Looking for an artist's work...

26 views
Skip to first unread message

Moonshadow

unread,
May 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/5/00
to
Does anyone know if an artist named Robert Hill has any furry artwork posted
on the web? If so, could you either post or email me the URL?

Thanks!

--
Moonshadow

Please switch 'com' and 'hotmail' to email me.

Farry

unread,
May 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/6/00
to
On Fri, 05 May 2000 15:24:25 GMT, "Moonshadow"
<cv_moo...@com.hotmail> wrote:

>Does anyone know if an artist named Robert Hill has any furry artwork posted
>on the web? If so, could you either post or email me the URL?
>
>Thanks!

A quick check with a search engine gives:

http://www.macrophile.com/~cerine/art/rhill/i.htm

And there was I thinking that just Xydexx was into this stuff ;)

--
|\ /|
| \'_| Farry
___.-' @ `--o
/// / ____,' fa...@earthling.net
/ / ///~~/ ICQ 8277359

Moonshadow

unread,
May 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/6/00
to
Thanks for the tip, although what I found wasn't quite what I expected. :-)

A post on A.L.F. led me to http://www.deviantdesires.com . There was a
section involving furry there, and it contained a picture by Robert Hill.
I'll reserve my comments on the rest of the article, though. If you dare to
check it out, look at the 'Fetish Roadmap'. :-p

Farry

unread,
May 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/6/00
to
On Sat, 06 May 2000 14:36:48 GMT, "Moonshadow"
<cv_moo...@com.hotmail> wrote:

>Thanks for the tip, although what I found wasn't quite what I expected. :-)
>
>A post on A.L.F. led me to http://www.deviantdesires.com . There was a
>section involving furry there, and it contained a picture by Robert Hill.
>I'll reserve my comments on the rest of the article, though. If you dare to
>check it out, look at the 'Fetish Roadmap'. :-p

Heck. I see what you mean. Right at the top.

At least the, ahem, Webmistress distinguishes between "furverts" and
"furry fans" in a way that is, perhaps, better than we deserve.

Richard Chandler - WA Resident

unread,
May 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/6/00
to
In article <QFIUOR9+tlVo7r...@4ax.com>, Farry <fa...@earthling.net>
writes:

> At least the, ahem, Webmistress distinguishes between "furverts"
> and "furry fans" in a way that is, perhaps, better than we deserve.

You're welcome.

While certain other people worked on Ms. Gates for two years or so trying to
get a starring role in the book, I talked with her for a few months and gave
her some information she actually USED. (I can point to three paragraphs that
are clearly based on things from my e-mail). Including stressing repeatedly
to her the difference between those who treat Furry as a Fandom, and those who
fetishize it.


--
The greatest tragedy is that the same species that achieved space flight,
a cure for polio, and the transistor, is also featured nightly on COPS.
-- Richard Chandler
Spammer Warning: Washington State Law now provides civil penalties for UCE.


Richard Chandler - WA Resident

unread,
May 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/6/00
to
In article <8f2scv$c5o$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Xydexx Squeakypony <xydexx@my-
deja.com> writes:
> Indeed, I think most folks would find that far more interesting
> than certain people who make things up about the folks Ms. Gates spent
> two years trying to solicit interviews from.

Thanks for the confirmation. Before, you wouldn't name the journalist you
"Had a two year relationship with", and now you're trying to re-frame the
nature of it. I bet you're still steamed that you didn't get the Buster Steve
role. All that work on the inflatable Clydesdale was wasted.

Xydexx Squeakypony

unread,
May 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/7/00
to
Farry wrote:
> And there was I thinking that just Xydexx was into this stuff ;)

Nah, there's plenty of people into it. I'm just the one who gets
flamed for it most often, for the Reprehensible Crime of Being Honest
and admitting I like the stuff.

I'm sure if I was a Bnrned Fnr or Washington Resident I'd be able to
get away with it, though. Funny how that works.

But frankly, I'll be really happy when rec.arts.furry gets started and
certain people start talking about anthropomorphics for a change.

Indeed, I think most folks would find that far more interesting than
certain people who make things up about the folks Ms. Gates spent two
years trying to solicit interviews from.

--
_________________________________________________
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


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

Roz Gibson

unread,
May 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/7/00
to
In article <JIBQ4.1$v%5....@newshog.newsread.com>, cv_moo...@com.hotmail
says...

>
>Does anyone know if an artist named Robert Hill has any furry artwork posted
>on the web? If so, could you either post or email me the URL?
>
>Thanks!
>
>--
>Moonshadow


I don't know of any artwork he has on the web, but he used to have a lot of
stuff in some hardcopy 'zines, mainly something called The Bunny Pages. I
also remember seeing a couple of books published by (the original) Mailbox
Books that had nothing but his art, and another book offered by MBB that had
his art on the cover, which was called (I think) Sheepette Gazette (?)

