On cosmetic surgery and personal identity
cyphe...@gmail.com
Something always brings me back, must be our charming trolls :).
But to get on topic, I was watching a show that touched on the moral
questions brought up by plastic surgery. Whether for or against, most
people have strong, concrete opinions on the matter. For those against
it, plastic surgery is like apologising to the world for being born
different. It's giving in, submitting to fashion magazines and vague
ideals of perfection. They wonder why people spend thousands of dollars
for unnecessary procedures that are painful and produce hazardous side
effects.
The people who have had these cosmetic procedures respond that it makes
them look how they feel inside.
Though we may be on a grander scale, are we any different?
Looking at weres from this perspective makes us look rather...shallow.
Most of us would want to keep our human mind if our souls ever had the
chance to inhabit another body, so what's left is pretty much physical.
We covet the power, abilities, senses, grace and beauty of animals and
want it so much that it's haunted us our whole lives. Can there be more
to it than this? Perhaps answers for us "transpecies" may be found in
the transgendered. There is obviously more to it than wanting to dress
and look like a man/woman (Parallels to the seriousness of
transvestites vs. transgendered might be drawn to furries vs. weres :).
That is that transvestites and furries don't usually WANT to be
something else, they just like dressing up and pretending to be that
something else once in awhile.). We must look inside ourselves and
discover what is means to be what we are. What is it that drives us,
and what do we do to get that much closer to it? How far are we willing
to go to achieve the experience of being something other?
§ńüw¤Łf
<1108318790.3...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
> Hey everyone, it's been awhile since I last posted on this group.
> Something always brings me back, must be our charming trolls :).
>
I'd say its your delusions and lack of a life :)
> But to get on topic, I was watching a show that touched on the moral
> questions brought up by plastic surgery. Whether for or against, most
> people have strong, concrete opinions on the matter.
You mean *elective* cosmetic surgery.
> For those against
> it, plastic surgery is like apologising to the world for being born
> different. It's giving in, submitting to fashion magazines and vague
> ideals of perfection.
Tell that to the millions of kids born with cleft palate every year.
> They wonder why people spend thousands of dollars
> for unnecessary procedures that are painful and produce hazardous side
> effects.
> The people who have had these cosmetic procedures respond that it makes
> them look how they feel inside.
>
Stupid? Well sure....
> Though we may be on a grander scale, are we any different?
>
> Looking at weres from this perspective makes us look rather...shallow.
You are rather shallow.
If the shoe fits...
> Most of us would want to keep our human mind if our souls ever had the
> chance to inhabit another body, so what's left is pretty much physical.
> We covet the power, abilities, senses, grace and beauty of animals and
> want it so much that it's haunted us our whole lives.
Only those of you who cant come to terms with being human.
> Can there be more
> to it than this? Perhaps answers for us "transpecies" may be found in
> the transgendered.
Oh sure....blame Saffy for everything...
> There is obviously more to it than wanting to dress
> and look like a man/woman (Parallels to the seriousness of
> transvestites vs. transgendered might be drawn to furries vs. weres :).
> That is that transvestites and furries don't usually WANT to be
> something else, they just like dressing up and pretending to be that
> something else once in awhile.). We must look inside ourselves and
> discover what is means to be what we are. What is it that drives us,
> and what do we do to get that much closer to it? How far are we willing
> to go to achieve the experience of being something other?
>
Depends on the pervasiveness of the delusion :)
The more fucked up you are in the head, the more you're gonna fantasise
about being a big fierce werewoof.
FYI
HTH
King Snuhw()!f
Wanderer
an actual wolf, losing my human mind wouldn't be so utterly horrible; a wolf
doesn't much need reading, 'riting and 'rithmetic, for example. Ideally,
yes, I'd prefer a form that's midway between wolf and man, having the mind,
speech and manipulative paws of man and the fur, weapons and appendages of
the wolf. But that's best-case.
In any event, dysphoria (wrong-feeling, in the literal sense) is only
natural when your body and your mind don't match. And that, alas, applies
to most folks. In my case, I'd be much happier, much less dysphoric, if I
could have a coat of fur, a tail, and an expressive muzzle; the twitching
ears atop my skull to indicate an additional portion of my mood. All of
these would allow my mind and body to match.
<shrug> So, we're really not so different from the people who get elective
plastic surgery... except that they can get to their goal while we gaze
longingly at ours.
Those of us who want to be that way, of course.
Yours wolfishly,
The lupine,
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
Cypher
every trace of humanity and take all the bad of being an animal with
the good, but since it's not going to happen in our lifetime we're
mostly left with fantasies of what we'd LIKE to have.
Thanks for your input.
§ńüw¤Łf
<110vms1...@corp.supernews.com>:
>Well, Cypherwulf, careful when you generalize. For instance, if I could
be
>an actual wolf, losing my human mind wouldn't be so utterly horrible;
Chuck...you've *already* done that.
Loosing a few pounds. Now *that* you could stand to do, ChuBbS.
King Snuhw()!f
Blackbear
<cyphe...@gmail.com> wrote
> Hey everyone, it's been awhile ...
>
> But to get on topic, I was watching a show that touched on the moral
> questions brought up by plastic surgery. Whether for or against, most
> people have strong, concrete opinions on the matter. For those against
> it, plastic surgery is like apologising to the world for being born
> different. It's giving in, submitting to fashion magazines and vague
> ideals of perfection. They wonder why people spend thousands of dollars
> for unnecessary procedures that are painful and produce hazardous side
> effects.
> The people who have had these cosmetic procedures respond that it makes
> them look how they feel inside.
>
If a person feels better about themselves by making physical alterations
then it has done a good thing for them.
> Though we may be on a grander scale, are we any different?
>
> Looking at weres from this perspective makes us look rather...shallow.
> Most of us would want to keep our human mind if our souls ever had the
> chance to inhabit another body, so what's left is pretty much physical.
How so? There are some who are more dedicated than others to the
pursuit of achieving the form they feel is right for them. Were I to change
into a bear and thus give way all those things which would prevent me
being a full and natural bear, it would suffice. I would not have any need
of human mind, having it would reduce my 'bear-ness'! Soul is another
subject which is difficult to discuss since it requires a belief system to
have
a reference for conjecture so I will not breach the matter here.
> We covet the power, abilities, senses, grace and beauty of animals and
> want it so much that it's haunted us our whole lives. Can there be more
> to it than this?
I do not covet any of the above, I admire the alacrity which bears display
fulfilling their role in their ecological niche of the ecosystem. The
height of contentment would be to function fluidly as one part of a
greater whole, an integral part, not an external one as the hominid races
tend in their interaction with the Earth's systems.
Thus there is indeed more than this, as you queried, in regard to one's
desire, or need to adopt a form other than the growingly popular hominid.
> Perhaps answers for us "transpecies" may be found in
> the transgendered. There is obviously more to it than wanting to dress
> and look like a man/woman (Parallels to the seriousness of
> transvestites vs. transgendered might be drawn to furries vs. weres :).
> That is that transvestites and furries don't usually WANT to be
> something else, they just like dressing up and pretending to be that
> something else once in awhile.).
I always felt slighted somewhat by transgender persons. They can
alter themselves to suit their self image, however, the technology does
not (yet) exist for me to do the same. Perhaps I should have been
born a couple decades later, still, my own era has proven one of the
most advanced in all known history, I, and we, are indeed lucky to
be living in such a time.
> We must look inside ourselves and
> discover what is means to be what we are. What is it that drives us,
> and what do we do to get that much closer to it? How far are we willing
> to go to achieve the experience of being something other?
>
I practice my ways and have done so continuously through twenty-seven
years. I have never wavered in my determination or in my opinion as
to the who and what of me. I have devoted myself and am never doubtful
of success which has grown through faith created by my were practices.
I am driven by the vision of my youth and the realization of that vision
in my later twenties and the continued realization and actualization ever
since. How far am I willing to go? I am willing to go beyond death.
Blackbear
Cypher
Blackbear wrote:
> If a person feels better about themselves by making physical
alterations
> then it has done a good thing for them.
Indeed, but few people see that unfortunately. I used to be one of them
until I realized we aren't so different after all.
> How so? There are some who are more dedicated than others to the
> pursuit of achieving the form they feel is right for them. Were I to
change
> into a bear and thus give way all those things which would prevent me
> being a full and natural bear, it would suffice. I would not have
any need
> of human mind, having it would reduce my 'bear-ness'! Soul is
another
> subject which is difficult to discuss since it requires a belief
system to
> have
> a reference for conjecture so I will not breach the matter here.
I do understand, but having lived this human life and experienced so
much of its capabilities, I rather enjoy having a mind that would still
function on an aware and sentient level. Not to mention the friends and
loved ones I would leave behind if I were to become completely animal.
As much as I've sought it since I've been able to remember, my loved
ones mean more to me than even that.
And I knowingly left the soul out of it for that reason. It's so
unquantifiable that it's often used as a buffer against having to do
real searching. A were says they have the soul of a wolf and no one can
really disagree, where's the debate?
> I do not covet any of the above, I admire the alacrity which bears
display
> fulfilling their role in their ecological niche of the ecosystem.
The
> height of contentment would be to function fluidly as one part of a
> greater whole, an integral part, not an external one as the hominid
races
> tend in their interaction with the Earth's systems.
> Thus there is indeed more than this, as you queried, in regard to
one's
> desire, or need to adopt a form other than the growingly popular
hominid.
That's an interesting way of considering it. Perhaps this is natures
way of trying to fill in the ecological gaps humans create in the
world, or is it just that some are born feeling that ancient connection
to nature that humans forgot long ago?
Most humans go their entire lives without ever witnessing death. We've
turned one of the most basic aspects of life into a business. Where do
we go once we've stepped out of the natural cycle?
> I always felt slighted somewhat by transgender persons. They can
> alter themselves to suit their self image, however, the technology
does
> not (yet) exist for me to do the same. Perhaps I should have been
> born a couple decades later, still, my own era has proven one of the
> most advanced in all known history, I, and we, are indeed lucky to
> be living in such a time.
Even for them it's still not a perfect change.
§ńüw¤Łf
<1108489672....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>:
> A were says they have the soul of a wolf and no one can
>really disagree, where's the debate?
>
Show me this "soul" you speak of.
How much does it weigh?
King Snuhw()!f
The Noodle Scoffing Vargr
great Birnam wood to high alt.horror.werewolves. hill shall come
against him.
If it weighs more than a feather, you're going to hell. :(
---
"Et tu, Brute! Then fall, Caesar."
Blackbear
"Cypher" wrote in message
news:1108489672....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> Blackbear wrote:
>> If a person feels better about themselves by making physical
> alterations
>> then it has done a good thing for them.
>
> Indeed, but few people see that unfortunately. I used to be one of them
> until I realized we aren't so different after all.
>
>> How so? There are some who are more dedicated than others to the
>> pursuit of achieving the form they feel is right for them. Were I to
> change
>> into a bear and thus give way all those things which would prevent me
>> being a full and natural bear, it would suffice. I would not have
> any need
>> of human mind, having it would reduce my 'bear-ness'! Soul is
> another
>> subject which is difficult to discuss since it requires a belief
> system to
>> have
>> a reference for conjecture so I will not breach the matter here.
>
> I do understand, but having lived this human life and experienced so
> much of its capabilities, I rather enjoy having a mind that would still
> function on an aware and sentient level. Not to mention the friends and
> loved ones I would leave behind if I were to become completely animal.
> As much as I've sought it since I've been able to remember, my loved
> ones mean more to me than even that.
You see the advantage of the hominid race but what of intelligence?
Perhaps (if you subscribe to the theory of evolution) intelligence may
prove itself a biological dead-end. 99% of the animal life in the history
of the world have gotten along fine with even rudimentary minds.
Some have shown birds to have more of a brain than we had at first
given them credit for, thinking them mainly basal ganglia and little
more. Where does sentience take place? Where begins self-awareness?
In myth, those who transform utterly leave also behind them their
former lives. Why should it be otherwise? That would be unnatural.
Still there remains the idea of sentience, just how sentient? Can we
truly say that only the dominant hominids have sentience and
self awareness and so easily discount that consciousness in minds
built differently than our own can not have a sense of self? Provided
that self is the criteria we are using to define sentience.
As for your family. If you have propagated then you are no longer
of great biological significance to your own genetic heritage and
your family, the ever adaptable hominids, shall adjust and proceed
and you have still done your duty as a life-form, that is, to pass on
your genetic predispositions and be content to let go of those things
which would no longer have significance to you. Interestingly,
this starts to wander into the regions of definitions given to the word
soul though, doesn't it. You did afterall mention your loved ones.
>
> And I knowingly left the soul out of it for that reason. It's so
> unquantifiable that it's often used as a buffer against having to do
> real searching. A were says they have the soul of a wolf and no one can
> really disagree, where's the debate?
>
We could discuss this item. I am certain there is lots of room for
variance. Definitions would have to be decided upon. It could
turn into a good discussion. So, in that spirit, if a were says they
have the soul of a wolf, I will accept that but I would like to
understand what that means and it is sure to garner a subjective
response, even so, in respect to the respondent wolves, I accept
that they have such a soul of wolf or any other phenotype.
>> I do not covet any of the above, I admire the alacrity which bears
> display
>> fulfilling their role in their ecological niche of the ecosystem.
> The
>> height of contentment would be to function fluidly as one part of a
>> greater whole, an integral part, not an external one as the hominid
> races
>> tend in their interaction with the Earth's systems.
>> Thus there is indeed more than this, as you queried, in regard to
> one's
>> desire, or need to adopt a form other than the growingly popular
> hominid.
>
> That's an interesting way of considering it. Perhaps this is natures
> way of trying to fill in the ecological gaps humans create in the
> world, or is it just that some are born feeling that ancient connection
> to nature that humans forgot long ago?
I suggest both 'nature' is in action as is the ancient connection which
you cite. Perhaps it touches upon genetic memory? Are we really
all so removed from times less modern? Is not 'nature' also a factor
of our most basic building blocks as organisms, in particular our
DNA which, admit it or not, has links found in the common tube
worm, a very ancient form of life which has no intelligence at all! :)
> Most humans go their entire lives without ever witnessing death. We've
> turned one of the most basic aspects of life into a business. Where do
> we go once we've stepped out of the natural cycle?
>
Gosh, that's one of the big questions, I'm not sure we have any
meaningful discussion of it except to compare ideas advanced by
various interests or individuals. Since it has no bearing upon the
hear and now, there should otherwise be no need to exercise the
concepts involved.
Blackbear
---non clipped stuff below ---
Dyno Mutt
<4212946b...@news.individual.net>:
Anubis never got his scales checked officially by Weights & Measures...
Cypher
> You see the advantage of the hominid race but what of intelligence?
> Perhaps (if you subscribe to the theory of evolution) intelligence
may
> prove itself a biological dead-end. 99% of the animal life in the
history
> of the world have gotten along fine with even rudimentary minds.
> Some have shown birds to have more of a brain than we had at first
> given them credit for, thinking them mainly basal ganglia and little
> more. Where does sentience take place? Where begins self-awareness?
>
> In myth, those who transform utterly leave also behind them their
> former lives. Why should it be otherwise? That would be unnatural.
> Still there remains the idea of sentience, just how sentient? Can we
> truly say that only the dominant hominids have sentience and
> self awareness and so easily discount that consciousness in minds
> built differently than our own can not have a sense of self?
Provided
> that self is the criteria we are using to define sentience.
If they had such intelligence, they would certainly evolve with a
reliance on tools rather than their senses and abilities. Even early
down this evolutionary path it would likely reduce their use of
instinct, but as I would want to shift back and forth at will, it
wouldn't be necessary to have the complete, unadultered mind of an
animal. I would be most content if I had my human intelligence filtered
through the mind of a wolf.
Intelligence may prove a dead end for evolutionary growth in the sense
that we can alter the environment around us rather than the other way
around, but except for the fact that we are furthering the genes of
lineages of people who would have died out by their own genetic
inferiority (by which I mean hereditary diseases, not race, don't even
go there :P), I would say we're doing pretty well. Indeed too well.
As for sentience, scientists have developed tests to determine
sentience in animals. The only ones that come close are primates
(gorillas specifically). Border collies, dolphins and a rare species of
bird have also been tested and shown critical thinking skills that most
of their kin don't have although I don't remember much of what went on
in those tests.
>
> As for your family. If you have propagated then you are no longer
> of great biological significance to your own genetic heritage and
> your family, the ever adaptable hominids, shall adjust and proceed
> and you have still done your duty as a life-form, that is, to pass on
> your genetic predispositions and be content to let go of those things
> which would no longer have significance to you. Interestingly,
> this starts to wander into the regions of definitions given to the
word
> soul though, doesn't it. You did afterall mention your loved ones.
I have absolutely no desire to breed. There are already billions of
humans on this planet, I don't imagine we're going to die out any time
soon :P. It's far more complicated than passing on genes, but that's
emotion for you. It's weighing what I'd have to lose, which if you
asked me 5 years ago, wouldn't be much. I would sacrifice a chance at
being whole, inside and out for the people I love.
As for love and the soul, I do believe they are related. I see the
people closest to me as my soul family, that is a bunch of souls
branched from the same tree that follow each other from life to life as
teachers for each other. We might have many souls in this family but
meet a relative few in each life. As these souls are cut from the same
cloth, I think there is a deep connection between soul family members
that outsiders cannot understand.
You might be thinking that if these loved ones are spiritual teachers,
then why not seek a teacher in animal form. Surely I must have soul kin
in wolves and could learn better if I were one myself. The answer is
that I'm human, not a robot :P.
> >
> > And I knowingly left the soul out of it for that reason. It's so
> > unquantifiable that it's often used as a buffer against having to
do
> > real searching. A were says they have the soul of a wolf and no one
can
> > really disagree, where's the debate?
> >
> We could discuss this item. I am certain there is lots of room for
> variance. Definitions would have to be decided upon. It could
> turn into a good discussion. So, in that spirit, if a were says they
> have the soul of a wolf, I will accept that but I would like to
> understand what that means and it is sure to garner a subjective
> response, even so, in respect to the respondent wolves, I accept
> that they have such a soul of wolf or any other phenotype.
I don't believe souls have any particular form. However they would have
a spiritual imprint from what they've learned from past lives, and if
one had a lot of lives as an animal then that might leak over into any
human lives they live. As humans are so seperate from the natural
world, such a difference would be stark.
This might explain why there aren't more werebugs and other less
developed creatures, their lessons were too rudimentary to be
memorable. An insect pretty much wants to eat and procreate, something
more evolved animals have solid, and then some.
If it did have something to do with genetic memory, then why would it
touch upon forms that diverged from ours long ago? Sure, if you play
with genes enough, you're probably going to get a wolf or bear or
whatever, but that's not exactly a memory, it's a possibility.
It might be more likely that since our racial memories are full of
encounters with the larger, more admired animals, especially our
connection with wolves and dogs by extention, that they affected us as
much as we affected them, albeit in very different ways.
>
> > Most humans go their entire lives without ever witnessing death.
We've
> > turned one of the most basic aspects of life into a business. Where
do
> > we go once we've stepped out of the natural cycle?
> >
>
> Gosh, that's one of the big questions, I'm not sure we have any
> meaningful discussion of it except to compare ideas advanced by
> various interests or individuals. Since it has no bearing upon the
> hear and now, there should otherwise be no need to exercise the
> concepts involved.
I think understanding this concept could give weres a greater
understanding of why we are. I for one would love to live with my
friends in the wild, killing our own food, building our own shelter
(and we are on our way to realizing that dream). It's a desire for
freedom that goes further than any political ideology. It's wanting
freedom from dependence, which we can never truly part from at this
stage, but we can rely less on. "Normal" humans mill around aimlessly,
wanting things like paying off their mortgage, having a good career,
buying a sporty car. These things are all filler for the spiritual
nourishment of living by your intelligence and your opposable thumbs.
Even when they want freedom, they want more to be protected and will
sacrifice even freedom if it means they will be comfortable and keep
their toys.
I think weres, with their animal nature, have tasted true freedom and
seek it more than any pathetic material comfort.
>
> Blackbear
Wanderer
news:37f7rjF...@individual.net...
> Show me this "soul" you speak of.
> How much does it weigh?
>
I can't place the quote. Where's it from?
Yours curiously,
The wolfish,
Dyno Mutt
<1119tuq...@corp.supernews.com>:
>"§ñüw¤£f" <snuhwo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:37f7rjF...@individual.net...
>> Show me this "soul" you speak of.
>> How much does it weigh?
>>
>
>I can't place the quote. Where's it from?
>
I'm not sure...apparently someone wrote a book by that title though:
In her latest book, How Much Does Your Soul Weigh? (ISBN: 0-06-093791-2,
HarperCollins Publishers, $13.95), Dr. Dorie McCubbrey offers physical,
mental and spiritual solutions for weight problems by encouraging people
to “let go of destructive diet mind-sets and focus on their true goals of
happiness, health, balance, peace and confidence.”
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
Blackbear
"Cypher" wrote in message
news:1108663388....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Blackbear wrote:
>> You see the advantage of the hominid race but what of intelligence?
>> <snip> Where does sentience take place? Where begins self-awareness?
>>
>> <snip> Can we
>> truly say that only the dominant hominids have sentience and
>> self awareness and so easily discount that consciousness in minds
>> built differently than our own can not have a sense of self?
> Provided
>> that self is the criteria we are using to define sentience.
>
> If they had such intelligence, they would certainly evolve with a
> reliance on tools rather than their senses and abilities. Even early
> down this evolutionary path it would likely reduce their use of
> instinct, but as I would want to shift back and forth at will, it
> wouldn't be necessary to have the complete, unadultered mind of an
> animal. I would be most content if I had my human intelligence filtered
> through the mind of a wolf.
It is possible that tools are the hallmark of intelligence. Tools help
us get what we want, they us extend ourselves. One work you may
wish to read is "African Genesis" where the idea is exercised and the
author's conclusion was that weapons were our specialty. In today's
world we have tele-presence which allows us to plumb some of the
deep parts of the ocean and extend our arm across the solar system
into the strange environments of other planets.
While we extend ourselves are we also becoming more isolated from
the world we live in? Is this a good or bad thing? For the sake of this
conversation, let us take tele-presence further. In such a scenario you
have the sensory inputs of a wolf being fed to you via some concocted
wet interface. While 'plugged in' you perceive yourself as a wolf, you
can chase the errant rabbit, stalk the inviting deer and all the while
this would be being filtered by your hominid intelligence. Would
it not be much as you would desire? Shifting forms at leisure?
> Intelligence may prove a dead end for evolutionary growth in the sense
> that we can alter the environment around us rather than the other way
> around, but except for the fact that we are furthering the genes of
> lineages of people who would have died out by their own genetic
> inferiority (by which I mean hereditary diseases, not race, don't even
> go there :P), I would say we're doing pretty well. Indeed too well.
> As for sentience, scientists have developed tests to determine
> sentience in animals. The only ones that come close are primates
> (gorillas specifically). Border collies, dolphins and a rare species of
> bird have also been tested and shown critical thinking skills that most
> of their kin don't have although I don't remember much of what went on
> in those tests.
>
The scientists measuring the quality we call sentience are making
a comparison with certain criteria. How can we be sure the measures
they are making equate to amount of sentience? You mentioned
dolphins and few will argue they don't have the brain power for
self-awareness. Some years ago I had occasion to care for a large
and mixed gaggle of geese. One of these was a half-breed and was
not accepted by the other geese. I began to watch, while feeding
the troop, for the moment when they would devote their attention to
the food at which point I would throw a useful amount of food
to the odd-goose. From observation I can say this goose, knew it
was a goose and knew it was singled out and that something was
different about it, afterall, all the other geese insisted it was so. It
was self-aware and with the tiniest of brains (capable of celestial
mapping) deduced that if he stayed back while I fed the other geese
I would be certain to provide it with an uninterrupted food supply.
I have another even more striking example concerning a Azura's Fox
but perhaps another time for that example would be better suited.
My point though is that I believe (notice the qualifier) even much
lower organisms than the ones being tested are sentient.
>>
>> As for your family. If you have propagated then you are no longer
>> of great biological significance to your own genetic heritage and
>> your family, the ever adaptable hominids, shall adjust and proceed
>> and you have still done your duty as a life-form, that is, to pass on
>> your genetic predispositions and be content to let go of those things
>> which would no longer have significance to you. Interestingly,
>> this starts to wander into the regions of definitions given to the
> word
>> soul though, doesn't it. You did afterall mention your loved ones.
>
> I have absolutely no desire to breed. There are already billions of
> humans on this planet, I don't imagine we're going to die out any time
> soon :P. It's far more complicated than passing on genes, but that's
> emotion for you. It's weighing what I'd have to lose, which if you
> asked me 5 years ago, wouldn't be much. I would sacrifice a chance at
> being whole, inside and out for the people I love.
Self-sacrifice might be a real criteria for sentience. Even if you
could alter your shape to suit yourself and at will, here you have
stated that you wouldn't if there were the danger of losing those
whom you loved. It's an important point and it's weight is so great
as to lay aside your personal desires.
> As for love and the soul, I do believe they are related. I see the
> people closest to me as my soul family, that is a bunch of souls
> branched from the same tree that follow each other from life to life as
> teachers for each other. We might have many souls in this family but
> meet a relative few in each life. As these souls are cut from the same
> cloth, I think there is a deep connection between soul family members
> that outsiders cannot understand.
Soul is such a difficult word to contend with and is often inter-
changeably used as the word spirit. If I use the word in a sentence
where you would have a good grasp of it, as in 'the spirit of mankind'
or 'the spirit of charity' we can understand the concept but we have
not identified, except vaguely, what the word means. If I subscribe
to the belief that soul is something transcending observable physics
and that it might migrate from one living organism to another at
some point following death, then I might agree with the idea.
Having lived beyond the half-century mark, I have observed a
phenomena which would lend credence to your statement about
soul family members. Some would call it a superstition but it
is this; death comes in threes. Seven years ago I was friends with
three very closely attached persons. They had been together in
life from their early teens into their later 70's. It was as though
they were three sisters. Each of these persons died within a few
months of each other, were these perhaps persons in the same
soul family? It would not be difficult to list more instances
where this 'superstition' seems to present itself. Another good
example is the greater frequency life partners die within a short
span of time of each other. These things would seem to support
the concept as you have set it forth above.
> You might be thinking that if these loved ones are spiritual teachers,
> then why not seek a teacher in animal form. Surely I must have soul kin
> in wolves and could learn better if I were one myself. The answer is
> that I'm human, not a robot :P.
>
Accepting your ideas, it could just as easily be that you may learn
to be a 'better' wolf as a result of having existed as a hominid. How
is there a need to seek a teacher in animal form since you demonstrate
that you indeed already have such a teacher. It is exhibited by your
conscious connection to wolf and a desire to become one. Perhaps
if you intensified your study concerning wolves some great understanding
may come to you in which case the-spirit-of-wolf has acted as a
teacher to you even though you are human.
>> >
>> > And I knowingly left the soul out of it for that reason. It's so
>> > unquantifiable that it's often used as a buffer against having to
> do
>> > real searching. A were says they have the soul of a wolf and no one
> can
>> > really disagree, where's the debate?
>> >
>> We could discuss this item. I am certain there is lots of room for
>> variance. Definitions would have to be decided upon. It could
>> turn into a good discussion. So, in that spirit, if a were says they
>> have the soul of a wolf, I will accept that but I would like to
>> understand what that means and it is sure to garner a subjective
>> response, even so, in respect to the respondent wolves, I accept
>> that they have such a soul of wolf or any other phenotype.
>
> I don't believe souls have any particular form. However they would have
> a spiritual imprint from what they've learned from past lives, and if
> one had a lot of lives as an animal then that might leak over into any
> human lives they live. As humans are so separate from the natural
> world, such a difference would be stark.
I would not venture to say a soul has a form. If it exists it may
have a residual 'shape' much like a capacitor can hold a residual charge
in it's plates. It is such a metaphysical concept that it is nearly
impossible to discuss. If your concept is accurate then indeed
such animal lives may indeed 'leak' over into the hominid existence.
> This might explain why there aren't more werebugs and other less
> developed creatures, their lessons were too rudimentary to be
> memorable. An insect pretty much wants to eat and procreate, something
> more evolved animals have solid, and then some.
>
More werebugs? I really haven't heard of a single one, ever. I can
find no source to draw upon, except perhaps, from my own experience.
This concerns a being I call "Dot'so" a 'spirit' if you like, which I have
an uneasy friendship with. This being manifests itself as a Deerfly
and I have had communication with it. I am very much traditional
in my beliefs and part of that extends to a time each day that I take
out for 'devotions'. It is a time when I consider that I am speaking
with the 'Spirit' and a time when I am giving thanks for having
continued life. During one of these sessions a Deerfly was making
it very difficult for me to keep my mind centered and at peace
and in desperation I announced that if IT would leave me alone only
for the space of an hour at sunset, I would forever after remember
her nation (the deerfly) during my prayers and devotions.
That happened nearly twenty years ago and I AND the Deerfly
have kept our word. I am no longer trifled with during devotions
and have not been ever since I made that bargain. The life span
of a Deerfly is not that long so I have to consider that Deerfly
is a spirit of a given form and is not restricted by life and death.
I have come to respect and even find the beauty of Deerfly and
could understand how a person might wish to transform into
one. I don't have such a desire but I do see this being as something
greater than a simple insect.
An interesting assertion and not without merit. There have been
those in history who have advanced the idea that human language
came as a result of trying to communicate with our canine companions!
Yes, really, there are some folks who entertain that idea. There
may be more to it than meets the casual glance.
Genetic memory is really another subject though. Within it are
the racial memories to bring about the development of many
varieties of life-forms. There are whole families of humans who
are musically inclined, as an example, perhaps they have been
pre-wired for music by the genes, if this is so then genetic memory
may have more implication to it than just a prescription for form.
>>
>> > Most humans go their entire lives without ever witnessing death.
> We've
>> > turned one of the most basic aspects of life into a business. Where
> do
>> > we go once we've stepped out of the natural cycle?
>> >
>>
>> Gosh, that's one of the big questions, I'm not sure we have any
>> meaningful discussion of it except to compare ideas advanced by
>> various interests or individuals. Since it has no bearing upon the
>> hear and now, there should otherwise be no need to exercise the
>> concepts involved.
>
> I think understanding this concept could give weres a greater
> understanding of why we are. I for one would love to live with my
> friends in the wild, killing our own food, building our own shelter
> (and we are on our way to realizing that dream).
I always suggest that the person who wishes to be a wolf, go
and be a wolf. I spent a good portion of my life getting in a
financial position to have the time and location for going out and
being-a-bear. Wednesday I will be performing the first ceremony
of the year part of which time I will spend as-a-bear. It is the
mid-winter ceremony and only a two day ceremony, the first is
a purification ritual and the second is the bear-dance. My monthly
time-as-a-bear cycle will not begin in earnest until April.
>It's a desire for
> freedom that goes further than any political ideology. It's wanting
> freedom from dependence, which we can never truly part from at this
> stage, but we can rely less on. "Normal" humans mill around aimlessly,
> wanting things like paying off their mortgage, having a good career,
> buying a sporty car. These things are all filler for the spiritual
> nourishment of living by your intelligence and your opposable thumbs.
I am not sure it is freedom, at least in my case, it is rather restrictive
for I have to arrange my life around in order to set the time aside and
then during the actual bear-time I am too engrossed with moment to
moment to relish a sense of freedom. Because I travel some distance
during my bear-time I sometimes come into opposition with other
wild-life as well as with hominids, so the freedom is restricted even
as an animal, maybe even more so as an animal. If it's freedom you
want, then as a hominid you have more than you can possibly imagine.
I suggest that it is the desire to separate yourself from the normalcy
you are experiencing. A desire for freedom implies that you are
trapped in some manner and you wish to escape.
> Even when they want freedom, they want more to be protected and will
> sacrifice even freedom if it means they will be comfortable and keep
> their toys.
