Crossposting to alt.lifestyle.furry
Dan Skunk
I never see anything crossposted to both alt.fan.furry and
alt.lifestyle.furry. What's with that?
I've seen articles relating to both groups being posted seperately to each
one, but never to both.
There some kind of hard feelings between the subscribers of both groups
where they don't want to talk with each other?
Loganberry
> Question:
>
> I never see anything crossposted to both alt.fan.furry and
> alt.lifestyle.furry. What's with that?
>
> I've seen articles relating to both groups being posted seperately
> to each one, but never to both.
Probably 'cause of section 3 in the alt.lifestyle.furry FAQ:
"3) Cross-posts to AFF: Please don't cross-post articles
between alt.lifestyle.furry and alt.fan.furry." The rest is here:
http://www.tigerden.com/infopage/furry/alf-charter.txt
> There some kind of hard feelings between the subscribers of both
> groups where they don't want to talk with each other?
*bails out of the thread before the flak starts flying*
Pyesetz the Dog
> I never see anything crossposted to both alt.fan.furry and
> alt.lifestyle.furry. What's with that?
The charter for ALF (which is still periodically autoposted) specifically
requests that crossposting be avoided. The whole reason for creating the
ALF group was so AFFers wouldn't have to see all that Homesteader crap.
> There some kind of hard feelings between the subscribers of both groups
> where they don't want to talk with each other?
I'm a newbie, so I'll just say what little I know. I like to tell stories
of the Old Times, even though I didn't actually live through them!
A long time ago, before the Big Bang of the WWW, there were millions(!) of
people posting on USENET. It was the largest functioning anarchy in the
world. Alt.fan.furry was getting 75 or more posts on an average day.
Many of these posters were on USENET only because there was no other
way to find other furry fans. They weren't übernerds, just nerdy enough
to use computers for recreation before everyone else did and to like
anthro-animal cartoons. These people were offended by the lifestylers,
who seemed to be taking things more than a bit too far. (Animal souls???
Get real!) So the lifestylers chartered their own group to escape from
the complaints of the other AFFers, eventually forming the Homestead,
which was perhaps a kind of shared dream-world.
Meanwhile, the real world was changing. The drizzle of USENET spam that
had started in 1994
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,19098,00.html
was becoming a flood. The Great USENET Flamewar of 1997(?)
http://member.newsguy.com/~shpxurnq/meow.html
made the alt.lifestyle.furry group almost unusable, as it was one of the
battlegrounds. During the later periods of the war, our own Snuhwolf was
offered a ALF field commission by (oddly enough) the "Meowers" team, but
he says he refused it for internal-troll-politics reasons. Most furries
left USENET and moved to more controlled WWW venues such as LiveJournal.
Nowadays, only übergeeks still use USENET, so crossposting between AFF and
ALF is probably much less objectionable than it used to be. But still (I
think) AFF is for talk about imaginary furries in art and literature,
while ALF is for talk about the Animal Within.
-- Pyesetz the Dog
http://www.pyesetz.furtopia.org
Dan Skunk
"Loganberry" <loganbe...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Xns94E4EA802F46D...@130.133.1.4...
> "Dan Skunk" <_@rogers.com> wrote here on 09 May 2004:
>
> > Question:
> >
> > I never see anything crossposted to both alt.fan.furry and
> > alt.lifestyle.furry. What's with that?
> >
> > I've seen articles relating to both groups being posted seperately
> > to each one, but never to both.
>
> Probably 'cause of section 3 in the alt.lifestyle.furry FAQ:
>
> "3) Cross-posts to AFF: Please don't cross-post articles
> between alt.lifestyle.furry and alt.fan.furry." The rest is here:
>
> http://www.tigerden.com/infopage/furry/alf-charter.txt
>
I see this about off topic posts though:
> . Articles crossposted to alt.fan.furry, and Furry Fandom specific subject
> matter (e.g.: comics), unless there is an obvious mutuality
(conferences,
> furry stories).
That doesn't outlaw it (not that anyone's really following any rules
anyway.)
Kathmandu
"Dan Skunk" <_@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:c7m6ag$1909$1...@velox.critter.net...
Crossposting is generally frowned upon round here. It really has to be on
topic and important to keep from raising the ire of the self-appointed net
police.
You could say that yes, there is a division between a.f.f. and a.l.f. that
is reflected to varying degrees in the fandom as well. You have two sides
of the fandom, one side represented by a.f.f. is the group for the fandom
in general and those who basically view furry as a hobby or one interest
among many.
a.l.f. on the other hand was created for the other side of the fandom,
those who take this furry crap far more seriously. It was, while I was
there years ago anyway, a much more accepting and less quarrelsome group
than a.f.f. but the topics and discussions can and did get... creepy. Furry
as a religion, furry as a sexual orientation, beast***ty, pedophilia,
infantilism, vore, inflatophilia, fursuit sex etc. Sort of like the inmates
of an institution for the criminally insane all sitting around a campfire
singing "Kum Ba Ya".
Then again a.f.f. is more like alt.bitter.fury a lot of the time so neither
side is rose garden.
Dan Skunk
"Pyesetz the Dog" <pye...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.05.09....@comcast.net...
> On Sun, 09 May 2004 17:01:56 +0000, Dan Skunk wrote:
> > I never see anything crossposted to both alt.fan.furry and
> > alt.lifestyle.furry. What's with that?
>
> The charter for ALF (which is still periodically autoposted) specifically
> requests that crossposting be avoided. The whole reason for creating the
> ALF group was so AFFers wouldn't have to see all that Homesteader crap.
Define "Homesteader."
Ok. Thanks. :)
So... Not a big deal to crosspost something relevant to *both* groups. Just
don't cross post something on topic for one and off topic for the other. :)
I just like USENET because it's so much faster than web forums--I get
frustrated browing through a sea of web pages looking for the newest
messages.
Dan Skunk
"Kathmandu" <kath...@cableone.com> wrote in message
news:c7mbhc$1dbm$1...@velox.critter.net...
lol. Ok. So if I post something offensive to fans in here and start a
flame war, no one will even notice the difference. :P
Thanks for the post.
Paul Johnson
> I never see anything crossposted to both alt.fan.furry and
> alt.lifestyle.furry. What's with that?
Read the FAQ.
--
Paul Johnson
<ba...@ursine.ca>
Linux. You can find a worse OS, but it costs more.
Pyesetz the Dog
> Define "Homesteader".
On Sun, 09 May 2004 17:32:22 +0000, Kathmandu wrote:
> Sort of like the inmates of an institution for the criminally insane all
> sitting around a campfire singing "Kum Ba Ya".
That's one of the the better definitions I've seen, except for the
"criminally" part.
Dan Skunk
"Paul Johnson" <ba...@ursine.ca> wrote in message
news:87vfj5m...@ursine.ca...
There's nothing in the aff faq. Found stuff in the alf one.
mouse
> There some kind of hard feelings between the subscribers of both
> groups where they don't want to talk with each other?
I sure as hell dont want to hear what those people have to say...unless its
really fucked up and in "laughing AT them" sort of way.
Me personally, I think a "furry lifestyle" is a fucking STOOPID idea, and
logically - a group devoted to it is a stupid group.
Rick Pikul
pye...@comcast.net says...
> > There some kind of hard feelings between the subscribers of both groups
> > where they don't want to talk with each other?
>
> I'm a newbie, so I'll just say what little I know. I like to tell stories
> of the Old Times, even though I didn't actually live through them!
>
> A long time ago, before the Big Bang of the WWW, there were millions(!) of
> people posting on USENET. It was the largest functioning anarchy in the
> world. Alt.fan.furry was getting 75 or more posts on an average day.
> Many of these posters were on USENET only because there was no other
> way to find other furry fans. They weren't übernerds, just nerdy enough
> to use computers for recreation before everyone else did and to like
> anthro-animal cartoons. These people were offended by the lifestylers,
> who seemed to be taking things more than a bit too far. (Animal souls???
