I don't get it...
Peter da Silva
>In article <7jrur2$d...@bonkers.taronga.com>, pe...@taronga.com (Peter da
>Silva) wrote:
>> This whole thread is off-topic for alt.fan.furry. Please direct followups
>> to alt.fan.furry.politics.
>Eh? You taking shots at people and insulting football fans is on topic,
>though, right?
Of course not. And now I've got your attention *please* respect followups.
--
This is The Reverend Peter da Silva's Boring Sig File - there are no references
to Wolves, Kibo, Discordianism, or The Church of the Subgenius in this document
"Be vewy vewy quiet...I'm hunting Jedi." -- Darth Fudd
Peter da Silva
StukaFox <stuk...@shell9.ba.best.com> wrote:
>Peter da Silva <pe...@taronga.com> wrote:
>: Football fandom is about growing old and fat in a couch or an armchair while
>: watching young well-muscled guys beat the crap out of each other.
> Now, now, now . . . you know better than to troll here.
I'm not trolling, I'm holding up a mirror.
Peter da Silva
>Hey, now, Da Silva... This kind of trolling is dangerous. Take it to
>alt.fan.furry.politics.
First, know the right thing.
Next, do the right thing.
I am pleased to discover that you have become illuminated. I await your
ascent to the next stage with bated breath.
Peter da Silva
StukaFox <stuk...@shell9.ba.best.com> wrote:
> His flame are in fact about Furry, and Furry fans. You may not
> like his message, but he is totally and completely on-topic here.
He's on topic in alt.fan.furry.politics. It's never appropriate to post
messages to a more general group when a more specific group is available.
> When you make statements like this, Peter, you make me worry,
> because even if I think you're a bit of a schmuck, I've always
> thought of you as both fair and even-handed.
But Stuka, the biggest flamers on the other side have already moved over to
alt.fan.furry.politics. The only reason these threads are still here is
because a couple of folks are refusing to follow through and maybe let
alt.fan.furry be about anthropomorphic animals again, as it was when I
created it.
I've been polite. I've been patient. How more even-handed do you want me
to be? Turn the other cheek and go "OK, you can have alt.fan.furry, you
can turn it into alt.flame.mark.merlino.and.doug.winger (or whoever the
demons of the moment are)"? It's getting tiresome. It's BEEN stupid for the
past several years. It's a boring topic that's driven some of the most
interesting folks I've met online away from this group... God knows why
people like Steve Gallacci still put up with it, the man has the patience
of a saint.
I don't, sorry, I'm not perfect. But... fair and even handed? I think I'm
being way closer to "fair and even handed" than any human should be expected
to.
Peter da Silva
>In article <7jrrho$b...@bonkers.taronga.com>, pe...@taronga.com (Peter da
>Silva) wrote:
>> It seems to me, old man, that you're the biggest part of the problem.
>Eh? I'm not even a part of the fandom so how I can be part of it problems?
Mind explaining how these two facts are at all related?
>> Just go away and stop telling everyone that "furry" is about sex.
>I've taken your suggestion under due consideration and I fear I must stick
>around and continue telling the truth.
Then do it in the appropriate group, thanks.
Peter da Silva
line reflects this. This may confuse your threading software.
What you say effects how people react. Here, you are framing concepts that
encourage people to react in a certain way, by promoting a particular
stereotype. When I framed concepts that encouraged a stereotype others
didn't happen to care for (the armchair quarterback), Stuka appeared
concerned about the damage I was doing to the reputation of football
fans, and even descended to a personal attack on myself, not my words,
at one point... so it must have struck home. I wasn't aware that he was
a football fan, and I apologise for the comments. I know a lot of
football fans *do* play the game, and that there are a lot of fine
amateur (in the best sense) teams.
But it does bring up the question of why that was a concern when I'm not
a football fan (so by your reasoning it's not a problem) and he supports
your similar attacks on furries (even the ones that don't conform to this
stereotype)?
Peter da Silva
>: and nebulous fandom, as a contrast...
> I dunno, Peter -- you won Stump the Stuka on this one!
Then I guess it's not like a fandom about the color blue, after all.
Random
In article <7jukdi$9...@bonkers.taronga.com>, pe...@taronga.com (Peter da
Silva) wrote:
> Ah, but we're talking about a white man saying "McDonalds makes great burgers"
> and one ranting about fucking niggers. Surely that's not too subtle a
> distinction for you.
What does having sex with black people have to do with Mcdonalds? I thought
we were talking about art hubris here.
--Random
Random
In article <7jukv1$9...@bonkers.taronga.com>, pe...@taronga.com (Peter da
Silva) wrote:
> Oh my god, I got a little peeved and went crook at Cat. In *one* message.
> Meanwhile you're trashing alt.fan.furry at an "ethnic cleansing" level.
You've really lost it, Da Silva. You're brain has rotted away in the barrage
of spooge it gets from this fandom. That MUST be it. Equating people
expressing their opinions with ethnic cleansing? That is the most ignorant
and utterly offensive thing I've ever seen anyone post on this group. Gratz.
