God, King, and Law
Allen Kitchen
fka...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> The Burned Fur Webring is up and functioning! The Webring site can be
> found at:
Well, Eric _did_ do a wonderful fullpage image that I like.
It says that furrys, to him, have vast empires in space and dabble
in magic; so why is it the only thing some can think of is to show
them naked?
But, since Eric also prefers the Shock Jock approach to
debate and discourse, I'll have to give this site a miss. In my
opinion, any cure he may have is likely to be worse than the disease.
Quite a shame actually. When he puts his ego aside, he can make some
fantastic, worthy statements.
And yes, I know my nom de plume is ironic...
Allen Kitchen (shockwave)
AllanGldmn
> The Burned Fur Webring is up and functioning! The Webring site can be
>found at:
> As you can see from the URL, I'm in charge of the ring, so's you can be
>sure that the utmost tolerance and liberal thinking will be applied to all
>applicants!
>
>Smiles and Heils!
And in one short posting the Burned Fur movement goes from a valid attempt
to improve furry fandom to just another fascist parody.
Who will save us from the bee-stee-al-ity fans now?
Al Goldman
PS - I thought the WWII era photo of the plushophile, with his friend, about
to be shot in the back of the head and thrown into the pile of rotting courpes
and stuffed animals was kind of in poor taste. Having stated my views and
proven my worthlessness, be sure to round me up, tattoo the word "Yiffy' on my
arm, and send me to a furry concentration camp when you take over.
Al Goldman
fka...@my-dejanews.com
Just an announcement to the folks who love me so durn much- and that
includes all of you who put mutiple X'es and Y's in their "fan names" in a
vain effort to sound more exotic than the overweight fan-lumps you so
obviously are...
The Burned Fur Webring is up and functioning! The Webring site can be
found at:
http://vision.nais.com/~blumrich/burned.html
As you can see from the URL, I'm in charge of the ring, so's you can be
sure that the utmost tolerance and liberal thinking will be applied to all
applicants!
Smiles and Heils!
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
B.T. McCammon
fka...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> Kan Pei, hsaio-jen!
>
> The Burned Fur Webring is up and functioning! The Webring site can be
> found at:
>
> http://vision.nais.com/~blumrich/burned.html
>
Put another punk on the barbecue for me, Ace, I'll be comin' over for dinner!
> As you can see from the URL, I'm in charge of the ring, so's you can be
> sure that the utmost tolerance and liberal thinking will be applied to all
> applicants!
>
>
By the way, how's Prague this time of year, "Franz"?
Nogitsune
666
Keith Wood
[ Just an announcement to the folks who love me so durn much- and that
[includes all of you who put mutiple X'es and Y's in their "fan names" in a
[vain effort to sound more exotic than the overweight fan-lumps you so
[obviously are...
Well, since I'm 5'11" and 164 lbs (up from 153 a few months ago), I
guess I don't need any of those X or Y addons. ;)
Admittedly, I was up to 193 in FEB 96, but that was a lifetime ago.
Richard de Wylfin
> In article <73qfsv$9b7$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, fka...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> [Kan Pei, hsaio-jen!
> [
> [ Just an announcement to the folks who love me so durn much- and that
> [includes all of you who put mutiple X'es and Y's in their "fan names" in a
> [vain effort to sound more exotic than the overweight fan-lumps you so
> [obviously are...
Pardon me, mein Fuhrer, but Xydexx looks quite Aryan in his RL manifestation,
and is quite slim, as well.
^ ^
o-o
+
richard de wylfin http://i.am/a.furry.fox
Brian O'connell
my eyebrows to keep getting bushy, I look just like Stalin.... Hey, mebbe
there's a trend in furry fandom?
Big smile, big smile...
~\o ~\o 'When you're heiling, when you're heiling, the whole world heils
with you...'~\o ~\o
Richard de Wylfin wrote in message ...
Richard de Wylfin
<fur...@diespammersdie.nwlink.com> wrote:
> And if I let my moustache grow out and thicken, and get a haircut and allow
> my eyebrows to keep getting bushy, I look just like Stalin.... Hey, mebbe
> there's a trend in furry fandom?
> Big smile, big smile...
> ~\o ~\o 'When you're heiling, when you're heiling, the whole world heils
> with you...'~\o ~\o
Speaking of which:
http://www.homeroom1.com/history.html
xyd...@my-dejanews.com
> But, since Eric also prefers the Shock Jock approach to
> debate and discourse, I'll have to give this site a miss. In my
> opinion, any cure he may have is likely to be worse than the disease.
Personally, I think having a general introduction to furry fandom that
focuses on the clean material is a great idea. Hopefully someone far more
rational and reasonable than Blumrich would be up to the task. Until then I
guess we'll have cranks like him hiding behind it and using it as an excuse
to go on their personal crusades against "immorality".
I think it's really unfortunate that the Burned Fur movement has got an anchor
like Blumrich around its neck. They even admit on their discussion newsgroup
that their shock jock approach makes folks hesitant to join them.
Gee. I could've told them that. Oh, wait... I already did.
-------
Rev. Xydexx "Overweight Fan-Lump"[1] Squeakypony, K.S.C.
[ICQ: 7569393]
[1] Not actual size. Batteries not included, either.
StukaFox
: I think it's really unfortunate that the Burned Fur movement has got an anchor
: like Blumrich around its neck.
I think it's really unfortunate that the "Furry" movement has got an
anchor like Xydexx around its neck.
Ohwell, as long as Jerry Springer is on the air, you still have your
shot at 15 minutes.
Your parents must beam with pride when they tell people about all the great
things their son has accomplished.
"Your son is a doctor? Well -MY- son is an internationally-known pervert!"
But thanks for your efforts, Karl, because if it wasn't for you, there
wouldn't BE a 'Burned Fur' movement.
The difference between you and Eric, Karl, is that Eric gets noticed
for his talent, and you get noticed for being a freak.
Enjoy your fame, you've worked hard enough for it.
GothTiger
mat...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> (I still don’t understand why you’re seemingly directing your anger at the
> entirely of furry fandom when it’s mostly a small segment you’re upset with.
Maybe it's because that 'small segment' is the one that everyone sees. Maybe
because that 'small segment is the part that every non-furry person out there
assumes is representative of the whole scene. Maybe it's because non-smut furry
artists can't make any money off of the work they bust their hump on because
certain other 'craftspeople' (I will not dignify them with the term 'artist') rake
in the dough by knocking out pictures of characters abusing themselves. Maybe
because that 'small segment' has given furry fans such a bad name that it's
impossible to talk about the subject with someone who knows what it is but isn't a
fan without having the person you're talking to bring up bestiality within the
first five minutes of the conversation.
But I'm just guessing.
GothTiger (tig...@execpc.com)
Donald E. Sanders
stuk...@shell9.ba.best.com says...
the freaks got some class. :(
--
Don Sanders
Dsan Tsan on #furry of Yiffnet
Artist at Roll Yer Own Graphics
http://www.dreamscape.com/dsand101/dsan.htm
(my furry page) Email dsan...@future.dreamscape.com
Donald E. Sanders
I've only been to two real furry cons, both in Albany New York. When I
try to compare them with the cons on the west coast, I come up with the
same thing. It seems the complaints about how the fandom is falling
apart by the beasties and the plushrumpers is coming from the west coast
cons. Must be the locations. And what is this thing about money again??
No! You won't get me to harp on that again, got burned too many times on
that. My slant on it? Sticks and stones will break your bones, but
squeeky ponies never have harmed me! (Raspberry!) :P
All kidding aside. Perhaps the best way to deal with this is to discuss
it on a mature sense than going about dragging folks names in the mud,
unless some of you out there get off on such activities. (Meaning the
belitting, not the mud)
I said my piece.
Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci
freak" issue stems from two sources.
The first has been due to the unhappy combination of cross-over fandoms
and undersocialized fans/artists. So any number of SF cons and related
venues have gotten more than a little eyeful of "indescrete"
presentations of all kinds of furry porn. Some situations so bad that
specific rules were established to keep such in check. (the original
"skunkfuckers" come out of that aspect).
The second has been the result of active solicitation of some fans and
even con organizers of furry cons as, on occation, general purpose as
well as genre specific sexual freakshows.
But the real problem isn't a tiny "them". The pronographers and
advocates of the freak shows only succeed because too many of the crowd
either support them directly or indirectly, or don't have the will (or
in pratical circumstances, the wherewithall) to take leadership roles
that can dierctly change the course in question.
To really change things will require deeds, not words.
Brenda Daverin
Canadian" <readsi...@bottomofpage.com> wrote:
> All kidding aside, I've never been able to figure out how changing our
> names and rising up in protest is going to do us any good. Heck,
> calling comic books "graphic novels" probably hasn't done much for
> comics sales...
The individual comics don't sell so well, but the graphic novels can't be
kept in stock. Or so I read.
--
Brenda Daverin bdav...@best.com
The Unravelled Ferret - http://members.aol.com/lysana/
"Usenet is just email with witnesses." -- Rob Hansen
Donald E. Sanders
Well, I guess that answers my question. Although I would argue the
point, I won't in this case. I have come to the conclusion that the
subject of Furry = Sex has become a volatile one. I think I have seen
solutions stemming from the total elimination of the said subject, to
holding cons on the subject in secret locations away from the general
public. No, those are not solutions. Acceptance is not a option either
due to the fact that there is a vast majority who is against the subject
and feel that it can never ever be tolerated. So far, I have seen folks
come up and say that Furry Porn and the attitudes of those who support
them has damaged the fandom in a whole. There has been many suggestions
that those who draw such material should stop. A person new to the
fandom will see this infighting and wonder if this was such a good idea
to even go to cons, or get involved. Those of us who have been here for
a while are wondering if even staying is such a good idea. No, from what
I have seen, existence between the so-called freaks of the fandom and
those out there who want a pure fandom is not possible. My stake in
this?? It's moot. I started out as a furry fan before the advent of the
net. I admired artists from afar and even went as far as to start
drawing and writing in a furry sense. All that was well and good. Now
comes the net, everyone gets a chance to be in one big friendly fandom.
I guess that is the problem and the price that was paid. Since the last
convention I attended, (AAC98) I have been having doubts of attending
conventions. What turned from a fun activity to do has turned into a
professional pain. No sir, no more letting your hair down folks,
everything must be nice and proper.
Yep, I got my answer, but it was not a easy one. So many people will be
happy if this problem will just vanish. I myself don't know if happiness
is a point here cause so many folks have gotten their panties in a bunch
over what appears to be nothing.
(Oh yea, it would be nice to discuss something more better than having to
rehash this issue over and over again!)
Xydexx Squeakypony
> Maybe it's because that 'small segment' is the one that everyone sees.
Maybe the only reason everyone sees that 'small segment' is because people like Eric
insist on pointing it out.
