The Unrepentant Ratite
Ostrich
I hadn't intended to post much here until I got done with my
current commission, but I find that circumstances compell me to it.
I'm unlikely to respond to (or even read) any followups for another
few weeks at least, until after Millennicon. It is a busy season both
at work and at play.
First, those who are waiting for me to apologize for having spoken
my mind will find it a long and fruitless vigil. I was raised to speak
up for myself and my beliefs, and I see no reason to change my
behaviour at this stage of my life.
I do offer my apologies (and have been doing so by private mail as
well) to those I attempted to persuade to take part in this article. I
was either misled or else did not ask enough questions about the
nature of the finished article. That being said, while the article
wasn't of the sort I'd been expecting, the information that was
presented was presented honestly and with reasonable accuracy.
Mr. Gurley took pains to use quotes, and to present them in
reasonable context. I found several errors of fact in the article,
but they were minor, and understandable from someone unused
to the mileu.
I categorically reject the concept of 'image management'. It's a
nice term for presenting a false image. Some favour the idea
fearing the reaction of the public if the true face of furridom were
shown, and others push for it trying to attract a certain type of
newcomer to the fandom. In the end however, it amounts to bearing
false witness, regardless of one's motives.
I presented my own views in the article. I'd been hoping that it was
going to include a greater variety of views than it did. E.g., I
suggested at one point when the subject of the Burned Furs came
up that Mr. Gurley should speak to them himself and get their side
of the story. In the end, however, I speak for my own views. If people
want (as do I) a wider variety of viewpoints presented in future, then
I'd suggest that they make themselves and their views available to
the press.
I may or may not take part in more such articles. I've got three more
interviews waiting 'in the can', as it were. Whether or not any will be
published I've no way of knowing. A producer for a large audience
TV show contacted me last Thanksgiving, at which time I turned her
down. At the moment I'm reconsidering my refusal, but haven't reached
a decision one way or the other.
--
-Ostrich! <") http://www.furnation.com/ostrich
"Feasting on the dry catfood of anthropomorphics since 1994."
Al Goldman
writes:
>A producer for a large audience
>TV show contacted me last Thanksgiving, at which time I turned her
>down. At the moment I'm reconsidering my refusal, but haven't reached
>a decision one way or the other.
Please remember - you share the title of "Furry" with about 5,000 other people
and it's unlikely anything you say in public will please the furry community.
I can't tell you not to act, only to think before you act.
Al Goldman
Alan Kennedy
'kay?
I think I'll beat CornDog to the punch here and say that since you have 3
more interviews setup, that one of them might wanna be with a living will
lawyer.
You simply just don't get it, do you?
You are hated right now with an incoherant fever that only keeping your head
in the ground, and out of the public furry eye will solve it. Your
admittance to not even partaking in responses, or an attempt to apologize
only goes to show how much of an utterfuckwit you are in not caring about
the image of furry, or how the rest of the furrydom suffers because of your
outlook on it all.
You are a pompous jackass of the highest caliber, and for one, I think you
should NOT be allowed to talk to the press, or attend another convention in
liue of that threat you might talk to one, considering as we've seen what
your other interview portayed furry to be. Regardless of the little errors,
you fucked up and being smug and showing us a shit eating grin only makes it
that much worse.
I strike you now and forever as an fucktard of the highest caliber, and
thusforth I think everyone else should consider you the same, and you should
be blacklisted withing furry! Atleast FoxWolfie had the balls to admit a
sincere apology and try to make light of it all and explain things.
I hereby bestow upon you grand pubah fucktard furry of the year!
--
Alan Kennedy [TriGem Olandarinse]
EMAIL : tri...@portalofevil.com_REMOVEGIBBERISH
YAHOO : goldanthrowolf & trigem_olandarinse
WWW : http://www.furnation.com/trigem
ICQ : 8781052
Justin
> I hereby bestow upon you grand pubah fucktard furry of the year!
Why is it that in the last 3 days I've seent eh word "Fucktard" used
about 9 times? It seems to be pretty popular in the furry community.
Armored_Seraph
account, but only because my friend was here and wanted to get his oppinion
voiced. He's used his real account name and all that, so, its actually from
him.)
Return post to Ostrich from Armored_Seraph...
First off... (sticks Ostrich's head with a stick pin to let the over
inflated poket of hot ego air out. Subsequently, researching that and
sending his findings to AEP as a possible replacement for fossil fuels in
the heating of the general home.)
Here are the facts. You had your 15 minutes of fame. They're over. You
used them to express your views as per what 'furrydom' stood for, and only
really succeeded in making a general ass out of yourself. But, unlike any
other sentient creature with normal self preservation issues, you're trying
to make yourself into a Four Star General by continuing on with this little
matter.
As for your having yet more possible interviews on the chopping block to
make simply tells me that the freak of the week is up for bid. I think you
skipped out of the class of life the day they taught that there are some
personal aspects about one's self that should remain hidden.
From what I basically understand, if you were to have said half the things
you did say on the net and in that article around the place I live in the
open public people would find you... In about 15 years... In about 30
peices. It wasn't voted the best place to hide a body for nothing.
I am all to tired of fanatics about one cause or another thinking they are
a one person army for a group of thousands that don't want them to be a part
of the group at all... Much less fight for them.
I'm not furry. Not even much of a fan. What I am is someone that knows
that there are a lot of good people IN furry. Talented people that have a
certain pride in what they do and who they are. Those that do care about
what they believe in. And the fact that they have to suffer under the same
reputation as you placed on their heads by spouting your innane sexual
habbits to the general public making it seem that all those that would call
themselves furry share your fondness for.. what was it? Stuffed animals?
eeshhhh.
That simply makes you a pompous, egotistical, crass, disgusting,
thoughtless human being with no concerns other than those that tickle his
fancy about himself and what peaks the curiosity of that limp lump between
his legs for the moment.
I will admit to you being right about one thing though. There need to be
more people to voice their opinions about what furry is and what it stands
for. Some people to open up and discuss it with others not of them. If for
no other reason than to counterbalance the 'freakshow' title glory hounds
like you bring down on them.
Well, there isn't much room for a pagan angel voicing his own opinion to
furries about furries in the furrydom, so I'll take my leave now doubting
that this message will help you to wake up at all and realise what an ample
reject to society you truely are. But... Know that it comes from my heart
when I say I hope you willingly do the world a favor and step off the curb
UNDER a moving bus doing 60 mph+.
Have a good delusional day Ostrich. And keep on fooling yourself that your
opinion matters.
sincerely, Armored_Seraph.
armored...@hotmail.com
Alan Kennedy
news:6jEm6.31454$5M5.1...@news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com...
>
> > I hereby bestow upon you grand pubah fucktard furry of the year!
>
> Why is it that in the last 3 days I've seent eh word "Fucktard" used
> about 9 times? It seems to be pretty popular in the furry community.
It was a moronic insult that Sony Windstrup called me, thusly, I found it
abhorently humerous so I've decided to distributed it across the furrydumb
as its a humerous word for fucking retard.
Farlo
>I may or may not take part in more such articles. I've got three more
>interviews waiting 'in the can', as it were. Whether or not any will be
>published I've no way of knowing. A producer for a large audience
>TV show contacted me last Thanksgiving, at which time I turned her
>down. At the moment I'm reconsidering my refusal, but haven't reached
>a decision one way or the other.
I would love to be interviewed.
--
Farlo
Urban fey dragon
m>^_^<m
Farlo
Most everyone here does not swear. There are a couple exceptions, and I
would avoid associating with the ones who make a habit of it.
M. Mitchell Marmel
Alan Kennedy wrote:
> First off, you can shove your head up your ass and suck till you dissapear,
> 'kay?
>
> I think I'll beat CornDog to the punch here and say that since you have 3
> more interviews setup, that one of them might wanna be with a living will
> lawyer.
Careful, Alan, Cerulean might get the impression you were somewhat immoderate.
:D
-MMM-
Alan Kennedy
> Most everyone here does not swear. There are a couple exceptions, and I
> would avoid associating with the ones who make a habit of it.
> Farlo
> Urban fey dragon
The reality that swearing is a part of everyday life for most hasn't set in
for you has it? The word fuck holds as much meaning as a gnats fart, or
even the word shit, ass, piss, dick, anything like that means nothing to me.
So, get a clue farlo and realize this world is NOT a jolly rancher of
sweetness.
Alan Kennedy
> Careful, Alan, Cerulean might get the impression you were somewhat
immoderate.
