Just a small announcement.
invisicat
Wishing all a pleasant new year.
invisicat
BF
Artist
"invisicat" <n...@uhhuh.com> wrote in message
news:9018D9B8F...@209.125.35.22...
> For those whom have shown a certain amount of concern;
www.burnedfur.com.
> Wishing all a pleasant new year.
COOL! Now I too can set my fur on fire and run around yelping! Just
think of how popular I will be at parties after this! ^____^
ilr
when you can't even wish people happy holidays without
backlash.
I'm just feeling sorry for everyone on either side of this
crap at the moment. :P
-Ilr
Artist <mell...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:nbU26.85326$7g.91...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com...
Brian O'connell
Sakai as two who ditched furry fandom... Honestly I can't speak for Donna,
but in Stan's case, I don't believe he was ever considered as a member of
furry fandom... He's a professional cartoonist who just *happens* to draw
comics with funny animals in them... After all, he had a successful run with
TMNT and their subsequent toy lines, and his comics aren't considered as
anything along the lines of "furry" comics in the mainstream...
Next someone will post Michael Golden in that list, just because he did
a comic called "Bucky O'Hare", or Scott Shaw! for his miscellaneous comics
and prior involvement in Rowrbrazzle...
"ilr" <i...@rof.net> wrote in message news:92hv72$ea9$1...@raccoon.fur.com...
SilverJain
<< The interesting link is "The Fallen", listing off Donna Barr and Stan
Sakai as two who ditched furry fandom... >>
I noticed Daphne Lage there also. While I know she doesn't really do many
"fan-type" things anymore, she still does attend a couple of furry conventions
(at least I believe that was her I saw there selling her stuff...) and she
still draws a ton of furry stuff- she's finished enough Tall Tails chapters to
run until issue #99 of Furrlough, and is working on the next batch, which
should run into the 100s somewhere.
Shouldn't they also list Tygger, who doesn't do much with the fandom anymore,
or Shon Howell, who has expressed dissatisfaction with the current state of the
fandom? How about Chris Whalen, Fred Perry, Pat Dolan, Dan Flahive, John
Nunnemacher, Cindy Crowell or the tons of artists who stopped doing furry art
for the web, fanzines or comics because Real Life interfered?
Most of the artists who leave don't leave in disgust, they leave because they
get real jobs, get married, have a kid or otherwise find they have no more free
time to devote to art. Sometimes, they come back (Patrick Moran, artist of
Tunesia, is a good example, as is Scotty Arsenault), sometimes, they just drift
away, never to be heard from again (the guys who did Ninjara, Cindy Crowell,
Dan Flahive).
As far as I know, Donna Barr never considered herself a "furry" artist. She
just liked to draw centaurs, and occasionally did short stories for Antarctic
and Mu's furry anthologies. Stan Sakai was involved in the earliest days of
Rowrbrazzle, but once Usagi Yojimbo took off, he was just too busy. (He also
married and had children.) He will still make the occasional appearance at a
furry convention, and he has done covers and guest pinups for many of the
smaller furry books. You could not in a million years classify Stan Sakai as a
Burned Fur, as he has won the "Nicest Guy in Comics" award for the last ten or
fifteen years. Also, by the strictest definition of a Burned Fur, Stan has
never been Burned- no one has ever given him any guff about any of the things
listed on the Manifesto- in fact, he's won more than one Eisner Award, which is
the equivalent of the Academy Award in comics.
Heck, *I* don't do much in the way of fan activity in furry fandom anymore- I
stopped doing my happy little G-rated fanzine, stopped doing much more than
working the table at furry conventions, etc. This is because a) I have no free
time anymore and what free time I do have I devote to anime fandom and my other
hobbies, and b) funny animal and anthro stuff has become a job for me now. When
I browse an art archive, it's looking for new talent, when I'm at a convention,
it's to represent my company. So perhaps they ought to list me as "one of the
fallen".
Oh, but I guess since I post to AFF occasionally and publish more funny animal
titles than just about anyone, I guess that throws me square into furfan
territory. Whatever.
--Elin Winkler
Selling my collections! Always different stuff! Check out the deals here:
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/silverjain/
Radio Comix Online:
http://www.radiocomix.com
Brian Sutton
(Caravan Kid) and Sergio Aragones and Steve Leialoha (Newton the Wonder
Rabbit).
Brian Sutton
" Because I REALLY care about your happiness..."
Visit my website @ http://members.xoom.com/HJGpage/
for deals on Furry art & comics
AJL
> You could not in a million years classify Stan Sakai as a
> Burned Fur, as he has won the "Nicest Guy in Comics" award for the last ten or
> fifteen years. Also, by the strictest definition of a Burned Fur, Stan has
> never been Burned- no one has ever given him any guff about any of the things
> listed on the Manifesto- in fact, he's won more than one Eisner Award, which is
> the equivalent of the Academy Award in comics.
I don't think that list is supposed to classify people as burned furs,
just people who used to be involved with furry fandom, but choose not to
associate with it anymore, probably for some of the same reasons BF is
fighting. Stan Sakai used to come to ConFurence every year, but stopped
several years ago.
As a side note (first-hand information, here) Stan Sakai was my first
choice as GOH for ConFurence 11 because with the theme of "Furries in
Asia," and the fact he lived in the area, he'd make a perfect choice.
However, when I talked to him on the phone back in April '99, he said
that he did not want to be CF's GOH, even though he might show up *at*
the con to visit with people he knew would be there.
--Darrel L. Exline
Brian O'connell
news:20001229120537...@ng-cs1.aol.com...
<snip>
*giggle* So essentially, the misnomer the Burned Furs gave these people as
being "Fallen", is inaccurate... It SHOULD be "Furries Who Got Lives, and
Found Better Things to Do"...;)
Brian O'connell
Oh, wait, the last 3 died... But they weren't furries when they were alive
either...;)
"Brian Sutton" <bsu77...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001229122925...@ng-fg1.aol.com...
invisicat
<20001229120537...@ng-cs1.aol.com>:
>Brian said:
>
><< The interesting link is "The Fallen", listing off Donna Barr and Stan
>Sakai as two who ditched furry fandom... >>
>
>I noticed Daphne Lage there also. While I know she doesn't really do
>many "fan-type" things anymore, she still does attend a couple of furry
>conventions (at least I believe that was her I saw there selling her
>stuff...) and she still draws a ton of furry stuff- she's finished
>enough Tall Tails chapters to run until issue #99 of Furrlough, and is
>working on the next batch, which should run into the 100s somewhere.
In regards to Daphne Lage,
http://www.egoworks.com/furry/
<Snipping the rest respectfully>
That particular list is a work in progress as more information comes to
light it will be updated further.
A pleasant one to you an yours.
invisicat
BF
Magnwa
>
>http://www.egoworks.com/furry/
>
><Snipping the rest respectfully>
>That particular list is a work in progress as more information comes to
>light it will be updated further.
>A pleasant one to you an yours.
Don't see anything there.. or is that the point?
Magnwa
invisicat
<slrn94ps9h...@magnwa.roarmail.net>:
Hmmm, apologies. It seems she finally pulled that as well. It was, to put
it simply, a page stating (and I'll paraphrase from memory) that she would
no longer be involved in the 'furry fandom' and went on to list the
reasons. She did touch on a few of the more popular reason for leaving
however and said (I believe) that she would continue working on a few of
her own projects, but had never really considered them 'furry' to begin
with.
invisicat
BF
Mike & Carole Curtis
>
> "ilr" <i...@rof.net> wrote in message news:92hv72$ea9$1...@raccoon.fur.com...
> > Y''know your organzation done screwed up somewhere big time
> > when you can't even wish people happy holidays without
> > backlash.
> > I'm just feeling sorry for everyone on either side of this
> > crap at the moment. :P
> > -Ilr
Well, you folks have our best wishes for the New Year. Carole and I don't
really know much about Burned Fur, (is Eric Blumrich a member?) but we do
try to get along with everyone.
Mike
Sarenthalanos
"Mike & Carole Curtis" <shan...@cyberback.com> wrote in message
news:97812213...@users.cyberback.com...
I think someone's said it before, but the both of you seem to pretty much be
a couple of the most lucid posters here.
-Sar
Brian O'connell
that she was disgusted with the politics involving erotic artwork...
Specifically I present this: A total and unmitigated statement on the
attempts of the burned furs and others to push furry fandom towards
Victorian standards and values...:
http://www.cornwuff.com/fuzzylogic/fl4/spooge.html
"invisicat" <n...@uhhuh.com> wrote in message
news:901993C09...@209.125.35.22...
Brian O'connell
present it again (words © Daphne Lage) in it's original cut and pasted form
(In order to eradicate any doubt in my words, as so many here choose to
ignore and doubt based on my oh so illustrious reputation... Ever think my
name has mud on it because someone slung it other than I?)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
To spooge or not to spooge
A "middle of the road" artist fires back
Daphne Lage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Confurence 10 has gone but the controversy surrounding it has lingered in
the air like foul, choking smoke. What I am talking about is the brouhaha
over adult furry artwork, or as most people like to lovingly call it,
"spooge". There have always been as many opinions over erotic furry art as
there are about the fandom itself, but the issue has never been so out front
as it was in the past month or so.
Ever since the start of the Burned Fur movement (actually, the discussion
existed before but strengthened after that point), what should or should not
be part of the fandom always boiled down to one question: does erotic furry
art have any place in the fandom? As much as the founders of the Burned Furs
claimed that adult art had nothing to do with their stance, it inevitably
became an unofficial cause.
Many members have proclaimed their dislike, even disdain for any erotic art
and their creators, and ironically, so did I at the time. I felt that there
was a connection between erotic art and the sordid reputation the fandom
seemed to have. After all, how can any "mundane" look at humanistic animals
having sex and not think it's somehow related to bestiality? But then I am
always reminded of an incident back in High School where a fellow student
accused me of being a closet bestialist because I drew animal characters all
the time (way before I even started dabbling in erotica). Or even more
recently, how my father saw a piece of a nude wolf admiring herself in the
mirror and immediately started asking about "who orders these things" -
questions with heavy bestialist overtones.
These incidents made me think that maybe it wasn't really erotica that was
"damaging" the reputation of the fandom. If people were thinking bestiality
when no sexual encounters were portrayed, then what was the *real* problem?
But honestly, that's not why I'm writing this (we'll save that for another
article).
About a week before the convention, a threat was sent to the hotel claiming
that CF was a market for pornographers, bestialists, and pedophiles and
swore that there would be repercussions if they continued to host the show.
Although the hotel ignored the threat, they decided to ban the selling of
adult material throughout the convention because of the special nature of
their liquor license.
It was the shot heard around the fandom.
There were basically two responses repeated on alt.fan.furry and on the
Burned Fur newsgroup. Either the decision was a very good thing or a very
bad thing. And the arguments from both sides were loud and ugly.
The anti-erotica fringe practically hailed with a chorus of hallelujahs.
They felt it was the first real blow to the pornographers they hated so
much: The artists who tainted the fandom with their questionable endeavors,
inviting in the undesirables that caused the creation of the Burned Fur
movement to begin with (a movement that from the *very beginning* did NOT
see erotic art as a problem). The pornographers, they claimed, were
responsible for driving out the "real" non-erotic artists, leaving the rest
to wallow in sordid scenes depicting every known sexual act in mankind (and
even animalkind!). They were quick to advertise their hate for artists who
would dare illustrate adult art and were even quicker to announce their lack
of sympathy for those who would lose money because of the ban.
The dealers, comprising mostly of artists, had a much more pessimistic view.
The total ban meant facing more than half a loss in sales. The move of the
con to San Diego over the Easter weekend was a large problem in and of
itself due to the much higher cost in hotel rates and airline tickets (I
myself had been unable to find any tickets for less than $400.00). Many
dealers were financially depending on this show, basing their calculations
on previous ConFURences - calculations that showed that erotic art was a big
(if not best) seller. Now with a total ban on such materials, most dealers
were dreading the reality of not breaking even, a fact that would convince
them never to return again.
