An Open Letter to Vanity Fair

85 views
Skip to first unread message

eblumrich

unread,
Feb 21, 2001, 11:00:28 PM2/21/01
to
To the editors of Vanity Fair:

I am writing in reference to your recent article about "furries".
First off, I wish to compliment you on a well-designed and topical
magazine. I don't exactly fit into the target audience for Vanity Fair, but
I was moved to pick up the issue with the article in question, and found it
to be well-deserving of it's rank as one of, if not THE premier style
magazine in America.
However, I must take issue with the research methods used to put
together the article in question, and the resulting skewed, short-sighted,
and erronious depiction of what I and many others have known as "furry
fandom." ("fandom" is a term used commonly to describe afficianados of a
particular bit of pop culture- there's a Star Trek Fandom, a Science Fiction
Fandom, a fandom which is centered around animation- and so on...)
If someone who was unfamiliar with the fandom read this article, they
would come away with the impression that those who belong to the fandom are,
to be every bit as blunt as the article was, a gaggle of sexually and
socially dysfunctional freaks of nature. This could not be farther from the
true state of affairs...

Perhaps I'm getting ahead of myself- to address the core inaccuracies
within the article, I must go back into history a bit...

When "furry" fandom began, it was pretty much a scion of a scion of a
fandom dedicated to the appreciation of Japanese animation. Who started
this fandom? Certainly no one like Foxwolfie Galen, or any of the other
people mentioned so prominently in your article... It was founded by
relatively "normal" folks- cartoonists, film fans, writers, and folks who
appreciated the works of the former. Yeah- indeed, it's odd that adults
would get together to appreciate animals used in pop culture, but it's
pretty tame when compared to the pursuits of the people mentioned in your
article...
Unfortunately, there were worms within the heart of the embryonic
fandom... When it became large enough to start holding it's own "cons"
(conventions,) certain individuals who had taken an early leap into
cyberspace decided to start issuing free memberships to these "cons" to
anyone who had an online presence...
Now, as shocking as this may be to some readers, the anaonymity
provided by the internet is a huge draw for those whose social, sexual, and
personal habits would otherwise meet with disproval, or outright hostility.
Every week we hear about the proliferation of child porn via the net...
Type "sex" into any search engine, and five will get you twenty that
heterosexuality/homosexuality will be beat out 3-to-1 by fetishes as diverse
as scatophilia to "armpit sex" (one of the more odd things that did crop up,
when I tried the same experement.)
This being the climate of the net, it was only to be expected that an
open invitation to all "netizens" would draw folks who couldn't care less
about film, art, comics, or any of the myriad elements which had, up to that
point, traditionally constituted the bread and butter of "furry" fandom...
We began to see legions of guys wandering about the cons wearing dog
collars. We thought that odd- the fans and artists muttered among
themselves, but kept quiet (those were PC days, indeed.) After all- con
membership was up 300%! After years in obscurity, we were just happy to
have larger groups to legitimize or fandom.
But, as the twig is allowed to bend- so has grown the tree. The next
year, transvestites began showing up in significant numbers. The next year,
those who had been wearing collars decided to chuck their clothing and
appear naked, save for a few leather accoutrements (the collar remained, and
still remains, regretably, to this day...)
Now remember- these were supposed to be COMIC BOOK conventions. These
were places and events for artists who had laboured under obscurity to show
their work. They were events in which people could get together and talk
about movies and books. They were perfectly respectable events- but no
longer...
It was literally out of control. The cons were turning into
thinly-disguised transient singles clubs for the likes of Foxwolfie Galen
and his ilk. The artists and fans which had laboured so long and hard to
create these events, to build this fandom, were shoved to the side, and told
that they didn't matter anymore. When voices were raised in dissent, they
were drowned in choruses of coarse insults and accusations of not being
"politically correct."
And so it went, for too many years, and in too many places. What began
on the internet and at the cons went on to insinuate itself thoughout every
aspect of the fandom. So much so that folks like myself, who'se main reason
for being in the fandom was artistic, soon found ourselves in the minority.
We had thus been made strangers in the house we had built.
But, fortunately, the core fandom remained, and still remains, to this
day. I, and many other artists, writers, animators, and folks who enjoy the
medium of "funny animals" are still here, and have been struggling for years
to remove people like "ostritch" and "Foxwolfie" from our conventions, and
our fandom, and in doing so, reclaim the fandom, and dispell the patently
revolting reputation that it has gained.

Cut to the present...

The fandom now is under a tremendous amount of scrutiny- and,
inevitably, this scrutiny is always focussed on the most outrageous elements
of the fandom (hey- I can understand your point of view- who would read an
article about a buncha sci-fi nerds who like drawing animals?) Your article
came fast on the heels of an equally harmful report done by Comedy Central,
which came about a year after a similarly erronious article in the San
Fransisco Bay Guardian.
Every one of these articles- including yours, has mis-represented this
fandom by focussing in of it's most shameful hangers-on... This causes
almost irreperable harm in a variety of ways. It rewards the efforts of
these usurpers with attention- which is their greatest drug. It encourages
the ascendency of these elements. It ignores the efforts of those who built
this fandom in favor of those who carry selfishness as a badge of honor.
There's little concerned parties can do to counter this malicious media
onslaught, but we try- and hence this letter.
I have seen this fandom warped, perverted, and stolen. Now, I see
the fruits of this crime- a reputation has been bestowed upon us that none
of us deserved, nor wanted. And, I regret to say- your magazine has
contributed to this malignment. On thousands of newsstands, millions of
people are being introduced to the fandom- but not as what it should be- but
what a single reporter in need of a ten-page filler has been chosen us to be
seen as.
Not that I can fault the author- she simply went after an attractive
subject- one that would shock and entertain the readers (and, perhaps, to
give them a tad of security in knowing that compared with THESE people,
their grasp on life was far firmer.) On the other hand, I've been active
within what fandom once was for almost 15 years- and within its ranks, I've
met some of the most creative, entertaining, and telented people I've ever
known. Not one of these people straps a fake tail to their seat of their
pants, or lives in a house crammed with stuffed "My Little Ponies." They
don't go by ridiculous, childish nicknames, like "Foxwolfie." They're
rational, productive people who want nothing more than to gather with people
who share their interests.
And it is on behalf of these people that I am writing this letter. We
cannot turn back the clock, and we cannot undo the damage that has been
done- all we can do is raise our hands and say that "we're still here- and
we ain't with THOSE people."
In the future, please take the extra effort to fully understand the
nature of the topic you are covering. Exposees of deviancy and shocking
revelations are the stuff of Jerry Springer- not the caliber of magazine
that you seem to be.

I thank you for your time and attention.


-Eric Blumrich

Now, as an aside, just for you newsgroup readers, and as an appeal to the
fandom as a whole:

I have been informed that some of the people who, in the southern
vernacular, "showed their asses" in this article, were not only happy that
this slanted view was being presented, they took PRIDE in the damage they
had commited upon myself, and the rest of the fandom.
It's apparent that no one has told you, Mr. "Ostritch" and "Galen"
(what are your real freaking names, BTW- goddamn cowards that have to hide
behind cute speudonyms should stay in the dark, unlit basements that spawned
them) You should be ashamed. You should seek professional treatment for
your obvious mental disabilities. You obviously didn't have your butts
kicked enough in school, and require what we in Tennessee called an
"attitude adjustment."
More to the point, if you have a moment:
You should be stripped naked, placed in chains and shackles, and be
subjected to the hostile depredations of America's most perverse and violent
sex offenders, so that you may experience the fruit of your behavior. The
resulting spectacle should be aired on a special pay-per view event, which
your parents and families should be forced, at gunpoint, to watch from start
to finish.
Upon completion, if you survive, you should be hung publicly in Times
Square, with great weights attatched to the remnants of your genetalia.
Whatever remains after five days should be cut down and fed to dogs.

I call upon the fandom as a whole to isolate and expunge these
revolting, cowardly polyps of cancerous deviation. I ask that they be
barred from attending any conventions, and kicked routinely from any online
"furry" activity that they attempt to engage in. I respectfully ask that
they be treated in a manner proportionate to the damage that they have done
to this fandom, so that they may learn the consequences of their actions.
And rest assured, if I ever meet any of those mentioned in this
despicable article in person at a con, I will remove them, bodilly, if
necessary, from the convention- even if it means me losing my membership.
I refuse to take the attitude that this sort of behavior should be
"tolerated." Tolerance, in today's politically correct parlance, has become
nothing more than tyranny with a smiling face.
We were meant to be better than this. We cannot continue to accept the
further degradation of our fandom, and our society as a whole. We must draw
the line, somewhere, or we are literally lost- condemned to follow whatever
breezes of whim touch us. To say that we are in no position to judge, to
say that it is wrong to take a stand, is to live on your knees.
This is, in many ways, larger than the fandom. It's about our own
sense of our own significance, or own resolve, our own determination. It's
about our future as a people- once called "posterity." It's about whether
we will be able to look forward, to those who are yet to come, so that they
might look back at us with kindness and praise, instead of cursing us for
our apathy, or our narcissism, or our lack of ability to stand tall for what
is right.
This is about justice, and about truth- and justice and truth are the
great works that define us as human.

-kan pei!


magnwa

unread,
Feb 21, 2001, 11:16:13 PM2/21/01
to
blumrich <eblu...@invisionaries.com> wrote:
>To the editors of Vanity Fair:

<snipped> Oh wow.. you're in Tennessee? Where? Anywhere near Nashville?

Email me.. maybe we can do lunch someday, Eric. mag...@home.com

Atara

unread,
Feb 21, 2001, 11:27:35 PM2/21/01
to
eblu...@invisionaries.com (eblumrich) wrote in
<9723aq$k3l$1...@velox.critter.net>:

>Now, as an aside, just for you newsgroup readers, and as an appeal to the
>fandom as a whole:

Two things you should consider, if you're actually planning on sending that to
VF:

One, run it through a spellchecker. Good lord.

