6 shallow graves? more like 26 now
Peter da Silva
[Please follow up to the politics group]
--
This is The Reverend Peter da Silva's Boring Sig File - there are no references
to Wolves, Kibo, Discordianism, or The Church of the Subgenius in this document
"If you don't have 64 bits, you're not playing with a full DEC."
Matthew Milam
Peter da Silva <pe...@taronga.com> wrote in message
news:79c1h6$g...@bonkers.taronga.com...
>The next stage begins. Where will it all end? In tears...
It could end if you would stop transfering posts to another group.
Matthew Milam
mmi...@interlync.com
>[Please follow up to the politics group]
P. S. I'm already on your ignore file, so I don't suppose there's any real
punishment to this.
Farlo
> This latest fiasco in Wired that mentions plushophiles in furry fandom
is
> the last straw for me. No plushophile did that. It was the Burned Furs
and
> their inability to stop shouting here at the top of their lungs about
the
> presence of these people in fandom who brought that attention on us.
Yes, it reminds me of certain religious leaders (Falwell, Oral Roberts,
Jimmy Bakker) who liked to shout about sin, but were secretly perverts or
worse, perverted hypocrites, in one way or another.
Now I'm wondering which of the Burned Furs have interesting things to
hide... Will there be photos? Tearful confessions?
I'll forgive most of them anyways ... it's not that important to me.
Somehow, it probably is to them, but that's all IMO.
- Farlo
Hangdog
> You know about the Six Shallow Graves - how it's said that all of fandom's
> problems could be solved if we found the right people to fill those 6
> graves? Seems to me we need about 26 now, so we could fill them with all
> of the Burned Furs.
GUFFAW!!!!
Hey, "fur_jihad"--you're the guy who said Charla Trotman couldn't draw, right?
Good to see you're batting 1.000.
> REMEMBER WIRED! UP WITH FANDOM! DOWN WITH THE BURNED FURS!
Up wi' the carls o' Dysart!...wait, sorry, wrong drunken rant...
--Hangdog, Burned Fur
Lancid
> REMEMBER WIRED! UP WITH FANDOM! DOWN WITH THE BURNED FURS!
You forgot "Ein Volk Ein Reich Ein Fuhrer" and "Long Live Stalin".
Lancid.
P.S. You were Ded67, weren't you ?
Kyle Webb
>
> REMEMBER WIRED! UP WITH FANDOM! DOWN WITH THE BURNED FURS!
>
> JIHAD!
Look, Mommy... Another troll!
Kyle L. Webb
Hartree Fox on yiffnet
Scott Malcomson
fur_...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<79bkn0$cg$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>You know about the Six Shallow Graves - how it's said that all of fandom's
>problems could be solved if we found the right people to fill those 6
>graves? Seems to me we need about 26 now, so we could fill them with all
>of the Burned Furs.
Gotta love these free-speech/free-life enthusiasts who want to kill people
who disagree with them...
>This latest fiasco in Wired that mentions plushophiles in furry fandom is
the last straw for me.
>No plushophile did that.
Wired also mentions alt.lifestyles.furry, where plenty of plushophile stuff
shows up. Get real, get a grip, and get a sense of responsibility for your
life.
>It was the Burned Furs and their inability to stop shouting here at the top
of their lungs about the
>presence of these people in fandom who brought that attention on us.
Yeah, we went and sicced th' media on y'all. Sure, yepyep...hey, I seem to
recall that it's the lifestylers who don't mind talking to British mags
about how they have sex with a dog. It's the straights who're embarrassed
by media attention to this stuff, especially the Burned Furs, and the
lifestylers who've always said they don't care. Do yer homework, kid.
>If this doesn't make it crystal clear to everyone how damaging the BFs are
>to our fandom, well, you've got to be blind not to realize this now.
Blind leading the blind, and all that...
>These people are far and away the worst embarassment we've ever been faced
with.
Yeah, yeah, mm-hm...got any good bridges in Brooklyn you'd like to part
with, too?
>Me, I'll tolerate anyone if they just keep their mouth shut
Well, then, you must positively loathe lifestylers who tell Brit mags their
techniques for romance with a horse.
>I'm all for cleaning up fandom's image, but I am completely fed up with
>the misguided and self-destructive tactics of the Burned Furs.
And your solution for "cleaning up fandom's image" is...? Oh, right, for
the BFs to shut up, which will solve everything. Gotta love these utopian
idealists...
>Hmm, maybe we won't
>need 26 graves after all. We could just fill up the 6 shallow graves with
>their severed heads, and leave their bodies stacked on the ground to rot.
Well, kiLLRboY, since you don't have the stones to even sign off with your
real name, I doubt you've the mental competence to avoid cutting yourself
with your own guillotine. Whatta goob.
Scott Malcomson
Donald E. Sanders
says...
>
> fur_...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
> <79bkn0$cg$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> >You know about the Six Shallow Graves - how it's said that all of fandom's
> >problems could be solved if we found the right people to fill those 6
> >graves? Seems to me we need about 26 now, so we could fill them with all
> >of the Burned Furs.
>
> Gotta love these free-speech/free-life enthusiasts who want to kill people
> who disagree with them...
>
Hmm, funny, I did not see any death threats, I must have missed that one.
> >This latest fiasco in Wired that mentions plushophiles in furry fandom is
> the last straw for me.
> >No plushophile did that.
>
> Wired also mentions alt.lifestyles.furry, where plenty of plushophile stuff
> shows up. Get real, get a grip, and get a sense of responsibility for your
> life.
Ya know, I'm not a lifestyler, but the whole affair was the last straw
for me. I guess I need to get real, get a grip, and get a sense of
responsibility for my life, oh wait, I do have all of those, had them for
hmm, lets see, About 23 YEARS! (I don't count the first 17 years, growing
up and all that ya know.)
>
> >It was the Burned Furs and their inability to stop shouting here at the top
> of their lungs about the
> >presence of these people in fandom who brought that attention on us.
>
> Yeah, we went and sicced th' media on y'all. Sure, yepyep...hey, I seem to
> recall that it's the lifestylers who don't mind talking to British mags
> about how they have sex with a dog. It's the straights who're embarrassed
> by media attention to this stuff, especially the Burned Furs, and the
> lifestylers who've always said they don't care. Do yer homework, kid.
Well, I have not done homework in years, but I did look into the matter.
There is a difference between discussing a matter in a civil matter to
the media, and shouting about how perverts are destroying the fandom.
Funny thing about the media, when you use the word 'Perverts' and
'Weirdos' in their presence, you know they have to dig deeper.
>
> >If this doesn't make it crystal clear to everyone how damaging the BFs are
> >to our fandom, well, you've got to be blind not to realize this now.
>
> Blind leading the blind, and all that...
More like the pot calling the kettle black.
>
> >These people are far and away the worst embarassment we've ever been faced
> with.
>
>
> Yeah, yeah, mm-hm...got any good bridges in Brooklyn you'd like to part
> with, too?
Sorry, I only take beach front property in Tenn.
>
> >Me, I'll tolerate anyone if they just keep their mouth shut
>
> Well, then, you must positively loathe lifestylers who tell Brit mags their
> techniques for romance with a horse.
Telling someone how they romance their horse is quite different than
saying they are on a quest to drive out all the undesirables. Which one
would you loathe, oh wait, I already know that, moot point.
>
> >I'm all for cleaning up fandom's image, but I am completely fed up with
> >the misguided and self-destructive tactics of the Burned Furs.
>
> And your solution for "cleaning up fandom's image" is...? Oh, right, for
> the BFs to shut up, which will solve everything. Gotta love these utopian
> idealists...
Oh my, should I say, "Way off base???", Nah, what the gent is trying to
say is that instead of shouting out about how the fandom is on a one way
trip to the crapper, they should try a less harsher approach. I'd rather
be asked to move out of a neighborhood than have somebody burn a icon of
religious importance on my lawn. (Oooh, I'm gonna get into trouble for
that remark.)
>
> >Hmm, maybe we won't
> >need 26 graves after all. We could just fill up the 6 shallow graves with
> >their severed heads, and leave their bodies stacked on the ground to rot.
>
> Well, kiLLRboY, since you don't have the stones to even sign off with your
> real name, I doubt you've the mental competence to avoid cutting yourself
> with your own guillotine. Whatta goob.
>
First of all, it was a figure of speech, sheesh! Second of all, yep, he
may be a troll, but he did make some sense, unlike some folks I know.
Oh yea, take a look at the bottom of this, yep, that's my real deal, it's
me, and I do have stones for sure.
--
Don Sanders
Dsan Tsan on #furry of Yiffnet
RoadKill Fur (Sun baked sorta but not burned!)
Artist at Roll Yer Own Graphics
http://www.dreamscape.com/dsand101/dsan.htm
(my furry page) Email dsan...@future.dreamscape.com
Scott Malcomson
>Yes, it reminds me of certain religious leaders (Falwell, Oral Roberts,
>Jimmy Bakker) who liked to shout about sin, but were secretly perverts or
>worse, perverted hypocrites, in one way or another.
Okay, I admit it. We Burned Furs have secretly managed to put together an
international cable network group with satellite feeds, and we hold
discourse on public television day in and day out, and only THIS brought the
attention of the press to the lifestylers. Mm-hm, yup, that's how it was,
officer. Not a single interview made by a lifestyler to any member of the
press had anything to do with it, nopenope! No responsibility *there*! -:>
>Now I'm wondering which of the Burned Furs have interesting things to
>hide... Will there be photos? Tearful confessions?
YO! Right here! I'm an inflataphile as well as a Burned Fur! And, and...oh
GOD! I post my erotica to a website already dedicated to inflataphilia,
without feeling a need to alert the press or link my stuff to Yahoo or tell
reporters that YEAH BY GOLLY *THIS* is what being furry is really all about!
How utterly wrong I've been not to trumpet my personal sex life from the
treetops for all these years, and to suggest that private sex kinks remain
private!
Oh, *Lord Almighty* how good it feels to get that off my chest! I'm out
of the helium tank at last! Hell, boy, I've been furfandom's *other*
inflatable unicorn for nearly as long as Xydexx has, and I've published a
helluva lot more inflatable art besides. You want holier-than-thou, go back
under your rock and look in a mirror.
Oh, and I'm also a conservative Christian who thinks that what people do
in the privacy of the bedroom is their own business as long as they keep it
there like everyone else. Suck it up and drive on, trooper.
Scott Malcomson
>cal...@goodnet.com
>> fur_...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>> >You know about the Six Shallow Graves - how it's said that all of
fandom's problems could be solved if we
>> >found the right people to fill those 6 graves? Seems to me we need about
26 now, so we could fill them
>> >with all of the Burned Furs.
>> Gotta love these free-speech/free-life enthusiasts who want to kill
people who disagree with them...
>Hmm, funny, I did not see any death threats, I must have missed that one.
I can understand your point of view, since in fact I *didn't* say he made
any death threats --- only that he wants to kill people who disagree with
him, which he states in his post. One can want to kill people, or even talk
about killing people, without making death threats, which is why so few
members of the KKK are in jail. Thought is not a crime, even though some
(like Mr. Jihad) seem to feel it should be punishable by death.
Of course, as I said before, I do not believe Mr. Jihad has the stones
to try it. He is merely someone whom it cannot be argued has an interest in
rational discourse, and whose sole value to this newsgroup is therefore to
provide comic relief. Ergo, I'm laughing at him. -:)
>Ya know, I'm not a lifestyler, but the whole affair was the last straw for
me. I guess I need to get real, get a
>grip, and get a sense of responsibility for my life, oh wait, I do have all
of those, had them for
>hmm, lets see, About 23 YEARS!
Then clearly, sir, I am not addressing you, as you could plainly see by a
clear-minded reading of my statement. Your consternation over my statement
that Burned Furs did not attract the press to lifestylers --- lifestylers
and media sensationalism did --- is therefore unfounded.
>Well, I have not done homework in years, but I did look into the matter.
There is a difference between
>discussing a matter in a civil matter to the media, and shouting about how
perverts are destroying the
>fandom.
None of which calls into question the accuracy of my statement.
>Funny thing about the media, when you use the word 'Perverts' and
>'Weirdos' in their presence, you know they have to dig deeper.
Correct, especially when the terms "perverts" and "weirdos" are used by
their media colleagues. Such as those at Loaded and Wired, whose articles
predate the Burned Fur movement's existence by years.
You are clearly working from the unfounded claim that press attention to
lifestylers would not exist if lifestylers' critics had simply avoided
criticizing them in fannish forums (which is where such criticism has been
restricted to). You further denigrate your own argument by refusing to
acknowledge that outspoken lifestylers, who have been quoted in various
press articles, bear any responsibility for the tone or substance of press
coverage.
>Sorry, I only take beach front property in Tenn.
Try Arizona; at least we have sand. -:)
>> And your solution for "cleaning up fandom's image" is...? Oh, right, for
>> the BFs to shut up, which will solve everything. Gotta love these
utopian idealists...
>Oh my, should I say, "Way off base???", Nah, what the gent is trying to
>say is that instead of shouting out about how the fandom is on a one way
>trip to the crapper, they should try a less harsher approach.
Actually, he has said no such thing. What he has said is that Burned Fur is
responsible for the press noticing lifestylers.
But you're right --- you *are* "way off base". First, I've *seen* every
approach used on lifestylers since '92. Every single suggestion concerning
reform, regardless of tone, has been met with hard-core flaming by
lifestylers. I have, for instance, been told by lifestylers that I am a
fascist and worse for suggesting that conventions restrict the access of
minors to NC17/X material. Alt.fan.furry went absolutely ballistic when I
broached the notion that wearing full-torso bondage gear in a hotel lobby
during ConFurence (which actually happened) was not a good idea. The only
time I ever hear lifestylers talking about how "civil" everyone should be is
when *they* are on the receiving end of the abuse. Vocal lifestylers,
however, seem to hold no reservations about doling out abuse to the Nth
degree --- demanding honey in return for vinegar.
Frankly, the Burned Fur movement would not exist if lifestylers were
willing to compromise on making public spectacles of themselves, or at least
to discuss the matter in an honorable and rational fashion. Lifestylers gave
them a reason to be angry; they're angry; being angry about their anger
doesn't solve a damn thing.
>I'd rather be asked to move out of a neighborhood than have somebody burn a
icon of
>religious importance on my lawn.
When someone burns an icon of zoophilia (or whatever your personal kick is)
on your property, I will say you're not being "way off base" on this count.
For now, I *will* say that you denigrate the suffering of black and Jewish
people in this nation, past and present, by suggesting that the criticism
aimed by BFs at lifestylers even *remotely* approaches the horrors REAL
minorities have endured.
>(Oooh, I'm gonna get into trouble for that remark.)
Only if you try it on Louis Farrakhan or your local rabbi.
>> >Hmm, maybe we won't need 26 graves after all. We could just fill up the
6 shallow graves with
>> >their severed heads, and leave their bodies stacked on the ground to
rot.
>First of all, it was a figure of speech, sheesh!
"We could just fill up the 6 shallow graves with their severed heads" is NOT
a figure of speech. There is no way to make that a FIGURATIVE statement.
"Way off base" really applies to you quite well.
>Second of all, yep, he may be a troll, but he did make some sense
His entire article was about how the Burned Furs --- not the lifestylers ---
are responsible for press coverage of lifestylers, even though lifestylers
have repeatedly talked to the press with no reservations. This makes sense
to you?
