"Furry" Population
Ciaran Skye
trying to figure out roughly how "Furries" there are out there. I have
a theory that about 1 out of 100,000 people both know of and identify
with "Furries". That would give the United States roughly 30,000 and
about 350,000 in the world. (I'm not counting parts of the developing
world since there is less likely to be any. I doubt there's a huge
number in Ethopia for example.)
Since we are so secretive it's almost impossible to count for sure,
but I just want to see what other people think.
Zorro
12,500 Maximum US and Canada combined.
"Ciaran Skye" <pant...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:7080d37e.04101...@posting.google.com...
Dale Farmer
Zorro wrote:
It depends on how you define a "furry". If you define it as someone who
has or would like to attend a furry themed convention, such as Anthrocon
or Confurence, then I'd guess the number is in the four to five thousand
range.
If you broaden the definition to those who enjoy "furry" comics, then
you
pick the comic with the largest circulation, which is probably Usagi
Yojimbo,
and use that number. ( I don't know the circulation, but it's probably in
the
tens of thousands )
If you broaden the definition further, to those who enjoy furry themed
literature, then everyone who read and enjoyed Animal Farm or Charlotte's
Web would be a furry, and the numbers would be in the millions, just in the
english speaking world.
--Dale
BR
> (I'm not counting parts of the developing world since there is less
> likely to be any. I doubt there's a huge number in Ethopia for
> example.)
Furrie's may mean something different for other societies.
--
-- James Fenimore Cooper
The tendency of democracies is, in all things, to mediocrity, since the tastes,
knowledge, and principles of the majority form the tribunal of appeal.
Skytech
> Heck, you could probably expand to those that have read most of the
> tales collected by the Grimms... Lots of those have shapeshifters,
> talking
> animals, etc.
>
Or Le Roman de Renart, a work that set the stage for an
anthropomorphic world that still has roots today.
I'd say furry might be defined as a focused fascination with the
animal anthropomorphic genre compared to casual interest in the
entertainment value. A lot of people can enjoy a book or movie
featuring some level of intelligent animal but only a few in that
group will show an in depth knowledge. I think that takes the number
down quite a bit.
I think the question needs to be added to the next US census.
--
Skytech
David Cooksey
will break 7500 this year once the final MFF numbers come in. And theres
probably about a 33% overlap form duplicates. So thats 4000-5000 con goers,
I'd guess 15,000-20,000 worldwide.
Flint
www.mustelid.com/otterhall/afcis.html
"Zorro" <zor...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:k%2bd.2856$gy1....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Loganberry
> There were 6142 attendees at ALL furry cons last year. My bet is
> that we will break 7500 this year once the final MFF numbers come
> in. And theres probably about a 33% overlap form duplicates. So
> thats 4000-5000 con goers, I'd guess 15,000-20,000 worldwide.
>
> Flint
> www.mustelid.com/otterhall/afcis.html
Though I'm not sure that would apply outside North America. I'd be
pretty certain that nothing *like* one in three British furries are
con-goers, since there's no furry con in the UK.
Ciaran Skye
You're making the bad assumption that an overwhelming percentage of
"Furries" go to cons. I bet a fairly small percentage do. Consider
that "Star Trek" is a huge franchise and I doubt the number of people
going to Star Trek conventions annually keep a show on the air. It
takes millions of viewers (aka fans) to keep such an expensive to
produce show on the air.
If I had to guess (and once again that's all I can do) I'd say maybe
5-20% of "Furries" actually go in any given year. The *only* reason I
am going to one is because I'm doing a piece for my journalism class,
and I'll probably be to weirded out to ever go back.
Colin Ritter
> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 11:25:20 -0400, Dale Farmer <da...@cybercom.net> (Dale
> Farmer) left the following spoor in alt.fan.furry:
>
>
>
>> If you broaden the definition further, to those who enjoy furry themed
>>literature, then everyone who read and enjoyed Animal Farm or Charlotte's
>>Web would be a furry, and the numbers would be in the millions, just in the
>>english speaking world.
>>
>
> tales collected by the Grimms... Lots of those have shapeshifters, talking
> animals, etc.
>
subculture of "Furries" and identify with them. That is that if you ask
those people if they are "Furry" they'd know what you mean and say
"yes". (Personally I think the moniker is too silly for words, but I
wasn't there to name it!)
mouse
@attbi_s54:
> My qualifier for the count was very specific: people who know of the
> subculture of "Furries" and identify with them.
That the only people I would consider to be "furries" and as far as
different type of media - I would only call it furry if it was created in
part or in whole by someone who is in someway (or even was) involved in
furry fandom.
> That is that if you ask
> those people if they are "Furry" they'd know what you mean and say
> "yes". (Personally I think the moniker is too silly for words, but I
> wasn't there to name it!)
Thats because your right, it is stupid.
If someone ask me 'if I am a furry' the answer is "no" - because at most I
like artwork and comics that have and occassionally come out of this
fandom. Other than that I dont give a shit. I dont practice a 'furry
lifestyle' I dont think I AM a furry in my soul. For a lot of people
nowadays thats what furry fandom IS - and thats completely retarded.
Rick Pikul
> Colin Ritter <pant...@insightbb.com> wrote in news:Yumdd.214109$wV.118544
> @attbi_s54:
>
>> My qualifier for the count was very specific: people who know of the
>> subculture of "Furries" and identify with them.
>
> That the only people I would consider to be "furries" and as far as
> different type of media - I would only call it furry if it was created in
> part or in whole by someone who is in someway (or even was) involved in
> furry fandom.
So, you want to use a definition that either begs the question or is
based on a special plea.
That's fine, just remember that any arguments you base on that definition
will be tainted by the falacy you're basing it on.
Now, to show a key problem with your definition: It would result in two
people, who are doing the same work for the same reasons, not both either
being, (or not being), furry if only one of them is aware that anyone else
is doing what they are doing.
--
Phoenix
mouse
news:pan.2004.10.23....@sympatico.ca:
> Now, to show a key problem with your definition: It would result
> in two
> people, who are doing the same work for the same reasons, not both
> either being, (or not being), furry if only one of them is aware that
> anyone else is doing what they are doing.
Funny how I use the most solid, concrete definition of "furry" I could
possibly come up with and yet I am accused of creating a "fallacy". I would
tell you to please point it out, but in your post - its obvious you feel
you already have,
Forgive me for now knowing WTF you are talking about
Rick Pikul
To get the definition you used, you either have to use a circular
definition, (which is one form of begging the question), or you have to
make the special plea that knowing some tangental information somehow
changes the nature of someone's desires, tastes, and or actions.
Now, to further your education in written logic: If you have a single
invalid definition or argument, _everything_ that follows from it is also
invalid.
--
Phoenix
mouse
> To get the definition you used, you either have to use a circular
> definition, (which is one form of begging the question), or you have
> to make the special plea that knowing some tangental information
> somehow changes the nature of someone's desires, tastes, and or
> actions.
>
> Now, to further your education in written logic: If you have a
> single
> invalid definition or argument, _everything_ that follows from it is
> also invalid.
Are you on crack? no, seriously.
What the fuck is wrong with you ?
I said I only consider stuff furry if its created by people involved in
some way in the fandom. How could someone who is unaware of this fandom
create thing FOR it. Furry fans, by definition might like it because it
may have animal characters in it - but that doesnt involve mainstream
writers/animators/artists/cartoonists etc who made it. Now if some person
who is a furry fan somehow writes a script (for ex.) that is so good its
turned into a series on tv.. then maybe.
Same goes for definition of "furry fan". I don't buy into that garbage
that there are furries walking around out there "that just don't know it
yet". What a load of horseshit.
I dont think anything Ive said thus far has been *that* complicated...
If you disagree with me - fine....If you don't get it..
Then youre just dumb. Thats all there is to it.
Wanderer
Mouse, allow me to put it bluntly.
Cartoonist 1 writes a strip about a cat. The cat is fat, and lazy, and
walks on his hind legs like a human. The cat acts like a human. Cartoonist
1 knows about furry fans, and writes for them.
Cartoonist 2 writes a strip about a cat. The cat is fat, and lazy, and
walks on his hind legs like a human. The cat acts like a human. Cartoonist
2 has never heard of furry fandom.
According to your definition, Cartoonist 1 is creating a furry comic strip.
He knows about the fandom, so his artwork is "furry".
According to the same definition, Cartoonist 2 is not creating a furry comic
strip. He does not know about the fandom, so his anthropomorphic animal
character is not "furry".
(Note to the suspicious: Cartoonist 1 is Jim Davis, creator of Garfield.
Cartoonist 2 is George Gately, who started drawing Heathcliff in 1973.)
Your syllogism would read: Furry works are created for the furry fandom.
You must know about the furry fandom in order to create something for the
furry fandom. Therefore, only artists who know about the furry fandom
create furry works.
This syllogism contains the following fallacies:
1. "Wrong Direction": The furry fandom formed because many people liked
artwork and stories about "furries", anthropomorphic animal characters.
Because the artwork and stories came first, furry works are not created
solely for the furry fandom.
2. "Joint Effect": It is not neccessary to know about the fandom in order
to create "furry" works; as the fandom formed about the works, this would
create a paradox similar to the chicken and the egg, without the latter's
evolution-based solution. Both the fandom and the works are effects of the
interest in anthropomorphic animal characters.
3. "Insignificant": Furry artwork and stories are not solely created by
those who know about the fandom; as the works came first, this would again
create the paradox. Knowledge of the fandom may prompt the creation of the
works, but is not neccessary to their creation. Inspiration and market
forces are much stronger drives in this case.
Clear?
Yours logically,
The wolfish,
Wanderer
wand...@ticnet.com
"Where am I going? I don't quite know.
What does it matter *where* people go?
Down to the woods where the bluebells grow!
Anywhere! Anywhere! *I* don't know!"
-- a. a. milne
Rick Pikul
> Rick Pikul <rwp...@sympatico.ca> wrote in
> news:pan.2004.10.23...@sympatico.ca:
>
>> To get the definition you used, you either have to use a circular
>> definition, (which is one form of begging the question), or you have to
>> make the special plea that knowing some tangental information somehow
>> changes the nature of someone's desires, tastes, and or actions.