Two, you should get the gender of the article's author correct.
http://www.vitapup.com/article/author.gif

--
Atara
"I've got a pantheon of animals
in a pagan soul..." -Rush
http://www.FurNation.com/Atara/

Justin

unread,
Feb 21, 2001, 11:43:32 PM2/21/01
to

> It's apparent that no one has told you, Mr. "Ostritch" and "Galen"
> (what are your real freaking names, BTW- goddamn cowards that have to hide
> behind cute speudonyms should stay in the dark, unlit basements that
spawned
> them) You should be ashamed. You should seek professional treatment for
> your obvious mental disabilities. You obviously didn't have your butts
> kicked enough in school, and require what we in Tennessee called an
> "attitude adjustment."
> More to the point, if you have a moment:
> You should be stripped naked, placed in chains and shackles, and be
> subjected to the hostile depredations of America's most perverse and
violent
> sex offenders, so that you may experience the fruit of your behavior. The
> resulting spectacle should be aired on a special pay-per view event, which
> your parents and families should be forced, at gunpoint, to watch from
start
> to finish.
> Upon completion, if you survive, you should be hung publicly in Times
> Square, with great weights attatched to the remnants of your genetalia.
> Whatever remains after five days should be cut down and fed to dogs.


Christ almighty sir! A bit harsh. First of all, I have been
corresponding with Galen and from what I can see, he had no reason to
suspect that the whole VF article thing would happen. From what he has told
me he has had none or few bad experiences with the media at large. He seems
like a perfectly likeable person, and I don't think that he is contributing
to the unraveling of the very fabric of furrydom, nor is he enjoying the
damage done by VF. I guess I don't have much room to talk because you've
been here for 15 years, but I think you should calm down. Furry fandom has
grown far beyond just art. It has become much more to many people. Some
people just like the art, and some live it. Some are into it more than
others. So next time you think that these people are misrepresenting the
fandom, think again. There are more of them than you think. They may just be
part of the fandom you claim they are destroying. There are some who are
just here for the fetishness of it all, but some just love furrydom, beyond
just the art.

15 years is a long time. I've been doing it for less than one. :) But
even I can see that Furry Fandom has grown beyond comics and drawings.
Please accept that. Even the parts you don't like. Hate it all you want, but
don't forget its there.

Thanks for listening....

magnwa

unread,
Feb 21, 2001, 11:45:51 PM2/21/01
to
On Thu, 22 Feb 2001 04:43:32 GMT, Justin <qzarm...@home.com> wrote:
>to the unraveling of the very fabric of furrydom, nor is he enjoying the
>damage done by VF. I guess I don't have much room to talk because you've

Justin.. you are aware that FWG already has a chapter in a book about
sexual kinks, right? I mean.. don't fool yourself into thinking he
may not have known what was coming.

Magnwa, the relatively unbothered fur :)

ilr

unread,
Feb 21, 2001, 11:48:47 PM2/21/01
to
A little longer than I would expect those yuppie whores have
time for, but I didn't twitch this time, if that's any indicator.
-Ilr

I just hope they don't decide to play up our stupid little civil
war later. Those damn drama queens could very well crave
such confrontation like crackfiends jonesing happyrock.


eblumrich <eblu...@invisionaries.com> wrote in message news:9723aq$k3l$1...@velox.critter.net...

Speet Stoller

unread,
Feb 21, 2001, 11:59:18 PM2/21/01
to
<< eblu...@invisionaries.com
Date: Wed, Feb 21, 2001 11:00 PM >>
writes:

<< To the editors of Vanity Fair: >>

(snip body of letter)
Author! Author! Thoughtfully structured and well put.

The rest however<< You should be stripped naked, >>
so on & so forth should be taken as an intentionally funny rant.

--peter


Rainbow

unread,
Feb 22, 2001, 12:19:29 AM2/22/01
to
On Wed, 21 Feb 2001 23:00:28 -0500, "eblumrich"
<eblu...@invisionaries.com> wrote:

*Snip*

You don't have to tolerate the actions of others if you don't choose
to. There are a great deal of people who are willing to promote what
_they_ feel the fandom is/should be about - just as you took the
initiative to write a response to VF, which is great. Media tends to
misrepresent groups or activities, some more then others. As a point
to the matter, I really have trouble with understanding what harm
there is if someone chooses to wear a tail? I did so at FC 2001.. I
wanted to be silly and a little wild. To threaten to forcefully
remove someone? Eef..I've never ever done anything to you, but it
makes me worry about bumping into someone at you. I'm not quite sure
what sort of a reaction would be given, if I were wearing a tail or a
fursuit. Probably nothing(?), but still. It seems a bit harsh, the
things you said. I hope things get a bit better for you, fandom wise.

-Rainbow 'Roo

ICQ the 'Roo!: 93127116
-Resident daemon kangaroo

Furry Code:
FMaKp6cm A+ C++ D++ H++ M++ P++++ R T+++ W- Z Sf+ RLCT a21
cdun+++ d++ e++ f++++ h* i++ j p+ sm-

"There's probably only one person in the entire world who
has a chance of getting me up on stage in fursuit.. Hi puppy!"

Justin

unread,
Feb 22, 2001, 1:10:02 AM2/22/01
to
Why would he do something to purposely destroy or harm the fandom that
he obviously loves? Not for attention. Most of the furs (including Galen)
into kinks like to keep it private. The VF article writer told him his
identity would be kept secret and his face not shown, so he didn't do it for
attention.

I had no idea people in the fandom had so much hate for other furs
despite their fetishsim. Why? I'm not into all that stuff, but I like to
think I am tolerant of people who would "give Furrydom a bad name" Excuse me
for being blunt, but No one in the fandom would puposely do anything to
cause its downfall, no matter how "screwed up" they may be.

Please know that I am not trying to be rude in any of my posts, it's
just our views differ.......greatly.

Thanks.


Xydexx Squeakypony, KSC

unread,
Feb 22, 2001, 1:10:05 AM2/22/01
to
eblumrich wrote:
>If someone who was unfamiliar with the fandom read this article, they
>would come away with the impression that those who belong to the fandom
>are, to be every bit as blunt as the article was, a gaggle of sexually
>and socially dysfunctional freaks of nature. This could not be farther
>from the true state of affairs...

Of course it's not true.

But if the Vanity Fair article upsets you so much because it gives the wrong
impression, then why do you support a group that has been going around yelling
"anthropomorphics fandom is being overrun by sexually dysfunctional, socially
stunted and creatively bankrupt hacks and pervs..." as loud as possible?

Just curious.

--
_________________________________________________
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen / Xydexx Squeakypony, KSC
Remember back when furry fandom was about
anthropomorphic animals? *IT STILL IS.*

Shadowspawn

unread,
Feb 22, 2001, 1:56:14 AM2/22/01
to
"eblumrich" <eblu...@invisionaries.com> wrote:

>To the editors of Vanity Fair:
>
> I am writing in reference to your recent article about "furries".
> First off, I wish to compliment you on a well-designed and topical
>magazine. I don't exactly fit into the target audience for Vanity Fair, but
>I was moved to pick up the issue with the article in question, and found it
>to be well-deserving of it's rank as one of, if not THE premier style
>magazine in America.
> However, I must take issue with the research methods used to put
>together the article in question, and the resulting skewed, short-sighted,
>and erronious depiction of what I and many others have known as "furry
>fandom." ("fandom" is a term used commonly to describe afficianados of a
>particular bit of pop culture- there's a Star Trek Fandom, a Science Fiction
>Fandom, a fandom which is centered around animation- and so on...)
> If someone who was unfamiliar with the fandom read this article, they
>would come away with the impression that those who belong to the fandom are,
>to be every bit as blunt as the article was, a gaggle of sexually and
>socially dysfunctional freaks of nature. This could not be farther from the
>true state of affairs...

Groovy up to this point. I dont you should go on about how many
deviants there are at the cons, even if they do have noting to do with
furry fandom. It is enough to say furry has nothing to do with sex,
stomping on worms, or fucking your teddy bear. I think it is more to
our advantage to tell them what we are, and not to get into long
grotesque details about what we are not.


Forrest

unread,
Feb 22, 2001, 1:56:30 AM2/22/01
to
I decline to participate in this fandom any longer as I feel it's
becoming too silly.

Shadowspawn

unread,
Feb 22, 2001, 2:09:18 AM2/22/01
to
"Justin" <qzarm...@home.com> wrote:

>15 years is a long time. I've been doing it for less than one. :) But
>even I can see that Furry Fandom has grown beyond comics and drawings.
>Please accept that. Even the parts you don't like. Hate it all you want, but
>don't forget its there.
>
> Thanks for listening....

<sarchasm>

Oh yes, it now includes public nudity, public indecency, boinking
plushies, boinking Rover, endless seas of spooge and other fun stuff.
So all you silly people out there who think it has anything to do with
cartoons, comics, funny animals and stuff better just get used to it!

</sarchasm>

I dont mean any offense to you Justin. I know you are new, and
actually trying to find things out, but there are a lot of things you
have yet to learn.

Doug Winger

unread,
Feb 22, 2001, 2:18:22 AM2/22/01
to
In article <972d7l$mgs$1...@raccoon.fur.com>, bct...@hotmail.com (Forrest)
wrote:

> I decline to participate in this fandom any longer as I feel it's
> becoming too silly

Good-O! Can I interest you in this high-powered rifle and snowmobile, then?

- Doug, Obtaining A REAL Hobby

Shadowspawn

unread,
Feb 22, 2001, 2:35:42 AM2/22/01
to
Doug Winger <do...@fastpointcom.com> wrote:

>In article <972d7l$mgs$1...@raccoon.fur.com>, bct...@hotmail.com (Forrest)
>wrote:
>
>> I decline to participate in this fandom any longer as I feel it's
>> becoming too silly
>
> Good-O! Can I interest you in this high-powered rifle and snowmobile, then?

