Portal of Evil and Furry Fandom
*Paragon*
several furry sites lately. This came to my attention when a couple of
respectable furry sites got listed. For those who don't know, Portal of
Evil lists sites that are "sick, twisted, gross, bizarre, funny, odd or
just plain unexplainable." They have forums where one can "criticize"
the various sites listed, though it's once in a blue moon that you'll
find true criticisms there, if any--it's mostly nonsensical ridicule.
Not surprisingly, a certain furry group got listed today, and a certain
individual whom we all know and love (well, maybe not the latter) has
been posting there too.
Just be aware of this in case your site gets listed there. The site
certainly doesn't help the PR of the fandom (assuming this fandom has
any PR to speak of). It just goes to show we have a long way to making
this fandom the least bit respectable to the general public.
--
*Paragon*, The Unidragryphoenix
Fortune go with you, wherever your journeys take you!
Rust
>
> This infamous site (at http://www.portalofevil.com) has been listing
> several furry sites lately.
Yes yes, we bitched over POE a few months ago already. It's still the
lame posing over an online magazine that gets its hits by insulting
fringe groups.
-Rust
--
We are the instruments of creation - what we dream, is.
Remove ".netspam" from my address to reply
Jim Doolittle
<kark...@mailcity.com> wrote:
> Just be aware of this in case your site gets listed there. The site
> certainly doesn't help the PR of the fandom (assuming this fandom has
> any PR to speak of). It just goes to show we have a long way to making
> this fandom the least bit respectable to the general public.
If you consider the Portal of Evil website to be representative of the
general public you should think again.
-Jim
--
Jim Doolittle CornWuff Press
dool...@tbcnet.com http://www.cornwuff.com
Art Show Director, Midwest FurFest
http://www.furfest.org
Bahumat
they're gonna get around to spanking you eventually, might as well just
take it with a good grace. Nothing they like better than for their
victims to get uppity afterwards.
Bahumat
*Paragon* wrote:
>
> This infamous site (at http://www.portalofevil.com) has been listing
> several furry sites lately. This came to my attention when a couple of
> respectable furry sites got listed. For those who don't know, Portal of
> Evil lists sites that are "sick, twisted, gross, bizarre, funny, odd or
> just plain unexplainable." They have forums where one can "criticize"
> the various sites listed, though it's once in a blue moon that you'll
> find true criticisms there, if any--it's mostly nonsensical ridicule.
>
> Not surprisingly, a certain furry group got listed today, and a certain
> individual whom we all know and love (well, maybe not the latter) has
> been posting there too.
>
> Just be aware of this in case your site gets listed there. The site
> certainly doesn't help the PR of the fandom (assuming this fandom has
> any PR to speak of). It just goes to show we have a long way to making
> this fandom the least bit respectable to the general public.
>
gbres...@my-deja.com
Jim Doolittle <dool...@tbcnet.com> wrote:
> If you consider the Portal of Evil website to be representative of
> the
> general public you should think again.
Similarly, using Portal of Evil as "proof" of just about anything is
like depending on quotes from the "guests" on Jerry Springer.
--
--Gene
"Everybody wants to be a cat, 'cause a cat's the only cat who knows
where it's at."
--O'Malley the alley cat, The Aristocats.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Steve Carter
> Similarly, using Portal of Evil as "proof" of just about anything is
> like depending on quotes from the "guests" on Jerry Springer.
Which brings us back to the traditional idea that men (and women) are brave
so long as the enemy is nowhere in sight.
Doug Winger
<mimi...@home.com*SPAM-ME-AND-DIE!!!!*> wrote:
> You know, i really want to know why we all really care what these people
> think about us at all. So they hate us, for some reason or another. I
> say "Good for you...and the feeling is mutual", why? Well, it's the kind
> of person i am, and two, because if you are ever start to hate
> something, it's often because you don't understand what it is truly
> about, and too stupid to try and find out. Of course, this is my
> opinion, I don't care if you hate me for what i do, what i say, or what
> i think, but don't hate me because i am part of a group. That's were
> things like the KKK start from, and like i said before in another post,
> i don't want to get started on them...so i'll stop now.
Check the site out a little more carefully, and _read_ those comments.
The site itself isn't merely a freak show, where the customers jeer and
laugh at the unnatural denizens. That's part of it, but the main point is to
point out the odd, the weird, the bizarre and the outre. Many of the sites
listed there are not at all "evil"- just not your run-of-the-mill series of
web pages.
The last time I checked, one of the sites in the top list was a history of
the infamous Nazi Concentration Camp doctors and their treatment of people
during human testing. Another recent entry concerns the "Flesh Eating
Bacteria" that's made the news a few times. I'd hardly call that "evil".
I had the honor of being one of the top ten for a while, and noted
something: the ones that were outright negative in the comments section and
acting angry and very upset over things seemed to show a great deal of
familiarity with Furry fandom. I have the sneaking suspicion that those
writers were members in good standing (aside from their protests to the
negative), as they were the only ones that seemed upset. The balance- aside
from one seemingly regular poster there, whose comment was simply; "There is
no God"- sorta shrugged in text fashion and wondered what all the fuss was
about? About the only thing of any seriousness I read there was the concerns
about why did I put so much effort into it, and a slightly sneered comment
concerning my reserving commercial rights. Little do they know...
While I haven't bothered reading the flow of text in comments there
concerning the new Latest and the Greatest, I'm sure that you'll find that the
ones making the most fuss are the card-carrying members of the fandom
screaming about how right they were all along (either way), and bemoaning how
they knew all along that Those Evil People were going to ruin things...
The moral to this all? Most folks don't really care all that much; certainly
not enough to spare the energy actively hating Furry. It seems the only ones
that actually work up enough bile to do so are already on the campgrounds.
That's something I've seen for many years, and have seen little to change my
opinion on that. Keep that in mind when you're tempted to bemoan your fate at
being hated by everyone.
- Doug
-"Sure! A propaganda is a boid that knowsa how to dressa nice!"- Chico Marx
MiMiC
think about us at all. So they hate us, for some reason or another. I
say "Good for you...and the feeling is mutual", why? Well, it's the kind
of person i am, and two, because if you are ever start to hate
something, it's often because you don't understand what it is truly
about, and too stupid to try and find out. Of course, this is my
opinion, I don't care if you hate me for what i do, what i say, or what
i think, but don't hate me because i am part of a group. That's were
things like the KKK start from, and like i said before in another post,
i don't want to get started on them...so i'll stop now.
--
+===================ICQ : 65079305===================+
+====================================================+
+===="...a bond will never be fully forgotten, a ====+
+==friendship will always bring hope, a friend will==+
+=====live eternal, and love will forever be..."=====+
+=====================-MiMiC_x9-=====================+
+====================================================+
+= FFSc3am A-- C- D+ H++ M+ P R++ T+++ W>$ Z+ Sm+++ =+
+=== RLU a- cn++++ d++ e- f-- h* iw++ j--- p* sm# ===+
+====================================================+
+========-Looks Fade...But Stupid is Forever-========+
+====================================================+
+====================================================+
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
[...] For those who don't know, Portal of
>Evil lists sites that are "sick, twisted, gross, bizarre, funny, odd or
>just plain unexplainable." They have forums where one can "criticize"
>the various sites listed, though it's once in a blue moon that you'll
>find true criticisms there, if any--it's mostly nonsensical ridicule.
There standards are quite lax, even my spelling page gets listed there.
--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
http://dformosa.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.
Keep Dejanews alive please sign the Petition below
http://www.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/
*Paragon*
> In article <39E3D47A...@mailcity.com>, *Paragon*
> <kark...@mailcity.com> wrote:
>
> > Just be aware of this in case your site gets listed there. The site
> > certainly doesn't help the PR of the fandom (assuming this fandom has
> > any PR to speak of). It just goes to show we have a long way to making
> > this fandom the least bit respectable to the general public.
>
> If you consider the Portal of Evil website to be representative of the
> general public you should think again.
>
> -Jim
>
> --
> Jim Doolittle CornWuff Press
> dool...@tbcnet.com http://www.cornwuff.com
> Art Show Director, Midwest FurFest
> http://www.furfest.org
No, I wouldn't think that. But they could be considered a very very small
demographic of the "hateful non-furries" out there. Then how much of an
improvement would "polite non-furries" view this fandom?
And its not just POE. Why is it only the tabloid media that is interested in
doing a scathing review of this genre? Why no well respected media doing
one? And of course, the one place the "general public" would get their
impression of this fandom are from sites like POE. That is what we should
fear.
Richard de Wylfin
<kark...@mailcity.com> wrote:
> No, I wouldn't think that. But they could be considered a very very small
> demographic of the "hateful non-furries" out there. Then how much of an
> improvement would "polite non-furries" view this fandom?
>
> And its not just POE. Why is it only the tabloid media that is interested in
> doing a scathing review of this genre? Why no well respected media doing
> one?
Remember when BBC Radio and NPR did their stories? Their treatments were far
from scathing. The San Francisco Bay Guardian story was pretty good.
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
1871 signatures and counting!
MiMiC
> And its not just POE. Why is it only the tabloid media that is interested in
> doing a scathing review of this genre? Why no well respected media doing
> one? And of course, the one place the "general public" would get their
> impression of this fandom are from sites like POE. That is what we should
> fear.
>
Good point. Perhaps we need to set up a web-site of our own that is made
specifically for people who are non-furries, so that we can express the
main parts of our believes, who we are, what we do, and set up some
examples of some forms of furry art, both literature and drawing. This,
if nothing else will give potential furs a place to go to learn some of
the good things that we do and stand for, instead of having to go to
sites like "burned furs" or "portal of evil" to hear many of the bad and
ugly things that some furrys do. Also, posting editorials in some of the
more "open-minded" ezines, newspapers, and magazines can help promote
some of pro-fur information. Reading an article in a local newspaper was
what eventually lent me here in the first place, so i can tell you that
this could work.
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
> Remember when BBC Radio and NPR did their stories? Their treatments
> were far from scathing. The San Francisco Bay Guardian story was
> pretty good.
Guardian wasn't that bad an article... If you were a Lifestyler.
Remember that it started off with three paragraphs describing an orgy at The
Leash And Collar on FurryMuck. Among the newsgroups listed, are a.f.f and
a.l.f, but also alt.sex.furry and alt.sex.plushie. It quotes a long passage
from Foxwolfie Galen's Plushie Page, and spends four paragraphs with him -
introducing the world to such wonderful terms as "Poke and Soak". He goes
through Furveys and comments on them about how the writer is an obsessed
loner. It also includes a glossary of furry terms, about half of which are
sexual.
http://www.sfbg.com/SFLife/32/47/furries.html If you want to see it.
--
"if Marylin Manson has more of an influence on a kid than the kid's parents
do, then maybe the parents need to look at how they're raising their kids."
-- Charlie Clouser, Keyboardist, Nine Inch Nails.
Spammer Warning: Washington State Law now provides civil penalties for UCE.
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
x...@home.com*SPAM-ME-AND-DIE!!!!*> writes:
> Good point. Perhaps we need to set up a web-site of our own that is
> made specifically for people who are non-furries, so that we can
> express the main parts of our believes, who we are, what we do, and set
> up some examples of some forms of furry art, both literature and
> drawing.
There are plenty of sites like that. Hell, even Xydexx put up one for a
while. But it doesn't stop people from putting their obscene crap up and
trying to bait the world into coming to look at it. You could put out all the
nice, friendly "Welcome to Furry Fandom" sites you want, but you'll still have
plenty of fodder for those PoE guys.
Nice sites will be outnumbered 10 to 1 by not-so-nice stuff. (Hell, just look
at the ratio of new posts to Yerf vs. Velar).
With regard to pointing at the BF site pointing out the ugly things that some
people do, you have to realize, the people doing the ugly things are more than
willing to point themselves out. That's why they're a problem. The only
difference is that the BFs actually call it ugly, and say "This isn't what
we're about."
Rust
>
> Jim Doolittle wrote:
> > If you consider the Portal of Evil website to be representative of the
> > general public you should think again.
> No, I wouldn't think that. But they could be considered a very very small
> demographic of the "hateful non-furries" out there. Then how much of an
> improvement would "polite non-furries" view this fandom?
They'd say, "Wierd." And seeing as how 'Furry' is not the social norm,
they'd be right. And then they'd move along with life and never think
about it again.
> And its not just POE. Why is it only the tabloid media that is interested in
> doing a scathing review of this genre? Why no well respected media doing
> one? And of course, the one place the "general public" would get their
> impression of this fandom are from sites like POE. That is what we should
> fear.
Funny. I'd have thought that Joe Average was exposed to Disney, Warner
Brothers, Nelvana, and a plethora of other furry media much more than to
a small group of hateful little sneering bigots who empower themselves
by belittling others. Ah well, I suppose I've overestimated the mass
media.
Rust
>
> In article <thetalkingfox-1...@1cust244.tnt20.chi5.da.uu.net>,
> thetal...@mailandnews.com (Richard de Wylfin) writes:
> > Remember when BBC Radio and NPR did their stories? Their treatments
> > were far from scathing. The San Francisco Bay Guardian story was
> > pretty good.
>
> Guardian wasn't that bad an article... If you were a Lifestyler.
Not true. It wasn't horrible, but it was still sensationalistic and as
I recall gave the impression that it was all about sex. The author also
misrepresented his intentions when researching for the article - I was
contacted and asked for permission to use a quote in it; something about
people being allowed to form their own opinions about any given furry
activity without outside bias. This was omitted, playing up the
animosity between lifestylers and the BFs instead.
Rust
It's all well and good to pass moral judgements over what's "good" and
what's "ugly". But in the end, they are -your- judgements, after all.
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
writes:
> This was omitted, playing up the animosity between lifestylers and
> the BFs instead.
Bzzt. No mention of Burned Furs whatsoever in that article. Next question
Mr. Gore.
This is the August 1998 article. I'm not sure entirely if it predates the
Burned Furs, but they wouldn't have been around that long by then.
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
writes:
> and what's "ugly". But in the end, they are -your- judgements, after
> all.
Ah, yes, Moral Relativism. Nothing Wrong with Jeffrey Dahmer killing and
eating young gay men. He thought it was okay, and after all, he's entitled to
his judgements.
From a Philosophical and individual point of view, maybe moral relativism
works, but for a society and a civilization to succeed, we all have to be on
the same page. So we get everyone to agree on things like "Murder is wrong"
and "People have the right to own things", and delegate authority to "deal
with" those who don't go along with those ideas.
Sure, there are disputes about some of those society wide judgements, but in
the end, any idea that gets enough of the people to agree with it makes it the
law, or maybe just a social standard. And I would wager that the vast
majority of the population thinks that, for example, Bestiality is wrong, and
that someone who gets off on a piss-soaked stuffed animal is sick. (I had the
misfortune to read through Foxwolfie Galen's Plush survey... Ugh).
Sure, Majority rule sucks when you're in the minority, and maybe you can have
some success changing the majority opinion, like the gay community has over
the past 30 years. But I bet it will not happen in your lifetime that the
majority in this society will not consider some of the sick activities
sheltered under the Furry Lifestyle rubrick are anything but disgusting and
wrong.
