Why This War?
Harry T. Bear
I thought it might be helpful to explain the entire affair for anyone who might
have interest, and who hasn't banned, shunned, or killfiled me as yet. There
is more to this that what is easily evident, and it has to do with my furriness
in the extreme.
Of course as stated many time in the last few days, the primary concept is to
break the grip of the self appointed topic and morality police that has turned
a once vibrant and often downright "shocking" forum into so much oatmeal,
reasonable fare but very bland. No serious threads about any of those
fascinating "philias" have appeared in a very long time, and none that I can
find since "Martin Skunk" arrived, pitched his tent, and launched that
vitriolic rant of his, caged in smooth words but with the intent of driving
away or silencing anyone wishing full open discussions of certain subjects he
and his handlers dissaprove of.
On another level, this is very personal. It was that cruel and downright
sadistic attack on lifestylers and their beliefs that drove me away a few
months ago. I let a vicious whelp with a vile agenda beat me down and
humiliate me, then gloat about having done it.
He didn't do it all by himself, I was going through a very difficult time right
then, watching the last and the best connection to my bloodline family
disintigrate courtesy of a remarkably similarly behaving mundane bent on
ruining as much of my life as he could. This individual took away something
that had been in place for over fifty years, and which I valued beyond measure.
Then as this was transpiring, and I was extremely vulnerable, my other family
was attacked, many old friends therein were lost to me, I was personally
assailed, and that was the proverbial last straw. Those who were here to
witness it saw me become completely unglued, and then leave.
That was totally humiliating, and I do know that Martin Skunk lauded what he
had done to me, considering it a kill and kept the memory of his victory as a
trophy.
The rebuilding took a long time. I've dealt with the loss of the RL family as
best I can, and that is now a moot issue. But there is now a new RL family for
me that is also totally furry as well, and that has been a major factor in the
reconstruction of Harry. Thanks beyond measure go out to those involved, and
they know who they are. :)
After returning from Further Confusion, where it was demonstrated by empirical
evidence that the anti-lifestyler folk can be successfully dealt with, even in
the face of open assaults both physical and psychological, I found it was the
right time to return to ALF. How very ironic that as soon as I did so I found
myself imbroiled with the very one who caused me so much pain and caused my
departure on our first encounter. As good a time as any I suppose, and the
planned movement to drive him and his little friends off of their thrones began
at once.
This is personal, and it goes directly to my furriness. What happened last
fall drove much of the furry in me into seclusion. I tried for a time to
intentionally re-humanize so as to keep that RL connection, and when the
residual furriness was attacked from another direction, it went deeper and hid
even from me. The misery of that time will always remain a painful memory.
With help from my guide and my spirit companion, as well as other furs, I have
gotten my furriness back, and with substantial support it's stronger than ever,
it fills me, and it's a joy beyond what I ever expected. I will not ever let
it go again.
Personal and furry, this confrontation with Martin Skunk is virtually a rite of
passage. If I am to maintain my furriness I must do this, win or lose. To
regain my dignity I must do this, win or lose.
And, as has been seen, I do not fight alone.
So stated, I remain a friend to those who wish it so, a hopefully worthy
opponant to those who deserve that, and -----
*Furry Forever*
In spite of efforts to make it otherwise.
Harry Bear,
who will never go back again.
Rainbow
wrote:
*Smiles and waves a lil' paw*
I think what would be great for this forum (Although I haven't seen
much trouble here? I am a bit new, though) - and especially for
A.F.F. ...is a free movie..my treat.. the movie being Ghandi. It's
one of my favorites..and I really think a lot of furs could learn from
it in dealing with all the troubles that seem to be circling the
fandom. I'm not sure what really transpired here - but I really do
hope that furs can get along in here.. and I hope that the furs here
will accept me with open arms, or at least a warm smile. Having lived
all my life alone, and having had to take three years before allowing
my furriness to go beyond a muck (IE 'cons/newsgroups) - I've found
this all to be a boost to my views, self esteem, and overall view of
life in general.
-Rainbow 'Roo
ICQ the roo!: 93127116 (Ask for authorization first furs, before
sending messages)
Ursus Californicus
news:20010210092808...@nso-cl.aol.com...
> After returning from Further Confusion, where it was demonstrated by
empirical
> evidence that the anti-lifestyler folk can be successfully dealt with,
even in
Believe it or don't folks, attempts were made at FC2001 by one ludicrously
dressed characature of that wonderful group we love to hate, to verbally
harass Harry, as well as the newest member of my den. Failing to cow them,
this moron "accidentally" on purpose ran into my mate Wabbit without so much
as an "excuse me." I wonder if he even knows that his arrest had been
discussed? They are out there, folks (and in here, as well), and they will
not go away by being ignored. They hope you will ignore them so they can
entrench themselves. They are not mere trolls; they are invaders who hope
to stay, and like the Martian Invaders in "War of the Worlds," they hope to
plant their flaiming purple weeds all over the place.
--
Yours in fur,
Ursus Californicus (the Yiff Beast of Sacramento)
-- "If it moves, hug it. If it doesn't move, hug it *until* it moves. And
above all, *when* it moves, YIFF it!"
============================================================================
I love yiffing, but you'll have to remove it from my email address if you
want to reach me!
ICQ: 35334602
http://www.chameleon.net/ursus
Fur Code:
http://www.vulpine.pp.se/cgi-bin/furcode?D
FUGh4s A$ C++ D+++ H+++ M-- P+++ R+ T++ W***$ Z Sm+++ RLA/GP/MC a++ cn++$ d?
e+++$ f+++ h+++ iwf+++ j* p sm+++
Yiff Code:
http://www.tigress.com/cgi/rasputch/coder.cgi?D
YIFF 2.5 M kinsey-4 P *Bear * 8 Z bi *Horse-Canine * 8 T *Bear * 8 S bi
*Bear-Wolf-Cougar * 8 V bi *Canine-Horse * 8 H 8 WIXXX Ag Bn Do Hu Rl Sw Vy
An El Wa Av Cd Ex Op Pr Sp *Photo* Fo Mr Or Pe
Ursus Californicus
news:3a856638...@news-server.socal.rr.com...
> On 10 Feb 2001 14:28:08 GMT, hpic...@aol.comspamenot (Harry T. Bear)
> wrote:
> *Smiles and waves a lil' paw*
>
> I think what would be great for this forum (Although I haven't seen
> much trouble here? I am a bit new, though) - and especially for
> A.F.F. ...is a free movie..my treat.. the movie being Ghandi. It's
> one of my favorites..and I really think a lot of furs could learn from
> it in dealing with all the troubles that seem to be circling the
> fandom.
Hmmm... As I recall, Ghandi was assasinated in a garden, while surrounded by
his family. *He* didn't learn about vicious attacks by cowards...
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
ur...@jps.yiffing.net> writes:
> Believe it or don't folks, attempts were made at FC2001 by one
> ludicrously dressed characature of that wonderful group we love to hate,
I heard your story before, and if the person you're talking about (did you get
his name?) is the person I think it is, he's not a Burned Fur, but certainly
anti-lifestyler.
There are only a couple of Suit-wearers in this fandom, and since I didn't see
either Blumrich or Sutton there, it really cuts down on the possibilities.
