Got spooge?

358 views
Skip to first unread message

Xydexx Squeakypony

unread,
Aug 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/5/00
to

> Why is there so much pornographic material being
> created for this particular fandom?

Why not?


There's nothing wrong with spooge. Nobody's forcing anyone to look at
spooge. Nobody's forcing anyone to draw spooge.

In the Grand Scheme Of Things, worrying about what other people like to
draw isn't very important to me.

--
_________________________________________________
Xydexx Squeakypony http://www.xydexx.com


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Xydexx Squeakypony

unread,
Aug 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/5/00
to
Stukafox wrote:

> Xydexx Squeakypony wrote:
> > There's nothing wrong with spooge.
>
> Save the negative reflection it generates for the hobby.
>
> "Portal of Evil", anyone?

I see.

So you're anti-spooge, then?


--
_________________________________________________
Xydexx Squeakypony http://www.xydexx.com

"If we're going to be damned, let's be damned for
who we really are."---Jean-Luc Picard, Star Trek

Sarenthalanos

unread,
Aug 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/5/00
to

<FromTheDes...@stukafox.com> wrote in message
news:8middi$242$3...@nntp1.ba.best.com...

> Xydexx Squeakypony <xyd...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>
> > There's nothing wrong with spooge.
>
>
>
> Save the negative reflection it generates for the hobby.
>
> "Portal of Evil", anyone?
>
>
> StukaFox

This is not directed completely at you, but a bit in general as well.

To sum up this possibly long-winded spiel::

Live with it, it's part of life.

By your logic, then all anime carries a bad light because of hentai/ecchi
works, and the "tentacle thing" plagues many USA anime-style artists who
take themselves a bit too seriously. The Japanese artists don't care
whatsoever, because in their culture, anime is like movies to US culture.
It has material for kids, material for teens, and material for adults. If
you have been in more than one college-level sociology class (I think it's
third-year that they stress this), then you would know that in a "Free
Society", which US is basically a variant of free-society, people tend to
"group" people together, for easy identification. In a place where there is
an abundance of material...let's face it, the human mind in it's simplicity
likes to categorize people/topics into groups based upon their own ideas,
despite any misconceptions and mistruths, etc. So, to most USanians, Anime
is all the same.

Now, let's apply this to the BDSM subculture.
A lot consider the BDSM subculture to promote rape and such, even if that's
not the truth at all. I'll throw a couple of misconceptions at you, and how
they are grouped. These are not the truth, but it's how "mainstream" people
look at the subculture.

"BDSM people like to tie other people up and have their way with them."
"Rapists like to tie other people up and have their way with them."

Now, the human mind will put 2 and 3 together and get 4. Most people would
not bother getting the whole facts before making their assumptions (insert
Benny Hill joke here, if you'd like), because they like simplicity. Now,
onto the next assumption (feel free to insert aformentioned joke from above
here as well).

"BDSM people like to hurt and dominate over other people for the feeling of
power."
"Serial killers/rapists often hurt people for the feeling of dominance and
superiority."

It leads to too many misconceptions and assumptions.

Then, let's look at some art.
Some think that ANY kind of nudity is pornography. Neverminding the fact of
artwork and the early Olympics. The human body is a tad hard to draw
correctly, and from trying my hand at it a couple of times, I'll settle with
architecture anyday. Yeah, it's easier, but it's what I can do with my huge
hands. Back to the point of this paragraph. Some think that ANY bit of
nudity is exploiting whomever, or is designed to be offensive. Those are
the ones that likely got raised around nudie mags being "pure evil", so
anything that has a bit of nudity MUST be "evil" as well.

Now, onto furry.
So some make incorrect assumptions. Big deal. If they want to be like
cattle and eat everything they are fed, instead of learning about things on
their own, then that's their problem. You know furry doesn't mean 90' herm
dogs with erections that can knock over buildings (no offense Doug), but
it's a part of the fandom nonetheless. Just like Fritz the Cat and Bugs
Bunny can both be grouped together because they are cartoons. Bring in
someone that doesn't know much about cartoons, and have them watch Fritz,
then Bugs Bunny....of course, when they see ol' Bugs plant one on Yosemite's
kisser, they might draw the conclusion that all cartoons might be that way.
But it's THEIR fault if they don't want to learn more about it. If they are
going to be half-assed about it, then they can go through life with those
kinds of assumptions, and may natural selection take it's course. And then,
you have to figure on the US being one of the most Puritanistic societies on
the planet. Hell, the BBC doesn't care too much to censor out sex
references. But the US is quick to jump on that, etc.

But then, of course, the US is so diverse enough to be the only country that
could possibly tolerate the Christian Coalition, where their spokesmen are
treated like gods themselves (idolizing, anyone?), and where it's ok to
harrass others "because it's God's will" or "it's in the name of God". They
can label whatever tey want as "evil", and forget the Amendment that states
Freedom of Religion, but unfortunately your Freedom stops where another's
begins. Anyways, I digress...

I've talked about this before, but it's impossible to get rid of the spooge
or "unwanted stuff". I'll admit I like browsing through a lot of archives
of plain, cheesecake, and even a bit of hardcore spooge. So everyone might
as well live with it, because it's not going away. If you want to try and
get a better light on the fandom, and educate people a bit more, then do so.
Make informative places where people can learn about furry and it's various
diversities, so they know that their first assumtpion was incorrect.
Complaining about it does nothing, informing would help a lot more than
hurt, if it was done well.

Anyways, I'm off the soap box for now, and apologies once again for snapping
earlier today.

--
-Sarenthalanos

]=-----------------------------------------------=[
|\ | |\ /| /\ http://fallout.gamestats.com
| \ | | \ / | /__\ No Mutants Allowed
| \| | \/ | / \ Your #1 Fallout site
]=-----------------------------------------------=[

MouseHouse

unread,
Aug 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/5/00
to
Sarenthalanos wrote:

> I've talked about this before, but it's impossible to get rid of the spooge
> or "unwanted stuff".

Notwithstanding the points you've made, I question the legitimacy of the word
"unwanted" in this issue, given how widespread these media are in furrdom.

--

***********
Visit the MouseHouse!
http://www.furnation.com/mousehouse/


Xydexx Squeakypony

unread,
Aug 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/5/00
to
Stukafox wrote:
> I'm pro-image. Spooge is part of the whole scene, I just wish it
> wasn't such a big or easily noticable part.

I'm pro-image too. I guess the difference with me is that I see sites
like Portal of Evil that make this stuff easily noticable are more of a
problem than furry artists who put warnings and stuff up so folks can
easily avoid it.

