The Burned Fur Manifesto : Counterpoint
Jobe
words that I'm sure that alot of furs wanted to say. Of course I'm talking
about your manifesto. Although it could have been done in a
more..well..professional manner. Because of the way some of it is written,
it could pass off as just 'words of a elitist or hate monger'. Besides
that, it holds much substance, and is justified.
There are faults in it though, and I'll try to give my thoughts
on them
here.
First off, I think you need to deal with the point of 'What defines
someone
as being a furry?' I have never seen rules set in stone to answer
this
question, so the arguement can be made that the lenghts an indivual
person
goes is up to them. Now, I don't condone nor agree with the acts
of a
plushophile or a zoophile; nor do I wish to be associated with
them. But
still, under general terms, they could fall under the general label
as
'furry'. There are furry characteristics in each of these practices,
they
are just taken to an extreme that neither you or I agree with.
But does that make them wrong? Well, it's a touchy subject. What
is morally
wrong to one, is a strong belief to another. Think of it in the
terms of
the 'acceptence' of homosexuality. There are some who can't live
with the
idea because it is so morally wrong for them; and on the flipside,
to some
it is their way of life.
Simply put: Do I think that the acts of a plushophile or a zoophile
are
morally wrong, an act of low self-worth, and desparate? Yes, totally.
But
do I have the right to crucify them for it? No, I don't. A simple
example
would be Hitler to the Jews.
Now, as to your comment about 'Trekkies' and 'X-Philes' about calling
followers of the furry-fandom "Skunk-Fuckers". Well, I believe
that's just
the opinion of the uninformed. The outsider passing judgement on
an
insider. I can say, without a doubt, if you take all the plushophiles
and
zoophiles in the fandom and group them up, they are still a weak
minority.
So a comment like "Skunk-Fucker" wouldn't bother me, because I
know that
the furry fandom encompasses much more.
Now I'll try to deal with the idea of 'life-stylers'. I think this
is the
most grey area in the fandom. What determines a 'life-styler'?
Is it as
something as answering the phone with a 'meow', or is it living,
eating,
drinking, breathing and sleeping only furry? Again, there are no
set rules,
it's all up to the person. Is it someone who walks around town
in a
fursuit, or someone who just likes the artwork and stories? This
all can be
debated, and each has a strong case.
Although I can't offer any light as to what is a life-styler, I
can make
the same arguement for them. I can't find fault with a life-styler,
so long
as their actions don't fall under those of a plushophile or a zoophile.
I
believe that if the fandom was in the public light, that the furry
lifestyle would be well on it's way to the list of 'alternate-lifestyles'.
It's just they way another person chooses to live their life, and
you would
be wrong finding fault with that.
I think it is this age that we live that is the underlying culprit
here. In
the age of social diversity, and accepting all, many questionable
ideas
have surfaced, and now we have to deal with them. Do I like being
in the
same circle as a plushophile or zoophile? No, but they are there
and I have
to deal with it. They're not going anywhere, and an attempt to
rout them
from the fandom would be wrong, those are their beliefs and they
have a
right to them.
The only solution I can see is for someone out there to set the
"Furry
Fandom Commandments" so that everyone will know what a true furry
is, but
that will never happen, because a true furry is different to every
individual.
Now, I know sure your first response to this is going to be: "Arium,
your a
weak bleeding heart, politically correct libral!" Please try to
defend your
case in a more professional manner. These are my opinions, and
you have
yours. I respect that. All I ask is that you respect, not agree
with, mine.
Arium
Arium
>First you said you've "never seen rules set in stone" and now you'reNo one set the terms, that's why I express them a in general. Like, in general, apples are red. What I express is not as fact, but as a generalization. Now, I haven't read anywhere about Squee becoming the herald on furiness. Maybe those who agree with her defination of furry, also agree entirely with the manifesto?
>talking about "general terms". Exactly who set these terms? Are they
>just consensus? If they are, then that could be the problem. Squee
>expressed what she thinks 'furry' is, and a lot of folks agreed with
>her. Those are the facts.
>Yeah, pretty much. And the Burned Fur movement has never been aboutThat's not the impression I got from reading the entire Burned Fur site, all it guestbook posts, and some of the posts to this newsgroup.
>trying to do something about, or with, anyone. The people who think
>the movement is some kind of witch-hunt are mistaken. It's as simple
>as that.
No, it does not, but it seems illogical to form a group just to express opinions. I stated that with the assumed intent of action. If the Burned Furs don't intend to act, then I withdraw, because you are intitled to your opinion.>Exactly. Nor does anyone. But how does expressing one's opinion
>qualify as crucifixtion?
>Nowhere in Squee's manifesto does she talk about physically harmingI didn't mean physical harm. What I was getting at was the hatred Hitler expressed for those who did not share his beliefs or fit into the square hole of his opinion on what a human being should be. And I'm not comparing Squee to Hitler. I no nothing of the fur on a personal level. I compare the manifesto's ideas to something that of Hitler-esque.
>anyone. And comparing her to Hitler is just plain wrong. Hitler was
>a fuckhead. He was the Uber-Fuckhead. If all he ever did was bitch
>about how he hated Jews, well, big deal. But the split-second
>they.started rounding up non-Aryans, that's when we all knew it was
>time to drop the hammer on that motherfucker.
>Maybe it's wrong to want to educate the uninformed. I dunno. All IAs am I.
>know is that there are those who want to, and I'm willing to help
>them.
>Lifestylers have every right to do what they do, but if others want to[snip]
>dislike it, then that's their right, also. A lot of lifestylers
>complained because of what Squee said about them in the manifesto, but
>what I want to know is why they would let it bother them so easily.
>If they're truly secure in the way they choose to live, should it have
>even fazed them? Bottom line is, Squee has as much right to rant
>about their chosen way of life as they have to live it.
Again, written with the assumption of action on Burned Fur's behalf. But If all the group is for is to express opinion, then let Squee rant until her throat is hoarse.
>Exactly. And that's what the Burned Fur movement is. A group ofI want to clarify something. I am impartial to this 'movement', as some call it. As you can probably tell, I am all for people having and expressing their own opinions. It is where those people unjustly act upon the antagonists to their opinions that I get insulted. If Burned Fur is a group that share it's opinions and had no intent to maliciously act, then more power to you, I hope everything works out well.
>individuals who happen to share similar ideas about what furry is.
>Ignore people like Xydexx, who wouldn't care if you just agreed with
>their way of thinking without doing any thinking of your own. Get all
>the facts for yourself. In fact, I still think Karl's only reason for
>attacking the Burned Fur movement is that it gives him a great excuse
>to indirectly attack Eric Blumrich. Karl is too occupied with his own
>personal vendetta to be concerned about anything else, so he's really
>the last person you want to ask about anything.
Arium
Pat Fossey
Clint Forrester wrote in message <367dce14...@enews.newsguy.com>...
<snip>
This is my newsgroup now. Get lost.
Florian
>
<snip>
Yeah, people are uninformed, misinformed, and biased; and nobody seems
to have authority to 'set in stone' the definitions of things like
furry. What else is new.
As for value judgments, just remember the quote:
"One man's theology is another man's belly laugh."
[Robert Heinlein, "Notebooks of Lazarus Long"]
The issue won't be solved. My only interest is what the next 'clean up
the fandom' group will be called, since the BFs are too reactionary to
gain acceptance.
Xydexx Squeakypony
replying to this kinda flamebait? I've been getting journal entries done,
drawing some artwork, updating my resume, scanning in pictures, doing my
laundry, exploring abandoned steel mills, making plans to get together with
friends and go see Centralia, balancing my checkbook, creating QuakeII
levels, taking bubble baths, drinking tea, and generally being cute and
squeaky and enjoying life.
Still haven't gotten my holiday shopping done, though. I usually don't start
until around the 23rd, so there's still time. -:)
Clint Forrester wrote:
> Yeah, pretty much. And the Burned Fur movement has never been about
> trying to do something about, or with, anyone. The people who think
> the movement is some kind of witch-hunt are mistaken.
Funny, I remember reading a message from one of your own members that said it
was pretty much all about how y'all "wanna kick all the degenerates out", and
how y'all intended to accomplish that goal "by increasing our numbers and
heightening our volume- always at their expense..."
It must've been my imagination, huh?
I will again reiterate my long-standing belief that scapegoating and
infighting have never been necessary, nor successful, in improving furry
fandom's image.
The sooner the Burned Fur movement learns to accept that, the sooner you will
be able to start directing their efforts towards a more productive goal, like
helping make this a fandom everyone can enjoy.
> Ignore people like Xydexx, who
(...thinks furry fandom is about anthropomorphic animals.)
> In fact, I still think Karl's only reason for
> attacking the Burned Fur movement is that it gives him a great excuse
> to indirectly attack Eric Blumrich. Karl is too occupied with his own
> personal vendetta to be concerned about anything else, so he's really
> the last person you want to ask about anything.
Yah, right. Vendetta. Uh-huh.
I think you should ask me about my boycott of Mu Press.
While you're at it, feel free to ask me about my journal entries, drawing
artwork, my resume, scanning in pictures, my laundry, exploring abandoned
steel mills, the Centralia mine fire, balancing my checkbook, creating
QuakeII levels, taking bubble baths, drinking tea, holiday shopping, and all
those other things that keep me occupied so I don't really have time to be
concerned about your personal vendetta against me.
And who knows, maybe then you just might realize I can be a pretty nice guy
when people aren't threatening to put my head through a wall when they see me
at a furry con.
____________________________________________________________
Xydexx Squeakypony
Xydexx's Anthrofurry Homepage
http://www.smart.net/~xydexx/anthrofurry/homepage.htm
Jim Doolittle
(Clint Forrester) wrote:
> We're not trying to "clean up" the fandom. I don't know where you're
> getting your information from. And gaining acceptance isn't
> important. If we can make people think a little more, we've done our
> job. We're too damn hard-headed to give up because a few people think
> we're doomed to fail.
Umm. If you're not trying to clean up the fandom, then what are you trying
to do? Most of what I've seen out of BF has been you folks trying to
villify Xydexx and people who carry plush animals around at cons. I'm
perplexed.
-Jim
--------------------------------------------------------
| Jim Doolittle Fuzzy Logic E-Zine |
| dool...@uiuc.edu http://betterbox.net/~gimli |
--------------------------------------------------------
David Formosa
[...]
>We're not trying to "clean up" the fandom. I don't know where you're
>getting your information from.
From the staments of principals thread
]It should go beyond "we wanna kick all the degenerates out", (even though
]that's pretty much what it's all about...)
http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=417193269
and
]AND BEING THAT: These groups engage in behavior and activities that would be
]considered by non-members of anthropomorphic fandom (and indeed, many members
]of anthropomorphic fandom) as socially embarrasing, having dubious moral and
]legal status, [...]
]IT IS PROPOSED THAT:
]An organization be created that stands in opposition against these groups that
]have given anthropomorphic fandom a bad image. [...]
]1) WE SHALL institute
]ourselves as a monkeywrench in the gears of mainstream fandom not to destroy
]it but to improve it. [...]
]2) WE STRONGLY DISCOURAGE the support of acts such as bestiality,
]plushophilia, fursuit sex and other things seen as ?wrong? by non-fandom
]individuals (known by fans as ?mundanes?). We are also strongly opposed to
]the creation of art that depicts these acts
http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=417587081
>And gaining acceptance isn't important.
Then what is the point? If your idears are not going to be accepted,
then why advocate them?
[...]
>But here's what I'd really like to know. People keep calling BF "just
>another group", implying that there have been those who have come
>before us. So exactly who *were* these groups?
There was the "Antro not fandom" group, the "Clean up the fandom"
group, and there have been meany unoffical groups without names.
--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
http://www.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.
David Formosa
>On Sat, 19 Dec 1998 01:05:54 -0500, Xydexx Squeakypony
><xyd...@NOSPAMEVER.my-dejanews.com> wrote:
[...]
>>Funny, I remember reading a message from one of your own members that said it
>>was pretty much all about how y'all "wanna kick all the degenerates out", and
>>how y'all intended to accomplish that goal "by increasing our numbers and
>>heightening our volume- always at their expense..."
>>
>>It must've been my imagination, huh?
>
>No, that was Eric. I like the guy too, but you seem obsessed with
>him.
>
>Especially cute is how you take anything you like out of context and
>use it any way that you please.
Even in the full context his statement is quite damming.
> Not every one of his personal
>opinions necessarily reflects the opinions of the entire group.
Of cause not, but what do you Burnt Furs realy beleave in. Without
some definitive stemtent the staments of indivigials is all that we
have to go on.
[...]
>>I will again reiterate my long-standing belief that scapegoating and
>>infighting have never been necessary, nor successful, in improving furry
>>fandom's image.
>
>...says the guy who started one of the worst flame wars alt.fan.furry
>has ever seen.
I beleave the holder of that honour is Joel Fur. However Xydexx
didn't start this one, Squee started this flame war. If you realy
wish to assign blame it was the person who made the "Arn't there any
local woodland animas" crack.
Why dosn't the burnt fur movement gang up on *him*?
[...]
>>I think you should ask me about my boycott of Mu Press.
>
>What boycott?
Don't you know the history of this argument? In one of the pervious
rounds of this arguements Xydexx published a list of things to do to
imporve the fandom. Things like "Create art that you like" and "Don't
bye from people who you think are dammiging the fandom". This was
understood by some people to be that Xydexx was advacting the boycott
of Mu Press.
[...]
><snip other things Karl does when he's not trolling alt.fan.furry>
Karl is not trolling alt.fan.furry, you see he beleaves in what he
says. If anything Karl is a kook.
[...]
David Formosa
>On 19 Dec 1998 10:32:41 GMT, dfor...@zeta.org.au (David Formosa)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <367c2229...@enews.newsguy.com>, Clint Forrester wrote:
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>>We're not trying to "clean up" the fandom. I don't know where you're
>>>getting your information from.
>>
>>From the staments of principals thread
>>
>>]It should go beyond "we wanna kick all the degenerates out", (even though
>>]that's pretty much what it's all about...)
>>
>>-- fka...@my-dejanews.com
>
>necessarily reflect the opinions of the entire group.
However it gives the impression that some part of your orginisation
does wish to "clean up." the fandom.
[...]
>You didn't have to go back into DejaNews just for that. It's all more
>or less summed up in the mission statement on the homepage. But
>exactly what are you getting at?
That attempting to elminate or push to the far outer fringes
"bestiality, plushophilia, fursuit sex" could be seen as an attempt
to clean up the fandom.
A statement such as "While we acknolige the right of all people
(including bestialitiests, plushophilies and fursuit sexes) to enjoy
furry art we wish to be dissasated with such activeties" would have
been less clean up the fandomish.
[...]
>>Then what is the point? If your idears are not going to be accepted,
>>then why advocate them?
>
>If people choose to accept these ideas, fine. But more importantly,
>we want to make them think.
I think it doese matter to you, otherwise why would you get upset?
You state that Karl trolled you, but trolls can work only where people care
about there beliefs. If you where hear to mearly make us think, and
didn't beleave that what you where advocating was worthy of accptence
then any attack would flow like warter off a platypus' back.
> These are people who have expressed their
>thoughts and ideas and have a right to be understood and respected,
>regardless of whether or not anyone accepts it.
Oh cause, but does this right extend to plushiephiles?
Victry "Vixy" Hyzenthlay
>dislike it, then that's their right, also. A lot of lifestylers
>complained because of what Squee said about them in the manifesto, but
>what I want to know is why they would let it bother them so easily.
Alright, I've listened to the blatherings of the ignorant for too long.
It is time for some education here. Pay attention all you burned furvs, Clint,
and *especially* BlumReich and Squee Wretch. First, a few facts about
Lifestylers...
They (Lifestylers) have their own newsgroup, Alt.Lifestyle.Furry (ALF).
They organized this out of dislike for the way the Fandom was shaping. Sound
familiar?
ALF has its own charter and FAQ and averages more posts per day than AFF
(save during huge flamewars in AFF). Surprising isn't it? And they are civil
and enjoyable and... on topic. I was rather stunned at first to discover that
Furry Lifestyle has more active participants online than Furry Fandom.
The majority of pure Lifestylers don't even look at AFF much less
participate.
The majority of objections to Squee Wretch's mindless musings about
Lifestylers have been here, by FANS.
On ALF, there has been virtually nothing discussed about the BFs and their
BS, or BlumReich or anyone who objects so vehemently to Lifestylers.
My conclusion... Lifestylers don't care about BlumReich, Sqee Wretch, and
those who think they do. BFs need to get off their pedistal. They just aren't
that important to the Lifestylers, who don't appear to be phased by the meager
few who spew hate their direction. Almost like the hatemongers are beneath
them... far, far beneath them... at the seventh level of AFF, a new low they
have carved into the fandom, for themselves.
Now if anyone wants to check with the Lifestylers, it's called
'Alt.Lifestyle.Furry' and it's available through the FUR.* news servers as
well. Just go talk to them yourself. I invite Burned Furvs to go there and
discuss their differences. Though mind the ALF FAQ. THEY at least had the
foresight to set up some guidelines for civility in their group.
Now in contrast to Lifestylers, Fans DO care. The VASTS majority of
objections have happened here, in the fandom's forum, by furry fans. So draw
your own conclusion.
>
>If they're truly secure in the way they choose to live, should it have
>even fazed them?
In light of the above facts, that is a really dumb question *now*. ;)
>
>Bottom line is, Squee has as much right to rant
>about their chosen way of life as they have to live it.
Yes, she does. And the Fans have as much right to object when she turns
her rant into an organized witchhunt, setting ablaze the things she does not
like in the Fandom with no regard for others, with BlumReich, hood-on-head, at
the lead of her charge. What should they have expected?
--
================================================================
Victry 'love long and perspire; Vixy' Hyzenthlay
Technofox, personal Vixen, furry Fan AND Lifestyler. "YIP!"
_____________________
/ \
| Vivacious Vixen II | _
)""""\___ |- - - - - - - - - - - -| |_\____
)----| |\-| Home of Techno Tails |-/| | |\
)____|___|=============================| """|_)
`----' \|http://members.xoom.com/Vixy |/"""""
"""|"""""""/"""""\"""""""|"""
Victry{nospam}@- `=++++=" "=++++=' -@{remove}juno;com
FCF/Wc3admrwA>++C->+Dm+H-M++++P++R+T+++W+>+++Z++Sf++RLE$acn++d++e++f++h+iwf+j*-
p+sf++
Please post any response to this newsgroup. Thanks.
