fingers in your ears and humming real loud.
So Sam is covering his own butt and making sure his con keeps
running. That's all fine and good. You know, if it were my con? I'd
probably make every such 'reasonable effort', but I probably wouldn't
have been such a dick about it. I'd sure as well want to know the
facts from the rumors and actually open a dialog to the people who
were involved.
> Next you'll say that if people want to buy it and dealers want to sell
> it, then bootleg items should be perfectly okay in the dealers room?
Now that's just overreactionary idiocy. If you're a druggie,
you're probably a theif and a murderer to boot too, eh? Lock them up
and throw away the key. That's the American solution.
Tehrasha Darkon
> Again with the alcohol. What is it with furries and teetotalers? You all
> will suck down sugar and carbs and fat, and drink Mountain Dew until your
> corpse is more well preserved than anything at the damn Smithsonian, but SAY
> NO TO A DAMN BEER, because we're being selfish.
>
Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe that the bottle smashed
across someones face Saturday(?) night at AC was Mountain Dew.
--Teh
--
My mailbox is NOT an advertisement medium. Tehrasha Darkon
My address is NOT for sale, lease or rent. dar...@netins.net
Send me spam, lose your account. Get it? TINLC-1372
http://tehrasha.mamehost.com/bastard B.A.S.T.A.R.D
LancerAdvancd iBuck
>response if it wasn't for the fact that I was talking about having
>them arrested here, not their banishment from Anthrocon.
So why are you whining about something that didn't happen? Couldn't happen,
and I never said -did- happen. at worst it was a bad turn of phrase on my
part, in my list of things that Kage didn't do, so why are you throwin a hissy
fit?
dolphine
<post...@lycos.com> wrote:
> I object to Kage's failure
> to question more strongly just how many of the charges were hearsay --
The only 'hearsay' here might possibly apply to the fellow named Qual
as he wasn't stupid enough to post about his room party in his own
LiveJournal.
---=============@@================---
Ashryn wrote in her 'Live Journal for Crack Jackal':
"Thursday started out as a blur....the moment I showed up....I
introduced them to Wisconsin's blend of smokables. Needless to say,
they were impressed.
Friday....Lots of smoking, and finally, at night... rolling. I rolled
hard, but I'm also not used to it. I only roll at cons, and usually
only once. But, these yellow dolphins I got from Jen were insane.
Comparable to the first roll I had - my jaw was certainly still acting
funny by the time Saturday rolled around. But DAMN....a smattering of
other people were around me when it finally hit and I turned into an
all-out e-tard, sprawling all over people and yammering up a fit.... I
did NOT expect to be rolling quite that hard, or have my eyes shaking
quite as much. But everyone there, who hung around me, has my thanks. I
normally have a semi-bad time rolling for one reason or another, so
some supervision and company is always appreciated. ^_^ This was MUCH
better than FC.
Sunday was depressing....Cracked out as I was from the previous two
nights of rolling and smoking, I was relieved when I got a quick bowl
to taper the rough edges of my psyche. I got a little overtly stoned,
though...."
---=============@@================---
---=============@@================---
Jaguarundi wrote in her 'evil candy kat's journal':
"Ashryn had gotten us some yellow dolphins (even though I thought they
looked more like alligators) from a co-worker, and I had picked up an
extra, so I gave it to Esche. They were absolutely wonderful, and I
danced my ass off, quickly finding that it was really hard to... well,
not bounce....Jessup had mentioned that she had some extra E and I
figured... well, what the hell... I never roll two days in a roll
except at cons, so I had half of a green nike and gave the other half
to Ashryn....And, well, turn the roll back into something pleasant.
Being only a half, it wasn't as strong, but it was also quite a bit
speedier than the yellow dolphins...mmm, anyway, I skittered down to
the Purple Nurple dance....we headed up to Qual's room party in 909."
---=============@@================---
Ashryn admitted to bringing and distributing marijuana and Ecstasy.
Jaguarundi admitted to bringing and distributing Ecstasy.
Which parts of their own words are hearsay?
Chuck Melville
slu...@earthlink.net wrote:
> >>
> > But the fact remains that they were using illegal substances in a public
> > area, and bragging about it. Case closed. Anthrocon rules bar use of drugs.
> > You get caught (this includes bragging about it) and you get punished. My
> > personal feelings aside about the legalization of drugs, Dr Conway reacted
> > in a calm and sane manner. He took action that he felt was justified, and I
> > agree.
>
> While it's true that it's his call and he can do however he
> pleases about the issue, I do not agree that he was in any way calm or
> sane when he decided to take action.
How would you know since you weren't there? From your friends, whose account
would have been more biased than Kage's account?