> :D
>
> -MMM-
Heh... truthefully I don't really care. Ostrich yaked his moronicity,
regardless, he screwed up. If he'd have offered up an apology of even a
miniscule measure I'd might have thought differntly.
Yet, Ostrich stands by his statements, even when FoxWolfie atleast TRIED to
make some light of it all.
Oh well.. As I suggested, he be blackballed forever.
Hangdog
<nothing of importance>
Marshall Woods, you are a perfectly vile and useless human being.
You abused the trust of friends, fans and fellow con officers in order to
puff yourself up and get your name in a glossy mag. When you ended up
shitting all over those people and the genre they loved, you had the gall to
claim that you were "standing up for your rights."
God.
I'm all out of insults. Your selfishness, stupidity and egomania outstrip
even my studied ability with invective.
All I have left to say is this: so you're not leaving the fandom? Good.
Neither am I. I'm going to stick around for a very long time, Marshall
Woods. And if it ever falls within my power to deny you
something--anything--large or small--I will do so. Have no doubt. And I
will do my damndest to get others to follow suit.
This will be remembered. By many people. For a long, long time.
Auf wiedersehen,
Peter Schorn/Hangdog
Kiala Dreamstalker
> First, those who are waiting for me to apologize for having spoken
> my mind will find it a long and fruitless vigil. I was raised to speak
> up for myself and my beliefs, and I see no reason to change my
> behaviour at this stage of my life.
While I understand that the VF article did just about nothing to help
the fandom, I do have to admit that Ostrich IS standing up for what he
believes, which, regardless of WHAT he believes, always gets a few
points of respect out of me..
The fact that the harsh words that have been spoken, and several threats
to personal safety have been blabbed, and still he refuses to back down
or try and hide to please the crowd.. I can respect that..
> I categorically reject the concept of 'image management'. It's a
> nice term for presenting a false image. Some favour the idea
> fearing the reaction of the public if the true face of furridom were
> shown, and others push for it trying to attract a certain type of
> newcomer to the fandom. In the end however, it amounts to bearing
> false witness, regardless of one's motives.
I tend to agree here as well.. While a good public image always helps
the fandom, honesty is always a good public image.. A rare one at that..
And who's to say we SHOULD hide things about our fandom? We could be
doing a LOT worse things.. As long as we're within whatever legal
policies that are in place (say, hotel rules about Decency) I see no
reason TO keep things bottled up, it's unhealthy..
Anyway.. just my personal opinion on the matter.. Carry on, automatons.
-Kiala, Webmaster, Draconic Networks
=====-===-==-=--=-----.---.--.-..-..... ... .. . . . |
|.#.#.###.|Kiala Raven Dreamstalker |"For centuries, we were|
|.#.#..#..|ki...@lycanthrope.net | the watchers. Now we |
|.##...#..|www.dreamchaos.org |awake -- and your world|
|.#.#..#..|Author, Mage, Theri |can never go back." |
|.#.#.###.| ICQ: 17611893 | IRC: Kiala | -Dennis Redwing |
|------------------- Member of FurBuy.com ---------------------|
| . . . .. ... .....-..-.--.---.-----=--=-==-===-=====
ilr
you got used. Who cares what effect the article has? You idiots
just showed that you can't be trusted to handle the press, the press
handles you. That's the only thing that's 100% guaranteed is that
you guys are gullible as hell sell outs. End of story.
-Ilr
ilr
> I tend to agree here as well.. While a good public image always helps
> the fandom, honesty is always a good public image.. A rare one at that..
>
Plushie porkin has NOTHING to do with FurryFandom/Furrydom, infact
many plushiphiles have said that themselves. Yet here we all are linked
to it in this muckrakers article. IF they were standing up for Furry
Fandom, they would have been talking about Artwork and Stories, not
some real-life sexual garbage they like participating in, because
furry fandom has never been about RL sexual experiences.
I'm usually all for standing up for what you believe in the face of all
adversity, and rarely flame anyone, but you sir sound like a mindless sock-puppet.
-Ilr
Kiala Dreamstalker
> Plushie porkin has NOTHING to do with FurryFandom/Furrydom, infact
> many plushiphiles have said that themselves. Yet here we all are linked
> to it in this muckrakers article. IF they were standing up for Furry
> Fandom, they would have been talking about Artwork and Stories, not
> some real-life sexual garbage they like participating in, because
> furry fandom has never been about RL sexual experiences.
Erm.. since when? ;> I can name atleast a few who go to cons for the
sheer purpose of getting laid =P
> I'm usually all for standing up for what you believe in the face of all
> adversity, and rarely flame anyone, but you sir sound like a mindless sock-puppet.
What were we saying about honesty? ;>
bevnsag
I wouldn't worry too much about any particular person featured in the VF
article in that regard. The reporter was looking for a "type" to do the
article about, and if it wasn't them, there would have been any number
of other sad characters that would have been more than happy to spill
their guts or all too easily opened up by any reporter worth his press
credentials. And if the reporter didn't get juicy enough material?
Either bag the affort or do a creative edit. The point being is that the
media wants what IT wants, not what you want to tell it.
Kathmandu
same brush as yourself. You and your "hobbies" are not mine, nor are they the
interest of more than just a few individual furs.
In any subsequent interviews, please be sure to remember I don't live in my
parents basement (I am a home owner in fact), I have a job that pays fairly
well, I weigh less than 250lbs, I do not masturbate with stuffed animals, I do
not get sexually aroused by seeing people in fursuits, I don't give scritches, I
do not wear a dog collar nor do I have an inner animal or spirit. I do not have
any desire to have sex with animals and I think the people who do are flawed or
childish. I am not gay, transsexual or bisexual. I am not any sort of "ophile"
either. All in all, I believe I am an ordinary Joe who just happens to like the
furry form in artwork and stories.
In other words, you are not the whole of furry. Unfortunately you and yer buddy
George now have a lot of people convinced you are. Thanks to you, we are all
nutballs, slathering sex fiends and freaks of nature. You and the minority
fringe of a relatively few yet loud individuals have succeeded in making furry a
whole lot less fun for me. Thanks a lot.
--
Kathmandu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
Visit my webpage at http://www.vidnet.net/~katmandu
Remove your /hat/ to talk to me or click here katm...@vidnet.net
For those who take matters into their own hands:
Pee-Wee Herman Fun Club, Box 19070, Encino, CA 91416. Send SASE for
info. Membership is $15/year, outside U.S. add $7.50.
"Ostrich" <ost...@fysh.org> wrote in message
news:97ecat$mmi$1...@crucigera.fysh.org...
Brian Henderson
wrote:
>I can't tell you not to act, only to think before you act.
Intelligent thought is something he's proven himself incapable of.
-Brian
ilr
Kiala Dreamstalker <ki...@lycanthrope.net> wrote in message > What were we saying about honesty? ;>
I said that I rarely FLAME anyone. Did I stutter?
Or are you just unfamiliar with what an actual flame is?
Farlo
>The reality that swearing is a part of everyday life for most hasn't
>set in for you has it?
How you write reflects on whom you are.
Smart, polite people write smart, polite words.
Crass, ignorant people write crass, ignorant words.
Hateful people write hateful words.
Sarcastic people write sarcastic words.
Kind people write kind words.
It is not so hard to understand.
Who do you want to be today?
Kiala Dreamstalker
> Do and say what you feel is right, but please, please do not paint me with the
> same brush as yourself. You and your "hobbies" are not mine, nor are they the
> interest of more than just a few individual furs.
the entire fandom, it is a chunk of it..
> I don't live in my
> parents basement (I am a home owner in fact), I have a job that pays fairly
> well, I weigh less than 250lbs, I do not masturbate with stuffed animals, I do
> not get sexually aroused by seeing people in fursuits, I don't give scritches, I
<snip>
Wow.. you just don't get any fun do you? ;> Ahh well.. To each it's
own.. I suppose if I wanna be a pervert you can certainly be vanilla,
no? =>
> You and the minority
> fringe of a relatively few yet loud individuals have succeeded in making furry a
> whole lot less fun for me. Thanks a lot.
Why do you keep saying that the sexual side of furry is a small fringe?
Agreed, it's not the whole fandom.. possibly not even the single largest
chunk of furry.. but it's up there in size..
William Earl Haskell
> Justin <qzarm...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:6jEm6.31454$5M5.1...@news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com...
> >
> > > I hereby bestow upon you grand pubah fucktard furry of the year!