>Oh yea, take a look at the bottom of this, yep, that's my real deal, it's
me, and I do have stones for sure.
Don --- reality check, hm? Since the context of your statement above cannot
be construed to mean anything other than that you have the stones to do what
Jihad was talking about --- mass murder --- it's a legally actionable death
threat. The fact that you had enough time to think about it to write it
down and post it --- making it a written death threat --- would also tend to
work against a "heat of the moment" defense. Copy this thread down, show
it to a real lawyer, and let him slap you a while if you think it'll help.
No, I am not going to drag you into court --- I have a life, and you're not
worth my time since I don't honestly think you're a killer. Our legal
system has enough work to do without putting people behind bars for shooting
their mouths off. I would, however, appreciate it if you would get your
brain into first before applying the mouth next time.
Scott Malcomson
>The problem is (and always has been) the people who do/say things in public
>that should properly be kept under wraps. I haven't seen anyone parading
>their fetishes in public for months.
And, of course, if you don't do anything for months then the press forgets
all about it. You're right; Wired could not *possibly* have gotten their
data on plushophiles from anyone but Burned Furs --- although the Wired
article clearly points the reader to alt.lifestyle.furry, no one at Wired
could *possibly* have scanned the newsgroup lists for "weird stuff", found
an interesting-sounding name like alt.lifestyle.furry, and skimmed the group
for salacious data --- which would include plushophilia material. No, ONLY
a Burned Fur could have pointed Wired --- which in fact pioneered salacious
stories about furfandom --- to plushophiles. Mm-hm. How much did you say
that bridge was again?
>The Burned Furs are now doing all the public parading for them. Pardon me,
but I don't think I'm the only one
>who believes this is a bad idea.
Au contraire; you're merely in denial over the fact that lifestylers got
themselves into the hot water you're decrying. Just like a little child,
caught with the hand in the cookie jar, insisting that space aliens made him
do it.
>It's so contradictory how we always hear the BFs say, "We have nothing to
do with this or that", then they
>shout in public about this or that so much that they end up *strengthening*
the connection to fandom.
Nice conspiracy theory, except that there's nothing to indicate that this
actually happens. If you give credence to this sort of rattletrap
pseudologic, it's a safe bet you also have a bookcase loaded with JFK
conspiracy videos.
Scott Malcomson
Farlo wrote in message <8D63CCD...@news.fysh.org>...
>"Scott Malcomson" cal...@goodnet.com wrote in
>>YO! Right here! I'm an inflataphile as well as a Burned Fur!
>I *knew* it ... a closet Infaulteaphile secretly jealous of the
>*inflateaphiles*...
<extra pointless flamage clipped>
Hee, hee, hee! Boy, is that the best you can do? ROFLMAO! -:D All you've
proven is exactly what I had to say, that you're nothing but a whinyboy.
What a loser. -:)
D. J. Green
>I'm not Christian, just tolerant.
Yeah, you're so tolerant that you agree with someone wishing other people
dead. Wow, that speaks volumes about how tolerant you are.
--
"Life isn't fair" is a truism. It is *not* a license.
Farlo
>Farlo wrote in message <8D6345F...@news.fysh.org>...
>>Yes, it reminds me of certain religious leaders (Falwell, Oral Roberts,
>>Jimmy Bakker) who liked to shout about sin, but were secretly perverts
or
>>worse, perverted hypocrites, in one way or another.
>
>Okay, I admit it. We Burned Furs have secretly managed to put together an
>international cable network group with satellite feeds, and we hold
>discourse on public television day in and day out, and only THIS brought
the
>attention of the press to the lifestylers.
LOL. The biggest differences between Televangelists and the BF:
Televangelists have real money and attract many supporters.
>>Now I'm wondering which of the Burned Furs have interesting things to
>>hide... Will there be photos? Tearful confessions?
>
>YO! Right here! I'm an inflataphile as well as a Burned Fur!
I *knew* it ... a closet Infaulteaphile secretly jealous of the
*inflateaphiles*...
>And, and...oh
>GOD!
Yes? You said something? =;>
>How utterly wrong I've been not to trumpet my personal sex life from the
>treetops for all these years, and to suggest that private sex kinks
remain
>private!
Yeah, you BFs have been trumpeting against *EVERYONE ELSE'S* personal sex
life when you coulda been self-promoting your own agenda ... oh, wait - so
sorry - that *is* your agenda!
(Geez, does a barrel of fish come stocked any better than this? I think
not.)
> Oh, *Lord Almighty* how good it feels to get that off my chest! I'm
out
>of the helium tank at last!
Now isn't that better? or, wait ... say folks - you don't think that
Scotty is being sarcastic, do ya???
>You want holier-than-thou, go back
>under your rock and look in a mirror.
I'm not Christian, just tolerant. There was this funny man in an old book
who said, "Love your neighbor as yourself". Although I like this guy's
attitude muchly, the converse of what he says is that the people who shout
out their hate must not like themselves very much. Can any of our studio
audience point out a group that might have a self-esteem problem given
this little theory of mine?
> Oh, and I'm also a conservative Christian who thinks that what people
do
>in the privacy of the bedroom is their own business as long as they keep
it
>there like everyone else. Suck it up and drive on, trooper.
'Bought time, that. Live and let be!
Posts like Scotty's post are the whole reason that I have filters: It's
just too easy to offer up commentary ... G'bye Scotty ... you got the
stage but I can't promise any audience!!!
- Farlo
J.M.L.
: Heh, still more irony. The BFs say that their future employment prospects
: are threatened by association with fandom. After all the trouble they have
: caused (and especially after getting p-philes into Wired), these bigmouthed
: lunkheads don't even deserve a future *here* anymore!
: "If it's burned, THROW IT OUT!"
: JIHAD!
Who do you want to kill today?
Furry! Furry! Furry uber alles!
Whoops, damn that Godwin...
--
http://www.play.com -- Bride of the son of the curse of the Video Toaster.
J.M.L.
: Farlo wrote in message <8D63CCD...@news.fysh.org>...
: >"Scott Malcomson" cal...@goodnet.com wrote in
: >>YO! Right here! I'm an inflataphile as well as a Burned Fur!
: >I *knew* it ... a closet Infaulteaphile secretly jealous of the
: >*inflateaphiles*...
: <extra pointless flamage clipped>
: Hee, hee, hee! Boy, is that the best you can do? ROFLMAO! -:D All you've
: proven is exactly what I had to say, that you're nothing but a whinyboy.
: What a loser. -:)
You're blunt, you're opinions are clear and founded in reality, and
you're not afraid to tell people what you think.
What the hell are you doing in AFF?!?!
(note to the sarcastically challenged: this was a compliment, me boyo)
Brian O'connell
Some folks really need to get laid more often (if anything to give them
something *else* to do with their spare time)
The best thing about the net, is anyone can use it... The worst thing
about the net is, ANYONE can use it... Ya can quote me on that if you
dare...
J.M.L. wrote in message <79e8b8$b9e$1...@raccoon.fur.com>...
>fur_...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>: Heh, still more irony. The BFs say that their future employment prospects
>: are threatened by association with fandom. After all the trouble they
have
>: caused (and especially after getting p-philes into Wired), these
bigmouthed
>: lunkheads don't even deserve a future *here* anymore!
>
>: "If it's burned, THROW IT OUT!"
>
>: JIHAD!
>
> Who do you want to kill today?
>
> Furry! Furry! Furry uber alles!
>
> Whoops, damn that Godwin...
>
Scott Malcomson
Brian O'connell wrote in message <79eao6$gam$1...@crucigera.fysh.org>...
>Ya know, I ain't one to talk, but...
> Some folks really need to get laid more often (if anything to give them
>something *else* to do with their spare time) The best thing about the
net, is anyone can use it...
>The worst thing about the net is, ANYONE can use it... Ya can quote me on
that if you
>dare...
"With great power comes great responsibility." Now, if we could only find
some responsible people...
Scott Malcomson
> You're blunt, you're opinions are clear and founded in reality, and
>you're not afraid to tell people what you think.
>
> What the hell are you doing in AFF?!?!
I used to be on here a lot about a year ago, but one day an APAzine editor
told me to shut up for the sake of
everyone's peace and quiet. Respecting him, I decided to go get a life.
Recently, however, I had to post something about ZonieCon (the furry
convention I run here in Arizona), and in the process I saw the
flamers I had left behind were still in business and more vicious than ever.
I decided to have a little fun and their expense. So much for my departure
healing AFF's wounds.
> (note to the sarcastically challenged: this was a compliment, me boyo)
And duly noted, me laddybuck. -:)
Brian O'connell
Don't look at me, I'm as irresponsible as they come! Best I can say is
stop taking yerselves so goddamned seriously... Ahwell, see my response to
the 'Yep... Still ignoring all trolls and flamebat' thread...
Mebbe stating the facts and truth for me is the best way to use my
responsibility... Ahwell...
Scott Malcomson wrote in message ...
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
>fur_...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
>>The problem is (and always has been) the people who do/say things in public
>>that should properly be kept under wraps. I haven't seen anyone parading
>>their fetishes in public for months.
>
>And, of course, if you don't do anything for months then the press forgets
>all about it.
I'd hate to tell you this but for the most part todays media has the
attention of a hypercaffinated ferrit.
--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
http://www.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.
? The platypus' furry art and lititure
compertision http://www.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/rules.html
Victry "Vixy" Hyzenthlay
>Gotta love these free-speech/free-life enthusiasts who want to kill people
>who disagree with them...
Another burned freak cries FOUL! Just hilarious. :D
They don't like it when their own behavior is turned against them.
Lest anyone forgets... http://vision.nais.com/~blumrich/plush.html.
Can we say double standards? Yes, burned freaks want to be free to
rant and threaten whomever they don't like but the way they whine
and squirm when they are the target is just embarrassing.
=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+
Victry 'love long and perspire; Vixy' Hyzenthlay
Technofox and personal Vixen. "YIP!"
Furry Fan WITH a Furry Lifestyle and PURRfectly content! :>
_____________________
/ \ _
)""""\___ |- - - - - - - - - - - -| |_\____
)----| |\-| Vivacious Vixen II |-/| | |\
)____|___|=============================| """|_)
`----' \|http://members.xoom.com/Vixy |/"""""
"""|"""""""/"""""\"""""""|"""
Victry{nospam}@- `=++++=" "=++++=' -@{remove}juno;com
Please post any response to this newsgroup. Thanks.
Victry "Vixy" Hyzenthlay
>Yeah, you're so tolerant that you agree with someone wishing other people
>dead.
If that is the case, http://vision.nais.com/~blumrich/plush.html
speaks volumes for you and the rest of the burned freaks. ;)
Farlo
<slrn7blkk8....@godzilla.zeta.org.au>:
>I'd hate to tell you this but for the most part todays media has the
>attention of a hypercaffinated ferrit.
Kiki the ferret?
=D
Mzigo Kobe
> You're right; Wired could not *possibly* have gotten their
> data on plushophiles from anyone but Burned Furs --- although the Wired
> article clearly points the reader to alt.lifestyle.furry, no one at Wired
> could *possibly* have scanned the newsgroup lists for "weird stuff", found
> an interesting-sounding name like alt.lifestyle.furry, and skimmed the group
> for salacious data --- which would include plushophilia material. No, ONLY
> a Burned Fur could have pointed Wired --- which in fact pioneered salacious
> stories about furfandom --- to plushophiles. Mm-hm. How much did you say
> that bridge was again?
Let's see. DejaNews search for "plushophilia" in alt.lifestyle.furry gives me:
----- 8< clip & save 8< -----
Messages 1-13 of exactly 13 matches for search plushophilia ~g (alt.lifestyle.furry):
Date Scr Subject Forum Author
1. 99/01/30 034 Re: NOT SO! #1/2 alt.lifestyle.furry Artax
2. 99/01/27 034 Survey results: Kurvey, Nurv alt.lifestyle.furry Locandez
3. 99/01/23 034 Re: My sole deliberate post alt.lifestyle.furry Kai Robinson
4. 99/01/23 033 Re: My sole deliberate p#1/2 alt.lifestyle.furry Robin91783
5. 99/01/23 033 Re: My sole deliberate p#1/4 alt.lifestyle.furry Tim Gadd
6. 99/01/22 033 Re: My sole deliberate post alt.lifestyle.furry Peter da Silva
7. 99/01/18 033 Re: Sympathy for Burned Furs alt.lifestyle.furry Kimba W. Lion
8. 99/01/17 033 Re: Sympathy for Burned #2/2 alt.lifestyle.furry Lucius
9. 99/01/22 032 Re: My sole deliberate p#2/2 alt.lifestyle.furry Lucius
10. 99/01/18 032 Re: Smoking Fur........... alt.lifestyle.furry GothTiger
11. 99/01/16 032 Sympathy for Burned Furs#2/2 alt.lifestyle.furry Kai Robinson
12. 99/01/22 031 My sole deliberate post to A alt.lifestyle.furry Cadfan ap Morga
13. 99/01/17 031 Re: Sympathy for Burned #1/2 alt.lifestyle.furry Lucius
----- 8< clip & save 8< -----
*Mzigo.
--
http://welcome.to/alt.binaries.games.creatures [An archive of abgc]
"We have seen the future, and it is covered in luxuriant tufts of fur."
FDTcs2adfw A C- D H++ M+ P++ R T++ W- Z- Sm
RLA/CT a- clmn+++ d-- e+ f+++ h-- iw++ j+ p sm
Farlo
Alt.fan.furry outranks alt.lifestyle.furry as the more appropriate
newsgroup (see the "confidence" rankings on Dejanews).
Here's the data from dejanews:
-------------------------------------
Interest Finder Results
All 2 forums matching search plushophilia:
Confidence: Forum:
+++++ alt.fan.furry
++++- alt.lifestyle.furry
-------------------------------------
Here's a link to the data:
http://www.dejanews.com/qs.xp?QRY=plushophilia&OP=query_profile.xp&ST=QS&D
BS=2
- farlo
T. Woolfe
even funnier look at the count per poster
T.
Donald E. Sanders
says...
*** Ya know I had to reply to this. ***
Ok, time to play "Perry Masonite" here. Yes, I did look at my reply, in
fact, I got it up on the screen looking at it, and examining it, picking
it apart bit by bit!!! First of all, I only agreed about the freakin
finger pointing, not mass murder. Hmm, putting words in my mouth?? It
would be the same way as somebody agreeing with you being called a
racist. In that case, we would be even. I can agree to alot of things
but only by my written consent, With My Signature, would it be binding!!!
Sheeh! That is the problem when the common man deals with those who know
a little law, (Yes, I am assuming that anyone who runs for public office
of any way shape or form knows legal means) Good ole fashion baffling
and BS does confuse the common man, causing them to make possible
mistakes such as what you quoted. Although I do consider myself slightly
above the common man, I do know my roots. So if you said I actually made
a death threat, how can I argue that??? Now Jihad, He/she/it is a
different story!!! As for my statement about having stones, it was to
refer to the fact that I do use my real name in posts! I don't hide
behind nicknames when I want to write what I want to say! Yes, I do need
a swift slap of reality. But I rather have it done by myself than a
lawyer, why should I pay for nothing?