>>
>> Now, to further your education in written logic: If you have a
>> single invalid definition or argument, _everything_ that follows from
>> it is also invalid.
>
> Are you on crack? no, seriously.
>
> What the fuck is wrong with you ?
I'm willing to call you on your fallacies, and explain to you that in a
chain of argument it takes just one problem to kill the whole thing.
> I said I only consider stuff furry if its created by people involved in
> some way in the fandom.
As I said: That definition, at best, boils down to it has to be furry to
be furry. Looking at it that way, you get the other side of the 'nothing
furry is mainstream, because if it is mainstream it is not furry'
argument.
That's begging the question.
> How could someone who is unaware of this fandom
> create thing FOR it.
As I pointed out: Two people, doing the same work, for the same reasons,
but only one knows that anyone else is into the work he's doing. Why does
this knowledge suddenly change the nature of the work?
And that's a special plea.
I can't conclusively state which fallacy you are committing, because they
lie in the implied premises, and there are two possible structures.
> Furry fans, by definition might like it because it
> may have animal characters in it - but that doesnt involve mainstream
> writers/animators/artists/cartoonists etc who made it. Now if some
> person who is a furry fan somehow writes a script (for ex.) that is so
> good its turned into a series on tv.. then maybe.
>
>
> Same goes for definition of "furry fan". I don't buy into that garbage
> that there are furries walking around out there "that just don't know it
> yet". What a load of horseshit.
Try spending some time on Google Groups, I've seen quite a few "I thought
I was the only one" posts over the years in this very group.
> I dont think anything Ive said thus far has been *that* complicated...
It's simple, so simple it's logically invalid.
> If you disagree with me - fine....If you don't get it.. Then youre just
> dumb. Thats all there is to it.
You're the one building on logical quicksand, (and JSYK: Argument by
insult is not very convincing, and is often itself fallacious).
--
Phoenix
mouse
news:10nm491...@corp.supernews.com:
> According to your definition, Cartoonist 1 is creating a furry comic
> strip. He knows about the fandom, so his artwork is "furry".
No.
I said he had to be ***INVOLVED*** in furry fandom.
Get it right, read it and look at what was actually said before attempting
to refute a point.
I seriously don't understand if this is some retarded debating tactic you
use Wanderer, or if you are just really this dense.
mouse
> As I said: That definition, at best, boils down to it has to be
> furry to
> be furry. Looking at it that way, you get the other side of the
> 'nothing furry is mainstream, because if it is mainstream it is not
> furry' argument.
too bad I've never said that, eh?
Why cant you guys just read something and not inject all this other shit
into it? Between you and Wanderer - its fucking ridiculous.
"furry to be furry"
where do you get this shit?
OK last time... people not involved in a subculture (or a fandom or
anything) are not going to understand the internal community, politics,
ideals, motivations (dysfuctions?), nuances, language and other slang of
said group.
How can said subculture go and retroactively apply its own standards and
practices to uninvolved people? It doesnt even fucking make sense to do
that. Furries can like mainstream stuff... a furry media could concievably
go mainstream. Someone who isnt a 'furry fan' could become one with no
change in what they are into other than contact with a fandom.
I absolutely, positively, cannot break it down any further than that.
If you don't get it this time Pikul, maybe you outta consider seriously
going back to school - because you seem to be missing some pretty
fundamental concepts of communication and understanding here.
> Try spending some time on Google Groups, I've seen quite a few "I
> thought
> I was the only one" posts over the years in this very group.
Look at what you responded to. I see the posts all the time too. I didn't
say it wasn't there, I said it was fucking stupid.
You've (again!) refuted something I didn't say.
Christ, I didn't even imply it!
>
>> I dont think anything Ive said thus far has been *that*
>> complicated...
>
> It's simple, so simple it's logically invalid.
haha
Wanderer
news:Xns958C73F...@204.152.189.149...
> Rick Pikul <rwp...@sympatico.ca> wrote in
> news:pan.2004.10.24....@sympatico.ca:
>
>> As I said: That definition, at best, boils down to it has to be
>> furry to
>> be furry. Looking at it that way, you get the other side of the
>> 'nothing furry is mainstream, because if it is mainstream it is not
>> furry' argument.
>
> too bad I've never said that, eh?
"i dont think furry can or will ever be "mainstream" (at least not any
more than other fandoms).."-- mouse, "Re: p0rn the trolls", 2003-10-01,
22:24:53 PST
>
> Why cant you guys just read something and not inject all this other shit
> into it? Between you and Wanderer - its fucking ridiculous.
>
> "furry to be furry"
>
> where do you get this shit?
"Also I think the fairest definition of furry stuff at this point is:
Works that are produced BY furry fandom participants, FOR furry fandom
participants."--mouse, "Re: the definition of "furry"", 2004-01-18, 15:23:30
PST
<snip>
The problem, mouse, lies in your phrasing. If nothing is "furry" except
what is produced by "furries" (as you refer to "non-furry funny animal
comics" at one point as being those not produced by SFA or similar
furry-owned outlets), then where do "furries" come from?
By the definition you're stating time and again, "Disney's Robin Hood" is
not "furry", even with an all-anthro cast; Walt Disney did not belong to the
fandom, nor interact with any but Disney fans. "Watership Down" and "Plague
Dogs" are likewise excluded, since Richard Adams is not a participant in the
fandom. Stan Sakai isn't a furry fan; there goes "Usagi Yojimbo". Stan Lee
isn't a furry fan; there goes "Rocket Raccoon". Steve Jackson isn't a furry
fan; there goes Toon. Rick Baker created the anthro makeups for Vincent
(Beauty and the Beast), Ratboy (film of the same name), and all the animal
creatures on The Island of Dr. Moreau (most recent version), but he isn't a
furry fan, so those makeups aren't "furry".
To most of us, "furry", when referring to produced material, means, "about
or concerning anthropomorphic animals".
To you, as stated, it means, "produced by members of the fandom for members
of the fandom". (Which sounds vaguely like masturbation to the rest of us.)
You are attempting to consolidate two meanings of one word ("furry"), as
being, "fans of furry material". Problem is, you're defining "furry
material" as "material created by furry fans for furry fans". That's the
circular reasoning Rick was talking about. It's furry material because it
was made by furry fans. They're furry fans because they like furry
material. It's furry material because it was made by furry fans... ad
nausaeam.
So if you're going to continuing playing Humpty Dumpty with the words,
expect me to play Alice and say, "But that's not what it means!" (I don't
expect you to have read Alice's Adventures in Wonderland... Lewis Carroll
wasn't a furry fan, you know.)
Yours with a wolfish grin,
The Cheshire-cat-trained,
Wanderer
> No.
>
> I said he had to be ***INVOLVED*** in furry fandom.
>
<snip the usual patter of insult-stones>
Okay, mouse, I'll bite: Since a cartoonist isn't creating furry art unless
he's involved in furry fandom, how can he become involved in furry fandom?
After all, just creating artwork featuring anthropomorphic animals can't be
it, or you wouldn't make a distinction between "furry funny-animal comics"
and "non-furry funny-animal comics".
What is your shibboleth, mouse? What must an artist, writer, director,
whatever, do to prove himself worthy of being called "furry" by Mouse The
Great And Powerful?
Post to the newsgroup? Eric Schwartz doesn't. Neither does Stan Sakai.
Go to "furry" conventions? There goes Sakai again, followed by Scott Shaw!
(of "Captain Carrot" fame), who also doesn't post here.
Build fursuits? You've shut out everyone but Dogz R. Barkin and March Hare,
I think. Oops, and Tamar.
Cater to the fandom? Sakai and Shaw! are gone again; Sakai and Shaw! draw
what they do because they like animal characters, not because of the fandom.
Sakai barely knew we existed, last he told me.
So, one more time, with feeling: Since creating artwork of anthropomorphic
animal characters is not, in and of itself, "involvement" in furry fandom;
what must an artist do to become "furry" in your eyes, O Mouse King?
Yours trying to pierce the veil of concrete around your concepts,
The pickaxe-wielding,
BR
> To you, as stated, it means, "produced by members of the fandom for
> members of the fandom". (Which sounds vaguely like masturbation to the
> rest of us.)
Or just an insular relationship.
BR
> So, one more time, with feeling: Since creating artwork of
> anthropomorphic animal characters is not, in and of itself,
> "involvement" in furry fandom; what must an artist do to become "furry"
> in your eyes, O Mouse King?
Genetic alterations. :)
Brock Ulfsen
[...]
> Clear?
> Yours logically,
> The wolfish,
> Wanderer
> wand...@ticnet.com
Well said that human over there hiding behind the wolf mask...
...Brock.
(100% pure pussyhound)
mouse
news:10nmi8m...@corp.supernews.com:
BINGO
>
> To most of us, "furry", when referring to produced material, means,
> "about or concerning anthropomorphic animals".
I know thats what most furries mean ... but now furry fandom as whole
means a lot of other stuff too.
A lot of people don't want thier stuff called furry. They want nothing to
do with this fandom. You guys fucked it up. It was already fucked when I
got here.
> You are attempting to consolidate two meanings of one word ("furry"),
> as being, "fans of furry material". Problem is, you're defining
> "furry material" as "material created by furry fans for furry fans".
> That's the circular reasoning Rick was talking about. It's furry
> material because it was made by furry fans. They're furry fans
> because they like furry material. It's furry material because it was
> made by furry fans... ad nausaeam.
No, I think furry fans, at least shoudl be fans of media with cartoon
animals or morphs or whatever. Then you have fans works. I never used
that as a qualifiers - because again I was talking about the creators
side, not the fan side of this. Youre the one doing the distortion here
not me. Tho at this point who the fuck knows what being a furry fan is.
It can be ANYTHING now a days. "Furry" is blank meaningless term and its
becoming just a social group for rejects. A group where a minimal amount
of conformity is required. I would say that I wouldn't like to see that
happen.. but eh , I don't care so much anymore. Im just along for the
ride at this point as furry fandom continues to spiral out of control..
or whatever the hell its doing.
And since we are talking about the term "furry" - Furry fandom has THE
single most annoying and confusing jargon of any fucking group in the
world. I thought computers were bad where you had so many acronyms some
of them duplicate across several terms. I hated it. But furry fandom is
worse. Because in furry fandom the word furry can be a noun or an
adjective and it can mean like 6 different things. It relies solely on
context and inference, which is fine - right up until you get situations
like this one where apperently its just not possible for me to explain
something to you guys because we just are on completely different
wavelengths.