> >
> > Why is it that in the last 3 days I've seent eh word "Fucktard" used
> > about 9 times? It seems to be pretty popular in the furry community.
>
> It was a moronic insult that Sony Windstrup called me, thusly, I found it
> abhorently humerous so I've decided to distributed it across the furrydumb
> as its a humerous word for fucking retard.
A popular term of abuse from the Goth community, I believe. At least I've seen
it used over in alt.gothic a number of times (once where one poster's *mother*
had adopted it to deal with annoying persons). It's certainly descriptive and
unmistakeable, especially in Ostriche's case.
Is this guy so clueless? Babbling distractedly in front of the Media that
*all* Furry Fans f#ck pigs and masturbate over pictures of Donald Duck...
sheesh.
Did anyone look at the rest of VF, though? Esp. those Versace ads that they
ran in the middle of The Article. I glanced at it & put it back on the rack.
ilr
Kiala Dreamstalker <ki...@lycanthrope.net> wrote in message
Actually I can vouch for Kathmandu, he is perverted.
Just not perverted AND stupid.
Lots of people can have enough fun just doing the fan thing'.
It's smarter too because you're not laying your reputation
on the line since it's only fiction.
...then there's people who don't stop there and want to
run around like twitty lil whores humping anything that'll
put up with it to get their jollies. That's not the most
strategic way to go about a fling that only makes up a
minority of what you do with the time in the day. Tends
to get you labeled by normal people who ignore whatever
good you might accomplish and only see you as that twitty
lil whore. Of course if you think that one should stand up
for being a twitty lil whore and can accept people seeing
you that way, well good for you. Just don't stand so close to me.
> Why do you keep saying that the sexual side of furry is a small fringe?
> Agreed, it's not the whole fandom.. possibly not even the single largest
> chunk of furry.. but it's up there in size..
Yeah, and they're all immature gay boys that don't contribute a single
fucking thing to the art and stories that mainstream or even the majority
of the fandom could ever be searching for when trying to find art or stories.
(Oy vey, you're turning me into a conservative before your very eyes)
That's an alien world that has no redeeming factors to any normal
people or even most abnormal furry-type-fan people. Outside their
own humpfests, they are valued only by sleazy tabloids. And by the
looks of it, things are gonna get a lot worse before they ever get
any better. So run along and screw the rest of us over all you want
since it fukking inevitable =)
-Ilr
michjael Campbell
>
>I wouldn't worry too much about any particular person featured in the VF
>article in that regard. The reporter was looking for a "type" to do the
>article about, and if it wasn't them, there would have been any number
>of other sad characters that would have been more than happy to spill
>their guts or all too easily opened up by any reporter worth his press
>credentials.
True, if it wasn't these two it would've been the Yiffbeast of Sacramento
or something. The only problem now is that now that the shit has hit the
fan, we have to worry about the flies....
Alan Kennedy
> Smart, polite people write smart, polite words.
Only if they are kissing tukus!
> Crass, ignorant people write crass, ignorant words.
Random and CornDog come to mind.
> Hateful people write hateful words.
Me, most of the time, cause of stupid fucktards in the world.
> Sarcastic people write sarcastic words.
Naw.. ya think?
> Kind people write kind words.
No.. I won't even, as I'm not kind.
> It is not so hard to understand.
> Who do you want to be today?
I want to be the person who kindly walks up to the moronic people in life
and L.A.R.T. them repeatedly while saying something saracstic and witty at
the same time.
>
> --
>
> Farlo
> Urban fey dragon
You don't know me Farlo, and I don't know you. So, i won't make 100%
judement on knowing you, thusly, don't take what you read from me at 100%
face value either.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
<for...@hal-pc.org> wrote:
[...]
>Is this guy so clueless? Babbling distractedly in front of the Media that
>*all* Furry Fans f#ck pigs and masturbate over pictures of Donald Duck...
>sheesh.
I've read the article, where does he say this? If your going to
persecute someone, do it for the crimes they commited.
--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
http://dformosa.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.
Free the Memes.
Don Sanders
ki...@lycanthrope.net says...
> ilr wrote:
> > Plushie porkin has NOTHING to do with FurryFandom/Furrydom, infact
> > many plushiphiles have said that themselves. Yet here we all are linked
> > to it in this muckrakers article. IF they were standing up for Furry
> > Fandom, they would have been talking about Artwork and Stories, not
> > some real-life sexual garbage they like participating in, because
> > furry fandom has never been about RL sexual experiences.
>
> Erm.. since when? ;> I can name atleast a few who go to cons for the
> sheer purpose of getting laid =P
The point is that you can name a few, the
sentiment is that hordes of people goes to
conventions for the express purpose of getting
laid. Tell me, A few, A multitude, I can see if
it was thousands upon thousands of people going
for that, but a few?????
Get Real! A handful of people are not going to
destroy the fandom.
>
> > I'm usually all for standing up for what you believe in the face of all
> > adversity, and rarely flame anyone, but you sir sound like a mindless sock-puppet.
>
> What were we saying about honesty? ;>
That it does not exist in the same way as Humane
does not exist in Humanity.
--
Don Sanders.
Former RoadKill Fur
Email dsan...@future.dreamscape.com
Kathmandu
news:270220011157363225%sirr...@evilemail.com...
> Could the artists who draw and sell furry sex art in order to skim off money
from the horny fanboys be considered parasites as well?
Symbionts, not parasites. A parasite takes from its host without giving anything
in return except pain, blood loss or disease whereas a symbiotic relationship is
of mutual benefit. The artist gets paid for their skill and labor, the customer
gets wank material.
There are very few if any furry artists out there fleecing the public, hell most
art is produced at Asian sweatshop labor prices anyway.
Kathmandu
.
"Kiala Dreamstalker" <ki...@lycanthrope.net> wrote in message
news:3A9B4CDB...@lycanthrope.net...
> Kathmandu wrote:
> > Do and say what you feel is right, but please, please do not paint me with
the
> > same brush as yourself. You and your "hobbies" are not mine, nor are they
the
> > interest of more than just a few individual furs.
> Erm.. there are more than just a few individual furs.. While it's not
> the entire fandom, it is a chunk of it..
I stand corrected, substitute " a minority fringe element of a sizable number."
Doesn't change the meaning one bit though.
>
> > I don't live in my
> > parents basement (I am a home owner in fact), I have a job that pays fairly
> > well, I weigh less than 250lbs, I do not masturbate with stuffed animals, I
do
> > not get sexually aroused by seeing people in fursuits, I don't give
scritches, I
> <snip>
>
> Wow.. you just don't get any fun do you? ;> Ahh well.. To each it's
> own.. I suppose if I wanna be a pervert you can certainly be vanilla,
> no? =>
Thank you for recognizing my right to be boring. I do not care in the least
about any sort of picadillo you may have, enjoy yourself. If you are into
stuffing parts of 1958 Edsels into various bodily orifices, have a ball. Just
don't run out and tell the world that just because I own a Ford, I like it too.
>
> > You and the minority
> > fringe of a relatively few yet loud individuals have succeeded in making
furry a
> > whole lot less fun for me. Thanks a lot.
>
> Why do you keep saying that the sexual side of furry is a small fringe?
Not the sexual side... hell , I'm not blind or stupid. The plushophiles, the
beastialists, the you know, "the fringe," the "ophiles" who share their sordid
perversions with anyone who will listen and piss on themselves in excitement at
the mere thought of talking with a reporter. They seem to be a relitively small
number, as a matter of fact, the same names seem to keep turning up again and
again.
Forrest
>Thank you for recognizing my right to be boring.
Okay, I'm going to start using a .sigfile.
<grab>
bevnsag
Smart Ass wrote:
>
> In article <3A9BC9BF...@home.com>, bevnsag <bev...@home.com>
> wrote:
>
> > A fair number of the
> > freaks are also fans to some degree of the genre and have that
> > "legitimacy". And at conventions, there is always some number of
> > coattailers and convention fans. But they are not a positive or
> > contributing component, merely an embarrassing appendage, when not
> > actively a parasite.
>
> Could the artists who draw and sell furry sex art in order to skim off
> money from the horny fanboys be considered parasites as well?
Erotic material within the genre is not the point. Advocating
bizzare/degenerate/criminal sexual conduct among the attendees at a con
or that being a fan necessarily equates to such advocacy or
participation is.
Kiala Dreamstalker
> ki...@lycanthrope.net says...
> > ...I can name atleast a few who go to cons for the
> > sheer purpose of getting laid =P
> it was thousands upon thousands of people going
> for that, but a few?????
