I'm leaving ahww
Winterdreamer
*Winterdreamer looks over at the small crowd of weres ganging up on Hunter
Rose.*
First off, I'm over _here_. And second, I think that if this was happening
to anyone else, you'd be rather angry. I suppose I shouldn't be too
surprised though, which is part of the reason why I'm writing this.
Anyway, to introduce myself to those who don't know me besides what's
been said lately, I am Winterdreamer. I am a were who has been posting to
this group off and on since October 1994. I intend for this to be the
last post I will write to this group for a very long time. My reasons
for writing it are as follows:
To defend Hunter Rose, a delurker who is a member of a species rarer
than albino tigers, caracals, or even dogs from Sirius: an individual
who concieves of this group as having an intellectual function as well as
as a social one.
To state the truth in terms of the events that have been discussed here
of late.
To defend, as well as thank, those who have defended the truth of what
has actually happened in the last two years on this newsgroup most
recently. All three of them.
And contrary to what some *ahem* have said about me, I do actually have
more friends than that. However, I'll not name them because I know of the
propensity of some individuals to go on witch-hunts throughout the net for
anyone who might not think I'm evil.
A couple of disclaimers are in order:
I'm not perfect. I would say that I've definitely made mistakes (like
not logging certain conversations that would later be dragged through
the newsgroup).
I am not at all saying that everyone who posts here holds the views I'm
describing, or that all of these views are held by every individual who
holds one of these views. However, they do tend to overlap and interrelate
(which did make describing them coherently difficult). What I am trying to
say is I think these are the views that seem to be dominant at this point.
I:
The Political.
When I first joined the group, looking back, I would hardly characterize
it as perfect. However, what I would say that I learned, through
interacting with the group members (as well as doing a lot of personal
research and development on my own) was the following:
1) That I, as an individual, was important and had value in terms of
what I saw, and discussed.
2) That speaking intelligently, and honestly, would be rewarded.
3) That it is actually possible for me to, with work, acquire what I
wanted.
4) That I had the right to defend myself if I was attacked.
5) That I had the right to question what I saw.
I would not be able to characterize the group as having a single set of
beliefs (social or spiritual, discussed later, besides what was included
in the FAQ at that point). There was too much variation not only between
individuals, but between and within phenotypes.
Somewhere along the lines, a change happened in the nature of the
newsgroup. There were precedents to this change, and it took longer to
filter out through all aspects of it's existence, including to the
irc server, but I would characterize the start of this change at
occuring in around Fall of 1995. This is when it was first really
noticeable that this was not the same place that I first lurked in
a year earlier.
The group, became on the outside, a more unified gathering. However, the
price that came with this unity was the development of an ideology which
seems to have remained largely constant since about last summer. These are
the tenets of this ideology as I see it:
1) Anything non-human, or percieved as non-human, is better than human.
2) Weresides of different animals are largely transient, and the more
you reflect this transiency, the better.
3) The primary focus of any gathering of weres is social, not intellectual
or spiritual. The social and intellectual spheres of this group, when
they do exist, are blurred together, and should be.
4) Physical shifting is the first priority goal.
5) A predominance of certain interpretations of Christianity, Wicca,
and other forms of paganism/non-Christian spiritual beliefs at the
expense of others.
6) A blind acceptance of change.
These are the ramifications of these six tenets.
1) The tacit acceptance of anything, quite literally, that might be
percieved as were. In addition to a certain kind of strange misanthropy.
I, personally, have a problem with this because I _know_ that all of the
sweeping generalizations that have been made about humanity (even
though in the early time I was here, I made some myself) aren't true.
This is not a blanket statement that all of humanity is worthy of
my love, trust, or attention. Because I don't believe that either, and
I know that I've made that clear earlier.
What I am trying to say is that I don't believe in blanket disapproval
either, on the basis of personal (and quite limited) experiences.
2) A decrease in the lack of depth that people put into describing and
exploring this part of who they are, and what seems to me to a rushed,
almost frantic, competition to see who can 'shift' into the most things,
without really bothering to think or analyze any of the implications at
all.
3) The creation of some very strange double standards, particularly
as far as my behavior is concerned. That will be discussed in the
second section of this post, but there are a couple of issues that need
to be addressed here.
What I will bring up, however, in this section, is how the social seems to
have turned into a refuge for the blatantly irrational and the dishonest.
Two questions that I think should have been asked, but never have been
asked, are the following:
What does a were need to do in order to be socially successful?
What does a were need to do in order to be intellectually successful?
To answer the first question, a socially successful were (or for that
matter, person), is the individual who has the most influence over the
greatest number of people. An important point to notice is that this
person doesn't need to make sense, or be right. He or she just needs to
be listened to and have his desires acted upon.
An intellectually successful were, on the other paw, is one whose ideas
have been well thought out, and are the result of both experience and
knowledge, whose ideas, in addition, actually _work_.
If you say that you don't like a certain food, or a certain manner of
doing things, you are liable to be asked why (within limits of course).
If you say that you dislike an individual, that dislike will be blindly
accepted. Provided, of course, that you can make a reasonable case that
this person is not part of the group or that they are a less important
part of the group than you. The abuse of Bender (despite the fact
that many people have either existing, or secret links to his web
page) stands out as a very clear example of this.
Otherwise, if you dislike an individual, it is basically seen as a
religious insult. You weren't trusting enough. You generalized, so on.
I would like to point out that I do, actually, have a brain. The
thought has occured to me that maybe some people are friends because they
hold the same opinions, or vice versa. But when I act on this thought,
when it leads me to the simple conclusion that I will not agree with
everyone, and I cannot agree with everyone, I get flamed for it. Along
with anyone else who feels the same way I do.
If you say that you are somebody's friend, and you are convincing as far
as your allegation of friendship is concerned, for you to disagree, even
if it is an intellectual disagreement, will be seen as a social
disagreement.
Even worse, from my perspective, I feel as if one of the worst crimes I
have committed in the eyes of many members of this group is to actually
have a _reason_ for stating what I dislike, and why I have it. That,
to some of you, is to have an ulterior motive, or a 'hate filled agenda'
or to be a bigot.
How the hell can my dislikes be an ulterior motive? I've stated exactly
what I felt, and why I've felt it, going on six or seven times. An
ulterior motive is one which is hidden, and I was honest. As much as it
turned out to not be worth it, as the more I seemed to explain, the
less some of you seemed to care.
In addition, there is also a growing distrust of anyone who introduces
a new idea, or chooses to interact with the group in any way besides
a very strictly defined social norm. The most blunt way that this has
been stated was "If you don't like it, that's the breaks." The social
and the intellectual ideas of this group have become joined in such
a way that if you do not accept the social ideas, your intellectual
ideas will be rejected.
I am definitely not saying that there were no social norms in the group
that I first joined (to be distinguished from what exists now).
