Daily Dose of FACT
furplay
remain as they are.
"Plushies" and "zoophiles" have duct-taped themselves onto the more
legit genre known as "furry fandom". Whether it happened all on it's own
or they had been deliberately recruited into the fandom by the
manipulations of a now former head of a furry convention's ultimate
motive of turning said con into a circus of sexual alternatives is still
up for debate.
By their guilty consciences, these two NON-furry groups INSIST that what
they do is perfectly normal behavior. Because of this, they have no
qualms whatsoever in announcing to anyone who will listen about their
"lifestyle". Unfortunately, the most often group that bothers to pay
attention to this have been the media.
Because of their association with the more legit group of "furries", who
have NO interest in boinking a shetland pony (be it real or made of
cloth), the whole of furry fandom has been soiled with this stigma. In
the eyes of anyone on the "outside" who may have heard the tales, EVERY
furry is now a potential horse-fucker/doll-screwer/general loser.
Because of this, the whole of the furry genre's hope for growth
potential becomes stunted. Some people now actually have to HIDE their
interest in furry for fear that they will be branded as some sort of
deviant, or in the very least have their employment status put into
jeopardy (the case may be true or not, but the fact remains that there
ARE some people who live with this fear of being "found out"). All this
because of the stigma that a relative minority has caused by their
boorish, selfish behavior.
Because of this, it becomes all the more difficult to promote furry
titles because of the stigma. Yes, titles still are being produced, but
how many more could there have been if the phrase "skunk-fucker" was
never invented?
Because of this, there has become a group of people who feel there is a
need to take an active resistance to this before the words "furry
fandom" starts to sound as respectful as "NAMBLA" or "Manson Family".
Some have accused them of being intolerant brownshirts, but these
accusations seem to come mainly from the very deviants that have been
wanting to turn furry fandom into a freak show in the first place. I
personally have yet to see Eric Blumrich setting fire to stacks of
books, or Squee Rat leading teams of goons to turn over the tables of
dealers selling furry erotica.
Some have even decided that if you have no problem with seeing furry
erotica, then you must also wholeheartedly embrace every sick-ass thing
there is out there, lest you be accused of hypocrisy. This is like
demanding the person who has a navel ring to support the idea of
self-castration & amputations.
So now we see "lifestylers" on one side, and "Burned Furs" on the other,
throwing bricks at each other, all to the sheer delight of the media who
reports to everyone how dysfuctional and fragmented we really are.
Now were are at the point that if someone makes a post about furry
fandom in the media, the first thing that pops into our minds isn't
"Cool! Free publicity!", but "Swell! What did they call us NOW?".
This BS just HAS to cease!
Here's the facts:
"Lifestylers", "Plushophiles", and "Zoophiliacs". You are NOT "furry".
Your claims of being a "furry" is a defamation of the term. You do NOT
represent "furry fandom" in the slightest, and any claims you have
made/will make to the media about your connections to "furry fandom" is
a bald-faced LIE! You are screwed up deviants in ANY fandom, and your
trying to legitimise yourselves by infiltrating a genre like furry
fandom will NOT succeed in the long run. People should NOT have to be
ashamed of calling themselves a "furry" because you dolts have made it
into a dirty word. This is OUR playground, and WE WANT IT BACK!
Fender
> they do is perfectly normal behavior. Because of this, they have no
> qualms whatsoever in announcing to anyone who will listen about their
> "lifestyle". Unfortunately, the most often group that bothers to pay
> attention to this have been the media.
>
> Because of their association with the more legit group of "furries", who
> have NO interest in boinking a shetland pony (be it real or made of
> cloth), the whole of furry fandom has been soiled with this stigma. In
> the eyes of anyone on the "outside" who may have heard the tales, EVERY
> furry is now a potential horse-fucker/doll-screwer/general loser.
The problem I have with what you're saying is that you are overlooking a
rather salient point. You are not making a distinction between a zoophile
or plushie who claims to be "furry" BECAUSE they are a zoophile or plushie,
and those who have legitimate furry interests IN ADDITION to zoophilia
and/or plushophilia. In the first case, I agree with you. In the second,
I'm less inclined to agree.
Personally I don't care one whit who knows that I'm a furry (I am not a
zoophile or plushie). I've made no secret of it and no one has ever made a
negative statement about it, and if they did I'd either ignore it or try to
explain it, depending upon who made the comment.
I suggest, also, that you be more careful about using qualifiers. "A more
legit group of furries" is a rather damaging thing to say, nor have I
granted you the right to define what is legitimate in the furry fandom, and
what is not, on my behalf. And I'm not saying this about you alone: No one
in this fandom, which has no charter, no elected officials, no centralized
administration, and no headquarters whatsoever, has any business telling me
what is right or wrong, or what constitutes a "legitimate" furry interest.
You can express an opinion, or your likes and dislikes, but these do not
constitute a charter for the fandom and I am in no way obligated to agree
with you. And those are facts, as far as I am concerned.
--Fender
who is not singling-out furplay
furplay
Ostrich wrote:
>
> Am I missing something here?
Yeah. A life.
Forrest
of outsiders' reactions to conventional furry spooge to determine whether
there is, or is not, a consistent -inference- upon the part of said outsiders,
based -solely on that material-, that such stuff is z/b in nature.
furplay
Gee, I guess we need to hire Gallup to run a poll. "Do you think that
having people who screw horses in your group are detrimental to that
group's credibility?".
Rust
>
> Folks, we can argue back and forth all we want, but the facts still
> remain as they are.
I'd shoot this down for the utter canard it's based on, but it won't
change anything one iota.
-Rust
--
We are the instruments of creation - what we dream, is.
Remove ".netspam" from my address to reply
furplay
Richard de Wylfin wrote:
> Fender, Forrest, and Ostrich: please don't try to reason with furplay.
> He's a Usenet Kook First Class.
Oh, am I now? For what? For daring to speak my mind? if that be the
case, BbBbBbBbBbBbBbBbbbbbbB...............
furplay
Kory Anders wrote:
> Will you also have them ask if furries have stopped beating their
> wives yet?
Well, we already know that plushies and zoophiles HAVE NO wives to begin with.
Xydexx Squeakypony
> Richard de Wylfin wrote:
> >Fender, Forrest, and Ostrich: please don't try to reason with furplay.
> >He's a Usenet Kook First Class.
>
> Have I mentioned that I'm really looking forward to rec.arts.furry?
> </Xydexx>
>
> -Duncan da Husky, who is.
Y'know what we need? T-shirts. The "Last Official Flamewar of
Alt.Fan.Furry" T-shirts. Yep. And souvenir mugs. And plush toys. Get
'em while they're HOT! -:)
--
_________________________________________________
Xydexx Squeakypony, who is praying to the Goddess
that rec.arts.furry won't be anything like AFF,
and we'll talk about anthropomorphics instead.
Ostrich
>
>[plush isn't related at all to furry]
Can you offer a coherent explanation of why depicting a fantasy
animal in 2D media is 'furry art', but depicting one in soft sculpture
(plush) isn't? Both are often done with salacious intent, especially
in this fandom. The only functional difference that I can see between
a modified plush and a pornographic picture is that one can actually
interact with the toy. Am I missing something here?
--
-Ostrich! <") http://www.furnation.com/ostrich
Richard de Wylfin
> Ostrich wrote:
> >
> > Am I missing something here?
>
> Yeah. A life.
Fender, Forrest, and Ostrich: please don't try to reason with furplay.
He's a Usenet Kook First Class.
^ ^
o-o
+
richard de wylfin http://i.am/a.furry.fox
Kory Anders
Duncan da Husky
>Fender, Forrest, and Ostrich: please don't try to reason with furplay.
>He's a Usenet Kook First Class.
<Xydexx>
Have I mentioned that I'm really looking forward to rec.arts.furry?
</Xydexx>
-Duncan da Husky, who is.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Brady dun...@uncia.com http://www.technomancer.com/~duncan
Furry: Duncan da Husky SCA: Duncan MacKinnon of Tobermory
"Rhetorical subtlety doesn't work on people with the perceptive
powers of an eggplant." - Spencer Sun
Ostrich
>
> The "Last Official Flamewar of
> Alt.Fan.Furry"
>
And Furplay's not really a bad sort. Except that he never did
answer my question on alt.tasteless about Marie Antionette...
Artist
animal in 2D media is 'furry art', but depicting one in soft sculpture
>>(plush) isn't?
Pretty simple actualy. The 2D media is in many cases and anthro while a
plushie is in many cases depicts an animal.
Dr. Cat
: Richard de Wylfin wrote:
:> Fender, Forrest, and Ostrich: please don't try to reason with furplay.
:> He's a Usenet Kook First Class.
: BbBbBbBbBbBbBbBbbbbbbB...............