You've just sunk way lower than I ever dreamed of sinking.
--Random
Random
In article <7julb1$9...@bonkers.taronga.com>, pe...@taronga.com (Peter da
Silva) wrote:
> George Lucas will be heartbroken. Look at what he's spent his whole life
> catering to... in fact since Star Wars a significant part of the movie
> industry has come to cater to fantasy fans... and yet it's such a narrow
> fandom.
Uh, he's 'catering' to anyone tall enough to reach the ticket counter and
who has the cash to pay for the ticket. You do see the difference in that
and creating pornography for a specfic group of losers to look at when they
polish their knobs, right?
--Random
Random
In article <7jumbb$9...@bonkers.taronga.com>, pe...@taronga.com (Peter da
Silva) wrote:
> I've been polite. I've been patient. How more even-handed do you want me
> to be? Turn the other cheek and go "OK, you can have alt.fan.furry, you
> can turn it into alt.flame.mark.merlino.and.doug.winger (or whoever the
> demons of the moment are)"? It's getting tiresome. It's BEEN stupid for the
> past several years. It's a boring topic that's driven some of the most
> interesting folks I've met online away from this group... God knows why
> people like Steve Gallacci still put up with it, the man has the patience
> of a saint.
Excuse me here. Last time I check, this group wasn't moderated. And since
it's not moderated, there aren't any content limits to what's posted here.
So, remind me again why the fuck I should give a rancid dog testicle what
your opinion on my opinions are?
--Random
Random
In article <7junf4$a...@bonkers.taronga.com>, pe...@taronga.com (Peter da
Silva) wrote:
> What you say effects how people react. Here, you are framing concepts that
> encourage people to react in a certain way, by promoting a particular
> stereotype.
I'm just expressing my own opinions. What someone else things is their
concern. If they come to agree with me, good. If they don't, it's their
right. If they flame me, I'll flame them back. But I'm not gonna stop saying
what I have to say because you or anyone else tells me not to. Terribly
sorry, but fuck off.
--Random
Peter da Silva
StukaFox <stuk...@shell9.ba.best.com> wrote:
>In alt.fan.furry Peter da Silva <pe...@taronga.com> wrote:
>: I imagine that's some kind of horrible criticism. Unfortunately, it's
>: not a term I'm familiar with so your delightful quip is utterly wasted.
> Pot, Kettle, Black.
> Quit telling people to do one thing, then turning around and
> doing it yourself.
Ah. And what is it that I'm telling people to do that I'm not doing myself?
Hint: posting on topic is only a related issue.
>: Oh my god, I got a little peeved and went crook at Cat. In *one* message.
>: Meanwhile you're trashing alt.fan.furry at an "ethnic cleansing" level.
> "I know what you are, now we haggle on price."
"Spam is posting the same thing many times. If it is not posted many times,
it is not spam." I'll trade you quote for quite and also give you a great
big hint for the answer to that question I asked up there.
>: If I eliminated my "flaming in the bleachers", nobody would ever notice.
> I'd notice. I'd notice you at least had the intellectual
> honesty to do yourself what you demand of others.
What exactly do you think it is I'm demanding of others? There's the
question again.
>: If you made the slightest effort to post in the right group, a.f.f would
>: undergo a renaissance the likes of which it has never seen.
> Sorry, "The Halcyon Days of AFF" fallacy has been made over and
> over.
The "Halcyon days of AFF", well, a few years back the "sex wars" were only
a periodic explosion. They actually stopped now and then. Back further, they
were just one of many topics that boiled over. An "alt.fan.furry" without
the permanent floating flame war would be halcyon indeed.
> Please remember, I left for awhile, and the flame-wars kept right
> on rolling.
Oh, you're not the only source of this particular problem. I'm talking to
"you" in the general case... right now "you" is Random and Stukafox, but
it has to start somewhere.
> Also remember, the simple question, "What is the difference between
> an artist and an illustrator?", kicked off a 100 post flame-war,
> complete with call that it was the end of fandom and people leave
> in disgust.
And yet that thread (which produced some interesting messages, mind) is over.
It's not the permanent floating flame war that drives all the others.
Peter da Silva
StukaFox <stuk...@shell9.ba.best.com> wrote:
>In alt.fan.furry Peter da Silva <pe...@taronga.com> wrote:
>:>: Goths can be super-heroes, but Superman isn't a Goth.
>:>: Humans can be super-heroes, but Superman isn't a human.
>:>: Britons can be super-heroes, but Superman isn't a briton.
>:>: Industrialists can be super-heroes, but Superman isn't an industrialist.
>(StukaFox)
>:> Uh, these aren't fandoms.
>: Hmm. Fans of these categories have a much higher profile than furries.
> There's a fandom for black, goths, humans, Britons and
> industrialists? Serious?