Leslie_R

unread,
Aug 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/5/00
to
FromTheDes...@stukafox.com wrote:

>
> Xydexx Squeakypony <xyd...@blowmy-dejanozzle.com> wrote:
>
> > I see.
>
> > So you're anti-spooge, then?
>
> I'm pro-image. Spooge is part of the whole scene, I just wish it
> wasn't such a big or easily noticable part.
>
> StukaFox

to paraphrase Captain Packrat earlier "you don't like the image it gives
the fandom? encourage people to stop pointing at it and yelling"

-Leslie

--
"Now we are so happy, we do the Dance of Joy!"
-Balki Bartokamouse

Hangdog

unread,
Aug 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/5/00
to
FromTheDes...@stukafox.com wrote:

> Xydexx Squeakypony <xyd...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > There's nothing wrong with spooge.
>
> Save the negative reflection it generates for the hobby.
>
> "Portal of Evil", anyone?

Furry Fandom: Portal of Evil or a Bozo Nightmare?

--Hang(One's gotta weasel anna other's gotta flag)dog


FromTheDes...@stukafox.com

unread,
Aug 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/6/00
to
Xydexx Squeakypony <xyd...@my-deja.com> wrote:


> There's nothing wrong with spooge.

Save the negative reflection it generates for the hobby.

"Portal of Evil", anyone?


StukaFox

FromTheDes...@stukafox.com

unread,
Aug 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/6/00
to

MechaSquirrel

unread,
Aug 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/6/00
to
StukaFox wrote:

>Xydexx Squeakypony <xyd...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> There's nothing wrong with spooge.
>
> Save the negative reflection it generates for the hobby.


The only negative reflection I've percieved is what some of the
members of the hobby themselves think of it.

From what I've seen, we're pretty spotless, compared to several.


Hentai, anyone?


MechaSquirrel

FromTheDes...@stukafox.com

unread,
Aug 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/6/00
to
MechaSquirrel <mechas...@nocrosswindsspam.net> wrote:


> The only negative reflection I've percieved is what some of the
> members of the hobby themselves think of it.

You should perhaps check out www.portalofevil.com to see what
people outside the hobby are saying.

StukaFox

FromTheDes...@stukafox.com

unread,
Aug 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/6/00
to
Xydexx Squeakypony <xyd...@blowmy-dejanozzle.com> wrote:

> I'm pro-image too. I guess the difference with me is that I see sites
> like Portal of Evil that make this stuff easily noticable are more of a
> problem than furry artists who put warnings and stuff up so folks can
> easily avoid it.

If the stuff is going to be out there on the web, the realistic
expectation has to be it's going to be seen, since that's the whole
idea of putting it out on the web. The image damage to the hobby
isn't negated simply because you feel the real problem is that
someone outside the hobby shone a light on some less salient aspects
of the hobby that were being presented for the whole world to see
in the first place.

The 'real politik' of the situation is that people with no idea of
what furry is aren't going to look at Gontermann, et al, and go
"Gosh, that awful Portal of Evil put this on display for everyone
to see!", they're gonna go "What the FUCK is wrong with these people?"
which is fully evidenced by the feedback PoE has recieved on each
furry site posted.

The argument that furry's image problem is in fact the problem of
everybody BUT furry falls hopelessly limp as more and more lights
get shone on more and more dark corners.


StukaFox

FromTheDes...@stukafox.com

unread,
Aug 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/6/00
to
Leslie_R <tro...@atoka.net> wrote:

> to paraphrase Captain Packrat earlier "you don't like the image it gives
> the fandom? encourage people to stop pointing at it and yelling"

That idea, while sweet, is also tragically naive'. More and more
sites like Portal of Evil are going to find an easy target in
furry -- yelling at them to stop making us look bad, well, makes
us look bad. Neighbors complain about your house being an eyesore?
Don't blame your neighbors, clean up your backyard. As I've said
before, as long as furry is handing out ammo, it shouldn't be suprised
when someone takes a shot at it.


StukaFox

Leslie_R

unread,
Aug 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/6/00
to
FromTheDes...@stukafox.com wrote:
>
> Leslie_R <tro...@atoka.net> wrote:
>
> > to paraphrase Captain Packrat earlier "you don't like the image it gives
> > the fandom? encourage people to stop pointing at it and yelling"
>
> That idea, while sweet, is also tragically naive'. More and more
> sites like Portal of Evil are going to find an easy target in
> furry -- yelling at them to stop making us look bad, well, makes
> us look bad. Neighbors complain about your house being an eyesore?
> Don't blame your neighbors, clean up your backyard.


but if there is a fence around yoru backyard but people keep pering over
it, maybe turning off the lights on the bakc porch and turning on the
ones on the front to show off the well-maicured lawn would be an idea..
spooge is here, it may tarnish the fandom or it may not.. instead of
arguing over it's effect on th efandom image do something abut the
image itself

As I've said
> before, as long as furry is handing out ammo, it shouldn't be suprised
> when someone takes a shot at it.
>
> StukaFox

Hangdog

unread,
Aug 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/6/00
to
Leslie_R wrote:

> FromTheDes...@stukafox.com wrote:
> >
> > Xydexx Squeakypony <xyd...@blowmy-dejanozzle.com> wrote:
> >

> > > I see.
> >
> > > So you're anti-spooge, then?
> >
> > I'm pro-image. Spooge is part of the whole scene, I just wish it
> > wasn't such a big or easily noticable part.
> >
> > StukaFox
>

> to paraphrase Captain Packrat earlier "you don't like the image it gives
> the fandom? encourage people to stop pointing at it and yelling"

Yet another attempt to blame the messenger...

Xydexx Squeakypony

unread,
Aug 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/6/00
to
Stukafox wrote:
> Yes, spooge is here, and it's not going away. It even serves a
> purpose, but why is there only one 'Yerf'?

Probably because some folks would rather complain instead of actually
doing something to fix the problem.

At least that's my opinion, based on the fact that there's nothing
stopping anyone who wanted another 'Yerf' from creating one. But then,
I've always thought creating things you like accomplishes more than
complaining about the things you don't. -:)

FromTheDes...@stukafox.com

unread,
Aug 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/6/00
to
Leslie_R <tro...@atoka.net> wrote:


> but if there is a fence around yoru backyard but people keep pering over
> it, maybe turning off the lights on the bakc porch and turning on the
> ones on the front to show off the well-maicured lawn would be an idea..
> spooge is here, it may tarnish the fandom or it may not.. instead of
> arguing over it's effect on th efandom image do something abut the
> image itself

Furry's 'fence' is about an inch high and labled 'Warning: this
place is a mess, but if you're offended by the site of it, it's
all your fault. We're perfect, you have the problem.'