> Maybe because that 'small segment is the part that every non-furry person out there
> assumes is representative of the whole scene.
Maybe people like Eric who insist on pointing it out to every non-furry person out
there isn't helping.
> Maybe it's because non-smut furry artists can't make any money off of the work they
> bust their hump on because certain other 'craftspeople' (I will not dignify them
> with the term 'artist') rake in the dough by knocking out pictures of characters
> abusing themselves.
Maybe sex sells.
But maybe there's more to it than that...
Maybe some non-smut furry artists are driving their potential customers away. Maybe
some furry fans are redirecting their non-smut furry artwork requests to furry artists
who---although they draw spooge---have the intelligence not to treat their customers
like shit.
Maybe I'm finding it
real hard to be sympathetic
to folks who
call me a fanboy,
say I'm sexual debris,
think I deserve a bullet in the back of the head,
and -then-
have the
CHUTZPAH
to wonder why I'm not spending
my hard-earned furry dollars on their artwork.
But hey, I'm just guessing, y'know.
> Maybe
> because that 'small segment' has given furry fans such a bad name that it's
> impossible to talk about the subject with someone who knows what it is but isn't a
> fan without having the person you're talking to bring up bestiality within the
> first five minutes of the conversation.
Maybe the only reason it gets brought up is because people like Eric insist on putting
it in the spotlight.
-X.
Donald E. Sanders
dfor...@zeta.org.au says...
> In article <MPG.10cd180e5...@news.fysh.org>, Donald E. Sanders wrote:
>
*** I knew if I said the right things, I will get the right responses.
***
> [...]
>
> > I have come to the conclusion that the
> >subject of Furry = Sex has become a volatile one.
>
> I think in our culutre sex and anything has become a volatile subject.
>
> [...]
>
> > Acceptance is not a option either
> >due to the fact that there is a vast majority who is against the subject
> >and feel that it can never ever be tolerated.
>
> Given the amount of furry porn that sells it makes me think that the
> vast majority is smaller then thay make out. If thay are so vast, why
> doesn't clean fur sell as well. Why dose each attempt to branch off a
> a clean-up-the-furrydome type of group fail to achive critical mass
> and stagnate?
If I may be so bold to put in my two cents on it.. The reason I think is
the fact that what happens when you remove the mature adult aspect of the
fandom, what are you left with?
xyd...@my-dejanews.com
> The difference between you and Eric, Karl, is that Eric gets noticed
> for his talent, and you get noticed for being a freak.
Yeah, Eric gets noticed, all right...
"If Blumrich had anything resembling a solution, as opposed to
impotently raging rhetoric, more of us would be more inclined
to take him seriously. As it is, it's counter-productive."
"It takes a lot to push me over the edge and this did it. I'll
save the Rant and just quietly withdraw all support I had for
Blumrich."
"[Eric Blumrich] might have the world's most valid views on
whatever he posts on, but his tendency to act like a complete
wank doesn't win him many supporters..."
-------
Rev. Xydexx "Freaky" Squeakypony, K.S.C.
[ICQ: 7569393]
David Formosa
[...]
> I have come to the conclusion that the
>subject of Furry = Sex has become a volatile one.
I think in our culutre sex and anything has become a volatile subject.
[...]
> Acceptance is not a option either
>due to the fact that there is a vast majority who is against the subject
>and feel that it can never ever be tolerated.
Given the amount of furry porn that sells it makes me think that the
vast majority is smaller then thay make out. If thay are so vast, why
doesn't clean fur sell as well. Why dose each attempt to branch off a
a clean-up-the-furrydome type of group fail to achive critical mass
and stagnate?
[...]
> A person new to the
>fandom will see this infighting and wonder if this was such a good idea
>to even go to cons, or get involved.
[Nods] I think the infighting is almost as repulsive to people as the
furverts are, perhaps more.
--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
http://www.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.
Fhaolan
(Donald E. Sanders) wrote:
>If I may be so bold to put in my two cents on it.. The reason I think is
>the fact that what happens when you remove the mature adult aspect of the
>fandom, what are you left with?
Fhaolan would like to debate the term 'mature adult', if it is being
used to describe some of the things he's seen in Furry Fandom.
'Immature Adult' would fit far better, in his opinion. :)
-Fhaolan, Celtic Wuf!
Donald E. Sanders
(The chow sighs) What I was pointing out was not maturity or immaturity,
but the word 'Adult'! From what I am seeing here, it looks like some
folks want to run the fandom like a kiddie theme park, keep it clean.
Frankly I would be all for that, but sometimes a person grows tired of
acting like a kid and wants some adult indulgence once in a while. I
agree there is a excess, but why eliminate all if it when small amounts
should do. That is what I mean.
David Formosa
>In article <slrn766mtb....@godzilla.zeta.org.au>,
>dfor...@zeta.org.au says...
[...]
>> Why dose each attempt to branch off a a clean-up-the-furrydome
>> type of group fail to achive critical mass and stagnate?
>
>If I may be so bold to put in my two cents on it.
Bold? this is Usenet everbody gets to toss.
>. The reason I think is
>the fact that what happens when you remove the mature adult aspect of the
>fandom, what are you left with?
I think the classifaction of spooge as mature adult is not accurate.
However there are adult and erotic furry litturture that is not spooge
and is quite interlectuly stimulating (as well as being stimulating in
other aspects).
Elf's stories are not simple one hand reading but an interesting
expoloration of an alternative way of being (and hence an expoloration
of our own nature). Shanda the panda has a strong plot and
interesting charitors. And I beleave that Omah (speeling) the cat
dancer is recomened reading for NZ teens.
David Tapia
xyd...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> I think it's really unfortunate that the Burned
> Fur movement has got an anchor like Blumrich
> discussion newsgroup that their shock jock
> approach makes folks hesitant to join them.
Hoo boy, still searching for whenever your name pops up in a newsgroup Pervo?
And let me correct you on something: no mention has been made on the
discussion group about "folks hesitant to join" due to "shock jock
approach[es]". A post had been made a few weeks ago that mentioned people
outside the group were calling the Burned Fur members "posers" who were "all
talk and no action". Given that you are now making false statements about
the Burned Fur group I'd say that some action is now being made.
> Gee. I could've told them that. Oh, wait... I already did.
Another lie. You posted on the group after you had seen your name mentioned
ONCE. You made some stupid statements and were eventually told where you
could go.
Now instead of making any further false claims about the Burned Fur group why
don't you do what you are best at and jerk off on a Teletubbies™ doll hmm?
--
David Tapia
Donald E. Sanders
dfor...@zeta.org.au says...
> In article <MPG.10cd314a9...@news.fysh.org>, Donald E. Sanders wrote:
> >In article <slrn766mtb....@godzilla.zeta.org.au>,
> >dfor...@zeta.org.au says...
>
> [...]
*** More snippage done ***
> I think the classifaction of spooge as mature adult is not accurate.
> However there are adult and erotic furry litturture that is not spooge
> and is quite interlectuly stimulating (as well as being stimulating in
> other aspects).
>
> Elf's stories are not simple one hand reading but an interesting
> expoloration of an alternative way of being (and hence an expoloration
> of our own nature). Shanda the panda has a strong plot and
> interesting charitors. And I beleave that Omah (speeling) the cat
> dancer is recomened reading for NZ teens.
>
By my standpoint, I figure that is true enough. However those who want
to clean up the fandom have it in their mind to make no exceptions.
Elf's work is grand and well written, however in their eyes, it is still
spooge! This is what frightens me. To them, a witch hunt is still a
witch hunt.
Donald E. Sanders
> In article <73tg7a$ik6$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> xyd...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> > I think it's really unfortunate that the Burned
> > Fur movement has got an anchor like Blumrich
> > around its neck. They even admit on their
> > discussion newsgroup that their shock jock
> > approach makes folks hesitant to join them.
>
> Hoo boy, still searching for whenever your name pops up in a newsgroup Pervo?
> And let me correct you on something: no mention has been made on the
> discussion group about "folks hesitant to join" due to "shock jock
> approach[es]". A post had been made a few weeks ago that mentioned people
> outside the group were calling the Burned Fur members "posers" who were "all
> talk and no action". Given that you are now making false statements about
> the Burned Fur group I'd say that some action is now being made.
>
Who is Pervo? Never seen that person post. Oh, I see who you mean. Tsk
tsk. I have learned from experience that people respond to you better
when you address them in a civil manner, but that is beside the point, we
will work on your people skills later. Now I am curious, what kind of
action are they supposed to take? So far, I have seen the group formed,
webpages going up, lines upon lines of bickering and insulting remarks
said. Oh, I understand the concept of Burned Fur, but thinking it will
save our collective behinds? I don't know, I need convincing, and in a
nice way if you please, I don't respond well to abuse.
>
> > Gee. I could've told them that. Oh, wait... I already did.
>
> Another lie. You posted on the group after you had seen your name mentioned
> ONCE. You made some stupid statements and were eventually told where you
> could go.
>
it seems these days Xydexx's name is always brought up on a negative
tone, of course he would respond to defend himself. I may have not read
the statements that Xydexx may have written. Define 'Stupid Statements',
chances are what may sound stupid to some, may sound reasonable to quite
a few others.
> Now instead of making any further false claims about the Burned Fur group why
> don't you do what you are best at and jerk off on a Teletubbies™ doll hmm?
>
Unless Xydexx actually claims he does that activity, I say you may have
been out of line with that remark. Tsk tsk. People skills, that's the
ticket. A little less insulting and a little more tact, folks will
listen to you.
B.T. McCammon
GothTiger wrote:
>
>
> Maybe it's because that 'small segment' is the one that everyone sees. Maybe
> because that 'small segment is the part that every non-furry person out there
> assumes is representative of the whole scene.
Trying to explain my interest in anthropomorphics to the uninitiated has
led me into many bad experiences. Years ago, when I was at Purdue University, I would
sometimes use the time between classes to enjoy
something like an issue of Albedo or Critters. Inevitably, someone would ask what I
was reading, and frequently they would hint that they thought I was reading something
related to a perverse animal fetish. I would often be asked," Hey, isn't that
triple-x stuff?"
> Maybe it's because non-smut furry
> artists can't make any money off of the work they bust their hump on because
> certain other 'craftspeople' (I will not dignify them with the term 'artist') rake
> in the dough by knocking out pictures of characters abusing themselves.
Some people still seek out quality work. Characterization, content and skill of
execution are what draw me to an artist's body of work. It's a damned shame that the
best of anthropomorphics seems to be the hardest to find.
> Maybe
> because that 'small segment' has given furry fans such a bad name that it's
> impossible to talk about the subject with someone who knows what it is but isn't a
> fan without having the person you're talking to bring up bestiality within the
> first five minutes of the conversation.