Hermaphrodite bears in high heels, anyone?

RG


Xydexx Squeakypony

unread,
May 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/8/00
to
Richard Chandler - WA Resident wrote:
> Thanks for the confirmation. Before, you wouldn't name the journalist you
> "Had a two year relationship with", and now you're trying to re-frame the
> nature of it.

I'm not reframing anything. The fact remains that Ms. Gates was the one
who approached me for an interview, not the other way around. I know
how much you and your ilk like to portray me as an attention-seeking
perv who'll grant interviews at the drop of a hat, but I think the fact
that I rarely ever give interviews shows how eager I am to be in the
spotlight.

I also think your involvement with Deviant Desires goes a long way to
explaining why she out-of-the-blue asked me about furry fandom's
relationship to the inflatable fetish.

When it all comes down to it, your own actions demonstrate you're not
the defender of the fandom you'd like everyone to believe you are.

Richard Chandler - WA Resident

unread,
May 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/9/00
to
In article <8f72pl$qcn$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Xydexx Squeakypony <xydexx@my-

deja.com> writes:
> Richard Chandler - WA Resident wrote:
> > Thanks for the confirmation. Before, you wouldn't name the
> > journalist you "Had a two year relationship with", and now you're
> > trying to re-frame the nature of it.
>
> I'm not reframing anything. The fact remains that Ms. Gates was the
> one who approached me for an interview, not the other way around. I
> know how much you and your ilk like to portray me as an
> attention-seeking perv who'll grant interviews at the drop of a hat, but
> I think the fact that I rarely ever give interviews shows how eager I
> am to be in the spotlight.

Which of course is why she characterized you as a blow hard.

> I also think your involvement with Deviant Desires goes a long way
> to explaining why she out-of-the-blue asked me about furry
> fandom's relationship to the inflatable fetish.

All I did was ask her if you were one of the people she was in contact with,
and warned her about you. Her response was that she was quite used to people
playing themselves up to try to impress her, and didn't fall for it from you.

> When it all comes down to it, your own actions demonstrate you're not
> the defender of the fandom you'd like everyone to believe you are.

Exactly backwards, typical for you. I managed to do some pretty good damage
control in this case, preventing the usual connections the Media makes about
Furry fandom from getting reinforced. Everyone at CF who saw the book agreed
that I had done a good job of damage control.

You're just all pissy because you didn't get your name in the book. I didn't,
and I don't care. My information got in, and that's all that matters to me.

Xydexx Squeakypony

unread,
May 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/9/00
to
Richard Chandler wrote:

> Xydexx Squeakypony wrote:
> > I think the fact that I rarely ever give interviews shows how eager
> > I am to be in the spotlight.
>
> Which of course is why she characterized you as a blow hard.

Maybe she was upset I had cancelled the interview. The only reason I
was talking to her was because she approached me about the inflatable
clydesdale project. I find it interesting she characterized me as a
blow hard only after you "warned" her about me.

What exactly did you tell her, Rich?

> All I did was ask her if you were one of the people she was in contact
> with, and warned her about you.

Yes, good thing, too. I might've told her furry fandom was about
anthropomorphics or something.

(Oh, wait. I DID.)

> Her response was that she was quite used to people playing themselves
> up to try to impress her, and didn't fall for it from you.

I'm curious why she asked a dozen or so questions about furry fandom's
relationship to the inflatable fetish. I don't think she would have
asked them if she wasn't interested.

Was that your idea or hers?

> I managed to do some pretty good damage control in this case,
> preventing the usual connections the Media makes about Furry
> fandom from getting reinforced.

What you managed to do was to get a reporter to ask me a bunch of
questions about furry fandom's relationship to the inflatable fetish.
You must be very proud.

That's okay, I'll take the credit for damage control, since I'm the one
who told her my inflatable fetish had nothing to do with furry fandom.

You can thank me later.

> You're just all pissy because you didn't get your name in the book.

The only reason my name wasn't in the book was because I cancelled the
interview, Rich. I'm more concerned that you took it upon yourself to
blab to a journalist about furry fandom's connection to the inflatable
fetish.

You, if anyone, should have known better.

Xydexx Squeakypony

unread,
May 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/9/00
to
Xydexx Squeakypony wrote:
> The only reason my name wasn't in the book was because I cancelled the
> interview, Rich. I'm more concerned that you took it upon yourself to
> blab to a journalist about furry fandom's connection to the inflatable
> fetish.