> Get real!) So the lifestylers chartered their own group to escape from
> the complaints of the other AFFers, eventually forming the Homestead,
> which was perhaps a kind of shared dream-world.
Not quite, ALF was created by the people who hated anyone who had
any more interest in furry matters then just the art, and then they
proceeded to flame the 'lifestylers' off of aff.
--
Phoenix
mouse
news:MPG.1b08ae174...@news.critter.net:
> Not quite, ALF was created by the people who hated anyone who had
> any more interest in furry matters then just the art, and then they
> proceeded to flame the 'lifestylers' off of aff.
boohoohoo
Kimba W. Lion
>I'm a newbie, so I'll just say what little I know. I like to tell stories
>of the Old Times, even though I didn't actually live through them!
>
>...Many of these posters were on USENET only because there was no other
>way to find other furry fans. They weren't übernerds, just nerdy enough
>to use computers for recreation before everyone else did and to like
>anthro-animal cartoons. These people were offended by the lifestylers,
>who seemed to be taking things more than a bit too far. (Animal souls???
>Get real!) So the lifestylers chartered their own group to escape from
>the complaints of the other AFFers, eventually forming the Homestead,
>which was perhaps a kind of shared dream-world.
I did live through that time, so I'll say that you got it mostly right.
"Homestead" was a setting for roleplaying started by some of the ALFers.
Although not intended to be, it became a divisive element in the group,
causing some in that group to feel united, and others to feel alienated.
>The Great USENET Flamewar of 1997(?)
> http://member.newsguy.com/~shpxurnq/meow.html
>made the alt.lifestyle.furry group almost unusable, as it was one of the
>battlegrounds.
ALF flourished in 1997. Its big troubles came closer to the turn of the
century.
--
Reply address munged. You can figure it out.
Kimba W. Lion
>Not quite, ALF was created by the people who hated anyone who had
>any more interest in furry matters then just the art, and then they
>proceeded to flame the 'lifestylers' off of aff.
Not true at all. ALF was created as a peacemaking move, to allow the AFF
flamers to have their group without the lifestyle stuff they hated.
Kimba W. Lion
>Furry as a religion, furry as a sexual orientation, beast***ty, pedophilia,
>infantilism, vore, inflatophilia, fursuit sex etc. Sort of like the inmates
>of an institution for the criminally insane all sitting around a campfire
>singing "Kum Ba Ya".
I wasn't there all the time to know if you're right or exaggerating, but I
do know that the acceptance of one in particular, who apparently was well
known for one federal crime you named, caused me to renounce my
"lifestyler" status.
Kimba W. Lion
>I sure as hell dont want to hear what those people have to say...unless its
>really fucked up and in "laughing AT them" sort of way.
And thus you get an idea of the reason for the no-crossposting rule.
Dan Skunk
"Kimba W. Lion" <KimbaWLion...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:dort90tjt5d21f2ot...@4ax.com...
That's so sad that you felt the need to deny your nature like that.
Dan Skunk
"mouse" <mo...@blackvault.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94E4E1E...@204.152.189.149...
Well I think getting all upset over someone with a different perspective on
the world and themselves is stupid.
They're not that bad. I don't agree with everything everyone says, but I
can accept them for who they are (or aspire to be). Everyone needs to have
something to believe in to give their life meaning. There are a lot
stupider things to believe in that letting your animal spirit guide you.
? the Platypus {aka David Formosa}
[...]
> I never see anything crossposted to both alt.fan.furry and
> alt.lifestyle.furry. What's with that?
The charter of ALF states that you shouldn't cross post between ALF
and AFF. There is an exemption in there for things like con
announcements however discussion should never be cross posted between
the two groups.
[...]
> There some kind of hard feelings between the subscribers of both groups
> where they don't want to talk with each other?
Mostly its so that both newsgroups can develop there own charitors and
not get swallowed up into a homogeneous mess.
--
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.
Skytech
> > I never see anything crossposted to both alt.fan.furry and
> > alt.lifestyle.furry. What's with that?
>
> The charter for ALF (which is still periodically autoposted)
specifically
> requests that crossposting be avoided. The whole reason for
creating the
> ALF group was so AFFers wouldn't have to see all that Homesteader
crap.
>
Well *that* is a bit of an ugly twist to the truth! Some people
created alf because topics they wanted to discuss were flamed and
trolled on aff. Cross posting was made part of the charter so topics
that really had little or nothing to do with another group, not just
aff, wouldn't spiral out of control over several groups. I have no
idea where you got that 'Homesteader crap' myth because alf and their
charter existed long before the Homestead subtopics were created. Get
your history straight before shooting off like that!
Skytech
> So... Not a big deal to crosspost something relevant to *both*
groups. Just
> don't cross post something on topic for one and off topic for the
other. :)
>
Actually it doesn't matter anymore but *any* crossposting was out. If
you really feel a topic was relevant to both groups, you post the same
thing separately and let each create their own thread rather than
forcing a thread along by the actions of another ng. We've seen some
threads florish on one while it dies on the other. If the topic drifts
in a way the other group doesn't like but can't stop, it only make
more bad blood.
Best keep the two ngs separate.
? the Platypus {aka David Formosa}
[...]
> A long time ago, before the Big Bang of the WWW, there were millions(!) of
> people posting on USENET.
Oddly dispite the fact that the world has shifted to WWW the
readership of usenet continues to grow.
[...]
> These people were offended by the lifestylers,
> who seemed to be taking things more than a bit too far.
Not quite, we where offended by the Hirtis types flaming us to hell
whenever anything but art was being talked about.
> (Animal souls??? Get real!)
Interestingly the animal spirtriality compents of ALF where not
intended to be the dominate theam of ALF. It was (and should still
be) a home for all the repressed subgroups of the fandom, ALF is the
place for everthing that the burned furs and the like hated about the
fandom. Were's, totemests, fursuiters,plushophiles, toonophiles,
zoophiles, macro and macrophiles where all welcom and should all be
part of the ALF community.
? the Platypus {aka David Formosa}
[...]
> I sure as hell dont want to hear what those people have to say...unless its
> really fucked up and in "laughing AT them" sort of way.
Well its nice of you to be so open minded and free of prejudice.
Skytech
> Well I think getting all upset over someone with a different
perspective on
> the world and themselves is stupid.
>
> They're not that bad. I don't agree with everything everyone says,
but I
> can accept them for who they are (or aspire to be). Everyone needs
to have
> something to believe in to give their life meaning. There are a lot
> stupider things to believe in that letting your animal spirit guide
you.
>
Many of the posts to this thread, and too often aff in general, should
explain the hatred common to aff. When some furs pulled up stakes and
made their own group the hatemongers here just couldn't stand it! Even
though alf is pretty much empty, these anti-fur bigots still vainly
howl and spit venom in the direction of their old enemy. They *need*
someone and something to hate.
freddy1X
>
> I just like USENET because it's so much faster than web forums--I get
> frustrated browing through a sea of web pages looking for the newest
> messages.
I rather loathe the HTML simulations that try to pass as usenet. So slow
and making the same page loads every time you read a posting.
BTW, has anyone produced a reader that will pound the bloat back into a
real usenet format?
--
all items sold seperately
/\>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\/
/\ I may be demented \/
/\ but I'm not crazy! \/
/\<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\/
* SPAyM trap: there is no X in my address *
Kathmandu
I can't speak for Kimba but I can guess he was *following* his nature by
not hanging out with people who made him uncomfortable.
Didn't change me or my feelings about anthropomorphics but it did make me
think about the folks I was hanging out with.
Don Sanders
says...
generally made by the usual suspects when some poor unsuspecting
newbie mentioned something in a post that may be lifestyler related
and is told to go to a.l.f in so many words, (most often not kind
ones either). It more or less reflect badly on the users of a.f.f or
at least that is my opinion.
--
Don Sanders.
Kimba W. Lion
>That's so sad that you felt the need to deny your nature like that.