Those social norms were acted upon in a far more equal manner, with less
cause for suspicion as to their enforcement, as far as I could tell.
When Hunter Rose asked for a werecard format, and he got one, somehow
I don't really think that Wolfshadow included (This ought to be
interesting) next to the Attitude towards Normal Humans, or (Where
ya live now, you varmint) next to the Home Territory section.
A counterargument is that most weres are far more polite than Hunter Rose
when they delurk. This would be plausible, except that some of the
individuals who were the most vocal in critizing him have done the same
thing themselves. I do remember that Spyder didn't have a valid email
address for the first couple of months of his posting, and now he sees fit
to criticize Hunter Rose for it.
I would also like to offer, as evidence, the difference in reaction
between what Hunter Rose had to say, when he was seen as strictly
Hunter Rose, and when he had something to say, and was thought of as
potentially synonymous with me.
At first, he was thought of as merely an irritant. Someone who would
either hopefully settle down and fade into the group, or someone who
would disappear after a couple of months as another hit and run flamer..
On the other hand, when the suspicion came up that Hunter rose and myself
could be one and the same, 'weres' who didn't say word one to Hunter Rose,
who even admitted that they either ignored Hunter Rose or killfiled him,
suddenly turned into a group which I can most charitably describe as a
'mob'. They rushed to start posting details of MY personal life, gather
private e-mails from me, threaten legal action, et cetera.
All of this was despite the fact that Hunter Rose has never mentioned
anything that didn't occur on the newsgroup here. Even if it was a while
ago.
In summary, I find that in a lot of ways, some members of this group are
acting just like the people that they so desperately want to run away from
(as mentioned in my first point). But like some kind of bestial version of
Calvinistic predestination, you can get away with it by the simple matter
of having an animal spirit, or claiming you do.
4) A negative attitude, bordering almost on denigration, of those who
shift in other ways, or desire to shift in other ways. Personally, I
shift in my dreams for the most part. Nor am I the only were who does
this.
But I don't enjoy talking to weres who shift, just like I do, or could,
who are burnt out on the group because the only thing that it talks about
is physical shifting, when so far, the evidence for it, as much as I'd
personally _like_ to believe myself, is...rather nebulous, and the
experiences that the group has had with people who have made such claims
have not been good.
I'd like to say that I'm not putting that kind of shifting down. As a
matter of fact, I think it is one of the core topics of the entire group.
What I am trying to say is that from what I've seen at times, it's become
kind of a 'propietary' topic, in the sense that some individuals have
tried to claim special insights, without proof forthcoming or adding
restrictions to eliminate any need for proof. It starts kind of a cycle
in which group members end up getting burnt and leaving, new ones
come in, and the group gets even less rational about the topic (as
opposed to cynical), which starts the entire process all over again.
And what gets dropped by the wayside is the idea that YOU, the person
reading this, can actually do something on your own, without the group.
5) Out of all of the religious interpretations I've seen here, the ones
that seem to dominate are the ones which I would find to be the most
demeaning in terms of my individuality. A couple of the parts of these
interpretations are that:
Belief creates reality.
To relate this to the point I made at first, that being socially and
intellectually successful may not be synonymous, if belief creates
reality, then what you have essentially done is banish any way of knowing
what ideas work, and what ideas don't work. The group will become more
social, at the expense of all else, simply because there's no standard or
benchmark for talking about anything else.
When everything you know could be a lie, nothing you know could be the
facts. For someone to try and state the facts can only be interpreted
as a religious insult: for someone to say that they have been hurt by
another person can only be interpreted as a religious weakness on their
part because they didn't believe that the pain didn't exist. If you
react to getting hurt, you're letting the pain dictate your actions.
Ad nauseum (literally).
There is also a kind of elitism lurking underneath the idea that 'belief
creates reality' as well. That even though there are a lot more people
who believe the exact opposite of what one or a couple individuals may
believe, someone, by some irrational force that nobody can analyze or
is even willing to talk about on the newsgroup, they will win. What this
ultimately amounts to is somebody else's beliefs, creating my reality,
or creating the realities of people who would completely and totally
disagree.
Balance is natural, and therefore good.
But how do you define balance? And as far as this is concerned, how
can you try and define balance for somebody else? However, I think this
is exactly how I've been treated by some individuals, often in the guise
of friendship.
An attitude that every aspect of everyone else's soul, or whatever you
believe in, is communal property as far as this group is concerned.
So far I've heard someone say that "We all borrow our werenames" (even
though I'll note that he had a rather unique one, and as far as I'm
concerned since it took me three months to think of mine, I WILL complain
to anyone who tries to claim it).
I am not challenging the right of those who do believe this, to believe
that way. What I am challenging is your right to portray anyone who
disagrees with you as 'selfish' and therefore evil, or lesser. This is
a form of guilt manipulation, and I don't really understand, and have
never understood, what it has to do with being an animal.
An attitude that peace is the highest goal.
The problem with this is that often the most basic question that I
feel should be asked, isn't. This question is "Why did the fight start
in the first place?" The feeling that I've been left with is that those
who are not 'peaceful' are therefore less valuable.
6) Coyote brought up a good point (though probably accidentally) when he
said that almost everyone who has been here in the last year was happy
with the group.
So what ever happened to all the weres who were here before then?
This group did have a history before 1996, after all. I didn't see any
newgroup messages last year for alt.horror.werewolves.
The weres whose posts I looked forward to reading, as opposed to the
posts I dreaded?
Some of them are still around. Just not many.
It just seems to have become an accepted fact of nature around here, not
much unlike staring up at the sun burns your eyes, that after a certain
point, a were who has been here before last January or so is almost a
liability if they are vocal, and serious about being vocal, about having
a serious difference of opinion.
Again, I would like to point out the differences between the treatment
that I have gotten, and the treatment that Hunter Rose has gotten.
Had I said the same things that Hunter Rose did (until now, that is)
I would have gotten flamed, I would have gotten more pointless email,
and I would have gotten the displeasure of seeing more totally useless
posts saying how 'hyooman' I am, dumping useless psychobabble on everyone
because of me, and then having to hear how much it was all my fault.
Hunter Rose got away with what I couldn't for one simple reason:
He was newer than I was.
II
The Personal:
Contrary to what some individuals would like to say about me, up until
the beginning of last year, I was involved in perhaps two episodes of
fighting on the newsgroup. What ended my personal peace was having an
argument that never should have left irc, dragged onto the newsgroup.
At which point I had the profound displeasure of dealing with a pattern
which has made itself evident time and time again as far as my being
here is concerned.
Namely pure, hypocritical, bs.
I have had my posts forwarded to alt.flame. That incident could have
potentially threatened the entire newsgroup.
Only one were came to my defense that time. And it was not Coyote, it
was Firewolf.
I have had my email posted. Nor was I the only individual that this
was done to. Nobody gave a damn about this.
Both Safari and myself were threatened by a cancelbot last summer
when we violated Megadog's standards of personal morality.