Artist
"*Paragon*" <kark...@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:39E8717C...@mailcity.com...
> Jim Doolittle wrote:
>
> > In article <39E3D47A...@mailcity.com>, *Paragon*
> > <kark...@mailcity.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Just be aware of this in case your site gets listed there. The site
> > > certainly doesn't help the PR of the fandom (assuming this fandom has
> > > any PR to speak of). It just goes to show we have a long way to
making
> > > this fandom the least bit respectable to the general public.
> >
> > general public you should think again.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Jim Doolittle CornWuff Press
> > dool...@tbcnet.com http://www.cornwuff.com
> > Art Show Director, Midwest FurFest
> > http://www.furfest.org
>
small
> demographic of the "hateful non-furries" out there. Then how much of an
> improvement would "polite non-furries" view this fandom?
wierd
>
> And its not just POE. Why is it only the tabloid media that is
interested in
> doing a scathing review of this genre? Why no well respected media doing
> one? And of course, the one place the "general public" would get their
> impression of this fandom are from sites like POE. That is what we
should
> fear.
We keep a low profile. Try punching 'furry' into a general search engine.
Artist
"MiMiC" <mimi...@home.com*SPAM-ME-AND-DIE!!!!*> wrote in message
news:3U0G5.12443$76.3...@news1.rdc1.ab.home.com...
> *Paragon* wrote:
>
> > And its not just POE. Why is it only the tabloid media that is
interested in
> > doing a scathing review of this genre? Why no well respected media
doing
> > one? And of course, the one place the "general public" would get their
> > impression of this fandom are from sites like POE. That is what we
should
> > fear.
> >
>
> specifically for people who are non-furries, so that we can express the
> main parts of our believes, who we are, what we do, and set up some
> if nothing else will give potential furs a place to go to learn some of
> the good things that we do and stand for, instead of having to go to
> sites like "burned furs" or "portal of evil" to hear many of the bad and
> ugly things that some furrys do. Also, posting editorials in some of the
> more "open-minded" ezines, newspapers, and magazines can help promote
> some of pro-fur information. Reading an article in a local newspaper was
> what eventually lent me here in the first place, so i can tell you that
> this could work.
<OPINION>
<Opinion ON <--------------Notice the 'OPINION'>
The following does not represent the concensus of the group or anyone else
in it besides me, unless said entites say otherwise.
===========================================================================
========
But then those who think this or that part of the fandom should be
represented would get upset. blah, blah, blah. Flamewars over what does and
doesn't represent us would ensue. Blah, blah, blah. Fringes within our own
fandom would pop up demanding a say. Blah, blah, blah. People would be
attacked for making said decisions, and the whole damn thing would fall
through. Blah, blah, blah. :(
Don't get me wrong, it's a noble idea and if your gonna try you have my
good wishes. I DO NOT however think it would work.
===========================================================================
========
The following does not represent the concensus of the group or anyone else
in it besides me, unless said entites say otherwise.
</Opinion OFF <-------------Notice the 'OPINION'>
</OPINION>
Rust
>
> writes:
> > It's all well and good to pass moral judgements over what's "good"
> > and what's "ugly". But in the end, they are -your- judgements, after
> > all.
>
> Ah, yes, Moral Relativism. Nothing Wrong with Jeffrey Dahmer killing and
> eating young gay men. He thought it was okay, and after all, he's entitled to
> his judgements.
I see. So you're equating ritualistic murder/cannibalism with, say,
'vinylphilia'?
There's an important difference there which you haven't considered.
Killing and eating someone clearly imposes a certain negative influence
on their life. Boinking a pool toy harms no-one, save perhaps that you
might get a little chafed.
Maybe there's two kinds of morality. Morality which protects, and
morality which imposes. Next time I hear about a pool toy filing sexual
assault charges with the local constabulary, I may side with you.
> From a Philosophical and individual point of view, maybe moral relativism
> works, but for a society and a civilization to succeed, we all have to be on
> the same page. So we get everyone to agree on things like "Murder is wrong"
> and "People have the right to own things", and delegate authority to "deal
> with" those who don't go along with those ideas.
And then people start making rules about things that don't matter, save
on the superficial level that they don't want to think about the
possibility that maybe somewhere, someone is doing something that they
wouldn't.
> Sure, there are disputes about some of those society wide judgements, but in
> the end, any idea that gets enough of the people to agree with it makes it the
> law, or maybe just a social standard. And I would wager that the vast
> majority of the population thinks that, for example, Bestiality is wrong, and
> that someone who gets off on a piss-soaked stuffed animal is sick. (I had the
> misfortune to read through Foxwolfie Galen's Plush survey... Ugh).
I don't care for either, and the former does fall into the category of
"harming another". Not that you'd likely admit a distinction between
bestiality and zoophilia.
In any case, I fail to see why a persons private activities are anybody
elses business, provided those activities are in no way forced upon
others, human or otherwise (note: that's "forced", not "made
available").
> Sure, Majority rule sucks when you're in the minority, and maybe you can have
> some success changing the majority opinion, like the gay community has over
> the past 30 years. But I bet it will not happen in your lifetime that the
> majority in this society will not consider some of the sick activities
> sheltered under the Furry Lifestyle rubrick are anything but disgusting and
> wrong.
Perhaps not, but does that mean that those who are thought of as "sick"
or "disgusting" or "wrong" should accept that they are sick, disgusting,
and wrong? Seems to me that violates some pretty high but apparently
selective morals that society has held for ages, and I think it should
be fought.
Rust
>
> In article <39E8D2...@bmts.com.netspam>, Rust <othr...@bmts.com.netspam>
> writes:
> > the BFs instead.
>
> Bzzt. No mention of Burned Furs whatsoever in that article. Next question
> Mr. Gore.
>
> This is the August 1998 article. I'm not sure entirely if it predates the
> Burned Furs, but they wouldn't have been around that long by then.
Interesting. Maybe I'm mixing my articles, but I'm not intentionally
fabricating any of this. I was approached as I stated. My attention
was later drawn to what I thought was the finished product.
Following the link provided, I see that this is -not- the article I was
refering to. I wish I could recall the name of the author of the other
article, and exactly where it was... in any case, it also made its
rounds of the furry flamewars.
In closing, Rich, think you could handle trying to hold a debate without
resorting to personal attacks?
Artist
"Richard Chandler - WA Resident" <mau...@kendra.com> wrote in message
news:001014203...@mauser.at.kendra.com...
> In article <39E8D2...@bmts.com.netspam>, Rust
<othr...@bmts.com.netspam>
> writes:
> > and what's "ugly". But in the end, they are -your- judgements, after
> > all.
>
> Ah, yes, Moral Relativism. Nothing Wrong with Jeffrey Dahmer killing and
> eating young gay men. He thought it was okay, and after all, he's
entitled to
> his judgements.
>
>
> works, but for a society and a civilization to succeed, we all have to be
on
> the same page. So we get everyone to agree on things like "Murder is
wrong"
> and "People have the right to own things", and delegate authority to
"deal
> with" those who don't go along with those ideas.
<OPINION>
The following is my opinion only and does not represent the concensus
of the fandom, or anyone else in it unless said individuals say otherwise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------
So if you have a deadly heart disease and you are told that he cannot
operate on you because your say...One stage behind another guy, and he
decides, in his proffesional opinion that the other guy can be saved, and
you can't, that makes it right. Simply because society thinks the "most
sick" should be treated first. Forget your gonna die shortly after the
other guys life saveing heart operation. It's right because society says it
is. Nothing is black and white, everything is a continuum.
A better example may be that if society thinks slavery is right, is it?
I don't happen to think so, but then again, that may only be me.
^_^
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------
The following is my opinion only and does not represent the concensus of
the fandom, or anyone else in it unless said individuals say otherwise.
</OPINION>
> Sure, there are disputes about some of those society wide judgements, but
in
> the end, any idea that gets enough of the people to agree with it makes
it the
> law, or maybe just a social standard. And I would wager that the vast
> majority of the population thinks that, for example, Bestiality is wrong,
and
> that someone who gets off on a piss-soaked stuffed animal is sick. (I had
the
> misfortune to read through Foxwolfie Galen's Plush survey... Ugh).
<OPINION>
The following is my opinion only and does not represent the concensus of
the fandom, or anyone else in it unless said individuals say otherwise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------
Yeah? I can see your point, but that looks to be a VERY narrow view.
There are places in the world where you will flogged for chewing gum. In
most of the rest of the civilized world, American national behavior is
considered close to insane. What is right and wrong is based on societies
morals. And those change from culture to culture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------
The following is my opinion only and does not represent the concensus of
the fandom, or anyone else in it unless said individuals say otherwise.
</OPINION>
>
> Sure, Majority rule sucks when you're in the minority, and maybe you can
have
> some success changing the majority opinion, like the gay community has
over
> the past 30 years. But I bet it will not happen in your lifetime that
the
> majority in this society will not consider some of the sick activities
> sheltered under the Furry Lifestyle rubrick are anything but disgusting
and
> wrong.
<OPINION>
The following is my opinion only and does not represent the concensus of
the fandom, or anyone else in it unless said individuals say otherwise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------
I can agree that there may be a VOCAL majority that says it is wrong... But
uh, if your see'ing a profliferating of such material, doesn't it stand to
reason that the people that support it ( IE: It's creators ) are
proliferating? Just a thought.
^_^
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------
The following is my opinion only and does not represent the concensus of
the fandom, or anyone else in it unless said individuals say otherwise.
</OPINION>
Artist
"Doug Winger" <do...@fastpointcom.com> wrote in message
news:doug-317B28.2...@news.fastpoint.net...
> In article <BdRF5.10568$76.2...@news1.rdc1.ab.home.com>, MiMiC
> <mimi...@home.com*SPAM-ME-AND-DIE!!!!*> wrote:
<snip Mr. Wingers Point of View>
All I gotta say is a 10 second inspection concurs. :)
Chuck Melville
Richard de Wylfin wrote:
> Remember when BBC Radio and NPR did their stories? Their treatments were far
> from scathing. The San Francisco Bay Guardian story was pretty good.
>
I only vaguely recollect something about a BBC story, and nothing at all about
the NPR story -- and I'm a regular listener to the latter! Are these available
online? NPR keeps a pretty good backlog online of several of their newsshows, but
it would help if I had some idea of where specifically to look...
David Cooksey
can still be found over on Jim Doolittle's Cornwuff Press site:
http://www.cornwuff.com/nprinterview.phtml
"Chuck Melville" <cp...@zipcon.com> wrote in message
news:39E9E0F3...@zipcon.com...
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
<ba...@ursine.dyndns.org> wrote:
>Richard de Wylfin <thetal...@mailandnews.com> wrote:
[...]
>> 1871 signatures and counting!
>
>> http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
>
>Yup, like this is gonna change Deja's mind. They're gone.
Dejanews still exist, but they no longer serve up the old stuff.
> Feel free to
>go start your own Web<->NNTP gateway and see if folks like you letting
>every spammer through on an anonymous connection to Usenet and vicinity.
Erh? Daja was very good with dealing with spammers, infact it is
impossable to spam threw dejas system.
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
writes:
> Richard Chandler - WA Resident wrote:
> >
> > In article <39E8D2...@bmts.com.netspam>, Rust
> > <othr...@bmts.com.netspam> writes:
> > > It's all well and good to pass moral judgements over what's "good"
> > > and what's "ugly". But in the end, they are -your- judgements,
> > > after all.
> >
> > Ah, yes, Moral Relativism. Nothing Wrong with Jeffrey Dahmer
> > killing and eating young gay men. He thought it was okay, and after
> > all, he's entitled to his judgements.
>
>
> I see. So you're equating ritualistic murder/cannibalism with,
> say, 'vinylphilia'?
Straw man. I'm pointing out the implications of your underlying position that
my judgement that certain practices are ugly is "merely" my judgement, and
therefore irrelevant, since those engaging in them have made their own
judgement to the opposite.
> There's an important difference there which you haven't considered.
> Killing and eating someone clearly imposes a certain negative influence
> on their life. Boinking a pool toy harms no-one, save perhaps that
> you might get a little chafed.
You can go down the rabbit holes of specifics all you want. I wasn't talking
about that particular individual's fetish anyway. And stated as limitedly as
you did, I'd have to agree. Even those who rape and mutilate animals don't
"harm" anyone in their opinion. Nope, not until they go out and proclaim that
this is some part of Furry Fandom, and then they hurt everyone who calls
himself a Furry.
> Maybe there's two kinds of morality. Morality which protects,
> and morality which imposes. Next time I hear about a pool toy
> filing sexual assault charges with the local constabulary, I may side
> with you.
Very funny. Animals can't call the cops either.
> > From a Philosophical and individual point of view, maybe
> > moral relativism works, but for a society and a civilization to
> > succeed, we all have to be on the same page. So we get everyone
> > to agree on things like "Murder is wrong" and "People have the right
> > to own things", and delegate authority to "deal with" those who don't
> > go along with those ideas.
>
> And then people start making rules about things that don't matter, save
> on the superficial level that they don't want to think about
> the possibility that maybe somewhere, someone is doing something that
> they wouldn't.
Oh? Maybe *you* think they don't matter, but that's *Your Judgement*. Oh,
but now you probably don't want to use your previously stated philosophy.
Let me guess. You're thinking of some of those archaic sex laws. Well, when
they were passed, everyone around thought they were important. We don't agree
- as a society - that they are so important any more and are slowly getting
rid of them. But the world won't change in an instant just to suit your own
personal priorities. Particularly if all you do is sit around and bitch,
rather than actually work within the political process to get them changed.
And certainly the fact that some old laws need to be changed with the times is
no reason whatsoever to discount the entire system of societal mores and laws.
Nor is the fact that you may disagree with some of them.
> > Sure, there are disputes about some of those society wide
> > judgements, but in the end, any idea that gets enough of the people
> > to agree with it makes it the law, or maybe just a social standard.
> > And I would wager that the vast majority of the population thinks
> > that, for example, Bestiality is wrong, and that someone who gets off
> > on a piss-soaked stuffed animal is sick. (I had the misfortune to
> > read through Foxwolfie Galen's Plush survey... Ugh).
>
> I don't care for either, and the former does fall into the category
> of "harming another". Not that you'd likely admit a distinction
> between bestiality and zoophilia.
Both have sex with animals. The only difference is that Zoophiles claim they
do it out of love, and point to unnamed bestialists as some sort of boogeyman
upon whom they can scapegoat off all objectionable acts. Odd that they can't
point out any actual bestialists who go out and do it specifically to harm
animals....
But gee, your personal tastes about whether or not you care for bestiality or
piss-soaked plushies isn't the issue. I stated that they were sick and ugly
practices, and I stated that not as my personal opinion, but as a widely
accepted, even mainstream opinion. You countered that this was merely My
judgement. I consider your position to be rather untenable.
> In any case, I fail to see why a persons private activities are
> anybody elses business, provided those activities are in no way
> forced upon others, human or otherwise (note: that's "forced", not
> "made available").