Ya know, I don't think my absence around here has probably been any kind
of problem. When the kooks label themselves that clearly they're pretty
easy for the calm sensible people to recognize and ignore. :X)
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
Dr. Cat / Dragon's Eye Productions || Free alpha test:
*-------------------------------------------** http://www.furcadia.com
Furcadia - a graphic mud for PCs! || Let your imagination soar!
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
(Disclaimer: In my own mind, I'm having chocolatey desserts right now!)
MechaSquirrel
MechaSquirrel
Forrest
>
>
>Forrest wrote:
>>
>> And yet no one has actually taken a scientifically/statistically valid survey
>> of outsiders' reactions to conventional furry spooge to determine whether
>> there is, or is not, a consistent -inference- upon the part of said
> outsiders,
>> based -solely on that material-, that such stuff is z/b in nature.
>
>
>Gee, I guess we need to hire Gallup to run a poll.
Or at least ask around (on alt.sci.math.statistics.prediction maybe?) to find
out how to run a proper poll.
Because until the numbers are in -- and statistically valid numbers at that --
there are only opinions, not facts.
--
Camptown ladies sing this song, doo dah, doo dah...
Marc L.
furplay wrote:
>
> Folks, we can argue back and forth all we want, but the facts still
> remain as they are.
<clip>
My two cents; liking and collecting stuffed animals is one thing. It's
perfectly legitimate. God knows there are horribly expensive and rare
teddy-bears out there.
I own one, it does not make me a plushophile or lifestyler. It just
makes me a collector.
I am a furry fan, not a deviant. I go to cons to see art being displayed
and made by talented individuals, not to have sexual release.
If that makes me a burned fur, fine.
I've met Squee, and Blumrich (but not as often). As you said neither are
the 'evil' some paint them to be. All they are is opinionated and not
afraid of speaking their minds. Personally, I like people like that.
Why? Because I'm not known for keeping silent either.
Marc, aka Greylocks.
See you all at Anthrocon.
Ostrich
>
> Pretty simple actualy. The 2D media is in many cases and anthro while a
> plushie is in many cases depicts an animal.
>
Gund made a very nice "Land Before Time" set back in 1988,
which is what got me started collecting plush. I've got a neat
"Princess Atta", and a couple generic anthro plush, including
a chubby little hedgehog dressed in a suit who's one of my
favourites. There's also the 'Pooh' characters, and almost any
Teddy Bear ever made. When you get right down to it, the
majority of plush are anthropomorphized to some degree or
another. There's realistic non-anthro plush out there, but
frankly it's harder to find than the anthropomorphized 'cute'
plush. I've spent enough time shopping for the stuff :)
Farlo
>I am a furry fan, not a deviant. I go to cons to see art being displayed
>and made by talented individuals, not to have sexual release.
>
>If that makes me a burned fur, fine.
Marc, I go to cons to see art being displayed and made by talented
individuals, not to have sexual release.
Nobody will ever confuse ME with being a burned fur.
--
Farlo
Urban fey dragon
m>^_^<m
Artist
Gund made a very nice "Land Before Time" set back in 1988,
which is what got me started collecting plush. I've got a neat
"Princess Atta", and a couple generic anthro plush, including
a chubby little hedgehog dressed in a suit who's one of my
favourites. There's also the 'Pooh' characters, and almost any
Teddy Bear ever made. When you get right down to it, the
majority of plush are anthropomorphized to some degree or
another. There's realistic non-anthro plush out there, but
frankly it's harder to find than the anthropomorphized 'cute'
>>plush. I've spent enough time shopping for the stuff :)
I believe you, but you do have to shop around. Its not as if
you can walk into walmart and buy that kind of stuff ( totaly anthro
plush ). I also
firmly believe there is an conflict of 'intent'. Pooh ( mister Sanders) of
whom I am a big fan was meant as a toy for little kids. As well as the land
before time ones ( I had a couple ). I quite agree that most plush are
anthropomophized to one extent or another. Its obvious. :)
My point is this; Most plush are meant as childrens toys. Or to be collected
as such.
Its like the .mp3 format... .mp3's became associated
with piracy
becuase of the the people that use it that way, not
becuase the
formats creater got up one day and said: "Hmm. I am
gonna make
the next best way to break the law". :)
H. Riesen
idea of "Furry" encompasses animals who are non-anthropomorphic in *shape*
but still bear human thought and reasoning. For example, most Disney
characters. It seems generally accepted that Simba and Balto *are* "furry"
despite their lack of human shape, so I don't agree with Artist's reasoning
that plush aren't furry because they depict four-legged animals.
I'd tend to agree with Ostrich's statement that they are 3D versions of our
favorite characters. (But not the interactivity part, sorry ;)
Trying for coherency early in the AM,
Aury
Artist wrote in message <9vM45.3480$Bc.8...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com>...
Rust
> (Disclaimer: In my own mind, I'm having chocolatey desserts right now!)
Hey, that's not a disclaimer, that's a taunt! Urr... sort of? Say, can
you or can you not taunt someone with something that exists only within
your own personal reality?
ANTIcarrot.
furplay wrote in message <39527FA9...@novia.net>...
>By their guilty consciences, these two NON-furry groups INSIST that what
>they do is perfectly normal behavior. Because of this, they have no
>qualms whatsoever in announcing to anyone who will listen about their
>"lifestyle". Unfortunately, the most often group that bothers to pay
>attention to this have been the media.
As opposed to homo-perverts who claim what they do is perfectly normal
behaviour?!
I'm not a zoophile, but I am interested in animal rights. I'm far more
concerned by whether the animal is actually suffering than whether society
approves of the activity it's involved in. Horse racing is legal, as is
killing horses for their meat. Both cause great suffering and death.
Compaired to this, giving one an orgasm seems comparatively harmless . . .
As for plushiephiles, who are they hurting? There's no hgarm in it,
except to encite intollerant people like you who detract from the genuine
furry stuff.
>"Lifestylers", "Plushophiles", and "Zoophiliacs". You are NOT "furry".
>Your claims of being a "furry" is a defamation of the term. You do NOT
>represent "furry fandom" in the slightest, and any claims you have
>made/will make to the media about your connections to "furry fandom" is
>a bald-faced LIE!
You're missing your own point
furry is to do with the mixing of animal and human traits. As such
Lifestylers, plushiephiles, zoophiles and furry fandom are aspects of furry,
with no one group holding sway over the subject or deciding what the subject
actually is. Some groups are more main stream than others, but that's no
excuse for picking on minorities.
Despite the coryness of the phrase, there is strength in unity. Furrydom
will survive whether we hate each other or not, but it will be stronger if
we don't.
ANTIcarrot.
Elf Sternberg
furplay <fur...@novia.net> writes:
>This is OUR playground, and WE WANT IT BACK!
*Sigh* Fortunately, most of us are more interested than
playing than listening to either side expound.
Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg, rational romantic mystical cynical idealist
http://www.halcyon.com/elf/
He's a serial killer. He's a clear. John Travola IS
American Psychlo
Leslie_Rashana
you know.. ther are times when i start thinking all the people who
consider themselves burned furs and/or have been confused with or been
accused of being a burned fur by thier words or actoins need to get
together and compare notes.. sometimes it's like the definition of
"burned fur" is as slippery as the definition of "furry"
--Leslie
--
"Now we are so happy, we do the Dance of Joy!"
-Balki Bartokamouse
Weyfour WWWWolf (Urpo Lankinen)
>Folks, we can argue back and forth all we want, but the facts still
>remain as they are.
(snip)
"Remember kids", goes the Old Advice to the Newbies, "If the subject
line has some word or many words in CAPITAL LETTERS, it's ofter not
what it reads. Like, '$$$$EASY MONEY$$$$' should just read '$$$$Mail
fraud$$$$'.
"The rationale, of course," the Advice further proclaims, "is that
mostly excited or angered people use capital letters in subjects; And
intelligence capabilities of the people often drop drastically when
they get too excited or start waving guns around."
::WWWWolf *yawns* with extreme cruelty displayed therein at the
original poster::
One more quote would be neede here... Thus spake the Master Usenetter:
"Time for you to leave."
--
$_='%?&%[=&+=?%=[%&+&%[*?]&=&~[;&+&{=?[?&%&[&{[%&^=?=[&%&]=?%~&~[?&+&~YiFF!
=[=~| Weyfour WWWWolf (aka. Urpo Lankinen), a lupine technomancer |=?*_=}?]
%}&};| ICQ:4291042 | www...@iki.fi | http://www.iki.fi/wwwwolf/ |&;&=~?]';
tr/?~=*;%&[{}]+_^ (),.:@\/\n0-9!|a-zA-Z/0-9acde/d; $_=pack("H*",$_); print;
Cerulean
>Dr. Cat wrote:
>
>> (Disclaimer: In my own mind, I'm having chocolatey desserts right now!)
>
>Hey, that's not a disclaimer, that's a taunt! Urr... sort of? Say, can
>you or can you not taunt someone with something that exists only within
>your own personal reality?