Ah Doug, you keep mentioning snowmobiles. Whassup with that? :)


Akai

unread,
Feb 22, 2001, 3:11:29 AM2/22/01
to
"Xydexx Squeakypony, KSC" wrote:
>
> Of course it's not true.
>
> But if the Vanity Fair article upsets you so much because it gives the wrong
> impression, then why do you support a group that has been going around yelling
> "anthropomorphics fandom is being overrun by sexually dysfunctional, socially
> stunted and creatively bankrupt hacks and pervs..." as loud as possible?
>
> Just curious.

Because he thinks it's true, perhaps?

--

-Akai


"And each day I learn just a little bit more,
I don't know why but I do know what for,
If we're all going somewhere let's get there soon,
This song's got no title just words and a tune."

-This Song Has No Title,
Elton John

Doug Winger

unread,
Feb 22, 2001, 3:12:00 AM2/22/01
to
In article <i8g99to6c157ghbq9...@4ax.com>, dou...@cgocable.net
wrote:

The tail end of that recent article that has everyone at each other's
throats recently recorded some observations from a few inebriated bystanders.

A quote from one, from memory and so possibly off a little; "Why don't they
get a _real_ hobby? Like shooting real animals or smowmobiling?"

As upsetting or screwed up as the high-energy end of Fandoms can get,
there's simply no comparision to the wider sample of Society's foibles.
Fandoms, of all types, just can't compete with that.


- Doug


-"I won!"- Gahan Wilson cartoon

Brian Henderson

unread,
Feb 22, 2001, 4:41:42 AM2/22/01
to
On Thu, 22 Feb 2001 06:10:02 GMT, "Justin" <qzarm...@home.com>
wrote:

> Why would he do something to purposely destroy or harm the fandom that
>he obviously loves? Not for attention. Most of the furs (including Galen)
>into kinks like to keep it private. The VF article writer told him his
>identity would be kept secret and his face not shown, so he didn't do it for
>attention.

Because he didn't think? That pretty well sums it up. If a news
reporter comes up to you and says that he wants to do a story about
furries, then for heaven's sake, why talk about your sexual kinks? I
don't care if he thought he'd be pictured or not (and if he wasn't
supposed to be shown, why was he posing for pictures?)

-Brian

DishRoom1

unread,
Feb 22, 2001, 5:03:18 AM2/22/01
to
Eric Blumrich wrote--

You know, while there's some things I've disagreed in the past with Eric and
The Burned Furs, this is actually a good intellegent letter. It explains the
true origins and the porpose and spirit of furridom to help underscore why it
should be sepateted from fursuit-sex, plushie-sex, and other retarded stuff.
There was no reason for Mr. Gurley to not interview the comic book publishers,
artists like Terrie Smith and Joe Rasoles, furry writers and much more than
some poor disgusting bug squisher.

The only problem was that he got Gurley's gender wrong. I think there are any
female people named "George".

J. Shughart
aka Jetstone Tigre

slu...@earthlink.net

unread,
Feb 22, 2001, 5:13:37 AM2/22/01
to

eblumrich wrote:

. . .


> This is about justice, and about truth- and justice and truth are the
> great works that define us as human.

Perhaps you should look into joining the more dangerous and worthy
protests by Greenpeace.

These guys are just Furries. Hello? If that's the way they want
to be, that's their right. Leave 'em alone for crying out loud!

Besides, I thought that's what Furry was all about. Going around
in fursuits, hugging and scritching everyone, lusting after Gadget and
Maid Marian and saying yiff all the time. At least I thought it was.
That's what I always saw.

Duncan da Husky

unread,
Feb 22, 2001, 6:24:12 AM2/22/01
to
Eric Blumrich wrote:
> And rest assured, if I ever meet any of those mentioned in this
>despicable article in person at a con, I will remove them, bodilly, if
>necessary, from the convention- even if it means me losing my membership.

...and you will be summarily arrested and sent to jail for assualt and
battery. And if you think those plushophiles are bad, just wait 'til you cozy
up to the mother rapers and the father killers.

Good gods, man, you have truly lost all sense of proportion.

-Duncan da Husky

WhiteShepherd

unread,
Feb 22, 2001, 6:31:35 AM2/22/01
to
> To the editors of Vanity Fair:
>
> I am writing in reference to your recent article about "furries".


Well to start I can't say I've necessarily been involved with Furry
quite as long as you. A man in my 30's. I've only been a "furry" since the
80's just in curiosity and friendship for the people I know/knew. I haven't
been actively involved in cons or even mucking for more than 2 years.
Despite the time you consider I've spent (or not spent as the case may be) I
don't feel or have I ever felt like I "owned" the furry fandom. It is
something I feel I belong to and contribute with a part of myself no more so
than the kid that has "discovered" furry and found he/she is not alone. Over
time I've been a watcher, helper, and someone to give a kind word of support
and friendship. Later I've attended cons, held/helped furry gatherings, and
shared the joy of the human/fur experience. I've seen change over the
years. I've watched the tight knit family of early furs hang on. Some
disappeared into trials of everyday life never to be seen again. Others are
still here making possible many of the events we as furs attend with their
support. I am not a particularly great speaker or a bender of words with
the ability to slap with the sting of hurting people like I've seen yours
do. But I do speak when I see something wrong. I see your anger about
the misreporting and flagrant sensationalism used by reporters. They
misrepresented a lot of us as they have many other groups. A letter to the
editor to vent your feelings and opinions is understandable. But whatever
claim of "ownership" you feel you have against the fandom doesn't give you
more rights than another person or fur if they chose to call themselves that
or to rattle your saber to cause harm to any one of them just because your
pride is hurt.


> But, fortunately, the core fandom remained, and still remains, to this
> day. I, and many other artists, writers, animators, and folks who enjoy
the
> medium of "funny animals" are still here, and have been struggling for
years
> to remove people like "ostritch" and "Foxwolfie" from our conventions, and
> our fandom, and in doing so, reclaim the fandom, and dispell the patently
> revolting reputation that it has gained.

I can't say that I have met Foxwolfie though nor will I judge him.
Have you ever met Ostritch or even read his messages? Furry has grown a
LOT. You got that right. With the diversify of people have come a broader
change in the general accepted definition of furry. It wasn't just comic
books. Many were drawn to "discover" their furry persona in the art as
artists took a lime light by turning dreams to pictures. People would see
these pictures and think "I thought I was the only one..". Furry with no
set definition generally shifted to people who shared attraction to the
animal persona. Be this comic books, art, personally, or spiritually as
some feel. Change in inevitable. This change in my opinion was a good one.
It was the reason why furry called to so many, and it gave us all a common
ground to share and express ourselves. Abet this was a far cry from "comic
books". But furry took a soul of sorts. A deep meaning important in
peoples lives, and a way of living and sharing. If anyone thought they
"owned" furry they could of set their own rules or better yet split off.
Controlling furry is like controlling the hearts, minds, and feelings of
people. It trully.. belongs to each and every one of us. The reporter from
Vanity Fair took long reports from people and used very selective parts.
Sometimes switching things around for effect. JBadger (a very nice
heterosexual, kind, polite, clean, and non yiffy fur) spent over an hour
talking about the charities the furry community supports. Did the reporter
ever so much as mention one word of this? No.. But you are first in line to
threaten to hurt him just for how she reported this. That reporter did that
story just to make money nothing else. Despite the fact that it was
intended to be a sensational story it hurt YOUR pride and now your going to
take your revenge out on others.

> Now, as an aside, just for you news group readers, and as an appeal to the


> fandom as a whole:
>
> I have been informed that some of the people who, in the southern
> vernacular, "showed their asses" in this article, were not only happy that
> this slanted view was being presented, they took PRIDE in the damage they
> had commited upon myself, and the rest of the fandom.

You have been "informed"? Sounds like a rally cry to polarize on people's
propensity for anger around your opinions before you dehumanize them. Did
these people REALLY take pride in hurting you? Or were they just simply
being used themselves living a life they they think it should be (different
from yours) and got used by the media? It looks to me as if you have taken
your shattered ideals and stabbed yourself calling for vengance.

> It's apparent that no one has told you, Mr. "Ostritch" and "Galen"
> (what are your real freaking names, BTW- goddamn cowards that have to hide
> behind cute speudonyms should stay in the dark, unlit basements that
spawned
> them)

Many furs chose a "Furry Nickname" being used online or elsewhere for the
simple fun of it. At cons it has become common practice to use "nicks". I
had "WhiteShepherd" in my name tag at Anthro because it was easily
recognized by my online friends and just because I "wanted too". Take your
personal daemons with you calling people cowards if that's what you truly
see. Spawn? Another attempt to make a person less than human to justify
what YOU want to do...

> You should be ashamed. You should seek professional treatment for
> your obvious mental disabilities. You obviously didn't have your butts
> kicked enough in school, and require what we in Tennessee called an
> "attitude adjustment."

You seem well educated. But you also seem to hold the world on your
shoulders in righteousness like "Anyone who was raised differently/has a
different culture than "me" get off right now."


> More to the point, if you have a moment:
> You should be stripped naked, placed in chains and shackles, and be>
subjected to the hostile depredations of America's most perverse and violent
> sex offenders, so that you may experience the fruit of your behavior. The
> resulting spectacle should be aired on a special pay-per view event, which
> your parents and families should be forced, at gunpoint, to watch from
start
> to finish.
> Upon completion, if you survive, you should be hung publicly in Times
> Square, with great weights attatched to the remnants of your genetalia.
> Whatever remains after five days should be cut down and fed to dogs.

Normally I am just a lurker and reader responding privately. But here
I couldn't let stand. If no one else will speak out I will. I don't know
wether you chose your words in haste or well planned. Either way it smacks
with the intolerance oh so common of history. Before WW II the Germans were
unhappy with what their country had become. The Nazis pointed the finger to
the Jews. Someone who's culture and way of living was different. Their
anger over the Jews success during those hard times led to an out lash of
anger. Anger led to dehumanizing with nobody willing/able to stand and say
this is wrong. You say something long enough people will begin to believe
it. Once people stop seeing other people as humans they can harm without
consciousness because they don't relate. This is a public news group and
what you say here you are free to do so with nobody stopping you. But I
will make my statement here on my beliefs as well. YOUR statement here is
WRONG and is a assault to human rights. Yes you feel like "your" and others
Furry fandom has been taken away. There is nothing stopping you from
creating a "Comic Only" fanclub (or whatever guidelines you chose) letting
furs split to chose where they go. Getting mad because everybody doesn't
live to your standards and have your culture is short sited and petty. This
has nothing to do with PC. "Politically Correct" makes something right only
because the majority thinks it's so. If anything history has taught us
violence only feeds itself and begets the suffering of the innocent.
>

> To say that we are in no position to judge, to
> say that it is wrong to take a stand, is to live on your knees.