You seem to have a bit of a blind spot here. We don't need bestialists
fucking fido in a hotel lobby for them to do harm to furry fandom. You can
not possibly support a position that bestiality, nor any of the other
practices named earlier are not repellant to society at large. By "going
public" with one's partcipation in these repellant activities, these people
tend to do it in a way that brings scorn down on innocent targets.
(Parallel example. Spammers made everyone hate AOL for a while there. By
forging AOL addresses, they made an association in the internet public's
perception, even though it might not have been justified.).
> > Sure, Majority rule sucks when you're in the minority, and maybe you
> > can have some success changing the majority opinion, like the
> > gay community has over the past 30 years. But I bet it will not
> > happen in your lifetime that the majority in this society will
> > not consider some of the sick activities sheltered under the
> > Furry Lifestyle rubrick are anything but disgusting and wrong.
>
> Perhaps not, but does that mean that those who are thought of as "sick"
> or "disgusting" or "wrong" should accept that they are sick,
> disgusting, and wrong? Seems to me that violates some pretty high
> but apparently selective morals that society has held for ages, and
> I think it should be fought.
Well, to use my previous example, Mr Dahmer was thought of as sick, disgusting
and wrong. But he didn't seem to think so. Some people would be alive today
if he HAD thought of what he wanted to do as sick, disgusting and wrong and if
that therefore prevented him from doing it.
Even if your personal judgement is that something is not sick, disgusting and
wrong, one should consider whether everyone else agrees with you before
engaging in it or advocating it. If you think that something is unfairly
considered S,D&W, then you need to decide if you feel strongly enough to stand
in the face of scorn to try to change society's opinion. But regognize that
one empassioned speech is not going to change everyone's mind in an instant,
and there wil be reprecussions.
It has taken Decades for Gays to gain the amount of respect that they have
today, hundreds of them have even died for the cause, and there is still a lot
of work for them to do. I do not think that those who screw animals, nor
those who use stuffed animals as surrogates, have even taken the first step
down that road. I believe that their road is a longer and harder one as well.
And they've already taken a serious wrong turn by inflicting themselves on
furry fans in a way that brings undeserved public scorn down on the fandom.
PoE is merely a symptom of the damage they have done. Indeed, the Burned Furs
are also a symptom of the damage they have done.
Richard de Wylfin
<ba...@ursine.dyndns.org> wrote:
>
> > 1871 signatures and counting!
>
> > http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
>
> Yup, like this is gonna change Deja's mind. They're gone.
They are not. In fact, articles from 1998 have already returned.
Evidently, they are still in the process of upgrading their database
software.
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
1898 signatures and counting!
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
writes:
> Interesting. Maybe I'm mixing my articles, but I'm not
> intentionally fabricating any of this. I was approached as I stated.
> My attention was later drawn to what I thought was the finished product.
>
> Following the link provided, I see that this is -not- the article I
> was refering to. I wish I could recall the name of the author of
> the other article, and exactly where it was... in any case, it also
> made its rounds of the furry flamewars.
Apparently you should have actually checked out which article I was referring
to before you made definitive statements about its contents. After all, I
provided the link two posts back. I had no reason to assume we were at cross
purposes since you did correctly summarize the opening tone of the article.
> In closing, Rich, think you could handle trying to hold a debate
> without resorting to personal attacks?
As I said, I had no reason to assume we were at cross purposes since you did
correctly summarize the opening tone of the article. Thus I came to the
obvious conclusion that you were being deliberately abstruse, and trying to
dismiss the article by telling untruths about its contents, and assuming that
most people wouldn't bother to follow the link and accept you at your word.
Now that that is cleared up. We can just consider anything past that point of
divergence irrelevant.
Although I do find it comforting to know that calling someone "Mr. Gore" is
considered an insult now. :-)
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
mell...@yahoo.com> writes:
> So if you have a deadly heart disease and you are told that he
> cannot operate on you because your say...One stage behind another guy,
> and he decides, in his proffesional opinion that the other guy can
> be saved, and you can't, that makes it right. Simply because
> society thinks the "most sick" should be treated first. Forget your
> gonna die shortly after the other guys life saveing heart operation.
> It's right because society says it is. Nothing is black and
> white, everything is a continuum.
It's called the Canadian Health Care system. They do that all the time.
Which is why the seriously ill often come to the United States where we have
the capacity to handle them.
In the case of accident or war, it's called Triage, where the most serious,
but salvageable injuries are treated first. It's a sad fact of war, but when
medical resources are limited, the guy who could have been saved if the
doctors had 6 hours to spare working on him may lay there on a stretcher and
die within the hour because the doctors could save several others in that
first hour. Sometimes reality trumps idealism.
> A better example may be that if society thinks slavery is right, is
> it? I don't happen to think so, but then again, that may only be me.
That fits in nicely with what I was saying about public opinion. It takes
time to change it. The debate about slavery in America goes back to well
before the nation was founded, and eventually we had a civil war about it
(well, there are historical arguments about how it wasn't as simple as all
that, but nevertheless....). And here we are, a century and a half later and
finally everyone agrees, except for a few bands of loonies out there, but the
rest of society agrees that they are loonies.
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
ba...@ursine.dyndns.org> writes:
> But do it in such a way that totally innocent people get hurt in
> the process. Need proof? If people weren't hurt in some way about it,
> it wouldn't have gone round and round in thousand post long
> thread flamewars on this several times now.
How did the Burned Furs "do it [call certain ugly practices ugly and say that
they aren't what the fandom is about] in such a way that totally innocent
people get hurt in the process"? Who are these innocents? How is the fact
that the people who WERE the legitimate targets of the BF's ire proceeded to
engage in flame wars proof that the BF's were hurting innocents? And don't
those on the opposite side share an equal portion of the blame? After all, it
takes two to tango (and three to Limbo, but that's another story.... :-).
Al Goldman
>
>But do it in such a way that totally innocent people get hurt in the
>process. Need proof? If people weren't hurt in some way about it, it
>wouldn't have gone round and round in thousand post long thread flamewars
>on this several times now.
>
We're faced with the old "Give me a fandom I can be proud to show my
grandmother" Vs "Give me a fandom where I have access to bizarre but legal
erotica" dilemma.
Think I'll sit this round out :-)
Al Goldman
Laws are sand, Customs are rock. Laws can be evaded and punishment excaped, but
an openly transgressed custom brings sure punishement.
- Mark Twain
ilr
> We keep a low profile. Try punching 'furry' into a general search engine.
>
*Guffaw!*
Low profile as opposed to what?
ilr
> We're faced with the old "Give me a fandom I can be proud to show my
> grandmother" Vs "Give me a fandom where I have access to bizarre but legal
> erotica" dilemma.
>
> Think I'll sit this round out :-)
>
Considering what the camp that does nothing but talk about it actually accomplishes,
A dichotomy like that suggests the no-shows are the ones really winning the battle.
-Ilr
Rust
>
> ba...@ursine.dyndns.org> writes:
> > But do it in such a way that totally innocent people get hurt in
> > the process. Need proof? If people weren't hurt in some way about it,
> > it wouldn't have gone round and round in thousand post long
> > thread flamewars on this several times now.
>
> they aren't what the fandom is about]
Well, I thought we'd established that an opinion is an opinion, but
apparently the point wasn't driven home with quite enough force. Nor do
I imagine that any force would be sufficient to overcome this brand of
willful ignorance.
> in such a way that totally innocent
> people get hurt in the process"? Who are these innocents?
Those who are treated in an inhumane manner for their beliefs,
lifestyles, or sexualities. Clear enough?
> How is the fact
> that the people who WERE the legitimate targets of the BF's ire proceeded to
> engage in flame wars proof that the BF's were hurting innocents?
Your argument, therefore, is that fighting back automatically
invalidates you as a person whose rights have been violated?
> And don't
> those on the opposite side share an equal portion of the blame? After all, it
> takes two to tango (and three to Limbo, but that's another story.... :-).
So you suggest that victims present themselves as victims, and make no
effort to defend themselves? You may have a point. That way, there'll
only be half the fighting!
Your arguments show no compassion or value for those with whom you
disagree.
Rust
> > In closing, Rich, think you could handle trying to hold a debate
> > without resorting to personal attacks?
<snip>
> Although I do find it comforting to know that calling someone "Mr. Gore" is
> considered an insult now. :-)
I don't care to delve into the murky depths of politics, but I do take
being refered to as "Mr. Gore" as an insult of the highest order. And I
say that without political affiliation, as a citizen of Canada.
Rust
>
> In article <39E92E...@bmts.com.netspam>, Rust <othr...@bmts.com.netspam>
> writes:
> > Richard Chandler - WA Resident wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <39E8D2...@bmts.com.netspam>, Rust
> > > <othr...@bmts.com.netspam> writes:
> > > > It's all well and good to pass moral judgements over what's "good"
> > > > and what's "ugly". But in the end, they are -your- judgements,
> > > > after all.
> > >
> > > Ah, yes, Moral Relativism. Nothing Wrong with Jeffrey Dahmer
> > > killing and eating young gay men. He thought it was okay, and after
> > > all, he's entitled to his judgements.
> >
> >
> > I see. So you're equating ritualistic murder/cannibalism with,
> > say, 'vinylphilia'?
>
> Straw man. I'm pointing out the implications of your underlying position that
> my judgement that certain practices are ugly is "merely" my judgement, and
> therefore irrelevant, since those engaging in them have made their own
> judgement to the opposite.
My message from the start has been that your opinion is no more or less
valid than the next one. Nor is anybody else's.
> > There's an important difference there which you haven't considered.
> > Killing and eating someone clearly imposes a certain negative influence
> > on their life. Boinking a pool toy harms no-one, save perhaps that
> > you might get a little chafed.
>
> You can go down the rabbit holes of specifics all you want.
I'd say that was fairly broad, actually. Provided you read between the
lines, and apply it liberally to any given behaviour. It breaks
behaviours into two categories: those that harm others, and those that
do not.
> I wasn't talking
> about that particular individual's fetish anyway. And stated as limitedly as
> you did, I'd have to agree. Even those who rape and mutilate animals don't
> "harm" anyone in their opinion. Nope, not until they go out and proclaim that
> this is some part of Furry Fandom, and then they hurt everyone who calls
> himself a Furry.
I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone in the Furry Fandom who
advocates rape and mutilation of animals, whether they be fan boy,
lifestyler, Burned Fur, or Zoophile. It comes down to a value for life,
not whether a person prefers Fido over Pamela Anderson.
As to "proclaiming" things... I like knives. I really like knives.
I'll spend hours sharpening them, because they're beautiful creations.
I'm also a furry. I guess this means that people will now equate
'Furry' with a possibly unbalanced appreciation of sharp objects?
The Furry Fandom is a 'victim' of itself, in this regard. You draw an
anthropomorphic wolf bitch with six oversized breasts and present it to
Joe Public, and see whether or not he calls you a bestophile. It isn't
about the zoophiles who are quietly part of the Fandom - it's about how
the Fandom presents itself. Maybe being part of a fringe group isn't
the best life-choice for people who are concerned about whether or not
their clique is socially acceptable in the world at large.
> > Maybe there's two kinds of morality. Morality which protects,
> > and morality which imposes. Next time I hear about a pool toy
> > filing sexual assault charges with the local constabulary, I may side
> > with you.
>
> Very funny. Animals can't call the cops either.
The question is whether or not they'd want intervention. I suspect that
there's cases of both, just like there's lovers and rapists in the world
of human sexual relations.
> > > From a Philosophical and individual point of view, maybe
> > > moral relativism works, but for a society and a civilization to
> > > succeed, we all have to be on the same page. So we get everyone
> > > to agree on things like "Murder is wrong" and "People have the right
> > > to own things", and delegate authority to "deal with" those who don't
> > > go along with those ideas.
> >
> > And then people start making rules about things that don't matter, save
> > on the superficial level that they don't want to think about
> > the possibility that maybe somewhere, someone is doing something that
> > they wouldn't.
>
> Oh? Maybe *you* think they don't matter, but that's *Your Judgement*. Oh,
> but now you probably don't want to use your previously stated philosophy.
Fair enough, but I think my judgement is based on a more broad range of
consideration. At any rate, my judgement is no less valid than your
own. I can't be objective enough to be fully unbiased, but I try to be
fair to all involved.
Which is the point, really... who -is- involved, and should anyone else
even have a say in things?
> Let me guess. You're thinking of some of those archaic sex laws.
No, actually I was thinking about the way you sort people into 'clean'
and 'unclean' bins according to sexual/spiritual/lifestyle practise.
> Well, when
> they were passed, everyone around thought they were important. We don't agree
> - as a society - that they are so important any more and are slowly getting
> rid of them. But the world won't change in an instant just to suit your own
> personal priorities. Particularly if all you do is sit around and bitch,
> rather than actually work within the political process to get them changed.
Political process is bullshit. Eventually you might get a law out of
the deal, and people will still resent you for who and what you are. If
you want to change something, you do it by educating and informing those
people, so they can come to understand and respect you and your
viewpoint.
> And certainly the fact that some old laws need to be changed with the times is
> no reason whatsoever to discount the entire system of societal mores and laws.
> Nor is the fact that you may disagree with some of them.
I never contested any such laws, legally or otherwise. I'll worry about
laws later. Right now, not many of them cause me much worry in regards
to my identity as a furry lifestyler. What causes me worry, right now,
is the attitude of segments of this subculture. An attitude of hate,
maybe fear. An attitude that those like me don't belong in the Furry
Fandom, and possibly not in the world.
As for societal mores, it's a case of what goes on behind closed doors,
innit? I mean, voyeurism isn't socially acceptable, is it?
> > > Sure, there are disputes about some of those society wide
> > > judgements, but in the end, any idea that gets enough of the people
> > > to agree with it makes it the law, or maybe just a social standard.
> > > And I would wager that the vast majority of the population thinks
> > > that, for example, Bestiality is wrong, and that someone who gets off
> > > on a piss-soaked stuffed animal is sick. (I had the misfortune to
> > > read through Foxwolfie Galen's Plush survey... Ugh).
> >
> > I don't care for either, and the former does fall into the category
> > of "harming another". Not that you'd likely admit a distinction
> > between bestiality and zoophilia.
>
> Both have sex with animals. The only difference is that Zoophiles claim they
> do it out of love, and point to unnamed bestialists as some sort of boogeyman
> upon whom they can scapegoat off all objectionable acts. Odd that they can't
> point out any actual bestialists who go out and do it specifically to harm
> animals....
Do you know any rapists you'd care to turn in? C'mon, you're against
rape, aren't you? Y'know, I think a zoophile'd be the first to turn in
a real live bestialist if they actually proveably found one. Thing is,
I don't think there's as much contact between the two as you seem to
believe.
As for those who intentionally harm animals, I do know a guy who did
something like that, torturing for pleasure. I helped put him away, on
different charges mind you. I've always stuck up for animals, and I'm a
non-practising zoophile. My life choice, for my own reasons.
> But gee, your personal tastes about whether or not you care for bestiality or
> piss-soaked plushies isn't the issue. I stated that they were sick and ugly
> practices, and I stated that not as my personal opinion, but as a widely
> accepted, even mainstream opinion.