But Eric is the only one among them who is actually a BF.
> I wonder if he even knows that his arrest had been discussed?
If you could get arressed for bumping into people in that dealer's room, half
of the Con would be in jail. Unless your made was actually marked or brused,
you wouldn't have a case, and you'd have a cop on your hands who would be very
pissed off at you. (Not to mention the CON and everyone AT the con would be
pissed at you for bringing in the cops, bypassing Con and hotel security over
something so incredibly petty.)
--
"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.
Ursus Californicus
news:010210141...@mauser.at.kendra.com...
> In article <963qtc$6g6$1...@raccoon.fur.com>, "Ursus Californicus" <
> ur...@jps.yiffing.net> writes:
> > Believe it or don't folks, attempts were made at FC2001 by one
> > ludicrously dressed characature of that wonderful group we love to hate,
>
> I heard your story before, and if the person you're talking about (did you
get
> his name?) is the person I think it is, he's not a Burned Fur, but
certainly
> anti-lifestyler.
Ah, Richard, you must have fixed your BF bot! Welcome back.
Nope. Sorry. He admitted he was a BF to one of my denmates. And yes, I
certainly do know his name.
>
>
> > I wonder if he even knows that his arrest had been discussed?
>
> If you could get arressed for bumping into people in that dealer's room,
half
> of the Con would be in jail.
Who said it was in the dealer's room? It was in open territory in the
lobby. No chance of coincidence, especially since he was confronted at the
time and said nothing. Not excuse me. Nothing.
Unless your made was actually marked or brused, > you wouldn't have a case,
All I can say is for your own sake don't test that assertion in this state.
I can point you to the California Penal Code link that describes assault.
Bruising is not necessary to satisfy the charge.
and you'd have a cop on your hands who would be very
> pissed off at you.
I don't think so. I work with lots of my brothers from San Mateo all the
time. They don't like people who hit females either. }:xD
(Not to mention the CON and everyone AT the con would be
> pissed at you for bringing in the cops, bypassing Con and hotel security
over
> something so incredibly petty.)
I don't call intentionally banging into a female to show your anger toward
her as "petty." But who said I'd bring in any other cops? *I* would have
made the arrest, and escorted the "gentleman" outside to be turned over to
the locals. And yes, that's why we elected not to do so. *Some* of us have
discretion.
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
Nah, just slumming.
> Nope. Sorry. He admitted he was a BF to one of my denmates. And yes,
> I certainly do know his name.
Then name names.
That is, unless you like the habit of blaming groups instead of individuals,
which is something people seem to hate about the Burned Furs.
Harry T. Bear
(Richard Chandler - WA Resident) writes:
>I heard your story before, and if the person you're talking about (did you
>get
>his name?)
Yup, we know who he is, and he knows we know who he is. :o
> ---is the person I think it is, he's not a Burned Fur, but certainly
>anti-lifestyler.
I haven't found anyone yet to admits to being one, even when they wear the
shirt and speak the party line. :/
The "formally dressed" fellow was more than just a little "anti-lifestyler", he
was downright aggressive about it. Loud too.
>If you could get arressed for bumping into people in that dealer's room, half
>of the Con would be in jail.
This took place in the lobby, and there was more than enough room for him to
pass by easily. It was definitely deliberate, quite hard, meant to intimidate.
I know, I was standing right there when it happened. Definitely a case a
battery, the suited one was very lucky nothing happened to him.
> Unless your made was actually marked or brused,
>you wouldn't have a case, and you'd have a cop on your hands who would be
>very pissed off at you.
Ahh, Rich, Ursus in in law enforcement, he carries a badge, and it's doubtful
as he made the bust that he would be POed at himself.
>(Not to mention the CON and everyone AT the con would be
>pissed at you for bringing in the cops, bypassing Con and hotel security over
>something so incredibly petty.)
But," the cops" were already there, attending the convention. BTW, it wasn't
as petty as you think it was, and if anyone deliberately struck you that hard
you'd want his head on a platter, leagalwise.
Harry Bear,
eyewitness news.
MiMiC_x9
> Personal and furry, this confrontation with Martin Skunk is virtually
a rite of
> passage. If I am to maintain my furriness I must do this, win or
lose. To
> regain my dignity I must do this, win or lose.
>
> And, as has been seen, I do not fight alone.
>
> So stated, I remain a friend to those who wish it so, a hopefully
worthy
> opponant to those who deserve that, and -----
>
> *Furry Forever*
>
> In spite of efforts to make it otherwise.
If you continue with this attitude, nothing would prevent you or cause
your downfall...
"Ships sink and beliefs die because people give up, desert the ship, and
flee the ideas... not because some ****er put a damned iceburg in your
path."
;-)
MiMiC
(glad to see you back, btw...)
--
ICQ : 65079305
"Great is the one who keeps calm even after being cursed. But even more
great is the one who stays nonchalent after being praised."
Now, with webpage, so I can further invade your space!
http://www.FurNation.com/MiMiCs_Universe/
FFS3amwAC-D+H++M+PR++T+++W>++++$ZSm++RLU/BM/CT/LWa-cnuw++++d++e->++++f-h
*>--iw++>wf+++j---p*>+sm#
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Ursus Californicus
> In article <964g6b$a6l$1...@raccoon.fur.com>, "Ursus Californicus" <
> ur...@jps.yiffing.net> writes:
> > Ah, Richard, you must have fixed your BF bot! Welcome back.
>
> Nah, just slumming.
Apt term for it. Why not go back to your own neighborhood, huh?
>
> > Nope. Sorry. He admitted he was a BF to one of my denmates. And yes,
> > I certainly do know his name.
>
> Then name names.
Oh, Richard, you *know* that would violate our FAQ, don't you?
>
> That is, unless you like the habit of blaming groups instead of
individuals,
> which is something people seem to hate about the Burned Furs.
Well, he may well have lied about being a BF. As we all know, lots of
people lie about being a BF -- one way or the other, don't they??? But I
like Harry's statement about ducks. If it looks like one, acts like one,
and talks like one, isn't it one? Our friend was seen immediately after
assaulting my mate meeting with a small group of furs wearing BF t-shirts.
But then again, maybe *they* weren't BF's either?
Richard: whether or not someone publically identifies themselves with a
group, if they behave within that group's doctrine, they for all intents and
purposes *are* members. The U.S. Dept. of Justice uses that every day to
prosecute, as does the Southern Poverty Law Center. Discrimination and
cowardly assaults on women have no place in furry or anywhere else. Or
would you dispute this?
Perriloux
"Harry T. Bear" wrote :
> Much of what is behind this current troll war has been deliniated already, but
> I thought it might be helpful to explain the entire affair for anyone who might
> have interest, and who hasn't banned, shunned, or killfiled me as yet. There
> is more to this that what is easily evident, and it has to do with my furriness
> in the extreme.
No way Harry. I wouldn't killfile you for the same reason I wouldn't killfile Rust.
We need you ! Actually, it takes a lot to get on my killfile list although some
have managed reached this lofty honor. Even thoes who think they might be
on there probally aren't after all.
> Personal and furry, this confrontation with Martin Skunk is virtually a rite of
> passage. If I am to maintain my furriness I must do this, win or lose. To
> regain my dignity I must do this, win or lose.