> So if you're going to continuing playing Humpty Dumpty with the words,
> expect me to play Alice and say, "But that's not what it means!" (I
> don't expect you to have read Alice's Adventures in Wonderland...
> Lewis Carroll wasn't a furry fan, you know.)
You guys keep acting like Im demanding that stuff "be furry"
...quite the contrary, trust me
Rick Pikul
> Rick Pikul <rwp...@sympatico.ca> wrote in
> news:pan.2004.10.24....@sympatico.ca:
>
>> As I said: That definition, at best, boils down to it has to be
>> furry to be furry. Looking at it that way, you get the other side of
>> the 'nothing furry is mainstream, because if it is mainstream it is not
>> furry' argument.
>
> too bad I've never said that, eh?
It is one of the two possible constructs for your implied premises.
> Why cant you guys just read something and not inject all this other shit
> into it? Between you and Wanderer - its fucking ridiculous.
>
> "furry to be furry"
>
> where do you get this shit?
From _your_ posts.
When a claim is made, it must either be axiomatic, (i.e. a premise in and
of itself), or derived. When something is a derived claim, the premises
can either be stated or implied.
The definition you gave was clearly a derived claim, and since not all of
the premises were stated, some had to be implied premises. There were two
possible implied premises, one of which was a simple assumption of the
conclusion, the other a special plea that
> OK last time... people not involved in a subculture (or a fandom or
> anything) are not going to understand the internal community, politics,
> ideals, motivations (dysfuctions?), nuances, language and other slang of
> said group.
Fine, but not relavant. One can do 'trekkie' art without knowing any of
that for Star Trek fandom.
> How can said subculture go and retroactively apply its own standards and
> practices to uninvolved people? It doesnt even fucking make sense to do
> that. Furries can like mainstream stuff... a furry media could
> concievably go mainstream. Someone who isnt a 'furry fan' could become
> one with no change in what they are into other than contact with a
> fandom.
Ok, now that you have said this, I can conclude which of the two possible
fallacies you are committing: The special plea.
The special plea being that one tangential piece of information can cause
a fundamental shift in the nature of a work.
> I absolutely, positively, cannot break it down any further than that. If
> you don't get it this time Pikul, maybe you outta consider seriously
> going back to school - because you seem to be missing some pretty
> fundamental concepts of communication and understanding here.
Perhaps you should take a basic course in written logic, because your
position _is_ logically invalid.
>> Try spending some time on Google Groups, I've seen quite a few "I
>> thought I was the only one" posts over the years in this very group.
>
> Look at what you responded to. I see the posts all the time too. I
> didn't say it wasn't there, I said it was fucking stupid.
If it exists it disproves your origanal claim. You only need one creator
of furry works who has the same motovations found within the fandom to
falsify it by existence of an existing contradictory example.
> You've (again!) refuted something I didn't say. Christ, I didn't even
> imply it!
You know, deleting your own statements from responses and then pretending
not to have said them only makes you look dishonest.
>>> I dont think anything Ive said thus far has been *that* complicated...
>>
>> It's simple, so simple it's logically invalid.
>
> haha
You might not like it, but that's the way it is.
--
Phoenix
Xydexx The Silly Squeaky Pony
> Sakai barely knew we existed, last he told me.
the best place to get information about current events in the fandom,
but I would hope at least you'd be paying attention...
Stan Sakai was Guest of Honor at Anthrocon this year. He mentioned in
an article to the Comic Arts Professional Society afterward that it
was one of the best conventions he's been to in the past dozen years.
Just, y'know, FYI. -:)
______________________________________________________________________
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen http://www.xydexx.com
Xydexx Squeakypony http://xydexx.livejournal.com
"The funny thing is, the SA goons are getting owned. By furries."
--- Adam, ljdrama.org
Xydexx The Silly Squeaky Pony
> To most of us, "furry", when referring to produced material, means, "about
> or concerning anthropomorphic animals".
While it's true that is the standard and commonly-accepted definition,
you don't seem to realize that Mouse doesn't actually care what the
definition is. His sole purpose in this discussion is to bait you so
he can go giggle about it to his cronies over on CrushYiffDestroy. If
you're going to waste your time responding to him, at least treat him
like the clueless goober everyone knows he is. Seriously.
Pyesetz the Dog
> Seriously.
Isn't "Seriously" the goon version of "It's all good"? They seem to use
in places where they can't possibly be serious: "All furries should be
stuffed into an oven like unwanted Jewish kittens at an animal
shelter. Seriously." Somehow, I don't think so.
--Pyesetz
iBuck
Most accounts seem to agree that he had a thouroughly enjoyable time at AC
2004..
"You can have it Quickly,Correct, Complex - Pick 2"
mouse
news:24feb113.04102...@posting.google.com:
> His sole purpose in this discussion is to bait you so
> he can go giggle about it to his cronies over on CrushYiffDestroy.
Oh fuck you, dude. Seriously.
Ive never posted about an AFF arguement on CYD. Not like this. Furry fandom
does enough on its own rather than requiring anyone to stir up problems. If
I at all valued your opinion - I suppose I'd be offended by what you said.
I don't give a shit if you believe me or not but 99% of what I post is my
actual opinions.
What's your sole purpose posting here? I thought you'd since moved over to
Livejournal and left UseNet and A.F.F behind FOREVER. Hey I have one too, I
just use it to post to Communities and other journals. Jinx_mouse.. look me
up sometime...
mouse
> You know, deleting your own statements from responses and then pretending
> not to have said them only makes you look dishonest.
I delete my own statement in responses to trim down the size of the post.
Everything I said is still there. And I stand by all of it. I just really
have nothing else to say to you at this point.
Wanderer
news:24feb113.04102...@posting.google.com...
> Wanderer wrote:
>> Sakai barely knew we existed, last he told me.
>
> When did you last talk to him? I mean, I know AFF isn't particularly
> the best place to get information about current events in the fandom,
> but I would hope at least you'd be paying attention...
>
<snip Sakai GoH at Anthrocon>
Ah. Well, I e-mailed him last year, after all. I was *hoping* he'd come on
board for MFM, but AC is good, too.:)
Yours wolfishly,
The corrected,
Wanderer
>> is not "furry", even with an all-anthro cast; Walt Disney did not
>> belong to the fandom, nor interact with any but Disney fans.
>> "Watership Down" and "Plague Dogs" are likewise excluded, since
>> Richard Adams is not a participant in the fandom. Stan Sakai isn't a
>> furry fan; there goes "Usagi Yojimbo". Stan Lee isn't a furry fan;
>> there goes "Rocket Raccoon". Steve Jackson isn't a furry fan; there
>> goes Toon. Rick Baker created the anthro makeups for Vincent (Beauty
>> and the Beast), Ratboy (film of the same name), and all the animal
>> creatures on The Island of Dr. Moreau (most recent version), but he
>> isn't a furry fan, so those makeups aren't "furry".
>
> BINGO
Ah, but Sakai has now been GoH at Anthrocon; is Usagi Yojimbo now a "furry"
work, since the creator has now participated in the fandom through a
convention?
Likewise, by eliminating "Disney's Robin Hood", you cast out one of the
seminal films of furry fandom, the one credited with drawing many people to
their appreciation of furry characters. How can "non-furry" material
produce an appreciation of "furry" material if, as you presume, they are
different?
>
>>
>> To most of us, "furry", when referring to produced material, means,
>> "about or concerning anthropomorphic animals".
>
> I know thats what most furries mean ... but now furry fandom as whole
> means a lot of other stuff too.
Off on a tangent, I see. We're talking about produced materials, and now
you drag in the "state of the fandom" to draw attention away from your
illogical, inconsistent point about comics and cartoons. That's not only
Irrelevant Conclusion (you're using an argument regarding the fandom to try
and defend your point regarding artwork and other products), but also Straw
Man (you're choosing to argue the state of the fandom rather than defend
your own statements about furry artwork). (It could also be called False
Analogy, but since you're the only one arguing that they have anything to do
with one another...)
>
> A lot of people don't want thier stuff called furry. They want nothing to
> do with this fandom. You guys fucked it up. It was already fucked when I
> got here.
Profanity aside, this paragraph contains the following fallacies:
"A lot of people don't want their stuff called furry": Anonymous Authority
("A lot of people"); it's easy enough to name you artists and authors who
don't mind their work being called "furry", but I don't see you naming any
names here.
"They want nothing to do with this fandom": Anonymous Authority (They),
Hasty Generalization (Have you asked them all personally?)
Shawntae Howard has no problems being connected with this fandom. Neither
do the Curtises, the Carspeckens, Bard and Victoria Bloom (creators of
"World Tree"), Sanguine Productions (creators of Ironclaw and Jadeclaw)...
and I've just e-mailed Andre Norton to ask her how she feels about it.
So who's "They"?
>
>> You are attempting to consolidate two meanings of one word ("furry"),
>> as being, "fans of furry material". Problem is, you're defining
>> "furry material" as "material created by furry fans for furry fans".
>> That's the circular reasoning Rick was talking about. It's furry
>> material because it was made by furry fans. They're furry fans
>> because they like furry material. It's furry material because it was
>> made by furry fans... ad nausaeam.
>
> No, I think furry fans, at least shoudl be fans of media with cartoon
> animals or morphs or whatever. Then you have fans works. I never used
> that as a qualifiers - because again I was talking about the creators
> side, not the fan side of this.
So, a participant in furry fandom is not a furry fan? That's an interesting
paradox. What is the difference between a fan and a "participant in the
fandom"? Is it degree of involvement, position on issues, popularity? Is
it an indefinable something that only your mystical mouse senses can
register? What is the difference between a "participant in furry fandom"
and a furry fan? Because, in "Re: the definition of "furry"", 2004-01-18,
15:23:30 PST, you stated:
"There are still funny animal books that are 'furry' being published
through SFA , Mu/Aeon, and RadioComix...thats mainly what I buy, and
other non-furry funny-animal comics that news about will filter
through this fandom."