>
> No, I am not going to drag you into court --- I have a life, and you're not
> worth my time since I don't honestly think you're a killer. Our legal
> system has enough work to do without putting people behind bars for shooting
> their mouths off. I would, however, appreciate it if you would get your
> brain into first before applying the mouth next time.
>
Oh, should I respond to the quote above???? Should I be shaking in my
boots???? No, I'm going to think this out rationally as I type this.
Yes, it would be quite a bother dragging my behind into court, it seems
petty at best, but it seems it's the pastime of anyone who considers
themselves above all others. Me a Killer??? Only if you count my 14
years in the military serving my country, and all I ever killed was paper
targets and simulated enemies. I guess the way I am taking this, If
everyone had an opinion, then the jails would be overflowing.
Yes, my earlier reply was knee-jerk, considering this whole subject has
been grinding on everyone's nerves since the truce broke after christmas.
As for engaging brain before shooting off mouth, Good advice, I would
follow it, but considering the current environment of A.F.F, sometimes
shouting gets more attention than subtle debating.
As far as I am concern, I will butt out of any affairs concerning Burned
Furs and Lifestylers. Unless my path is crossed again, then I will speak
my mind, I will say what I think, and of course I will respond when I am
intimidated. For all others, what you see here is a fine example of what
happens when a burning subject tears at a person's soul who felt at ease
with the fandom up until two years ago when this mess all started!
Watch and wonder, this could happen to you!
--
Don Sanders
Dsan Tsan on #furry of Yiffnet
RoadKill Fur (Sun baked sorta but not burned!)
(A person too poor to be sued!)
Paul R. Bennett
results. As I recall, X-no-archive is(or was) quite popular. Does that affect
what postings may or may not be archived there? How about people writing and
requesting their postings be removed?
Paul
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
> One can infer that those individuals using X-No-Archive do not want
> their posts kept on file. Therefore, the data stands as is - the
> group with the greatest amount of posts on file and the greatest
> apparent (vs total) amount of interested posters is AFF.
Word count does not Content make.
And it is a valid point that x-no-archive would skew the results (I imagine
it's mostly done by those who would speak favorably of such practices and
don't wish to lose their jobs after someone does a search.), as well as the
commonly seen practice on a.l.f of deliberately mis-spelling certain key words
so that they don't get caught in word counts.
--
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.
StukaFox
: I'm not Christian, just tolerant.
Survey says --
_BZZZZZZZZZZT_
So sorry, but thanks for playing.
StukaFox
Farlo
<36BB8CE6...@alltel.net>:
>One big question here in your deja-news search which may or may not skew
the
>results. As I recall, X-no-archive is(or was) quite popular. Does that
affect
>what postings may or may not be archived there? How about people writing
and
>requesting their postings be removed?
One can infer that those individuals using X-No-Archive do not want their
posts kept on file. Therefore, the data stands as is - the group with the
greatest amount of posts on file and the greatest apparent (vs total)
amount of interested posters is AFF.
- Farlo
Dr. Cat
: All 2 forums matching search plushophilia:
: Confidence: Forum:
: +++++ alt.fan.furry
: ++++- alt.lifestyle.furry
: -------------------------------------
Hmmmm. Hmm hmm hmmmmm.
*think think think*
Hmmmmm.
I've got it! You know what this thread is? It's the first time that the
Burned Furs and their opponents are in TOTAL agreement about ANYTHING!
What's this, you say? Dr. Cat, have you lost your marbles? AGAIN?!
But wait, hear me out on this one.
The Burned Fur position: "Although both we and they have talked
publically about plushophiles, it is 100% certain in this case that
THEY are the ones WIRED picked up on it from for their short blurb."
Their opponentses position: "Although both we and they have talked
publically about plushophiles, it is 100% certain in this case that
THEY are the ones WIRED picked up on it from for their short blurb."
Now that the two groups are in TOTAL accord on a contentious issue, I
expect rapid consensus to break out on all other subjects, and lots of
spontaneous hugging to occur between BFs and their former enemies
(lifestyler and non-lifestyler enemies alike).
It's too bad that both the groups agree on something that is wrong
because of, like, flawed logic and stuff. But hey, at least they
agree on it and now maybe that they see they're so alike all the
arguing will stop, which is all I'm really looking fur.
(Of course, I don't expect to SEE it, I'm just looking for it. I mean,
if people were SMART then all the christians and jews and muslims killing
each other over who gets Jerusalem over the centuries woulda stopped and
wondered "Gee, why do we all have the SAME holy city in these TOTALLY
different religions? 'Cause you would think we would have different ones
and not have to fight over it!" And then they would READ a bit and go
"Well holy shit, this Old Testament is about the same as their Torah and
the that Koran has a buncha the same parts in it too! We're fighting
over this city because we're all the SAME FUCKING RELIGION with just a
few details changed over the last few centuries or millenia. Hell, let's
stop killing each other now and go get a beer together.)
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
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: I think Brian's right, and I should just go have sex instead
of reading this junk. If it's anywhere near as much fun as it looks in
those lovely drawings of his I bet I would enjoy it more than this. But
then heck, that's not much of a compliment, I bet smoothing the bumps off
my tongue with a power sander is more fun than this too!)
(Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!)
Chris Johnson
<cal...@goodnet.com> wrote:
> Donald E. Sanders wrote in message ...
>>I'd rather be asked to move out of a neighborhood than have somebody burn a
>>icon of religious importance on my lawn.
> When someone burns an icon of zoophilia (or whatever your personal kick is)
> on your property, I will say you're not being "way off base" on this count.
> For now, I *will* say that you denigrate the suffering of black and Jewish
> people in this nation, past and present, by suggesting that the criticism
> aimed by BFs at lifestylers even *remotely* approaches the horrors REAL
> minorities have endured.
Dsan _is_ a black man, and you are a damned fool, Scott, for thinking
he uses this cautious metaphor unthinkingly. He is fully aware of the
implications. Maybe _you_ don't really understand what it's like to be
discriminated against? I'm glad large parts of the world no longer give a
damn about skin color- some more officially, and some genuinely no longer
care about that sort of thing. However, Don's not a kid- and he's wise in
a quiet way- and maybe, just _maybe_ he has a better idea what intolerance
is about than you do.
I'm sorry. I just had to say that, largely because it just irritates me
to see you trying to tell Dsan what not to suggest. You don't know what
you're doing, at all, do you? You've no idea what you're trying to stir
up. I think Dsan is quite correct in his perception.
Jinx_tigr
(aka Chris Johnson)
Brian O'connell
"All we are assssyyyyingg, is give fur a channnncce...."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>(Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!)
D. J. Green
Victry \"Vixy\" Hyzenthlay <n...@na.na> wrote:
>D. J. Green wrote in message <79e843$qsg$1...@shell3.ba.best.com>...
>>Yeah, you're so tolerant that you agree with someone wishing other people
>>dead.
>
> If that is the case, http://vision.nais.com/~blumrich/plush.html
>speaks volumes for you and the rest of the burned freaks. ;)
'For you and...'? Would you mind telling me precisely when I joined the
'Burned Fur' movement? I seem to have missed the moment.
Oh, and, incidentally, punctuating everything with a winking smilie does not
make you cute, despite whatever you seem to believe.
Scott Malcomson
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) wrote in message ...
>In article <v6vu2.369$45....@news.goodnet.com>, Scott Malcomson wrote:
>>And, of course, if you don't do anything for months then the press forgets
all about it.
>I'd hate to tell you this but for the most part todays media has the
>attention of a hypercaffinated ferrit.
For the most part, media has not yet *heard* of furfandom. Less than a
dozen articles pertaining to the fandom are in general circulation.
However, anyone who knows anything about media knows that hypercaffienated
ferret reporters love to jump on salacious stories once they hear one. We
are witnessing a slow snowballing effect, where once there was no interest
in furfandom --- then the Wired article on FurryMuck --- which prompted the
Loaded reporters to go to CF to look for smut --- and so on.
More and more reporters for more and more news organizations are hearing
about a group of people who fetishize animals. Expect more reporters than
ever to be at CF10 on basis of what they've heard from their colleagues.
All it's going to take is one tactless goober doing an impromptu striptease
or bondage display of any sort for furries to be in more magazines than ever
before. Of course, with the history lifestylers have of not being
responsible for anything, clearly all this will be the fault of the Burned
Fur movement, who should of course all be killed in the name of tolerance
according to certain lifestylers.
Scott Malcomson
Victry "Vixy" Hyzenthlay wrote in message
<79etb6$olq$1...@cheddar.netmonger.net>...
>Scott Malcomson wrote in message ...
>>who disagree with them...
> Another burned freak cries FOUL! Just hilarious. :D
Hee, hee! You're right! Talking about murder and mutilation of fellow furs
is so humorous! -:D
>They don't like it when their own behavior is turned against them.
>Lest anyone forgets... http://vision.nais.com/~blumrich/plush.html.
BWAHAHAHAHHAAA! Eric BLUMRICH, Mr. "Give Me Drano Or Give Me Death"?
HAHAHAHAHAHA!
That guy doesn't need BF or plushophiles to hate lifestylers, and if you'd
bothered to check the website you've cited you'd know that. His loathing of
lifestylers predates the BFs by oh, about *TEN YEARS*!
Of course, since you choose to pick the worst possible case out of any BF to
represent the whole, you won't mind if I cite Jihad as representing all
lifestylers. For that matter, plenty of lifestylers have defended Jihad to
the hilt, and none have opposed him, while numerous BFers opposed Blumrich's
ranting. Clearly, that makes *us* more rational and openminded than
*you*! -:>
>Can we say double standards?
I knew you could. Must be lovely being the hypocrite decrying hypocrisy that
you are. -:)
Scott Malcomson
Victry "Vixy" Hyzenthlay wrote in message
>D. J. Green wrote in message <79e843$qsg$1...@shell3.ba.best.com>...
>>Yeah, you're so tolerant that you agree with someone wishing other people
dead.
> If that is the case, http://vision.nais.com/~blumrich/plush.html
>speaks volumes for you and the rest of the burned freaks. ;)
Of course, it also speaks volumes that you feel murderous slander against an
entire group is justified on
basis of the actions of a single member of that group. Oh, does the
openmindedness ever START? -:D
Scott Malcomson
Mzigo Kobe wrote in message <1zk4ok...@Talge-C11-A.southern.edu>...
>"Scott Malcomson" <cal...@goodnet.com> spoke:
>> no one at Wired could *possibly* have scanned the newsgroup lists for
"weird stuff", found
>> an interesting-sounding name like alt.lifestyle.furry, and skimmed the
group for salacious data
>Let's see. DejaNews search for "plushophilia" in alt.lifestyle.furry gives
me:
Yes, of course: Wired would know the term "plushophilia" BEFORE skimming the
newsgroup for anything interesting. They're psychic, you know, and would
not just call up the entire newsgroup and actually read it to obtain
keywords in the first place.
Do you also bury landmines before setting the fuse, or jump on them to
ensure they're active?
Scott Malcomson
Farlo wrote in message <8D64672...@news.fysh.org>...
>I searched Dejanews for Forums pertaining to Plushophilia, and
Yeah, yeah, someone already claimed that Wired knew the term "plushophilia"
before scanning the newsgroup itself. You're too slow to suggest Wired
staffers have psychic powers.
Scott Malcomson
>expect rapid consensus to break out on all other subjects, and lots of
>spontaneous hugging to occur between BFs and their former enemies
>(lifestyler and non-lifestyler enemies alike).
Nice try, but while many BFers MIGHT be able to concur that their own
statements on AFF and elsewhere *may* have helped Wired find the stuff ---
fact is, no one knows for sure HOW it happened, this is all conjecture ---
lifestylers have been and are adamant in claiming the fault is entirely that
of BFers.
Throughout these flamewars, it has been Burned Fur members who have
reconsidered and adjusted their views, admitted to being needlessly
vitriolic on various occasions, and have owned up at least in part to
responsibility for their actions. Yet today, lifestylers continue to
encourage flamewars by defending vitriol of the worst kind --- suggested
murder and slander.
While I applaud your suggestion that peace is at hand, even though
tongue-in-cheek, responsibility for actions is the core issue and
lifestylers don't demonstrate that they have any.
>"Well holy shit, this Old Testament is about the same as their Torah and
>the that Koran has a buncha the same parts in it too! We're fighting
>over this city because we're all the SAME FUCKING RELIGION with just a
>few details changed over the last few centuries or millenia. Hell, let's
>stop killing each other now and go get a beer together.)
Would be nice, wouldn't it?
Scott Malcomson
Donald E. Sanders wrote in message ...
Try learning something about law. It's called a library. They have books
on law there. How do you think *I* know this stuff, *osmosis*? Like I
said, I don't really think you're a latent mass murderer; only that shooting
your mouth off without understanding potential consequences CAN get you in
hot water. I understand what it is to get overheated, and I therefore try
to make concessions for people --- this is due to over a decade of net
experience. Someone with less ability --- or desire --- to see where you're
coming from could easily have had the cops on your doorstep within a few
hours of your post hitting the net. I'm not that dumb or spiteful. Someone
else might be someday.
>Now Jihad, He/she/it is a different story!!! As for my statement about
having stones, it was to
>refer to the fact that I do use my real name in posts!
I understand that. Your wording, however, did not *indicate* that. Any
good lawyer could draw a line between Jihad's statement (and its apparent
semiseriousness), my statement that he didn't "have the stones", and your
statement that you DID "have the stones", and conclude that a death threat
was a reasonable way to interpret your message. Be CAREFUL out there,
man...it's a big and sometimes nasty net. Knowledge saves, lack of
knowledge can harm.
>> No, I am not going to drag you into court --- I have a life, and you're
not
>> worth my time since I don't honestly think you're a killer.
>Oh, should I respond to the quote above???? Should I be shaking in my
boots????
Do you think I said that to make you shake in your boots or to make you
think about your actions? Hm? Machismo is worth exactly as much as the
electrons it takes to convey it to someone else on the net. I don't know,
or need to know, whether you're quaking in your boots or not. I don't get
off on that crap; it's pointless.
>Me a Killer??? Only if you count my 14
>years in the military serving my country, and all I ever killed was paper
>targets and simulated enemies.
Four in the Third Armored Cavalry Regiment, here. AY-EE-AH, trooper! -:)
>Yes, my earlier reply was knee-jerk, considering this whole subject has
>been grinding on everyone's nerves since the truce broke after christmas.
>As for engaging brain before shooting off mouth, Good advice, I would
>follow it, but considering the current environment of A.F.F, sometimes
>shouting gets more attention than subtle debating.
I thank you for your open and rational discourse, and I understand where
you're coming from. Mind you, I *haven't* been here in about a year, but I
will say that this kind of thing has been going on for much longer than most
people have been on AFF. It's a vicious, recurring cycle.
>As far as I am concern, I will butt out of any affairs concerning Burned
>Furs and Lifestylers. Unless my path is crossed again, then I will speak
>my mind, I will say what I think, and of course I will respond when I am
>intimidated.
Understood and respected.
Victry "Vixy" Hyzenthlay
>represent the whole, you won't mind if I cite Jihad as representing all
Cite away. And in the morrow, Furry Fandom will be happily the same in
spite of anything you and the burned freaks do. ;)
Scott Malcomson
a
>>>icon of religious importance on my lawn.
>
>> When someone burns an icon of zoophilia (or whatever your personal kick
is)
>> on your property, I will say you're not being "way off base" on this
count.