Interesting... Hitler made a speech VERY similar about the right to
judge the decadent Jewish people. It was justification for actions later to
come. Instead of you judging and trying to control something that isn't
yours (and IMO I don't feel belonged to you from the beginning). Why don't
you "create" something that IS yours. It sounds like you got a obviously
large following. Organize and have events with people that feel as you do.
For better or for worse the furry family has grown into a large family. In
my opinion mostly good. True I miss a lot of my old friends and the close
knit small group feeling. But even though I have met people I don't care
for I have also met new people that are wonderful friends. Furry is very
diversified. But over all I think we share a very kind and accepting
"heart". The truth is it's not the sex that has driven the masses here. It
is our community "heart" and feeling of belonging that has endeared people
who have adopted our "family" that has let them feel they belong and are
cared for like nothing else that has reached them in their lives. This
keeps bringing them in and they keep coming in from all walks of life. For
myself I am very proud to be a part of this family. I don't always agree
with what's going on. But I care and try to work with my heart giving in
this fandom. As for every trouble maker here there is at least 10 people
who make it worth all over again.

> And rest assured, if I ever meet any of those mentioned in this

> despicable article in person at a con, I will remove them, bodily, if


> necessary, from the convention- even if it means me losing my membership.

> I refuse to take the attitude that this sort of behavior should be
> "tolerated." Tolerance, in today's politically correct parlance, has
become
> nothing more than tyranny with a smiling face.

You would harm someone who was misquoted in a magazine because you are
willing to take the accuracy of the magazine to feed your own anger? For
one I know JBadger was misquoted. That leaves me to think suspect on her
whole article. But even if not you are no more important than any other
person there. Speaking of "rest assured", rest assured that no current con
will permit you to lash out at a unsuspecting person.

> This is, in many ways, larger than the fandom. It's about our own
> sense of our own significance, or own resolve, our own determination. It's
> about our future as a people- once called "posterity." It's about whether
> we will be able to look forward, to those who are yet to come, so that
they
> might look back at us with kindness and praise, instead of cursing us for
> our apathy, or our narcissism, or our lack of ability to stand tall for
what
> is right.

This is larger than the fandom itself. It has nothing to do with the
fandom. In truth it is your insulted morals lashing out, dehumanizing, and
justifying harm to others to coax your anger.

One last point I'd like to make. Over the many years I've seen a lot of
change and a lot of furs. Furry means different things to different people.
This has been the case even from the beginning. As a person I have always
loved the company of dogs and had a close personal connection to canines.
Over the years I have become comfortable relating myself as a "fur" and
actually enjoy expressing the "dog" side of my personality. It for me is
the growth of being who I love to be. I am not afraid to say this. I know
this is not "your" furry and that furry has a different meaning for you.
But even some of us old timers if you can consider over 10 years to be old
have chosen a more personal role.
With that I'd like to say.. *Woof!* ;)

WhiteShepherd aka Gene Angel


ilr

unread,
Feb 22, 2001, 6:54:48 AM2/22/01
to

Baloo Ursidae <ba...@ursine.dyndns.org> wrote in message news:d8c279...@ursine.dyndns.org...
> ilr <i...@rof.net> wrote:
> About that playing up the civil war, if that letter is too long for them,
> what makes you think they have the attention span for about 4000 messages
> on this topic? (quick guesstimate by how much my newsserver has sponged
> on index numbers in the last couple weeks)
>
Someone's counting? I dunno if that's a good
thing or a bad thing so I'll gladly leave it at undecided.
-Ilr


ilr

unread,
Feb 22, 2001, 7:00:32 AM2/22/01
to

Doug Winger <do...@fastpointcom.com> wrote in message news:doug-3820D5.0...@news.fastpoint.net...

I think someone needs to get back to their own little vice
for a little bit. There's a niche(and a few crannies) that
aren't being filled anymore.


-Ilr, taking a pot-shot of his own


David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)

unread,
Feb 22, 2001, 7:45:50 AM2/22/01
to
On Thu, 22 Feb 2001 06:56:30 GMT, Forrest <bct...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I decline to participate in this fandom any longer as I feel it's
>becoming too silly.

Its talking animal people and toons. Its supposed to be silly.


--
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.

Alexsandyr Troutnoodler

unread,
Feb 23, 2001, 2:50:57 AM2/23/01
to eblumrich, ga...@velocity.net, ost...@raex.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

To whom it may concern...

Please understand that this post does NOT constitute a threat. If I
wanted to threaten anyone, I would have forwarded the original
posting to the FBI, ACLU, PFLAG, and a whole host of other
organizations.

eblumrich wrote:

> Now, as an aside, just for you newsgroup readers, and as an appeal
> to the fandom as a whole:
>

As I said in the subject line, I am not amused.

I suppose it *could* be said that this is merely rabblerousing and/or
venting of one's spleen, but Mr. Blumrich has made some very specific
threats against "Ostrich" and "Foxwolfie Galen".

This by itself warrants Mr. Blumrich being barred from any convention
for making those threats.

To Mr. Blumrich:

You mentioned something about Tennessee? "Attitude Adjustment", I
believe...it's in the post. Do you live in Tennessee, Mr. Blumrich?
You would do well to consult the Laws of that state if you do indeed
live there.

Allow me to inform the general populace, with particular attention
paid to subsections a, b1 and b2...


TENNESSEE CODE ANNOTATED

Copyright (c) 1955-1996 by The State of Tennessee

All rights reserved.

*** THIS SECTION IS CURRENT THROUGH THE 1996 SUPPLEMENT ***

*** (1996 SESSION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY) ***

TITLE 39. CRIMINAL OFFENSES

CHAPTER 17. OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE

PART 3. DISORDERLY CONDUCT AND RIOTS

Tenn. Code Ann. @ 39-17-309 (1996)

39-17-309. Civil rights intimidation

(a) The general assembly finds and declares that it is the right of
every

person regardless of race, color, ancestry, religion or national
origin, to be

secure and protected from fear, intimidation, harassment and bodily
injury

caused by the activities of groups and individuals. It is not the
intent of

Tenn. Code Ann. @ 39-17-309 (1996)

this section to interfere with the exercise of rights protected by
the

constitution of the United States. The general assembly recognizes
the

constitutional right of every citizen to harbor and express beliefs
on any

subject whatsoever and to associate with others who share similar
beliefs. The

general assembly further finds that the advocacy of unlawful acts by
groups or

individuals against other persons or groups for the purpose of
inciting and

provoking damage to property and bodily injury or death to persons is
not

constitutionally protected, poses a threat to public order and
safety, and

should be subject to criminal sanctions.

(b) A person commits the offense of intimidating others from
exercising

civil rights who:

(1) Injures or threatens to injure or coerces another person with the

intent to unlawfully intimidate another from the free exercise or
enjoyment of

any right or privilege secured by the constitution or laws of the
state of

Tennessee;

(2) Injures or threatens to injure or coerces another person with the

intent to unlawfully intimidate another because that other exercised
any right

or privilege secured by the constitution or laws of the United States
or the

R.I. Gen. Laws @ 11-53-1 (1995)

@ 11-53-1. Declaration of purpose

Tenn. Code Ann. @ 39-17-309 (1996)

constitution or laws of the state of Tennessee;

(3) Damages, destroys or defaces any real or personal property of
another

person with the intent to unlawfully intimidate another from the free
exercise

or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured by the constitution or
laws of

the state of Tennessee; or

(4) Damages, destroys or defaces any real or personal property of
another

person with the intent to unlawfully intimidate another because that
other

exercised any right or privilege secured by the constitution or laws
of the

United States or the constitution or laws of the state of Tennessee.

(c) It is an offense for a person to wear a mask or disguise with the
intent

to violate subsection (b).

(d) A violation of subsection (b) is a Class D felony. A violation of

subsection (c) is a Class A misdemeanor.

(e) The penalties provided in this section for intimidating others
from

exercising civil rights do not preclude victims from seeking any
other remedies,

criminal or civil, otherwise available under law.

Tenn. Code Ann. @ 39-17-309 (1996)

HISTORY: Acts 1989, ch. 591, @ 1; 1990, ch. 984, @ 1.

NOTES:

SENTENCING COMMISSION COMMENTS. This section protects the people in
their

exercise of the rights and privileges provided by the federal and
Tennessee

constitutions and laws.

CROSS-REFERENCES. Civil action for malicious harassment, title 4, ch.
21, part

7.

Penalty for Class A misdemeanor, @ 40-35-111.

Penalty for Class D felony, @ 40-35-111.

SECTION TO SECTION REFERENCES. This section is referred to in @
4-21-701.

- --

Now I may be just an "armchair lawyer", but I'm pretty sure that your
statements concerning the forceable ejections of either "Ostrich" or
"Foxwolfie Galen" are violations of the aforementioned statutes, as
well as any statutes that are on the books in Illinois (Where MFF was
held), Ohio (Mr. Woods home state), and Mr. Galen's home state.
Shall I venture into Federal law?

Also, this was written in 1996. I am sure that the states in
question AND the Federal Government have all made ammendments to
include such threats as those occurring on public forums, message
boards, newsgroups and private emails.

Mister Blumrich...your attitude and your statements will do FAR more
damage to us and our fandom than ANYTHING either Mr. Galen or Mr.
Woods could ever do. Not only are your statements inflammatory, they
are libelous and dangerous, and can also be regarded as encouragement
to incite riot(s) and/or worse.