Who said anything about denying my nature? I just don't use the words
"furry" or "lifestyler" in connection with myself any more.
I've remembered my own past life as a lion; I've communicated with animal
spirits. There's no denying that, ever.
Pyesetz the Dog
> "Pyesetz the Dog" <pye...@comcast.net> writes:
>> (Animal souls??? Get real!)
>
> Interestingly the animal spirtriality compents of ALF where not
> intended to be the dominate theam of ALF.
I just took that as an example lifestyler-ism that I thought Dan would
accept as a reasonable view (based on his previous ALF posts), yet be able
to agree that others could find it offensive.
Pyesetz the Dog
> Get your history straight before shooting off like that!
I can't, due to a lack of objective source materials. By shooting my
mouth off and then listening to the responses (thanks for replying!) I can
fine-tune my understanding of the history. Later I can shoot my mouth off
again and do a better job.
> alf and their charter existed long before the Homestead subtopics were
> created.
Yes, I understand that now, but previous posts on ALF by some Homesteaders
made it seem like the group was by and for them.
Say hello to Lana and the kits for me!
Wanderer
<shrug> It's not denying his nature. One can have a furry lifestyle
without posting to ALF, just as one can be a furry fan and never post to
AFF. In lupine terms, he was uncomfortable with the new addition to the
pack, and felt it best to join a different pack, rather than accept the
person whose actions he detested.
<shrug> Easy for me to understand, at least... :>
Truthfurry, though, I remember that incident... and if it was the one I'm
thinking of, he wasn't so much accepted as ignored. He hasn't posted in
ages, has no known plans to do so, and isn't known for con attendance.
Thus, since he's effectively in a state of plausible deniability, why should
we reject him? He's already pretty well self-rejected.:)
Yours wolfishly,
The smiling,
Wanderer
wand...@ticnet.com
"Where am I going? I don't quite know.
What does it matter *where* people go?
Down to the woods where the bluebells grow!
Anywhere! Anywhere! *I* don't know!"
-- a. a. milne
Rick Pikul
KimbaWLion...@127.0.0.1 says...
> Rick Pikul <rwp...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> >Not quite, ALF was created by the people who hated anyone who had
> >any more interest in furry matters then just the art, and then they
> >proceeded to flame the 'lifestylers' off of aff.
>
> Not true at all. ALF was created as a peacemaking move, to allow the AFF
> flamers to have their group without the lifestyle stuff they hated.
ISTR the post announcing it being along the lines of: I've
created a group for you 'lifestylers' to go off to and get out of aff.
--
Phoenix
Rick Pikul
rwp...@sympatico.ca says...
I just checked, and it seems that I didn't recall correctly. I
was confusing the loads of 'go get your own group' cruft in with the
newgrouping.
--
Phoenix
Silver Seams
news:10a0j5e...@corp.supernews.com:
> <shrug> It's not denying his nature. One can have a furry lifestyle
> without posting to ALF, just as one can be a furry fan and never post
> to AFF.
And one can also not have a furry lifestyle and post to ALF (said the
poster child for that).
--
http://www.silverseams.com/ - Fursuits, plushies, and other stuff
SECRET SQUIRREL on Furbid!
http://www.furbid.ws/cgi-bin/auction.pl?plushfur&1084758832
mouse
news:c7p33a$2hbt$1...@velox.critter.net:
> Some people
> created alf because topics they wanted to discuss were flamed and
> trolled on aff.
Yeah, because those type of topics are a public embarrasment
mouse
news:m3brkv6...@dformosa.zeta.org.au:
> mouse <mo...@blackvault.com> writes:
>
> [...]
>
>> I sure as hell dont want to hear what those people have to
>> say...unless its really fucked up and in "laughing AT them" sort of
>> way.
>
> Well its nice of you to be so open minded and free of prejudice.
>
no prob
mouse
> I just checked, and it seems that I didn't recall correctly. I
> was confusing the loads of 'go get your own group' cruft in with the
> newgrouping.
"fursecution" complex?
....I think so
Jim Lee Jr.
<fred...@indyx.net> wrote:
> I rather loathe the HTML simulations that try to pass as usenet. So slow
> and making the same page loads every time you read a posting.
>
> BTW, has anyone produced a reader that will pound the bloat back into a
> real usenet format?
I don't know about HTML simulations, but Thoth 1.6.1 works fine for me
on my 400 MHz G3 upgraded Macintosh 8500/132. The joy of no viruses,
worms, trojans, blue screens of death, etc. Too bad Thoth 1.7.2 was the
las version produced....
mouse
news:MPG.1b09f5947...@news.critter.net:
> It more or less reflect badly on the users of a.f.f or
> at least that is my opinion.
>
It JUST your opinion
Those people posting here are a bigger embarrassment than someone telling
them to leave , even in a non-polite manner
Don Sanders
mo...@blackvault.com says...
Yep, I figure by the way you expressed it, using the words, "Those
People." makes it all too clear in some aspect.
I don't know which is the bigger embarrassment, the folks you tell to
go to their own newsgroup, or the folks carrying the pitchforks and
torches?
--
Don Sanders.
mouse
> I don't know which is the bigger embarrassment, the folks you tell to
> go to their own newsgroup, or the folks carrying the pitchforks and
> torches?
We just went through this...the folks I would tell to go to thier own
newsgroup, THATS WHO.
Don Sanders
mo...@blackvault.com says...
Ok folks, you heard the man, get to the back of the bus! Don't drink
out of that fountain! Your entrance is over there! Don't eye our
women!
Gee, thank you for making that all too clear.
--
Don Sanders.
Pyesetz the Dog
> "fursecution" complex?
Just say "persecution".
SAY IT.
FuzzWolf
> can accept them for who they are (or aspire to be). Everyone needs to
have
> something to believe in to give their life meaning. There are a lot
Some of us are atheists. :-P
Some of us are strong enough to just accept life as it is without believing
in animal spirits or magic men in the sky.
Fuzzy
Remove "nolikespam" to reply
www.FuzzWolf.com
mouse
news:pan.2004.05.11....@comcast.net:
DAMMIT
This isn't over
Wanderer
news:c7pnsn$bvg$1...@velox.critter.net...
>
> "Dan Skunk" <_@rogers.com> wrote in message
> news:c7ougv$2d0h$1...@velox.critter.net...
>
> > can accept them for who they are (or aspire to be). Everyone needs to
> have
> > something to believe in to give their life meaning. There are a lot
>
> Some of us are atheists. :-P
>
> Some of us are strong enough to just accept life as it is without
believing
> in animal spirits or magic men in the sky.
>
Well, naturally. As a great Christian author once put it, atheists have the
strongest faith in existence. They can actually believe that this whole
world sprang into existence from nothing, with no help at all... developed
all by itself, using nothing but blind chance... and continues to be guided
by absolutely nothing, with that same nothing keeping us from blowing
ourselves out of existence with one foolish mistake!:)
Atheists believe in either Man or Chance, typically... two very hard things
to believe in. I'm just a Christian.;)
Yours wolfishly,
The well-guided,
Paul Johnson
Hash: SHA1
freddy1X <fred...@indyx.net> writes:
> BTW, has anyone produced a reader that will pound the bloat back into a
> real usenet format?
I believe that is among one of the sources that GNUS can handle.
http://www.gnus.org/
- --
Paul Johnson
<ba...@ursine.ca>
Linux. You can find a worse OS, but it costs more.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFAoH7GUzgNqloQMwcRAncpAKDiiqiatcpsTn4Yklnd6Z3KGauHvQCfVK6j
kcdXygwaDkRqXmh4r8wfago=
=2fOA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
FuzzWolf
"Wanderer" <wand...@ticnet.com> wrote in message
news:10a0pig...@corp.supernews.com...