> I think weres, with their animal nature, have tasted true freedom and
> seek it more than any pathetic material comfort.
>
Material comfort is one of the basic needs. Boiled down to it's
lowest denominator it means simply to have shelter against the
elements. A wolf needs much less shelter than a human and needs
very few toys but does the wolf really have freedom? He must
provide for himself and his family, he must compete with the
local fauna he may even have to deal with other wolves outside
of his family wishing to take over his territory. While the wolf
may not worry about these things, he is still constrained by the
limits of the niche, so where is the wolves freedom? If sentience
is only a human quality then freedom is only a human concept
and if this is the case, the wolf can never have freedom.
>>
>> Blackbear
>
The Noodle Scoffing Vargr
great Birnam wood to high alt.horror.werewolves. hill shall come
against him.
>The Noodle Scoffing Vargr <dsa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
><4212946b...@news.individual.net>:
>
>>§ńüw¤Łf <snuhwo...@hotmail.com> shall never vanquished be until
>>great Birnam wood to high alt.horror.werewolves. hill shall come
>>against him.
>>
>>>Cypher <cyphe...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>><1108489672....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>:
>>>
>>>> A were says they have the soul of a wolf and no one can
>>>>really disagree, where's the debate?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Show me this "soul" you speak of.
>>>How much does it weigh?
>>
>>If it weighs more than a feather, you're going to hell. :(
>>
>Anubis never got his scales checked officially by Weights & Measures...
Carrevagio killed a man in a duel over a game of tennis. He also beat
up a waiter over allegations that his artichokes were overcooked.
He was not a nice man. :(
---
"Et tu, Brute! Then fall, Caesar."
§ńüw¤Łf
>Dyno Mutt <meka...@dumdumdumdum.net> shall never vanquished be until
>great Birnam wood to high alt.horror.werewolves. hill shall come
>against him.
>>The Noodle Scoffing Vargr <dsa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
>><4212946b...@news.individual.net>:
>>
>>>§ńüw¤Łf <snuhwo...@hotmail.com> shall never vanquished be until
>>>great Birnam wood to high alt.horror.werewolves. hill shall come
>>>against him.
>>>
>>>>Cypher <cyphe...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>><1108489672....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> A were says they have the soul of a wolf and no one can
>>>>>really disagree, where's the debate?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Show me this "soul" you speak of.
>>>>How much does it weigh?
>>>
>>>If it weighs more than a feather, you're going to hell. :(
>>>
>>Anubis never got his scales checked officially by Weights & Measures...
>
>Carrevagio killed a man in a duel over a game of tennis. He also beat
>up a waiter over allegations that his artichokes were overcooked.
>
>He was not a nice man. :(
>
Carrevagio...hmm...is he some character from Shakespear?
Wanderer
news:37uucvF...@individual.net...
> Carrevagio...hmm...is he some character from Shakespear?
>
http://www.theartgallery.com.au/ArtEducation/greatartists/Caravaggio/about/
Never follow Vargena's spellings. But be sure to follow the link to
Caravaggio's "Death of a Virgin". It's quite good.
Yours wolfishly,
The art-loving,
§ńüw¤Łf
<111lljg...@corp.supernews.com>:
>"攸不f" <snuhwo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:37uucvF...@individual.net...
>> Carrevagio...hmm...is he some character from Shakespear?
>>
>
>http://www.theartgallery.com.au/ArtEducation/greatartists/Caravaggio/abo
ut/
>
>Never follow Vargena's spellings. But be sure to follow the link to
>Caravaggio's "Death of a Virgin". It's quite good.
>
Ah...I should know this...being a recipient of a BFA in studio art...
He did some sculpture as well IIRC.
I prefer Christo :)
Wanderer
news:381jukF...@individual.net...
> Ah...I should know this...being a recipient of a BFA in studio art...
> He did some sculpture as well IIRC.
Yes. Sadly, he's better known for his early, erotic works. His chiaroscuro
is wonderful, though.
>
> I prefer Christo :)
To preserve some shred of respect for you, I'm going to assume you're
joking...
Christo, for those who have somehow escaped having him inflicted upon them,
does a lot of work in plastic wrap.:/
Yours wolfishly,
The art-respecting,
The Noodle Scoffing Vargr
Birnam wood to high alt.horror.werewolves. hill shall come against
him.
>To preserve some shred of respect for you, I'm going to assume you're
>joking...
>
>Christo, for those who have somehow escaped having him inflicted upon them,
>does a lot of work in plastic wrap.:/
>
>Yours wolfishly,
>
>The art-respecting,
Please prove that what christo does is somehow less "art" than what
carrevagio does?
No wait!
Please prove that your own personal artistic tastes are some kind of
objective mesure which we should all f0llow please.
Wanderer
It's art. My opinion is my opinion. No matter what I feel about the
concept of wrapping an entire island in industrial-strength cellophane, I'm
sure some people like it.
But I don't.
Yours wolfishly,
The art-critiquing,
Cypher
> It is possible that tools are the hallmark of intelligence.
Tools help
> us get what we want, they us extend ourselves. One work you may
> wish to read is "African Genesis" where the idea is exercised and the
> author's conclusion was that weapons were our specialty. In today's
> world we have tele-presence which allows us to plumb some of the
> deep parts of the ocean and extend our arm across the solar system
> into the strange environments of other planets.
To digress slightly from your thought on weapons, I sometimes wonder if
the warrior, through its many incarnations in human history, is an
effect of that desire to rejoin the natural order. This is mostly based
on my study of ancient Chinese military thought and history. For them,
being a warrior was a way of life, always with them in some way. They
were predators, trained in the act of the hunt and able to survive most
hardships. Like animals, the world was not merciful to them but they
endured or died. Sometimes, though I was raised in a soft and
relatively comfortable environment and would find it hard to grow
accustomed to it, I want to live that warrior lifestyle. I find it's
linked in some way to the animal inside, one of those things I crave
but cannot satisfy. A part of me wants that hunt, to understand life
through death.
>
> While we extend ourselves are we also becoming more isolated from
> the world we live in? Is this a good or bad thing? For the sake of
this
> conversation, let us take tele-presence further. In such a scenario
you
> have the sensory inputs of a wolf being fed to you via some concocted
> wet interface. While 'plugged in' you perceive yourself as a wolf,
you
> can chase the errant rabbit, stalk the inviting deer and all the
while
> this would be being filtered by your hominid intelligence. Would
> it not be much as you would desire? Shifting forms at leisure?
No, it would only be an illusion, one that would break as soon as the
device does. It would likely be a drug for me, one to escape but
something I'm chained to all the same. Something like that would
probably destroy me.
> The scientists measuring the quality we call sentience are making
> a comparison with certain criteria. How can we be sure the measures
> they are making equate to amount of sentience? You mentioned
> dolphins and few will argue they don't have the brain power for
> self-awareness. Some years ago I had occasion to care for a large
> and mixed gaggle of geese. One of these was a half-breed and was
> not accepted by the other geese. I began to watch, while feeding
> the troop, for the moment when they would devote their attention to
> the food at which point I would throw a useful amount of food
> to the odd-goose. From observation I can say this goose, knew it
> was a goose and knew it was singled out and that something was
> different about it, afterall, all the other geese insisted it was so.
It
> was self-aware and with the tiniest of brains (capable of celestial
> mapping) deduced that if he stayed back while I fed the other geese
> I would be certain to provide it with an uninterrupted food supply.
I would say that's conditioning, not sentience you are seeing. The
odd-goose saw the cause and effect, but I don't believe he could draw a
line in between them to figure out why. Animals can be intelligent and
adaptable, but any sentience they might have is probably on a
subconcious or spirit level.
>
> I have another even more striking example concerning a Azura's Fox
> but perhaps another time for that example would be better suited.
> My point though is that I believe (notice the qualifier) even much
> lower organisms than the ones being tested are sentient.
I would like to hear this example if you have the time.
>
> Self-sacrifice might be a real criteria for sentience. Even if
you
> could alter your shape to suit yourself and at will, here you have
> stated that you wouldn't if there were the danger of losing those
> whom you loved. It's an important point and it's weight is so great
> as to lay aside your personal desires.
Indeed, the very concept of self-sacrifice requires that you have a
self to sacrifice. It brings to mind questions of anti-social humans,
and animals that rescue humans for no immediate benefit to themselves.
Unfortunately I know little of what works behind those so I won't speak
on it.
> Soul is such a difficult word to contend with and is often inter-
> changeably used as the word spirit. If I use the word in a sentence
> where you would have a good grasp of it, as in 'the spirit of
mankind'
> or 'the spirit of charity' we can understand the concept but we have
> not identified, except vaguely, what the word means. If I subscribe
> to the belief that soul is something transcending observable physics
> and that it might migrate from one living organism to another at
> some point following death, then I might agree with the idea.
>
> Having lived beyond the half-century mark, I have observed a
> phenomena which would lend credence to your statement about
> soul family members. Some would call it a superstition but it
> is this; death comes in threes. Seven years ago I was friends with
> three very closely attached persons. They had been together in
> life from their early teens into their later 70's. It was as though
> they were three sisters. Each of these persons died within a few
> months of each other, were these perhaps persons in the same
> soul family? It would not be difficult to list more instances
> where this 'superstition' seems to present itself. Another good
> example is the greater frequency life partners die within a short
> span of time of each other. These things would seem to support
> the concept as you have set it forth above.
When my grandfather died, his old dog could not be consoled. After a
few months of suffering life without him, he also died. From my
experience, this is dying of grief rather than supersition. When one of
an old couple dies, the other doesn't know what to do with themselves
not having their spouse to keep them company anymore. They soon die
because when they don't have anything more to lose they are no longer
truly living. It's only a matter of time until their body catches up
with them.
> Accepting your ideas, it could just as easily be that you may
learn
> to be a 'better' wolf as a result of having existed as a hominid.
How
> is there a need to seek a teacher in animal form since you
demonstrate
> that you indeed already have such a teacher. It is exhibited by your
> conscious connection to wolf and a desire to become one. Perhaps
> if you intensified your study concerning wolves some great
understanding
> may come to you in which case the-spirit-of-wolf has acted as a
> teacher to you even though you are human.
A wise thought. I will certainly look into this.
That was worded poorly as I have yet to meet a werebug myself. I guess
I was playing it safe in case a werebug happened to be looking at this
forum ;).
>
> That happened nearly twenty years ago and I AND the Deerfly
> have kept our word. I am no longer trifled with during devotions
> and have not been ever since I made that bargain. The life span
> of a Deerfly is not that long so I have to consider that Deerfly
> is a spirit of a given form and is not restricted by life and death.
> I have come to respect and even find the beauty of Deerfly and
> could understand how a person might wish to transform into
> one. I don't have such a desire but I do see this being as something
> greater than a simple insect.
You must have great patience to understand the beauty of an annoying
biter.
> An interesting assertion and not without merit. There have been
> those in history who have advanced the idea that human language
> came as a result of trying to communicate with our canine companions!
> Yes, really, there are some folks who entertain that idea. There
> may be more to it than meets the casual glance.
Do you know any of those names offhand?
>
> Genetic memory is really another subject though. Within it are
> the racial memories to bring about the development of many
> varieties of life-forms. There are whole families of humans who
> are musically inclined, as an example, perhaps they have been
> pre-wired for music by the genes, if this is so then genetic memory
> may have more implication to it than just a prescription for form.
I can see that. I've gone down a similar path as my mom, and if it
weren't for the difference in environment and teaching we've had
growing up, I think we'd still be travelling that path together.
> I always suggest that the person who wishes to be a wolf, go
> and be a wolf. I spent a good portion of my life getting in a
> financial position to have the time and location for going out and
> being-a-bear. Wednesday I will be performing the first ceremony
> of the year part of which time I will spend as-a-bear. It is the
> mid-winter ceremony and only a two day ceremony, the first is
> a purification ritual and the second is the bear-dance. My monthly
> time-as-a-bear cycle will not begin in earnest until April.
I guess it's a little late to wish you luck now, I hope it went well at
any rate. :)
> I am not sure it is freedom, at least in my case, it is rather
restrictive
> for I have to arrange my life around in order to set the time aside
and
> then during the actual bear-time I am too engrossed with moment to
> moment to relish a sense of freedom. Because I travel some distance
> during my bear-time I sometimes come into opposition with other
> wild-life as well as with hominids, so the freedom is restricted even
> as an animal, maybe even more so as an animal. If it's freedom you
> want, then as a hominid you have more than you can possibly imagine.
> I suggest that it is the desire to separate yourself from the
normalcy
> you are experiencing. A desire for freedom implies that you are
> trapped in some manner and you wish to escape.
If I wanted to be different, there are easier ways to go about it.
Being different is pretty much an unchangable part of my life now
anyway :P. No, I definitely want freedom from the human cycle of
things. I hate having to depend on others, to lower myself at work
taking insults from customers so I can eat tomorrow. I hate working the
way people do, it's corrupt, full of greed and treachery. I want to
work for myself, be independent. I want to raise my own meat, build my
own house, have my own property, not have to worry if the world we know
ends tomorrow because I can fend for myself. Even if that means I don't
get any vacation because I have to feed the animals, at least I will be
free.
> Material comfort is one of the basic needs. Boiled down to it's
> lowest denominator it means simply to have shelter against the
> elements.
There's nothing really wrong with material comfort, it's just the
excess, waste, and the lengths people will go to get it that disturbs
me. People are so accustomed to tools that it's pretty much impossible
to live without some comforts, but I can accept that because it's not
changing anytime soon. Mainly what I want is to take care of my basic
needs myself, and enjoying comfort when there is time and money for it
(I said I would not be working, but some of the friends who will be
living in the commune want to and will work to pay unavoidable things
like property taxes while the rest of us take care of things at home).
> A wolf needs much less shelter than a human and needs
> very few toys but does the wolf really have freedom? He must
> provide for himself and his family, he must compete with the
> local fauna he may even have to deal with other wolves outside
> of his family wishing to take over his territory. While the wolf
> may not worry about these things, he is still constrained by the
> limits of the niche, so where is the wolves freedom? If sentience
> is only a human quality then freedom is only a human concept
> and if this is the case, the wolf can never have freedom.
If you want to get into limits then we are all imprisoned in some way.
However, my prison is society, not nature. I don't want to provide for
myself secondhand through a corporation I despise.
Dyno Mutt
<111nkqs...@corp.supernews.com>:
>"攸不f" <snuhwo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:381jukF...@individual.net...
>> Ah...I should know this...being a recipient of a BFA in studio art...
>> He did some sculpture as well IIRC.
>
>Yes. Sadly, he's better known for his early, erotic works. His
chiaroscuro
>is wonderful, though.
>
The technical ability to render a smoky atmosphere.
YAY! I wasnt aware of the erotic stuff. Now *why* didnt they show us that
in art skool?
>>
>> I prefer Christo :)
>
>To preserve some shred of respect for you, I'm going to assume you're
>joking...
>
>Christo, for those who have somehow escaped having him inflicted upon
them,
>does a lot of work in plastic wrap.:/
>
You should have seen "running fence" when it first came out. But I'm a
fan of the 'Earthworks' movement :)
I'd like to see him do Devils Tower all in purple.
Safari
might be able to post a bit :)
cyphe...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hey everyone, it's been awhile since I last posted on this group.
> Something always brings me back, must be our charming trolls :).
be careful, seeing the charm in a troll is a sign you may be catching
the disease that makes you one.
>
> But to get on topic, I was watching a show that touched on the moral
> questions brought up by plastic surgery. Whether for or against, most
> people have strong, concrete opinions on the matter. For those against
> it, plastic surgery is like apologising to the world for being born
> different. It's giving in, submitting to fashion magazines and vague
> ideals of perfection. They wonder why people spend thousands of dollars
> for unnecessary procedures that are painful and produce hazardous side
> effects.
> The people who have had these cosmetic procedures respond that it makes
> them look how they feel inside.
Humans are a social creature, and no matter how introverted or how hard
one tries to avoid it part of our self perception comes from a
reflection of what we see through other people's eyes. It is a sort of
double edged sword. On one side you have the idea that a person should
find their own identity and use only their own view of themselves to
avoid being controlled or confused by others. However, being a creature
that does desire to make friends and create relationships we have to be
aware of how we come across to others. We have a need to fit in. I am
not saying that as we have a need to be like everyone else, but that we
have a need to interact within society, and as we find ourselves
isolated we hurt.
Unfortunately not all people are so perceptive as to see beyond the
physical. Also, even those who are able to look deeper will find what
they see is skewed by the so called shallow perceptions of apearence.
What do I mean by all this? Well, attractive people, or salient people
will get a chance that bland or unatractive people wont. Even when we
try to avoid that pitfall it's presence still affects a persons
mannerisms and how they learn to behave. So a person who is pretty and
flirtacious on the outside will behave in said manner. We grasp on to
these external perceptions subconciously, and behave accordingly without
ever even thinking about it. It is like the guy who is big and strong
naturally will not behave in a feminine fashion, and a thin framed
petite girl isn't going to be the intimidator. It is natural to fall
into these roles.
The other side of the sword is to let other people's perception become
yours. You lose your self identity and become a number of different
identities all belonging to other people. whereas before you had a
subconcious flow into a certain behavior pattern, here you determine the
proper reaction and do it conciously. In this case you have been told
what mold you fit into and now you have to get into it. Here is where a
lot of problems arise as people try to use physical changes to imply
they are a certain way.
>
> Though we may be on a grander scale, are we any different?
That is the real question. In all honesty we are all subject to the same
influences as anyone else. Along the lines of changing and crossing
species, man is the only animal who can conciously choose to try to
cross species boundaries and explore existance as other species. Most
other animals have survival on their mind.
>
> Looking at weres from this perspective makes us look rather...shallow.
I wouldn't go that far. I think you are being a bit too hard on yourself
there. There is something to be said for the affect of physical and
visual stimuli on mood and thought process. It has been proven that
things like smiling are contageous. Not that any situation has changed
but that a visual stimuli has put people in a better mood. I think it
would also be safe to say that one of the easiest and most obvious
things we can control is our appearence. It may be the start of a
process, and I also think it is a big part of the process even though it
is not a direct expression of the spirit. The problem is those people
who think that is all there is too it. But as long as you don't fall for
that trap altering the physical appearence could make one feel more
comfortable. The other thing that altering appearence does is that it
alters people's perception of you. Like I was saying before this is a
part of identity, and since people aren't psychic you need to present
certain parts of identity visually. In the case of being an animal you
would be able to experience a closer similarity to your animal if you
looked like it and people reacted to you as if you were one.
Most of us would want to keep our human mind if our souls ever had the
> chance to inhabit another body, so what's left is pretty much physical.
In all honesty a wolf without your human conciousness is a wolf not you.
I am trying to explain this but it might come out wrong. If you were put
into a wolf's body, but didn't maintain your concious identity you
wouldn't be you anymore. There would just be a wolf, but since it had no
concious recognition like you do it would just be a wolf. I am just
saying that you are right in that the point is to maintain our
conciousness because without it our "being" has essentially died and
something new has replaced it.
> We covet the power, abilities, senses, grace and beauty of animals and
> want it so much that it's haunted us our whole lives. Can there be more
> to it than this? Perhaps answers for us "transpecies" may be found in
> the transgendered.
There is a difference and a similarity here. First off, the
transgendered do not covet the physical properties of the other gender.
It is deeper than that. Before one even conciously knows there is a
difference between girls and boys, and before most of the physical
differences that come with puberty come about the transgendered person
already identifies themselves with the opposite sex. It is not a matter
of want, but rather a matter of that is what should have been. A want
could be satisfied. You don't try to be More your sex, you just are what
sex you are.
I could see this being similar for certain weres. Some people may feel
they were born to the wrong species. However, I think that a person with
this reality would be far more serious and have more of a real view of
the life of an animal. A lot of times I have seen people who like a lot
of things about a specific animal, but then throw other things away.
This is not something a person who feels they are of that species would
do. In other words, a transgendered male to female would find having a
period to actually be an experience they would desire even though it is
often considered a negative or annoying part of being a woman. A lot of
times I read people who consider themselves wolves, but they have never
stalked or hunted, some have even been vegitarians. They would prefer to
walk on all fours even though it is far easier to walk erect. A person
who truly was transpecied would probably not embrace a computer. The
comparison falls short for everyone else I have met though. Maybe that
guy on ripley's who has had his body tattoed, had claws and fangs and
other animal like things done to him and he goes out and hunts his food.
Now that is a guy who I can see being transspecied. We are very far from
that reality.
That person has put himself inh a position where the world will react to
him somewhat like a predator. He may not have the true animal parts like
a transgendered person, but he will still hunt and lick himself clean
and do all that because that is what he was meant to do. You don't do it
to emulate, you do it because it is what you are.
There is obviously more to it than wanting to dress
> and look like a man/woman (Parallels to the seriousness of
> transvestites vs. transgendered might be drawn to furries vs. weres :).
> That is that transvestites and furries don't usually WANT to be
> something else, they just like dressing up and pretending to be that
> something else once in awhile.).
I think you will find that in this comparison you would fall more into
the realm of furry than transpecied.
We must look inside ourselves and
> discover what is means to be what we are. What is it that drives us,
> and what do we do to get that much closer to it? How far are we willing
> to go to achieve the experience of being something other?
>
This is where identity and reality start to come together. Look, a
person who is transpecied would be very rare, and trust me you probably
don't want to be one if they do exist. That, however, is not what being
a were is about. Certain cosmetic things would be cool to have, but you
will have to live with that. A truly transpecied person might welcome
the opportunity, but that does not mean they are more were than you.
Safari
Safari
I do tend to get around.
>
>
>>There is obviously more to it than wanting to dress
>>and look like a man/woman (Parallels to the seriousness of
>>transvestites vs. transgendered might be drawn to furries vs. weres :).
>>That is that transvestites and furries don't usually WANT to be
>>something else, they just like dressing up and pretending to be that
>>something else once in awhile.). We must look inside ourselves and
>>discover what is means to be what we are. What is it that drives us,
>>and what do we do to get that much closer to it? How far are we willing
>>to go to achieve the experience of being something other?
>>
>
>
> Depends on the pervasiveness of the delusion :)
> The more fucked up you are in the head, the more you're gonna fantasise
> about being a big fierce werewoof.
> FYI
> HTH
>
> King Snuhw()!f
>
>
Safari
Safari
>
> How so? There are some who are more dedicated than others to the
> pursuit of achieving the form they feel is right for them. Were I to change
> into a bear and thus give way all those things which would prevent me
> being a full and natural bear, it would suffice. I would not have any need
> of human mind, having it would reduce my 'bear-ness'! Soul is another
> subject which is difficult to discuss since it requires a belief system to
> have
> a reference for conjecture so I will not breach the matter here.
but without that human mind to know you were a bear would you relly
exist. Come on, you would want to feel it. You would want to conciously
know you were a bear. That is what makes a were it's own seperate
existance. It neither exists fully in the animal world and not fully in
the human world, but it is a part of both.
>
>
>>We covet the power, abilities, senses, grace and beauty of animals and
>>want it so much that it's haunted us our whole lives. Can there be more
>>to it than this?
>
>
> I do not covet any of the above, I admire the alacrity which bears display
> fulfilling their role in their ecological niche of the ecosystem. The
> height of contentment would be to function fluidly as one part of a
> greater whole, an integral part, not an external one as the hominid races
> tend in their interaction with the Earth's systems.
> Thus there is indeed more than this, as you queried, in regard to one's
> desire, or need to adopt a form other than the growingly popular hominid.
>
but wouldn't it be fun to know the power of a bear's body? Wouldn't it
be great to start storing fat for the long winter hibernation. Think
about seeing your body adapt to the different seasons by shedding. Do
you truly not covet these experiences. They may be basic and primal, but
they are what a bear would feel. Just to know or to ride along for a
year or two to feel the world through it's skin.
>
> I always felt slighted somewhat by transgender persons. They can
> alter themselves to suit their self image, however, the technology does
> not (yet) exist for me to do the same. Perhaps I should have been
> born a couple decades later, still, my own era has proven one of the
> most advanced in all known history, I, and we, are indeed lucky to
> be living in such a time.
Being a transgendered person and coming to terms with a lot of the
different issues you might be surprised at just how much they would
understand. If you are truly a transpecied person (which I would
actually believe if you were to say so) you may find that some of the
methods a transvestite uses to become more comfortable may be more
adaptable than you actually think. I don't want to overstep and assume,
but if you are finding difficulties in feeling comfortable in your body
transgendered people can sympathize and also help. In all honesty, a
transgendered person can often feel as far away from their gender as you
may from your species even given the technology. I know in my case if
you could go so far as to make me feel a period I would give so much.
Girls may hate it, but I would give anything to feel it. You may be able
to say such things about your animal.
Safari
Blackbear
"Cypher" <cyphe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1109270978....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Blackbear wrote:
>> <snip>
>
> To digress slightly from your thought on weapons, I sometimes wonder if
> the warrior, through its many incarnations in human history, is an
> effect of that desire to rejoin the natural order. This is mostly based
> on my study of ancient Chinese military thought and history. For them,
> being a warrior was a way of life, always with them in some way. They
> were predators, trained in the act of the hunt and able to survive most
> hardships. Like animals, the world was not merciful to them but they
> endured or died. Sometimes, though I was raised in a soft and
> relatively comfortable environment and would find it hard to grow
> accustomed to it, I want to live that warrior lifestyle. I find it's
> linked in some way to the animal inside, one of those things I crave
> but cannot satisfy. A part of me wants that hunt, to understand life
> through death.
>
recon specialist during the years of 1967 till 1970 and considered the
military as a career. By 1968 I had determined through circumstance
that I did not have the enthusiasm for war to make it a career. Indeed
today I would say I am inclined towards being a pacifist but have gone
into the path of trouble to forestall the aggression of one person to
another. This latter instance is more the warrior ideal to me.
Actually hunting may be something you should well consider. I would
recommend primitive weapons to take some of the edge away from you
which will teach you the use of stealth and give you that sense of hunting.
In this area most 'hunters' are merely 'snipers' more like spiders than
predators, they hide themselves and practice quiet patience. The use of
primitive weapons will require much more of the 'hunter' to come out
to achieve a successful hunt. Then you will have the dead prey which
you must eviscerate and prepare and pack out. You will be able to
feed yourself and you will have done it by skill and you may in this
wise see how death can profit life. In my own opinion, death
encountered during war does not profit life or the species.
>>
>> While we extend ourselves are we also becoming more isolated from
>> the world we live in? Is this a good or bad thing? For the sake of
> this
>> conversation, let us take tele-presence further. In such a scenario
> you
>> have the sensory inputs of a wolf being fed to you via some concocted
>> wet interface. While 'plugged in' you perceive yourself as a wolf,
> you
>> can chase the errant rabbit, stalk the inviting deer and all the
> while
>> this would be being filtered by your hominid intelligence. Would
>> it not be much as you would desire? Shifting forms at leisure?
>
> No, it would only be an illusion, one that would break as soon as the
> device does. It would likely be a drug for me, one to escape but
> something I'm chained to all the same. Something like that would
> probably destroy me.
>
I wonder. With virtual reality growing in complexity at an astounding
rate, it would seem to offer some taste of what you seek, were it to
advance to such a degree. I already view MPOG's as very drug-like
in it's effects upon people, so, perhaps you are right.
>> The scientists measuring the quality we call sentience are making
>> a comparison with certain criteria. How can we be sure the measures
>> they are making equate to amount of sentience?
>><snip>
> It
>> was self-aware and with the tiniest of brains (capable of celestial
>> mapping) deduced that if he stayed back while I fed the other geese
>> I would be certain to provide it with an uninterrupted food supply.
>
> I would say that's conditioning, not sentience you are seeing. The
> odd-goose saw the cause and effect, but I don't believe he could draw a
> line in between them to figure out why. Animals can be intelligent and
> adaptable, but any sentience they might have is probably on a
> subconcious or spirit level.
>
Perhaps. Tough to qualify though, isn't it?
>>
>> I have another even more striking example concerning a Azura's Fox
>> but perhaps another time for that example would be better suited.
>> My point though is that I believe (notice the qualifier) even much
>> lower organisms than the ones being tested are sentient.
>
> I would like to hear this example if you have the time.
>
Very well. In the opinion of the curates of the zoo in question,
it would be 'fun' to exhibit an Darwin's Fox with a Azura's Dog in
the same enclosure. This was done and I was one of those with the
charge of caring for these two very similar appearing yet different
species.
Because of the danger associated with introducing two expensive
animals together, someone had the daily assignment of observing
the interactions. My job was to see they were well kept. As the
summer began to encroach upon the westward facing enclosure
(a gunnite structure which captures heat well) I would arrive and
find the fox sitting atop the enclosure, (an escape which is supposed
to be reported but did not get reported) I would talk to the fox
grab a catch glove and gently return him down inside the enclosure
where he would remain. This was happening each morning, so I
began to read the notes on the activities of the animal. He had been
observed on many occasions scratching at the floor of the exhibit.
This was observed several times and once by myself, so I ordered
a truck of river sand and delivered it to the exhibit after which
the fox was observed digging into the sand for resting areas and
the 'escapes' stopped. I felt that I had the right intuition into what
the fox needed.
The problem came when the curator of the area returned from
vacation and demanded that I explain the expense of a dump truck
of river sand being provided the fox and dog. I was docked pay
and was told that the enclosure was no longer suitable because
with the sand the fox might be able to climb out. I tried to explain
that the fox was causing sores on his pads from trying to dig into
gunnite and that the solution I provided was to address that
problem. I was ordered to, by myself, dig out the sand, load it
to a truck by hand and sweep the enclosure back to it's pristine
concrete fake rock appearance. While doing this the curator
actually did some study and concluded that, while hyenas might
do well in that enclosure, a fox could climb out. A day or so
later the observation notes began recording the previous activity
but the curator declared that the fox and dog must be moved
into a 'fox-proof' cage. We had one vacant which we had been
using to raise our clouded leopards in (those are fun to raise btw)
and I was ordered to do so. I tried to argue the fox's willingness
to stay within the display so long as it had sand but was accused
of 'having too much empathy for the animals' (that's an automatic
call on the carpet) and was charged with removing the two
to the 'fox-proof' cage. Fox proof, by zoo standards, is three feet
of buried galvanized chainlink into a footing of concrete and
scaling to twenty feet high with inward angled barbed wire strands
spaced at four inches at it's top.
The next morning the fox had escaped. For the next few years
reports in all areas of the zoo arrived telling of the fox invading
one or another area and efforts were made (but never successful)
at catching him again. In my opinion I had arrived at the right
decision regarding the fox. In my opinion this fox had communicated
his needs and if they were put to words they would be something
like 'the food is good here and I don't mind the dog but I'm not
going to stay there if I can't dig a bit'. This was an example where
I felt the fox had a sense of intelligence and sentience extending
into non-verbal but understandable communication. He also
used a tool, his observant keeper. I believe he would have remained
in that place as an exhibit had his needs been attended to as he
wished.
Would this be conditioning? It seems some amount of thought
had taken place within that fox and he and I had arrived at a
consensus. Sad that things didn't work out the way they could
have but good that the fox lived happily thereafter despite the
frustration of the money folks who also work at zoos.
>>
>> Self-sacrifice might be a real criteria for sentience. Even if
> you
>> could alter your shape to suit yourself and at will, here you have
>> stated that you wouldn't if there were the danger of losing those
>> whom you loved. It's an important point and it's weight is so great
>> as to lay aside your personal desires.
>
> Indeed, the very concept of self-sacrifice requires that you have a
> self to sacrifice. It brings to mind questions of anti-social humans,
> and animals that rescue humans for no immediate benefit to themselves.
> Unfortunately I know little of what works behind those so I won't speak
> on it.
>
Only recently a gorilla protected a child which had fallen into the
exhibit until it could be returned to it's human, that was international
news, easily googled. If you understand gorillas, it was not in the
social interest of the gorilla to behave in this way. Indeed the lead
male should have immediately seized upon the child and rendered it
inert for trespassing! The female gorilla must have had some
difficult social problems for some good long time afterwards within
her own artificial society for breaking the rules. I'm sure one could
find enough examples of this sort of thing to create a book.