> Indeed, he as much admitted that
> he was -still- very angry when he made the original post in this
> thread. Indeed, when I got word of the whole affair, I became pretty
> upset myself and as a result came off sounding very irrational. I
> hope you can see the parallel here.
No, I can't.
>
> I am not here to apologize for the actions of the users. They
> should have been more descreet.
No, they simply should have not been indulging. Despite whateer they might
have thought, it wasn't only just themselves who were involved in this
'indiscretion'. It was nothing less than a childish and irresponsible
indulgence.
--
-Chuck Melville-
Bart: Wow, a former president living right across the street.
Homer: Oh, why did he have to move in on _my_ territory? Look at him. Thinks
just because he led the free world, he can act like a big shot! Stupid
President... why couldn't he just stay in his own state?
Lisa: Actually, this _is_ one of the nine states where Mr. Bush claims
residency, Dad. I wouldn't have voted for him, but it's nice to have a celebrity
in the neighborhood.
Homer: Wait a minute... if _Lisa_ didn't vote for him... and _I_ didn't vote for
him --
Marge: You didn't vote for anybody.
Homer: I voted for Prell to go back to the old glass bottle. After that, I
became deeply cynical.
-- A rare glimpse of Homer, member of the electorate, "Two Bad Neighbors"
Timmy Ramone
>
> [Journal postings omitted...]
>
> Ashryn admitted to bringing and distributing marijuana and Ecstasy.
> Jaguarundi admitted to bringing and distributing Ecstasy.
> Which parts of their own words are hearsay?
I'm trying to figure out what's more stupid: Doing drugs, doing
drugs at a con, or bragging bout doing drugs at a con on an open
forum. If ever one needed proof that drugs fry people's brains,
here it is.
--
"Bowl a strike, not a spare -- revolution everywhere!" -RABL motto
RHJunior
their using illegal substances.
Then again, we live in a culture that sells magazines called "High Times",
and make a cult classic out of "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas..." it's
"Hip" to break the drug laws and flagrantly brag about it, don't you know.
--
RHJunior
http://home.ntelos.net/~blue27a
http://UTLT.keenspace.com
http://NPC.keenspace.com
http://nipandtuck.keenspace.com
Daniel Gill <red...@dacor.net> wrote in message
news:Cfs_8.233$tU2...@news.webusenet.com...
>
> <slu...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3D3A4DD...@earthlink.net...
> >
> >
> > Gabriel Gentile wrote:
> >
> > >>And no, I wasn't at this con. You wouldn't catch me within ten feet
of
> a
> > >>Furry Con.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Then why are you so concerned about this one?
> >
> >
> > That's easy to answer. I'm not concerned about the con. I'm
> > concerned how this fiasco has hurt some of my friends, who did go to
> > this con. And legalities aside, some people out there apparently had
> > some kind of axe to grind, and not all of the stories that are roaming
> > about this alleged travisty are even true.
> >
> > This is why I used the word 'rumor' earlier. Yes, some rumors are
> > being spread. Yes, some people are exaggerating the truth. Yes, some
> > people are lying.
> >
> > But they're all druggies, right? Who cares about them? They
> > deserve it.
slu...@earthlink.net
> No, they simply should have not been indulging. Despite whateer they might
> have thought, it wasn't only just themselves who were involved in this
> 'indiscretion'. It was nothing less than a childish and irresponsible
> indulgence.
Just say no. You keep saying that enough, you actually think it
works.
slu...@earthlink.net
> You gotta wonder about someone who'd be dumb enough to LiveJournal about
> their using illegal substances.
> Then again, we live in a culture that sells magazines called "High Times",
> and make a cult classic out of "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas..." it's
> "Hip" to break the drug laws and flagrantly brag about it, don't you know.
Well I'll tell you, after being at CF8, I'm all for reinstituting
Sodomy Laws.
slu...@earthlink.net
>> Yes, that's all nice and good. This might have been a relevant
>>response if it wasn't for the fact that I was talking about having
>>them arrested here, not their banishment from Anthrocon.
>>
>
> So why are you whining about something that didn't happen? Couldn't happen,
> and I never said -did- happen. at worst it was a bad turn of phrase on my
> part, in my list of things that Kage didn't do, so why are you throwin a hissy
> fit?
Okay then, I seemed to have missed your point, other than 'It's
illegal so that MUST mean it's amoral'. There's wrong, there's
stupid, and there's unlawful. The people at AC were guilty on two of
those accounts.
Or are you just trying to say that because I am in favor of the
legalization of casual drug use that I'm just some inane anarchist
who's just as bad as any Al Queda member, praise the Lord and pass the
ammo?