You seem to be having a problem with the concept of the plural. That "s" on
the end of the word "fandom" means we're talking about "more than one".
>: There are certainly conventions and other gatherings celebrating all
>: these categories, ones that are much bigger than confurence. How do you
>: figure they're not "fandoms"?
> No, serious -- there's CONS for these?! Humans? Industrailists?
Sure. There's the CSICOP convention, and various other humanist and skeptical
societies. And I don't know a single significant industry where you don't
get annual conventions that are, in a large part, opportunities to worship
their leaders. "fandoms" are a basic part of the human psyche, it seems, no
matter what the topic.
>:>: But football fandom doesn't encompass Baseball, photos of classic
>:>: diners, and other kinds of memorabilia.
>
>:> Yup, you're right, it doesn't.
>
>: So why do you expect furry fandom to do the equivalent?
>
>
> I don't get your point here, Peter. Re-state?
Well, you seemed to argue that a fandom only about anthropomorphic animals
was pretty narrow, because it only concentrated on anthropomorphic animals.
Then you proposed football fandom as an alternative.
Now I'm missing something there, because I really don't see the difference
between "this fandom is only about anthros" and "this fandom is only about
football". I'm just trying to get a handle on what this difference you see
between furry and other fandoms is, because it's completely outside my
experience.
> Star Wars is fantasy now? I thought it was Science Fiction?
Not really, and in any case science fiction is a subset of fantasy. Star
Wars just doesn't happen to fit into that subset.
>: What was your point again?
> That, in and of its self, Furry is a VERY narrowly defined
> fandom.
As compared to what?
Hmmm. This message is actually more on topic in alt.fan.furry than most
messages in the spool... but I'll leave it over in politics anyway.
Peter da Silva
StukaFox <stuk...@shell9.ba.best.com> wrote:
> Then, in my mind, they're not Furry stories, they're stories which
> could have been told in any other fashion, they just used Furries
> to do it. That's a fundamental difference to me.
You really ought to read Ursula LeGuin's blistering attack on Katherine
Kurtz' Deryni stories on the grounds that they weren't fantasy, they were
just political novels in a fantasy setting. Your argument is neither new
nor has it proven compelling in other spheres.
Peter da Silva
StukaFox <stuk...@shell9.ba.best.com> wrote:
> I said this to Peter and I mean it: be cool and coolness will prevail.
> You can disagree with me, but don't be getting on my jock (don't
> disrespect me personally), and I won't flame you.
Fair enough, now can we carry on the discussion in the politics group, and
just as an experiment see if it's possible to drag the permanent floating
flame war out of a.f.f? This doesn't mean that I want to stop the flaming,
but rather I hope that something other than flames can again be the norm.
> I know there's a point here, and I'm missing it. Re-state this in
> another form and I'll try to understand it.
There are a lot of people coming in and saying "all furries are spooge hounds",
or "most furries are spooge hounds" or "those spooge hound furries are making
a problem for me". But when I look out there I see, well, there's this con over
in california that happens to attract a lot of spooge hounds, and the internet
attracts a lot of spooge hounds, but none of this is restricted to furries.
I've never been to Confurence but I've run into phenomenal numbers of spooge
hounds at other cons in California, and even at Origins in Texas... and there's
an awful lot of sex stuff on the net, period. You can't create a group with
the word "binaries" anywhere in the name without it filling with pink stuff.
So what I was doing was applying, in a milder way, a similar stereotype that's
targeted at football players. Trying to demonstrate that it's just that, a
stereotype. It's not real. I'm sorry that upset you, but now perhaps you can
see why this whole flame war is uncool and unfair.
Peter da Silva
>In article <7jv71h$f...@bonkers.taronga.com>, pe...@taronga.com (Peter da
>Silva) wrote:
>> Stage three... followups are only in alt.fan.furry.politics. Please post
>> your responses there.
>Why? They make more sense here on this group.
Stage three... political followups are only in a.f.f.p, please post your
responses there. Alt.fan.furry needs a break, guys.
Peter da Silva
>Uh, he's 'catering' to anyone tall enough to reach the ticket counter and
>who has the cash to pay for the ticket. You do see the difference in that
>and creating pornography for a specfic group of losers to look at when they
>polish their knobs, right?
If you take out the derogatory terms, and after Stuka going ballistic over
my "football" analogy I'm not going to risk the wrath of Star Wars fans by
holding up *that* mirror, no I don't.
But I will note that the movie industry has never bothered to refuse to take
people's money just because they wanted to polish their knobs. Let me just
quote from a recent NPR peice on the new law requiring IDs for R-rated movies,
until the government stepped in the standard was:
"No children will be allowed into this movie unless accompanied
by two dollars and fifty cents".
Peter da Silva
>Excuse me here. Last time I check, this group wasn't moderated. And since
>it's not moderated, there aren't any content limits to what's posted here.