>> Soul is such a difficult word to contend with and is often inter-
>> changeably used as the word spirit. If I use the word in a sentence
>> where you would have a good grasp of it, as in 'the spirit of
> mankind'
>> or 'the spirit of charity' we can understand the concept but we have
>> not identified, except vaguely, what the word means. If I subscribe
>> to the belief that soul is something transcending observable physics
>> and that it might migrate from one living organism to another at
>> some point following death, then I might agree with the idea.
>>
>> Having lived beyond the half-century mark, I have observed a
>> phenomena which would lend credence to your statement about
>> soul family members.
>><snip>
>
> When my grandfather died, his old dog could not be consoled. After a
> few months of suffering life without him, he also died. From my
> experience, this is dying of grief rather than supersition. When one of
> an old couple dies, the other doesn't know what to do with themselves
> not having their spouse to keep them company anymore. They soon die
> because when they don't have anything more to lose they are no longer
> truly living. It's only a matter of time until their body catches up
> with them.
>
You might be right. I was only making an observation that seemed
to support the idea of soul-family, much like the three sisters I cited.
A practicing diplomat eh?
>>
>> That happened nearly twenty years ago and I AND the Deerfly
>> have kept our word. I am no longer trifled with during devotions
>> and have not been ever since I made that bargain. The life span
>> of a Deerfly is not that long so I have to consider that Deerfly
>> is a spirit of a given form and is not restricted by life and death.
>> I have come to respect and even find the beauty of Deerfly and
>> could understand how a person might wish to transform into
>> one. I don't have such a desire but I do see this being as something
>> greater than a simple insect.
>
> You must have great patience to understand the beauty of an annoying
> biter.
>
Perhaps. The females are the only ones in that particular family who
ingest blood and bite folks. If you ever do get the opportunity, as I
did on a couple occasions, when one alights nearby and is still for a
bit, take some field glasses, reverse them to use them as a microscope.
The eyes are most beautiful, strikingly so compared to drosophila
or other fly-like, two winged insects. Much like a tiger-eye opal
but with gleaming facets surrounding the marvel. Even a dragon
fly does not have prettier eyes.
>> An interesting assertion and not without merit. There have been
>> those in history who have advanced the idea that human language
>> came as a result of trying to communicate with our canine companions!
>> Yes, really, there are some folks who entertain that idea. There
>> may be more to it than meets the casual glance.
>
> Do you know any of those names offhand?
>
I haven't researched it but had heard it proposed and recently in a
Nature series on PBS they did an article on the evolution of dogs
in relationship with man and also mentioned this little tid-bit, I should
imagine that the show will air again.
>>
>> Genetic memory is really another subject though. Within it are
>> the racial memories to bring about the development of many
>> varieties of life-forms. There are whole families of humans who
>> are musically inclined, as an example, perhaps they have been
>> pre-wired for music by the genes, if this is so then genetic memory
>> may have more implication to it than just a prescription for form.
>
> I can see that. I've gone down a similar path as my mom, and if it
> weren't for the difference in environment and teaching we've had
> growing up, I think we'd still be travelling that path together.
>
>> I always suggest that the person who wishes to be a wolf, go
>> and be a wolf. I spent a good portion of my life getting in a
>> financial position to have the time and location for going out and
>> being-a-bear. Wednesday I will be performing the first ceremony
>> of the year part of which time I will spend as-a-bear. It is the
>> mid-winter ceremony and only a two day ceremony, the first is
>> a purification ritual and the second is the bear-dance. My monthly
>> time-as-a-bear cycle will not begin in earnest until April.
>
> I guess it's a little late to wish you luck now, I hope it went well at
> any rate. :)
>
Thank you. I have returned unscathed although I found signs of
fur-hunters and determined that they had a vehicle parked on the
west edge of one particular section of land. The couple foot traps
I found I took the liberty of urinating around. I think hunters should
hunt and not be like some spiders....sorry, that's twice I've said that
it's a pet peeve. The sweat-lodge was wonderful and the weather
was conducive to it, the following day rains came in and that, while
a small nuisance, provided me some protection and a catalog of
smells I'm still catching whiffs of. That will have to suffice until
April when I can immerse myself more thoroughly.
>> I am not sure it is freedom, at least in my case, it is rather
> restrictive
>><snip>A desire for freedom implies that you are
>> trapped in some manner and you wish to escape.
>
> If I wanted to be different, there are easier ways to go about it.
LOL well I really am not being so, different, I am following
a family tradition which is beginning to fall away into obscurity.
There are very few who I know now that are still practicing these
particular traditions, unfortunately. Perhaps, as I am often told,
these things are less important in today's world, though I disagree.
> Being different is pretty much an unchangable part of my life now
> anyway :P. No, I definitely want freedom from the human cycle of
> things. I hate having to depend on others, to lower myself at work
> taking insults from customers so I can eat tomorrow. I hate working the
> way people do, it's corrupt, full of greed and treachery. I want to
> work for myself, be independent. I want to raise my own meat, build my
> own house, have my own property, not have to worry if the world we know
> ends tomorrow because I can fend for myself. Even if that means I don't
> get any vacation because I have to feed the animals, at least I will be
> free.
>
It sounds like you have a very well developed sense of what you want.
You have defined it above. I hope that you will follow this 'vision' you
have of the future you want for yourself. Following my own vision
has been the greatest influence upon my life.
>> Material comfort is one of the basic needs. Boiled down to it's
>> lowest denominator it means simply to have shelter against the
>> elements.
>
> There's nothing really wrong with material comfort, it's just the
> excess, waste, and the lengths people will go to get it that disturbs
> me. People are so accustomed to tools that it's pretty much impossible
> to live without some comforts, but I can accept that because it's not
> changing anytime soon. Mainly what I want is to take care of my basic
> needs myself, and enjoying comfort when there is time and money for it
> (I said I would not be working, but some of the friends who will be
> living in the commune want to and will work to pay unavoidable things
> like property taxes while the rest of us take care of things at home).
>
I hope the commune works out for you. Many of my peers tried
this concept out in practice but in those cases I followed it was short
term and none of those lasted longer than a few years, five at most.
>> A wolf needs much less shelter than a human and needs
>> very few toys but does the wolf really have freedom? He must
>> provide for himself and his family, he must compete with the
>> local fauna he may even have to deal with other wolves outside
>> of his family wishing to take over his territory. While the wolf
>> may not worry about these things, he is still constrained by the
>> limits of the niche, so where is the wolves freedom? If sentience
>> is only a human quality then freedom is only a human concept
>> and if this is the case, the wolf can never have freedom.
>
> If you want to get into limits then we are all imprisoned in some way.
> However, my prison is society, not nature. I don't want to provide for
> myself secondhand through a corporation I despise.
>
Yes, we are all limited and in somewise imprisoned. At this point
in my life I am pretty much of a social dropout. I have worked in
industrial settings, the corporate nightmare evokes all manner of
horrors within me that Michael Chriton paired with Wes Craven
would be hard pressed to better.
§ńüw¤Łf
<_5MTd.5582$MY6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
> I served in the Army as a
>recon specialist during the years of 1967 till 1970 and considered the
>military as a career.
HAW HAW, your OLD :)
>By 1968 I had determined through circumstance
>that I did not have the enthusiasm for war to make it a career. Indeed
>today I would say I am inclined towards being a pacifist but have gone
>into the path of trouble to forestall the aggression of one person to
>another. This latter instance is more the warrior ideal to me.
>
Notice how all the gung ho chickenhawks in the Bush admin managed to get
deferments?
Cheney got 5!
> Actually hunting may be something you should well consider. I would
>recommend primitive weapons to take some of the edge away from you
>which will teach you the use of stealth and give you that sense of
hunting.
>In this area most 'hunters' are merely 'snipers' more like spiders than
>predators, they hide themselves and practice quiet patience. The use of
>primitive weapons will require much more of the 'hunter' to come out
>to achieve a successful hunt. Then you will have the dead prey which
>you must eviscerate and prepare and pack out. You will be able to
>feed yourself and you will have done it by skill and you may in this
>wise see how death can profit life. In my own opinion, death
>encountered during war does not profit life or the species.
>
If only more people realised this :/
Blackbear
"Safari" wrote in message news:BP6dnaXhiow...@suscom.com...
> Blackbear wrote:
>>
>> How so? There are some who are more dedicated than others to the
>> pursuit of achieving the form they feel is right for them. Were I to
>> change
>> into a bear and thus give way all those things which would prevent me
>> being a full and natural bear, it would suffice. I would not have any
>> need
>> of human mind, having it would reduce my 'bear-ness'! Soul is another
>> subject which is difficult to discuss since it requires a belief system
>> to have
>> a reference for conjecture so I will not breach the matter here.
>
> but without that human mind to know you were a bear would you relly exist.
> Come on, you would want to feel it. You would want to conciously know you
> were a bear. That is what makes a were it's own seperate existance. It
> neither exists fully in the animal world and not fully in the human world,
> but it is a part of both.
I feel that I would, even without the excess grey matter, know that
I was a bear even with a limited consciousness. I might no longer have
the intelligence to understand how that had come about but I suspect
I would consciously know I was in the proper form. I would rather
exist as a bear than as a hominid. I am a were because I am a bear albeit
submerged within the human form. The reason for my existence in
this present form I have intellectualized in many ways, much as I
have been speaking within this forum and even within this thread.
Because of my belief system, I can not murder myself because I would
then not be able to aspire to my goal. Stated otherwhere I told
Mother Bear that I wanted to be like her, a bear spirit operating within
the spirit realm to the benefit of those who have need of a bear spirit
friend within their lives to encourage their own spiritual growth. If
the option to be reshaped into the image I have of myself arrived, I
do not feel it would prevent my goal but rather ease my time of
existence within this world.
>>
>>
>>>We covet the power, abilities, senses, grace and beauty of animals and
>>>want it so much that it's haunted us our whole lives. Can there be more
>>>to it than this?
>>
>>
>> I do not covet any of the above, I admire the alacrity which bears
>> display
>> fulfilling their role in their ecological niche of the ecosystem. The
>> height of contentment would be to function fluidly as one part of a
>> greater whole, an integral part, not an external one as the hominid races
>> tend in their interaction with the Earth's systems.
>> Thus there is indeed more than this, as you queried, in regard to one's
>> desire, or need to adopt a form other than the growingly popular hominid.
>>
> but wouldn't it be fun to know the power of a bear's body? Wouldn't it be
> great to start storing fat for the long winter hibernation. Think about
> seeing your body adapt to the different seasons by shedding. Do you truly
> not covet these experiences. They may be basic and primal, but they are
> what a bear would feel. Just to know or to ride along for a year or two to
> feel the world through it's skin.
>
The power is commensurate with one's task within the world, but yes,
it would be great to start the feeding frenzy and be adapt enough at that
to survive through hibernation (some bears don't catch on to this need
and consequently do not survive winter, having starved). A second year
bear has only a 1 in 3 chance of survival, if he survives into three years
the odds of survival rise remarkably. I'm perfectly willing to endure
the flea and tick infestations (I experience that already during the course
of my bear-walks) the dropsy that occurs when berries ripen. If sheer
bear power was that attractive to me I suppose I would want to be a
grizzly however, I am not a brown bear but rather one of the smaller
species. If I could pick and choose I'd say "Let me be a Spectacled Bear"
but I am not such an uncommon and rare bear, only a blackbear.
>>
>> I always felt slighted somewhat by transgender persons. They can
>> alter themselves to suit their self image, however, the technology does
>> not (yet) exist for me to do the same. Perhaps I should have been
>> born a couple decades later, still, my own era has proven one of the
>> most advanced in all known history, I, and we, are indeed lucky to
>> be living in such a time.
>
> Being a transgendered person and coming to terms with a lot of the
> different issues you might be surprised at just how much they would
> understand. If you are truly a transpecied person (which I would actually
> believe if you were to say so) you may find that some of the methods a
> transvestite uses to become more comfortable may be more adaptable than
> you actually think. I don't want to overstep and assume, but if you are
> finding difficulties in feeling comfortable in your body transgendered
> people can sympathize and also help. In all honesty, a transgendered
> person can often feel as far away from their gender as you may from your
> species even given the technology. I know in my case if you could go so
> far as to make me feel a period I would give so much. Girls may hate it,
> but I would give anything to feel it. You may be able to say such things
> about your animal.
>
I applaud you, Saffy. I am proud that you have been able to achieve
the form you expect of yourself. I do that in some ways through my
bear-walks. While difficult, I feel much more alive and closer to my
proper self in those times I am clothed as bear. It is no secret to those
near to me that I spend time each month being-a-bear. I had my
neighbor arrive one early morning just before sunrise, I was in my
regalia and was about to set out on my ecstatic journey. I popped
out onto the porch and my neighbor was speechless. I stuck out
my paw and shook his hand. He looked uncertainly at his hand and
then at me, then at his hand and said, 'I don't suppose you are going
anywhere today then' to which I replied I was about to set out upon
ceremony. He had wanted me to drive his son to school but had to
come up with another solution.
I had not thought of myself as 'transpecies' though but I suppose
that is a logical conclusion I should have reached. I was sincere
when I said I was jealous of the trans-gendered because they could
do much to reform themselves to their proper self-image. Such
technology is not available for myself beyond prosthetics at the
present time. I appreciate 'Cat' who has been slowly working to
achieve his own self-image but the ursine changes require much
more work, appearance-wise, if such an option were available
but required me to retain the hominid mind, I would still be
amenable to going through whatever was necessary.
Blackbear
> Safari
Blackbear
"§ńüw¤Łf" <snuhwo...@hotmail.com news:389jh6F...@individual.net...
> Blackbear <bea...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
> <_5MTd.5582$MY6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
>
>> I served in the Army as a
>>recon specialist during the years of 1967 till 1970 and considered the
>>military as a career.
>
> HAW HAW, your OLD :)
>
let you troll me, here you go and try to be civil?
>
>>By 1968 I had determined through circumstance
>>that I did not have the enthusiasm for war to make it a career. Indeed
>>today I would say I am inclined towards being a pacifist but have gone
>>into the path of trouble to forestall the aggression of one person to
>>another. This latter instance is more the warrior ideal to me.
>>
> Notice how all the gung ho chickenhawks in the Bush admin managed to get
> deferments?
> Cheney got 5!
>
I'm not interested in discussing politics in this arena as there is no
place for it.
>> Actually hunting may be something you should well consider. I would
>>recommend primitive weapons to take some of the edge away from you
>>which will teach you the use of stealth and give you that sense of
> hunting.
>>In this area most 'hunters' are merely 'snipers' more like spiders than
>>predators, they hide themselves and practice quiet patience. The use of
>>primitive weapons will require much more of the 'hunter' to come out
>>to achieve a successful hunt. Then you will have the dead prey which
>>you must eviscerate and prepare and pack out. You will be able to
>>feed yourself and you will have done it by skill and you may in this
>>wise see how death can profit life. In my own opinion, death
>>encountered during war does not profit life or the species.
>>
> If only more people realised this :/
>
Snu, you are freaking me out, have you a virus or life threatening
disease that has caused some strange reaction with the side effect that
you are actually being serious?
I had filtered you (once you recommended that action for me earlier)
and did not expect to see your posts again. Ah well, stranger things
have been known to happen.
>
Blackbear
"Safari" <omoikane@homecom> wrote news:Mr2dncVrVp-...@suscom.com...
><snip> cyphe...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Hey everyone, it's been awhile since I last posted on this group.
>> Something always brings me back, must be our charming trolls :).
>
> be careful, seeing the charm in a troll is a sign you may be catching
> the disease that makes you one.
>>
>>
>> Looking at weres from this perspective makes us look rather...shallow.
>
> I wouldn't go that far. I think you are being a bit too hard on yourself
> there. There is something to be said for the affect of physical and visual
> stimuli on mood and thought process. It has been proven that things like
> smiling are contageous. Not that any situation has changed but that a
> visual stimuli has put people in a better mood. I think it would also be
> safe to say that one of the easiest and most obvious things we can control
> is our appearence. It may be the start of a process, and I also think it
> is a big part of the process even though it is not a direct expression of
> the spirit. The problem is those people who think that is all there is too
> it. But as long as you don't fall for that trap altering the physical
> appearence could make one feel more comfortable. The other thing that
> altering appearence does is that it alters people's perception of you.
> Like I was saying before this is a part of identity, and since people
> aren't psychic you need to present certain parts of identity visually. In
> the case of being an animal you would be able to experience a closer
> similarity to your animal if you looked like it and people reacted to you
> as if you were one.
>
come first from their perception of your appearance. Any person in
sales realizes this. In the tradition I follow, during the ceremony
I very much have the appearance of a bear, though feathered and
otherwise ornamented, to present a grand appearance before the
spirits you would have contact with. The regalia helps me feel
that much closer to being the bear I am. I travel through horses,
cattle and wild life and the reaction to me is as to a bear. When
I have traveled in those same places without regalia, the reaction
was totally different with the wildlife virtually not to be seen without
some good effort on my part.
I think the expression 'if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's
a duck' has much to be said for itself. I very much agree that part
is somewhat superficial but also useful yet only part of the whole
thing, If it did not go deeper than that, it would merely be role
playing. Appearance should lend grace to it's form but it is not
the essence of form.
> Most of us would want to keep our human mind if our souls ever had the
>> chance to inhabit another body, so what's left is pretty much physical.
>
> In all honesty a wolf without your human conciousness is a wolf not you. I
> am trying to explain this but it might come out wrong. If you were put
> into a wolf's body, but didn't maintain your concious identity you
> wouldn't be you anymore. There would just be a wolf, but since it had no
> concious recognition like you do it would just be a wolf. I am just saying
> that you are right in that the point is to maintain our conciousness
> because without it our "being" has essentially died and something new has
> replaced it.
>
I would banter the point around some. Is your sleeping body, you?
Is your personality you? How about the consciousness, is that you?
I have seen all the range of human expression in the animal kingdom
within creatures from aardwolves to zebra. Sadness, helplessness,
happiness, vengeance, the whole gamut, perhaps even love. I firmly
hold the notion that a great percentage of the animal population are
both more intelligent than we even partially give them credit for
and have as much individuality as any hominids I've ever met and
lots of personality to boot. Perhaps it is my Native American ancestry
which taught me to think of humans as being the weakest of animals
in need of the wisdom accessible by seeking out the strengths and
weaknesses of the other wild life that has given me this point of
view. It may be that my time working with and engaged in the study
of animals helped me foster this notion.
To me, being stripped of human form and comforts and the fairly useless
mental anguish over a complex social system and the intelligence it
takes to navigate such a turgid sea would be relieving. I think, simply
existing as a non-descript bear I would still have consciousness of self,
a proper self-identity and would quite happily go about my foraging
and leave intellectualizations to the hominid race.
>> We covet the power, abilities, senses, grace and beauty of animals and
>> want it so much that it's haunted us our whole lives. Can there be more
>> to it than this? Perhaps answers for us "transpecies" may be found in
>> the transgendered.
>
> There is a difference and a similarity here. First off, the transgendered
> do not covet the physical properties of the other gender. It is deeper
> than that. Before one even conciously knows there is a difference between
> girls and boys, and before most of the physical differences that come with
> puberty come about the transgendered person already identifies themselves
> with the opposite sex. It is not a matter of want, but rather a matter of
> that is what should have been. A want could be satisfied. You don't try to
> be More your sex, you just are what sex you are.
>
> I could see this being similar for certain weres. Some people may feel
> they were born to the wrong species. However, I think that a person with
> this reality would be far more serious and have more of a real view of the
> life of an animal. A lot of times I have seen people who like a lot of
> things about a specific animal, but then throw other things away.
There are a lot of things about bears I don't particularly like but
accept them as part of being-a-bear. It's the whole package that makes
a bear and if that means being a biochemical organism simply responding
to natural stimuli with no sense of self, why should that upset or deter
me from being the proper me?
> This is not something a person who feels they are of that species would
> do. In other words, a transgendered male to female would find having a
> period to actually be an experience they would desire even though it is
> often considered a negative or annoying part of being a woman. A lot of
> times I read people who consider themselves wolves, but they have never
> stalked or hunted, some have even been vegitarians. They would prefer to
> walk on all fours even though it is far easier to walk erect.
>A person who truly was transpecied would probably not embrace a computer.
Oh no, I am a modest 3d model animator mostly focusing upon content
for obscure and hopeful low budge video games which I provide content
for. I derive great pleasure in, projecting myself into the forms of
creatures
which I may either create or be in charge of the animations for. The
computer has provided both funding and research into bears on an
unprecedented level. A transpecied would find aid through computers.
> The comparison falls short for everyone else I have met though. Maybe that
> guy on ripley's who has had his body tattoed, had claws and fangs and
> other animal like things done to him and he goes out and hunts his food.
> Now that is a guy who I can see being transspecied. We are very far from
> that reality.
That's Cat I was talking about in the other post, tigers are much easier
to
be recognized by virtue of their striking marks. I can think of no tattoo
artist capable of rendering my face properly ursine.
>
> That person has put himself inh a position where the world will react to
> him somewhat like a predator. He may not have the true animal parts like a
> transgendered person, but he will still hunt and lick himself clean and do
> all that because that is what he was meant to do. You don't do it to
> emulate, you do it because it is what you are.
>
Absolutely!
Dyno Mutt
<0sTTd.5875$MY6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
>
>"§ńüw¤Łf" <snuhwo...@hotmail.com
news:389jh6F...@individual.net...
>> Blackbear <bea...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
>> <_5MTd.5582$MY6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
>>
>>> I served in the Army as a
>>>recon specialist during the years of 1967 till 1970 and considered the
>>>military as a career.
>>
>> HAW HAW, your OLD :)
>>
> Fortunately so. What is this, Snu? After you told me I shouldn't
>let you troll me, here you go and try to be civil?
>
Mocking the old is now "civil"?
Hmmm...
>>
>>>By 1968 I had determined through circumstance
>>>that I did not have the enthusiasm for war to make it a career.
Indeed
>>>today I would say I am inclined towards being a pacifist but have gone
>>>into the path of trouble to forestall the aggression of one person to
>>>another. This latter instance is more the warrior ideal to me.
>>>
>> Notice how all the gung ho chickenhawks in the Bush admin managed to
get
>> deferments?
>> Cheney got 5!
>>
> I'm not interested in discussing politics in this arena as there is
no
>place for it.
>
Sure, lets not let reality stand in the way of a good time eh?
>>> Actually hunting may be something you should well consider. I would
>>>recommend primitive weapons to take some of the edge away from you
>>>which will teach you the use of stealth and give you that sense of
>> hunting.
>>>In this area most 'hunters' are merely 'snipers' more like spiders
than
>>>predators, they hide themselves and practice quiet patience. The use
of
>>>primitive weapons will require much more of the 'hunter' to come out
>>>to achieve a successful hunt. Then you will have the dead prey which
>>>you must eviscerate and prepare and pack out. You will be able to
>>>feed yourself and you will have done it by skill and you may in this
>>>wise see how death can profit life. In my own opinion, death
>>>encountered during war does not profit life or the species.
>>>
>> If only more people realised this :/
>>
> Snu, you are freaking me out, have you a virus or life threatening
>disease that has caused some strange reaction with the side effect that
>you are actually being serious?
>
You said something intelligent (a rareity!) and I agreeed with you.
I'm not the guy you think I am :)
> I had filtered you (once you recommended that action for me earlier)
>and did not expect to see your posts again. Ah well, stranger things
>have been known to happen.
>
You'll start lobbying your elected representatives and demand that they
account for all the monies stolen from NA's in the form of owed mineral
rights royalties? The WHITE DEVILS have been stealin you guys blind for
years over the oil & gas & mineral royalties they were *supposed* to pay.
FYI
HTH
Safari
> "Safari" <omoikane@homecom> wrote news:Mr2dncVrVp-...@suscom.com...
>
> come first from their perception of your appearance. Any person in
> sales realizes this. In the tradition I follow, during the ceremony
> I very much have the appearance of a bear, though feathered and
> otherwise ornamented, to present a grand appearance before the
> spirits you would have contact with. The regalia helps me feel
> that much closer to being the bear I am. I travel through horses,
> cattle and wild life and the reaction to me is as to a bear. When
> I have traveled in those same places without regalia, the reaction
> was totally different with the wildlife virtually not to be seen without
> some good effort on my part.
The unfortunate part of this is fallout from the furry community. We
have had a series of people (Most recently Jure Sah) who were not as
popular in the furry community so they thought claiming they were a
werewolf would get them more friends and more respect as an animal type.
In the end furry is just a sexual fetish thing, and these people's
shallow nature tends to just get annoying to someone who is more than
just a mass of hormones looking for some furry art and wishing
bestiality was legal. They are, unfortunately, one of the best places
for finding info on methods for making fursuits. Working with fur in
general can be a bit annoying. I know from costume making it can be
difficult. A furry who has made a suit may have some suggestions on
realism and methods. It is just too bad the focus is mostly on the
genitals. But, furries do make a good example of where the shallow
pursuit of appearence lacks in spiritual and real discovery.
>
>> Most of us would want to keep our human mind if our souls ever had the
>>
>>>chance to inhabit another body, so what's left is pretty much physical.
>>
>>In all honesty a wolf without your human conciousness is a wolf not you. I
>>am trying to explain this but it might come out wrong. If you were put
>>into a wolf's body, but didn't maintain your concious identity you
>>wouldn't be you anymore. There would just be a wolf, but since it had no
>>concious recognition like you do it would just be a wolf. I am just saying
>>that you are right in that the point is to maintain our conciousness
>>because without it our "being" has essentially died and something new has
>>replaced it.
>>
>
> I would banter the point around some. Is your sleeping body, you?
Well, since no one else has possesion of it then yes it is. Even in
another person's dream you would have a lot of trouble taking their
body. Their spirit can instantly become concious again without a trip back.
> Is your personality you? How about the consciousness, is that you?
Well, personality is a bit hard. You can suppress your real personality
in lieu of something you feel would be better, but there is still a
personality that is you. What other people perceive you as may be a lie
or an illusion, but in a way that is also you. It is your spirit's
affect on the world. It is your effect on them, and is why you should be
mindful on how you behave and being true to yourself.
Conciousness is another matter. Conciousness is a product of spirit and
mind. From what I have gathered on studying brain damage and
psychological abnormalities like schizophrania and Multiple personality
disorder is that there may actually be seperate spirits that can be
present in one body for different periods. These personalities deal with
different difficulties and have different reactions and can have
different philosophies. Even if these personalities are converged
through psychotherapy there still are agregates left of them in the
individual created. Oddly, in the case of MPDs the original identity is
often said to be a sort of shell lacking a true identity, and it is
after the other spirits have converged that it finds its own identity
seperate and different from the personalities that had composed that
person before.
Often in the case of brain damage and schizophrenia a person has a
breaking moment where many who know them can say that although they may
have the same memories they are a completely different person. In
reality who knows how these spirits can change. It is not a possesion as
per say because you can't get the original spirit back. Maybe it is
fate, or a product of the universe and what was supposed to happen.
Maybe the original spirit passed and something else took over the
healthy and vacant body. Of course, this doesn't happen all the time,
and without more knowledge of death I have little to base any theories
on. By the time I have more knowledge I will probably be beyond the
realm of communication with this world.
> I have seen all the range of human expression in the animal kingdom
> within creatures from aardwolves to zebra. Sadness, helplessness,
> happiness, vengeance, the whole gamut, perhaps even love. I firmly
> hold the notion that a great percentage of the animal population are
> both more intelligent than we even partially give them credit for
> and have as much individuality as any hominids I've ever met and
> lots of personality to boot.
Here is where I tend to disagree. There are obviously things which are
physically pleasurable to an animal. I do think a lot of what is said to
be animal feelings are really just us personifying their actions to
better understand them. I have seen animasl behaviour that can be said
to appear to be the same as humans, but I also find those animals will
not react the same way every time. Whereas if I pet a cat it purrs every
time. So the pleasure I can see as being real and reproduceable, but the
emotional attributes ar not as reliable.
Plus animals, especially domestics, are very pavlovian in response. In
other words they do what gets them rewarded or punished. You say good
dog when he comes when you call him. He likes the praise so he learns to
come whenever you want him. I can see this a lot in one of my cats. She
is a very confused cat. I played with her a lot because when she was
adopted she was very unbalanced and uncoordinated. So I gently swat and
her and get her all riled up. She swats back and growls and hisses. Now
I don't actually hit her, it is small taps, and maybe I roll her over.
She also never bites me real hard (She was declawed), and when she has
had enough she leaves. However, when I am nice to her now she hisses and
growls. She doesn't run away or bite when she is getting petted, but she
sounds angry as hell. That is how she has learned I want her to respond.
She purrs and cuddles with other people, and when they play with her she
bites them hard. It is just what she has learned to show. Oh, and by
playing with her she has improved greatly in her coordination and no
longer lands on her head when jumping off of things.
I am not saying there are not emotions, but that our understanding of
them does not apply.
Perhaps it is my Native American ancestry
> which taught me to think of humans as being the weakest of animals
> in need of the wisdom accessible by seeking out the strengths and
> weaknesses of the other wild life that has given me this point of
> view. It may be that my time working with and engaged in the study
> of animals helped me foster this notion.
I wouldn't say the weakest, but we have definitally lost some of the
natural existance. When I look at some of the buddhist, Japanese, and
indian philosophies I find that we do have some very valuable wisdom.
Then there are the greek philosphers like aristotle, plato, and socrates
who's ideas lay an almost perfect framework for analyzing the universe
and coming to new understandings. It seems that in our more recent
industrialization we are losing much of the knowledge we have gained. I
love science, but it is often practiced by the ignorant. Those who are
just as ignorant as a fundie christian. Greek societ did value thinking
for a while, but now we are at a point where blind faith is a "good"
thing, and questioning the norm is unpatriotic and to be feared. People
who can understand their supposed foes are often lumped into a terrorist
category by people who view your worth by the size of your toys.
>
> To me, being stripped of human form and comforts and the fairly useless
> mental anguish over a complex social system and the intelligence it
> takes to navigate such a turgid sea would be relieving.
Well, that is part of being human to an extent. And you are older so you
have probably suffered a hell of a lot through some of your earlier
years by those ignorant masses called the religious right. People are
getting better though. They are not good yet, but they are coming around
some. Right now we are in a bit of a backlash, but that is to be
expected with such quick change as has happened in the past couple of
centuries. I try to tell myself that as I watch the news. I am not
nearly as docile as it sounds. I have already destroyed one rather large
forum this year for allowing right wingers to have a home. But I try to
remember that even as far back as 50 years ago people were still afraid
of the black man. But I do suggest not playing the game.
You have to, if you want to partake of human things, work and be a part
of their society. I like Anime, and cute clothes, and traveling, and
computers....you gert the point. So, I can either give them up or get a
job. Well, these are fun and beautiful things to me, and although I
would like more time for the simple things, I get a job and interact
with people. Any day I want to I can put some money together, fly to
another country and go live in the woods off the land. Hell, I could
probably go into the midwest and do it somewhere out there too.
Would I want to live as a cat, Not permanently. It would be fun to spend
a few weeks or so at different times, but I have a lot of cool shit here
too. In that way I am not a cat, but I am a were. I embrace both sides
of the coin. I see value in both ways, and would be lost without the
other. Yes, that does lead to certain conflicts, but as I once told
another member here we have the ability to wear many different hats, and
that does not mean that any are a lie, but rather that we can be diverse
and see many different points of view.
I think, simply
> existing as a non-descript bear I would still have consciousness of self,
> a proper self-identity and would quite happily go about my foraging
> and leave intellectualizations to the hominid race.