As such, I do belive that Kenneth Galen (Foxwolfie) and Marshall
Woods (Ostrich) might actually be able to pursue legal action against
you for making such public threats.

You would have done all of us a MUCH GREATER SERVICE by simply
posting your Open Letter and leaving it at that. At any rate, I'm
certain Mr. Gurley will find the letter you posted to be QUITE
facinating and likewise, well worth a follow-up article.

I'm not telling you what to say or what NOT to say, Mister Blumrich.

I'm just giving you and the rest of this group a better idea of what
CAN happen from such statements being made in a public forum.

In otherwords, "Watch what you say, lest it come back to haunt you."

Good day.

- -John Antilety, aka Ionotter

(This email has been digitally signed for authentication purposes.)

(I'm an otter, and I love to fish. But if you wanna reply to me, ya
gotta chuck the fishbones outta my address!)

================O <==[IonOtter, LogOut]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use
<http://www.pgp.com>

iQA/AwUBOpYRdgixpTy2E3FKEQJ55gCg524gSvVGOA7GHpFI7BjsxALwv98AoIMf
55wN3xwcT01tSwm07VB5eB5c
=YW3n
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Atara

unread,
Feb 22, 2001, 8:54:33 AM2/22/01
to
dish...@aol.com (DishRoom1) wrote in
<20010222050318...@ng-cl1.aol.com>:

>There was no reason for Mr. Gurley to not interview the comic book
>publishers, artists like Terrie Smith and Joe Rasoles, furry writers
>and much more than some poor disgusting bug squisher.

The author DID interview those people, and chose to ignore their interviews in
favor of something a bit more juicy.

Kory Anders

unread,
Feb 22, 2001, 9:04:45 AM2/22/01
to
On Thu, 22 Feb 2001 01:41:42 -0800, Brian Henderson <cep...@ev1.net>
wrote:

He wasn't being asked about the fandom. The reporter is the one who
said the fandom was about plushiphilia. Galen said multiple times it
had nothing to do with the fandom.

Doodles

unread,
Feb 22, 2001, 10:46:40 AM2/22/01
to
Doug Winger wrote in message ...

>In article <972d7l$mgs$1...@raccoon.fur.com>, bct...@hotmail.com (Forrest)
>wrote:
>
>> I decline to participate in this fandom any longer as I feel it's
>> becoming too silly
>
> Good-O! Can I interest you in this high-powered rifle and >snowmobile,
then?

No, but can I trade you for this fine inflatable walrus. Comes with action
flippers!


boojum the brown bunny

unread,
Feb 22, 2001, 11:39:04 AM2/22/01
to
tab...@concentric.net (Duncan da Husky) wrote in
<Xns905040DB143...@209.125.35.22>:

boojum sighs softly. "No more so than Eric Blumrich. So you know, the
end about the mother rapers and father killers was a quote from an Arlo
Guthrie song, "Alice' Resteraunt""

"However his point is accurate. If one person attacks another person
at a con, dragging them out of the hotel.. then the constaff security AND
the police will be involved. Such behavior is not lawfull, at least not in
California." boojum adds, shaking his head sadly.

Leslie_R

unread,
Feb 22, 2001, 12:32:04 PM2/22/01
to
> Eric Blumrich wrote:
> And rest assured, if I ever meet any of those mentioned in this
> despicable article in person at a con, I will remove them, bodilly, > if necessary, from the convention

*remembers that Kagemushi was mentioned in said despicable article, and
pictures the reaction when Eric tries to forcibly eject 'Uncle Kage'
during story time*

-Leslie
--
"He's a God, it'll take more than one shot."
-Lady Eboshi, 'Princess Mononoke'

Timothy Fay

unread,
Feb 22, 2001, 3:47:08 PM2/22/01
to
If you had any honesty and integrity left in you, Eric, you'd send
the entire post, including your pathetic name-calling and threats
against other fans. Your message might not come across as well, but
it would certainly give the editors a clearer picture of your true
character.

As for those threats -- puh-lease! I've met you before and I doubt
if you could bodily remove an empty Doritos bag, let alone another
person. Also, given your past brushes with the Law, I don't think
it is wise to make threats like that. But feel free to try. Yes,
you would likely lose your membership, and it would make a strong
case for banning you from all other conventions. That would be
unfortunate, but at least we would be rid of you once and for all
(though I'm not betting on that).

"This is about justice, and about truth- and justice and truth are

the great works that define us as human." Fine words, but they
have little to do with anything you or your BF's have ever said or
done -- easily proven just by reading the venom you and Corndog
keep spitting at people in this newsgroup. If those were truly your
goals your membership would number in the thousands. Instead, you
keep losing people, once they wise up to and get fed up with your
offensive, hate-filled rhetoric.

I'd appreciate it if Vanity Fair wouldn't write bad things about
furry fans. I'd appreciate it if Galen and Ostrich would refrain
from granting any more interviews. But I'd *really* appreciate
it if you and Corny would crawl back under your respective rocks
for a while and give it a rest.

--

"Liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; socialism
without liberty is slavery and brutality." -- Michael Bakunin

Timothy Fay

unread,
Feb 22, 2001, 3:55:17 PM2/22/01
to
Felyne32k wrote:
>
> Well... I don't think I need to go write my raging letter anymore. Yours
> has the history to back it up (my being here only for the past 3-4 years,
> and as a net-and-mail-order sort of fur). All I have is a cursor dipped
> in acid, and that would probably have been ignored, and most of what I
> wanted to say you covered.

I've been around longer than Eric and most of what he wrote, while
not pure fabrication, is certainly reality colored by his prejudices.
Prejudices which are just as strong as Mr. Gurley's, but taken to
an almost polar extreme.

--
http://www.umn.edu/~fayxx001

"Hey, ho -- let's go!" -Ramones

no one in particular

unread,
Feb 22, 2001, 5:16:28 PM2/22/01
to
(snip)

> I call upon the fandom as a whole to isolate and expunge these
> revolting, cowardly polyps of cancerous deviation. I ask that they be
> barred from attending any conventions, and kicked routinely from any
online
> "furry" activity that they attempt to engage in. I respectfully ask that
> they be treated in a manner proportionate to the damage that they have
done
> to this fandom, so that they may learn the consequences of their actions.
> And rest assured, if I ever meet any of those mentioned in this
> despicable article in person at a con, I will remove them, bodilly, if
> necessary, from the convention- even if it means me losing my membership.
(snip)

I make a reference to doing a sight gag wherein I plan to wear an arctic
parka and other such gear and sit under heat lamps in the middle of a
fursuit contest to mock those who made idiot complaints about my wedding
causing them to sweat a little, and I get blasted in mailing lists and made
out to be a violent threat.
This SOB makes the above violent threat and gets taken seriously as a
member of this ensemble?
This is the greatest tragedy of current day furry. Overbearing schmucks
who threaten people, show absolute intolerance for anyone who defines the
area of interest differently from them, and take assinine offense at
irrellevant situations which in the end don't concern them. I guess some
people are going to go out of their way to find something to bitch about
forever. Maybe Eric and company need to contact Tipper Gore and start a
Parents Furry Resource Council and define everyone they don't like right out
of the fandom. Let's play furry survivor and exclude everyone whose
behaviour we don't like. Let's threaten to "remove them, bodily" even.
Am I the only one who thinks any furry cons which Eric attends should be
genuinely concerned about his threat? This was not hyperbole. Read it again
for yourself. Or is Eric some special personage who gets to make violent
threats with no reprocussions?
-Wayd Wolf
P.S.
If you all think the so-called real world cares one bit about you and
your interests, you have way too overblown an ego and need a reality check.
Get over yourselves. You're not that important and no one cares about you.
If you disappear tomorrow, they will find someone else to make fun of. Grow
up and stop taking yourselves so fucking seriously already. The biggest
losers in this fandom are the ones who spend more time grousing about other
furs than they do writing, drawing, reading comics, collecting things,
chatting, etc.

Smart Ass

unread,
Feb 22, 2001, 6:40:04 PM2/22/01
to
In article <974358$iqt$1...@raccoon.fur.com>, no one in particular
<wayd...@spamfree.hotmail.com> wrote:

> Am I the only one who thinks any furry cons which Eric attends should be
> genuinely concerned about his threat? This was not hyperbole. Read it again
> for yourself. Or is Eric some special personage who gets to make violent
> threats with no reprocussions?


The only thing a furry con has to be truly worried about is if Wayd
Wolf threatens to get married during a Fursuiting event again. As for
Blumrich, despite his hyperbole, at least he's contributed a great deal
more to furry fandom than Wayd Wolf has.

Xydexx Squeakypony, KSC

unread,
Feb 22, 2001, 6:52:15 PM2/22/01
to
Doodles said that Doug Winger said that Forrest said:
>>> I decline to participate in this fandom any longer as I feel it's
>>> becoming too silly
>>
>> Good-O! Can I interest you in this high-powered rifle and
>> >snowmobile, then?
>
>No, but can I trade you for this fine inflatable walrus. Comes with
>action flippers!

Does it quack?

--
_________________________________________________
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen / Xydexx Squeakypony, KSC
Wanna buy a walrus?
http://www.xydexx.com/anthrofurry

Xydexx Squeakypony, KSC

unread,
Feb 22, 2001, 7:01:55 PM2/22/01
to
Akai wrote:
>Xydexx Squeakypony, KSC wrote:
>> Of course it's not true.
>>
>> But if the Vanity Fair article upsets you so much because it gives the
>> wrong impression, then why do you support a group that has been going
>> around yelling "anthropomorphics fandom is being overrun by sexually
>> dysfunctional, socially stunted and creatively bankrupt hacks and
>> pervs..." as loud as possible?
>>
>> Just curious.
>
>Because he thinks it's true, perhaps?

You snipped the part where Eric said:
"This could not be farther from the true state of affairs..."

So, one minute he says it's true, and out of the other side of his mouth he
says it couldn't be farther from the truth?

Either way, Eric is blatantly contradicting himself.