That's a common fallacy, that if a group's not moderated then anything's
fair game. If that was really the case, Usenet would be 100% junk instead
of just 90% junk. Most people are quite happy to take a discussion to a
more appropriate group when one exists, when the discussion becomes disruptive
for the rest of the readers. The ones who don't, and who insist on
deliberately starting off-topic flame wars, tend to be sociopaths like
Boursy and Grubor, which is why I said you were like Boursy, just more
narrowly focussed. Thanks for proving me right.
Peter da Silva
>I'm just expressing my own opinions. What someone else things is their
>concern. If they come to agree with me, good. If they don't, it's their
>right. If they flame me, I'll flame them back. But I'm not gonna stop saying
>what I have to say because you or anyone else tells me not to. Terribly
>sorry, but fuck off.
>--Random
Thank you for posting your flame in the correct group.
Peter da Silva
>> Ah, but we're talking about a white man saying "McDonalds makes great burgers"
>> and one ranting about fucking niggers. Surely that's not too subtle a
>> distinction for you.
>What does having sex with black people have to do with Mcdonalds? I thought
>we were talking about art hubris here.
I stand corrected. You don't see the difference between expressing a
probably incorrect opinion and engaging in vituperous, outlandish, and
scatological attacks on weak subgroups.
Peter da Silva
>In article <7jukv1$9...@bonkers.taronga.com>, pe...@taronga.com (Peter da
>Silva) wrote:
>> Oh my god, I got a little peeved and went crook at Cat. In *one* message.
>> Meanwhile you're trashing alt.fan.furry at an "ethnic cleansing" level.
>You've really lost it, Da Silva. You're brain has rotted away in the barrage
>of spooge it gets from this fandom. That MUST be it. Equating people
>expressing their opinions with ethnic cleansing? That is the most ignorant
>and utterly offensive thing I've ever seen anyone post on this group. Gratz.
>You've just sunk way lower than I ever dreamed of sinking.
Damn, you forgot to mention "Hitler", so I can't count that as a succesful
invocation of Godwin's Law.
Peter da Silva
Alan \\TriGem\\ Kennedy <nickna...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I think what you stated about the ramifacations about canceling posts is truely
>frightening in the fact of what it could lead to.
Please read my followup to Stuka's message in alt.fan.furry.politics. Nobody's
talking about cancelling posts but him.
Peter da Silva
StukaFox <stuk...@shell9.ba.best.com> wrote:
> 1) AFF has ALWAYS been a flame group. The first posts I saw here
> in the early 1990's were flame posts about copyrights. When
> I've been here, there's been flame-wars. When I'm not here,
> there's flame-wars. Flame-wars start over absolutely nothing
> here. So flame-wars are nothing new here.
All fandom groups have a lot of flame wars, but they're usually not full
of flame wars on one specific topic, all the time, to the point where a
flame war on any other topic is noticable, and to the point where when the
flame wars subside to a trickle that's considered remarkable.
A few years ago a handful of folks started the flames about sppoge in furry.
I hadn't noticed that there was more spooge in furry than in any other fandom,
or that there was even a reputation that there was more spooge in furry than
in other fandoms.
There was a bunch of stuff about artists being blackballed by all the spooge
in furrydom, but I imagien that if an artist showed up with a portfolio that
contained a lot of Trekkie or Star Wars fan-art, they'd have trouble getting
a job too... regardless of this spooge factor.
There was a bunch of stuff about Confurence. Confurence is just one con. It's
in California. I've seen some pretty amazing things at cons in California that
have nothing to do with furries.
And then there's a lot of furry sex sites on the net. Folks, there's a lot of
sex sites on the net. They're the most popular sites, to the point where I
do a review of free web space hosting sites, and I get requests all the time
from people looking for a cheap or free hosting site for their pink stuff,
and I've yet to find a reliable hosting site that actually allows it... the
traffic is just out of sight.
But sex gets reactions, so it's been an immediate and obvious hot button for
people who like flame wars to push. So it keeps on getting pushed. Look, it's
getting old. The horse isn't even a greasy spot on the ground... just this
great bomb-crater with a couple of blokes at the bottom bashing the dirt,
occasionally handing off their clubs to another bunch of sadonecrobestialists
like relay batons.
> 2) Off-topic posts are always on-topic here, and you make them
> all the time yourself.
The problem isn't off-topic posts, it's the huge raging off-topic thread
that's been dominating the group for years.
>However, it is only as of late that
> suddenly certain posts by certain people are suddenly
> "off-topic", and those posts are by people who are critical
> of furry.
That's because it's only of late that there's been a more specific group
for these posts. And I've asked folks on both sides to move their stuff
over to the politics group. It's only the ones "critical of furry" who have
been so adamantly opposed to moving. Xydexx hopped right over there, for
example.
> 3) You've said yourself that Random and I are destroying AFF,
> yet it's still here. Before Random and I, it was Quozol,
> Mitchell, Chandler, or whoever the villian of the day was.
Xydexx. Remember him?