Truth Is Stranger Than Fiction Dept.:

Considering how worried certain people get that I'll mention inflatable
clydesdales in an interview about furry fandom, I think it's pretty
ironic that Rich Chandler was responsible for furry fandom being
mentioned in an interview about inflatable clydesdales.

Allen Kitchen

unread,
May 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/9/00
to

Anyone want to see Rich and Xydexx enter the ring? :)

Who's giving odds on the fight?

Allen Kitchen (shockwave)

Richard Chandler - WA Resident

unread,
May 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/9/00
to
In article <8f96ac$4au$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Xydexx Squeakypony <xydexx@my-

deja.com> writes:
> Maybe she was upset I had cancelled the interview. The only reason I
> was talking to her was because she approached me about the
> inflatable clydesdale project. I find it interesting she characterized
> me as a blow hard only after you "warned" her about me.
>
> What exactly did you tell her, Rich?

I asked her what other fetishes she was investigating for the book. She
mentioned a bunch, including inflatables. I said:

"And from your mention of Inflatables, I would guess you've talked to Karl
"Xydexx" Jorgenson, who professes that interest mainly to piss everyone else
off. I think it's an elaborate prank he plays on members of the press
especially."

As you can see, I made NO CONNECTION WHATSOEVER to Furry Fandom. That pokes
BIG damned holes in all your accusations, spud boy. She had already located
you LONG before then. You did your own publicity up to that point.

> > All I did was ask her if you were one of the people she was in
> > contact with, and warned her about you.
>
> Yes, good thing, too. I might've told her furry fandom was
> about anthropomorphics or something.

And I bet you'd try to take credit for telling her the sky was blue too.

But you know, I'm sure it wouldn't have been all that hard for her to use her
Fetish Map to connect your big rubber inflatable fuck-toy and Plushophiles,
which could then connect to Furries.

But *I* certainly wasn't the one to make that connection.

> > Her response was that she was quite used to people playing themselves
> > up to try to impress her, and didn't fall for it from you.
>
> I'm curious why she asked a dozen or so questions about furry
> fandom's relationship to the inflatable fetish. I don't think she
> would have asked them if she wasn't interested.
>
> Was that your idea or hers?

Her idea, you dork. She's the one trying to find the interconnectedness of it
all. Give her a LITTLE credit, she did a very good job.

I mean, Come on, you're a person who role-plays an animal character online
(admittedly a strange one), so you fit right in with her criteria for Furries.

You are a Furry fan, right? Is it a mischaracterization to describe you as a
Furry fan?

Tell you what. Tell me the DATE she asked you those questions. We'll see if
it is before or after I mentioned you.

> > I managed to do some pretty good damage control in this case,
> > preventing the usual connections the Media makes about Furry fandom
> > from getting reinforced.
>
> What you managed to do was to get a reporter to ask me a bunch
> of questions about furry fandom's relationship to the inflatable fetish.
> You must be very proud.

I did no such thing. She did that on her own. Accept the blame for your own
failings and quit trying to pass them off on me. I didn't connect you to
anything but what she'd already connected you to, and apparently, she'd
already come to the conclusion that you were an attention-seeking freak, all
your protestations to the opposite are belied by your actions. (Methinks the
inflatable uni doth protest too much).

> That's okay, I'll take the credit for damage control, since I'm the
> one who told her my inflatable fetish had nothing to do with furry
> fandom.

Except nobody ever said that it DID have anything to do with it. So you did
nothing necessary. Indeed, your protestations may have been
counterproductive, since the only oblique mention of you was in the Furry
Fandom section, and *I* certainly wasn't the one who connected you there.

> > You're just all pissy because you didn't get your name in the book.
>

> The only reason my name wasn't in the book was because I cancelled
> the interview, Rich. I'm more concerned that you took it upon yourself
> to blab to a journalist about furry fandom's connection to the
> inflatable fetish.

Well, your concerns are unfounded. Of course. But you love to ASSUME that I
did, because it absolves you of any blame for the connections you make
yourself - connections that are INHERENT in what you do.

> You, if anyone, should have known better.

Ya see, you've come to this totally wrong conclusion based on what you ASSUME
I told her about you.

And I find it really funny, because such a short time ago you were BRAGGING
about your "Two Year Relationship with a Journalist" as if it put you in some
position of authority and as if you were somehow doing the fandom a favor.

You wanna know the full amount of our conversation about you? Well, it was
the sentence above, and her response:

"I do get suspicious when people are too eager to show how wild they are.
And yes, I've talked to Xydexx, and he seems to be full of "hot air" (heh
heh)."