>
Now here is something that I have wondered. Maybe it is something you
can use. I would give up the easiness of being male to be female. I
would suffer through periods, menaupause, calcium deficiencies, the
danger of crimes like rape and stalking, the glass ceiling, the male
superior attitude, the weaker body, and the lack of hight, uncomfortable
shoes, and many other things for the sake of being a girl from the
beginning and to see what effect that would have on my spirit. But I
have a female spirit. That is what I am essentially saying when I say I
am transgendered. So, somewhere along the line my spirit went through
all these things. Now maybe it went into a male body to learn some of
the things that boys learn. To have that more bold dominance learned.
Maybe animal spirits may see a need to have the human experience put on
them, and maybe that is where you are. You are a bear in spirit and
perhaps are looking to experience human life as a bear spirit. Maybe we
are not humans wishing we were something else, but rather something else
that wished to be human and got that wish. Maybe after this short life
we will go back to our more comfortable form wiser. It might be our lack
of memory of those events which made us human that makes us not realize
this is just a short trip in an uncomfortable body.
>
>
> There are a lot of things about bears I don't particularly like but
> accept them as part of being-a-bear. It's the whole package that makes
> a bear and if that means being a biochemical organism simply responding
> to natural stimuli with no sense of self, why should that upset or deter
> me from being the proper me?
It shouldn't. It is one of my pet peeves with some of the less serious
people who poke their noses in here. An animals life is hard in
comparison with a person who owns a computer. These people come in and
it is so obvious they are just a furry because they have thought of
little other than sex or eating meat. There is so much more, but they
think we are supposed to be impressed by that. It is not that I am
opposed to furry art and furrotica in general. Hell, I might even find
myself at one of their cons some day. But they are a fetish. They are
not a were. There animals live in a cute fuzzy grove that is very disney
like.
>
>
>>This is not something a person who feels they are of that species would
>>do. In other words, a transgendered male to female would find having a
>>period to actually be an experience they would desire even though it is
>>often considered a negative or annoying part of being a woman. A lot of
>>times I read people who consider themselves wolves, but they have never
>>stalked or hunted, some have even been vegitarians. They would prefer to
>>walk on all fours even though it is far easier to walk erect.
>
>
>>A person who truly was transpecied would probably not embrace a computer.
>
>
> Oh no, I am a modest 3d model animator mostly focusing upon content
> for obscure and hopeful low budge video games which I provide content
> for. I derive great pleasure in, projecting myself into the forms of
> creatures
> which I may either create or be in charge of the animations for. The
> computer has provided both funding and research into bears on an
> unprecedented level. A transpecied would find aid through computers.
>
Ok, I guess that was a wrong statement. You could do exploration with a
computer you can't in reality. Plus working will help you to get
materials or go places to explore more. I got a tad overzealose there.
Don't let anyone know I admitted I was wrong. I have a very long term
reputation of being evil and never conceding when I am wrong. I don't
know where it came from, but some people's lives would come to a
screatching halt if that was to be disproven.
>
>>The comparison falls short for everyone else I have met though. Maybe that
>>guy on ripley's who has had his body tattoed, had claws and fangs and
>>other animal like things done to him and he goes out and hunts his food.
>>Now that is a guy who I can see being transspecied. We are very far from
>>that reality.
>
>
> That's Cat I was talking about in the other post, tigers are much easier
> to
> be recognized by virtue of their striking marks. I can think of no tattoo
> artist capable of rendering my face properly ursine.
>
An ursine face is very difficult. Feline traits are a lot closer to the
human face so they are a bit easier. I tell you, weremonkeys have it made.
In all honesty, I would be a bit wary of operations for a while after
they come out. Sure they may be able to reconstruct you to have a more
ursine apearence someday, but medicine might not be advanced enough to
make all the parts work well. It would suck to look like a bear and then
be bed ridden and crippled. Even the guy who does the cat thing still
has human body structure.
Wanderer
stay out of it generally. However...
"Safari" <omoikane@homecom> wrote in message
news:w6WdnadpSLP...@suscom.com...
> In the end furry is just a sexual fetish thing, and these people's shallow
> nature tends to just get annoying to someone who is more than just a mass
> of hormones looking for some furry art and wishing bestiality was legal.
Safari, there's more to Furry than an episode of "Sex2K". In order:
"...furry is just a sexual fetish thing.": No, furry is an animal thing.
To be specific, animals that talk/act/think/look like humans to some extent.
Two of the top furry-loved movies are "Disney's Robin Hood" and "Watership
Down", neither of which is sexual in nature.
Is there a taste for "adult" and erotic artwork in the fandom? Yes, just
like there is in any fandom with full-grown adults in it. But sex is no
more the defining point of furry fandom than Kirk/Spock slashfic defines
Star Trek fandom.
"...these people's shallow nature...": No more shallow than the average, in
my experience. About the same percentage of Einsteins and Dostoevskys as
ordinary society.
"... just a mass of hormones looking for some furry art and wishing
bestiality was legal.": Again, Safari, there's more to furry than a "Sex2K"
episode. The one time it looked like a furry fan bestialist was going to
declare himself on "Jerry Springer", the entire fandom was up in arms.
Nobody on the newsgroup wanted to be identified with bestiality. Hardly
anyone in the fandom is a bestialist. It's like looking at you and saying
that every werebeast on AHWW is a pre-op transsexual. Or looking at "Lord
Albrecht" and declaring us all role-players. It's taking a distinct
minority and assuming them to be the rule.
So if you're done performing "The Blind Men and the Elephant", please
continue with your discussion.
Yours quickly,
The research-happy,
Dyno Mutt
<1124csi...@corp.supernews.com>:
>You two are having a wonderful (and very informative) discussion, so
I'll
>stay out of it generally. However...
>
This is where it gets funny folks...
>"Safari" <omoikane@homecom> wrote in message
>news:w6WdnadpSLP...@suscom.com...
>> In the end furry is just a sexual fetish thing, and these people's
shallow
>> nature tends to just get annoying to someone who is more than just a
mass
>> of hormones looking for some furry art and wishing bestiality was
legal.
>
>Safari, there's more to Furry than an episode of "Sex2K". In order:
>
>"...furry is just a sexual fetish thing.": No, furry is an animal
thing.
Heh eh heh...you said "thing"...heh eh heh...
>To be specific, animals that talk/act/think/look like humans to some
extent.
Oh cartoons...I though you were gonna discuss some deep meaningful
spiritual aspect just now. I guess furry is just cartoons huh?
>Two of the top furry-loved movies are "Disney's Robin Hood" and
"Watership
>Down", neither of which is sexual in nature.
>
You have'nt seen the fan websites then...
>Is there a taste for "adult" and erotic artwork in the fandom? Yes,
just
>like there is in any fandom with full-grown adults in it. But sex is no
>more the defining point of furry fandom than Kirk/Spock slashfic defines
>Star Trek fandom.
>
Star trek is now a form of self parody.
>"...these people's shallow nature...": No more shallow than the
average, in
>my experience. About the same percentage of Einsteins and Dostoevskys
as
>ordinary society.
>
LOL! Most furries are either ugly or emotionally/socially retarded to
some extent.
Some are smart sure, but most are not fit for mainstream society to begin
with.
>"... just a mass of hormones looking for some furry art and wishing
>bestiality was legal.": Again, Safari, there's more to furry than a
"Sex2K"
>episode. The one time it looked like a furry fan bestialist was going
to
>declare himself on "Jerry Springer", the entire fandom was up in arms.
>Nobody on the newsgroup wanted to be identified with bestiality. Hardly
>anyone in the fandom is a bestialist.
You just made MegaDog cry :(
>It's like looking at you and saying
>that every werebeast on AHWW is a pre-op transsexual. Or looking at
"Lord
>Albrecht" and declaring us all role-players. It's taking a distinct
>minority and assuming them to be the rule.
>
The maH-juh-ority of furdom my little twitling is bizzarro-world and
would fit on Springer quite well.
>So if you're done performing "The Blind Men and the Elephant", please
>continue with your discussion.
>
"The elefink is very much like a rope...uk uk uk uk!"
Safari
> You two are having a wonderful (and very informative) discussion, so I'll
> stay out of it generally. However...
>
> "Safari" <omoikane@homecom> wrote in message
> news:w6WdnadpSLP...@suscom.com...
>
>>In the end furry is just a sexual fetish thing, and these people's shallow
>>nature tends to just get annoying to someone who is more than just a mass
>>of hormones looking for some furry art and wishing bestiality was legal.
>
>
> Safari, there's more to Furry than an episode of "Sex2K". In order:
After a decade of watching the furry community I think you overestimate
them. Sure there is an attempt to justify it so the media doesn't tear
them to shreds (Not like it has stopped the media so far) but it really
boils down to a sexual fetish. Being a furry without yiffing is pretty
pointless.
>
> "...furry is just a sexual fetish thing.": No, furry is an animal thing.
Actually, furry is an anthropomorphic sex thing. I'll take my cat girls
from anime thank you. At least there they can admit to fan service. The
animal is realliy nothing more than a teddy, some cuffs, or a french
maid's outfit. These people know little about the realities of being an
animal. They don't want to know about being an animal. They want the
tactile pleasure of fur.
> To be specific, animals that talk/act/think/look like humans to some extent.
To be specific there are no such animals in reality.
> Two of the top furry-loved movies are "Disney's Robin Hood" and "Watership
> Down", neither of which is sexual in nature.
I like watership down too, but I know real rabits don't tell amusing
stories about el ehraya in the evenings after sylflay.
>
> Is there a taste for "adult" and erotic artwork in the fandom? Yes, just
> like there is in any fandom with full-grown adults in it. But sex is no
> more the defining point of furry fandom than Kirk/Spock slashfic defines
> Star Trek fandom.
I have been to anime and Star trek/Sci-fi cons. At none of them I have
ever seen a klingon pile, or moonies scritching eachother for hours on
end. As a matter of fact none of their costumes involve creating a path
for one's genetalia. Furcons can be best compared to something more like
fantasm or a porno con.
>
> "...these people's shallow nature...": No more shallow than the average, in
> my experience. About the same percentage of Einsteins and Dostoevskys as
> ordinary society.
Well, when you focus on creating deap meaning out of sex you tend not to
show off your more philisophical nature.
>
> "... just a mass of hormones looking for some furry art and wishing
> bestiality was legal.": Again, Safari, there's more to furry than a "Sex2K"
> episode. The one time it looked like a furry fan bestialist was going to
> declare himself on "Jerry Springer", the entire fandom was up in arms.
We wouldn't want the truth to come out.
> Nobody on the newsgroup wanted to be identified with bestiality.
Yet they tolerate and welcome bestialists.
Hardly
> anyone in the fandom is a bestialist.
Yet it seems they support them, except when going on springer. And this
goes to show they are not only into sex how?
It's like looking at you and saying
> that every werebeast on AHWW is a pre-op transsexual.
There is a tad bit of a difference, but nice straw man.
Or looking at "Lord
> Albrecht" and declaring us all role-players.
Well, difference is we don't support the roleplayers like the furries do
the perverts who would rape an animal. And they wonder why they keep
dcoming off so bad whenever the press finds them.
It's taking a distinct
> minority and assuming them to be the rule.
Yet, you still have yet to show where the majority is not a bunch of sex
crazed freaks. Is there a whole lot of fur art that does not involve big
breasted women, or adonis like men? Damn me for actually looking at the
art.
>
> So if you're done performing "The Blind Men and the Elephant", please
> continue with your discussion.
I understand you are part of the community and you have to give the
party line, but I look for a little more than lip service when trying to
be deap and meaningful. It is cool to have this sex fetish. There isn't
anything wrong with dressing up in a suit and banging away with another
human. I would say that the bestiality is wrong, but the likelihood of
me stopping a bunch of sickos from raping animals is slim. Keep it to
the humans and it is just a sex thing. Please, let us save those
justifications for the press. I have seen you guys in action. I believe
what I see. You can tell me what my eyes have seen is wrong, but I will
probably trust them over you.
In all honesty, I consider furry fandom to be a sort of dysfunction
based on repression. In all reality other cultures have accepted
catgirls are cute, and you don't have to pretend to be an animal to
enjoy such fantasy artwork. Instead of just accepting these facts and
saying it turns us on the furries have sought to justify it so they can
feel a little less guilty about it. Get over the guilt, and just enjoy
the fetish. It is not the most horrible thing in the world.
Safari
Blackbear
"Dyno Mutt" <meka...@dumdumdumdum.net> wrote in message
news:4221...@news.usenetzone.com...
> Blackbear <bea...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
> <0sTTd.5875$MY6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
>
>>
>>"§ńüw¤Łf" <snuhwo...@hotmail.com
> news:389jh6F...@individual.net...
>>> Blackbear <bea...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
>>> <_5MTd.5582$MY6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
>>>
>>>> I served in the Army as a
>>>>recon specialist during the years of 1967 till 1970 and considered the
>>>>military as a career.
>>>
>>> HAW HAW, your OLD :)
>>>
>> Fortunately so. What is this, Snu? After you told me I shouldn't
>>let you troll me, here you go and try to be civil?
>>
> Mocking the old is now "civil"?
> Hmmm...
>
>
>>>
>>>>By 1968 I had determined through circumstance
>>>>that I did not have the enthusiasm for war to make it a career.
> Indeed
>>>>today I would say I am inclined towards being a pacifist but have gone
>>>>into the path of trouble to forestall the aggression of one person to
>>>>another. This latter instance is more the warrior ideal to me.
>>>>
>>> Notice how all the gung ho chickenhawks in the Bush admin managed to
> get
>>> deferments?
>>> Cheney got 5!
>>>
>> I'm not interested in discussing politics in this arena as there is
> no
>>place for it.
>>
> Sure, lets not let reality stand in the way of a good time eh?
>
have greater appreciation for your concerns.
>
>>>> Actually hunting may be something you should well consider. I would
>>>>recommend primitive weapons to take some of the edge away from you
>>>>which will teach you the use of stealth and give you that sense of
>>> hunting.
>>>>In this area most 'hunters' are merely 'snipers' more like spiders
> than
>>>>predators, they hide themselves and practice quiet patience. The use
> of
>>>>primitive weapons will require much more of the 'hunter' to come out
>>>>to achieve a successful hunt. Then you will have the dead prey which
>>>>you must eviscerate and prepare and pack out. You will be able to
>>>>feed yourself and you will have done it by skill and you may in this
>>>>wise see how death can profit life. In my own opinion, death
>>>>encountered during war does not profit life or the species.
>>>>
>>> If only more people realised this :/
>>>
>> Snu, you are freaking me out, have you a virus or life threatening
>>disease that has caused some strange reaction with the side effect that
>>you are actually being serious?
>>
> You said something intelligent (a rareity!) and I agreeed with you.
> I'm not the guy you think I am :)
>
accuracy.
>
>> I had filtered you (once you recommended that action for me earlier)
>>and did not expect to see your posts again. Ah well, stranger things
>>have been known to happen.
>>
> You'll start lobbying your elected representatives and demand that they
> account for all the monies stolen from NA's in the form of owed mineral
> rights royalties? The WHITE DEVILS have been stealin you guys blind for
> years over the oil & gas & mineral royalties they were *supposed* to pay.
> FYI
> HTH
>
While a matter that I have some concern with, again the subject is
outside
of this discussion.
Blackbear
"Safari"wrote news:w6WdnadpSLP...@suscom.com...
> Blackbear wrote:
>> "Safari" <omoikane@homecom> wrote
>> news:Mr2dncVrVp-...@suscom.com...
>>
>> Appearance is a lot. The impression folks get of the 'who' of you
>> come first from their perception of your appearance. Any person in
>> sales realizes this. In the tradition I follow, during the ceremony
>> I very much have the appearance of a bear, though feathered and
>> otherwise ornamented, to present a grand appearance before the
>> spirits you would have contact with. The regalia helps me feel
>> that much closer to being the bear I am. I travel through horses,
>> cattle and wild life and the reaction to me is as to a bear. When
>> I have traveled in those same places without regalia, the reaction
>> was totally different with the wildlife virtually not to be seen without
>> some good effort on my part.
>
> The unfortunate part of this is fallout from the furry community. We have
> had a series of people (Most recently Jure Sah) who were not as popular in
> the furry community so they thought claiming they were a werewolf would
> get them more friends and more respect as an animal type.
When I started posting on AHWW we had a good group of folks, Bear X,
Remul, Jan to name a few however the number of folks upon the forum
has reduced while folks got more involved in LJ's and in closed NG's
such as in Slash.net. I have returned here as some of those other venues
grew inactive. I have filtered out some of those which allows a short
respite while those persons rush to get a new account. My first posts
here were made while I had patronage with AOL as Bluebear for awhile.
> In the end furry is just a sexual fetish thing, and these people's shallow
> nature tends to just get annoying to someone who is more than just a mass
> of hormones looking for some furry art and wishing bestiality was legal.
I have posted upon ALF a few times because I have found some
reasonable conversations there while this group had nearly vanished,
I still needed someplace where I could converse and consider things.
I have done quite a bit of fur-suiting during my thirties professionally,
though my job, while mascotting, was to draw attention to the various
businesses I represented, or to act as an ice-breaker during functions
of those particular companies. While learning much about costumes
and enjoying the work itself, realism was never at issue and there were
certainly no sexual connotations, it was a job which, because of my
athletic abilities, I was more capable to do than most other persons.
My bear-regalia, while some might consider it so, is not a costume,
but an integral part of my bear-walk ceremonies and something which
I consider sacred and has been crafted in the same manner that my
ancestors have used. Being of plains descent, the robe is unlike
the stylized ones encountered along the NW coast. There is a photo
taken at Pawhuska which I have at bear371.com/beardncr.gif
if you wish to view that.
I don't quite fit the mold of an ALF'r yet I believe it important
for my own development to invite other views of those things
which for me are important aspects of my psyche. It has such
importance because one's views can become one-sided and
inaccurate if left without challenge in an increasing isolation.
I fit the mold of this group much better because, until I have
returned to the bear-world, I shall remain a Were. I am willing
to overlook ALF's sexual factions because my traditions teach
me that everyone is sacred and I should show respect to them
even when some of their practices are repulsive to myself.
I never investigated the term 'Yiff' since it had no bearing upon
my own concerns and only became aware of the term when
a CSI broadcast defined it.
Through a few conversations there, (I think Dan Skunk was the
greatest contributor to subjects I had for consideration) I did
gain some insights useful to myself in that NG.
It is for this reason that I will state the manner in which I
was taught for relating to other persons. Briefly:
All that has existence is a part of the Great Mystery and must
have within it some part of that sacred essence. Knowing
this, I should show respect for the sacredness within others,
even if they do not. Doing so may help to awaken that other
to the sacred nature within them I am showing respect for.
> They are, unfortunately, one of the best places for finding info on
> methods for making fursuits. Working with fur in general can be a bit
> annoying. I know from costume making it can be difficult. A furry who has
> made a suit may have some suggestions on realism and methods. It is just
> too bad the focus is mostly on the genitals. But, furries do make a good
> example of where the shallow pursuit of appearence lacks in spiritual and
> real discovery.
The direction this conversation is moving has made me aware that
I might benefit from the creation of a leisurely bear fur-suit to bring
a more relaxed sense of self in my day-to-day life. It is a good
suggestion and I shall think seriously upon it.
>>
>>> Most of us would want to keep our human mind if our souls ever had the
>>>
>>>>chance to inhabit another body, so what's left is pretty much physical.
>>>
>>>In all honesty a wolf without your human conciousness is a wolf not you.
>>>I am trying to explain this but it might come out wrong. If you were put
>>>into a wolf's body, but didn't maintain your concious identity you
>>>wouldn't be you anymore. There would just be a wolf, but since it had no
>>>concious recognition like you do it would just be a wolf. I am just
>>>saying that you are right in that the point is to maintain our
>>>conciousness because without it our "being" has essentially died and
>>>something new has replaced it.
>>>
>>
>> I would banter the point around some. Is your sleeping body, you?
>
> Well, since no one else has possesion of it then yes it is. Even in
> another person's dream you would have a lot of trouble taking their body.
> Their spirit can instantly become concious again without a trip back.
>
Perhaps a poor example.
>> Is your personality you? How about the consciousness, is that you?
>
> Well, personality is a bit hard. You can suppress your real personality in
> lieu of something you feel would be better, but there is still a
> personality that is you.
Yes, so the personality, while a part of you, is not necessarily you.
Personality is not a uniquely hominid manifestation except where it
is altered to suit some self-motivation as in your example above. It
is to be found throughout the animal kingdom. A point in favor of
my argument.
>What other people perceive you as may be a lie or an illusion, but in a way
>that is also you. It is your spirit's affect on the world. It is your
>effect on them, and is why you should be mindful on how you behave and
>being true to yourself.
>
I agree emphatically, being true to oneself is exactly the issue we're
dealing with here.
> Conciousness is another matter. Conciousness is a product of spirit and
> mind. From what I have gathered on studying brain damage and psychological
> abnormalities like schizophrania and Multiple personality disorder is that
> there may actually be seperate spirits that can be present in one body for
> different periods. These personalities deal with different difficulties
> and have different reactions and can have different philosophies. Even if
> these personalities are converged through psychotherapy there still are
> agregates left of them in the individual created. Oddly, in the case of
> MPDs the original identity is often said to be a sort of shell lacking a
> true identity, and it is after the other spirits have converged that it
> finds its own identity seperate and different from the personalities that
> had composed that person before.
>
Consciousness is a subject which I have not had as much study
in as you have. Interesting, those examples you've iterated. It gives
me much to think on. I can't consider my bear-identity to be separate
from my own, it is simply... me. That my own self-image does not
match with my outward image, however, is problematic.
> Often in the case of brain damage and schizophrenia a person has a
> breaking moment where many who know them can say that although they may
> have the same memories they are a completely different person. In reality
> who knows how these spirits can change. It is not a possession as per say
> because you can't get the original spirit back. Maybe it is fate, or a
> product of the universe and what was supposed to happen. Maybe the
> original spirit passed and something else took over the healthy and vacant
> body. Of course, this doesn't happen all the time, and without more
> knowledge of death I have little to base any theories on. By the time I
> have more knowledge I will probably be beyond the realm of communication
> with this world.
>
Interesting once again. Certainly fascinating subject matter.
>> I have seen all the range of human expression in the animal kingdom
>> within creatures from aardwolves to zebra. Sadness, helplessness,
>> happiness, vengeance, the whole gamut, perhaps even love. I firmly
>> hold the notion that a great percentage of the animal population are
>> both more intelligent than we even partially give them credit for
>> and have as much individuality as any hominids I've ever met and
>> lots of personality to boot.
>
> Here is where I tend to disagree. There are obviously things which are
> physically pleasurable to an animal. I do think a lot of what is said to
> be animal feelings are really just us personifying their actions to better
> understand them.
The tendency to anthropomorphize is always a danger, and I agree to
some extent, I have had occasion to meet nearly every creature known
to man and to interact with these for several years while I was a zookeeper.
I recall one morning when Wes Allen was wanting to have our
sunbears move from the warm inside enclosure to outside so that
cleaning could be done. The bears were dismissive of him and tried
hard to ignore him. To my horror, Wes opened up the cage, took his
rake and swatted the male in a misguided effort to enforce his will
upon the two. Suddenly Miko was up on twos and Wes seemed to
shrink and indeed went white as he backed out of the shift area where
I was thankfully present to open the gate. Miko settled back down
and finished his nap without further interruption. I returned after
it warmed up that day and cleaned the area, since Wes decided he
felt sick and took off the rest of the day.
> I have seen animasl behaviour that can be said to appear to be the same as
> humans, but I also find those animals will not react the same way every
> time. Whereas if I pet a cat it purrs every time. So the pleasure I can
> see as being real and reproduceable, but the emotional attributes ar not
> as reliable.
>
Here's an example which is the bane of animal keepers. The routine
of any given animal is very important and breaking a routine while
working around such large mammals can have serious, even deadly
consequence but generally not to the keeper who broke the routine.
This means that if a keeper had broken a routine it is most always
the next keeper who comes in that gets nailed. This would seem to
indicate that many of these instances could not have come about
except for the given animal to have kept it in mind, felt something
and reacted days later in some instances. This is a behavior which
is pretty consistent regardless of the animal in question and must
have some basis which goes beyond species. If this is the case
then we are talking about a form of consciousness and sentience
which has it's roots in the 'species tree' of which our own is a part.
> Plus animals, especially domestics, are very pavlovian in response. In
> other words they do what gets them rewarded or punished. You say good dog
> when he comes when you call him. He likes the praise so he learns to come
> whenever you want him. I can see this a lot in one of my cats. She is a
> very confused cat. I played with her a lot because when she was adopted
> she was very unbalanced and uncoordinated. So I gently swat and her and
> get her all riled up. She swats back and growls and hisses. Now I don't
> actually hit her, it is small taps, and maybe I roll her over. She also
> never bites me real hard (She was declawed), and when she has had enough
> she leaves. However, when I am nice to her now she hisses and growls. She
> doesn't run away or bite when she is getting petted, but she sounds angry
> as hell. That is how she has learned I want her to respond. She purrs and
> cuddles with other people, and when they play with her she bites them
> hard. It is just what she has learned to show. Oh, and by playing with her
> she has improved greatly in her coordination and no longer lands on her
> head when jumping off of things.
>
Even people can be conditioned. The armed forces makes a business
of it along with a litany of other sources.
> I am not saying there are not emotions, but that our understanding of them
> does not apply.
>
Yep, I told you I'd banter around on this idea. I submit that a person
tuned into a given animal can be accurate in their assessment of the
emotions being experienced by that animal. This can be seen where
behavioral problems are resolved when the assessment has been
accurate and the steps taken directly addressed the issues which an
animal had. The fox and dog example attempts to suggest this.
> Perhaps it is my Native American ancestry
>> which taught me to think of humans as being the weakest of animals
>> in need of the wisdom accessible by seeking out the strengths and
>> weaknesses of the other wild life that has given me this point of
>> view. It may be that my time working with and engaged in the study
>> of animals helped me foster this notion.
>
> I wouldn't say the weakest, but we have definitally lost some of the
> natural existance. When I look at some of the buddhist, Japanese, and
> indian philosophies I find that we do have some very valuable wisdom. Then
> there are the greek philosphers like aristotle, plato, and socrates who's
> ideas lay an almost perfect framework for analyzing the universe and
> coming to new understandings. It seems that in our more recent
> industrialization we are losing much of the knowledge we have gained.
A historian at UCLA named Eugene Webbers suggests the same
thing as you, that we are in a society which is now regressing despite our
technological achievements to date.
> I love science, but it is often practiced by the ignorant. Those who are
> just as ignorant as a fundie christian. Greek societ did value thinking
> for a while, but now we are at a point where blind faith is a "good"
> thing, and questioning the norm is unpatriotic and to be feared. People
> who can understand their supposed foes are often lumped into a terrorist
> category by people who view your worth by the size of your toys.
Another example of a civilization in decline IMHO
>>
>> To me, being stripped of human form and comforts and the fairly useless
>> mental anguish over a complex social system and the intelligence it
>> takes to navigate such a turgid sea would be relieving.
>
> Well, that is part of being human to an extent. And you are older so you
> have probably suffered a hell of a lot through some of your earlier years
> by those ignorant masses called the religious right.
In earlier years I was traumatized but have come to harm recently
at the hands of the religious right because of my own 'religious'
practices. The threads An Odd Portend and Portend Revealed will
illustrate this.
> People are getting better though. They are not good yet, but they are
> coming around some. Right now we are in a bit of a backlash, but that is
> to be expected with such quick change as has happened in the past couple
> of centuries. I try to tell myself that as I watch the news. I am not
> nearly as docile as it sounds. I have already destroyed one rather large
> forum this year for allowing right wingers to have a home. But I try to
> remember that even as far back as 50 years ago people were still afraid of
> the black man. But I do suggest not playing the game.
>
Agreed
> You have to, if you want to partake of human things, work and be a part of
> their society. I like Anime, and cute clothes, and traveling, and
> computers....you gert the point. So, I can either give them up or get a
> job. Well, these are fun and beautiful things to me, and although I would
> like more time for the simple things, I get a job and interact with
> people. Any day I want to I can put some money together, fly to another
> country and go live in the woods off the land. Hell, I could probably go
> into the midwest and do it somewhere out there too.
>
Through my earlier labors I have gained the ability to live in the woods
and
off the land. My interaction with people is limited to a few family
members and a handful of neighbors these days as I am retired now.
> Would I want to live as a cat, Not permanently. It would be fun to spend a
> few weeks or so at different times, but I have a lot of cool shit here
> too. In that way I am not a cat, but I am a were. I embrace both sides of
> the coin. I see value in both ways, and would be lost without the other.
I would live as a bear permanently but my form is unsuited to it
though I practice those skills fervently (since I was 27) For the
duration, I am in the hominid family and thus am a were and as
I have cited, take advantage of the abilities which come with
the set but would not feel lost without the hominid part. I think
it is much as I have counseled Cypher, I am in this form in order
to be a better bear when I have expired. Very much like you have
suggested below.
> Yes, that does lead to certain conflicts, but as I once told another
> member here we have the ability to wear many different hats, and that does
> not mean that any are a lie, but rather that we can be diverse and see
> many different points of view.
>
>
> I think, simply
>> existing as a non-descript bear I would still have consciousness of self,
>> a proper self-identity and would quite happily go about my foraging
>> and leave intellectualizations to the hominid race.
>>
> Now here is something that I have wondered. Maybe it is something you can
> use. I would give up the easiness of being male to be female. I would
> suffer through periods, menaupause, calcium deficiencies, the danger of
> crimes like rape and stalking, the glass ceiling, the male superior
> attitude, the weaker body, and the lack of hight, uncomfortable shoes, and
> many other things for the sake of being a girl from the beginning and to
> see what effect that would have on my spirit. But I have a female spirit.
> That is what I am essentially saying when I say I am transgendered. So,
> somewhere along the line my spirit went through all these things. Now
> maybe it went into a male body to learn some of the things that boys
> learn. To have that more bold dominance learned.
>
> Maybe animal spirits may see a need to have the human experience put on
> them, and maybe that is where you are. You are a bear in spirit and
> perhaps are looking to experience human life as a bear spirit. Maybe we
> are not humans wishing we were something else, but rather something else
> that wished to be human and got that wish.
No Bridey Murphy, I have what seems like memories of a time during
which I was bear entirely. They are pretty vivid memories, perhaps
phantasmagoria, yet I can recall having my nose pierced and being dragged
upon a lead attached to that nose ring and led into greenish bright lights
where I would need to shuffle sidewise in view of many people for a
few minutes then with relief be returned to a darkened and quieter
area until the whole affair was repeated.
I recall a time when I was on, what must have been a train. Lots of
smoke and noise and the train stopped and the door of the car I was
in was opened while the person who I saw most often got off with
others and began cutting down trees. I remember seeing them working
their way up a slope and trees would fall and be hammered into parts
while I kept waiting for my person to return. I remember feeling
fearful during that while, which seemed very long, before the door
was closed and the smoke began to again choke up the air in the car I
traveled in.
I've never shaken these 'memories' and have had them as long as I
can remember. Still, they may only be the fabric of imagination. If
not that, then perhaps it is a case in favor of your suggestion.
> Maybe after this short life we will go back to our more comfortable form
> wiser. It might be our lack of memory of those events which made us human
> that makes us not realize this is just a short trip in an uncomfortable
> body.
>>
>>
>> There are a lot of things about bears I don't particularly like but
>> accept them as part of being-a-bear. It's the whole package that makes
>> a bear and if that means being a biochemical organism simply responding
>> to natural stimuli with no sense of self, why should that upset or deter
>> me from being the proper me?
>
> It shouldn't. It is one of my pet peeves with some of the less serious
> people who poke their noses in here. An animals life is hard in comparison
> with a person who owns a computer. These people come in and it is so
> obvious they are just a furry because they have thought of little other
> than sex or eating meat. There is so much more, but they think we are
> supposed to be impressed by that. It is not that I am opposed to furry art
> and furrotica in general. Hell, I might even find myself at one of their
> cons some day. But they are a fetish. They are not a were. There animals
> live in a cute fuzzy grove that is very disney like.