Look inside you Harry T. Bear. Your furriness is always there unless I miss my
guess. Nothing to maintain. You are already a winner. My furness was with me
loooong before I ever got any computer and there ain't no Martin in this world is
ever going to take that away from me, ever.
--
\\
/\_/\ ll
l o o l/////////////// / /
l l /
\O/\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/ /
l l l l
(___l (___l
Perriloux
Fur code: FCF4ac A- C+ Dm++ H++ M P++ R+ T++ W Z+ Sm+ RLE/AT
a+ cdn++ d+ e+ f++ h+ i+ j p sm+
Spamsux. So take it out of my e-mail address to get to me.
Harry T. Bear
<ref: my declaration of---->
>> *Furry Forever*
>>
>> In spite of efforts to make it otherwise.
>If you continue with this attitude, nothing would prevent you or cause
>your downfall...
As it is, and as it shall be. Thanks. :)
>"Ships sink and beliefs die because people give up, desert the ship, and
>flee the ideas... not because some ****er put a damned iceburg in your
>path."
There you go. :) Sink or float, what's going on is completely my doing, no
excuses no delegation. But, unlike the overconfident Capt. Smith, I have
decent lookouts so the icebergs don't just pop up and break something. ;)
>MiMiC
>(glad to see you back, btw...)
Thank you very much sir. It's good to be back, and it's good to be a bear.
Harry Bear,
starting a brighter day.
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
ur...@jps.yiffing.net> writes:
> "Richard Chandler - WA Resident" <mau...@kendra.com> wrote in message
> news:010210185...@mauser.at.kendra.com...
> > In article <964g6b$a6l$1...@raccoon.fur.com>, "Ursus Californicus" <
> > ur...@jps.yiffing.net> writes:
> > > Ah, Richard, you must have fixed your BF bot! Welcome back.
> >
> > Nah, just slumming.
>
> Apt term for it. Why not go back to your own neighborhood, huh?
"We don't like your kind of people around here." Real tolerant.
> > > Nope. Sorry. He admitted he was a BF to one of my denmates. And
> > > yes, I certainly do know his name.
> >
> > Then name names.
>
> Oh, Richard, you *know* that would violate our FAQ, don't you?
The truth is against the FAQ? Good to know. You've ALREADY made a
judgemental post, even if you haven't clearly identified the person.
> > That is, unless you like the habit of blaming groups instead of
> > individuals, which is something people seem to hate about the Burned Furs.
>
> Well, he may well have lied about being a BF.
And therefore you may be lying about him being a Burned Fur. It should be
pretty easy to clear up the truth whether or not his name is on the roster.
But considering that you refuse to provide the details, I'm becoming more
convinced that you're making the whole thing up.
Put up or shut up. Either identify this person you are accusing of being a
burned fur and accusing of Battery, or drop the whole story.
> As we all know, lots
> of people lie about being a BF -- one way or the other, don't they???
> But I like Harry's statement about ducks. If it looks like one, acts
> like one, and talks like one, isn't it one? Our friend was
> seen immediately after assaulting my mate meeting with a small group
> of furs wearing BF t-shirts.
> But then again, maybe *they* weren't BF's either?
Well, I seem to recall a few lifestylers at anthrocon when those shirts came
out who bought the BF shirts out of sheer irony. I'm sure you'd like it to be
this way, but it's entirely possible for someone who is not a burned fur to be
freinds with people who are.
> Richard: whether or not someone publically identifies themselves with
> a group, if they behave within that group's doctrine, they for all
> intents and purposes *are* members. The U.S. Dept. of Justice uses
> that every day to prosecute, as does the Southern Poverty Law
> Center.
That is SO bogus. That's like saying Randy Weaver, being a white speratist,
should also be considered a member of the KKK, even though he wasn't.
> Discrimination and cowardly assaults on women have no place
> in furry or anywhere else. Or would you dispute this?
Like your discrimination agains't BF's? Straw man, and words in my mouth.
Name names if you want me to believe you. Name names, unless you're afraid to
be proven a liar. Name names, unless the truth is something you can't handle.
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
> Ahh, Rich, Ursus in in law enforcement, he carries a badge, and
> it's doubtful as he made the bust that he would be POed at himself.
Gee, and before he wa a Journalist....
What force is he employed by? I haven't met him, but my understanding is that
he is far too heavy to meet most department's physical fitness standards.
There were other cops there too, local ones even. Monika Livingstone's
husband, for one.
Ursus Californicus
>
> "We don't like your kind of people around here." Real tolerant.
What absolutely contorted logic, Richard. If we are intolerant of
intolerance, then we are bad? Nope. Doesn't work.
>
> > > > Nope. Sorry. He admitted he was a BF to one of my denmates. And
> > > > yes, I certainly do know his name.
> > >
> > > Then name names.
> >
> > Oh, Richard, you *know* that would violate our FAQ, don't you?
>
> The truth is against the FAQ? Good to know.
Well, there's living proof that you can dumb something down as far as you
like, and there will still be someone who doesn't get it... The FAQ
prohibits personal attacks, like your response becomes later in this message
toward me. Naming a name would be such an attack.
You've ALREADY made a
> judgemental post, even if you haven't clearly identified the person.
OK. Step back a moment, and think verrry carefully. Someone committed an
assault and battery on my female mate. No amount of you naysaying will
change that. And in my criticizing such intollerant and openly cowardly
behavior you think I'm being *judgemental?* That's too ludicrous to
comprehend. Why are you even defending this individual, Richard?
>
> > > That is, unless you like the habit of blaming groups instead of
> > > individuals, which is something people seem to hate about the Burned
Furs.
Who blamed a group? I never said the BFs collectively assaulted my mate. I
said that *he* did.
> >
> > Well, he may well have lied about being a BF.
>
> And therefore you may be lying about him being a Burned Fur.
*He* said he was a BF, which is clearly what I indicated. On the other paw,
saying you're a BF is hardly the kind of thing someone would brag about if
they were *not* a BF, now is it?
It should be
> pretty easy to clear up the truth whether or not his name is on the
roster.
You have access to the roster? I thought you *weren't* a BF? Curious.
Tell you what: you post the roster here, and I'll tell you if his name is
on it, ok?
> But considering that you refuse to provide the details, I'm becoming more
> convinced that you're making the whole thing up.
Richard, you make the mistake of thinking that I care about your being
convinced. I couldn't care less. At least three individuals besides me
witnessed this incident, and all are perfectly willing to swear to it in
court. It is not untrue merely because you don't wish to believe it. But
tell me: how would knowing his name convince you or anyone else that it did
or did not happen? His name is irrelevant. The act is relevant.
>
> Put up or shut up. Either identify this person you are accusing of being
a
> burned fur and accusing of Battery, or drop the whole story.
Richard, you are not in a position to force me to do anything. The "story"
stands.
>
> > As we all know, lots
> > of people lie about being a BF -- one way or the other, don't they???
> > But I like Harry's statement about ducks. If it looks like one, acts
> > like one, and talks like one, isn't it one? Our friend was
> > seen immediately after assaulting my mate meeting with a small group
> > of furs wearing BF t-shirts.