That would not really thinking critically, that would be believing
the party line. I know you're not trying to tell me that you can not
think for yourself. So obviously, I have missed something that you
are trying to say.
Your insinuation that I am 'whining' implies that you have grown
impatient with me, and that I'm just simply wrong. This doesn't make
sense when I was responding to you in the first place with regards to
them getting arrested:
Me: They were in their own room, so it didn't affect the con.
You: It's perfectly within Kage's right to ban them from the con
regardless. Besides, he could have easily gotten them arrested.
Me: Okay, I'll grant that he's still within his rights to ban
them. But no, he couldn't have gotten them arrested, because he had
no physical proof and only learned about the incident after the fact.
You: So what? He could still ban them if he wants!
Me: Uh, yes but I was talking about them getting arrested?
You: So why are you whining about something that never happened?
I know you are not delibrately trying to be so obtuse? =)
Buster
>Buster wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 20 Jul 2002 04:43:04 -0700, slu...@earthlink.net wrote:
>>
>>> No I think you missed the point. Not that they were dealing, mind
>>>you. They brought the stuff to use amongst themselves. Kage would
>>>have you believe that they were in the dealers room exhanging bottles
>>>of ecstacy for wads of cash.
>> You don't understand that if Kage misleads the public into thinking he
>> banned some drug dealers from AC, that's *perfectly fine*. It's not a
>> court of law. No one wants the authorities to believe their
>> organization has anything to do with drugs. It's simple public
>> relations move that every legitimate organization in america would do.
>> AC is NOT a public event, and the rulemakers can do whatever they
>> want. How old are you, 15? You sound like a teenager debating school
>> rules.
> I am rather surprised that you would even bother to retort, if you
>actually thought that was the case. However, sometimes I forget the
>nature of Usenet, where there's a lot of talk but not much communication.
Your original post seemed overly emotional about what happened. I
personally think Kage had genuine and legitimate reasons for doing
what he did. Unfair? Maybe so. I certainly don't doubt that what
you say could very well be true. But in the end, *it doesn't matter*.
Illegal drug activity shouldn't be tolerated. That makes perfect
sense to me and just about anyone in Kage's position. Granted,
there's lots of sexual crap going on in the hotel that isn't legal
either, but the cops don't care about that. They DO care about drugs,
though. I think that what he did, no matter how horrible and unfair
it seems to you, was a relatively rational move.
> I'm not about to explain or apologize for the irrationality of my
>earlier posts. I'm rather sure you'd not be interested in the
>explainations, and they are not relevant to this matter anyway.
The only reason I responded was because your original post seemed
irrational to me. It seemed like you were being unfair and overly
critical of Kage doing a fairly rational thing (given the situation).
Like I said before, owners have lost their clubs because of drug users
they had nothing to do with. It seems unfair that a few people ruin
things for thousands just because they are weak-minded enough to be on
drugs. Keep in mind again, I don't know Kage and I'm not one of his
furry buddies or con slaves. But it seems to me that he's being far
more rational and wise about the situation.
> Indeed, I've been aware of illicit drug use at Furry cons for
>quite some time, and it's never caused a 'problem' until now. I find
>it funny that a group of people who identify with such concepts as
>'free love' (within their ranks at least), alternative lifestyles, and
>have been accused of such things as bad as child pornography, though
>they hardly bat an eyelash in response, would suddenly become so
>paranoid over something like some casual drug use. And yes, it was
>casual. The drug lord of Philly did not attend Anthrocon.
Drugs are the most likely thing an authority would respond to. It
makes sense to deter their use at the con. If you told the cops A)
there's people who were doing odd sexual acts (barring beastiality or
child porn) in their hotel rooms, or B) there's people doing drugs in
their hotel rooms, they would definitely take the drug allegations way
more seriously.
Keep in mind, I'm ONLY arguing the rationality of Kage's position and
your position on this matter. I sincerely hope you aren't responding
to me as someone who is particularly for or against the activities
that furry fans do. If you are, then we're not on the same page.
> Perhaps it is not so surprising though, if I think about it, given
>that Furry Fandom as a whole has now been under the media microscope
>more than once, and they are getting rather skittish. They are
>therefore afraid of any kind of scrutiny? To the point that they will
>grossly overreact, sometimes in violent ways, towards anything that
>even remotely threatens their apparent sanctity?
If Kage has to control the amount of media attention at AC and
everyone's on edge about it, there's something wrong with the furry
fandom. If you brought the media to a star trek con, for example,
they'd interview some people and talk about their hobby - the end.