> Youre the one doing the distortion here
> not me. Tho at this point who the fuck knows what being a furry fan is.
> It can be ANYTHING now a days. "Furry" is blank meaningless term and its
> becoming just a social group for rejects. A group where a minimal amount
> of conformity is required. I would say that I wouldn't like to see that
> happen.. but eh , I don't care so much anymore. Im just along for the
> ride at this point as furry fandom continues to spiral out of control..
> or whatever the hell its doing.
""Furry" is a blank meaningless term": Conflicting Conditions. You
yourself have used the term to mean, "created by furry fans". Are you
backing away from that definition, now that you have been challenged to
justify its narrowness?
"... and is becoming just a social group for rejects.": Attacking the
Person (We're all "rejects", so you apparently feel we should accept what
you say as gospel), Conflicting Conditions (if we have been accepted in the
fandom, we are by definition not "rejects"), Subverted Support (The
Carspeckens have a good social life, as do I. You yourself state you have
friends outside the fandom.), Irrelevant Conclusion (this doesn't change the
original point, which was that your definition of "furry", as regards
published and produced material, is exclusionist and illogical).
>
> And since we are talking about the term "furry"
And since you'll do anything to keep from having to answer questions in a
logical manner about your own definitions...
> - Furry fandom has THE
> single most annoying and confusing jargon of any fucking group in the
> world. I thought computers were bad where you had so many acronyms some
> of them duplicate across several terms. I hated it. But furry fandom is
> worse. Because in furry fandom the word furry can be a noun or an
> adjective and it can mean like 6 different things. It relies solely on
> context and inference, which is fine - right up until you get situations
> like this one where apperently its just not possible for me to explain
> something to you guys because we just are on completely different
> wavelengths.
Remind me never to discuss the verb, "to be" around you... it's got more
definitions than that, and I'd hate to confuse you in a language
discussion.
And no, your definitions are perfectly plain, except where you make them
contradictory. Here's the incomplete dictionary of mouse:
"Furry": Having been produced by a participant in furry fandom, with a full
understanding of the internal community, politics, ideals, motivations,
nuances, language and other slang of the fandom.
Non-furry: Having been produced by a person not involved in the fandom, who
therefore does not understand the internal community, politics, ideals,
motivations, nuances, language and other slang of the fandom.
"Funny animal": Involving or regarding anthropomorphic animals. Not to be
confused with "Furry".
Of course, you've now stated that "participant in furry fandom" is not the
same thing as "furry fan", so I'm going to have to ask you for a definition.
Here, on the other paw, is the incomplete dictionary of idiom for the furry
fandom, with the exception of mouse:
"Furry": Of or regarding anthropomorphic animals.
Non-furry: Not of or regarding anthropomorphic animals.
"Funny animal": Obs. term for "furry", popular in the '50's.
And, of course, we're silly enough to think that participating in the fandom
makes you a fan.
>
>> So if you're going to continuing playing Humpty Dumpty with the words,
>> expect me to play Alice and say, "But that's not what it means!" (I
>> don't expect you to have read Alice's Adventures in Wonderland...
>> Lewis Carroll wasn't a furry fan, you know.)
>
> You guys keep acting like Im demanding that stuff "be furry"
> ...quite the contrary, trust me
Oh, no, we don't think that at all. Quite the opposite.
By your definition, the only material which may properly be regarded as
"furry" is that produced by a participant in the fandom (which is not the
same thing as a fan). It must make use of the internal community, politics,
ideals, motivations, nuances, language and other slang of furry fandom.
The first half of the definition discards everything produced before the
fandom developed an internal structure. The second discards everything that
isn't about the fans themselves. (You could hardly involve furry slang and
idiom without focusing the work on the fandom, after all. The slang would
make no sense without the fandom.)
As far as we can tell, your definition of "furry" discards everything but
con reports. "Shanda" isn't about the fandom, after all, and does not make
use of the fandom's idiom, ideals, motivations, politics or other such
material. It's a slice-of-life comic about a lesbian panda.
"Circles" likewise makes no use of furry idiom, and uses no part of the
fandom or its ideals and politics in the storyline. It's a
"day-in-the-life" comic about gay people and their relationships. Your
definition excludes it.
"Ironclaw" and "World Tree", though both contain artwork created by furry
fans, do not use furry idiom, slang or ideals. They may both allow you to
play a lupine swordsfurry, but they're not "furry" RPGs by this definition.
Neither is "Toon". ("World Tree" may get a pass from you, since it at least
credits FurryMUCK in the opening credits, as having given the authors
practice in wearing another skin. But you may disagree.)
Andre Norton's "Breed to Come" is not "furry" under your definition. It has
nothing to do with the fandom, despite centering around the adventures of
highly-evolved cats, rats and dogs in a post-apocalyptic Earth. The same
goes for "Star Ka'at", about a telepathic alien cat and his boy, and "The
Jargoon Pard", about a boy discovering he can change into a leopard.
So, no, we're not saying you think anything must be "furry". We're saying
that you've defined furry as an impossibility.
Yours wolfishly,
The logical,
Don Sanders
mo...@blackvault.com says...
> xyd...@aol.com (Xydexx The Silly Squeaky Pony) wrote in
> news:24feb113.04102...@posting.google.com:
>
> > His sole purpose in this discussion is to bait you so
> > he can go giggle about it to his cronies over on CrushYiffDestroy.
>
> Oh fuck you, dude. Seriously.
>
> Ive never posted about an AFF arguement on CYD. Not like this. Furry fandom
> does enough on its own rather than requiring anyone to stir up problems. If
> I at all valued your opinion - I suppose I'd be offended by what you said.
>
As it is true that you never start a discussion on CYD about what
goes on in AFF, you do strain at the leash at any opportunity when
somebody else does.
> I don't give a shit if you believe me or not but 99% of what I post is my
> actual opinions.
>
Posting opinions are fine and dandy, no problem with that. It is
when you post an opinion, somebody disagrees and you take it upon
yourself to set them totally straight is where most folks have a
problem. Maybe if you accept the opinions of others and leave it at
that, there will not be a problem. Then again, I have just about
figured out the response for what I just say... Is the phrase "Fuck
You!" right? At least I know when to stop pushing.
> What's your sole purpose posting here? I thought you'd since moved over to
> Livejournal and left UseNet and A.F.F behind FOREVER. Hey I have one too, I
> just use it to post to Communities and other journals. Jinx_mouse.. look me
> up sometime...
>
I don't know about the squeaky one, but my purpose of posting here is
to interact with the community that shares the same interests. Oh
sure I can migrate to the journals, but I would consider that a
compromise to something that existed long before the journals and the
communities. Yep, I've put up with the noise and with the likes of
you and it seems I will continue to.
Well, that's all I gotta say on the matter. Go ahead and blast away
if you will mouse, I will try and enjoy the genre regardless of what
you say, after all, it is your opinion.
--
Don Sanders.
mouse
news:10nooti...@corp.supernews.com:
> Ah, but Sakai has now been GoH at Anthrocon; is Usagi Yojimbo now a
> "furry" work, since the creator has now participated in the fandom
> through a convention?
He was invited as a guest of honor. I dont think Stan Sakai would think
of himself as a "furry fan". He was involved, to some degree, in furry
fandom a long time ago. I don't think he wants to be associated with a
group with such a bad reputation. You can accuse me of going off on a
tangent about the state of the fandom... but the fucking facts remain.
The reason people don't want to be associated, or have anything to do
with "furry" is because of its piss poor reputation.. and who can blame
them, really?
Even more to the point is that that bad reputation is becoming a self-
fulfilling prophecy.
> Likewise, by eliminating "Disney's Robin Hood", you cast out one of
> the seminal films of furry fandom,
no, just NO.
Furries are fans OF IT - because of its content... anthropomorphic
animals. and THATS FINE.. BUT - It is not in any way, shape, or form OF
this fandom.
Shanda the Panda , is a furry comic... Genus is furry comic
Usagi or Captain Jack are borderline
Donald Duck comics are not. You can call them "furry" all you want. Thats
you and your fandom's JARGON. Im using a differnt, more accurate, more
updated for the times definition. All you are doing is argueing semantics
with me and you don't even realize it apperently.
(And yes, in this case as I have already tried to do, I feel the
definition of furry that I will continue to use IS more accurate. And I
feel its still fair. Thats a little bit more than an opinion. Far as Im
concerned, thats a fact.)
> the one credited with drawing many
> people to their appreciation of furry characters. How can "non-furry"
> material produce an appreciation of "furry" material if, as you
> presume, they are different?
Uhm because a theme of 'cartoon animals' and anthropomorphized animals is
a theme that predates furry fandom - and will be around long after its
deterioration into.. god only knows what at this point.
Maybe everything you are saying here wouldv'e flown 15 years ago. Not
anymore. Sorry, you lose.
> Off on a tangent, I see. We're talking about produced materials, and
> now you drag in the "state of the fandom"
Addressed this above.
>> A lot of people don't want thier stuff called furry. They want
>> nothing to do with this fandom. You guys fucked it up. It was already
>> fucked when I got here.
>
> Profanity aside, this paragraph contains the following fallacies:
>
> "A lot of people don't want their stuff called furry": Anonymous
> Authority ("A lot of people");
Haha, I dont have to list any names. At all. I just don't, and I dont
even care what you come back at this with. :)
Anyone with half a brain knows EXACTLY what Im talking about here.
>>> You are attempting to consolidate two meanings of one word
>>> ("furry"), as being, "fans of furry material". Problem is, you're
>>> defining "furry material" as "material created by furry fans for
>>> furry fans". That's the circular reasoning Rick was talking about.
>>> It's furry material because it was made by furry fans. They're
>>> furry fans because they like furry material. It's furry material
>>> because it was made by furry fans... ad nausaeam.
>>
>> No, I think furry fans, at least shoudl be fans of media with cartoon
>> animals or morphs or whatever. Then you have fans works. I never used
>> that as a qualifiers - because again I was talking about the creators
>> side, not the fan side of this.
>
> So, a participant in furry fandom is not a furry fan?
wow.
Im not even going to address it... all you can do is run around in
circles, Wanderer
> ""Furry" is a blank meaningless term": Conflicting Conditions. You
> yourself have used the term to mean, "created by furry fans".