Victry "Vixy" Hyzenthlay
>On Sat, 19 Dec 1998 08:12:29 -0600, "Victry \"Vixy\" Hyzenthlay"
><n...@na.na> wrote:
>
>Yep, and folks there were pitching a fit after Squee put the Manifesto
>on her webpage. A trip over to DejaNews can confirm that.
Yes, a trip to Dejanews verified that a thread about the web page started
and the ALFers had their say and then it degenerated into light hearted
frivolity very quickly, turning away from the subject of flame, to more
important Lifestyle matters before the end of November, in fact, and it has not
been a serious discussion since. Unlike here where BFs have carved a new low
for AFF. Of course it also revealed that two major trolls, Richie Chandlir and
Charles Melvile, could not resist the fuel and went to ALF to *try* to get
things flaming, which they failed at. I never said that there was NO
discussion of it at all, just very little. Did you even read the post before
you replied?
>
>The most immediate objections to the manifesto were made on ALF, by
>lifestylers. I can go back into DejaNews and pull out quite a few
>very angry posts from ALF written about Squee and the Manifesto.
As I said... what DID they expect... was *about* Lifestylers. I never
said there was *no* discussion there at all. But the keyword in your statement
is 'few'. Now get over yourself and the BFs. They don't measure up to
anything to the Lifestylers.
>
>> On ALF, there has been virtually nothing discussed about the BFs and
their
>>BS, or BlumReich or anyone who objects so vehemently to Lifestylers.
>
>Incorrect. Once again, a trip back to the DejaNews archives can
>confirm that what you say is not true.
Ahhhhhh, theres where I said it. Now read it and understand it. Oh, and
if you only read the subjects of the posts, you will be badly misquoting
numbers... again. Check the content of the posts in those threads and find out
for yourself where the flames cease. You will be surprised.
>
>> My conclusion... Lifestylers don't care about BlumReich, Sqee Wretch,
and
>>those who think they do.
>
>Seeing as I've already busted holes in your supporting arguments...
You missed the mark miserably. My statements still holds true. Go back
to Dejanews and READ the articles.
>
>> Now if anyone wants to check with the Lifestylers, it's called
>>'Alt.Lifestyle.Furry' and it's available through the FUR.* news servers as
>>well. Just go talk to them yourself. I invite Burned Furvs to go there and
>>discuss their differences.
>
>Fat chance. They pitched a four-alarm hissy fit over a damn web page.
>I doubt anyone would want to go near them now.
Don't be afraid. If you are civil they will be civil. I thought you BFs
were all for *standing up* for the Fandom, hmmmm? ;)
>
>> Though mind the ALF FAQ. THEY at least had the foresight to set up some
guidelines for >>civility in their group.
>
>Too bad they only seem to follow them when it's convenient.
Like I said, if YOU are civil, THEY will be civil. See how it actually
*works*? ;)
>
>> Now in contrast to Lifestylers, Fans DO care. The VASTS majority of
>>objections have happened here, in the fandom's forum, by furry fans.
>
>Moot point. I'm talking about what went down in ALF, not AFF.
>
>>So draw your own conclusion.
>
>I'll probably have to, seeing as yours is invalid and useless.
Again, mine are correct, yours are drawn from ignorance.
>
>>>If they're truly secure in the way they choose to live, should it have
>>>even fazed them?
>>
>> In light of the above facts, that is a really dumb question *now*. ;)
>
>Your "facts" were incorrect. My original question still stands.
And now YOUR facts are wrong, *again*, and your original question is still
'really dumb'. :)
Look, if you don't even go to ALF, you certainly can't stand here and make
statements of fact about them. Now go back and study your lessons, child, and
try again later.
--
================================================================
Victry 'love long and perspire; Vixy' Hyzenthlay
Technofox and personal Vixen. "YIP!"
_____________________
/ \
| Vivacious Vixen II | _
)""""\___ |- - - - - - - - - - - -| |_\____
)----| |\-| Home of Techno Tails |-/| | |\
)____|___|=============================| """|_)
`----' \|http://members.xoom.com/Vixy |/"""""
"""|"""""""/"""""\"""""""|"""
Victry{nospam}@- `=++++=" "=++++=' -@{remove}usa;net
Florian
>
> On Fri, 18 Dec 1998 21:48:09 -0600, Florian
> <e_raschk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >The issue won't be solved. My only interest is what the next 'clean up
> >the fandom' group will be called, since the BFs are too reactionary to
> >gain acceptance.
>
> important. If we can make people think a little more, we've done our
> job. We're too damn hard-headed to give up because a few people think
> we're doomed to fail.
>
> another group", implying that there have been those who have come
> please.
Perhaps I wasn't clear. I should have said that he gave the issue some
thought, he agrees with parts of it, has concerns about other parts of
it, and that to me it's just another speach, because most people can
form a long opinion on it.
I do agree with parts of it.
My concern used to be minor: wasting time targeting vegans and such,
while not touching the spooge side.
The behaviour of the most vocal BFs, including you, made my concerns a
bit less than minor.
Your post has the faint reek of bait. You should know the answers to
your questions, and I won't go into it. Enough people seem too willing
to take on your posts already.
These threads suck. Everyone must be posting badly for the side that
they are really opposed to.
David Formosa
>On Sat, 19 Dec 1998 16:50:12 -0600, "Victry \"Vixy\" Hyzenthlay"
><n...@na.na> wrote:
>
>>Clint Forrester wrote in message <367bd3c1...@enews.newsguy.com>...
>>>On Sat, 19 Dec 1998 08:12:29 -0600, "Victry \"Vixy\" Hyzenthlay"
>>><n...@na.na> wrote:
>>
>>Yes, a trip to Dejanews verified that a thread about the web page started
>>and the ALFers had their say and then it degenerated into light hearted
>>frivolity very quickly, turning away from the subject of flame
>
>the newsgroup's image. More on that later in this post.
Given that email is private, how could you tell? In addtion takeing
flames to email is good net mannors, why should we disturb the peace
and harmony of our comminity?
[...]
>>Of course it also revealed that two major trolls, Richie Chandlir and
>>Charles Melvile,
>
>Oo! Another code word:
>
>"major troll" = anyone who doesn't agree with the opinions held by the
>regular posters on ALF.
Major troll people who post delbitly to disturb a newsgroup, Mr
Chandlir confessed that he was doing this.
[...]
>Okay, more on this subject. The flames *didn't* cease. They just
>stopped appearing on Usenet. Angry ALFers weren't done flaming Squee,
>not by a longshot. They still wanted to flame her, but they knew
>keeping it on ALF would kill the newsgroup's "happy" image. Their
>solution: take the flames to e-mail.
You know this is a quite interesting arguement. It takes the classic
"Lurkers support me in email" and inverts it. In any argument the
main thing in convinving people is everdence, however as email is
private there is no way you can prove that your point is true.
[...]
>Now, on a side-note, since we were talking about threads, I would just
>like to say that my all-time favorite Usenet thread would have to be
>the "Eggshell and Four Dead / Where's My Pinecone, Thad?" thread,
Mine would have to be "The longest tread ever."
[...]
>> Like I said, if YOU are civil, THEY will be civil.
>
>Is that what it says in the FAQ?
No but it has been a long standing tradtion.
>>See how it actually *works*? ;)
>
>Yep. "Maintain ALF's image at all costs." And "Flaming is only wrong
>if it's seen by others."
As I pointed out above such an arguement given that it is based on an
undtestable premise is invalid.
[...]
>> Look, if you don't even go to ALF, you certainly can't stand here and make
>>statements of fact about them.
>
>Too late. Already have.
Ok give quoteations to back up your point.
Dr. Cat
: Your post has the faint reek of bait. You should know the answers to
: your questions, and I won't go into it. Enough people seem too willing
: to take on your posts already.
: These threads suck. Everyone must be posting badly for the side that
: they are really opposed to.
I certainly can't agree with either side in the Vixy/Clint Forrester
argument, they've both convinced me to avoid their "side".
I guess maybe they enjoy arguing with each other though. :X)
(Say, do you think they could do that in email though?)
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
Dr. Cat / Dragon's Eye Productions || Free alpha test:
*-------------------------------------------** http://www.bga.com/furcadia
Furcadia - a new graphic mud for PCs! || Let your imagination soar!
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
(Disclaimer: They are just trying to preserve alt.fan.furry's misleading
"nasty flaming angry place" reputation, while they and many other a.f.f.
members hide all the happy-happy-nice-nice conversation in private email
to fool everyone. (And they'd have gotten away with it, too, if it
hadn't been for those meddling kids!))
David Formosa
>On 19 Dec 1998 12:55:39 GMT, dfor...@zeta.org.au (David Formosa)
>wrote:
[...]
>>>...says the guy who started one of the worst flame wars alt.fan.furry
>>>has ever seen.
>>
>>I beleave the holder of that honour is Joel Fur. However Xydexx
>>didn't start this one, Squee started this flame war.
>
>Without posting a single message to Usenet?
Yes. The same why some other publications have triggered flame wars
in the past. However as AFF flame was have gone this is no where neer
the worst.
[...]
> That's an incredibly ignorant thing for you to say.
Ignorant? That is a courious thing to say, what fact do you think I
haven't been infomred about? On the assumption that you where correct
I resureced to find the first post with the word burned fur in it.
There was a breaf thread about it on ALF about 1998/10/08 which died
out on 1998/10/11. Now as far as I can tell the war on AFF started
some time around 1998/10/12 from someone called "Moo Duck". Xydexx's
first post was on 1998/11/30 almost two months after the flam war started.
>And don't even try to tell me that her manifesto is somehow to blame.
>This is Usenet. Everyone is responsible for their own actions here.
So you can't hold Xydexx responsible for the flam war, as he only
posted his side.
[...]
>> If you realy wish to assign blame it was the person who made the "Arn't there any
>>local woodland animas" crack.
>>
>>Why dosn't the burnt fur movement gang up on *him*?
>
>Because he already apologized to her for the remark.
So the problem has been solved hasn't it? The guilty party has
confessed and applogiesed and all is right with the world.
[...]
>>Karl is not trolling alt.fan.furry
>
>Neither is Pat Fossey. *snicker*
Pat is a troll he posts to gain attention, Xydexx posts because he
beleaves in what he posts, there is a diffrence.
>> If anything Karl is a kook.
>
>He's more of a kook wanna-be, actually. If he really wants to be a
>true kook, he might want to start studying John Grubor's old stuff on
>DejaNews.
I know John Grubor, and dispite his odd views he is not too much of a
bad person.
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
> >"major troll" = anyone who doesn't agree with the opinions held by
> >the regular posters on ALF.
>
It wasn't what I set out to do. But after a while, I realized that people
were treating me the way a.f.f treats Karl. I figured the newsgroup deserved
me.
And in spite of the "Rules", I was flamed and insulted and talked down quite
thoroughly, from the outset, as a first, knee-jerk reaction. Only one or two
people attempted to engage me calmly and thoughtfully, and they got thoughtful
and calm responses. Those who reacted like wet cats had the gargantuan holes
in their arguments and their contra-FAQ behavior pointed out to them.
--
The greatest tragedy is that the same species that achieved space flight,
a cure for polio, and the transistor, is also featured nightly on COPS.
-- Richard Chandler
Spammer Warning: Washington State Law now provides civil penalties for UCE.
Victry "Vixy" Hyzenthlay
<981220003...@mauser.at.kendra.com>...
>And in spite of the "Rules", I was flamed and insulted and talked down quite
>thoroughly, from the outset, as a first, knee-jerk reaction.
That is your version of what happened, but an entire newsgroup disagrees
with you, Richy. Would it be meaningful to call you a liar, or should we let
the readers judge for themselves? ;)
As for Flint, his argument has gone to the level of BFs, with his double
standards (Squee and her Burned Freaks can rant about Lifestylers, it's hers
and their right, but oh the shame of Lifestylers for being upset about public
condemnation, or I, for voicing my dismay with BFs) and trying to tell everyone
that a phantom thread exists in Email. (Of course if he can show an entire
rant-thread's worth of Email then I'll gladly believe THAT part. ;)
GothTiger
David Formosa wrote:
> > Not every one of his personal
> >opinions necessarily reflects the opinions of the entire group.
>
> Of cause not, but what do you Burnt Furs realy beleave in. Without
> some definitive stemtent the staments of indivigials is all that we
> have to go on.
>
The Burned Fur movement's Mission statement:
http://members.aol.com/burnedfur/statement.htm
Jim Doolittle
vide...@mindspring.com (Clint Forrester) wrote:
> Not to hear Tim Skirvin tell it.
>
> <http://killfile.org/dungeon/why/grubor.html>
Wow. Someone invoked Tim Skirvin's name on a.f.f.
I wonder if he'd be amused by this. Brendan?
-Jim, who actually knows Tim in person.
Xydexx Squeakypony
[flamage snipped]
Mr. Forrester:
Once again, it has been very educational talking to you.
I will once again reiterate my long-standing belief that scapegoating and infighting have never been necessary,
nor successful, in improving furry fandom's image.
The sooner the Burned Fur movement learns to accept that, the sooner you will be able to start directing their
efforts towards a more productive goal, like helping make this a fandom everyone can enjoy.
Regards,
Rev. Xydexx Squeakypony, K.S.C., T.D.S.F.A.
Former Ambassador To Furry Fandom
Xydexx's Anthrofurry Homepage
http://www.smart.net/~xydexx/anthrofurry/homepage.htm
[ICQ: 7569393]
Xydexx Squeakypony
Clint Forrester wrote:
> Forget Karl. He proved that he was incapable of showing respect for
> anybody he disagrees with, especially when they're associated with
> someone that he despises as much as Blumrich.
Uh-huh. Right.
Tell me, is threatening to put my head through a wall if you see me at a con
your way of showing respect? Somehow I doubt Miss Manners would approve.
Here's some cut & paste justice for ya. Let's take a look at what _really_
makes Xydexx "the Walking Cum-Stain" such a threat:
* He doesn't have sex in public with animals/plushies/furry fans
at cons.
* He doesn't act like an obnoxious fanboy and pester the
artists at cons.
* He doesn't wander around in the same clothes for three days
without taking a shower.
* He doesn't say furry fandom is about anything other
than anthropomorphics.
In other words, he doesn't do any of the outrageous and horrible behavior that
people like to complain about. And THAT is what makes him such a threat; it
blasts a big gaping hole through the "drooling fanboy" stereotype. It blurs the
line between "Us" and "Them". And that's bad, they say, because Xydexx has to
be for "Us" or against "Us". But they don't want Xydexx to be one of "Us", so
they'd better make sure everyone knows he's one of "Them".
And so they start saying things like "Xydexx just wants attention", or "Xydexx
deliberately obscures what he really stands for", or "Xydexx thinks furry fandom
is about inflatable animals"[1]. And they say it all without a single shred of
evidence to back up their claims. They figure if they tell enough lies quick
enough, they might be able to dupe people into killfiling Xydexx, and hopefully
nobody will pay attention to the Big Threat to their "Us vs. Them" dichotomy.
There's just one thing wrong with their plan.........
Some people like to think for themselves.
I wonder, Mr. Forrester, if this wall you're trying to build in fandom is going
to end up being your prison instead of your fortress.
_______________________________________________________________
Rev. Xydexx Squeakypony, K.S.C. [ICQ: 7569393]
Check out what Clint Forrester hates so much:
Xydexx's Anthrofurry Homepage
http://www.smart.net/~xydexx/anthrofurry/homepage.htm
[1] Or sometimes, they say Xydexx is "incapable of showing
respect for anybody he disagrees with", which might be
believable if it wasn't for the fact that when Xydexx
was a sysop of a free-speech-oriented BBS, and he
had the power to delete posts he didn't agree with, he
left them alone. That's the great part about actions
speaking louder than words... while the Burned Furs SAY
they encourage aesthetic, cultural and philosophical
diversity, Xydexx actually DOES it. -:)
Xydexx Squeakypony
> On 1998/12/01, Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci posted the simple question:
> "what is "burned fur"?" The next day, Karl replied to that post with
> allegations that BF was acting like a hate group, and a lot of whining
> about free speech and double standards, all because I wouldn't let him
> troll the BF newsgroup. That's recognized by most of Usenet as Kook
> behavior.
>
> Karl's first sentence of his first reply in that thread?
>
> from <742925$ka0$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>:
> "The short answer: The furry equivalent of www.godhatesfags.com"
Note the Burned Fur Movement hasn't done very much to change my opinion.
____________________________________________________________
Xydexx "Fuckhead" Squeakypony [ICQ: 7569393]
Hangdog
> <n...@na.na> wrote:
>
> >Squee and her Burned Freaks can rant about Lifestylers,
"Burned Freaks." :oD Hey, I *like* that--I really *do!* Burned
Freaks and Burned Fur--it's like what happened when Scooby and
Shaggy were freebasing in the back of the van, and they hit a bump
and...FWOOMP! Instant Richard Pryor/Michael Jackson
impersonations!!! :oD :oD
(What--you don't remember that episode?...)
--Hangdog
Burned Fur *and* Burned Freak :o)
Hangdog
> Richard Chandler - WA Resident wrote in message
> <981220003...@mauser.at.kendra.com>...
> >And in spite of the "Rules", I was flamed and insulted and talked down quite
> >thoroughly, from the outset, as a first, knee-jerk reaction.
>
> That is your version of what happened, but an entire newsgroup disagrees
> with you, Richy. Would it be meaningful to call you a liar, or should we let
> the readers judge for themselves? ;)
One reader's judgement:
I lurked in ALF to follow that thread. Richard is right, and you are wrong.
--Hangdog
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
dfor...@zeta.org.au (David Formosa) writes:
> I'm just helping. To me the perverts and the crazes have always been
> the *good* part of the fandom, its the people like Squees frend who
> are the real problem.
It depends. How does she look in leather?
:-)
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
> Here's some cut & paste justice for ya. Let's take a look at what _
> * He doesn't have sex in public with animals/plushies/furry fans
> at cons.
> * He doesn't act like an obnoxious fanboy and pester the
> artists at cons.
> * He doesn't wander around in the same clothes for three days
> without taking a shower.
> * He doesn't say furry fandom is about anything other
> than anthropomorphics.
>
> In other words, he doesn't do any of the outrageous and horrible
> behavior that people like to complain about. And THAT is what makes
> him such a threat;
Actually, the thing that makes you disliked is that you refuse to repudiate
those who do those four things, and yet, claim that anyone who says you are
therefore supporting them is also wrong.