> Well, naturally. As a great Christian author once put it, atheists have
the
> strongest faith in existence. They can actually believe that this whole
> world sprang into existence from nothing, with no help at all... developed
> all by itself, using nothing but blind chance... and continues to be
guided
> by absolutely nothing, with that same nothing keeping us from blowing
> ourselves out of existence with one foolish mistake!:)
>
> Atheists believe in either Man or Chance, typically... two very hard
things
> to believe in. I'm just a Christian.;)
>
I had started to type out a long reply to this, probably because it's after
3am and my brain is addled from lack of sleep. Thankfully, reason stepped
in and I deleted that post because I really have no desire to get into a big
debate about creationism vs evolution and the provability of science vs
faith. I'm sure all that crap's been said and done.
The point of my post was, I don't have a dependance on something else,
something other, whatever it is to live my life. A lot of people, including
a lot of lifestylers, use their beliefs as a crutch. Someone can't get
through their day unless they keep it in their mind that they'll go to
Heaven when they die and it's all for some mysterious reason that they live?
I suppose that belief isn't really harming anything if they need that to get
by, but I have to wonder why they can't just deal with reality. There's
really no difference between why I'm here on Earth and why some animal in
the forest or jungle is here on Earth too. Why is my reason for being here
some special higher plan of some great being, but that cow is just here to
feed me? Just because we're at the top of the food chain at the moment
doesn't mean we have some special purpose in life. We're just another
mammal and that's all we'll ever be.
I've seen some furs post about how much they want to kill themselves because
they can't shapeshift into their totem animal. I read about a fur who
jumped off a building because he was so distraught about not being a real
dragon. If they had just accepted that they're human and dealt with it,
that never would've happened. I shouldn't even mention all those people
killing each other over different religious beliefs and saying God told them
it was a good idea to do so. If they just accepted that we're all human and
we should live together on this world, then this world would be a much
better place.
Religion is delusional and it is dangerous. We'd all be better off without
it.
The self-guided,
FuzzWolf
Wanderer
>
> I had started to type out a long reply to this, probably because it's
after
> 3am and my brain is addled from lack of sleep. Thankfully, reason stepped
> in and I deleted that post because I really have no desire to get into a
big
> debate about creationism vs evolution and the provability of science vs
> faith. I'm sure all that crap's been said and done.
I'm sure it has. That was why I was pointing out that atheism is, itself, a
faith. I was not attempting to debate the matter because, being based on
faith (as it is... I can't show you God and you can't show me He isn't
there), it's inarguable on the face of it.
>
> The point of my post was, I don't have a dependance on something else,
> something other, whatever it is to live my life. A lot of people,
including
> a lot of lifestylers, use their beliefs as a crutch. Someone can't get
> through their day unless they keep it in their mind that they'll go to
> Heaven when they die and it's all for some mysterious reason that they
live?
> I suppose that belief isn't really harming anything if they need that to
get
> by, but I have to wonder why they can't just deal with reality. There's
> really no difference between why I'm here on Earth and why some animal in
> the forest or jungle is here on Earth too. Why is my reason for being
here
> some special higher plan of some great being, but that cow is just here to
> feed me? Just because we're at the top of the food chain at the moment
> doesn't mean we have some special purpose in life. We're just another
> mammal and that's all we'll ever be.
<shrug> Maybe so. In my worldview, all mortal flesh exists to fuel all
mortal flesh. Societal taboos matter, of course (no "long pork", thanks),
but I feel no worse about the chance of being eaten by a bear than I do
about eating a hamburger. (I don't want to still be attached to my body
when it happens, naturally, but other than that, he can have me with
onions.)
In my worldview, you see (or read, as the case may be), it's the soul, the
indefinable portion of a being, that's important. Not the life, but the
living; your choices, your decisions, matter much more than what church (if
any) you go to, what color your skin is, and who your ancestors were.
>
> I've seen some furs post about how much they want to kill themselves
because
> they can't shapeshift into their totem animal. I read about a fur who
> jumped off a building because he was so distraught about not being a real
> dragon. If they had just accepted that they're human and dealt with it,
> that never would've happened. I shouldn't even mention all those people
> killing each other over different religious beliefs and saying God told
them
> it was a good idea to do so. If they just accepted that we're all human
and
> we should live together on this world, then this world would be a much
> better place.
Firstly, I read that story, too... yes, story. *Story*. It's an
interesting story, but entirely made up. No online dragon has yet thrown
himself from the top of the nearest building. (The other, the suicide
tendencies, I haven't seen, and I've been here since the early '90's. I
have no proof either way, so I'll leave it.)
Second, that isn't religion. That's self-concept. While religion *may*,
MAY be a portion of a self-concept, it's only a small portion.
Lastly...
>
> Religion is delusional and it is dangerous. We'd all be better off
without
> it.
>
"Delusional" is inarguable in a faith-based setting, so I'll skip it.
Religion, however, has also been responsible for the foundation of the
Salvation Army, the Red Cross, the United Way, and even (in a way) the
United States of America. Are you saying that the good all these
organizations have done, the lives they've saved, the history they've
made... are you saying that all of this means nothing? Religion gives us
Christmas, and Halloween, and even a part of Thanksgiving and Easter. (It
also gives us Valentines' Day, especially if you count non-Christian
religions.;) Religion gives us organized charities, and central communities
to help us when we're in need of aid.
And all of this counts for nothing? You almost tempt me to believe the
stereotypical description of an atheist is truth; that you are a sad, lonely
individual whose heart is as hard as a diamond, and black as coal.
Of course, that isn't true. But you tempt me...
Yours with sorrow for those so wounded by life,
The understanding,
Kimba W. Lion
>Religion is delusional and it is dangerous. We'd all be better off without
>it.
Scientism (The Church of Reality) is just as much a religion as any other
you care to name. The delusional flock to all of them, and wave bits of
them about as justifications for their delusions. The killing that's been
done in the name of "science" is no less than any "holy war".
It all comes down to personal responsibility, and anyone who doesn't
question what he has been told is using faith as a crutch--regardless of
whether it comes from a pulpit or a science journal.
Caged_Horse
"holy war".
Can't say I'm aware of any scientists who threaten 'unbelievers'
(Luddites) with eternal, infernal torture, though.
? the Platypus {aka David Formosa}
> On Mon, 10 May 2004 19:26:32 +0000, Skytech wrote:
> > Get your history straight before shooting off like that!
>
> I can't, due to a lack of objective source materials.
What about google?
--
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.
Kimba W. Lion
>Can't say I'm aware of any scientists who threaten 'unbelievers'
>(Luddites) with eternal, infernal torture, though.
The Church of Reality has its own way of damning unbelievers.
"You're too stupid/superstitious/emotional (etc.) to ever know reality."
Dan Skunk
"freddy1X" <fred...@indyx.net> wrote in message
news:c7p758$2l8k$1...@velox.critter.net...
> Dan Skunk wrote:
> I rather loathe the HTML simulations that try to pass as usenet. So slow
> and making the same page loads every time you read a posting.
What I really dislike are the one's with no threading and print one message
after another on the same page. Have to scan through a couple pages
sometimes to find the new messages. My newsreader mark everything I havn't
read. I can even flag messages and threads.
Dan Skunk
"Kimba W. Lion" <KimbaWLion...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:hma0a0l5lfk5eeggs...@4ax.com...
> "Dan Skunk" <_@rogers.com> wrote:
>
> >That's so sad that you felt the need to deny your nature like that.
>
> Who said anything about denying my nature? I just don't use the words
> "furry" or "lifestyler" in connection with myself any more.
>
> I've remembered my own past life as a lion; I've communicated with animal
> spirits. There's no denying that, ever.
Ok. :)
Labels are so annoying. So many intollerant people around.
You should be able to just be yourself and not have people persecute you if
they disagree.
Dan Skunk
"Don Sanders" <noo...@myemail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b0a23d0e...@news.critter.net...
> I don't know which is the bigger embarrassment, the folks you tell to
> go to their own newsgroup, or the folks carrying the pitchforks and
> torches?
The folks carrying pitchforks, of course.
Why does furry have so many hatefull intollerant people? Couldn't every
just enjoy their shared interests and accept each other for who they are?