> > But then again, maybe *they* weren't BF's either?
>
> Well, I seem to recall a few lifestylers at anthrocon when those shirts
came
> out who bought the BF shirts out of sheer irony.
Lame, Richard, lame. You mean it's like a B'nai B'rith group wearing
American Nazi Party shirts for shock value? Huh?
> > Richard: whether or not someone publically identifies themselves with
> > a group, if they behave within that group's doctrine, they for all
> > intents and purposes *are* members. The U.S. Dept. of Justice uses
> > that every day to prosecute, as does the Southern Poverty Law
> > Center.
>
> That is SO bogus. That's like saying Randy Weaver, being a white
speratist,
> should also be considered a member of the KKK, even though he wasn't.
Your mind works in such mysterious ways, Richard. If all Klan members had
to do to avoid RICO prosecution was to say that they weren't Klan members,
nobody would admit it at all. Some do, some don't. Al Capone listed his
occupation as "used furniture dealer."
> > Discrimination and cowardly assaults on women have no place
> > in furry or anywhere else. Or would you dispute this?
>
> Like your discrimination agains't BF's? Straw man, and words in my mouth.
I asked you if you disputed my assertion that discrimination and assaults on
women had any place in furry. Well, do you? You seem most anxious to
trivialize it. I hope I'm mistaken about that.
>
> Name names if you want me to believe you. Name names, unless you're
afraid to
> be proven a liar. Name names, unless the truth is something you can't
handle.
As I said, Richard, I don't care if you believe me. Not a wit. And you
will not manipulate me into doing something I've chosen not to do.
Richard: I find your response to my post a violation of the FAQ. You have
attempted to impune my veracity, and that of several others, including my
mate, and made a personal attack on me. I think you should apologize.
Harry T. Bear
(Richard Chandler - WA Resident) writes:
> It should be
>pretty easy to clear up the truth whether or not his name is on the roster.
>But considering that you refuse to provide the details, I'm becoming more
>convinced that you're making the whole thing up.
I was there, I witnessed the event, everything Ursus has said is true. You
weren't there, saw nothing, yet have the chuzpah to make such statements.
>Put up or shut up. Either identify this person you are accusing of being a
>burned fur and accusing of Battery, or drop the whole story.
Well I for one will be most pleased to identify this individual --- in a court
of law. If you want some "put up or shut up" you may well get it, at the
attacker's expense, it is still within the allowable time frame to file a
complaint against him. Hell of a way to treat your friends Rich.
Harry Bear,
witness to history.
Harry T. Bear
(Richard Chandler - WA Resident) writes:
>hpic...@aol.comspamenot (Harry T. Bear) writes:
>> Ahh, Rich, Ursus in in law enforcement, he carries a badge, and
>> it's doubtful as he made the bust that he would be POed at himself.
>
>Gee, and before he wa a Journalist....
He was, and before that he was engaged at occupations that would make you hurl
in a nanosecond (me too), but are vital to society.
>What force is he employed by?
That is a matter which you would have to take up with him, I'm not at liberty
to reveal that information.
> I haven't met him, but my understanding is
>that he is far too heavy to meet most department's physical fitness standards.
Cheap fat insult Rich, for shame. As per gravitationally challenged law
enforcement officers, have you ever been to Georgia? ;)
Please refer to the Disappearing Ursine thread for full disclosure. As to his
physical fitness, you (or I) should be in such good shape, and have his level
of strength and endurance.
>There were other cops there too, local ones even. Monika Livingstone's
>husband, for one.
So, what's your point? If they were there, they weren't in the lobby at the
appointed hour, or perhaps they would have stepped in on their own. Ursus and
Wabbit (and I) were far more generous to the malefactor than the incident
called for.
Harry Bear,
aware.
MiMiC_x9
> In article <20010210222327...@nso-fq.aol.com>,
> hpic...@aol.comspamenot (Harry T. Bear) writes:
> > Ahh, Rich, Ursus in in law enforcement, he carries a badge, and
> > it's doubtful as he made the bust that he would be POed at himself.
>
> Gee, and before he wa a Journalist....
>
> What force is he employed by? I haven't met him, but my understanding
is that
> he is far too heavy to meet most department's physical fitness
standards.
Just a small side note, at Canadain airports, the customs officals and
other security officers are all allwoed to carry firearms, yet there is
no age (18+ only), height, or weight restrictions. If you can speek
english, walk in a strait line, and shoot invading ailiens, you've got a
job.
And anyhoo... you're lowering yourself to really low levels here... can
you not think of a polite way of questioning his statements, or do you
have to rely on petty insults? What's next? A "yo momma" line?
Just end it already... if he says it happened, it happened... and,
unless you were directly involved, I don't know why you are even
partisipating in this argument.
MiMiC
D.Jean Cooper
Ursus Californicus wrote:
Ursus, you are wasting your breath. RC has never,
will never apologize to anything he says. That's the
way trolls like him always work. Ignore the critter.
-Walk in Balance
Ambergold Wolfeys (so *very* tired of him
trying to force her friends to say things they'll
end up regretting)
SCA: Lady Aelfreda O'Llyn Ewig
--
D.Jean Cooper
dcooper at inav dot net
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
> Just end it already... if he says it happened, it happened... and,
> unless you were directly involved, I don't know why you are
> even partisipating in this argument.
Because I've already come across several incidents of people making up stories
of confrontations with supposed Burned Furs at Further Confusion which are
getting puffed up beyond all recognition. One I tracked down at the con
involved one guy telling me that another BF "assaulted" his friend, but when I
tracked it back to its source, the word was "insulted" and the "victim" was
mostly interested in talking about his "witty" comeback.
Now, the reason I asked for the NAME of the person who bumped into Wabbit was
for confirmation. I notice that people gladly make up lies about the Burned
Furs and people on this newsgroup are unusually willing to swallow them
without a moment's critical thought, (Haven't heard anyone accuse them of
eating babies yet, but I'm sure it'll come), and I have a long history here of
making people support their assertions. I mean, if you're going to attack the
Burned Furs over something they did, make sure it's something they actually
did.
Based on the physical description Ursus gave, I have suspicions on the
identity of the person involved. That person is not a Burned Fur. The fact
that Ursus is witholding facts that might contradict his assertion that the
person is a member of the Burned Furs makes his whole story suspect. Anyone
who says they know the real truth but witholds evidence is suspect. I'm
waiting for him to go first because I don't want him to amend his story to
match or contradict my suspicions.
I'm also getting annoyed with his repeated insinuations that I am a member of
the Burned Furs. I happen to know a number of the people involved, yes.
Mitch Marmel has been a friend of mine for something like 15 years. I hear
stuff. "Access to the roster" my fanny. I can ASK. And I think it's on the
web site, isn't it?
The Wolfman
> You have access to the roster? I thought you *weren't* a BF?
*I* have access to the Burned Fur roster and I have been more than open
about what I think of the Burned Fur movement, start with misguided,
move on through inane and top it off with ludicrous, ignorant and
purile. I think I've made this quite clear to the members of Burned Fur
who have chosen to speak to me too.