Yes, spooge is here, and it's not going away. It even serves a
purpose, but why is there only one 'Yerf'?


StukaFox

Xydexx Squeakypony

unread,
Aug 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/6/00
to
Stukafox wrote:
> The argument that furry's image problem is in fact the problem of
> everybody BUT furry falls hopelessly limp as more and more lights
> get shone on more and more dark corners.

The argument is not that it isn't our problem.

The argument is that Portal of Evil is deliberately skewing the image
they're presenting.

We may not like it, but aside from banning all spooge art, I don't see
how it'll stop it from happening.

Since spooge art isn't going away, it's pretty pointless to suggest
people stop drawing it or putting it online. It's far more productive
to direct newcomers to things like Yerf and put things like that in the
spotlight instead.

Support what you like. Ignore what you don't.

FromTheDes...@stukafox.com

unread,
Aug 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/6/00
to
Xydexx Squeakypony <xyd...@blowmy-dejanozzle.com> wrote:

> The argument is not that it isn't our problem.


The sites are ours, but they're not our problem?

> The argument is that Portal of Evil is deliberately skewing the image
> they're presenting.


PoE isn't out to present any view -- they're out to laugh at freaks.
We're being laughed at, because we're being viewed as freaks.


> We may not like it, but aside from banning all spooge art, I don't see
> how it'll stop it from happening.


'Restraint'.

>
> Support what you like. Ignore what you don't.


The problem with ignoring problems is they sometimes come back and
bite you.


StukaFox

Sarenthalanos

unread,
Aug 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/6/00
to

<FromTheDes...@stukafox.com> wrote in message
news:8mj2tl$ult$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com...

> Xydexx Squeakypony <xyd...@blowmy-dejanozzle.com> wrote:
>
> > The argument is not that it isn't our problem.
>
>
> The sites are ours, but they're not our problem?

Then if we want to be taken seriously, then we should do something about it.

> > The argument is that Portal of Evil is deliberately skewing the image
> > they're presenting.
>
>
> PoE isn't out to present any view -- they're out to laugh at freaks.
> We're being laughed at, because we're being viewed as freaks.

Time to educate people then.

> > We may not like it, but aside from banning all spooge art, I don't see
> > how it'll stop it from happening.
>
>
> 'Restraint'.

Not feasable nor likely. Spooge will be there, that's a fact we have to
live with. Not that I'm against it or anything.
However, I believe that education is the most viable option.
Telling the mockers to piss off isn't doing anything.
Telling fellow fans that they shouldn't draw spooge only gets everyone at
each other's throats.

So that leaves educating. Which I have seen a startling LACK of what most
fandoms have, and that is an in-depth explanation and introduction.
We could compile something to tell about how things are a part of the
fandom, or things might be practiced by the fandom, but they are not
necessarily THE prime aspects of the fandom.

> >
> > Support what you like. Ignore what you don't.
>
>
> The problem with ignoring problems is they sometimes come back and
> bite you.

Unfortunately, just sitting back and griping causes even more problems.
So what's left?
Let's try to educate people on what "furry" means, to try and get them to
understand a bit more about it.
Then, providing they have sufficient practice with their residential
gray-matter, things shouldn't be so bad.

Skytech

unread,
Aug 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/6/00
to
>
> At least that's my opinion, based on the fact that there's nothing
> stopping anyone who wanted another 'Yerf' from creating one. But then,
> I've always thought creating things you like accomplishes more than
> complaining about the things you don't. -:)
>

I always noticed people find it easier to honk the horn than hit the brakes.
--
Skytech


Skytech

unread,
Aug 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/6/00
to
>
> You should perhaps check out www.portalofevil.com to see what
> people outside the hobby are saying.
>

Both of them? :)
--
Skytech


Xydexx Squeakypony

unread,
Aug 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/6/00
to
Stukafox wrote:

> Xydexx Squeakypony wrote:
> > The argument is not that it isn't our problem.
>
> The sites are ours, but they're not our problem?

I reiterate: The argument is not that it isn't our problem.


> > The argument is that Portal of Evil is deliberately skewing the image
> > they're presenting.
>
> PoE isn't out to present any view -- they're out to laugh at freaks.
> We're being laughed at, because we're being viewed as freaks.

Someone who's out to "laugh at freaks" isn't presenting a view?

We're being laughed at because they had no intention of doing otherwise.

The world doesn't revolve around Portal of Evil, though.

> > We may not like it, but aside from banning all spooge art, I don't see
> > how it'll stop it from happening.
>
> 'Restraint'.

How is that different from banning all spooge art?



> > Support what you like. Ignore what you don't.
>
> The problem with ignoring problems is they sometimes come back and
> bite you.

I still don't think what other people like to draw is a problem.



--
_________________________________________________
Xydexx Squeakypony http://www.xydexx.com

FromTheDes...@stukafox.com

unread,
Aug 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/6/00
to
Xydexx Squeakypony <xyd...@blowmy-dejanozzle.com> wrote:
>>
>> 'Restraint'.
>
> How is that different from banning all spooge art?

- It comes from within, not from without. It's putting selfishness
aside for the good of the whole hobby. It's saying 'I'm not going
to sell out my hobby just so I can make some money off other
people's mastubatory fantasies' or 'This probably doesn't so much
represent furry as it does my own sexual fantasies, so I won't
associate this stuff with furry on my web page' or even 'I'll show
my tamer erotica stuff on the web-page, but the raunchier stuff
I'll put behind a password-protected frontdoor, and people can
email me for the password if they want it.'

It's that easy. No censorship, no banning -- self-restraint. You've
done it yourself on your own web pages; are you any poorer for it?


StukaFox

Xydexx Squeakypony

unread,
Aug 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/6/00
to
Stukafox wrote:
> Xydexx Squeakypony wrote:
> > How is that different from banning all spooge art?
>
> - It comes from within, not from without. It's putting selfishness
> aside for the good of the whole hobby. It's saying 'I'm not going
> to sell out my hobby just so I can make some money off other
> people's mastubatory fantasies' or 'This probably doesn't so much
> represent furry as it does my own sexual fantasies, so I won't
> associate this stuff with furry on my web page' or even 'I'll show
> my tamer erotica stuff on the web-page, but the raunchier stuff
> I'll put behind a password-protected frontdoor, and people can
> email me for the password if they want it.'

Uh-huh. And what will stop Portal of Evil from emailing for the
password?