Do people need to be on some crusade to vanquish, from the fandom, all who
are not like theyselves?
I don't see how lifestylers are theatening fans at all. If anything, they
should be welcomed for adding their numbers and helping support the fandom.
Do cons involve fans and and lifestylers congregating in seperate rooms
beaming hatefull stares at each other as they happen to pass each other in
the halls?
Dan Skunk
"Pyesetz the Dog" <pye...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.05.11....@comcast.net...
> On Tue, 11 May 2004 09:32:45 +1000, ? the Platypus {aka David Formosa}
wrote:> >> (Animal souls??? Get real!)
> >
> > Interestingly the animal spirtriality compents of ALF where not
> > intended to be the dominate theam of ALF.
>
> I just took that as an example lifestyler-ism that I thought Dan would
> accept as a reasonable view (based on his previous ALF posts), yet be able
> to agree that others could find it offensive.
That is the idea I understand the best... What else is there?
Dan Skunk
> If they just accepted that we're all human and
> we should live together on this world, then this world would be a much
> better place.
So you *do* believe in something after all. :P
The potential for humanity to better their existence. A noble pursuit if
there ever was one. One does not need gods to have beliefs, nor to give
their lives purpose, no.
Dan Skunk
> <shrug> Maybe so. In my worldview, all mortal flesh exists to fuel all
> mortal flesh. Societal taboos matter, of course (no "long pork", thanks),
> but I feel no worse about the chance of being eaten by a bear than I do
> about eating a hamburger. (I don't want to still be attached to my body
> when it happens, naturally, but other than that, he can have me with
> onions.)
>
> In my worldview, you see (or read, as the case may be), it's the soul, the
> indefinable portion of a being, that's important. Not the life, but the
> living; your choices, your decisions, matter much more than what church
(if
> any) you go to, what color your skin is, and who your ancestors were.
I think that is part of the problem. People are concerned with their
immortal soul--which may or not exist--and ignore the physical world around
them, which most definately exist. Why save the environment, or fight for
justice, when the gods will do it for us? I think the world would be a
better place if people put the responsibility on themselve and worked to
improve things rather than passing that responsibility on to god and
neglecting the world.
> "Delusional" is inarguable in a faith-based setting, so I'll skip it.
> Religion, however, has also been responsible for the foundation of the
> Salvation Army, the Red Cross, the United Way, and even (in a way) the
> United States of America. Are you saying that the good all these
> organizations have done, the lives they've saved, the history they've
> made... are you saying that all of this means nothing? Religion gives us
> Christmas, and Halloween, and even a part of Thanksgiving and Easter. (It
> also gives us Valentines' Day, especially if you count non-Christian
> religions.;) Religion gives us organized charities, and central
communities
> to help us when we're in need of aid.
One does not need to be religious to care about people. Most of the atheist
s I know are far more caring and generous and concerned about the welfare of
the world than most christians I know--which is logical, considering they
don't sit around waiting for devine intervention to solve their problems for
them.
Y. T.
>
> That was why I was pointing out that atheism is, itself, a faith.
>
BLACK is WHITE!
FREEDOM is SLAVERY!
UP is DOWN!
ATHEISM is FAITH!
-- adopted from George Orwell.
>
> That was why I was pointing out that atheism is, itself, a faith.
>
Atheism is the *absence* of a certain particular type of faith. That
is all there is to it. Any one atheist can have faith in any one (or
number of) proposition/s but the one thing that all atheists have in
common, what makes them atheists in the first place, is the *absence*
of a certain faith.
Darkness is not a color. A vacuum is not a type of gas. And atheism is
not a faith. Anybody who proposes any of the previous is merely
demonstrating that they don't know what they're talking about.
You and I are both atheists when it comes to a million gods, ghosts,
daemons and spirits that have been proposed throughout human history.
You, personally, do not have "faith" that the tooth-fairy doesn't
exist, you simply don't believe that it does. That is an immense
difference.
If the absence of faith were a faith in absence, then the absence of
evidence is evidence of absence and thus there's no god and the
discussion ends here. As it turns out, neither of these is true.
Whenever you have to redefine the terms of discussion such as to
define "nothing := something", you have lost the arument. You have
proven that you are wrong, and any further struggle on your part to
pile even more lies upon the original will only make it more obvious
that you do not care about truth at all. You might as well stop
posting.
>
> [redundant crap snipped]
>
> The understanding,
You wish, kiddo; you wish.
- Y.T.
--
Remove YourClothes before you reply.
Don Sanders
>
> "Don Sanders" <noo...@myemail.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1b0a23d0e...@news.critter.net...
>
> > I don't know which is the bigger embarrassment, the folks you tell to
> > go to their own newsgroup, or the folks carrying the pitchforks and
> > torches?
>
> The folks carrying pitchforks, of course.
>
> Why does furry have so many hatefull intollerant people? Couldn't every
> just enjoy their shared interests and accept each other for who they are?
> Do people need to be on some crusade to vanquish, from the fandom, all who
> are not like theyselves?
>
I don't have the answers, but I do have theories. One would think
that the intolerance carry over from their own experiences in life,
be it on the receiving end or the giving end, I would chalk that up
to human nature. They feel important because they think in their
minds all they have to do is segregate it and the so-called problem
will go away. At least that is what I think one theory is, I could
be wrong you know.
> I don't see how lifestylers are theatening fans at all. If anything, they
> should be welcomed for adding their numbers and helping support the fandom.
>
They fear what they don't understand, or the fact that what they see
is too weird for them. They look past the person and see the label.
> Do cons involve fans and and lifestylers congregating in seperate rooms
> beaming hatefull stares at each other as they happen to pass each other in
> the halls?
>
Not to say that it has actually come to that, but I suspect it could
possibly happen and may have. Keep in mind that after the con, the
overblown stories surfaces and once again, the issue of lifestyles
also rises to be debated, argued, etc etc.
The endless cycle goes on. Unless somebody can prove otherwise.
--
Don Sanders.
Kimba W. Lion
>Atheism is the *absence* of a certain particular type of faith. That
>is all there is to it. Any one atheist can have faith in any one (or
>number of) proposition/s but the one thing that all atheists have in
>common, what makes them atheists in the first place, is the *absence*
>of a certain faith.
Interesting definition. When communicating with other people, however,
it's customary to go with how a word is normally defined.
a暗he搏sm n.
1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
>Whenever you have to redefine the terms of discussion such as to
>define "nothing := something", you have lost the arument. You have
>proven that you are wrong, and any further struggle on your part to
>pile even more lies upon the original will only make it more obvious
>that you do not care about truth at all. You might as well stop
>posting.
You write in the style of someone who's defending his faith.
Rick Pikul
says...
> "Skytech" <sky...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
> news:c7p33a$2hbt$1...@velox.critter.net:
>
> > Some people
> > created alf because topics they wanted to discuss were flamed and
> > trolled on aff.
>
> Yeah, because those type of topics are a public embarrasment
You should realize it got to the point that just posting in the
third person was enough to bring out the flames, even if it was just a
stock piece of silliness used by the poster in question.
--
Phoenix
Rick Pikul
says...
> Rick Pikul <rwp...@sympatico.ca> wrote in
> news:MPG.1b0a194ae...@news.critter.net:
>
> > I just checked, and it seems that I didn't recall correctly. I
> > was confusing the loads of 'go get your own group' cruft in with the
> > newgrouping.
>
> "fursecution" complex?
>
> ....I think so
Mouse is a conclusion hopper?
Definitely.
--
Phoenix
Rick Pikul
>
> > I don't know which is the bigger embarrassment, the folks you tell to
> > go to their own newsgroup, or the folks carrying the pitchforks and
> > torches?
>
>
> newsgroup, THATS WHO.
Why do I get the impression that the words of Pastor Martin
Niemöller are appropriate here?
--
Phoenix
Rick Pikul
KimbaWLion...@127.0.0.1 says...