People's ability to each have one's own personal reality is supposedly
responsible for toppling a subculture into ruin. To be a dragon in
one's own mind is to send dozens of selfish whiners into paroxysms of
rage, screaming "get off of MY playground!" Thus, taunting is a piece
of cake. With fudge icing, chocolate crunchies, and marshmallows.
--
___vvz /( Cerulean = Kevin Pease http://cerulean.st/
<__,` Z / ( DC2.~D GmAL~W-R+++Ac~J+S+Fr++IH$M-V+++Cbl,spu
`~~~) )Z) ( FDDmp4adwsA+++$C+D+HM+P-RT+++WZSm#
/ (7 ( uos7aN a>!W - ,,'poo6 hue auo ou op sjJnwS,,
furplay
Elf Sternberg wrote:
>
> In article <39527FA9...@novia.net>
> furplay <fur...@novia.net> writes:
>
> >This is OUR playground, and WE WANT IT BACK!
>
> *Sigh* Fortunately, most of us are more interested than
> playing than listening to either side expound.
>
> Elf
True, but the lifestylers keep hogging up the proverbial swingset and
jungle jim, and I don't even want to THINK about what the zoophiles &
plushies are doing with the rocking horses. <g>
Rust
>
> Quoth Rust:
>
> >Dr. Cat wrote:
> >
> >> (Disclaimer: In my own mind, I'm having chocolatey desserts right now!)
> >
> >Hey, that's not a disclaimer, that's a taunt! Urr... sort of? Say, can
> >you or can you not taunt someone with something that exists only within
> >your own personal reality?
>
> People's ability to each have one's own personal reality is supposedly
> responsible for toppling a subculture into ruin. To be a dragon in
> one's own mind is to send dozens of selfish whiners into paroxysms of
> rage, screaming "get off of MY playground!" Thus, taunting is a piece
> of cake. With fudge icing, chocolate crunchies, and marshmallows.
Aw, no no no, don't do dat! I actually posted something that didn't
resemble a flame!
Urr... well... It didn't resemble one intentionally. I meant it
innocently, anyways. But I guess it does strike at part of the 'issue',
doesn't it?
Rust
> you know.. ther are times when i start thinking all the people who
> consider themselves burned furs and/or have been confused with or been
> accused of being a burned fur by thier words or actoins need to get
> together and compare notes.. sometimes it's like the definition of
> "burned fur" is as slippery as the definition of "furry"
I sorta had the notion that a Burned Fur was someone who, by their own
choice, associated themselves with the Burned Furs. Not unlike the way
I call myself a lifestyler (a dangerous name, I gather, but it describes
me in a neater package than "furry who takes the subculture to spiritual
and personal levels").
Rust
> True, but the lifestylers keep hogging up the proverbial swingset and
> jungle jim, and I don't even want to THINK about what the zoophiles &
> plushies are doing with the rocking horses. <g>
Uh... you want to de-metaphorize those "swingsets" and "jungle gyms" for
us unintellectual types? I wasn't aware that there was anything to
"hog".
J. Ferris
> Not to nit-pick (well maybe a little...) I think it can be argued that the
> idea of "Furry" encompasses animals who are non-anthropomorphic in *shape*
> but still bear human thought and reasoning. For example, most Disney
> characters. It seems generally accepted that Simba and Balto *are* "furry"
> despite their lack of human shape, so I don't agree with Artist's reasoning
> that plush aren't furry because they depict four-legged animals.
>
> I'd tend to agree with Ostrich's statement that they are 3D versions of our
> favorite characters. (But not the interactivity part, sorry ;)
>
> Trying for coherency early in the AM,
> Aury
To paraphrase Webster:
To anthropormize something is to give human characteristics to animate or
inanimate objects.
So yes, four footed animals that have human thought are indeed anthropomorphic.
Artist
idea of "Furry" encompasses animals who are non-anthropomorphic in *shape*
>>but still bear human thought and reasoning.
Agreed
<schmucks opinion>
And I think that so long as the raging debate over 'what' furry, and its
various offshoots encompases comes to an end, there will be no peace.
Or to put it another way... Untill the laws exist, they cannot be enforced.
Dr. Cat
: *Sigh* Fortunately, most of us are more interested than
: playing than listening to either side expound.
Playing is good.
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
Dr. Cat / Dragon's Eye Productions || Free alpha test:
*-------------------------------------------** http://www.furcadia.com
Furcadia - a graphic mud for PCs! || Let your imagination soar!
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
(Disclaimer: Yes, that's obvious, but it just needed to be said anyway.)
Dr. Cat
: Uh... you want to de-metaphorize those "swingsets" and "jungle gyms" for
: us unintellectual types? I wasn't aware that there was anything to
: "hog".
You can't be blamed for not knowing. But anyway, there's actually very
limited space for furry fans in most of their preferred activities. Yes,
there's probably less than a hundred thousand active fans, in a nation
with over two hundred MILLION people. But unfortunately our
hobby/lifestyle/whatever involves specific venues with very limited
capacity.
1) The Internet. It's actually grown to the point where there's only room
for about eight more people. If the weirdo perverts keep hogging those
spots then starting pretty soon some of the more worthy furry fans who
keep the bananas OUT of their ears won't be able to log on.
2) Furry Cons. These are already past capacity, and regularly turn away
hundreds of furry fans at the door who didn't pre-register early enough.
If only the crowbar fetishists would just leave, that'd open up enough
hotel rooms and seats in the con panels and stuff that all the legitimate
fans could get in!
3) Newsgroups. These have a strict quota of how many words can be posted
to them per month, and when some ranting lunatic uses up half of them the
rest of the people here don't get to say everything that's on their minds
before the letters and numbers run out. (There's a seperate quota for
punctuation symbols too which can run out a lot sooner sometimes
There are other things too but that is enough examples I think
I hope you enjoyed my informative post
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
Dr Cat Dragon's Eye Productions || Free alpha test
*-------------------------------------------** http www furcadia com
Furcadia - a graphic mud for PCs || Let your imagination soar
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
Disclaimer Ok I am lying there is room for fifty more people on the
internet Dont tell everyone though or a bunch of wrestling fans or
coin collectors will get on and use it and there wont be room for more
furry fans which we so desperately need and richly deserve because
everybody knows a small hobby sucks and hobbies are only fun once you get
a million other people involved right so ok
Rust
<snip>
> There are other things too but that is enough examples I think
> I hope you enjoyed my informative post
Immensely.
furplay
Baloo Ursidae wrote:
>
> Leslie_Rashana <tro...@atoka.net> wrote:
>
> > you know.. ther are times when i start thinking all the people who
> > consider themselves burned furs and/or have been confused with or been
> > accused of being a burned fur by thier words or actoins need to get
> > together and compare notes.. sometimes it's like the definition of
> > "burned fur" is as slippery as the definition of "furry"
>
> Heh, which one was synonymous with Usenet Kook again? 8:o)
>
> --
> Baloo
Oh, this is a roll-your-eyes event if there ever was one.
Screw your dog and be seen as "normal" here.
Stand up and say "HEY YOU! STOP SCREWING THAT DOG!", and YOU get called
the "kook".
Farlo
>Stand up and say "HEY YOU! STOP SCREWING THAT DOG!",
Try this in public. I dare you.
Stand up and shout THAT out at
some random passers-by.
>and YOU get called
>the "kook".
You sure would.
furplay
Farlo wrote:
>
> furplay wrote:
>
> >Stand up and say "HEY YOU! STOP SCREWING THAT DOG!",
>
> Try this in public. I dare you.
> Stand up and shout THAT out at
> some random passers-by.
>
Well, I would if I saw them screwing a dog in public.
Rust
And anybody who did that, I would have to agree, has some serious
attention issues. The same could be argued for, "HEY, YOU TWO! STOP
SCREWING IN THAT FOUNTAIN!"
Where another persons life stops affecting other people is where it
stops being the business of the public, and ceases to be a valid target
for judgement.
Farlo
>Well, I would if I saw them screwing a dog in public.
Is it any different to yell it here on AFF,
with no Zoos anywhere to be seen?
Xydexx Squeakypony
> Is it any different to yell it here on AFF,
> with no Zoos anywhere to be seen?
We can't be silent
cuz they might be giants
and what are we gonna do unless they are
-:)
--
_________________________________________________
Xydexx Squeakypony http://www.xydexx.com
"If we're going to be damned, let's be damned for
who we really are."---Jean-Luc Picard, Star Trek
Farlo
>Farlo wrote:
>> Is it any different to yell it here on AFF,
>> with no Zoos anywhere to be seen?
>
>We can't be silent
>cuz they might be giants
>and what are we gonna do unless they are
>
>-:)
This is a "They might be giants" reference?
=:)
Xydexx Squeakypony
> Xydexx Squeakypony wrote:
> >We can't be silent
> >cuz they might be giants
> >and what are we gonna do unless they are
>
*grins*
You a TMBG fan?