I was being conservative in my estimates ;>
> Get Real! A handful of people are not going to
> destroy the fandom.
Agreed.. The handful of normal people, dare I say edging towards
mundanity are certainly trying.. I find this rather humorous.. we're
both arguing for the same thing ;> (unless I'm misreading your post?)
Don Sanders
ki...@lycanthrope.net says...
> Don Sanders wrote:
> > ki...@lycanthrope.net says...
> > > ...I can name atleast a few who go to cons for the
> > > sheer purpose of getting laid =P
> > Tell me, A few, A multitude, I can see if
> > it was thousands upon thousands of people going
> > for that, but a few?????
>
> I was being conservative in my estimates ;>
>
> > Get Real! A handful of people are not going to
> > destroy the fandom.
>
> Agreed.. The handful of normal people, dare I say edging towards
> mundanity are certainly trying.. I find this rather humorous.. we're
> both arguing for the same thing ;> (unless I'm misreading your post?)
>
>
the notion that a few people have the ability to
destroy the credibility of everyone in the fandom.
It just reminds me of a incident that happened to
me in my youth and how being the only person
different from a community of others was able to
draw negative views for just being different.
(beating around the bush mode)
Hangdog
> ilr wrote:
> > I'm usually all for standing up for what you believe in the face of all
> > adversity, and rarely flame anyone, but you sir sound like a mindless sock-puppet.
>
> What were we saying about honesty? ;>
So Kiala, who are you really: Sifl or Ollie?
William Earl Haskell
> On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 00:25:13 -0600, William Earl Haskell
> <for...@hal-pc.org> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >Is this guy so clueless? Babbling distractedly in front of the Media that
> >*all* Furry Fans f#ck pigs and masturbate over pictures of Donald Duck...
> >sheesh.
>
> I've read the article, where does he say this? If your going to
> persecute someone, do it for the crimes they commited.
I don't know that he does, but the impression remains. I doubt more than 1/4
of the Article's readers did much more than scan it for dirty stuff before
moving on to other Nadirs of Desperate Degeneration (sounds like a music
band).
As for the persecution, you know he's squealin' like a li'l piggie everytime
his name shows up on the screen. "There's no such thing as bad publicity."
The bit about Donald Duck comes from Bob Foster's Myron Moose Comix, BTW.
Kiala Dreamstalker
> So Kiala, who are you really: Sifl or Ollie?
Actually I'm the microphone =P
Ask a stupid question...
Brian Henderson
wrote:
>I think I misread yours. Still a bit miffed at
>the notion that a few people have the ability to
>destroy the credibility of everyone in the fandom.
If those people are the ones who get portrayed by the media as
representative of the fandom in general, then it only takes one bad
apple to spoil the whole pie.
-Brian
ilr
> mundanity are certainly trying.. I find this rather humorous.. we're
> both arguing for the same thing ;> (unless I'm misreading your post?)
>
You equate edging towards "mundanity" with, forcefully-or-not, trying to
destroy the fandom? At this point I'm wondering are you some kind
of Kook? I need some more explanation on how you jumped to that
logical conclusion. I've more coherent jumps by Hangdog, Sheeesh.
And bear in mind that the fandom wasn't built on "tolerance".
There's no NEED for tolerance when it's only FICTION!
-Ilr
ilr
FoxWolfie Galen <ga...@velocity.net> wrote in message news:stap9tgftq96gsfsu...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 13:10:54 -0600, Timothy Fay
> <fayxx001@delete..this..tc.umn.edu> wrote:
>
> > Your threats to "deny" Ostrich anything are hollow, meaningless,
> > and really, really silly.
>
> I somehow think that there is nothing he can deny that Ostrich would
> actually want.
Maybe some help if he came across him while he was
getting mugged by immature people?
You can talk till you're blue in the face about how wrong it
is, but overly-flamboyant people that strut around to spite
the intolerant get their heads caved in still. Ask Mathew
Shepherd(Oh wait, actually you can't ask him). My sister
had a gay friend that came over to our house several
times. Cocky lil' SOB, I must be more open-minded than
I thought I was because I never said anything bad to him.
But last I heard he turned up in a Ditch w/ Hypothermia
and a severe case of Got-Beat-The-Fuck-Down. The way
I look at it, you and Ostrich should be trying to make nyce with
as many attending members of the Cons you go to as you can.
-Ilr
Kory Anders
I hope you're not suggesting that people should do nothing if they see
anyone, including Ostrich or Galen, being assaulted. To do nothing
about such a situation doesn't prove you're better, it proves you're
worse than the attackers. And I sincerely hope you aren't advocating
violence against others. If so, please seek help for your anger
issues, before you end up hurting others or yourself.
Doug Winger
[Heavy snippage]
> You can talk till you're blue in the face about how wrong it
> is, but overly-flamboyant people that strut around to spite
> the intolerant get their heads caved in still. Ask Mathew
> Shepherd(Oh wait, actually you can't ask him). My sister
> had a gay friend that came over to our house several
> times. Cocky lil' SOB, I must be more open-minded than
> I thought I was because I never said anything bad to him.
> But last I heard he turned up in a Ditch w/ Hypothermia
> and a severe case of Got-Beat-The-Fuck-Down. The way
> I look at it, you and Ostrich should be trying to make nyce with
> as many attending members of the Cons you go to as you can.
>
> -Ilr
>
[Read it all before starting a reply, if you plan on doing so.]
In other words, "Don't get uppity. Keep to your place, or your betters will
put you there." Or perhaps it's, "Well, it's not right, but you're only
bringing it on yourself."
I'm certain Mr. Shepherd deserved everything he got, as did your sister's
friend. After all, they have only themselves to blame.
Nice to know that some good old-fashioned American traditions are still
being observed, and with a whole slew of new targe- um... sorts of people
being introduced to that time-honored treatment. It's also heartening to see
that even this fandom is showing signs of trying to introduce those values.
Name-calling and screeching arguments are one thing, the above examples are
another. They are NOT called, "saving the fandom," or, "protecting society
from deviants." They are called felonious assault and murder in most places.
Threatening or performing either is looked upon unfavorably by most law
enforcement agencies and the more rational portions of society, or so I have
been told.
Don't go there.
[ And so, with that moment of "seriousness" out of the way...]
Had you going there, didn't I? The above was only half-serious and
deliberately exagerated; which half I'll leave to you to decide. I've written
it in such a manner to keep within the same spirit as the preceding posts;
over-the-top and dead earnest at the same time. They don't mix well, do they?
There is some truth in it, though, and some things to think about. It is
something to bear in mind when you start fervently praying for Those Evil
People to be struck with lightning for their transgressions, and hoping you
get to pull the switch when it happens. Warning that an "accident" might
happen because of their perceived bad behavior is about on the same par.
This isn't so much directed at you or meant to admonish for non-existent
threats (note that "non-existent" well), but calling to your (plural)
attention the point that this is starting to get _way_ out of hand and is
turning into something ridiculous and faintly scary- which is probably as good
a definition for the noisier portion of fandom represented here as any other.
Keep in mind that you might have someone wishing for a strong thunderstorm
in your area and that they get to yank the switch. But- serious for a moment-
being blue in the face still doesn't make it right, and you ain't gonna get to
yank that switch anyway.
- Doug
-"Don't Wizz On The Electric Fence!"
- from 'Ren and Stimpy' and many dairy farms.
Kiala Dreamstalker
> And bear in mind that the fandom wasn't built on "tolerance".
> There's no NEED for tolerance when it's only FICTION!
I'd like to see you argue that with some of the lifestylers ;>
And there apparently IS need for tolerance within fiction, as even when
religious beliefs are removed from the equation people still get
burned.. And it's not exclusive to our fandom.. Just picture two
trekkies beating eachother up over Deana Troy's breast size =P
-Kiala, Webmaster, Draconic Networks
=====-===-==-=--=-----.---.--.-..-..... ... .. . . . |
|.#.#.###.|Kiala Dreamstalker |"For centuries, we were the |
|.#.#..#..|ki...@lycanthrope.net|watchers. Now we awake -- and|
|.##...#..|www.dreamchaos.org |your world can never go back."|
|.#.#..#..|Author, Mage, Theri |-Dennis Redwing, Tomorrowlands|
|.#.#.###.| ICQ: 17611893 | IRC: Kiala | Member of FurBuy.com |
Doug Winger
<ki...@lycanthrope.net> wrote:
> Just picture two
> trekkies beating eachother up over Deana Troy's breast size =P
Not much of a battlefield there, really.