I agree that folks shouldn't go putting the raunchy stuff in other
people's faces as an introduction to furry fandom, but the fact remains
Portal of Evil just finds this stuff because---as even you
admit---they're just out to "laugh at freaks," not to write a balanced
view of furry fandom.

Point is, if we can find the ranchy stuff, so can they. The only way to
stop them from finding it is to eliminate it entirely. That means none
of us can find it either.

So how would self-restraint be any different from banning all spooge art
if the net effect is the same?

FromTheDes...@stukafox.com

unread,
Aug 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/6/00
to
Xydexx Squeakypony <xyd...@blowmy-dejanozzle.com> wrote:
>
> Uh-huh. And what will stop Portal of Evil from emailing for the
> password?

It's against their rules. Same reason they don't post passwords
to other sites.


> Point is, if we can find the ranchy stuff, so can they. The only way to
> stop them from finding it is to eliminate it entirely. That means none
> of us can find it either.


It's a target-rich vs. a target poor-environment. Right now,
we're target rich. Look how many furry sites PoE lists right
now -- if there were only one, it could pretty much be overlooked,
but as it stands now, furry is about to get its own PoE catagory.

It's not all going to go away, no matter what. If we could lower
the volume, that would help.

And for the last part, finding it ourselves, we do access resources
people outside the hobby aren't likely to access: MU*'s, IRC areas,
conventions and comics. These would probably be good venues for
sharing that sort of information.

StukaFox

Al Goldman

unread,
Aug 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/6/00
to
>> >Xydexx Squeakypony
>>Stukafox wrote

>> > We may not like it, but aside from banning all spooge art, I don't see
>> > how it'll stop it from happening.
>>
>> 'Restraint'.

Get the perverts into The Furry Closet.

The facts remain:

No one's religious or personal values are valid for the entire body of furry
fandom.
No one controls furry fandom - copyright, trade marks, etc.
No one has a consensus on what is proper furry behavior.
No one could enforce any standard we would develop.

Regardless of your view of the subject, adult material is a major part of furry
fandom. Wishing that the Evil Pervert Furs would just be quite and go away will
do nothing.

Dwelling on the Treehouse and the Portal Of Evil will also do nothing, except
reinforce a massively distorted view of furry fandom.

We are forced to accept every legal activity by adults in furry fandom - we
have no right or authority to do otherwise, (unless we control some small part
of the fandom like a con or a zine).

People with strong religious beliefs do manage to remain in furry fandom
without dwelling on the objectionable aspects of the fandom. It's called
"tolerance" - learn it, live it. Not because you believe in unlimited personal
freedom but because your experinces in furry fandom will be enhanced when you
stop wasting time fighting unwinable battles.

Maybe some Christian furries could provide some insight on the topic of
tolerance, and how they deal with legal but objectional material.

No furry closets.

>>Stukafox
>Xydexx Squeakypony
Al Goldman


I always wanted to be somebody, but I should have been more specific.

Lily Tomlin


SilverJain

unread,
Aug 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/6/00
to
Hmmm, I visited the Portal of Evil and found it to be pretty all-inclusive in
the micking department. A search on the word "furry" yielded only 16 sites. I
counted over 1000 sites on several different pages before I lost track. There's
no doubt somewhere around 2-3000 sites listed.

And only 16 are tagged "furry". (And a lot of those I wouldn't count as furry
at all...) Think about it-- 16 out of possibly 2-3000? Hmm.

They seem to make fun of goths, trekkies, lonely dateless people, gays, white
supremacists, fundamentalist Christians, pedophiles, Japanese fetishists and
just all around kooks far more than they make fun of furries.

Just something I noticed...

--Elin

PS I thought a lot of the commentary and sites on Portal of Evil was hilarious,
but then I have a mean sense of humor.
"Well that's it then, you see what you wanna see and you hear what you wanna
hear." -- The Rock Man, "The Point"

Selling my collections! Check out the deals here:
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/silverjain/

Radio Comix Online:
http://www.radiocomix.com

David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)

unread,
Aug 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/6/00
to
On Sun, 06 Aug 2000 11:41:06 -0400, Xydexx Squeakypony
<xyd...@BLOWmy-dejaNOZZLE.com> wrote:
>Stukafox wrote:

[...]

>> 'Restraint'.


>
>How is that different from banning all spooge art?

Because with restraint we are still free to BDSM art?

--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
http://dformosa.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.

Al Goldman

unread,
Aug 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/6/00
to
In article <20000806154135...@ng-cg1.aol.com>,
silve...@aol.comspampie (SilverJain) writes:

>
>And only 16 are tagged "furry". (And a lot of those I wouldn't count as furry
>at all...) Think about it-- 16 out of possibly 2-3000? Hmm.
>

True, but David Gonterman and Doug Winger both made the site top 10 list.
Xydexx remains in the regular furry list.

Gonterman stranger than Xydexx? The folks at PoE know nothing about weird! :-)

Al Goldman


Do not stand in our way! We will walk around you!

The Perky Goth Manifesto

Farlo

unread,
Aug 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/6/00
to
Al Goldman wrote:

>Do not stand in our way! We will walk around you!
>
> The Perky Goth Manifesto

*Fits of giggling*

--

Farlo
Urban fey dragon

m>^_^<m

Al Goldman

unread,
Aug 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/6/00
to
In article <8F889C5EC...@news.fysh.org>, hall...@worldnet.att.net
(Farlo) writes:

>Al Goldman wrote:
>
>>Do not stand in our way! We will walk around you!
>>
>> The Perky Goth Manifesto
>
>*Fits of giggling*
>

The full text is somewhere on Gothbunny's webpage, http://www.gothbunny.net

Al Goldman

Richard Chandler - WA Resident

unread,
Aug 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/6/00
to
In article <20000806151401...@nso-cq.aol.com>,
allan...@aol.comNARF (Al Goldman) writes:
> No one's religious or personal values are valid for the entire body
> of furry fandom.

Right, not even that much vaunted "Tolerance" that some people insist all
furry fans have, by nature of being furries. Far from being universal, it
seems more to be tolerance for the Outre', and none for the more normal.

> No one controls furry fandom - copyright, trade marks, etc.

Those, of course, are individual

> No one has a consensus on what is proper furry behavior.

Yeah, there are some whose standard of behaviour consists of "Do what thou
wilt" minus the "An' it harm none" part. Those sorts are usually the ones who
most vigorously fight any attempt to establish proper rules of conduct. It's
gotten so bad that conventions have to write explicit rules of conduct into
their program guides because some people can't be trusted to behave
themselves.