Cerulean
>Cerulean wrote:
>> Quoth Rust:
>> >Dr. Cat wrote:
>> >
>> >> (Disclaimer: In my own mind, I'm having chocolatey desserts right now!)
>> >
>> >Hey, that's not a disclaimer, that's a taunt! Urr... sort of? Say, can
>> >you or can you not taunt someone with something that exists only within
>> >your own personal reality?
>>
>> People's ability to each have one's own personal reality is supposedly
>> responsible for toppling a subculture into ruin. To be a dragon in
>> one's own mind is to send dozens of selfish whiners into paroxysms of
>> rage, screaming "get off of MY playground!" Thus, taunting is a piece
>> of cake. With fudge icing, chocolate crunchies, and marshmallows.
>
>Aw, no no no, don't do dat! I actually posted something that didn't
>resemble a flame!
>
>Urr... well... It didn't resemble one intentionally. I meant it
>innocently, anyways. But I guess it does strike at part of the 'issue',
>doesn't it?
Yeah. My apologies for bringing it back toward the unpleasant "issue";
my mind makes connections. At least I returned to the subject of
chocolatey desserts at the end. Everybody think about chocolate. Mmmm.
Farlo
>*grins*
>
>You a TMBG fan?
"Ana Ng" and "Dr. Worm" ... er, yes, at least those two songs.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
[...]
>True, but the lifestylers keep hogging up the proverbial swingset and
>jungle jim, and I don't even want to THINK about what the zoophiles &
>plushies are doing with the rocking horses. <g>
Given that there is no limmitation on the number of possable swingsets
and jungle jims why is there a problem. I feel like its more a case
of "Your diffrent looking I'm not going to play with you ewwww girl
germs."
--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
http://dformosa.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.
Artist
Most of life sounds like that to me... So I would have to agree with you. :)
Elf Sternberg
>On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 15:47:12 -0500, furplay <fur...@novia.net> wrote:
>>True, but the lifestylers keep hogging up the proverbial swingset and
>>jungle jim, and I don't even want to THINK about what the zoophiles &
>>plushies are doing with the rocking horses. <g>
>Given that there is no limmitation on the number of possable swingsets
>and jungle jims why is there a problem. I feel like its more a case
>of "Your diffrent looking I'm not going to play with you ewwww girl
>germs."
That's it, David, I think you've hit it right on the head.
Furplay and the Burned Furs are afraid of catching cooties.
Furplay
Elf Sternberg wrote:
>
> In article <slrn8lcpkt....@dformosa.zeta.org.au>
> dfor...@zeta.org.au (David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)) writes:
>
> >On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 15:47:12 -0500, furplay <fur...@novia.net> wrote:
>
> >>True, but the lifestylers keep hogging up the proverbial swingset and
> >>jungle jim, and I don't even want to THINK about what the zoophiles &
> >>plushies are doing with the rocking horses. <g>
>
> >Given that there is no limmitation on the number of possable swingsets
> >and jungle jims why is there a problem. I feel like its more a case
> >of "Your diffrent looking I'm not going to play with you ewwww girl
> >germs."
>
> That's it, David, I think you've hit it right on the head.
> Furplay and the Burned Furs are afraid of catching cooties.
Catching SOMEthing indeed, but it's a lot scarier than "cooties".
Leslie_Rashana
oooohh, the dreaded plushozooitess, "Help! i suddenly have an urge to
mate with a stuffed Bullwinkle the moose doll, somebody get me a shot of
penicillin and a motivational cassette tape!"
--Leslie
-;>
--
"Now we are so happy, we do the Dance of Joy!"
-Balki Bartokamouse
Elf Sternberg
Furplay <fur...@novia.net> writes:
>Elf Sternberg wrote:
>> That's it, David, I think you've hit it right on the head.
>> Furplay and the Burned Furs are afraid of catching cooties.
>Catching SOMEthing indeed, but it's a lot scarier than "cooties".
Given that to "catch something," furplay, you must actually
engage in certain (ahem) activities, I can only say that if you have a
problem with compulsively engaging in these (ahem) activities, I
suggest you get help.
Actually, I suggest you get help anyway.
Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg, rational romantic mystical cynical idealist
http://www.halcyon.com/elf/
"The purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure pure
reasoning, and inhibit clarity. With a little pratice, writing can
be an intimidating and impenetrable fog!" - Bill Watterson's Calvin.
Furplay
Elf Sternberg wrote:
>
> In article <3957FE89...@novia.net>
> Furplay <fur...@novia.net> writes:
>
> >Elf Sternberg wrote:
>
> >> That's it, David, I think you've hit it right on the head.
> >> Furplay and the Burned Furs are afraid of catching cooties.
>
> >Catching SOMEthing indeed, but it's a lot scarier than "cooties".
>
> Given that to "catch something," furplay, you must actually
> engage in certain (ahem) activities, I can only say that if you have a
> problem with compulsively engaging in these (ahem) activities, I
> suggest you get help.
>
Sorry, but you won't see ME appearing with a horse on Springer. :)
BTW, better have someone look at your throat. You seem to have a
congestion problem there. Have you been drinking a lot of milk (or some
"other fluids")?
"There ought to be limits to freedom." -- GW Bush commenting about the
parody site at http://www.gwbush.com
Dr. Cat
: Farlo wrote:
:>
:> furplay wrote:
:>
:> >Stand up and say "HEY YOU! STOP SCREWING THAT DOG!",
:>
:> Try this in public. I dare you.
:> Stand up and shout THAT out at
:> some random passers-by.
: Well, I would if I saw them screwing a dog in public.
You know, I'd be willing to bet good money that you've never seen
anyone actually doing that to a dog in public. Or in your presence
at all, even in private. I'd suspect that holds true for most of
the other people that complain about this in alt.fan.furry, or more
likely for ALL of them.
So what's all this anti-screwing-yelling for, again? If you can
only justify it when there's some actual screwing to stop, and
you've not been present at any, stop yelling it already. Or be
branded a kook just like Farlo said.
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
Dr. Cat / Dragon's Eye Productions || Free alpha test:
*-------------------------------------------** http://www.furcadia.com
Furcadia - a graphic mud for PCs! || Let your imagination soar!
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
(Disclaimer: Actually it's too late. Furplay has already been branded
a kook by many people. Join today and get your free membership card
and secret decoder ring!)
tearlach
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
tearlach
screaming " Look at Me ! " Whilst I feel that " Screwing " a live
animal is no better then a pedafilic act against a child.
Farlo
> I have found that most people who ingage in public sex are merely
>screaming " Look at Me ! " Whilst I feel that " Screwing " a live
>animal is no better then a pedafilic act against a child.
If a tree falls in the forest,
and crushes a Usenet sock puppet,
does anyone care?
Furplay
tearlach wrote:
>
> I have found that most people who ingage in public sex are merely
> screaming " Look at Me ! " Whilst I feel that " Screwing " a live
> animal is no better then a pedafilic act against a child.
>
Damn straight! These guys remind me of those dolts in NAMBLA, who think
there's nothing wrong with having sex with children who have'nt even had
the chance to reach puberty yet ("Sex before eight or else it's too
late!" is a motto of theirs).
Or, as one nauseating zoophile of renoun has said, "Horses can't talk
and sheep don't sue".
--
Rust
>
> I have found that most people who ingage in public sex are merely
> screaming " Look at Me ! " Whilst I feel that " Screwing " a live
> animal is no better then a pedafilic act against a child.
Wow, you don't think much of non-human animals, do you?
Rust
> Or, as one nauseating zoophile of renoun has said, "Horses can't talk
> and sheep don't sue".
Gee, another individual who doesn't know the difference between
zoophilia and beastiality. Not that it surprises me, in this case.
Rust
>
> Rust <othr...@bmts.com.netspam> wrote:
> : Furplay wrote:
>
> :> Or, as one nauseating zoophile of renoun has said, "Horses can't talk
> :> and sheep don't sue".
>
> : Gee, another individual who doesn't know the difference between
> : zoophilia and beastiality. Not that it surprises me, in this case.
>
> it, it's not on topic for a newsgroup about furry fandom.
I'm not the one who brought it up, now am I? I'd be perfectly happy to
leave zoophilia, plushophilia, lifestyle, etc out of the NG, if certain
others let their stupid crusade drop.
Furplay
Rust wrote:
>
> Furplay wrote:
>
> > Or, as one nauseating zoophile of renoun has said, "Horses can't talk
> > and sheep don't sue".
>
> Gee, another individual who doesn't know the difference between
> zoophilia and beastiality. Not that it surprises me, in this case.
>
Like, there's actually a dif? Do tell.
Furplay
Rust wrote:
>
>
> I'm not the one who brought it up, now am I? I'd be perfectly happy to
> leave zoophilia, plushophilia, lifestyle, etc out of the NG, if certain
> others let their stupid crusade drop.