> Dsan _is_ a black man, and you are a damned fool, Scott, for thinking
>he uses this cautious metaphor unthinkingly.
Then YOU know that HE should know better. He and I have come to terms, and
he has admitted to acting in a kneejerk fashion. I understand and
appreciate why, and we have parted on good terms. Being black is not a
"cure" for insensitivity, even to one's own minority, as the NAACP has been
quick to point out on numerous occasions.
>He is fully aware of the implications. Maybe _you_ don't really understand
what it's like to be
>discriminated against?
Yeah, I WASN'T nearly fired from Microsoft for posting a flyer for
ZonieCon --- in the proper areas for such things --- that featured a
fully-clothed furry feline femme in a non-sexual pose. The charge? "Sexual
harassment". Why was this sexual harassment? Because "we know what you
furries are *really* about", was the answer. I fought it and hit a wall of
deaf ears that nearly cost me my job. I FOUGHT to defend furfandom; to show
them that spooge wasn't what we were all about, that my flyer didn't even
meet the company's actual harassment criteria.
WHY does a Microsoft subcontractor (who will not be named for legal
reasons) think furries equate to sexual harassment? Because THAT's what an
employee found on the Internet while surfing; spooge galore, much of it
linked to major search engines by very common keywords. Word got around the
office about "these perverts", virtually every woman on site was thoroughly
disgusted, and that's all you need these days to get something declared
"sexual harassment". When I put up my flyer, one of those women lodged a
complaint, and I hit an absolute stone wall trying to explain that my flyer
clearly didn't meet any of the criteria that got furfandom as a whole
branded.
Do *I* know what it is to be discriminated against? Oh, no, I'm not
black or Jewish or Hispanic or a woman. I couldn't POSSIBLY have been
DISCRIMINATED against for any reason at all. They were RIGHT to universally
declare furry material as "sexual harassment". You betcha.
BTW --- I hardcopied and saved the email between myself and Human
Resources, in case I had to go to court over it. I am willing to send you
copies of the flyer in question, the letters from HR, and my responses, in
return for expenses in copying and shipping; I will, however, have to mark
out any reference to the subcontractor I worked for, or they would sue me
for "defamation" if any of it reached the net. *I* put my facts where my
mouth is, my good man.
Victry "Vixy" Hyzenthlay
>against an entire group is justified on basis of the actions of a
>single member of that group. Oh, does the openmindedness ever
>START? -:D
Well let me put it to you like I did the other burned freaks...
*prove* that Jihad whosawhatever is a Furry Lifestyler or be the
a burned liar with the rest (like you aren't already ;). My thoughts?
Just another attempt by the burned burned freaks to troll and drum up
some sympathy. It is a FACT that the the burned freaks do this...
*proof* is when Lancid/TeamWolves got *caught* in the act, then
confessed.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
>
>David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) wrote in message ...
[...]
>>I'd hate to tell you this but for the most part todays media has the
>>attention of a hypercaffinated ferrit.
>
>
>For the most part, media has not yet *heard* of furfandom. Less than a
>dozen articles pertaining to the fandom are in general circulation.
For all the talk about Furries bad press no one has meantion the
recent good comments in "Asimov's Science Fiction Magizine"
http://www.sfsite.com/asimovs/columns/kelly05.htm
Its not yay yay furry is all good. But it reads with a more or less
positive tone.
--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
http://www.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.
? The platypus' furry art and lititure
compertision http://www.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/rules.html
Donald E. Sanders
chr...@airwindows.com says...
> In article <sHuu2.320$45....@news.goodnet.com>, "Scott Malcomson"
> <cal...@goodnet.com> wrote:
>
> > Donald E. Sanders wrote in message ...
> >>I'd rather be asked to move out of a neighborhood than have somebody burn a
> >>icon of religious importance on my lawn.
>
> > When someone burns an icon of zoophilia (or whatever your personal kick is)
> > on your property, I will say you're not being "way off base" on this count.
> > people in this nation, past and present, by suggesting that the criticism
> > aimed by BFs at lifestylers even *remotely* approaches the horrors REAL
> > minorities have endured.
>
> implications. Maybe _you_ don't really understand what it's like to be
> damn about skin color- some more officially, and some genuinely no longer
> care about that sort of thing. However, Don's not a kid- and he's wise in
> a quiet way- and maybe, just _maybe_ he has a better idea what intolerance
> is about than you do.
Thanks Jinx, It is good to know that somebody out there can listen with
their heart and senses then listen to the books and the letter of the
law. If I took folks to court for every worded injustice done to me, I
would be more broke than I am now, and a much bitter person for doing so.
In my very sad attempt to try and point out that some of Jihad's
observations, (Not the violent ones! special note to make sure I don't
get into trouble this time!!!) did make some sense.
>
> I'm sorry. I just had to say that, largely because it just irritates me
> to see you trying to tell Dsan what not to suggest. You don't know what
> you're doing, at all, do you? You've no idea what you're trying to stir
> up. I think Dsan is quite correct in his perception.
Hey, don't worry about it, I'll be fine. I just gotta make a note to
watch who I reply to, in the case of Scott, (If I can call him Scott), I
hit a very sour note with that one. I sure hope Carla(I hope I spelled
her first name right) knows what she is getting into with this guy on the
team. Sheesh! I already read his reply to my reply and sad to say, I
will not reply to it. Perhaps somebody should write a book on "How to
enjoy the fandom without worrying about getting sued!"
--
Don Sanders
Dsan Tsan on #furry of Yiffnet
RoadKill Fur (Sun baked sorta but not burned!)
Scott Malcomson
Victry "Vixy" Hyzenthlay wrote in message
>Scott Malcomson wrote in message ...
in
>spite of anything you and the burned freaks do. ;)
Yes, Vixy, you will still be pointlessly flaming for kicks and avoiding any
talk of resolution of real problems, since of course there aren't any in
your mind that aren't solvable by mass murder. -:)
Scott Malcomson
>Scott Malcomson <cal...@goodnet.com> wrote:
>: Of course, it also speaks volumes that you feel murderous slander against
an
>: entire group is justified on basis of the actions of a single member of
that group.
>Why not? You seem to feel justified in taking potshots at all the
>so-called lifestylers over the actions of a very few of them.
Bingo. Thank you for admitting you're not justified; just "equally
hypocritical". I've made it very clear that I'm talking about a few
lifestylers, I've said openly here that most lifestylers are nice people.
I've made no bones about the fact, as well, that lifestylers *avoid* and
*flame* suggestions for reform, that lifestylers go to the press about their
personal kinks, and that if any lifestylers DO want to resolve problems in
furfandom they don't bother to speak up, letting people like Jihad speak
*for* them.
Not all Christians are like Jerry Falwell. Doesn't keep lifestylers from
flaming all Christians. Burned Furs didn't sic Wired on plushophiles.
Doesn't keep lifestylers from saying BFs should be killed, and it doesn't
keep lifestylers from attacking people who oppose the idea.
Burned Furs can be easily slammed by holding up Blumrich to represent them
all. But to slam lifestylers? I have half a dozen and more *lifestylers*
who all ACT like Blumrich to choose from. "Equally hypocritical".
>The original idea of Six Shallow Graves certainly wasn't formulated by a
lifestyler.
You're right. It's an OLD quip, dating to early sci-fi fandom. Go bitch at
Gene Roddenberry...well, he's dead. Try...Asimov? Pournelle? Pournelle. I
think he's still alive. You go tell him he's an asshole for being one of
the guys who came up with it; I bet you'll feel better in the morning.
> Jihad simply took the idea and turned it around.
Uh, yeah. Calling for the death of specific people, in a specific manner.
Y'know, people have been asking me: "so who's defending Jihad? No one with
an ounce of sense would defend Jihad; he's an obvious troll with no point".
I can now tell them "Karl Meyer, for one. He thinks Jihad's comments are
justified".
Scott Malcomson
Karl Meyer wrote in message <79i1ss$4ju$2...@eve.enteract.com>...
>Scott Malcomson <cal...@goodnet.com> wrote:
>: Nice try, but while many BFers MIGHT be able to concur that their own
>: statements on AFF and elsewhere *may* have helped Wired find the
stuff ---
>: fact is, no one knows for sure HOW it happened, this is all
conjecture ---
>: lifestylers have been and are adamant in claiming the fault is entirely
that of BFers.
>A very small minority of them maybe since that's all we've heard from.
Like I said, MIGHT. That's a damned sight more honest than we're hearing
from the lifestylers.
>It's entirely possible that some regular old furry fans feel the same way.
>That would probably cause them to be put in the lifestyler catagory by you
>however.
As I've explained already --- clearly you aren't reading everything you're
responding to --- "lifestyler" is a term used to denote someone who insists
on promoting their sexual lifestyle publically. This, obviously, does NOT
include all plushophiles, bestialists, et al. It includes only those people
who have fought tenaciously to keep from having to act like people NOT
interested in their lifestyles should be given consideration.
Lifestylers have done every single thing which has given furfandom a bad
public reputation, insisting the whole time that giving the smallest of
considerations to their fellow furries is "censorship" and worse. Like not
wearing bondage gear in public places at a convention, or telling reporters
how they have sex with RL animals...suggesting these are bad things for the
public to see and hear has been the spark for some of the worst flamewars in
furfandom history, and to this day no lifestyler has stood up and said,
"Hey, maybe we OUGHT to be a little more considerate and not do stuff like
that in public". So far, the only defense mounted has been, "Hey, YOU'RE
talking about it publically, so you're a hypocrite and I don't have to
listen to you [begin flames here, don't stop until all non-lifestylers shut
up about it]".
>: Throughout these flamewars, it has been Burned Fur members who have
>: reconsidered and adjusted their views
>This is a good thing.
You miss the point completely...that is, BFs are MORE TOLERANT AND
UNDERSTANDING THAN *LIFESTYLERS*. Lifestylers are WORSE than BFs because
BFs can admit being wrong and *lifestylers* have yet to admit to anything.
>: Yet today, lifestylers continue to encourage flamewars by defending
vitriol of the worst kind --- suggested
>: murder and slander.
>When a non-lifestyler or Burned Fur does this it's sarcasm, parody, and
artistic license.
But of course, when a LIFESTYLER does it, it *is* sarcasm, parody and
artistic license. Either you think you're supporting something scummy and
low, or you think this kind of thing is justifiable --- in which case, you
also justify the BFs.
I'll tell you, sonny jim, the veiled death threats and such have been
flying for years on AFF. Plenty of BFs think they're justified in what
*they* say on basis of what lifestylers said to and about *them*.
Congratulations, you've just become the Hatfields to their McCoys. No one
may even *remember* the exact reason for the start of the feud, but by God
you'll keep at it until someone actually gets killed, won't you? Where ELSE
do you think it's going to end, except in hugs and kisses, and you've done a
REAL good job going in THAT direction, right?
> When a so-called lifestyler does it, you treat it as a serious threat.
Yup, it's pretty obvious you haven't bothered reading what I've written. My
first reply to Jihad was that he didn't have the stones to try it, so it was
obvious he was blowing smoke. Nothing *in* his post appeared to the
untrained eye to be parody, and for all the casual observer might know, the
guy *was* a latent psychotic willing to kill someone over the
lifestyle/non-lifestyle feud. People have murdered for less.
Fortunately, I've been on the net for long enough to spot a troll like
that, and I had fun pricking his little bubble rather than freaking out and
calling the cops that I was being stalked by a vicious would-be serial
killer. Some people WOULD do that, some just for spite. I'm not that
stupid and I'm not that low.
I also replied to denounce the idiotic allegation that BFs --- who
adamantly DON'T want furfandom's various kinks bruited about in the
press --- sicced Wired on the plushophiles. The fact that lifestylers
actually rose to Jihad's defense on both counts --- that talk of murder is
okay because someone else did it first, and that lifestylers could in NO way
be responsible for the Wired blurb --- shot big raggedly holes in the
pretense you lot hold to being rational, or being deserving of polite
treatment. THAT's why I posted "Lifestylers: a Timeline of Responsibility".
If you act like a twit, I'll treat you like one.
>That sounds like what is called a double standard.
You might note that at no time have I suggested that "Six Shallow Graves"
was polite or appropriate. I have NEVER defended it. Nor did I know it
existed until someone mentioned it as justification for "26 Shallow Graves".
DON'T expect me to give YOUR slander and talk of mass murder approval or
understanding, when I don't give it to anyone else for similar tripe.
Scott Malcomson
Jaffa Tamarin wrote in message <36bc7a2c...@news.fur.com>...
>"Scott Malcomson"<cal...@goodnet.com> wrote:
>>Hee, hee! You're right! Talking about murder and mutilation of fellow furs
>>is so humorous! -:D
>Gee. Is this the same "Scott Malcomson" who wrote just a few days ago
>>Last year, there was an impromptu bayonet charge,
>>with everyone who brought one "running what they brung" to impale the
>>effigies of two notorious furfandom fanboys. I was not able to attend
>>myself, but according to those who did a fine time was had by all.
Absolutely correct. We did not suggest it was right or proper to hunt down
and kill these two men, or to cut off their heads and leave the bodies to
rot. Instead, we took our aggressions regarding "Bondage Bob" and "George"
(of George Comix fame) on bits of straw and cloth.
Not one ZonieCon member has, even in jest, suggested actual murder be
committed.
>Pot. Kettle. You know the drill.
Oh, yes, I'm sure you do...considering that whatever WE do at ZonieCon does
not excuse YOUR foul behavior on AFF. It may make us hypocrites --- in your
opinion --- but it does not make us people who will defend someone's
suggestion of mass murder to score brownie points. Like you.
>Side-comment on the subject of "socially acceptable behaviour" aka
>"stuff I wouldn't tell my mother". I was brought up in England, so
>maybe it's one of those trans-Atlantic things, but personally I'd be a
>lot happier telling my mother I hang out with people who have sex with
>animals, rather then with people who entertain themselves with
>simulated murders.
Have you told your mother you're DEFENDING someone who entertains himself
with suggesting murder?
Thought not. Pot, dear boy, kettle, and black. Match.
Scott Malcomson
>recent good comments in "Asimov's Science Fiction Magizine"
>http://www.sfsite.com/asimovs/columns/kelly05.htm
Actually, I'm very happy about that...also the recent NPR interview. This
is the kind of coverage we need to attract new blood to the fandom and keep
growing. Sorry not to be more generally positive, but I've been kind of
dealing with about ten people intent on ripping my head off. -:)
Scott Malcomson
Karl Meyer wrote in message <79i2ff$4ju$3...@eve.enteract.com>...
>Scott Malcomson <cal...@goodnet.com> wrote:
>: Because THAT's what an
>: employee found on the Internet while surfing; spooge galore, much of it
>: linked to major search engines by very common keywords.
>And most of it done by artists in the fandom who wouldn't claim to be
lifestylers.
Note for the clue-impaired:
THE REAL WORLD DOESN'T CARE *WHAT* YOU CALL YOURSELF!
THE REAL WORLD DOESN'T CARE *WHAT* YOU CALL YOURSELF!
THE REAL WORLD DOESN'T CARE *WHAT* YOU CALL YOURSELF!
Is it SINKING IN yet? Does it occur to you that bigotry is NOT a rational
thing? Do you even *care*, as long as YOU'RE not the one getting fired for
posting a non-yiffy flyer in your workplace? HANH?