The Rosta is listed at http://www.burnedfur.com/whoweare.html and
consists of:
Peter Schorn*
Michael Campbell*
Eric Blumrich*
Matt Sheridan*
M. Mitchell Marmel
Dana Wolfe
Emi Melissa Briet
Jim Lee, Jr.
David Tapia
Frank Villarreal
Nate Patrin
DragonZap
Jazaaboo
David Gonterman
Rebecca Kemp
Tory Chang
Robert Henney
Ross Sauer
William "Dripdry" Boles
Thomas Zarycki
Gary L. Robins
Jade
Kelly "Inhandra" Dunlap
Manfire
Fionacat+
Rolaine Smoot
Daniel Harris
John "Chakal" Burkitt
Heather "Jessup" Reedy
Cheyenne Silvermoon
Stormwolf
SilverVixen
Samantha "The Hyaena" Nocera
Sarah "Maui Fox" Troutman
Emilie Bosworth-Clemens
Joe "Karasha" Burris
Mouse
Dan Flahive
Bryan McCammon
Anton
David Scherer
Eric Evans
"fox"
Erin Middendorf
Sarah Pupack
Genezix Kither Echidnot
Kenneth Pick
Scott Malcomson
Zak "Icewolf" Jordan+
* Denotes a founding member
+ Denotes a supporter
The Wolfman
Richard Chandler - WA Resident wrote:
> And I think it's on the
> web site, isn't it?
Yes, I may not like the Burned Furs but they have always been open about
who they are and what they purport to stand for. The current roster is
at:
Bruce
"The Wolfman" <Wo...@blackwolfents.com> wrote in message
news:3A87AF8F...@blackwolfents.com...
> Ursus Californicus wrote:
>
> > You have access to the roster? I thought you *weren't* a BF?
>
> *I* have access to the Burned Fur roster and I have been more than open
> about what I think of the Burned Fur movement, start with misguided,
> move on through inane and top it off with ludicrous, ignorant and
> purile. I think I've made this quite clear to the members of Burned Fur
> who have chosen to speak to me too.
>
> The Rosta is listed at http://www.burnedfur.com/whoweare.html and
> consists of:
>
Hmmmm. Maybe their Statement of Purpose has been watered down over the
years - the current version at
http://www.burnedfur.com/purpose.html
actually reads quite tame. Of course, that list of members has at least
one firebrand on it. Firebrands tend to counteract any mellow purpose to
an organization.
Thank you for the URL.
The Wolfman
Bruce wrote:
> Hmmmm. Maybe their Statement of Purpose has been watered down over the
> years - the current version at http://www.burnedfur.com/purpose.html
> actually reads quite tame.
Their Manifesto, however, is dynamite, and there is a significant gap
between their reported purpose, their manifesto and their known actions.
And on a personal note to the Burned Furs, it's fandom, not Fandom, I
will not use a capital F, it is not a religion. The furry fandom (with
a small f, not the capital F) is by DEFINITION the fans of the furry art
style whether it be portrayed in literature, art or any other form.
Whether a person is one of those interesting philes Harry wants us to
talk about, whether that person chooses to believe he has species
dysphoria and whether that person wears a fursuit is completely
irrelevant.
All these elements, with the possible exception of lifestylers, are in
ALL fandoms and the only difference between them and the furry fandom
(with a small f, bite me) is that people who don't like them try to
subpoena them into relating the two in some form of half-baked
censorship, well it doesn't wash. ANYONE who tries to do this,
including the Burned Furs - especially the Burned Furs, have a devious
underhanded manifesto and should be viewed with EXTREME suspicion.
All these groups will ALWAYS be part of the fandom (still a small f, I
don't need to join a cult yet), they will ALWAYS turn up at furry cons,
and personally, I'm glad that their basic civil liberties will win out
over your purile campaigns all the time. God bless the freedoms that we
enjoy as people of a free country.
Amen, and so ends the sermon, you may go in peace.
Wow, I didn't mean to actually give my opinions on BF, oh well, guess I
have now, can we send an advanced warning to the ALF fire brigade?
Bruce
>
>
> And on a personal note to the Burned Furs, it's fandom, not Fandom, I
> will not use a capital F, it is not a religion. The furry fandom (with
> a small f, not the capital F) is by DEFINITION the fans of the furry art
> style whether it be portrayed in literature, art or any other form.
> Whether a person is one of those interesting philes Harry wants us to
> talk about, whether that person chooses to believe he has species
> dysphoria and whether that person wears a fursuit is completely
> irrelevant.
>
> All these elements, with the possible exception of lifestylers, are in
> ALL fandoms and the only difference between them and the furry fandom
> (with a small f, bite me) is that people who don't like them try to
> subpoena them into relating the two in some form of half-baked
> censorship, well it doesn't wash. ANYONE who tries to do this,
> including the Burned Furs - especially the Burned Furs, have a devious
> underhanded manifesto and should be viewed with EXTREME suspicion.
>
> All these groups will ALWAYS be part of the fandom (still a small f, I
> don't need to join a cult yet), they will ALWAYS turn up at furry cons,
> and personally, I'm glad that their basic civil liberties will win out
> over your purile campaigns all the time. God bless the freedoms that we
> enjoy as people of a free country.
>
> Amen, and so ends the sermon, you may go in peace.
>
> Wow, I didn't mean to actually give my opinions on BF, oh well, guess I
> have now, can we send an advanced warning to the ALF fire brigade?
>
Well, you did kind of lose it for a brief moment there, guy.
Just a hobby to me <shrug>. I try to avoid getting a whole bunch of stomach
acid churning going over just a hobby. The only thing that has gotten me
irritated recently was how the VF article turned out. I figure a whole mess
of the 400 folks that I heard were in attendence kinda got misrepresented.
Would be nice if such a repeat could be avoided when the National Enquirer
crew eventually shows up (as I figure it will).
But then again, life goes on; and who ever said life was always going to be
fair? :)
Found the Manifesto, kind of tired right now - I will give it a read later
this week. Thanks for mentioning it.
Harry T. Bear
(Richard Chandler - WA Resident) writes:
> I've already come across several incidents of people making up stories
>of confrontations with supposed Burned Furs at Further Confusion which are
>getting puffed up beyond all recognition.
Really? There were that many attacks then?
> One I tracked down at the con
You were there then? So sorry to have missed seeing you.
>involved one guy telling me that another BF "assaulted" his friend, but when
>I tracked it back to its source, the word was "insulted" and the "victim" was
>mostly interested in talking about his "witty" comeback.
This was not a physical attack, it was verbal. Very loud at a distance of but
inches, including the spraying of spittle into the target's face. A very large
and intimidating man screaming into the face of a young fur on gopher duty, it
surely was not said man's finest hour. Reason? A button that the man did not
like. As for the comeback, it wasn't "witty", it was remrakably
counter-forceful considering the mismatch, and the warning to cease and begone
else security would be called was sufficient to send the man into flight.
>Now, the reason I asked for the NAME of the person who bumped into Wabbit was
>for confirmation.
No, it's for other uses. You know exactly who this is, and you are a collegue
of his in other than the furryhate arena.
>I notice that people gladly make up lies about the Burned
>Furs
If so, tis but slight in comparison to the lies the BFs and their fellow
travellors make up about us.