> ytyour...@p.zapto.org (Y. T.) wrote:
>
> >Atheism is the *absence* of a certain particular type of faith. That
> >is all there is to it. Any one atheist can have faith in any one (or
> >number of) proposition/s but the one thing that all atheists have in
> >common, what makes them atheists in the first place, is the *absence*
> >of a certain faith.
>
> Interesting definition. When communicating with other people, however,
> it's customary to go with how a word is normally defined.
> a暗he搏sm n.
> 1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
Disbelief in this context includes passive disbelief, (e.g. as you
likely disbelieve in the invisible pink unicorn I may claim is behind
you).
--
Phoenix
Rick Pikul
KimbaWLion...@127.0.0.1 says...
> "Caged_Horse" <oaco...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Can't say I'm aware of any scientists who threaten 'unbelievers'
> >(Luddites) with eternal, infernal torture, though.
>
> The Church of Reality has its own way of damning unbelievers.
> "You're too stupid/superstitious/emotional (etc.) to ever know reality."
No, the response is:
"You think we're wrong? Here are the tools to try and prove us
wrong."
Of the organized religions, I know of only one that is willing to
accept having core tenets proven false: Tibetan Buddhism.
--
Phoenix
Pyesetz the Dog
> What about google?
Google Groups is excessively objective. We are talking about massive
numbers of posts over a period of years. Which ones talk about the
critical decision-points in the history of Furry on USENET?
Google Websearch is excellent, but the results depend crucially on your
search-terms.
-- Pyesetz the Dog
http://www.pyesetz.furtopia.org
Dave The Non-Nazi Vargr
be until great Birnam wood to high alt.fan.furry. hill shall come
against him.
>"Dan Skunk" <_@rogers.com> wrote:
>
>>That's so sad that you felt the need to deny your nature like that.
>
>Who said anything about denying my nature? I just don't use the words
>"furry" or "lifestyler" in connection with myself any more.
>
>I've remembered my own past life as a lion; I've communicated with animal
>spirits. There's no denying that, ever.
I think it's sad that life has treated you so badly that you have
attempted to reject the human race and instead pretend to be MAGICK
SPIRIT LION OMG!.
I pity you. Poor man.
---
"My men have a disease of the heart which can only be assuaged by
gold"- Hernan Cortez
Dave The Non-Nazi Vargr
great Birnam wood to high alt.fan.furry. hill shall come against him.
>> Don Sanders <noo...@myemail.com> wrote in
>> news:MPG.1b0a23d0e...@news.critter.net:
>>
>> > I don't know which is the bigger embarrassment, the folks you tell to
>> > go to their own newsgroup, or the folks carrying the pitchforks and
>> > torches?
>>
>>
>> We just went through this...the folks I would tell to go to thier own
>> newsgroup, THATS WHO.
>
> Why do I get the impression that the words of Pastor Martin
>Niemöller are appropriate here?
I pre-emptively Godwin you.
Dave The Non-Nazi Vargr
Birnam wood to high alt.fan.furry. hill shall come against him.
>
It's not persuction to point out idiocy on a vast scale.
Dave The Non-Nazi Vargr
be until great Birnam wood to high alt.fan.furry. hill shall come
against him.
>>Whenever you have to redefine the terms of discussion such as to
>>define "nothing := something", you have lost the arument. You have
>>proven that you are wrong, and any further struggle on your part to
>>pile even more lies upon the original will only make it more obvious
>>that you do not care about truth at all. You might as well stop
>>posting.
>
>You write in the style of someone who's defending his faith.
What's interesting is, That as a relegious person, one who cannot
think beyond dogma and absoloutes, you cannot understand atheism.
No atheist goes around "beliveing" that the world "sprung into
existence" from nothing.
There are a variety of theories, We just don't know yet for sure.
And this is the strenth of atheism. disregard of dogma and admittence
of uncertaintny.
no one wages crusades for atheism, no one kills people in the name of
atheism et al.
Though of course, you'd be hard put to find relegious people who are
not bigoted as a result of their relegion. And likewise, Atheists are
much less likely to be bigoted and hateful.
And persecution and war, murder et al in the name of God/s are ten a
penny.
But of course relegious fanatics like you, have the sheer ARROGANCE to
claim that you know all the answers to everything and it's all in your
imaginary freind called Jeebus and pals.
Well, forgive me for admitting that I don't know the answer to
everything.
Pyesetz the Dog
>> Why do I get the impression that the words of Pastor Martin
>>Niemöller are appropriate here?
>
> I pre-emptively Godwin you.
Too late! Niemöller is already a Nazi reference. This topic is now
officially exhausted.
FuzzWolf
"Dan Skunk" <_@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:c7rkp2$1bu$1...@velox.critter.net...
Yes, I do have my beliefs in things like that, but I think both you and
Wanderer know well what I'm talking about when I say I'm an atheist. Maybe
there's not a better word for it, or maybe some people like to think too
much about what being an atheist means, but just because I believe in
science and what I can see/hear/feel doesn't mean I'm a "believer" in that
spiritual sense.
Fuzz
Paul Johnson
Hash: SHA1
"Euro Cent" <m...@privacy.net> writes:
>> Probably 'cause of section 3 in the alt.lifestyle.furry FAQ:
>>
>> "3) Cross-posts to AFF: Please don't cross-post articles
>> between alt.lifestyle.furry and alt.fan.furry." The rest is here:
>>
>> http://www.tigerden.com/infopage/furry/alf-charter.txt
>
> not according to
> ftp://ftp.isc.org/pub/usenet/control/alt/alt.lifestyle.furry.gz
But wait! There's more!
> Off-topic subjects include:
>
> * Articles crossposted to alt.fan.furry, unless there is an
> obvious mutuality of subject matter (e.g: furry conventions,
> furry stories)
So the spirit is still there.
- --
Paul Johnson
<ba...@ursine.ca>
Linux. You can find a worse OS, but it costs more.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFAomztUzgNqloQMwcRAjiEAJ0TAj4IfkeGMKrzE2ZbAg0jcsg+pQCfb0Kl
4EjNJlJvRXeTEpnWIBAvrek=
=pCV/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
FuzzWolf
> news:c7pvpe$iq8$1...@velox.critter.net...
> I'm sure it has. That was why I was pointing out that atheism is, itself,
a
> faith. I was not attempting to debate the matter because, being based on
> faith (as it is... I can't show you God and you can't show me He isn't
> there), it's inarguable on the face of it.
I know the other guy said this a lot better than I ever could, which is why
I try to avoid these silly arguments. Atheism is not a faith. As far as
I'm concerned, atheism is a lack of faith. Or maybe atheism isn't the right
word to describe how I feel, maybe there isn't a word like that yet. Either
way though, you know damn well what I am saying here so don't try to play
dumb and claim I have a faith. I don't understand the need of some people
to insist that everyone has a faith no matter what that person says. It's
bloody annoying. For the record, I do not need, want, or have "faith". My
meaning of faith here is the obvious definition of the word, meaning
referring to god, gods, heaven, hell, an afterlife, the earth mother, the
force or any other diety or supreme being. I hope that's clear and
unmuddied enough for you.
> <shrug> Maybe so. In my worldview, all mortal flesh exists to fuel all
> mortal flesh. Societal taboos matter, of course (no "long pork", thanks),
> but I feel no worse about the chance of being eaten by a bear than I do
> about eating a hamburger. (I don't want to still be attached to my body
> when it happens, naturally, but other than that, he can have me with
> onions.)
I'm not really seeing your point here as that's pretty much what I said in
my own post. We're a part of nature, just like everything else on this
planet.
>
> In my worldview, you see (or read, as the case may be), it's the soul, the
> indefinable portion of a being, that's important. Not the life, but the
> living; your choices, your decisions, matter much more than what church
(if
> any) you go to, what color your skin is, and who your ancestors were.