> 4) I've never seen any firm definition on what should go into
> the politics group. Currently, it looks like any post you
> don't like or that you don't agree with.
Arguments about the fandom.
> 5) Suddenly changing the newsgroup charter sets an astoundingly
> dangerous precident, and we both know why.
It's just another group split. Group splits happen all the time.
>Scientolgy suddenly says
> "ARS is about Scientology, not critical discussion of it.
> That goes in alt.religion.scientology.politics" and starts
> re-directing posts because of a precident set by you on
> AFF.
They would never do that, because that would give the people who oppose
them a forum. They don't want to move scientology discussion, they want
to stop it. Creating a group for a topic doesn't stop that topic, it almost
endorses it... which is why I held off on creating one for so long.
But now that you've mentioned the scientologists, flooding a group with
off-topic noise is one of their favorite tactics. You really don't want
to start discussing them.
> 6) This smacks of censorship -- an attempt to direct opinions
> you don't like into a Usenet /dev/null.
The groups I create don't tend to be /dev/nulls. The majority of them,
such as alt.fan.furry itself, are quite well distributed.
> You can even go with
> the argument that it's what the majority of people want. Fine,
> start AFF-M. And if it's going to be mob rule, which mob is
> going to be ruling? What if BF gets a majority here? You going
> to abide by their values of what is and isn't on-topic.
I'll create another group.
> 7) My posts and my presence are remaining on AFF. I pay my ISP
> fee,
Stuka, you REALLY don't want to get into the "I pay my ISP fee therefore I'm
entitled to post here" morass. That's a seriously losing proposition.
> I'm on-topic in the group, and I've got as much right
> to post here as anyone else, as long as I'm on-topic. The
> topic of this newsgroup is Furry and its fans, and that's what
> I've been talking about, and so has Random.
That's the topic of this hierarchy. The group in this hierarchy for the
politics of the fandom is alt.fan.furry.politics.
> We are not Hell Flame Wars invading AFF (and thank god Farlo's
> attempt to get them in here failed). This is not the alt.animals.
> dolphins fiasco.
No, this is a much longer-running fiasco.
> S'what're you gonna do? Start cancelling our posts? Cancel them
> and repost in .politics? Complain to our admins?
Well, there's a number of options. I can moderate the group. I can split
it more formally, replacing alt.fan.furry with alt.fan.furry.misc with a
more restrictive charter. I can do all sorts of nasty stuff. But I think
I'll just keep on periodically poking my nose into the flame wars and
setting followups to alt.fan.furry.politics.
> The only posts I've seen there all week are yours.
I guess that when the fun of annoying all the folks who don't care about
Spooge Wars is gone, there's not really that much to say about it.
But there's been political discussion there. A lot of the Burned Furs
talk moved over there and, behold, the first hiatus in flaming in years
happened. People have even commented about the results in this thread.
> It's always been this way because differences are the price of
> free, unfettered speech.
Please don't get on the True Free Speech bandwagon. I don't want to see yet
another soul lost to Dave Hayes and his fans. Creating a group for a topic
is the exact opposite of muzzling it.
> The only choices open to you, the only choices open to ANYONE
> who uses the Usenet, is this: deal or don't, like it or leave,
> stay or split.
No, one of the choices is to change it. I've been able to change Usenet a
bit, over the years. Some of the changes have worked out, others haven't,
others are still happening. This is one of them.
Peter da Silva
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) <dfor...@zeta.org.au> wrote:
>How do you know that he is being honest?
Whether he is or no, the place to discuss it isn't alt.fan.furry.
I know you're using a newsreader that handles followups right. Please
use it.
Peter da Silva
StukaFox <stuk...@shell9.ba.best.com> wrote:
> You will NOT send posts out of AFF because because YOU do not
> like the content. This is two steps shy on content-based cancelling,
> and I will not only not be party to it.
I'm not sending any messages anywhere. I'm simply asking, and asking is
several thousand steps shy of any kind of cancelling.
You know, this sort of demonization... "Peter's asking us to do something
and that's just about the same as cancelling our posts"... is exactly the
same sort of bogus debating tactic that the Spooge Wars fans have been
pulling for years. Please don't make such huge jumps in illogic, it's just
scaremongering.
> the motivation behind your actions, and that you'r acting out
> of concern. If I was intentionally trying to wreck AFF, like HFW,
> I would even back you on.
I believe that you're not intentionally trying to wreck AFF, but whether it's
trashed by enemy action or freindly fire the result is the same.
> Would you have directed Random's messages out of AFF if you
> knew he can't change his headers? He didn't even know you
> had done it -- he just thought his messages never made it to
> AFF. He doesn't even know what headers are. He's clueless about
> how this stuff works. Sure, he's noisey and rude, but does he
> deserve to be censored by you?
I haven't censored him. Directing followups to a more appropriate group
is perfectly normal, mainstream, and non-controversial... outside a small
circle of folks. You know the folks I'm talking about. You've even mentioned
them, and whether you're using their tactics consciously or not the result is
the same.