I don't know *whose* website got hit. All I know is that it was easily
accessible by casual browsing and now a top-notch technical shop of 900+
people have blackballed anything furry because of what they think it's
"really" about. Maybe it *wasn't* someone who calls themselves a
lifestyler. What it WAS was someone clueless enough to post hardcore porn
to the Internet without any safeguards to warn off casual surfers! You
know, someone without any common sense or tact, who thinks that nekkid
furries in interesting poses are just absolutely acceptable to the entire
world at large!
THAT description also fits *lifestylers* who have no qualms about press
coverage of *their* kinks. It's the same damned thing, whether you happen
to think you or someone you know is responsible or not. *Everyone* needs to
use some common sense and responsbility, and no one you choose to speak for
warrants special exemption!
>On the other hand, blasting the artists for drawing spooge and the fans for
>buying it likely wouldn't be the best way to garner support for the
convention you run would it.
Clueless, thoughtless people who give furfandom a bad rep are the precise
reason ZonieCon exists --- to give furryfans someplace to go, where they
won't be embarrassed publically by people who can't keep their sex life in
their bedrooms. Other conventions have formed for much the same reason.
Furfandom is branching out to get AWAY from twits like that, and to try and
take the fandom back *from* them (the very idea of which equates to a "witch
hunt" to some lifestylers). We're trying to be the entry point for new
fans, to give them a chance to adjust before some goofball asks them if
they've found their "totem furry" yet, or worse.
Lifestylers have NO interest in reforming fandom --- they *like* an
environment where they don't have to behave according to even the most basic
social ideals. Lifestylers have thus shot down every reform suggested to
them with plenty of flames and no debate. Unable to work *with*
lifestylers, the rest of fandom has the undelightful task of trying to work
*around* them.
Scott Malcomson
> Well let me put it to you like I did the other burned freaks...
>*prove* that Jihad whosawhatever is a Furry Lifestyler or be the
>a burned liar with the rest (like you aren't already ;).
Gee, Vixy, guess you lied about killfiling me, huh? Not surprised, really.
You have too much fun to killfile an opponent. Me too.
To address your question: Lifestylers have allied themselves with HIM, not
vice-versa. Whether he's a lifestyler or not is therefore a moot point, as
you agree enough with what he says to have adopted his stance as a
lifestyler platform. Further, his original statement, which completely
absolved lifestylers of any possible blame for the Wired blurb, is
completely in line with lifestylers' historical refusal of responsibility
under any circumstances. Lifestylers have NEVER admitted that even talking
to the press about abusing animals sexually equates to bad press.
The notion that the Burned Furs --- who first and foremost DON'T want
this kind of stuff in the media --- sicced Wired on the plushophiles is the
lamest possible flame, without a shred of sense or reason behind it. That
you and yours support it fully doesn't speak well of your rationality or
interest in same.
>My thoughts? Just another attempt by the burned burned freaks to troll and
drum up some sympathy.
You make it easy. I've been getting plenty of mail to the effect of "Gawd,
Vixy is SUCH a bitch. Thanks for taking her down a peg". Even from
lifestylers --- and, in case you missed it, I AM one --- who hate the idea
of *you* trying to act high and mighty on *their* behalf, but don't think
piping up will stop you in the least. I'm their appointed champion, and
that makes me feel REAL good. I LIKE slapping twits like you around for the
benefit of others. Makes staying up all night dealing with your blatherskite
worth it. -:)
> It is a FACT that the the burned freaks do this...
DUH! As I said before --- we just have common sense and the taste not to
shove our kinks in everyone's face. -:>
Chris Johnson
<cal...@goodnet.com> wrote:
> I don't know *whose* website got hit. All I know is that it was easily
> accessible by casual browsing and now a top-notch technical shop of 900+
> people have blackballed anything furry because of what they think it's
> "really" about.
*hee*
Maybe you ought to try working for Sun. They are known to be much
happier and more laid back. No way would they have a problem with this.
Normal places wouldn't. MS isn't a normal place. You are saying that
Microsoft is discriminating against furries. Shock! Horror! They're also
doing everything they can to discriminate against permatemps, surely you
noticed? You should try Intel: you'd have been forced out already at
Intel: they are even more corrupt and untrustworthy than Microsoft.
Seriously, I think it is absolutely foolish to try to expect Microsoft
to be furry-friendly. They have more important things to do like
fabricating evidence for the DoJ case ;)
Jinx_tigr (sheesh)
(aka Chris Johnson)
Chris Johnson
<cal...@goodnet.com> wrote:
> BWAHAHAHAHHAAA! Eric BLUMRICH, Mr. "Give Me Drano Or Give Me Death"?
> HAHAHAHAHAHA!
Take it easy, man, you'll sprain something o_O
> That guy doesn't need BF or plushophiles to hate lifestylers, and if you'd
> bothered to check the website you've cited you'd know that. His loathing of
> lifestylers predates the BFs by oh, about *TEN YEARS*!
Nice trick, considering lifestylers have only been around for a year or
two, technically. Before then there were furries. Makes me wonder who the
people were ten years ago, and also wonder who let you define the term o_O
Jinx_tigr (what do they do, take turns? These guys just don't let up)
(aka Chris Johnson)
Brian O'connell
Locandez wrote in message ...
<snip>
>
> Tolerance. Narrow mindedness. Nazi. Bigoted. Fascist. Free speech.
> Burned Furs. Non-aligned Furs. Spooge. Political Correctness. Hate.
> Zoophile. Bestialist. Furvert. Pervert. Pony-plunger. Plushie-poker.
> Lifestyler. Anthro. Apologist. Fanboy. Fandumb. TSer. Flamer. Troll.
> Trouble maker. Spammer. Clue. Facts. Propoganda. Lies. BS. Naive.
> Clueless. Get a clue. Get a life. Group. Label. Pseudototemist. Rights.
> Christian. Fundamentalist. Responsibility. Hysteria. Irrational.
You forgot:
Blumrich, O'connell, and Semprini...;)
>
>
>--
> 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, survey results,
>furry glossaries, and a blank copy of the Furvey.
>
> -=- The largest furry links directory on the Internet -=-
>http://www.argonet.co.uk/users/lyndale/lotcaf/yiffle/ - 705+ links,
>90+ categories, 200+ visits per day. New URLs are welcome. Links are
>validated every month.
>
>
Chris Johnson
<cal...@goodnet.com> wrote:
> Bingo. Thank you for admitting you're not justified; just "equally
> hypocritical". I've made it very clear that I'm talking about a few
> lifestylers, I've said openly here that most lifestylers are nice people.
> I've made no bones about the fact, as well, that lifestylers *avoid* and
> *flame* suggestions for reform,
That's funny: I remember taking part in the Anthro thread and being
quite supportive. Mind posting an apology?
> that lifestylers go to the press about their
> personal kinks,
That's funny, I don't remember ever talking to the press about any
personal kinks. That just wouldn't be, well, personal enough for me (being
cat people, I have a finely developed sense of propriety regarding sexual
matters and politeness). Mind posting an apology?
> and that if any lifestylers DO want to resolve problems in
> furfandom they don't bother to speak up, letting people like Jihad speak
> *for* them.
*ahem*
Mind posting an apology?
Jinx_tigr
(aka Chris Johnson)
Chris Johnson
<cal...@goodnet.com> wrote:
> As I've explained already --- clearly you aren't reading everything you're
> responding to --- "lifestyler" is a term used to denote someone who insists
> on promoting their sexual lifestyle publically. This, obviously, does NOT
> include all plushophiles, bestialists, et al. It includes only those people
> who have fought tenaciously to keep from having to act like people NOT
> interested in their lifestyles should be given consideration.
Hang on-
(1) this is nonsense, and dreadfully restrictive: no _way_ would
'lifestylers' forbid people who preferred more privacy, and I would object
to your suggesting such a divisive, exclusive definition
(2) didn't you just say you WERE a lifestyler? I haven't seen you
promoting your sexual quirks publically. Which definition do you mean,
exactly?
Jinx_tigr, rather startled by all this
(aka Chris Johnson)
Paul R. Bennett
have some sizable invisible skew built into them and should by no means be
regarded as a totally accurate representation of posts.
Paul
Farlo wrote:
> "Paul R. Bennett" rf...@alltel.net wrote in
> <36BB8CE6...@alltel.net>:
>
> >One big question here in your deja-news search which may or may not skew
> the
> >results. As I recall, X-no-archive is(or was) quite popular. Does that
> affect
> >what postings may or may not be archived there? How about people writing
> and
> >requesting their postings be removed?
>
> One can infer that those individuals using X-No-Archive do not want their
> posts kept on file. Therefore, the data stands as is - the group with the
> greatest amount of posts on file and the greatest apparent (vs total)
> amount of interested posters is AFF.
>
> - Farlo
Paul R. Bennett
here... Look, blast it. You lot want to post statistics? Fine... Just be
careful enough, in light of too many posts I personally remember and, worse yet.
may have actually saved, to admit to statistical variations. I get seriously bent
out of shape when I am handed a hunk of accusatory flame bait disguised as a
factual post. Now, if it had been admitted that there were posts that for an
unavoidable reason, were not counted, I could have been easy going about it.
Otherwise, it comes across as an attempt at inaccurate manipulation and I do not
like that, not at all.
If one group or the other is trying to take the moral high ground, then for gods
sakes do it honestly and accurately and forget the "lets ignore the inconvienient
little details" crud.
If either side feels they must prove their case, then stick to the facts.
Paul
Richard Chandler - WA Resident wrote:
> In article <8D64CBB...@news.fysh.org>, Farlo <stan...@abac.com> writes:
> > One can infer that those individuals using X-No-Archive do not want
> > their posts kept on file. Therefore, the data stands as is - the
> > group with the greatest amount of posts on file and the greatest
> > apparent (vs total) amount of interested posters is AFF.
>
> Word count does not Content make.
>
> And it is a valid point that x-no-archive would skew the results (I imagine
> it's mostly done by those who would speak favorably of such practices and
> don't wish to lose their jobs after someone does a search.), as well as the
> commonly seen practice on a.l.f of deliberately mis-spelling certain key words
> so that they don't get caught in word counts.
>
> --
> 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.
Chris Johnson
<cal...@goodnet.com> wrote:
> Actually, I'm very happy about that...also the recent NPR interview. This
> is the kind of coverage we need to attract new blood to the fandom and keep
> growing. Sorry not to be more generally positive, but I've been kind of
> dealing with about ten people intent on ripping my head off. -:)
Add another who would simply like to firmly muzzle you ;P
I mean, honestly- who here does _not_ think this person would hunt down
Wired reporters at a con (hey, hipper and weirder than Burning Man!) and
subject them to a two hour long rant full of bestiality, plushophilia, and
how the lifestylers are taking over the fandom and turning it into the
orgies of ancient Rome- and then maybe trying to take them out looking for
photo ops of such things, possibly even into someone's closed but not
locked room?
What you, and those like you, are doing, is trying desperately to MAKE
'lifestylers' every bit as offensive as you think they _should_ be, and so
you will say anything and you'll take the offensive and YOU WILL SLANDER
people like me and many of my friends, and attempt to get drooling TV
crews after us ("Hey, does that bodysuit have a penis? Scott said you guys
all wear artificial penises. Or, hey, does it open in back? Do something
furry we can film.")
Geez... if you'd seen some of the strictly lifestyler gatherings I saw
at AAC, you'd just be sick at heart for what you are doing. I saw a
Catholic priest skunk (*wave*, if he's reading) treated with civility and
respect, and honored for his own style of desiring spirituality. I saw
rooms of people of all ages and types, hanging out in the most polite
civilised manner imaginable. We saw a Dreaded Video that was the hit of
the lifestylers- porno? animal? No, it was a very silly sort of MST3King,
done by a cool lifestyler kid, of a foolish trendy children's show.
You've got it backwards- your problem is with furry fandom itself. When
the lifestylers seceded, they found that for the most part they were
interested in things other than sex... notably, that they were interested
in community, and in exploring why this 'furry' business was so important
to them. And that exploration might be newsworthy, but it's a far cry from
the front page shocker news that _you_ seem to think lifestylers are.
When I think of people like you trying to set up exposes on this
peaceful innocence, I feel just sick. I wonder how you can live with
yourself, knowing what you are doing- but then, most groups have a loose
cannon or two, and most people past the age of sixteen or so have learned
to spot loonies and cranks. It is my heartfelt belief that newsmen would
spot you as a crank, and think twice before searching out the scenes of
depravity that you insist are so pervasive.
Jinx_tigr
(aka Chris Johnson)
Scott Malcomson
>> I don't know *whose* website got hit. All I know is that it was easily
>> accessible by casual browsing and now a top-notch technical shop of 900+
>> people have blackballed anything furry because of what they think it's
>> "really" about.
> Maybe you ought to try working for Sun. They are known to be much
>happier and more laid back.
Would be lovely, if I weren't stuck in Tucson... -:/ Nice town, but almost
*no* upward mobility in tech jobs.
>No way would they have a problem with this.
>Normal places wouldn't. MS isn't a normal place.
Remember, there are plenty of abnormal places in the world. We don't need
to exacerbate problems by pretending that certain people they affect somehow
don't really count.
> Seriously, I think it is absolutely foolish to try to expect Microsoft
>to be furry-friendly.
Microsoft itself is not anti-furry. I could prolly go to another town with
an MS shop and jump right in. My particular shop was a problem because of
how sexual harassment was defined --- essentially, anything that offended a
woman enough for her to complain of sexual harassment. As I said, virtually
*every* woman on site had been offended by this furry site, so when I came
to work there --- it was only a week before I tried putting the flyer up ---
I was completely blindsided. It didn't help that the branch manager was a
woman as well, who proudly proclaimed her willingness to fight the EEOC in
order to keep *her* definition of sexual harassment on the company policy
books. This really was a case, not of corporate ideology, but a thin legal
definition accompanied by widespread worker disgust.
Thanks for the support, though.
Scott Malcomson
you'd
>> bothered to check the website you've cited you'd know that. His loathing
of
>> lifestylers predates the BFs by oh, about *TEN YEARS*!
> Nice trick, considering lifestylers have only been around for a year or
>two, technically.
Technically, hell. Look at the *dates* on his cartoons bashing the fandom.
Or just ask the guy how long he's hated people in fandom he considers pervs.
He's not exactly shy about it. Almost as long as there's been a furry
fandom, Blumrich has been the "Kill 'Em All, Who Cares Who Sorts 'Em Out"
posterboy. He gets off on nihilism.
Scott Malcomson
>> hypocritical".
> That's funny: I remember taking part in the Anthro thread and being
>quite supportive. Mind posting an apology?
If I've wronged you, I apologize. Mind you, look how many people I've been
responding to. I mostly haven't been responding to people; only to what
they write. If I said you sounded hypocritical, I had a reason, as I
*don't* like to insult people without cause. That's a waste of time and
energy. It may have been an inaccurate or misunderstanding reason, however,
and if so I do apologize.
>> that lifestylers go to the press about their
>> personal kinks,
> That's funny, I don't remember ever talking to the press about any
>personal kinks.
Which, of course, means NO lifestylers (two or more is ALSO plural, and does
not require 100% of any group to *be* plural) have ever done this. No, I'm
being sarcastic, and the reason why is you know perfectly well I'm not
slamming the lot of you --- only those lifestylers who *have* gone to the
press. If you didn't go the press, then *obviously* I'm not talking about
*you*.