Nope, you stated it as fact. An opinion, even a widely held one, would
run more like, "these things are commonly accepted as ugly, obscene,
etc". Not, "putting their obscene crap up and trying to bait the world
into coming to look at it".
> You countered that this was merely My
> judgement. I consider your position to be rather untenable.
Based on what solid ground, precisely?
> > In any case, I fail to see why a persons private activities are
> > anybody elses business, provided those activities are in no way
> > forced upon others, human or otherwise (note: that's "forced", not
> > "made available").
>
> You seem to have a bit of a blind spot here. We don't need bestialists
> fucking fido in a hotel lobby for them to do harm to furry fandom. You can
> not possibly support a position that bestiality, nor any of the other
> practices named earlier are not repellant to society at large.
"Society at large" will give you a blank stare if you ask them their
opinion about "furry". Then they'll tell you that shaving is more
attractive, or that going furry is liberation for women, or possibly
that Fabricland is two blocks to the South.
> By "going
> public" with one's partcipation in these repellant activities, these people
> tend to do it in a way that brings scorn down on innocent targets.
Going public how? The Internet, where finding a furry-connected
zoophile/bestiality web site without being in the know is like searching
for a needle in a haystack? Go ahead, try it. Not that someone
searching for such a thing is liable to care about or even notice the
furry subculture in their quest for pictures of women fucking dogs.
> (Parallel example. Spammers made everyone hate AOL for a while there. By
> forging AOL addresses, they made an association in the internet public's
> perception, even though it might not have been justified.).
They also did this by using a notorious and almost universally hated
form of unsolicited mass-advertising. You don't go looking for spam,
spam goes looking for you.
> > > Sure, Majority rule sucks when you're in the minority, and maybe you
> > > can have some success changing the majority opinion, like the
> > > gay community has over the past 30 years. But I bet it will not
> > > happen in your lifetime that the majority in this society will
> > > not consider some of the sick activities sheltered under the
> > > Furry Lifestyle rubrick are anything but disgusting and wrong.
> >
> > Perhaps not, but does that mean that those who are thought of as "sick"
> > or "disgusting" or "wrong" should accept that they are sick,
> > disgusting, and wrong? Seems to me that violates some pretty high
> > but apparently selective morals that society has held for ages, and
> > I think it should be fought.
>
> Well, to use my previous example, Mr Dahmer was thought of as sick, disgusting
> and wrong. But he didn't seem to think so. Some people would be alive today
> if he HAD thought of what he wanted to do as sick, disgusting and wrong and if
> that therefore prevented him from doing it.
But again, you seem to deny that there are actions which harm, and
actions which do not harm. The difference between these, at least, is
not a subjective matter.
Interestingly, hundreds of thousands would be alive today if not for the
immoral sin of driving an automobile. Car crashes take life every day,
human and otherwise. Cars also emit all variety of harmful vapours and
liquids into the Earth's environment. Explain to me how this is more
morally justified than, say, "getting off on a piss-soaked stuffed
animal"? Seems more like a matter of what an individual can stomach, to
me.
> Even if your personal judgement is that something is not sick, disgusting and
> wrong, one should consider whether everyone else agrees with you before
> engaging in it or advocating it.
No, not really. Provided nobody is harmed, and provided nobody is
unwillingly exposed to the act, why should it matter? If a tree falls
in the forest, and there's nobody there to hear it, why bitch about it
just because you know that there's a stump somewhere?
> If you think that something is unfairly
> considered S,D&W, then you need to decide if you feel strongly enough to stand
> in the face of scorn to try to change society's opinion. But regognize that
> one empassioned speech is not going to change everyone's mind in an instant,
> and there wil be reprecussions.
At the moment, I'm not interested in society because society isn't
interested in me. What I'm interested in is the few who continue to
badmouth people and acts which they have no investment in or connection
with more strong than this little-known subculture, whose most
celebrated claim to fame is arguably the unending civil war which splits
it.
> It has taken Decades for Gays to gain the amount of respect that they have
> today, hundreds of them have even died for the cause, and there is still a lot
> of work for them to do. I do not think that those who screw animals, nor
> those who use stuffed animals as surrogates, have even taken the first step
> down that road. I believe that their road is a longer and harder one as well.
> And they've already taken a serious wrong turn by inflicting themselves on
> furry fans in a way that brings undeserved public scorn down on the fandom.
You join a group of oddballs, you'd best be prepared to grow up and deal
with the fact that some of them do things you don't like. If you don't
like the association, it is of course a personal choice to keep your own
affiliation quiet.
> PoE is merely a symptom of the damage they have done. Indeed, the Burned Furs
> are also a symptom of the damage they have done.
PoE is not a symptom. PoE is an illness of thought and spirit. A
parasite, which attatches itself to the weak and the misfits, and uses
their difference as sustennance, ridiculing and denigrating as a means
of placing themselves above another. PoE is a group of sad little
sadistic fucks, not to put too fine a point on it. If damage has been
done, it has been their doing, and the doing of others with similar
mentality.
ilr
> I don't care to delve into the murky depths of politics, but I do take
> being refered to as "Mr. Gore" as an insult of the highest order. And I
> say that without political affiliation, as a citizen of Canada.
>
As a U.S. citizen who abides by nearly all the choices in and there of the
government in place in his country, including the most revered of executive
offices, I happen to find that an insult of quite a high degree. Whether
a rude nationalistic tone was applied or not, it besmirches my countrymen
(atleast most democrats, like my Momma), and is offered by a complete
outsider who has no right to vote here and would not be affected by said
office. It appeared as quite an unprovoked attack.
-Ilr
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
> Richard Chandler - WA Resident wrote:
> >
> > ba...@ursine.dyndns.org> writes:
> > > But do it in such a way that totally innocent people get hurt in
> > > the process. Need proof? If people weren't hurt in some way about
> > > it, it wouldn't have gone round and round in thousand post long
> > > thread flamewars on this several times now.
> >
> > How did the Burned Furs "do it [call certain ugly practices ugly and
> > say that they aren't what the fandom is about]
>
> Well, I thought we'd established that an opinion is an opinion,
> but apparently the point wasn't driven home with quite enough force.
> Nor do I imagine that any force would be sufficient to overcome this
> brand of willful ignorance.
Are you Baloo? I didn't think so. I was asking him. I notice that the two
of you keep playing tag-team with people's posts, Baloo inserting himself in
the middle of threads as if the reply were intended for him and vice versa
here with you. It's a great way of derailing a discussion. It happens all
the time on a.l.f whenever a serious topic comes up. One might even think it
was deliberate.
> > in such a way that totally innocent
> > people get hurt in the process"? Who are these innocents?
>
> Those who are treated in an inhumane manner for their beliefs,
> lifestyles, or sexualities. Clear enough?
Nope. WAY too general. Do any of these "people" even exist? Remember, it
ties back to the first question. Who are the innocent people the BF's
supposedly hurt by calling certain ugly practices ugly?
> > How is the fact
> > that the people who WERE the legitimate targets of the BF's
> > ire proceeded to engage in flame wars proof that the BF's were
> > hurting innocents?
>
> Your argument, therefore, is that fighting back automatically
> invalidates you as a person whose rights have been violated?
Not at all. The majority of the most severe flamers in any BF flame were
people who claimed that they personally were somehow being attacked by the
BF's because they were, for example, a plushophile, or some other thing the
BFs specifically spoke out against. I suppose the question is, what exactly
did Baloo mean when he chose the word "innocent" to represent a class of
people.
To my way of thinking, "Innocent Bestialist" is a contradiction in terms.
> > And don't
> > those on the opposite side share an equal portion of the blame?
> > After all, it takes two to tango (and three to Limbo, but that's
> > another story.... :-).
>
> So you suggest that victims present themselves as victims, and make
> no effort to defend themselves? You may have a point. That way,
> there'll only be half the fighting!
So, you are taking the position that anyone on the opposite side of a flamewar
with the Burned Furs is an innocent victim. Remember however, one can choose
to participate in a debate, as you are doing here, or one can ignore it. You
are not my victim, nor am I yours. This is why I dispute the idea that anyone
flamed is an innocent victim.
> Your arguments show no compassion or value for those with whom
> you disagree.
I don't owe any compassion to someone who slanders me by association, which is
exactly what has happened thanks to the various freaks out there who have
caused their dispicable activites to become associated in the public mind with
the name Furry, and especially with those who refuse to stop doing so or
attempt to undo the damage they have done, or even strive to prevent others
from undoing that damage. I further don't owe any compassion to those who
commit crimes of abuse on animals and claim that it actually constitutes love.
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
In article <39EA79...@bmts.com.netspam>, Rust <othr...@bmts.com.netspam>
writes:
> Richard Chandler - WA Resident wrote:
> >
> > Straw man. I'm pointing out the implications of your
> > underlying position that my judgement that certain practices are ugly
> > is "merely" my judgement, and therefore irrelevant, since those
> > engaging in them have made their own judgement to the opposite.
>
> My message from the start has been that your opinion is no more or
> less valid than the next one. Nor is anybody else's.
I see. So then I should consider say, David Duke's opinions on Race Relations
as equally valid as any opinion you might like to express? Or perhaps I
should ask both my mechanic and my doctor about that dizzy spell? My
girlfriend and my co-worker are equally good sounding boards for the sexual
techniques that will satisfy my girlfriend best. And Yassir Arafat's plan for
Jeruselem is equally as good as the Barak's.
The idea that everyone's opinions on any subject will be equally valid is
patently absurd. Hell, this is where we started, with that Dahmer example.
> > > There's an important difference there which you haven't considered.
> > > Killing and eating someone clearly imposes a certain
> > > negative influence on their life. Boinking a pool toy harms
> > > no-one, save perhaps that you might get a little chafed.
> >
> > You can go down the rabbit holes of specifics all you want.
>
> I'd say that was fairly broad, actually. Provided you read between
> the lines, and apply it liberally to any given behaviour. It
> breaks behaviours into two categories: those that harm others, and
> those that do not.
In fact, I did pick that up further down, when I said "not until they go out
and proclaim that this is some part of Furry Fandom, and then they hurt
everyone who calls himself a Furry." You chose to read that as only applying
to the example of the evil Bestialist.
> As to "proclaiming" things... I like knives. I really like knives.
> I'll spend hours sharpening them, because they're beautiful creations.
> I'm also a furry. I guess this means that people will now equate
> 'Furry' with a possibly unbalanced appreciation of sharp objects?
No, but if you start going around to people calling your knives you "Claws"
and pontificating about how all furries should have them to better be in touch
with one's inner animal, and then proceed to seek out every journalist who
sneaks into a furry con and expound to him about your theory, and perhaps also
document it on a web page....
You haven't done that with knives, but there are plenty of people who have
done that with the other reprehensible subjects. Hell, this goes back as far
as 1987 or earlier when the "Dr. Pepper File" was circulated on BBSes that
stated that the essential mental attitude of being Furry included rejecting
social mores and that the truest furries were into bisexual group sex.
> The Furry Fandom is a 'victim' of itself, in this regard. You draw
> an anthropomorphic wolf bitch with six oversized breasts and present it
> to Joe Public, and see whether or not he calls you a bestophile. It
> isn't about the zoophiles who are quietly part of the Fandom - it's
> about how the Fandom presents itself. Maybe being part of a fringe
> group isn't the best life-choice for people who are concerned
> about whether or not their clique is socially acceptable in the world
> at large.
I wouldn't have any problem with the bestialists if they kept their activities
seperate from Furry fandom. But they don't. They see furry fandom as the
most likely place to find validation and comradeship with others who share
their illness. They go to reporters and brag about their conquests and hope
that the publicity will attract their fellows.
I have no problem being associated with a subculture that appreciates art and
media with animal characters in it. Even the erotica. But I DO have a
problem being in a subculture associated with Bestiality because I think it is
WRONG, and I'm not into it, and the only way to have a subculture that is only
associated with anthropomorphic art and media is to do everything in my power
to BREAK that association.
> > Very funny. Animals can't call the cops either.
>
> The question is whether or not they'd want intervention. I suspect
> that there's cases of both, just like there's lovers and rapists in
> the world of human sexual relations.
I'm NOT going to go into the old Consent flame.
> > > And then people start making rules about things that don't
> > > matter, save on the superficial level that they don't want to
> > > think about the possibility that maybe somewhere, someone is
> > > doing something that they wouldn't.
> >
> > Oh? Maybe *you* think they don't matter, but that's *Your
> > Judgement*. Oh, but now you probably don't want to use your
> > previously stated philosophy.
>
> Fair enough, but I think my judgement is based on a more broad range
> of consideration. At any rate, my judgement is no less valid than
> your own. I can't be objective enough to be fully unbiased, but I try
> to be fair to all involved.
You contradict yourself. That is, unless you do not equate a Valid judgement
with a Correct judgement. Or do you operate that there is no such thing as a
Correct judgement. In which case, is there such a thing as an INvalid
judgement, and how is it characterized?
> Which is the point, really... who -is- involved, and should anyone
> else even have a say in things?
>
> > Let me guess. You're thinking of some of those archaic sex laws.
>
> No, actually I was thinking about the way you sort people into 'clean'
> and 'unclean' bins according to sexual/spiritual/lifestyle practise.
I sort activities, not people. I have all along been talking about practices,
and people who ENGAGE in those practices. The act, not the idea.
>
> Political process is bullshit. Eventually you might get a law out of
> the deal, and people will still resent you for who and what you are.
> If you want to change something, you do it by educating and
> informing those people, so they can come to understand and respect you
> and your viewpoint.
Which of course is a bit easier to do if you don't have a law branding you a
criminal....
> > And certainly the fact that some old laws need to be changed with
> > the times is no reason whatsoever to discount the entire system
> > of societal mores and laws.
> > Nor is the fact that you may disagree with some of them.
>
> I never contested any such laws, legally or otherwise. I'll worry
> about laws later. Right now, not many of them cause me much worry
> in regards to my identity as a furry lifestyler. What causes me
> worry, right now, is the attitude of segments of this subculture.
> An attitude of hate, maybe fear. An attitude that those like me
> don't belong in the Furry Fandom, and possibly not in the world.
Acts, Rust, not people. I don't know which reprehensible acts, if any, you
engage in. In fact, I don't WANT to know. All I care about is whether you,
though your acts, bring shame and derision upon Furry Fandom, and therefore on
me and my friends.
> As for societal mores, it's a case of what goes on behind closed
> doors, innit? I mean, voyeurism isn't socially acceptable, is it?
Ah, if only it DID go on behind closed doors. We might not be having this
discussion.
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
In article <39EA79...@bmts.com.netspam>, Rust <othr...@bmts.com.netspam>
writes:
> Richard Chandler - WA Resident wrote:
> > Both have sex with animals. The only difference is that Zoophiles
> > claim they do it out of love, and point to unnamed bestialists as
> > some sort of boogeyman upon whom they can scapegoat off
> > all objectionable acts. Odd that they can't point out any
> > actual bestialists who go out and do it specifically to harm
> > animals....
>
> Do you know any rapists you'd care to turn in? C'mon, you're against
> rape, aren't you? Y'know, I think a zoophile'd be the first to turn in
> a real live bestialist if they actually proveably found one. Thing is,
> I don't think there's as much contact between the two as you seem
> to believe.