Straight-on, GT. There's just a few too many high-profile perverts associated with
the fandom, and the weird and perverse command the attention of masses of people who
are hungry for sordid displays of shame and degradation. I believe it's time for the
stark fist of removal to come down on the little skunkfuckers.
Nogitsune
666
GothTiger
Donald E. Sanders wrote:
>
> > Elf's stories are not simple one hand reading but an interesting
> > expoloration of an alternative way of being (and hence an expoloration
> > of our own nature). Shanda the panda has a strong plot and
> > interesting charitors. And I beleave that Omah (speeling) the cat
> > dancer is recomened reading for NZ teens.
> >
> By my standpoint, I figure that is true enough. However those who want
> to clean up the fandom have it in their mind to make no exceptions.
> Elf's work is grand and well written, however in their eyes, it is still
> spooge! This is what frightens me. To them, a witch hunt is still a
> witch hunt.
Um, excuse me? before you start going on about what 'those who want to clean up the
fandom' want to do, maybe you should do something as radical as actually talk to some
of them about what they want?
Being an official burned fur (and having the scorchmarks to prove it) I cannot speak
for the entire movement. I think that I CAN say however, that we are not opposed to
the production of mature material. As a matter of fact, we encourage it! We endorse
it! We are all for well-written and produced work! If it occasionally deals with
characters engaging in 'mature relations' so be it. Mature individuals do that. If
it's well-done, and in good taste, I personally have no problem with it. But let's be
honest here: Most of the 'adult' stuff out there is little more than quickly produced
cheap thrill material. This is what we are opposed to.
GothTiger (tig...@execpc.com)
StukaFox
: GothTiger wrote:
:> Maybe it's because that 'small segment' is the one that everyone sees.
: Maybe the only reason everyone sees that 'small segment' is because people like Eric
: insist on pointing it out.
Or fanboys like Karl here insist on pushing it in people's faces.
: call me a fanboy,
: say I'm sexual debris,
: think I deserve a bullet in the back of the head,
Stop acting the part and maybe people will give you some respect.
You did everything in your power to make people aware of what you
do, now enjoy what you bought and paid for.
Why don't you trot out the masturbating reindeer .sig again, Karl?
Says everything about you that anyone ever needs to know.
Donald E. Sanders
>
>
> Donald E. Sanders wrote:
>
> >
> > > Elf's stories are not simple one hand reading but an interesting
> > > expoloration of an alternative way of being (and hence an expoloration
> > > of our own nature). Shanda the panda has a strong plot and
> > > interesting charitors. And I beleave that Omah (speeling) the cat
> > > dancer is recomened reading for NZ teens.
> > >
> > By my standpoint, I figure that is true enough. However those who want
> > to clean up the fandom have it in their mind to make no exceptions.
> > Elf's work is grand and well written, however in their eyes, it is still
> > spooge! This is what frightens me. To them, a witch hunt is still a
> > witch hunt.
>
> Um, excuse me? before you start going on about what 'those who want to clean up the
> fandom' want to do, maybe you should do something as radical as actually talk to some
> of them about what they want?
Yeesh, the first logical order of progression would be to talk to a
Burned Fur and find out what the movement is all about. However how
can I say this? Some of the representation so far has been rather
disturbing. I would have loved to talk and get first hand knowledge,
however the only Burned Furs I have encountered has been on the
newsgroups, and to me, they seem quite a bit hostile. Would you try and
reason with somebody hostile?? I will not name these persons, but you
know one by how they presented the movement on their webpage. (A bullet
to the head, now really!) The second Burned Fur caught me totally quite
by surprised. (I can see how this person got involved in the movement, it
was warranted and expected).
>
> Being an official burned fur (and having the scorchmarks to prove it) I cannot speak
> for the entire movement. I think that I CAN say however, that we are not opposed to
> the production of mature material. As a matter of fact, we encourage it! We endorse
> it! We are all for well-written and produced work! If it occasionally deals with
> characters engaging in 'mature relations' so be it. Mature individuals do that. If
> it's well-done, and in good taste, I personally have no problem with it. But let's be
> honest here: Most of the 'adult' stuff out there is little more than quickly produced
> cheap thrill material. This is what we are opposed to.
I personally do not have anything against the Burned Fur movement. Heck,
if my influences were different, I would be a Burned Fur too. However,
They are not. I am who and what I am. (and what that is I leave up to
everyone's guess cause I have seen what happened when folks come out
here.) True, adult materials do have their place, but when certain
people take it upon themselves to keep pushing it out in the front of
matters, (Note, I am addressing both sides, the Burned Furs and the so-
called freaks that are destroying the fandom!) It is no wonder why some
folks will think that the agenda of the Burned Fur movement is the total
elimination of mature adult material, regardless of it being produced in
good taste or not! As for the issue of the Poorly done, Crank-em out
Spooge art that some folks out there think will take the fandom under, I
am one person, (Note, because there are Burned Furs out there who are
artist, I refrain from calling myself one at least to keep them happy
that I did not associate myself with them!) who don't mind them. I never
make it a issue of quality when it comes to art, and it seems after
reading your reply, there is a issue of quality that influences how this
Burned Fur movement is going.
As usual, my intentions is not to enrage or get one up on anyone. As far
as I am concerned, I could be totally wrong. But I do at least reserve
the right to decide for myself what is bad and what is good. Being thick
headed and all, I balk at somebody telling me this is bad or this is good
unless I have experienced it myself. Funny, I'm not at all burned.
xyd...@my-dejanews.com
> xyd...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> > I think it's really unfortunate that the Burned
> > Fur movement has got an anchor like Blumrich
> > around its neck. They even admit on their
> > discussion newsgroup that their shock jock
> > approach makes folks hesitant to join them.
>
> Hoo boy, still searching for whenever your name pops up in a newsgroup Pervo?
Still resorting to namecalling because you can't find a valid rebuttal?
Just curious.
> And let me correct you on something: no mention has been made on the
> discussion group about "folks hesitant to join" due to "shock jock
> approach[es]".
Ah, yes... I stand corrected. That's what everyone outside the newsgroup is
saying. -:)
Of course, it's not like Burned Furs are in complete denial about their image
problem. Some of them actually do think twice:
"I'd *suggest* we tone down the anger and explicitness
in the Manifesto. It perfectly suits the mood of those
of us who've been in the genre for awhile, but it might
be offputting to those not familiar with the fandom's
history. I have the same concern about introducing
newcomers to the fandom through the Manifesto."
What's that? The Burned Fur Manifesto might be offputting to newcomers, you
say? But wait... I thought you said your shock jock approaches weren't making
people hesitant to join you?
Oh dear... I just hate being right all the time. -:)
> Another lie. You posted on the group after you had seen your name mentioned
> ONCE. You made some stupid statements and were eventually told where you
> could go.
Yeah, if it wasn't for Nate Patrin I would never have known about that
newsgroup, y'know? Give him a big hug for me when ya see him. AFF just isn't
the same without him.
But hey, let's look at the facts:
I posted there after ZeroCow said _everyone_ was welcome to post there. Now,
according to my dictionary, "everyone" means "every person". It does not mean
"every person except the ones who don't agree with us".
Squee Rat replied to my post telling me that my opinion, if "well-stated,
concise, and intelligent" had a place there. I asked if that meant my
opinions were going to be held to the same standards as people like you.
("Be gone, Pervo"? Yeah, that's well-stated, concise, and intelligent...) I
mentioned that, as a former sysop of a free-speech oriented BBS, there was a
world of difference between _saying_ you were going to let people express
dissenting viewpoints, and actually _doing_ it.
My post was deleted, of course. I guess Burned Furs don't like people
pointing out their hypocrisy or something. So you can imagine just how
laughable it was when I saw this in Nate Patrin's proposed mission statement:
"WE ENCOURAGE aesthetic, cultural and philosophical diversity."
By deleting any viewpoints on their newsgroup they don't agree with, right?
You know, there's an old saying... talk is cheap. There's another old saying
that actions speak louder than words.
I eagerly await the day when you express a viewpoint they don't agree with and
find it's been quickly and quietly silenced, David. If it happened to me, it
can just as easily happen to you.
-------
Rev. Xydexx Squeakypony, K.S.C., T.D.S.F.A.
[ICQ: 7569393]
Timothy Fay
>
> Elf's stories are not simple one hand reading but an interesting
> expoloration of an alternative way of being (and hence an expoloration
> of our own nature).
Oh? Must be some other "Elf" than the one that posts in a.f.f...
--
http://www.tc.umn.edu/nlhome/m279/fayxx001/
"Hey, ho -- let's go!" -Ramones
David Formosa
[...]
>> By my standpoint, I figure that is true enough. However those who want
>> to clean up the fandom have it in their mind to make no exceptions.
>> Elf's work is grand and well written, however in their eyes, it is still
>> spooge! [...]
>
>Um, excuse me? before you start going on about what 'those who want
> to clean up the fandom' want to do, maybe you should do something as
> radical as actually talk to some of them about what they want?
I just listen to your retoric. There is a strong antyporn feeling in
the burnt fur movement (I've read your dejanews thingy) indeed I would
argue that your antyperversion agender must lead to anti-erotica. How
else are you going to imporve the reputation without getting rid of
the some of the more perverted examples.
> If
>it's well-done, and in good taste, I personally have no problem with it.
And thats the clicher isn't it? What is good taste? Bondage, Herms,
Humour and homosexulity could all be considered "in bad taste" by
someone. Why is your personal sence of good taste better judgment
then mine?
GothTiger
Donald E. Sanders wrote:
> > Um, excuse me? before you start going on about what 'those who want to clean up the
> > fandom' want to do, maybe you should do something as radical as actually talk to some
> > of them about what they want?
>
> Yeesh, the first logical order of progression would be to talk to a
> Burned Fur and find out what the movement is all about. However how
> can I say this? Some of the representation so far has been rather
> disturbing. I would have loved to talk and get first hand knowledge,
> however the only Burned Furs I have encountered has been on the
> newsgroups, and to me, they seem quite a bit hostile. Would you try and
> reason with somebody hostile?? I will not name these persons, but you
> know one by how they presented the movement on their webpage. (A bullet
> to the head, now really!) The second Burned Fur caught me totally quite
> by surprised. (I can see how this person got involved in the movement, it
> was warranted and expected).
Much of the hostility that the person you mantion unloads on this channel is (IMO) more an
act of pre-emptive self-defense than anything else. Any time someone has tried to make the
points that the BF Movement is trying to make in the past, they've been flamed to hell and
back, being called everything from nazi to homophobe. Is it any surprise that someone would
come in to this emvironment with raised hackles?
Okay, if you want to communicate with a good number of members of the burned fur movement,
take a look at their forum on DejaNews. It's not that hard to find, and surprisingly, the
person you refer to as being hostile is quite civil, bringing up a legitimate point that
many of us are discussing/working on right now....
