[alt.fan.furry] 10 Rules of Hypocrisy on Alt.Fan.Furry
StukaFox
The Ten Rules Of Hypocrisy On Alt.Fan.Furry:
(v. 1.2) 6/7/1999
---------------------------------------------
1) Any thread that questions the state of Furry is a troll.
1a) Anyone that questions the state of Furry is a troll.
1b) Anyone calling into question the behavior of a non-critical
poster is a troll.
1b1) Anyone calling into question the behavior of a critical
poster is simply making a valid point.
2) Those critical of Furry shall be held to a different standard
than those who are not critical of Furry.
3) Any post critical of Furry is a flame.
3a) We don't want flames.
3a1) Unless they're from the non-critical segement of the
fandom, then they're peachy-keen. (see rule 2)
3b) Oh, yeah -- and people from fringe interests who come
here for the expressed intention of flaming. Them folks
are okay, because even if they're flaming, they're flaming
for reason 4a.
3c) Any post critical of a poster deemed a member of the
"Cute" crowd is a flame. "Cute" posters are beyond
reproach, regardless of assininity of their behavior.
4) Flames must be rotundly denounced as being bad for all.
4a) Flaming Flamers is okay, of course, because Flamers are
bad, and bad people deserve to be flamed.
4b) Flaming to stop a flamer-war is okay, because even though
it's flaming, it's the right kinda flaming, and that makes
it all okay.
4c) Those flaming Flamers will be held to a much lower standard
than anyone publically proclaimed a Flamer, because of reason
4a.
4d) Any flaming done by a non-critical poster is okay, because
someone else started it, and non-critical posters NEVER
start flame wars!
5) Once a post is proclaimed a "flame" or a "troll", all content
of that post may be ignored, regardless of validity. Remember,
style is everything and substance is meaningless.
6) If a valid point is raised by a person deemed a Flamer, that
point must be immediatley dismissed by the Apologists with
a quick ad hominem post.
6a) Valid points may be rendered null in the following ways:
6a1) Questioning the poster's motivation for making the point.
6a2) Faux phsychoanalys from posters in NO position to talk.
6a2a) Adding faux witty disclaimers is optional.
6a3) Making absurd over-cute follow-up-posts.
6a4) Claiming the poster doesn't meet certain standards of
rhetoric.
6a4a) These standards are for critical posters only.
All others may post complete nonsense, and no
outcry will be heard.
6a5) Immediate questioning of the poster's religious background.
6a6) "Bigot", "Hate-Monger", "Intolerant", "Small-Minded",
"Closed-Minded".
6a6a) "When someone uses the word 'intolerant' on the
Usenet, I reach for my Browning."
-- Geoff Miller
6a7) Claiming the poster doesn't meet certain standards of
civility.
6a7a) These standards are for critical posters only.
All others may be as nasty as they want to be
with absolutely no rebuke.
6a7b) Adding that you're actually an animal at the end
of any such claim is optional.
6a7c) Claiming that you've kill-filed a person, then
responding to that same person within 24 hours
to make your second claim is optional.
6a8) Immediate dismissal of the poster as a person of no worth,
since if they had any worth, they'd think like us.
6a8a) This works both ways.
6a9) An immediate appeal that the poster MUST STOP POSTING AT
ONCE because this is bad for the Fandom!
6a9a) Only critical posts are bad for the Fandom.
6a10) As a matter of last resort, a post MUST be made proclaiming
that there is NOTHING wrong in Furry, it's all in the
poster's mind, we must never again have critical posts,
and that if we all think nothing but good thoughts all
those problems that don't exist in the first place will
go away, and peace will reign throughout the land.
6a10a) Adding a war-lord .sig to this claim is optional.
6a10b) Claiming you're actually an animal of the opposite
sex at the end of such posts is also optional.
6a11) Dissmissal of the whole post as unworthy of time or
attention.
6a11a) Claiming that all points have been made previous
falls under rule 6a11.
6a11b) This cuts both ways.
6a12) Replying to original post by cutting out the whole post
and adding a one-word reply.
6a13) Replying with the claim that everyone in Furry believes
as you do, so the original poster should just shut up
since they're in the minority.
6a14) Posting a totally off-topic response in the thread,
usually of a cutesy nature, so that the thread is
distrupted and brought off-topic.
7) All critical persons must have IMMACULATE behavior, since they
are all representatives of whatever movement they add to their
.sig (whether aforemention movement is stated or not).
7a) Those not making critical posts are free to act as complete
twats without fear of rebuke or as being seen as bad examples
of whatever movement they include in their .sigs.
7a1) Aforementioned posters are just being cute, unlike
those vicious bastards from rule 1b.
7b) Those making claims of non-immaculate behavior on the
part of critical posters must do such in the single
most self-important way possible, as if their opinion
is the Voice of Furry Its Self.