"The best way for evil to prevail is for the good to stand by and do
nothing." (or words to that effect)
Rust
>
> Rust wrote:
> >
> > Furplay wrote:
> >
> > > Or, as one nauseating zoophile of renoun has said, "Horses can't talk
> > > and sheep don't sue".
> >
> > Gee, another individual who doesn't know the difference between
> > zoophilia and beastiality. Not that it surprises me, in this case.
> >
>
> Like, there's actually a dif? Do tell.
Really, as some others have said, this ain't the place. Besides, a
closed and bitter mind will immediately reject what I say, so why should
I bother? It -is- a valid point, however, know that the zoophiles I
know of tend to be utterly rabid about being called beastialists, and
with good reason.
Furplay
Rust wrote:
>
> Furplay wrote:
> >
> > Rust wrote:
> > >
> > > Furplay wrote:
> > >
> > > > Or, as one nauseating zoophile of renoun has said, "Horses can't talk
> > > > and sheep don't sue".
> > >
> > > Gee, another individual who doesn't know the difference between
> > > zoophilia and beastiality. Not that it surprises me, in this case.
> > >
> >
> > Like, there's actually a dif? Do tell.
>
> Really, as some others have said, this ain't the place. Besides, a
> closed and bitter mind will immediately reject what I say, so why should
> I bother?
Well, you're the one who brought up the claim that there IS a
difference. Let's hear it (unless you were full of bollocks in the first place).
> It -is- a valid point, however, know that the zoophiles I
> know of tend to be utterly rabid about being called beastialists, and
> with good reason.
>
Because they KNOW they're really just beastialists (no matter what
candy-coated name they call themselves), and the truth hurts?
Leslie_Rashana
>
> Furplay wrote:
>
> > Or, as one nauseating zoophile of renoun has said, "Horses can't talk
> > and sheep don't sue".
>
> Gee, another individual who doesn't know the difference between
> zoophilia and beastiality. Not that it surprises me, in this case.
>
zoophilia is a lifestyle, bestiality is the main sex-act associated wiht
that lifestyle.. arguing about the differeences is like arguing about
the diference between homosexuality and sodomy
but i will say this.. i find it grossly hypocritical that most cultures
find nothign wrong with taking an unwanted horse to a packing plant ot
have his body parts divvied up between glue and dog food but giving him
an orgasim is a stoning offense
--Leslie
> --
> We are the instruments of creation - what we dream, is.
>
> Remove ".netspam" from my address to reply
--
Furplay
>
> Rust wrote:
> >
> > Furplay wrote:
> >
> > > Or, as one nauseating zoophile of renoun has said, "Horses can't talk
> > > and sheep don't sue".
> >
> > Gee, another individual who doesn't know the difference between
> > zoophilia and beastiality. Not that it surprises me, in this case.
> >
> > -Rust
>
> zoophilia is a lifestyle, bestiality is the main sex-act associated wiht
> that lifestyle.. arguing about the differeences is like arguing about
> the diference between homosexuality and sodomy
>
> but i will say this.. i find it grossly hypocritical that most cultures
> find nothign wrong with taking an unwanted horse to a packing plant ot
> have his body parts divvied up between glue and dog food but giving him
> an orgasim is a stoning offense
Ironicly, a horse that goes to the packing plant only suffers once
(which is once too many, IMO). The horse that has a zoophile bumping &
grinding from behind suffers over and over.
As I read about one zoophile's arrest (after he had repeatedly
tresspassed onto a horse ranch and had sex with the livestock on several
HUNDRED occasions), where he admitted that he does not even take good
care of the animals that he used to have. I hope that even in the zoo
community, this freak is an exeption.
Is it any wonder I hold these views when I read about stuff like this
going on?:
*********************************************
[article copied & pasted]
This file is a publically available document concerning a case in Agoura
California, and the arrest of a zoophile.
I have on request omitted certain details as to address, names of the
victims and animals. This report shows almost
exactly what I have been saying about zoophiles and how they claim their
acts are all consentual, never restraining etc.
This individual who was arrested claimed EXACTLY the same things the
on-line zoophile web sites do, but as you can
read, the official report states that according to the evidence the
arresting officer saw, the animals were restrained.
The original was typed in all upper case and had a few typo's I
corrected, and margin notes in pen correcting minor
details such as the horses names- I omitted.
SHERIFF DEPT. REPORT
CASE #499-03323-2212-339
PAGE 3 OF 7
I RESPONDED TO xxxx xxxxxxx ROAD IN THE CITY OF AGOURA REGARDING A
POSSIBLE CRUELTY TO
ANIMALS REPORT CALL @115. UPON ARRIVING I CONTACTED THE INFORMANT WHO
TOLD ME THE
FOLLOWING:
ON TODAY'S DATE, SHE NOTICED THAT SEVERAL OF THE HORSES HOUSED AT THE
STABLES (xxxx
xxxxxx ROAD) HAD STRANGE INJURIES THAT THE INJURIES TO THE ANIMALS WERE
NOT THERE THE
PREVIOUS DAY BECAUSE SHE IS ONE OF THE CARETAKERS OF THE STABLES AND
VISITS THE
HORSES ON A DAILY BASIS. SHE SAID SHE FEEDS, WALKS, RIDES, CLEANS,
WATERS, AND CARES
FOR THE HORSES INCLUDING GIVING THEM MEDICAL ATTENTION WHEN NEEDED FROM
APPROXIMATELY 1000 IN THE MORNING TO APPROXIMATELY 1700 HOURS ON A DAILY
BASIS.
TODAY HOWEVER, SHE NOTICED THAT [MARE#1] A BLACK/GREY QUARTER HORSE (WHICH
BELONGED TO V#1 MRS X) HAD A SMALL AMOUNT OF BLOOD PURGING FROM HER
VAGINA. DUE TO
THE FACT THAT BLOOD PURGING FROM A HORSES VAGINA IS USUALLY INDICATIVE
OF AN
INFECTION, SHE IMMEDIATELY CHECKED [MARE#1] TEMPERATURE AND CHECKED FOR
PUSS WHICH
ALSO ACCOMPANIES A VAGINAL INFECTION.
SHE DID NOT SEE ANY PUSS AND CONFIRMED THAT THE HORSES TEMPERATURE WAS NORMAL.
BASED ON HER TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE WITH HORSES, SHE KNEW THAT ONE OF
THE OTHER
OPTIONS THAT MAY BE CAUSING THIS DISCHARGE, WOULD BE SOME FORM OF
PENETRATION. SHE
TOLD ME THAT THE HORSE WAS NOT PREPARED TO BREED, SHE WAS NOT IN
BREEDING SEASON,
AND THEIR HAD NOT BEEN A STALLION/MALE HORSE AT THE STABLES CAPABLE OF
MATING WITH
[MARE#1] FOR OVER TWO YEARS.
SHE CONDUCTED A QUICK CURSORY EXAMINATION OF [MARE#1] AND FOUND THAT HER LEFT
FRONT LEG HAD BEEN BADLY INJURED AS EVIDENCE BY AN APPROXIMATE 3 INCH
CUT ALONG THE
KNEE, THE SKIN WAS TORN BACK TO A POINT THAT EXPOSED THE FLESH AND BONE
OF THE FRONT
OF THE KNEE, AND A SMALL AMOUNT OF BLOOD DRIPPING FROM IT.
PAGE 4 OF 7
499-03323-2212-339
SHE THEN CONDUCTED A QUICK CURSORY EXAMINATION OF ALL THE HORSES AT THE
STABLE AND
FOUND THAT [ MARE#2 ] A TAN QUARTER HORSE (ALSO OWNED BY V#1 MRS. X) AND
MS. Y (OWNED
BB. V#2 MRS. Z) HAD INJURIES TO BOTH BACK LEGS BELOW THE KNEE AS
EVIDENCE BY SEVERAL
SCRATCHES,SCRAPES,SMALL AMOUNTS OF BLOOD DRIPPING FROM THE LEGS AND SEVERE
SWELLING. THESE INJURIES WERE CONSISTENT WITH THE HORSES BEING
RESTRAINED OR TIED UP
BELOW THE KNEE. SHE SAID THAT HOBBLING A FEMALE HORSE IS COMMON WHEN
BREEDING SO
THAT THEY DON'T KICK THE STALLION HOWEVER, SHE ADDED THAT THE HORSES
DON'T GET
INJURED USING THESE RESTRAINTS UNLESS THE HOBBLES ARE FASHIONED TO A
POINT WHICH
RESTRICTS THE HORSES HIND LEGS FROM MOVING AT ALL.