>That just wouldn't be, well, personal enough for me (being
>cat people, I have a finely developed sense of propriety regarding sexual
>matters and politeness). Mind posting an apology?
Your misunderstanding, not mine. However, I can understand why you arrived
at your conclusion, so I will not demand one of you.
>> and that if any lifestylers DO want to resolve problems in
>> furfandom they don't bother to speak up, letting people like Jihad speak
*for* them.
> *ahem*
> Mind posting an apology?
Mind speaking up in the Jihad thread to say that you disagree that Burned
Furs sicced Wired on plushies? Or that you find the notion of mass
murder --- even in jest --- distasteful, at least? For that matter, how DO
you suggest problems in furfandom be resolved?
Scott Malcomson
>"Scott Malcomson"<cal...@goodnet.com> wrote:
>> As I've explained already --- clearly you aren't reading everything
you're
>> responding to --- "lifestyler" is a term used to denote someone who
insists
>> on promoting their sexual lifestyle publically.
> (1) this is nonsense, and dreadfully restrictive: no _way_ would
>'lifestylers' forbid people who preferred more privacy, and I would object
>to your suggesting such a divisive, exclusive definition
I KNEW that posting "is a term" rather than "is a term I use" would prompt
this response. Typo. My fault, I beg your pardon. My miscommunication
resulted in your misunderstanding that I was referring to the *general* use
of the term, as opposed to how *I* was using it for sake of this
conversation.
> (2) didn't you just say you WERE a lifestyler? I haven't seen you
>promoting your sexual quirks publically. Which definition do you mean,
exactly?
Yes I am, no I don't, and rather than sit there bepuzzled you should think
about what that means.
Scott Malcomson
This
>> is the kind of coverage we need to attract new blood to the fandom and
keep
>> growing. Sorry not to be more generally positive, but I've been kind of
>> dealing with about ten people intent on ripping my head off. -:)
>
> Add another who would simply like to firmly muzzle you ;P
And with commentary like that, you intend to solve just precisely what
problem? Were I a lesser person, this would be flamebait. Instead, I see
you for a reasonable man who has endured a lot of abuse and is looking to
give some back.
> I mean, honestly- who here does _not_ think this person would hunt down
>Wired reporters at a con (hey, hipper and weirder than Burning Man!) and
>subject them to a two hour long rant...<blah blah blah rave rant fume>
In case you hadn't noticed, I've been largely arguing about the perils of
BAD PRESS and why furfandom doesn't need it. Much as it might please you to
think so, I am not a moron. I prefer a *growing*, *vibrant* fandom, not a
DEAD one.
> What you, and those like you, are doing, is trying desperately to MAKE
>'lifestylers' every bit as offensive as you think they _should_ be,
"Those LIKE me," hm? Yes, of course, standard tit for tat. I've clearly
spoken my own mind on this newsgroup, and a far cry from the Burned Fur
rhetoric. Do I think ALL lifestylers are destroying the fandom? No. Do I
think SOME are too wrapped up in themselves to realize they're hurting
others in the process? Yes.
Deal with it.
>you will say anything and you'll take the offensive and YOU WILL SLANDER
>people like me and many of my friends
And what untrue thing have I said about you, if I may ask?
>and attempt to get drooling TV
>crews after us ("Hey, does that bodysuit have a penis? Scott said you guys
>all wear artificial penises. Or, hey, does it open in back? Do something
>furry we can film.")
WHY should I send a TV crew after you? Why would I WANT to? How would
doing so NOT hurt my own objective of avoiding/minimizing bad press for
furfandom?
> Geez... if you'd seen some of the strictly lifestyler gatherings I saw
>at AAC, you'd just be sick at heart for what you are doing.
Ah, buddy...go over to the Balloonie webpage, hm? Check out MY artwork;
it's a sizable chunk of the archive. I AM one of you. I don't feel a need
to spread that fact all over the web via Yahoo or into the mainstream media
via Loaded, however. IF YOU DON'T FEEL YOU NEED TO DO SO EITHER WHEN IT
COMES TO YOUR OWN KINKS, THEN YOU ARE NOT THE SORT OF PERSON I AM REFERRING
TO! CAPEESH?
> You've got it backwards- your problem is with furry fandom itself.
I'm just going to clip the rest of this. You're on a rant, convinced you
understand what I'm talking about, and you're on a complete 180. When you
get back, think for a minute before trying this again.
D. J. Green
>>happier and more laid back.
>
>Would be lovely, if I weren't stuck in Tucson... -:/ Nice town, but almost
>*no* upward mobility in tech jobs.
Ha. I worked for Sun. For about one year. I was expected to put in
twelve-hour days all the time simply because there were people in my group
who liked putting in twelve-hour days and give up whatever they had of a
social life.
If that was laid-back, I'd hate to see uptight.
--
"Life isn't fair" is a truism. It is *not* a license.
Mzigo Kobe
> Mzigo Kobe wrote in message <1zk4ok...@Talge-C11-A.southern.edu>...
> >> an interesting-sounding name like alt.lifestyle.furry, and skimmed the
> group for salacious data
>
> >Let's see. DejaNews search for "plushophilia" in alt.lifestyle.furry gives
> me:
>
> Yes, of course: Wired would know the term "plushophilia" BEFORE skimming the
> newsgroup for anything interesting. They're psychic, you know, and would
> not just call up the entire newsgroup and actually read it to obtain
> keywords in the first place.
I wasn't trying to say that.
I made a mistake when I neglected to comment on what I posted. (urk)
What [I think] I mean to say is that alt.lifestyle.furry is not exactly
a hotbed of "salacious data".
DejaNews says you haven't posted there, so I'll have to ask: have you
ever actually read the group?
In another post you said:
> As I've explained already --- clearly you aren't reading everything you're
> responding to --- "lifestyler" is a term used to denote someone who insists
> on promoting their sexual lifestyle publically.
I think you are equating your definition of "lifestyler" with the
readership of alt.lifestyle.furry, when they are not necessarily the
same group of people.
Two separate groups of people, which may of course overlap in places.
(Who says you're only limited to one label? ;)
*M.
--
http://welcome.to/alt.binaries.games.creatures [An archive of abgc]
"We have seen the future, and it is covered in luxuriant tufts of fur."
FDTcs2adfw A C- D H++ M+ P++ R T++ W- Z- Sm
RLA/CT a- clmn+++ d-- e+ f+++ h-- iw++ j+ p sm
Mzigo Kobe
> I don't know *whose* website got hit. All I know is that it was easily
> accessible by casual browsing and now a top-notch technical shop of 900+
> people have blackballed anything furry because of what they think it's
> "really" about. Maybe it *wasn't* someone who calls themselves a
> lifestyler. What it WAS was someone clueless enough to post hardcore porn
> to the Internet without any safeguards to warn off casual surfers! You
> know, someone without any common sense or tact, who thinks that nekkid
> furries in interesting poses are just absolutely acceptable to the entire
> world at large!
If you "don't know *whose* website" it was, then you don't know
that. Previously you said:
> WHY does a Microsoft subcontractor (who will not be named for legal
> reasons) think furries equate to sexual harassment? Because THAT's what an
> employee found on the Internet while surfing; spooge galore, much of it
> linked to major search engines by very common keywords.
...and search engines are like that. They don't care if you put up a
warning page. They don't care if you put up a million warning
pages. If there's something linked on your site they'll catalog
it and they won't be so kind as to point to your front door where
there may (and yes I agree there may also not) be a responsible
warning of content.
"very common keywords" are notorious for bringing up sex sites
anyway =P (Who hasn't been a victim?)
Peter da Silva
You are upset because a bunch of people have posted dirty
pictures to the net. As a result you have suffered for your
association with them.
The logical response would be to contact them and get them to change their
websites to reduce the impact of their dirty pictures.
Instead:
You post a series of messages to a newsgroup attacking an
unrelated group of people, and simultaneously promoting the
very image you're concerned about.
This is not a logical response. Beyond that, you have joined a group of
people (some of whom call themselves 'burned furs', though not all these
'burned furs' are guilty) who have for the past several *years* systematically
worked to destroy what *used to be* a very interesting newsgroup.
You're upset at these loosely specified blokes messing up *your* enjoyment
of a fandom. Doesn't it bother you at all that your response is to in turn
mess up other peoples enjoyment of the same fandom?
And when I ask, politely mind you, that people in this discussion move it
to a place that's better suited to this sort of pointless endless debate,
you refuse to do so. Is that logical?
--
This is The Reverend Peter da Silva's Boring Sig File - there are no references
to Wolves, Kibo, Discordianism, or The Church of the Subgenius in this document
"If you don't have 64 bits, you're not playing with a full DEC."
Farlo
>Which does not alter the little detail that the statistics may have or
not
>have some sizable invisible skew built into them and should by no means
be
>regarded as a totally accurate representation of posts.
Statistics in general, yes, of course that is true. Also, I am discussing
the total number of perceived vs. real posts. "If the media did a Dejanews
search on Plushophilia, what would they find?" kinda thing. See? That is
an important difference. It is two very different set of numbers!
The potential invisible skew is that Plushophilia could be mentioned on a
regular basis in many posts and not be counted if a majority of the
posters were fanatic about X-No-Archive.
However, since the original topic was "who is more likely to have brought
Plushophilia to the attention of the media (ie accessible through search
bots), the skew does not apply. If we were debating actual vs perceived
numbers of posts on the topic of Plushophilia, certainly the skew would be
of paramount importance. Since we are actually discussing the perceived
number of posts, and specifically the perceived numbers of posts via a
search engine like Dejanews, the skew in this instance does not apply.
The possible exception to this would be if we were to attract lurkers to
both groups with more than a passing interest. For instance, a dedicated
researcher might spend months collecting data off both newsgroups. In
that instance, the skew would develop importance, of course. However,
since most media/news/etc. is topically reasearched at best, again I must
wonder why or how the skew might attract statistical importance.
- Farlo
Wolfpax01
>on promoting their sexual lifestyle publically.
AHHHHH....now I see the problem.
Your taking a pre-existing 'name of a group' and changing the group that it
applies to.
I am a straight white male Christian, who would be described (sexualy) as
'whitebread'.
You see, to me, 'Lifestyler' means: someone who considers themselves to be
spiritualy or mentaly intertwined with one or more species of 'animals' (this
oddly enough, includes animals that are fictional).
Are these the people that you are posting about?
If not, I think you should find a better word to describe these people. Or
simply call them 'plushophiles' and 'bestialists'. Calling them 'Lifestylers'
is like saying German when you mean Nazi: not only do all lifestylers not fit
your definition, but not all of the people you are targeting are lifestylers.
I think you would find less people set against you if you didn't group them
in as 'the bad guys'.
Just a thought.
Creed of the christian werewolf---'We are all creatures of God...some of us are
just More creature than others'
Victry "Vixy" Hyzenthlay
>Gee, Vixy, guess you lied about killfiling me, huh? Not surprised, really.
>You have too much fun to killfile an opponent. Me too.
Oh? Remind me when I ever said I would killfile you? Once again I
believe you are fabricating truth.
>
>To address your question: Lifestylers have allied themselves with HIM, not
>vice-versa.
To address your *presumption*, I find NO mention of this or him on ALF.
Why is this? Because the Furry Lifestylers are not even watching what goes on
here and are not even concerned.
>Whether he's a lifestyler or not is therefore a moot point, as
>you agree enough with what he says to have adopted his stance as a
>lifestyler platform.
Again with the generalizations and broad painting that the burned freaks
are famous for already. When will the *truth* ever sink in, Scotty? First, I
repeat, there's no mention of Jihad or any of this on ALF, the unofficial,
official voice of the Furry Lifestylers. The only Furry Lifestylers who have
supported him are the few who have Fandom interests and therefore post here as
well. Less than a pawful. I count more *Furry FANS* who support what he says
if only because they are against burned freaks. And I suggest you read his
rant again. His message was not pro lifestyler... it was *anti* burned freak.
Which there is PLENTY of support for around AFF from just Furry Fans.
>
>Further, his original statement, which completely
>absolved lifestylers of any possible blame for the Wired blurb, is
>completely in line with lifestylers' historical refusal of responsibility
>under any circumstances. Lifestylers have NEVER admitted that even talking
>to the press about abusing animals sexually equates to bad press.
And you can give valid reason that Furry Lifestylers should accept
responsability for anything that *individuals* do on-their-own? Bring it on.
It should be as ludicrous as the rest of the burned freak's and anti Furry
Lifestyler's nonsense.
>
> The notion that the Burned Furs --- who first and foremost DON'T want
>this kind of stuff in the media --- sicced Wired on the plushophiles is the
>lamest possible flame, without a shred of sense or reason behind it. That
>you and yours support it fully doesn't speak well of your rationality or
>interest in same.
Who said I support it? Again with the generalizations and untruths. I
*AM* against burned freaks starting up flames against whatever
group-of-the-week they decide to hate. I am against burned liars spreading
generalizations about entire groups and individuals with NO substantiating
evidence. I am against self proclaimed 'old timeres' trying to tell me and
everyone that Furry Fandom, something that NO ONE has ever defined before,
suddenly will not welcome certain people that they decided they don't like in
it. I am against burned freaks trying to divide everyone as either for or
against them, first saying that neutral furs are really one of them, THEN
turning on them later and saying neutrals only support the depravity in the
fandom because they won't flame at their side. I am against the idea of witch
hunts and hatemongers trying to ferret out any whom they feel is undesirable
inside the Fandom. I am against the the harm burned freaks have done to
innocents and their own supporters who have been burned by their idiocy.
There's a lot more. But nowhere did I support Jihad, dear burned liar.
>
>>My thoughts? Just another attempt by the burned burned freaks to troll and
>drum up some sympathy.
>
>You make it easy. I've been getting plenty of mail to the effect of "Gawd,
>Vixy is SUCH a bitch. Thanks for taking her down a peg".
Oh here we go with the Email again. You must be taking lessons from Clint
Forester. They did miss the fact that anything I do in that context is always
against burned freaks. Though at least they got my species correct. ;)
Well I can do that too. I get plenty of support for scorching the burned
freaks, from those who tell me they are such lowlives who are taking the fun
out of the Fandom, and go on to say they would love to see them go from burned,
to ashes. I'll go one better... I hear it on the Mucks and IRC as well. ;)
>
>DUH! As I said before --- we just have common sense and the taste not to
>shove our kinks in everyone's face. -:>
Let's see... burned freaks just troll continuously, flame mindlessly, try
to split the fandom into 'them' and 'us', spew hate and lies, generalize and
degrade subgroups... naw, nothing wrong with *any* of THAT spew. ;)
=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+
Victry 'love long and perspire; Vixy' Hyzenthlay
Technofox and personal Vixen. "YIP!"
Furry Fan WITH a Furry Lifestyle and PURRfectly content! :>
_____________________
/ \ _
)""""\___ |- - - - - - - - - - - -| |_\____
)----| |\-| Vivacious Vixen II |-/| | |\
)____|___|=============================| """|_)
`----' \|http://members.xoom.com/Vixy |/"""""
"""|"""""""/"""""\"""""""|"""
Victry{nospam}@- `=++++=" "=++++=' -@{remove}juno;com
Please post any response to this newsgroup. Thanks.