Arguments ensued back and forth between the "anti-spoogers" and the artists
like a rabid tennis match with the end culminating at ConFURence 10 itself.
Well, as we've all heard, dealers, much to their relief, were allowed to
sell erotica as long as everything was covered, something I was doing with
my own artwork already. Although CF was much tamer than previous years,
mostly due to the absence of the more "weirdo" members of the fandom, there
were still many misconceptions floating around that bothered me enough to
write this article to begin with.
From the very beginning, much to my chagrin, I have always been known as a
porno artist despite my efforts to the contrary. Even after explaining to
people on a.f.f. that more than half my art is clean, I am still talked
about as if all I draw is erotica. One member of the newsgroup kept
stressing that I shouldn't complain because I chose to do nothing but
erotica. If this person ever bothered to go to my webpage or look at my
catalog, he would see that more than half my products are non-erotica. In a
recent CF report, it was perceived that my erotica sold well because it was
all in color while my clean stuff was in black and white (rather than
because there was a larger demand for the erotica). This statement was
incorrect as I had 6 binders of color prints and 3 of them was of
non-erotica. Of the black and white items, most of them were non-erotic
items. Count everything together and again, my non-erotic items outnumbered
the erotica. But most of my sales came from my erotic products.
So what's the moral of this story?
1) The fastest way to find erotic material is to ask an "anti-spooger" for
directions: They're so against erotic material it's all they see. They
complain there is no clean art around, but every artist I saw at CF with the
exception of 1 or 2, had plenty of non-erotic material for sale. Even James
Hardiman, one of the more "infamous" furry artists, had a section in his
book dedicated to nothing but clean art. Of course, the anti-spoogers argue
that once you do erotic material, you're written off, or they're so offended
by even the concept of erotic art, they can't stand to occupy the same space
at a con where it might be present. Well, then they wonder why they can't
find anything. There was actually an artist who sold *nothing* but clean art
and by Saturday night, she was in tears because she had only sold ONE image
the entire time, while her partner who sold more sexually suggestive
material couldn't keep his stuff in stock.
2) Fans are NOT stupid: Fans are not sheep following whatever the artists
tell them to follow. If you take away the erotica, the fans of that art will
find someone who will supply it. And despite what some have said, they will
not buy non-erotica just because there's no erotica (just as people who want
non-erotic items will not buy erotica). In fact, most fans would rather buy
nothing than buy artwork they don't want. I especially noticed this with
commissions. When given a choice, most fans will go straight to the adult
request even if all they want is a simple character study. The myth of the
artist "exploiting" the fans is just that, a myth. The fans already know
what they want and support artists who will supply it. Simple economics.
3) All talk and no PAY make anti-spoogers dull people: They complain about
how there is no clean art but they're never around when you finally supply
it. Or worse, they only look but they don't buy anything. Or worse still -
they still complain! If you're not going to put your money where your mouth
is - SHUT UP!
4) Artists are not and should not be doing this for free: No offense to
those artists to get pleasure out of giving away art. If it makes you happy,
please continue to do so. But one thing that kept popping up on a.f.f was
the idea that making any money off of artwork was actually bad! I found it
extremely ironic that the people who wanted to "clean up the fandom" and
spoke the loudest against erotica, were also the loudest against *paying*
for the art. They felt non-erotica should exist regardless of what little
demand there is for it (and if they bothered to look, they *do* exist).
There is nothing wrong with wanting to be compensated for something you do
that other people want. My only guess is that people who bring forth this
argument either are too used to downloading artwork for free or sells so
dismally that all they can do is hold a general resentment towards anyone
who *can* make money off their art.
5) Artists are NOT mind readers!: If you don't see something you want - say
so! I am tired of hearing people whine about how they don't see anything,
move on, then moan that there's nothing that interests them. If you want an
image so bad, commission it! Request it! SAY SOMETHING THEN BACK IT UP WITH
MONEY! The people who are fans of erotica don't have a problem with this
concept. Why do you?
6) Not all artwork is done are for public consumption: There is a widespread
misconception that whatever art is public (which is usually for sale) is the
only work the artist has ever done (thus the "artists don't draw for
pleasure only to sell" myth.) Another reason why there is less non-erotic
art is because since there is less of a demand for clean art, such art ends
up done for personal gratification only. Sure, some artists may display the
art anyway or put it on a webpage, but for the most part, it's art that's
only shared within personal circles and the fandom never ends up seeing it.
And finally, I am totally convinced that the online fandom as represented by
alt.fan.furry, has no real basis in furry fandom. Topics that are crucial on
a.f.f. always end up to be inconsequential in real life as CF10 has proven.
Most (I said MOST not ALL) people who post on a.f.f. are literally there to
hide behind fake identities and start arguments they would never dare start
at an actual convention. I would love to see the rabid anti-spoogers show up
at a con and confront the "porn artists" they hate so much with the same
intensity and hatred they display online. Hmph... talk about something
that'll never happen since that would require them to actually step
forward...
CF10 proved that you could have a family show and still supply erotica at
the same time. Even I don't like to walk through a show and be confronted at
every corner by images of raw, messy sex. When I display my art, the
feelings of the people in front of my table are always a concern and as long
as I display that modesty, then I don't see a problem. I understand if they
don't like erotica. It's their choice and I respect that. But I am tired of
being pointed at and being called a "problem" just because I *choose* to
supply that type of art to people who *choose* to buy it. But then again, I
only get that problem on a.f.f., a newsgroup that I have stopped reading due
to the absolute futility in actually trying to explain *anything* and trying
to debunk misconceptions. Now if anyone has a problem with my erotic artwork
or anything related to it, they're going to have to actually confront me in
person.
What a concept, eh?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Daphne Lage is a comic book artist and cartoonist who happens to draw
erotica, not the other way around. When she's not working on commissions and
prints, she's working on her comic Tall Tails, which will be published in
Furrlough from Radio Comix starting in June. Her main website can be found
at http://www.advanix.net/~egoraven, and the Tall Tails website at
http://members.xoom.com/egoraven/ttmain.htm She is willing to discuss
(flames gleefully ignored) any points mentioned in this article on the
condition that it's either in person or under your real name. After all, if
you're not willing to sign your own name to your opinions, why should she
care one bit with what you have to say?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Brian O'connell
in message news:92it7p$267$1...@velox.critter.net...
A quick note, albeit slightly out of context to Richard Chandler,
someone else who provides a perfectly good example to my statements
regarding the Burned Furs:
> CF10 proved that you could have a family show and still supply erotica at
> the same time. Even I don't like to walk through a show and be confronted
at
> every corner by images of raw, messy sex. When I display my art, the
> feelings of the people in front of my table are always a concern and as
long
> as I display that modesty, then I don't see a problem. I understand if
they
> don't like erotica. It's their choice and I respect that. But I am tired
of
> being pointed at and being called a "problem" just because I *choose* to
> supply that type of art to people who *choose* to buy it. But then again,
I
> only get that problem on a.f.f., a newsgroup that I have stopped reading
due
> to the absolute futility in actually trying to explain *anything* and
trying
> to debunk misconceptions. Now if anyone has a problem with my erotic
artwork
> or anything related to it, they're going to have to actually confront me
in
> person.
Note the part which states that "The furry artist who provides erotica
is called "The problem" for choosing to sell erotic art... As said, is this
a delusion on my part? I think not...
Sarenthalanos
> Actually, I HAVE seen that page... One of the reasons she pulled out
was
> that she was disgusted with the politics involving erotic artwork...
> Specifically I present this: A total and unmitigated statement on the
> attempts of the burned furs and others to push furry fandom towards
> Victorian standards and values...:
>
> http://www.cornwuff.com/fuzzylogic/fl4/spooge.html
>
Ah, so the question begs was it a display of the Burned Furs in action, or
how fast her name is removed from the list?
-Sar
Brian O'connell
spooge market, and 2/3 of the negative responses she recieved from the furry
prudes (including but not exclusively limited to the Burned Furs)...
So the irony is, Daphne Lage wasn't so much driven away from Furry
fandom by the sickos and sleaze, she was driven out by the very same Burned
Furs who claim her as one of "The Fallen"...
"Sarenthalanos" <sarent...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:92itrm$g41$1...@raccoon.fur.com...
FromTheDes...@stukafox.com
> Daphne Lage is a comic book artist and cartoonist who happens to draw
> erotica, not the other way around.
"But do they call me McGregor the BOAT BUILDER?"
StukaFox
Game, point and match
--
The most important question of 2001 will be 'Why aren't you fucking FURIOUS?'
Brian O'connell
<FromTheDes...@StukaFox.Com> wrote in message
news:92iuh1$1dvs$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com...
Brian O'connell
don't...
<FromTheDes...@StukaFox.Com> wrote in message
news:92iuh1$1dvs$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com...
FromTheDes...@stukafox.com
> You know, Denial isn't just a river in Egypt...
Uh, Bri, how is this 'denial'? I think the denial is coming from
the other side. Ms. Lage's complaint mirrors exactly my little
Scottish yarn.
Care to explain yourself?
(You can always pull a Farlo with you want.)
StukaFox
invisicat
do _seem_ to be doing, if not my apologies in advance). I suggest if anyone
wishes to know her reasons for leaving do so by asking her.
invisicat
BF
Brian O'connell
"In short, Burned Fur's position on erotica is that it should be displayed
responsibly, and handled with discretion. Those who do not exercise
discretion in the display and handling of adult Furry art are a source of
harm to the fandom and appropriate action needs to be taken. "
In other words, those who post erotic work to the web without countless
layers of preventative measures to prevent the outside world from viewing
them, AND irregardless of if they share the same web hosting sources (ie:
Velar) as those who post non erotic materials, then the Burned Furs will
treat them similarly to the bestialists and plushie humpers... But the
Burned Furs thrive on conflict, god forbid anyone actually observe the
facts, let alone acknowlege them... Especially the Burned Furs...
Anybody can actually LOOK at what's on Velar to verify what I'm saying
(just look at the "new" section from the "artists" directory, and count off
which are spooge and which aren't... If you were expecting it to match the
Burned Furs' claims, expect to be surprised, the last few years, it's been
roughly 1/10th spooge to 9/10ths amateur/non spooge/professional artwork)...
In other words, it's the Burned Furs who in fact make furry fandom look
like a bunch of freaks to the outside world, FAR more than Loaded or any
other organization could hope to... And you've done your own part to help
them in this, Stuka...
<FromTheDes...@StukaFox.Com> wrote in message
news:92iv6j$1evm$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com...
Brian O'connell
all honesty, she speaks perfectly well on her own (despite the Burned Furs'
own attempts to put words in her mouth), which specifically states in 2/3 of
the examples how the Burned Furs have done more to discourage her from doing
erotic works (with words and the mandatory cult like damnnation), as opposed
to the 1/3 (or "freaks", as the BF's often put it) who encouraged her to
draw it with money:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
CF10 proved that you could have a family show and still supply erotica at
the same time. Even I don't like to walk through a show and be confronted at
every corner by images of raw, messy sex. When I display my art, the
feelings of the people in front of my table are always a concern and as long
as I display that modesty, then I don't see a problem. I understand if they
don't like erotica. It's their choice and I respect that. But I am tired of
being pointed at and being called a "problem" just because I *choose* to
supply that type of art to people who *choose* to buy it. But then again, I
only get that problem on a.f.f., a newsgroup that I have stopped reading due
to the absolute futility in actually trying to explain *anything* and trying
to debunk misconceptions. Now if anyone has a problem with my erotic artwork
or anything related to it, they're going to have to actually confront me in
person.