This was amid more generalized conversation about "Attention-seeking freaks".

Richard Chandler - WA Resident

unread,
May 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/9/00
to
In article <8f9fkn$fli$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Xydexx Squeakypony <xydexx@my-

deja.com> writes:
> > The only reason my name wasn't in the book was because I cancelled
> > the interview, Rich. I'm more concerned that you took it upon
> > yourself to blab to a journalist about furry fandom's connection to
> > the inflatable fetish.
>
> Truth Is Stranger Than Fiction Dept.:
>
> Considering how worried certain people get that I'll mention
> inflatable clydesdales in an interview about furry fandom, I think
> it's pretty ironic that Rich Chandler was responsible for furry
> fandom being mentioned in an interview about inflatable clydesdales.

Nah, Truth is more boring than fiction, since the truth is, I didn't connect
your weird-ass fetishes to Furry fandom at all.

As for fiction, I thought you "Cancelled" the interview, so how could I be

responsible for "furry fandom being mentioned in an interview about inflatable

clydesdales"? Hmmm? That's two falsehoods in one sentence.

If you're going to blame me for something, Karl, blame me for something I
actually did, rather than something out of your little persecution fantasies.

Ratman

unread,
May 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/10/00
to
I think having a fight club would do us good.

No more than 2 furs to a fight.
Some yells stop, goes limp, passes out, the fight is over.
One fight at a time
No shirts, no shoes, no claws.
Fights will go on as long as they have to.
If this is your first night at fight club, you have to fight.

On Tue, 09 May 2000 23:00:25 -0500, Allen Kitchen <all...@blkbox.com>
wrote:

Michael McGee

unread,
May 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/10/00
to
Sometimes, I disturb myself.

Brad Pitt: "I want you to yiff me, as hard as you can."
Edward Norton: "... why?"
Brad Pitt: "How much can you know about yourself, if you've never
worn a fursuit?"

Narrator: Wait. Let me start over.
Narrator: I couldn't sleep. I'd stay up all night, watching
cartoons, and thinking: what kind of anthropomorphic animal defines me as a
person? This is your life. And it's kinda weird. I prayed for a
different life, a different perspective, a different body...

Brad Pitt: "Pet shampoo. I make, and I sell, pet shampoo."

Narrator: This is how I met Tyler Furden.

Brad Pitt: "C'mon. Try on the suit. Just wear it for five minutes."

Narrator: It was on the tip of everyone's tounge. We just gave it a
name.

Brad Pitt: "Gentlemen! Welcome to Fur Club. The first rule of Fur
Club is: you do not talk to reporters about Fur Club!"

Narrator: After Fur Club - we all started seeing things differently.

Brad Pitt: "We are a generation raised on cartoons, to hope that one
day, we'd all be lions, and tigers, and bears... but we won't."

Narrator: And she. Ruined. Everything.

Brad Pitt: "Each of you has a homework assignment - you're to talk
about furryness with a total stranger."

Edward Norton: "This is TOO MUCH!"

(series of quick, Fincher-style cuts with blaring Pixies music in the
background)

Brad Pitt: "If you could be any kind of furry, what would you be?"
Edward Norton: "Penguin. I'd be a goddamn penguin!"

(He would, too.)
--
-Michael McGee
Email: agentmcgee @ ohmss dot com (edited to prevent spam)
"Slide!" - I Am Jack's Highly Unusual Power Animal

kill

unread,
May 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/10/00
to
But you forgot the most important rule of Furry Fight Club: DON'T TALK ABOUT
FURRY FIGHT CLUB! =^.^= (sorry, couldn't resist)
Kill

--


============================================================================
======
When they came for the Communists, I said nothing as I was not a Communist.
Then, when they came for the trade unionists, again I said nothing for I was
not a trade unionist.
Then, when they come for the Jews, I said nothing for I was not a Jew.
Finally, when they came for me, there was no one left to say anything.
============================================================================
======
"Ratman" <ra...@rat.org> wrote in message
news:3918f6f3...@news.fur.com...

Elynne

unread,
May 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/10/00
to
On 10 May 2000, Michael McGee wrote:
> Sometimes, I disturb myself.
<snippies>

> Brad Pitt: "If you could be any kind of furry, what would you be?"
> Edward Norton: "Penguin. I'd be a goddamn penguin!"
> (He would, too.)

*gigglegigglesnortgigglegigglesnerkgiggle*

You disturb me, too... but you also make me giggle lots. :) :)

-- Elynne, who *really* wants to see Fight Club


M. Mitchell Marmel

unread,
May 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/10/00
to
Michael McGee wrote:
>
> Sometimes, I disturb myself.