Hell, I know several fandom cons that *beg* local media to cover their
conventions. Come to a furry con like AC and Kage can only show them
certain things and they get folks to follow much stricter behavior
rules than I've ever seen for attendees than any other fandom con.
That's stupid. Furries shouldn't lie about this to themselves. If
furs are THIS paranoid about media exposure, there IS something wrong
with the fandom as a whole. People like me and my friends are open
minded about whatever activities furs do, but the media and society in
general would call furries "freaks" and may even do horrible things.
So something as visibly illegal as drug use at a con could spell
absolute disaster for furry's already crappy reputation. Yes, drug
use goes on everywhere, but take it from me, I work for a major media
company - they would milk a tiny tiny piece of info like that for all
it's worth. You could ruin a lot, so AC and every furry con has to be
very careful about what they do.
Matt Harpold
"Tehrasha Darkon" <dar...@netins.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.4.33.02072...@worf.netins.net...
> On Sun, 21 Jul 2002, Matt Harpold wrote:
>
> > Again with the alcohol. What is it with furries and teetotalers? You all
> > will suck down sugar and carbs and fat, and drink Mountain Dew until
your
> > corpse is more well preserved than anything at the damn Smithsonian, but
SAY
> > NO TO A DAMN BEER, because we're being selfish.
> >
>
> Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe that the bottle smashed
> across someones face Saturday(?) night at AC was Mountain Dew.
I am aware that some people can't hold their liquor. Those people shouldn't
drink. But most of us who do know how to do it responsibly.
-Matt/Turbine
Matt Harpold
"Skytech" <sky...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:aheb0q$fkh$1...@slb4.atl.mindspring.net...
> >
> > > I have seen the damage elsewhere and totally agree. Drugs and
> alcohol
> > > are for the selfish.
> >
> > Again with the alcohol. What is it with furries and teetotalers? You
> all
> > will suck down sugar and carbs and fat, and drink Mountain Dew until
> your
> > corpse is more well preserved than anything at the damn Smithsonian,
> but SAY
> > NO TO A DAMN BEER, because we're being selfish.
> >
>
> people into
> unthinking and violent lunatics, alcohol does.
No, people do. Unless you've seen a beer drive a car, in which case I will
happily concede that point to you. I've been drinking for years, and I'm
pretty sure I'm not an unthinking and violent lunatic.After three beers, I
just get silly, and talkative, and much worse at darts, and I sure as hell
don't drive. One man's lunatic is another man's founding father, of course.
And actually, NOBODY I know personally who drinks is a violent drunk. Yes,
they exist, and they should be held accountable for their actions, sent to
treatment if they are alcoholics, etc.
Eat too much sugar at a
> sitting
> doesn't turn you into a useless and difficult to live with or be
> around.
Neither does alcohol. See, alcohol does not MAKE people into assholes, it
merely supresses inhibitions. Assholes are assholes, and they become
uninhibited assholes when they drink. Again, those people shouldn't drink.
People with parkinson's syndrome shouldn't drive cars or own handguns
either. People with narcolepsy should not operate bulldozers.
>Alcohol is a poison, not a foodstuff and abusing it causes
> serious problems not a personal nutrition alert. And it's never *a*
> beer.
The operative word is 'abuse'.
> > I drink. I enjoy it. It tastes good. Getting drunk can be fun.
> You've been
> > on this earth for a few dozen years, tops. Beer's been around for
> centuries.
> > Beer will outlast you. Beer is culture. To say nothing of wine.
> >
>
> I notice you forgot to mention all the problems associated with
> alcohol use
> through history even before the discovery of distillation.
Sure. There are problems associated with every single staple of modern
civilization you can possibly think of. Guns, cars, phones, computers,
roads, farms, tobacco, coffee, fried foods and on and on.
> > > You were too kind. That stuff could have killed.
> >
> > A hamburger can kill you if you eat it wrong.
> >
>
> Incredible. Comparing food to poison.
Talk to people with heart disease, man. Who have never drankin their lives.
Talk to people who went to the damn hospital because of their caffeine
intake. I work in health care. I've seen some interesting stuff.
Alcohol IS poision. Many things in foods are posionous. Many medications are
poisionous. That's how they work. Most AIDS drugs are poisoning your system
greatly. That's a silly argument. There's no hard line.
Your argument should be that alcohol is an INTOXICANT, and that makes it
dangerous. And indeed, it does. It is a dangerous thing. So is a car, a gun,
or a controlled substance (that can be perscribed by a doctor) like
morphine or barbituates. If you could see all the people I and my
significant other have had to deal with that have abused persscription
medication...I tell you, it's amazing.