That's why I meant by "Unnamed Bestialist". Such a person may not exist,
except as a straw man in the classic sense. Literally, when a Zoophile tries
to defend his practice, any unethical practice one ascribes to animal sex, he
will insist "That's something Bestialists do, zoophiles don't do that."
Recall that article a few months ago where a guy was caught after tying horses
legs to rape them, causing injuries to a number of horses including one which
had to be put down. Zoophiles quickly point to him and say "We're different,
only Bestialists do that."
I suppose that's the other big difference. Bestialists (by the Zoo's
definition) keep their activities to themselves. Zoophiles apparently like to
brag about their activities.
And I wouldn't care, if they were able to keep it seperate from Furry Fandom,
but they won't.
> As for those who intentionally harm animals, I do know a guy who
> did something like that, torturing for pleasure. I helped put him
> away, on different charges mind you. I've always stuck up for
> animals, and I'm a non-practising zoophile. My life choice, for my
> own reasons.
Goodie for you. Now if you will please be sure in the future to maintain some
distinction between your zoophilic philosophy and your Anthropomorphic
interests, we'll get along fine. Even if you find them perfectly intertwined
and stemming from the same source, you should respect everyone else's equally
valid judgement that they should be kept apart, to maximize everyone's
happiness.
> > But gee, your personal tastes about whether or not you care
> > for bestiality or piss-soaked plushies isn't the issue. I stated
> > that they were sick and ugly practices, and I stated that not as
> > my personal opinion, but as a widely accepted, even mainstream
> > opinion.
>
> Nope, you stated it as fact. An opinion, even a widely held one,
> would run more like, "these things are commonly accepted as ugly,
> obscene, etc". Not, "putting their obscene crap up and trying to bait
> the world into coming to look at it".
So, is calling something "Commonly accepted" a fact? I mean, it's impossible
to use the verb to Be without, in essence, asserting something to be a fact.
(A few years ago I read an interesting web page that made an argument for
eliminating the verb "to Be" and how it would force all language to be
personally relative. I think in the realm of physics, for example, it's an
unworkable idea.)
> > You countered that this was merely My
> > judgement. I consider your position to be rather untenable.
>
> Based on what solid ground, precisely?
Based on the fundamental fact that not all opinions are of equal value, in
spite of your assertion otherwise. And I don't care if you DID stay in a
Holiday Inn Express last night.
Or in short. "Nuh-uh! That's just your opinion." is not a sufficient
refutation of something asserted to be a fact.
> > You seem to have a bit of a blind spot here. We don't need
> > bestialists fucking fido in a hotel lobby for them to do harm to
> > furry fandom. You can not possibly support a position that
> > bestiality, nor any of the other practices named earlier are
> > not repellant to society at large.
>
> "Society at large" will give you a blank stare if you ask them
> their opinion about "furry". Then they'll tell you that shaving is
> more attractive, or that going furry is liberation for women, or
> possibly that Fabricland is two blocks to the South.
Ah, that old Canard. "Furry is obscure! We can do any old bizarre shit we
want and nobody will care!" Bullshit. Every year that goes by, every stupid
tabloid article, every web search someone does for Sonic the Hedgehog makes
Furry known to a wider number of people. And this is especially the case for
people whose interests lie in sphere's adjacent to Furry Fandom, and those are
the people whose opinions (among outsiders) we should care about the most.
Maybe we don't need to worry about Country Music fans, because maybe they will
go "Huh?" when they hear furry. But we should be concerned about what groups
like Science Fiction fans and The Comic and Animation industries, and book
publishing, and so on think about us, because they DON'T go "Huh?". Lately,
after hearing about the sick fuckers who like to talk about their sick fucked-
up-ness, they say "Ugh, you're a Furry? Don't you fuck animals or something?"
and "No, we don't have any of those crappy Furry comics in our shop." and "Mr.
Kidd, why don't you consider a Subsidy Publisher if you're convinced your book
is so good."
And that, in my opinion, constitutes harm done to all members of furry fandom
by Zoophiles.
> > By "going
> > public" with one's partcipation in these repellant activities,
> > these people tend to do it in a way that brings scorn down on
> > innocent targets.
>
> Going public how? The Internet, where finding a furry-connected
> zoophile/bestiality web site without being in the know is like
> searching for a needle in a haystack? Go ahead, try it. Not that
> someone searching for such a thing is liable to care about or even
> notice the furry subculture in their quest for pictures of women
> fucking dogs.
As the encryption hackers will tell you, "Security through obscurity, isn't."
> > (Parallel example. Spammers made everyone hate AOL for a while
> > there. By forging AOL addresses, they made an association in
> > the internet public's perception, even though it might not have
> > been justified.).
>
> They also did this by using a notorious and almost universally hated
> form of unsolicited mass-advertising. You don't go looking for spam,
> spam goes looking for you.
And the Zoophiles go looking for public exposure, talking to every reporter
and author who comes along saying "I'm writing about Furry..."
> But again, you seem to deny that there are actions which harm, and
> actions which do not harm. The difference between these, at least, is
> not a subjective matter.
Which is something I hopefully have gotten across. The REASON there are
burned furrs is because there are people who ARE doing harm. Okay, they
aren't going around killing people in an imitation of an Aztec ritual they
role-played on Tapestries, but they are hurting every furry in the fandom by
damaging the reputation of the fandom.
> Interestingly, hundreds of thousands would be alive today if not for
> the immoral sin of driving an automobile. Car crashes take life every
> day, human and otherwise. Cars also emit all variety of harmful
> vapours and liquids into the Earth's environment. Explain to me how
> this is more morally justified than, say, "getting off on a
> piss-soaked stuffed animal"? Seems more like a matter of what
> an individual can stomach, to me.
Two wrongs don't make a right. Industrial pollution does not justify
committing other sins, regardless of degree. Will you tell Sarah Brady to
shut up about that gun control thing since car accidents kill orders of
magnitude more people that firearms accidents? (Wish you could).
> > Even if your personal judgement is that something is not
> > sick, disgusting and wrong, one should consider whether everyone
> > else agrees with you before engaging in it or advocating it.
>
> No, not really. Provided nobody is harmed, and provided nobody
> is unwillingly exposed to the act, why should it matter? If a tree
> falls in the forest, and there's nobody there to hear it, why bitch
> about it just because you know that there's a stump somewhere?
How about because I just came out into the woods and found a tree smashed
through the roof of my cabin? Silly example. You can not validly assert that
the various groups that Burned Furs are opposed to have not done the fandom
any harm because if they hadn't there would BE no Burned Furs and we wouldn't
be having this discussion.
> > If you think that something is unfairly
> > considered S,D&W, then you need to decide if you feel strongly enough
> > to stand in the face of scorn to try to change society's opinion.
> > But regognize that one empassioned speech is not going to
> > change everyone's mind in an instant, and there wil be reprecussions.
>
> At the moment, I'm not interested in society because society
> isn't interested in me. What I'm interested in is the few who continue
> to badmouth people and acts which they have no investment in or
> connection with more strong than this little-known subculture, whose
> most celebrated claim to fame is arguably the unending civil war
> which splits it.
Oh goodie. You're anti-social, maybe even disassociated. That might even
explain the interest in Zoophilia. But there are a hell of a lot of us who
are in the fandom and also in the real world who care about what society
thinks because it DOES have an effect on us.
Of course I have no "Investment" in the acts I'm badmouthing. I wouldn't be
badmouthing Zoos if I was one, now would I? Maybe if I were a zoo I'd be
arguing with Zoophiles who keep making all these furry fans hate Zoos by not
leaving them alone. I'd be like "Hey, why are you guys so determined to make
enemies? You're hurting the reputation of Zoophilia."
> You join a group of oddballs, you'd best be prepared to grow up and
> deal with the fact that some of them do things you don't like.
The group of oddballs I joined are people who like Furry Art and Media. I
didn't join so I could rub shoulders with people who are utterly fascinated
with the canine "Knot".
> If you don't like the association, it is of course a personal choice to
> keep your own affiliation quiet.
But I LOVE your solution. If I don't like associating with zoophiles, I
should keep quiet about being a Furry fan. Fuck that.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
<ba...@ursine.dyndns.org> wrote:
>David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) <dfor...@zeta.org.au> wrote:
>
>> Erh? Daja was very good with dealing with spammers, infact it is
>> impossable to spam threw dejas system.
>
>provide an easy abuse enforcement method. They can just sign up for a new
>deja account...
Ok find me a BI>20 spam from dejanews and I'll beleave you.
Dale Farmer
ilr wrote:
He is perfectly entitled to hold an opinion about a leader of another country.
I suspect that if someone were to start calling you Saddam that you would
be offended as well. Q.E.D.
--Dale
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
not_a...@addysodontreplytoit.com> writes:
> On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 01:11:25 -0700, mau...@kendra.com (Richard
> Chandler - WA Resident) wrote:
>
> >So, you are taking the position that anyone on the opposite side of
> >a flamewar with the Burned Furs is an innocent victim. Remember
> >however, one can choose to participate in a debate, as you are doing
> >here, or one can ignore it. You are not my victim, nor am I yours.
> >This is why I dispute the idea that anyone flamed is an innocent
> >victim.
>
> >I don't owe any compassion to someone who slanders me by
> >association, which is exactly what has happened thanks to the
> >various freaks out there who have caused their dispicable activites
> >to become associated in the public mind with the name Furry,
>
> or besmirched by the burned furs - personally or as a group - to be
> a victim, because they could just choose 'not to particpate' in
> the 'debate' - and on the other hand, you nominate yourself as a
> victim merely because other people exist and frequent the same
> social circles as you, even though they _haven't_ personally attacked
> you.
Nice try Gaddfly. You're comparing apples to oranges. The apples in this
case being "anyone on the opposite side of a flamewar with the Burned Furs",
i.e. someone who actively participates in a discussion. They made the choice
to argue, they got in the ring, so they have to take some responsibility for
the lumps they took. The oranges are people who chose one thing, to
participate in furry fandom, and ended up taking lumps from the general public
because a certain group of people decided to make an association between furry
fandom and their own socially reprehensible activities.
Or, to put it even more simply, it's one thing to go toe-to-toe with someone,
it's another when someone convinces a third party to go after you unexpectedly
(Like the example of the comic shop dealer in the other post.)
Rust
Eh? That's really odd, Rich... really odd... how did you form this
conclusion?
> And I wouldn't care, if they were able to keep it seperate from Furry Fandom,
> but they won't.
Rich, when's the last time you saw a post either describing or
advocating zoophilia, either here or *gasp* in ALF? It seems to me that
-you- are the single greatest contributor of zoophilic-related posts, by
consistently complaining about all these people who keep talking about
zoophilia.
> > As for those who intentionally harm animals, I do know a guy who
> > did something like that, torturing for pleasure. I helped put him
> > away, on different charges mind you. I've always stuck up for
> > animals, and I'm a non-practising zoophile. My life choice, for my
> > own reasons.
>
> Goodie for you. Now if you will please be sure in the future to maintain some
> distinction between your zoophilic philosophy and your Anthropomorphic
> interests, we'll get along fine. Even if you find them perfectly intertwined
> and stemming from the same source, you should respect everyone else's equally
> valid judgement that they should be kept apart, to maximize everyone's
> happiness.
As a rule, I don't have much to say about who I am and what I do. In
this case, it made a point. As for "maintaining some distinction", I
regret being a part of the furry fandom, with all the ridiculous
accusations and mud-slinging and 'politics' that any life-valuing person
can see right through. But I do like the art, so I guess I'm in it.
But believe me, I do like to "maintain some distinction", and for quite
the opposite reason that you want me to.
> > > But gee, your personal tastes about whether or not you care
> > > for bestiality or piss-soaked plushies isn't the issue. I stated
> > > that they were sick and ugly practices, and I stated that not as
> > > my personal opinion, but as a widely accepted, even mainstream
> > > opinion.
> >
> > Nope, you stated it as fact. An opinion, even a widely held one,
> > would run more like, "these things are commonly accepted as ugly,
> > obscene, etc". Not, "putting their obscene crap up and trying to bait
> > the world into coming to look at it".
>
> So, is calling something "Commonly accepted" a fact? I mean, it's impossible
> to use the verb to Be without, in essence, asserting something to be a fact.
> (A few years ago I read an interesting web page that made an argument for
> eliminating the verb "to Be" and how it would force all language to be
> personally relative. I think in the realm of physics, for example, it's an
> unworkable idea.)
When slamming something that someone else does, you'd bloody well better
distinguish that it's an opinion and not a fact.
> > > You countered that this was merely My
> > > judgement. I consider your position to be rather untenable.
> >
> > Based on what solid ground, precisely?
>
> Based on the fundamental fact that not all opinions are of equal value, in
> spite of your assertion otherwise. And I don't care if you DID stay in a
> Holiday Inn Express last night.
So you claim that your opinion is of greater weight than any other? And
what in the world are you talking about?
> Or in short. "Nuh-uh! That's just your opinion." is not a sufficient
> refutation of something asserted to be a fact.
Very well. You have stated a personal opinion as fact. Though this
opinion is widely held, it is not universal and no solid moral basis for
it is readily apparent. Therefore, I hypothesize that your opinion is
not fact, and conclude that you have not demonstrated it as such.
> > > You seem to have a bit of a blind spot here. We don't need
> > > bestialists fucking fido in a hotel lobby for them to do harm to
> > > furry fandom. You can not possibly support a position that
> > > bestiality, nor any of the other practices named earlier are
> > > not repellant to society at large.
> >
> > "Society at large" will give you a blank stare if you ask them
> > their opinion about "furry". Then they'll tell you that shaving is
> > more attractive, or that going furry is liberation for women, or
> > possibly that Fabricland is two blocks to the South.
>
> Ah, that old Canard. "Furry is obscure! We can do any old bizarre shit we
> want and nobody will care!" Bullshit. Every year that goes by, every stupid
> tabloid article, every web search someone does for Sonic the Hedgehog makes
> Furry known to a wider number of people. And this is especially the case for
> people whose interests lie in sphere's adjacent to Furry Fandom, and those are
> the people whose opinions (among outsiders) we should care about the most.
> Maybe we don't need to worry about Country Music fans, because maybe they will
> go "Huh?" when they hear furry. But we should be concerned about what groups
> like Science Fiction fans and The Comic and Animation industries, and book
> publishing, and so on think about us, because they DON'T go "Huh?". Lately,
> after hearing about the sick fuckers who like to talk about their sick fucked-
> up-ness, they say "Ugh, you're a Furry? Don't you fuck animals or something?"
> and "No, we don't have any of those crappy Furry comics in our shop." and "Mr.
> Kidd, why don't you consider a Subsidy Publisher if you're convinced your book
> is so good."
Uh huh. And we -all- know that these industries are hateful towards
this subculture. I defy you to go to a local book store and find a
furry-themed book! You can't do it, because those "sick fuckers" have
ruined it all! Oh, you mean you -can- find a furry-themed book? Or
cartoon? Or comic? Or cheap ceramic figurine? Or kids shirt? Or
syndicated publication?