GothTiger (tig...@execpc.com)
(("What are the facts, and to how many decimal places? Don't rely on hearsay, rumor, and
what 'everybody knows' GET THE FACTS!" --Robert A. Heinlein))
David Formosa
>David Formosa wrote:
>> Elf's stories are not simple one hand reading but an interesting
>> expoloration of an alternative way of being (and hence an expoloration
>> of our own nature).
>
>Oh? Must be some other "Elf" than the one that posts in a.f.f...
Nope the same one. His journal entries searise is highly regarded
within net erotica readers. And his "Redemtion" requires a half way
decent education to even understand whats going on.
David Formosa
[...]
>Much of the hostility that the person you mantion unloads on this channel is
> (IMO) more an act of pre-emptive self-defense
pre-emptive self-defense?? What a wonderfull concept, yes I can attack
anyone now and claim that it is pre-emptive self defence.
> than anything else. Any time someone has tried to make the points
>that the BF Movement is trying to make in the past, they've been
>flamed to hell and back,
Flaming tends to encourage flaming.
Timothy Fay
>
> In article <740vqn$9...@newsops.execpc.com>, tig...@execpc.com says...
> >
> > Donald E. Sanders wrote:
> > >
> > > to clean up the fandom have it in their mind to make no exceptions.
> > > Elf's work is grand and well written, however in their eyes, it is still
> > > witch hunt.
As I mention above, it must be some other Elf, 'cuz the one who posts
to this newsgroup writes a lot of spooge -- not especially well-
written spooge, either. I've seen better scribblings the same sixth-
graders who wrote SPICE WORLD and TITANIC (okay, I haven't seen SPICE
WORLD, but do I really have to?). I wouldn't waste a perfectly good
witch hunt on such trivial and uninspired tripe.
> > Um, excuse me? before you start going on about what 'those who want to clean up the
> > fandom' want to do, maybe you should do something as radical as actually talk to some
> > of them about what they want?
>
> Yeesh, the first logical order of progression would be to talk to a
> Burned Fur and find out what the movement is all about.
On several occasions I have asked what this "burned fur" thing is
supposed to be about, and got nothing but silence in return.
"Burned Fur" has defined itself repeatedly in terms of what it is
_not_, but we have yet to learn exactly what it _is_. So at the
risk of repeating myself, I'll repeat myself: What is the point
of this "Burned Fur" thing? I mean, apart from the fact that you
guys don't like (your-favorite-fannish-epithet-here).
"Burned Fur" looks like an attempt to replace one form of extremism
with another. Carla Trotman's manifesto contains some valid
criticisms, but also some ridiculous accusations. Furry conventions
are not terrorized by roving gangs of unruly shamanists, and anyone
who has attended a ConFurence Saturday Night Pizza Feed knows the
threat of rampant veganism to Furry Fandom is minimal, at best. A
less charitable person might suggest that the views expressed in the
Burned Fur "manifesto" are as wacked-out as the poor furry who thinks
he's a fox trapped in a human body.
And that's too bad, because there are many things on which we obviously
agree. But until you guys can get a more logical, balanced and
informed handle on your views, I'll have to pass on this "Burned Fur"
thing.
-Tim
Hangdog
> I can see what you’re saying here Gothtiger, however what you propose is
> neither achievable, practical or just.
>
> ‘If it's well-done, and in good taste’
>
> This little line is so variable and open to very loose interpretation
> as to make it’s final goal as hopeless as the original CDA’s ‘objectionable’.
The CDA attempts to enforce its creators' opinions about erotica via the law,
courts, and police. There is a difference between that and simply stating what
you like or don't like, which is what Gothtiger was--and Burned Fur is--
trying to do.
>
> I’m not trying to play dense here, I’m just applying what the final real
> world implementation would be
The "final real world implementation" is already here: we've gotten together,
stated our beliefs, and are arguing them within the fandom. That is all.
> Personally I find ‘If it's well-done, and in good taste’ is used just as
> often and as indiscriminately as ‘Family Values’. Use of such terms eventually
> comes off as nothing more than an attempt to show indignant moral superiority
> over another, and most if not all of us know how much that is disliked.
The above argument is itself an attempt to show "indignant moral superiority
over another." That does not mean it is without merit, but it does mean that when
you wish to accuse others of a misfiring of the moral instinct, you should
first examine whether and to what degree that same thing motivates your
own accusations.
A lot of Burned Furs don't like a lot of the stuff that's passed off
as "furry erotica." I'm sure you don't either. But we don't oppose it; we realize,
as you do, that this would be futile. The "well done and in good taste" part is
GothTiger's interpretation of the membership's general opinion, and that
opinion it is not invalid. It is, however, highly subjective--which is why "Burned
Fur" takes no position on erotica per se (at least so far as I'm aware)
--Hangdog, Burned Fur
(Who wonders what reference the CDA makes to God and Kings)
Donald E. Sanders
>
>
> Donald E. Sanders wrote:
>
> > > Um, excuse me? before you start going on about what 'those who want to clean up the
> > > fandom' want to do, maybe you should do something as radical as actually talk to some
> > > of them about what they want?
> >
> > Yeesh, the first logical order of progression would be to talk to a
> > can I say this? Some of the representation so far has been rather
> > disturbing. I would have loved to talk and get first hand knowledge,
> > however the only Burned Furs I have encountered has been on the
> > newsgroups, and to me, they seem quite a bit hostile. Would you try and
> > reason with somebody hostile?? I will not name these persons, but you
> > know one by how they presented the movement on their webpage. (A bullet
> > to the head, now really!) The second Burned Fur caught me totally quite
> > by surprised. (I can see how this person got involved in the movement, it
> > was warranted and expected).
>
> points that the BF Movement is trying to make in the past, they've been flamed to hell and
> come in to this emvironment with raised hackles?
>
> Okay, if you want to communicate with a good number of members of the burned fur movement,
> take a look at their forum on DejaNews. It's not that hard to find, and surprisingly, the
> person you refer to as being hostile is quite civil, bringing up a legitimate point that
> many of us are discussing/working on right now....
I will go to the forum, but will only observe, I will offer no input.
Not that I don't like the idea, but my military days have taught me never
to into unknown territory without backup, and I feel much more safe here
in this newsgroup, it's nice, it's open, and more importantly, it's
public!
Donald E. Sanders
says...
*** Lots of snippage happened here, too much in fact but oh well. ***
>
> I can see what you’re saying here Gothtiger, however what you propose is
> neither achievable, practical or just.
>
> ‘If it's well-done, and in good taste’
>
That is the point that frightens me and has gotten me involved in this
discussion in the first place. 'If it's well-done, and in good taste'
I don't know about everyone else, and I pray that I am very much
mistaken, but it is telling me that if it is not well done, ie: a amateur
work, then it is not acceptable! And the 'In good taste' thing means that
it has to conform to some standard! Yeesh! Please please somebody tell
me I am wrong!
>
> Personally I find ‘If it's well-done, and in good taste’ is used just as
> often and as indiscriminately as ‘Family Values’. Use of such terms eventually
> comes off as nothing more than an attempt to show indignant moral superiority
> over another, and most if not all of us know how much that is disliked.
>
I am not even going to rant about how such a action affected me in real
life, I sure don't want to see it here in my past time place!
>
>
> --
> MT - Diagonally parked in a parallel universe.
>
> 1010100
> 1010101
> 1010010
> 1010111-%k dir/news/extra/dn
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>
--
Brian O'connell
>In article <740vqn$9...@newsops.execpc.com>, GothTiger wrote:
>>
>>
>>Donald E. Sanders wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>> to clean up the fandom have it in their mind to make no exceptions.
>>> Elf's work is grand and well written, however in their eyes, it is still
>>
>>Um, excuse me? before you start going on about what 'those who want
>> to clean up the fandom' want to do, maybe you should do something as
>> radical as actually talk to some of them about what they want?
>
>the burnt fur movement (I've read your dejanews thingy) indeed I would
>argue that your antyperversion agender must lead to anti-erotica. How
>else are you going to imporve the reputation without getting rid of
>the some of the more perverted examples.
>
>>it's well-done, and in good taste, I personally have no problem with it.
>
>And thats the clicher isn't it? What is good taste? Bondage, Herms,
>Humour and homosexulity could all be considered "in bad taste" by
>someone. Why is your personal sence of good taste better judgment
>then mine?
called 'Victorian Secrets', 10 plates of disgusting, graphic, obscene 19th
century erotica with furries, showing... *gasp* Ankles!
Xydexx Squeakypony
> Why don't you trot out the masturbating reindeer .sig again, Karl?
Gee, why would I wanna go through the trouble when folks like you are perfectly happy to
crucify me whether I do it or not, eh? Ohwell. Everybody's got their own cross to
bear... mine's just made of stranger things than most.
Keep smiling. -;)
---Xydexx Squeakypony, not a Burned Fur.
Jim Doolittle
<stuk...@shell9.ba.best.com> wrote:
> Stop acting the part and maybe people will give you some respect.
>
> You did everything in your power to make people aware of what you
> do, now enjoy what you bought and paid for.
>
> Why don't you trot out the masturbating reindeer .sig again, Karl?
> Says everything about you that anyone ever needs to know.
Quite frankly, I'm tired of these personal attacks. They're the equivalent
of grade school name calling. It certainly isn't advancing your 'cause'.
I've personally met Xydexx. I didn't find him an unpleasant person. I fail
to see why his liking of inflatable toys makes him an instant pariah. Yes,
I think it's a little wierd (okay, a lot weird), but I'm not sure what
this persecution of him is going to accomplish.
I guess it's just standard Usenet flammage.
With a few exceptions, I've seen mostly flame and smoke out of those who
call themselves 'burned furs'. I've already mentioned that labels don't
impress me. Deeds impress me. Show me what you've done to make fandom a
better place. DO something to make fandom a better place. Don't rant on
Usenet about how things would be so much better if everyone you didn't
like just went away. The world doesn't work like that.
-Jim
Florian
>
> In article <19981128234022...@ngol03.aol.com>,
> allan...@aol.com (AllanGldmn) wrote:
>
> >
> > PS - I thought the WWII era photo of the plushophile, with his friend,
> about
> > to be shot in the back of the head and thrown into the pile of rotting courpes
> > and stuffed animals was kind of in poor taste. Having stated my views and
> > proven my worthlessness, be sure to round me up, tattoo the word "Yiffy' on my
> > arm, and send me to a furry concentration camp when you take over.
> >
> > Al Goldman
> >
>
> I saw that page too, and it was DISGUSTING!
>
> As far as I'm concerned, Blumrich has lost my support. I refuse to be
> associated with such hate-laden tripe.
>
> NO ONE in furry fandom deserves a bullet to the back of the head!