Some of you are probably thinking "But wait! That happened almost a
year ago!" And you are right. This did happen, almost a year ago.
But if other people are going to feel free to bring it up, along
with what I might have said in email, I have just as much right to
tell what I think happened. And that is exactly what I am doing now.
"Those who do not learn from the past are destined to repeat it."
Carlos Santayana.
Whoops. He was human, so I guess it's not relevant to here at all.
I live in a free country. Most of those posting in this group do so as
well. It's everyone's right, as a result, to hold whatever personal
religious beliefs they want, provided it doesn't infringe on anyone
else's.
Where I think this has kind of broken down however, is on the issue of
'proselytizing' towards certain ideas that I don't hold. Namely:
A kind of enforced, bland, 'niceness' which is held together by both guilt
and emotionalism. For example, someone will say to me how much they want
to help, how much they care about me, and then turn around and try and
give me a piece of advice that I know, from hard experience, isn't going
to work. This leaves me with two options:
1) Either I can lie and say I agree with them. Which means that if I tell
the truth later, I will be attacked on the basis of contradicting myself.
2) I can tell the truth, and say I disagree with them. Which means that
to many outside observers, I'm rejecting friendship, because like I
mentioned earlier, the social and intellectual spheres have become
blurred around here. And since this is a social group, to reject
friendship means to reject the group, so things go downhill fast
afterwards.
This, in short, is a lose-lose situation. While it is perfectly legal
to act in this manner, I find it to be dodgy in the extreme.
A social relationship, to me, is a relationship of trust. When one
party violates that trust, then the other party has the right to do
whatever they feel is necessary that is a legitimate action.
What I feel has happened around here is that my honesty has been treated
like a resource to abused, and spent, at other people's whims, and not
my own as far as the entire issue of E-mail is concerned. E-mail
costs me time, it costs me money (ultimately), and it costs me effort.
Particularly if I am spending it to try and explain to Were X who
just said what I did was 'totally human' that I had a very detailed
set of reasons why I did what I did, only to later either have that
email thrown in my face, or treated like I never said anything to them
at all.
I know this might sound arcane, so I'll give an example. It is true that
at one time, I did email Ben Goodridge. However, what actually happened
was the following:
I gave my opinion on a topic. Such was my right.
I got attacked for giving this opinion by some.
I defended myself verbally. Others leapt into the argument.
Ben Goodridge, not knowing what happened, and what triggered this, asked
me what happened. Seeing as it was a complex situation, I sent him a long
email about it.
He then started talking about what I had told him in email.
Now. At that point, I was in the lose-lose situation I explained above.
If I didn't respond, his version of events (which was kind of different
from what I think actually happened) would have remained unchallenged.
But if I did respond, I'd be accused of attacking someone who was just
trying to be my friend.
I don't think he meant to do this deliberately. While it is his decision
to leave ahww, I did not intend for him to do so. All I want...all I have
wanted for the last year or so is the elimination of double standards
and lose-lose situations like this as far as I'm concerned. I really
didn't think I was making a ridiculous request, but apparently I was
wrong.
Some of you have said that you admired the way I made the points I made,
or that I was right. And then promptly proceeded to make my life as hard
as possible.
Hunter Rose may not be well liked around here, even before the issue
of my name came up: but as far as I'm concerned, he is perfectly
adapted to the environment which he has seen so far.
He has no email address for some of you to bitch to, or mailbomb, or lie
about.
III:
The Conclusion
If you've made it this far in this post and I salute you for that, you
might have asked yourself, "Well if he's got this many gripes, why doesn't
he just leave?"
Precisely. :)
So, as a result, I am leaving the newsgroup until such time (which may be
never) that I feel that I am welcome here. If the primary function of this
group is social, I don't fit in. If you hit me, I will hit you back worse.
I am not a furry, I have fewer than two weresides, I am not a pacifist, I
don't like vampires, and my spirituality is not a democracy. It does not
respond to calls for votes, blatant or moral extortions, and I tend to be
selective about my company in terms of my personal life.
I refuse to post and talk in an environment where I am expected to be
honest and noble at my own expense, while certain individuals around me
claim to be my friends. Then they see fit to try and shove their morality
on me, and act in a dishonest manner themselves, and get away with it
because they are better at playing the social circus that ahww has
turned into better than me.
I also encourage anyone else who feels the same way to go ahead and
do the same thing. Having seen a thread about the subject of 'were
culture', I will respond by saying "Discover your own, as it is your own
soul involved". There is no law dictating that this group, or those
affiliated, have a sole and unlimited monopoly on therianthropy, or
any of the topics that are discussed here. And we shall see who outlasts
who in the end, and more to the point, why.
I know that some of you are eagerly hunched over your keyboards waiting
to write a "Don't let the door hit you on your ass." post. Any further
irritating email sent to me will be deleted on sight: and to write such
a post will only hasten the demise of the group you claim to care so much
about anyway.
You may now return to your regularly scheduled farce.
Bye.
Winterdreamer
ps-I know that I have never answered the question of whether I am Hunter
Rose or not. I have no intention of doing so either. The entire point of
this post was for those of you reading it to think for yourselves.
Spyder Witiko
In article <Pine.LNX.3.95.97033...@instinct.bears.org>,
Winterdreamer <win...@lycanthrope.org> wrote:
=> I do remember that Spyder didn't have a valid email
=> address for the first couple of months of his posting, and now he sees fit
=> to criticize Hunter Rose for it.
Not true. There is a difference, brother, between an _inability_ to email
and a _refusal_ to email.
When I first came to this fire, I had no way of getting email in any way
(which I remedied ASAP with WtF's help) and was unable to take any
conversations to a private forum -- which I was criticized for often
enough, as well, but it was no skin off my nose.
Hunter Rose actively _refuses_ to take anything to private email, even
though he/she/it has access to it. Do you see the difference? (And _PLEASE_
don't take this as a flame...)
- Spyder Witiko, kokodhem-at-large
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
|\/ / / Email <mailto:spy...@therianthrope.org>
|_\/ / Therianthrope dot Org Website <http://www.therianthrope.org>
|__\/ Therianthropic and Lycanthropic Resources & Info
Rorschach
This I think is going to be one of the hardest posts that I have
answered. It communicates on several different levels and covers a great
many subjects.
To AHWW: Read this if you want or not. It is not a flame, it is mostly
directed at WD, and it is me being entirely honest about how I feel. It
has been kind of uplifting to get much of this off my chest. I can let go
of it now and go on with my life. (And put some more time into posting,
to try and make AHWW a better place for us all to live)
Winter, I hope you actually take the time to read through this whole thing
before deleting it, but I don't really expect that you will. Sigh. You
have brought up a great many good points, but you have blown almost all of
them out of proportion. Was this intentional or is this how you really
see AHWW?