No Rich, you're the one throwing out a "canard". The general population
doesn't know or care, and with the exception of some adolescent-minded
rebellious individuals, nobody is playing 'squick-the-mundie'. If
someone finds a picture of Sonic vs the Orgasmatron, how's that any
different in their mind from accidentally bumping into
pissinabottle.jpg?
> And that, in my opinion, constitutes harm done to all members of furry fandom
> by Zoophiles.
Who'd have heard of them, Rich, if not for your unstinting efforts?
> > > By "going
> > > public" with one's partcipation in these repellant activities,
> > > these people tend to do it in a way that brings scorn down on
> > > innocent targets.
> >
> > Going public how? The Internet, where finding a furry-connected
> > zoophile/bestiality web site without being in the know is like
> > searching for a needle in a haystack? Go ahead, try it. Not that
> > someone searching for such a thing is liable to care about or even
> > notice the furry subculture in their quest for pictures of women
> > fucking dogs.
>
> As the encryption hackers will tell you, "Security through obscurity, isn't."
And as we all know, encryption hackers do what they do by stumbling
blindly over whatever they're decoding at this very moment, until they
get bored with it and move on to the next code, just like a web surfer.
> > > (Parallel example. Spammers made everyone hate AOL for a while
> > > there. By forging AOL addresses, they made an association in
> > > the internet public's perception, even though it might not have
> > > been justified.).
> >
> > They also did this by using a notorious and almost universally hated
> > form of unsolicited mass-advertising. You don't go looking for spam,
> > spam goes looking for you.
>
> And the Zoophiles go looking for public exposure, talking to every reporter
> and author who comes along saying "I'm writing about Furry..."
Funny... was that "Furry", and not "Furry Fandom"? Maybe you can't, but
I can see where zoophilia plays a role in a persons furry identity. The
fandom? Hell no, with the exception of a very specific variety of art.
But I don't think you're likely qualified to say what is or isn't a
possible part of a furry lifestyle, for instance. Maybe you should show
less interest in telling others what they can't do, and more in telling
people how art is different from spirituality or lifestyle.
> > But again, you seem to deny that there are actions which harm, and
> > actions which do not harm. The difference between these, at least, is
> > not a subjective matter.
>
> Which is something I hopefully have gotten across. The REASON there are
> burned furrs is because there are people who ARE doing harm. Okay, they
> aren't going around killing people in an imitation of an Aztec ritual they
> role-played on Tapestries, but they are hurting every furry in the fandom by
> damaging the reputation of the fandom.
You know, I think I'll go out and take a poll of public opinion
regarding the Furry Fandom. I'd love to see what damage has been done.
I frankly think you have adopted a paranoid world-view regarding it.
> > Interestingly, hundreds of thousands would be alive today if not for
> > the immoral sin of driving an automobile. Car crashes take life every
> > day, human and otherwise. Cars also emit all variety of harmful
> > vapours and liquids into the Earth's environment. Explain to me how
> > this is more morally justified than, say, "getting off on a
> > piss-soaked stuffed animal"? Seems more like a matter of what
> > an individual can stomach, to me.
>
> Two wrongs don't make a right. Industrial pollution does not justify
> committing other sins, regardless of degree. Will you tell Sarah Brady to
> shut up about that gun control thing since car accidents kill orders of
> magnitude more people that firearms accidents? (Wish you could).
In what way is an odd if harmless choice of sexuality a "sin"? As
compared to, say, lax gun control laws? As compared to, say,
denigration and hate-mongering towards certain groups? I'm talking
about an objective approach, here. Tell me exactly what it is that
makes that sexual lifestyle wrong, without any personal opinions. Just
facts. If you can prove that it is demonstrably wrong, then I may be
inclined to agree with you.
> > > Even if your personal judgement is that something is not
> > > sick, disgusting and wrong, one should consider whether everyone
> > > else agrees with you before engaging in it or advocating it.
> >
> > No, not really. Provided nobody is harmed, and provided nobody
> > is unwillingly exposed to the act, why should it matter? If a tree
> > falls in the forest, and there's nobody there to hear it, why bitch
> > about it just because you know that there's a stump somewhere?
>
> How about because I just came out into the woods and found a tree smashed
> through the roof of my cabin? Silly example. You can not validly assert that
Rich, you don't -have- a cabin in the woods.
> the various groups that Burned Furs are opposed to have not done the fandom
> any harm because if they hadn't there would BE no Burned Furs and we wouldn't
> be having this discussion.
No. It's because everybody wants an enemy to blame. That's human
nature at its finest, not proof of wrongdoing. The Burned Furs are a
lynch mob, following a small group of noisy ringleaders as a means of
relieving natural aggression. The victim of the mob doesn't matter,
save that they have to stand out in some way so as to be a clear target.
It boils down to someone throwing a stone, and everybody else chiming
in, "Me too!"
> > > If you think that something is unfairly
> > > considered S,D&W, then you need to decide if you feel strongly enough
> > > to stand in the face of scorn to try to change society's opinion.
> > > But regognize that one empassioned speech is not going to
> > > change everyone's mind in an instant, and there wil be reprecussions.
> >
> > At the moment, I'm not interested in society because society
> > isn't interested in me. What I'm interested in is the few who continue
> > to badmouth people and acts which they have no investment in or
> > connection with more strong than this little-known subculture, whose
> > most celebrated claim to fame is arguably the unending civil war
> > which splits it.
>
> Oh goodie. You're anti-social, maybe even disassociated. That might even
> explain the interest in Zoophilia. But there are a hell of a lot of us who
> are in the fandom and also in the real world who care about what society
> thinks because it DOES have an effect on us.
I was speaking as a furry lifestyler. There is no reason for me to
become involved in society as a furry lifestyler, and no reason for
society to become involved in my furry lifestyle.
I fully recognize the necessity of society, and the need to work within
it. I also recognize that it doesn't give a damn for who I am beneath
the mask I wear. It doesn't give a damn about you either, or about the
next furry fan, or the next. We are oddities, to be observed with
amusement or disgust at worst. And that, of course, is assuming that we
make the effort to make it known that we are members of this subculture.
The way we are percieved is not based on what such-and-such said on his
web site. We are percieved as alien, because we are different. And
whether you think so or not, even if zoophiles/bestialists/whoever were
relegated to their own tiny corner of the world and never heard from
again, the furry fandom would be percieved as zoophilic. Stand back,
look at your perfect fandom, and tell me what you see as an outsider.
> Of course I have no "Investment" in the acts I'm badmouthing. I wouldn't be
> badmouthing Zoos if I was one, now would I? Maybe if I were a zoo I'd be
> arguing with Zoophiles who keep making all these furry fans hate Zoos by not
> leaving them alone. I'd be like "Hey, why are you guys so determined to make
> enemies? You're hurting the reputation of Zoophilia."
I still haven't seen any demonstration that this is common practise.
> > You join a group of oddballs, you'd best be prepared to grow up and
> > deal with the fact that some of them do things you don't like.
>
> The group of oddballs I joined are people who like Furry Art and Media. I
> didn't join so I could rub shoulders with people who are utterly fascinated
> with the canine "Knot".
That's tough, they're here and they have every right to be. For that
matter, there really isn't a "here", is there? It's art. It's just
art. And people can create it and appreciate it as they see fit.
> > If you don't like the association, it is of course a personal choice to
> > keep your own affiliation quiet.
>
> But I LOVE your solution. If I don't like associating with zoophiles, I
> should keep quiet about being a Furry fan. Fuck that.
And if I do like associating with zoophiles/vinylphiles/lifestylers/etc,
I should keep quiet? Well, there's equity for you.
Rust
>
> writes:
> > Well, I thought we'd established that an opinion is an opinion,
> > but apparently the point wasn't driven home with quite enough force.
> > Nor do I imagine that any force would be sufficient to overcome this
> > brand of willful ignorance.
>
> Are you Baloo? I didn't think so. I was asking him. I notice that the two
> of you keep playing tag-team with people's posts, Baloo inserting himself in
> the middle of threads as if the reply were intended for him and vice versa
> here with you. It's a great way of derailing a discussion. It happens all
> the time on a.l.f whenever a serious topic comes up. One might even think it
> was deliberate.
Psst - your paranoia is showing.
If you mean for a post to remain private, then may I direct you to a
private forum? It's called "e-mail". Otherwise, open season. That's
what public forums are for.
> > > in such a way that totally innocent
> > > people get hurt in the process"? Who are these innocents?
> >
> > Those who are treated in an inhumane manner for their beliefs,
> > lifestyles, or sexualities. Clear enough?
>
> Nope. WAY too general. Do any of these "people" even exist? Remember, it
> ties back to the first question. Who are the innocent people the BF's
> supposedly hurt by calling certain ugly practices ugly?
Round and round we go.
You know, I've made every point I can. So have you, but you continue to
ignore every point I've made, and hit your own points with a bigger
hammer apparently in the the hopes that their blunt ends will wedge in
somehow. It all boils down to what's an acceptable way to treat people,
in the end. There's more to it really, about the accuracy of your
arguments and your treatment of your opinion as God's word, but why
bother arguing with a concrete wall? I've invested far more time and
thought than your thin arguments are worth. Good day.
Doug Winger
> Nice try Gaddfly. You're comparing apples to oranges. The apples in this
> case being "anyone on the opposite side of a flamewar with the Burned
> Furs",
> i.e. someone who actively participates in a discussion. They made the
> choice
> to argue, they got in the ring, so they have to take some responsibility
> for
> the lumps they took. The oranges are people who chose one thing, to
> participate in furry fandom, and ended up taking lumps from the general
> public
> because a certain group of people decided to make an association between
> furry
> fandom and their own socially reprehensible activities.
>
> Or, to put it even more simply, it's one thing to go toe-to-toe with
> someone,
> it's another when someone convinces a third party to go after you
> unexpectedly
> (Like the example of the comic shop dealer in the other post.)
>
This I have to call you on.
The only people that have insulted me, denigrated me and literally called
me, "The antichrist" have been people I've had no inclination to argue with,
debate with, write to, talk to or otherwise have much more to do with other
than being socially polite to them when nearby at a con haven't been non-fans,
if you take my meaning.
Going by the options given, I guess that makes me a persimmon.
- Doug, Who's Just This Guy, Y'see
Leslie_R
You can not validly assert that the various groups that -The Portal of
Evil- are opposed to have not done -Society- any harm because if they
hadn't there would BE no -Portal of Evil- and we wouldn't be having this
discussion.
thank you -_-
-Leslie
--
"Now we are so happy, we do the Dance of Joy!"
-Balki Bartokamouse
Leslie_R
>
> In article <39EB7C3D...@atoka.net>, Leslie_R <tro...@atoka.net>
> wrote:
>
> > > You can not validly assert that the various groups that -Burned Furs- > are
> > > opposed to have not done the -fandom- any harm because if they > hadn't
> > > there would BE no -Burned Furs- and we wouldn't be having this >
> > > discussion.
> >
> > You can not validly assert that the various groups that -The Portal of
> > hadn't there would BE no -Portal of Evil- and we wouldn't be having this
> > discussion.
>
> Boy, I think I got the 'bends' reading both of those :D (I assume
> _opposed_ is actually intended to be the word _supposed_?)
uh, no.. but maybe replace -opposed to- with -have ridiculed-
>
> --
> MT - Diagonally parked in a parallel universe.
>
> 101010
just trying to get things back on-topic ^_^
ilr
> It's also pretty naive to suppose that living outside of the USA means
> you aren't affected by US politics.
No it's not. You'd have to greatly exaggerate the level to which you're
affected by my Government as opposed to how directly affected I am.
It's all the other countries decision to what degree they are affected
by the U.S. since they are not directly governed by the US.
Either way, that doesn't change the fact that he openly voiced his
opinion of how offended he was, which in turn offended me, and I'm JUST
as entitled to voice my own degree of offense taken no matter how many
other nationalities and Gore-haters populate this newsgroup.
And feel free to call me Saddam if you actually reference Gore with a guy
who to tried take over an entire country, flaunt his disrespect to a super-power,
and start a major war he had no chance of winning. But it will only flaunt
your own naiveté. Now if you called me Prince Charles, that might be more
of a fair trade-off. And I'll call you "socks" just cuz I don't like cats. :P
-Ilr
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
deja.com> writes:
> Rich, what sort of complaint is that? It's not like you've* _
> never_ 'horned in' to a discussion that wasn't directly involving at
> you :D That's just silly . .
The difference was that instead of "Horning in" the message read as if Baloo
were picking up the thread of conversation as if it had been addressed to him.
Were one to gloss over the attribution lines, or if they'd been lost as some
newsreaders are prone to do, one might not have noticed.
bdy...@network.boxmail.com
Richard Chandler - WA Resident <mau...@kendra.com> wrote:
[snip]
>Nice sites will be outnumbered 10 to 1 by not-so-nice stuff. (Hell, just
>look at the ratio of new posts to Yerf vs. Velar).
To be fair, I think that's not so much because of depicted subject matter,
but because Yerf has some sort of quality control and Velan doesn't. Thank
goodness for Peganthyrus' VCL Sieve. I think there's a place for both
kinds of archives. I'd like to see an archive that had quality control
and allowed adult material, but I think that'd be more difficult for the
maintainers as it'd be hard to avoid "your kink is not OK"-type arguments.
--
Brian Dysart | The RNG giveth, and the RNG taketh away.
bdy...@network.boxmail.com | "...and eight for the fruit bat."
www.rahul.net/bdysart/ | <*> Code Code block: C---
Pheirat Multipurpose
Cincinnatti. What else is there needed to say? Heh...
---------------------
Pheirat Multipurpose|
---------------------
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Pheirat Multipurpose
The phrase, "Incredibly BRAVE and stupid men" come to mind when I hear
that.
---------------------
Pheirat Multipurpose|
---------------------
-- I am a ferret, small, cunning, and I like to get into things.
-- Do not step on me or I will bite and not let go.
Pheirat Multipurpose
> Guardian wasn't that bad an article... If you were a Lifestyler.
>
> Remember that it started off with three paragraphs describing an orgy
>at The Leash And Collar on FurryMuck. Among the newsgroups listed,
>are a.f.f and a.l.f, but also alt.sex.furry and alt.sex.plushie. It
>quotes a long passage from Foxwolfie Galen's Plushie Page, and spends
>four paragraphs with him - introducing the world to such wonderful
>terms as "Poke and Soak".
Arrg.. people like Galen are the reason the fandom has such a bad
image. Shit.. his page reads like a damn menu of social and sexual
dysfunction. Keep that shit to yourself, not in view of the
neaderthalic meat eating twats of this world.
Kripes folks, its no wonder we have such a bad image. If someone would
politely tap this guy on the shoulder and ask him a blatent "What the
hell are you thinking!" I think some progress migt be made.
>He goes through Furveys and comments on them about how the writer is
an obsessed loner. It also includes a glossary of furry terms, about
half of which are sexual.
>
> http://www.sfbg.com/SFLife/32/47/furries.html If you want to see it.
>
Yes, its in need of some strong social drugs, really strong ones.
Thats all I have to say.