> No one could enforce any standard we would develop.

Here's a question for you. CAN a subculture establish rules for behavior and
methods of enforcing them? Why can't Furry?


--
"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.


Xydexx Squeakypony

unread,
Aug 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/6/00
to
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) wrote:
>Xydexx Squeakypony wrote:

> >Stukafox wrote:
> >> 'Restraint'.
> >
> >How is that different from banning all spooge art?
>
> Because with restraint we are still free to BDSM art?

Woohoo! Three cheers for restraint! Where do I sign up? -:)

Xydexx Squeakypony

unread,
Aug 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/6/00
to
Al Goldman wrote:
> True, but David Gonterman and Doug Winger both made the site top 10 list.
> Xydexx remains in the regular furry list.
>
> Gonterman stranger than Xydexx? The folks at PoE know nothing about weird! :-)

I guess they don't think I'm trying hard enough.

("But I'll show them... I'll show them ALL... muahahahaha...") -;)

Rust

unread,
Aug 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/6/00
to
MouseHouse wrote:
>
> Sarenthalanos wrote:
>
> > I've talked about this before, but it's impossible to get rid of the spooge
> > or "unwanted stuff".
>
> Notwithstanding the points you've made, I question the legitimacy of the word
> "unwanted" in this issue, given how widespread these media are in furrdom.

Well there's the crux, innit?

-Rust
--
We are the instruments of creation - what we dream, is.

Remove ".netspam" from my address to reply

Rust

unread,
Aug 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/6/00
to
FromTheDes...@stukafox.com wrote:
>
> MechaSquirrel <mechas...@nocrosswindsspam.net> wrote:
>
> > The only negative reflection I've percieved is what some of the
> > members of the hobby themselves think of it.

>
> You should perhaps check out www.portalofevil.com to see what
> people outside the hobby are saying.

What one intentionally vicious person outside the fandom is saying, you
mean.

Rust

unread,
Aug 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/6/00
to

Valid. You forgot "valid".

Rust

unread,
Aug 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/6/00
to
FromTheDes...@stukafox.com wrote:
>
> Leslie_R <tro...@atoka.net> wrote:
>
> > to paraphrase Captain Packrat earlier "you don't like the image it gives
> > the fandom? encourage people to stop pointing at it and yelling"
>
> That idea, while sweet, is also tragically naive'. More and more
> sites like Portal of Evil are going to find an easy target in
> furry -- yelling at them to stop making us look bad, well, makes
> us look bad. Neighbors complain about your house being an eyesore?
> Don't blame your neighbors, clean up your backyard. As I've said

> before, as long as furry is handing out ammo, it shouldn't be suprised
> when someone takes a shot at it.

Like you, fer instance? I hear a lot more anti-furry-this and
anti-furry-that coming from a few big mouths within the fandom than from
the rest of the world in general. Which is darned interesting,
considering how much larger the world in general is than the fandom.

Rust

unread,
Aug 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/6/00
to
FromTheDes...@stukafox.com wrote:

> Yes, spooge is here, and it's not going away. It even serves a
> purpose, but why is there only one 'Yerf'?

Because those who -could- be creating others would rather raze
everything they don't agree with instead? Have to wonder which battle
is easier to win, or honourable, even.

Xydexx Squeakypony

unread,
Aug 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/6/00
to
Richard Chandler - WA Resident wrote:
> Right, not even that much vaunted "Tolerance" that some people insist all
> furry fans have, by nature of being furries. Far from being universal, it
> seems more to be tolerance for the Outre', and none for the more normal.

Allow me to be the first one to poke a hole in that generalization by
stating that I think Brenda DiAntonis is cool. Actually, I know quite a
few Christian folks out there in furry fandom that are cool. I suppose
it's probably a shock to you that I think they're cool even though I'm
not a Christian myself. I mean, you don't see me flaming G. Raymond
Eddy, do you? No, of course not.

But then, I believe in that "much vaunted" tolerance thang ya seem to
like railing against. -:)

Chuck Melville

unread,
Aug 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/6/00
to

Xydexx Squeakypony wrote:

>
> Uh-huh. And what will stop Portal of Evil from emailing for the
> password?
>

That's not a tough one to reason out. If they get it, you change the
password. You check to see who recently asked for it, and watch to see who
asks for the new password and see if it happens again; if it does, it should be
easy to track down the culprit and prohibit them from receiving the password in
the future. You maintain vigilance.


Chuck Melville

unread,
Aug 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/6/00
to

Al Goldman wrote:

> No one has a consensus on what is proper furry behavior.
>

That's not true. Poll a large number of furry fans for their opinions and
whatever the majority agrees on is your consensus. Get another people to side
with you and you control the consensus.

> No one could enforce any standard we would develop.
>

Forcibly, no. But influentially, sure; it could be done.

>
> Regardless of your view of the subject, adult material is a major part of furry
> fandom. Wishing that the Evil Pervert Furs would just be quite and go away will
> do nothing.
>

No, but downplaying it and promoting the non-spooge material more heavily
will.

>
> Dwelling on the Treehouse and the Portal Of Evil will also do nothing, except
> reinforce a massively distorted view of furry fandom.
>

No, it continues to keep it in the light. Ignoring it does not make it go
away, but it does suggest implicit approval. The idea that it only reinforces the
negative view is just more "shooting the messenger" rhetoric.

>

Nebulous

unread,
Aug 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/6/00
to
Richard Chandler - WA Resident wrote ...

> Yeah, there are some whose standard of behaviour consists of "Do what
thou
> wilt" minus the "An' it harm none" part. Those sorts are usually the
ones who
> most vigorously fight any attempt to establish proper rules of conduct.
It's
> gotten so bad that conventions have to write explicit rules of conduct
into
> their program guides because some people can't be trusted to behave
> themselves.
>
Much as the government has to write explicit rules of conduct (Laws)
because some people can't be trusted to behave themselves?


--
Nebulous Rikulau
My furcode
FFCs4a A- C* D H+ M- P++ R+ T+++ W Z+ Sm RLRB/AT a+ cn++ d-- e+ f h+ i+ j+
p+ sm-
"I have studied many philosophers and many cats. The wisdom of cats is
infinitely superior."
---Hippolyte Taine


Chuck Melville

unread,
Aug 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/6/00
to

Chuck Melville wrote:

> Get another people to side
> with you and you control the consensus.
>

Sorry; little brain-fart there. That should read: "Get -enough- people to side

Allen Kitchen

unread,
Aug 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/6/00
to

Chuck Melville wrote:
>
> Al Goldman wrote:
>
> > No one has a consensus on what is proper furry behavior.
> >
>
> That's not true. Poll a large number of furry fans for their opinions and
> whatever the majority agrees on is your consensus.