Jack Furlong (HillBluffer@FurryMUCK)
"Paul R. Bennett" <rf...@alltel.net> wrote:
>Which does not alter the little detail that the statistics may have or not
>have some sizable invisible skew built into them and should by no means be
>regarded as a totally accurate representation of posts.
>Farlo wrote:
>
>> "Paul R. Bennett" rf...@alltel.net wrote in
>> <36BB8CE6...@alltel.net>:
>>
>> >One big question here in your deja-news search which may or may not skew
>> >the results. As I recall, X-no-archive is(or was) quite popular.
>> >Does that affect what postings may or may not be archived there? How
>> >about people writing and requesting their postings be removed?
D. J. Green
Victry \"Vixy\" Hyzenthlay <n...@na.na> wrote:
> Again with the generalizations and broad painting that the burned freaks
>are famous for already.
This from the person who decided she didn't like what I had to say, so she
dismissed me as a "burned freak" and could therefore ignore what I said.
I think most people know the line about cooking utensils and dark colors.
Victry "Vixy" Hyzenthlay
>This from the person who decided she didn't like what I had to say, so she
>dismissed me as a "burned freak" and could therefore ignore what I said.
Ahhhhh... please excuse me then... I should have said burned freaks *and*
their supporters. Just a minor oversight. Does that help? :)
=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+
Victry 'not obliged to love burned-freaks; Vixy' Hyzenthlay
StukaFox
: If that was laid-back, I'd hate to see uptight.
It's called "Working for Hewlett-Packard".
StukaFox
--
GREAT EMPTY THREATS OF THE USENET #109:
"When I'm finished in nanau, I'm gonna pay the newsgroups you frequent
a visit. You aren't going to like it."
Tim "Wanky the Wanker" Thorn
specia...@hell-flame-wars.org
Chris Johnson
<cal...@goodnet.com> wrote:
> I'm just going to clip the rest of this. You're on a rant, convinced you
> understand what I'm talking about, and you're on a complete 180. When you
> get back, think for a minute before trying this again.
Heh. You're right about one thing- I was on a rant. Mostly it is
because a bunch of people decided to get away from all this hysteria, find
a different place to talk, and call themselves 'lifestylers'... I guess
the single thing that consistently bugs me is that you insist upon using
'lifestyler' as your label for a type of oversexed evangelistic person.
On the one hand, I often feel that 'clean up the fandom' is a foolish
crusade, because people need to make up their own minds and are not total
slaves to what some fringe element suggests.
But when a fringe element seems to be suggesting jarring and derogatory
things about a group _I_ seem to belong to, oh my, suddenly 'image' seems
to matter to me! ;P suddenly I'm talking slander! Granted, it's a
legitimate beef, but it does contradict my sometimes-opinion that there
isn't much of a problem.
So which is it? Are you slandering the people I identify with? If so,
then your own objections that the fandom needs to be cleaned up are
suddenly more valid, because the capacity to generalize can be more
damaging than I sometimes think it is. Which is it? Do words matter, does
image matter?
I don't know what to do, Scott: I don't claim to. I _would_ suggest if
you care about image at all, quit saying things about 'lifestylers' right
now and find a better word. You don't own that word any more than I own
'furry', or 'burned fur'- and you are consistently hurting any chances of
coming to a synthesis and understanding, by repeatedly taking an existing
group and using their self-chosen label as a catch-all for unacceptable
practices.
If this was harmless, there would be no need to 'clean up the furry fandom'.
Just stop that, find a better label for what you complain against, and
then maybe we can see if we can get any farther? This is the guy in favor
of cleaning up public hotel lobbies, you're talking to, OK? I think I've
been pretty good about not slamming 'burned furs' even though I've tried
to shred more than a few individuals in heated postings. Can you get past
the reflexive use of 'lifestyler' to describe what you are opposing? That
would help a lot, I think.
Jinx_tigr
(aka Chris Johnson)
Scott Malcomson
>Scott:
> You are upset because a bunch of people have posted dirty pictures to the
net. As a result you have suffered
>for your association with them.
Wrong. Sorry, *I* post dirty pictures to the net. *I* simply don't post
them in high-traffic areas and then wonder why newspapers are asking me what
my kinks are about.
I am also upset over things that do *not* involve posting dirty pictures to
the net: do I *have* to mention the "dog and pony" yiffers in Loaded again?
No, no, I can't be angry about *that*, I've only mentioned it about 20 times
as partial explanation for why I'm angry to about 20 people.
I am upset that convention reforms have been, and still are, hard-fought by
people paranoid about being shoved back into a closet.
I am also upset that someone who even *jokingly* suggests the murder of 26
very specific furries is *supported* by people. Not one person but me said
that this was a bad thing which should not be tolerated.
I am positively *angry* about people like you who refuse to acknowledge real
problems in favor of scoring brownie points. If you've read articles I've
written, in any of the threads where we have both been active, you know
perfectly well that "dirty pictures on the net" is the *least* of my
concerns, and you would also know I have asked for password protection, NOT
yanking the pictures.
I am left to conclude you are either ignorant or just faking ignorance for
political advantage --- something far too common both on the net and in the
real world of politics.
>The logical response would be to contact them and get them to change their
>websites to reduce the impact of their dirty pictures.
As I don't run any websites, I can't "get them" to change. I can only
suggest they do, in a public forum they might attend, which is here. With
well over 400 sites on the Fur Ring alone, trying to contact and actually
talk back and forth with each of them would be impossible.
>This is not a logical response. Beyond that, you have joined a group of
>people (some of whom call themselves 'burned furs', though not all these
>'burned furs' are guilty) who have for the past several *years*
Burned Fur has not EXISTED for "years". They haven't existed for ONE year
yet. And you accuse *me* of misrepresenting people. Pot, kettle, black.
>systematically worked to destroy what *used to be* a very interesting
newsgroup.
Oh, yes, of course: the Burned Fur Manifesto quite clearly states "Destroy
alt.fan.furry". Sure, it's right there, somewhere...maybe in the
microscopic print or something.
I don't for an instant think you really believe this --- it's just another
of your "derail the topic" flames. Try again.
>You're upset at these loosely specified blokes messing up *your* enjoyment
>of a fandom. Doesn't it bother you at all that your response is to in turn
>mess up other peoples enjoyment of the same fandom?
Yes, by gum, I shouldn't mind people describing their practice of bestiality
with a magazine, just for starters. No, no, I might mess up their enjoyment
of the *fandom*, which therefore must *include* bestiality because no one
should oppose it, RIGHT? Right. Go back to your hole and come back when
you've got some sense.
>And when I ask, politely mind you, that people in this discussion move it
>to a place that's better suited to this sort of pointless endless debate,
>you refuse to do so. Is that logical?
If by "polite" you mean "getting in the last shot and THEN asking to move
it", sure. Of course, that isn't the common sense definition of "polite",
either. I've already told you, I *will* respond if you flame me, which you
have, and which I have responded to. Now you wonder why I responded. What
was that you were saying about logic? Or shall we just all assume you're
not interested in it?
Scott Malcomson
Farlo wrote in message <8D65CCE...@news.fysh.org>...
>Statistics in general, yes, of course that is true. Also, I am discussing
>the total number of perceived vs. real posts. "If the media did a Dejanews
>search on Plushophilia, what would they find?" kinda thing. See? That is
>an important difference. It is two very different set of numbers!
Numbers which assume the media knows the term "plushophilia" before doing a
search for same. Not realistic in that it assumes psychic ability on the
part of news reporters.
Scott Malcomson
fur_...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<79jk7q$h1n$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>I'm not going to respond to individual posts. I do want to say, though,
>that anyone who thinks my Six Shallow Graves quip was a "death threat"
So far, no one has said it is. The only person who said anything along
those lines --- myself --- stated unequivocably that it's not a real threat
because you're obviously just another troll without the stones to try it if
you wanted to.
> No one's out to get the Burned Furs
So retract your unsubstantiated slander which claimed BFs pointed Wired to
the plushies. Otherwise, you most certainly *are* out to get them, whether
you want to kill them or not. Character assassination is only somewhat less
vile a practice than murder.
>All I really am is an "Everyfan" who wishes that a certain
>group of firebrands would stop screaming in public about everything that
>is wrong with fandom
Which, of course, is why you screamed in public that Burned Furs were out to
get plushophiles --- that would certainly be "something wrong with fandom".
Want s'more tea in that pot of yours?
>and let us all get on with the enjoyment of
>anthropomorphics. I know I'm not the only one whose enjoyment is being
>affected by the stink the BFs have been raising the past several months.
Funny, I wonder why they raised a stink? Naw, couldn't be because certain
lifestylers have raised a stink every time someone suggests even the mildest
reforms...for years and years and years...if you were the slightest bit
interested in real debate, I'd ask you if you had the slightest clue why any
individual BF would join the BF movement in the first place.
Two, off the top of my head, I know are in it for kicks. They're flameboys
from the old school who have fun watching lifestylers squirm. Some are in
it as a protest point. Most are in it because various lifestylers have gone
out of their way to be flameboys for years on end and now it's payback time.
Is that rational? No. Should you *expect* rationality from angry
people? No. Have various BFs gotten a clue and calmed down? Yes. Have
those lifestylers who were being schmucks in the first place gotten a clue
and decided to choose talk over screams? No.
>I think most people's gripe with the Burned Furs is that they seem to be
>incapable of doing anything but emphasizing the negative in the loudest
>possible terms.
Emphasizing negative things in the *quietest* terms results in the same
response: various lifestylers flaming the topic to death. This has only
recently --- and surprisingly, to this old AFFer --- changed. I am speaking
in email and on AFF, rationally and calmly, with certain lifestylers that
admit there is a problem and want to fix it as much as I do. You might
notice that these calmer people are relatively new to the board; they are
not "old guard" lifestylers fearful of being shoehorned into an oven if they
give an inch on anything.
>I do admit, my Six Shallow Graves post was gasoline on a fire, and I regret
>saying that now, but I'm just so damned mad and frustrated by what is going
on here.
Thank you for admitting that, and having the courage to do so publically. I
applaud your honesty --- it took stones. Not that I think you'll kill
anyone now, either. -:)
Scott Malcomson
<79k456$rst$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>One more thing, for the sake of clarification. When I said that I
>believed the BFs were responsible for getting p-philes into Wired,
>I didn't mean that the BFs told Wired about those people directly.
It sure sounded like it. Of course, you'll note that people assumed I was
talking about lifestylers in general and not a few lifestyler troublemakers
in *my* posts, so I too am guilty of oversimplification and apologize for
it.
>Of course they wouldn't do that. What I meant was that because the
>BFs have made such a public issue about p-philes so consistently
>over the past few months, Wired would have had no trouble reading
>about the whole business just by lurking on our newsgroups.
My point is that this isn't the only means, or even the most likely means,
of obtaining the info on plushies.
In fact, the Wired article was clearly written by someone who had just
discovered furfandom and thought we were a new thing. Hell, he gave us all
nine months' life expectancy before the fandom imploded. My guess is he
found us either through casual surfing to FurNation or by flipping through a
newsgroup list, and he found the plushies the same way. He couldn't have
spent more than an afternoon on that blurb.
>The point is that the plushophiles didn't become a hot topic
>here until after the "Manifesto" and Eric Blumrich's infamous Nazi
>execution satire
To be honest, the "Nazi execution" is a new one on me. I had no idea Eric
had sunk quite that low, although he's been almost as vicious in the past to
alternate lifestyle furries. He's a nihilist; he gets off on this kind of
thing. No one should mistake Eric for a leader of anyone; few if any would
follow. You'll also note he's the reason cited by various former BFs for
why they left the movement. I can see why people would have such a strong
reaction, though.
>and ever since then, it's been the BFs that keep
>bringing up the subject over and over and over. That's what I meant
>when I said, who would ever even know about the presence of these
>people in fandom if the BFs didn't call attention to them all the time.
My point being that AFF and other furry newsgroups are far from the only, or
even most likely, place a news agency would stumble over or even seek out
for stories on fandom.
1) Separate NC17 sections for art shows at furrycons. This has been adopted
universally, but is not always enforced.
2) Cover NC17/X material or deal it from under the table at conventions.
Some, not all, conventions have
adopted this.
3) Prohibit sex-related displays in public convention areas. Some
conventions have adopted this.
4) Don't talk to the press about one's personal style of sexual
gratification. Still not resolved.
5) Password-protect sexual-content websites with
commonly-known-and-available-to-furry names to keep
casual non-furry websurfers from stumbling in. Currently being debated, in
relative peace, on AFF.
Scott Malcomson
Victry "Vixy" Hyzenthlay wrote in message
<79kcgc$ned$1...@cheddar.netmonger.net>...
>Scott Malcomson wrote in message ...
>>Gee, Vixy, guess you lied about killfiling me, huh? Not surprised,
really.
>>You have too much fun to killfile an opponent. Me too.
> Oh? Remind me when I ever said I would killfile you? Once again I
>believe you are fabricating truth.
<points up the datastream> Vixy! DejaNews! Fetch, girl, fetch! C'mon,
it's only a day or so old! You can do it, girl! -:)
>>To address your question: Lifestylers have allied themselves with HIM, not
vice-versa.
> To address your *presumption*, I find NO mention of this or him on
ALF.
Of course, no one who defended him in that thread was a lifestyler, nor does
any lifestyler post to AFF. Suuuuuuuure...you know, the Ostrich Defense
really *doesn't* work...
>Why is this? Because the Furry Lifestylers are not even watching what goes
on
>here and are not even concerned.
That explains the ones I'm talking to here on AFF in calm tones and rational
debate about how to address furfandom's problems. Steeeee-RIKE! C'mon,
c'mon, put some ol' pepper on that ball, right over the plate! She can't
hit a fastball to save her life; she's practiced on too many curves!
Sa-WING!
>When will the *truth* ever sink in, Scotty?
Truth? From you? Hee, hee, hee! Since when did you care about anything but
pure flaming? Truth kind of gets in the way of your demonstrated
pastime. -:>
> First, I repeat, there's no mention of Jihad or any of this on ALF, the
unofficial,
>official voice of the Furry Lifestylers.
Never said there was. Doesn't need to be, since I'm not addressing
lifestylers universally. Moot point.
>The only Furry Lifestylers who have supported him
BINGO! Thank you! *dingdingding* The girl has a clue! Look out, world! -:D
Scott Malcomson
Wolfpax01 wrote in message <19990207091518...@ng112.aol.com>...
>>"lifestyler" is a term used to denote someone who insists on promoting
their sexual lifestyle publically.
> Your taking a pre-existing 'name of a group' and changing the group that
it applies to.
No, I am applying the term to a relatively small group of people who all
happen to be lifestylers, although they are not necessarily representative
of their individual groups. I don't know of a single plushophile, for
instance, who has caused any public humiliation for the fandom as a whole.
I *do* know of BDSMers, bestialists and other lifestylers who have indeed
caused these sorts of problems.
Since the only thing in common the problem-causers have is that they are
engaged in unusual sexual lifestyles, I refer to them as "lifestylers". The
context of what I wrote should make abundantly clear that if a lifestyler is
not engaged in the problems I have described, then they are *not* the
lifestylers I am referring to.
>I think you should find a better word to describe these people.
I'm open to suggestions.
>Or simply call them 'plushophiles' and 'bestialists'.
Plushophiles aren't causing a problem, or if so, it's minor (Wired sought
*them* out, not vice versa, and plushies didn't assist Wired in making the
article --- they're victims, not jerks). Bestialists *are* part of the
problem, but not all of it, so just talking about them overspecializes the
topic.