Ya know, I really can't even believe you are trying this shit with me.
Its not my fault this fandom has given me ONE WORD to work with here ..
I've already attempted to point out that the word furry can mean several
things at once, Wanderer.... If you, a furry fan, cannot infer which I
was using, then forget you. Maybe it was kind of vague, maybe i should
reword that... frankly I dont see the point.
As for the rest of your response... thats probably the biggest "tl;dr"
I've ever seen on this group. I can only imagine the content would make
it moreso.
I really hate saying that - but I just cannot get down to your level,
man, sorry. Not today.
*Maybe* Ill get around to reading it later this week, and if theres
anything of merit there, I might respond to it - but its not likely, so
don't hold your breath.
Wanderer
> "Wanderer" <wand...@ticnet.com> wrote in
> news:10nooti...@corp.supernews.com:
>
>> Ah, but Sakai has now been GoH at Anthrocon; is Usagi Yojimbo now a
>> "furry" work, since the creator has now participated in the fandom
>> through a convention?
>
> He was invited as a guest of honor. I dont think Stan Sakai would think
> of himself as a "furry fan". He was involved, to some degree, in furry
> fandom a long time ago. I don't think he wants to be associated with a
> group with such a bad reputation. You can accuse me of going off on a
> tangent about the state of the fandom... but the fucking facts remain.
As does your tendency to resort to insults and profanity when you have no
facts to support your wild-eyed imaginings. You have not answered the
question: Now that Stan Sakai has participated in a convention of furry
fans, is Usagi Yojimbo a "furry" work? If not, how much participation is
needed? I ask again, mouse: What is your shibboleth? What must someone do
to be classified as a "participant in furry fandom"?
"Involved in furry fandom a long time ago"? Not according to his own words:
http://www.sequentialtart.com/ssakai.shtml
He didn't go to a single furry convention until Anthrocon. He admits to
"prejudices" regarding the fandom, though (unlike you, O rodent), he is too
polite to name them. He may have encountered the outlying fringes you
despise so; he was not "involved in furry fandom a long time ago".
>
> The reason people don't want to be associated, or have anything to do
> with "furry" is because of its piss poor reputation.. and who can blame
> them, really?
Oh, anyone who knows that "reputation" is being spread by little boys like
you, really. But let's move on...
>
> Even more to the point is that that bad reputation is becoming a self-
> fulfilling prophecy.
And here you go again, back to "the state of the fandom".
I could write a script that would impersonate you perfectly. All it would
need to do is grab an occasional word, then throw in some cussing and vague
threats about the "state of the fandom", the "reputation of the fandom", the
"self-fulfilling prophecy of the reputation of the fandom". You'd never
need to post again.
>
>> Likewise, by eliminating "Disney's Robin Hood", you cast out one of
>> the seminal films of furry fandom,
>
> no, just NO.
>
> Furries are fans OF IT - because of its content... anthropomorphic
> animals. and THATS FINE.. BUT - It is not in any way, shape, or form OF
> this fandom.
Perhaps I should have mentioned that "seminal" doesn't neccessarily have
anything to do with spooge? It's all right, mousie, it's not a dirty word;
it just means that the film helped to create furry fandom.:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=seminal
"Of, relating to, or having the power to originate; creative."
"Highly influential in an original way; constituting or providing a basis
for further development; a seminal idea in the creation of a new theory."
(I skipped definition 1, of course; you already jumped to it anyway.)
Again, "Disney's Robin Hood" helped create furry fandom; how is it not
"furry"?
>
>
> Shanda the Panda , is a furry comic... Genus is furry comic
> Usagi or Captain Jack are borderline
Ah, we're getting closer. One convention, with no previous "involvement in
furry fandom" (as Sakai admits he had none) is enough to get a "borderline"
rating from you; rather like the difference between "harmless" and "mostly
harmless" in the Hitchhiker's Guide, I take it.
Keep dropping those crumbs of information, mousie; we'll figure out that
twisted brain of yours yet!
>
> Donald Duck comics are not. You can call them "furry" all you want. Thats
> you and your fandom's JARGON. Im using a differnt, more accurate, more
> updated for the times definition. All you are doing is argueing semantics
> with me and you don't even realize it apperently.
Oh, I realize it, all right; you're using one special case of semantics, and
arguing that your semantics should be shared by the entire fandom. (Which
can't happen anyway, since the fandom's definition of "furry" as "of or
relating to anthropomorphic animals" was set in place long before you
joined. Maybe you should go off and start your own fandom?
alt.fan.mouse.semantics, maybe?)
>
> (And yes, in this case as I have already tried to do, I feel the
> definition of furry that I will continue to use IS more accurate. And I
> feel its still fair. Thats a little bit more than an opinion. Far as Im
> concerned, thats a fact.)
As it is constituted by your feelings alone, it remains an opinion. The
interview with Sakai, the accepted definition of "furry" within the rest of
the fandom, the anthropomorphic nature of characters in films you loudly
deny are "furry"; these are facts.
>
>> the one credited with drawing many
>> people to their appreciation of furry characters. How can "non-furry"
>> material produce an appreciation of "furry" material if, as you
>> presume, they are different?
>
> Uhm because a theme of 'cartoon animals' and anthropomorphized animals is
> a theme that predates furry fandom - and will be around long after its
> deterioration into.. god only knows what at this point.
Taking a long time to deteriorate, I see. All this time, and we still
haven't topped "Fritz the Cat" in terms of immorality in artwork. Sure,
Crumb didn't use hermaphrodites in "Fritz", but that's about it.
The majority of furry artwork and stories (whether your definition or mine)
remains clean. For every spooge story, there are ten with action, drama,
and a PG rating.
Also, if the theme predates furry fandom, how is it related to furry fandom?
>
> Maybe everything you are saying here wouldv'e flown 15 years ago. Not
> anymore. Sorry, you lose.
Says the knight in cardboard armor. I'm taking you apart with a hole punch
while you play Black Knight: "It's only a flesh wound!"
>
>
>> Off on a tangent, I see. We're talking about produced materials, and
>> now you drag in the "state of the fandom"
>
> Addressed this above.
Not very well. And you still haven't deigned to enlighten us all with your
definition of "participation in furry fandom". Sakai has never (by his own
admission) participated in furry fandom before this year's Anthrocon. He
has now been GoH. Is Usagi Yojimbo more "furry", less "furry", or the same
as it was before he became the Guest of Honor at a furry convention?
>
>>> A lot of people don't want thier stuff called furry. They want
>>> nothing to do with this fandom. You guys fucked it up. It was already
>>> fucked when I got here.
>>
>> Profanity aside, this paragraph contains the following fallacies:
>>
>> "A lot of people don't want their stuff called furry": Anonymous
>> Authority ("A lot of people");
>
> Haha, I dont have to list any names. At all. I just don't, and I dont
> even care what you come back at this with. :)
You have no names to list, I take it. I listed the Carspeckens, Shawntae,
the Curtises, and Herbie Bearclaw. You still wave your rubber sword and
threaten to chop me off at the knees. Poor little mousie... must be
compensating for... something.
>
> Anyone with half a brain knows EXACTLY what Im talking about here.
Yes, because half a brain is all it takes to make baseless accusations.
>
>>>> You are attempting to consolidate two meanings of one word
>>>> ("furry"), as being, "fans of furry material". Problem is, you're
>>>> defining "furry material" as "material created by furry fans for
>>>> furry fans". That's the circular reasoning Rick was talking about.
>>>> It's furry material because it was made by furry fans. They're
>>>> furry fans because they like furry material. It's furry material
>>>> because it was made by furry fans... ad nausaeam.
>>>
>>> No, I think furry fans, at least shoudl be fans of media with cartoon
>>> animals or morphs or whatever. Then you have fans works. I never used
>>> that as a qualifiers - because again I was talking about the creators
>>> side, not the fan side of this.
>>
>> So, a participant in furry fandom is not a furry fan?
>
> wow.
>
> Im not even going to address it... all you can do is run around in
> circles, Wanderer
That's because I'm trying to follow the Mobius strip of your logic, mousie:
"No, I think furry fans, at least shoudl be fans of media with cartoon
animals or morphs or whatever. Then you have fans works. I never used
that as a qualifiers - because again I was talking about the creators
side, not the fan side of this."--mouse, as quoted above
In this paragraph, you make a distinction between "fans works" (I'm assuming
the possessive, there; your lack of punctuation can be a trifle confusing)
and "media with cartoon animals or morphs or whatever".
Except you *did* use it as a qualifier:
"I said I only consider stuff furry if its created by people involved in
some way in the fandom. How could someone who is unaware of this fandom
create thing FOR it. Furry fans, by definition might like it because it
may have animal characters in it - but that doesnt involve mainstream
writers/animators/artists/cartoonists etc who made it. Now if some person
who is a furry fan somehow writes a script (for ex.) that is so good its
turned into a series on tv.. then maybe."--Your answer to Rick Pikul
"Someone who isnt a 'furry fan' could become one with no
change in what they are into other than contact with a fandom."--mouse,
repsonding to Pikul again
"That the only people I would consider to be "furries" and as far as
different type of media - I would only call it furry if it was created in
part or in whole by someone who is in someway (or even was) involved in
furry fandom. "--mouse, responding to Colin Ritter
By your own statement, something is "furry" only if produced by a
participant in "furry fandom", which makes your seperate definition of "fans
works" seem contradictory.
>
>> ""Furry" is a blank meaningless term": Conflicting Conditions. You
>> yourself have used the term to mean, "created by furry fans".
>
> Ya know, I really can't even believe you are trying this shit with me.
Yes, how dare I challenge Mouse The Great And Powerful, He Whose Squeak Is
As The Mighty Thunder?
>
> Its not my fault this fandom has given me ONE WORD to work with here ..
> I've already attempted to point out that the word furry can mean several
> things at once, Wanderer.... If you, a furry fan, cannot infer which I
> was using, then forget you.
Huh. And here I thought you only knew one word starting with "F'...
> Maybe it was kind of vague, maybe i should
> reword that... frankly I dont see the point.
Gee, to actually make sense to people who think you're employing a
particularly twisted standard of logic?
> As for the rest of your response... thats probably the biggest "tl;dr"
> I've ever seen on this group. I can only imagine the content would make
> it moreso.