You always say we should work together, but you never say to do what. That's
because you do nothing. Check that. Among the few things you have done is
perpetrate a hoax on the newsgroup, starting a flamewar. Most trolls don't
bother to fake up a web page to get folks going.
You wanna work together on something? How about taking a side for once,
rather than stirring the pot and obscuring your neutrality.
xyd...@my-dejanews.com
> Karl is not trolling alt.fan.furry, you see he beleaves in what he
> says. If anything Karl is a kook.
Yeah, but at least I'm a nice kook. -:)
-------
Rev. Xydexx Squeakypony, K.S.C., T.D.S.F.A.
Xydexx's Anthrofurry Homepage
http://www.smart.net/~xydexx/anthrofurry/homepage.htm
[ICQ: 7569393]
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
xyd...@my-dejanews.com
So the other day, someone actually bothered to read some of the flamewar, and
commented on the flames that were being directed at me.
"Actually," I explained, "aside from a loud minority on a.f.f., I don't really
get flak from anyone."
"Anyone except for the Burned Furs, Rich Chandler, and all those guys."
"Yeah," I smiled, "like I said, a loud minority..."
David Formosa
[...]
>Quit changing your story. Who cares that they flamed her? She was
>expecting it. What's lame is that they wanted people to think it
>didn't bother them enough to flame her. That's why they took it to
>e-mail.
No thay took it to email because flaming is against the rules on ALF.
[...]
> Squee fowarded a few of the especially nasty ones to me.
>(Kimba? FW Galen? Matt Squirrel? I'm lookin' in your direction,
>guys. That's your cue to deny it.)
You know forwarding email is increadably rude.
> But actually, she's told me that
>the vast majority of e-mail she's received about the manifesto has
>been in support of it.
"Lurkers support me in email"?
[...]
>Besides, at that time, BF didn't exist yet. It was just Squee and the
>manifesto. ALF must haved placed a great deal of value on her
>opinions to get so upset about them.
Personaly I was just ammused that she could be so wrong about so much.
[...]
>I've just learned that my grandfather passed away at home in his sleep
>last night. He was 75, father of two children, and the closest thing
>to a father that I've had since I was three years old.
I know this isn't going to count for much, and maby you will not even
beleave me but I offer my sympathies over your loss.
David Formosa
>Figures. I try to leave and I end up having to deal with more of
>this. Let's get it over with.
I'm not ofrcing you to stay.
>On 20 Dec 1998 06:47:35 GMT, dfor...@zeta.org.au (David Formosa)
>wrote:
>
>>There was a breaf thread about it on ALF about 1998/10/08 which died
>>out on 1998/10/11.
>
>Right around the time the flames switched to e-mail.
A basicly unprovable hyptosis.
[...]
>>The guilty party has
>>confessed and applogiesed and all is right with the world.
>
>Stop looking for a "guilty party". That's supposed to be Burned Fur's
>job, remember? *snicker*
I'm just helping. To me the perverts and the crazes have always been
the *good* part of the fandom, its the people like Squees frend who
are the real problem.
>>Pat is a troll he posts to gain attention
>
>No, he posts to be a pain in the ass.
And thats how he gainst attention.
J.M.L.
: > Squee fowarded a few of the especially nasty ones to me.
: >(Kimba? FW Galen? Matt Squirrel? I'm lookin' in your direction,
: >guys. That's your cue to deny it.)
: You know forwarding email is increadably rude.
But flaming someone in their personal e-mail box is perfectly alright,
of course.
--
http://www.play.com -- Bride of the son of the curse of the Video Toaster.
David Formosa
>David Formosa (dfor...@zeta.org.au) wrote:
[...]
>: You know forwarding email is increadably rude.
>
> But flaming someone in their personal e-mail box is perfectly alright,
>of course.
Yes, its a long held usenet tradtion. Think of it as a form of harm
minimalisation rather then a whole newsgroup worth of people being
pissed off, you only get one person pissed off.
Think about how much nicer this newsgroup would be if everone took
there flames to email.
Sakura5285
Hi Xydexx! Hi a.f.f!!
In the midst of all the flaming that's been going on, I'd just like to say one
thing, Xydexx. You and Clint both seem like nice enough guys, but I think you
might have missed an important point here, and it could save you and others a
lot of headaches. Forrester said in a previous post that any problems between
the two of you have nothing to do with furry fandom or Burned Furs. It's
obvious that you and Clint agree on a lot of things about the fandom. The
problem, as I see it, is that you just don't like each other.
Just my two cents,
Sakura
[re-LURK!]
David Formosa
- WA Resident wrote:
>In article <slrn77r8ie....@godzilla.zeta.org.au>,
>dfor...@zeta.org.au (David Formosa) writes:
>> the *good* part of the fandom, its the people like Squees frend who
>> are the real problem.
>
I said fandom not femdom.
:D
J.M.L.
: Think about how much nicer this newsgroup would be if everone took
: there flames to email.
Now I remember why I stopped reading this bloody newgroup.
Victry "Vixy" Hyzenthlay
Richard Chandler - WA Resident wrote in message
<981220230...@mauser.at.kendra.com>...
>Actually, the thing that makes you disliked is that you refuse to repudiate
>those who do those four things, and yet, claim that anyone who says you are
>therefore supporting them is also wrong.
So HERE we have the jist of your menu for a better fandom. We all must be
an enemy of your enemy, else we ARE your enemy. And the Burned Freaks say they
will make things so uncomfortable for whomever they decide they don't like
here, that they will know and feel they are unwelcome in the Fandom. That
won't float here, I'm afraid. The Fans will determine how the fandom evolves.
Not a hate group, not an obnoxious, over inflated 'zine publisher, not a
muck-obsessed troll,... the Fans.
>
>You always say we should work together, but you never say to do what.
You always say we should work to separate, tear down, divide, hate and
alienate, but never how to improve. What Xydex advocates is FAR more positive
and helpful and he leaves it up to the individual to decide what they will work
together on. Is there anything positive you have to add? I would really love
to hear something positive out of you.
>
>That's because you do nothing. Check that. Among the few things you have
done
>is perpetrate a hoax on the newsgroup, starting a flamewar. Most trolls don't
>bother to fake up a web page to get folks going.
A Hoax huh? You are pissed because you were suckered by Xydex? Let me
give YOU some advice... same as I gave the BFs... get over it. You are telling
Fans to hate other Fans. Who is the worse troll?
>
>You wanna work together on something? How about taking a side for once,
>rather than stirring the pot and obscuring your neutrality.
How about NOT. How about letting the Fandom evolve instead of trying to
mutilate it and remold it into what YOU like?
Final note, Richy... I know you think of yourself as better than many just
because you publish a 'Zine (A 'Zine with nothing but pictures no less... so
much for stimulating the mind.), well think again. LOTS of furs here do that.
They are good, contributing fans too. You, however, are negating any good you
do with the things you try (keyword: try) to advocate. You, Squee Wretch and
the BFs, their supporters, BlumReich, Mental Millam, all know you won't get us
to hate one another so why are you trying so hard? We are a happily doomed
fandom. So give it a rest
Victry "Vixy" Hyzenthlay
>Victry \"Vixy\" Hyzenthlay wrote:
>
>> Richard Chandler - WA Resident wrote in message
>> >And in spite of the "Rules", I was flamed and insulted and talked down
quite
>> >thoroughly, from the outset, as a first, knee-jerk reaction.
>>
>> That is your version of what happened, but an entire newsgroup
disagrees
>> with you, Richy
>
>
>I lurked in ALF to follow that thread. Richard is right, and you are wrong.
Yeeeeeesss... but that is expected of you. You also support "hate thy
fellow fan because he has a plushy collection" as well.
Soooo that's one reader against an entire newsgroup so far. ;)
Donald E. Sanders
says...
> In article <367DC053...@NOSPAMEVER.my-dejanews.com>, Xydexx Squeakypony
> <xyd...@NOSPAMEVER.my-dejanews.com> writes:
> > Here's some cut & paste justice for ya. Let's take a look at what _
> > really_ makes Xydexx "the Walking Cum-Stain" such a threat:
> >
> > * He doesn't have sex in public with animals/plushies/furry fans
> > at cons.
> > * He doesn't act like an obnoxious fanboy and pester the
> > artists at cons.
> > * He doesn't wander around in the same clothes for three days
> > without taking a shower.
> > * He doesn't say furry fandom is about anything other
> > than anthropomorphics.
> >
> > In other words, he doesn't do any of the outrageous and horrible
> > behavior that people like to complain about. And THAT is what makes
> > him such a threat;
>
> those who do those four things, and yet, claim that anyone who says you are
> therefore supporting them is also wrong.
Which makes me wonder, If Xydexx is not all those things mentioned above,
why single him out. Also, am I to believe that anyone who supports them
for whatever reason would be disliked??? So if someone out of the blue
says, "Hey, lay off the weirdos, it's not nice to treat them like dirt!"
Then that person would instantly become the object of hate and loathing
that seems to be present here?
>
> You always say we should work together, but you never say to do what. That's
> because you do nothing. Check that. Among the few things you have done is
> perpetrate a hoax on the newsgroup, starting a flamewar. Most trolls don't
> bother to fake up a web page to get folks going.
I guess that means the average fan who don't do art, or write stories, or
organize cons, or edit and publish furry material should be place in the
same category. Perpetrate a hoax? more like a little prank that got
under everyone's skin, heck, I was mad for a few moments before I noticed
it was a prank, you know, yuck yuck, the jokes on me. I guess some folks
are more thin skinned than others. I have since forgiven him for that
prank, but seeing it come up again, means two things to me, some folks
just can't take a joke, and some folks don't know the meaning of
forgiving. As for faked up webpages, I have seen several so far, two
that I will not mention due to the fact that it's very mention will start
up yet another flamewar, and heavens knows, I don't want to do that!
Yep, it is very easy to be a troll when the rules are written by
everyone.
>
> You wanna work together on something? How about taking a side for once,
> rather than stirring the pot and obscuring your neutrality.
>
I would do something to improve the fandom, but heck, I am just a common
man, I don't know where to start. Now if you begin to offer ideas, then
it will make me wonder if you do come up with such ideas, then why don't
you set them going yourself? Of course, seeing that some folks out there
feel they contribute to the fandom more than others, it would not be my
place as a common man and a fan to suggest such thing, just to sit back
and enjoy this freaky bumpy ride.
--
When one barks at shadows, one expects to wake the sleepers.
A simple chow
Don Sanders
Dsan Tsan on #furry of Yiffnet
Artist at Roll Yer Own Graphics
http://www.dreamscape.com/dsand101/dsan.htm
(my furry page) Email dsan...@future.dreamscape.com
Pat Fossey
Victry "Vixy" Hyzenthlay wrote in message
<75la19$gqh$1...@crucigera.fysh.org>...
<snip>
Your trolling skills are most impressive. Where did you learn them? Were
you in alt.aol-sucks last year?
Pat Fossey
David Formosa wrote in message ...
>Think about how much nicer this newsgroup would be if everone took
>there flames to email.
The traffic would drop to zero. Everyone would be too busy flaming each
other in e-mail to post anything. HTH
Sakura5285
>Hangdog wrote in >message <367DD4F8...@pdq.net>..
>.
>>Victry \"Vixy\" Hyzenthlay wrote:
>>
>>
>>One reader's judgement:
>>
>>I lurked in ALF to follow that thread. Richard is right, and you are wrong.
>
>
> Yeeeeeesss... but that is expected of you. You also support "hate thy
>fellow fan because he has a plushy collection" as well.
>
> Soooo that's one reader against an entire newsgroup >so far. ;)
Well /gee/, Vixy...I don't know /who/ to believe, you or Hangdog. Maybe I
should take a step back and look at the facts.
Virtually all of Hangdog's posts have been polite, intelligent, and fun to
read.
All /you've/ done is insult people, call them names, and bitch at them.
Wow, I think I know who *I'm* more willing to believe (hint: not you). I think
ALF needs to find a better spokesperson.
Okay, that's enough sarcasm for one day. :)
Sakura =^_^=
StukaFox
: Here's some cut & paste justice for ya. Let's take a look at what _really_
: makes Xydexx "the Walking Cum-Stain" such a threat:
Karl,
Do you think Furry should tolerate sexual predators in its ranks?
StukaFox
Cadfan ap Morgan
> Hangdog wrote in message <367DD4F8...@pdq.net>...
> >Victry \"Vixy\" Hyzenthlay wrote:
> >
> >> Richard Chandler - WA Resident wrote in message
> >> <981220003...@mauser.at.kendra.com>...
> >> >And in spite of the "Rules", I was flamed and insulted and talked down
> >>>quitethoroughly, from the outset, as a first, knee-jerk reaction.
> >>
> >> That is your version of what happened, but an entire newsgroup
> >>disagrees with you, Richy
> >
> >One reader's judgement:
> >
> >I lurked in ALF to follow that thread. Richard is right, and you are wrong.
>
> Yeeeeeesss... but that is expected of you.
Actually, I wasn't a Burned Fur at that point. If anything, I tended to side with
the Lifestylers. But your treatment of Chandler showed me that all ALF's talk of
universal tolerance and acceptance did not apply to people who disagreed with you
(By "your treatment" I mean both yours personally, and that of a number of
other ALF regulars). That, and the general tone of hysterical self-pity prevalent
in
ALF during that incident, really, really turned me off of that NG--though *not* off
of the
lifestylers per se, as some of them (who don't post much, or at all, to ALF) have
proven
quite fair-minded and courteous in both this NG and private e-mail
So you lost a potential supporter because of your behavior. As one of your
regulars
said "Does that make you feel good about yourselves?"
> You also support "hate thy fellow fan because he has a plushy collection" as well
*Shrug* Ask Lontra whether that's true.
> Soooo that's one reader against an entire newsgroup so far. ;)
Yes, I've noticed that you and many other (though not all) ALFers tend to discount
the opinions of those who don't already agree with you.
It must make for a comfortable life ;o)
> ================================================================
> Victry 'Vixy' Hyzenthlay
ObPython: "Mind if we call yer 'Bruce?' Less confusin'"
--Hangdog
David Formosa
[...]
> Do you think Furry should tolerate sexual predators in its ranks?
Hey stop picking on the voreaphiles.
Hangdog
> In article <367ea628$0$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com>, StukaFox wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > Do you think Furry should tolerate sexual predators in its ranks?
>
> Hey stop picking on the voreaphiles.
>
Oh, just eat me...NO! WAIT!! I DIDN'T MEAN*chomp!*gulp!*
;o)
--Hangdog
David Formosa
[...]
> But your treatment of Chandler showed me that all ALF's talk of
>universal tolerance and acceptance did not apply to people who
>disagreed with you
It wasn't the fact that he disagreed with us, it was the fact that he
attacked people on the basisus of there lifestyies. Tolerance and
acceptance are not a right thay are a gift given in exchane for
acceptance and tolerance.
He wasn't there to talk about the inflence of furry on his lifestyle
he was by his own conffession there to make us feel like battered
wives.
Tatter_D
>those who do those four things, and yet, claim that anyone who says you are
>therefore supporting them is also wrong.
>
>because you do nothing. Check that. Among the few things you have done is
>perpetrate a hoax on the newsgroup, starting a flamewar. Most trolls don't
>bother to fake up a web page to get folks going.
>
>rather than stirring the pot and obscuring your neutrality.
Hahaha... you'd like that, wouldn't you?
People have been trying to force me to choose sides IRL for years, using
various jingoistic phrases like "You're either with us, or against us!" and
"Fence-sitters like you be the first ones up against the wall when the
(race/religious/political) war begins!" Actually, it's been borne out by
history that it's the fence sitters who are the only ones to survive after the
fanatics of both sides have slaughtered one another.
"Blessed be the meek, for they shall inherit the Earth..."
"Who am I? Just your God. Stirring the pot and breaking up the hardened lumps
by grinding them against one another, against the sides of the bowl, or against
my Spoon of Devastation. I hope this soup turns out well, I'd hate to have to
start all over again."
Pat Fossey
Tatter_D wrote in message <75mha0$utm$1...@camel29.mindspring.com>...
And you sir, are a troll of the highest order!
Pat Fossey
Donald E. Sanders
stuk...@shell9.ba.best.com says...
> Xydexx Squeakypony <xyd...@NOSPAMEVER.my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>
> : Here's some cut & paste justice for ya. Let's take a look at what _really_
> : makes Xydexx "the Walking Cum-Stain" such a threat:
>
>
> Karl,
>
>
>
Ok, now I am peaked! Would you please explain to me what you mean by
Sexual Predators in our ranks??? It is time for you to submit proof!
--
Tatter_D
says...
>I would do something to improve the fandom, but heck, I am just a common
>man, I don't know where to start. Now if you begin to offer ideas, then
>it will make me wonder if you do come up with such ideas, then why don't
>you set them going yourself? Of course, seeing that some folks out there
>feel they contribute to the fandom more than others, it would not be my
>place as a common man and a fan to suggest such thing, just to sit back
>and enjoy this freaky bumpy ride.
"The best thing you, or anyone else, can do, is set a good example. It takes a
long time to produce any results, and you almost certainly won't notice any
immediate effects outside of your personal circle of friends and family in your
own lifetime, unless you somehow become famous... but it is the only way to
make any kind of permenant change in the world. You would be surprised just
how many people a good example can influence, even if its power is weak at
first."
GENTILEBRO
Oh yeah! I remember that one. It's also the one where we learned what Daphne
and Fred were REALLY doing for those 10 minutes they spent off-screen!
Gabriel Gentile
Having a berry delicious kind of day
DiscoC...@hotmail.com
Victry "Vixy" Hyzenthlay
>Actually, I wasn't a Burned Fur at that point. If anything, I tended to side
with
of
>universal tolerance and acceptance did not apply to people who disagreed with
you
>other ALF regulars).
I suppose you noticed too that Richy started off there by breaking the
rules of ALF posting laid out in the FAQ, personally attacking Xydex, calling
him a coward and accusing him of sending a fake reply Email address when the
truth was that Xydex' Email server was down and he had even posted that fact on
the newsgroup where Richy didn't bother to read. No, I dind't think so. I
wonder just how much you really read besides what Richy wrote? Then when
confronted with the FAQ guidelines, Richy stated he would not abide by the
posting guidelines laid out in the FAQ. So you think he deserved the
protection of the FAQ while he would not give others the same courtesy? Your
fur is starting to smolder. After that, Richy started to preach how Furry
Lifestylers should change to help Furry Fandom, but he had no base for his
sermon and would not debate it. All he would do was argue in a great circle
with symantics and obscurity and his entire reasoning boiled down to "just do
it because I said so." After MANY grew frustrated with his refusal to be
reasonable, he finally admitted he was there only to troll. My, how your fur
is burning. Now is there anything YOU care to add to the account?