Now, Seven-of-Nine's breasts...
- Doug
-"Oh yeah? Well, Data would kick Spock's ass!"- Overheard at SDCC
magnwa
>And there apparently IS need for tolerance within fiction, as even when
>religious beliefs are removed from the equation people still get
>burned.. And it's not exclusive to our fandom.. Just picture two
>trekkies beating eachother up over Deana Troy's breast size =P
You know..I was a trekkie. I never saw fights like this. Sure, over other
things, yes.. like whether or not Kirk could safely get out of a trap, or
whether or not Q had switched spots with Picard and was secretly playing games
with the crew for the remainder of the series after the second season..
I've seen fights over that, but never one over anything sexual. Okay.. one..
there was one discussion about the implications of Dax mating
(Is Dax gay, straight, or bi? ) and that one had a fundamentalist in it..
but I've never seen the Deana Troi Breast Size fights. I've just heard
rumors about them.
Magnwa
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
[...]
>Not the sexual side... hell , I'm not blind or stupid. The plushophiles, the
>beastialists, the you know, "the fringe," the "ophiles" who share their sordid
>perversions with anyone who will listen and piss on themselves in
>excitement at the mere thought of talking with a reporter. They seem
>to be a relitively small number, as a matter of fact, the same names
>seem to keep turning up again and again.
The number who are willing to talk about it is small, but there are
alot of quiet zoos and plushies who don't talk about themselves in
public. Its a real problem, do you stay silent and be ignored or do
speek up and be counted.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
<for...@hal-pc.org> wrote:
>"David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 00:25:13 -0600, William Earl Haskell
>> <for...@hal-pc.org> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> >Is this guy so clueless? Babbling distractedly in front of the Media that
>> >*all* Furry Fans f#ck pigs and masturbate over pictures of Donald Duck...
>> >sheesh.
>>
>> I've read the article, where does he say this? If your going to
>> persecute someone, do it for the crimes they commited.
>
>I don't know that he does, but the impression remains.
So I have a whole lot of impressions about Burned Furs and other
wosers whithin the fandom. But I make staments based on facts. Why
should you be basically be permitted to lie?
> I doubt more than 1/4
>of the Article's readers did much more than scan it for dirty stuff before
>moving on to other Nadirs of Desperate Degeneration (sounds like a music
>band).
Well I suppose they would be reading the Hue Heffna artical rather
then ours.
Charles Melville
Alan Kennedy wrote:
> Farlo <hall...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>
> > Most everyone here does not swear. There are a couple exceptions, and I
> > would avoid associating with the ones who make a habit of it.
>
> > Farlo
> > Urban fey dragon
>
> The reality that swearing is a part of everyday life for most hasn't set in
> for you has it? The word fuck holds as much meaning as a gnats fart, or
> even the word shit, ass, piss, dick, anything like that means nothing to me.
>
> So, get a clue farlo and realize this world is NOT a jolly rancher of
> sweetness.
>
On the other hand, Farlo notwithstanding, the restraint from swearing
gratuitously at the drop of a pin is generally considered a hallmark of
maturity.
--
-Chuck Melville-
http://www.zipcon.net/~cpam/index.htm
ilr
Doug Winger <do...@fastpointcom.com> wrote in message news:doug-
I'm a pacifist, but a realist. It was threatening, yet I threaten no one.
The fact remains that Overwrought Pride exists on both extremes
from the prejudized to the prejudees. That's no way to compromise.
Might have been to cryptic though, likely to be overlooked for all the
wrong reasons. :P
...And I was sorely tempted to say a Snowmobiler or 4x4 enthusiast
might show up too, but I digress ;)
-Ilr
ilr
Kiala Dreamstalker <ki...@lycanthrope.net> wrote in message news:3A9D2263...@lycanthrope.net...
> ilr wrote:
> > And bear in mind that the fandom wasn't built on "tolerance".
> > There's no NEED for tolerance when it's only FICTION!
>
> I'd like to see you argue that with some of the lifestylers ;>
Really? They got a Lifestyler Fandom now?
And since when does a Fandom focus on RL events?
> And there apparently IS need for tolerance within fiction, as even when
> religious beliefs are removed from the equation people still get
> burned.. And it's not exclusive to our fandom.. Just picture two
> trekkies beating eachother up over Deana Troy's breast size =P
>
Now that's just silly :D
-Ilr
ilr
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) <dfor...@zeta.org.au> wrote in message
news:slrn99qhge....@dformosa.zeta.org.au...
> The number who are willing to talk about it is small, but there are
> alot of quiet zoos and plushies who don't talk about themselves in
> public. Its a real problem, do you stay silent and be ignored or do
> speek up and be counted.
>
I prefer to leave the issue up to the proper forum.
I don't think furry-z00phile is all the great a marriage of terms.
Or Atleast I don't think it's something so important that you
gotta stand up and distract everyone else from doing their fan thing.
Seems moreover as an attention getting devise to me.
I like who I am, and as far as I can imagine, acceptance or
rejection from other people ain't gonna change that one bit.
-Ilr
Kyle L. Webb
ilr wrote:
> And since when does a Fandom focus on RL events?
Umm... NASCAR? :)
(And don't think they don't have arguments. Just look for the Fans
Against Gordon bumperstickers, or Calvin peeing on a number, often 3 or
27, though I bet a few 3s got scraped off a week ago.)
Kyle L. Webb
Hartree Fox on yiffnet
Kay Shapero
Charles Melville <cp...@zipcon.com> wrote in message
news:3A9CFC4F...@zipcon.com...
>
> On the other hand, Farlo notwithstanding, the restraint from swearing
> gratuitously at the drop of a pin is generally considered a hallmark of
> maturity.
Agreed. There are enough words in the world (especially in the language,
English, which we're using here) to say just about anything you might want
to without swearing. Swear words are best saved for the rare occasion when
nothing else has sufficent pungence (witness a few years ago when Boris
Yeltsin told those would be coupmeisters to "fuck off".)
Mind you, the last few decades have seen an interesting shift in exactly
what sort of terms are considered "unspeakable". George Carlin's "7 words
you can't say on television" refered mostly to body parts and functions.
Nowdays, you *can* say "fuck" in a crowded newspaper (the LA Times quoted
Yeltsin as close to verbatim as you can get with a translation in the above
instance.) But try to quote someone else's use of a racial epithet in a
major newspaper, let alone, God forbid, use it yourself. Or for that matter
insult terms related to religion, sex, intellectual capacity et al. It's
these sort of insult terms, as associated with hate speech that form our new
list of "unspeakable" words. Which I can't help but consider an
improvement. :->
None of which means the 7 are considered anything but crude, even now.
(Though it's interesting to note - that neolism "fucktard" manages to neatly
bracket the lot by using one of the old dirty words "fuck" in company with
what may be a new dirty word "retard", unless it's old enough to have lost
enough of it's original denotation to survive along with "stupid" and
"idiot".)
Kay Shapero
> ilr wrote:
>
> Erm.. since when? ;> I can name atleast a few who go to cons for the
> sheer purpose of getting laid =P
>
I've a hunch you find *that* motive at any convention, conference, or
whatever, fannish *or* mundane... :->
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
>
>Kiala Dreamstalker <ki...@lycanthrope.net> wrote in message >
>> Agreed.. The handful of normal people, dare I say edging towards
>> mundanity are certainly trying.. I find this rather humorous.. we're
>> both arguing for the same thing ;> (unless I'm misreading your post?)
>>
>
>You equate edging towards "mundanity" with, forcefully-or-not, trying to
>destroy the fandom? At this point I'm wondering are you some kind
>of Kook? I need some more explanation on how you jumped to that
>logical conclusion. I've more coherent jumps by Hangdog, Sheeesh.
While I'm not dreamstalker I can think I can provide an answer. What
makes furry furry is the things that are unique about it. By
stripping away what makes it unique you destroy what furry is leaving
it just a hollow thing furry in name only.
> And bear in mind that the fandom wasn't built on "tolerance".
>There's no NEED for tolerance when it's only FICTION!
Don't you need tolerance to cope with the existence of subjects that
squick you?
Don Sanders
<1rep9tcjq4s3lqlqm...@4ax.com>,
cep...@ev1.net says...
Ok, I am going to take a step back for a moment,
and based on what you have just mentioned, I am
going to treat the small number of bad apples as
reason for the decline of the fandom, and the
decline of democracy, and the decline of
civilization, and the cause of World War II, and
AIDS, and the decline of the birth rate of spotted
owls and......