>
I thought that was in poor taste too. I used to have a link to
Blumrich's page from my page, until I saw that.
----------------------------------------------------
e_raschk...@hotmail.com remove .nospam
"Why build one when you can have two at twice the price." - Contact
Fur code 1.3: FCF/MSa A->+ C+ Dm H>+ M- P+++ R+ T++ W- Z+ Sm#
RLE/CT* a cn++++ d e+ f iw+ j* p+ sm#
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
fur...@diespammersdie.nwlink.com> writes:
> Nyuknyuknyuk, that reminds me, I gotta do up a furry one shot
> portfolio called 'Victorian Secrets', 10 plates of disgusting,
> graphic, obscene 19th century erotica with furries, showing... *
> gasp* Ankles!
I once treased Jordan Greywolf that I thought his Victorian ladies were erotic
because they wore corsets and bustles. I don't think he saw the humor in it.
--
The greatest tragedy is that the same species that achieved space flight,
a cure for polio, and the transistor, is also featured nightly on COPS.
-- Richard Chandler
Spammer Warning: Washington State Law now provides civil penalties for UCE.
David Formosa
>mat...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
[...]
>The CDA attempts to enforce its creators' opinions about erotica via the law,
>courts, and police. There is a difference between that and simply stating
>what you like or don't like, which is what Gothtiger was--and Burned Fur is--
>trying to do.
And suggest that people should be shot if thay do something that the
Burnt furries don't like.
David Formosa
[...]
>As I mention above, it must be some other Elf, 'cuz the one who posts
>to this newsgroup writes a lot of spooge -- not especially well-
>written spooge, either.
While I aknolige that taste is a subjective thing, I think you are
going to have to justify that oppinion.
xyd...@my-dejanews.com
know me, or have a very vague idea of who I am in the first place.
Case in point: David Tapia. Never met the guy. Pretty sure he's never met
me either. I don't know what it was I did (other than simply existing) to
get crossed of his Christmas card list, but I'd suspect his view is colored
just a bit by his partner in crime Nate Patrin.
One might theorize that folks like David or GothTiger or StukaFox are just
trying to fit in with the Burned Fur clique, and since they see other folks
attacking me (the "enemy"), they might as well do it too to "fit in".
At least that's the impression I get.
Then there's Nate Patrin. I met him for like two seconds at AAC, figured I'd
just be friendly and say hi and let him see I'm not the Antichrist. Boy,
what a mistake that was. I guess he's still upset I made fun of his pants.
I tell ya, some people just can't take a joke, y'know?
And of course, we've got the big fish in the little pond himself, Eric "Hate"
Blumrich. I've had the displeasure of seeing his peculiar brand of sunshine
and happiness in real life. Yuck.
Then there's other folks, like furplay. I'm pretty sure he's never met me,
but he somehow felt he knew me well enough to give me the title of
"zuuphi1ia's most infamous". Don't get me wrong, I'm honored he thinks so
highly of me... but if he thinks his distorted impression of me has any
resemblance to reality he's gonna be sorely disappointed.
One would think that I must've done something pretty outrageous to deserve
such vitriol from these folks. One must be wondering what sort of
reprehensible crimes I've commited against the fandom. I must be one of
those perverts that everyone complains about who wanders around furry
conventions dressed in leather with a power drill strapped on my crotch,
bothering artists for free spooge art and sticking bananas in inappropriate
places on a shetland pony in the main lobby in front of a group of nuns,
right?
Nah.
I must admit, that all _sounds_ like a lot of fun, but why go through the
trouble of doing that when the Burned Furs will just as happily crucify me for
NOT doing it?
The big burning question: What's my crime? What makes me the enemy?
Aside from being myself? <shrug> Nothing.
The ones who have bad things to say about me are, more often than not, the
ones who know the least about me. Put in perspective, the flak I get here is
minimal at best, and I've gotten used to taking it with a grain of salt.
So now you know the rest of the story. -;)
-------
Rev. Xydexx Squeakypony, K.S.C., T.D.S.F.A.
[ICQ: 7569393]
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Hangdog
>
> Nyuknyuknyuk, that reminds me, I gotta do up a furry one shot portfolio
> called 'Victorian Secrets', 10 plates of disgusting, graphic, obscene 19th
> century erotica with furries, showing... *gasp* Ankles!
"For a face don't matter on three days' leave
To Ike or Tony or Jaque or me.
You can look at a face, an' a face is free
But an ankle's somethin' to make you grieve
For an ankle's an indication..."
--Ernest Hemingway
Unpublished poem, ca. 1918 - 1920
Hangdog
> In article <36645D60...@pdq.net>, Hangdog wrote:
> >mat...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >The CDA attempts to enforce its creators' opinions about erotica via the law,
> >courts, and police. There is a difference between that and simply stating
> >what you like or don't like, which is what Gothtiger was--and Burned Fur is--
> >trying to do.
>
> And suggest that people should be shot if thay do something that the
> Burnt furries don't like.
Well, let's see...GothTiger didn't say anything about shooting, nor did I...
I don't even own a gun, come to that...of course you're referring to
Blum, but Blum is not me or GothTiger, nor is he the entirety of
Burned Fur.
As well, there's a difference between some guy posting outrageous
opinions on UseNet/the Web, and laws passed by Congress (yes, yes,
and signed by the Prez). You can ignore the former with impunity, but
if you ignore the latter you get arrested. So far as I know, Burned Fur
does not have arrest authority.
(Q: How do you pick out the Burned Furs at ConFurence?
A: They're the ones *without* handcuffs ;o)
--Hangdog
(Who's in favor of Tequila shooters...)
Timothy Fay
>
> Given the amount of furry porn that sells it makes me think that the
> vast majority is smaller then thay make out. If thay are so vast, why
> doesn't clean fur sell as well.
The main reason, I think, is quality. Sadly, "furry" comics and
stories are usually poorly drawn, badly written, and often just
ill-conceived. This goes double for furry "spooge." However,
those types who want furry porno aren't usually concerned with
quality, so almost anything "adult" can (and does) sell.
> Why dose each attempt to branch off a
> a clean-up-the-furrydome type of group fail to achive critical mass
> and stagnate?
The problem there as I've said (over, and over, and over...) is that
these groups usually define themselves in terms of what they are _not_,
and not in terms of what they _are_. You have to be "for" something
and not just against everything else. Such reactionary movements are
hard to maintain and tend to fall apart without, say, a charismatic
leader or dedicated cadre. Even the spoogemonkeys are "for" something,
even if it is just for more spooge.
-Tim
--
http://www.tc.umn.edu/nlhome/m279/fayxx001
"Bowl a strike, not a spare -- revolution everywhere!" -RABL motto
David Formosa
>David Formosa wrote:
[...]
>> And suggest that people should be shot if thay do something that the
>> Burnt furries don't like.
>
>Well, let's see...GothTiger didn't say anything about shooting, nor did I...
>I don't even own a gun, come to that...of course you're referring to
>Blum, but Blum is not me or GothTiger, nor is he the entirety of
>Burned Fur.
Do you aggry with Blum's advoky of murder? And do you aggry with the
general anty-plush, anty-lifestyler tone of Squee's rants?
David Formosa
>
>The main reason, I think, is quality.
So rather then scetgoating a large minority of furries. Wouldn't it be
more effective if the burn fur people imporved the quility of there artwork.
> Sadly, "furry" comics and stories are usually poorly drawn, badly
>written, and often just ill-conceived.
True, though tghe superhero set seems just as dammiged.
> This goes double for furry "spooge." However,
>those types who want furry porno aren't usually concerned with
>quality, so almost anything "adult" can (and does) sell.
Then explane Shamda, it is adult and is (IMHO) of good quility.
Donald E. Sanders
fayxx001@delete..this..maroon.tc.umn.edu says...
> David Formosa wrote:
> >
> > Given the amount of furry porn that sells it makes me think that the
> > doesn't clean fur sell as well.
>
> stories are usually poorly drawn, badly written, and often just
> those types who want furry porno aren't usually concerned with
> quality, so almost anything "adult" can (and does) sell.
>
Hmm, as I read this little section, and noting the statement of "Poorly
drawn, badly written and often just ill-conceived" it makes me wonder,
are we talking about material that is sold, or material that is being
offered on the net free of charge?? most times it is my understanding
that items of quality is usually charged for. If it is being posted for
free, then what the artist/writer is doing is sharing. If I am mistaken
on this point, I stand corrected. Furry Erotica that is sold often times
of good or higher quality and is of a content that tastefully done.
> > Why dose each attempt to branch off a
> > a clean-up-the-furrydome type of group fail to achive critical mass
> > and stagnate?
>
> The problem there as I've said (over, and over, and over...) is that
> these groups usually define themselves in terms of what they are _not_,
> and not in terms of what they _are_. You have to be "for" something
> and not just against everything else. Such reactionary movements are
> hard to maintain and tend to fall apart without, say, a charismatic
> leader or dedicated cadre. Even the spoogemonkeys are "for" something,
> even if it is just for more spooge.
>
Now I am confused, do you mean spoogemonkeys as in the fans or the
artists who draw spooge?? As for group organization, The Burned Fur
movement would work if there was a focus, that focus being education, and
not persecution. Anyway, it does make me wonder why the term "Burned
Fur" to me it seems this group wants to burn those they are against, and
not be burned themselves, which it looks to me, they are just burning
themselves.
(A chow who was just your normal red blooded fur until this business came
up)
B.T. McCammon
Dar_Th...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> As far as I'm concerned, Blumrich has lost my support. I refuse to be
> associated with such hate-laden tripe.
>
> NO ONE in furry fandom deserves a bullet to the back of the head!
You are correct. The price of ammunition is generally prohibitive. Even if you
save your brass and do your own reloading, the cost is still substantial.
Alternative methods of execution ARE needed.
Nogitsune
666
Donald E. Sanders
Hmm, no smileys, no notification that the above statement was either a
joke or a parody, or satire. Thus one must figure that the above
statement is indeed a factual representation of what this person
desires. So with all the facts there, one would say that if this person
believes in the Burned Fur movement, then this person believes the goals
of the movement is to not only eliminate the bad element of the fandom,
but to do it with violent means. You now have a chance to clarify this
in your next post.
Donald E. Sanders
>
>
> Dar_Th...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > As far as I'm concerned, Blumrich has lost my support. I refuse to be
> > associated with such hate-laden tripe.
> >
> > NO ONE in furry fandom deserves a bullet to the back of the head!
>
> You are correct. The price of ammunition is generally prohibitive. Even if you
> save your brass and do your own reloading, the cost is still substantial.
> Alternative methods of execution ARE needed.
>
> Nogitsune
> 666
In addition, until such justified reasons can be found, I have no choice
but to dub thee "Troll!"