What a concept, eh?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Daphne Lage is a comic book artist and cartoonist who happens to draw
erotica, not the other way around. When she's not working on commissions and
prints, she's working on her comic Tall Tails, which will be published in
Furrlough from Radio Comix starting in June. Her main website can be found
at http://www.advanix.net/~egoraven, and the Tall Tails website at
http://members.xoom.com/egoraven/ttmain.htm She is willing to discuss
(flames gleefully ignored) any points mentioned in this article on the
condition that it's either in person or under your real name. After all, if
you're not willing to sign your own name to your opinions, why should she
care one bit with what you have to say?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Contents Previous Article Next Article
Sarenthalanos
I think anyone with even an average reading comprehension could clearly
understand what she was saying in that page. Even said it quite clearly
numerous times and even enumerated it into a list with boldface numbers.
-Sar
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
furball1_(furball-one)_hates_s...@uswest.net> writes:
> Note the part which states that "The furry artist who provides
> erotica is called "The problem" for choosing to sell erotic art... As
> said, is this a delusion on my part? I think not...
Quoting Daphne as an authority on what the Burned Furs are about is about as
authoritative as quoting YOU on what the Burned Furs are about. Of course,
that was written back when Ben Bruin was still in the Burned Furs, which could
be a source for her, but there were other anti-erotica folks running around at
the time (and well before that. Anyone remember Jordan Greywolf?) and they
kicked Ben out, remember?
And by the way, the Burned Furs were NOT behind the call to the hotel, and
whoever did could not have known about the "resort" liquor license (Without
which the call would have been a total non-event).
--
"if Marylin Manson has more of an influence on a kid than the kid's parents
do, then maybe the parents need to look at how they're raising their kids."
-- Charlie Clouser, Keyboardist, Nine Inch Nails.
Spammer Warning: Washington State Law now provides civil penalties for UCE.
invisicat
in <92ivvp$3ef$1...@velox.critter.net>:
>Only the Burned Furs would claim I was putting words in her mouth, when
>in all honesty, she speaks perfectly well on her own (despite the Burned
>Furs' own attempts to put words in her mouth), which specifically states
>in 2/3 of the examples how the Burned Furs have done more to discourage
>her from doing erotic works (with words and the mandatory cult like
>damnnation), as opposed to the 1/3 (or "freaks", as the BF's often put
>it) who encouraged her to draw it with money:
I'm sorry, was the below what was or was not on her page? How have I put
words into anyone's mouth? And of course latestly the fact that BF are not
anti-spooge (Something which, for whatever reasons you seem determined to
ignore)?
Thankyou in adavance for taking the time to respond.
invisicat
BF
invisicat
<92j03g$g8k$1...@raccoon.fur.com>:
I agree, however... I do not recall that as being on her 'Goodbye to the
fandom' (for lack of a better term) page. Hence, was not what I was
refering to in my earlier post.
invisicat
BF
Brian O'connell
always repost it here to prove my point... The fact is, Daphne Lage was
driven from Furry Fandom moreso BY the Burned Furs than the perverts...
There's the example of how she was held in disdain by the prudes in the
Burned Furs, the very same group that celebrated with much enthusiasm, the
fact that erotic art was blocked at Confurence 10 (the same group that
denies any involvement with that poison pen letter that caused it, while in
the meanwhile being unable to prove no involvement to the contrary)... The
SAME Burned Furs who condemnned her for drawing erotic art, and her fellow
artists for doing the same... The SAME Burned Furs who made the poor choice
in claiming her as a martyr to their cause, when much like Judas, they
condemnned her to the very same cross that they claim to bear for Furry
Fandom...
So far their claims, their stories, AND their movement has so many holes
in it, I can strain spaghetti through it, and lose several pounds of noodles
in the attempt...
"Sarenthalanos" <sarent...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:92j03g$g8k$1...@raccoon.fur.com...
Sarenthalanos
Um...so if they are supposedly not 'anti-spooge', then please explain how
they set themselves up to be the thought-police. They say that they are
against censorship, yet then go on to say how they are the judges on the
limits of what can or cannot be done - thus an implied power of censorship
at their whim.
-Sar
FromTheDes...@stukafox.com
> In other words, it's the Burned Furs who in fact make furry fandom look
> like a bunch of freaks to the outside world, FAR more than Loaded or any
> other organization could hope to... And you've done your own part to help
> them in this, Stuka...
Brian,
You still didn't answer my question: Daphne Lage got tarred as
a pornographer NOT from Burned Fur, but from the fandom in general,
*because* she produced a lot of cheesecake/wank material. That's not
ALL she produced, but that's how people thought of her. This example
mirrors my 'McGregor' example perfectly. Not everyone in the town
might have known about all his hard work, but they sure knew he
was shagging sheep.
"Do they call me McGregor the BOAT BUILDER?"
So how is it that I'm in 'denial'?
Incidentally, your argument is fatally flawed. Blaming Burned Fur
for furry being a freak show is like blaming the NAACP for the
existance of the KKK and racism, or the ADL for the existance of the
American Nazi Party: ad hoc ergo post proctor hoc.
StukaFox
Brian O'connell
restrictions on liquor licensing in San Diego... Additionally, when I lived
in California, I noticed there was a law restricting alcohol consumption in
areas where adult entertainment was available... A simple visit to any strip
club demonstrates this... Since at the time, at least half of the Burned Fur
membership were residents IN California, it would have taken little to no
effort to look up the pertinant legislation...
"Richard Chandler - WA Resident" <mau...@kendra.com> wrote in message
news:001229133...@mauser.at.kendra.com...
invisicat
<92j0mb$g9t$1...@raccoon.fur.com>:
>
>"invisicat" <n...@uhhuh.com> wrote in message
>news:9019AC0ED...@209.125.35.22...
>Um...so if they are supposedly not 'anti-spooge', then please explain
>how they set themselves up to be the thought-police. They say that they
>are against censorship, yet then go on to say how they are the judges on
>the limits of what can or cannot be done - thus an implied power of
>censorship at their whim.
>
>-Sar
Really? <:) 'They', being that I'm one of them are not in fact thought
police of any sort nor anti-spooge. You have read the web page haven't you?
Because honestly it seems that you missed a few sections. To answer you,
I'll simply refer you to the page. www.burnedfur.com (Specifically the FAQ
dealing with adult art). Thank you for taking the time to get the facts
straight. :)
invisicat
BF
Brian O'connell
states it in itself that:
"In short, Burned Fur's position on erotica is that it should be displayed
responsibly, and handled with discretion. Those who do not exercise
discretion in the display and handling of adult Furry art are a source of
harm to the fandom and appropriate action needs to be taken."
I charge that the Burned Furs have in fact taken what they deem to be
appropriate action, and that such was, if not totally unwarranted, then at
least was inappropriate to the situation at the time... And so far, the
behavior of the Burned Furs has been consistant with their attitudes towards
erotica, and the artists who produce same...
Additionally, what I've quoted from Lage is sufficient to show the holes
in your claims of innocence... Furthermore, your description of Daphne Lage
as one of the "fallen", so to speak, is erroneous and ficticious, when she
in fact wrote the facts regarding the matter on her website, which in turn
fingers the Burned Furs as being one of the chief reasons she quit furry
fandom to begin with...
Considering that Daphne Lage has stated on her page that one of the
chief reasons for her leaving furry fandom, your claims that she left
exclusively due to the freak factor is in fact putting words in her mouth...
"invisicat" <n...@uhhuh.com> wrote in message
news:9019AC0ED...@209.125.35.22...
Sarenthalanos
> police of any sort nor anti-spooge. You have read the web page haven't
you?
> Because honestly it seems that you missed a few sections. To answer you,
> I'll simply refer you to the page. www.burnedfur.com (Specifically the FAQ
> dealing with adult art). Thank you for taking the time to get the facts
> straight. :)
>
> invisicat
> BF
>
>
Suggestion: You read it again.
"In short, Burned Fur's position on erotica is that it should be displayed
responsibly, and handled with discretion. Those who do not exercise
discretion in the display and handling of adult Furry art are a source of
harm to the fandom and appropriate action needs to be taken. "
In other words, there is a definite implication that they decide what's
right and what's wrong. While in one point of that section, it's obviously
trying to keep a noble face, but eventually the holier-than-thou judgemental
attitude peeks through.
-Sar
invisicat
> BTW, I kept my own copy of this apart from the URL in question, so I
> can
>always repost it here to prove my point... The fact is, Daphne Lage was
>driven from Furry Fandom moreso BY the Burned Furs than the perverts...
In your opinion and without reposting one word from her 'goodbye to the
fandom' page. I still feel the best person to ask about her _current_
feeling and opinion is in fact her. All you have provided from her is a
dated post from over a year ago... not what I'd call timely and somewhat
out of context. Adding to this the repeated statements of more than one BF
(myself included) and it being in black and white on our page, that we are
not anti-spooge. Interesting that, but then you are free to your opinions.
Though I feel I am speaking to a wall over here, it's alright and I wish
you nothing but the best. :)
invisicat
BF
Brian O'connell
(and commentary in parentheses):
..adult art/fiction?"
It's a common misconception that BF is an anti-porn group. A good number of
BF's members are artists, and as such are opposed to censorship. "Furry"
has it's share of adult enthusiasts, and adults have a tendency to have the
occasional adult thought. Some furs enjoy committing this to paper, while
some don't. >>>Adult furry art ("spooge") is a personal choice, and like any
choice, it has repercussions.<<< Some artists choose not to make it, but we
have no quarrel with those who do.
(Spooge is for one thing, a negative term, coined by those who have an
unnatural hatred for ANY erotic material, much akin to "nigger" and other
negative terminologies... They could simply call it erotic, since many
things including Reed Waller's "spooge" comes to mind (which most fans would
scream bloody murder, BF or not, that term being used for Waller's work)...)
When Charla Trotman wrote The Furry Manifesto, "spooge" was not one of her
concerns. Artwork is still artwork, regardless of its content. >>>What is a
concern, however, is that "spooge" has become increasingly popular with
audiences who otherwise have no interest in anthropomorphic artwork,
stories, etc. We believe that this has been a contributing factor to the
genre's negative image. <<<
(Now then, I ask you this: How do you remove the "contributing factor to
a genre's negative image"? By removing the contributing factor? WOW! You're
a genius! Have a cookie!)
What is also a concern are those creators of adult art that fail to realize
that not everyone wants to see their work, both furry fans and non fans
alike. >>>Most of the creators of adult art are very responsible about how
their art is presented in public, and take care to keep it away from the
eyes of those who either do not want to see it or are not old enough to do
so legally. <<<
(While otherwise noble, most non legal kids can view this kinda stuff by
viewing Usenet, or hacking into a pay site that steals furry erotica,
irregardless of any protective measures... Additionally, not every furry
artist wants to censor themselves or lock their artwork behind insane levels
of protective measures to keep everyone INCLUDING kids from seeing it... But
then again, the BF's are treating folks who don't as if they were as bad as
the bestialists and plushie humpers... Moving along to...)
>>>However, a handful of individuals have no compunctions about hawking
their wares to anyone and everyone without regard to consequence. More than
one furry artist has a horror story about how they've lost work outside the
genre because an unthinking "spooge" merchant failed to realize that
mainstream publishers a) might not want to see their edition of the "Kama
Sutra Yiffy Hermtaur style" and b) would consequently paint all
anthropomorphic art with the same bodily fluid stained brush. The stale
response of "Well, if you don't like it, don't look!" is not an acceptable
response to this call for discretion: It doesn't work in the real world. <<<
(So in other words, lock your works away, because if you aren't damnned
by non furries, WE'LL do it for them...)
In short, Burned Fur's position on erotica is that it should be displayed
responsibly, and handled with discretion. Those who do not exercise
discretion in the display and handling of adult Furry art are a source of
harm to the fandom and appropriate action needs to be taken.
(If you lock your artwork away, if you go along with everything we say,
then you're one of us... If you don't, it doesn't matter how much you DO
agree with us on, then you are part of the problem, and no matter how much
you question us on what you DON'T agree with us on, no matter how factual,
rational, or otherwise realistic, we will always challenge your points,
defame you publically, lump you together with some fat sweaty guy humping
his Meeko plushie in the basement while watching animal porn, and make you
out as part of the "opposition", no matter how much more you differ with
them than you differ with us...)