Really, the matter before us is not just to assign blame and make someone
feel bad --- the objective is to track down the source of a problem, like
bad press, and address it. Some of the original problems have in fact been
fixed, or are being fixed, and that's good. But far too many people react
to the presentation of a new or ongoing problem with kneejerk fear and
loathing, and flames ensue. This creates bad blood that makes future
discussion progressively more difficult, bordering on impossible.
Scott Malcomson
>> I'm just going to clip the rest of this. You're on a rant ---
> Heh. You're right about one thing- I was on a rant. Mostly it is
>because a bunch of people decided to get away from all this hysteria, find
>a different place to talk, and call themselves 'lifestylers'... I guess
>the single thing that consistently bugs me is that you insist upon using
>'lifestyler' as your label for a type of oversexed evangelistic person.
Unfortunately, it's the most accurate term to refer the relatively few
people I'm talking about. I thought explaining the problems I was referring
to would clue people in insofar as: "Does this describe you? If not, I'm not
talking about you". I forgot how much can be read into oversimplification,
and for that I apologize.
> On the one hand, I often feel that 'clean up the fandom' is a foolish
>crusade, because people need to make up their own minds and are not total
>slaves to what some fringe element suggests.
Au contraire: "Clean Up The Fandom" has been the reason for NC17 sections in
art shows, rules on public sex-related displays at conventions, and so on.
If these reforms were not so bitterly fought by those who feel that budging
an inch is going to cost them everything --- and they still fight it ---
there would not be so much bad blood in furfandom.
Remember, the BFs are an effect, not a cause, although they have
certainly caused anguish after they came into effect. Rather than focus the
entirety of the blame on BFs and be done with it, however, look to what
caused the BFs to come into existence, and address *that*. It'll keep the
problem from cropping up again.
In chess, no good player thinks only one move ahead. He will lose every
time if he does. AFF, unfortunately, is full of one-move thinkers.
> But when a fringe element seems to be suggesting jarring and derogatory
>things about a group _I_ seem to belong to, oh my, suddenly 'image' seems
>to matter to me!
You're absolutely right. Can you see, then, how Burned Furs feel about bad
press suggesting jarring and derogatory things about a group *they* belong
to --- furfandom as a whole? Cause, effect, and cause again.
> So which is it? Are you slandering the people I identify with?
Not at all, and I apologize if that seems to be what I was doing. It was
not my intent. Of course, something about intents and roads comes to
mind...
>Which is it? Do words matter, does image matter?
They certainly do in many cases, for many people. Bad image has cost
furries jobs and threatened the jobs of others (mine included). It's a
matter of consideration for others, not to add to that image, and to try and
make it a good rather than bad one. There are limits, of course --- we
shouldn't resort to wholesale censorship. In my opinion, we must simply
consider what the general public and press *can* see, and minimize
potentially damaging behavior and displays accordingly. This really boils
down to: "what happens in private should be kept private".
> I don't know what to do, Scott: I don't claim to. I _would_ suggest if
>you care about image at all, quit saying things about 'lifestylers' right
>now and find a better word.
I'm open to suggestions...
>You don't own that word
Never claimed to. Nor do I need to, in order to make a point.
>This is the guy in favor of cleaning up public hotel lobbies, you're
talking to, OK?
Then we're very much in actual accord. I apologize again for my use of the
term, but I have honestly not been able to think of a better one.
"Troublemakers" is too loose, because people will instantly flame over "who
the troublemaker *really* is" and I won't be able to stay on the topic.
Listing every group that has people which contribute to the problems is
worse than just saying "lifestylers", both in blame and just plain bad
communication. Naming names doesn't work for similar reasons.
"o/` Words are weapons; sharper than knives / Makes you wonder how the
other half dies... o/`"
Scott Malcomson
>"Scott Malcomson" <cal...@goodnet.com> spoke:
>> >> interesting-sounding name like alt.lifestyle.furry, and skimmed the
group for salacious data
>What [I think] I mean to say is that alt.lifestyle.furry is not exactly a
hotbed of "salacious data".
All right, my apologies for nipping your nose. However, I would have to
ask what you considered "salacious" to mean, as opposed to what Wired might
consider such. Just reading the FAQ, one sees the definition of a plushie
lifestyler includes "...sexual...". No, it doesn't stop there, there's
plenty else, but that's going to be a hotword for an outfit like Wired. And
the FAQ would naturally be the first place someone looks to find out what
plushophiles are about.
>DejaNews says you haven't posted there, so I'll have to ask: have you ever
actually read the group?
No. I mention it only as a potential source for the data, since Wired cites
it in the article in question.
>> As I've explained already --- clearly you aren't reading everything
you're
>> responding to --- "lifestyler" is a term used to denote someone who
insists
>> on promoting their sexual lifestyle publically.
>I think you are equating your definition of "lifestyler" with the
readership of alt.lifestyle.furry
No, I'm not. What you see above is a typo, and one I've had to explain
several times already --- my fault, my apology. It should read "a term I
use". I can see why someone would feel unnecessarily put upon for the way
it actually reads.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
[...]
>> I don't know what to do, Scott: I don't claim to. I _would_ suggest if
>>you care about image at all, quit saying things about 'lifestylers' right
>>now and find a better word.
>
>I'm open to suggestions...
"drinnon" to the best of my knolige this word has no previous meaning
in any langague so the word is "clean" of any any meaning so the
chance of missinterpreataion is minimul. Its your word now, define it
as you like.
[...]
>the troublemaker *really* is" and I won't be able to stay on the topic.
>Listing every group that has people which contribute to the problems is
>worse than just saying "lifestylers", both in blame and just plain bad
>communication.
I think you missed an importent point there, I think all groups have
people who contribute to the problem. Its not a problem that is
inherent to the groups, its a problem that is a part of thouse people.
--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
http://www.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.
? The platypus' furry art and lititure
compertision http://www.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/rules.html
D. J. Green
>>This from the person who decided she didn't like what I had to say, so she
>>dismissed me as a "burned freak" and could therefore ignore what I said.
>
> Ahhhhh... please excuse me then... I should have said burned freaks *and*
>their supporters. Just a minor oversight. Does that help? :)
Oh, immensely. It still allows you to totally dismiss anything I say by
categorizing me off into "persona non grata" and ignore that there actually
might be any content involved.
Heaven forfend that you should actually have to think about what someone
says. It's so much easier to assign them off into little boxes and write
off anything they might opine if they're in the wrong box.
You're still a hypocrite.
Lost Number
> Mzigo Kobe wrote in message ...
> >"Scott Malcomson" <cal...@goodnet.com> spoke:
> >> >> interesting-sounding name like alt.lifestyle.furry, and skimmed the
> group for salacious data
>
> >What [I think] I mean to say is that alt.lifestyle.furry is not exactly a
> hotbed of "salacious data".
>
> All right, my apologies for nipping your nose. However, I would have to
> ask what you considered "salacious" to mean, as opposed to what Wired might
> consider such. Just reading the FAQ, one sees the definition of a plushie
> lifestyler includes "...sexual...". No, it doesn't stop there, there's
> plenty else, but that's going to be a hotword for an outfit like Wired. And
> the FAQ would naturally be the first place someone looks to find out what
> plushophiles are about.
[snip]
> >DejaNews says you haven't posted there, so I'll have to ask: have you ever
> actually read the group?
>
> No. I mention it only as a potential source for the data, since Wired cites
> it in the article in question.
Wired also cites FurNation, if you hadn't noticed.
It also mentions Usenet 'sites' _like_ alt.lifestyle.furry,
which implies they looked at others also.
While those topics are on-charter for alf, they're not in regular
discussion at all.
Lost Number
> Mzigo Kobe wrote in message ...
> >"Scott Malcomson" <cal...@goodnet.com> spoke:
>
> >> WHY does a Microsoft subcontractor (who will not be named for legal
> >> reasons) think furries equate to sexual harassment? Because THAT's what
> an
> >> employee found on the Internet while surfing; spooge galore, much of it
> >> linked to major search engines by very common keywords.
>
> >...and search engines are like that. They don't care if you put up a
> >warning page.
>
> If the warning page is where it's *supposed* to be --- THE entry page to the
> site --- then yes, you *will* hit the warning page if you surf to that site
> via a keyworded search engine. That's because all links to site-internal
> material --- say, XXX spoogevixens --- must be reached *from* that page.
> Only the home page itself is linked to search engines, keywords or no.
I think you're thinking of web indexes like Yahoo, not search engines.
Web indexes link _sites_. Search engines link _pages_.
(Actually, the workings of search engines are hopelessly vague to me,
but that's been my experience so far. =P)
>
[snip OK points]
Timothy Fay
as flawed as it was when this issue first came up. No wonder you got
into politics -- you're perfectly qualified.
Even if we assume that what they did was perfectly legal, it was still
shockingly stupid. As Edd Vick put it, driving around California with
a backseat full of guns is like wearing a swastika in Tel Aviv -- not
a good idea. Even some of the gun owners I've talked to agree on that
point.
The most ironic thing is that I and many others were initially
sympathetic towards both Kjartaan and Newell. But what turned most
people off to their plight was your unending barrage of government
conspiracy charges and insistence on non-existent Constitutional
privileges. And the same thing is happening again with your current
anti-Lifestyler witch-hunt. As far as I can tell, you're not getting
much support in your current crusade, either. The more things
change...
--
http://www.tc.umn.edu/nlhome/m279/fayxx001/
"Hey, ho -- let's go!" -Ramones
Dr. Cat
: For all the talk about Furries bad press no one has meantion the
: recent good comments in "Asimov's Science Fiction Magizine"
: http://www.sfsite.com/asimovs/columns/kelly05.htm
Shhhhhhh... Don't interrupt all the furries with any good news!
They're ARGUING. Mustn't distract them. :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!
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
(Disclaimer: Arguing is very, very important. Unless it's not.)
Timothy D Fay
>Donald E. Sanders wrote in message ...
>>So if you said I actually made a death threat, how can I argue that???
>Try learning something about law. It's called a library. They have books
>on law there. How do you think *I* know this stuff, *osmosis*?
I wouldn't brag about your knowledge of law -- not unless you've changed
your opinion about the alleged Constitutional "right" you 'zonies have to
ignore California gun laws...
--
-- http://www.tc.umn.edu/nlhome/m279/fayxx001 --
++++ Stop the execution of Mumia Abu-Jamal! ++++
++++ if you agree copy these 3 sentences in your own sig ++++
++++ more info: http://www.xs4all.nl/~tank/spg-l/sigaction.htm ++++
--
"Liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; socialism
without liberty is slavery and brutality" -- Michael Bakunin
Scott Malcomson
>"Scott Malcomson" <cal...@goodnet.com> spoke:
>> WHY does a Microsoft subcontractor (who will not be named for legal
>> reasons) think furries equate to sexual harassment? Because THAT's what
an
>> employee found on the Internet while surfing; spooge galore, much of it
>> linked to major search engines by very common keywords.
>...and search engines are like that. They don't care if you put up a
>warning page.
If the warning page is where it's *supposed* to be --- THE entry page to the
site --- then yes, you *will* hit the warning page if you surf to that site
via a keyworded search engine. That's because all links to site-internal
material --- say, XXX spoogevixens --- must be reached *from* that page.
Only the home page itself is linked to search engines, keywords or no.
>"very common keywords" are notorious for bringing up sex sites
>anyway =P (Who hasn't been a victim?)
Sex sites with warning pages, yes. Also, a "Standard" sex site usually has
language that pegs it as a sex site and people not interested see it right
off. Many furry sites, however, are run by people who think it's perfectly
normal, or only furries would ever see it, so they don't use "flag language"
or warning pages that would clue someone who isn't a furry in.
For the record: one of the reasons I was told that "furries are all like
that" is because there *wasn't* a warning page of any kind. My boss told me
to my face that that was the big clue for them --- we furries must think
that kind of thing is normal, ergo we're all "like that". I wasn't told
much else --- this came down only during the argument I was trying to make
in defense of furry. They wouldn't even *look* at Yerf.
Scott Malcomson
>Scott Malcomson (cal...@goodnet.com) wrote:
>I wouldn't brag about your knowledge of law -- not unless you've changed
>your opinion about the alleged Constitutional "right" you 'zonies have to
ignore California gun laws...
Well, Fay, seems I was right, because Karno's gun charge was *overturned*.
I mentioned that over a year ago...where were you?
The court found that no California law *had* been violated, once the case
was reintroduced. It was also found that Karno's lawyer --- a Mexican
national --- had deliberately lied to him that pleading guilty to a
misdemeanor firearms offense was not deportable. Apparently the lawyer did
not like having to represent a white man.
Nor did I ever say 'Zonies had a right to "ignore" California gun laws.
What I said was that under the Constitution, each state is required to
recognize the licenses of every other state, and that includes a Boston
concealed carry permit. Article 4, Section 1, US Constitution: "Full faith
and credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and
judicial Proceedings of every other State." Section 2:"The Citizens of each
State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the
Several States."
Try reading the Constitution sometime; you might learn something.
Karno came back to the States just a few months ago, kicked around for a
couple months, went home unmolested by ATF, INS, or anyone else ---
including you, who rawly attacked him and declared his deportation just and
proper, because he owned something legal that you personally hate.
*I* win cases, Fay --- all *you've* managed to do is attack your fellow
artists to further your anti-gun politics.
Peter da Silva
politics group, as per Scott's request.
--
This is The Reverend Peter da Silva's Boring Sig File - there are no references
to Wolves, Kibo, Discordianism, or The Church of the Subgenius in this document
"If you don't have 64 bits, you're not playing with a full DEC."
Chris Johnson
> > I don't know what to do, Scott: I don't claim to. I _would_ suggest if
> >you care about image at all, quit saying things about 'lifestylers' right
> >now and find a better word.
> I'm open to suggestions...
What's wrong with 'perverts'? That shows who you're talking about _and_
where you're coming from. Isn't that what you're really trying to say?
Jinx_tigr
(aka Chris Johnson)
Chris Johnson
fayxx001@delete..this..maroon.tc.umn.edu wrote:
> The most ironic thing is that I and many others were initially
> sympathetic towards both Kjartaan and Newell. But what turned most
> people off to their plight was your unending barrage of government
> conspiracy charges and insistence on non-existent Constitutional
> privileges. And the same thing is happening again with your current
> anti-Lifestyler witch-hunt. As far as I can tell, you're not getting
> much support in your current crusade, either. The more things
> change...
That depends on how you look at it, Tim. It's probably just habit from
having posted to alt.lifestyle.furry (hehe) but I know that I have found
one specific concept where I agree with Scott. That's hotel-based
convention artwork display rules in public areas such as lobbies. We both
clearly think lobbies should be innocent of sexual pictures. That's
progress, of a sort.
Now, I also really hope he quits using lifestyler as a symbol of a
certain type of evangelistic pervert- not that I mind perverts, but
there's quite a different and more serious meaning to lifestyler now,
since ALF got going. However, I can't control Scott and may never respect
this section of his notions. But it is worth figuring out exactly where a
person is going over the line. To me, Scott goes over the line constantly,
inexcusably, infuriatingly. However that doesn't mean nothing he says is
valid. It just makes it harder to listen to him when he _is_ talking
sense.
Jinx_tigr
(aka Chris Johnson)