>
>That, and the general tone of hysterical self-pity prevalent
>in ALF during that incident, really, really turned me off of that NG--though
*not*
>off of the lifestylers per se, as some of them (who don't post much, or at
all, to
>ALF) have proven quite fair-minded and courteous in both this NG and private
e-mail
Methinks you have a vivid imagination... or at least a pension for...
what's that new word you discovered... hyperbole? You definately have a
pension for drawing your own meanings out of the writings of others. Exactly
like your group imagines so much wrong with Furry Fandom that it is not really
there. But you are willing to burn it down so you can remake it.
>
>So you lost a potential supporter because of your behavior. As one of your
>regulars said "Does that make you feel good about yourselves?"
I am sooo saddened and I am sure everyone in ALF is too. Give me a break.
If you support Richy so blindly, you definately don't have a place where people
are still counted as individuals. After all, Squee led you by the nose right
up to BlumReich's bunker. Try thinking for yourself for a change. BTW, ALF is
not my group. I do not speak for them. I speak for myself, as a Furry Fan AND
a Furry Lifestyler, together... not seperate. Live with it.
>
>> You also support "hate thy fellow fan because he has a plushy collection" as
well
>
>*Shrug* Ask Lontra whether that's true.
Alright, then I'll go ask BlumReich also, whom you support so adamantly.
>
>Yes, I've noticed that you and many other (though not all) ALFers tend to
discount
>the opinions of those who don't already agree with you.
Not really. I simply discount the opinions of those who say they want to
tear appart the Fandom. That's all. You should really try to excercise your
personal thinking instead of following the smell of smoke.
Pat Fossey
Victry "Vixy" Hyzenthlay wrote in message
>
<snip>
And you sir, are a troll!!
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
> Which makes me wonder, If Xydexx is not all those things mentioned
> above, why single him out.
Because he so vocally says nothing. He gets people tangled up in his empty
rhetoric, and then turns the dabate from its proper subject into a debate
about what it is he did or didn't say. It's like getting Clinton to define
"Furry".
> I guess that means the average fan who don't do art, or write stories,
> or organize cons, or edit and publish furry material should be place
> in the same category.
I've said before that Fans are important as well, for their support of (or for
the financially unable, their desire to support) the artform, for their
advocacy, and for the new fans their enthusiasm brings to the fandom.
The question is the quality of the new fans someone brings to the fandom.
It's better to bring in someone who likes anthropomorphic art and stories and
movies and such, than someone whose only interest is meeting 'zoos and their
pets.
> I would do something to improve the fandom, but heck, I am just a
> common man, I don't know where to start. Now if you begin to offer
> ideas, then it will make me wonder if you do come up with such ideas,
> then why don't you set them going yourself? Of course, seeing that
> some folks out there feel they contribute to the fandom more than
> others, it would not be my place as a common man and a fan to suggest
> such thing, just to sit back and enjoy this freaky bumpy ride.
One way to improve a neighborhood is to kick out the gangs and the drug
dealers. In some cases, tolerance is destructive.
If you want to contribute, and contribute in a positive way, find more folks
who would love to read Furrlough, and turn them on to it.
--
The greatest tragedy is that the same species that achieved space flight,
a cure for polio, and the transistor, is also featured nightly on COPS.
-- Richard Chandler
Spammer Warning: Washington State Law now provides civil penalties for UCE.
Dr. Cat
: So you lost a potential supporter because of your behavior. As one of your
: regulars said "Does that make you feel good about yourselves?"
I see a potential contradiction here... It can't be, 'cause Hangdog is
the "polite Burned Fur" so he must be correct. Must be a problem with
my brain to think otherwise. I'll fix it by altering my brain to shift
to a different perspective.
Ah, me am Bizarro Dr. Cat, and me am understand Hangdog now because it
am as clear as mud is! If alt dot live-sty dot purry am chase away
potenshul supporter like Hangdog because am rude, this am bad thing.
(Bizzaro Cat like bad things). But if Burnt Purrs chase away potenshul
supporter like Allen Kitchen or Tim Fay because of Eric Blumrich am rude,
then this am good thing. Becauz Hangdog say "Am deliberate strategy to
stir up debate, get attenshun for cause, and show other side for what
they really am!" By Bizarro logic, if those things am less important
than get supporter, be good to give up more important thing to get less
important thing. Man who do least important things on Bizarro world am
get to be Bizarro President!
*shakes head to clear it* Wow, that Bizarro thinking sure takes a lot
out of a guy. Hangdog, if you can explain to all the non-Bizarros why
you think being deliberately rude to the point of losing potential
supporters is bad strategy for alt.lifestyle.furry, but good strategy
for Eric Blumrich and Squeerat, I'd like to hear your reasoning.
If you won't answer... Well hey, I think at least you have the powerful
Bizarro lobby all sewed up already. :X)
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
Dr. Cat / Dragon's Eye Productions || Free alpha test:
*-------------------------------------------** http://www.bga.com/furcadia
Furcadia - a new graphic mud for PCs! || Let your imagination soar!
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
(Thought for the day: Anyone who thinks Xydexx never works actively
towards improving furry fandom probably doesn't remember the Furry
Fandom Welcome Wagon page. I miss the Furry Fandom Welcome Wagon page.
And how could you call that page anything BUT trying to work towards
improving the fandom? Not one of his regular detractors ever said
there was anything wrong with that page at all, they mostly just didn't
mention it. So probably even they thought it was ok, if they thought
otherwise I'm sure they would have ragged on it publically.)
(Public challenge: Since it was the presence of lots of people ragging on
him in public that motivated Xydexx to shut down the Welcome Wagon page,
I'd bet if some of them, or even one of them, were to ask him to bring it
back, he just might. So I hereby challenge Rich Chandler to either ask
Xydexx publically to bring back the Furry Fandom Welcome Page - an action
which would seemingly fit with his claims of wanting to improve the fandom
and could be done in a single sentence in under a minute of his time...
Or else explain to us why his asking Xydexx to do it would not be good for
the fandom, or why he doesn't want to bother taking 30 seconds to attempt
to benefit the fandom in that small way. Say, did I mention that I miss
the Furry Fandom Welcome Page? I hereby ask Xydexx to bring it back
myself, whether anyone else misses it or not. Bring it back, Xydexx!)
Donald E. Sanders
says...
> In article <MPG.10e7f76dd...@news.fysh.org>, Noo...@my.email.com
> (Donald E. Sanders) writes:
> > Which makes me wonder, If Xydexx is not all those things mentioned
> > above, why single him out.
>
> Because he so vocally says nothing. He gets people tangled up in his empty
> rhetoric, and then turns the dabate from its proper subject into a debate
> about what it is he did or didn't say. It's like getting Clinton to define
> "Furry".
I may not be keen on the proper forms of debating, but so far, I have
seen point and counterpoints raised in this issue. call me dense but I
don't really see how Xydexx is straying from that. As for his saying
what he say and didn't say, well, I call it defending one's self. I
would be mistaken if that is wrong.
>
> > I guess that means the average fan who don't do art, or write stories,
> > or organize cons, or edit and publish furry material should be place
> > in the same category.
>
> I've said before that Fans are important as well, for their support of (or for
> the financially unable, their desire to support) the artform, for their
> advocacy, and for the new fans their enthusiasm brings to the fandom.
>
> The question is the quality of the new fans someone brings to the fandom.
> It's better to bring in someone who likes anthropomorphic art and stories and
> movies and such, than someone whose only interest is meeting 'zoos and their
> pets.
Strange. The subject mentioned in that last line was subline and so
small in the past. In the span of about two years, it suddenly made it's
way to the forefront of the fandom. Of course my observation (and as
usual I will be wrong about this), is that what was a small segment who
was unhappy about it shoved it up to the forefront and began to make as
much noise as possible to make everyone notice. What I think? If this
tactic was used to point out problems in trains being on time, or the
homeless, quite a few folks would be quite annoyed because they would
naturally not want to hear it. (Chances are what I just said would be
used as a defense for those who are complaining)
>
> > I would do something to improve the fandom, but heck, I am just a
> > common man, I don't know where to start. Now if you begin to offer
> > ideas, then it will make me wonder if you do come up with such ideas,
> > then why don't you set them going yourself? Of course, seeing that
> > some folks out there feel they contribute to the fandom more than
> > others, it would not be my place as a common man and a fan to suggest
> > such thing, just to sit back and enjoy this freaky bumpy ride.
>
> One way to improve a neighborhood is to kick out the gangs and the drug
> dealers. In some cases, tolerance is destructive.
Having dealt with Urban living, I have found that those who want to kick
out the gangs and the drug dealers, tend to make a wide sweep and in turn
kick out those who had nothing to do with such activities. I can see the
point that tolerance of the Zoos could be destructive! note I said could
be!!! There is a difference between somebody talking about dipping you
in hot oil and actually doing the deed. As for the so-called others,
such as Plushphiles, funny, I consider them harmless, tolerance of them
don't seem destructive. I would go into more examples, but seeing that
there are folks out there that even if someone presents rock hard proof
that such activities are harmless, they would none the less, not waver
from their opinions.
>
> If you want to contribute, and contribute in a positive way, find more folks
> who would love to read Furrlough, and turn them on to it.
Well, that is one way to contribute in a positive way, but then again,
that is one suggestion that benefits those who produce Furrlong. (Yep,
I'm about to take some heat for that comment) Help a person build a
fursuit?? well that is dandy too but too many folks out there may think
that such fursuit may be used for something unsavory like Sex! Organize
a con?? What a great Idea! oh wait, that might attract some riffraff
bent on destroying the fandom by tossing in their own little ideas! Hmm,
coming up with positive ways is quite hard is it? Not so hard if you are
of the same mind set as those who would want to clean up the fandom. By
now many folks would think my solution is to just sweep the problem under
the rug and hope the large lump don't show. That would be my bad but
then again, I would be exercising free will, something I hope never runs
out of the fandom.
Donald E. Sanders
>
> >I would do something to improve the fandom, but heck, I am just a common
> >man, I don't know where to start. Now if you begin to offer ideas, then
> >it will make me wonder if you do come up with such ideas, then why don't
> >you set them going yourself? Of course, seeing that some folks out there
> >feel they contribute to the fandom more than others, it would not be my
> >place as a common man and a fan to suggest such thing, just to sit back
> >and enjoy this freaky bumpy ride.
>
> long time to produce any results, and you almost certainly won't notice any
> immediate effects outside of your personal circle of friends and family in your
> own lifetime, unless you somehow become famous... but it is the only way to
> make any kind of permenant change in the world. You would be surprised just
> how many people a good example can influence, even if its power is weak at
> first."
>
>
Farlo
>(Donald E. Sanders) writes:
>> Which makes me wonder, If Xydexx is not all those things mentioned
>> above, why single him out.
>
>Because he so vocally says nothing. He gets people tangled up in his empty
>rhetoric, and then turns the dabate from its proper subject into a debate
>about what it is he did or didn't say. It's like getting Clinton to define
>"Furry".
Xydexx's approval rating is noticeably higher than Clinton's.
=)
>The question is the quality of the new fans someone brings to the fandom.
Oh boy ... not *This* again. =P
-------------------
Farlo m>*_*<m
Urban Fey Dragon
I am not postmaster@[localhost] nor postmaster@[127.0.0.1]
-------------------
xan...@my-dejanews.com
> "Pat Fossey" <n...@way.dude> wrote:
> Made you look.
Made you look too!
-Xanthar <just your ordinary yiffy, orange foxwolf>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Pat Fossey
Dr. Cat wrote in message <367f6...@feed1.realtime.net>...
<snip>
Your trolling skills are weak.-LoseR.
Victry "Vixy" Hyzenthlay
>: So you lost a potential supporter because of your behavior. As one of your
>: regulars said "Does that make you feel good about yourselves?"
>
>the "polite Burned Fur" so he must be correct. Must be a problem with
>my brain to think otherwise. I'll fix it by altering my brain to shift
>to a different perspective.
>
>Ah, me am Bizarro Dr. Cat, and me am understand Hangdog now because it
>am as clear as mud is! If alt dot live-sty dot purry am chase away
>potenshul supporter like Hangdog because am rude, this am bad thing.
>(Bizzaro Cat like bad things). But if Burnt Purrs chase away potenshul
>supporter like Allen Kitchen or Tim Fay because of Eric Blumrich am rude,
>then this am good thing. Becauz Hangdog say "Am deliberate strategy to
>stir up debate, get attenshun for cause, and show other side for what
>they really am!" By Bizarro logic, if those things am less important
>than get supporter, be good to give up more important thing to get less
>important thing. Man who do least important things on Bizarro world am
>get to be Bizarro President!
>
>*shakes head to clear it* Wow, that Bizarro thinking sure takes a lot
>out of a guy. Hangdog, if you can explain to all the non-Bizarros why
>you think being deliberately rude to the point of losing potential
>supporters is bad strategy for alt.lifestyle.furry, but good strategy
>for Eric Blumrich and Squeerat, I'd like to hear your reasoning.
>
>If you won't answer... Well hey, I think at least you have the powerful
>Bizarro lobby all sewed up already. :X)
To quote Heffer from "Rocko's Modern Life"... 'That was a HOOT!' :D
Thank you, Dr. Cat, for using humor in your counter argument. I admit, I
REALLY need to learn that approach because I want to try and keep my cool now
during this Advent.
Pat Fossey
Pat Fossey
Donald E. Sanders wrote in message ...
<snip>
Shut up, cunter.
Pat Fossey
Donald E. Sanders
says...
> Xanthar wrote:
> > "Pat Fossey" <n...@way.dude> wrote:
> > Made you look.
>
> Made you look too!
>
Hangdog
> Dr. Cat wrote in message <367f6...@feed1.realtime.net>...
> >Cadfan ap Morgan (peter....@pdq.net) wrote:
> >: So you lost a potential supporter because of your behavior. As one of your
> >: regulars said "Does that make you feel good about yourselves?"
> >
> >
> >*shakes head to clear it* Wow, that Bizarro thinking sure takes a lot
> >out of a guy. Hangdog, if you can explain to all the non-Bizarros why
> >you think being deliberately rude to the point of losing potential
> >supporters is bad strategy for alt.lifestyle.furry, but good strategy
> >for Eric Blumrich and Squeerat, I'd like to hear your reasoning.
Actually, I can't explain it--it seemed to be a logical argument for ALFers
to use--i.e., that it's bad for Blum and Squee, but OK for you--so I was
just trying to use terms that you might understand.
But I forgot to translate to Bizarro logic. No wonder you had trouble
understanding ;o)
--Hangdog
Pat Fossey
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
> I may not be keen on the proper forms of debating, but so far, I have
> seen point and counterpoints raised in this issue. call me dense but
> I don't really see how Xydexx is straying from that. As for his
> saying what he say and didn't say, well, I call it defending one's
> self. I would be mistaken if that is wrong.
Ask him about his boycott of Mu Press. :-)
> Strange. The subject mentioned in that last line was subline and so
> small in the past. In the span of about two years, it suddenly made
> it's way to the forefront of the fandom. Of course my observation (and
> as usual I will be wrong about this), is that what was a small segment
> who was unhappy about it shoved it up to the forefront and began to
> make as much noise as possible to make everyone notice. What I think?
> If this tactic was used to point out problems in trains being on time,
> or the homeless, quite a few folks would be quite annoyed because
> they would naturally not want to hear it. (Chances are what I just
> said would be used as a defense for those who are complaining)
Well, the more common example of people who aren't really interested in
anthropomorphics who were brought into the fandom for non anthropomorphics
reasons would be jumped all over as some kind of homophobia. Besides, the
business of inviting 16-year-olds to escape their intolerant homes and come
live in California, and learn all about the gay community, belongs more in the
sexual predator thread.
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
writes:
> Noo...@my.email.com (Donald E. Sanders) wrote:
> >Well, that is one way to contribute in a positive way, but then
> >again, that is one suggestion that benefits those who produce
>
> And the problem with that is what, exactly? Surely you don't
> mean to suggest that an idea is only positive if no one
> benefits financially from it?
Not only that. but if Furrlough's sales increase, it increases the likelyhood
that other stores will order it, and increases the likelyhood that other fans
will find it.
> >I'm about to take some heat for that comment) Help a person build
> >a fursuit?? well that is dandy too but too many folks out there may
> >think that such fursuit may be used for something unsavory like
> >Sex! Organize a con?? What a great Idea! oh wait, that might
> >attract some riffraff bent on destroying the fandom by tossing in
> >their own little ideas! Hmm, coming up with positive ways is quite
> >hard is it? Not so hard if you are
>
> Now you're being rediculous.
Which is why I didn't reply to that part of his message. I mean, I helped
organize a con and it went very well, with no real riff-raff problems, other
than an artist who had a little too much fruit of the Barley and made a
spectacle of himself.
Hangdog
> Hangdog (peter....@pdq.net) wrote:
> : Actually, I can't explain it--it seemed to be a logical argument for ALFers
> : to use--i.e., that it's bad for Blum and Squee, but OK for you--so I was
> : just trying to use terms that you might understand.
>
> Well, if you're claiming that the inconsistency suggests one side is
> mistaken, you could perhaps clarify which side you're on. Are you saying
> that it's a desirable and acceptable tactic for both the Burnt Furs and for
> alt.lifestyle.furry? Or are you saying that it's a bad tactic for both
> of them?
*Shrug* Okay, how about:
If you don't care what effect ALF's traffic has on me (or any third party),
Then I won't care what effect Blumrich's site has on you (or any third party)
Which I gather is pretty much the way things stand now, anyway :o)
> (Disclaimer: Me am not want you to agree with me because you am poopiehead.
> Ha ha, Bizarro Cat use rhe-to-ric to get you to talk about him opin-yun!)
*chuckle* Bizarro. :o) That takes me back--oh--nigh unto thutty year o' more...
You know, I haven't read a Superman comic book cover-to-cover since before
men walked on the Moon? *sigh* "Where are the snows of yestyer-year?..."
Sliante!
--Hangdog
sola...@don'tmesswithtexas.net
>> If you want to contribute, and contribute in a positive way, find more folks
>> who would love to read Furrlough, and turn them on to it.