>
> I really hate saying that - but I just cannot get down to your level,
> man, sorry. Not today.
Hey, someone get mousie a stepladder so he can get "down" to my level!
Sorry, mousie, I shouldn't have used the big words. But you're still
creating a paradox in your definitions.
>
> *Maybe* Ill get around to reading it later this week, and if theres
> anything of merit there, I might respond to it - but its not likely, so
> don't hold your breath.
For your posts, mousie, I don't even hold my water. You refuse to explain
your qualifiers, insult anyone who has the temerity to disagree with you,
then pretend we're the ones who started the argument. You're no bat,
mousie, because that doesn't fly.
If "furry" material must be created by a furry fan, then what are the "fans
works" you refer to, above? What division do you make?
Does going to a convention make Stan Sakai's work "furry"?
And will you ever drop the arrogance long enough to actually answer a
question without telling us all to perform anatomical impossibilities?
Yours wonderingly,
The wolfish,
iBuck
>question without telling us all to perform anatomical impossibilities?
Could sum it up... if some one enjoys anthropomorphic work because it contains
anthropomorphics, what's the difrence between them and a "furry" other than
contact with the fandom?
Rick Pikul
> Rick Pikul <rwp...@sympatico.ca> wrote in
> news:pan.2004.10.24....@sympatico.ca:
>
>> You know, deleting your own statements from responses and then
>> pretending not to have said them only makes you look dishonest.
>
> I delete my own statement in responses to trim down the size of the post.
> Everything I said is still there. And I stand by all of it.
Then you not only stand by a logically invalid claim, but also to claims
that are in direct contradiction.
You claimed that there were no furries that didn't know it yet, I pointed
you to examples of what you claimed to be non-existant, you deleted your
claim and pretended you didn't make it.
> I just really have nothing else to say to you at this point.
Concession noted.
--
Phoenix
mouse
news:10nqi0b...@corp.supernews.com:
> http://www.sequentialtart.com/ssakai.shtml
>
> He didn't go to a single furry convention until Anthrocon. He admits
> to "prejudices" regarding the fandom, though (unlike you, O rodent),
> he is too polite to name them. He may have encountered the outlying
> fringes you despise so; he was not "involved in furry fandom a long
> time ago".
I like how he refers to it as a furry in the first sentence and a funny
animal con in the second. Im not going to read to deeply into that I dont
care. If I thought Anthrocon was a funny animal con, I would probably
make the effort to go to it.
Anyway, but he has at least had contacts in this fandom - like Steve
Gallacci who basically discovered him and put him in Albedo. Or He did
art for "In The Zone". This doesnt refute anything I said. If Stan Sakai
says he isnt a furry fan, then he isnt. I never said he was specifically.
I just said it was borderline because Usagi first appeared in a
historical furry fandom publication - Albedo. This newsgroup used to be
alt.fan.albedo
If an artist doesnt call thier stuff "furry"... it isnt. period. end of
story. shut the fuck up. THANK YOU.
mouse
> On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 01:38:14 +0000, mouse wrote:
>
>> Rick Pikul <rwp...@sympatico.ca> wrote in
>> news:pan.2004.10.24....@sympatico.ca:
>>
>>> You know, deleting your own statements from responses and then
>>> pretending not to have said them only makes you look dishonest.
>>
>> I delete my own statement in responses to trim down the size of the
>> post. Everything I said is still there. And I stand by all of it.
>
> Then you not only stand by a logically invalid claim, but also to
> claims
> that are in direct contradiction.
hahaha, All I did was explain why I clip posts down...
unreal
>
> You claimed that there were no furries that didn't know it yet, I
> pointed
> you to examples of what you claimed to be non-existant, you deleted
> your claim and pretended you didn't make it.
Oh ricky, your so pathetic.
You right it IS a concession...here you go:
....Because furry isnt a fandom ! oh no! -- its an orientation and a
lifestyle that is born on the genetic level that manifests itself upon
expose to the internet. How stupid of me !
LOL
Wanderer
<snip... re: Stan Sakai>
> I like how he refers to it as a furry in the first sentence and a funny
> animal con in the second. Im not going to read to deeply into that I dont
> care. If I thought Anthrocon was a funny animal con, I would probably
> make the effort to go to it.
As I briefly mentioned in a previous poast, "funny animal" is on obsolete
(i.e., old) term for "furry" as generally used in the fandom: "Of or
regarding anthropomorphic animals." Anthrocon *is* a funny animal con, just
as much as it is a furry con.
>
> Anyway, but he has at least had contacts in this fandom - like Steve
> Gallacci who basically discovered him and put him in Albedo.
Funny, that's not what *he* says started his career:
http://www.usagiyojimbo.com/other/tail-int.html
'T'was Sergio Aragones (he of the margin illos for MAD magazine) that
started Sakai's career in comics. He's still a letterer, btw... he letters
Groo and the Spiderman daily strip. To be fair, Steve gave "Usagi Yojimbo"
a start in comics:
http://usagiyojimbo.com/intro/uyhistory.html
> Or He did
> art for "In The Zone". This doesnt refute anything I said. If Stan Sakai
> says he isnt a furry fan, then he isnt. I never said he was specifically.
And he doesn't say one way or the other.
> I just said it was borderline because Usagi first appeared in a
> historical furry fandom publication - Albedo. This newsgroup used to be
> alt.fan.albedo
<rolls eyes> I'm aware of that, dear heart...
>
> If an artist doesnt call thier stuff "furry"... it isnt. period. end of
> story. shut the fuck up. THANK YOU.
Sorry, you still don't get a free pass. If an artist doesn't know about
furry fandom (and some of them don't, little squeaker), then how can you
determine if their work is "furry" or not?
Yours waiting for the shibboleth,
Wanderer
Being facetious is not an improvement over being arrogant.
Yours patiently,
The answer-hunting,
mouse
news:10nrluh...@corp.supernews.com:
> "mouse" <mo...@blackvault.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns958DF1F...@204.152.189.149...
>
> <snip... re: Stan Sakai>
>
>> I like how he refers to it as a furry in the first sentence and a
>> funny animal con in the second. Im not going to read to deeply into
>> that I dont care. If I thought Anthrocon was a funny animal con, I
>> would probably make the effort to go to it.
>
> As I briefly mentioned in a previous poast, "funny animal" is on
> obsolete (i.e., old) term for "furry" as generally used in the fandom:
> "Of or regarding anthropomorphic animals." Anthrocon *is* a funny
> animal con, just as much as it is a furry con.
Incorrect. "Funny animal" is an industry term dating back to at least the
1960's. Probably earlier (20's and 30's). Particularly in newspaper
strips. "Furry" is fandom jargon. Always has been, always will be.
>>
>> If an artist doesnt call thier stuff "furry"... it isnt. period. end
>> of story. shut the fuck up. THANK YOU.
>
> Sorry, you still don't get a free pass. If an artist doesn't know
> about furry fandom (and some of them don't, little squeaker), then how
> can you determine if their work is "furry" or not?
How many times times do I have to answer this? I mean are you even
serious in asking me?
mouse
news:10nrm0e...@corp.supernews.com:
> Being facetious is not an improvement over being arrogant.
>
well, why dont you two stop being fucking idiots then ?
Swipecat
>well, why dont you two stop being fucking idiots then ?
I do wonder if this bigoted, conceited, illiberal, vindictive,
foul-mouthed, white-trash persona that you have on the Internet is
actually a false front. I mean, I've come across grumpy old men that
have become embittered as the brain becomes calcified, but in this day
and age, can somebody who claims to be 23 really be that hidebound?
It does look like your whole purpose here is to heap as much obscenity
as possible on anybody that shares your purported interest in
anthropomorphics. And I find it curious that this comes from someone who
claims to have reached his "opinions" from researching the fandom, and
yet has not had direct contact with it. It's difficult to believe that
anybody could be THAT messed-up, so that's why I suspect that there's
something else going on here.
Maybe you're a psychology student that's modeling a dysfunctional
personality for his research, or maybe you're a crabby coffin-dodger
infuriated at your grandchildren going off to furry conventions instead
of visiting you at your old folks home. Maybe you're a plushie plunging,
hound humping deviant that wants to eject this boring anthropomorphics
from the world of furrydom - that would certainly be consistent with the
facts, since you never cause any trouble in lifestyler forums.
So what IS behind this "couldn't be constructive to save his own life"
persona, eh?
--
Swipecat
Skytech
> As I briefly mentioned in a previous poast, "funny animal" is on
> obsolete (i.e., old) term for "furry" as generally used in the
> fandom: "Of or regarding anthropomorphic animals." Anthrocon *is*
> a funny animal con, just as much as it is a furry con.
>
To me, 'funny animal' reflected that old notion of anthropomorphic
animal characters in cartoons and comics good *only* for children. It
seems best suited for reference to Disney comics in particular and I
doubt they would disagree. Before the Eighties, you could see that
attitude but after, just like the rise of darker, more realistic
superheroes starting in the seventies, anthropomorphic animals were
portrayed in much more mature tones. Furry seems appropriate.
--
Skytech
Don Sanders
swip...@see.replyto.header says...
> mouse <mo...@blackvault.com> wrote:
>
> >well, why dont you two stop being fucking idiots then ?
>
> I do wonder if this bigoted, conceited, illiberal, vindictive,
> foul-mouthed, white-trash persona that you have on the Internet is
> actually a false front. I mean, I've come across grumpy old men that
> have become embittered as the brain becomes calcified, but in this day
> and age, can somebody who claims to be 23 really be that hidebound?
>
behavior in public would be frowned upon. Then again, this is the
internet, the wild wild west of technology, where everyone sits behind a
keyboard and lob feces bombs at each other. I would wager to guess that
this person functions normal in public society and only lets his hair
fall behind close doors. Or else I can't imagine any place that would
hire such a person because of his lack of civility.
> It does look like your whole purpose here is to heap as much obscenity
> as possible on anybody that shares your purported interest in
> anthropomorphics. And I find it curious that this comes from someone who
> claims to have reached his "opinions" from researching the fandom, and
> yet has not had direct contact with it. It's difficult to believe that
> anybody could be THAT messed-up, so that's why I suspect that there's
> something else going on here.