Ask 12 furrys, and you'll get 29 different answers :)

Allen Kitchen (shockwave, not delving into the fray anymore.)
http://www.blkbox.com/~osprey/

Leslie_R

unread,
Aug 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/6/00
to
Rust wrote:
I hear a lot more anti-furry-this and
> anti-furry-that coming from a few big mouths within the fandom than from
> the rest of the world in general. Which is darned interesting,
> considering how much larger the world in general is than the fandom.
>
> -Rust
very much larger, which i think is probalby the main reaso why all the
fetishes which some say are giving furry a bad rap are being given such
attention when they are likely as big if not bigger out in ther world at
large

<useless analogy>
take a fundamentalist conservative, a radical liberal, and a blatent
BDSM fetishist and scatter them out randomly in the same 20-story office
bulding and see what happens.. now for our next trick, put them all in
the same elevator and compare the difference
</useless analogy>

-Leslie


> --
> We are the instruments of creation - what we dream, is.
>
> Remove ".netspam" from my address to reply

--
"Now we are so happy, we do the Dance of Joy!"
-Balki Bartokamouse

Richard Chandler - WA Resident

unread,
Aug 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/6/00
to
In article <398E1C89...@BLOWmy-dejaNOZZLE.com>, Xydexx Squeakypony <
xyd...@BLOWmy-dejaNOZZLE.com> writes:

> Richard Chandler - WA Resident wrote:
> > Right, not even that much vaunted "Tolerance" that some people
> > insist all furry fans have, by nature of being furries. Far from
> > being universal, it seems more to be tolerance for the Outre', and
> > none for the more normal.
>
> Allow me to be the first one to poke a hole in that generalization
> by stating that I think Brenda DiAntonis is cool. Actually, I know
> quite a few Christian folks out there in furry fandom that are cool.
> I suppose it's probably a shock to you that I think they're cool
> even though I'm not a Christian myself. I mean, you don't see me
> flaming G. Raymond Eddy, do you? No, of course not.
>
> But then, I believe in that "much vaunted" tolerance thang ya seem to
> like railing against. -:)

It's all about you, isn't it?

Of course you think Brenda is cool, because she IS cool. It's hardly
something one can have a different opinion about unless one were totally
oblivious to the facts.

But just because YOU happen to have a better handle on tolerance does not
disprove the point that it is NOT a universal value among furries. The fact
that there are others who are not as tolerant, or indeed, the fact that here
in this post you are painting yourself as an EXCEPTION, proves my point.

Richard Chandler - WA Resident

unread,
Aug 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/6/00
to
In article <20000806222430...@nso-cl.aol.com>,
allan...@aol.comNARF (Al Goldman) writes:
> The place for regulations were things can be regulated - zines
> and conventions, for example. The idea of regulations for the
> Internet, where anybody can do anything with no obiglation to follow
> rules is where the fantasy of a regulated fandom fails.

True. There are no regulations, but there ARE social forces. Look what
happened with "Sheath" when we all got pretty sick of his shit and wouldn't
play with him the way he wanted. He left in a huff. If he comes back,
chances are his behavior may have improved. Sure, usenet is unregulated, but
it's still full of PEOPLE. And people form social orders whereever they are,
and social orders have ways of making people fall into line.

> >> No one could enforce any standard we would develop.

> >Here's a question for you. CAN a subculture establish rules for
> >behavior and methods of enforcing them? Why can't Furry?
>

> This paragraph parses kind of funny - do you know a fandom with
> an extensive adult component that enforces such rules?

Hard to say, do you know just how much SLASH fiction there is? There may be
quite a lot of it, but Trek fans are a lot more descreet about it.

> As to your question, only on a case-by-case basis. When someone is
> in charge, yes - we've seen a sharp rise in public conduct at
> furry conventions as a response to the excesses of ConFurence 8. On
> the unregulated Internet and in the legal activities of consenting
> adults, no. No matter how much it would benefit the fandom some
> things cannot be controled - we don't have the tools or the
> moral authority.

We always have the tools. Regardless of the subculture, there is a social
order, and the lowest rung on that social order is "Outcast". And Fury Fandom
is OUR community, which gives us all the moral authority to impose the
majority will with regard to what happens in that community. (Or in some
cases, the plurality will against a sea of Apathy).

This happens everywhere there are human beings involved.

Al Goldman

unread,
Aug 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/7/00
to
> mau...@kendra.com (Richard Chandler - WA Resident) writes:
>>allan...@aol.comNARF (Al Goldman) writes:

>> No one's religious or personal values are valid for the entire body
>> of furry fandom.

>Right, not even that much vaunted "Tolerance" that some people insist all

>furry fans have, by nature of being furries. Far from being universal, it
>seems more to be tolerance for the Outre', and none for the more normal.

There have been cases of more "normal" furries being harassed, such as the
Christian Furry Fellowship. But I advocate tolerance not for unlimited personal
freedom but as a way to accept the fact that some things can not and will not
be removed from the fandom.

I'd love to be intolerant. There's a bunch of people I'd love to see off the
Internet or out of furry fandom. But I’m just as helpless as the BF's in
forcing my will on the furry community.

>Yeah, there are some whose standard of behaviour consists of "Do what thou
>wilt" minus the "An' it harm none" part. Those sorts are usually the ones
>who most vigorously fight any attempt to establish proper rules of conduct.
It's
>gotten so bad that conventions have to write explicit rules of conduct into
>their program guides because some people can't be trusted to behave
>themselves.

The place for regulations were things can be regulated - zines and conventions,


for example. The idea of regulations for the Internet, where anybody can do
anything with no obiglation to follow rules is where the fantasy of a regulated
fandom fails.

>> No one could enforce any standard we would develop.

>Here's a question for you. CAN a subculture establish rules for behavior and
>methods of enforcing them? Why can't Furry?

This paragraph parses kind of funny - do you know a fandom with an extensive
adult component that enforces such rules?

As to your question, only on a case-by-case basis. When someone is in charge,


yes - we've seen a sharp rise in public conduct at furry conventions as a
response to the excesses of ConFurence 8. On the unregulated Internet and in
the legal activities of consenting adults, no. No matter how much it would
benefit the fandom some things cannot be controled - we don't have the tools or
the moral authority.