My point is that, there are dangerous things all around us, each of which
can cause loss of life, limb, and catastrophic consequences if we abuse
them. But they're not evil for that. The operative word is 'abuse.'
> >
> > Please, folks. Don't try and parlay this into some kind of
> drugs-are-evil
> > thing, with your Nyqil and your nitrous and your Jolt Cola and your
> codeine
> > and your caffeine and your triple lattes and your herbal energy
> drinks and
> > your nicotine and your anti-depressants and your Quarter Pounders
> and so on
> > and so on.
> >
> > We all put junk and bad stuff in our systems. Why? Many reasons.
> Furries
> > seem to go easy on the drugs, heavy on the junk food. Neither are
> good for
> > you. We're all basically self-destructive people, in some fashion or
> > another. So please cool it.
> >
>
> You still try to compare foods and medicines to poison. Incredibly
> lame excuse for the weak of mind and will.
Opiates will fuck you up as bad as alcohol does. Codeine is an opiate. And
alcohol is present in Nyquil.
Suddenly, things aren't so black and white, are they? That's all I'm saying.
It's not alcohol that is somehow evil, it's stupid people making stupid
decisions, enabled by an substance that most folks don't have a problem
with.
> I've seen the ugliness when others close to me decide to screw up
> thier brains and lives.
And that sucks. A friend of mine was shot once. But I don't go on a crusade
agains guns because of it. I know folks who got T-boned, and still have back
spasms because of it. But cars aren't evil because of it. Your blame is
misplaced.
It never just affects them. I got hurt too
> often. I have little mercy because, quite frankly, none was given.
I'm afraid you're losing me here.
-Matt/Turbine
slu...@earthlink.net
Buster wrote:
> The only reason I responded was because your original post seemed
> irrational to me. It seemed like you were being unfair and overly
> critical of Kage doing a fairly rational thing (given the situation).
> Like I said before, owners have lost their clubs because of drug users
> they had nothing to do with. It seems unfair that a few people ruin
> things for thousands just because they are weak-minded enough to be on
> drugs.
Pause right there. I must take point on this apparent off-hand
remark. Just because you use mind altering substances doesn't mean
that you are weak minded. If you are addicted to them and they are
ruining you life, then that might be certainly true. Drugs are not
for everybody. And not every drug out there should be legal to use
either. What I advocate is that people should be given a more of a
choice about it, and not have the state declare for them what they can
and cannot do. That's freedom of choice. That's quality of life. I
don't need the Government to hold my hand on every damned issue.
> Keep in mind again, I don't know Kage and I'm not one of his
> furry buddies or con slaves. But it seems to me that he's being far
> more rational and wise about the situation.
Yes, I was very irrational when I made my first post. Yes, I was
rather unfair with it. I was beside myself with anger after I saw how
it affected some of my friends, and I do become rather protective.
I'm not about to apologize for that, especially to people whom I do
not like in the first place. No, I don't mean you. I don't know who
you are!
I asked several friends about it later on, and not all of my
friends are exactly friendly towards this fandom. The responses I got
ranged from 'I think you were a bit unfair' to 'So dog raping is okay
but drugs are not?'
I guess what it boils down to is that I'd like to know exactly
-why- Kage is anti-drug. I mean, if he'd made his post here sound
something like, "Well, we have to save face with the cops, and these
people made a real bonehead move, so I had no choice but to ban them."
I mean, I could see that. Though I still think eternal banishment is
overkill.
If he comes back with the same old party line of 'just say no' and
'zero-tolerance' well then I'm not going to think very highly of his
critical thinking skills. Mind you, I think he is an annoying
individual already who is too full of himself, so so far his behavior
in all of this has not surprised me in the least!
But, he could surprise me. There is always that remote chance.
>
>
>> Indeed, I've been aware of illicit drug use at Furry cons for
>>quite some time, and it's never caused a 'problem' until now. I find
>>it funny that a group of people who identify with such concepts as
>>'free love' (within their ranks at least), alternative lifestyles, and
>>have been accused of such things as bad as child pornography, though
>>they hardly bat an eyelash in response, would suddenly become so
>>paranoid over something like some casual drug use. And yes, it was
>>casual. The drug lord of Philly did not attend Anthrocon.
>>
>
> Drugs are the most likely thing an authority would respond to. It
> makes sense to deter their use at the con. If you told the cops A)
> there's people who were doing odd sexual acts (barring beastiality or
> child porn) in their hotel rooms, or B) there's people doing drugs in
> their hotel rooms, they would definitely take the drug allegations way
> more seriously.