Anyway, I am going to bow out of this discussion
but only after I finish my other replies. Funny
thing, all the years I have spent treating my
fellow man with respect and dignity, I just have
given the green light to throw all that out and
live life as a distrustful, hateful, narrow minded
member of humanity.
Thanks.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
>
>David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) <dfor...@zeta.org.au> wrote in message
>news:slrn99qhge....@dformosa.zeta.org.au...
[...]
>> The number who are willing to talk about it is small, but there are
>> alot of quiet zoos and plushies who don't talk about themselves in
>> public. Its a real problem, do you stay silent and be ignored or do
>> speek up and be counted.
>>
>I prefer to leave the issue up to the proper forum.
>I don't think furry-z00phile is all the great a marriage of terms.
But then what dose one do when people come and say "We have to kick all
the perverts out of the fandom". What do you do, hide, allow yourself
to be excluded from the fandom or do you stand up for what you beleave
in?
>Or Atleast I don't think it's something so important that you
>gotta stand up and distract everyone else from doing their fan thing.
I expect that most if not all just wish to be left to do there fan
thing and share the comperney of fans with simmler interests.
Dr. Cat
: I'm all out of insults.
Hip hip hooray!
I guess it was bound to happen sooner or later, at the pace he was using
them up. :X)
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
Dr. Cat / Dragon's Eye Productions || Free alpha test:
*-------------------------------------------** http://www.furcadia.com
Furcadia - a graphic mud for PCs! || Let your imagination soar!
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
(Disclaimer: If he shows up with some new ones somewhere I guess I'll have
to call him on it.)
(P.S. If he really wants to deny Ostrich something, maybe he could block
him from access to the Burned Fur website. Ouch, that'd really smart.)
Bruce
"Kay Shapero" <kaysh...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:plgn6.2724$7Y1.3...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
*Supposedly* this is one of the unwritten guidelines that make Las Vegas
such a popular convention town. So I have heard in the past.
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen
>And since when does a Fandom focus on RL events?
I don't know. How long have they been doing Civil War re-enactments?
--
_________________________________________________
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen / Xydexx Squeakypony, KSC
Remember when furry fandom was about
anthropomorphic animals? It still is.
Hangdog
> On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 13:10:54 -0600, Timothy Fay
> <fayxx001@delete..this..tc.umn.edu> wrote:
>
> > Your threats to "deny" Ostrich anything are hollow, meaningless,
> > and really, really silly.
>
> I somehow think that there is nothing he can deny that Ostrich would
> actually want.
Time and chance happeneth to them all, FoxWolfie--give it time...
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen
>I prefer to leave the issue up to the proper forum.
bring these things up here because they think it will "solve problems."
Somewhere in the back room I've got a printout of a post on AFF (from Brian
Henderson or Chuck Melville, I forget which) from 1995 that could have just as
easily been made yesterday. It's the exact same argument. They're spinning
their wheels.
*shrug*
Hopefully with the new newsgroup we finally won't have to deal with that
anymore, y'know? Arguments like these don't solve problems, they STEAL YOUR
LIFE FROM YOU.
>Or Atleast I don't think it's something so important that you
>gotta stand up and distract everyone else from doing their fan thing.
Very true. For example, I don't think posts about improving furry fandom are
an appropriate place for Michael Campbell to go blathering about building
inflatable clydesdales. True, it was a cheap personal attack on his part, but
I think the point needs to be acknowledged by folks who keep demanding
discretion that it's pointless to be discreet when folks like Michael Campbell
keep dragging this stuff out into the spotlight.
(My critics will now predictably try to shift the blame and point out that I'm
talking about it on AFF. At which point I'll simply mention I'm not the one
who decided to make it an issue. As I've said, there's no point in trying to
keep the cat in the bag once it's been let out. I'm not looking for acceptance
from anyone; the whole reason I put the webpage up years ago was to find other
folks with similar interests. Perhaps these folks who keep calling for
discretion will put their money where there mouths are and condemn Michael
Campbell for not showing a little discretion himself. Perhaps they'll
acknowledge that just because someone is a pervert doesn't mean they're using
the fandom to "legitimize" or "gain acceptance" for anything. But I doubt it.)
>I like who I am, and as far as I can imagine, acceptance or
>rejection from other people ain't gonna change that one bit.
Yeah, that pretty much sums up my position too.
Brian Henderson
(aka ? the Platypus)) wrote:
>But then what dose one do when people come and say "We have to kick all
>the perverts out of the fandom". What do you do, hide, allow yourself
>to be excluded from the fandom or do you stand up for what you beleave
>in?
Anyone who insists on smearing various perversions all over furrydom
should be removed. Anyone who can separate furry fandom from whatever
perversions they wish to practice are fine with me. You want to screw
sheep? Keep it to yourself while attending furry functions. If you
can do that, you're welcome in the fandom.
-Brian
ilr
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen <xyd...@XsXmXaXrXtX.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9056EFD4Es...@209.125.35.22...
> ilr wrote:
> >And since when does a Fandom focus on RL events?
>
> I don't know. How long have they been doing Civil War re-enactments?
>
ilr
Kyle L. Webb <kyle...@n.o.s.p.a.m.uiuc.edu> wrote in message news:3A9D8C4D...@n.o.s.p.a.m.uiuc.edu...
>
>
> ilr wrote:
>
> > And since when does a Fandom focus on RL events?
>
> Umm... NASCAR? :)
> (And don't think they don't have arguments. Just look for the Fans
> Against Gordon bumperstickers, or Calvin peeing on a number, often 3 or
> 27, though I bet a few 3s got scraped off a week ago.)
>
Are WE HERE to see Car Racing??
Apples and Oranges, but don't stop trying to name a justifiable fandom
atleast somewhat similar to ours.
-Ilr
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
>FoxWolfie Galen wrote:
[...]
>> I somehow think that there is nothing he can deny that Ostrich would
>> actually want.
>
>Time and chance happeneth to them all, FoxWolfie--give it time...
You know as threats go that is realy "King Lear" leval.
M. Mitchell Marmel
ilr wrote:
Heck, no. We're doing a civil war of our very own... :/
-MMM-
Kory Anders
Well, you did ask for an example of a fandom which focused on RL
events, not whether or not this fandom did. The Model Railroaders also
focus on RL, many concerning themselves with the histories of the
railroads they model. So there are fandoms which do. :)
Cerulean
>And since when does a Fandom focus on RL events?
I dunno, I sometimes think furry fandom is increasingly about being a
fan of furry fandom. People seem to be more fans of the personalities
in it than the works they create.
It's sort of like Terry Pratchett's description of how a religion
builds around a god: more and more layers of organization build around
it until the religion is actually about believing in the religion.
Eventually, none of the belief actually reaches all the way through to
the god itself, and it dies unnourished, leaving the empty but
thriving religion in its place.
The question has changed from "how do we promote cartoon animals as a
rich theme for all ages" to "how do we save furry fandom".
Those who have read Pratchett's "Small Gods" will get my meaning when
I say that what this fandom needs more than anything is a tortoise to
the back of the head. :=} What that means is that we need a
witnessable miracle for people to truly believe in, and it will come
only in the form of an outstanding work of creativity that makes the
rest of the world sit up and take notice. That, of course, is a Real
Life Event too. It's happened before, or this fandom wouldn't have
formed in the first place.
--
___vvz /( Cerulean = Kevin Pease http://cerulean.st/
<__,` Z / ( DC2.~D GmAL~W-R+++Ac~J+S+Fr++IH$M-V+++Cbl,spu
`~~~) )Z) ( FDDmp4adwsA+++$C+D+HM+P-RT+++WZSm#
/ (7 ( +S!JnoL-,,c'asoow e awo)aq >7a ue saop uo!+e^a7a +eym +V,,
Kory Anders
<ki...@lycanthrope.net> wrote:
>"M. Mitchell Marmel" wrote:
>> > Are WE HERE to do Civil War re-enactments??
>> Heck, no. We're doing a civil war of our very own... :/
AFF Civil War Re-enactments... why do I get this image of strange
performance art, with people in fursuits doing dramatic readings and
acting out posts on stage?
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
[...]
>What that means is that we need a
>witnessable miracle for people to truly believe in, and it will come
>only in the form of an outstanding work of creativity that makes the
>rest of the world sit up and take notice. That, of course, is a Real
>Life Event too. It's happened before, or this fandom wouldn't have
>formed in the first place.