SHE NOTIFIED THE HORSES OWNERS OF HER FINDINGS. V#l MRS. X RESPONDED TO
THE SCENE. I
ASKED HER IF SHE KNEW HOW HER HORSES WERE INJURED AND SHE SAID THAT HER
HORSES HAD
SIMILAR INJURIES IN THE PAST WHEN THEY WERE ALLEGEDLY SEXUALLY
ASSAULTED. SHE ADDED
THAT SHE AGREED WITH THE INFORMANTS OPINION IN THAT BLOODY VAGINAL
DISCHARGE IS
USUALLY INDICATIVE OF AN INFECTION AND IS ACCOMPANIED WITH A FEVER AND A
WHITE PUSS
DISCHARGE. AND THAT THE INJURIES TO THE HIND LEGS OF [MARE] WOULD
INDICATE THAT SHE
HAD BEEN HOBBLED OR RESTRAINED BY SOME MECHANISM THAT WAS FASHIONED
TIGHT ENOUGH
TO PREVENT THE HORSE FROM MOVING OR KICKING BACK. SHE ADDED THAT SHE HAD
FILED A
POLICE REPORT IMPLICATING THAT SUSPECT APPROXIMATELY A YEAR AND HALF AGO BECAUSE
THE SUSPECT HAD A HISTORY OF ABUSING THESE ANIMALS. (IT SHOULD BE NOTED
THAT THE
SUSPECT DOES IN FACT HAVE A PRIOR CONVICTION FOR ANIMAL CRUELTY AND IS
ON SUMMARY
PROBATION).
PAGE 5 OF 7 499-03323-2212-339
I ASKED THE INFORMANT IF SHE KNEW ANYTHING ABOUT THE VICTIMS STATEMENT
AND SHE SAID
THAT SHE HAD ALSO FILED A POLICE REPORT IMPLICATING THE SUSPECT BECAUSE
APPROXIMATELY A YEAR AND A HALF AGO SHE HAD ACTUALLY CAUGHT HIM IN THE
MIDST OF
PREPARING ONE OF HER HORSES FOR WHAT SHE ASSUMED WAS A SEXUAL ASSAULT.
WHEN SHE CONFRONTED THE SUSPECT, SHE HAD APPARENTLY SURPRISED HIM AND
WAS ABLE TO
WARD HIM OFF THE COMPOUND. SHE SAID SHE SAW HIM RUNNING AWAY AND YELLED
AT HIM TO
STAY AWAY. WHEN SHE APPROACHED THE AREA WHERE SHE ASSUMES THE SUSPECT
HAD BEEN,
SHE NOTICED THAT THE GROUND WAS LITTERED WITH ROTTEN CARROTS. SHE SAID THAT
APPARENTLY THIS IS HOW HE LURES THE HORSES OUT OF THE PENS AND KEEPS
THEM OCCUPIED.
IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE SUSPECT SOMETIMES SELLS 50 POUND BAGS OF
CARROTS AS HIS
FORM OF REVENUE. THE INFORMANT ALSO ADDED THAT ON TODAY'S DATE, SHE SAW
THE SUSPECT
AT xxxxx AND xxxxxxxxx WHICH IS A LOCATION HE FREQUENTS.
AS I LEFT THE LOCATION AND HEADED TO xxxxx ROAD AND xxxxxxxxx IN THE
CITY OF AGOURA SAW
A MALE WHITE, (IDENTIFIED AS THE SUSPECT) SELLING 50 POUND BAGS OF
CARROTS OUT OF HIS
TRUCK AT THE 4100 BLOCK OF xxxx ROAD THIS LOCATION IS APPROXIMATELY X
MILES FROM THE
STABLES. I CONTACTED HIM TO ASCERTAIN HIS VERSION OF THE STORY. I ASKED
HIM IF HE HAD
BEEN TO THE STABLES LOCATED AT XXXX xxxxxxx ROAD AND HE IMMEDIATELY
REPLIED YEAH, I'VE
BEEN THERE 300 TIMES. I ASKED IF HE HAD A HORSE THERE THAT WOULD GIVE
HIM A REASON FOR
BEING THERE AND HE SAID
No, ANIMAL CONTROL TOOK MY ANIMALS AWAY. HE THEN SPONTANEOUSLY SAID, THE HUMAN
RACE HAS REJECTED ME. SO I'VE TURNED TO THE ANIMALS WHO LOVE ME.
PAGE 6 OF 7 499-03323-2212-339
BECAUSE OF HIS ODD STATEMENT CLAIMING THAT HE HAD BEEN REJECTED BY THE
HUMAN RACE, I
READ HIM HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS IN WHICH HE SAID HE UNDERSTOOD AND
WAIVED. I
ASKED HIM IF HE COULD CLARIFY HIS STATEMENT THAT THE ANIMALS LOVED HIM.
AND HE SAID
THAT HE'S BEEN HAVING SEX WITH ANIMALS SINCE HE WAS 12 YEARS OLD. HE HAD
HIS OWN
SELECTION OF ANIMALS THAT WERE CONFISCATED BY ANIMAL CONTROL BECAUSE HE
REFUSED TO
CARE FOR THEM ADEQUATELY.
HE FURTHER ADDED THAT HE HAD IN FACT VISITED THE STABLES IN QUESTION
OVER THE
PREVIOUS NIGHT CLAIMING THAT HE COULD NOT HELP HIMSELF.
AS HE MADE THE STATEMENT THAT HE COULD NOT HELP HIMSELF, HE BEGAN TO
SWEAT AND SAID,
IT'S NOT AGAINST THE LAW TO HAVE SEX WITH ANIMALS.
HE SAID HE HAD LAID IN HIS BED AND MASTURBATED BUT NEEDED THE HORSES TO
SATISFY HIM.
HE SAID HE WENT TO THE STABLES AND HAD SEX WITH ONE OF THE HORSES. HE
COULD NOT TELL
ME WHICH ONE OF THE HORSES HE HAD SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH BUT ADAMANTLY ADDED
THAT THE PHYSICAL ACT OF LOVE WAS CONSENSUAL. HE SAID HE NEVER FORCED
HIMSELF ON
ANY ANIMAL. I ASKED HIM IF HE HAD RESTRAINED THE LEGS AND AGAIN
ADAMANTLY DENIED
FORCING ANY ANIMAL TO DO ANYTHING. I ASKED HIM HOW LONG IT TOOK HIM TO
COMPLETE HIS
ACT AND HE SAID HOURS.
DUE TO THE FOLLOWING:
1.THE HISTORY OF SEXUAL ASSAULTS ON THE VICTIMS ANIMALS.
2.THE HISTORY OF THE SUSPECT REGARDING ANIMAL CRUELTY.
3.THE FACT THAT THE SUSPECT IS ON SUMMARY PROBATION FOR 597.
4.THE SEROUS INJURY TO THE VAGINA IS CONSISTENT WITH FOREIGN
PENETRATION.
5.THE LACK OF A STALLION OR MALE HORSE BEING PRESENT FOR BREEDING.
6.THE INJURIES TO THE LEGS OF THE HORSES ARE INDICATIVE OF BEING
RESTRAINED.
PAGE 7 OF 7 499-03323-2212-330
1.THE FACT THAT THE INFORMANT CARES FOR THE HORSES DAILY AND WOULD HAVE
NOTICED ANY INJURY.
2.THE FACT THE SUSPECT SELLS CARROTS AND CARROTS WERE FOUND IN AND
ABOUT THE
HORSE STABLES.
3.THE FACT THAT THE SUSPECTS CARROTS FOR SALE SIGN WAS FOUND IN ONE
OF THE
STALLS.
FURTHER SUPPORTED BY THE FACT THE SUSPECT OPENLY ADMITTED TO HAVING SEX
WITH THE
ANIMALS ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS INCLUDING THE NIGHT IN QUESTION.
DUE TO THE AFOREMENTIONED, THE SEVERITY OF THE HORSES INJURIES, AND HIS
CONFESSION, I
ARRESTED HIM ACCORDINGLY. I TOOK PICTURES OF THE ANIMALS INJURIES AND
PLACED IT IN THE
EVIDENCE ROOM PENDING THE FILM PROCESSING PROCEDURES. IT SHOULD BE NOTED
THAT THE
PHOTOS ARE DEPICTING THE INJURIES TO [ MARE#1 ] AND [ MARE#2 ] ONLY, [
MARE#3 ] WAS SOLD
PRIOR TO ME BEING ABLE TO PHOTOGRAPH THE INJURIES AND MRS. Z COULD NOT
BE REACHED.
ALL PARTIES WERE ADVISED TO SEEK A RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST THE SUSPECT
AS ANOTHER
TOOL TO KEEP HIM AWAY FROM THEIR HORSES.
HE WAS TRANSPORTED TO AND BOOKED AT LOST HILLS STATION WITH THE APPROVAL
OF WATCH
COMMANDER SGT. JONES.
Physical description:
male, white, BLN hair, HZL eyes, 5'7" 190 pounds DOB 06-10-45
Booking #6081-345
Driver's license# CA M0707843
- Agoura CA 91301
Classification: Sexually assaulting animals 286.5 P.C.