That's the real trick, isn't it? Beastiality has occurred at
least once or twice at Furry cons. And some of those public displays
of affection could violate certain decency laws, depending on what
city and state you're in. Did ConFurence have a licence to run their
FurLeDance show or Pet Auctions back when it started? I don't recall
that they did, and nobody seemed to really care about that.
Furries to sometimes stand up for things, such as the legalization
of Ferrets as household pets in California. I've seen some rather
staunch supporters of that movement. So no, I don't think they're so
spineless when it deals with something that they really want.
> Keep in mind, I'm ONLY arguing the rationality of Kage's position and
> your position on this matter. I sincerely hope you aren't responding
> to me as someone who is particularly for or against the activities
> that furry fans do. If you are, then we're not on the same page.
I am not sure exactly how I feel about Furry fans on the whole.
I've seen my share of stupid, crass, rude behavior by them, for no
other reason than its shock value and their desperate attempts to be
different somehow. It doesn't impress me in the least.
Perhaps that's why it strikes me as so ironic that such a huge lot
of them would be so vehemently against casual drug use, even if only
in private. What makes that so special, when a group of them would be
desperate enough to actually engage in some ritual to try and change
themselves into an animal?
I guess I do find it all rather amusing.
> If Kage has to control the amount of media attention at AC and
> everyone's on edge about it, there's something wrong with the furry
> fandom. If you brought the media to a star trek con, for example,
> they'd interview some people and talk about their hobby - the end.
> Hell, I know several fandom cons that *beg* local media to cover their
> conventions. Come to a furry con like AC and Kage can only show them
> certain things and they get folks to follow much stricter behavior
> rules than I've ever seen for attendees than any other fandom con.
> That's stupid. Furries shouldn't lie about this to themselves. If
> furs are THIS paranoid about media exposure, there IS something wrong
> with the fandom as a whole. People like me and my friends are open
> minded about whatever activities furs do, but the media and society in
> general would call furries "freaks" and may even do horrible things.
Well then I'm afraid that there is something wrong with Furry
fandom. If someone like mister Ostrich can cause a lot of shame and
embarassment when he is one of the most 'Furry' people that I am aware
of, then perhaps it's time to re-evaluate exactly what you mean when
you call yourself a Furry Fan, and perhaps, find a new name for yourself?
Do you screw around in animal suits?
Do you rape dogs in hotel rooms?
Do you dress up like a dog and jack off into a bowl of kibble?
Do you display pictures of anthropomorhic animals with gross
anatomical features with pride?
Do you set the Cub-Central site as your homepage?
Do you only have sex with other people when they are dressed up in
an animal suit?
Do you draw or like drawings of immature 'Furries' in sexual
situations?
Do you smoke pot?
Ben Raccoon
>[among many other things]
>
> We all put junk and bad stuff in our systems. Why? Many reasons. Furries
> seem to go easy on the drugs, heavy on the junk food. Neither are good for
> you. We're all basically self-destructive people, in some fashion or
> another. So please cool it.
At the risk of being a 'me-too'-er, I'd like to say that you hit it
right on the nose.
I don't do drugs or alcohol by choice. Don't like the taste, and being
forced on Paxil has in part, put me off of controlled substances pretty
much permanently. However, to those that do, have fun. Just don't
operate anything bigger than a toaster while tripping or drunk, and
definitely don't breathe in my face. o.o
Oh yeah. Another thing, people. Listening to the anti-drug propaganda is
rather pointless. If ou want to know how drugs can really fuck you up,
find out from the experts. Like the people who either researched the
drugs or the people who actually did it themselves.
-- Ben Raccoon
http://www.furnation.com/ben_raccoon
Buster
>Buster wrote:
>
>> The only reason I responded was because your original post seemed
>> irrational to me. It seemed like you were being unfair and overly
>> critical of Kage doing a fairly rational thing (given the situation).
>> Like I said before, owners have lost their clubs because of drug users
>> they had nothing to do with. It seems unfair that a few people ruin
>> things for thousands just because they are weak-minded enough to be on
>> drugs.
>
> Pause right there. I must take point on this apparent off-hand
>remark. Just because you use mind altering substances doesn't mean
>that you are weak minded. If you are addicted to them and they are
>ruining you life, then that might be certainly true. Drugs are not
>for everybody. And not every drug out there should be legal to use
>either. What I advocate is that people should be given a more of a
>choice about it, and not have the state declare for them what they can
>and cannot do. That's freedom of choice. That's quality of life. I
>don't need the Government to hold my hand on every damned issue.
You have your opinion, I have mine.
> I guess what it boils down to is that I'd like to know exactly
>-why- Kage is anti-drug. I mean, if he'd made his post here sound
>something like, "Well, we have to save face with the cops, and these
>people made a real bonehead move, so I had no choice but to ban them."