>
>Well, that is one way to contribute in a positive way, but then again,
>that is one suggestion that benefits those who produce Furrlong. (Yep,
And the problem with that is what, exactly? Surely you don't mean to
suggest that an idea is only positive if no one benefits financially from
it?
>I'm about to take some heat for that comment) Help a person build a
>fursuit?? well that is dandy too but too many folks out there may think
>that such fursuit may be used for something unsavory like Sex! Organize
>a con?? What a great Idea! oh wait, that might attract some riffraff
>bent on destroying the fandom by tossing in their own little ideas! Hmm,
>coming up with positive ways is quite hard is it? Not so hard if you are
Now you're being rediculous.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Fool! You have just signed the universe's death warrant!"
"I did? Uh... gee, I don't know if I'm authorized to sign that..."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
solarfox@DON'TMESSWITHtexas.net (Gary Akins jr.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Cat
: Actually, I can't explain it--it seemed to be a logical argument for ALFers
: to use--i.e., that it's bad for Blum and Squee, but OK for you--so I was
: just trying to use terms that you might understand.
Well, if you're claiming that the inconsistency suggests one side is
mistaken, you could perhaps clarify which side you're on. Are you saying
that it's a desirable and acceptable tactic for both the Burnt Furs and for
alt.lifestyle.furry? Or are you saying that it's a bad tactic for both
of them?
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
Dr. Cat / Dragon's Eye Productions || Free alpha test:
*-------------------------------------------** http://www.bga.com/furcadia
Furcadia - a new graphic mud for PCs! || Let your imagination soar!
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
(Disclaimer: Me am not want you to agree with me because you am poopiehead.
wol...@hotmail.com
<djariumNOP...@email.com> wrote:
From Wol...@hotmail.com
As a non-active zoo, I would like to say that I find your comments
very refreshing to hear. As it happens to be I consider myself to be
a furry, For the simple reason is that in my heart mind and soul I am
an animal trapped in the body of a human. Not because of my being a
zoo but because of thats who and what I am.
>
>--------------68B09F0BECB4699C73594BEC
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>I have to say it, I'm quite glad someone grew up the balls to put out
>the
>words that I'm sure that alot of furs wanted to say. Of course I'm
>talking
>about your manifesto. Although it could have been done in a
>more..well..professional manner. Because of the way some of it is
>written,
>it could pass off as just 'words of a elitist or hate monger'. Besides
>that, it holds much substance, and is justified.
>
>There are faults in it though, and I'll try to give my thoughts on them
>here.
>
>First off, I think you need to deal with the point of 'What defines
>someone
>as being a furry?' I have never seen rules set in stone to answer this
>question, so the arguement can be made that the lenghts an indivual
>person
>goes is up to them. Now, I don't condone nor agree with the acts of a
>plushophile or a zoophile; nor do I wish to be associated with them. But
>
>still, under general terms, they could fall under the general label as
>'furry'. There are furry characteristics in each of these practices,
>they
>are just taken to an extreme that neither you or I agree with.
>
>But does that make them wrong? Well, it's a touchy subject. What is
>morally
>wrong to one, is a strong belief to another. Think of it in the terms of
>
>the 'acceptence' of homosexuality. There are some who can't live with
>the
>idea because it is so morally wrong for them; and on the flipside, to
>some
>it is their way of life.
>
>Simply put: Do I think that the acts of a plushophile or a zoophile are
>morally wrong, an act of low self-worth, and desparate? Yes, totally.
>But
>do I have the right to crucify them for it? No, I don't. A simple
>example
>would be Hitler to the Jews.
>
>Now, as to your comment about 'Trekkies' and 'X-Philes' about calling
>followers of the furry-fandom "Skunk-Fuckers". Well, I believe that's
>just
>the opinion of the uninformed. The outsider passing judgement on an
>insider. I can say, without a doubt, if you take all the plushophiles
>and
>zoophiles in the fandom and group them up, they are still a weak
>minority.
>So a comment like "Skunk-Fucker" wouldn't bother me, because I know that
>
>the furry fandom encompasses much more.
>
>Now I'll try to deal with the idea of 'life-stylers'. I think this is
>the
>most grey area in the fandom. What determines a 'life-styler'? Is it as
>something as answering the phone with a 'meow', or is it living, eating,
>
>drinking, breathing and sleeping only furry? Again, there are no set
>rules,
>it's all up to the person. Is it someone who walks around town in a
>fursuit, or someone who just likes the artwork and stories? This all can
>be
>debated, and each has a strong case.
>
>Although I can't offer any light as to what is a life-styler, I can make
>
>the same arguement for them. I can't find fault with a life-styler, so
>long
>as their actions don't fall under those of a plushophile or a zoophile.
>I
>believe that if the fandom was in the public light, that the furry
>lifestyle would be well on it's way to the list of
>'alternate-lifestyles'.
>It's just they way another person chooses to live their life, and you
>would
>be wrong finding fault with that.
>
>I think it is this age that we live that is the underlying culprit here.
>In
>the age of social diversity, and accepting all, many questionable ideas
>have surfaced, and now we have to deal with them. Do I like being in the
>
>same circle as a plushophile or zoophile? No, but they are there and I
>have
>to deal with it. They're not going anywhere, and an attempt to rout them
>
>from the fandom would be wrong, those are their beliefs and they have a
>right to them.
>
>The only solution I can see is for someone out there to set the "Furry
>Fandom Commandments" so that everyone will know what a true furry is,
>but
>that will never happen, because a true furry is different to every
>individual.
>
>Now, I know sure your first response to this is going to be: "Arium,
>your a
>weak bleeding heart, politically correct libral!" Please try to defend
>your
>case in a more professional manner. These are my opinions, and you have
>yours. I respect that. All I ask is that you respect, not agree with,
>mine.
>
>Arium
>
>
>--------------68B09F0BECB4699C73594BEC
>Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
><HTML>
><TT>I have to say it, I'm quite glad someone grew up the balls to put out
>the</TT>
><BR><TT>words that I'm sure that alot of furs wanted to say. Of course
>I'm talking</TT>
><BR><TT>about your manifesto. Although it could have been done in a</TT>
><BR><TT>more..well..professional manner. Because of the way some of it
>is written,</TT>
><BR><TT>it could pass off as just 'words of a elitist or hate monger'.
>Besides</TT>
><BR><TT>that, it holds much substance, and is justified.</TT><TT></TT>
>
><P><TT>There are faults in it though, and I'll try to give my thoughts
>on them</TT>
><BR><TT>here.</TT><TT></TT>
>
><P><TT>First off, I think you need to deal with the point of 'What defines
>someone</TT>
><BR><TT>as being a furry?' I have never seen rules set in stone to answer
>this</TT>
><BR><TT>question, so the arguement can be made that the lenghts an indivual
>person</TT>
><BR><TT>goes is up to them. Now, I don't condone nor agree with the acts
>of a</TT>
><BR><TT>plushophile or a zoophile; nor do I wish to be associated with
>them. But</TT>
><BR><TT>still, under general terms, they could fall under the general label
>as</TT>
><BR><TT>'furry'. There are furry characteristics in each of these practices,
>they</TT>
><BR><TT>are just taken to an extreme that neither you or I agree with.</TT><TT></TT>
>
><P><TT>But does that make them wrong? Well, it's a touchy subject. What
>is morally</TT>
><BR><TT>wrong to one, is a strong belief to another. Think of it in the
>terms of</TT>
><BR><TT>the 'acceptence' of homosexuality. There are some who can't live
>with the</TT>
><BR><TT>idea because it is so morally wrong for them; and on the flipside,
>to some</TT>
><BR><TT>it is their way of life.</TT><TT></TT>
>
><P><TT>Simply put: Do I think that the acts of a plushophile or a zoophile
>are</TT>
><BR><TT>morally wrong, an act of low self-worth, and desparate? Yes, totally.
>But</TT>
><BR><TT>do I have the right to crucify them for it? No, I don't. A simple
>example</TT>
><BR><TT>would be Hitler to the Jews.</TT><TT></TT>
>
><P><TT>Now, as to your comment about 'Trekkies' and 'X-Philes' about calling</TT>
><BR><TT>followers of the furry-fandom "Skunk-Fuckers". Well, I believe
>that's just</TT>
><BR><TT>the opinion of the uninformed. The outsider passing judgement on
>an</TT>
><BR><TT>insider. I can say, without a doubt, if you take all the plushophiles
>and</TT>
><BR><TT>zoophiles in the fandom and group them up, they are still a weak
>minority.</TT>
><BR><TT>So a comment like "Skunk-Fucker" wouldn't bother me, because I
>know that</TT>
><BR><TT>the furry fandom encompasses much more.</TT><TT></TT>
>
><P><TT>Now I'll try to deal with the idea of 'life-stylers'. I think this
>is the</TT>
><BR><TT>most grey area in the fandom. What determines a 'life-styler'?
>Is it as</TT>
><BR><TT>something as answering the phone with a 'meow', or is it living,
>eating,</TT>
><BR><TT>drinking, breathing and sleeping only furry? Again, there are no
>set rules,</TT>
><BR><TT>it's all up to the person. Is it someone who walks around town
>in a</TT>
><BR><TT>fursuit, or someone who just likes the artwork and stories? This
>all can be</TT>
><BR><TT>debated, and each has a strong case.</TT><TT></TT>
>
><P><TT>Although I can't offer any light as to what is a life-styler, I
>can make</TT>
><BR><TT>the same arguement for them. I can't find fault with a life-styler,
>so long</TT>
><BR><TT>as their actions don't fall under those of a plushophile or a zoophile.
>I</TT>
><BR><TT>believe that if the fandom was in the public light, that the furry</TT>
><BR><TT>lifestyle would be well on it's way to the list of 'alternate-lifestyles'.</TT>
><BR><TT>It's just they way another person chooses to live their life, and
>you would</TT>
><BR><TT>be wrong finding fault with that.</TT><TT></TT>
>
><P><TT>I think it is this age that we live that is the underlying culprit
>here. In</TT>
><BR><TT>the age of social diversity, and accepting all, many questionable
>ideas</TT>
><BR><TT>have surfaced, and now we have to deal with them. Do I like being
>in the</TT>
><BR><TT>same circle as a plushophile or zoophile? No, but they are there
>and I have</TT>
><BR><TT>to deal with it. They're not going anywhere, and an attempt to
>rout them</TT>
><BR><TT>from the fandom would be wrong, those are their beliefs and they
>have a</TT>
><BR><TT>right to them.</TT><TT></TT>
>
><P><TT>The only solution I can see is for someone out there to set the
>"Furry</TT>
><BR><TT>Fandom Commandments" so that everyone will know what a true furry
>is, but</TT>
><BR><TT>that will never happen, because a true furry is different to every</TT>
><BR><TT>individual.</TT><TT></TT>
>
><P><TT>Now, I know sure your first response to this is going to be: "Arium,
>your a</TT>
><BR><TT>weak bleeding heart, politically correct libral!" Please try to
>defend your</TT>
><BR><TT>case in a more professional manner. These are my opinions, and
>you have</TT>
><BR><TT>yours. I respect that. All I ask is that you respect, not agree
>with, mine.</TT><TT></TT>
>
><P><TT>Arium</TT>
><BR><TT></TT> </HTML>
>
>--------------68B09F0BECB4699C73594BEC--
>
Dr. Cat
: "Dr. Cat" wrote:
: > Well, if you're claiming that the inconsistency suggests one side is
: > mistaken, you could perhaps clarify which side you're on. Are you saying
: > that it's a desirable and acceptable tactic for both the Burnt Furs and for
: > alt.lifestyle.furry? Or are you saying that it's a bad tactic for both
: > of them?
: *Shrug* Okay, how about:
: If you don't care what effect ALF's traffic has on me (or any third party),
: Then I won't care what effect Blumrich's site has on you (or any third party)
Oh, I get it, you're an issue dodger! Let's posit that Vixy doesn't care
what effect it has on you, and therefore you don't care what effect it
has on her. Fine fine fine. I care what effect it has on you. So
please care what effect Blumrich's site might have on me and anyone else
who cares what effect ALF's traffic has on people, and tell me... Do you
think that it's a desirable and effective tactic for alt.lifestyle.furry
and the Burnt Furs to be rude to the point where they drive away some
potential supporters? Or do you think it's a bad tactic for both of them?
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
Dr. Cat / Dragon's Eye Productions || Free alpha test:
*-------------------------------------------** http://www.bga.com/furcadia
Furcadia - a new graphic mud for PCs! || Let your imagination soar!
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
(Disclaimer: Feel free to squirm away from question and not say what you
think 'bout it again. Bizarro Cat am like it when you not answer because
Bizarro felines am never curious!)
Donald E. Sanders
solarfox@DON'TMESSWITHtexas.net says...
> >> who would love to read Furrlough, and turn them on to it.
> >
> >Well, that is one way to contribute in a positive way, but then again,
> >that is one suggestion that benefits those who produce Furrlong. (Yep,
>
> suggest that an idea is only positive if no one benefits financially from
> it?
Of course not, if you can make a buck off it it, more power to ya. It is
just that there has been a lot of focus on the financial benefits verses
others that don't require finances.
>
> >I'm about to take some heat for that comment) Help a person build a
> >fursuit?? well that is dandy too but too many folks out there may think
> >that such fursuit may be used for something unsavory like Sex! Organize
> >a con?? What a great Idea! oh wait, that might attract some riffraff
> >bent on destroying the fandom by tossing in their own little ideas! Hmm,
> >coming up with positive ways is quite hard is it? Not so hard if you are
>
> Now you're being rediculous.
Maybe so, but consider that running around pointing at shadows and
screaming foul and unclean sounds ridiculous when it is done to an
extreme.
Donald E. Sanders
says...
> In article <MPG.10e941f3b...@news.fysh.org>, Noo...@my.email.com
> > I may not be keen on the proper forms of debating, but so far, I have
> > seen point and counterpoints raised in this issue. call me dense but
> > I don't really see how Xydexx is straying from that. As for his
> > saying what he say and didn't say, well, I call it defending one's
> > self. I would be mistaken if that is wrong.
>
No need to ask him that. I know about boycotts having done a few myself.
(Nothing major, just Civil Rights stuff) As it may have been pointed out
before, I can't remember when at this time, publications like MU Press
cater to both those furs on the Internet and those who are not even on.
Chances are that only a handful would boycott who are on the Internet.
Those who are not on would not even have a clue. But then again, any
revenue lost no matter how small tends to make those being boycotted
quite cranky.
>
> > Strange. The subject mentioned in that last line was subline and so
> > small in the past. In the span of about two years, it suddenly made
> > it's way to the forefront of the fandom. Of course my observation (and
> > as usual I will be wrong about this), is that what was a small segment
> > who was unhappy about it shoved it up to the forefront and began to
> > make as much noise as possible to make everyone notice. What I think?
> > If this tactic was used to point out problems in trains being on time,
> > or the homeless, quite a few folks would be quite annoyed because
> > they would naturally not want to hear it. (Chances are what I just
> > said would be used as a defense for those who are complaining)
>
> Well, the more common example of people who aren't really interested in
> anthropomorphics who were brought into the fandom for non anthropomorphics
> reasons would be jumped all over as some kind of homophobia. Besides, the
> business of inviting 16-year-olds to escape their intolerant homes and come
> live in California, and learn all about the gay community, belongs more in the
> sexual predator thread.
Granted, that last part does belong on the Sexual Predator Thread. But
then again, this does bring up the point of recruitment for things other
than furry. I think this argument came up before. And frankly I would
rather not argue it again. Like I stated before, such things as what
Xydexx and a few others "Might!" do should not have to be constantly
brought in the forefront to be picked at, pointed at, and such other
things.
Hangdog
> Oh, I get it, you're an issue dodger!
Dodger? No, man, I'm from Chicago: Cubs. ;o)
> Let's posit that Vixy doesn't care what effect it has on you, and therefore
> you don't care what effect it
> has on her. Fine fine fine. I care what effect it has on you.
Awww, I never *knew* ya cared... ;o)
> So
> please care what effect Blumrich's site might have on me and anyone else
> who cares what effect ALF's traffic has on people, and tell me...
Oh, well, since you asked nicely and all...OK
> Do you
> think that it's a desirable and effective tactic for alt.lifestyle.furry
> and the Burnt Furs to be rude to the point where they drive away some
> potential supporters?
Depends on what kind of supporters you mean.
The person Allen Kitchen referred to seemed fixated
on one image, which I will agree was bad (BTW, Blumrich
apparently agrees with you: he took it down about two
months ago). But they apparently made a snap judgement about
furrydom as a whole based on that one image and wouldn't do
any further research on the issue (I'm having to infer this from
what AK said, and the way he said it, but I believe AK to be
more than trustworthy enough)
I on the other hand lurked for quite awhile on ALF and
AFF, and chopse no side on this issue until I'd had
a chance to see how both parties behaved. I like to think my
response has been temperate, and my judgement on ALF
is always subject to change depending on how that NG's regulars
behave.
Now which would you rather have as a supporter?
Speaking as a Burned Fur myself, I think we're better
off without the person to which AK referred as a
supporter. I'm sad for her, that she apparently decided
to give furry fandom a miss, but *shrug* she made a bad
call: I can't help that.
I can't speak for the lifestylers on what they want or
don't want. But evidently you and Vix can. So let me
put it to you both:
Am I the kind of person the Lifestylers would *not* want as a
supporter? Why not?
I would also point out that I, too, had an averse
reaction to the *old* Blumrich site image. But he
changed it before Burned Fur came along--apparently
in response to reasonable criticisms made on AFF.
This is an important thing to me: the man can *listen*,
even to his critics, extract the truth from the anger in
their statements and act upon it. This impressed me
favorably.
I would also point out thatr I've seen some lifestylers
do this too, since the start of the Burned Fur debate,
and I am just as impressed with them. But none of the
ALF regulars seem to be capable of doing this. Why?
> Or do you think it's a bad tactic for both of them?
*chuckle* "Tactics." You make it sound as if we have a
general staff, a chain of command. uniforms, etc. We don't
All I can say is this: I don't agree with everything Blumrich says
or does. But I don't dictate what he does, or says, anymore
than he does for me.
> (Disclaimer: Feel free to squirm away from question and not say what you
> think 'bout it again.
It sounds as if you're angry. Why?
> Bizarro Cat am like it when you not answer because
> Bizarro felines am never curious!)