THAT is what I call putting words in someone else's mouth... Mind you,
that is my own interpretation... Based on fully available evidence as
provided by the Burned Furs themselves, both on their own webpage, and from
examples provided by the Burned Furs in person, via chatting on IRC,
postings on alt.fan.furry, et al... And as I am one of the Burned Furs'
personal targets, I have even more the right to question them on their
questionable statements and activities...
invisicat
<92j1e1$gcl$1...@raccoon.fur.com>:
>right and what's wrong. While in one point of that section, it's
>obviously trying to keep a noble face, but eventually the
>holier-than-thou judgemental attitude peeks through.
>
*Happily read again*
Strangely enough... I still see no control or thought police, merely a call
for responible display. I think it stands well enough without having to put
it in 'other words'. But then everyone tends to try and see what they want
to see. *shrugs* Regardless, it was a pleasure having the chance to speak
with you.
invisicat
BF
Sarenthalanos
Certainly.
Though this does seem to beg a few questions:
"Those who do not exercisediscretion in the display and handling of adult
Furry art are a source of
harm to the fandom and appropriate action needs to be taken."
Excusing themselves for 'appropriate actions' such as lumping just about any
artist that openly has an adult binder or "no children may look in this" (I
remember one booth operator under fire despite that clear warning labeling),
and doing whatever they think needs to be done on an individual and
haphazard basis - which is later supported en masse by whomever feels the
need to vent at the time. Even if the artist does 'secret' their stuff
away, they are still a target, I've seen. So it's pretty much a moot point
of how 'public' it is, but more along a 'if you're not conforming to us or
our standards, then you are against us' form of logic.
Anyways, it's been nice playing devil's advocate for a while.
-Sar
invisicat
> Nice try in attempting to evade the question, but your mission page
>states it in itself that:
Evade? Which question? I'm sorry I must've missed it. Feel free to restate
said.
>"In short, Burned Fur's position on erotica is that it should be
>displayed responsibly, and handled with discretion. Those who do not
>exercise discretion in the display and handling of adult Furry art are a
>source of harm to the fandom and appropriate action needs to be taken."
>
> I charge that the Burned Furs have in fact taken what they deem to
> be
>appropriate action,
Actually if you are refering to the letter bit again, that was from a
scorce aside from BF (that postion held both by BF and more than one person
from out side the movement). Although you do seem to have made up your mind
that it was and you know what? That is alright. It's your right to do so.
:) It doesn't change the fact that I and the movement are not anti-spooge.
Any event, I hope you have a pleasant rest of the eve (I must head off work
ways). It was a pleasure chatting with you.
invisicat
BF
Brian O'connell
political motive that is just as much out of date as her "goodbye" letter
was... Since the Burned Furs refuse to revise their motives, method of
operation, politics, claims, attitudes, actions, nor even the wordings or
terms of which they enlist their memberships... NOR do they even offer
apologies for the same... NOR do they act in any ways to correct the same...
I see little to no reason why *I*, let alone others who oppose the
Burned Furs, should do that first...
Especially since it is the Burned Furs who are responsible for this mess
in the first place... Plushophiles and bestialists be damnned, the ones who
created the largest deliberate disruption and the ones who caused the
largest amount of damage to furry fandom's reputation, along with the
largest amount of chaos within the fandom has been the Burned Furs,
something to which the Burned Furs react in the most Orwellian fashion, by
both denying any involvement therein, AND taking the most enthusiastic of
credit thereof...
Just look up Burned Furs on Dejanews, and you'll see this little duality
in action... For a good example: CF10... The BF's were perfectly happy to
deny any involvement with the poisoned pen letter, perfectly happy to see
the results, and perfectly happy to condemn the eeeeevil spoogers who
"caused" the poison pen letter to be issued, and perfectly happy to take
over the con after the fact... I haven't seen so much duality in action
since the October Surprise upset of the 1980 elections, let alone the
Watergate scandals of 1972...
"invisicat" <n...@uhhuh.com> wrote in message
news:9019A6658...@209.125.35.22...
invisicat
>Furs' personal targets, I have even more the right to question them on
>their questionable statements and activities..
Again your unsupported opinions, and not to burst your bubble... but you
are one of our personal targets, but we certainly seem to be one of yours.
But that comes under the heading 'that's your choice'. <:)
And now I'm off to work, I'll take another look in alittle later this
evening. A pleasant eve.
invisicat
BF
Jim Doolittle
<furball1_(furball-one)_hates_s...@uswest.net> wrote:
> And in case someone decides to close that site for their own convenience,
> I
> present it again (words © Daphne Lage) in it's original cut and pasted
Taken from Fuzzy Logic #4. Unless she's since reposted that essay
elsewhere.
-Jim
--
Jim Doolittle CornWuff Press
dool...@tbcnet.com http://www.cornwuff.com
Art Show Director, Midwest FurFest
http://www.furfest.org
Brian O'connell
By the Burned Furs outright BLARING of erotic furry art being in the
same boat as the indiscriminate exhibitionism of the plushiehumpers and
bestialists, and by the condemnnation of Daphne Lage and other furry
artists who produced erotic material, they have in fact ADVERTISED to the
rest of the world that ALL of furry fandom is a bunch of perverts...
However, by the wasted 50K keystrokes, and the total lack of any
reasonable understanding from the opposition, I believe that even if I
brought in 500 bar charts and graphs, government officials, AND Henry
Kissinger, that you'd still refuse to understand just where I'm coming from,
irregardless of actual fact or impressions... Since there is absolutely no
willingness to understand, cooperate, or compromise on the issues, I hereby
"give up" on the debate... It is stalemate, both the BF's and I refuse to
relenquish our views or judgements regarding the issue, therefore there is
no victory, and no loss in the same... I've wasted enough of my time trying
to hammer the point home... And none of you are paying me to understand your
own views... I have artwork to do, which your debates and endlessly looping
caucanphony of rhetoric is indirectly preventing me from completing as I
waste yet another hour in answering it all...
En toto: Your debate has failed to sway my attitude, it has failed to
change the past, it has failed to change the facts... I will continue doing
what I do in full knowlege of the truth of my actions, and will turn a blind
eye towards your continuing to do what you do, in full knowlege of the lie
in your actions as well...
Have a nice new years...
<FromTheDes...@StukaFox.Com> wrote in message
news:92j0rv$1ghl$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com...
Brian O'connell
questioning of the BF's claiming her as one of the "fallen"...
"Jim Doolittle" <dool...@tbcnet.com> wrote in message
news:doolittl-9E817F...@news.fysh.org...
Brian O'connell
Hangdog and AOD have prove this in action... But as I answered further down
the thread, I have better things to do (such as self preservation) than
waste time entering endless text to this form of Babylon...
Have a nice new year...
"invisicat" <n...@uhhuh.com> wrote in message
news:9019AE7AF...@209.125.35.22...
Kory Anders
>Brian O'connell <furball1_(furball-one)_hates_s...@uswest.net> wrote:
>
>> Daphne Lage is a comic book artist and cartoonist who happens to draw
>> erotica, not the other way around.
>
>
>
> "But do they call me McGregor the BOAT BUILDER?"
>
>
>
>StukaFox
>Game, point and match
Counterpoint:
"The very fact that the Burned Furs had to organize makes one doubt
their proposition that Furryfolk aren't primarily in it for the eros.
Nobody's had to form a group to convince people that concert pianists
aren't sexual deviants. If I came across an organization arguing that
people who sell produce at Farmer's Markets aren't all actually
fucking their vegetables, I'd certainly start examining my
broccoflower more closely before cooking it."
http://www.brunching.com/features/furries.html
Which is proof of the point that people screaming about the
'perversion' in Furry is actually more damaging that the perceived
'perversion'.
FromTheDes...@stukafox.com
> Counterpoint:
NOW someone gets how this works. Thanks, Kory.
> "The very fact that the Burned Furs had to organize makes one doubt
> their proposition that Furryfolk aren't primarily in it for the eros.
> Nobody's had to form a group to convince people that concert pianists
> aren't sexual deviants. If I came across an organization arguing that
> people who sell produce at Farmer's Markets aren't all actually
> fucking their vegetables, I'd certainly start examining my
> broccoflower more closely before cooking it."
> http://www.brunching.com/features/furries.html
> Which is proof of the point that people screaming about the
> 'perversion' in Furry is actually more damaging that the perceived
> 'perversion'.
The above is an invalid example.
One goes to Portal of Evil and searches for 'Furry', one finds
Burned Fur. One also finds a remarkable number of sites, given
that this hobby is comprises of far less than 10,000 people,
dealing with just about every sickening aspect of sexual dysfunction.
One does not see that for concert pianists.
One does not see that for vegatable growers.
One does see that for furry.
Were Burned Fur to drop off the face of the tomorrow, all the sites
that are currently on PoE would still be there, and doubtless a
few more. They'd still be just as visible and just as sick.
Blaming Burned Fur for furry's image problem is the same as blaming
the NAACP for racism and the ADL for anti-semitism. If there weren't
volumes of sick crap in furry, there'd be nothing for Burned Fur
to point out, and therefor, no problem.
Yes?
Elynne
> I will not attempt to place words in her mouth, Brian (something which you
> do _seem_ to be doing, if not my apologies in advance). I suggest if anyone
> wishes to know her reasons for leaving do so by asking her.
Er - but aren't you "putting words in her mouth" by putting her name on
your page and assuming what her reasons were for leaving? As well as
everybody else who's listed on this page? Don't you think it's *your* job
to verify the reasons these people left the fandom, as the person who
created the list in the first place?
At least, I'm assuming that you created the page. If it was not in fact
you, but somebody else, the person who put up the list bears the
responsibility for making sure that it's factual.
... interesting... I wonder if half the people on this list even know that
they're on it, and what they would think if they did...
-- Elynne, thinking how easy it is to use somebody else's name to prop up
your position without their knowledge or consent
Kory Anders
> One goes to Portal of Evil and searches for 'Furry', one finds
> Burned Fur. One also finds a remarkable number of sites, given
> that this hobby is comprises of far less than 10,000 people,
> dealing with just about every sickening aspect of sexual dysfunction.
>
> One does not see that for concert pianists.
>
> One does not see that for vegatable growers.
>
> One does see that for furry.
>
> Were Burned Fur to drop off the face of the tomorrow, all the sites
> that are currently on PoE would still be there, and doubtless a
> few more. They'd still be just as visible and just as sick.
>
> Blaming Burned Fur for furry's image problem is the same as blaming
> the NAACP for racism and the ADL for anti-semitism. If there weren't
> volumes of sick crap in furry, there'd be nothing for Burned Fur
> to point out, and therefor, no problem.
>
> Yes?
No. Comparing the NAACP and the ADL to Burned Fur is rather insulting
to the former groups, in my opinion. They wish to stop racism, while
the BF just want people they don't like to go away. BF aren't
interested in stopping things from happening, just in stopping things
from being linked to the fandom. NIMBY, to use an acronym. Not In My
Back Yard. Once certain people, which include 'Lifestylers' and
vegans, leave the fandom, the BF should be happy, no longer caring
about the issues, since it's no longer linked to the fandom, even if
'Lifestylers' and vegans were productive members whose only 'crimes'
were to be people disliked by Ms. Trotman and friends.
And the following is the PoE take on BF:
"Because "Anthropomorphics fandom is being overrun by sexually
dysfunctional, socially stunted and creatively bankrupt hacks and
pervs," the Burned Furs have sought to recover the good name of the
fandom - by yelling and screaming about those they don't like, thus
publicizing them to those who otherwise would never have heard of the
darker side of the fandom. Way to shoot yourself in the foot,guys."
PoE dislikes the BF as much as they dislike everyone else in the
fandom, the 'lifestyle' or in between. To paraphrase one of the
regulars, we're exhibits in a zoo, and the PoE people are here to
laugh and gawk at us. They are close to the National Enquirer of the
Net.