On 30 Mar 1997, Winterdreamer wrote:
> *Winterdreamer looks over at the small crowd of weres ganging up on Hunter
> Rose.*
>
> First off, I'm over _here_. And second, I think that if this was happening
> to anyone else, you'd be rather angry. I suppose I shouldn't be too
> surprised though, which is part of the reason why I'm writing this.
>
> Anyway, to introduce myself to those who don't know me besides what's
> been said lately, I am Winterdreamer. I am a were who has been posting to
> this group off and on since October 1994. I intend for this to be the
> last post I will write to this group for a very long time. My reasons
> for writing it are as follows:
I am both happy and sad that you are leaving AHWW. Though, in many
ways you left a long time ago. Once you wrote very good posts, posts that
would make me stop and think and actually work on replying to them. Posts
that were not targeted at some particular were that you wanted to piss
off, posts that were not designed to try and make people look like liars
and bigots and hypocrits. I am sad to see this go, I was sad to see it
go a long time ago. The only reason that I am happy (and happy is too
strong a word) to see you go is that maybe a good chunk of the flame
wars, both started by you and directed at you will go away and NOT come
back. (BTW this is not a hope that you don't come back, just a hope that
if you do come back, you don't come back and start baiting people you
don't like again)
I really wish I know what caused the change, what can hurt a person so
much that they start assuming that everyone is hostile until they 'prove'
themselves friendly. (Which is, I think something that you said to me (or
at least something similar, my brain is mush)). Or, if you were always
that way, what caused you to bring it to the surface and leave it there?
I could not live with such an attitude, and I wish you luck. (No, this is
not sarcasm. I really do wish you success in your life)
> To defend Hunter Rose, a delurker who is a member of a species rarer
> than albino tigers, caracals, or even dogs from Sirius: an individual
> who concieves of this group as having an intellectual function as well as
> as a social one.
I am sorry, I do not believe that HR is a different person. I have
seen enough in style and knowledge to convince me without the unaltered
mail header and what Coyote has been saying. I happen to TRUST Coyote,
and I really don't think that he would pick a random newby and start
flaming. If my trust is misplaced, then I will get hurt. Ah well, has
happened many times before, and will likely happen again. That is, I
think, a difference between us. You are not willing to risk getting hurt
in order to trust someone. You attempt to make them prove that they can
be trusted, and end up alienating them in the process. When we wrote,
when we talked, I gave my trust to you. Looking back later, I guess that
trust was not returned by you. Kind of hurts. Was attempting to meet at
Muir Park a way to meet at a nice place or was it a way to keep me from
knowing exactly where you live? I can't really guess either way, and this
saddens me.
> To state the truth in terms of the events that have been discussed here
> of late.
>
> To defend, as well as thank, those who have defended the truth of what
> has actually happened in the last two years on this newsgroup most
> recently. All three of them.
>
> And contrary to what some *ahem* have said about me, I do actually have
> more friends than that. However, I'll not name them because I know of the
> propensity of some individuals to go on witch-hunts throughout the net for
> anyone who might not think I'm evil.
Ah, then they had better start hunting me. I just think you are wrong.
> A couple of disclaimers are in order:
>
> I'm not perfect. I would say that I've definitely made mistakes (like
> not logging certain conversations that would later be dragged through
> the newsgroup).
>
> I am not at all saying that everyone who posts here holds the views I'm
> describing, or that all of these views are held by every individual who
> holds one of these views. However, they do tend to overlap and interrelate
> (which did make describing them coherently difficult). What I am trying to
> say is I think these are the views that seem to be dominant at this point.
>
> I:
>
> The Political.
>
> When I first joined the group, looking back, I would hardly characterize
> it as perfect. However, what I would say that I learned, through
> interacting with the group members (as well as doing a lot of personal
> research and development on my own) was the following:
>
> 1) That I, as an individual, was important and had value in terms of
> what I saw, and discussed.
This only works if you are also willing to give the same
consideration back to others.
> 2) That speaking intelligently, and honestly, would be rewarded.
This has not changed IMO.
> 3) That it is actually possible for me to, with work, acquire what I
> wanted.
Kind of all depends on what you want, doesn't it?
> 4) That I had the right to defend myself if I was attacked.
This you have stood on again and againg until it was trampled deep into
the dirt. Yes, everyone has a right to defend themselves when attacked,
but I do not think I have EVER seen someone who just out of the blue
attacked you Winter. (Don't know about IRC). But I do remember the
pattern REALLY REALLY well. For some reason you would decide that you did
not like a particular were (good reason, bad reasons, I don't know as you
never really gave them). You then would start posting messages just
inflammatory to piss them off, but not obviously a flame or attact. 10-15
messages later when the got pissed enough to write back something even
resembling an attack, you exploded and flamed them mercilessly. Nice
'defense' of yourself. Being as quite a few weres are not nearly as blind
as you seem to have always assumed we were and could see this whole
pattern, people would start stepping in to defend this person that you
were flaming (cause you are very damn good at it, and given free reign
would likely hound them all the way off AHWW). Off we would all be in
another two week flame war with everyone 'attacking' poor Winter who never
did anything but 'defend' himself. (Heavy fucking sarcasm). If you could
not see the pattern (especially as rather a lot of people have repeatedly
pointed it out to you) you are very very blind indeed. Assuming this is
not the case then the conclusion is that you knew exactly what you were
doing, and pretty much the only assumption that a lot of people drew was
that it was your intention to hound everyone that you did not like out of
AHWW.
> 5) That I had the right to question what I saw.
Question, always. Bait, flame, attact, never.
> I would not be able to characterize the group as having a single set of
> beliefs (social or spiritual, discussed later, besides what was included
> in the FAQ at that point). There was too much variation not only between
> individuals, but between and within phenotypes.
>
> Somewhere along the lines, a change happened in the nature of the
> newsgroup. There were precedents to this change, and it took longer to
> filter out through all aspects of it's existence, including to the
> irc server, but I would characterize the start of this change at
> occuring in around Fall of 1995. This is when it was first really
> noticeable that this was not the same place that I first lurked in
> a year earlier.
>
> The group, became on the outside, a more unified gathering. However, the
> price that came with this unity was the development of an ideology which
> seems to have remained largely constant since about last summer. These are
> the tenets of this ideology as I see it:
>
> 1) Anything non-human, or percieved as non-human, is better than human.
Eh? I really don't consider a slug superior. A wolf, while he can run a
hell of a lot better than I can, is never going to knit chainmail.
> 2) Weresides of different animals are largely transient, and the more
> you reflect this transiency, the better.
I think you are still caught in the fad of months ago. If you have
actually been watching, it seems like you should have noticed that this
has not been the case for a while.
> 3) The primary focus of any gathering of weres is social, not intellectual
> or spiritual. The social and intellectual spheres of this group, when
> they do exist, are blurred together, and should be.