I do recognize how difficult the life of other animals is. For this
reason I feed 200 lbs/month of dog food to the wild-life whom I share this
land with. In addition to the dog food I also feed 150 lbs of wild bird
foods and 100 lbs of rolled oats or sweat-feed for the ungulates. I do
this because if I contributed to an organization concerned for wildlife
much of my offering would go into bureaucracy rather than it's intended
recipient. I never-the-less contribute to some other groups who are
more modest such as the Great Bear Foundation as well as being the
domain owner of appbears.org to aid my own 'real' family.
When I broached the subject of sentience in other life forms, that
particular
community had very little use for the discussion.
>>
>>
>>>This is not something a person who feels they are of that species would
>>>do. In other words, a transgendered male to female would find having a
>>>period to actually be an experience they would desire even though it is
>>>often considered a negative or annoying part of being a woman. A lot of
>>>times I read people who consider themselves wolves, but they have never
>>>stalked or hunted, some have even been vegitarians. They would prefer to
>>>walk on all fours even though it is far easier to walk erect.
I talked to Cypher on this subject and re-stated here, if you want to
be
a wolf go out and be a wolf as best you can. This act, only as bear, has
been
very helpful for me in feeling comfortable with myself. Shaking down
a dead tree and having it fall on your head and later learning to listen for
that tell-tale sound to move out of the way of falling debris is part of
being a bear which I would not have except for me going out to be-a-bear.
>>
>>
>>>A person who truly was transpecied would probably not embrace a computer.
>>
>>
>> Oh no, I am a modest 3d model animator mostly focusing upon content
>> for obscure and hopeful low budge video games which I provide content
>> for. I derive great pleasure in, projecting myself into the forms of
>> creatures
>> which I may either create or be in charge of the animations for. The
>> computer has provided both funding and research into bears on an
>> unprecedented level. A transpecied would find aid through computers.
>>
> Ok, I guess that was a wrong statement. You could do exploration with a
> computer you can't in reality. Plus working will help you to get materials
> or go places to explore more. I got a tad overzealose there. Don't let
> anyone know I admitted I was wrong. I have a very long term reputation of
> being evil and never conceding when I am wrong. I don't know where it came
> from, but some people's lives would come to a screatching halt if that was
> to be disproven.
>
I won't let on that you ever did such a thing!
>>
>>>The comparison falls short for everyone else I have met though. Maybe
>>>that guy on ripley's who has had his body tattoed, had claws and fangs
>>>and other animal like things done to him and he goes out and hunts his
>>>food. Now that is a guy who I can see being transspecied. We are very far
>>>from that reality.
>>
>>
>> That's Cat I was talking about in the other post, tigers are much
>> easier to
>> be recognized by virtue of their striking marks. I can think of no
>> tattoo
>> artist capable of rendering my face properly ursine.
>>
> An ursine face is very difficult. Feline traits are a lot closer to the
> human face so they are a bit easier. I tell you, weremonkeys have it made.
>
> In all honesty, I would be a bit wary of operations for a while after they
> come out. Sure they may be able to reconstruct you to have a more ursine
> apearence someday, but medicine might not be advanced enough to make all
> the parts work well. It would suck to look like a bear and then be bed
> ridden and crippled. Even the guy who does the cat thing still has human
> body structure.
Still, it does help him feel better about himself and more 'himself'
and I think that is a good thing. I fear science will not advance enough
before my lifetime is spent to allow me the reconstruction I need. I am
fortunate to have been brought up in a society where a bearwalker is
not that an unusual person to encounter and where the ways of being
a bear are encouraged (less now than in my earlier years) within
the family. If presented with a good enough artist who could help
alter my appearance similarly, I would most likely finance that to
be done.
Blackbear
Heavy boots of lead fill this vargr with dread
great Birnam wood to high alt.horror.werewolves. hill shall come
against him.
>You'll start lobbying your elected representatives and demand that they
>account for all the monies stolen from NA's in the form of owed mineral
>rights royalties? The WHITE DEVILS have been stealin you guys blind for
>years over the oil & gas & mineral royalties they were *supposed* to pay.
I think they should demand their country back. last I heard, liveing
in someplace for thousands of years meant you had a right to it.
---
"Et tu, Brute! Then fall, Caesar."
Dyno Mutt
<PBGUd.7634$MY6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
>
>"Dyno Mutt" <meka...@dumdumdumdum.net> wrote in message
>news:4221...@news.usenetzone.com...
>> Blackbear <bea...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
>> <0sTTd.5875$MY6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
>>
>>>
>>>"§ńüw¤Łf" <snuhwo...@hotmail.com
>> news:389jh6F...@individual.net...
>>>> Blackbear <bea...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
>>>> <_5MTd.5582$MY6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
>>>>
>>>>> I served in the Army as a
>>>>>recon specialist during the years of 1967 till 1970 and considered
the
>>>>>military as a career.
>>>>
>>>> HAW HAW, your OLD :)
>>>>
>>> Fortunately so. What is this, Snu? After you told me I shouldn't
>>>let you troll me, here you go and try to be civil?
>>>
>> Mocking the old is now "civil"?
>> Hmmm...
>>
> May you live long and into a very ripe age.
THen you can sniff me out ;)
>>
>>>>
>>>>>By 1968 I had determined through circumstance
>>>>>that I did not have the enthusiasm for war to make it a career.
>> Indeed
>>>>>today I would say I am inclined towards being a pacifist but have
gone
>>>>>into the path of trouble to forestall the aggression of one person
to
>>>>>another. This latter instance is more the warrior ideal to me.
>>>>>
>>>> Notice how all the gung ho chickenhawks in the Bush admin managed to
>> get
>>>> deferments?
>>>> Cheney got 5!
>>>>
>>> I'm not interested in discussing politics in this arena as there
is
>> no
>>>place for it.
>>>
>> Sure, lets not let reality stand in the way of a good time eh?
>>
> It's not the focus but I am sure there are political news groups who
would
>have greater appreciation for your concerns.
Oh blah blah...you're afraid of going off topic?
What a dullard.
You're waffling...you type lots but say little :)
>>
>>> I had filtered you (once you recommended that action for me earlier)
>>>and did not expect to see your posts again. Ah well, stranger things
>>>have been known to happen.
>>>
>> You'll start lobbying your elected representatives and demand that
they
>> account for all the monies stolen from NA's in the form of owed
mineral
>> rights royalties? The WHITE DEVILS have been stealin you guys blind
for
>> years over the oil & gas & mineral royalties they were *supposed* to
pay.
>> FYI
>> HTH
>>
> While a matter that I have some concern with, again the subject is
>outside
>of this discussion.
>
Because you're narrow-minded? Or because you fear facing reality?
:)
Dyno Mutt
wrote in <42237d9d...@news.usenetzone.com>:
>Dyno Mutt <meka...@dumdumdumdum.net> shall never vanquished be until
>great Birnam wood to high alt.horror.werewolves. hill shall come
>against him.
>
>>You'll start lobbying your elected representatives and demand that they
>>account for all the monies stolen from NA's in the form of owed mineral
>>rights royalties? The WHITE DEVILS have been stealin you guys blind for
>>years over the oil & gas & mineral royalties they were *supposed* to
pay.
>
>I think they should demand their country back. last I heard, liveing
>in someplace for thousands of years meant you had a right to it.
>
They need a crack legal defense team...and a marketing campaign that
could match the one the jews have as they bring up the holocaust every
few months. Its the only way. Blacks need to market their "opressed"
state more as well. So far the jews have done the best job of it. Gays
are starting to get a little acceptance but still have a long way to go.
Some states have made amendments to their constitution banning gay
marriage.
Now if only the Indians could get some good PR....
Wanderer
> Yet, you still have yet to show where the majority is not a bunch of sex
> crazed freaks.
Since you'll only accept that point if I manage to prove a negative (which,
as you well know, is impossible), I'll drop it. Your prejudice is far too
reinforced to dent. However:
> Is there a whole lot of fur art that does not involve big breasted women,
> or adonis like men? Damn me for actually looking at the art.
Oh, you mean like these:
http://www.critter.ca/cgi-bin/jeddart (Jedd Marten; nice guy.
Chuck-Jones-inspired)
http://www.rakune.com/gallery.htm (Professional illustrator Odis Holcomb,
also known as Ryngs Raccoon, formerly known as March Hare.)
http://www.furnation.com/zexyz/ (Zexyz. The artwork says it all.)
http://elfwood.lysator.liu.se/art/g/o/goldenwolf/goldenwolf.html
(Goldenwolf, whose "Eyes of the Night" was auctioned at a convention,
receiving a winning bid of $10,000.00.)
I'd have a lot more, but Yerf (which screens their artwork) is down for the
duration; their computer hard-crashed.
So yes, Safari, there *is* a lot of artwork in furry that has nothing to do
with big-breasted women and Adonis-like men. The fact that you did not know
this says a lot about you, one way and another; either you're lazy or you're
lewd.
Yours briefly,
The art-loving,
Wanderer
news:0xJUd.7783$MY6...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> My bear-regalia, while some might consider it so, is not a costume,
> but an integral part of my bear-walk ceremonies and something which
> I consider sacred and has been crafted in the same manner that my
> ancestors have used. Being of plains descent, the robe is unlike
> the stylized ones encountered along the NW coast. There is a photo
> taken at Pawhuska which I have at bear371.com/beardncr.gif
> if you wish to view that.
<yips in surprise> He's not kidding, either, folks. Just tack a www onto
the front of that URL. It's a wonderful Bear robe.
<snip>
> I fit the mold of this group much better because, until I have
> returned to the bear-world, I shall remain a Were. I am willing
> to overlook ALF's sexual factions because my traditions teach
> me that everyone is sacred and I should show respect to them
> even when some of their practices are repulsive to myself.
> I never investigated the term 'Yiff' since it had no bearing upon
> my own concerns and only became aware of the term when
> a CSI broadcast defined it.
And misdefined "skritch" entirely... to say nothing of "furpile" and
"plushie".
<snip>
> The direction this conversation is moving has made me aware that
> I might benefit from the creation of a leisurely bear fur-suit to bring
> a more relaxed sense of self in my day-to-day life. It is a good
> suggestion and I shall think seriously upon it.
>
<chuckle> I wish I could have one myself. Just being able to curl up in my
own fur, even by proxy, would be a wonderful thing.
Yours wolfishly,
The quick-posting,
Safari
> "Safari" <omoikane@homecom> wrote in message
> news:It-dnT4_B5H...@suscom.com...
>
>>Yet, you still have yet to show where the majority is not a bunch of sex
>>crazed freaks.
>
>
> Since you'll only accept that point if I manage to prove a negative (which,
> as you well know, is impossible), I'll drop it. Your prejudice is far too
> reinforced to dent. However:
Truth hurts.
>
>
>>Is there a whole lot of fur art that does not involve big breasted women,
>>or adonis like men? Damn me for actually looking at the art.
>
>
> Oh, you mean like these:
>
> http://www.critter.ca/cgi-bin/jeddart (Jedd Marten; nice guy.
> Chuck-Jones-inspired)
> http://www.rakune.com/gallery.htm (Professional illustrator Odis Holcomb,
> also known as Ryngs Raccoon, formerly known as March Hare.)
> http://www.furnation.com/zexyz/ (Zexyz. The artwork says it all.)
> http://elfwood.lysator.liu.se/art/g/o/goldenwolf/goldenwolf.html
> (Goldenwolf, whose "Eyes of the Night" was auctioned at a convention,
> receiving a winning bid of $10,000.00.)
>
> I'd have a lot more, but Yerf (which screens their artwork) is down for the
> duration; their computer hard-crashed.
a drop in the ocean. I did not say it does not exist. I said that the
small amount of it that there is has been created in an attempt to
legitimize the community. The point I am trying to make is that there is
actually a call for good "furry" art. The problem is furs are to busy
trying to push their box of porn back under the bed before someone sees
it to realize that it is actually a normal human thing to like adding
animal parts for sexyness. It is a community that has amplified it's
guilt at a little kinkiness into a huge sexual perversion. Seriously,
this is the effect of repression.
>
> So yes, Safari, there *is* a lot of artwork in furry that has nothing to do
> with big-breasted women and Adonis-like men. The fact that you did not know
> this says a lot about you, one way and another; either you're lazy or you're
> lewd.
Yes wanderer, many people become furries because they are not looking
for something to spnak to. Come back to reality. Look, it isn't such a
bad thing in my eyes. I am always up for some funky sex. I have to say
that furries do have some cool ass sex. I don't want to bang the family
dog, but if you put a tail on, and some nice ears we can do it up. The
thing is that although I may scream out "Oh my god!" it does not mean I
am having a religious revalation. I am just hitting orgasm.
Furry is a sex thing. Now weres may be attracted to it, but furry is
still a sex thing. Oh, and BTW goldenwolf supports pedophiles. Yes, I do
know who you are talking about and her little friend nehi is a convicted
sex predator. So please, tell me again how we want to be tied into these
people by any more than a passing glance at their porn.
Safari
Blackbear
"Wanderer" wrotenews:1127n0b...@corp.supernews.com...
> "Blackbear" <bea...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:0xJUd.7783$MY6...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> My bear-regalia, while some might consider it so, is not a costume,
>> but an integral part of my bear-walk ceremonies and something which
>> I consider sacred and has been crafted in the same manner that my
>> ancestors have used. Being of plains descent, the robe is unlike
>> the stylized ones encountered along the NW coast. There is a photo
>> taken at Pawhuska which I have at bear371.com/beardncr.gif
>> if you wish to view that.
>
> <yips in surprise> He's not kidding, either, folks. Just tack a www onto
> the front of that URL. It's a wonderful Bear robe.
>
except perhaps for the other portions of my regalia, my grip,which
represents
a horse, is a single piece of carved wood with horse head and at it's end
a single carved hoof) the shield, my pipe bag, the tobacco ties, the
bells and 'goats' and traditional crow-tail bustle. Most feathers seen
are crow feathers (an important figure in my life) but the rosette
holds a single eagle feather and is draped with an ermine.
Along the NW coast some of the stylized bear regalia still has
a bear appearance but combines color and elements with heads
most often completely created of cedar and painted with bear
'elements' often other bears within the overall bear. The similarity
is the head-dress which I also have carved using cedar over which
the skin was drawn.
The tradition of cedar is that it has a relation to the thunder beings
(it is said a cedar tree never is struck by lightning) and has the
red 'flesh' representing the blood common to all our peoples.
> <snip>
>
>> I fit the mold of this group much better because, until I have
>> returned to the bear-world, I shall remain a Were. I am willing
>> to overlook ALF's sexual factions because my traditions teach
>> me that everyone is sacred and I should show respect to them
>> even when some of their practices are repulsive to myself.
>> I never investigated the term 'Yiff' since it had no bearing upon
>> my own concerns and only became aware of the term when
>> a CSI broadcast defined it.
>
> And misdefined "skritch" entirely... to say nothing of "furpile" and
> "plushie".
>
I remember them describing 'skirtch and furpile' accepting that as
likely definitions. Plushie I already understood to be a plush animal
like a Teddy Bear, so that part was confusing. Even so
> <snip>
>
>> The direction this conversation is moving has made me aware that
>> I might benefit from the creation of a leisurely bear fur-suit to bring
>> a more relaxed sense of self in my day-to-day life. It is a good
>> suggestion and I shall think seriously upon it.
>>
>
> <chuckle> I wish I could have one myself. Just being able to curl up in
> my own fur, even by proxy, would be a wonderful thing.
>
After giving it some deal of thought I agree, even by proxy, a fursuit is
a viable option. I'm already looking at faux furs and contemplating
how I shall construct the whole with a mind towards comfort and durability
as well as ursine accuracy.
Blackbear
Cypher
When factoring out unquantifiables like the soul, it
really did bother me. The part of me that needs to
analyze and label everything couldn't get past the
physical aspect of it, but it's certainly not that
simple. Much of my journey will be discovering just
that, the complexities of our nature.
> There is something to be said for the affect of physical and
> visual stimuli on mood and thought process. It has been proven that
> things like smiling are contageous. Not that any situation has
changed
> but that a visual stimuli has put people in a better mood. I think it
> would also be safe to say that one of the easiest and most obvious
> things we can control is our appearence. It may be the start of a
> process, and I also think it is a big part of the process even though
it
> is not a direct expression of the spirit. The problem is those people
> who think that is all there is too it. But as long as you don't fall
for
> that trap altering the physical appearence could make one feel more
> comfortable. The other thing that altering appearence does is that it
> alters people's perception of you. Like I was saying before this is a
> part of identity, and since people aren't psychic you need to present
> certain parts of identity visually. In the case of being an animal
you
> would be able to experience a closer similarity to your animal if you
> looked like it and people reacted to you as if you were one.
To add to that, there's a lot of vulnerability, a
persistant uncomfort that could be eased as an animal.
The most noticable of which is the lack of fur. I
would rather not be able to talk for having to pant
than to feel exposed all the time.
Honestly though, unless extreme body modification
became a norm in society, I don't think I'd want
people reacting to me as a wolf. In wolf form, I would
seek company with wolves or other weres, not humans
who would try to harm me in one way or another. Let me
know if I missed your point.
>
> Most of us would want to keep our human mind if our souls ever had
the
> > chance to inhabit another body, so what's left is pretty much
physical.
>
> In all honesty a wolf without your human conciousness is a wolf not
you.
> I am trying to explain this but it might come out wrong. If you were
put
> into a wolf's body, but didn't maintain your concious identity you
> wouldn't be you anymore. There would just be a wolf, but since it had
no
> concious recognition like you do it would just be a wolf. I am just
> saying that you are right in that the point is to maintain our
> conciousness because without it our "being" has essentially died and
> something new has replaced it.
Indeed, not that there is anything wrong with just
being a wolf, but I appreciate being a sentient
creature and would want to keep the same mentality so
I could appreciate being an animal as well.
In my next life, anything goes.
>
> > We covet the power, abilities, senses, grace and beauty of animals
and
> > want it so much that it's haunted us our whole lives. Can there be
more
> > to it than this? Perhaps answers for us "transpecies" may be found
in
> > the transgendered.
>
> There is a difference and a similarity here. First off, the
> transgendered do not covet the physical properties of the other
gender.
> It is deeper than that. Before one even conciously knows there is a
> difference between girls and boys, and before most of the physical
> differences that come with puberty come about the transgendered
person
> already identifies themselves with the opposite sex. It is not a
matter
> of want, but rather a matter of that is what should have been. A want
> could be satisfied. You don't try to be More your sex, you just are
what
> sex you are.
I'm sorry, I'm finding that to be a poorly put statement. What you've
said was more along my
intentions.
That's an interesting way to put it, one I can especially
respect as you're transgender and can draw more
appropriate parallels. However, where does one draw
the line to being transpecies and were? Someone like
Blackbear would give up his mind, perhaps even
sentience (if animals do not have it) to be a bear. I would want to
hold onto a
few more things, but I would still sacrifice for it. It could simply be
boiled down to what we have to lose, or it could be something else,
something rooted deeper than that. I could very well be transpecies,
but my human upbringing has taught me pack structure, hunting and
surviving through a human's eyes. If you asked a wolf to give up its
pack like I am asked if I would give up my friends, we wouldn't do it
for anything because the pack is life.
>
> That person has put himself inh a position where the world will react
to
> him somewhat like a predator. He may not have the true animal parts
like
> a transgendered person, but he will still hunt and lick himself clean
> and do all that because that is what he was meant to do. You don't do
it
> to emulate, you do it because it is what you are.
There is a certain amount of us that is instinct, the programming we're
born with, and a certain amount that is learned. If someone were to
approach me in a dark alley, my first response would probably be to
bite and grapple. Thankfully I've never had to test that, but when I
feel threatened it's a very powerful urge. A human would try to run or
kick out like prey, also instinct, but different from how I would
respond.
When it comes to ordinary human functioning though, I have learned just
as anyone would through conditioning. I don't bathe with my tongue
because we have showers which are much more efficient and trying to
clean myself with any amount of seriousness would be impossible. So I
agree with you to a point, but it's not all about nature.
Sometimes I don't want to be a were, but there's a certain amount of
pride in knowing that while my dreams may never come true, at least I
have them.
>
> Safari
Cypher
Mostly ideal, though I would relish the chance to be one of those
ancient chinese generals who fought for virtue against corrupt states
without all the fancy equipment we have now. I have little interest in
joining the military these days as our government is as bad as the
governments we seek to conquer...er..liberate. I never liked guns much
either.
>
> Actually hunting may be something you should well consider. I
would
> recommend primitive weapons to take some of the edge away from you
> which will teach you the use of stealth and give you that sense of
hunting.
> In this area most 'hunters' are merely 'snipers' more like spiders
than
> predators, they hide themselves and practice quiet patience. The use
of
> primitive weapons will require much more of the 'hunter' to come out
> to achieve a successful hunt. Then you will have the dead prey which
> you must eviscerate and prepare and pack out. You will be able to
> feed yourself and you will have done it by skill and you may in this
> wise see how death can profit life. In my own opinion, death
> encountered during war does not profit life or the species.
I wonder, is it better to use a gun that will get an easy hit, but
kills quickly and painlessly, than a bow and arrows that are difficult
to use and may not kill as quickly, having the animal suffer..
I do want to hunt though, not snipe, and I do not like guns as I have
said above, so I suppose my choice is obvious. There's a guy that
sometimes hunts on my landlord's property with nothing but a bow and
arrows that I shall consult on this if I see him again.
Thinking on this more and remembering my psychology class, humans can
be conditioned too though its effects are less amusingly obvious.
You may be right.
Why was he even working there if he didn't like animals?
At least it worked out for the fox and probably taught the curator a
lesson :).
I was thinking of that example too, but then I believe gorillas are
sentient. They did teach that one how to do sign language and through
their communications it's easy to see she was self aware.
By field glasses you mean google right?
>From what I've read so far, it sounds really facinating, something I'd
like to be a part of. I've even considered finding a teacher but I'm
not sure any are in my area.
Thank you. We all have some reservations, especially since we haven't
met much outside of the computer, but we're looking at it with a
healthy attitude. Even if it doesn't work out, we'll have learned
something from it and will hopefully still be friends.
>
> >> A wolf needs much less shelter than a human and needs
> >> very few toys but does the wolf really have freedom? He must
> >> provide for himself and his family, he must compete with the
> >> local fauna he may even have to deal with other wolves outside
> >> of his family wishing to take over his territory. While the wolf
> >> may not worry about these things, he is still constrained by the
> >> limits of the niche, so where is the wolves freedom? If sentience
> >> is only a human quality then freedom is only a human concept
> >> and if this is the case, the wolf can never have freedom.
> >
> > If you want to get into limits then we are all imprisoned in some
way.
> > However, my prison is society, not nature. I don't want to provide
for
> > myself secondhand through a corporation I despise.
> >
>
> Yes, we are all limited and in somewise imprisoned. At this point
> in my life I am pretty much of a social dropout. I have worked in
> industrial settings, the corporate nightmare evokes all manner of
> horrors within me that Michael Chriton paired with Wes Craven
> would be hard pressed to better.
Indeed, even the news with all the stories of rape and murder can't
phase me as much as what "normal" people do to each other every day.
Cypher
Wanderer wrote:
> You two are having a wonderful (and very informative) discussion, so
I'll
> stay out of it generally. However...
>
> "Safari" <omoikane@homecom> wrote in message
> news:w6WdnadpSLP...@suscom.com...
> > In the end furry is just a sexual fetish thing, and these people's
shallow
> > nature tends to just get annoying to someone who is more than just
a mass
> > of hormones looking for some furry art and wishing bestiality was
legal.
>
> Safari, there's more to Furry than an episode of "Sex2K". In order:
>
> "...furry is just a sexual fetish thing.": No, furry is an animal
thing.
> To be specific, animals that talk/act/think/look like humans to some
extent.
> Two of the top furry-loved movies are "Disney's Robin Hood" and
"Watership
> Down", neither of which is sexual in nature.
You haven't seen the fan art then.
>
> Is there a taste for "adult" and erotic artwork in the fandom? Yes,
just
> like there is in any fandom with full-grown adults in it. But sex is
no
> more the defining point of furry fandom than Kirk/Spock slashfic
defines
> Star Trek fandom.
Actually it is. I know plenty of "furries" who are only into it because
it's the easiest fandom one can get laid in.
>
> "...these people's shallow nature...": No more shallow than the
average, in
> my experience. About the same percentage of Einsteins and
Dostoevskys as
> ordinary society.
>
> "... just a mass of hormones looking for some furry art and wishing
> bestiality was legal.": Again, Safari, there's more to furry than a
"Sex2K"
> episode. The one time it looked like a furry fan bestialist was
going to
> declare himself on "Jerry Springer", the entire fandom was up in
arms.
> Nobody on the newsgroup wanted to be identified with bestiality.
Hardly
> anyone in the fandom is a bestialist. It's like looking at you and
saying
> that every werebeast on AHWW is a pre-op transsexual. Or looking at
"Lord
> Albrecht" and declaring us all role-players. It's taking a distinct
> minority and assuming them to be the rule.
But they're not the minority, unless 95% is a minority. More people
know who Doug Winger is than any given Yerf artist. Have you ever been
to Furbid? The only thing that really sells there is porn. For an
aspiring artist who doesn't draw the stuff, I feel this whenever I set
foot into the fandom. Don't ask me why I'll be selling art at this
years Anthrocon :P.
Cypher
It's really beautiful. Can you explain the process of making one?
Smash had great success with this (http://www.nftech.com/) fake fur
supplier if you want to make your own. Myself, I'm probably going to
commission Running Wolf productions for a suit. As I have a latex
monster making kit, I'll probably make my own face and paws. I really
like the idea of having a durable suit I can run around the woods and
feel comfortable in.
good luck with yours!
Wanderer
> Wanderer wrote:
>> "Safari" <omoikane@homecom> wrote in message
>> news:It-dnT4_B5H...@suscom.com...
>>
>>>Yet, you still have yet to show where the majority is not a bunch of sex
>>>crazed freaks.
>>
>>
>> Since you'll only accept that point if I manage to prove a negative
>> (which, as you well know, is impossible), I'll drop it. Your prejudice
>> is far too reinforced to dent. However:
>
> Truth hurts.
Yes, the truth that you like making impossible requests to support your own
prejudice does sting a little, doesn't it? You basically asked me to prove
that there are no white crows, and you know it. No matter how many furs I
point to and say, "It isn't sexual for them", you can claim they're not the
majority; all without ever being a part of furry fandom to actually know
what's going on.
>>>Is there a whole lot of fur art that does not involve big breasted women,
>>>or adonis like men? Damn me for actually looking at the art.
>>
>>
>> Oh, you mean like these:
>>
>> http://www.critter.ca/cgi-bin/jeddart (Jedd Marten; nice guy.
>> Chuck-Jones-inspired)
>> http://www.rakune.com/gallery.htm (Professional illustrator Odis Holcomb,
>> also known as Ryngs Raccoon, formerly known as March Hare.)
>> http://www.furnation.com/zexyz/ (Zexyz. The artwork says it all.)
>> http://elfwood.lysator.liu.se/art/g/o/goldenwolf/goldenwolf.html
>> (Goldenwolf, whose "Eyes of the Night" was auctioned at a convention,
>> receiving a winning bid of $10,000.00.)
>>
>> I'd have a lot more, but Yerf (which screens their artwork) is down for
>> the duration; their computer hard-crashed.
>
> a drop in the ocean.
An entire server of clean art seems like more than a drop in the ocean to
me, thank you. Plus a professional illustrator? My, how "special case" you
talk.
> I did not say it does not exist. I said that the small amount of it that
> there is has been created in an attempt to legitimize the community.
Odis Holcomb draws clean art because he likes it and gets paid for it, too.
Jedd Marten draws clean art because it's his style.
Goldenwolf draws clean art because her characters are clean and so is she.
Zexyz draws clean art because he doesn't give a flying fig.
Steve Gallacci draws clean art because his comic book is family-rated.
Always has been, since AFF was AFA (alt.fan.albedo).
Shawntae Howard draws clean art because he's comic-book inspired.
Eric Schwartz draws clean art because Sabrina is a family strip.
Herbie Bearclaw draws clean art because he likes it.
That's an awful lot of "special minority cases", Safari.
> The point I am trying to make is that there is actually a call for good
> "furry" art.
If you'd stopped here, I could agree. There wouldn't be whole publishing
companies built around clean furry works if there wasn't a call for them.
Odis Holcomb wouldn't be swamped with commissions. But no, you had to try
and justify your irrational adoration of Sex2K's "fur" episode again...
> The problem is furs are to busy trying to push their box of porn back
> under the bed before someone sees it to realize that it is actually a
> normal human thing to like adding animal parts for sexyness.
Sorry, Safari. I own furry art (a print by Ryngs and a pad of commissions,
both from Memphis Mephit FurMeet), and not a drop of porn. Trying to draw
an artificial distinction between weres and furs by calling furs sex-crazed
maniacs isn't going to fly with me. I'll stick to the real distinctions,
and leave the fictional ones to you.
> It is a community that has amplified it's guilt at a little kinkiness into
> a huge sexual perversion. Seriously, this is the effect of repression.
If you mean your prejudicial attitude, I'd have to agree. I just don't know
what you're repressing to be playing Rush Limbaugh impressions here.
>>
>> So yes, Safari, there *is* a lot of artwork in furry that has nothing to
>> do with big-breasted women and Adonis-like men. The fact that you did
>> not know this says a lot about you, one way and another; either you're
>> lazy or you're lewd.
>
> Yes wanderer, many people become furries because they are not looking for
> something to spnak to. Come back to reality.
I'm already in Reality, Safari. Wish you were here.
<snip more "Furries are sex maniacs and I don't care what the truth is! I
know the truth!">
Yours wolfishly,
Dyno Mutt
<112a43m...@corp.supernews.com>:
>"Safari" <omoikane@homecom> wrote in message
>news:6sGdncqQD6U...@suscom.com...
>> Wanderer wrote:
>>> "Safari" <omoikane@homecom> wrote in message
>>> news:It-dnT4_B5H...@suscom.com...
>>>
>>>>Yet, you still have yet to show where the majority is not a bunch of
sex
>>>>crazed freaks.
>>>
>>>
>>> Since you'll only accept that point if I manage to prove a negative
>>> (which, as you well know, is impossible), I'll drop it. Your
prejudice
>>> is far too reinforced to dent. However:
>>
>> Truth hurts.
>
>Yes, the truth that you like making impossible requests to support your
own
>prejudice does sting a little, doesn't it? You basically asked me to
prove
>that there are no white crows, and you know it.
White crows are rare, but do exist. Try again?
> No matter how many furs I
>point to and say, "It isn't sexual for them", you can claim they're not
the
>majority; all without ever being a part of furry fandom to actually know
>what's going on.
>
How do you know Saffy dosent participate in furry?
IIRC he said he's been to cons.
>>>>Is there a whole lot of fur art that does not involve big breasted
women,
>>>>or adonis like men? Damn me for actually looking at the art.
>>>
>>>
>>> Oh, you mean like these:
>>>
>>> http://www.critter.ca/cgi-bin/jeddart (Jedd Marten; nice guy.
>>> Chuck-Jones-inspired)
>>> http://www.rakune.com/gallery.htm (Professional illustrator Odis
Holcomb,
>>> also known as Ryngs Raccoon, formerly known as March Hare.)
>>> http://www.furnation.com/zexyz/ (Zexyz. The artwork says it all.)
>>> http://elfwood.lysator.liu.se/art/g/o/goldenwolf/goldenwolf.html
>>> (Goldenwolf, whose "Eyes of the Night" was auctioned at a convention,
>>> receiving a winning bid of $10,000.00.)
>>>
>>> I'd have a lot more, but Yerf (which screens their artwork) is down
for
>>> the duration; their computer hard-crashed.
>>
>> a drop in the ocean.