>Richard Chandler

Watts Martin

unread,
Aug 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/7/00
to
On Sun, 06 Aug 2000 00:17:16 -0500, Hangdog <peter....@pdq.net> wrote:
>> to paraphrase Captain Packrat earlier "you don't like the image it gives
>> the fandom? encourage people to stop pointing at it and yelling"
>
>Yet another attempt to blame the messenger...

If the messenger is "Portal of Evil," I'd have to say blaming it is a
perfectly reasonable response. I don't think well of websites whose purpose
in life is to encourage the mocking of others. I don't care how weird-ass,
lame or outright indefensible what they're mocking is. Sites like that not
only contribute nothing of value, they promote the idea that incivility and
discourteousness is cool and funny. We need more courtesy, not less
(particularly, in my opinion, in furrydom).

I understand Stuka's point of view and I'm largely sympathetic to it, but the
reality is that Xydexx is absolutely correct--complaining about it doesn't do
jack, only action does. There is no way to regulate the behavior of people
who want to identify themselves with your hobby. If you don't control the
venue they're in, you can't even stop them from identifying themselves with
your hobby. All you can do is tell anyone who will listen, "I'm not with
them." You can't make everyone understand that they should keep The Weird
Stuff away from newbies. You can censure, but you can't censor. Even if you
want to--which you damn well shouldn't--you just can't.

So stop preaching, already, and start doing. Start more things like Yerf! if
you want. Start Portals of Good. Promote the stuff that you think is good
about furry art, writing, animation and the like. Get involved with furry
conventions so you have input into their direction. Promote and contribute
to Fuzzy Logic, and maybe start and promote other non-fiction publications-
-reviews, articles, letter columns or forums. (The sorts of fanzines that
mainstream sf fandom has had for decades.) And encourage CRITICAL thinking,
as distinct from CYNICAL thinking. Right now in the fandom too much of the
latter is being passed off as the former.

--
Watts Martin <mi...@solluna.org>
http://www.ranea.org/watts/


Al Goldman

unread,
Aug 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/7/00
to
> Chuck Melville wrote:
>>Al Goldman wrote:

>> No one has a consensus on what is proper furry behavior.

> That's not true. Poll a large number of furry fans for their opinions

>and whatever the majority agrees on is your consensus. Get another people to


>side with you and you control the consensus.

And if I disagree with the valid or invalid consensus there is still nothing
you can do to make me conform.

I should clarify my original point. The consensus exists where it should - when
some group of furries is actually in charge of something and has the authority,
like a zine or a convention.

>> No one could enforce any standard we would develop.

> Forcibly, no. But influentially, sure; it could be done.

You could find support for just about any weird aspect of the fandom. From pure
freedom of speech advocates to fellow weirdoes. Ten happy fans will outweigh
500 rational objections.

>> Regardless of your view of the subject, adult material is a major part of
furry
>> fandom. Wishing that the Evil Pervert Furs would just be quite and go away
will
>> do nothing.

> No, but downplaying it and promoting the non-spooge material more heavily
will.

Correct!

>> Dwelling on the Treehouse and the Portal Of Evil will also do nothing,
except
>> reinforce a massively distorted view of furry fandom.

> No, it continues to keep it in the light. Ignoring it does not make it
>go away, but it does suggest implicit approval. The idea that it only
>reinforces the negative view is just more "shooting the messenger" rhetoric.

Unless something is illegal there is nothing we can do to stop the Treehouse.
People interested in shutting them down can monitor their activities and report
them to the authorities without involving AFF. We have no influence over the
PoE whatsoever, since they’re outside the fandom and hypocrites anyway.
Talking about both topics simply scares the lurkers.

> Chuck Melville

FromTheDes...@stukafox.com

unread,
Aug 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/7/00
to
Rust <othr...@bmts.com.netspam> wrote:

> Like you, fer instance? I hear a lot more anti-furry-this and


> anti-furry-that coming from a few big mouths within the fandom than from
> the rest of the world in general. Which is darned interesting,
> considering how much larger the world in general is than the fandom.


Rust, this is very close to flaming. Kindly keep the ad hominem
out of the discussion. You can discuss this without name-calling.

StukaFox

Weston Firerunner

unread,
Aug 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/7/00
to

Richard Chandler - WA Resident wrote:

> Here's a question for you. CAN a subculture establish rules for behavior and
> methods of enforcing them? Why can't Furry?

I don't think I've seen one that could create a set of rules for
behavior outside the constraints of a particular place, such as a
convention, or a particular artistic venue, such as a fanzine. I'm not
saying that no subculture can create such rules, but from my limited
experience, I've yet to see one.

Within the Goth subculture (pre-Manson), I have seen so many different
concepts of what is 'Goth' that I decided that Goth is what one wants it
to be. No one can tell you different, and if they do, you could easily
ignore them and be on with your life, beleiving exactly what you want it
to be. Perception creates a great deal of reality, in most people's
lives, it seems. Is Goth about kids squicking as many 'mundane' people
as they can? Is it about protest against 'The Establishment'? Is it
about wearing black and white and red?

What is amusing is that I've run into various folks who try and define
Goth and force others to accept that definition. Others have tried to
set up little 'communes' where like-minded Goths could live peacefully
sheltered from the bitter scorn and resentment outside. Sound familiar?
;) These are actual perceptions and realizations I had well before I
learned of Furry politics and infighting.

I think that in the end, everyone will live how they want to live, play
how they want to play, think how they want to think, etc.. and the world
will continue turning.

I don't claim to want to get into this current debate, but I thought I
would share my little bit with the world who watches a.f.f. No offense
is intended. I don't claim to know anything more than I have
experienced, and I am not singling anyone out.

- Weston Firerunner
http://www.furnation.com/firerunner/

Post Script: I wrote a 'rant' on both Furry and Goth on my homepage if
anyone is remotely interested. I don't claim to associate with what is
called 'Goth' these days, and I doubt that my concept of the subculture
jives with what most other members of that subculture thought of it.

Xydexx Squeakypony

unread,
Aug 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/7/00
to
Richard Chandler wrote:
> It's all about you, isn't it?

Yeah, it's all about me. Except when it's about you.

> Of course you think Brenda is cool, because she IS cool.

Oh, YEAH? Well, I think Brenda is COOL. So THERE!

I'm so glad we can finally agree on something. -:)

> But just because YOU happen to have a better handle on tolerance
> does not disprove the point that it is NOT a universal value among
> furries.

Nope, it doesn't. Of course, I never intended to prove tolerance was a
universal value in the fandom, so it's a moot point.