--
_________________________________________________
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen / Xydexx Squeakypony, KSC

It's Bizarro-World Day on alt.fan.furry!
http://www.xydexx.com/anthrofurry

Xydexx Squeakypony, KSC

unread,
Feb 22, 2001, 7:09:14 PM2/22/01
to
sjluna wrote:
> Besides, I thought that's what Furry was all about. Going around
>in fursuits, hugging and scritching everyone, lusting after Gadget and
>Maid Marian and saying yiff all the time. At least I thought it was.
>That's what I always saw.

What we see largely depends on what we look for.


--
_________________________________________________
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen / Xydexx Squeakypony, KSC
Remember when furry fandom was about
anthropomorphic animals? It still is.

Don Sanders

unread,
Feb 22, 2001, 7:21:05 PM2/22/01
to
In article
<_22l6.16325$5M5.1...@news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com
>, qzarm...@home.com says...

> Why would he do something to purposely destroy or harm the fandom that
> he obviously loves? Not for attention. Most of the furs (including Galen)
> into kinks like to keep it private. The VF article writer told him his
> identity would be kept secret and his face not shown, so he didn't do it for
> attention.
>
> I had no idea people in the fandom had so much hate for other furs
> despite their fetishsim. Why? I'm not into all that stuff, but I like to
> think I am tolerant of people who would "give Furrydom a bad name" Excuse me
> for being blunt, but No one in the fandom would puposely do anything to
> cause its downfall, no matter how "screwed up" they may be.

This was something I have mentioned many times in
the past. Give it up Justin, 9 times out of 10,
folks here (online fandom, not outside the
internet) would not give you the time of day.
This is a lesson I have learned and is still
learning.

>
> Please know that I am not trying to be rude in any of my posts, it's
> just our views differ.......greatly.
>

--
Don Sanders.

Former RoadKill Fur
Email dsan...@future.dreamscape.com

Daniel Gill

unread,
Feb 22, 2001, 10:15:23 PM2/22/01
to

Okay, that is it, that is it, THAT IS IT!!!! I have officially HAD it! I have
read for the last two weeks or so about how horrible the fandom is and what
state we are in and if we would only clean up the unsavory parts then it would
all just magically go away and the world would love us. GUESS WHAT???? The
fandom, in it's 18+ year existence has *ALWAYS* had sex as a major core element.
I've got pictures from some of the higher level furry artists that were dated in
the mid to late 80s that are some of the spoogiest I've ever seen! I've been
involved off and on for about 10 years now, since late 91, and I quite vividly
remember flipping through the hardcore bondage and crap that was there at the
time. I remember having conversations with zoophiles. I remember seeing the
great costumes, and then hearing about the so-called 'deviant' behavior that
occured in said costumes. Did I care? NO! I still don't! Yes, I've seen people
being ripped away from the fandom. And what drives them away? The intolerance,
the bullshit, and the lies. Burned Furs, there's a very simple answer to how
you can 'clean up' the fandom. LEAVE! Start your own happy little niche among
the freaks, the cyberpunks, the trekkers, and the LARPs. Create your own cons
that deny whoever you want access. draw your pleasant G-rated art and just
enjoy it! Or grow a thick skin and deal with the reality that the furrydom has
many facets. And Blumrich, it's always pleasant for you to declare yourslef the
moral majority and say you're going to ruin someone else because you don't agree
with them. Hell, I don't agree with democrats, but that doesn't mean I'm going
to destroy them. This kind of attitude is what started one of the biggest mass
extermination of an ethnic race in history, mixed with some of the most heinous
'medical' experiments that these supposedly 'moral' people could come up with.
On the Vanity Fair article: So one guy decidd we were freaks. He had his
tunnel vision. I've also seen and heard some very positive reports on such
highly touted news sources as NPR. Yeah, we're not in the cultural mainstream.
So what? If being int he mainstream means I have to watch football and only
enjoy the proper 'culturally prescribed' entertainment that is out there, such
as the majority of hollywood films and the crappy sitcoms that are on, count me
out. I watch Hong kong action films. I read Shakespeare. I enjoy Professional
wrestling. I collect toys. I dig up 'art house' films when I can, like "The
Cradle will Rock" (a great movie about censorship in it's own right, btw), and
goddammit, I'm a furry! I don't want a tail coming out of my ass or to have a
pelt, but if someone else wants to think they are a tiger trapped in a humans
body, so be it! I pick on them good-naturedly from time to time, but I still
will defend their right to have their beliefs. I'm not a christian, but does
this mean that all catholics are wrong? NO! They just have different ideas! I
*RESPECT* that. If they try to convert me in a civilized manner, I politely
brush them off. If they attack me cruelly, I will retrun it in kind.
I suppose the point of this mad rambling is best stated in the first tenet
of the wiccan religion (No, I don't subscribe to that either): Do what thou
wilt, but harm none. If the very existence of the so-called 'fringe' elements
of the furry fandom are offensive to you, then deal with it. Go somewhere else.
Take your friends. Enjoy life. Stop spending so much time venting your
spleen. At the rate you're going, Blumrich, you're going to end up with a brain
aneurysm by the time you're thirty-five.

Peace, I'm out of here.

Daniel Gill

Dr. Samuel Conway

unread,
Feb 22, 2001, 7:30:24 PM2/22/01
to
eblumrich wrote:

> And rest assured, if I ever meet any of those mentioned in this
> despicable article in person at a con, I will remove them, bodilly, if
> necessary, from the convention- even if it means me losing my > membership.

Or being precluded from attending the convention in the first place?

But I am certain that Mr. Blumrich, an intelligent and talented orator,
meant the above passage in the purely metaphorical sense. Surely he
realizes that Anthrocon, like most respectable organizations, takes
very seriously statements that, if interpreted in certain fashions, might
indicate a possible threat to the smooth and peaceful operation of the
convention.

Mr. Blumrich, perhaps we should have a quiet word together, you and I.

Samuel Conway, Ph.D. ("Uncle Kage")
Chairman, Anthrocon Inc.
http://www.anthrocon.org

ilr

unread,
Feb 22, 2001, 8:22:31 PM2/22/01
to

Dr. Samuel Conway <flog...@you-know-the-drill.bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
news:3A95AF20...@you-know-the-drill.bellatlantic.net...

Sarenthalanos

unread,
Feb 22, 2001, 9:20:54 PM2/22/01
to
While holding to some relevence in the first part, the second was so full of
undisguised hatred, it's quite saddening and throws a pathetic, vitriolic
light upon the whole piece. I might even begin to take it seriously if
there was any GOOD coming from those who constantly find it keen to spew
such hatred (the people who make the mistakes, they pay for it eventually,
and according to others - not all of us would like to join your
Inquisition). You constantly kvetch about everything, and then when
something does show you in a bad light (if at all), you use that as a
furthered excuse to brow-beat. Personally, I've seen far more good things
that fur in general has done upon an independent basis than I've ever seen
from a group (or person) who claims about 'reforming' the fandom. All we
have to see here is hateful denunciations, spiteful threats. Nothing
productive, good, etc. unless I missed it. Otherwise it's a nice, usual,
tirade of hatred that we have witness to here, yet again.

To use his new nick, Corndog, with his flamethrower on full in his wish to
blame someone as well, just serves to further paint your image in a
remarkable and unsurprising shade of 'shit brown'. I think it would be safe
to say that before you try to clean up the fandom's image, you'd better
consider making sure yours doesn't resemble offal in the first place.

As for your exemplorary behavour at the cons, a movie quote comes to mind.
"I's can play house nigger until we get where we're going. Then the day of
the dog begins." Fact is, we've heard these kind of threats, prevalent or
implied. It either points to one of two things. Cowardice to back your
threats, or a walking time bomb of hate waiting to go off. As such, it
would indeed be advisable to bar you from any con as preventive measures due
to your own admissions. Then you could play martyr, but I think too many
people have saved this little gem of yours for posterity, so you'd only be
pulling the wool over the eyes of those who are uninformed or have not seen
it in action.

If you had clue one in that noggin of yours, you'd understand that
journalism is all about sensationalism. Particularly if it was yuppie trash
like VF. That's their whole purpose, is to belittle and mock, to 'segregate
and classify what is different'. That why when your own voice is the
loudest and most hateful, you are classifying yourself and the rest of the
Burned Furs as a hate group. Then whine about how everyone's saying you're
a hate group, and you say that you're just trying to 'clean up the fandom'
(sic). From this, it's obvious how you'd like to 'clean up the fandom'.
Another saying from the South you might recognize, "The proof's in the
puddin'." or a cornier one I heard near N'Awlins, "It's in the grits.". And
you've just served up yourself some really tasty pudding, here. You don't
want to be taken as a hate group, try not to be so obviously hateful
(amazing concept, isn't it?). Why I bring this topic up is because you are
a founder, domain owner, and essentially one that should be taken as a
mouthpiece. For all those who were in doubt to the validity of claims that
the BFs are a hate group, the proof's in the pudding.

Or one that the journalists would be keen to grab, "Methinks thou protest
too much." You constantly refute something and say that you aren't
something from anything deviant from your own vanilla desires, then when
they see the slightest hint from looking around, they will think you're
trying to cover it up or something. Or they will dig in deeper through
other sources (most likely). When they find something that resembles what
you were trying to dissassociate from, then they will immediately jump in on
it and that will now become their focus. So now that you've gone right back
to them and made protests, do you actually think that they are going to take
you seriously? If you did, I'd have to say that you're naive. Journalism
is all about sensationalism, in case you forgot. Particularly with Americal
journalism.

Congrats for shooting your own foot. You're about as counterproductive as
Stuka.

Sure, let's assault others, as you have written an intent to assault here,
and then justify it with "They were hurting my image." See you in a few
years if you ever do carry out this threat, and say hello to Bubba, your new
boyfriend. I mean, cellmate. Who knows, by and large, he just might be bi
and large. ;)

Other than that, good day, Mr. Torquemada.

"eblumrich" <eblu...@invisionaries.com> wrote in message
news:9723aq$k3l$1...@velox.critter.net...
> Now, as an aside, just for you newsgroup readers, and as an appeal to the


> fandom as a whole:
>
> I have been informed that some of the people who, in the southern
> vernacular, "showed their asses" in this article, were not only happy that
> this slanted view was being presented, they took PRIDE in the damage they
> had commited upon myself, and the rest of the fandom.