>
>An entire server of clean art seems like more than a drop in the ocean
to
>me, thank you. Plus a professional illustrator? My, how "special case"
you
>talk.
>
The predominance is sexually oriented. Most likely because it sells
better and more people want to look at genitalia.
Why? Because most furrys are wanting it but not gettin it :)
>> I did not say it does not exist. I said that the small amount of it
that
>> there is has been created in an attempt to legitimize the community.
>
>Odis Holcomb draws clean art because he likes it and gets paid for it,
too.
>Jedd Marten draws clean art because it's his style.
>Goldenwolf draws clean art because her characters are clean and so is
she.
>Zexyz draws clean art because he doesn't give a flying fig.
>Steve Gallacci draws clean art because his comic book is family-rated.
>Always has been, since AFF was AFA (alt.fan.albedo).
>Shawntae Howard draws clean art because he's comic-book inspired.
>Eric Schwartz draws clean art because Sabrina is a family strip.
>Herbie Bearclaw draws clean art because he likes it.
>
>That's an awful lot of "special minority cases", Safari.
>
That aint jack...if I could be arsed I could find that many porn-oriented
furry artists. Heres some off the toppa muh haid:
Frank Gembeck
Mr X
NuDog
...and *many* more.
>> The point I am trying to make is that there is actually a call for
good
>> "furry" art.
>
>If you'd stopped here, I could agree. There wouldn't be whole
publishing
>companies built around clean furry works if there wasn't a call for
them.
Is this Captain Obvious day?
Why was I not informed?
>Odis Holcomb wouldn't be swamped with commissions. But no, you had to
try
>and justify your irrational adoration of Sex2K's "fur" episode again...
>
Huh? I think the legitimate points been made: the dominant genre in furry
art is porn-related.
Deal with it, fundy-boi :)
>> The problem is furs are to busy trying to push their box of porn back
>> under the bed before someone sees it to realize that it is actually a
>> normal human thing to like adding animal parts for sexyness.
>
>Sorry, Safari. I own furry art (a print by Ryngs and a pad of
commissions,
>both from Memphis Mephit FurMeet), and not a drop of porn.
Of course not: you're afraid of sex because its dirty!
JEBUS SAID SO!
> Trying to draw
>an artificial distinction between weres and furs by calling furs sex-
crazed
>maniacs isn't going to fly with me. I'll stick to the real
distinctions,
>and leave the fictional ones to you.
>
Like claiming that furry is primarily a non-sexual fandom?
LOL!
>> It is a community that has amplified it's guilt at a little kinkiness
into
>> a huge sexual perversion. Seriously, this is the effect of repression.
>
>If you mean your prejudicial attitude, I'd have to agree. I just don't
know
>what you're repressing to be playing Rush Limbaugh impressions here.
>
Uhhhhh...nice straw man...with a side of Argument By Extremes.
Try again :)
>>>
>>> So yes, Safari, there *is* a lot of artwork in furry that has nothing
to
>>> do with big-breasted women and Adonis-like men. The fact that you
did
>>> not know this says a lot about you, one way and another; either
you're
>>> lazy or you're lewd.
>>
>> Yes wanderer, many people become furries because they are not looking
for
>> something to spnak to. Come back to reality.
>
>I'm already in Reality, Safari. Wish you were here.
>
P-shift for me, wErEbOy :)
><snip more "Furries are sex maniacs and I don't care what the truth is!
I
>know the truth!">
>
Does Jebus lurve teh little furrys?
:)
Blackbear
"Cypher" wrote news:1109714589.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> <snip snip>
<<Wanderers comments have been snipped without malice>>
<<in an attempt to avoid my mouse's scroll wheel>>
>><snip>The similarity
>> is the head-dress which I also have carved using cedar over which
>> the skin was drawn.
>> The tradition of cedar is that it has a relation to the thunder
> beings
>> (it is said a cedar tree never is struck by lightning) and has the
>> red 'flesh' representing the blood common to all our peoples.
>
> It's really beautiful. Can you explain the process of making one?
>
Before the robe can be used, or even made, within my family you
have first to go through an 'initiation' process. Within the family
are groups which are called societies. These groups conduct meetings
and arrange activities exclusive to each society, the term exclusive
in this case means information particular to the group, stays within
the group.
I can say that different aspects of the construction is often explained
and shown, by example, to those who meet with the requirements of
the society. This is not an unusual thing within the Native American
community. The Arapaho, as an example, have their 'Young Sheep'
who are young ones that are just beginning to participate in dances
and are as yet unaffiliated.
The Cheyenne had many societies, one notable is the Wolf Pup
Society or another example is the Akicita of the Lakota, who are
a 'Fox' society primarily interested in practices of war as with
the Blackfoot society of the Kiowa tribe.
So, in short, no. I would prefer to keep such information within
my group, to do otherwise would be a serious social breech
on my part. The process is not altogether pleasant is about all
I should say.
>>
>> > <snip>
>> >
>> >> <snip>
>> >
>>
>> > <snip>
>> >
>> >> The direction this conversation is moving has made me aware
> that
>> >> I might benefit from the creation of a leisurely bear fur-suit to
> bring
>> >> a more relaxed sense of self in my day-to-day life. It is a good
>> >> suggestion and I shall think seriously upon it.
>> >>
>> >Wanderer wrote:
>> > <chuckle> I wish I could have one myself. Just being able to curl
> up in
>> > my own fur, even by proxy, would be a wonderful thing.
>> >
>>
>> After giving it some deal of thought I agree, even by proxy, a
> fursuit is
>> a viable option. I'm already looking at faux furs and contemplating
>> how I shall construct the whole with a mind towards comfort and
> durability
>> as well as ursine accuracy.
>
> Smash had great success with this (http://www.nftech.com/) fake fur
> supplier if you want to make your own. Myself, I'm probably going to
> commission Running Wolf productions for a suit. As I have a latex
> monster making kit, I'll probably make my own face and paws. I really
> like the idea of having a durable suit I can run around the woods and
> feel comfortable in.
> good luck with yours!
>
I am pro fake fur. Latex however has a short lifespan and if you
intend to use latex, procure also the mold so that you can re-fabricate
things as they deteriorate, remember also to use talc powder upon
the latex appendage if you have need to store it at any length. Since
I live in a rural area and it can get a bit rough and tumble when you're
working around out there, so durability is important for me.
Thanks for the link, I'll check it out right away!
Blackbear
>
> Blackbear wrote:
>> "Cypher" <cyphe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1109270978....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > Blackbear wrote:
>> >> <snip>
>> >
>> Indeed
>> today I would say I am inclined towards being a pacifist but have
> gone
>> into the path of trouble to forestall the aggression of one person to
>> another. This latter instance is more the warrior ideal to me.
>
> Mostly ideal, though I would relish the chance to be one of those
> ancient chinese generals who fought for virtue against corrupt states
> without all the fancy equipment we have now. I have little interest in
> joining the military these days as our government is as bad as the
> governments we seek to conquer...er..liberate. I never liked guns much
> either.
>
the truth of 'how it was' for those in times former, though, with
some accounts, we can imagine a bit of it.
>>
>> Actually hunting may be something you should well consider. <snip>
>>The use of
>> primitive weapons will require much more of the 'hunter' to come out
>> to achieve a successful hunt. Then you will have the dead prey which
>> you must eviscerate and prepare and pack out. You will be able to
>> feed yourself and you will have done it by skill and you may in this
>> wise see how death can profit life. In my own opinion, death
>> encountered during war does not profit life or the species.
>
> I wonder, is it better to use a gun that will get an easy hit, but
> kills quickly and painlessly, than a bow and arrows that are difficult
> to use and may not kill as quickly, having the animal suffer..
> I do want to hunt though, not snipe, and I do not like guns as I have
> said above, so I suppose my choice is obvious. There's a guy that
> sometimes hunts on my landlord's property with nothing but a bow and
> arrows that I shall consult on this if I see him again.
This is the reason for becoming proficient with your chosen weapon.
You want a clean kill without which the meat will be soaked in
adrenaline and much less palatable. If you observe a wolf kill on
a large mammal, you will see that one or two of the wolves
will have the job of drawing blood from the hindquarters.
Once this blood is flowing well, the prey will begin to settle down
as they go into shock, with a little more of the sanguine action
in effect, the adrenaline will decrease and the meat again will be
usable at which point the kill will be made with relative safety.
If you become proficient in bow and arrow, especially with
today's equipment, you can make a clean kill. If you use a
high muzzle velocity weapon, you can also make a clean kill
but can do this from a great distance, this takes less hunting
skill and why I would recommend primitive weapons instead.
I think that I am not far from accurate in this assessment of other
animals outside of the hominid species.
>>
>> >>
>> >> I have another even more striking example concerning a Azura's
> Fox
<snip>
> Why was he even working there if he didn't like animals?
> At least it worked out for the fox and probably taught the curator a
> lesson :).
>
I still get that wrong, it's Darwin's Fox and Azara's Dog. There is
very little difference between the appearance of these separate canids.
One thing you'll learn at a zoo is that they are 'rated' by how
many animals they have (regardless of whether the room for that
particular animal is available to properly care for them). The higher
echelon has the business of making money and pleasing the zoo
visitors which is often at odds with the needs of the animal. I
seriously doubt my curator gained any lesson at all. He had very
little interest in the animals themselves, only the statistics. Very sad
and not uncommon. Ask any keeper, there are two kinds of people
who work at zoos, animal people and people people and it's the
latter who are in charge and most always at odds with the former.
>>
>> >>
>> >> Self-sacrifice might be a real criteria for sentience.
>> > <snip>
>> Only recently a gorilla protected a child which had fallen into
> the
>> exhibit until it could be returned to it's human, that was
> international
>> news, easily googled. If you understand gorillas, it was not in the
>> social interest of the gorilla to behave in this way. Indeed the
> lead
>> male should have immediately seized upon the child and rendered it
>> inert for trespassing! The female gorilla must have had some
>> difficult social problems for some good long time afterwards within
>> her own artificial society for breaking the rules. I'm sure one
> could
>> find enough examples of this sort of thing to create a book.
>
> I was thinking of that example too, but then I believe gorillas are
> sentient. They did teach that one how to do sign language and through
> their communications it's easy to see she was self aware.
>
Though far removed as we are from the Simians, we are more
willing to ascribe sentience to them than other animals. I see it as a
hominid bias.
>>
>> >> Soul is such a difficult word to contend with and is often
>><snip>
>> The eyes are most beautiful, strikingly so compared to drosophila
>> or other fly-like, two winged insects. Much like a tiger-eye opal
>> but with gleaming facets surrounding the marvel. Even a dragon
>> fly does not have prettier eyes.
>
> By field glasses you mean google right?
Gosh, never considered it a vague term. Field glasses magnify the
view of distant objects. If the aperture is used as the light gathering
lens, the objective lens will provide a magnified view of a small object
at a close distance making a quick and ready microscope within it's
narrow focus area. I've never heard of them being called googles :)
>
>>
>>
>> >>
>><snip>
>>
>> LOL well I really am not being so, different, I am following
>> a family tradition which is beginning to fall away into obscurity.
>> There are very few who I know now that are still practicing these
>> particular traditions, unfortunately. Perhaps, as I am often told,
>> these things are less important in today's world, though I disagree.
>
>>From what I've read so far, it sounds really facinating, something I'd
> like to be a part of. I've even considered finding a teacher but I'm
> not sure any are in my area.
>
Where there is a student, a teacher can be found.
>>
>>
>> > <snip>
>> > If you want to get into limits then we are all imprisoned in some
> way.
>> > However, my prison is society, not nature. I don't want to provide
> for
>> > myself secondhand through a corporation I despise.
>> >
>>
>> Yes, we are all limited and in somewise imprisoned. At this point
>> in my life I am pretty much of a social dropout. I have worked in
>> industrial settings, the corporate nightmare evokes all manner of
>> horrors within me that Michael Chriton paired with Wes Craven
>> would be hard pressed to better.
>
> Indeed, even the news with all the stories of rape and murder can't
> phase me as much as what "normal" people do to each other every day.
>
How the species has risen to dominance, even after a study of history,
amazes me, especially after a study of history!
Safari
> "Safari" <omoikane@homecom> wrote in message
>
>>Wanderer wrote:
>>
>>Truth hurts.
>
>
> Yes, the truth that you like making impossible requests to support your own
> prejudice does sting a little, doesn't it? You basically asked me to prove
> that there are no white crows, and you know it. No matter how many furs I
> point to and say, "It isn't sexual for them", you can claim they're not the
> majority; all without ever being a part of furry fandom to actually know
> what's going on.
Or maybe like the truth you never did know when to quit. I hate to do
this, but really I probably don't. You see, you could have just let me
have the last word and maybe I might have looked like I didn't know what
I was talking about, but you couldn't let it go. I have known this about
many people who have come to this group, and I have also known that if
you let them talk long enough you can beat them with their own words.
BTW I have been a part of furry fandom since shortly after I found this
group sometime in 93 or 94. I have to admit my curiosity had waned a
long time ago, and now I don't play with them like I used to, but I
still do talk to some of it's members, and many people still know me
under other names. However, if that isn't good enough for you then I
don't know how much more I can do. But certainly that isn't your only
falacy, and by the end of this I am sure you will be supporting my point
with your own words.
>>>Oh, you mean like these:
>>>
>>>http://www.critter.ca/cgi-bin/jeddart (Jedd Marten; nice guy.
>>>Chuck-Jones-inspired)
Oh, so you are claiming that chuck jones made furry art? I know you have
already claimed disney made furry art. I guess this means that anyone
who uses talking animals in their cartoons is making furry art? Like
artists like Don Bluth, all of disney back to the original micky mouse,
Warner Brothers animation, and Hana Barbera. I guess you are also
claiming that people like Brittany Spears and Christina Aguilera are
also long time furs because they used to be in the Micky Mouse Furry
club? Certainly these people did not use animals because their cuteness
attracted young children. Before you play that card realize what it does
imply, and how stupid it makes you look.
>>>http://www.rakune.com/gallery.htm (Professional illustrator Odis Holcomb,
>>>also known as Ryngs Raccoon, formerly known as March Hare.)
Professional illustrator? And how much of his furry art is bought by
furs and not people looking for cute animal pictures? Or is he even
doing furry art and not just pictures of cute things that sell to non furs?
>>>http://www.furnation.com/zexyz/ (Zexyz. The artwork says it all.)
Yes, because with you speaking for it we might get the idea it isn't
furry at all. BTW Let us say that you had small children over your
house, would you feel comfortable letting them browse wherever they
wanted on furnation?
>>>http://elfwood.lysator.liu.se/art/g/o/goldenwolf/goldenwolf.html
>>>(Goldenwolf, whose "Eyes of the Night" was auctioned at a convention,
>>>receiving a winning bid of $10,000.00.)
First off, goldenwolf has been proven to be supporting pedophiles
through the use of fuzzy critters that attract young children. There was
a reason why I chased Nehi off this newsgroup, and that is because he
was a convicted pedophile who was using goldenwolf's atwork to try and
attract young weres on this group. Secondly, who paid 10k for a peice of
Goldenwolf's artwork? Was it an art fan, of some furry fanboy with way
to much spending money trying to impress people? Oh wait, you said at a
furcon. We all know that legitimate art dealers often go to furcons, and
horny fanboys looking for a 10k lay certainly are nowhere near such a
noble thing as a furcon. Oh, and thrirdly would you take a 10 year old
to a furcon and let them roam freely? No, and it is because of scum like
this in your community.
>>>
>>>I'd have a lot more, but Yerf (which screens their artwork) is down for
>>>the duration; their computer hard-crashed.
legitimate servers have backups. I would know little about that sort of
thing having worked in IT for the past few years.
>>
>>a drop in the ocean.
Actually not even a drop when you look at it like that.
>
>
> An entire server of clean art seems like more than a drop in the ocean to
> me, thank you. Plus a professional illustrator? My, how "special case" you
> talk.
Please go on as those names have been confronted.
>
>
>>I did not say it does not exist. I said that the small amount of it that
>>there is has been created in an attempt to legitimize the community.
>
>
> Odis Holcomb draws clean art because he likes it and gets paid for it, too.
Already spoke of him.
> Jedd Marten draws clean art because it's his style.
So, it is his style? Is it a common style or one that sets him apart
from most furry artists?
> Goldenwolf draws clean art because her characters are clean and so is she.
I wouldn't use clean to talk about pedophelia.
> Zexyz draws clean art because he doesn't give a flying fig.
A flying fig about what? The fact that most furries want pornography, or
that most people who draw legitimate pictures of fuzzy creatures have to
go to the non-furry community to find popularity.
> Steve Gallacci draws clean art because his comic book is family-rated.
Well, I guess you did finally come right out and say "Yes Safari you are
right" Let me explain because you might be a tad confused at the logic
that has brought me to this conclusion. You claim his legitimate artwork
is family related. Now by this and our current conversation I assume you
mean it is not pornographic. So, this person in an effort to draw
legtimate artwork that would attract non-furries has decided to draw a
non-pornographic comic book. Not because he is trying to draw furry art
but because he is trying to gain legitimacy by being family rated. Hence
to be legitimate one has to go away from the typical furry art and draw
family rated stuff. Now what I have said is that many people, even
non-furries, enjoy combining human form with animals, and that he could
be legitimate and draw furry art if only he was not so guilty about
drawing pornography and embraced the fact that furs are into
pornography. He could then compete with the many almost furlike hentai
animated titles that make a lot of money.
> Always has been, since AFF was AFA (alt.fan.albedo).
was?
> Shawntae Howard draws clean art because he's comic-book inspired.
Again, see above point.
> Eric Schwartz draws clean art because Sabrina is a family strip.
Again see above point, and thank you for proving my point. Would he be
quite so popular with his producers if it was public that he was a furry?
> Herbie Bearclaw draws clean art because he likes it.
he likes it. Again, not the popular choice.
>
> That's an awful lot of "special minority cases", Safari.
>
People who have stepped away from the ordinary because they are getting
paid or trying to be legitimate.
>
>>The point I am trying to make is that there is actually a call for good
>>"furry" art.
>
>
> If you'd stopped here, I could agree.
Well, it still is correct anyway.
There wouldn't be whole publishing
> companies built around clean furry works if there wasn't a call for them.
Disney is not a furry publishing company, neither is Wb, or many of the
other companies that produce mainstream animation. I understand they do
use animal pictures, and on occasion pissed off animators put phallic
symbols into their cartoons, but they are still not furry art. Of course
their are small time publishing companies who distribute furry art.
There are also small porno companies which distribute some very
profitable and legitimate porno titles. The difference is the porno
companies don't claim to be anything but porno distributors.
> Odis Holcomb wouldn't be swamped with commissions. But no, you had to try
> and justify your irrational adoration of Sex2K's "fur" episode again...
>
Commisions from who? The furry community, or people who want cute animal
pictures. Seriously, go into Halmark and look at their card section and
you can see the art of people who are commisioned to do non-erotic
pictures of animals. However, they are not producing furry artwork. Try
again.
>
>>The problem is furs are to busy trying to push their box of porn back
>>under the bed before someone sees it to realize that it is actually a
>>normal human thing to like adding animal parts for sexyness.
>
>
> Sorry, Safari. I own furry art (a print by Ryngs and a pad of commissions,
> both from Memphis Mephit FurMeet), and not a drop of porn.
You don't own a drop of furporn? Seriously, you would be in a greater
minority of furs than their artists who don't make erotic material.
Trying to draw
> an artificial distinction between weres and furs by calling furs sex-crazed
> maniacs isn't going to fly with me.
Trying to claim that porno is spiritual tends to fall short with me.
However, I will concede this for a moment just to beat you with your own
words again. You claim that furries are not shallow, and you have
claimed the book Watership Down is very popular among these people. Have
I lied yet? Have I twisted your words? I just want to clarify these are
your words. I can quote if you like.
Now, I have read and enjoyed that book myself. I wondering if maybe
y'all read the made for children hack up of the novel. It has been a
while since I have seen that version so mayb they left out the part of
their journey where they came to the warren by the farm. The one where
Bigwig got snared in the wire. You remember what the "real" rabbits had
to say about the pretty well bred rabbits who sat down in their holes
drawing pictures and spouting poetry about the black rabbit of Inle? If
I remember the book right those rabbits were not really rabbits in
anything more than appearance anymore. Now what do furries like doing?
Don't they write poetry, draw and admire pictures, and generally know
little about what it means to be a real animal? No need to answer, I
think we know what those rabbits would have thought of you people.
I should say bad dog because that is the correct thing to say after
whacking you on the muzzle with a bunch of rolled up words.
I'll stick to the real distinctions,
> and leave the fictional ones to you.
I seemed to have been pretty good with that work of fiction there.
>
>
>>It is a community that has amplified it's guilt at a little kinkiness into
>>a huge sexual perversion. Seriously, this is the effect of repression.
>
>
> If you mean your prejudicial attitude, I'd have to agree. I just don't know
> what you're repressing to be playing Rush Limbaugh impressions here.
>
Me and Rush are thick as theives. Then again as annoying as the guy is I
would still rather have him in my life than a convicted child molestor.
It is cool though because I hear Goldenwolf will be doing the artwork
for the new Neverland ranch. Was it Micheal who paid 10k for her artwork?
>
>>>So yes, Safari, there *is* a lot of artwork in furry that has nothing to
>>>do with big-breasted women and Adonis-like men. The fact that you did
>>>not know this says a lot about you, one way and another; either you're
>>>lazy or you're lewd.
>>
>>Yes wanderer, many people become furries because they are not looking for
>>something to spnak to. Come back to reality.
>
>
> I'm already in Reality, Safari. Wish you were here.
I guess you are right. There are so many people who lie to themselves
and to others about their intentions that I will live in fantasy. Just
don't expect me to invite you in. Seriously are you telling me that
people become furries for other reasons aside from sex?
I guess this means I will be plonked by you yet again.
Safari
Safari
> When factoring out unquantifiables like the soul, it
> really did bother me. The part of me that needs to
> analyze and label everything couldn't get past the
> physical aspect of it, but it's certainly not that
> simple. Much of my journey will be discovering just
> that, the complexities of our nature.
I wouldn't overlook the philosophies of humans in this. Certain
theologies like buddhism and greek philosophy can lay a nice groundwork
for self discovery. Also I have been aware for a time that even the more
stricter religions like judeo-christian beliefs can lead to other
insights although they tend to be a bit lacking in the free thought
arena you can look towards their interpretations to better understand
the history of man, and I have also thought that they may include
certain knowledges of other worlds which we may have been at some time,
or that we may be perceiving and trying to understand.
>
> To add to that, there's a lot of vulnerability, a
> persistant uncomfort that could be eased as an animal.
> The most noticable of which is the lack of fur. I
> would rather not be able to talk for having to pant
> than to feel exposed all the time.
> Honestly though, unless extreme body modification
> became a norm in society, I don't think I'd want
> people reacting to me as a wolf. In wolf form, I would
> seek company with wolves or other weres, not humans
> who would try to harm me in one way or another. Let me
> know if I missed your point.
This is true as even with such modification most would react to you the
same, or closer to the same, way they would react to a werewolf. In an
odd way it would weed out the less than amiable. The guy who has had
modification to permanently be more than a cat can easily wade through
to the people who apreciate his ideas. It is one of the things I have
had to come to terms with. Even most of my friends have little to know
idea how to deal with me as a girl. One would think the idea would be
simple, but it is such an inbred part of industrial society that women
are inferior they don't feel comfortable in refering to me as she even
though it is obviously what I want. They don't want to be insulting. So
in many cases I have had to either settle for being perceived as a drag
queen, even though many people who don't know me don't realize I am, by
most of the people who know me. At least it becomes easy to realize who
just doesn't matter as they normally make their prejudicial attitude
quickly known. However, this is not great for everyone, and should only
be done by someone is ready to face a lot of hate. It is a hell of a lot
easier to just let most see you as mostly normal and try to find those
who are a bit more accepting.
However, another part of this excercise is to come more to terms with
your own self perception and to start giving up those ideas of normalcy
and keeping within those behaviours. People can find it very hard to let
loose and see themselves in that form. As an excercize looking like and
acting like your animal does not make you a were. However, it can help
you in overcoming your human perception of yourself and be an aid in
discovering a new fram of mind that you can then carry to times you are
not able to do that, but are able to take a moment to focus on that side
of you.
>
>>concious recognition like you do it would just be a wolf. I am just
>>saying that you are right in that the point is to maintain our
>>conciousness because without it our "being" has essentially died and
>>something new has replaced it.
>
>
> Indeed, not that there is anything wrong with just
> being a wolf, but I appreciate being a sentient
> creature and would want to keep the same mentality so
> I could appreciate being an animal as well.
> In my next life, anything goes.
>
That is something I had explored a long time ago. If there is a
transpecied wre, there is also a were that is dual specied. One that
seeks not only for the life of an animal, but also seeks the benefits of
a higher thought process. Neither is better except for an individual. It
is something weres should seek to discover. It is one of the beginning
ideas they should look for because it would allow them to better
understand and confront their discomfort. A were who is transpecied may
find permanent changes to be beneficial to them, or maybe a life towards
a more ascetic or azmerican indian oriented naturalism where they may
step further away from everyday society for the sake of coming closer to
a less human existance. Wheas a dual were may find it better to take
retreats but yet remain strogly associated with the human world.
Personally I have always disliked the whole idea of M-weres or Pweres or
D-weres like was invented by this group as it tends to lend a more or
less perception to ones wereism. Whereas this is more of a difference in
personal ideals that one can explore through the practices of those
different types of shifting.
>
>
> I'm sorry, I'm finding that to be a poorly put statement. What you've
> said was more along my
> intentions.
>
Think of it like this. When you were really young you felt hungry. You
needed to eat because that is the way you get energy. It is hunger that
lets you know your body needs energy. Of course, at that point you need
food. Over the coarse of time as you grew older you learned what type of
food you liked. So, you need to eat, but you may want a nice fat juicy
steak. As a were you need to shift. That is a need within you. However,
you may find that your wants define more what type of were you are. You
may want to be as immersed in your animal as possible, or you may want
to explore how your animal would feel dealing with human toys. However,
you are still part animal. A transpecied were may find that since the
beginning of their memories they have always known they were in the
wrong body. However, a dual were may find that realization may come
later or may even not be. A dual were may be perfectly comfortable being
a human, but letting themselves be wild from time to time.
>
>
> That's an interesting way to put it, one I can especially
> respect as you're transgender and can draw more
> appropriate parallels. However, where does one draw
> the line to being transpecies and were?
I would say that being a were includes the transpecied. Sort of like
there are people who crossdress, people who are transvestites, and
transexuals. Each is a valid part of gender dysphoria, and claiming that
one is more real than the others is pointless. It is what is right for
you. To be true to your inner animal you have to realize that it is you
that lets it out, and it is part of your wants and desires. In my other
conversation with wanderer I speak of furries. Now weres may very well
find furry erotica to be their prefered form of porno if they choose to
look at it, and that does not make them falso or whatnot. It also does
not make them more of a were than someone who may like pure human porno.
The dual weres and transpecied weres are all a part of this, and it is
within understanding other people's wereness that we get larger
philisophical ideas that may go beyond wereism. We may come to different
understandings of our existance and the spiritual world by our own
understandings of our existance.
Someone like
> Blackbear would give up his mind, perhaps even
> sentience (if animals do not have it) to be a bear. I would want to
> hold onto a
> few more things, but I would still sacrifice for it. It could simply be
> boiled down to what we have to lose, or it could be something else,
> something rooted deeper than that. I could very well be transpecies,
> but my human upbringing has taught me pack structure, hunting and
> surviving through a human's eyes. If you asked a wolf to give up its
> pack like I am asked if I would give up my friends, we wouldn't do it
> for anything because the pack is life.
>
The buddah had a story that covered this. He spoke of two men who were
starting a journey across a desert. One man had just the pack on his
back, and the other had a large caravan and all the things he could
bring with him. As they went through their long journey many different
things happened to both men. At the end of their journey they both
arrived at the destination alone with just the clothing on their back.
One person's way will not be your way, but along the path that we take
we meet people who we learn from. We may follow some of them, and others
we may listen to and go on. In the end we all have our own path to
follow. I think Blackbear dcould offer you some ideas on how to better
come in contact with your animal, but it is not necessary for you to
give up your human mind if you don't want to.
Actually, I think that at the point that we become spirits and are not
limited by bodies we will go beyond our current communication barriers,
and the spirits of bears and wolves and humans will "speak" in a
universal spiritual language. One that will transcend the different
thought patterns of these creatures. In a way this part of the spirit of
communication may find weres to be it's method of translation from one
spirit to another. In other words if we are a part of a larger spirit
our purpose may be in comminication between vastly different entities.
>
>
> There is a certain amount of us that is instinct, the programming we're
> born with, and a certain amount that is learned. If someone were to
> approach me in a dark alley, my first response would probably be to
> bite and grapple. Thankfully I've never had to test that, but when I
> feel threatened it's a very powerful urge. A human would try to run or
> kick out like prey, also instinct, but different from how I would
> respond.
Well, that is typical of humans too. I am not trying to be insulting
here, but stylized human fighting actually seeks to overcome the
instinctual bite kick and punch method of people who are just
instictually fighting for their survival.
> When it comes to ordinary human functioning though, I have learned just
> as anyone would through conditioning. I don't bathe with my tongue
> because we have showers which are much more efficient and trying to
> clean myself with any amount of seriousness would be impossible. So I
> agree with you to a point, but it's not all about nature.
You may find that you do have the instinct to lick things clean. This is
not necessarily a certain animal thing as all creatures tend to do it,
but when you get a small cut on your hand what is the first thing you
did before people taught you to wash it out? You put it in your mouth.
You licked it. I am just trying to say that sometimes in those quick
instictual moments we find we aren't too far away from the animals. A
were may choose to bathe with their tongue and to avoid the the perfume
laden manmade soaps. They may shower, but not use soap. I AM NOT
RECOMMENDING THIS! Also that goes to how one is going to explore. The
buddha spent a long time living as an ascetic giving up all worldly
possesions, seaking pain and fasting a lot. However, he says that one
does not need to follow that path for self discovery. He chose that path
for himself to explore. You may chose other paths. But you should choose
and explore. And remember, you are not going to be an expert on
blackbear's path, but you will be an expert on your path. So when you
speak of it recognize that. That doesn't make his wrong and yours right,
but rather that both of you can converse as experts.
>
> Sometimes I don't want to be a were, but there's a certain amount of
> pride in knowing that while my dreams may never come true, at least I
> have them.
>
Many a day I have envied the people who find a more normal path. They
have a lot of people to talk to. It is like using UNIX as an operating
system over windows. Some people just have no idea what the hell you are
talking about, and you are in a totlly different world. I spent a long
time hating myself and fearing what would happen when others would find
out. I even thought I was over a lot of it and all self confident a
couple years ago, and without me knowing it desperation and stupidity
snuck up on me without me realizing it, and became suicidal and tried to
steal from people. It is not easy coming to terms with this sort of
thing, and even as you may find success with becoming more comfortable
and yourself beware as that is a time when you are weak and vulnerable
to your fears and regrets. I am not trying to put you off, just
recognize when you are getting desperate and don't go doing something
flaky like I did.
Safari
Wanderer
>>>>http://www.critter.ca/cgi-bin/jeddart (Jedd Marten; nice guy.
>>>>Chuck-Jones-inspired)
>
> Oh, so you are claiming that chuck jones made furry art?
What color is the sky in your private world, Safari, and does the sun ever
shine? Any rube could see what I was saying there. You missed it.
>>>>http://www.rakune.com/gallery.htm (Professional illustrator Odis
>>>>Holcomb, also known as Ryngs Raccoon, formerly known as March Hare.)
>
> Professional illustrator? And how much of his furry art is bought by furs
> and not people looking for cute animal pictures? Or is he even doing furry
> art and not just pictures of cute things that sell to non furs?