I agree with you here, things have moved away from the spiritual. I
expect it to come back around again in time as it has already several
times since I have been here. The social will never go away, as it is
very important IMO for both the weres of AHWW and for AHWW itself. As to
the intellectual, I am not sure what to say. I don't think it is possible
to truly seperate the social from the intellectual. You cannot insult a
person's mother on one day and then expect a well though out answer the
next on why the sky is blue the next. Most people aren't really wired
that way (I am some, but I am damn strange too)
> 4) Physical shifting is the first priority goal.
This is a bit high on some people lists at the moment. Doesn't really
surprise me. If PS was not so important in the past then how the hell did
Storm do what he did?
> 5) A predominance of certain interpretations of Christianity, Wicca,
> and other forms of paganism/non-Christian spiritual beliefs at the
> expense of others.
This to, I haven't really seen that much. Much more I see people getting
slammed because they are ANY type of christian, wiccan etc. Is IMO worse.
> 6) A blind acceptance of change.
What kind of change? Change in people? Change in the newsgroup?
The $1.63 in my pocket? (no need to count, just accept the number :-)
> These are the ramifications of these six tenets.
>
> 1) The tacit acceptance of anything, quite literally, that might be
> percieved as were. In addition to a certain kind of strange misanthropy.
What would you have instead? Would you rather a place that kicks you out
if you do not meet all the 'specifications' of being were? The posers sit
around and pose for a few weeks and then go away. What about the
non-weres who have been here. Blackpaws may not have ever found his
were-side if he had been flamed out of the group because he was only
'human' Or is it that only 'true' weres and 'cool people' should be
allowed to be here? Who decides? Who makes the rules? Should anyone be
able to hound someone that they do not like out of the group?
> I, personally, have a problem with this because I _know_ that all of the
> sweeping generalizations that have been made about humanity (even
> though in the early time I was here, I made some myself) aren't true.
>
> This is not a blanket statement that all of humanity is worthy of
> my love, trust, or attention. Because I don't believe that either, and
> I know that I've made that clear earlier.
>
> What I am trying to say is that I don't believe in blanket disapproval
> either, on the basis of personal (and quite limited) experiences.
Has there even been any blanket statements made in the last couple of
months? (BTW I agree with you about the blanket statements)
> 2) A decrease in the lack of depth that people put into describing and
> exploring this part of who they are, and what seems to me to a rushed,
> almost frantic, competition to see who can 'shift' into the most things,
> without really bothering to think or analyze any of the implications at
> all.
Theres a pretty interesting thread about pregnancy and shifting that tells
me that this is not entirely true.
> 3) The creation of some very strange double standards, particularly
> as far as my behavior is concerned. That will be discussed in the
> second section of this post, but there are a couple of issues that need
> to be addressed here.
>
> What I will bring up, however, in this section, is how the social seems to
> have turned into a refuge for the blatantly irrational and the dishonest.
> Two questions that I think should have been asked, but never have been
> asked, are the following:
>
> What does a were need to do in order to be socially successful?
>
> What does a were need to do in order to be intellectually successful?
>
> To answer the first question, a socially successful were (or for that
> matter, person), is the individual who has the most influence over the
> greatest number of people. An important point to notice is that this
> person doesn't need to make sense, or be right. He or she just needs to
> be listened to and have his desires acted upon.
This may be your definition (and according to it, you are a very socially
successful were. You have had a great deal of influence over a lot of
people. Not positive influence, but influence none the less)
This is certainly not my definition. Socially succesful means making
friends. Friends are people that you can trust and that will place their
trust in you, people that you think of just slightly before yourself,
people who you know would drop everything if you needed help and who you
would do the same for. Friends are also people who will not hesitate to
point out the you are being a stupid-head (sometimes even in time for you
to cover your ass too :-)
Socially succesful is being able to share parts about yourself with
others, and have them share as well.
Socially succesful is to truly know that you are NOT alone.
Socially succesful is the ability to tolerate viewpoints that are
different than yours without feeling the need to attack the person behind
them. (Attacking views, attacking actions, but attacking people???!!!)
> An intellectually successful were, on the other paw, is one whose ideas
> have been well thought out, and are the result of both experience and
> knowledge, whose ideas, in addition, actually _work_.
Often times the two are linked together, You cannot blindly attack
people, and then expect everyone to give full consideration to your
argument. If a person punches you, are you really going to trust his
explanation of how to fix your brakes?
> If you say that you don't like a certain food, or a certain manner of
> doing things, you are liable to be asked why (within limits of course).
>
> If you say that you dislike an individual, that dislike will be blindly
> accepted. Provided, of course, that you can make a reasonable case that
> this person is not part of the group or that they are a less important
> part of the group than you. The abuse of Bender (despite the fact
> that many people have either existing, or secret links to his web
> page) stands out as a very clear example of this.
ROFTL Oh god, not the secret links again!
But more seriously: If someone says they dislike a person, there is not a
whole lot that you can do. Trying to change their mind doesn't do a lot,
and asking them to explain why they don't like the person often results in
you liking both people involved less (especially with how childish the
battles that go on around here often are).
> Otherwise, if you dislike an individual, it is basically seen as a
> religious insult. You weren't trusting enough. You generalized, so on.
> I would like to point out that I do, actually, have a brain. The
> thought has occured to me that maybe some people are friends because they
> hold the same opinions, or vice versa. But when I act on this thought,
> when it leads me to the simple conclusion that I will not agree with
> everyone, and I cannot agree with everyone, I get flamed for it. Along
> with anyone else who feels the same way I do.
I don't really care if you and Gen Eric Wolf hate each others guts as long
as you can either 1 Post civily to each other ON THE GROUP or 2 Completely
ignore the other's person's existance. It is also damn important to NOT
try and draw your friends into the argument. It is not your disliking
someone that gets you flamed Winter, it your actions of either flaming
them, or trying to taunt them into 'attacking' you so that you can the
'defend' yourself against them.
You once told me that it is dishonest to not like a person without telling
them about it, so here goes.
Send them a letter or post that says "I do not like you, please do not
talk to me." There. Now they know you don't like them. If they flame
you back, then you have every right to defend yourself (preferably in
email). Probably they will either go OK and not talk to you, or maybe ask
why you do not like them and attempt to rectify the situation.
> If you say that you are somebody's friend, and you are convincing as far
> as your allegation of friendship is concerned, for you to disagree, even
> if it is an intellectual disagreement, will be seen as a social
> disagreement.
This is a lot rarer than you make it sound Winter. You have really bum
deal. You have pissed off so many people in the past that it is
really difficult to give your purely intellectual arguments a purely
intelectual answer. You also don't make it very easy by being so damn
self rightous occasionally. As for the rest of AHWW, I see several
ongoing disagreements that are staying very nicely in the intellectual.
> Even worse, from my perspective, I feel as if one of the worst crimes I
> have committed in the eyes of many members of this group is to actually
> have a _reason_ for stating what I dislike, and why I have it. That,
> to some of you, is to have an ulterior motive, or a 'hate filled agenda'
> or to be a bigot.