Doug Winger
FromTheDes...@StukaFox.Com wrote:
> They'd still be just as visible and just as sick.
Yep, this time it was one line that grabbed my attention.
An observation: you lack empathy, and it's causing you to be hypocritical.
First, let me remind you that it was you that came here spoiling for an
argument over someone you characterized as a 'bigot' because they happened to
poke you in a soft spot and banged upon your personal beliefs; something you
admitted in the follow-up posting you made.
That done: who says they're sick? You? Society? If it's society, then it
must be illegal, shouldn't that be so?
Well, it's not, so that leaves only that it's something you personally don't
like.
No, I won't fault you the opinion or the feeling upon those subjects.
However, I _will_ remind you that you didn't exactly go all cheery when
someone insulted your beliefs- and only indirectly at that- and you seemed to
be quite upset about it. What makes you think that others are supposed to
exhibit that even-handedness you demand, and put aside that so-called
double-think you complain about when you're doing the same thing to them?
That you came nowhere near to the ignition point of flamethrowing concerning
that was commendable, but it was pretty obvious that you were spoiling for an
argument and you too easily drop into insults- intended or not.
Want to know where all that upset comes from? Well, part of it is
characterizing _everyone_ but you as sick, deluded and worthy of only disdain,
and then wondering out loud why people get upset and resort to name-calling
and falling into flamery. You then go on and brand them as the instigators,
because they didn't accept the slurs politely.
Yes, they were slurs. You essentially characterized _every_ site out there
with Furry content as 'sick', and have in the past made undeserved and
innaccurate accusations about a number of others. You might personally think
that you were telling nothing but the truth, but there's not only a number of
people that disagree with you, there's also that some of those 'facts' you
bandied about were anything but. The larger amount amounts simply to differing
opinions.
For clarification, I'm not holding you as the only one that demonstrates
this behavior. Lord knows, there's a lot of that going on here and in the rest
of the newsgroups and I've been guilty of much the same in the past. In fact,
I rather appreciate your presence here, if for no other reason that you're one
of the people that asks those hard questions, and makes people stop for a
moment and think about things (even if it's only to rally a counter-argument
:). I'm bringing this to your attention because I'm trying to get _you_ to
stop and think for a moment.
Try for a moment put yourself into the other person's place- really try, and
not merely mentally gloss over it- and wear the shoes of your 'opposition',
trying to see things as they would. No, I don't expect a sudden revelation
and complete change of opinions on your part, or even that it'll work for you.
You might, however, see that the old saw about One Man's Poison is pretty
accurate. You might also find that those insolvable world-shattering problems
currently running around here are not much more than minor annoyances and that
it's just that people see things _differently_ than you for reasons that are
just as valid as the ones you use for yourself.
You can then go back and yell at folks, but at least you'll have the comfort
of knowing that you've made allowances for their point of view while doing so.
- Doug, Feeling Tired
invisicat
<Pine.LNX.4.21.001229...@fnord.io.com>:
Actually no, on a personal level, I didn't have anything to do with that
particular page. Although I did in fact view Ms. Lage's 'Farewell to
fandom' page. Which is not what Brian latter posted, it would seem that
what he posted was actually something she wrote over a year ago. The
impression I got from her (afore mentioned) page was what I already related
earlier in the thread. Regardless, you are free to contact those upon that
list and verify for yourself. Here is hoping you have a happy new year. :)
invisicat
BF
Alan Kennedy
> For those whom have shown a certain amount of concern; www.burnedfur.com.
> Wishing all a pleasant new year.
>
> invisicat
> BF
You know, I think the internet has just become that much more entertaining
again. ;)
You know, I got the gumption and already went there ahead of your
announcement, and boy, 0/0 hits already ;)
*waves paw dismissingly and snickers* You know, I wonder's who's bright idea
it was to just copy and paste the material? I mean, I coulda done that
even. Whee.. *twirls finger*
Anyways, a revamped site for those not wanted, joy. Then again, as i always
say, never commit suicide, just stick around and annoy those you don't like.
;)
Double edged sword, isn't it?
--
´¯`·.|¸¸.·´|_._** Alan Kennedy, TriGem Olandarinse
´¯`·.|¸¸.·´|_._** ICQ: 8781052
´¯`·.|¸¸.·´|_._** YAHOO: goldanthrowolf
´¯`·.|¸¸.·´|_._** YAHOO: trigem_olandarinse
´¯`·.|¸¸.·´|_._** MSN Messenger : tri...@hotmail.com
´¯`·.|¸¸.·´|_._** WWW: http://www.furnation.com/trigem
´¯`·.|¸¸.·´|_._** E-MAIL: trigem (at) hotmail.com - text
Alan Kennedy
finally pulled that as well. It was, to put
> it simply, a page stating (and I'll paraphrase from memory) that she would
> no longer be involved in the 'furry fandom' and went on to list the
> reasons. She did touch on a few of the more popular reason for leaving
> however and said (I believe) that she would continue working on a few of
> her own projects, but had never really considered them 'furry' to begin
> with.
>
> invisicat
> BF
Or, like many a great furry artist who shun the rest of them!
They make a few bucks, then say fuck ya and run tail and cut it off!
Sorry, most of the 'opponents' of furry still sell their stuff like a $2
crack whore, no matter what side they stand on. As long as they can make a
dollar, its all good, no matter who you step on.
And can I get a hell ya on that one?
Dark Ren
n...@uhhuh.com (invisicat) wrote:
> <Snipping the rest respectfully>
> That particular list is a work in progress as more information
comes to
> light it will be updated further.
> A pleasant one to you an yours.
Small concept to bring back to your compatriots. I'd suggest
asking the individuals on that list before you put them there. And
clarify exactly what defines someone as 'Fallen'. The title is not all
that glamourous and tends to imply some failing on their part,
which might be misunderstood by some.
--
I see the ghosts of navigators but they are lost
As they sail into the setting sun they'll count the cost
As their skeletons accusing emerge from the sea
The sirens of the rocks they beckon me
Ghost of the Navigator : Iron Maiden
Under Construction - Sins of the Past MUX
http://riftsmux.dhs.org/~sins/
Dark Ren -
http://www.deja.com/my/pb.xp?member_name=darkren
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Alan Kennedy
> words into anyone's mouth? And of course latestly the fact that BF are not
> anti-spooge (Something which, for whatever reasons you seem determined to
> ignore)?
>
>
> invisicat
> BF
Uhmm.. *holds finger up, then points to cue card*
Isn't this little bit of info a bit hypocritical?
--"What is the Burned Fur position on..."
--
--"...sexuality?"
--The Burned Fur position is that Furry fandom isn't about sexuality
--of any form. The fandom may contain erotic material, but NO form
--of sexuality, gay, lesbian, bisexual, or whatever, is the focus of the
--fandom. Anybody who says otherwise has a suspect agenda to promote.
--
--"...adult art/fiction?"
--It's a common misconception that BF is an anti-porn group. A good
--number of BF's members are artists, and as such are opposed to
--censorship. "Furry" has it's share of adult enthusiasts, and adults
--have a tendency to have the occasional adult thought. Some furs
--enjoy committing this to paper, while some don't. Adult furry art
--("spooge") is a personal choice, and like any choice, it has
--repercussions. Some artists choose not to make it, but we have
--no quarrel with those who do.
*chuckles softly and just holds gut, then walks away, waving dismissingly*
eh heh heh he he he (damn, thats hard to put such joyous rapture into
words)
Dark Ren
n...@uhhuh.com (invisicat) wrote:
> I will not attempt to place words in her mouth, Brian (something
which you
> do _seem_ to be doing, if not my apologies in advance). I
suggest if anyone
> wishes to know her reasons for leaving do so by asking her.
>
Did you all ask before placing her name on your list?
Darrel L. Exline
> Just look up Burned Furs on Dejanews, and you'll see this little duality
> in action... For a good example: CF10... The BF's were perfectly happy to
> deny any involvement with the poisoned pen letter, perfectly happy to see
> the results, and perfectly happy to condemn the eeeeevil spoogers who
> "caused" the poison pen letter to be issued, and perfectly happy to take
> over the con after the fact... I haven't seen so much duality in action
> since the October Surprise upset of the 1980 elections, let alone the
> Watergate scandals of 1972...
It was a VERY COMMON misconception that ConFurence was in some way "taken
over". Adding to the confusion, when I was elected one of the new co-chairs
(Nominated by Rod O'Riley himself) about a month before CF10, I had publicly
agreed with the Burned Fur position as I understood it. This made some people
state that CF was taken over *by* the burned furs... a claim that was even made
*by* some of the burned furs themselves, and refuted *every* time I heard it.
Very shortly after CF10, when I saw that anyone who wanted to accuse the BF's of
something or who wanted to be an activist of some sort coudld do so under the
guise of being a BF, I dissasociated myself from that group entirely.
I AM NOT A BURNED FUR although I associated with them a short time in early '99.
CONFURENCE IS NOT "RUN BY BURNED FURS" as some would have you believe.
ConFurence consists of over 60 staff members, all involved with various
departments of the convention. Most of these staff are the same people who were
doing the job at CF10, CF9, and even CF8. Even Rod O'Riley, one of the founders
and former Co-Chairs is still a lead staff person, in charge of scheduling
programming at ConFurence. In fact, the only person on my staff who I believe
is a Burned Fur is Darmon Thornton, CF's webmaster and info-desk lead... and he
writes one hell of a good website for ConFurence and recruited some excellent
info-desk help from LosCon's staff.
Yes, you can Deja-news all day long and find posts from people claiming that BF
took over Confurence... but if it was in a forum that I was made aware of, you
will also find me refuting that claim.
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| Darrel L. Exline "Your friendly neighborhood Polar Bear" |
| Director, "The ConFurence Group" |
| 619-223-9482 http://confurence.net dar...@home.com |
|! ConFurence 12: April 19 to April 22, 2001, Burbank Hilton !|
| Pre-registration form: http://confurence.net/pre-reg.pdf |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
"ConFurence" is a registered service mark of The ConFurence Group.
Dark Ren
n...@uhhuh.com (invisicat) wrote:
>
> *Happily read again*
>
> Strangely enough... I still see no control or thought police, merely
a call
> for responible display. I think it stands well enough without
having to put
> it in 'other words'. But then everyone tends to try and see what
they want
> to see. *shrugs* Regardless, it was a pleasure having the
chance to speak
> with you.
Here is a question that your FAQ doesn't cover. Who decides what
is responsible display of adult materials? That is the key to that.
When you say that there is a responsible and not so responsible
way to do anything, that implies that there is some standard that
defines what is and is not responsible. Of course, without defining
something like that it sort of gives individual hot heads a carte
blanch to draw the line wherever they want.. and I'm sure there are
those among your movement who's views are more strict than
yours. You can't hope to speak for your entire movement, I think,
especially with small, deadly holes like that.
Consider it.
Dark Ren
Actually, that is the job of whomever made that list. Otherwise, your
movement has made quite an annoying breech of personal civility
in using someone's name politically without consulting them first.
Dark Ren
Nay.
Because by making a ruckus, the movement itself will accomplish
nothing. One, the damage as it were has already been done.
Burned Furs, no matter what you say, make other defensive.
And since all the words in the world won't make enough people
change to change the overall climate, your actions in that sphere
are ultimately wasted.
Even worse, the noise made could draw even more attention to the
problems by those outside. Of course people will be able to find
them without people screaming, but don't you think the screaming
will attract more attention?
What to do? Find a new path to your goals.
Darrel L. Exline
>
> Ummm, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to look up legislation and
> restrictions on liquor licensing in San Diego... Additionally, when I lived
> in California, I noticed there was a law restricting alcohol consumption in
> areas where adult entertainment was available... A simple visit to any strip
> club demonstrates this... Since at the time, at least half of the Burned Fur
> membership were residents IN California, it would have taken little to no
> effort to look up the pertinant legislation...