I agree that what you do with your life matters. Certainly moreso than how
much money you make and such. I don't attribute any of that to a soul
though. The indefinable portion of a being is their personality and all
that's matter in your skull with nothing supernatural about it.
>
> >
> > I've seen some furs post about how much they want to kill themselves
> because
> > they can't shapeshift into their totem animal. I read about a fur who
> > jumped off a building because he was so distraught about not being a
real
> > dragon. If they had just accepted that they're human and dealt with it,
> > that never would've happened. I shouldn't even mention all those people
> > killing each other over different religious beliefs and saying God told
> them
> > it was a good idea to do so. If they just accepted that we're all human
> and
> > we should live together on this world, then this world would be a much
> > better place.
>
> Firstly, I read that story, too... yes, story. *Story*. It's an
> interesting story, but entirely made up. No online dragon has yet thrown
> himself from the top of the nearest building.
Actually, it was in the kid's own livejournal, his brother or something
updated it to let his friends know what happened afterward. And unless you
happen to be familiar with every dragon furry lifestyler, you can't
definitavely claim that no online dragon has ever thrown himself from a
building.
(The other, the suicide
> tendencies, I haven't seen, and I've been here since the early '90's. I
> have no proof either way, so I'll leave it.)
I don't want to name names really because he is a nice guy and I don't want
to embarass him, but this was either a post to AHWW or one of the howl
related mailing lists I got during my brief time as a were. He wanted to
p-shift into a cougar or panther or something and said he just wanted to end
it all because he couldn't. It was about that time I started having serious
doubts about the overall sanity of the were community.
>
> Second, that isn't religion. That's self-concept. While religion *may*,
> MAY be a portion of a self-concept, it's only a small portion.
Well, I don't remember when the actual word religion came into this, but
that's a lifestyler belief taken too far. Maybe it's a serious mental
defect in that person that he'd want to off himself, but he wouldn't be the
first person to kill himself or others for that matter, in the name of his
spirituality.
>
> Lastly...
>
> >
> > Religion is delusional and it is dangerous. We'd all be better off
> without
> > it.
> >
>
> "Delusional" is inarguable in a faith-based setting, so I'll skip it.
> Religion, however, has also been responsible for the foundation of the
> Salvation Army, the Red Cross, the United Way, and even (in a way) the
> United States of America. Are you saying that the good all these
> organizations have done, the lives they've saved, the history they've
> made... are you saying that all of this means nothing? Religion gives us
> Christmas, and Halloween, and even a part of Thanksgiving and Easter. (It
> also gives us Valentines' Day, especially if you count non-Christian
> religions.;) Religion gives us organized charities, and central
communities
> to help us when we're in need of aid.
Well, I don't think delusion is inarguable in this context. Sorry you don't
want to accept I may think so, but believing in walking on water, an
invisible man in the sky who watches you and Santa Claus if you're not a
child or mentally handicapped, is a delusion. Yes, I know that's a harsh
point of view and very much in the minority, but that's the way it is.
So religion founded some organizations that have done good things. Religion
has also founded organizations that have done some bad things and some good
organizations have nothing to do with religion at all. Religion is not a
requirment to do something good and it doesn't make anyone a better person
because they happen to believe in things that aren't there.
>
> And all of this counts for nothing? You almost tempt me to believe the
> stereotypical description of an atheist is truth; that you are a sad,
lonely
> individual whose heart is as hard as a diamond, and black as coal.
Luckily, stereotypes are usually bullshit. What you describe is a
pessimist. I'm more of a realist. I care about my family, I have a mate
I'm madly in love with, I am moved emotionally by some good movies and I
have an active social life with plenty of friends I care about greatly. I'm
far from sad or lonely.
>
> Of course, that isn't true. But you tempt me...
Your call, if thinking less of me would help you dismiss me then go for it.
>
> Yours with sorrow for those so wounded by life,
A typical Christian thing to say. When you can't convince me of the
impossibilities and inconsistencies of your religion, you just sigh and
think how sad and hurt I must be. Pfffft :-P
>
> The understanding,
>
> Wanderer
Fuzzy, happy mated well-adjusted hard-working healthy bisexual atheist
Skytech
> Why does furry have so many hatefull intollerant people? Couldn't
every
> just enjoy their shared interests and accept each other for who they
are?
> Do people need to be on some crusade to vanquish, from the fandom,
all who
> are not like theyselves?
>
Some people *need* to hate somebody. I guess gays and most other
minority groups are already taken or protected. It's an
obsessive-compulsive thing.
> I don't see how lifestylers are theatening fans at all. If
anything, they
> should be welcomed for adding their numbers and helping support the
fandom.
>
> Do cons involve fans and and lifestylers congregating in seperate
rooms
> beaming hatefull stares at each other as they happen to pass each
other in
> the halls?
>
Most fans and lifestylers don't wear or carry signs stating they are
one or the other. Many are both and you couldn't tell them from others
at cons or elsewhere.
? the Platypus {aka David Formosa}
> "Pyesetz the Dog" <pye...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:pan.2004.05.11....@comcast.net...
> > On Tue, 11 May 2004 09:32:45 +1000, ? the Platypus {aka David Formosa}
[...]
> > > Interestingly the animal spirtriality compents of ALF where not
> > > intended to be the dominate theam of ALF.
> >
> > I just took that as an example lifestyler-ism that I thought Dan would
> > accept as a reasonable view (based on his previous ALF posts), yet be able
> > to agree that others could find it offensive.
>
> That is the idea I understand the best... What else is there?
From the FAQ, (this is no an exclusive list) Personal Furrys,
theriomorphism, totemism, fursuiting, plushiephilia, toonophilia,
zoophilia, macro and microphilia.
--
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.
Dan Skunk
> On Wed, 12 May 2004 15:09:30 +0000, Dave The Non-Nazi Vargr wrote:
> >> Why do I get the impression that the words of Pastor Martin
> >>Niemöller are appropriate here?
> >
> > I pre-emptively Godwin you.
>
> Too late! Niemöller is already a Nazi reference. This topic is now
> officially exhausted.
Silly Unix User's Network geeks. :P
Dan Skunk
> I don't have the answers, but I do have theories. One would think
> that the intolerance carry over from their own experiences in life,
> be it on the receiving end or the giving end, I would chalk that up
> to human nature. They feel important because they think in their
> minds all they have to do is segregate it and the so-called problem
> will go away. At least that is what I think one theory is, I could
> be wrong you know.
Don't know how to handle all their new high social status? Mad with power?
> They fear what they don't understand, or the fact that what they see
> is too weird for them. They look past the person and see the label.
Labels are a convienient way to simplify things, but shouldn't these people
understand better, the damage they cause?
> The endless cycle goes on. Unless somebody can prove otherwise.
Let's break the cycle!
Peace, love, fur!
Dan Skunk
"Skytech" <sky...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:c7u7fo$2455$1...@velox.critter.net...
> Some people *need* to hate somebody. I guess gays and most other
> minority groups are already taken or protected. It's an
> obsessive-compulsive thing.
Stomping others down is one way to assert your dominance.
> Most fans and lifestylers don't wear or carry signs stating they are
> one or the other. Many are both and you couldn't tell them from others
> at cons or elsewhere.
That's true. I wasn't being *completely* serious. :P
Dan Skunk
"Rick Pikul" <rwp...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b0b57112...@news.critter.net...
> Mouse is a conclusion hopper?
Does Mouse have a "jump to conclusions" mat?
Dan Skunk
"Dave The Non-Nazi Vargr " <dsa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:40a23e34...@news.individual.net...
> It's not persuction to point out idiocy on a vast scale.
Sure. Tell people what you honestly think about them. Make them
understand. Then if you can't convince them, let them have their own
opinion. You'll never get everyone to agree with everything you say.
Don't repeat yourself over and over or hit people with a barage of pointless
flames. That serves no purpose other than to destroy and meaninful
discussions that might have taken place.
Dan Skunk
> I think it's sad that life has treated you so badly that you have
> attempted to reject the human race and instead pretend to be MAGICK
> SPIRIT LION OMG!.