Once again, if you only expressed your dislike instead of acting on it,
you would have gotten a very different reaction.
> How the hell can my dislikes be an ulterior motive? I've stated exactly
> what I felt, and why I've felt it, going on six or seven times. An
> ulterior motive is one which is hidden, and I was honest. As much as it
> turned out to not be worth it, as the more I seemed to explain, the
> less some of you seemed to care.
If you attack someone that I happen to like or respect, or maybe just feel
does not 'deserve' you attention then I don't really care what your
reasons are for not liking them are, I just want you to stop attacking
them.
> In addition, there is also a growing distrust of anyone who introduces
> a new idea, or chooses to interact with the group in any way besides
> a very strictly defined social norm. The most blunt way that this has
> been stated was "If you don't like it, that's the breaks." The social
> and the intellectual ideas of this group have become joined in such
> a way that if you do not accept the social ideas, your intellectual
> ideas will be rejected.
No, if you attack people (directly or as a bait and 'defend') then you
find less and less respect for your ideas as well.
> I am definitely not saying that there were no social norms in the group
> that I first joined (to be distinguished from what exists now).
>
> Those social norms were acted upon in a far more equal manner, with less
> cause for suspicion as to their enforcement, as far as I could tell.
>
> When Hunter Rose asked for a werecard format, and he got one, somehow
> I don't really think that Wolfshadow included (This ought to be
> interesting) next to the Attitude towards Normal Humans, or (Where
> ya live now, you varmint) next to the Home Territory section.
>
> A counterargument is that most weres are far more polite than Hunter Rose
> when they delurk. This would be plausible, except that some of the
> individuals who were the most vocal in critizing him have done the same
> thing themselves. I do remember that Spyder didn't have a valid email
> address for the first couple of months of his posting, and now he sees fit
> to criticize Hunter Rose for it.
Spyder was apologetic for not having email. 'Hunter Rose' flaunted it.
> I would also like to offer, as evidence, the difference in reaction
> between what Hunter Rose had to say, when he was seen as strictly
> Hunter Rose, and when he had something to say, and was thought of as
> potentially synonymous with me.
What did you really expect? When HR was HR, has was new, somewhat
annoying person who brought up some good points. When HR was revealed to
be you, then he became a lie. I find it damn hard to interact with a
person that I KNOW is lying to my face and probably laughing about it.
Winter, you became what you have railed against. In trying to defend
yourself, you became one of the lying posers who have hurt all of our
trusts so badly. Thanks a hell of a lot.
> At first, he was thought of as merely an irritant. Someone who would
> either hopefully settle down and fade into the group, or someone who
> would disappear after a couple of months as another hit and run flamer..
I personally never hoped that he would just 'go away' Irritating? So.
New? So. He was as entitled as any of us to be here and had as much
right as any of us to speak.
> On the other hand, when the suspicion came up that Hunter rose and myself
> could be one and the same, 'weres' who didn't say word one to Hunter Rose,
> who even admitted that they either ignored Hunter Rose or killfiled him,
> suddenly turned into a group which I can most charitably describe as a
> 'mob'. They rushed to start posting details of MY personal life, gather
> private e-mails from me, threaten legal action, et cetera.
Was this reaction unreasonable? Should people sit back and just say "Oh
well, my trust has been betrayed, my home has been shat upon, I guess I
will just go on like nothing has happened at all." Walk in some other
peoples shoes for a few paces Winter. If you have been talking to someone
for a month or so and then find out that they have lied to you about
everything, would you just calmly sit back and go on talking? I really
don't think so. I personally feel used and a bit less likely to trust
someone at face value the next time. This greatly saddens me.
> All of this was despite the fact that Hunter Rose has never mentioned
> anything that didn't occur on the newsgroup here. Even if it was a while
> ago.
>
> In summary, I find that in a lot of ways, some members of this group are
> acting just like the people that they so desperately want to run away from
> (as mentioned in my first point). But like some kind of bestial version of
> Calvinistic predestination, you can get away with it by the simple matter
> of having an animal spirit, or claiming you do.
So what is your excuse then? What justification do you have for taking
yourself to the level of those that you say you despise. What difference
is their between you and them?
> 4) A negative attitude, bordering almost on denigration, of those who
> shift in other ways, or desire to shift in other ways. Personally, I
> shift in my dreams for the most part. Nor am I the only were who does
> this.
I guess that I am going to have to get a negative attitude towards me
then, as I don't claim to be able to PS. The only shifting that I have
done is in dreams a long time ago, and maybe a bit of a mental shift.
> But I don't enjoy talking to weres who shift, just like I do, or could,
> who are burnt out on the group because the only thing that it talks about
> is physical shifting, when so far, the evidence for it, as much as I'd
> personally _like_ to believe myself, is...rather nebulous, and the
> experiences that the group has had with people who have made such claims
> have not been good.
>
> I'd like to say that I'm not putting that kind of shifting down. As a
> matter of fact, I think it is one of the core topics of the entire group.
>
> What I am trying to say is that from what I've seen at times, it's become
> kind of a 'propietary' topic, in the sense that some individuals have
> tried to claim special insights, without proof forthcoming or adding
> restrictions to eliminate any need for proof. It starts kind of a cycle
> in which group members end up getting burnt and leaving, new ones
> come in, and the group gets even less rational about the topic (as
> opposed to cynical), which starts the entire process all over again.
So add some topics! Become part of the solution. How long has it been
since you have tried to start some actual topic instead of merely asking a
vague question seemingly designed to try and build group discontent.
> And what gets dropped by the wayside is the idea that YOU, the person
> reading this, can actually do something on your own, without the group.
>
> 5) Out of all of the religious interpretations I've seen here, the ones
> that seem to dominate are the ones which I would find to be the most
> demeaning in terms of my individuality. A couple of the parts of these
> interpretations are that:
snip Belief creates reality.
> Balance is natural, and therefore good.
>
> But how do you define balance? And as far as this is concerned, how
> can you try and define balance for somebody else? However, I think this
> is exactly how I've been treated by some individuals, often in the guise
> of friendship.
This hurts a lot Winter. This hurts more than you will EVER know.
'guise of friendship' simple words indeed...
> An attitude that every aspect of everyone else's soul, or whatever you
> believe in, is communal property as far as this group is concerned.
>
> So far I've heard someone say that "We all borrow our werenames" (even
> though I'll note that he had a rather unique one, and as far as I'm
> concerned since it took me three months to think of mine, I WILL complain
> to anyone who tries to claim it).
>
> I am not challenging the right of those who do believe this, to believe
> that way. What I am challenging is your right to portray anyone who
> disagrees with you as 'selfish' and therefore evil, or lesser. This is
> a form of guilt manipulation, and I don't really understand, and have
> never understood, what it has to do with being an animal.