> and people on this newsgroup are unusually willing to swallow them
>without a moment's critical thought
Alas though Rich, most of the material about the BFs is from actual life
experiences with them. IOW, true. Would you like to hear mine?
> and I have a long history here of
>making people support their assertions.
No Rich, you do not. What you do is hector, harrass and browbeat endlessly
until furs not given to conflict give up, letting you claim a victory that
isn't yours. Saying something over and over and over again with ever
increasing volume does not make it true.
For a refreshing change of pace, why don't you offer _proof_ to support _your_
assertions. Start with what you claim about the BFbullyboy vs the Wabbit
incident at FC.
"I'm _waiting_" - Sonic the Hedgehog
>Based on the physical description Ursus gave, I have suspicions on the
>identity of the person involved. That person is not a Burned Fur.
Oh? Then why did he say he was? Trying to further intimidate and frighten a
young fur he thought vulnerable to such blandishments?
>The fact that Ursus is witholding facts that might contradict his assertion
that the
>person is a member of the Burned Furs makes his whole story suspect.
FYI, the identity of this individual is well known, and what he did has been
broadcast about to parties who have considerable interest in such things. There
_were_ witnesses, and they were no more amused nor intimidated than the ones in
the group assaulted. He's had his freebies, next time the hammer drops.
> Anyone who says they know the real truth but witholds evidence is suspect.
Anyone who says they know the real truth but witholds evidence is suspect eh?
Then stop witholding _your_ evidence Rich, else be held suspect.
> I'm waiting for him to go first because I don't want him to amend his story
to
>match or contradict my suspicions.
Oh be a sport, _you_ go first.
Anyway, no need to change any story, there were too many who saw what happened
to allow for even a bit of that.
>I'm also getting annoyed with his repeated insinuations that I am a member of
>the Burned Furs.
More of the frequently repeated "I'm not-----" modus, how revealing.
If it looks like a duck and it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck,
chances are it's a duck.
No matter, have yourself a good day anyway Rich.
Harry Bear,
who knows that some things never change.
The Wolfman
Bruce wrote:
>
> Well, you did kind of lose it for a brief moment there, guy.
Yes, I know, sorry everyone. There's something about BF which just
manages to tick me off. Maybe it's because they described me as being
on the seventh level of furry hell, who knows? I shouldn't take it so
personally, I'll try to mellow.
> The only thing that has gotten me
> irritated recently was how the VF article turned out. I figure a whole mess
> of the 400 folks that I heard were in attendence kinda got misrepresented.
> Would be nice if such a repeat could be avoided when the National Enquirer
> crew eventually shows up (as I figure it will).
If anything they'll do even worse, prepared to the National Enquirer the
publication we call Vanity Fair is a bastion of modern integrity.
Yes, I am blatantly biased :P
--
Wolfy
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
>
> You were there then? So sorry to have missed seeing you.
The fellow was in my room Sunday night, so I asked him what happened.
I then immediately took notes on my Palm so I'd have all the facts straight.
> >involved one guy telling me that another BF "assaulted" his friend,
> >but when I tracked it back to its source, the word was "insulted" and
> >the "victim" was mostly interested in talking about his "witty"
> >comeback.
>
> This was not a physical attack, it was verbal. Very loud at a distance
> of but inches, including the spraying of spittle into the target's
> face. A very large and intimidating man screaming into the face of
> a young fur on gopher duty, it surely was not said man's finest
> hour. Reason? A button that the man did not like. As for the
> comeback, it wasn't "witty", it was remrakably
> counter-forceful considering the mismatch, and the warning to cease
> and begone else security would be called was sufficient to send the
> man into flight.
(The Notes)
Greyson claims he was approached by a "Burned Fur" who insulted him. He was
wearing a Zeta pin that he claims is 'For a friend of his".
"That's the most disgusting thing."
"You're a burned fur, aren't you" ("I can tell by the way he said it" said
Grayson).
"Yeah."
"Well I have two things to say to you. Hi, and Burned Furs suck".
He made no mention of screaming. He made no mention of warning someone that
he'd call security. And I wouldn't characterize it as particularly forceful
either.
Therefore, given Grayson's actual words as he told them to me (And see, I'm
naming names) YOU appear to be blowing his story all out of proportion just
like Tom Parker, who initially told me about it, who said "assaulted" instead
of "insulted."
> >Now, the reason I asked for the NAME of the person who bumped into
> >Wabbit was for confirmation.
>
> No, it's for other uses. You know exactly who this is, and you are
> a collegue of his in other than the furryhate arena.
No, I don't know, I have a suspicion, that's why I'm asking. But if you want
to fantasize that I'm part of some conspiracy, go right ahead.
"it's for other uses" What paranoid delusions you have.
> >I notice that people gladly make up lies about the Burned Furs
>
> If so, tis but slight in comparison to the lies the BFs and their
> fellow travellors make up about us.
Two wrongs make a right, eh? Good to know that's your philosophy. I'll keep
that in mind when I evaluate the honesty of your statements.
> > and people on this newsgroup are unusually willing to swallow them
> >without a moment's critical thought
>
> Alas though Rich, most of the material about the BFs is from actual
> life experiences with them. IOW, true. Would you like to hear mine?
Since you're an avowed liar. No, don't bother. I mean, people can't make up
their minds if they're a violent hate group, or dead, inneffectual, and doing
nothing.
> Saying something over and over
> and over again with ever increasing volume does not make it true.
Apply that to your statements about the BF's and think about it.
> For a refreshing change of pace, why don't you offer _proof_ to
> support _your_ assertions. Start with what you claim about the
> BFbullyboy vs the Wabbit incident at FC.
"You first"
"No, You first"
"No, I insist, you first."
You're stalling.
> >Based on the physical description Ursus gave, I have suspicions on
> >the identity of the person involved. That person is not a Burned Fur.
>
> Oh? Then why did he say he was? Trying to further intimidate
> and frighten a young fur he thought vulnerable to such blandishments?
Maybe, Or maybe he never did say he was a BF, and you're just claiming he did
so that you can further defame the Burned Furs. I mean, if you're concerned
about him as an individual troublemaker, why go so far as to make statements
about his group affiliation, but NOT mention his name? That's what makes the
whole story fishy.
> >The fact that Ursus is witholding facts that might contradict
> >his assertion that the
> >person is a member of the Burned Furs makes his whole story suspect.
>
> FYI, the identity of this individual is well known, and what he did
> has been broadcast about to parties who have considerable interest in
> such things. There _were_ witnesses, and they were no more amused
> nor intimidated than the ones in the group assaulted. He's had
> his freebies, next time the hammer drops.
It isn't well known. And if it was, then WHY are you so scrupulously avoiding
saying it? That's the part I REALLY don't understand. If you know it, and
"Everyone knows it" and you even insist that I know it, then what possible
reason do you have for not repeating it?
> > Anyone who says they know the real truth but witholds evidence
> > is suspect.
>
> Anyone who says they know the real truth but witholds evidence is
> suspect eh?
> Then stop witholding _your_ evidence Rich, else be held suspect.
"Neener neener neener!" Sheesh, you can do better than that. It's YOUR
Story. You left a hole in it. You fill the hole.
> > I'm waiting for him to go first because I don't want him to amend
> > his story to match or contradict my suspicions.