I challenge you to find *ANYWHERE* online details of the specific restrictions
the Town&Country had placed on them because of prior violations...
The T&C *had* additional restrictions placed on them besides the standard
blue-laws of San Diego County. One of those restrictions was that they could
not have adult materials in plain view in any place covered by their alcohol
permit... which happened to be the entire facility all the way up to the
sidewalk by the street. This additional restriction is like a person on
probation not being allowed to associate with known felons... it was a condition
of not receiving more severe punishment, the details of which we may never know.
Also, how do you claim that half of the BF's at the time were in california?
Not only was there no list that I am aware of of who was or wasn't a BF at that
time, but the most notable ones were not in California (Charla, Eric,
Hangdog...).
Getting back to the poisoned pen letter... When the hotel staff received it, it
was given directly to the president of Atlas Hotels who panicked, called a
conference with Mark and Rodney, and imposed ridiculous constraints on
ConFurence. In the process of specifying *exactly* what the constraints would
be, the word got out that "No adult art material would be allowed" even before
it was certain that this would be the case.
Mark and Rodney were taken completely by surprise, and so were not ready to
defend themselves against the hotel's restrictive demands. On the (supposedly
confidential) staff mailing list, we all started discussing the ramifications
and how to deal with it. In the process of this discussion, someone leaked
partial information out to the net, and the rumors started flying. With a
definite consensus of what to do still being worked out, no one was able to get
the same answer from two different CF staff members, thus adding more fuel to
the rumor mill.
As it turned out, just two days before the convention Mark and Rodney came to an
agreement with the Atlas Hotels president that we would not have any material on
display that they couldn't find in their own gift shop. At that point, the
hotel staff was presented with a copy of Playboy and Penthouse (thanks, to Steve
Gattuso!) purchased the previous day from their own gift shop.
Of course, at such a late date, and with the wildfire of rumors being spread
around the net, ConFurence 10's attendance suffered greatly. The truth of the
matter was that any restrictions on adult artwork by the time the convention
started were no greater than those imposed the previous year at CF9, except that
our Artshow staff had already started planning not to have a separate adult
section in the art show that year, and so many adult artists decided last-minute
not to hang their art.
All told, the end result was the T&C panicking, then the Constaff scrambling to
make sense of it, and the online community blowing the whole situation out of
proportion... but the convention itself (which many of the online complainers
didn't even attend) still had adult material available, however discreetly shown
because of the paranoid hotel staff.
No, CF10 wasn't a *better* convention because of it... I disagree with anyone
who says it was. It also was not a *failed* convention, as Mark and Rodney did
an excellent job of scrambling to make it work in spite of the rumor mill.
There were other problems... the weather was the worst in San Diego history, the
third-party Mark used for credit card purchases ran into his own financial
problems... and there were several thousand dollars of unexpected charges from
the hotel for easels and house-phones and various locations... but it *was* a
successful convention simply because those who attended still managed to enjoy
themselves (with few noted exceptions).
ilr
> really know much about Burned Fur, (is Eric Blumrich a member?) but we do
> try to get along with everyone.
>
> Mike
>
*Nod*
I think that's the most sensible thing anyone could say about this mess :)
-Ilr
invisicat
<97812213...@users.cyberback.com>:
>Well, you folks have our best wishes for the New Year. Carole and I
>don't really know much about Burned Fur, (is Eric Blumrich a member?)
>but we do try to get along with everyone.
>
>Mike
Well thank you Mike (and Carole as well). :) Knowing isn't necessary for
kind wishes to be passed. As to Eric, yes he is a member, one of the
founders in fact. Here is hoping (on a purely personal level) that the on
coming year is safe, happy, and prosperous one for you and yours. :)
Regards,
invisicat
BF
Elynne
> In article <9019D9200...@209.125.35.22>,
> n...@uhhuh.com (invisicat) wrote:
> > Actually no, on a personal level, I didn't have anything to do with
> that
> > particular page.
Mmm-kay... do you know who did? You may want to suggest that the person
who created the "list of the fallen" should maybe contact the people
listed as "fallen," and see if they want to be so listed. Since you seem
to be up on the recent events regarding this web page, I thought you might
know who to talk to.
> > Regardless, you are free to contact those upon that
> > list and verify for yourself.
> Actually, that is the job of whomever made that list. Otherwise, your
> movement has made quite an annoying breech of personal civility
> in using someone's name politically without consulting them first.
More than a breech of civility; a breech of privacy, which, if somebody
took serious umberage in, could result in some kind of legal ugliness. Of
course, if somebody was listed on this page without wanting to be so
listed, they could presumably contact the site - whaddyacallit,
editor-person, and be taken off the list by request?...
At any rate, I don't know any of the people on the list personally (except
for one, and I have no idea how to contact her currently). Which is,
truth to tell, a double-edged sword. I can't contact them and verify that
yes, they "left furry fandom" for precicely the reasons given on the page,
nor can I verify whether they were ever active members of furry fandom to
begin with - or even if they exist.
I'm reminded of the femiNazi </godwin> technique of choosing the names of
five men out of the phone book at random, and putting up flyers with these
names under a headline reading "BEWARE: Potential Rapists!" Except in
this case, the analogy might be of choosing five women's names, and
putting up flyers saying "MISSING - Presumed Abducted and
DEAD!"
Completely aside from the fact that, not knowing who these people are in
the first place, listing their names on a web page isn't going to impress
folks like me (ooo, look, a list of - names! That I don't know!
Wow...), there is the rather big and contradictory issue that these people
presumably *left* furry fandom. As in they *don't want to be associated
with furry fandom*. If they left for the reasons you cited, don't you
think that maybe they wouldn't really welcome being associated right back
with furry fandom on a very highly-publicized and politically charged
furry web page? Maybe?
I can see the point of such a list - to disprove the frequent charge that
nobody has left furry fandom for the reasons given. But I can also see
that this idea is very open for abuse. I'm not sure how the problem can
be solved, truth to tell, unless every one of the people on the list has
been or can be contacted and asked permission to be so listed. I suppose
the listed folks will just have to find out as they stumble onto it, and
decide for themselves how they want to react.
-- Elynne
invisicat
<Pine.LNX.4.21.001230...@eris.io.com>:
<respectfully snipped>
>
>-- Elynne
A moot point and a bit late, read the message I previously posted. ;)
Titled "A official message from BurnedFur..." But thank you, you do raise
some vaild points. Points which were already discussed within the
membership earlier this evening.
Regards,
invisicat
BF
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
furball1_(furball-one)_hates_s...@uswest.net> writes:
> Ummm, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to look up legislation
> and restrictions on liquor licensing in San Diego... Additionally, when
> I lived in California, I noticed there was a law restricting
> alcohol consumption in areas where adult entertainment was available...
> A simple visit to any strip club demonstrates this... Since at the
> time, at least half of the Burned Fur membership were residents
> IN California, it would have taken little to no effort to look up
> the pertinant legislation...
Yeah, BUT the difference between a regular liquor license and a "resort"
license is what made the difference. With a regular liquor license, it only
meant no porn in the Hotel Bar. A Resort License makes the whole hotel a bar,
and thus the difference. But maybe you don't remember, this discussion was
pounded quite thoroughly into the ground around the time when it happened, and
the difference in the license types was discussed ad nauseum.
And I doubt the caller could have ascertained the type of license the hotel
had, nor would the hotel having a regular bar license have stopped the caller.
And of course, it's already been said time and again that it wasn't the Burned
Furs who made the call. But then, you're generally impervious to facts.
--
"if Marylin Manson has more of an influence on a kid than the kid's parents
do, then maybe the parents need to look at how they're raising their kids."
-- Charlie Clouser, Keyboardist, Nine Inch Nails.
Spammer Warning: Washington State Law now provides civil penalties for UCE.
ilr
I've got something sincere to share with Stuka here too.
Most recently I've just started a mailing list for a very small(and hopefully
it will stay that way)group of people who might be considered "fans".
And I use that term loosely 'cuz I've only been around since '98.
(Bear with me, I'll get to the point soon)
Out of morbid curiosity, or perhaps just a glimpse back at myself, I've
offered them all free commissions because I really am interested in
what kind of people take an interest in what kinds of things I draw.
Basically, it's like a 'Kink-survey'. Admittedly, I'd call some of the stuff
they're into is pretty far-out-there. Had I your personal outlook on such
matters, I woulda called it "All kinds of sick yucky-yuck". Why would
I do something like this? Ain't I a little uncomfortable with some some
of the stuff I find?
Honestly, Yes I am uncomfortable looking thru atleast half of the art
references I was presented with.
But then again, I wasn't all that comfortable 2 years ago standing
on a snowy burm on a 30ft cliff. But I jumped that sucker on my skis anyway
and while the landing wasn't all Rainbows&Lollypops, I survived just fine.
I think all the apprehension I had about going off it may have cancelled out
the fun of the big adrenaline rush I had from doing it, and I don't consider
it a fun time that I'll try again every chance I get. But for a brief moment
I was given access to a very new and different experience that only a small
handful of people out of the 1000's of people on that mountain were 'crazy'
enough to have. Before that, I had a big list of preconceived notions
about what dropping that something that sick would be like, and very little
respect for some of the 'Borders who did because they looked like jackasses
bragging about that kinda stuff. But, it was just a very enlightening experience
to say the least.
...As I'm sure will be some of the odd requests I get. But atleast
I'm being adventurous for the sake of discovery. And I wouldn't outright
accuse you of being an "Unadventurous little Whiner", but I might
suggest taking a more serious look next time someone says,
"Here they go again, arguing about sickos-this, and perverts-that..."
-Ilr
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
kori...@hotmail.com> writes:
> BF aren't interested in stopping things from happening, just in
> stopping things from being linked to the fandom. NIMBY, to use an
> acronym. Not In My Back Yard.
Gee, when they first came out, people were screaming that they wanted to build
concentration camps and so forth, so they eased off and said "Fine, exist,
just do it away from the Fandom" and people are still unhappy. They can't
win. I guess not until they bus in hordes of beastialists, eh?
And I'd hardly grant much status to the gang of gimps at PoE as some kind of
moral authority. Talk about a group formed to "Point and laugh at folks with
maximum cruelty", and POE has been doing a lot more laughing and cruelty than
any Burned Fur.
Brian O'connell
consider a trusted source, and I stand corrected... I withdraw my
accusations that the Burned Furs were in any way involved with the events of
CF10, I was working from conjecture and hypothesis as opposed to real
facts...
Being that I was on the recieving end of many a rumor, it was a kneejerk
reaction on my part... I apologise... My views regarding the Burned Furs'
stance on erotic material still remains the same, however, due to the
conflicting messages delivered on their website...
But additionally, since this IS usenet, and IS alt.fan.furry, more
affectionately known as alt.flame.furry, it's difficult to recieve any
verifiable facts... With enough time, for example, I'm sure that with some
effort that folks here could be convinced that I'm actually a 7 foot green
hippo with big butterfly wings...
Brian O'connell, still human...
"Richard Chandler - WA Resident" <mau...@kendra.com> wrote in message
news:001230010...@mauser.at.kendra.com...
Brian O'connell
Kory Anders
Chandler - WA Resident) wrote:
>And I'd hardly grant much status to the gang of gimps at PoE as some kind of
>moral authority. Talk about a group formed to "Point and laugh at folks with
>maximum cruelty", and POE has been doing a lot more laughing and cruelty than
>any Burned Fur.
Stukafox introduced PoE to this debate. He is the one who held them up
as an example of 'mainstream' perceptions.
FromTheDes...@stukafox.com
> ...As I'm sure will be some of the odd requests I get. But atleast
> I'm being adventurous for the sake of discovery. And I wouldn't outright
> accuse you of being an "Unadventurous little Whiner", but I might
> suggest taking a more serious look next time someone says,
> "Here they go again, arguing about sickos-this, and perverts-that..."