>
> An attitude that peace is the highest goal.
>
> The problem with this is that often the most basic question that I
> feel should be asked, isn't. This question is "Why did the fight start
> in the first place?" The feeling that I've been left with is that those
> who are not 'peaceful' are therefore less valuable.
Those that are not peaceful have caused a hell of a lot of people to leave
this group. Is this a valuable contribution? Is this good for us that so
many people have gone away? Natural selection for tolerance of endless
arguments, flames, and crap? Just how many weres have gone away because
of the discord, stating so as they leave? How many others faded into the
background because they were tired of the flames? IS THIS GOOD??!!
I agree with what you (I think as Hunter Rose) said to Coyote. You won't
ever put anyone before yourself. Your 'right' to flame whoever you so
please (in public posts of course) is more important than the
contributions of any of the weres that have left because of YOUR flames.
Well, Winter. You still have your right to flame people. I hope it is
warm comfort to you. I personally would much rather have the back the
people that have left.
> 6) Coyote brought up a good point (though probably accidentally) when he
> said that almost everyone who has been here in the last year was happy
> with the group.
>
> So what ever happened to all the weres who were here before then?
See above.
> This group did have a history before 1996, after all. I didn't see any
> newgroup messages last year for alt.horror.werewolves.
>
> The weres whose posts I looked forward to reading, as opposed to the
> posts I dreaded?
You drove them away Winter. You and the people you flamed. Live with it.
> Some of them are still around. Just not many.
>
> It just seems to have become an accepted fact of nature around here, not
> much unlike staring up at the sun burns your eyes, that after a certain
> point, a were who has been here before last January or so is almost a
> liability if they are vocal, and serious about being vocal, about having
> a serious difference of opinion.
You are putting everyone else in your shoes. They don't fit
all that well.
> Again, I would like to point out the differences between the treatment
> that I have gotten, and the treatment that Hunter Rose has gotten.
> Had I said the same things that Hunter Rose did (until now, that is)
> I would have gotten flamed, I would have gotten more pointless email,
> and I would have gotten the displeasure of seeing more totally useless
> posts saying how 'hyooman' I am, dumping useless psychobabble on everyone
> because of me, and then having to hear how much it was all my fault.
>
> Hunter Rose got away with what I couldn't for one simple reason:
>
> He was newer than I was.
No, it is because he did not have a long history of starting multiple week
flame wars making up a good percentage of the newsgroups traffic.
Just like any of us Winter, you get to live with your mistakes. Nothing
is permanent if you are willing to make sacrifices in order to change.
But I forget, nothing is so important as 'your' right to 'defend'
yourself.
> II
>
> The Personal:
>
> Contrary to what some individuals would like to say about me, up until
> the beginning of last year, I was involved in perhaps two episodes of
> fighting on the newsgroup. What ended my personal peace was having an
> argument that never should have left irc, dragged onto the newsgroup.
>
> At which point I had the profound displeasure of dealing with a pattern
> which has made itself evident time and time again as far as my being
> here is concerned.
I don't think that you had all that much displeasure really. You
discovered in your months of on and off flames between you and Rimblesah
(theres a name out of the dusty past) just how easy it was for you to bait
someone into attacking you and then tromp on them. All the while claiming
"I am sooo innocent. Look, he pushed me first" If you didn't like the
pattern you never would have used it so much. If you didn't like flaming
and responding to flames, you never would have done so much for so long to
so many people.
> Namely pure, hypocritical, bs.
Yep, seen a lot of that. You must not get out much to be so completely
unable to ignore this kind of stuff. How the hell to you survive college
classes?
> I have had my posts forwarded to alt.flame. That incident could have
> potentially threatened the entire newsgroup.
You state this like it was near the begining of your years of flame. And
no, I did not agree with that action. I regret not speaking up about it
at the time (if I was here that is)
> Only one were came to my defense that time. And it was not Coyote, it
> was Firewolf.
>
> I have had my email posted. Nor was I the only individual that this
> was done to. Nobody gave a damn about this.
I still want to see this email that you say I posted. Do you happen to
have an approximate date, so that I can find it in dejanews?
> Both Safari and myself were threatened by a cancelbot last summer
> when we violated Megadog's standards of personal morality.
>
> Some of you are probably thinking "But wait! That happened almost a
> year ago!" And you are right. This did happen, almost a year ago.
> But if other people are going to feel free to bring it up, along
> with what I might have said in email, I have just as much right to
> tell what I think happened. And that is exactly what I am doing now.
Yes, you are becoming exactly what you are saying that you dislike in
orger to fight it. Is it so surprising that you aren't finding a lot of
support?
> "Those who do not learn from the past are destined to repeat it."
> Carlos Santayana.
>
> Whoops. He was human, so I guess it's not relevant to here at all.
Hey! Sarcasm is my job!! :-b
> I live in a free country. Most of those posting in this group do so as
> well. It's everyone's right, as a result, to hold whatever personal
> religious beliefs they want, provided it doesn't infringe on anyone
> else's.
>
> Where I think this has kind of broken down however, is on the issue of
> 'proselytizing' towards certain ideas that I don't hold. Namely:
>
> A kind of enforced, bland, 'niceness' which is held together by both guilt
> and emotionalism. For example, someone will say to me how much they want
> to help, how much they care about me, and then turn around and try and
> give me a piece of advice that I know, from hard experience, isn't going
> to work. This leaves me with two options:
>
> 1) Either I can lie and say I agree with them. Which means that if I tell
> the truth later, I will be attacked on the basis of contradicting myself.
Is it real surprising that people get a bit ticked when being lied to?
> 2) I can tell the truth, and say I disagree with them. Which means that
> to many outside observers, I'm rejecting friendship, because like I
> mentioned earlier, the social and intellectual spheres have become
> blurred around here. And since this is a social group, to reject
> friendship means to reject the group, so things go downhill fast
> afterwards.
How about
3) Tell them that you have already tried it (or have at least worked
through it enough to see that it will not work). Tell them why you
think it will not work. Be polite about refusing it, and say that you
think you have a better solution. Maybe even be politer and share what
you think is a better solution.
> This, in short, is a lose-lose situation. While it is perfectly legal
> to act in this manner, I find it to be dodgy in the extreme.
>
> A social relationship, to me, is a relationship of trust. When one
> party violates that trust, then the other party has the right to do
> whatever they feel is necessary that is a legitimate action.
You have said this before, and I very much disagree with you.
You are basically saying that you have every right to hit me with a
baseball bat because I have poked you with my finger. Even worse is when
you call me names hoping that I will poke you so that you can hit me with
the bat. Why not just hit me outright, why do you have to have the excuse
(pitiful as it is)?
You should go to law school winter. You do well at walking within the
letter of the law while completely trouncing the spirit.
> What I feel has happened around here is that my honesty has been treated
> like a resource to abused, and spent, at other people's whims, and not
> my own as far as the entire issue of E-mail is concerned. E-mail
> costs me time, it costs me money (ultimately), and it costs me effort.