Brian O'connell
sometime...;)
Makes me flash back to the days when I didn't do graphic erotica, just
pinups and nudes (those who know any history know what I meant, just lookit
the Hartem Tigress pict for a prime example, THAT was how graphic I got,
with sex scenes once in a blue moon)... Had Monica Livingston, Groat,
Ruggels, et al, telling me to 'Stop the porn! You're making furries look
bad!!!'
Not flaming, just NOTING the irony...
StukaFox
: In addition, until such justified reasons can be found, I have no choice
: but to dub thee "Troll!"
Well la-de-fucking-dah.
Until you prove otherwise, I have no choice but to dub you
"Thin-Skinned Git."
Hey -- this is fun!
StukaFox
: Do you aggry with Blum's advoky of murder? And do you aggry with the
: general anty-plush, anty-lifestyler tone of Squee's rants?
Do you actually think Eric is -REALLY- advocating shooting anyone
(seeing how he doesn't even have a gun), or are you just being
thin-skinned and playing on hyseria?
Ever heard of hyperbole?
Anyone who thinks Eric is REALLY calling for the death penalty for
being a clueless git, is in fact, a clueless git and deserving of
the death penalty he's not advocating. ;)
StukaFox
: I've personally met Xydexx. I didn't find him an unpleasant person. I fail
: to see why his liking of inflatable toys makes him an instant pariah.
I personally don't give a shit what he does IRL, since it doesn't
affect me in the least. He wants to fuck inflatable animals, more
power to him. He wants to come here and brag about it, wants to tell
people how proud he is of it, wants to associate Furry with his
sickening little hobby? Well, that's when the problem starts.
I would rather Furry NOT be associated with Karl's sexual dysfunction,
thank you. Further, if Karl's willing to tell everyone here how proud
he is of what he does, to the point of willingly appearing in print
letting everyone know what a great thing this is, then he's got to
be ready to face people like me who have a quite different opinion
of his activities.
Karl's decided to become Pervert Superstar, and he really doesn't
give a shit who or what he taints in doing so.
THAT'S my problem with Karl.
--
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
Mark Freid
<doolittl-011...@dan-139-22.housing.uiuc.edu>...
> I've personally met Xydexx. I didn't find him an unpleasant person. I
fail
> to see why his liking of inflatable toys makes him an instant pariah.
> I think it's a little wierd (okay, a lot weird), but I'm not sure what
> this persecution of him is going to accomplish.
So have I. Surprisingly (or at least surprisingly if you read AFF on a
regular basis), he's a pretty cool guy in person.... even asked me to draw
one of his characters (as in an inflatable unicorn or something)... not the
strangest request I've ever gotten (that goes to the anthro-trilobyte and
the "rubber balls" requests), and it was kinda fun...
I figure, I don't have to agree with stuff people do, but hey whatever
floats their boat, eh? You go do that over there... I'll be over here,
behind this door. :)
Besides anyone who likes "Dig Dug", can't be all bad. <g>
--
Peace, Apathy, Vixen.....
=====================
Mark Freid
http://wolf.tierranet.com
can...@yiffco.com
====================
(take out the "NOSPAM" part if replying by E-mail. Duh.)
GothTiger
mat...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <3664DCE8...@pdq.net>,
> Hangdog <peter....@pdq.net> wrote:
>
> > > And suggest that people should be shot if thay do something that the
> > > Burnt furries don't like.
> >
> > Well, let's see...GothTiger didn't say anything about shooting, nor did I...
> > I don't even own a gun, come to that...of course you're referring to
> > Blum, but Blum is not me or GothTiger, nor is he the entirety of
> > Burned Fur.
>
> Ahh, good to see those feelings are not universally shared, which was
> one item that was putting a wrench in the works.
yes, there are many Burned Fur 'moderates', such as myself. Let's be honest,
everyone has their own agenda, and the fact the many of us agree on several points
does not keep them from being seperate: Squee Rat, for example, takes her stands
against bestiality, plushophilia, and lifestylism, while more or less remaining open
on the subject of the creation of eroitc furry art. Blumrich, on the other hand, is
famous for his rants against erotic art while openily considering the rift between
normal fans and lifestylers to be 'regrettable' (if you don't believe me, go check
out the review of Philcon on his website)
As for myself, I have little problem with artist who creates erotic art, as long as
(in my personal opinion) it is in good taste. Unfortunately, many artists out there
(including a few who'se non-erotic art I love) have little problem creating art that
depicts certain acts that I will not go into here, solely to make a few bucks. The
depiction of these acts implies consent, which attracts these people into these acts
to this scene, which opens up another can of worms entirely.
I personally feel that not only is bestiality wrong, it is illegal in most states,
and it hurts the animal. The argument that some zoophiles make about waiting for
subtle clues from their animal friend that they are feeling amorous justifies their
actions just about as much as "Hey, she wanted it, you saw how she was dressed"
justifies sexual assault.
As to lifestylers...well, just don't get me started.
> True, and I'm glad to have that cleared that up a bit. What had
> concerned me is that the large portion of BF had parallel views to Blumrich.
Well, as the saying goes, the squeaky wheel gets the grease.
> But anyway now that I know the viewpoints of BF’s are little bit more
> moderate my concerns are assuaged to some extent.
Glad to hear it. I'm glad to see that someone is taking the time and effort to
discuss what concerns them in a rational manner...
GothTiger (tig...@execpc.com)
((Sorry about the spleen-venting, I've needed to do it for a while...))
xyd...@my-dejanews.com
> Okay, if you want to communicate with a good number of members
> of the burned fur movement, take a look at their forum on
> DejaNews.
Uh-huh.
Just remember to look, though. Don't post. I know from personal experience
that the last thing they want to see there is an opposing viewpoint.
-------
Rev. Xydexx "Been There, Done That" Squeakypony, K.S.C.
Hangdog
> In article <3664DCE8...@pdq.net>, Hangdog wrote:
> >David Formosa wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> And suggest that people should be shot if thay do something that the
> >> Burnt furries don't like.
> >
> >Well, let's see...GothTiger didn't say anything about shooting, nor did I...
> >I don't even own a gun, come to that...of course you're referring to
> >Blum, but Blum is not me or GothTiger, nor is he the entirety of
> >Burned Fur.
>
> Do you aggry with Blum's advoky of murder?
I don't believe Blum is actually advocating murder, so the
question does not apply. I believe he *is* using shock tactics to
satirize the fandom. That's not my style, but he hasn't asked me to
be his editor.
> And do you aggry with the
> general anty-plush, anty-lifestyler tone of Squee's rants?
Actually, yes. But the question is irrelevant, because nowhere
in Squee's Manifesto or Modest Proposal do I find any
advocy of violence--which was your original issue.
Peace,
--Hangdog
Hangdog
> And yes, a physical law would have a power that could not be ignored.
> However simply saying that a group that seemed rather militant wouldn't have
> the same effect as a law doesn’t bear in mind ‘gang mentality’. The last
> thing I want to see is a group of BF’s creating a posse to phyically stamp
> out what they don’t like to see.
GUFFAW!!!
I'm sorry, no harm meant: I just couldn't help but laugh at the image of me,
Blum, Squee and Nate as a "posse" or "gang."
I'm not interested in physical violence--nor, really, is anyone else in Burned
Fur. So your fears are groundless. But let's not argue good intentions, let's
just review the facts:
Blum is cadaverously thin and a chain smoker.
Squee is 5-foot-3 and an avowed pacifist.
I'm old, fat and slow.
Nate--well, Nate actually dances, so I suppose he *could* try to skank
you to death...
As for guns, I don't own any; Squee and Nate are both students, and
Blumrich is a starving artist, so I doubt any of them own any, either
Once again, folks: Burned Fur is just a group exercising our rights to
free speech and free association in order to protest what we don't
like about the fandom, and maybe change some of it. We recognize
that speech and association are the legal and moral limits of our
group's powers and actions. Duh.
You may not like some of our beliefs, you may not like some members'
styles, but you can't do anything about it except to exercise your *own*
rights to free speech and association.
Which everyone seems to be doing anyway.
Gotta love those First Amendment rights...;oD
Peace,
--Hangdog
GothTiger
xyd...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> GothTiger wrote:
> > Okay, if you want to communicate with a good number of members
> > of the burned fur movement, take a look at their forum on
> > DejaNews.
>
> Uh-huh.
>
> Just remember to look, though. Don't post. I know from personal experience
> that the last thing they want to see there is an opposing viewpoint.
Well when you go strutting in with both guns a-blazing Xydexx, don't act so
shocked when folks start shooting back.
David Formosa
[...]
> With all due respect Stuka,
I just love that line.
David Formosa
>David Formosa <dfor...@zeta.org.au> wrote:
>
>: Do you aggry with Blum's advoky of murder? And do you aggry with the
>: general anty-plush, anty-lifestyler tone of Squee's rants?
>
I'm just reading what he wrote, all I'm asking is for the burn
furries to distence themselfs from the advocaky of hate and violence
towards the verious sub groups.
David Formosa
>David Formosa wrote:
[...]
>> Do you aggry with Blum's advoky of murder?
>
>I don't believe Blum is actually advocating murder, so the
>question does not apply.
Ok, question based on falce assumptions.
[...]
>> And do you aggry with the
>> general anty-plush, anty-lifestyler tone of Squee's rants?
>
>Actually, yes. But the question is irrelevant, because nowhere
>in Squee's Manifesto or Modest Proposal do I find any
>advocy of violence--which was your original issue.
I think the hate that is in Squee's Manifesto and her Modest Proposal
is a form of violence.
Donald E. Sanders
stuk...@shell9.ba.best.com says...
By all means, be my guest. Now that we got the name calling out of the
way, allow me to ask you a question. Do you know what the intentions of
a troll are? Oh yes, also, May I ask, was the one word in your quote
above really needed? I mean, I can understand saying, "Well la-de-dah",
that got your point across in a very intelligent manner. but adding the
'F' word there, (Noticed, I did not repeat it here, I figure once in the
post was enough thank you) did not help your argument much. For someone
who supports the Burned Fur movement, you got quite a potty mouth. Or
perhaps it would suit you better if I lower myself to using such
language, oh yea, that would do nicely.
Donald E. Sanders
stuk...@shell9.ba.best.com says...
> Jim Doolittle <dool...@uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
>
> : I've personally met Xydexx. I didn't find him an unpleasant person. I fail
> : to see why his liking of inflatable toys makes him an instant pariah.
>
>
> affect me in the least. He wants to fuck inflatable animals, more
> power to him. He wants to come here and brag about it, wants to tell
> people how proud he is of it, wants to associate Furry with his
> sickening little hobby? Well, that's when the problem starts.