<dry humor> Oh, gee, let me think. He was a GoH at Memphis Mephit Furmeet
(so much for your being a member of the fandom). His work appears in the
anthropomorphic-animal-fantasy game "Ironclaw", produced by Sanguine
Productions, as well as its supplements. It also appears in at least one
furry sci-fi book, referenced on his website... but then, if you had a shred
of intellectual honesty, you'd have already looked at the website I gave you
a perfectly good link to.
And "cute"? He'd rip your nipples off, Safari, for even suggesting his work
is "cute". He draws swordfighting dogs, drunken raccoons, and his own furry
avatar (complete with his signature soul patch). "Cute"? He doesn't do
"cute".
>
>>>>http://www.furnation.com/zexyz/ (Zexyz. The artwork says it all.)
>
> Yes, because with you speaking for it we might get the idea it isn't furry
> at all.
Only if you're stupid. Since Zexyz' online avatar is a wolfish creature
with two tusks, and one of his friends is a fat wolf in overalls, and he
makes a habit of drawing furry characters? Yeah, I'm pretty sure he's
furry.
> BTW Let us say that you had small children over your house, would you feel
> comfortable letting them browse wherever they wanted on furnation?
Would you feel comfortable letting small children browse through your
bedroom, Safari? The answer's the same: "Depends on if I'm there to guide
them and make sure they know where they're going".
>
>>>>http://elfwood.lysator.liu.se/art/g/o/goldenwolf/goldenwolf.html
>>>>(Goldenwolf, whose "Eyes of the Night" was auctioned at a convention,
>>>>receiving a winning bid of $10,000.00.)
>
> First off, goldenwolf has been proven to be supporting pedophiles
In your own tiny mind...
> through the use of fuzzy critters that attract young children. There was a
> reason why I chased Nehi off this newsgroup, and that is because he was a
> convicted pedophile who was using goldenwolf's atwork to try and attract
> young weres on this group. Secondly, who paid 10k for a peice of
> Goldenwolf's artwork? Was it an art fan, of some furry fanboy with way to
> much spending money trying to impress people?
An art fan. Not that such things matter to you, O princess of dumbness.
(I'd've said darkness, but darkness can be enlightened. Willful stupidity
is forever.)
> Oh wait, you said at a furcon. We all know that legitimate art dealers
> often go to furcons, and horny fanboys looking for a 10k lay certainly are
> nowhere near such a noble thing as a furcon. Oh, and thrirdly would you
> take a 10 year old to a furcon and let them roam freely? No, and it is
> because of scum like this in your community.
If you're done making arguments from extremes... ?
>
>>>>
>>>>I'd have a lot more, but Yerf (which screens their artwork) is down for
>>>>the duration; their computer hard-crashed.
>
> legitimate servers have backups. I would know little about that sort of
> thing having worked in IT for the past few years.
Legitimate servers with enough money have backups. Oh, but you know all
about budgets, since you worked in IT for sooooo long...
> Please go on as those names have been confronted.
... and ignored. Yes, I noticed you cowering behind the iron walls of your
skull. Fun in the gulag, dear?
>>
>>
>>>I did not say it does not exist. I said that the small amount of it that
>>>there is has been created in an attempt to legitimize the community.
>>
>>
>> Odis Holcomb draws clean art because he likes it and gets paid for it,
>> too.
>
> Already spoke of him.
Ignorantly, but you can certainly say you spoke "of" him.
>
>> Jedd Marten draws clean art because it's his style.
>
> So, it is his style? Is it a common style or one that sets him apart from
> most furry artists?
His style is based on that of Chuck Jones, the man who (with Friz Freleng)
created Wile E. Coyote and the Road Runner. Check the website (if your
brain doesn't explode from seeing something real) and look at his picture of
Wile E.
>
>> Goldenwolf draws clean art because her characters are clean and so is
>> she.
>
> I wouldn't use clean to talk about pedophelia.
Nor would I. But then, I have a clue. You just have... you.
I think I like my clue better.
>
>> Zexyz draws clean art because he doesn't give a flying fig.
>
> A flying fig about what? The fact that most furries want pornography, or
> that most people who draw legitimate pictures of fuzzy creatures have to
> go to the non-furry community to find popularity.
"A flying fig about what", he says. Anything, Princess Lion. (And don't
Bail Organa on me just yet.) He draws what he wants to draw, and hang the
consequences. And his art, poor princess, is Clean. Weird... but Clean.
>
>> Steve Gallacci draws clean art because his comic book is family-rated.
>
> So, this person in an effort to draw legtimate artwork that would attract
> non-furries has decided to draw a non-pornographic comic book. Not because
> he is trying to draw furry art but because he is trying to gain legitimacy
> by being family rated.
EH! Wrong yet again, Prin-cesspool. I'll explain after your next unguided
missive...
> > Always has been, since AFF was AFA (alt.fan.albedo).
>
> was?
Yes, poor mindless one, "was". Originally, the newsgroup that became
alt.fan.furry was alt.fan.albedo. Named after Steve Gallacci's wildly
successful comic book (now turned into a role-playing game by the fur fans
at Sanguine Productions), "Albedo", featuring the inimitable Erma Felna.
The comic book faded for a while because of production problems, but is back
stronger than ever; I have issue #1 of the new series. (Won it in a trivia
contest; it's autographed.) Go take out a loan and buy a clue, Princess.
>
>> Shawntae Howard draws clean art because he's comic-book inspired.
>
> Again, see above point.
See his website: http://www.extinctioners.com
But then, it's so much safer in your nice mental redoubt, with your Safari
Brand Bible... "And Safari saw the world, and said, "Eeeeww!"."
>
>> Eric Schwartz draws clean art because Sabrina is a family strip.
>
> Again see above point, and thank you for proving my point. Would he be
> quite so popular with his producers if it was public that he was a furry?
Producers? O Clueless One, Sabrina is an online strip. The strip, other
than the "dead tree" editions he brings out, is entirely on computer. You
know, the Internet?
And you pretend you know anything about furry fandom... <snort> <paws loose
grass over his opinion of you in time-honored wolf fashion>
>
>> Herbie Bearclaw draws clean art because he likes it.
>
> he likes it. Again, not the popular choice.
He was also an animator for Disney, working on "Brother Bear" and others.
Shall I link to his website, or shall we just pretend you've already ignored
it to preserve your mental sterility?
No, that's not a typo.
>>
>> That's an awful lot of "special minority cases", Safari.
>>
> People who have stepped away from the ordinary because they are getting
> paid or trying to be legitimate.
People who *are* getting paid, Safari, for drawing clean furry art. People
who *are* legitimate, because they're artists drawing well. People are
buying lots of good, clean art in books of good, clean art by good artists.
I could also throw out Eala Dubh, Oren the Otter, Fnaire Antbear, Chaos
Otter, Belic, Tolstoy, Lupine, Saken Skunk, Captain Furry, Byakko Wolf...
all of these are drawing what they like (clean furry art) because they like
it (clean furry art) and their readers want it (clean furry art). How many
"special cases" does it take to breach the bulwark of that tiny fortress in
your head, Safari?
> Disney is not a furry publishing company, neither is Wb, or many of the
> other companies that produce mainstream animation.
<scoff> Who was talking about them? I was talking about Sofawolf Press,
Shanda Family Arts, Sanguine Productions, Eric Schwartz Productions, Rabbit
Valley... all making a good living off of furry art... *clean* furry art,
please note.
>
>> Odis Holcomb wouldn't be swamped with commissions. But no, you had to
>> try and justify your irrational adoration of Sex2K's "fur" episode
>> again...
>>
> Commisions from who? The furry community, or people who want cute animal
> pictures.
Both, plus publishing companies... and he really should rip your nipples off
for calling his work "cute". (He likes me, and I might get on his
commission calendar sometime this summer. Maybe.) Poor Safari... I have to
wonder if you run a business and your hair comes to a point on both sides.
You're acting *very* Pointy-Haired Boss.
> Seriously, go into Halmark and look at their card section and you can see
> the art of people who are commisioned to do non-erotic pictures of
> animals. However, they are not producing furry artwork. Try again.
Since I wasn't talking about Hallmark (who produce the eminently-furry
Get-Along Gang and Shirt Tales lines... or do animals wearing clothes and
acting human not count as "furry" in the Safari Princess-apality?) or
Nelvana (who created the Care Bears line and series) or Filmation (which
created "Bravestarr", featuring a talking horse helping to fight off talking
dogmorphs... oh, no, Princess, nothing "furry" about that), or even
Hanna-Barbera (which made a mint off a talking dog named Scooby Doo), *you*
need to try again.
>> Sorry, Safari. I own furry art (a print by Ryngs and a pad of
>> commissions, both from Memphis Mephit FurMeet), and not a drop of porn.
>
> You don't own a drop of furporn? Seriously, you would be in a greater
> minority of furs than their artists who don't make erotic material.
Since neither one is actually a minority, I'll take that as a deluded form
of compliment, Princess. Thank you.
> words again. You claim that furries are not shallow, and you have claimed
> the book Watership Down is very popular among these people. Have I lied
> yet? Have I twisted your words? I just want to clarify these are your
> words. I can quote if you like.
>
> Now, I have read and enjoyed that book myself. I wondering if maybe y'all
> read the made for children hack up of the novel.
May Richard Adams drop a *hrair* of Shardik-sized boulders on your head for
suggesting such a thing, Princess. Unlike you, my family believes in
reading complex novels and plays before judging them.
> It has been a while since I have seen that version so mayb they left out
> the part of their journey where they came to the warren by the farm. The
> one where Bigwig got snared in the wire. You remember what the "real"
> rabbits had to say about the pretty well bred rabbits who sat down in
> their holes drawing pictures and spouting poetry about the black rabbit of
> Inle?
Yes. "They'd altered what rabbits do naturally because they thought they
could do better"-- p. 110. That's the cowslip warren, Safari, and you ought
to remember it. Blackberry used it as an example of how adaptable -- for
good or ill -- a rabbit warren can be. "And there's nothing to stop us from
having (soft, warm dens), except that buck rabbits won't dig. Not
can't--won't."
> If I remember the book right those rabbits were not really rabbits in
> anything more than appearance anymore. Now what do furries like doing?
> Don't they write poetry, draw and admire pictures, and generally know
> little about what it means to be a real animal?
I reiterate: What color is the sky in your world, and does the sun ever
shine there?
> No need to answer, I
have already made up the Royal Mind that you
> think we know what those rabbits would have thought of you people.
>
> I should say bad dog because that is the correct thing to say after
> whacking you on the muzzle with a bunch of rolled up words.
If they were mine, I'd eat them and be happy with it. You can't even
remember a Richard Adams novel without trying to twist it to the detriment
of whatever you happen to despise In This Instant. So shut up, Safari, and
go back to talking about things you understand.
If you have any.
> It is cool though because I hear Goldenwolf will be doing the artwork for
> the new Neverland ranch. Was it Micheal who paid 10k for her artwork?
<rolls eyes> I know you don't think much of those who defy the Royal Will,
Princess. But could you at least pretend to be subtle in your "I don't like
furries because I don't understand them... so they must be evil pedophiles"
screed? If you'd looked at Goldenwolf's site, you'd already know who paid
the $10,000.00 for that beautiful painting of a *non-anthro wolf*. At a
*furry convention*.
Honestly, do you even convince yourself that you're using your brain, or do
your shrieks of mortal, intellectual terror sound as meaningless to you as
they do to me?
>> I'm already in Reality, Safari. Wish you were here.
>
> I guess you are right. There are so many people who lie to themselves and
> to others about their intentions that I will live in fantasy.
<cocks head>
<aside> She's being more honest than she knows. But let's not point out to
her where she went horribly wrong in this attempt at a slam, shall
we?</aside>
> Just don't expect me to invite you in.
Good. I hate turning down invitations... but for you I'd make an exception.
> Seriously are you telling me that people become furries for other reasons
> aside from sex?
Yep. Some people do it because they like the art. Some for the stories. A
lot because they happen to like animals. (Not that way, you perverted
Princess.) Several thousand got into the fandom because they liked
"Disney's Robin Hood", "Watership Down", and other movies. A good-sized lot
of them happen to like the whole concept of "animal people". We even have
one little screamer (I sometimes think he has textual Tourettes) named
Mouse, who doesn't like anything newer than the old Keystone Disney comics.
>
> I guess this means I will be plonked by you yet again.
>
Oh, I never un-plonked you. I just check in from time to time to see if
you're off screaming at the masses about the End and it's Nigh-ness again,
and do my best to correct the worst of your misinformation.
Yours wolfishly,
The fact-checking,
Safari
point out the fact that there is some nice discussion going on in
regards to spirit and you have chosen to participate in what can be
considered to be a rather pointless argument about how furries like
porno. Over the years you have laid claim that I have been the
degenerative force destroying this newsgroup. However, I will point out
that over the years it has been my passion that has kept this fire
burning and over the years it has been me who has not only been able to
keep this fire burning, but to also keep the fires of the anti-AHWW
sites going. I have been the one that has not only been able to joke and
participate in fluff conversation, but who also can expound upon
philisophical and theological threads. I was getting ready to do
something I had never before done and actually drop this and give you
credit for your stubborness, but it occurred to me that even at your
best in finding obscure links Snuh has you beat hands down. The only
contribution you have ever had around here, and a troll can do better
than you can. Wanderer, you are a disgrace. You are exactly my point
about the shallow furry community. Now you can do whatever you like. To
think I felt sorry for you and thought that maybe I could draw some real
conversation out of you.
For anyone who is still reading this part of the thread you don't need
to anymore. I am going to make fun of wanderer here because I am mean
and enjoy it. Realize that as weres you no longer have to pander to the
lies these people perpetrate. You can stand tall, and know that even if
I may disagree with you, as long as you are honest with yourself and
look to try to overcome those feelings that drag us down and confuse,
that I will at the very least respect your right to say it.
Wanderer wrote:
> "Safari" <omoikane@homecom> wrote in message
> news:k6WdnQhILaN...@suscom.com...
>
>>>>>http://www.critter.ca/cgi-bin/jeddart (Jedd Marten; nice guy.
>>>>>Chuck-Jones-inspired)
>>
>>Oh, so you are claiming that chuck jones made furry art?
>
>
> What color is the sky in your private world, Safari, and does the sun ever
> shine? Any rube could see what I was saying there. You missed it.
Yes, you were trying to say that chuck jones is a legitimate style of
furry art. I know I caught you in that implication, but there is no need
to be angry at me.
>
>
>>>>>http://www.rakune.com/gallery.htm (Professional illustrator Odis
>>>>>Holcomb, also known as Ryngs Raccoon, formerly known as March Hare.)
>>
>>Professional illustrator? And how much of his furry art is bought by furs
>>and not people looking for cute animal pictures? Or is he even doing furry
>>art and not just pictures of cute things that sell to non furs?
>
>
> <dry humor> Oh, gee, let me think. He was a GoH at Memphis Mephit Furmeet
> (so much for your being a member of the fandom). His work appears in the
> anthropomorphic-animal-fantasy game "Ironclaw", produced by Sanguine
> Productions, as well as its supplements. It also appears in at least one
> furry sci-fi book, referenced on his website... but then, if you had a shred
> of intellectual honesty, you'd have already looked at the website I gave you
> a perfectly good link to.
No offense wanderer, but I have better things to do than to look through
a bunch of pictures I have pretty much seen before. I'll take your word
for the fact that it is clean. I haven't even posted pics of me as Misha
yet. Do you think I have time to go wandering through all of you links?
>
> And "cute"? He'd rip your nipples off, Safari, for even suggesting his work
> is "cute". He draws swordfighting dogs, drunken raccoons, and his own furry
> avatar (complete with his signature soul patch). "Cute"? He doesn't do
> "cute".
Ok, instead of cute insert pleasant on the eyes. Cute is just so much
quicker to type. I'll be sure to take that up with him if I ever meet him.
>
>
>>>>>http://www.furnation.com/zexyz/ (Zexyz. The artwork says it all.)
>>
>>Yes, because with you speaking for it we might get the idea it isn't furry
>>at all.
>
>
> Only if you're stupid. Since Zexyz' online avatar is a wolfish creature
> with two tusks, and one of his friends is a fat wolf in overalls, and he
> makes a habit of drawing furry characters? Yeah, I'm pretty sure he's
> furry.
And no non-furries have ever used animals as their avatars before. I use
Osaka from Azumanga Daioh as my avatar, but that does not mean I am a
spacey japanese school girl.
>
>
>>BTW Let us say that you had small children over your house, would you feel
>>comfortable letting them browse wherever they wanted on furnation?
>
>
> Would you feel comfortable letting small children browse through your
> bedroom, Safari? The answer's the same: "Depends on if I'm there to guide
> them and make sure they know where they're going".
>
Actually, aside from the invasion of my space, I pretty much have a lot
of stuff that would be pretty cool for a kid. Aside from the mess, and 2
or 3 peices of hentai I picked up during my more ignorant days I really
don't have too much porn. You see I was raised to accept pornography as
a legitimate part of human sexual discovery. At the age of 14 I was
working in one of the biggest porno rental stores in the area. It was
necessary as my father was trying to survive the blockbuster invasion
into the video rental market. Because of that I don't freak out and
collect pictures of an erotic nature. I actually find I enjoy beautiful
dresses and cute artwork over nipple shots. If I want to get kinky I
know where to go, and when I am in the mood I do go there. I just don't
spend so much extra effort on that area. So yeah, I would let a youngin
use my computer. (Actually I have to have it cleaned after Katsucon
because I dragged a furry porn freak along and let him use my laptop)
>
>>>>>http://elfwood.lysator.liu.se/art/g/o/goldenwolf/goldenwolf.html
>>>>>(Goldenwolf, whose "Eyes of the Night" was auctioned at a convention,
>>>>>receiving a winning bid of $10,000.00.)
>>
>>First off, goldenwolf has been proven to be supporting pedophiles
>
>
> In your own tiny mind...
No actually in reality. I think his real name was wes proctor. He
admitted to being a convicted pedophile. This fact was not in contention.
>
>
>>through the use of fuzzy critters that attract young children. There was a
>>reason why I chased Nehi off this newsgroup, and that is because he was a
>>convicted pedophile who was using goldenwolf's atwork to try and attract
>>young weres on this group. Secondly, who paid 10k for a peice of
>>Goldenwolf's artwork? Was it an art fan, of some furry fanboy with way to
>>much spending money trying to impress people?
>
>
> An art fan. Not that such things matter to you, O princess of dumbness.
> (I'd've said darkness, but darkness can be enlightened. Willful stupidity
> is forever.)
An art fan at a furcon? I guess it is possible, but I really doubt it is
going into a collection next to a picaso.
>
>
>>Oh wait, you said at a furcon. We all know that legitimate art dealers
>>often go to furcons, and horny fanboys looking for a 10k lay certainly are
>>nowhere near such a noble thing as a furcon. Oh, and thrirdly would you
>>take a 10 year old to a furcon and let them roam freely? No, and it is
>>because of scum like this in your community.
>
>
> If you're done making arguments from extremes... ?
Extremes? Let me try to explain this. Anime has a sort of furry-like
genre of characters. It is often seen that one adds cat ears or a tail,
maybe a fang, or some sort o other animal part to an animated character
to make them look better. Now, at an anime con where one can find erotic
material you will find children roaming around. However, people accept
that parts of anime are adult and restrictions are put on rooms where
erotic material will be shown. So, a person can allow their teenager to
enjoy a con. Now, I am not arguing from extremes when I ask would it be
apropriate for a 14 year old to wander around a furcon. You brought up
the sci fi con thing and I can tell you that aside from the danger of
letting a child roam alone where they may be absconded with, you will
find that at fantasy, anime, and sci-fi cons a child of that age could
wander around without being exposed to sexually explicit material. Could
a child be left alone to wander safely around a furcon without coming
into contact with sexually explicit material? This is not an extreme
wanderer, this is reality.
>
>
>>>>>I'd have a lot more, but Yerf (which screens their artwork) is down for
>>>>>the duration; their computer hard-crashed.
>>
>>legitimate servers have backups. I would know little about that sort of
>>thing having worked in IT for the past few years.
>
>
> Legitimate servers with enough money have backups. Oh, but you know all
> about budgets, since you worked in IT for sooooo long...
>
Legitimate servers make money and budget for hardware failure. People
who make furry pron and put it on some server in some dank
basement...Well, even most half assed porno sites have a backup. What
does a DVD-R cost nowadays? You can go out there and get hosting dirt
cheap, but sometimes you run into trouble when you distribute illegal
materials like bestiality and pedophelia and that is when you have to
resort to private servers run by people with such little cash they
cannot afford a DVD-R.
>
>>Please go on as those names have been confronted.
>
>
> ... and ignored. Yes, I noticed you cowering behind the iron walls of your
> skull. Fun in the gulag, dear?
You are the last remaning peice of the decrepid AHWW of old. Will you
peel off your old ways and come with us, or will we just discard you
with the rest of the trash?
>
>
>>>
>>>>I did not say it does not exist. I said that the small amount of it that
>>>>there is has been created in an attempt to legitimize the community.
>>>
>>>
>>>Odis Holcomb draws clean art because he likes it and gets paid for it,
>>>too.
>>
>>Already spoke of him.
>
>
> Ignorantly, but you can certainly say you spoke "of" him.
OK, he exists. I gave you that. There I spelled it out. Still this does
not prove your point.
>
>
>>>Jedd Marten draws clean art because it's his style.
>>
>>So, it is his style? Is it a common style or one that sets him apart from
>>most furry artists?
>
>
> His style is based on that of Chuck Jones, the man who (with Friz Freleng)
> created Wile E. Coyote and the Road Runner. Check the website (if your
> brain doesn't explode from seeing something real) and look at his picture of
> Wile E.
See, before you said you weren't trying to claim Chuck Jones was a furry
artist, but here you are trying to claim his work is a furry art style.
If he is drawing in a WB style then he is not drawing in a furry style.
I know you got all hot when Bugs got dressed up in drag, but chuck jones
never added genetalia to bugs. That was a furry thing.
>
>
>>>Goldenwolf draws clean art because her characters are clean and so is
>>>she.
>>
>>I wouldn't use clean to talk about pedophelia.
>
>
> Nor would I. But then, I have a clue. You just have... you.
>
> I think I like my clue better.
Again, it is something that he admitted to. Maybe you should tell me
what color the sky is there in your world.
>
>
>>>Zexyz draws clean art because he doesn't give a flying fig.
>>
>>A flying fig about what? The fact that most furries want pornography, or
>>that most people who draw legitimate pictures of fuzzy creatures have to
>>go to the non-furry community to find popularity.
>
>
> "A flying fig about what", he says. Anything, Princess Lion. (And don't
> Bail Organa on me just yet.) He draws what he wants to draw, and hang the
> consequences. And his art, poor princess, is Clean. Weird... but Clean.
You didn't answer the question.
>
>
>>>Steve Gallacci draws clean art because his comic book is family-rated.
>>
>>So, this person in an effort to draw legtimate artwork that would attract
>>non-furries has decided to draw a non-pornographic comic book. Not because
>>he is trying to draw furry art but because he is trying to gain legitimacy
>>by being family rated.
>
>
> EH! Wrong yet again, Prin-cesspool. I'll explain after your next unguided
> missive...
Please do.
>
>
>> > Always has been, since AFF was AFA (alt.fan.albedo).
>>
>>was?
>
>
> Yes, poor mindless one, "was". Originally, the newsgroup that became
> alt.fan.furry was alt.fan.albedo. Named after Steve Gallacci's wildly
> successful comic book (now turned into a role-playing game by the fur fans
> at Sanguine Productions), "Albedo", featuring the inimitable Erma Felna.
> The comic book faded for a while because of production problems, but is back
> stronger than ever; I have issue #1 of the new series. (Won it in a trivia
> contest; it's autographed.) Go take out a loan and buy a clue, Princess.
>
and AHWW was originally created to discuss werewolf horror movies.
Please try again.
>
>>>Shawntae Howard draws clean art because he's comic-book inspired.
>>
>>Again, see above point.
>
>
> See his website: http://www.extinctioners.com
>
> But then, it's so much safer in your nice mental redoubt, with your Safari
> Brand Bible... "And Safari saw the world, and said, "Eeeeww!"."
>
somebody get his meds.
>
>>>Eric Schwartz draws clean art because Sabrina is a family strip.
>>
>>Again see above point, and thank you for proving my point. Would he be
>>quite so popular with his producers if it was public that he was a furry?
>
>
> Producers? O Clueless One, Sabrina is an online strip. The strip, other
> than the "dead tree" editions he brings out, is entirely on computer. You
> know, the Internet?
I am sorry, I was giving a bit too much credit. When you said sabrina I
was assuming you meant something like Sabrina the teenage witch, and not
some furry webcomic.
>
> And you pretend you know anything about furry fandom... <snort> <paws loose
> grass over his opinion of you in time-honored wolf fashion>
Keep digging around in left field.
>
>>>Herbie Bearclaw draws clean art because he likes it.
>>
>>he likes it. Again, not the popular choice.
>
>
> He was also an animator for Disney, working on "Brother Bear" and others.
> Shall I link to his website, or shall we just pretend you've already ignored
> it to preserve your mental sterility?
Are you implying that disney is furry art?
>
> No, that's not a typo.
So I guess that means you are.
>
>
>>>That's an awful lot of "special minority cases", Safari.
>>>
>>
>>People who have stepped away from the ordinary because they are getting
>>paid or trying to be legitimate.
>
>
> People who *are* getting paid, Safari, for drawing clean furry art. People
> who *are* legitimate, because they're artists drawing well. People are
> buying lots of good, clean art in books of good, clean art by good artists.
> I could also throw out Eala Dubh, Oren the Otter, Fnaire Antbear, Chaos
> Otter, Belic, Tolstoy, Lupine, Saken Skunk, Captain Furry, Byakko Wolf...
> all of these are drawing what they like (clean furry art) because they like
> it (clean furry art) and their readers want it (clean furry art). How many
> "special cases" does it take to breach the bulwark of that tiny fortress in
> your head, Safari?
This must be a texas thing. Between your insistance that furry art is
mostly clean, and GWB's insistance there were WMD's in Iraq I can only
assume there is some mental thing going on in texas.
>
>
>>Disney is not a furry publishing company, neither is Wb, or many of the
>>other companies that produce mainstream animation.
>
>
> <scoff> Who was talking about them? I was talking about Sofawolf Press,
> Shanda Family Arts, Sanguine Productions, Eric Schwartz Productions, Rabbit
> Valley... all making a good living off of furry art... *clean* furry art,
> please note.
Umm, you were? You mentioned Chuck Jones (You know Bugs Bunny guy) and a
bunch of disney things. Like just a couple of lines ago you were talking
about brother bear. is your memory that bad?
>
>
>>>Odis Holcomb wouldn't be swamped with commissions. But no, you had to
>>>try and justify your irrational adoration of Sex2K's "fur" episode
>>>again...
>>>
>>
>>Commisions from who? The furry community, or people who want cute animal
>>pictures.
>
>
> Both, plus publishing companies... and he really should rip your nipples off
> for calling his work "cute".
OK, what is your obsession with my nipples.
(He likes me, and I might get on his
> commission calendar sometime this summer. Maybe.) Poor Safari... I have to
> wonder if you run a business and your hair comes to a point on both sides.
> You're acting *very* Pointy-Haired Boss.
>
Say hi to him for me, and tell him I said his art is cute.
>
>>Seriously, go into Halmark and look at their card section and you can see
>>the art of people who are commisioned to do non-erotic pictures of
>>animals. However, they are not producing furry artwork. Try again.
>
>
> Since I wasn't talking about Hallmark (who produce the eminently-furry
> Get-Along Gang and Shirt Tales lines... or do animals wearing clothes and
> acting human not count as "furry" in the Safari Princess-apality?) or
> Nelvana (who created the Care Bears line and series) or Filmation (which
> created "Bravestarr", featuring a talking horse helping to fight off talking
> dogmorphs... oh, no, Princess, nothing "furry" about that), or even
> Hanna-Barbera (which made a mint off a talking dog named Scooby Doo), *you*
> need to try again.
>
It is still not furry art. I know you like to draw genetalia on scooby
and claim him as yours, but they are not producing these things for the
furry community. They are producing them because cute animals sell.
>
>>>Sorry, Safari. I own furry art (a print by Ryngs and a pad of
>>>commissions, both from Memphis Mephit FurMeet), and not a drop of porn.
>>
>>You don't own a drop of furporn? Seriously, you would be in a greater
>>minority of furs than their artists who don't make erotic material.
>
>
> Since neither one is actually a minority, I'll take that as a deluded form
> of compliment, Princess. Thank you.
You are welcome.
>
>
>>words again. You claim that furries are not shallow, and you have claimed
>>the book Watership Down is very popular among these people. Have I lied
>>yet? Have I twisted your words? I just want to clarify these are your
>>words. I can quote if you like.
>>
>>Now, I have read and enjoyed that book myself. I wondering if maybe y'all
>>read the made for children hack up of the novel.
>
>
> May Richard Adams drop a *hrair* of Shardik-sized boulders on your head for
> suggesting such a thing, Princess. Unlike you, my family believes in
> reading complex novels and plays before judging them.
>
OK, just making sure.
>
>>It has been a while since I have seen that version so mayb they left out
>>the part of their journey where they came to the warren by the farm. The
>>one where Bigwig got snared in the wire. You remember what the "real"
>>rabbits had to say about the pretty well bred rabbits who sat down in
>>their holes drawing pictures and spouting poetry about the black rabbit of
>>Inle?
>
>
> Yes. "They'd altered what rabbits do naturally because they thought they
> could do better"-- p. 110. That's the cowslip warren, Safari, and you ought
> to remember it. Blackberry used it as an example of how adaptable -- for
> good or ill -- a rabbit warren can be. "And there's nothing to stop us from
> having (soft, warm dens), except that buck rabbits won't dig. Not
> can't--won't."
>
So, you read the book, but missed the meaning. Why am I not shocked?
Yes, adaptable. That is why they did not remain at the warren. Even a
dog learns quicker than this.
>
>>If I remember the book right those rabbits were not really rabbits in
>>anything more than appearance anymore. Now what do furries like doing?
>>Don't they write poetry, draw and admire pictures, and generally know
>>little about what it means to be a real animal?
>
>
> I reiterate: What color is the sky in your world, and does the sun ever
> shine there?
You can just say "Yes safari I know you are right."
>
>
>>No need to answer, I
>
>
> have already made up the Royal Mind that you
>
>
>>think we know what those rabbits would have thought of you people.
>>
>>I should say bad dog because that is the correct thing to say after
>>whacking you on the muzzle with a bunch of rolled up words.
>
>
> If they were mine, I'd eat them and be happy with it. You can't even
> remember a Richard Adams novel without trying to twist it to the detriment
> of whatever you happen to despise In This Instant. So shut up, Safari, and
> go back to talking about things you understand.
It would seem that you missed a lot of the beauty in that novel.
>
> If you have any.
>
>
>>It is cool though because I hear Goldenwolf will be doing the artwork for
>>the new Neverland ranch. Was it Micheal who paid 10k for her artwork?
>
>
> <rolls eyes> I know you don't think much of those who defy the Royal Will,
> Princess. But could you at least pretend to be subtle in your "I don't like
> furries because I don't understand them... so they must be evil pedophiles"
> screed? If you'd looked at Goldenwolf's site, you'd already know who paid
> the $10,000.00 for that beautiful painting of a *non-anthro wolf*. At a
> *furry convention*.
I prefer not to know the name of such idiocy as I may be forced to bite
it's head off if I meet it.
>
> Honestly, do you even convince yourself that you're using your brain, or do
> your shrieks of mortal, intellectual terror sound as meaningless to you as
> they do to me?
Is that all you got?
>
>
>>>I'm already in Reality, Safari. Wish you were here.
>>
>>I guess you are right. There are so many people who lie to themselves and
>>to others about their intentions that I will live in fantasy.
>
>
> <cocks head>
>
> <aside> She's being more honest than she knows. But let's not point out to
> her where she went horribly wrong in this attempt at a slam, shall
> we?</aside>
I hate to point out to you, but the winds have turned and now you are
the troll.