>
Which is one reason I only regard his posts as just opinion and leave it
at that. It seems he does not care about what image he projects, pity,
I can imagine that he would be a person to associate with if not for his
social graces. I think to him this is just a game of pressing people's
buttons, which I would say is really bad form. Then again, somebody has
to play the bad boy.
> Maybe you're a psychology student that's modeling a dysfunctional
> personality for his research, or maybe you're a crabby coffin-dodger
> infuriated at your grandchildren going off to furry conventions instead
> of visiting you at your old folks home. Maybe you're a plushie plunging,
> hound humping deviant that wants to eject this boring anthropomorphics
> from the world of furrydom - that would certainly be consistent with the
> facts, since you never cause any trouble in lifestyler forums.
I would have to disagree, even students studying in a professional
college environment knows their limits of what they can do in order to
obtain results. Nah, since there are quite a few like him on other
forums and such. As it goes, you can find him on CYD but I highly doubt
he is an ex-lifestyler. Part of this is the guessing game of who or
what is mouse. Frankly I'd rather forego the games and have mouse
explain himself, providing that is possible.
>
> So what IS behind this "couldn't be constructive to save his own life"
> persona, eh?
>
It was entertaining, only for awhile but it has grown tiresome. I guess
this is one question that may never get answered, until then best thing
to do is enjoy the genre and tune him out.
--
Don Sanders.
Rick Pikul
Assumes false premise.
--
Phoenix
Wanderer
news:pan.2004.10.27....@sympatico.ca...
Considering I'm a virgin, a VERY false premise, indeed... :>
Yours wolfishly,
The grinning,
Wanderer
> Incorrect. "Funny animal" is an industry term dating back to at least the
> 1960's. Probably earlier (20's and 30's). Particularly in newspaper
> strips. "Furry" is fandom jargon. Always has been, always will be.
Here are a few versions of the definition of "funny animal":
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Funny_animal
"Funny animal is a slang term used to describe a genre of cartoons and
comics in which the main characters are anthropomorphic animals. It usually
refers to humour-oriented cartoons or comics, but not necessarily always."
http://www.fortunecity.com/tatooine/niven/142/profiles/pro46.html
"By inclination, sometimes we describe funny animal comics as a genre. Does
this classification hold? While this category of comics shares certain
salient features, especially the use of anthropomorphic animals (or,
perhaps, zoomorphic people), can we truly label as a single genre material
that can include humor books, science fiction works, superhero material,
westerns, adventure stories, or historical/political works?"
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/furry/faq/section-5.html
"A "funny animal", in practice, is an anthropomorphized animal, though the
usage tends to lean more toward more "cartoony" characters, and does not
carry the same wide, sweeping connotations that "furry" seems to have.
(e.g., I don't usually hear centaurs and anime cat-girls referred to as
"funny animals")"
"Furry" as a noun is, admittedly, of more recent vintage. But both refer to
stories or artwork in which the characters are anthropomorphic animals.
>>> If an artist doesnt call thier stuff "furry"... it isnt. period. end
>>> of story. shut the fuck up. THANK YOU.
>>
>> Sorry, you still don't get a free pass. If an artist doesn't know
>> about furry fandom (and some of them don't, little squeaker), then how
>> can you determine if their work is "furry" or not?
>
> How many times times do I have to answer this? I mean are you even
> serious in asking me?
How many times? Once would be enough, if you can climb down off your ego
without pitons and a rope...
Yours wolfishly,
The patient,
? the Platypus {aka David Formosa}
> Rick Pikul <rwp...@sympatico.ca> wrote in
> news:pan.2004.10.23...@sympatico.ca:
[...]
> > To get the definition you used, you either have to use a circular
> > definition, (which is one form of begging the question), or you have
> > to make the special plea that knowing some tangental information
> > somehow changes the nature of someone's desires, tastes, and or
> > actions.
> >
> > Now, to further your education in written logic: If you have a
> > single
> > invalid definition or argument, _everything_ that follows from it is
> > also invalid.
>
> Are you on crack? no, seriously.
>
> What the fuck is wrong with you ?
You have defined Furry art as "Art created by furry fans" in turn
Furry fans are defined as "Fans of Furry art". Putting them together
you come up with the tatulogical stament "Furry art is art created by
the fans of furry art". Which doesn't tell you anything.
--
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.
mouse
news:m3r7n57...@dformosa.zeta.org.au:
Reviving this topic is stupid
> You have defined Furry art as "Art created by furry fans" in turn
> Furry fans are defined as "Fans of Furry art". Putting them together
> you come up with the tatulogical stament "Furry art is art created by
> the fans of furry art".
Whats the problem ?
Makes sense to me, and it illustrates this fandom's incestuous relationship
with itself quite nicely.
Allen Kitchen
Furry art - art displaying anthropomorphism. Anthropomorphism defined
as giving human qualities to non-human things or creatures.
And it is no more incestuous a relationship than fans who enjoy romance
novels, Sci Fi, adventure or spy stories going out and making their own.
Such fan-driven work can even achieve the stature of Locus and Ansible
with time and effort.
We produce much of our own works rather than being spoonfed by the
corporate machine. If you prefer the machine, then feel free to go back
to Disney fandom while the rest of us write and draw. We'll be having
fun while you dust your collection of Burger King "Treasure Planet" glasses.
Allen Kitchen (shockwave)
The Saprophyte
Ever read Heinlien's "By His Bootstraps"?
--
The Saprophyte
--
? the Platypus {aka David Formosa}
Because it is rather meaningless, its like saying "David Formosa is
David Formosa", it doesn't tell you anything about the nature of Furry
Art or how Furry art is distigwished from other art forms. One of the
rules of logic is that you are not allowed to define something in
terms of itself.
As for your charge of Incest, furry fandom is only incestuous if you
are willing to accept your difinition of it. Other definitions are
less problematic.
Swipecat
>mouse wrote:
>> ? the Platypus {aka David Formosa} <dfor...@zeta.org.au> wrote
>>>You have defined Furry art as "Art created by furry fans" in turn
>>>Furry fans are defined as "Fans of Furry art". Putting them together
>>>you come up with the tatulogical stament "Furry art is art created by
>>>the fans of furry art".
>> Makes sense to me, and it illustrates this fandom's incestuous relationship
>> with itself quite nicely.
>
>Furry art - art displaying anthropomorphism. Anthropomorphism defined
>as giving human qualities to non-human things or creatures.
As is defined in this groups FAQ, of course, and forms much of the
discussion here. But mouse insists, against the evidence, in his own
definition that furry stuff is ONLY by furry fans. Having done that, he
uses that private definition to abuse the fandom.
Again I wonder if mouse's persona is a false front. It really is hard to
believe that somebody could actually be that messed up.
--
Swipecat
mouse
> One of the
> rules of logic is that you are not allowed to define something in
> terms of itself.
Its not in terms of itself, fool. Im tired of running around in circles
with you guys about this.
Furry fandom is about fucking in fursuits
Furry fandom is about expressing any and all fetishes you have in the
form of anthropomorphic animal cartoon characters
And this one, this one is going to burn a lot of people, but I dont give
a shit-
Furry fandom is about being a homosexual. Theres nothing wrong with that
, but over the past year , I feel more and more out of place in this
fandom. Its a lot of gay males who want to hook up and just all hang out
with each other. Everyday I have less and less common ground with most
furries.
So people who just draw funny animal or cartoon animals - its not fair to
them to pigeon hole them into this fucked fandom.
You guys can say im wrong. I don't care. No more elaboration, no more
anything. Im done with this thread, we will continue this somewhere some
other time, im sure.
Swipecat
<snip>
I'm getting more convinced that "mouse" is actually someone who is
deliberately trying to turn the fandom more toward the fetish end of the
spectrum. Notice that despite his purported interest, his posts are
actually crafted to insult the anthropomorphics enthusiasts.
I mean honestly, he'd have to be mentally ill to be that
counterproductive, if he meant what he wrote. I think that he's actually
a plushy plunging, hamster duct-taping weirdo that hates
anthropomorphics.
--
Swipecat
Don Sanders
mo...@blackvault.com says...
> ? the Platypus {aka David Formosa} <dfor...@zeta.org.au> wrote in
> news:m3acts6...@dformosa.zeta.org.au:
>
> > One of the
> > rules of logic is that you are not allowed to define something in
> > terms of itself.
>
> Its not in terms of itself, fool. Im tired of running around in circles
> with you guys about this.
>
> Furry fandom is about fucking in fursuits
Only if you choose to believe in that. I for one do not have a
fursuit, but I have worn one and it was not for screwing in, it was
for a costume party. Chances are there would be a multitude of folks
who are part of the genre in one way or another who do not own
fursuits or screw in them... Do they count??? Frankly I consider
that a blatant insult, but considering your past, it is to be
expected.
>
> Furry fandom is about expressing any and all fetishes you have in the
> form of anthropomorphic animal cartoon characters
>
Again, only if you choose to believe in it, and again, you slap the
face of the countless hundreds, or maybe thousands in the genre who
either don't have fetishes, or keep theirs buried. It seems you are
one of just a handful who brought shovels to start digging.
> And this one, this one is going to burn a lot of people, but I dont give
> a shit-
If a lot means just a handful, sure it will burn them, only if they
let it.
> Furry fandom is about being a homosexual. Theres nothing wrong with that
> , but over the past year , I feel more and more out of place in this
> fandom. Its a lot of gay males who want to hook up and just all hang out
> with each other. Everyday I have less and less common ground with most
> furries.
>
Nothing wrong with it, yet you wave it like a soiled flag for all to
see mouse. If you feel out of place, I do in a sense sympathize.
But I do live with it cause I tend to look beyond the gayness of it
and just see folks with a few common interest. I have yet to see
anything written in stone stating that everyone has to be alike,
think alike, in other words... This is no Slim Shady!!! Again you
choose to ignore those in the genre who is not gay, who were on
common ground with you. Take off the blinders will ya?
>
> So people who just draw funny animal or cartoon animals - its not fair to
> them to pigeon hole them into this fucked fandom.
>
Learning to adapt is far better than fighting to change something
that does not seem to be all that broken. Yea, it may sound like
apologist talk to you, but it beats stepping on toes. Besides I
thought you were not here to make friends.