Actually, I was rather curious myself about how an ALF regular
would take to having the words of another ALF regular
quoted back at them. Your reaction to that bit of rhetoric,
interestingly, has been the same as mine. Well, great minds
think alike ;o)
fka...@my-dejanews.com
Just read this, I dunno if he's talking about the beloved "BTTBOTH" Illo
on
http://vision.nais.com/~blumrich/plush.html
>
> The person Allen Kitchen referred to seemed fixated
> on one image, which I will agree was bad (BTW, Blumrich
> apparently agrees with you: he took it down about two
> months ago).
>
If this is the case- don't you fret- there's obviously been a mistake.
Not only is it still up and prominent, but I've added another which I'm pretty
sure every last one of you will enjoy looking at. I'll be adding more as the
weeks pass- gotta keep the photoshop practice up!
I'd consider taking it down, as old jokes become boring as time goes on-
but I've received FAR too many supportive e-mails, imploring me to NEVER
remove the illo in question...
Kisses, Kisses everybody!!!
J.M.L.
: On Fri, 18 Dec 1998 12:45:28 -0500, Jobe
: <djariumNOP...@email.com> wrote:
: From Wol...@hotmail.com
: As a non-active zoo, I would like to say that I find your comments
: very refreshing to hear. As it happens to be I consider myself to be
: a furry, For the simple reason is that in my heart mind and soul I am
: an animal trapped in the body of a human. Not because of my being a
: zoo but because of thats who and what I am.
Nice, but that ain't really furry is it?
It's the new neo-furry! Where you can't get into the fursuit until you
come out of the closet. Meet your TS partner at Furry cons and share with
him how much you really want to be his vixen sexslave as you roam your
hands all over each other sitting on the lobby sofa. Who needs a room?
Oh, I'm sorry. I got carried away there. Please, continue.
--
http://www.play.com -- Bride of the son of the curse of the Video Toaster.
Dr. Cat
: Depends on what kind of supporters you mean.
Well that's interesting and useful to know right there. Personally
I tend to think more highly of a group that would be happy to have
support from anyone willing to offer it, rather than one that feels
it would rather not have any support from "those kind of people",
whatever kind "those kind" might be in their case.
I hope for your sake that only a minority of the Burned Furs think
that there are some people who would be such undesirable supporters
that you'd be better off driving them off than letting them become
supporters of yours. Though I fear purrhaps it's a majority that
think that way.
: The person Allen Kitchen referred to seemed
[snip]
: I on the other hand
[snip]
: Now which would you rather have as a supporter?
Ah, you want to recast my question as an either-or kind of
situation. But IS it an either-or thing? Is it in fact the
case that if the Burned Furs had never been rude or abusive
towards any groups of people you would have chosen not to
join their movement? If you would have joined anyway, then
I think you are mischaracterizing the situation as an either-or
thing when it is actually nothing of the kind.
If, on the other hand, you wouldn't have joined the group if
it hadn't had members spewing hateful remarks, I feel mighty
sorry for you. I would have thought you to be the kind that
would have joined anyway if they'd stuck just to their positive
goals and a brief, polite explanation of what they have a problem
with. But of course I could have just been mistaken about you.
: Speaking as a Burned Fur myself, I think we're better
: off without the person to which AK referred as a
: supporter.
Speaking solely on the question of whether you're better not
having her, regardless of whether you really gain other people
by the same acts that chase her out... Do you ALSO feel that
you're better off without Allen Kitchen and Timothy Fay? Do
you believe that keeping her out is worth the cost of keeping
them out too? Purrsonally I think a movement would be better
off WITH Allen Kitchen, he's articulate, polite, and convincing.
: I'm sad for her, that she apparently decided
: to give furry fandom a miss, but *shrug* she made a bad
: call: I can't help that.
And yet, to all appereances you endorse the actions that led
her to make the bad call. Either better judgement on her part
OR an absence of the materials that she misunderstood might
have resulted in her participating in furry fandom and enjoying
herself. You profess to be sad that she missed the chance. Why
then, can't you bring yourself to even do so much as politely
state that purrhaps things would be better if Eric and Squeerat
happened to change their pages? Certainly you "can't help that"
as you say, they probably WOULDN'T change their pages. But you
haven't remained neutral on the matter, you've supported their
actions against those who try to argue against them. Do you
think that this missed opportunity that you're "sad for" is just
"a small price to pay for keeping her from supporting the
Burned Fur movement, which would be bad for our movement because
we're better off without wussie supporters like her, and her
loss of the enjoyment of furry fandom isn't as important as the
benefit to our movement of her not being in it"?
Or are you just paying lip service to being sad she missed out,
and you aren't even willing to put forth so much effort as to
say that things that keep think-skinned people from coming and
enjoying furry fandom are perhaps not the best choices? Geez.
: I can't speak for the lifestylers on what they want or
: don't want. But evidently you and Vix can. So let me
: put it to you both:
: Am I the kind of person the Lifestylers would *not* want as a
: supporter? Why not?
I can't speak for the Lifestylers, sorry. I can't get the a.l.f.
newsgroup conveniently on my server, and from what I've read they
don't have so much a "group identity" or a unanimity of opinion...
They have a lot of widely different opinions on just about any
subject I'm sure. I am something of a lifestyler in addition to
being mainly a furry fan, but I don't even know what the spread
of opinions is on any given issue in that newsgroup, since I
don't read it.
I can say what I think the Lifestylers *should* want, as opposed
to what they *would* want. With the caveat that my opinion might
be very different from the rest of theirs. (Actually, on any
particular issue I suppose it's safe to say there would be some
that would want it, and some that would NOT want it, and the only
question would be how many of each.)
I think that in your case, as with most people, they'd be better
off having you as a supporter than a non-supporter. Generally I
think the more support a group has, the better off they are. I
might make exceptions for highly controversial or disliked people
like Dr. Kevorkian, Jeffrey Dahmer, or Eric Blumrich, who might
do a movement more harm than good. (Apologies to Eric for listing
him with those names rather than Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler, but maybe
he'll like those just as good. And here he is in the same sentence
with those other three for consolation. I'm sure he likes that.)
I wouldn't include a wimpy girl who's too easily convinced to avoid
something that looks like it might be unpleasant. Or a strange dog who
sometimes appears to be self-contradictory, but squirms away from
answering questions enough that you can't really tell for sure. While I
think neither of those two are as good a supporter for the Lifestylers
as, say, Allen Kitchen, I don't think either of them is worth turning
away either. Every little bit helps or something, right?
: > Or do you think it's a bad tactic for both of them?
: *chuckle* "Tactics." You make it sound as if we have a
: general staff, a chain of command. uniforms, etc. We don't
: All I can say is this: I don't agree with everything Blumrich says
: or does. But I don't dictate what he does, or says, anymore
: than he does for me.
Squirm squirm squirm squirm squirm. You could certainly say whether you
agree with this particular thing or not, whether you think it was a good
idea or a bad idea, whether it was helpful to the Burned Fur movement or
harmful or maybe you even think it is totally neutral or negligible in
impact.
Since I *did* ask.
I didn't ask if you can stop Blumrich or not. I know you can't. I
didn't ask whether you agree with him on everything or disagree with him
on everything. I know you don't. I asked whether you think being rude
to people to the point of driving away supporters is a good idea for a
movement. This question about what YOU think is of interest to me,
regardless of what Blumrich and Squeerat did in the past or will do in
the future. I haven't finished making up my mind 100% about whether I
think the Burned Fur movement is, as many in it would like to portray
it, a bunch of nice reasonable people with a couple of rude loudmouths
making them look bad, or whether its more "mainstream" members tend to
favor rudeness, chasing people out of the fandom, etc., and are just less
extremist and less vocal about that. That is why I am asking about what
YOU think about the approach that the extremists are taking. Telling me
"I disagree with him on some stuff and agree with him on other stuff"
does not clarify what you think about the particular type of stuff I'm
asking about. You've hinted that you support some aspects of it, you've
hinted that you disagree with some aspects of it, you've never come right
out and said whether you think overall it has a more positive or a more
negative effect on the movement and its efforts to achieve its goals.
: > (Disclaimer: Feel free to squirm away from question and not say what you
: > think 'bout it again.
: It sounds as if you're angry. Why?
Because although you often give the appearance of wanting to discuss the
Burned Fur movement in public, you repeatedly refuse to answer simple,
direct questions about it.
I'll try again though.
Do you feel that being rude to the point of driving away supporters is a
desirable approach for the Burned Fur movement and alt.lifestyle.furry to
take? Or do you think that approach hinders their goals more than it helps
them?
I think those are pretty clear and straightforward questions. I'll ask
them again if you still won't answer them though. :X)
: > Bizarro Cat am like it when you not answer because
: > Bizarro felines am never curious!)
: Actually, I was rather curious myself about how an ALF regular
: would take to having the words of another ALF regular
: quoted back at them. Your reaction to that bit of rhetoric,
: interestingly, has been the same as mine. Well, great minds
: think alike ;o)
You mean YOUR reaction was to ask Hangdog about it too?
So what did he tell you when YOU asked him? I bet he'd listen to you,
I mean, you've known him longer than just about ANYBODY.
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
Dr. Cat / Dragon's Eye Productions || Free alpha test:
*-------------------------------------------** http://www.bga.com/furcadia
Furcadia - a new graphic mud for PCs! || Let your imagination soar!
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
(Disclaimer: It's not the same time inside your brain as it is inside mine.)
Donald E. Sanders
coy...@brionne.cyberverse.com says...
> wol...@hotmail.com wrote:
> : On Fri, 18 Dec 1998 12:45:28 -0500, Jobe
> : <djariumNOP...@email.com> wrote:
>
>
> : From Wol...@hotmail.com
> : As a non-active zoo, I would like to say that I find your comments
> : very refreshing to hear. As it happens to be I consider myself to be
> : a furry, For the simple reason is that in my heart mind and soul I am
> : an animal trapped in the body of a human. Not because of my being a
> : zoo but because of thats who and what I am.
>
>
> It's the new neo-furry! Where you can't get into the fursuit until you
> come out of the closet. Meet your TS partner at Furry cons and share with
> him how much you really want to be his vixen sexslave as you roam your
> hands all over each other sitting on the lobby sofa. Who needs a room?
I can see how folks can get upset by that kind of behavior, if it
happened every time at every con, at every get-together, all day, all
night, 24/7, and so on, and so on....
Now if it only happened on a few occasions, and very infrequently, like I
figure most of the time, then there would be nothing to get upset about.
There are some folks to go to the con to have a good time, swap stories,
do art, and just have fun. I would love to see that being focused on
than some of the "Infrequent" activities that everyone seems to be hot
under the collar about.
>
> Oh, I'm sorry. I got carried away there. Please, continue.
>
Now I got carried away there, everybody just continue what you were
doing.
xyd...@my-dejanews.com
> You always say we should work together, but you never say to do what.
To do what? To improve furry fandom, of course:
"I've said this once before, but I'll say it again just
to drive the point firmly home: The ONLY way anyone is
going to improve furry fandom is by working with furries
instead of fighting against them. That means doing
something more productive with time than playing the
Blame Game. It means working together with other
furries to build a better fandom instead of trying to
divide it. It means making furry fandom a cool place
for everyone who likes anthropomorphics no matter who
they are. Period."
---Xydexx, 12/30/96
"I still think the only way improvements are going to
be made to furry fandom is when people learn to respect
each others differences instead of attacking them.
Having the "G-rated" and "Spooge" groups fight against
each other is not conducive to the "G-rated" and "Spooge"
groups working with each other. This "Us vs. Them"
attitude is a downward spiral because it does not
encourage collaborative efforts among furry fans. This
results in not exchanging different ideas, which
results in stagnation, which ultimately results in a
weaker fandom.
Personally, I'd rather have y'all as my allies instead
of enemies. I think if you got to know me, you'd see
I'm not such a Bad Guy either. When it comes down to
it, we all want to see furry fandom improve. We
shouldn't be fighting each other when there are more
productive and beneficial things to do with our time."
---Xydexx, 02/21/97
"The solutions I support are creative, not destructive.
They emphasize working to build furry fandom up instead
of tearing it down. Working with each other instead of
fighting each other. They involve devoting time and
effort to doing something more productive than infighting
with other furry fans."
---Xydexx, 03/31/97
"I envision nothing short of a Furry Renaissance. I want
furry fans to Work Together. (I know, I know... there's
those words you seem to have trouble understanding...) I
want furry fans --- not just the "spooge" crowd, not just
the "anti-spooge" crowd, but ALL furry fans --- to help
each other; to create, to build, and to improve and make
this a fandom that everyone can be proud of.
And I believe that's going to happen by making friends,
not by making enemies. People who think the other guy is
the "enemy" generally do not help the "enemy", even when
the "enemy" is on the same side they are. I'm not the
enemy, Rich --- I'm just someone who sees the potential
for furry fandom to be so much better. That's my secret
hidden agenda, nothing else."
---Xydexx, 03/27/98
"Nothing strikes terror in the heart of someone who
wants to divide furry fandom more than the idea of furry
fans working together. Especially if it means working
with someone like me, who thinks that furry fandom's
image might be improved by Six Helping Hands instead of
Six Shallow Graves."
---Xydexx, 09/10/98
But you knew that already.
> That's because you do nothing.
Except distribute copies of "Rich Chandler's Sketchbook Etiquette File",
right?
Tell me, Rich, do you thank everyone who distributes copies of your Sketchbook
Etiquette File by accusing them of riding your coattails, or is that dubious
honor only reserved for people with too many X's in their handle?
(Remember, kids... the only thing worse than having a good time in furry
fandom is having too many consonants in your fan name...)
I also maintain a homepage with a general introduction to furry fandom (which
most people seem to like, but you on the other hand seem to think is the end
of the world), as well as the homepage for DC-Area Furry Mailing List. I
also attend furry conventions as either a Sponsor or SuperSponsor, volunteer
to help out doing grunt work, and various desktop publishing tasks.
And whenever I'm feeling particularly masochistic, I do things like suggest
furry fans work together to improve furry fandom, that way people like you can
flame me for it.
> Among the few things you have done is perpetrate a hoax
> on the newsgroup, starting a flamewar. Most trolls don't
> bother to fake up a web page to get folks going.
Rich, Rich, Rich... I'm really finding it hard to believe you're getting this
angry over what was nothing more than an elaborate practical joke.
It seems more likely you're angry because I _didn't_ give an interview that
portrayed furry fandom negatively, and thus you're really pissed off because
that meant you wouldn't get a chance to flame me for it.
> You wanna work together on something?
You mean like helping distribute copies of "Rich Chandler's Sketchbook
Etiquette File" again? Gee, I'm not sure if I can handle any more of your
peculiar style of gratitude, Rich.
> How about taking a side for once,
> rather than stirring the pot and obscuring your neutrality.
It's always "Us vs. Them" with you, isn't it?
Y'know, I'm wondering which is more pathetic: The fact that I've had to
explain this to you for over two years, or the fact that after over two years
you still haven't the slightest idea what I'm talking about. -:(
-------
Rev. Xydexx Squeakypony, K.S.C., T.D.S.F.A.
Xydexx's Anthrofurry Homepage
(in no way approved or endorsed by Rich Chandler)
http://www.smart.net/~xydexx/anthrofurry/homepage.htm
[ICQ: 7569393]
Donald E. Sanders
says...
*** Mondo Snippage ***
Clap Clap, Standing novation! Bravo!
You have summed it up very well xydexx! In my eyes, you have more than
showed proof that you contribute to the fandom on more levels than others
of rank and position.
Rich Chandler - WA Resident
xyd...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> Richard Chandler wrote:
> > You always say we should work together, but you never say to do what.
>
> To do what? To improve furry fandom, of course:
Improve how? I guess I should have been more specific, because what I was
asking was for you to be specific. Your suggestions are all broad
generalizations, but no specific plans of action or concrete suggestions,
other than saying that fandom could be improved if we could just silence all
the critics, like me.
> "I've said this once before, but I'll say it again just
> to drive the point firmly home: The ONLY way anyone is
> going to improve furry fandom is by working with furries
> instead of fighting against them. That means doing
> something more productive with time than playing the
> Blame Game. It means working together with other
> furries to build a better fandom instead of trying to
> divide it. It means making furry fandom a cool place
> for everyone who likes anthropomorphics no matter who
> they are. Period."
> ---Xydexx, 12/30/96
"something more productive" = What? Anything other than criticizing the bad things.
"Build a better fandom", how?
It's all well and good to make things better for those who like
anthropomorphics. Certainly nobody's arguing with you there. But one thing
that will make it better for those who like anthropomorphics is to get those
who don't, but only like tangental things, to stop hanging around.
> "I still think the only way improvements are going to
> be made to furry fandom is when people learn to respect
> each others differences instead of attacking them.
I.E. The only way improvements are going to be made is once we silence all the
critics, and learn to tolerate everything and anything that comes down the
pike and wants to call itself furry, no matter how tenuous the connection.
> Having the "G-rated" and "Spooge" groups fight against
> each other is not conducive to the "G-rated" and "Spooge"
> groups working with each other. This "Us vs. Them"
> attitude is a downward spiral because it does not
> encourage collaborative efforts among furry fans. This
> results in not exchanging different ideas, which
> results in stagnation, which ultimately results in a
> weaker fandom.
In retrospect, it's obvious that the Spooge vs. Clean art debate has actually
resulted in some positive changes in the fandom that help avoid offending the
g-rated types while allowing the "spoogemonkeys" to get their fix. From
Post-its to divided art shows, we've made some excellent compromises. None of
which would have happened if some people hadn't made their concerns known,
very vocally. "Fighting" has actually improved the fandom. Q.E.D.
> Personally, I'd rather have y'all as my allies instead
> of enemies. I think if you got to know me, you'd see
> I'm not such a Bad Guy either. When it comes down to
> it, we all want to see furry fandom improve. We
> shouldn't be fighting each other when there are more
> productive and beneficial things to do with our time."
> ---Xydexx, 02/21/97
Like what? I think discussing what the future of the fandom will be like is
very constructive and beneficial to the fandom, rather than just bobbing along
like a cork on the water going wherever random chance leads.
> "The solutions I support are creative, not destructive.
> They emphasize working to build furry fandom up instead
> of tearing it down. Working with each other instead of
> fighting each other. They involve devoting time and
> effort to doing something more productive than infighting
> with other furry fans."
> ---Xydexx, 03/31/97
"Solutions" = What? I don't see anything specific, other than silencing
dissent in order to work on un-named other things.