URN# (file no) 499-03323-2212-339
Date: 06-05-99 Between 2100-0100, Saturday
C.H.P.180 submitted: YES
Garage name and phone: Sierra Tow/818-xxx-XXXX
Victim desireous of prosecution?: YES
Victim insured for loss?: NO
Arrested by Deputy Sal -I will omit- , Badge # -I will omit-
Station: Lost Hills
Unit/Car #226
Shift: Days
END OF SHERIFF's DEPT COMPLAINT REPORT
SYN. NO. AGN. NO.
MOTION BY SUPERVISOR MICHAEL D. ANTONOVICH July 6, 1999
Daniel Bruce House, a resident of Agoura, is currently being held at the
Lost Hills Sheriff Station, having been charged
with the sexual assault and abuse of a number of horses at three ranches
in the area. House, who is on probation in a
previous animal-neglect case, has been charged with five felony and five
misdemeanor counts, and is being held on
$250,000 bail.
The serious nature of these crimes, and the fact that House may be a
repeat offender, demands that the case be
vigorously pursued by the District Attorney and, if the suspect is
convicted, the maximum penalty be imposed.
I, THEREFORE, MOVE that this Board hereby request that the District
Attorney pursue the conviction of the
individual charged with these crimes, and with a conviction he also
pursue the maximum penalty allowed under law.
MDA:pw
Curtesy of L.A District Attorney
4/6/00
Rust
>
> Rust wrote:
> > It -is- a valid point, however, know that the zoophiles I
> > know of tend to be utterly rabid about being called beastialists, and
> > with good reason.
> >
>
> Because they KNOW they're really just beastialists (no matter what
> candy-coated name they call themselves), and the truth hurts?
Let the reader decide which is the kook, calling baseless opinions fact.
-Rust
Rust
>
> Rust wrote:
> >
> > Furplay wrote:
> >
> > > Or, as one nauseating zoophile of renoun has said, "Horses can't talk
> > > and sheep don't sue".
> >
> > Gee, another individual who doesn't know the difference between
> > zoophilia and beastiality. Not that it surprises me, in this case.
> >
> > -Rust
>
> zoophilia is a lifestyle, bestiality is the main sex-act associated wiht
> that lifestyle.. arguing about the differeences is like arguing about
> the diference between homosexuality and sodomy
>
> but i will say this.. i find it grossly hypocritical that most cultures
> find nothign wrong with taking an unwanted horse to a packing plant ot
> have his body parts divvied up between glue and dog food but giving him
> an orgasim is a stoning offense
I see your point, but there's an implied difference. Beastiality, when
unaffiliated with zoophilia, is effectively rape as opposed to the
consummation of a relationship.
tearlach
> --
> We are the instruments of creation - what we dream, is.
> Remove ".netspam" from my address to reply
just like to say that I have more respect and love ( The caring kind )
for the non- huma animals on this world then the most of the human ones
I have the misfortune to meet. By the Way what is the difference
between zoo-philla and beastuality, One is where the animal says yes
and the other NO !
Furplay
Rust wrote:
>
>
> Let the reader decide which is the kook, calling baseless opinions fact.
>
Dude, you are SUCH a deluded goofball. Here you read loads of undeniable
facts, and yet you make claims that zoophiles are'nt beastialists. You
are truly living in utter denial.
I'm also starting to treat you less seriously, being the goof that you
are. You are either a rabid defender of animal abusers who have sex with
horses, or are a horse-rapist yourself. In either case, my respect for
you is nil.
Furplay
tearlach wrote:
>
> > Wow, you don't think much of non-human animals, do you?
> > -Rust
> > --
> > We are the instruments of creation - what we dream, is.
> > Remove ".netspam" from my address to reply
> I am removing my self from this news group but before I go I would
> just like to say that I have more respect and love ( The caring kind )
> for the non- huma animals on this world then the most of the human ones
> I have the misfortune to meet. By the Way what is the difference
> between zoo-philla and beastuality, One is where the animal says yes
> and the other NO !
>
Okay. Granted. When the animal *actually* says "yes" to being boinked by
a hyoomun, then I'll say it's OK.
No ventriliquism. No asking it to do "one clomp for 'yes', two clomps
for 'no'". No putting your hands on the horse's head and pretending to
have a "mind meld" with it. The animal ACTUALLY has to say "yes".
In fact, let's say that the zoophile wants to have a relationship with
said critter. He should drop his pants and lean over the pasture fence,
ass-end towards the subject of his affections.
If the horse (or 1000 lb. fustrated Angus bull) has no qualms about the
idea of having sex with someone outside it's species, it will come over
and do the deed with you (and you can then be happy, knowing that the
mega-schlong bumping up against your ribcage is an act of mutual
consent). Congratulations! You may need radical intestinal
reconstructive surgery later, but you've found true love at last.
And then, when it's done, you can reciprocate by having your turn at it,
while the wind whistles through your open body cavity like Zamphir on
the Pan flute.
Or, are you zoos the type to insist on being the ones who get to do the
pumping, but not letting your partner get some action of their own. You
selfish bastard!
However, if it just stands there and wonders what the Hell you're doing
(if it even notices you at all), then sex obviously is'nt on it's mind,
and you should then pull up your pants and drive home.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
[...]
>"The best way for evil to prevail is for the good to stand by and do
>nothing." (or words to that effect)
Of cause both "sides" thing that the other is evil so no one is going
to shut up about this.
--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
http://dformosa.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
>
>
>Rust wrote:
[...]
>> It -is- a valid point, however, know that the zoophiles I
>> know of tend to be utterly rabid about being called beastialists, and
>> with good reason.
>>
>
>Because they KNOW they're really just beastialists (no matter what
>candy-coated name they call themselves), and the truth hurts?
By that argument you could say "Furries know there realy just
zoophiles (no matter what candy-coated name they call themselves), and
the truth hurts?" (note I'm not saying this is the cause just appling
an RAA type argument to your statment).
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
[...]
>As I read about one zoophile's arrest (after he had repeatedly
>tresspassed onto a horse ranch and had sex with the livestock on several
>HUNDRED occasions), where he admitted that he does not even take good
>care of the animals that he used to have. I hope that even in the zoo
>community, this freak is an exeption.
I could use the millions of rapes and other abuses on file as an
arugment against hetrosex.
Leslie_Rashana
>
> Rust wrote:
> >
> >
> > Let the reader decide which is the kook, calling baseless opinions fact.
> >
>
> Dude, you are SUCH a deluded goofball. Here you read loads of undeniable
> facts, and yet you make claims that zoophiles are'nt beastialists. You
> are truly living in utter denial.
the facts being one arrest report involving a self-deluded zoo wannabe
and some very unfortunate horses justifiies condeming EVEYRONE even
remotely associated with this lifestyleas rapests, rape apologists, if
not worse?
>
> I'm also starting to treat you less seriously, being the goof that you
> are. You are either a rabid defender of animal abusers who have sex with
> horses, or are a horse-rapist yourself. In either case, my respect for
> you is nil.
>
> --
> "There ought to be limits to freedom." -- GW Bush commenting about the
> parody site at http://www.gwbush.com
--
Furplay
"David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" wrote:
>
>
> By that argument you could say "Furries know there realy just
> zoophiles (no matter what candy-coated name they call themselves), and
> the truth hurts?" (note I'm not saying this is the cause just appling
> an RAA type argument to your statment).
Actually, furries by and large are'nt zoophiles (and vice-versa, which
has been my point all along) . IE, they don't practice the act of having
sex with animals. The very definition of a "zoophile" is to have sex
with animals, which is also another word for beastiality.
Furplay
"David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" wrote:
>
> On Sun, 02 Jul 2000 00:07:07 -0500, Furplay <fur...@novia.net> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >As I read about one zoophile's arrest (after he had repeatedly
> >tresspassed onto a horse ranch and had sex with the livestock on several
> >HUNDRED occasions), where he admitted that he does not even take good
> >care of the animals that he used to have. I hope that even in the zoo
> >community, this freak is an exeption.
>
> I could use the millions of rapes and other abuses on file as an
> arugment against hetrosex.
Most heteros (as well as homosexuals) are against rape. I'm hoping
there's some shred of decency in a zoophile to regard what this "man"
did was wrong too.
Furplay
Leslie_Rashana wrote:
>
>
> the facts being one arrest report involving a self-deluded zoo wannabe
> and some very unfortunate horses justifiies condeming EVEYRONE even
> remotely associated with this lifestyleas rapests, rape apologists, if
> not worse?
>
It's sort of like seeing one roach, but knowing for each one you see,
there's a hundred behind the walls.
Farlo
>... zoophiles ....sex with animals ... "zoophile" ...
>... sex with animals ... beastiality.
I sense a mental dysfunction,
and luckily it's not mine.