> Particularly if I am spending it to try and explain to Were X who
> just said what I did was 'totally human' that I had a very detailed
> set of reasons why I did what I did, only to later either have that
> email thrown in my face, or treated like I never said anything to them
> at all.
So because your honesty has been abused, you lie to us all. Great.
> I know this might sound arcane, so I'll give an example. It is true that
> at one time, I did email Ben Goodridge. However, what actually happened
> was the following:
>
> I gave my opinion on a topic. Such was my right.
>
> I got attacked for giving this opinion by some.
>
> I defended myself verbally. Others leapt into the argument.
>
> Ben Goodridge, not knowing what happened, and what triggered this, asked
> me what happened. Seeing as it was a complex situation, I sent him a long
> email about it.
>
> He then started talking about what I had told him in email.
>
> Now. At that point, I was in the lose-lose situation I explained above.
> If I didn't respond, his version of events (which was kind of different
> from what I think actually happened) would have remained unchallenged.
> But if I did respond, I'd be accused of attacking someone who was just
> trying to be my friend.
>
> I don't think he meant to do this deliberately. While it is his decision
> to leave ahww, I did not intend for him to do so. All I want...all I have
> wanted for the last year or so is the elimination of double standards
> and lose-lose situations like this as far as I'm concerned. I really
> didn't think I was making a ridiculous request, but apparently I was
> wrong.
No, Winter. You are living in the real world talking to real people who
are a hell of a lot more than cardboard cutouts. In the real world we get
to take responsibilty for our actions, even when they have bad
consequences. In the real world we get to live with our past actions, and
actually have to ask to get second chances (which are not guaranteed).
Pretty different than just text on a screen isn't it?
> Some of you have said that you admired the way I made the points I made,
> or that I was right. And then promptly proceeded to make my life as hard
> as possible.
You were the one claiming that you wanted a seperation of intellectual and
social. Now you are complaining about it. Just because you are right
about some things does not mean that you are right about everything or
that your actions are all now somehow justified.
> Hunter Rose may not be well liked around here, even before the issue
> of my name came up: but as far as I'm concerned, he is perfectly
> adapted to the environment which he has seen so far.
Yes, he is a lie. He is a wonderful symbol of trusts broken, of
friendships (or so we thought) betrayed. He is the perfect screen to hide
behind, the way to avoid responsibility for your actions. You can claim
"but that wasn't me"
> He has no email address for some of you to bitch to, or mailbomb, or lie
> about.
And boy do you/him flaunt this fact in our faces.
> III:
>
> The Conclusion
>
> If you've made it this far in this post and I salute you for that, you
> might have asked yourself, "Well if he's got this many gripes, why doesn't
> he just leave?"
>
> Precisely. :)
>
> So, as a result, I am leaving the newsgroup until such time (which may be
> never) that I feel that I am welcome here. If the primary function of this
> group is social, I don't fit in. If you hit me, I will hit you back worse.
> I am not a furry, I have fewer than two weresides, I am not a pacifist, I
> don't like vampires, and my spirituality is not a democracy. It does not
> respond to calls for votes, blatant or moral extortions, and I tend to be
> selective about my company in terms of my personal life.
It is incredibly amazing how different everything would be but for that
bit about hitting back worse than you are hit. I hope you never end up
'defending' into a fight that you cannot win.
> I refuse to post and talk in an environment where I am expected to be
> honest and noble at my own expense, while certain individuals around me
> claim to be my friends. Then they see fit to try and shove their morality
> on me, and act in a dishonest manner themselves, and get away with it
> because they are better at playing the social circus that ahww has
> turned into better than me.
>
> I also encourage anyone else who feels the same way to go ahead and
> do the same thing. Having seen a thread about the subject of 'were
> culture', I will respond by saying "Discover your own, as it is your own
> soul involved". There is no law dictating that this group, or those
> affiliated, have a sole and unlimited monopoly on therianthropy, or
> any of the topics that are discussed here. And we shall see who outlasts
> who in the end, and more to the point, why.
>
> I know that some of you are eagerly hunched over your keyboards waiting
> to write a "Don't let the door hit you on your ass." post. Any further
> irritating email sent to me will be deleted on sight: and to write such
> a post will only hasten the demise of the group you claim to care so much
> about anyway.
That is if the email will even go through. I don't know whether this will
bounce or not, so I am posting it as well in order not to lose it.
> You may now return to your regularly scheduled farce.
>
> Bye.
Walk well friend/not-friend. I see only cliffs ahead of you on your path,
but it is the one that YOU have chosen to walk. I congradulate you on the
courage that it takes to hold so tightly to what you are. It cannot be
easy, and may destroy you, but I will not fault your Bravery in this.
> Winterdreamer
I hope that you reply to this post (in email hopefully, as you said it is
you last post). It would be interesting to see what you have to say in
response to the things here. I really don't expect that you have even
read this far though. Ah well...
> ps-I know that I have never answered the question of whether I am Hunter
> Rose or not. I have no intention of doing so either. The entire point of
> this post was for those of you reading it to think for yourselves.
Courage in holding to yourself unchanging yes, courage in other things...
I guess not.
. . Rors (Rorschach)
| \ / |
|/ """ \? A stark pattern of Black and White
//,\ /,\\ Within it you can find images, reflections. Maybe Balance.
\ |_| / I walk a risky path: alone, yet not: whole, yet fractured.
`=' "NOW is the time to RAGE against the dying of the light!"
Pinky
"I would have gotten away with it if it weren't for those pesky kids
and that meddling dog"....
--
"You Callest Me A Dog /\__/\
Without A Case, \/ \/
But, Since I Am A Dog... /|oo \
Beware Of My Fangs" ( | / )
Shakespeare \`@/_/\ |\
| | \ / |
|Pinky| \_/ /
|__ __| / \_/
(_/(_|(____/
The WereWoof
Brokken T-Wolf
Pinky writes:
> "I would have gotten away with it if it weren't for those pesky kids
> and that meddling dog"....
LOL! *gasp* I nearly choked!... boy, did I need that! :)
Thanks! *HUGS*
--
. ,. "That which thou lovest well is thy true heritage"
|\ /.| -Ezra Pound- . .
| \```.// | ._____________________________________ .(|_|).
' (. .)` \\ | | (|/ \|)
~ ___ \` | *~* BroKKen T-Wolf *~* | (___)
/ .\ /.. \ \ | Gilliam E. Wichi |
(.. Y . _/ |` | Taoist, Video Game Fiend, Anime Fan |
\_.^__/ \ | http://timberwolf.org |
V`-'V /`` | PROUD AHWW MEMBER | . .
\ /` | ******&****** | .(|_|).
`\ /' `-------------------------------------. (|/ \|)
~ Special Thanx to Rowsby for the Paws (___)