>
> Oh be a sport, _you_ go first.
Tell you what. I'm meet you halfway. The person I'm thinking of, with the
suit and the hat, has the initials S. R.
Will that satisfy you? Now I can't go back, after you've named the name, and
say that "Oh, that wasn't who I was thinking of."
Now you have no excuse.
> >I'm also getting annoyed with his repeated insinuations that I am
> >a member of the Burned Furs.
>
> More of the frequently repeated "I'm not-----" modus, how revealing.
>
> If it looks like a duck and it walks like a duck and it quacks like a
> duck, chances are it's a duck.
And you're a member of the Holy order of the Stonecutters! I dare you to deny
it! You denial is absolute proof that you are!
Get real. I don't have to be a member of the Burned Furs to be pissed at
folks who make things like that Vanity Fair article possible.
Digital Dragon
news:963qtc$6g6$1...@raccoon.fur.com...
> "Harry T. Bear" <hpic...@aol.comspamenot> wrote in message
> news:20010210092808...@nso-cl.aol.com...
> > After returning from Further Confusion, where it was demonstrated by
> empirical
> > evidence that the anti-lifestyler folk can be successfully dealt with,
> even in
> > the face of open assaults both physical and psychological...
>
> Believe it or don't folks, attempts were made at FC2001 by one ludicrously
> harass Harry, as well as the newest member of my den. Failing to cow
them,
> this moron "accidentally" on purpose ran into my mate Wabbit without so
much
...[snip]
I'm not aware of all this fighting that has apparently happened here on ALF,
having been away for the better part of a year. Usually the flames don't
leave AFF. It saddens me to hear of the incidents that took place at my
brother's (Walksfar) furry con.
From my standpoint I believe there is probably a few radicals/trouble-makers
that have no real lives of their own and so seek to destroy others. but more
than that, being furry is something of a spiritual thing which these people
either do not understand, or they are "agents" whose sole purpose os to
create pain and violence; or they are just being plain childish... although
I've met many children with more maturity....
I say to you that you should not let them bother you for you have the
strength within to vanquish these enemies. If they wish to be total idiots
then let them, and do not sink to their level.
Many of them live in ignorance anyway. Ignorance of things that matter to
people. Ignorance of Spirit and all that it holds.
I am not afraid of people like these. I have publicly declared whoand what I
am. I've been led to have my name legally changed to the one I though was
just a "screen/furry" name. There are some things that go far deeper than
just what appears on the surface.
I will stand by those that claim to otherkin for I know what they are going
through. It is they who are closer to real living than the walls that
soceity has thrown up. It is they who are the caretakers of the world and
its many inhabitants. They who find themselves becoming closr to being as
one with the world.
Remember that so long as you respect one another, live with love and honor,
and walk with humor; you shall always be above those that would drag you
down.
=Digi
--
Digi Fre'nnson ICQ:21109302 AIM: Frennson
Alfandria Carestaff, Team Amiga, Team POV-Amiga
Clan of the Misted Lands, Clan Stormchaser
Owner of Lucid Dragons and Seattle Dragons
http://www.angelfire.com/wa2/digitaldragon
remove the blip: Digital...@blip.msn.com
Harry T. Bear
<Digital...@blip.msn.com> writes:
>From my standpoint I believe there is probably a few radicals/trouble-makers
>that have no real lives of their own and so seek to destroy others.
Exactly, a modus of tearing others down to their level rather than building
themsleves up.
>but more than that, being furry is something of a spiritual thing which these
people
>either do not understand --
And there you have pinpointed the entire problem.
>-- or they are "agents" whose sole purpose os to
>create pain and violence; or they are just being plain childish... although
>I've met many children with more maturity....
It really is a game the immature play, but then some never grow out of these
things, alas.
>I say to you that you should not let them bother you for you have the
>strength within to vanquish these enemies.
That strength is there, but sometimes it takes much effort, and time as well,
to find it and to use it. Lifestylers are not instictively confrontational,
and naturally apply their inner strength in other area. However, once it has
been found and directed, you can resist, you can vanquish foes both innner and
outer.
> If they wish to be total idiots
>then let them, and do not sink to their level.
True indeed, but thinking being strong means just ignoring the slings and
arrows of outrageous opponants is more than being noble, and is all that's
needed, alas how long it took me to know that more is required.
If you want to make an omlette sometimes you have to break some eggs.
>I am not afraid of people like these. I have publicly declared who and what I
>am. I've been led to have my name legally changed to the one I though was
>just a "screen/furry" name. There are some things that go far deeper than
>just what appears on the surface.
You are on the true path then, Grasshopper. :) Excuse the ancient "Kung Fu"
reference, but I couldn't resist. ;)
>I will stand by those that claim to otherkin for I know what they are going
>through. It is they who are closer to real living than the walls that
>soceity has thrown up. It is they who are the caretakers of the world and
>its many inhabitants. They who find themselves becoming closr to being as
>one with the world.
United we stand, divided we fall, in a way. If we stand by one another then we
cannot be taken down one at a time.
>Remember that so long as you respect one another, live with love and honor,
>and walk with humor; you shall always be above those that would drag you
>down.
You are a very wise and sagatious dragon, and my infamous hat is doffed to you.
:) Many thanks for such valuable input.
Harry Bear,
joined.
"We must hang together or we will surely hang separately." - Benjamin Franklin
Harry T. Bear
(Richard Chandler - WA Resident) writes:
<ref: an incident of BF bad behavior at FC>
>The fellow was in my room Sunday night, so I asked him what happened.
>I then immediately took notes on my Palm so I'd have all the facts straight.
The facts as your informant gave them to you, perhaps a bit ax-ground but so be
it, that's not unsual.
>(The Notes)
>Greyson
The naming of names, how interesting. If you're going this far then how about
the name of your informant, that should be included don't you think?
> claims he was approached by a "Burned Fur" who insulted him. He was
>wearing a Zeta pin that he claims is 'For a friend of his".
As was I, and several others.
>"That's the most disgusting thing."
Full quote is, "That's the most disgusting thing I've ever seen."
>"You're a burned fur, aren't you" ("I can tell by the way he said it" said
>Grayson).
Names again, tsk. :/
But the quote is correct.
>"Yeah."
QED. :) Direct from the source to you. If the formally dressed man wasn't a
BF, then why would he say that he was one?
>"Well I have two things to say to you. Hi, and Burned Furs suck".
Add on "stop harrassing me and go away or I'll call security", and there you
have it.
>He made no mention of screaming. He made no mention of warning someone that
>he'd call security. And I wouldn't characterize it as particularly forceful
>either.
The grinding of axes used for editing is heard in the background. Of course
your source wouldn't fill in those gaps, it makes your side look bad.
>Therefore, given Grayson's actual words as he told them to me (And see, I'm
>naming names)
Yes, naughty you. ;)
>YOU appear to be blowing his story all out of proportion just
>like Tom Parker, who initially told me about it, who said "assaulted" instead
>of "insulted."
Hmmm, I thought The Colonel had passed on to his reward a while back. Oh well.