>
> I would rather Furry NOT be associated with Karl's sexual dysfunction,
> thank you. Further, if Karl's willing to tell everyone here how proud
> he is of what he does, to the point of willingly appearing in print
> letting everyone know what a great thing this is, then he's got to
> be ready to face people like me who have a quite different opinion
> of his activities.
>
> Karl's decided to become Pervert Superstar, and he really doesn't
> give a shit who or what he taints in doing so.
>
> THAT'S my problem with Karl.
>
*** Plonk! ***
Until you can conduct yourself in a civil manner, consider yourself kill
filed. (Please note, this is the first person I have ever kill filed.)
StukaFox
: By all means, be my guest.
Okay, ya thin-skinned git! ;)
: Do you know what the intentions of a troll are?
No -- I've only been on the Usenet for a decade now. I have no
clue what a troll is. I'm told 'gulible' isn't in the dictionary
either.
: Oh yes, also, May I ask, was the one word in your quote
: above really needed?
Fuckin'-A right it was.
: I mean, I can understand saying, "Well la-de-dah",
Good, you get a cookie.
: that got your point across in a very intelligent manner. but adding the
: 'F' word there, (Noticed, I did not repeat it here, I figure once in the
: post was enough thank you) did not help your argument much.
Y'might wanna join Farlo is his 'Your rhetoric is below my standards'
campaign.
: For someone
: who supports the Burned Fur movement, you got quite a potty mouth.
WTF has one got to do with the other, Don?
See, Don, I'm me, warts and all. Don't like my language? Too fucking
bad. Don't like my stance? Too fucking bad. Wanna dismiss me for
using the word 'fuck' 20 times in a post? Good, you show yourself
for what YOU are. I'm not here to prove myself to you, or anyone
else. I'm here to fight for what I believe in, and in a way I feel
like doing it. I'm not beholden to you, to Burned Fur, or to any
other cause. I'll debate you or flame you, according to the amount
of respect I, and I alone, feel you deserve. If I think you're being
up-front and honest, I'll give you up-front and honest answer. If
I think you're being a whining crybaby, or a pretentious prick,
then I'm gonna deliver the treatment I feel you deserve.
: perhaps it would suit you better if I lower myself to using such
: language, oh yea, that would do nicely.
Objection: assumes superiority based on non-use of naughty words.
StukaFox
: *** Plonk! ***
: Until you can conduct yourself in a civil manner, consider yourself kill
: filed. (Please note, this is the first person I have ever kill filed.)
Does anyone have a copy of Don's "Civil Manners" handbook?
I guess "civil manner" must mean "not posting anything I don't
agree with".
Typical.
Hangdog
> [...]
>
> >> And do you aggry with the
> >> general anty-plush, anty-lifestyler tone of Squee's rants?
> >
> >Actually, yes. But the question is irrelevant, because nowhere
> >in Squee's Manifesto or Modest Proposal do I find any
> >advocy of violence--which was your original issue.
>
> I think the hate that is in Squee's Manifesto and her Modest Proposal
> is a form of violence.
*Sigh* Well, if you believe harsh words to be a form of violence, even
when they're not directed at you personaslly, then you must be a
masochist
to get on UseNet.
But aside from that, I think you'd have difficulty getting that
definition
to stand up in either a civil or criminal court. Not that a really,
really good lawyer might not be able to, but last I heard Johnny
Cochran had no interest in AFF or Burned Fur. ;o)
Peace,
--Hangdog
Support the Southern Poverty Law Center: http://www.splcenter.org/
Report hate group activity at:
http://www.splcenter.org/centerinfo/comment.html
View FBI hate crime statistics at: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hatecm.htm
Brian O'connell
first up against the wall when the revolution happens' (or something like
that), and claim that he TOO wants to execute everyfur...*
NOW THEN, LETS SEE, PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO PUT WAY TOO DAMNNED MUCH
SERIOUSNESS THAT I HAVE TO YELL TO GET TO THE CHEAP SEATS?
Good... Thank you, makes the throat a bit hoarse (HOARSE DAMMIT! NOT
HORSE!!!)...
Okay, lets see, how many of you have played Quake, Doom, Duke Nukem, or any
other variety of twitch game, and occasionally wished you could perform such
a nasty act of bloodshed as you see on the screen? How many fo you wished
you had a machine gun when some jerk cuts you off and just barely avoids
running you off the road?
YOU'RE ADVOCATING MURDER!!!
Oh... Sorry, HAVE you played with fireworks at all?
YOU'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR BILLIONS OF DEATHS, IN BOMBINGS, & SHOOTINGS! HELL,
WHY NOT TAKE IT ONE STEP FURTHER, BECAUSE YOU ENJOYED BLOWING THINGS UP AT
*WHATEVER* AGE, YOU NOT ONLY JUSTIFIED BILLIONS OF DELIBERATE AND ACCIDENTAL
DEATHS, BUT EVERY WAR THAT CAME WITH THEM!!!
Ever chuckle at the old Coppertone ads, no matter the age? Ever own a copy
of 'In the Night Kitchen'? Yeah?
What are you advocating then? Doesn't matter if you use the 'I didn't know,
I was a child' defense... These das, it's once a criminal, always a
criminal... Therefore you OWNED pedophilic material...
It's getting to the point fo being ridiculous...
Those are very reasonable extremes of the threads of logic you're
following...
Ever own a Ford? They manufactured vehicles for the verhmacht under slave
labor... Doesn't matter if it's now or then by your same threads of logic...
If you ever drove, owned, bought, inherited, or rode in a Ford, you repay
them for every tie they were able to keep under wraps... (They even
SPONSORED 'Schindlers List'! Wanna talk gall?)
Source: http://csufresno.com/issues_ford_suit.html
Oh, and while we're at it, how about George Bush, Texas, and the coverups of
Nazi war criminals?
All you have to do is follow the REAL threads...
Next thing we know, someone will say that The Producers by Mel Brooks is
evil because it made jokes about Hitler and Nazi Germany too...
Time to grow a sense of humor kiddies, and look at the real issues, instead
of screaming hissyfits to justify yor kinks...
StukaFox wrote in message <366564ce$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com>...
>David Formosa <dfor...@zeta.org.au> wrote:
>
>: Do you aggry with Blum's advoky of murder? And do you aggry with the
>: general anty-plush, anty-lifestyler tone of Squee's rants?
>
>
> Do you actually think Eric is -REALLY- advocating shooting anyone
Brian O'connell
pure.
David Formosa wrote in message ...
>>
>>question does not apply.
>
>Ok, question based on falce assumptions.
>
>[...]
>
>>> general anty-plush, anty-lifestyler tone of Squee's rants?
>>
>>in Squee's Manifesto or Modest Proposal do I find any
>>advocy of violence--which was your original issue.
>
>I think the hate that is in Squee's Manifesto and her Modest Proposal
>is a form of violence.
>
Hangdog
> (Smiles) I'm beging to respect you as an opponenet you have keeped
> this disccusstion rational and calm so far, good on you. I'll try do
> likewise.
Well, thank you, David!
And there's no need for you to try any harder than you
have been, as you've been doing an excellent job :o)
Peace,
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
fur...@diespammersdie.nwlink.com> writes:
> *chuckles* That reminds me, I gotta get drunk with Blumrich again
> sometime...;)
That'll be tough, since he's managed to deal with his substance abuse problems
and doesn't drink any more. It was a part of getting his life un-fucked-up.
You might do well to ask him about that.
--
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.
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
e_raschk...@hotmail.com> writes:
> Dar_Th...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > In article <19981128234022...@ngol03.aol.com>,
> > allan...@aol.com (AllanGldmn) wrote:
> > > PS - I thought the WWII era photo of the plushophile, with
> > > his friend, about to be shot in the back of the head and thrown
> > > into the pile of rotting courpes and stuffed animals was kind of
> > > in poor taste. Having stated my views and proven my worthlessness,
> > > be sure to round me up, tattoo the word "Yiffy' on my arm, and send
> > > me to a furry concentration camp when you take over.
> >
> > I saw that page too, and it was DISGUSTING!
> > As far as I'm concerned, Blumrich has lost my support. I refuse to
> > be associated with such hate-laden tripe.
> >
> > NO ONE in furry fandom deserves a bullet to the back of the head!
>
> Blumrich's page from my page, until I saw that.
You didn't happen to notice WHOSE face was on the fellow being shot, did you?
Heh, I thought not.
Knee-jerking fools.
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
> In article <366412d4$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com>,
> StukaFox <stuk...@shell9.ba.best.com> wrote:
>
> > Why don't you trot out the masturbating reindeer .sig again,
> > Karl? Says everything about you that anyone ever needs to know.
>
> With all due respect Stuka, but the flaming has gotta go. There
> are far better and more justified targets out there then Xydexx.
Yeah, After all, he's the very EMBODIMENT of "I'm rubber and you're glue."
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
> Ever heard of hyperbole?
And don't forget hypocracy. Karl can claim that his actions with pool toys
have no bearing on the rest of fandom, but Blumrich's opinions are perfect for
tarring anyone associated with BF.
Kinda neat how that works, isn't it?
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
> I think the hate that is in Squee's Manifesto and her Modest Proposal is
> a form of violence.
And if you call a tail a leg, my cat still has only four feet.
mok...@hotmail.com
xyd...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> GothTiger wrote:
> > Okay, if you want to communicate with a good number of members
> > of the burned fur movement, take a look at their forum on
> > DejaNews.
>
> Uh-huh.
>
> Just remember to look, though. Don't post. I know from personal experience
> that the last thing they want to see there is an opposing viewpoint.
Yeah. This is why I qualify as 'burned out'.
b.root
Frodo3350
>: *** Plonk! ***
>: Until you can conduct yourself in a civil manner, consider yourself kill
>: filed. (Please note, this is the first person I have ever kill filed.)
>
>
> Does anyone have a copy of Don's "Civil Manners" handbook?
>
> I guess "civil manner" must mean "not posting anything I don't
> agree with".
>
> Typical.
No, civil manner is just that Stuka. And don’t give me the line that stringing
expletives doesn’t prove you’re not civil. If you said those very same words in
public, lets say at a shopping mall, there would hardly be a person within
earshot that wouldn’t immediately think MORON. Your inability or lack of desire
to follow a means of discourse in a mature, professional manner simply means to
me (and probably a good number of other people) that you actually lack anything
worthwhile to say.
--
Frodo3350 (acnt 5, pure)
David Formosa
>David Formosa wrote:
[...]
>> I think the hate that is in Squee's Manifesto and her Modest Proposal
>> is a form of violence.
>
>*Sigh* Well, if you believe harsh words to be a form of violence, even
>when they're not directed at you personaslly,
Its directed against Lifestylers and Plushiephiles, both of which I
identerfy with. I've watched school children tease others untill they
turned in to a sobbing incoherent mess. In much the same way I
consider what Squee says is violent.
> then you must be a masochist to get on UseNet.