-- Pheirat Multipurpose
Pheirat Multipurpose
just trying to get a rise out of people, much like the STAR or NATIONAL
ENQUIRERE does. What they say, and the newspapers have about 1% truth
in them, thats about. OTherwise, their full of filler and fluff, not
of the good kind either.
-Pheirat Multipurpose
gbres...@my-deja.com
"Steve Carter" <mouseboy...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Which brings us back to the traditional idea that men (and women) are
> brave
> so long as the enemy is nowhere in sight.
"What is brave? Let me elaborate. Brave is short for 'brave-er-ree'.
What is Bravery? Let me elaborate..."
(who suddenly has whacky old movies quotes bouncing around in his head)
--
--Gene
"Everybody wants to be a cat, 'cause a cat's the only cat who knows
where it's at."
--O'Malley the alley cat, The Aristocats.
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
> In article <001014111...@mauser.at.kendra.com>, Richard
> Chandler - WA Resident <mau...@kendra.com> wrote: [snip]
> >Nice sites will be outnumbered 10 to 1 by not-so-nice stuff. (Hell,
> >just look at the ratio of new posts to Yerf vs. Velar).
>
> To be fair, I think that's not so much because of depicted subject
> matter, but because Yerf has some sort of quality control and
> Velan doesn't. Thank goodness for Peganthyrus' VCL Sieve. I think
> there's a place for both kinds of archives. I'd like to see an
> archive that had quality control and allowed adult material, but I
> think that'd be more difficult for the maintainers as it'd be hard
> to avoid "your kink is not OK"-type arguments.
Actually, while I was chatting with someone last night, I went through all 30
or so "New" pages on Velan. I think that while Velan has a reputation for
having a lot of spooge, it's actually undeserved. Indeed, out of 900 or so
pictures, I only found two or three bondage pictures. And only a few other
pictures that were pretty enough to save. I guess my original statement about
not-so-nice stuff holds if you mean it to apply to poorly drawn work.
I agree, a quality controlled archive like Yerf, but allowing adult material
would be cool. Alas, I sure as hell don't have the bandwidth to run one. Nor
the time. On the other hand, I DO run a quality-controlled 'zine that allows
erotica. More people should buy Gallery. (Plug! Plug!)
Brian W. Antoine
> I agree, a quality controlled archive like Yerf, but allowing adult material
> would be cool. Alas, I sure as hell don't have the bandwidth to run one. Nor
> the time. On the other hand, I DO run a quality-controlled 'zine that allows
> erotica. More people should buy Gallery. (Plug! Plug!)
Ok, I'm sure Snout and Chris would be willing to talk to you. They operate
the site, provide the hardware and the bandwidth, you dictate which pictures
are allowed to be displayed. For that matter, I bet they'd be willing to talk
to anybody who wanted to become the focus of the screams of censorship that
would flood the mailbox with a policy change like that.
Any takers?
--
(UniKyrn on IM, ICQ#27068798)
Brian W. Antoine briana @ ipeg|dogear|circuit .com
http://www.nas-kan.org/
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
phe...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> > Guardian wasn't that bad an article... If you were a Lifestyler.
> >
> > Remember that it started off with three paragraphs describing an orgy
> >at The Leash And Collar on FurryMuck. Among the newsgroups listed,
> >are a.f.f and a.l.f, but also alt.sex.furry and alt.sex.plushie.
> >It quotes a long passage from Foxwolfie Galen's Plushie Page, and
> >spends four paragraphs with him - introducing the world to
> >such wonderful terms as "Poke and Soak".
>
> Arrg.. people like Galen are the reason the fandom has such a bad
> image. Shit.. his page reads like a damn menu of social and
> sexual dysfunction. Keep that shit to yourself, not in view of
> the neaderthalic meat eating twats of this world.
Well, you're a little behind the date on this thread, but you get the gist of
it.
> Kripes folks, its no wonder we have such a bad image. If someone
> would politely tap this guy on the shoulder and ask him a blatent
> "What the hell are you thinking!" I think some progress migt be made.
Gee, you could be a Burned Fur. But the answer to "What the hell are you
thinking?" would probably be "Hey, it's free speech man, I can say whatever I
want. This is what I like. You can't tell me what to do." You'll note
there's no consideration on how that reflects on others....
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
>>
>> It's also pretty naive to suppose that living outside of the USA means
>> you aren't affected by US politics.
>
>No it's not. You'd have to greatly exaggerate the level to which you're
>affected by my Government as opposed to how directly affected I am.
US trade policy effects the value of your dollar with in turn effects
how meany furry products I can buy.
US entertainment industiries backed by there goverment make watching
forain DVDs difficalt for me threw zoning.
US goverment acting effects the local political atmosfear of nations
around us and may or may not cause war to occure.
--
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.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
<ba...@ursine.dyndns.org> wrote:
>Tim Gadd <not_a...@addysodontreplytoit.com> wrote:
>
>> It's also pretty naive to suppose that living outside of the USA means
>> you aren't affected by US politics.
>
>Its even more naive to think that the world revolves around the United
>States. It doesn't. If I had to say that the world revolved politically
>around one point, I'd say it would be London. The British Commonwealth
>System still has the most land and probably pretty close to the most
>people.
Yes but there is no power in that system.
>Why do you think the UN always sends us on
>"peacekeeping" missions?
Becaause the UN "peacekeeping" missions are mearly extentions of US
forin policy.
Chuck Melville
Baloo Ursidae wrote:
> The BFs railed on all lifestylers, lopping them in with less savory types,
> without any real consideration for the individual.
Why should the status of being an individual deserve special consideration
over the status of association? Does this become a matter of savoriness by
degrees? "We're both lifestylers, but -he- is a bestialist and I only indulge
myself sexually with stuffed animals, so I'm not as bad as -he- is".
If you lie down with dogs...
...no, wait.... wrong metaphor to use in this discussion....
Chuck Melville
Leslie_R wrote:
> Mathue wrote:
> >
> > In article <39EB7C3D...@atoka.net>, Leslie_R <tro...@atoka.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > > You can not validly assert that the various groups that -Burned Furs- > are
> > > > opposed to have not done the -fandom- any harm because if they > hadn't
> > > > there would BE no -Burned Furs- and we wouldn't be having this >
> > > > discussion.
> > >
> > > You can not validly assert that the various groups that -The Portal of
> > > Evil- are opposed to have not done -Society- any harm because if they
> > > hadn't there would BE no -Portal of Evil- and we wouldn't be having this
> > > discussion.
> >
> > Boy, I think I got the 'bends' reading both of those :D (I assume
> > _opposed_ is actually intended to be the word _supposed_?)
>
> uh, no.. but maybe replace -opposed to- with -have ridiculed-
> >
> > --
That version makes more sense. I don't believe for one moment that the PoE are
really opposed to anything on their list any more than they would be for it; bottom
line is that they don't care, it's just something 'wierd' for them to laugh at.
It's an adolescent's site based on the worst possible adolescent attitude and
humor. Regardless of my own opinions on particular sites or what they represent, I
sure as heck don't take the PoE's recommendations or POV seriously, or give it any
sober consideration whatsoever. Waste of time. Ignore them.
Doug Winger
Because the collective is not the measure of the individual.
At risk of setting off a (say is quickly!) guncontroldebate, consider the
NRA. I'm sure there's looneys that have full membership that think that it's
their God-Given right to own and operate 16 inch naval guns in their backyard,
and that it's okay for them to mix up a batch of Sarin nerve gas "for use in
self-defense situations". Those are the ones that the regular membership kinda
look at funny, and I'm sure they'll be the first to tell you, "Those guys are
_weird_, but I'm still in the NRA".
I don't think you're going to condemn _every_ member of that organization
because of the screwloose members actions and/or opinions, are you?
Think about it. Your rhetorical question translates into, "All those
stereotypes we've heard about certain groups are perfectly accurate for all
members of those groups. Individuals should be judged solely upon the company
they keep and what groups they're in." I'll spare the you the sarcasm and
ironic comments that might be used to illustrate that.
NEVER lose sight of the fact that individuals are just that, and groups
don't necessarily mean that all it's members are identical.
By the way, I don't think bestiality or being a plushophile is required to
be a Lifestyler nor does either mean an automatic membershp in that group-
unless they've changed the non-existent rules recently.
- Doug
-"That all men are created equal..."
- From the preamble of the Constitution of The United States
Terry Knight
> > It's also pretty naive to suppose that living outside of the USA means
> > you aren't affected by US politics.
>
> affected by my Government as opposed to how directly affected I am.
> by the U.S. since they are not directly governed by the US.
Considering that:
1. The US is effectively driving the world's economy in that every time
Wall St sneezes, London, Paris, Berlin, Tokyo, Canberra and Wellington
catch a cold,
2. The US is the most powerful permanent member of the UN Security
Council,
3. Virtually no major UN peacekeeping initiative can get going without
US approval,
4. A great proportion of the huge multi-national corporations (including
media companies) in the world are US-based, and
5. virtually all world currencies are benchmarked against the US dollar,
... US politics *do* have a significant impact to the rest of the world.
I'm not necessarily saying this is a 'bad' thing, considering the
alternatives. I'm just saying that the interlinking of the countries of
the world, even the USA, can be severely underestimated.
Cheers!
--
Terry Knight | may...@attglobal.net | On assignment in Brighton, UK
=========================================================================
Homepage: http://www.furnation.com/mayfurr/ FurCode1.2: FCF3adm/C3famd
A+++ C+ D H M+ P R T W Z++ S# RLCT cn++$ a+ d e+ f h+++ iwf+ p+ sm*
+++ Divide By Cucumber Error. Please Reinstall Universe And Reboot +++
Rust
> NEVER lose sight of the fact that individuals are just that, and groups
> don't necessarily mean that all it's members are identical.
Yay!
> By the way, I don't think bestiality or being a plushophile is required to
> be a Lifestyler nor does either mean an automatic membershp in that group-
> unless they've changed the non-existent rules recently.
It's pretty loose. Okay, it's really loose. But it seems to have
something to do with a depth of spiritual or emotional association with
'furry' or zoological concepts which may or may not pertain to the
fandom.
Ben_Raccoon
"ilr" <i...@rof.net> wrote in message news:8sdf8k$h8i$1...@raccoon.fur.com...
> >
> > We keep a low profile. Try punching 'furry' into a general search
engine.
> >
>
> *Guffaw!*
> Low profile as opposed to what?
>
>
Trekkies.
Need I say more. ;)
--
For a brief time I was here; and for a brief time I mattered. - Harlan
Ellison.
Shameless website plug. :) http://www.furnation.com/ben_raccoon/
sola...@don'tmesswithtexas.net
>> Becaause the UN "peacekeeping" missions are mearly extentions of US
>> forin policy.
>
>*grumbles something about Bush wanting to try and start wars to get him
>drafted, quoting bits of the 2nd debate...*
Excuse me??? Just where the hell did you get _that_ idea?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Fool! You have just signed the universe's death warrant!"
"I did? Uh... gee, I don't know if I'm authorized to sign that..."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
solarfox@DON'TMESSWITHtexas.net (Gary Akins jr.)
http://lonestar.texas.net/~solarfox
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Akai
>
> solarfox@don'tmesswithtexas.net wrote:
>
> > Excuse me??? Just where the hell did you get _that_ idea?
>
> drafts. Korea and Nam specifically.
>
> We're at peace right now, and Bush said we should be out fighting
> wars. Yeah. Right. We all agree with you now, Mr. Bush.
>
> --
> Baloo
Fighting wars against whom? And how would it be any different than
Clinton and his hawkish tendencies?
--
-Akai
"Life is like nothing, because it is everything."
-William Golding
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
ba...@ursine.dyndns.org> writes:
> We're at peace right now, and Bush said we should be out fighting
> wars. Yeah. Right. We all agree with you now, Mr. Bush.
I don't think you quite got that right. He was saying that we shouldn't be
using the military for things other than fighting wars. "Nation building" and
the like. He was saying that when things get the the "Peacekeeping" stage,
the rest of NATO ought to be putting in Men and equipment, rather than the US
doing it for everyone else.
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
ba...@ursine.dyndns.org> writes:
> Correction, how would it be any different than Bush Sr and his
> hawkish tendencies? The only millitary engagements Clinton really
> ever got into were UN ones.
Clinton has gotten the US Military active in more theaters than any other
president. Period. Think of all the places they rattled off in the second
debate.
For a man who proclaimed he "Loathed" the military, he seems to have gone out
of his way to put the men in harm's way.
And he's used up all the conventional cruise missiles, almost, without
allowing us to build any more.
Akai
>
> ba...@ursine.dyndns.org> writes:
> > Correction, how would it be any different than Bush Sr and his
> > hawkish tendencies? The only millitary engagements Clinton really
> > ever got into were UN ones.
>
> Clinton has gotten the US Military active in more theaters than any other
> president. Period. Think of all the places they rattled off in the second
> debate.
>
> For a man who proclaimed he "Loathed" the military, he seems to have gone out
> of his way to put the men in harm's way.
>
> And he's used up all the conventional cruise missiles, almost, without
> allowing us to build any more.
Thank you. I knew that I wasn't sleeping during the past eight years.
I'm not claiming that any political party is better than the other but I
do recall Clinton being very fond of having bombs dropped on people at
the slightest provocation. And he's pushing for an S.D.I.-style missile
defense system almost as hard as Reagan did.
> --
> "if Marylin Manson has more of an influence on a kid than the kid's parents
> do, then maybe the parents need to look at how they're raising their kids."
> -- Charlie Clouser, Keyboardist, Nine Inch Nails.
> Spammer Warning: Washington State Law now provides civil penalties for UCE.
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
ba...@ursine.dyndns.org> writes:
> Richard Chandler - WA Resident <mau...@kendra.com> wrote:
> > And he's used up all the conventional cruise missiles, almost,
> > without allowing us to build any more.
>
Well, you know, equipping the armed forces is one of the Constitutional duties
of the Government. It's in the main body, in fact, not an amendment. Article
1 Section 8, IIRC. Prescription Drugs, Retirement benefits, and so on are not
in the Constitution. But, if you think the opposite, and that the Military
should have to beg for funding, that perhaps the soldiers should spend their
food stamps to buy flour to make cookies to pay for Missiles that Clinton had
fired to distract the press from his latest Legal disaster, well, I guess that
makes you a typical American and I hope to god you don't vote.
Rust
>
> In article <uqcos8...@ursine.dyndns.org>, Baloo Ursidae <
> ba...@ursine.dyndns.org> writes:
> > Richard Chandler - WA Resident <mau...@kendra.com> wrote:
> > > And he's used up all the conventional cruise missiles, almost,
> > > without allowing us to build any more.
> >
> > Let them hold a bake sale then.
>
> Well, you know, equipping the armed forces is one of the Constitutional duties
> of the Government. It's in the main body, in fact, not an amendment. Article
> 1 Section 8, IIRC. Prescription Drugs, Retirement benefits, and so on are not
> in the Constitution. But, if you think the opposite, and that the Military
> should have to beg for funding, that perhaps the soldiers should spend their
> food stamps to buy flour to make cookies to pay for Missiles that Clinton had
> fired to distract the press from his latest Legal disaster, well, I guess that
> makes you a typical American and I hope to god you don't vote.