>I mean, I could see that. Though I still think eternal banishment is
>overkill.
> If he comes back with the same old party line of 'just say no' and
>'zero-tolerance' well then I'm not going to think very highly of his
>critical thinking skills. Mind you, I think he is an annoying
>individual already who is too full of himself, so so far his behavior
>in all of this has not surprised me in the least!
> But, he could surprise me. There is always that remote chance.
You're right, but I have to say again that I think his decision really
isn't so harsh in the grand scheme of things. I mean, illegal
substances is the fastest ticket to trouble. Other things aren't so
easy to spot or catch. But from what I know of Kage, which is not
much at all, his type (the nerdly full-of-himself type) have been an
annoyance to me since I started going to fandom cons in the first
place. That goes for anyone like him in every fandom that I've come
across. That's beyond the scope of the argument, though, and it's
unfair of me to judge him w/o knowing him, but that's my knee jerk
reaction to his type of person. Although I really respect the intense
amount of work he does and I do hope AC goes on forever for the sake
of thousands of people. And I do think he is making the right
decision(s) here, concerning not only this but lots of other things
about AC.
> That's the real trick, isn't it? Beastiality has occurred at
>least once or twice at Furry cons. And some of those public displays
>of affection could violate certain decency laws, depending on what
>city and state you're in. Did ConFurence have a licence to run their
>FurLeDance show or Pet Auctions back when it started? I don't recall
>that they did, and nobody seemed to really care about that.
Things certainly were more laid back at that point. Back then, we
weren't worried about much coz no one really knew about furry and
there was no media scare or anything. I also remember way back when,
"furry fan" could be an indicator that you were a cartoon/sci-fi fan
and nothing else. Can't possibly be like that anymore.
>> If Kage has to control the amount of media attention at AC and
>> everyone's on edge about it, there's something wrong with the furry
>> fandom. If you brought the media to a star trek con, for example,
>
> Well then I'm afraid that there is something wrong with Furry
>fandom. If someone like mister Ostrich can cause a lot of shame and
>embarassment when he is one of the most 'Furry' people that I am aware
>of, then perhaps it's time to re-evaluate exactly what you mean when
>you call yourself a Furry Fan, and perhaps, find a new name for yourself?
That was my point. I think there IS something wrong here, which is
why I personally lay very low in the fandom. I used to be fairly well
known in a few circles and I was setting myself up to be a popular
furry artist about 8-10 years ago, but I stopped for a good reason. I
could say all I want that I'm open minded about what furs do, and I
am, but the fact that media control even happens is a sure fire
indicator of things going way overboard in the fandom. So the only
way I can enjoy the cartoons I like is to be really careful how I put
myself in the fandom, coz frankly I don't like the direction it's
taking. Not for me to decide, though, so I let it go and people can
have their fun without me being an ass to them about it.
> Do you screw around in animal suits?
> Do you rape dogs in hotel rooms?
> Do you dress up like a dog and jack off into a bowl of kibble?
> Do you display pictures of anthropomorhic animals with gross
>anatomical features with pride?
> Do you set the Cub-Central site as your homepage?
> Do you only have sex with other people when they are dressed up in
>an animal suit?
> Do you draw or like drawings of immature 'Furries' in sexual
>situations?
See, back when I first started, I never heard of any of this (xept the
last one) for a couple *years*, back in the early 90s.
Matt Harpold
"RHJunior" <blu...@ntelos.net> wrote in message
news:KdM_8.154410$WZ.1...@atlpnn01.usenetserver.com...
> You gotta wonder about someone who'd be dumb enough to LiveJournal about
> their using illegal substances.
> Then again, we live in a culture that sells magazines called "High Times",
> and make a cult classic out of "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas"
I'm curious as to what you would prefer our culture would make a cult
classic out of. And if you think Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas is pro-drug,
you probably didn't actually read it.
-TurbineMatt
Gabriel Gentile
> Oh yeah. Another thing, people. Listening to the anti-drug propaganda is
> rather pointless. If ou want to know how drugs can really fuck you up,
> find out from the experts. Like the people who either researched the
> drugs or the people who actually did it themselves.
Or you could just watch and episode of "The Osbournes".
Gabriel Gentile
> "RHJunior" <blu...@ntelos.net> wrote in message
> news:KdM_8.154410$WZ.1...@atlpnn01.usenetserver.com...
>> You gotta wonder about someone who'd be dumb enough to LiveJournal about
>> their using illegal substances.