But here I can defend myself, and if it gets too bad there is always
the sheld of my score file.
>But aside from that, I think you'd have difficulty getting that
>definition to stand up in either a civil or criminal court.
Of cause, but this isn't a court of law, this is usenet.
[...]
>--Hangdog
(Smiles) I'm beging to respect you as an opponenet you have keeped
this disccusstion rational and calm so far, good on you. I'll try do
likewise.
--
xyd...@my-dejanews.com
> I personally don't give a shit what he does IRL, since it doesn't
> affect me in the least. He wants to fuck inflatable animals, more
> power to him. He wants to come here and brag about it, wants to tell
> people how proud he is of it, wants to associate Furry with his
> sickening little hobby? Well, that's when the problem starts.
Once again, we have the Big Lie that if I have other interests than
anthropomorphic animals then I somehow, against all evidence and reason, am
equating anthropomorphic animals with said other interests.
You are lying, StukaFox. Blatantly.
That is where the problem starts.
This seems to be a difficult concept for some people to understand, so I guess
I'll have to elaborate...
Having interests outside of furry fandom does not constitute associating
those interests with furry fandom. It just means I actually do have
interests outside of furry fandom. Period.
Just because I listen to They Might Be Giants does not mean furry fandom is
about They Might Be Giants.
Just because I take roadtrips to see the smoking ruins of Centralia does not
mean furry fandom is about mine fires.
Just because I like model railroads does not mean furry fandom is about model
railroads.
And in case you haven't figured it out yet....
Just because I like to boink inflatable animals does not mean furry fandom is
about boinking inflatable animals.
Here, for the record (I should make this a monthly posting and just save
myself the trouble of repeating myself), is what I'm associating Furry with:
Xydexx's definition of anthropomorphics:
Anthropomorphics are human qualities or characteristics ascribed
to animals or objects.
Specific to furry fandom, anthropomorphics are:
1. animal characters with human qualities and/or characteristics,
[i.e., Scooby Doo, Simba, Mr. Ed]
2. humanoid characters with animal qualities and/or characteristics.
[i.e., Bugs Bunny, Tony the Tiger, Booga]
When explaining anthropomorphics to people, I use more well-known
examples of anthropomorphic characters from cartoons or advertising,
as they provide point of reference most people are familiar with.
Anyone who says I believe otherwise is a liar and a troll.
And while we're on the subject...
Xydexx's definition of furry fandom:
Furry fandom is about the creation and/or appreciation of
writing/artwork [and/or miscellaneous other media] devoted to the
previously-mentioned anthropomorphic animal characters.
Anyone who says I believe otherwise is a liar and a troll.
> Karl's decided to become Pervert Superstar, and he really doesn't
> give a shit who or what he taints in doing so.
>
> THAT'S my problem with Karl.
Nope. Your problem with me seems to be that I have a life and I'm actually
enjoying it. Have a nice day now.
-------
Rev. Xydexx Squeakypony, K.S.C., T.D.S.F.A.
[ICQ: 7569393]
StukaFox
[ Basic gist of message: I used bad words, so my points are invalid ]
This is the BEST you can do? You saw naught words so now your
panties are in a bunch? Welcome to the Usenet!
xyd...@my-dejanews.com
> Well when you go strutting in with both guns a-blazing Xydexx, don't act so
> shocked when folks start shooting back.
When Nate Patrin mentioned my name there, he shouldn't act surprised that I
actually showed up. Besides, I thought *EVERYONE* was welcome to post there.
Hey, my "both guns a-blazing" post wasn't deleted, I see... let's look at
what I said that was so bad, shall we?
"Remember kids, if you mention Xydexx's name anywhere on Usenet there
is a 50% chance he will hear you and be summoned. -:)"
That looks less like "both guns a-blazing" and more like "simple statement of
the facts" to me. And isn't it curious that you characterize a simple
statement of the facts from Xydexx as "both guns a-blazing", and yet you seem
to think Nate Patrin's telling me to fuck off and David Tapia's namecalling
are somehow perfectly acceptable behavior?
And when I called this hypocritical double-standard of the Burned Fur
newsgroup into question, asking whether or not Burned Furs had to play by the
same rules, my post got deleted. So I guess that answers that question.
I can understand why Burned Furs don't have to play by the same rules, though.
One of the most effective ways to get people to believe disinformation is to
suppress any opinion that contradicts it.
Bottom line: A discussion goes two ways. Don't even try to pretend the
Burned Fur newsgroup is a place that respects opposing viewpoints, because I
know from firsthand experience it's simply not true.
StukaFox
: StukaFox wrote:
: Once again, we have the Big Lie that if I have other interests than
: anthropomorphic animals then I somehow, against all evidence and reason, am
: equating anthropomorphic animals with said other interests.
You sure don't distance yourself any from it here, now do ya?
Any time someone pops up and notes you've been recognized AGAIN
for what you are, you proudly stand up and wave your hand and
go "Here I am! Here I am!"
: You are lying, StukaFox. Blatantly.
: That is where the problem starts.
No, Karl -- I'm telling you what I see.
: Having interests outside of furry fandom does not constitute associating
: those interests with furry fandom. It just means I actually do have
: interests outside of furry fandom. Period.
So far, from what I've seen, you do everything in your power to drag
them in here.
:> Karl's decided to become Pervert Superstar, and he really doesn't
:> give a shit who or what he taints in doing so.
:>
:> THAT'S my problem with Karl.
This next bit I love . . .
: Nope. Your problem with me seems to be that I have a life and I'm actually
: enjoying it. Have a nice day now.
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
NICE denial, Karl! I love how you cry "No one understands me!" when
someone calls you what you are, then you post crap telling me what my
problem is with you.
The problem, KArl, isn't that I don't understand you, or that they
don't understand you, the problem is you don't understand yourself.
And next time you decide to get self-righteous and jump on someone
here, just remember how much you've enjoyed this little exchange.
Xydexx Squeakypony
> The problem, KArl, isn't that I don't understand you, or that they
> don't understand you, the problem is you don't understand yourself.
Nah, the problem is that I actually gave you the benefit of the doubt that you'd
actually have a rational argument to throw at me. I should've stuck with my
first impression that you didn't have anything of importance to say.
I sincerely apologize for wasting my time. -;)
____________________________________________________________
Xydexx Squeakypony [ICQ: 7569393]
StukaFox
: StukaFox wrote:
:> The problem, KArl, isn't that I don't understand you, or that they
:> don't understand you, the problem is you don't understand yourself.
I love how you cut everything but this, then threw up the old
"you've got nothing rational to say" line.
Whazzamatta, Karl -- hit a little too close to home there, or
just couldn't bring yourself to admit the points I was making?
Gee, I didn't swear or nothing!
Rick Pikul
>xyd...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>: StukaFox wrote:
>
>: Once again, we have the Big Lie that if I have other interests than
>: anthropomorphic animals then I somehow, against all evidence and reason, am
>: equating anthropomorphic animals with said other interests.
>
>
> You sure don't distance yourself any from it here, now do ya?
> Any time someone pops up and notes you've been recognized AGAIN
> for what you are, you proudly stand up and wave your hand and
> go "Here I am! Here I am!"
And then points out that it has nothing to do with furry (again).
Yes, he admits that the statement 'Xydexx does <foo>' is true when it is. But
that is something any honest person would do.
>: You are lying, StukaFox. Blatantly.
>
>: That is where the problem starts.
>
>
> No, Karl -- I'm telling you what I see.
Then perhaps I sould tell you about that plank....
>: Having interests outside of furry fandom does not constitute associating
>: those interests with furry fandom. It just means I actually do have
>: interests outside of furry fandom. Period.
>
>
> So far, from what I've seen, you do everything in your power to drag
> them in here.
From what I've seen it's other people who bring them up, generaly to
attack Xydexx.
{Foomph...}
--
Phoenix |Next WATSFIC event:
An official WATSFIC |Games Day: Dec 5
poster guy |Student Life Centre
For more about WATSFIC |Multi-Purpose Room
set your browser to: |University of Waterloo
http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/clubs/watsfic/
Vixy
Richard Chandler - WA Resident wrote in message
<981202230...@mauser.at.kendra.com>...
>In article <3664C5EE...@hotmail.com>, Florian <
>e_raschk...@hotmail.com> writes:
>> Dar_Th...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>> > In article <19981128234022...@ngol03.aol.com>,
>> > allan...@aol.com (AllanGldmn) wrote:
>> > > PS - I thought the WWII era photo of the plushophile, with
>> > > into the pile of rotting courpes and stuffed animals was kind of
>> > > in poor taste. Having stated my views and proven my worthlessness,
>> > > be sure to round me up, tattoo the word "Yiffy' on my arm, and send
>> > > me to a furry concentration camp when you take over.
>> >
>> > I saw that page too, and it was DISGUSTING!
>> >
>> > As far as I'm concerned, Blumrich has lost my support. I refuse to
>> > be associated with such hate-laden tripe.
>> >
>> > NO ONE in furry fandom deserves a bullet to the back of the head!
>>
>> I thought that was in poor taste too. I used to have a link to
>> Blumrich's page from my page, until I saw that.
>
>You didn't happen to notice WHOSE face was on the fellow being shot, did
you?
Actually it is very unclear, though no matter whos face it is, the
subject is none the less disgusting and Blumreich non the less pathetic for
the suggestion.
>
>Heh, I thought not.
Perhaps you would like to enlighten us?
>
>Knee-jerking fools.
Ooooo... that's very inteligent. Typical of you though, Richy. ;)
=========================================================================
Victry 'Vixy' Hyzenthlay; Technofox/personal Vixen/Furry Fan *and*
Lifestyler!
http://members.xoom.com/vixy | Victry{nospam}@@{remove}juno;com
Please post any response to this newsgroup. Thanks. :)
David Formosa
- WA Resident wrote:
>And if you call a tail a leg, my cat still has only four feet.
If two parties enter into a contract to call a duck a chicken, it
still remains a duck.
David Formosa
- WA Resident wrote:
>And don't forget hypocracy. Karl can claim that his actions with pool toys
>have no bearing on the rest of fandom, but Blumrich's opinions are
>perfect for tarring anyone associated with BF.
But Karl dosn't do his actions in the name of furry fandom, Blumrich
dose do his actions in the name of burnt furryness.
Frodo3350
> panties are in a bunch? Welcome to the Usenet!
Frodo laughs a nice hearty laugh.
Man, you make this WAY too easy.
(No really, I mussn't take such an easy slam)
Frodo does however invite several in the building to look at the screen at
Stuka's response. All but one leave laughing and you probably don't want to
know what that one did . . (Slam avoided)
GothTiger
Vixy wrote:
The person on the receiving end of the bullet is none other than Blumrich
himself! I never noticed that until now...
GothTiger (tig...@execpc.com)