Tolerance is a good thing to have, yes, but it's certainly not practiced
by everyone. Heck, I'll be first to admit there's quite a few folks in
the fandom who say the word "tolerance" with a sneer, like it's a Bad
Thing or something.

Not mentioning any names, of course.

--
_________________________________________________
Xydexx Squeakypony http://www.xydexx.com


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)

unread,
Aug 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/7/00
to
On 7 Aug 2000 02:48:00 GMT, Watts Martin
<mi...@solluna.remove-bogus.org> wrote:

>If the messenger is "Portal of Evil," I'd have to say blaming it is a
>perfectly reasonable response. I don't think well of websites whose purpose
>in life is to encourage the mocking of others.

You know I've been thinking, perhaps this mocking by the "Portal of
Evil" folks is a good thing. I mean how do you tell that you have
made it big in the music industry? When Weard Al yankovic sends up
your soung. How to you know you have a big ass movie on your hands?
When Mad does a hit and run on it.

--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
http://dformosa.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.

Kai

unread,
Aug 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/7/00
to
"Watts Martin" <mi...@solluna.remove-bogus.org> wrote in message
news:8ml810$igd$1...@raccoon.fur.com...

>
> If the messenger is "Portal of Evil," I'd have to say blaming it is a
> perfectly reasonable response.

A reasonable response, but probably not the most productive. Blaming one
website for an image problem is hardly rational. By the same token, using
said website to form one's opinion of another group is probably even more
shallow.

The biggest problem I have with the anti-Portal argument is that it wouldn't
even be worthy of our attention if there weren't furry sites on it. You can
look at it and laugh right along with them, until your group is part of the
joke, and all of the sudden it's like "Hey, waitaminute..."

If you're going to argue against Portal, do it for the following reasons:
a) it's not funny, b) it's got a big link to UGO right at the top, c) it's
ugly, and d) it's not funny. It's perfectly possible to be humorous without
doing so at the expense of others.

So anyway, I repeat what's already been agreed on for the most part: if you
want something to change, shut up and do it.


Leslie_R

unread,
Aug 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/7/00
to
Kai wrote:
>
>
> If you're going to argue against Portal, do it for the following reasons:
> a) it's not funny, b) it's got a big link to UGO right at the top, c) it's
> ugly, and d) it's not funny. It's perfectly possible to be humorous without
> doing so at the expense of others.

actually most humor comes from someone getting the short end of it in
some way, but we can laugh at their misfortune because it is usually
explicitly implied that it is in fact all in fun "An Acrobat walks into
the doctor's office with a bananna up his butt" now putting aside how
painfull and uncomfortable having a piece of fruit jammed up the rectal
orafice may be, thoughts of "bananna splits" in rude context will still
grab a giggle here and there because this is quite obviously a joke,
"will you stop bobbing your head on my wang long enough for me to tell
you what a worthless sack of homo dog-vomit you are?" however, is
not... and no matter how many individuals laugh out loud at this it
still can't be excused as "just a joke"


-Leslie

FromTheDes...@stukafox.com

unread,
Aug 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/7/00
to
Richard Chandler - WA Resident <mau...@kendra.com> wrote:

> True. There are no regulations, but there ARE social forces. Look what
> happened with "Sheath" when we all got pretty sick of his shit and wouldn't
> play with him the way he wanted. He left in a huff. If he comes back,
> chances are his behavior may have improved. Sure, usenet is unregulated, but
> it's still full of PEOPLE. And people form social orders whereever they are,
> and social orders have ways of making people fall into line.


That was a really, REALLY good example and one I'm going to archive
as it neatly shows what I've been trying to say. Thanks, Richard!


StukaFox

FromTheDes...@stukafox.com

unread,
Aug 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/7/00
to
Kai <nu...@eightqueens.com> wrote:

> So anyway, I repeat what's already been agreed on for the most part: if you
> want something to change, shut up and do it.

I'm going to go ahead and address this point, as it gets brought
up over and over . . .

I AM trying to change it by fostering an open discussion about this
issue, and to get the input of all different sides. Further, I'm
trying to change things by changing minds through reasoned discussion.
Unless people begin to see beyond the walls of this hobby and see how
their own actions have ramifications that may harm the hobby, and
to quit thinking of furry as some kind of protected vaccuum.

I'm trying to change hearts and minds. Some I'll reach, most I won't,
but I am doing something constructive, even if a number of people can't
understand it as such.


StukaFox

gbres...@my-deja.com

unread,
Aug 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/7/00
to
In article <398E1D25...@zipcon.com>,

cp...@zipcon.com wrote:
>
>
> Al Goldman wrote:
>
> > No one has a consensus on what is proper furry behavior.
> >
>
> That's not true. Poll a large number of furry fans for their
opinions and
> whatever the majority agrees on is your consensus.


Chuck, get down your dictionary. Consensus means UNAMINITY. Not
majority. You must have UNANIMOUS agreement to have consensus.

--
--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.

gbres...@my-deja.com

unread,
Aug 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/7/00
to
In article <20000806151401...@nso-cq.aol.com>,
allan...@aol.comNARF (Al Goldman) wrote:
> People with strong religious beliefs do manage to remain in furry
> fandom
> without dwelling on the objectionable aspects of the fandom. It's
> called
> "tolerance" - learn it, live it. Not because you believe in unlimited
> personal
> freedom but because your experinces in furry fandom will be enhanced
> when you
> stop wasting time fighting unwinable battles.
>
> Maybe some Christian furries could provide some insight on the topic
> of
> tolerance, and how they deal with legal but objectional material.
>
> No furry closets.

So non-Christian religious furries aren't allowed to have an opinion?

I'm not Christian. I was raised in a Christian tradion. Among my best
friends is an Episcopal priest. When I did call myself a Christian my
religious philosophy demanded tolerance. And not just tolerance,
acceptance. Part of the theology of the church I was raised in was that
it is the responsibility of each individual to interpret god's law. No
one of us has a right to impose that interpretation on another.

I continue to believe in that now that I'm a taoist. And a
Jeffersonian.

What I find most objectionable in furry fandom is the continuing
attempts by various, oh factions isn't even the right word, it seems to
be a bunch of isolated crackpots, really, to do things like "impose
standards of behavior" or "clean up the fandom's image."

If you're living in a free society, you're going to be seeing and
hearing "objectionable" things. And what's objectionable to you may be
a sacrament to someone else. There are many times when I see a book or
a movie or a painting or something and I think, "Man, I wish they
hadn't done that." But I do not want to live in a society or a
subculture where someone has the authority to enforce those sorts of
rules.

It's not enough to say that "we can't change it so let's move