I'm sorry Rich, but anyone who has the need to know does know who the abusive
party is, including yourself, and no amount of goading or other provocation
will result in your getting what you want in this forum. And, you should be
thoroughly ashamed of yourself for mentioning anyone by name here.
>> >Now, the reason I asked for the NAME of the person who bumped into
>> >Wabbit was for confirmation.
As far as this matter is concerned, any "confirmation" you might get would be
in a church.
>No, I don't know, I have a suspicion, that's why I'm asking. But if you want
>to fantasize that I'm part of some conspiracy, go right ahead.
I don't think you're "part" of a "conspiracy", you do just fine as a solo act.
I'm sure your shadowy cohorts are very proud of you, directly connected or not.
>"it's for other uses" What paranoid delusions you have.
If so then they're _my_ paranoid delusions, mine all mine, and _you_ can't have
them. ;)
>Two wrongs make a right, eh?
No, two wrongs get you lost. Three lefts make a right
>.Good to know that's your philosophy. I'll keep
>that in mind when I evaluate the honesty of your statements.
By all means, as I evaluate the honesty of your statements via the comparison
between what I've personally experienced and your versions of the same events.
>> Alas though Rich, most of the material about the BFs is from actual
>> life experiences with them. IOW, true. Would you like to hear mine?
>
>Since you're an avowed liar. No, don't bother.
Ah Rich, lowering yourself to petty insults so soon. But then as to your
opinion of my veracity, I must of course consider the source, and move on.
>> Saying something over and over
>> and over again with ever increasing volume does not make it true.
>
>Apply that to your statements about the BF's and think about it.
But Rich, the BFs are the masters of obfuscation through constantly denying
that they are BFs, and that they employ multiple personnae and deny doing that
as well, of course I've thought about it, and said what I have about it.
>> For a refreshing change of pace, why don't you offer _proof_ to
>> support _your_ assertions. Start with what you claim about the
>> BFbullyboy vs the Wabbit incident at FC.
>
>"You first"
>"No, You first"
>"No, I insist, you first."
>
"Apre` vous, Gaston." ;)
>You're stalling.
So are you. But then as stated before, there is no need, since you personally
know the party of interest, and undoubtedly have had his anti-lifestyler
activities report first person.
>> >Based on the physical description Ursus gave, I have suspicions on
>> >the identity of the person involved. That person is not a Burned Fur.
>>
>> Oh? Then why did he say he was? Trying to further intimidate
>> and frighten a young fur he thought vulnerable to such blandishments?
>
>Maybe, Or maybe he never did say he was a BF, and you're just claiming he
>did so that you can further defame the Burned Furs.
Richard, _you_ have quoted the man's admission affirming his BF status, which
rather makes your claims of defamation recoil back onto you. As for defaming
the BFs, well they do very well on their own, and don't need any of my help.
>I mean, if you're concerned
>about him as an individual troublemaker, why go so far as to make statements
>about his group affiliation, but NOT mention his name? That's what makes the
>whole story fishy.
Rich, what you're "fishing" for you aren't going to get. Anyway, I would think
that by now _everyone_ knows who this is as well as every version of what
happened. I rather feel that your persistant attempts to get one of the
affected group to post this name is but another attempt to prove to one and
all, especially yourself, that you are truly a net-god who can get any
lifestyler to sing and dance to your tune.
>>-- the identity of this individual is well known, and what he did
>> has been broadcast about to parties who have considerable interest in
>> such things.
>
>It isn't well known.
Of course it is, and you've helped make that so.
> And if it was, then WHY are you so scrupulously
>avoiding saying it?
If for no other reason, it's to deny you obeissance, to not feed the troll so
to speak.
>That's the part I REALLY don't understand.
Of course you do, it's your game and you play it quite well.
> If you know it, and "Everyone knows it" and you even insist that I know it,
then what possible reason do you have for not repeating it?
Fulminate all you like Rich, you'll not get what you want from me.
>> Anyone who says they know the real truth but witholds evidence is
>> suspect eh?
>> Then stop witholding _your_ evidence Rich, else be held suspect.
>
>"Neener neener neener!"
:)
>Sheesh, you can do better than that.
In fact I rather think I can. ;)
>It's YOUR Story. You left a hole in it. You fill the hole.
Continual fuming and fussing as to this can only serve to injure your cause
Rich. As to holes, you're wearing out that shovel, why not take a break and
get yourself a new one?
>Tell you what. I'm meet you halfway. The person I'm thinking of, with the
>suit and the hat, has the initials S. R.
He does??? Fascinating.
>Will that satisfy you?
No.
>Now I can't go back, after you've named the name, and
>say that "Oh, that wasn't who I was thinking of."
No sale.
>Now you have no excuse.
Of course I do. See above for details.
>> >I'm also getting annoyed with his repeated insinuations that I am
>> >a member of the Burned Furs.
>>
>> More of the frequently repeated "I'm not-----" modus, how revealing.
>>
>> If it looks like a duck and it walks like a duck and it quacks like a
>> duck, chances are it's a duck.
>
>And you're a member of the Holy order of the Stonecutters!
Now how did you know that? ;) BTW, who _are_ they? :D
<<I dare you to deny it!
Deny what?
>You denial is absolute proof that you are!
A stonecutter? Masonry of any variety isn't my thing, but if _you_ say so then
it must be true.
>Get real. I don't have to be a member of the Burned Furs to be pissed at
>folks who make things like that Vanity Fair article possible.
I haven't read it yet so cannot comment thereupon, but I've not yet seen any
major media coverage of any offbeat subculture that was in the least bit
sympathetic. If you and yours are still trying to place the blame for any
negative imagery that furry may be subject to on the lifestylers, you are
looking in the wrong part of the tent. A hard look at the fanboy contingent
may well be revealing to you. Scapegoating us is something akin to junior high
school levels of behavior, where the cools vs nerds sort of thing is to be
expected.
Be well Rich, have a good day, and take care.
Harry Bear,
steadfast.
"The class of '57 had it's dreams." - The Osborne Brothers (IIRC)
Havoc96921
From: The Wolfman <Wo...@blackwolfents.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 09:40:31 +0000
Ursus Californicus wrote:
> You have access to the roster? I thought you *weren't* a BF?
*I* have access to the Burned Fur roster and I have been more than open
about what I think of the Burned Fur movement, start with misguided,
move on through inane and top it off with ludicrous, ignorant and
purile. I think I've made this quite clear to the members of Burned Fur
who have chosen to speak to me too.
*I likes the way ye sees it laddie, straight and clear.
The Rosta is listed at http://www.burnedfur.com/whoweare.html and
consists of:
*The old short list, aye. The beastie ye be seekin' be not there,
he'd never want to be caught open among that lot, bad fer business
ye know.
Havoc.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
>Ursus Californicus wrote:
>
>> You have access to the roster? I thought you *weren't* a BF?
>
>*I* have access to the Burned Fur roster and I have been more than open
>about what I think of the Burned Fur movement, start with misguided,
>move on through inane and top it off with ludicrous, ignorant and
>purile. I think I've made this quite clear to the members of Burned Fur
>who have chosen to speak to me too.
Note not everyone on the resoter is a burned furs. People have tried
to get off the roster after being mistakenly placed on there and have
been unable to do so.
--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
http://dformosa.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.
Free the Memes.