My only question is... when did the USA last fire a cruise missile in
defense of US soil?
Artist
"Rust" <othr...@bmts.com.netspam> wrote in message
news:39EFE5...@bmts.com.netspam...
They haven't. We have fought only one war on our own soil. And that is the
problem with Clinton. I just hope to god that China don't attack. We
would be screwed.
Rust
>
> "Rust" <othr...@bmts.com.netspam> wrote in message
> > My only question is... when did the USA last fire a cruise missile in
> > defense of US soil?
>
> They haven't. We have fought only one war on our own soil. And that is the
> problem with Clinton. I just hope to god that China don't attack. We
> would be screwed.
Four wars were fought in part on US soil, I believe. The Revolution,
the war of 1812, the Civil War, and Japan's attack on Pearl Harbour.
Okay, now what does China stand to gain by launching an assault against
America, even assuming assured victory?
Doodles
> Okay, now what does China stand to gain by launching an assault against
> America, even assuming assured victory?
Why, what else?
Rice-a-Roni, the San Francisco treat!
Chuck Melville
Artist wrote:
> "Rust" <othr...@bmts.com.netspam> wrote in message
> news:39EFE5...@bmts.com.netspam...
> > Richard Chandler - WA Resident wrote:
> >
> > My only question is... when did the USA last fire a cruise missile in
> > defense of US soil?
>
> They haven't. We have fought only one war on our own soil. And that is the
> problem with Clinton. I just hope to god that China don't attack. We
> would be screwed.
Actually, we've fought two wars on our own soil: the Revolutionary War and
the Civil War (during which we fought with ourselves). Three, if you count
the Indian Wars.
Chuck Melville
Rust wrote:
> Artist wrote:
> >
> > "Rust" <othr...@bmts.com.netspam> wrote in message
>
> > > My only question is... when did the USA last fire a cruise missile in
> > > defense of US soil?
> >
> > They haven't. We have fought only one war on our own soil. And that is the
> > problem with Clinton. I just hope to god that China don't attack. We
> > would be screwed.
>
> Four wars were fought in part on US soil, I believe. The Revolution,
> the war of 1812, the Civil War, and Japan's attack on Pearl Harbour.
>
Dang, I forgot about 1812. What was the status of Hawaii during WWII? It
wasn't yet a state, so it really wasn't US soil... but was it a territory,
protectorate, or something else? (I should know this, but I can't recall
offhand....)
Chuck Melville
Baloo Ursidae wrote:
> Richard Chandler - WA Resident <mau...@kendra.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't think you quite got that right. He was saying that we shouldn't be
> > using the military for things other than fighting wars. "Nation building" and
> > the like. He was saying that when things get the the "Peacekeeping" stage,
> > the rest of NATO ought to be putting in Men and equipment, rather than the US
> > doing it for everyone else.
>
> No, I got it right. I looked through the transcripts. He said what you
> said, but he also kinda ran through a comment to the effect of "so we can
> fight our own wars."
>
I remember the statement, but there's an implied condition of "if we had to" in
there; at least, that's how -I- heard it, rather than as a declaration of actual
intent. He's not saying anything along the lines of "we should be hoarding our men
and weapons for fighting real wars that I've got all lined up if I'm elected", but
something more along the lines of "we shouldn't be messing with other people's
problems, but keeping our own resources fresh and intact for whenever -we- might
-really- need them, in the case of emergency."
Of course, at -this- stage, I'm not sure I'd put much faith in anything
-either- of them said. Fuzzy facts, y'know.
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
> > I guess that makes you a typical American and I hope to god you
> > don't vote.
>
> you get drafted, or hope you don't reproduce.
Same to you, boo-boo.
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
writes:
> Okay, now what does China stand to gain by launching an assault
> against America, even assuming assured victory?
They become the biggest, baddest kid on the block. Nothing will stop them
from over-running all of asia. Remember that they have both overpopulation
and resource problems, and all this talk of replacing Communism with limited
Capitalism would be over.
If they thought they could get away with nuking the crap out of the US, and
come out on top, Taiwan would be history at the same time.
It would be the Domino theory, but for real.
It probably would also help them deal with the surplus of young males too,
which they have thanks to all the girl-baby drownings.
Doug Winger
<ba...@ursine.dyndns.org> wrote:
> Artist <mell...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > They haven't. We have fought only one war on our own soil. And that is
> > the
> > problem with Clinton. I just hope to god that China don't attack. We
> > would be screwed.
>
> World War Two was technically fought on our own soil. Tillimook County,
> Oregon was bombed by the Japanese. The death toll was three children,
> half a forest, and several dozen dairy cows. They were trying to bomb the
> Tillimook Zepplin Depot and missed by a couple miles. However,
> considering the fact that they were delivered by weather balloon...
Also:
Japanese submarine's shelling of a California oil field(s), to not very
great effect. The Aleutian Island (US Territory) actions, to greater effect.
The Pacific islands involved in many of the battles were either US territories
or protectorates, as well.
I do think, on the balance, that Japanese territory and soil took the
greater beating.
As for China attacking the US directly... Considering the logistics
involved, the relative differences in technological capability in warfare, the
differences in both strategic and grand tactical resources, China would have
to be utterly stark staring bugfuck to try that.
Besides, they'd never be able to afford the airline tickets to get their
troops over here.
- Doug, Who's Not Worrying Too Much About That
miertam(at)aa.net
>
>Yeah... Comparing the minor pocking the US received to the destruction of two
>cities by atomic bombs.. Yeah, Japan took the greater beating.
>
>--
>Atara
It should have just been one but the Japanese were a bit stubborn about the
matter.
------------------------------------------
Mier'Tam
The most important thing about magic is how you don't use it.
Esk
Wonder Enis Gheen Wonder
Simon Stevin
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
writes:
> Of course, at -this- stage, I'm not sure I'd put much faith
> in anything -either- of them said. Fuzzy facts, y'know.
Of course, the latest round of Fuzzy Math is this Trillion Dollars thing.
Counting on people not paying close attention, they're trying to advertise
that Bush is trying to spend the same Trillion dollars twice, (To a) shore up
the SS Trust Fund, and b) allow people to invest.)
But if you've been paying attention, the trillion for saving the trust fund
come from projected tax surplusses, i.e. Income Tax, while the trillion that
(may) be invested is a fraction (2%) of the FICA taxes that are also deducted
from your payroll. The money, by the way, would still be handled by the
govenrmnet, but the taxpayer "owns" it and can direct how it's handled.
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
do...@fastpointcom.com> writes:
> As for China attacking the US directly... Considering the
> logistics involved, the relative differences in technological
> capability in warfare, the differences in both strategic and
> grand tactical resources, China would have to be utterly stark
> staring bugfuck to try that.
Well, since thanks ot Loral and Clinton, the Chinese are really close to being
able to reach out and touch someone on this side of the Pacific, I'm a little
less than happy, considering the economic chaos one nuke - and it only takes
one to ruin your day - could do to say, the Boeing plant in Everett, plus all
the navy and airforce installations in the Puget Sound, plus the negative
impact it would have on my lifestyle.
Another way to seriously fuck-up the US would be a MIRV strike spread out over
the Bay area. That would pretty much ruin the economy.
I don't know if nuking Hollywood would do much other than hurt morale....
Still, being able to land nuclear weapons on the left coast would seriously
kneecap the US.
> Besides, they'd never be able to afford the airline tickets to get
> their troops over here.
Does anyone remember the status of that Port in San Diego the Chinese Military
was taking over via a Front company? I suppose the Red Army could come here
in Containers. That's it! All those illegals were actually advance Scouts!
:-)
Rust
>
> In article <39F0CF...@bmts.com.netspam>, Rust <othr...@bmts.com.netspam>
> writes:
> > Okay, now what does China stand to gain by launching an assault
> > against America, even assuming assured victory?
>
> They become the biggest, baddest kid on the block. Nothing will stop them
> from over-running all of asia. Remember that they have both overpopulation
> and resource problems, and all this talk of replacing Communism with limited
> Capitalism would be over.
Okay, makes a certain amount of sense. It still amounts to insanity if
you consider the global consequences, but I don't suppose world leaders
have generally been known for social conscience or a keen grip on
reality.
Rust
>
> Rust wrote:
> > Four wars were fought in part on US soil, I believe. The Revolution,
> > the war of 1812, the Civil War, and Japan's attack on Pearl Harbour.
> >
>
> Dang, I forgot about 1812. What was the status of Hawaii during WWII? It
> wasn't yet a state, so it really wasn't US soil... but was it a territory,
> protectorate, or something else? (I should know this, but I can't recall
> offhand....)
I'm not sure of that, so I'll retract it and call it three.
Atara
<doug-BB9057.2...@news.fastpoint.net>:
> I do think, on the balance, that Japanese territory and soil took the
>greater beating.
Yeah... Comparing the minor pocking the US received to the destruction of two
cities by atomic bombs.. Yeah, Japan took the greater beating.
--
Atara
"I've got a pantheon of animals
in a pagan soul..." -Rush
http://www.FurNation.com/Atara/
Akai
>
> Richard Chandler - WA Resident wrote:
> >
> > In article <39F0CF...@bmts.com.netspam>, Rust <othr...@bmts.com.netspam>
> > writes:
> > > Okay, now what does China stand to gain by launching an assault
> > > against America, even assuming assured victory?
> >
> > They become the biggest, baddest kid on the block. Nothing will stop them
> > from over-running all of asia. Remember that they have both overpopulation
> > and resource problems, and all this talk of replacing Communism with limited
> > Capitalism would be over.
>
> Okay, makes a certain amount of sense. It still amounts to insanity if
> you consider the global consequences, but I don't suppose world leaders
> have generally been known for social conscience or a keen grip on
> reality.
>
> --
> We are the instruments of creation - what we dream, is.
>
> Remove ".netspam" from my address to reply
They have had their turn being walked all over by the West, so I
wouldn't be suprised if they'd like to have a turn stepping on some
European necks for a change.
Akai
And the casualties from atomic bombs were a drop in the bucket compared
to the deaths from the carpet bombing campaigns.
M. Mitchell Marmel
> Besides, they'd never be able to afford the airline tickets to get their
> troops over here.
Not to mention that they've sold us most of their AK-47s and SKSes. :D
--
============================================================================
M. Mitchell Marmel \ Scattered, smothered, covered, chunked,
Drexel University \ whipped, beaten, chained and pierced.
Department of Materials Engineering \ *THE BEST HASHBROWNS IN THE WORLD!*
Fibrous Materials Research Center \ marm...@dunx1.irt.drexel.edu
============================================================================
TaliVisions Homepage: http://www.pages.drexel.edu/grad/marmelmm/Talivisions/index.html
ICQ # 58305217
M. Mitchell Marmel
> Well, since thanks ot Loral and Clinton, the Chinese are really close to being
> able to reach out and touch someone on this side of the Pacific, I'm a little
> less than happy, considering the economic chaos one nuke - and it only takes
> one to ruin your day - could do to say, the Boeing plant in Everett, plus all
> the navy and airforce installations in the Puget Sound, plus the negative
> impact it would have on my lifestyle.
H'm. You know, that could be an advertising campaign for Philadelphia:
"We may be a slum, but at least the Red Chinese can't nuke us!" :D
> Another way to seriously fuck-up the US would be a MIRV strike spread out over
> the Bay area. That would pretty much ruin the economy.
You think? My perception is that current technology makes restarting in
a dispersed fashion much easier. Disrupt, yeah, but not permanently.
I mean, even if Apple gets nuked, there's plenty of Macs out there to
work with now...
> I don't know if nuking Hollywood would do much other than hurt morale....
As far as I'm concerned, just take the film archives, put 'em in a Utah
salt mine, get J. Michael Strazinski out of town and drop a bomb on the
rest of them. Couldn't help but improve things.
> Still, being able to land nuclear weapons on the left coast would seriously
> kneecap the US.
Lots of prosthetic knees around nowadays.
> Does anyone remember the status of that Port in San Diego the Chinese Military
> was taking over via a Front company? I suppose the Red Army could come here
> in Containers. That's it! All those illegals were actually advance Scouts!
And they were flying in those illicit AKs to supply their troops! Rich,
yer a genius. ;)
Al Goldman
writes:
>
>My only question is... when did the USA last fire a cruise missile in
>defense of US soil?
>
>-Rust
Defense of US oil might be a better phrase!
As long as the US and Europe get oil from the middle east we're only one major
political crisis away from world war III. The day you hear of a successful
coupe against the Saudi Royal family, be prepared to kiss western civilization
as we know it goodbye.
As for the Balkans, I don't remember all the details but a pipeline from
central Asia to Europe is in the works. Finding a politically stable route for
it through the former Soviet Union is just about impossible. So our involvement
in that region once again returns to oil.
Since oil is used for the plastic used to make fake fur, this could affect
fursuiters - it is a furry issue! :-)
Al Goldman
Laws are sand, Customs are rock. Laws can be evaded and punishment excaped, but
an openly transgressed custom brings sure punishement.
- Mark Twain
Chuck Melville
Richard Chandler - WA Resident wrote:
>
>
> I don't know if nuking Hollywood would do much other than hurt morale....
>
It would shift the entire Balance of Morality! Without the multitude of
Liberal Entertainment Moguls (LEM) to produce scandalous and shameful movies, TV
shows and records with questionable scene and obscene language, the Christian
Right would no longer be held in check and would exert their influence in a huge
Righteous Surge of Decency.
Everyone would go to Church, regardless of their religion or denomination...
Kids would all wear school uniforms... in and out of school.
The Ten Commandments will be passed into law, as God and Country become One..
Dysfunctional families will come together and be normal.
Church picnics will become the norm.
Dissenters will be drafted to help clean up the remains of LA.
Children under 12 will be reeducated to swear in true Christian form.
(Dang! Shoot! Heck!)
Debbie Boone will stage a comeback in Peoria.
...and all will be right with America again...
Chuck Melville
Baloo Ursidae wrote:
> Chuck Melville <cp...@zipcon.com> wrote:
>
> >> Four wars were fought in part on US soil, I believe. The Revolution,
> >> the war of 1812, the Civil War, and Japan's attack on Pearl Harbour.
>
> > Dang, I forgot about 1812. What was the status of Hawaii during WWII? It
> > wasn't yet a state, so it really wasn't US soil... but was it a territory,
> > protectorate, or something else? (I should know this, but I can't recall
> > offhand....)
>
> Why is it nobody remembers Tillimook, Oregon getting bombed by the
> Japanese during WWII?
>
Well, in my case, it's because I never heard of it. But a few other examples
were given (such as the Aleutians) which I -had- heard of but had forgotten,
so... my bad.
Hangdog
> do...@fastpointcom.com (Doug Winger) wrote in
> <doug-BB9057.2...@news.fastpoint.net>:
>
> > I do think, on the balance, that Japanese territory and soil took the
> >greater beating.
>
> Yeah... Comparing the minor pocking the US received to the destruction of two
> cities by atomic bombs.. Yeah, Japan took the greater beating.
One word: Nanking