> It's apparent that no one has told you, Mr. "Ostritch" and "Galen"
> (what are your real freaking names, BTW- goddamn cowards that have to hide
> behind cute speudonyms should stay in the dark, unlit basements that
spawned

> them) You should be ashamed. You should seek professional treatment for


> your obvious mental disabilities. You obviously didn't have your butts
> kicked enough in school, and require what we in Tennessee called an
> "attitude adjustment."

> More to the point, if you have a moment:
> You should be stripped naked, placed in chains and shackles, and be
> subjected to the hostile depredations of America's most perverse and
violent
> sex offenders, so that you may experience the fruit of your behavior. The
> resulting spectacle should be aired on a special pay-per view event, which
> your parents and families should be forced, at gunpoint, to watch from
start
> to finish.
> Upon completion, if you survive, you should be hung publicly in Times
> Square, with great weights attatched to the remnants of your genetalia.
> Whatever remains after five days should be cut down and fed to dogs.
>

> I call upon the fandom as a whole to isolate and expunge these
> revolting, cowardly polyps of cancerous deviation. I ask that they be
> barred from attending any conventions, and kicked routinely from any
online
> "furry" activity that they attempt to engage in. I respectfully ask that
> they be treated in a manner proportionate to the damage that they have
done
> to this fandom, so that they may learn the consequences of their actions.

> And rest assured, if I ever meet any of those mentioned in this
> despicable article in person at a con, I will remove them, bodilly, if
> necessary, from the convention- even if it means me losing my membership.

> I refuse to take the attitude that this sort of behavior should be
> "tolerated." Tolerance, in today's politically correct parlance, has
become
> nothing more than tyranny with a smiling face.

> We were meant to be better than this. We cannot continue to accept
the
> further degradation of our fandom, and our society as a whole. We must
draw
> the line, somewhere, or we are literally lost- condemned to follow
whatever
> breezes of whim touch us. To say that we are in no position to judge, to


> say that it is wrong to take a stand, is to live on your knees.

> This is, in many ways, larger than the fandom. It's about our own
> sense of our own significance, or own resolve, our own determination.
It's
> about our future as a people- once called "posterity." It's about whether
> we will be able to look forward, to those who are yet to come, so that
they
> might look back at us with kindness and praise, instead of cursing us for
> our apathy, or our narcissism, or our lack of ability to stand tall for
what
> is right.

> This is about justice, and about truth- and justice and truth are the
> great works that define us as human.
>

> -kan pei!

Sarenthalanos

unread,
Feb 22, 2001, 10:11:47 PM2/22/01
to

"eblumrich" <eblu...@invisionaries.com> wrote in message
news:9723aq$k3l$1...@velox.critter.net...
(snip)


By the way...

Should we forward the second part of your post to the editors of VF to show
what spiteful hate-mongers we also have in the fandom?

Fair's fair.


Sarenthalanos

unread,
Feb 22, 2001, 11:02:11 PM2/22/01
to

"Felyne32k" <Fely...@softhome.net> wrote in message
> I don't know about this point. I'll agree that Mr. Blumrich is leaning
> towards frothing-at-the-mouth here, and I'll agree that this image is
> probably not best for furrydom. However, he is not (last time I checked)
> giving interviews or ranting to the population at large.
> A raving maniac, loud and easily recognized, is far less dangerous than a
> calm, collected one who people accept as sane. Remember that Jeffery
> Dahmer was a perfectly normal-seeming (although a bit quiet) individual.
> And then remember what he did.

Somewhat true. I've had to deal with a few on both ends of the nutcase
spectrum. Ranting and raving is indeed something to be wary of, though the
only precaution is that you don't get blindsided as you would be when
someone calm and collected snaps. Quiet ones tend to be a bit more brutal
and, forgive me for the crass adjective, creative in their methods. The
loud ones are those that would go in all barrels blazing.

In my experiences in and out of the military and working security at various
places, when someone does become this...shall we say, rabid, even not in a
present situation can they be a danger.

One of the clerks on base had someone do about the same thing because she
accidentally said the wrong thing. Apologized for it, but nontheless, the
fellow did decide to spew pure seething hatred towards her. Patrol guards
picked this fellow up as he was trying to cross one of the fences, armed
with two pistols and a switchblade. I found out that a tazer is a nice
addition to sentry duty then to subdue, since I was of the school of "shoot
them in the leg" to hinder them.

Interesting point here, is that he decided to do it about six months after
the initial outburst of his, and he had grown quiet for a while. Along the
same lines, a real quiet fellow that we had at one base I was at decided to
pull a switchblade on someone else.

Silently, a friend of mine gets his page listed as kiddy porn due to an
argument at a tech support column. We're working on that one right now, but
it was un-announced. Thing I'm trying to say is, you just don't know about
crazy people. They may seem rational one moment, then snap the next. They
may be cesspools of hate for years until they finally snap. It's a problem
with human nature, and that is the uncertain variable here. Ambiguity is
the epitome of the insane.

What we DO have here is a self-admission of intent to assault that is
accompanied by self-gratifying psychotic imagery. That in itself is enough
for most rational people to be a bit leery, and I do suggest that steps are
taken by con officals of all cons to prevent the possibility from happening.


Farlo

unread,
Feb 22, 2001, 11:04:58 PM2/22/01
to
Felyne32k wrote:

>-Felyne32k
>-who seems to have slipped just a little bit off topic.

Wow. Well, looks like you might have a teensy bias, ya know?

--

Farlo
Urban fey dragon

m>^_^<m

Don Sanders

unread,
Feb 22, 2001, 11:09:34 PM2/22/01
to
In article
<MPG.14ff7da28...@news.fur.com>,
Fely...@softhome.net says...
*** interesting summary snipped and saved. ***

Thanks.

Doodles

unread,
Feb 23, 2001, 12:08:06 AM2/23/01
to
FoxWolfie Galen wrote in message ...

>PS. Is there a copy of the Deviant Desires book online that someone >can
point me too. I'd like to see anything else they might have written >under
my name. If there is much more, I may have to take some legal >action.

http://www.deviantdesires.com/

A most amusing website. One fellow likes to pour baked beans all over
himself...


Hangdog

unread,
Feb 23, 2001, 12:10:19 AM2/23/01
to
"Dr. Samuel Conway" wrote:

Sam, your problem is that you think you have something everybody wants.

And even when someone doesn't want it anymore (or never wanted it in the first
place) you still behave as if they did, and as if you could control them
thereby. You don't seem to know any other way of dealing with people.

As I said, you run a good show, and probably a neat and sparkly lab as well, but
outside the confines of your own influence you are a risible little man.

Cheers!

--Hangdog


ilr

unread,
Feb 23, 2001, 1:59:46 AM2/23/01
to
NT


ilr

unread,
Feb 23, 2001, 2:05:22 AM2/23/01
to
>;)

<NT>


M. Mitchell Marmel

unread,
Feb 23, 2001, 2:27:59 AM2/23/01
to

ilr wrote:

> >;)

And I had the bell tower reserved and everything. Phooey.

;)

-MMM-


Bruce

unread,
Feb 23, 2001, 2:40:58 AM2/23/01
to

"M. Mitchell Marmel" <marm...@drexel.edu>
wrote in message news:3A9610FF...@drexel.edu...
>
>
> "ilr" <i...@rof.net> wrote in message
> news:97521o$96k$1...@raccoon.fur.com...
> >
> >
> > "Felyne32k" wrote in message
> > news:MPG.14ff7daf3...@news.fur.com...

> > > A raving maniac, loud and easily recognized, is far less dangerous
> > > than a calm, collected one who people accept as sane. Remember
> > > that Jeffery Dahmer was a perfectly normal-seeming (although a bit
quiet)
> > > individual. And then remember what he did.
> >
> >
> > You heard him Marmel, The jig is up!.

> >
>
>
> And I had the bell tower reserved and everything. Phooey.
>
> -MMM-


Hahahahahahahaha. Oooookaaaay!

Just means we will have to keep an eye peeled for you MMM whenever you are
around; and maintain a safe distance from the ketchup bottle. :)

Michael Campbell

unread,
Feb 23, 2001, 2:52:02 AM2/23/01
to

FoxWolfie Galen wrote:

> On Thu, 22 Feb 2001 21:08:06 -0800, "Doodles"
> <dood...@cheesies.pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > http://www.deviantdesires.com/
> >
> > A most amusing website. One fellow likes to pour baked beans all over
> > himself...
>

> Thank you. I'll take a look. I really need to find out what they say I said
> and why they chose to do it without my consent.

Galen, they said you said it because 'journalistic credibility' was a foreign
concept to this schmuck. These days I seriously regret reporting to the con
comitte when I saw this guy sitting outside the hotel restaurant on saturday
morning, asking two fans important questions like "Just what exactly IS
spooge?" and "How do you correctly spell the word 'yiffy'?"

Kiala Dreamstalker

unread,
Feb 23, 2001, 3:11:59 AM2/23/01
to
Sarenthalanos wrote:
> What we DO have here is a self-admission of intent to assault that is
> accompanied by self-gratifying psychotic imagery. That in itself is enough
> for most rational people to be a bit leery, and I do suggest that steps are
> taken by con officals of all cons to prevent the possibility from happening.

*notes Kage's post* It appears that the good Doctor has taken your
advice to heart..

My personal opinion on the matter.. I'm an artist..well.. Okay so I'm
still learning ;> I like artwork a lot.. Adult artwork, general
artwork.. if it shows artistic talent I usually like it.. I like music
as well.. I've noticed that several artists (Al Mackey, Skant, etc.)
have taken up a more audible form of artwork.. and from what I've heard
they're good at it too..

But at the same time I also go to cons for the social aspect.. Placing a
face with the characters you see on the screen for years is always a
plus.. Meeting new people at cons is good too.. The thought that you can
go up to (most) any furry and talk with them, scritch, and generally be
sociable.. Try that in a mundane meeting place? They all stand away from
eachother, desperately trying not to touch, not to express and never
smiling..