7b1) "The Voice of Furry Its Self" can NEVER be a critical
poster. See rule 6a10.
8) Thou shalt not swear (if thou art making critical posts)
8a) Any critical posts with a swear-word in it may instantly
dismissed as a flame and rule 5 goes into effect.
8b) Any counter-reply that contains a swear-word is peachy-keen
because of rule 2.
9) If you, in the course of trying to do a good deed for someone
in Furry, get bent over and fucked by that same person, it's
your own goddamn fault for trying to help someone in the first
place.
9a) Don't you even try to bring it into a public forum if
the aforementioned fucker is a popular artist. Artists
are gods, you piece of shit, and you go to hell and die
for ever trying to seek recourse!
9a1) If you're a popular artist, you can comit rape,
repeatedly, and get away with it, because it's
gonna be your word against theirs', and you're
a popular artist, and they're a fucking nobody.
9a1a) It's their fault in the first place.
9a1) You are free to crucify any artist deemed "unpopular"
since if they were a good person, they'd be popular,
ergo they're scum and deserve what they get.
10) CENSORSHIP IS BAD!!
10a) Unless . . .
10a1) The person has put up a web page critical of Furry.
A campaign may be started to get the page removed
and the person's internet access revoked.
10a2) The person has violated rule 9a, in which case a
campaign may be started to have that person banned
from Confurance (or any other Furry convention), have
their on-line character's behavior tied to the poster's
own, have their internet access revoked, have their
friends told they can no longer be their friends if
aforementioned friends want to stand ANY chance of
not being harassed out of the Fandom, or have their
business directly threatend in a manner that falls
just shy of the legal definition of a "terrorist
threat".
10a2a) Blatant, criminal libel is okay to use, too.
10a3) The person makes repeated posts critical of Furry
from an anonymous account. A campaign may be started
to have that person's account shut down because of
rule 1.
10a4) Their web-page password was easy to guess, in which
case, they were asking for it, anway.
10a4a) You should also post the password, especially
if it'll allow you to get in another swipe
at the person running the page.
10a5a) Hacking critical web-pages is totally acceptable
if it's only being done as a joke. It's only
critics who have malicious intents, anyway.
StukaFox
--
Robert Davidson
stuk...@shell9.ba.best.com says...
<Snip Stuka posting about hypocrisy>
Irony, thy name is Usenet.
--
Robert Davidson
"I am. All else is negotiable."
Question: Is it really a cheap shot if the
target in question happens to be standing
out in the open and (figuratively) yelling,
"I AM INVINCIBLE!"?
(Apologies to Tshen in r.a.sf.w.r-j)
S.J.
LOL! You rule, Stuka.
StukaFox
: In article <375bf124$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com>,
: stuk...@shell9.ba.best.com says...
: <Snip Stuka posting about hypocrisy>
: Irony, thy name is Usenet.
You really ARE trying to start a flame-war, aren't you?
BTW, I eagrly await your examples of my hypocrisy.
StukaFox
--
"You are an utter fuckmonkey."
-- lilbluejoonbunni tactfully points out a shortcoming
in Eric McDarby's request for a vanity group,
"alt.fan.erik-mouse"
Due to the huge amount of email I recieve, it may take me upwards of a month
to respond to your email, but I do read each one.
Robert Davidson
stuk...@shell9.ba.best.com says...
> In alt.fan.furry Robert Davidson <Ken...@home.net> wrote:
> : In article <375bf124$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com>,
> : stuk...@shell9.ba.best.com says...
>
> : <Snip Stuka posting about hypocrisy>
>
> : Irony, thy name is Usenet.
>
>
> You really ARE trying to start a flame-war, aren't you?
>
> BTW, I eagrly await your examples of my hypocrisy.
Howsabout when I first posted in here (as scup...@aol.com),
asking "Why does it matter what other people do sexually?"[1], I was
greeted with flames liberally studded with "You're flaming me!"[1]
--
Robert Davidson
[1]: Paraphrased.
StukaFox
: Howsabout when I first posted in here (as scup...@aol.com),
: asking "Why does it matter what other people do sexually?"[1], I was
: greeted with flames liberally studded with "You're flaming me!"[1]
Boy, now THERE'S historical revisionism, AFF-style. Good Christ.
Robert Davidson
stuk...@shell9.ba.best.com says...
> In alt.fan.furry Robert Davidson <Ken...@home.net> wrote:
>
> : Howsabout when I first posted in here (as scup...@aol.com),
> : asking "Why does it matter what other people do sexually?"[1], I was
> : greeted with flames liberally studded with "You're flaming me!"[1]
>
>
>
> Boy, now THERE'S historical revisionism, AFF-style. Good Christ.
Then try this:
Answer.
The.
Fucking.
Question.
--
Robert Davidson
I see Stuka is in Silicon Valley too. .
Maybe we can debate at a con sometime. . .