I wonder what each persons "mirale" was. What was that creative
moment that they looked at something and said to themselves "I realy
connect with this". What was the artwork that turned you into a furry
fan?
Kiala Dreamstalker
> > Are WE HERE to do Civil War re-enactments??
> Heck, no. We're doing a civil war of our very own... :/
We eat our own...
-Kiala, Webmaster, Draconic Networks
=====-===-==-=--=-----.---.--.-..-..... ... .. . . . |
|.#.#.###.|Kiala Dreamstalker |"For centuries, we were the |
|.#.#..#..|ki...@lycanthrope.net|watchers. Now we awake -- and|
|.##...#..|www.dreamchaos.org |your world can never go back."|
|.#.#..#..|Author, Mage, Theri |-Dennis Redwing, Tomorrowlands|
|.#.#.###.| ICQ: 17611893 | IRC: Kiala | Member of FurBuy.com |
| . . . .. ... .....-..-.--.---.-----=--=-==-===-=====
Kiala Dreamstalker
> I wonder what each persons "mirale" was. What was that creative
> moment that they looked at something and said to themselves "I realy
> connect with this". What was the artwork that turned you into a furry
> fan?
In part.. I had found a taste for dragon artwork, and followed one
artist's link to his spirituality page.. It caught my attention and I
followed him around, trying to figure out just what made him believe
what he did.. And when I looked into it myself, it made sense to me..
(Now.. I know there are tons of things that make sense to me that no one
else'll ever understand.. and vice versa) He, in part introduced me to
other furries, who in turn brought me into the fandom..
And then I went to a con, FC99.. and I found all this great artwork..
and hundreds of really nice people that I could actually socialize
with.. Hence my own entry into the fandom ;>
ilr
Yeah there is.... But until furries become a real living breathing
sub-species of the human race, I don't see the relevance in
associating RL sexual activity with this particular Fandom.
Thus, Kiala sounds like jackass trying to justify it by the fact
that it's already happening in what he considers a large-minority.
A large minority of men my age would screw a 16-year-old. Doesn't
make it any less revolting. -Ilr
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen
>Karl Xydexx Jorgensen wrote:
>> ilr wrote:
>> >And since when does a Fandom focus on RL events?
>>
>> I don't know. How long have they been doing Civil War re-enactments?
>>
>Are WE HERE to do Civil War re-enactments??
No, but that wasn't the question you asked. Calm down.
There are plenty of fandoms that focus on RL events, including this one.
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen
>I wonder what each persons "mirale" was. What was that creative
>moment that they looked at something and said to themselves "I realy
>connect with this". What was the artwork that turned you into a furry
>fan?
It wasn't so much artwork for me as it was cartoons. I've always liked
Disney/Warner Brothers stuff, but never knew there was a fandom for it until
1993 when someone told me about FurryMUCK.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
>On Thu, 01 Mar 2001 00:58:20 GMT, dfor...@zeta.org.au (David Formosa
>(aka ? the Platypus)) wrote:
>
>>But then what dose one do when people come and say "We have to kick all
>>the perverts out of the fandom". What do you do, hide, allow yourself
>>to be excluded from the fandom or do you stand up for what you beleave
>>in?
>
>Anyone who insists on smearing various perversions all over furrydom
>should be removed.
What is regarded as perverse to you? For at some points non-perverse
things such as spiritual beliefs have been stuff that the "kick them
out of the fandom" mob have been calling for.
>Anyone who can separate furry fandom from whatever
>perversions they wish to practice are fine with me. You want to screw
>sheep? Keep it to yourself while attending furry functions.
A hypothtical sheep shagger where to meet a fellow sheep shagger at a
con may they chat about the finer points of sheep shagging with each
other?
M. Mitchell Marmel
> >Time and chance happeneth to them all, FoxWolfie--give it time...
>
> You know as threats go that is realy "King Lear" leval.
Beats WWF level threats, at least from a cultural standpoint.
--
============================================================================
M. Mitchell Marmel \ Scattered, smothered, covered, chunked,
Drexel University \ whipped, beaten, chained and pierced.
Department of Materials Engineering \ *THE BEST HASHBROWNS IN THE WORLD!*
Fibrous Materials Research Center \ marm...@dunx1.irt.drexel.edu
============================================================================
TaliVisions Homepage: http://www.pages.drexel.edu/grad/marmelmm/Talivisions/index.html
ICQ # 58305217
ilr
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen <xyd...@XsXmXaXrXtX.net> wrote in message
>
> There are plenty of fandoms that focus on RL events, including this one.
>
-Ilr
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen
>Karl Xydexx Jorgensen wrote:
>>
>Then you better find a new .sig
No, not really. The death of Carl Barks was a RL event, for example.
I'm sure you could probably think of a few other events that have been
significant as well.
--
Hangdog
>
> > >Time and chance happeneth to them all, FoxWolfie--give it time...
> >
> > You know as threats go that is realy "King Lear" leval.
This ain't Lear--too many Fools, and none of 'em hanged (more's the pity).
--Hang(heh)dog
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
>David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) <dfor...@zeta.org.au> wrote:
>: The number who are willing to talk about it is small, but there are
>: alot of quiet zoos and plushies who don't talk about themselves in
>: speek up and be counted.
>
>discussing such is likely to cause problems for those without such
>interests.
That sounds fair and is behavoure that I for the most part pertisipate
in.
[...]
>I can't for the life of me see any need for any of
>said groups to stand up and be counted
In cases when we are we are being villinised, harrased or excluded.
> in regards to the furry fandom as
>none of those interests have anything in particular to do with an
>appreciation of anthropomorphic animals.
Plushies are anthropomorphic, and for that mattor so are the more
spirital memebers of the lifestler croud.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
>David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) <dfor...@zeta.org.au> wrote:
>: the perverts out of the fandom". What do you do, hide, allow yourself
>: to be excluded from the fandom or do you stand up for what you beleave
>: in?
>
>'take back our fandom' types will never be more than just a lot of hot
>air, is that nobody can really be excluded from the fandom if they wish to
>be a part of it.
A confurence style[1] rule that bans people who have had contact with
undesireables would be effective. And there is a type of socal
exclusion as well.
[1] Yes I know confurence doens't have a rule like this. I'm refuring
to the "Take control of your life outside of the convention" scope the
media rule has.
Charles Melville
"David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" wrote:
>
> > And bear in mind that the fandom wasn't built on "tolerance".
> >There's no NEED for tolerance when it's only FICTION!
>
> Don't you need tolerance to cope with the existence of subjects that
> squick you?
>
Nope.
Only if you -intend- to cope with them. If you don't plan to cope, then
you're not required to be tolerant of it.
--
-Chuck Melville-
http://www.zipcon.net/~cpam/index.htm
Charles Melville
"David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" wrote:
> But then what dose one do when people come and say "We have to kick all
> the perverts out of the fandom". What do you do, hide, allow yourself
> to be excluded from the fandom or do you stand up for what you beleave
> in?
You could go elsewhere and start your own group, one without affiliation to
Furry Fandom.
> I expect that most if not all just wish to be left to do there fan
> thing and share the comperney of fans with simmler interests.
>
You're making an awfully wild jump of reason if you expect that the whole
of Furry Fandom has interests similar to bestialists.
Charles Melville
Cerulean wrote:
>
>
> The question has changed from "how do we promote cartoon animals as a
> rich theme for all ages" to "how do we save furry fandom".
Probably because the energy put into pursuing the first question was
derailed by the interjection of a new question: "Have you seen my pictures of
my wife?" Which alerted those involved with the first question that there
suddenly were folks asking a completely different sort of question
intermingled within the ranks.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
wrote:
>
>
>"David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" wrote:
>
>>
>> > And bear in mind that the fandom wasn't built on "tolerance".
>> >There's no NEED for tolerance when it's only FICTION!
>>
>> Don't you need tolerance to cope with the existence of subjects that
>> squick you?
>
> Nope.
>
> Only if you -intend- to cope with them. If you don't plan to cope, then
>you're not required to be tolerant of it.
In this case I'm talking about artwork with subjects you dislike? Or
do you wish to resrict the existence of such artwork and stories?
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
>
>
>"David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" wrote:
>
>> But then what dose one do when people come and say "We have to kick all
>> the perverts out of the fandom". What do you do, hide, allow yourself
>> to be excluded from the fandom or do you stand up for what you beleave
>> in?
>
> You could go elsewhere and start your own group, one without
>affiliation to Furry Fandom.