MechaSquirrel
><snip arrest report>
I will agree with you on one thing, and that is that the sort of
person depicted in that report is a very sick individual.
Just think about this, though. A true zřřphile would _NEVER_ do
something like that.
That, sir, is one of the big things seperates the true zřřphiles from
rapists in my mind, the level of love and/or respect shown.
MechaSquirrel
--
(To answer one question, yes, animals
can consent, and sometimes will even
make the first moves.)
(And to answer another question, that's
for me to know, and nobody else's business.) :)
MechaSquirrel
>The very definition of a
>"zoophile" is to have sex with animals, which is also another word
>for beastiality.
Um, wrong.
def. Zoophile - A lover of animals: specifically, one who objects to
vivisection.
Nowhere in that definition taken straight from my F&W Standard
Dictionary(international ed.) does it say anything about sex. Just
emotions.
MechaSquirrel
Leslie_Rashana
>
> "David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" wrote:
> >
> >
> > zoophiles (no matter what candy-coated name they call themselves), and
> > the truth hurts?" (note I'm not saying this is the cause just appling
> > an RAA type argument to your statment).
>
> Actually, furries by and large are'nt zoophiles (and vice-versa, which
> has been my point all along) . IE, they don't practice the act of having
> sex with animals.
that's what the Platypus said.. he was applying the same argument to
adifferent group to prove his point not implying that Furries by and
large were actually zoophiles.. he even spelled it out in a disclaimer
The very definition of a "zoophile" is to have sex
> with animals, which is also another word for beastiality.
>
the very definition of zoopihile is to be attracted ot animals.. weather
you actually go out and act on this is another matter... and even though
we "know better" than to think that furry=zoophile Jhon Q Clueless out
there in the general public dosn't need to walk into a con and be
accousted by horse-boffers showing off pictures of thier 'wives' to gt
the idea that there is a connection between the two, the general
populace is perfectly capable of putting 2 and 2 and getting 5 just by
looking at a pic of Doug Winger's "Pandora" and think it was created out
of a desire to jump the family dog... but no, it's all these zoophiles
dragging the name of furry through the mud... *sigh* some people just
can't see the forrest for the trees.
--Leslie
> --
> "There ought to be limits to freedom." -- GW Bush commenting about the
> parody site at http://www.gwbush.com
--
Rust
> By the Way what is the difference
> between zoo-philla and beastuality, One is where the animal says yes
> and the other NO !
Technically no, but in spirit, you're just about absolutely right.
Rust
> Okay. Granted. When the animal *actually* says "yes" to being boinked by
> a hyoomun, then I'll say it's OK.
Ever have a dog hump your leg?
Furplay
Farlo wrote:
>
> Furplay wrote:
>
> >... zoophiles ....sex with animals ... "zoophile" ...
> >... sex with animals ... beastiality.
>
> I sense a mental dysfunction,
> and luckily it's not mine.
>
And it's not mine either.
Rust
>
> Rust wrote:
> >
> >
> > Let the reader decide which is the kook, calling baseless opinions fact.
> >
>
> Dude, you are SUCH a deluded goofball. Here you read loads of undeniable
> facts, and yet you make claims that zoophiles are'nt beastialists. You
> are truly living in utter denial.
>
> are. You are either a rabid defender of animal abusers who have sex with
> horses, or are a horse-rapist yourself. In either case, my respect for
> you is nil.
I'm attracted to some animals. I don't try to entice them into sexual
situations, and that's a personal choice. I understand the issues a
thousand times better than a closed-minded, rabid, hate-loving
individual such as yourself ever can or will. I don't need or want your
approval, because your approval or disapproval means nothing.
Rust
>
> "David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" wrote:
> >
> > >tresspassed onto a horse ranch and had sex with the livestock on several
> > >HUNDRED occasions), where he admitted that he does not even take good
> > >care of the animals that he used to have. I hope that even in the zoo
> > >community, this freak is an exeption.
> >
> > arugment against hetrosex.
>
> Most heteros (as well as homosexuals) are against rape. I'm hoping
> there's some shred of decency in a zoophile to regard what this "man"
> did was wrong too.
But you won't aknowledge it when you find it. Incidentally, yes, what
he did was very wrong.
Furplay
MechaSquirrel wrote:
>
> Furplay wrote:
> >The very definition of a
> >"zoophile" is to have sex with animals, which is also another word
> >for beastiality.
>
> Um, wrong.
>
> def. Zoophile - A lover of animals: specifically, one who objects to
> vivisection.
Where does vivisection come into this?
Do "zoophiles" have sex with animals?
Do "beastialists" have sex with animals?
If you answer "yes" to both, then they're one and the same.
Rust
> Actually, furries by and large are'nt zoophiles (and vice-versa, which
> has been my point all along) . IE, they don't practice the act of having
> sex with animals. The very definition of a "zoophile" is to have sex
> with animals, which is also another word for beastiality.
No, actually the "very definition of zoophile" is "one who loves
animals".
Furplay
Rust wrote:
>
> Furplay wrote:
>
> > Okay. Granted. When the animal *actually* says "yes" to being boinked by
> > a hyoomun, then I'll say it's OK.
>
> Ever have a dog hump your leg?
Did you leave a trail of Milk Bones to yours?
--
MechaSquirrel
>Where does vivisection come into this?
That's just what the entire definition was in my dictionary. Didn't
want to be accused of leaving anything out.
>Do "zoophiles" have sex with animals?
As a group, no. Some do, none forcefully.
>Do "beastialists" have sex with animals?
As a group, yes. Some forcefully.
>If you answer "yes" to both, then they're one and the same.
And they aren't. Being a Zoo doesn't automatically mean you "have
sex with animals". It just means that you love them. Please note
that "love" does not equal "sex".
MechaSquirrel
Dave Huang
>
Another example of your impeccable logic skills?
Do "roaches" breathe oxygen?
Does "Furplay" breathe oxygen?
If you answer "yes" to both, then they're one and the same.
P.S. It's spelled "bestialists."
--
Name: Dave Huang | Mammal, mammal / their names are called /
INet: kh...@bga.com | they raise a paw / the bat, the cat /
FurryMUCK: Dahan | dolphin and dog / koala bear and hog -- TMBG
Dahan: Hani G Y+C 24 Y++ L+++ W- C++ T++ A+ E+ S++ V++ F- Q+++ P+ B+ PA+ PL++
Furplay
Rust wrote:
>
>
> I'm attracted to some animals. I don't try to entice them into sexual
> situations, and that's a personal choice. I understand the issues a
> thousand times better than a closed-minded, rabid, hate-loving
> individual such as yourself ever can or will. I don't need or want your
> approval, because your approval or disapproval means nothing.
And your dysfunction means something indeed.
Furplay
Rust wrote:
>
>
> But you won't aknowledge it when you find it. Incidentally, yes, what
> he did was very wrong.
>
Well, it's nice to know that we can actually agree on _something_ here.
Furplay
MechaSquirrel wrote:
>
> Furplay wrote:
> >Where does vivisection come into this?
>
> That's just what the entire definition was in my dictionary. Didn't
> want to be accused of leaving anything out.
>
> >Do "zoophiles" have sex with animals?
>
> As a group, no. Some do, none forcefully.
>
So they say.
> >Do "beastialists" have sex with animals?
>
> As a group, yes. Some forcefully.
>
So what I see is that zoos have sex with animals, but not forcefully.
And beastialists have sex with animals too, some forcefully, which makes
them zoos because zoos by your definition don't have sex forcefully (so
they say).
Which means that both groups do exactly the SAME thing, exept that some
do get rough, and some don't (but, they STILL DO THE SAME THING, which
is THEY HAVE SEX WITH ANIMALS!).
> >If you answer "yes" to both, then they're one and the same.
>
> And they aren't. Being a Zoo doesn't automatically mean you "have
> sex with animals". It just means that you love them. Please note
> that "love" does not equal "sex".
>
This is sort of like seeing Pat Robertson vehemently deny that he's a "televangelist".
Furplay
Dave Huang wrote:
>
> In article <395FA9C8...@novia.net>,
> Furplay <fur...@SpammersSuck.novia.net> wrote:
> >Do "zoophiles" have sex with animals?
> >
> >Do "beastialists" have sex with animals?
> >
> >If you answer "yes" to both, then they're one and the same.
>
> Another example of your impeccable logic skills?
>
> Do "roaches" breathe oxygen?
>
> Does "Furplay" breathe oxygen?
>
> If you answer "yes" to both, then they're one and the same.
>
Ah, but roaches don't have sex with animals (and neither do I), so where
does that put the horse-phuckers?
> P.S. It's spelled "bestialists."
More like WORSTialists, in my opinion.
MechaSquirrel
a decent argument, trying to talk to you is fairly much a waste of
time.
Ta
MechaSquirrel
(off to find someone coherent)
--
closed minds are a terrible thing...