Ilr,
Self discovery is a fundamental of human growth. Without it, life
is a boring, static walk between birth and death.
However . . .
I'm not quite sure what your conclusion is. I read this message
serveral times, and what I came away with is 'I'm drawing
pornography for self-discovery'. My answer to this would be that
you can pick up a textbook on abnormal sexuality and have yourself
a good read without getting your hands dirty in the process.
Just as a side-note, I'm not agaist adult material PER SE. I'm
against the perponderance and accessibility of such material,
and about the inclusion of pedophilia in the 'perfectly acceptable'
column in furry (this being the main reason I don't call myself
a 'furry'). People are gonna draw wank because it sells. Period.
The whole of furry was built from pornography. The earliest furry
publications are pornographic (Q, Furversion, Fuzzy Nips). Yelling
that 'all adult material must go away' is pointless.
However, if people running web sites would put adult material on
a 'pay' system so that outsiders looking for a cheap shot at the
hobby would at least have to PAY for it, or putting the material
behind a password protection with a notice of where to send email
and proof of legal age to access the material, that would be perfectly
acceptable to me. No censorship there.
FromTheDes...@stukafox.com
> And I'd hardly grant much status to the gang of gimps at PoE as some kind of
> moral authority. Talk about a group formed to "Point and laugh at folks with
> maximum cruelty", and POE has been doing a lot more laughing and cruelty than
> any Burned Fur.
And, like I've said before, if you're paint a target on yourself
and give people ammo, don't be suprised when they take the shot.
FromTheDes...@stukafox.com
> Stukafox introduced PoE to this debate. He is the one who held them up
> as an example of 'mainstream' perceptions.
Give the huge viewship of PoE, they're a lot more 'mainstream'
than anything in furry. I'd be willing to bet that more people,
per day, view PoE than are in the whole of furry.
Ben_Raccoon
>
> Give the huge viewship of PoE, they're a lot more 'mainstream'
> than anything in furry. I'd be willing to bet that more people,
> per day, view PoE than are in the whole of furry.
>
Yes, there are an awful lot of bored teenage boys with nothing better to do
than point and laugh in this world.
--
For a brief time I was here; and for a brief time I mattered. - Harlan
Ellison.
Shameless website plug. :) http://www.furnation.com/ben_raccoon/
M. Mitchell Marmel
> Just as a side-note, I'm not agaist adult material PER SE. I'm
> against the perponderance and accessibility of such material,
> and about the inclusion of pedophilia in the 'perfectly acceptable'
> column in furry (this being the main reason I don't call myself
> a 'furry').
(boggle)
Um....HUH?!
What in Sam Hill are you talking about?
-MMM-
BF
--
============================================================================
M. Mitchell Marmel \ Scattered, smothered, covered, chunked,
Drexel University \ whipped, beaten, chained and pierced.
Department of Materials Engineering \ *THE BEST HASHBROWNS IN THE WORLD!*
Fibrous Materials Research Center \ marm...@dunx1.irt.drexel.edu
============================================================================
TaliVisions Homepage: http://www.pages.drexel.edu/grad/marmelmm/Talivisions/index.html
ICQ # 58305217
Al Goldman
FromTheDes...@StukaFox.Com writes:
> about the inclusion of pedophilia in the 'perfectly acceptable' column in
furry
Could you provide a list of pedophilia friendly people and websites in the
fandom?
Except for your allegations about the Treehouse on Tapestries nobody, not even
the BF's, is saying anything like this. Sounds like just another example of
improving the fandom by dragging us through the mud.
Al Goldman
ilr
> against the perponderance and accessibility of such material,
> and about the inclusion of pedophilia in the 'perfectly acceptable'
> column in furry (this being the main reason I don't call myself
> a 'furry').
I won't stand for that either. Infact I took a stand against recently.
(Yes people, I've seen it. Though against Stuka's credit, it's only a
noticeable event in the Crossover of Toonaphile-erotica. One artist
in particular, "Malachi" gave me the creeps and that whole scene
drove me thisaway towards the core of furry fandom where peodo is
much more rare).
> However, if people running web sites would put adult material on
> a 'pay' system so that outsiders looking for a cheap shot at the
> hobby would at least have to PAY for it, or putting the material
> behind a password protection with a notice of where to send email
> and proof of legal age to access the material, that would be perfectly
> acceptable to me. No censorship there.
>
I made one hell of a long post suggesting the very same thing.
Even offered 2k for the server and webspace. Fender said he'd
match that dollar amount. Marmel here looked interested in it too.
But after 5 minutes, it dissapeared behind AFF flames again without
anymore support. I'm back at my drawing board and intend to
stay there, so I really don't have the time to organize something
like that. (But I'll see if I can dredge up my original post)
-Ilr
ilr
<FromTheDes...@StukaFox.Com> wrote in message news:92l974$15nd$3...@nntp1.ba.best.com...
> Kory Anders <kori...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Stukafox introduced PoE to this debate. He is the one who held them up
> > as an example of 'mainstream' perceptions.
>
>
> than anything in furry. I'd be willing to bet that more people,
> per day, view PoE than are in the whole of furry.
>
Well, that's such a huge fukkin bummer.
...For anyone who takes themself too seriously.
Luckily, Anthropomorphic Kritters are practically
custom-made for silliness. I'm sure it's no coincidence
that furry sites hold such a dominance there.
Whether their creators intend it or not, you'd HAVE to be
a freak not to laugh, they've got that extra OOMPH that many
Hyoomans just don't have. A lot like ethnic charichatures.
(the people that it's about aren't going to think it's funny,
but I wouldn't wanna live in a world where ya could only laugh
at stuff that didn't offend anyone)
The BF's "were laughing with maximum cruelty" on purpose as
part of their plan of attack. In fact they weren't really laughing,
just pretending too. Most people that fit under the mainstream
category, even those hanging out at PoE just wanna laugh at
something weird, they're not intentionally forcing some prerogative,
they're just out for a good time like us.
-Ilr
FromTheDes...@stukafox.com
> In article <92l916$15nd$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com>,
> FromTheDes...@StukaFox.Com writes:
> Could you provide a list of pedophilia friendly people and websites in the
> fandom?
Honest? You really want meto provide this? I'm damn happy to if
this is a serious request.
> Except for your allegations about the Treehouse on Tapestries nobody, not even
> the BF's, is saying anything like this.
I am.
FromTheDes...@stukafox.com
>>
> I made one hell of a long post suggesting the very same thing.
> Even offered 2k for the server and webspace. Fender said he'd
> match that dollar amount. Marmel here looked interested in it too.
> But after 5 minutes, it dissapeared behind AFF flames again without
> anymore support. I'm back at my drawing board and intend to
> stay there, so I really don't have the time to organize something
> like that. (But I'll see if I can dredge up my original post)
> -Ilr
It's an excellent idea. The same parties still interested?
Farry
> Just as a side-note, I'm not agaist adult material PER SE. I'm
> against the perponderance and accessibility of such material,
> and about the inclusion of pedophilia in the 'perfectly acceptable'
Stuka, tune into reality FM!
> However, if people running web sites would put adult material on
> a 'pay' system so that outsiders looking for a cheap shot at the
> hobby would at least have to PAY for it, or putting the material
> behind a password protection with a notice of where to send email
> and proof of legal age to access the material, that would be perfectly
> acceptable to me. No censorship there.
To do that, you need to set up server-side scripts which most ISPs
don't allow. And establishing proof of age is even harder. But yes,
something like this *is* appropriate for the most extreme
special-interest drawings.
For R-rated drawings, the pragmatic solution that many follow is to
partition it with a warning to proceed only if you're an adult. Even
'mundanes' usually consider that's good enough for drawings.
--
|\ /|
| \'_| Farry
___.-' @ `--o
/// / ____,' fa...@earthling.net
/ / ///~~/ ICQ 8277359
Jack Furlong - jfurlong at ix dot netcom dot com
>Brian said:
>
><< The interesting link is "The Fallen", listing off Donna Barr and Stan
>Sakai as two who ditched furry fandom... >>
After I saw this I wandered off to the official web site.
http://www.usagiyojimbo.com/
You might want to check the "Friends of USAGI YOJIMBO" links page:
http://www.usagiyojimbo.com/usaweb2.html
I dont think he hates furry fans, folks...
Al Goldman
FromTheDes...@StukaFox.Com writes:
>Al Goldman <allan...@aol.comnarf> wrote:
>> In article <92l916$15nd$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com>,
>> FromTheDes...@StukaFox.Com writes:
>> Could you provide a list of pedophilia friendly people and websites in the
>> fandom?
> Honest? You really want meto provide this? I'm damn happy to if
> this is a serious request.
Seeing as how you're the only person who ever complains about pedophilia being
a problem in this fandom your unique prospective could be useful. Several other
have also questioned your original comment on this thread.
I'm already getting the classic "StukaFox is just trolling AFF again" e-mail so
a list of - oh - maybe a dozen or so different people or sites would be useful.
I wouldn’t want to think you were taking just one site and slandering the
entire fandom because of it.
>StukaFox
Al Goldman
PS - My news server just woke up from a 20 hour nap, so if I missed anything
relevent on this thread please let me know.
Meglique
>must be illegal, shouldn't that be so?
I am curious about something. Should Doug Winger apply to become a Burned Fur,
would he be turned down? Bucky Boy was, as was J Bernal, on the basis on
drawing porn. Or so they told me. Is this true?
meg
(genuinely curious)
ilr
<FromTheDes...@StukaFox.Com> wrote in message news:92mpt6$2bme$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com...
> ilr <i...@rof.net> wrote:
> >>
>
> > I made one hell of a long post suggesting the very same thing.
> > Even offered 2k for the server and webspace. Fender said he'd
> > match that dollar amount. Marmel here looked interested in it too.
> > But after 5 minutes, it dissapeared behind AFF flames again without
> > anymore support. I'm back at my drawing board and intend to
> > stay there, so I really don't have the time to organize something
> > like that. (But I'll see if I can dredge up my original post)
> > -Ilr
>
>
\\\>
> It's an excellent idea. The same parties still interested?
>
But I doubt they'd be necessary. All it would really take is
a fairly dedicated web-master for less than a month. I could
build the server where I live, but I'd rather not. My geographical
location is almost geographically perfect, but it's not quite Denver.
The Connection capacity really thins out as you get up into the
mountains. Most likely I'm going to cruise around and find some
already existing sites, perhaps go into business with one of them.
I'm sure 2 grand might convince ATLEAST one person.
But before any of that can come to pass, I would need to build a
Mock site and see exactly how many artists really would be interested
because so far, not one single artist has given me any feedback just
here on AFF. Go Figure... -Ilr
Chuck Melville
FromTheDes...@StukaFox.Com wrote:
> Give the huge viewship of PoE, they're a lot more 'mainstream'
> than anything in furry. I'd be willing to bet that more people,
> per day, view PoE than are in the whole of furry.
>
Frankly, if there are that many people with an interest in snickering at
what they consider wierd folk, then they're a good deal sicker than most of what
goes on around here.
--
-Chuck Melville-
http://www.zipcon.net/~cpam/
online graphic novel: FELICIA: THE SORCERESS' APPRENTICE
http://www.zipcon.net/~cpam/felicia/felicia.html
weekly comic strip: STARS 'n' STRIPES
http://www.zipcon.net/~cpam/starsstripe/sns.html
Bart: Wow, a former president living right across the street.
Homer: Oh, why did he have to move in on _my_ territory? Look at him. Thinks
just because he led the free world, he can act like a big shot! Stupid
President... why couldn't he just stay in his own state?
Lisa: Actually, this _is_ one of the nine states where Mr. Bush claims
residency, Dad. I wouldn't have voted for him, but it's nice to have a
celebrity in the neighborhood.
Homer: Wait a minute... if _Lisa_ didn't vote for him... and _I_ didn't vote
for him --
Marge: You didn't vote for anybody.