> "I envision nothing short of a Furry Renaissance. I want
> furry fans to Work Together. (I know, I know... there's
> those words you seem to have trouble understanding...) I
> want furry fans --- not just the "spooge" crowd, not just
> the "anti-spooge" crowd, but ALL furry fans --- to help
> each other; to create, to build, and to improve and make
> this a fandom that everyone can be proud of.
How? Create what? Build what? Improve how? How can we be proud of a fandom
that tolerates certain intolerable things, that lets itself get led astray
from Anthropomorphics just to accommodate people who don't belong? All for
the sake of not arguing? We wouldn't argue if we didn't CARE. Is your idea
of paradise a fandom that collectively shrugs and says "Yeah, whatever." to
any of the challenges that come along? That's what we would have if we didn't
discuss and debate, and yes, argue about things.
> And I believe that's going to happen by making friends,
> not by making enemies. People who think the other guy is
> the "enemy" generally do not help the "enemy", even when
> the "enemy" is on the same side they are. I'm not the
> enemy, Rich --- I'm just someone who sees the potential
> for furry fandom to be so much better. That's my secret
> hidden agenda, nothing else."
> ---Xydexx, 03/27/98
If we all just love one another, everything will be better, eh? Your hair's
too short to be a child of the '60's. You don't hate me, I don't hate you,
we're not "Enemies" but we are on different sides of some issues (Maybe,
you're a bit wobbly on some of your positions. You should communicate them
more clearly). If I can't disagree with you without being your "enemy" then
you have a problem. If you were my Enemy, then I wouldn't bother to read what
you have to say.
> "Nothing strikes terror in the heart of someone who
> wants to divide furry fandom more than the idea of furry
> fans working together. Especially if it means working
> with someone like me, who thinks that furry fandom's
> image might be improved by Six Helping Hands instead of
> Six Shallow Graves."
> ---Xydexx, 09/10/98
The problem here is, you're using a different definition of Furry Fandom. The
ones you say want to "divide furry Fandom" aren't dividing furry fans from
furry fans. They're dividing Furry Fans from non-furry fans. Here's one of
those statements that gets you into trouble, because it appears that you are
defending those who are not furry fans calling themselves furries. If you
define Furry Fandom so broadly (Especially when you protest that you define it
as only Anthropomorphis, and then refuse to address the apparent
contradiction) then you only confound the discussion and exacerbate the
argument. You accuse people of dividing the fandom when their stated goal is
to consolidate it. And thus you end up talking across purposes.
> But you knew that already.
>
> > That's because you do nothing.
>
> Except distribute copies of "Rich Chandler's Sketchbook Etiquette File",
> right?
Do you still do that, or was it just for bragging rights? Should I be overly
impressed that you might have put a whole, actual, LINK to my page on yours?
> Tell me, Rich, do you thank everyone who distributes copies of your Sketchbook
> Etiquette File by accusing them of riding your coattails, or is that dubious
> honor only reserved for people with too many X's in their handle?
I have done no such thing. Certainly not related to distributing my file.
> I also maintain a homepage with a general introduction to furry fandom (which
> most people seem to like, but you on the other hand seem to think is the end
> of the world), as well as the homepage for DC-Area Furry Mailing List. I
> also attend furry conventions as either a Sponsor or SuperSponsor, volunteer
> to help out doing grunt work, and various desktop publishing tasks.
All admirable things. Nothing spectacularly unique though.
> And whenever I'm feeling particularly masochistic, I do things like suggest
> furry fans work together to improve furry fandom, that way people like you can
> flame me for it.
<snort>
> > Among the few things you have done is perpetrate a hoax
> > on the newsgroup, starting a flamewar. Most trolls don't
> > bother to fake up a web page to get folks going.
>
> Rich, Rich, Rich... I'm really finding it hard to believe you're getting this
> angry over what was nothing more than an elaborate practical joke.
Practical jokes are usually funny. You set out to start a flamewar. You KNEW
exactly what kind of raction you would get. You set out to GET that kind of
reaction so you could crow about how you got it. This is the very definition
of a Troll.
This, from a person whose greatest desire for the improvement of the fandom is
to get everyone to stop flaming.
> It seems more likely you're angry because I _didn't_ give an interview that
> portrayed furry fandom negatively, and thus you're really pissed off because
> that meant you wouldn't get a chance to flame me for it.
Oh, you did quite enough. And we've all seen how pointless it is to give a
positive interview to the Media anyway. Ask Daphne and Tygger.
> > You wanna work together on something?
>
> You mean like helping distribute copies of "Rich Chandler's Sketchbook
> Etiquette File" again? Gee, I'm not sure if I can handle any more of your
> peculiar style of gratitude, Rich.
<snort>
> > How about taking a side for once,
> > rather than stirring the pot and obscuring your neutrality.
>
> It's always "Us vs. Them" with you, isn't it?
>
> Y'know, I'm wondering which is more pathetic: The fact that I've had to
> explain this to you for over two years, or the fact that after over two years
> you still haven't the slightest idea what I'm talking about. -:(
You have explained nothing, except how you think things would somehow get
better in an unspecified manner if everyone just swallowed their opinions,
kept quiet, and made a.f.f as innocuous, smurfy, and content-free as a.l.f.
(Okay, it still is mostly content-free, but in a different way.:-)
--
Hey Spammers! I'm a Washington Resident registered with the WAISP.
Spam me! I will vigorously sue you for the $500 I'm allowed by law!
(And yes, US Consumer Protection law lets me get you whereever you are.)
Laws that haven't been passed by Congress yet will not protect you.
Victry "Vixy" Hyzenthlay
> . . . {incredibly meaningless and mindless babble tossed out} . . .
>The problem here is, you're using a different definition of Furry Fandom. The
>ones you say want to "divide furry Fandom" aren't dividing furry fans from
>furry fans. They're dividing Furry Fans from non-furry fans. Here's one of
>those statements that gets you into trouble, because it appears that you are
>defending those who are not furry fans calling themselves furries. If you
>define Furry Fandom so broadly (Especially when you protest that you define it
>as only Anthropomorphis, and then refuse to address the apparent
>contradiction) then you only confound the discussion and exacerbate the
>argument. You accuse people of dividing the fandom when their stated goal is
>to consolidate it. And thus you end up talking across purposes.
Now HERE I have a BIG difference with what a few, obnoxiously loud people
who are trying to sell to everyone that Furry Fandom is just a narrow, elete
group. What is just plain common sense is that Furry Fandom is NOT a narrow,
small fandom. The very title, 'FURRY', IS broad and it defines a LOT of things
that attract a LOT of people to its ranks. I was told when I first asked, as
were countless other persons when they asked here what Furry Fandom is about,
that it is basically a celebration of one's furriness. When did that change?
Well, so far as I've known, it never has. Oh the vocal few have tried to
preach their own definition of it, but no one can explain any good reason why
their own definition of Furry Fandom should be THE definition of Furry Fandom.
So far it has all been just personal politics.
Those who are vocally trying to kick out anyone who has any interest
outside of artwork and/or comics about anthropomorphics seem to have no grounds
to base their sermons on. It been shown that being associated with 'Furry
Fandom' is NOT the profesional kiss of death that the vocal few preached it
was. And as far as the Media goes, NOTHING will get them to stop searching for
the LOWEST denominator of ANY function they go to investigate. Why should
Furry Fandom be different? You want to know what Furry Fandom looks like to
outsiders who haven't a clue? I have gotten this response from mundanes more
than a few times... Zoophiles. That's right. A Zoophile is defined as a
person with a love for animals. GAWK! 'That's that weird Furry Fandom mah'
friend is into!' No amount of witchhunts or stakings or burnings will EVER
change that opinion. It has to happen outside the Fandom.
At least the BFs have a decent idea if they would open their eyes to it...
In their mission statement, they ALWAYS mention 'Anthropomorphic Fandom',
*never* 'Furry Fandom'. I fully agree with that sentiment and support them if
they want to start an 'Anthropomorphics Fandom'. Furry Lifestylers have
already discovered that solution and put it into effect. Then when they do
have their very own fandom, they will have every right to define it as narrowly
as they desire. However, "FURRY" Fandom is WAY too broad to try and say it is
just about one little thing or another.
I will agree that there are things COMPLETELY outside of Furry Fandom that
should have no link to it at all. But to say something/one like... Fursuiters
and those who love Furdances don't belong? To condemn someone who has a plushy
collection for wanting to celebrate their fondness and fascination with others
of the same like? Those ARE VERY MUCH FURRY topics and they belong to this
Fandom! Always have, always will.
If you want a fandom all about Anthropomorphics, start an Anthropomorphics
Fandom and even Alt.Fan.Anthropomorphics with a mission statement and FAQ.
THEN you will have what you want without contest. As far as Furry Fandom
goes... it's always been about... Furriness. Good ol' BROAD Furriness. :)
--
=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+=========
Victry 'love long and perspire; Vixy' Hyzenthlay
Technofox and personal Vixen. "YIP!"
Furry Fan WITH a Furry Lifestyle and PROUD OF IT! "YIP!" :>
_____________________
/ \
| Vivacious Vixen II | _
)""""\___ |- - - - - - - - - - - -| |_\____
)----| |\-| Home of Techno Tails |-/| | |\
)____|___|=============================| """|_)
`----' \|http://members.xoom.com/Vixy |/"""""
"""|"""""""/"""""\"""""""|"""
Victry{nospam}@- `=++++=" "=++++=' -@{remove}juno;com
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
n...@na.na> writes:
> Ahhhh... what do they say about the best form of praise?
> Anything *else* unoriginal you care to post, Richy? ;)
No no, that's your job. Besides, I was addressing Karl's post, so I don't see
why you answered it anyway.
And from now on, until you can address me by my proper name, I will not bother
to respond to your pointless flames. I don't know why you do it. Perhaps you
feel that by using a dimunitive form of my name, you can somehow diminish what
I have to say? I would wager that instead it makes to look immature. I know
I certainly can't regard someone who uses personal ridicule as a standard
debating tactic as having the slightest scrap of maturity.
Or, to put this in terms on your level:
"Neener neener neener! I'm not listening to you, Icky How's-the-lay!"
I hope this illustrates the point. Once you learn to engage in polite
discourse, even when heated, then perhaps your intelligence will show through
your childishness. Until that day, you get the red highlighting that means
"don't reply to this person."
Victry "Vixy" Hyzenthlay
>> . . . {incredibly meaningless and mindless babble tossed out} . . .
>{incredibly meaningless and mindless babble tossed out} . . .
Ahhhh... what do they say about the best form of praise?
Anything *else* unoriginal you care to post, Richy? ;)
--
=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+=========
Victry 'love long and perspire; Vixy' Hyzenthlay
Technofox and personal Vixen. "YIP!"
Furry Fan WITH a Furry Lifestyle and PROUD OF IT! :>
_____________________
/ \
| Vivacious Vixen II | _
)""""\___ |- - - - - - - - - - - -| |_\____
)----| |\-| Home of Techno Tails |-/| | |\
)____|___|=============================| """|_)
`----' \|http://members.xoom.com/Vixy |/"""""
"""|"""""""/"""""\"""""""|"""
Victry{nospam}@- `=++++=" "=++++=' -@{remove}juno;com
Furry Code: FCF/Wc3admrwA>++C->+Dm+H-M++++P++R+T+++W+>+++
David Formosa
- WA Resident wrote:
>In article <76cg3a$d8k$1...@crucigera.fysh.org>, "Victry \"Vixy\" Hyzenthlay" <
>n...@na.na> writes:
>> Anything *else* unoriginal you care to post, Richy? ;)
>
>why you answered it anyway.
This is usenet, we respond to eaach others posts. If you wish to have
private conversations without people interupting there is always
email.
--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
http://www.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.
How to win arguments on usenet http://www.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/usenet.html
Victry "Vixy" Hyzenthlay
<981229235...@mauser.at.kendra.com>...
>In article <76cg3a$d8k$1...@crucigera.fysh.org>, "Victry \"Vixy\" Hyzenthlay" <
>n...@na.na> writes:
>> Ahhhh... what do they say about the best form of praise?
>> Anything *else* unoriginal you care to post, Richy? ;)
>
>No no, that's your job. Besides, I was addressing Karl's post, so I don't see
>why you answered it anyway.
Oh you REALLY must know? Could it be that I take issue with a specific
topic you posted on? That I have a very different view of Furry Fandom and
wanted to provide a counter point? Yes, that is why. And it is still a valid
reason the last time I checked. And unless there have been some drastic
changes in usenet, anything you post in a public forum is for public scrutiny
AND response. It takes arrogance to think one's public speach is untouchable.
That an individual's difference on an openly stated issue is so beneath yorus
that it does not warrant airing. YOU touched on one thing I vehemently
disagree with. So I provided MY side of it. Something I am entitled to do,
I believe.
>
>And from now on, until . . .
Usenet and Email are EXTREMELY poor means of direct communication. I will
extend a paw of invitation, as I have in the past to others with whom conflicts
have arisen. Since you have mentioned you maintain a presence on Furry Muck,
we can speak directly there. And probably more civily since it is real-time.
You can't miss me... I'm 'Vixy'. ;)
--
=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+=========
Victry 'love long and perspire; Vixy' Hyzenthlay
Technofox and personal Vixen. "YIP!"
Furry Fan WITH a Furry Lifestyle and HAPPY WITH IT! :>
xyd...@my-dejanews.com
my time.)
Editor's Notes:
Some portions of text have been moved for organizational purposes. Also
edited for brevity, because I want to get this Damned Thing off my desk, and
I didn't want to keep repeating myself. Besides, if I left in all the times
I said "Why not try arguing with me about positions I actually hold for a
change, Rich?", this post would be twice as long.
In the future, if you're going to reply to my posts, Rich, at least have the
courtesy to keep your criticism relevant.
PART I: The More Things Change, The More They Stay The Same
Richard Chandler wrote:
>Xydexx wrote:
>> Richard Chandler wrote:
>> > You always say we should work together, but you never say to do what.
>>
>> To do what? To improve furry fandom, of course:
>
>Improve how? I guess I should have been more specific, because what I was
>asking was for you to be specific. Your suggestions are all broad
>generalizations, but no specific plans of action or concrete suggestions,
>other than saying that fandom could be improved if we could just silence all
>the critics, like me.
Totally incorrect.
Firstly, I have made plenty of suggestions. So have a lot of other people.
Unfortunately, these suggestions also seem to get ignored because they don't
involve kicking the so-called undesirables [read: "people with a legitimate
interest in anthropomorphics who have other interests we don't agree with"]
out of the fandom.
Do I have all the solutions? Of course not. I never claimed I did. I do
know, however, that these little holy wars have never resulted in anything
except bad feelings all around.
Which brings me to my second point, that I think the fandom could be improved
if you stopped trying to make one group of people who like anthropomorphics
feel welcome at the expense of making other people who like anthropomorphics
feel unwelcome.
Thirdly, I'm not interested in silencing anyone. I've said before, if you're
going to complain, do it to someone who deserves it or someone in a position
to something about it.
On the other hand, if you want to keep wasting your time and effort by
scapegoating other furry fans who haven't done anything wrong, that's your
choice. I will be more than happy to cut and paste this response to you two
years from now (provided DejaNews doesn't get wiped out by Y2K problems or
something) to further illustrate how you're not accomplishing anything by
doing so.
Richard Chandler wrote:
>Xydexx wrote:
>> "I've said this once before, but I'll say it again just
>> to drive the point firmly home: The ONLY way anyone is
>> going to improve furry fandom is by working with furries
>> instead of fighting against them. That means doing
>> something more productive with time than playing the
>> Blame Game. It means working together with other
>> furries to build a better fandom instead of trying to
>> divide it. It means making furry fandom a cool place
>> for everyone who likes anthropomorphics no matter who
>> they are. Period."
>> ---Xydexx, 12/30/96
>
>"something more productive" = What? Anything other than criticizing the bad
things.
Working together with other furry fans to build a better fandom instead of
trying to divide it.
Richard Chandler wrote:
>"Build a better fandom", how?
By making furry fandom a cool place for everyone who likes anthropomorphics no
matter who they are.
Which part are you having trouble understanding?
Richard Chandler wrote:
>In retrospect, it's obvious that the Spooge vs. Clean art debate has actually
>resulted in some positive changes in the fandom that help avoid offending the
>g-rated types while allowing the "spoogemonkeys" to get their fix. From
>Post-its to divided art shows, we've made some excellent compromises.
Compromise, huh? Wow, that's pretty impressive. It just goes to show what
kinda things can get accomplished when furry fans are Working Together instead
of spending their time trying to kick each other out of the fandom.
Gee. Thanks for illustrating my point, Rich. Maybe there's hope for you yet.
PART II: This Isn't An Argument (Yes It Is/No It Isn't)
Richard Chandler wrote:
>It's all well and good to make things better for those who like
>anthropomorphics. Certainly nobody's arguing with you there.
Well, you certainly have a lot to say for someone who isn't arguing with me.
Richard Chandler wrote:
>Xydexx wrote:
>> "I still think the only way improvements are going to
>> be made to furry fandom is when people learn to respect
>> each others differences instead of attacking them.
>
>I.E. The only way improvements are going to be made is once we silence all the
>critics, and learn to tolerate everything and anything that comes down the
>pike and wants to call itself furry, no matter how tenuous the connection.
Your argument comes across as misguided and irrelevant, considering my
position is neither about silencing anyone nor defining furry fandom as
anything other than anthropomorphic animals. Why not try arguing with me
about positions I actually hold for a change, Rich?
Richard Chandler wrote:
>"Solutions" = What? I don't see anything specific, other than silencing
>dissent in order to work on un-named other things.
Why not try arguing with me about positions I actually hold for a change,
Rich?
Richard Chandler wrote:
>Xydexx wrote:
>> Y'know, I'm wondering which is more pathetic: The fact that I've had to
>> explain this to you for over two years, or the fact that after over two years
>> you still haven't the slightest idea what I'm talking about. -:(
>
>You have explained nothing, except how you think things would somehow get
>better in an unspecified manner if everyone just swallowed their opinions,
>kept quiet, and made a.f.f as innocuous, smurfy, and content-free as a.l.f.
<sigh> It's an old story but I'll tell it again: Why not try arguing with me
about positions I actually hold for a change, Rich?
Richard Chandler wrote:
>If you were my Enemy, then I wouldn't bother to read what
>you have to say.