> You guys can say im wrong. I don't care. No more elaboration, no more
> anything. Im done with this thread, we will continue this somewhere some
> other time, im sure.
>
Ok, you are wrong, oh so wrong. Yep, I figured it was more or less a
troll, but some folks can only take so much ya know. Guess what, I'm
more or less done with this thread too, but I gather that the place
you want to take it to would not afford an even ground to debate on,
if ya know what I mean. No thanks, closed web forums just don't
appeal to me, I'd rather go in well armed and well informed than to
stumble into a place where I'm outgunned.
It's been fun mouse, oh has it been fun.
--
Don Sanders.
Who despite of what has been going on for the past 7 or so years,
still think the genre is ok, regardless of some of the mess.
Wanderer
>? the Platypus {aka David Formosa} <dfor...@zeta.org.au> wrote in
> news:m3acts6...@dformosa.zeta.org.au:
>
>> One of the
>> rules of logic is that you are not allowed to define something in
>> terms of itself.
>
> Its not in terms of itself, fool. Im tired of running around in circles
> with you guys about this.
Your definition, as admitted by you, is thus:
Furry art is art by fans of furry art.
You thus use furry art to define furry art. This is a violation of the
rules of logic.
>
> Furry fandom is about fucking in fursuits
No, but you can if you want to (your fetishes are your own business, after
all). Fursuits are a subsection of furry fandom interests, as
representations of anthropomorphic animals. Again, if you want to turn
something costing $500+ bucks into the world's most expensive sexual aid, go
right ahead...
>
> Furry fandom is about expressing any and all fetishes you have in the
> form of anthropomorphic animal cartoon characters
No, but you can if you want to. (You really are an unusual individual,
Mousie.) Furry fandom is about anthropomorphic animal characters; fetishes
are a subset of the fandom (by definition). Fursonally, I pre-fur
anthropomorphic animal characters in jokes, in drama, in action and in
repose. If you like them in bondage, Mousie, it's none of my business.
>
> And this one, this one is going to burn a lot of people, but I dont give
> a shit-
> Furry fandom is about being a homosexual. Theres nothing wrong with that
> , but over the past year , I feel more and more out of place in this
> fandom. Its a lot of gay males who want to hook up and just all hang out
> with each other. Everyday I have less and less common ground with most
> furries.
That would be because most of us actually interact with the fandom, rather
than picking out what we like the least and judging the entire fandom based
on that little selection.
And, sorry to disappoint your dreams of a wildly, flamingly gay fandom,
Mousie... but I'm straight. Goliath Wildcat is straight. Guardian is
straight. Mike and Carole Curtis are a straight couple. Shawntae Howard is
straight (especially to judge by his femme furs... yowza!). Steve Addlesee,
formerly of the fandom, is straight (though someone with your worldview
helped drive him out of the fandom with his "career advice" to become gay...
was that you, Mousie?). Oren the Otter is straight. Brittany Greatbear is
straight (as far as I know... I don't generally go around inquiring as to
people's sexual orientations, after all). Herbie Hamill is straight. Joe
Ekaitis is straight. Even Mike Hirtes, he who despises the fandom, is
straight (judging by his love of young-looking harem furs, at least).
Are there gay furs? Well, yeah. Considering there's a total of three
tables at MFM run by gay furs, there are. Song and Dance, the happy couple,
even have their own comic. Wookiee is unabashedly gay, and draws what he
likes.
Sorry, Mousie... looks like gay furs are still a minority. I realize what a
heartbreaking disappointment this must be for you...
>
>
> So people who just draw funny animal or cartoon animals - its not fair to
> them to pigeon hole them into this fucked fandom.
It's far worse to tar us with the brush of your own personal fears regarding
your sexuality, Mousie. Just because you're afraid you might be secretly
gay is no reason to turn the fandom into your own personal whipping boy
(however much you like that image, eh?).
Yours wolfishly,
The honest,
Brian Henderson
wrote:
>Furry fandom is about fucking in fursuits
>
>Furry fandom is about expressing any and all fetishes you have in the
>form of anthropomorphic animal cartoon characters
>
>And this one, this one is going to burn a lot of people, but I dont give
>a shit-
>Furry fandom is about being a homosexual. Theres nothing wrong with that
>, but over the past year , I feel more and more out of place in this
>fandom. Its a lot of gay males who want to hook up and just all hang out
>with each other. Everyday I have less and less common ground with most
>furries.
Furry fandom isn't about any of those things, it is about enjoying
anthropomorphics. Unfortunately, and you are right in that, all of
the above has come to be a visible part of the fandom because it has
been introduced by some of the fans of anthropomorphics.
I'm going to like anthro art because I enjoy anthro art, I just don't
want to be associated with the people who insist on taking things that
are *NOT* associated with anthro art and forcing it into the fandom.
>So people who just draw funny animal or cartoon animals - its not fair to
>them to pigeon hole them into this fucked fandom.
It's hard to draw any hard or fast lines about what is and what is not
part of the fandom. Luckily, you don't have to be part of the fandom
to enjoy the art or whatever else you enjoy. It's just a shame that
the actions of some have tarnished something that I really used to
enjoy being a part of.
? the Platypus {aka David Formosa}
> ? the Platypus {aka David Formosa} <dfor...@zeta.org.au> wrote in
> news:m3acts6...@dformosa.zeta.org.au:
>
> > One of the
> > rules of logic is that you are not allowed to define something in
> > terms of itself.
>
> Its not in terms of itself, fool.
I showed that it was in terms of itself. I took what you said and
expanded it showing that the definition was circular.
"Furry art is art that fans of furry art make."
> Im tired of running around in circles with you guys about this.
Logic underpins communication the same way calculus and algebra
underpin physics. Most of the time we can get away with a "intuitive"
grasp of logic but when we start to argue its often neccery to learn
at least the basics of logic.
In logic there exist things called "staments" a stament is something
that is eather true or false. There are also non-stamens, things that
can't be true or false. For example a self referential stament
sentence like "This sentence is a false" isn't a stament because of
its paradoxical nature.
The reson why people said that your definiton was circular and also a
falicy, wasn't because it was false but because it wasn't a stament at
all.
> Furry fandom is about fucking in fursuits
This is a stament, its a stament that I beleave to be false but it is
never the less a fully formed stament.
[...]
> And this one, this one is going to burn a lot of people, but I dont give
> a shit-
> Furry fandom is about being a homosexual.
I also think that this one is untrue. There is a great amount of
content targeted at the heterosexual audience.
? the Platypus {aka David Formosa}
>[...] Again, if you want to turn
> something costing $500+ bucks into the world's most expensive sexual aid, go
> right ahead...
$500+ bucks is no where near the price of the world's most expensive
sexual aid.
? the Platypus {aka David Formosa}
[...]
> I'm getting more convinced that "mouse" is actually someone who is
> deliberately trying to turn the fandom more toward the fetish end of the
> spectrum.
He is eather a genius or a fool. I put money on fool, there are more
fools around then genie.
? the Platypus {aka David Formosa}
> xyd...@aol.com (Xydexx The Silly Squeaky Pony) wrote in
> news:24feb113.04102...@posting.google.com:
[...]
> What's your sole purpose posting here? I thought you'd since moved over to
> Livejournal and left UseNet and A.F.F behind FOREVER.
I don't think he announced his intention to leave AFF anywhere.
Dale Farmer
Nexus wrote:
> Dale Farmer <da...@cybercom.net> wrote in message news:<416D48E0...@cybercom.net>...
> > If you broaden the definition further, to those who enjoy furry themed
> > literature, then everyone who read and enjoyed Animal Farm or Charlotte's
> > Web would be a furry, and the numbers would be in the millions, just in the
> > english speaking world.
> >
> > --Dale
>
> Well, even though I'm a furry, I'd have to disagree with you there,
> Dale. A lot of people I know (including me) have read (and thoroughly
> engoyed) Animal Farm and such books, and they are in no way furries
> themselves. I think furries would be more inclined to read the Redwall
> series or other books like those which actually contain furries,
> rather than simply talking animals, as is the case in Animal Farm.
It was a reducto in absurdum ( Whatever the proper latin phrase is, too
late at night to look it up. ) argument. This allows one to set some
boundaries on a subject. please also quote the entire relevant portion,
not just the little slice you are dissecting.
--Dale
Wanderer
news:m3u0rzb...@dformosa.zeta.org.au...
> "Wanderer" <wand...@ticnet.com> writes:
>
>>[...] Again, if you want to turn
>> something costing $500+ bucks into the world's most expensive sexual aid,
>> go
>> right ahead...
>
> $500+ bucks is no where near the price of the world's most expensive
> sexual aid.
>
I'm a 34-year-old virgin. I should know?
Yours wolfishly,
The waiting-for-Ms.-Right,
BR
> The waiting-for-Ms.-Right
Ms Pacman. :)
--
-- James Fenimore Cooper
The tendency of democracies is, in all things, to mediocrity, since the tastes,
knowledge, and principles of the majority form the tribunal of appeal.
mouse
(BTW: yes, you did say that. You said livejournal was better than usenet
and you werent gonna bother with it anymore (or something to that extent)
> I'm always amazed and astounded folks still waste their time
> responding to him.
Heres the funniest part, Xydexx
At while back, for a VERY short period of time, I parrotted some stuff
said about you (I believe it was originally Banner and/or Chandler) that
you were "a bad influence".
Why ? Because I seen that once he said that, you never seemed to shut up
about it. You just could not let it go. Also things like your whole
'hiroshima cluehammer', which you kept bringing up apperently for years
after it stopped being said (and most likely still do periodically)
You never shut up about about any of your oldschool fandom enemies
either. You hold grudges like a mofo - dont even try saying that you
don't, because YES YOU DO.
I never actually cared or had a problem with you, but here you are -
bitching about a fucking forum I post on. please...
Well youre the one who just got trolled :) I didn't even have to do
anything. Thats whats amazing, right there. I say something to you almost
a year ago, I post to a forum you don't like and you go ahead and drop my
name everywhere, I consider that a compliment. If I'm known at all in
this fandom I mostly have you to thank.
And don't worry about people "wasting thier time" with me. You don't like
my opinion of furry fandom? tough shit, buddy :) Killfile me, thats what
its for.