>> Then again, we live in a culture that sells magazines called "High Times",
>> and make a cult classic out of "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas"
>
> I'm curious as to what you would prefer our culture would make a cult
> classic out of.
Yeah, you'd think Ralphie would be satisfied at having his favorite book be
the foundation of the biggest cult in the world.
LancerAdvancd iBuck
>illegal so that MUST mean it's amoral'. There's wrong, there's
>stupid, and there's unlawful. The people at AC were guilty on two of
>those accounts.
I really don't care what you think about morality and/or imorallity of drug
use, nor do I make a "it illegal therefore it's immoral" argument... the
drug use is illegal, illegal activities at the con, regardless of how
"responsibly" they are done, pose a serious risk to the convention's future.
the stupidy that your freinds are being pusnised for is not mouthing off about
their activites, it's not for doing drugs, it's for engaging in illegal
activites of any kind that expose the con to legal risk..
I don't know why you jumped all over the ONE phrase that I've admited since was
a bad turn of phrase... I won't accuse you of being obtuse, I think you're
delibrately trying to avaoid the fact that your freinds actions could have had
serious concequences for the con...
http://www.aclu.org/issues/drugpolicy/Rave_Media_Coverage.html
That heavy hammer that can be swung at event managers is why your friends are
being punished. Beacuse of their illegality, and how it's being handled it is
more than just a personal issues. I'm sure if Kage gets good evidence on other
people who were doing stuff that could bring that heavy a hammer down he'll ban
them too.
Because of this mebbe next year maybee people will think twice, and leave the
drugs at home and have a good time whithout them..
Jim Hall
On 21-Jul-2002, Ben Raccoon <ben_racco...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Oh yeah. Another thing, people. Listening to the anti-drug propaganda is
> rather pointless. If you want to know how drugs can really fuck you up,
> find out from the experts. Like the people who either researched the
> drugs or the people who actually did it themselves.
I don't need to ask the first caveman about fire;
I don't need to ask someone who has actually pissed on an electric fence.
I don't need to talk to an alcoholic or a pothead.
Somehow, I figured out all by myself how to avoid getting burned, electricuted, drunk or stoned.
It wasn't magic, Ben.
--
Farlo
Urban Fey Dragon
M. Mitchell Marmel
wrote:
> I'm trying to figure out what's more stupid: Doing drugs, doing
> drugs at a con, or bragging bout doing drugs at a con on an open
> forum. If ever one needed proof that drugs fry people's brains,
> here it is.
Goddammit, Timmy, stop posting stuff I agree with. People will talk. ;)
-MMM-
Ken Pick
You know, this whole thread and its related threads regarding drug use
at AC2002 are behaving very much like the post-CF8 threads regarding
the CF8 sexual freak show.
We're getting a lot of flames back and forth, both sides are
denouncing each other, and someone's using RHJunior's comments as an
opportunity to bash Christians. The responsible perps (Mustelid Mark
at CF8, the Ecstacy Ravers and other dopers at AC2002) are either
playing it clueless or blaming it all on the other side's Great
Conspiracy, and a lot of bandwidth and Usenet archive space is being
taken up by the back-and-forth flames.
Just check the thread archives about CF8 and you'll see the
similarities in tone and message.
Blackberry
>
>[...]
> I also heard rumors that you didn't want to admit that you played
>Toy on FurryMUCK, but who would believe in such rumors? Or excuse me,
>was that Rogue? Whatever your size fetish is.
>[...]
Let he who is without glass houses cast the first stone.
>[...]
> Actually it's really hard to see how you can stomach a Furry
>convention without being high or stoned. I mean, how else are you
>going to enjoy wallowing in such glorious mediocrity? But I digress...
Prove factually what you say and then we can debate it. If the majority of
attendees to a convention have "fun", then I think we can say that they
convention was generally "fun".
> Something else for you to digest. I actually know a number of
>people who fancy themselves as being Furry, and they certainly do not
>fit into your neat little paradigm. Sorry to burst your bubble and
>all, but in the real world some people can and do use drugs
>responsibly. They're not all coke addicts and potheads. Add to that,
>whatever they do outside of the con space or in their own rooms isn't
>any of your concern either. If you don't like that then I suggest you
>close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears and hum real loud.
See... whatever your personal opinion, illegal drugs are illegal. This means
that the police will come down on the hotel -- perhaps not legally, but enough
for them to notice -- and the hotel and the police will come down hard on
Anthrocon Inc., meaning that not only would Anthrocon be banned from the Adam's
Mark (and probably all of that company's hotels), it might not be able to set up
shop at any hotel in Philadelphia or even in the state.
This is the result you want?
--
"Blackberry is better looking and easier to use." -- Google