Kinda like when I was in your killfile, right?
PART III: Xydexx's Definition of Furry Fandom
Richard Chandler wrote:
>Xydexx wrote:
>> "Nothing strikes terror in the heart of someone who
>> wants to divide furry fandom more than the idea of furry
>> fans working together. Especially if it means working
>> with someone like me, who thinks that furry fandom's
>> image might be improved by Six Helping Hands instead of
>> Six Shallow Graves."
>> ---Xydexx, 09/10/98
>
>The problem here is, you're using a different definition of Furry Fandom.
No, I'm not.
Xydexx's definition of furry fandom:
Furry fandom is about the creation and/or appreciation of
writing/artwork [and/or miscellaneous other media] devoted to
anthropomorphic animal characters.
Xydexx's definition of anthropomorphics:
Anthropomorphics are human qualities or characteristics ascribed
to animals or objects.
Specific to furry fandom, anthropomorphics are:
1. animal characters with human qualities and/or characteristics,
[i.e., Scooby Doo, Simba, Mr. Ed]
2. humanoid characters with animal qualities and/or characteristics.
[i.e., Bugs Bunny, Tony the Tiger, Booga]
When explaining anthropomorphics to people, I use more well-known
examples of anthropomorphic characters from cartoons or advertising,
as they provide point of reference most people are familiar with.
I'd be real interested in hearing what definition of furry fandom you thought
I was using.
PART IV: May I See Your Papers, Please?
Richard Chandler wrote:
>The ones you say want to "divide furry Fandom" aren't dividing furry fans from
>furry fans. They're dividing Furry Fans from non-furry fans.
Let me guess... this is a prelude to some sort of "It's okay to kick Xydexx
out of the fandom because he isn't a Rich Chandler-Approved Real Furry
Fan(TM)" crusade, right? After your farfetched and illogical accusations
that inflatables are the focus of my activity in and around furry fandom, it
wouldn't be much of a leap for you to say "Well, Xydexx is only interested in
inflatables, not anthropomorphic animals, so HE'S not a REAL furry fan..."
So let's expose that fallacy before you waste any more of my time...
Firstly, you are NOT a reliable authority on what does and doesn't interest
me, Rich. I am.
And second, it's easy to make it look like any of my non-furry interests are
the focus of my activity in and around furry fandom. Just cross-reference
one of my interests with furry fandom and completely ignore everything else
that doesn't fit.
Allow me to use your twisted logic:
* Xydexx spends his time online on FurryMUCK.
* Xydexx spends his time online posting messages on alt.fan.furry.
* Xydexx spends his time online looking at webpages about furry fandom.
* Xydexx spends his time online chatting with furry fans on ICQ.
Ergo, spending time online is the focus of my activity in and around furry
fandom, right?
How about this:
* Xydexx's house on FurryMUCK is a replica of an old fieldstone house from
1850, which in real life is currently sitting abandoned and empty in
Ossining, NY. * Xydexx has sketches of abandoned buildings in his Idea Book
that he brings with him to furry conventions. * Xydexx has a homepage about
modern ruins on the same site as his furry pages. * Xydexx has brought furry
fans along on roadtrips with him to visit abandoned castles and ghost towns.
Ergo, modern ruins are the focus of my activity in and around furry fandom,
right?
Or how about:
* Xydexx gives furry fans rides in his car.
* Xydexx has a furry bumper sticker on the back of his car.
* Xydexx drives his car to furry conventions.
* Xydexx mentioned his car in his con reports on a.f.f.
Ergo, my car is the focus of my activity in and around furry fandom, right?
Clearly, I'm a menace to furry fandom who must be stopped at all costs. -:P
PART V: Thanks But No Thanks
Richard Chandler wrote:
>Xydexx wrote:
>>Richard Chandler wrote:
>> > That's because you do nothing.
>>
>> Except distribute copies of "Rich Chandler's Sketchbook Etiquette File",
>> right?
>
>Do you still do that, or was it just for bragging rights?
I have a copy of it currently on [the non-Richard-Chandler-approved] Xydexx's
Anthrofurry Homepage. It's there because of the little note you had on the
bottom of the file encouraging people to distribute it as far and wide as
possible. Little did I realize the only thanks I'd ever get for it would be a
kick in the rubber parts.
Richard Chandler wrote:
>Xydexx wrote:
>> Tell me, Rich, do you thank everyone who distributes copies of your
Sketchbook
>> Etiquette File by accusing them of riding your coattails, or is that dubious
>> honor only reserved for people with too many X's in their handle?
>
>I have done no such thing. Certainly not related to distributing my file.
Duck and cover, Rich:
Richard Chandler: Hmmm, and what, pray tell, have
you (Or Karl) contributed of real
worth to the fandom?
Xydexx: You mean what have I done _besides_
distribute copies of "Rich Chandler's
Sketchbook Etiquette file", right?
Richard Chandler: Riding on my coat-tails, eh?
Ahem.
I dunno, maybe that's a typo or something. Maybe what you really meant to
say was something like: "Gosh, Xydexx, even though I know we don't agree on
some things I really appreciate you spending your hard-earned money to make
copies of the Sketchbook Etiquitte File to distribute. It sure was nice of
you to do that."
But since you claim you never accused me of riding on your coattails, I can
only assume that there's someone else named Richard Chandler in furry fandom
who distributes a Sketchbook Etiquitte file just like yours.
The two of you should get together sometime. I'm sure you have a lot in
common.
Richard Chandler wrote:
>Xydexx wrote:
>> I also maintain a homepage with a general introduction to furry fandom (which
>> most people seem to like, but you on the other hand seem to think is the end
>> of the world), as well as the homepage for DC-Area Furry Mailing List. I
>> also attend furry conventions as either a Sponsor or SuperSponsor, volunteer
>> to help out doing grunt work, and various desktop publishing tasks.
>
>All admirable things. Nothing spectacularly unique though.
Gee, I do "admirable things". I'd better tell Richard Chandler, since he
thinks I "do nothing". Wow, won't he be surprised? Maybe he'll be so
impressed with all the admirable things I do that he'll let me stay in furry
fandom, hm? Maybe he'll even ask me out on a date, assuming my mysterious
secret admirer Xanthar the Wild Sex God doesn't ask me first.
Hey, I just realized Dr. Cat would be really jealous if he found out you asked
me out on a date. It's a good thing there's two Richard Chandlers in furry
fandom so we don't have to fight over you any more, right?
So, Rich, which is it? Do I do "admirable things" or do I do "nothing"? Or
am I a sort of strange fandom version of Shroedinger's Cat who does admirable
nothings?
Richard Chandler wrote:
>Xydexx wrote:
>> Richard Chandler wrote:
>> > You wanna work together on something?
>>
>> You mean like helping distribute copies of "Rich Chandler's Sketchbook
>> Etiquette File" again? Gee, I'm not sure if I can handle any more of your
>> peculiar style of gratitude, Rich.
>
><snort>
See what I mean?
PART VI: Some People Can't Take A Joke
Richard Chandler wrote:
>Xydexx wrote:
>>Richard Chandler wrote:
>> > Among the few things you have done is perpetrate a hoax
>> > on the newsgroup, starting a flamewar. Most trolls don't
>> > bother to fake up a web page to get folks going.
That's because it wasn't a troll, it was an elaborate practical joke.
Richard Chandler wrote:
>Practical jokes are usually funny.
I thought it was pretty funny. Quite a few others did, too, despite your
best attempts to organize a lynch mob in the aftermath. Interesting how most
of what little flak I got for it came from you and Mr. Melville. Kinda gives
the impression you're just angry because you were so looking forward to
flaming me for giving an interview that portrayed furry fandom negatively.
Well, sorry I had to disappoint you. If it was my intention to give furry
fandom a bad reputation, there are far worse things I could've done than
impersonate a fictitious reporter and ask questions about furry fandom for a
non-existant television show.
Richard Chandler wrote:
>Oh, you did quite enough. And we've all seen how pointless it is to give a
>positive interview to the Media anyway. Ask Daphne and Tygger.
Yeah, you're right, we're all doomed, there's no hope, and we should all give
up because it's pointless. I guess that means there's no harm in me
mentioning naked candlelight inflatable yak rituals next time someone asks me
what furry fandom is about.
That was sarcasm. You probably missed it.
-------
Rev. Xydexx Squeakypony, K.S.C., T.D.S.F.A.
Xydexx's Anthrofurry Homepage
Florian
>
> ---Xydexx, 12/30/96
> ---Xydexx, 02/21/97
> ---Xydexx, 03/31/97
> ---Xydexx, 03/27/98
> ---Xydexx, 09/10/98
Cool. Your digging up old posts. Can I play? :)
start{
Re: Furries and acceptance (Re: Congratulations! Yo)
Author: Karl Xydexx Jorgensen
Email: xyd...@netcom.com
Date: 1996/01/03
Forums: alt.fan.furry
Brian Henderson (BHen...@kirk.microsys.net) wrote:
: Who is attacking anyone? I don't give a damn what Xydexx does. He
: was only beat up when he came over to a.f.f and tried to defend his
: perverse sexual behavior and to tell us that there is nothing wrong
: with the perception that furry = bestiality. There is. Period.
Important points to remember:
A) I wouldn't have to defend my sexual behavior if it wasn't being
attacked in the first place.
B) I have _never_ said there is nothing wrong with the perception
that furry equals bestiality.
Those are the facts. Now, back to the show.
}end
This one stood out for me. One of the only posts where I LOL.
Don't take it as too serious of an attack, it's done in fun.
To dig up more old stuff, I still never found the Peek TV thing funny.
But I should thank you anyway. It finally struck home how easy web
scams are to pull off, and now have a lower chance of falling for them
when money is involved.
----------------------------------------------------
e_raschk...@hotmail.com remove .nospam
"In the old days, it was not called the Holiday Season; the Christians
called it "Christmas" and went to church; the Jews called it "Hanukkah"
and went to synagogue; the atheists went to parties and drank. People
passing each other on the street would say "Merry Christmas!" or "Happy
Hanukkah!" or (to the atheists) "Look out for the wall!"
[Dave Barry, "Christmas Shopping: A Survivor's Guide"]
Fur code 1.3: FCF/MSa A->+ C+ Dm H>+ M- P+++ R+ T++ W- Z+ Sm#
RLE/CT* a cn++++ d e+ f iw+ j* p+ sm#
xyd...@my-dejanews.com
> Cool. Your digging up old posts. Can I play? :)
Sure. Our special tonight is "Matthew Milam LOVES Bratwurst", which can be
found on alt.worst.of.internet and alt.sex.hello-kitty. There is some other
madness during the month of December 1997 that can be found there as well.
Enjoy.
> Don't take it as too serious of an attack, it's done in fun.
<shrug> It didn't seem like much of an attack. I was afraid you were gonna
quote back something incriminating. Goddess knows I've posted a few
incriminating things on Usenet over the years.
> To dig up more old stuff, I still never found the Peek TV thing funny.
It's not my fault! Rich Chandler's evil twin MADE me do it! -:)
> But I should thank you anyway. It finally struck home how easy web
> scams are to pull off, and now have a lower chance of falling for them
> when money is involved.
The important thing to remember about the web is that a page full of lies
looks no different than a page full of truths. I learned that at the
"Information and Disinformation of the Web" SIG at CF9. Remember, anyone
with one of AOL's ever- present free demo diskettes and a modicum of HTML
skills could easily throw up a webpage and get up to five account names to
use with up to 2 megs of space per account.
Hey, isn't the Burned Fur Headquarters on AOL?[1]
-------
Rev. Xydexx Squeakypony, K.S.C., T.D.S.F.A.
Xydexx's Anthrofurry Homepage
http://www.smart.net/~xydexx/anthrofurry/homepage.htm
[ICQ: 7569393]
[1] Not to suggest that the Burned Fur website is
just someone's idea of an elaborate practical
joke or anything... just pointing out that
anyone with one of AOL's ever-present free
demo diskettes and a modicum of HTML skills
could easily throw up a webpage and get up to
five account names to use with up to 2 megs
of space per account, just like anyone can
just as easily get an account with DejaNews
and create their own newsgroup. I mean, it's
so easy even -I- could do it. Of course, why
would -I- want to do something like that?[2]
[2] Granted, the last thing anyone would suspect
is for -me- to wait a month or so for things
to calm down and then slowly build up yet
another elaborate practical joke. After all
the flames I got for the PeekTV thing, I can
only imagine how pissed off folks would get
if they found out Burned Fur was a hoax. Not
that I'm saying it is, or anything... but if
it was, it'd be pretty impressive that it's
gone on this long without anyone catching on,
wouldn't it?
Arved
"My Bratwurst has a first name, it's F-R-I-T-Z..."
Arved (_my_ Bratwurst also has a second name, Simpsons fans know that
;o)
Darrel L. Exline
> I was told when I first asked, as
> were countless other persons when they asked here what Furry Fandom is about,
> that it is basically a celebration of one's furriness. When did that change?
The proper question to ask would be "When did the answer change TO that
definition"? Furry Fandom was not originally about celebrating one's furriness,
it was about enjoying the Genre of Anthropomorphic art and stories. You
obviously came onto the scene after the problem started, and therefore have a
little trouble seeing it from our point of view.
> A Zoophile is defined as a
> person with a love for animals. GAWK! 'That's that weird Furry Fandom mah'
> friend is into!' No amount of witchhunts or stakings or burnings will EVER
> change that opinion. It has to happen outside the Fandom.
To be more precise, a Zoophile is someone who wants to FUCK animals. And that's
just plain sick! This is why we don't want "Furry Fandom" to be associated with
Zoophiles.
> I will agree that there are things COMPLETELY outside of Furry Fandom that
> should have no link to it at all. But to say something/one like... Fursuiters
> and those who love Furdances don't belong? To condemn someone who has a plushy
> collection for wanting to celebrate their fondness and fascination with others
> of the same like? Those ARE VERY MUCH FURRY topics and they belong to this
> Fandom! Always have, always will.
I don't see anything in the Burned Fur manifesto that mentions that anyone who
actually enjoys the genre of Anthropomorphics should be excluded from the
fandom... nor does it even mention Fursuiters or Furdances at any time. I think
you might be reading your own agenda into it.
> If you want a fandom all about Anthropomorphics, start an Anthropomorphics
> Fandom and even Alt.Fan.Anthropomorphics with a mission statement and FAQ.
Because it's easier to say "Furry" and it'd be nice if that word meant the same
thing as it did 8 or 9 years ago.
--
Darrel L. Exline, darrelx(a)home.com, http://www.polarden.org
a.k.a. Jym_Chago, "Your friendly neighborhood Polar Bear"
-- Visit the Polar Den *Live* at http://www.polarden.org/polarcam --
xan...@my-dejanews.com
xyd...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> (Disclaimer: Yes, I know I'm procratinating and have better things to do with
> my time.)
Procratinating? Oh, you mean Procreatinating? *shrug* This is Xanthar talking.
> Editor's Notes:
>
> Some portions of text have been moved for organizational purposes.
Xanthar's note: Most of the above has been snipped, cleaned and washed for
you, the reader. Tho' I must confess, Richard was cleaned twice.
No, not that Richard. Another one. <--back-door clause
> Gee, I do "admirable things". I'd better tell Richard Chandler, since he
> thinks I "do nothing". Wow, won't he be surprised? Maybe he'll be so
> impressed with all the admirable things I do that he'll let me stay in furry
> fandom, hm? Maybe he'll even ask me out on a date, assuming my mysterious
> secret admirer Xanthar the Wild Sex God doesn't ask me first.
Hey, my bitch always told me "good things start with the letter 'X'..."
What could I say? My mouth was full.
-Xanthar <who hasn't had RC in many a night. But Coke on the other paw... :P>
Locandez
<djariumNOP...@email.com> wrote:
>
>Now I'll try to deal with the idea of 'life-stylers'. I think this is
>the most grey area in the fandom. What determines a 'life-styler'?
A lifestyler is currently the label given to people who 'hang around' the
newsgroup alt.lifestyle.furry. Some are happy to use it to describe
themselves; others prefer to just call themselves 'furries'.
Alf was created around July '96 after the tension between the furry fans
and plushophiles came to a head. That's not to say that zoophiles or
totemists tried to muscle in later; from the start it was intended for the
discussion of "spiritual, personal, sexual and lifestyle aspects of
furriness."
IIRC, the term "lifestyler" actually predates the creation of alf.
>Is it as something as answering the phone with a 'meow', or is it living,
>eating, drinking, breathing and sleeping only furry?
Being a furry lifestyler doesn't necessarily mean "living like an animal or
furry 24 hours a day". There are also various forms of sexuality (zoophilia,
plushophilia, toonophilia, fursuit sex) and spirituality (totemism, wereism,
guardian spirits, animal medicine, shifting); as well as miscellaneous
eccentricities like "empathising with plushies" and "getting back to
nature". Some furries do act like animals 24/7 (or when it is practical -
barking at customers may not be such a good idea) - usually as an
'externalisation' of their chosen totem animal/phenotype.
Locandez
--
My -real- email address is: lyndale (at) argonet (dot) co (dot) uk
http://welcome.to/lotcaf/ OR http://www.argonet.co.uk/users/lyndale/lotcaf/
- alt.lifestyle.furry related documents, IRC/Yiffnet guide, and a blank
copy of the Furvey.
http://www.argonet.co.uk/users/lyndale/lotcaf/yiffle/ - a Yahoo-style
furry links directory - 605+ links, 75+ categories, 165+ visits per day.
New URLs are welcome.
Locandez
(Clint Forrester) wrote:
>>]It should go beyond "we wanna kick all the degenerates out", (even though
>>]that's pretty much what it's all about...)
>>
>>-- fka...@my-dejanews.com
>
>You're making the same mistake Karl did. One person's opinions do not
>necessarily reflect the opinions of the entire group. That's why the
>movement doesn't have, or need, a leader.
Eric is not the only BF with a raging hatred/disgust for lifestylers. The
reputation of the Burned Fur movement will, like it or not, be set by the
words and actions of the more extreme members (note plural) - who also
happen to be the loudest. It is also possible that some of the less extreme
BFs will feel embarrassed about being associated with the nutters, and
leave.
Locandez
(Clint Forrester) wrote:
>>I beleave the holder of that honour is Joel Fur. However Xydexx
>>didn't start this one, Squee started this flame war.
>
>Without posting a single message to Usenet?
She would have posted the Manifesto to alf if it hadn't already been posted
by an alfer. Said so on her webpage.