> justify the act? Sure Random can't change the headers, so does that
> justify sending him out of the newsgroup?
I had no idea that Random was using a crippled newsreader. I'm afraid that
I don't see how I bear responsibility for the competance of that software's
authors nor for his decision to use it. What software is it? I'll point them
at the "Good Housekeeping Seal" article about what capabilities a Usenet
newsreader is supposed to have.
>:There are a lot of people coming in and saying "all furries are spooge hounds",
>:But when I look out there I see, well, there's this con over
>:in california that happens to attract a lot of spooge hounds, and the internet
>:attracts a lot of spooge hounds, but none of this is restricted to furries.
> Okay, so it's not restricted to Furry. Does that mean it doesn't
> exist or alleviate the part that is?
It means you're not going to be able to do anything about spooge in furry
unless you can do something about spooge outside furry. And if you want to
do something about spooge in furry, you're not going to do it by telling
people that furry is a spooge-pit. Your tactics are not going to acheive
the goal you claim you want to acheieve, but rather they will encourage
people looking for spooge to look towards furry, and discourage people
interested in anthropomorphic animals (me, I'm interested in aliens, and
furries are an interesting subset of that) from doing the same.
> I've never seen pornographic are featuring Kevin Gogan. Sorry. I
> haven't even seen 'spoogy' style pics of the cheerleader, 'tho
> they are damn hot and are there to titillate.
I know people who run sex sites. You would be amazed.
Peter da Silva
> Posting off-topic material, then demanding others stop doing the same
> ESPECIALLY WHEN THEIR POSTS ARE ON-TOPIC!
But that's not what I'm doing. I'm involved in threads that other people
have started here, that happen to have wandered off-topic. That's normal
in any Usenet group... people are not automatons. What I'm objecting to
is a continued deliberate campaign pushing a specific agenda, and asking
that when people post original messages... not followups... on that campaign
they do so in the group that was created by public demand for that topic.
I am also asking people to direct threads on that topic to this other group,
and doing exactly that myself.
Most of the posters on one side have already done so, and in fact the whole
thing had pretty much died down until one specific bloke decided to start it
up again.
> Quit re-directing topics you don't like out of AFF while you're
> at it. Not everyone knows how to check headers.
I suspect they do by now.
I'll skip over the "True Free Speech" posturing, if you don't mind. I think
we've already said everything there is to say about it.
StukaFox
: In article <3763B8FD...@hotmail.com>,
: Alan \\TriGem\\ Kennedy <nickna...@hotmail.com> wrote:
:>I think what you stated about the ramifacations about canceling posts is truely
:>frightening in the fact of what it could lead to.
: Please read my followup to Stuka's message in alt.fan.furry.politics. Nobody's
: talking about cancelling posts but him.
Peter is correct, nobody is talking about it, AT THE MOMENT.
However, when Random couldn't change his headers, and didn't
know his posts were being re-directed out of AFF, it was damn
close to the intent of a cancel: to get the message out of AFF.
Peter, no matter what, would you EVER cancel one of Random's posts?
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.
StukaFox
: If you take out the derogatory terms, and after Stuka going ballistic over
: my "football" analogy I'm not going to risk the wrath of Star Wars fans by
: holding up *that* mirror, no I don't.
Aw man -- I didn't think I went ballistic. I thought I fired off
a good cheap shot.
[ * sniff! * ]
Y'know, maybe there SHOULD be some kind of forum for health and
fitness at the next CF or Further. There's a lot of furs who are
in FANTASTIC shape, and damnit, I wanna know how to finally push
my BMI below 25!!
StukaFox
: StukaFox <stuk...@shell9.ba.best.com> wrote:
:>Peter da Silva <pe...@taronga.com> wrote:
:>: Ah. And what is it that I'm telling people to do that I'm not doing myself?
:> Posting off-topic material, then demanding others stop doing the same
:> ESPECIALLY WHEN THEIR POSTS ARE ON-TOPIC!
: What I'm objecting to is a continued deliberate campaign pushing a specific
: agenda, and asking that when people post original messages...
: not followups... on that campaign they do so in the group that was
: created by public demand for that topic.
Peter,
To you, what is the difference between you doing this, and Scientology
loading ARS with pro-scientology posters, then saying "All critical
posts must go to a new newsgroup by public demand".
I really do understand what you want to do here, and I agree with the
intentions, but the execution is impossible on a free usenet.
What about AFF-M? Think it's doable?
StukaFox
: I am also asking people to direct threads on that topic to this other group,
: and doing exactly that myself.
: Most of the posters on one side have already done so, and in fact the whole
: thing had pretty much died down until one specific bloke decided to start it
: up again.
:> Quit re-directing topics you don't like out of AFF while you're
:> at it. Not everyone knows how to check headers.
: I suspect they do by now.
: I'll skip over the "True Free Speech" posturing, if you don't mind. I think
: we've already said everything there is to say about it.