To me that is allowing myself to be exculed from the fandom. I enjoy
the fandom, I love what furry has, too much to give it up. Would you
give it up?
>> I expect that most if not all just wish to be left to do there fan
>> thing and share the comperney of fans with simmler interests.
>
> You're making an awfully wild jump of reason if you expect that the whole
>of Furry Fandom has interests similar to bestialists.
Sorry I was not clear. I mean if I meet a sub-group of fans who have
simmler interests weather these be martail arts, marsupals or
multistory high inflatable macro vixen sodomy I should be able to
share there comperney.
magnwa
>Sorry I was not clear. I mean if I meet a sub-group of fans who have
>simmler interests weather these be martail arts, marsupals or
>multistory high inflatable macro vixen sodomy I should be able to
>share there comperney.
Okay. My theroy comes out again. The one about there not being a furry
fandom, but instead 40 or 50 groups that gather under one hotel roof.
The fact is that there are so many definitions of Furry out there some of them
just don't mesh. The Burned Fur's definition doesn't mesh with a lot of
people's definition. Some of the zoophiles definition (Some, not all..
I am not insulting anyone) of furry requires an acceptance of having sex
with animals. A lot of people cannot mesh with that belief.
The same goes for BDSM, AB/DL, and a few of the other kinks that show up.
There are just some subgroups that have some people that use definitions
that make your "National Brotherhood Week" of furs a bit too impossible. My
belief is the spiritual side. I doubt some people can accept what I believe and
that is perfectly fine, because I don't force them.
The thing is.. if you allow the martial arts, the macrosodomy, or the marsupial
influence to become a difference, you cannot stand on equal ground. You never
will. If, instead, you can focus on the simliarities ,
you may have a better chance.
The furry community is generally about dividing and pigeon holing. Over here
we have the gay male anthro leopard fursuiter. There's <blank>, the straight
female non-anthro lioness lifestyler. Here's Eric B, the straight artist
burned fur. Etc.
Furries like dividing themselves up into groups and subgroups. Some of these
groups are exclusive.
Magnwa
Farlo
>The same goes for BDSM, AB/DL
AB/DL? What's that?
--
Farlo
Urban fey dragon
m>^_^<m
magnwa
>magnwa wrote:
>>The same goes for BDSM, AB/DL
>
>AB/DL? What's that?
Adult Baby/Diaper Lover.
Brian Henderson
(aka ? the Platypus)) wrote:
>What is regarded as perverse to you? For at some points non-perverse
>things such as spiritual beliefs have been stuff that the "kick them
>out of the fandom" mob have been calling for.
Anything which falls soundly outside the realm of social acceptance
is, by definition, perverse. I think in this example, bestiality,
plushophilia, fursuit sex and pretty much anything that might
otherwise make furry fandom look bad to others.
>A hypothtical sheep shagger where to meet a fellow sheep shagger at a
>con may they chat about the finer points of sheep shagging with each
>other?
So long as they do so in private, they're welcome to do anything they
want. If they insist on doing it in the middle of the hotel lobby at
the top of their lungs... no.
-Brian
Brian Henderson
wrote:
>I'm glad you're adopting a more moderate position on this matter, however
>the problem has generally been that not many other people in the
>clean-up-the-fandom-(which-begat)-Burned-Furs campaign seem able or willing
>to make this distinction. By and large, the vitriol directed against
>undesireable types has been predicated on the assumption that they're
>inherently undiserable, regardless of what they do or say in public. And I
>mean, this is really unfortunate, because if every person whose personal
>sexuality/lifestyle/beliefs offended the conservative elements of furry
>fandom were to miraculously vanish from a furry con, there'd be bugger-all
>people left. As a matter of fact, I'd be surprised if the a great many of
>the conservatives themselves didn't disappear in such a process. So I think
>we at least agree that a) there are certain behaviours which should be
>regarded as undesireable at furry cons (though we may or may not agree
>about what those behaviours include), and b) whether the person engages in
>this behaviour outside the con, or what they might think, believe or feel
>is irrelevant.
This has nothing to do with being conservative, it has to do with
wanting to be able to hold your head high and be proud of what you do.
I can't do that now. I used to be able to, but haven't for quite a
few years. And it isn't my doing. My enjoyment has been taken from
me by socially inept morons who think that shoving their genitals into
everything that moves and most things that don't is something they
should be able to wave in front of everyone else.
-Brian
Brian Henderson
(aka ? the Platypus)) wrote:
>To me that is allowing myself to be exculed from the fandom. I enjoy
>the fandom, I love what furry has, too much to give it up. Would you
>give it up?
Um... I *DID* give it up. I love furry too, but *I* understand that
furry fandom is about one thing and one things only. If you can't
live without every aspect of your life being expressed every second of
the day, then something is seriously wrong with you.
-Brian
magnwa
>Um... I *DID* give it up. I love furry too, but *I* understand that
>furry fandom is about one thing and one things only. If you can't
>live without every aspect of your life being expressed every second of
>the day, then something is seriously wrong with you.
What furry fandom did you give up?
:)
Magnwa
Brian Henderson
>Are WE HERE to see Car Racing??
No we're not, but like it or not, just because you attend a furry
convention, reality doesn't stop. Some people might wish it would,
but it doesn't. So everyone is dealing with reality every second of
every day.
-Brian
Kory Anders
wrote:
What about someone denouncing someone else as a sheep shagger loudly
in the middle of the lobby when the someone else isn't doing anything
at that moment and doesn't plan to cause any problems at the con?
Brian Henderson
>Yeah there is.... But until furries become a real living breathing
>sub-species of the human race, I don't see the relevance in
>associating RL sexual activity with this particular Fandom.
Then please tell the furs who *ARE* associating RL sexual activity
with this particular Fandom to knock it off. The problem is that for
some furs, fandom and RL seem to be the same thing.
It's really sad.
-Brian
AJL
> By and large, the vitriol directed against
> undesireable types has been predicated on the assumption that they're
> inherently undiserable, regardless of what they do or say in public. And I
> mean, this is really unfortunate, because if every person whose personal
> sexuality/lifestyle/beliefs offended the conservative elements of furry
> fandom were to miraculously vanish from a furry con, there'd be bugger-all
> people left. As a matter of fact, I'd be surprised if the a great many of
> the conservatives themselves didn't disappear in such a process. So I think
> we at least agree that a) there are certain behaviours which should be
> regarded as undesireable at furry cons (though we may or may not agree
> about what those behaviours include), and b) whether the person engages in
> this behaviour outside the con, or what they might think, believe or feel
> is irrelevant.
I think I can agree with that... but I would further define "behavior
outside the con" as "bahavior outside and not referring to the con".
People's lifestyles and whatever they do (with discretion) is of no
consequence to me, to furry fandom, or to ConFurence.
When people start confusing their lifestyle with their fandom (everyone
here has a little of both) or remove the discretion of keeping the two
separate, that's when it causes problems.
[directed to all readers here] Don't brag about being a furry fan, then
in the same breath talk about how you boink your stuffed animals... The
two are not directly related. Most of the people on this group realize
this, but the ones who don't are the ones making the fandom look bad.
--Darrel.
AJL
> >> I expect that most if not all just wish to be left to do there fan
> >> thing and share the comperney of fans with simmler interests.
> >
> > You're making an awfully wild jump of reason if you expect that the whole
> >of Furry Fandom has interests similar to bestialists.
>
> Sorry I was not clear. I mean if I meet a sub-group of fans who have
> simmler interests weather these be martail arts, marsupals or
> multistory high inflatable macro vixen sodomy I should be able to
> share there comperney.
A group of So. Cal. and Arizona Furries who like the artwork and comics
(including some adult material) also discovered that they like Model
Rocketry and shooting plush-toys... and they put together "ZonieCon".
I don't think that everyone at ZC likes to shoot guns... about half of
the attendees go to the range. Only about a third (or less) go to the
model rocketry shoot... But at the core, everyone there likes the
artwork and the comics, and that's what the fandom is about.
No one says that shooting the stuffing out of a Barney doll, or igniting
a flare inside a smurf with a rifle from 50 yards has anything to do
with furry fandom, but it does happen to be a lot of fun for the people
who attend that event.
What I'm getting at is if you find a group of furries who share similar
interests, then go and create your own gathering, and let people know
that it is because you also share those interests... Do that instead of
trying to tack the interests onto an existing event.
[shameless plug] Zoniecon info can be linked to from
http://confurence.net for anyone who's interested [plug]