>
>>Just don't expect me to invite you in.
>
>
> Good. I hate turning down invitations... but for you I'd make an exception.
>
ok.
>
>>Seriously are you telling me that people become furries for other reasons
>>aside from sex?
>
>
> Yep. Some people do it because they like the art.
You misspelled porno.
>Some for the stories.
You misspelled furrotica
A
> lot because they happen to like animals.
You misspelled bestiality. As quoted by another werecat friend of mine
"I never knew there was a pleasant term for bestiality until I heard a
furry mention zoophelia."
>(Not that way, you perverted
> Princess.)
Megadog went that way ---------->
Several thousand got into the fandom because they liked
> "Disney's Robin Hood", "Watership Down", and other movies.
Those are not furry art.
A good-sized lot
> of them happen to like the whole concept of "animal people".
That does not imply anything more than being normally human.
We even have
> one little screamer (I sometimes think he has textual Tourettes) named
> Mouse, who doesn't like anything newer than the old Keystone Disney comics.
Well, go back to your friends and tell them Safari has annexed her
kingdom from the furry world.
>
>
>>I guess this means I will be plonked by you yet again.
>>
>
>
> Oh, I never un-plonked you.
So I guess I am halucinating this reply.
I just check in from time to time to see if
> you're off screaming at the masses about the End and it's Nigh-ness again,
> and do my best to correct the worst of your misinformation.
Yeah, that's it.
You are a troll, and not a good one. Go join the furries where you
belong. You certainly have nothing on topic to say here.
Safari
The Noodle Scoffing Vargr
wood to high alt.horror.werewolves. hill shall come against him.
> Was it an art fan, of some furry fanboy
Lance Rund I think. He was a longitime regular on FurryMuck and was
behind the awful gay furry comic "ASB".
>Again see above point, and thank you for proving my point. Would he be
>quite so popular with his producers if it was public that he was a furry?
Eric Schwartz also draws furry tenticle pr0n hentai stuff under a
false name.
>People who have stepped away from the ordinary because they are getting
>paid or trying to be legitimate.
Apparantly one furry artist got about $700 to draw pictures of foxes
crapping on each other. :(
---
"Et tu, Brute! Then fall, Caesar."
Cypher
Safari wrote:
> I wouldn't overlook the philosophies of humans in this. Certain
> theologies like buddhism and greek philosophy can lay a nice
groundwork
> for self discovery. Also I have been aware for a time that even the
more
> stricter religions like judeo-christian beliefs can lead to other
> insights although they tend to be a bit lacking in the free thought
> arena you can look towards their interpretations to better understand
> the history of man, and I have also thought that they may include
> certain knowledges of other worlds which we may have been at some
time,
> or that we may be perceiving and trying to understand.
I've been reading a lot of Herman Hesse lately, not
exactly an ancient philosopher but his understanding
of their works is evident in much of his writing.
Siddartha, for those who haven't read it, is his own
version of the Buddha story you mention below (and do
I have to mention Steppenwolf?). Excellent reading for
those on a spiritual journey which should be everyone
reading this :).
Though I don't particularly care for organized
religion, I'll give your recommendations a read. It
never hurts to learn something new, and with the free
online versions, there's really no excuse for not
reading them :).
I've always been good at weeding out incompatable
people before the relationship goes too far. I would
never feel comfortable with someone who
just...accepted some undesirable part of me. You gotta
take the whole "me" package, including my love of
funny hats, my blunt honesty and yes, my wereness. I'm
very thankful that my high standards haven't hindered
my ability to make friends as there are apparently
many people who think funny hats are hilarious, blunt
honesty is welcome, and therianthropy is a valid
spiritual path ;).
If I got enough body modification to be seen as a
werewolf, that would more likely make my life
easier...although the horny furry fanboys would get
old fast.
>
> However, another part of this excercise is to come more to terms with
> your own self perception and to start giving up those ideas of
normalcy
> and keeping within those behaviours. People can find it very hard to
let
> loose and see themselves in that form. As an excercize looking like
and
> acting like your animal does not make you a were. However, it can
help
> you in overcoming your human perception of yourself and be an aid in
> discovering a new fram of mind that you can then carry to times you
are
> not able to do that, but are able to take a moment to focus on that
side
> of you.
When I first found this community, I began to feel
like a big fake when I would conciously act out animal
behaviors, but you are right in that it's a good aid
to come to terms with yourself inside and out. When I
was younger, I could shift into the animal mindset
very easily from all the roleplaying I did as one.
Perhaps acting is a good catalyst for something
more...real?
I really like your thoughts on this, they're filling little cracks in
things that have been bothering me lately about Dragon. Dragon has been
with me as Wolf has, but as there is no physical counterpart, it was
hard to figure out why. Recently I have moved toward the notion that
dragons from the collective cultures of the world are archetypes for my
dual nature. In the west, you have the wild, beastial dragon, perhaps
this represents the wolf in me. In the east, you have the intellectual,
cultured dragon, representing my human nature. So you have the
eastern/western dragon representing spirit (as they are considered
astral beings), wolf/human representing the physical, and the traits
commonly associated with them representing the mental..
This has certainly given me a lot to think about.
> Think of it like this. When you were really young you felt hungry.
You
> needed to eat because that is the way you get energy. It is hunger
that
> lets you know your body needs energy. Of course, at that point you
need
> food. Over the coarse of time as you grew older you learned what type
of
> food you liked. So, you need to eat, but you may want a nice fat
juicy
> steak. As a were you need to shift. That is a need within you.
However,
> you may find that your wants define more what type of were you are.
You
> may want to be as immersed in your animal as possible, or you may
want
> to explore how your animal would feel dealing with human toys.
However,
> you are still part animal. A transpecied were may find that since the
> beginning of their memories they have always known they were in the
> wrong body. However, a dual were may find that realization may come
> later or may even not be. A dual were may be perfectly comfortable
being
> a human, but letting themselves be wild from time to time.
A good metaphor.
> The buddah had a story that covered this. He spoke of two men who
were
> starting a journey across a desert. One man had just the pack on his
> back, and the other had a large caravan and all the things he could
> bring with him. As they went through their long journey many
different
> things happened to both men. At the end of their journey they both
> arrived at the destination alone with just the clothing on their
back.
> One person's way will not be your way, but along the path that we
take
> we meet people who we learn from. We may follow some of them, and
others
> we may listen to and go on. In the end we all have our own path to
> follow. I think Blackbear dcould offer you some ideas on how to
better
> come in contact with your animal, but it is not necessary for you to
> give up your human mind if you don't want to.
I'm sorry, I thought that might come across as defensive. I was just
showing that it's more complicated than I thought you were implying,
but you seem to know that.
>From what I've seen of your "Smatterings" post and your exchange with
Blackbear, it is obvious you two are taking very different paths but
both have proven to be valid. That is what's so refreshing about this
group, no one thinks they have to conform or fit those silly were
categories. We're all too different to sum it up with a word. The whole
"Ask 10 weres what it's like to be a were and you'll get 11 different
answers" thing doesn't mean much unless you ask someone who's actually
tried to find those answers.
>
> Actually, I think that at the point that we become spirits and are
not
> limited by bodies we will go beyond our current communication
barriers,
> and the spirits of bears and wolves and humans will "speak" in a
> universal spiritual language. One that will transcend the different
> thought patterns of these creatures. In a way this part of the spirit
of
> communication may find weres to be it's method of translation from
one
> spirit to another. In other words if we are a part of a larger spirit
> our purpose may be in comminication between vastly different
entities.
With our feet in two worlds, it would seem obvious that our purpose is
a link between them. I'm not sure it goes as far as you say (I'd rather
not be a spirit's telephone), but there is definitely a need for
communication that humans are lacking as a whole. Too bad we won't know
our purpose before we return to the ether.
> Well, that is typical of humans too. I am not trying to be insulting
> here, but stylized human fighting actually seeks to overcome the
> instinctual bite kick and punch method of people who are just
> instictually fighting for their survival.
Yeah, I suppose you're right.
> You may find that you do have the instinct to lick things clean. This
is
> not necessarily a certain animal thing as all creatures tend to do
it,
> but when you get a small cut on your hand what is the first thing you
> did before people taught you to wash it out? You put it in your
mouth.
> You licked it. I am just trying to say that sometimes in those quick
> instictual moments we find we aren't too far away from the animals. A
> were may choose to bathe with their tongue and to avoid the the
perfume
> laden manmade soaps. They may shower, but not use soap. I AM NOT
> RECOMMENDING THIS! Also that goes to how one is going to explore. The
> buddha spent a long time living as an ascetic giving up all worldly
> possesions, seaking pain and fasting a lot. However, he says that one
> does not need to follow that path for self discovery. He chose that
path
> for himself to explore. You may chose other paths. But you should
choose
> and explore. And remember, you are not going to be an expert on
> blackbear's path, but you will be an expert on your path. So when you
> speak of it recognize that. That doesn't make his wrong and yours
right,
> but rather that both of you can converse as experts.
>
> Many a day I have envied the people who find a more normal path. They
> have a lot of people to talk to. It is like using UNIX as an
operating
> system over windows. Some people just have no idea what the hell you
are
> talking about, and you are in a totlly different world. I spent a
long
> time hating myself and fearing what would happen when others would
find
> out. I even thought I was over a lot of it and all self confident a
> couple years ago, and without me knowing it desperation and stupidity
> snuck up on me without me realizing it, and became suicidal and tried
to
> steal from people. It is not easy coming to terms with this sort of
> thing, and even as you may find success with becoming more
comfortable
> and yourself beware as that is a time when you are weak and
vulnerable
> to your fears and regrets. I am not trying to put you off, just
> recognize when you are getting desperate and don't go doing something
> flaky like I did.
We've come a long way, suffered for it, had brief epiphanies that left
us content for awhile until we opened our eyes and realized we had lost
the path. That recently happened to me which is why I returned here.
Foolishly, I thought I understood everything and for two years my mind
grew fat and dull like a cow on a farm. It's so obvious to me now that
I had not, in fact, lost the path, I had just stood there until the
weeds grew around me and I couldn't recognize anything. Life is about
learning, not accepting, because no one who is truly wise will just
accept. There is always something more out there to reach for if we
just try.
>
> Safari
Cypher
Blackbear wrote:
> Such things are often glamorized in history. We shall never know
> the truth of 'how it was' for those in times former, though, with
> some accounts, we can imagine a bit of it.
My focus is mainly on the Seven Military classics which were all
written by people of the time. So much was placed on virtue and honor
back then, a stark difference from society today. The most respected
generals were the ones who got down and dirty among the lowest of the
soldiers, not even eating before they did. That's not glamorous at all
really.
> This is the reason for becoming proficient with your chosen weapon.
> You want a clean kill without which the meat will be soaked in
> adrenaline and much less palatable. If you observe a wolf kill on
> a large mammal, you will see that one or two of the wolves
> will have the job of drawing blood from the hindquarters.
> Once this blood is flowing well, the prey will begin to settle down
> as they go into shock, with a little more of the sanguine action
> in effect, the adrenaline will decrease and the meat again will be
> usable at which point the kill will be made with relative safety.
>
> If you become proficient in bow and arrow, especially with
> today's equipment, you can make a clean kill. If you use a
> high muzzle velocity weapon, you can also make a clean kill
> but can do this from a great distance, this takes less hunting
> skill and why I would recommend primitive weapons instead.
Thanks for the advice!
> I still get that wrong, it's Darwin's Fox and Azara's Dog. There
is
> very little difference between the appearance of these separate
canids.
> One thing you'll learn at a zoo is that they are 'rated' by how
> many animals they have (regardless of whether the room for that
> particular animal is available to properly care for them). The
higher
> echelon has the business of making money and pleasing the zoo
> visitors which is often at odds with the needs of the animal. I
> seriously doubt my curator gained any lesson at all. He had very
> little interest in the animals themselves, only the statistics. Very
sad
> and not uncommon. Ask any keeper, there are two kinds of people
> who work at zoos, animal people and people people and it's the
> latter who are in charge and most always at odds with the former.
I can't imagine anyone wanting to work in a zoo purely for profit.
There are ways to make even more money that don't rest on the lives of
animals. Some people....
> Though far removed as we are from the Simians, we are more
> willing to ascribe sentience to them than other animals. I see it as
a
> hominid bias.
Well, they are pretty close to us genetically so it's natural that
they'd have reasonable intelligence.
> Gosh, never considered it a vague term. Field glasses magnify the
> view of distant objects. If the aperture is used as the light
gathering
> lens, the objective lens will provide a magnified view of a small
object
> at a close distance making a quick and ready microscope within it's
> narrow focus area. I've never heard of them being called googles :)
*blinks then laughs* I was joking, I meant I'd use Google, the search
engine cause it's easier and doesn't involve actually looking for one
in the middle of winter. :)
> How the species has risen to dominance, even after a study of
history,
> amazes me, especially after a study of history!
Indeed, look at the new focus on the probably non-existant WMD they say
are in Iran. Uh, didn't this JUST HAPPEN? People have already forgotten
about Iraq which is still in a mess and have forgotten even moreso
about Afghanistan.
Wanderer
news:42274337...@news.usenetzone.com...
> Safari <omoikane@homecom> shall never vanquished be until great Birnam
> wood to high alt.horror.werewolves. hill shall come against him.
>
>> Was it an art fan, of some furry fanboy
>
> Lance Rund I think. He was a longitime regular on FurryMuck and was
> behind the awful gay furry comic "ASB".
>
And the one behind the clean 'zine, "Yarf!". Unlike the fandom's Safari,
Michael Hirtes, he has more to his name than pornography.
See, Vargena, the problem isn't saying "There's sexual stuff in furry". If
the Puerile Princess wasn't saying that furry is *only* about sex, and that
all non-sexual furry art is "special case" (so that she never has to
challenge her prejudice... it might devour her, poor thing), I'd've kept my
muzzle very happily shut.
Oh, and don't worry about the werecard, folks. I don't think anyone
particularly wants to steal the identity of a poor crossing guard in Texas.
Yours wolfishly,
The straightforward,
Safari
> Oh, and don't worry about the werecard, folks. I don't think anyone
> particularly wants to steal the identity of a poor crossing guard in Texas.
Does this count as irony that I have been convicted for identity theft,
and for hit and run when I ran over a crossing guard? In my defense, the
crossing guard deserved it, and I was the hero of the high school (I
found that out years later when I met someone talking about this really
cool person that ran down the old grumpy crossing guard at their school)
That was quite unexpectedly coincidental.
Safari
Safari
> "Safari" wrote in message news:BP6dnaXhiow...@suscom.com...
>
>
>>Blackbear wrote:
>>
>>> How so? There are some who are more dedicated than others to the
>>>pursuit of achieving the form they feel is right for them. Were I to
>>>change
>>>into a bear and thus give way all those things which would prevent me
>>>being a full and natural bear, it would suffice. I would not have any
>>>need
>>>of human mind, having it would reduce my 'bear-ness'! Soul is another
>>>subject which is difficult to discuss since it requires a belief system
>>>to have
>>>a reference for conjecture so I will not breach the matter here.
>>
>>but without that human mind to know you were a bear would you relly exist.
>>Come on, you would want to feel it. You would want to conciously know you
>>were a bear. That is what makes a were it's own seperate existance. It
>>neither exists fully in the animal world and not fully in the human world,
>>but it is a part of both.
>
>
> I feel that I would, even without the excess grey matter, know that
> I was a bear even with a limited consciousness. I might no longer have
> the intelligence to understand how that had come about but I suspect
> I would consciously know I was in the proper form. I would rather
> exist as a bear than as a hominid. I am a were because I am a bear albeit
> submerged within the human form. The reason for my existence in
> this present form I have intellectualized in many ways, much as I
> have been speaking within this forum and even within this thread.
>
> Because of my belief system, I can not murder myself because I would
> then not be able to aspire to my goal. Stated otherwhere I told
> Mother Bear that I wanted to be like her, a bear spirit operating within
> the spirit realm to the benefit of those who have need of a bear spirit
> friend within their lives to encourage their own spiritual growth. If
> the option to be reshaped into the image I have of myself arrived, I
> do not feel it would prevent my goal but rather ease my time of
> existence within this world.
The idea of suicide is certainly one that comes up in the transgendered
society, and I would imagine would be common in those who are
transpecied also. It is something that I think we all have to come to
terms with. We are going to see it, and it will taunt anyone who feels
they have been born to the wrong body. It is a hard subject to breach. I
guess I hold on because it is just a small speck in the grand scheme of
things. I figure if you are going to kill yourself because you can't be
yourself that is a bit silly. If you are going to die anyway go out
being yourself. If you feel that strongly that you are an animal, and it
has you that much in pain then live it. Sure, you may not stand a chance
in a human body, but at least you go out being yourself.
>>> I always felt slighted somewhat by transgender persons. They can
>>>alter themselves to suit their self image, however, the technology does
>>>not (yet) exist for me to do the same. Perhaps I should have been
>>>born a couple decades later, still, my own era has proven one of the
>>>most advanced in all known history, I, and we, are indeed lucky to
>>>be living in such a time.
>>
>>Being a transgendered person and coming to terms with a lot of the
>>different issues you might be surprised at just how much they would
>>understand. If you are truly a transpecied person (which I would actually
>>believe if you were to say so) you may find that some of the methods a
>>transvestite uses to become more comfortable may be more adaptable than
>>you actually think. I don't want to overstep and assume, but if you are
>>finding difficulties in feeling comfortable in your body transgendered
>>people can sympathize and also help. In all honesty, a transgendered
>>person can often feel as far away from their gender as you may from your
>>species even given the technology. I know in my case if you could go so
>>far as to make me feel a period I would give so much. Girls may hate it,
>>but I would give anything to feel it. You may be able to say such things
>>about your animal.
>>
>
>
> I applaud you, Saffy. I am proud that you have been able to achieve
> the form you expect of yourself.
I have not gone so far as to have altered my body in any way. Someday
that may come about, but for now I keep going with my original body. I
hate to say it, but there are some nice things about the male body.
I do that in some ways through my
> bear-walks. While difficult, I feel much more alive and closer to my
> proper self in those times I am clothed as bear. It is no secret to those
> near to me that I spend time each month being-a-bear. I had my
> neighbor arrive one early morning just before sunrise, I was in my
> regalia and was about to set out on my ecstatic journey. I popped
> out onto the porch and my neighbor was speechless. I stuck out
> my paw and shook his hand. He looked uncertainly at his hand and
> then at me, then at his hand and said, 'I don't suppose you are going
> anywhere today then' to which I replied I was about to set out upon
> ceremony. He had wanted me to drive his son to school but had to
> come up with another solution.
Just do me a favor, don't get shot by some dumb ass hunter. Then I would
have to find him and clean his clock. Actually, I may have been a bit
reckless in my ideas to go out and be an animal. Not all hunters are
idiots, but there are enough of them out there with guns to be
concerned. You want to know what it is like to be an animal, but no one
wants to know what it is like at the end of a gun. Plus that will be a
real dissapointment to the hunter too. As we become better at making
fursuits we also need to be aware of this problem.
>
> I had not thought of myself as 'transpecies' though but I suppose
> that is a logical conclusion I should have reached. I was sincere
> when I said I was jealous of the trans-gendered because they could
> do much to reform themselves to their proper self-image. Such
> technology is not available for myself beyond prosthetics at the
> present time. I appreciate 'Cat' who has been slowly working to
> achieve his own self-image but the ursine changes require much
> more work, appearance-wise, if such an option were available
> but required me to retain the hominid mind, I would still be
> amenable to going through whatever was necessary.
I think it is a valid reality for some. Jealosy gets one no where.
People need to look out for eachother, and work together. Of course, if
I am right, and you are a bear spirit in a human body how would it look
for us not to be as hospitible as possible.
Safari
Safari
> Safari wrote:
>
> I've been reading a lot of Herman Hesse lately, not
> exactly an ancient philosopher but his understanding
> of their works is evident in much of his writing.
> Siddartha, for those who haven't read it, is his own
> version of the Buddha story you mention below (and do
> I have to mention Steppenwolf?). Excellent reading for
> those on a spiritual journey which should be everyone
> reading this :).
> Though I don't particularly care for organized
> religion, I'll give your recommendations a read. It
> never hurts to learn something new, and with the free
> online versions, there's really no excuse for not
> reading them :).
Actually, you should try Magister Ludi. The others are good, but I think
the humor and philosophy included in that story really defined a lot of
the things he was trying to bring across much better. It can be a bit
dry reading, but it is that way for a reason.
> I've always been good at weeding out incompatable
> people before the relationship goes too far. I would
> never feel comfortable with someone who
> just...accepted some undesirable part of me. You gotta
> take the whole "me" package, including my love of
> funny hats, my blunt honesty and yes, my wereness. I'm
> very thankful that my high standards haven't hindered
> my ability to make friends as there are apparently
> many people who think funny hats are hilarious, blunt
> honesty is welcome, and therianthropy is a valid
> spiritual path ;).
> If I got enough body modification to be seen as a
> werewolf, that would more likely make my life
> easier...although the horny furry fanboys would get
> old fast.
Tell me about it. Although I am tempted to make up a furry princess
costume and go to a con just to reject the horny fanboys. In small doses
it can be good for the ego. I could probably put together a small pack
of cats to go along with me for the amusement.
>
>
> When I first found this community, I began to feel
> like a big fake when I would conciously act out animal
> behaviors, but you are right in that it's a good aid
> to come to terms with yourself inside and out. When I
> was younger, I could shift into the animal mindset
> very easily from all the roleplaying I did as one.
> Perhaps acting is a good catalyst for something
> more...real?
>
Dont put too much pressure on it. Sometimes you just do it because it is
you. In other words stop and smell the roses it isn't a race.
Blackbear
>
> Blackbear wrote:
>> Such things are often glamorized in history. We shall never know
>> the truth of 'how it was' for those in times former, though, with
>> some accounts, we can imagine a bit of it.
>
> My focus is mainly on the Seven Military classics which were all
> written by people of the time. So much was placed on virtue and honor
> back then, a stark difference from society today. The most respected
> generals were the ones who got down and dirty among the lowest of the
> soldiers, not even eating before they did. That's not glamorous at all
> really.
You are more acquainted with these military figures than myself. I
am aware of some of early China personages though mainly Chou Yi,
Lao Tzu and Kun Futze (which latter two were contemporaries). Honor
of the troops under one's command extends through many cultures and
I would direct your attention to the Civil War where many commanding
officers were down in the dirt with his troops. Often times these
commanders would lead the charge or stand in vulnerable locations
with the result of a loss of many by placing themselves visible to
their troops. I can't recall the Union officer in question, but while
he was leading an assault there in the field near Gettysburg, was
struck down and cried out "My Sister will be married" (actually
this isn't exact but is a phrase representing the one used) and a
confederate officer tried valiantly to rescue him, both of them being
fellow Masons.
Honor can be seen in war but I suggest you find honor in your
own everyday life. There is honor among people, more with some,
less with others. War, however, should not be glamorized, there
is little glamorous about a sucking chest wound, limbs hanging
by a tendon or two or trying to wrap up your friends guts in your
shirt and tie it to him so that he can survive for med evac.
>
>> This is the reason for becoming proficient with your chosen weapon.
>> You want a clean kill without which the meat will be soaked in
>> adrenaline and much less palatable. If you observe a wolf kill on
>> a large mammal, you will see that one or two of the wolves
>> will have the job of drawing blood from the hindquarters.
>> Once this blood is flowing well, the prey will begin to settle down
>> as they go into shock, with a little more of the sanguine action
>> in effect, the adrenaline will decrease and the meat again will be
>> usable at which point the kill will be made with relative safety.
>>
>> If you become proficient in bow and arrow, especially with
>> today's equipment, you can make a clean kill. If you use a
>> high muzzle velocity weapon, you can also make a clean kill
>> but can do this from a great distance, this takes less hunting
>> skill and why I would recommend primitive weapons instead.
>
> Thanks for the advice!
>
Most certainly welcome. What is important here, beside seeing
the cycle of life and how death aids life, is that you learn the skills
of the hunter. In this way you do indeed honor your prey.
I'd prefer not to speak of my political views, doing so would shorten the
life-span of my keyboard considerably.
Blackbear
"Safari" <omoikane@homecom> wrote in message
I would like to subscribe to the idea of reincarnation and believe that
if I would get out of this existence I would return to the existence I
belong in. I mentioned I had memories which inclined me to consider
this particular belief since they are at odds with any portion of my
life and thus could not be memories derived within this life, I also
appended the consideration that these memories are phantasmagoria,
despite being with me from an early age. However, my belief system
considers, but does not accept, reincarnation as fact and rather
emphasizes the practice of spiritual development and making spiritual
connections in preparation for entering an existence as spirit.
It makes some sense because, if there is a spiritual existence beyond
the corporal one, we should be well advised to have connections
and friends in that realm.
During an ecstatic journey during which I had communion with
'Mother Bear' I told her, I wanted to be like her. A bear spirit who
could be an aid to those who needed it and were calling out for
spirit to resolve some issue in their lives. With the above for
reference then I can present my spiritual goal even though my
need to be a bear has enough strength to cause suicidal ideation,
to achieve my goal I must live and be an agent of my Spirit
friends until such time as I may walk beyond the stars.
>>>> I always felt slighted somewhat by transgender persons. They can
>>>>alter themselves to suit their self image, however, the technology does
>>>>not (yet) exist for me to do the same. Perhaps I should have been
>>>>born a couple decades later, still, my own era has proven one of the
>>>>most advanced in all known history, I, and we, are indeed lucky to
>>>>be living in such a time.
>>>
>>>Being a transgendered person and coming to terms with a lot of the
>>>different issues you might be surprised at just how much they would
>>>understand. If you are truly a transpecied person (which I would actually
>>>believe if you were to say so) you may find that some of the methods a
>>>transvestite uses to become more comfortable may be more adaptable than
>>>you actually think. I don't want to overstep and assume, but if you are
>>>finding difficulties in feeling comfortable in your body transgendered
>>>people can sympathize and also help. In all honesty, a transgendered
>>>person can often feel as far away from their gender as you may from your
>>>species even given the technology. I know in my case if you could go so
>>>far as to make me feel a period I would give so much. Girls may hate it,
>>>but I would give anything to feel it. You may be able to say such things
>>>about your animal.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I applaud you, Saffy. I am proud that you have been able to achieve
>> the form you expect of yourself.
>
> I have not gone so far as to have altered my body in any way. Someday that
> may come about, but for now I keep going with my original body. I hate to
> say it, but there are some nice things about the male body.
>
Even so I am proud that you are willing to present yourself as you
recognize yourself. I do this in my bear-walks and while this helps
me a great deal being a geis to my welfare. Our conversations have
shown me that I should let more of 'me' show as I relate with those
in my life, not only mentally but also in appearance which can help
those who meet me understand who they are addressing.
>
> I do that in some ways through my
>> bear-walks. While difficult, I feel much more alive and closer to my
>> proper self in those times I am clothed as bear. It is no secret to
>> those
>> near to me that I spend time each month being-a-bear. I had my
>> neighbor arrive one early morning just before sunrise, I was in my
>> regalia and was about to set out on my ecstatic journey. I popped
>> out onto the porch and my neighbor was speechless. I stuck out
>> my paw and shook his hand. He looked uncertainly at his hand and
>> then at me, then at his hand and said, 'I don't suppose you are going
>> anywhere today then' to which I replied I was about to set out upon
>> ceremony. He had wanted me to drive his son to school but had to
>> come up with another solution.
>
> Just do me a favor, don't get shot by some dumb ass hunter. Then I would
> have to find him and clean his clock. Actually, I may have been a bit
> reckless in my ideas to go out and be an animal. Not all hunters are
> idiots, but there are enough of them out there with guns to be concerned.
> You want to know what it is like to be an animal, but no one wants to know
> what it is like at the end of a gun. Plus that will be a real
> dissapointment to the hunter too. As we become better at making fursuits
> we also need to be aware of this problem.
This has been a danger for some years. Only one hunter I know in
my area has the ability to locate and target me. The others I am a
problem for and the ranch areas where I sojourn are aware of me
peripherally and have and do on occasion try to take action against
me. Hunting bears in Oklahoma is not legal and the population of
blackbears are reasonably protected here and the population is
sparse. In 100 square miles of this region, most likely less than
two bears for every twenty of those miles.
I should tell you about a vision which came prior to a bear
walk. I was 'told' that I sounded like a Reindeer because of
the bells which are part of my regalia. You'd have to hear the
whole anecdote to see how that was a statement within the
vision. However, because of that vision, one of those time
I had been shot at, I had foreknowledge of how to extricate
myself in safety from the range of the weapon. Otherwise I
shall have to consider being shot, an occupational hazard
and if that occasion arises, then I suspect that I will no longer
have to tolerate the hominid form and suspect I shall attain
my proper one.
>>
>> I had not thought of myself as 'transpecies' though but I suppose
>> that is a logical conclusion I should have reached. I was sincere
>> when I said I was jealous of the trans-gendered because they could
>> do much to reform themselves to their proper self-image. Such
>> technology is not available for myself beyond prosthetics at the
>> present time. I appreciate 'Cat' who has been slowly working to
>> achieve his own self-image but the ursine changes require much
>> more work, appearance-wise, if such an option were available
>> but required me to retain the hominid mind, I would still be
>> amenable to going through whatever was necessary.
>
> I think it is a valid reality for some. Jealosy gets one no where. People
> need to look out for eachother, and work together. Of course, if I am
> right, and you are a bear spirit in a human body how would it look for us
> not to be as hospitible as possible.
>
I appreciate that magnanimity. I am a bear and I will continue to
work at being a good bear, despite the obvious limitations of being in
hominid form. Today, in a humorous incident, I saw a dead tree which
I could not resist pushing over. Just as that luscious smell of the
roots began as the tree lost it's purchase, I was conked on the head
by a fairly large branch leaving a nice knot up there on my crown.
Another occupational hazard ;)
Blackbear
bear371dotcom
man_in_...@yahoo.com
> Before the robe can be used, or even made, within my family you
> have first to go through an 'initiation' process. Within the family
> are groups which are called societies. These groups conduct meetings
> and arrange activities exclusive to each society, the term exclusive
> in this case means information particular to the group, stays within
> the group.
> I can say that different aspects of the construction is often
explained
> and shown, by example, to those who meet with the requirements of
> the society. This is not an unusual thing within the Native American
> community. The Arapaho, as an example, have their 'Young Sheep'
> who are young ones that are just beginning to participate in dances
> and are as yet unaffiliated.
> The Cheyenne had many societies, one notable is the Wolf Pup
> Society or another example is the Akicita of the Lakota, who are
> a 'Fox' society primarily interested in practices of war as with
> the Blackfoot society of the Kiowa tribe.
Actually, Tokala's the name of the fox society. Akicita just
means the military and police.
Blackbear
<man_in_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1110430327.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Tokala is indeed Fox, my line of thinking was mainly warrior
societies and thus why I wrote akicita in a general meaning and
used the term Fox to indicate a society. It was poorly worded
perhaps. By way of reference, a translation of one such Tokala
dance songs could be " Hah! You hunters, all of you ran away.
"But the fox did not! Look at him laying there, Hah!
You ran away but look and see, the Fox did not!"
This is a chiding by the Fox Society to other warriors who had
fled a battle while the "fox" remained, heedless of death and fought
on. Since several societies existed and perhaps the Dog Society
is best known, Fox seems the best example at the time. This is NOT
to say the White Horse Society, Dog Society or others were any
less the warrior. Tokala Olowan give the strongest impressions
of a unstoppable fighting force. Another song which conveys
this would be "I am the Fox. For awhile I remain the fox,
then the fox will be no more" (Tokalaka miye ca, Nakenula
waon, welo,) A pardon for me using the term generically
and then using an English term specifically, it might certainly
confuse one following this thread but was unintentional.
Thank you for your clarification.
Iyuskia Wacianktelo
Matosapa