: --
: This is The Reverend Peter da Silva's Boring Sig File - there are no references
: to Wolves, Kibo, Discordianism, or The Church of the Subgenius in this document
: "Be vewy vewy quiet...I'm hunting Jedi." -- Darth Fudd
--
Peter da Silva
StukaFox <stuk...@shell9.ba.best.com> wrote:
> Peter, no matter what, would you EVER cancel one of Random's posts?
Well, let's see... if he started posting a couple hundred robot-generated
flames crossposted to six or eight random groups, or with supercede headers
that wiped out actual traffic in the group... like Tim did... probably.
But that kind of spam run is itself major abuse.
And how likely is it?
Peter da Silva
>: my "football" analogy I'm not going to risk the wrath of Star Wars fans by
>: holding up *that* mirror, no I don't.
> Aw man -- I didn't think I went ballistic. I thought I fired off
> a good cheap shot.
You were mad enough to ignore your common sense and make a personal attack.
Seems ballistic to me. If it were, oh, Random or Boursy saying it I wouldn't
have been surprised.
Peter da Silva
StukaFox <stuk...@shell9.ba.best.com> wrote:
> To you, what is the difference between you doing this, and Scientology
> loading ARS with pro-scientology posters, then saying "All critical
> posts must go to a new newsgroup by public demand".
If the CoS were to do that, and created (say) a.r.s.criticism (unmoderated),
then I think the whole scientology-on-the-net issue would collapse. But
they're not going to do that, because it would endorse the actions of the
critics and give them a mandate... FROM THE COS... to publicly criticise it.
They don't care where the criticism is. They don't want that information out
there *anywhere*.
In any case, it's the actions of the Spooge Wars folks who are, deliberately
or not, closer to what the CoS is doing in ARS.
> I really do understand what you want to do here, and I agree with the
> intentions, but the execution is impossible on a free usenet.
It's not only possible, it's normal.
> What about AFF-M? Think it's doable?
I don't know, what does that expand to?
Peter da Silva
StukaFox <stuk...@shell9.ba.best.com> wrote:
> My opinion is that the people discussing this topic are expressing
> THEIR opinions in the manner in which the Usenet is designed.
That's what the CoS says about the way they express their opinions too.
> The Real Politik is that AFF is -THE- Furry usenet group.
Hierarchy. It's a hiererachy.
> Alt.fan.furry.moderated.
No thanks, you're welcome to go with it, but moving it to ".misc" would
be my choice of the next step in the evolution of the hierarchy.
StukaFox
: In article <3763da3a$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com>,
: StukaFox <stuk...@shell9.ba.best.com> wrote:
:> Peter, no matter what, would you EVER cancel one of Random's posts?
: Well, let's see... if he started posting a couple hundred robot-generated
: flames crossposted to six or eight random groups, or with supercede headers
: that wiped out actual traffic in the group... like Tim did... probably.
: But that kind of spam run is itself major abuse.
: And how likely is it?
WEll, if he did that, then you would have just cause and then
some. I'm trying to see how far this is going to be taken.
StukaFox
StukaFox
: They don't care where the criticism is. They don't want that information out
: there *anywhere*.
: In any case, it's the actions of the Spooge Wars folks who are, deliberately
: or not, closer to what the CoS is doing in ARS.
This is your -opinion-; it is not a statement of fact. It is simply
your opinion.
My opinion is that the people discussing this topic are expressing
THEIR opinions in the manner in which the Usenet is designed.
The Real Politik is that AFF is -THE- Furry usenet group. Saying
"AFF is about Furry, but only the furry topics I feel are good
for the newsgroup" is changing AFF to AFF.Peter.DaSilva.
:> What about AFF-M? Think it's doable?
: I don't know, what does that expand to?
Alt.fan.furry.moderated.
StukaFox
: You were mad enough to ignore your common sense and make a personal attack.
Bahaha! Dude, common sense has nothing to do with personal attacks.
: Seems ballistic to me. If it were, oh, Random or Boursy saying it I wouldn't
: have been surprised.
T'was but a nose-thumb. You've seen my attacks. :)
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
[...]
>No thanks, you're welcome to go with it, but moving it to ".misc" would
>be my choice of the next step in the evolution of the hierarchy.
miscizum is a hidious desease that should be whiped out.
--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
http://www.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.
Peter da Silva
Matt <mf...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>Peter da Silva wrote in message <7jrs8n$c...@bonkers.taronga.com>...
>>In article <375d75ae$0$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com>,
>>StukaFox <stuk...@shell9.ba.best.com> wrote:
>>> If I ask you what Star Wars fandom is about, it's about Star Wars.
>>> If I ask you what Babylon-5 fandom is about, it's about Babylon-5.
>>Personally, Star Trek, Babylon 5, Star Wars, and other one-series fandoms
>>seem pretty weird to me. There just isn't enough *to* a movie or a TV show
>>to fill a fandom.