>
> I pity you. Poor man.
What makes you so certain he wasn't?
Dan Skunk
The dictionary is irrelevant. You are forcing labels on someone where they
don't really apply. Y. T. is explaining how he thinks. How he sees
himself. Those are the relevant facts.
Argue against what he says he is. Not what you want him to be.
You should be able to argue that no one can believe in nothing. *hint*
Dan Skunk
In a way, that is a form of spiritualism. Not in a metaphysical sence, but
in a metaphorical one.
People try to understand the world in terms of what they know.
FuzzWolf
>
> In a way, that is a form of spiritualism. Not in a metaphysical sence,
but
> in a metaphorical one.
>
> People try to understand the world in terms of what they know.
And people try to enforce their views on others. I don't know why so many
people want to insist that being an atheist is some kind of spirtualism.
It's like they can't sleep at night unless they think everyone has spiritual
beliefs of one sort or another. Far as I know, the very idea defies the
definition of the word atheist.
I do _not_ have any spiritualism of any kind whatsoever. Please just accept
that. Worship or believe whatever you want for yourself, don't try to do so
for me as well.
Fuzz
>
>
FuzzWolf
"Dennis Lee Bieber" <wulf...@dm.net> wrote in message
news:ukp5a0pgteu3v4psu...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 12 May 2004 14:44:59 -0400, "FuzzWolf"
> To toss a few coals on the fire... I'd consider agnosticism to be a
> lack of faith, as it is more a "there may be, there may not be, either way
> I don't care". Atheism is a declaration that "there is not", which does
> require one to have faith that the declaration is true...
It's just mincing words and semantics. I'm tired of having to explain like
I would to a 5 year old what I mean when I say I'm an atheist and I'm not a
"believer". Frankly, this pathological need to prove that everyone has
faith no matter what they say to the contrary is starting to piss me off.
You all know damn well what I'm referring to when I say I'm faithless and I
don't believe in a higher power.
_I_ do not have a spirituality.
_I_ am not a person of faith.
_I_ define myself as an atheist.
If you have to define me as something else in order to sleep at night,
that's your perogative, but don't presume to tell me that I have something I
don't want or need.
Fuzzy
FuzzWolf
LOL, great reference. A modern classic :-)
Fuzzy, the movie lover
>
FuzzWolf
I guess answering common sense isn't gonna fly with lifestylers, is it?
Wanderer
> "Caged_Horse" <oaco...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Can't say I'm aware of any scientists who threaten 'unbelievers'
> >(Luddites) with eternal, infernal torture, though.
> The Church of Reality has its own way of damning unbelievers.
> "You're too stupid/superstitious/emotional (etc.) to ever know reality."
Not quite. Science's version of eternal torture is...
<drum roll please>
... being the subject of a research study.:)
Think about it. For what you're told is the good of all mankind, you're
going to give samples of your hair, skin, muscle tissue, urine, feces,
vitreous humour, aqueous humour, bone marrow and digestive juices. You're
going to answer the same questions every few days for years, and have your
answers compared... then answer questions about the comparison. When you
finally die, your body will be dissected, analyzed, and preserved for future
generations in a plastic case.
I'd say that beats a lake of fire all hollow, wouldn't you?:>
Yours wolfishly,
The well-traveled,
Wanderer
wand...@ticnet.com
"Where am I going? I don't quite know.
What does it matter *where* people go?
Down to the woods where the bluebells grow!
Anywhere! Anywhere! *I* don't know!"
-- a. a. milne
Wanderer
>
<snip>
> I do _not_ have any spiritualism of any kind whatsoever. Please just
accept
> that. Worship or believe whatever you want for yourself, don't try to do
so
> for me as well.
>
<shrug> Dan Skunk didn't express it well, but the seed is there: Faith is
faith. You believe that science has an explanation for everything, yes?
That includes the things for which science does not, at this time, have an
explanation, such as the action of prions, the existence of quarks, and the
nature of atypical after-death experiences. They don't have an explanation
now... but you have faith that they will. You believe that they will figure
everything out. Am I wrong?
That's what belief is, as well as hope: Trusting in the existence of things
not seen. You've never seen a quark, and never *can* see a quark. You can
see things that scientists say used to be quarks, and things that scientists
say are the places where quarks toucked real matter... but you can never,
ever see a quark. You believe that scientists can figure things out,
whether you see them do it or not... that's Belief.
Yours with a smile,
The reality-wise,
Wanderer
>
<snip... you must have a different version of the "Protestant Work Ethic" in
your area than I'm used to>
> One does not need to be religious to care about people. Most of the
atheist
> s I know are far more caring and generous and concerned about the welfare
of
> the world than most christians I know--which is logical, considering they
> don't sit around waiting for devine intervention to solve their problems
for
> them.
>
Since one of the longest-running sayings in Christianity is, "The Lord helps
those who help themselves", I have to assume you're talking about those
people my former pastor, S.Q. Proctor, referred to when he said, "Just
because you turn on your faith doesn't mean you gotta turn off your brain!"
I know a few atheists, and I know a lot of Christians... that's the circle I
run in... and I know an awful lot of caring, loving people on both sides.
Yours having no further point to make,
The wolfish,
Wanderer
news:4d166bd6.04051...@posting.google.com...
> >
>
It is, if you count reflected light instead of absorbed light.
> FREEDOM is SLAVERY!
Slavery to paying your own bills, making your own choices and taking care of
yourself... but a very good slavery. None better.:>
> UP is DOWN!
... depending on which hemisphere you're using as a reference...
> ATHEISM is FAITH!
> -- adopted from George Orwell.
More below.
> >
> > That was why I was pointing out that atheism is, itself, a faith.
> >
>
> Atheism is the *absence* of a certain particular type of faith. That
> is all there is to it. Any one atheist can have faith in any one (or
> number of) proposition/s but the one thing that all atheists have in
> common, what makes them atheists in the first place, is the *absence*
> of a certain faith.
Incorrect. Follow your definition, below. (More in a paragraph or two.)
>
> Darkness is not a color.
Black is a color, yes.
> A vacuum is not a type of gas.
Since there are no perfect vacuums in nature, a vacuum is a lesser presence
of gas.
> And atheism is
> not a faith. Anybody who proposes any of the previous is merely
> demonstrating that they don't know what they're talking about.
Atheism is not *a* faith, no, despite the atheist organizations you can look
up in the yellow pages. Atheism, however, is faith... it is a belief that
there is no god, no pantheon of gods, no divine force at all.
That's putting an awful lot of faith in blind chance to run the universe.
>
> You and I are both atheists when it comes to a million gods, ghosts,
> daemons and spirits that have been proposed throughout human history.
> You, personally, do not have "faith" that the tooth-fairy doesn't
> exist, you simply don't believe that it does. That is an immense
> difference.
Actually, I'm a modified Christian pantheist. I believe all the other gods
work for mine.:>
In any event, the word is "disbelief". It means "not-belief", or "a belief
against". If you just didn't believe in the tooth fairy, she wouldn't even
come to mind in this subject... you'd have no concept of her, since her meme
wouldn't even exist in your conceptual vocabulary. You believe she does not
exist.
>
> If the absence of faith were a faith in absence, then the absence of
> evidence is evidence of absence and thus there's no god and the
> discussion ends here. As it turns out, neither of these is true.
You syllogism is incorrect. Since faith is belief in things without
substance, then all faith requires absence. For example, my mother is in
another room. I cannot see or hear her from where I sit at my computer. It
is entirely possible that, as I write these words, she has died. That she
has had a silent heart attack and perished in her sleep, leaving me
motherless.
But I believe she has not. I cannot hear or see any evidence to support my
belief, and yet I hold my belief.
We have faith every day that the world will continue on as it has before,
that the sun will rise and set and the tides wash the shores. That we'll go
to work and come home and live our lives.
Sometimes it doesn't happen.
But we have faith that it will.:)
Yours philosophically,