There's this crazy bum outside my office building in downtown Seattle.
He yells at people, waving at them, chasing them sometimes.. I realized
once I listened.. he's greeting people, he's being sociable and
complimenting their clothing, hair or general appearance.. I stopped to
talk with him, and he's actually very friendly.

It made me realize something.. There's more than just the artwork and
the social aspect for me to go to cons.. Or to associate with furry at
all, and that's the fact that deep down I have those nasty dark tastes
that have been bottled in by 21 years on this ball of dirt.. I realized
that I will never be normal.. I will never fit in at the family
reunions.. I will always be the black sheep because deep down, I enjoy
the kinkier side of life.. And it's not because it's something other
people aren't doing.. I genuinely enjoy myself.. And finding people
within the fandom that have the same tastes as me is hard enough, let
alone trying to find it in mundane circles..

I tried looking up rubberist circles, shops, anything in the Seattle
area.. All I found was one dead mailing list on E-Groups (which
restarted for a brief while when I posted to it) So what? out of a good
million people (heh, I live here and don't know the population ;>) there
are two people who like rubber? When adding the furry community to the
mix that number goes up rather nicely..

Anyway.. I'm rambling at this point =P

As to the thoughts of banning anyone who has weird kinks and other such
from cons? I say bring it on. Try and keep us out.. and if you succeed,
see what's left of your fandom? I agree that there are items that
should..well be kept to hotel rooms and not wandering the halls, but
honestly.. if you ban every person who has any sort of kink other than
JUST going to the cons for artwork, you're going to run thin on
attendees..

So for now I will keep my beliefs.. I will continue to call myself a
furry.. I will respect the constaff and keep my fetishes to my room and
out of the eyes of the media.. And I will definately continue to attend
and enjoy cons.. and I'll leave when and only when the constaff asks me
to leave ;>

Dream well all.. Be yourselves, whatever that may be..

-Kiala

=====-===-==-=--=-----.---.--.-..-..... ... .. . . . |
|.#.#.###.|Kiala Raven Dreamstalker |"For centuries, we were|
|.#.#..#..|ki...@lycanthrope.net | the watchers. Now we |
|.##...#..|www.dreamchaos.org |awake -- and your world|
|.#.#..#..|Artist, Mage, Theri |can never go back." |
|.#.#.###.| ICQ: 17611893 | IRC: Kiala | -Dennis Redwing |
|------------------- Member of FurBuy.com ---------------------|
| . . . .. ... .....-..-.--.---.-----=--=-==-===-=====

Hayley Wesson

unread,
Feb 23, 2001, 4:14:18 AM2/23/01
to
ilr wrote:

>NT

No no no. OS/2.

Sarenthalanos

unread,
Feb 23, 2001, 4:30:03 AM2/23/01
to

"Kiala Dreamstalker" <ki...@lycanthrope.net> wrote in message
news:3A961B4F...@lycanthrope.net...

> *notes Kage's post* It appears that the good Doctor has taken your
> advice to heart..

I can't claim influence over his decision, though I must note with
that...rather distressing imagery exhibited by Blumrich, that it would be a
matter of common sense for the safety and protection of congoers. There's
many factors involved that pose a risk, namely mistaken identity or unknown
limits as to where Blumrich would stoop to. It's hard to discern the limits
of irrationality.

(snip, but still good)

> As to the thoughts of banning anyone who has weird kinks and other such
> from cons? I say bring it on. Try and keep us out.. and if you succeed,
> see what's left of your fandom? I agree that there are items that
> should..well be kept to hotel rooms and not wandering the halls, but
> honestly.. if you ban every person who has any sort of kink other than
> JUST going to the cons for artwork, you're going to run thin on
> attendees..

Agreed. I feel that the fetishes and kinks should be kept to the closet, so
to speak. I wear a collar, but it's mostly because of my look. Otherwise,
as far as BDSM, it's in private. Now, what is really remarkable is the
self-defeatist actions that some do, by digging through everyone's closet
and then shouting at the top of their lungs. Some just don't quite get it
that if you refute something loudly, then it would be a big red light that
blinks on in the 'investogator's' mind. I particularly like how Blumrich
left the fandom wide open for a follow-up article. I didn't read all of the
article, but I didn't see much mention of the internet. Now with Eric
talking about even MORE juicy material for that journalist to twist
around....I'll continue my notoriously bad habit by assuming people can
figure the logical conclusion of that.

> So for now I will keep my beliefs.. I will continue to call myself a
> furry.. I will respect the constaff and keep my fetishes to my room and
> out of the eyes of the media.. And I will definately continue to attend
> and enjoy cons.. and I'll leave when and only when the constaff asks me
> to leave ;>

That's all any of us can expect of ourselves and each other. When it
becomes a witch-hunt is where the line does get crossed. Albeit a bit
naive, someone did have a point that seething hatred is prevalent here by
some individuals. It doesn't help their vanity any by the crass displays of
juvenile asininity that they are performing. To quote a British Naval
Officer Review: "Officer in question has hit rock bottom and is now starting
to dig." To sum it up, I doubt anything short of a physical attack would be
suprising at this point. I just hope it doesn't go that far, but who knows
with some people?

It's also funny that those who cry about the fandom's image really don't do
much besides drag up dirt time and time again, like some sick talk-show
host. I guess it goes by the rather naive modus of thinking that "If I can
make others look bad, I will make myself look good." It didn't work for
many of history's ill-fated despots, and they had more influence than many
people here.

I suppose it just comes down to keep yourself in line, and show yourself to
be a good person. Two wrongs don't make a right, yadda, yadda, (insert
cliche here), it's had no effect in the past when explained, and I doubt it
will now. And that's the key thing, keeping yourself in line. Unless you
subscribe to slavery, you can't really control someone else's life. Don't
like how something is done or looked upon, do something good for it, not
witch-hunt.
--
-Sar

===========================
(Begin parody clip)
In The Flesh -Pink Floyd
So ya thought ya might like to go to the show.
To feel the warm thrill of confusion, that space cadet glow.
I got me some bad news for you, Sunshine.
Pink isn't well, he stayed back at the hotel,
And he sent us along as a surrogate band.
We're gonna find out where you fans really stand.
Are there any queers in the theatre tonight?
Get 'em up against the wall. -- 'Gainst the wall!
And that one in the spotlight, he don't look right to me.
Get him up against the wall. -- 'Gainst the wall!
And that one looks Jewish, and that one's a coon.
Who let all this riffraff into the room?
There's one smoking a joint, and another with spots!
If I had my way I'd have all of ya shot.


Alan Kennedy

unread,
Feb 23, 2001, 7:02:33 AM2/23/01
to
Dude.. take some damn valum.

You had a GREAT reply to Vanity Fair, then you had to go and get all
convoluded with your delusions of grandure. Whatever your reason is, its
apparently YOU are the one with chemical imbalances here.

Regardless, get off of your high horse, and being a moralistic ass isn't
gonna solve anything. As with YOU, Charla, and all the other artists and
contributors who have spent umpteen years in furry:

WHY THE FUCK DIDN"T YOU LEAVE?

Plain and simple Eric, if you didn't like what you saw, why didn't you go
elsewhere and use your talents? You are a great artists, yet, you chose to
stick around this cesspool? I"m gonna wager to say that you have not stuck
around for you friends, as I've only heard like 4 people in my entire 5
yeras in furry that even know you, let alone even like you.

Whatever your misguided reasons are, its YOUR fault, no one elses for
sticking around. Suck it up, and deal. I'm not giving credit to FoxWolfie
or Ostrich, I'm saying if you are going to bitch about furry and what its
become, onyl because you've stayed, then your a hypocrite in the deepest
sense.

Shut up, or leave. Its a tarnished and shitstained fandom, and none of your
loudmouth assenine words are gonna make anyone think differntly of you. You
are, and always be a loud mouth over achieving snobbish brat who wants it
ALL his way, like the son of some rich oil tycoon whining when it rains on
him or something.

Go away, start your own little clique~ for all you and your disgusted
friends, and don't bother with 'furry' as a whole.

Fuck, get a life, or stop critizing and threatening others, you fucktard.

People wonder why I ENJOY portal of evil when there are people liek Eric for
them to torment.

--
Alan Kennedy [TriGem Olandarinse]

EMAIL : tri...@portalofevil.com_REMOVEGIBBERISH
YAHOO : goldanthrowolf & trigem_olandarinse
WWW : http://www.furnation.com/trigem
ICQ : 8781052

Alan Kennedy

unread,
Feb 23, 2001, 7:06:16 AM2/23/01
to
Forrest <bct...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:972d7l$mgs$1...@raccoon.fur.com...


> I decline to participate in this fandom any longer as I feel it's
> becoming too silly

Silly? Shit, its totally moronic in its most purest form.

I mean, I just wanna see how many people at the next con go for each other
throats and all this, as I can't wait to see how many people Kagemushi's
gotta send off to the slammer at anthrocon, or how many people wind up
shredding up reporters.

LOL, I just hope I get some pictures to laugh my as off over.

Alan Kennedy

unread,
Feb 23, 2001, 7:10:06 AM2/23/01
to
Duncan da Husky <tab...@concentric.net> wrote in message

> ...and you will be summarily arrested and sent to jail for assualt and
> battery. And if you think those plushophiles are bad, just wait 'til you
cozy
> up to the mother rapers and the father killers.
>
> Good gods, man, you have truly lost all sense of proportion.
>
> -Duncan da Husky

Heh.. apparently from my BF and several others, he was so drunk at Anthrocon
2000 ( I think it was) that he was hitting on Silfur or somethign. Hehe..
Boy.. the times when you wish you had a Poloroid camera ;)

Still, from what I've heard from like the 3 people in all of fandom that
actually give two shits about Eric, they all say taht he's never been quite
right in the head to begin with.

Alan Kennedy

unread,
Feb 23, 2001, 7:14:30 AM2/23/01