>Yeah sure, that's why they have such small fan bases since there really
>isn't much to talk about.
I don't know what they talk about, to be honest, but of course there are
a hell of a lot of really rabid fans of these shows... which means that
even a *really* narrow fandom is quite legitimate, so why all the arguments
that anthropomorphic animals are too narrow?
>I forgot that furry books had so much more
>diversity and substance than these popular one track movies and TV shows.
I'm glad to have opened your eyes.
Peter da Silva
>>No thanks, you're welcome to go with it, but moving it to ".misc" would
>>be my choice of the next step in the evolution of the hierarchy.
>miscizum is a hidious desease that should be whiped out.
"Who's he?"
"He's the People's Front of Judea."
"Splitter!"
ismism is a hideous disease which should be wiped out.
Peter da Silva
>The various sexual deviants, and the socially incompetent, self-made
>freak parades, are behaving in ways that are hurting the furry fans
>around them, and the reputation of Furry as a whole.
As is everyone who promotes the illusion that furry=sex, whether they're for
it or agin it. And this isn't the forum for this discussion, so please
respect followups.
Peter da Silva
>runs against the rules. Indeed I don't beleave that he is trying to
>stifle opinions that he disagrees with. He has gone after me as well.
Well, for very small values of "gone after".
But, man, please sho 'em you can be a positive role model. You don't want
Xydexx to outdo you.
Xydexx Squeakypony
> That's because it's only of late that there's been a more
> specific group for these posts. And I've asked folks on
> both sides to move their stuff over to the politics group.
> It's only the ones "critical of furry" who have been so
> adamantly opposed to moving. Xydexx hopped right over
> there, for example.
Well, ya mentioned my name, which means I just _gotta_ reply to this
(it's my _job_, after all), even though I don't give a rat's patoot
about Burned Fur or the 10 Rules of Hypocrisy For Entertainment Purposes
Only On alt.fan.furry or the latest spooge pics of Random Getting The
Eiffel Tower Shoved Sideways Up Some Orifice Early Sunday Morning and
whatever else is being argued about these days.
Purrsonally, I'm glad you created AFFP, because it gives people a
[much-needed, IMHO] forum to talk about furry politics instead of having
it clutter up AFF, where it only succeeds in driving people away.
Having said that, I also think StukaFox and Random should by all means
continue their frothing and ranting on alt.fan.furry, since their doing
so makes people like _me_ look reasonable and sane.
The Mighty Inflatostallion Has Spoken.
You may now kiss my big pony feet. -:)
___________________________________________________
Xydexx Squeakypony [ICQ: 7569393]
Ask About My Secret Army of Yiffy Hermtaurs:
http://www.smart.net/~xydexx/lifestyle/homepage.htm
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Peter da Silva
Vixy <victryNO-SPAM&@REMOVEjuno.com> wrote:
>Peter da Silva wrote in message <7k4bj2$1...@bonkers.taronga.com>...
>>As is everyone who promotes the illusion that furry=sex, whether they're for
>>it or agin it. And this isn't the forum for this discussion, so please
>>respect followups.
> Peter. The only FUR.* server I know of that carries AFFP is Fysh.org and
>it is VERY slow, *when* I can even reach it. On the other paw, Fur.com works
>perfectly well for me. When will it or others servers pick up AFFP?
You'll have to take that up with, IIRC, Peter Torkelson. It's his decision
to carry or not carry the politics group. If he's not interested in the
politics there's not much you can do about it.
Peter da Silva
Richard Chandler - WA Resident <mau...@kendra.com> wrote:
>So, if the Mainstream Gay community can get away with this kind of behavoir
>towards its more flamboyant fringe, why can't Furries?
For my part, I wouldn't object to them doing that. But the behaviour I've been
seeing is more like the straight-acting types trying to drum up a mob of gay
bashers to harass a pride march. Oh, and the march they're harassing is one of
the more sedate demonstrations in the country... the one with all the weird
types is over in another group.
Peter da Silva
You can check out my response in a.f.f.politics, 'cos this isn't about
star wars.
In article <7k4c0v$ega$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>,
Matt <mf...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>Although they're talking about much the same thing you are, why the
>Star-wars movie wasn't as good as it could have been.
Right now I'd expect a lot of discussion about that, but what do they talk
about in the decades between movie releases? And, hmmm, it's been days since
I mentioned The Phantom Menace.
>>>I forgot that furry books had so much more
>>>diversity and substance than these popular one track movies and TV shows.
>>I'm glad to have opened your eyes.
>The world is very blue place to people who don't understand sarcasm.
Many a true word is said in jest.
Peter da Silva
>there, and that furries are held in low enough esteem that someone would think
>to use that term in an attempt to hurt me, and I would know that I would not
>be the only person that guy would be willing to use the term on.
So what are you doing to get rid of all the "geeks" online, since they're
out there, and there are people who hold folks who spend much time online
in low enough esteem that someone would think to use that term in an attempt
to hurt you.