Homer: I voted for Prell to go back to the old glass bottle. After that, I
became deeply cynical.
-- A rare glimpse of Homer, member of the electorate, "Two Bad Neighbors"
Chuck Melville
Dark Ren wrote:
>
> Here is a question that your FAQ doesn't cover. Who decides what
> is responsible display of adult materials? That is the key to that.
> When you say that there is a responsible and not so responsible
> way to do anything, that implies that there is some standard that
> defines what is and is not responsible. Of course, without defining
> something like that it sort of gives individual hot heads a carte
> blanch to draw the line wherever they want.. and I'm sure there are
> those among your movement who's views are more strict than
> yours. You can't hope to speak for your entire movement, I think,
> especially with small, deadly holes like that.
>
Actually, just a little common sense determines what is or isn't a
responsible display. In a general public area, such as the dealer's
room, there shouldn't be any visible genitalia; all naughty bits should
be discreetly covered. Likewise, you wouldn't keep any image with any
form of sexual activity in obvious view. Adult books should be pulled
back behind the table, or at least out of reach of any small kids and
where the dealer can keep a watch on them. Art show should ideally have
a partitioned area for anything explicit, where security can keep an eye
out for underage congoers. Basic rule of thumb is that the more there is
showing, the more likely it requires some form of discretion applied.
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
> I am curious about something. Should Doug Winger apply to become a
> Burned Fur, would he be turned down? Bucky Boy was, as was J Bernal,
> on the basis on drawing porn. Or so they told me. Is this true?
I have no idea abou't Bernal, but Bucky happens to deal with a lot of
bestiality. I would wager that his intent to join was distructive.
Ask me privately for more detail if you want.
Darrel L. Exline
> After I saw this I wandered off to the official web site.
> http://www.usagiyojimbo.com/
>
> You might want to check the "Friends of USAGI YOJIMBO" links page:
> http://www.usagiyojimbo.com/usaweb2.html
> I dont think he hates furry fans, folks...
Keep in mind, though, that this site is for an official fan club of Usagi
Yojimbo, not from Stan Sakai himself.
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| Darrel L. Exline "Your friendly neighborhood Polar Bear" |
| Director, "The ConFurence Group" |
| 619-223-9482 http://confurence.net dar...@home.com |
|! ConFurence 12: April 19 to April 22, 2001, Burbank Hilton !|
| Pre-registration form: http://confurence.net/pre-reg.pdf |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
"ConFurence" is a registered service mark of The ConFurence Group.
FromTheDes...@stukafox.com
>Seeing as how you're the only person who ever complains about pedophilia being
>a problem in this fandom your unique prospective could be useful. Several other
>have also questioned your original comment on this thread.
Easy -- log on to the pedophile-friend Tapestries, and trot on
over to the Treehouse. These people are more than happy to act
out their sick child-rape and child-torture fantasies for you.
Mebbe Crassus will share some of his child porn with you, like
he did for Burned Fur. There's someone who will never get a
security clearance.
Here's some logs posted by the proud pedophiles themselves:
http://artists.transfur.com/sarah_skunkie/logs/Sarah_&_Isthar.htm
http://artists.transfur.com/sarah_skunkie/logs/Treehouse2.htm
I do hope Further Confusion plans on stopping the 'Age Play Party'
this year.
There's several other items that I cannot discuss, but the above
is the tamer examples.
It's also worthy of note that the 'GRade School', which is supposed
to be an area exclusively for minors, is being run by an admitted
pedophile, Snuggems. This is putting minors in direct contact
with a man who not only finds children sexually exciting, but who
was directly involved with the Mommy_Saphire molestation case,
and still communicates with the convicted molestor.
And trust me, I'm not the only person concerned about this.
>I'm already getting the classic "StukaFox is just trolling AFF again"
Mr. Jorgensen needs to get a hobby that ISN'T net stalking.
ilr
Would it even apply anymore? NOW-B.F. is almost opposite of
YUSTA-BE-B.F. And Is Doug Winger even against Bondage, and
Vore, and Zoo, and ....yadda yadda <the list goes on>
And let's not forget that this whole movement started with a small-
minded jerk, who associated everything everyone does in this fandom
with fucking real animals, in human resources at an entry-level
position that Squeerat never actually had a chance of getting in the
first place.
Ian Kubitza
> >Seeing as how you're the only person who ever complains about pedophilia
being
> >a problem in this fandom your unique prospective could be useful. Several
other
> >have also questioned your original comment on this thread.
>
>
> Easy -- log on to the pedophile-friend Tapestries, and trot on
> over to the Treehouse. These people are more than happy to act
> out their sick child-rape and child-torture fantasies for you.
>
> Mebbe Crassus will share some of his child porn with you, like
> he did for Burned Fur. There's someone who will never get a
> security clearance.
>
> Here's some logs posted by the proud pedophiles themselves:
>
> http://artists.transfur.com/sarah_skunkie/logs/Sarah_&_Isthar.htm
> http://artists.transfur.com/sarah_skunkie/logs/Treehouse2.htm
>
>
Before you go pointing fingers and slapping titles upon people like yellow
Stars of David, let me voice my story.
You don't know me. You don't know what my life is like in RL, and just
because you read a couple logs on my web-site (which, by the way, is
dedicated to artists who volunteer their skunk-related art as well as my
characters personal adventures, of which you obviously had an interest,
otherwise you wouldn't have visited my site) does not mean what you judge is
correct. I will be perfectly honest when I say that 99% of what I do on
tapestries is strictly in character. In real life, I am an above average
student, getting okay marks. I work in a gas bar pumping gasoline and
propane regardless of weather (and it gets cold up here in Canada). I live
at home and either MUCK or play EverQuest. Video-gaming is my hobby. Online,
I am a totally differen person, I am who I want to live as. It's an escape
from the harsh realities in life.
I have 3 characters on Tapestries. Sarah is my most common, and I have
another, a male one, like my player, and the final character is one made for
a specific fur friend. Both these characters are involved with females and
males as both characters are bisexual. In real life, I am very, very
heterosexual, and would not engage in a male/male relationship unless I was
promised undying love. I keep my real life out of my online life and my
online life out of my real life. Why do I muck, then? The best answers I can
give are that a) On taps, I encounter a greater love than I have ever felt
in my real life. I long for this love, I long to be held, kissed, touched,
whispered too... It's much easier to get this online, and I know without a
doubt that over half of it is fiction, but it works. b) My hormones are in
full tilt and I want to grasp as much about sexuality as I can from every
field, even if is through text, simply just to enhance my knowledge, which
things are more interesting, which things are total turn-offs, and which
things have an everlasting effect on me in my heart, so that when the time
comes for me to love the one who I will come to love, I will be that much
better, and have less chance of screwing it up.
Am I pedophile? No, I don't think I am, but I think that, because of the
motherly way I puppeteer Sarah, I would have probably made a good mother if
I were female. In fact, if you'll read more carefully, the log with Sarah &
Isthar is a breastfeeding scene, then a tuck into bed. So, I breastfed a
kid, that must make me a pedophile. Oh, look, my next door neighbor is
breastfeeding her newborn, I better phone the cops and report an act of
child molestation. *tsk* Golly gee. The next one does involve the sexual
act with children, yes, but as I stated before, my real life and online life
are two total different things in comparison. Would I ever engage with a
child in a sexual act in my real life? No, because that's illegal, and it
imposes mental scarring onto the child and myself regardless of consent.
Online, that doesn't exist because its a perfect fantasy world. Everyone is
whoever they want to be. If they want to 'act' like a 6 year old cocksucker
who loves taking it up the ass, that's fine with me, because I act like a 15
year old skunkette who walks around naked having a heart bigger than her
breasts. To each their own.
The bottom line is, you STILL don't know me, and I am NOT what you say I am.
Try and get to know me first before calling me a 'proud pedophile', StukaFox
-Ian Kubitza, Sarah_Skunkie's player
Al Goldman
FromTheDes...@StukaFox.Com writes:
>>Al Goldman <allan...@aol.comnarf> wrote:
>>Seeing as how you're the only person who ever complains about pedophilia
being
>>a problem in this fandom your unique prospective could be useful. Several
other
>>have also questioned your original comment on this thread.
> Easy -- log on to the pedophile-friend Tapestries, and trot on
> over to the Treehouse. These people are more than happy to act
> out their sick child-rape and child-torture fantasies for you.
>
> Mebbe Crassus will share some of his child porn with you, like
> he did for Burned Fur. There's someone who will never get a
> security clearance.
<snip>
> There's several other items that I cannot discuss, but the above
> is the tamer examples.
>
> It's also worthy of note that the 'GRade School', which is supposed
> to be an area exclusively for minors, is being run by an admitted
> pedophile, Snuggems. This is putting minors in direct contact
> with a man who not only finds children sexually exciting, but who
> was directly involved with the Mommy_Saphire molestation case,
> and still communicates with the convicted molestor.
<snip>
> I do hope Further Confusion plans on stopping the 'Age Play Party'
> this year.
>
> And trust me, I'm not the only person concerned about this.
I've still got to wonder how come your the only person talking about this.
Compared to our "image problem" and the other stuff we fight about on AFF
something this important should be well know - in fact it should be impossible
not to know about it. There are plenty of people with higher credibility than
yourself spending time on mucks - people who if they made this type of
allegations would be immediately accepted by the furry community - where are
they?
Anybody else into mucks care to comment?
I have zero interest in role-play and have never been on a muck, so I'm unable
to play net-cop in this situation. As I said in the past were most likely only
seeing adults role-playing children so no matter how personally distasteful
you, or I, find the situation nothing illegal is being done. Feel free to prove
me wrong - I'll be the first person to publicly congratulate you if get a
pedophile arrested.
Al Goldman
ilr
Besides, didn't you ask him for websites(PLURAL) pertaining to Peodo
in furry? ...While negating the Treehous as an issue anymore since
he's brought it up before.
In fact, the issue of the treehouse was logically thrown-out-of-court
that last time it exploded on AFF. By the faulty logic accused, anyone
who watched Pro football would also be very likely to want to get on
the field and try to dodge those 300lbs gorillas themself. What one
pretends to do, and what one actually does are two complely different
things, many times, opposites(a lesson proved almost daily on this NG).
Farry
wrote:
>I have zero interest in role-play and have never been on a muck, so I'm unable
>to play net-cop in this situation. As I said in the past were most likely only
>seeing adults role-playing children so no matter how personally distasteful
>you, or I, find the situation nothing illegal is being done. Feel free to prove
>me wrong - I'll be the first person to publicly congratulate you if get a
>pedophile arrested.
I'll second that.
So Stuka, put up or shut up.
"'perfectly acceptable' column". Pffppph.
Sarenthalanos
"ilr" <i...@rof.net> wrote in message news:92pt8l$4n2$1...@raccoon.fur.com...
And might I also add that the Treehouse in question also resides on a MUCK
that is adults-only and tries to protect the privacy of it's players with a
registration system. I remember the stink about soemone wanting to do
volunteer interviews about it, which then the privacy of the players was
defended more than a few times. It's people like Stuka that would purposely
go in and find everyone who was different than themselves, and drag that
into the light - acting as if these acts were being displayed for the wide
public or which are widely accessible to the public, which they are not.
Without Stuka opening his yap or perhaps others' 'gold mining', I could
almost guarantee that most here aside from the actual players of Tapestries,
not many at all would know the existence of said Treehouse.
As for the logfiles, Stuka showed no compunction about linking to them. He
made material in an adult-only area with a GIANT warning page
(http://artists.transfur.com/sarah_skunkie/) in front of the site - linked
to freely and openly from a site that would otherwise be unknown to most and
again, behind a warning page. Good job, Stuka.
-Sar
"Define irony: Bunch of idiots dancing on a plane to a song made famous by
a band that died in a plane crash." - Con Air
"Define furry irony: Bunch of idiots dragging up otherwise likely unknown
material into public view, then whine about how it affects their
reputation."