Can't imagine why.

> Brad Pitt: "If you could be any kind of furry, what would you be?"
> Edward Norton: "Penguin. I'd be a goddamn penguin!"
>
> (He would, too.)

ROFLMAO! It DOES almost seem to write itself, don't it? :)

--
============================================================================
M. Mitchell Marmel \ Scattered, smothered, covered, chunked,
Drexel University \ whipped, beaten, chained and pierced.
Department of Materials Engineering \ *THE BEST HASHBROWNS IN THE WORLD!*
Fibrous Materials Research Center \ marm...@dunx1.irt.drexel.edu
============================================================================
TaliVisions Homepage: http://www.pages.drexel.edu/grad/marmelmm/Talivisions/index.html
ICQ # 58305217

Xydexx Squeakypony

unread,
May 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/10/00
to
Richard Chandler wrote:
> Nah, Truth is more boring than fiction, since the truth is, I didn't connect
> your weird-ass fetishes to Furry fandom at all.

Let's see:

Ms. Gates talks to Xydexx about the inflatable clydesdale project.
Ms. Gates talks to Rich Chandler about furry fandom.
Rich Chandler "warns" Ms. Gates about Xydexx.
Ms. Gates asks Xydexx a dozen or so questions about furry fandom's


connection to the inflatable fetish.

Xydexx cancels the interview with Ms. Gates.

I dunno, sounds like a pretty open and shut case to me.

> As for fiction, I thought you "Cancelled" the interview, so how could I be
> responsible for "furry fandom being mentioned in an interview about inflatable
> clydesdales"?

Because she was interviewing me about the inflatable clydesdale project,
and that's all I told her about. *I* never mentioned furry fandom once.

You've already confessed to "warning" her about me when you should have
just kept your big trap shut.

> If you're going to blame me for something, Karl, blame me for something I
> actually did, rather than something out of your little persecution fantasies.

They're not fantasies, considering you've admitted you "warned" her
about me. Then again, you've always had a long history of distorting the
truth to make me look bad. Your comments to Ms. Gates are just the
latest example. The irony here is after all the times I've told you to
stop blaming me for things I never did, you not once extended that
courtesy.

So now that *you're* the one being called on the carpet for your own
actions, you expect me to let you deny responsibility for them?

No, Rich. You're not getting away with it. Not this time. Like you said,
it doesn't matter how many old ladies you help across the street if you
burn down one orphanage.

Xydexx Squeakypony

unread,
May 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/10/00
to
Richard Chandler wrote:
> "And from your mention of Inflatables, I would guess you've talked to Karl
> "Xydexx" Jorgenson, who professes that interest mainly to piss everyone else
> off. I think it's an elaborate prank he plays on members of the press
> especially."

In other words, you *lied* to her.

> As you can see, I made NO CONNECTION WHATSOEVER to Furry Fandom.

I see you talked to her about furry fandom and mentioned I allegedly
profess my inflatable fetish to "piss everyone else off", despite the
fact that I'd said repeatedly my inflatable fetish has nothing to do
with furry fandom. Some defender of the fandom you are. Feh.

> She had already located you LONG before then.
> You did your own publicity up to that point.

Yep, and when I was doing my own publicity SHE NEVER MENTIONED FURRY
FANDOM ONCE.

> But you know, I'm sure it wouldn't have been all that hard for her to use her
> Fetish Map to connect your big rubber inflatable fuck-toy and Plushophiles,
> which could then connect to Furries.

Gee, would that be the same big rubber inflatable fuck-toy you claimed
there was no physical evidence of? It's an "elaborate prank", right?

> I mean, Come on, you're a person who role-plays an animal character online
> (admittedly a strange one), so you fit right in with her criteria for Furries.

Except she wasn't interviewing me about Furries, and *I* never brought
the subject up.

> You are a Furry fan, right? Is it a mischaracterization to describe you as a
> Furry fan?

Irrelevant. She wasn't interviewing me about furry fandom. At least,
not until you decided to open your big mouth and "warn" her about me.

> I didn't connect you to
> anything but what she'd already connected you to, and apparently, she'd
> already come to the conclusion that you were an attention-seeking freak, all
> your protestations to the opposite are belied by your actions.

An attention-seeking freak who cancels interviews obviously isn't very
attention-seeking.

> > That's okay, I'll take the credit for damage control, since I'm the
> > one who told her my inflatable fetish had nothing to do with furry
> > fandom.
>
> Except nobody ever said that it DID have anything to do with it. So you did
> nothing necessary.

Telling Ms. Gates furry fandom has nothing to do with my inflatable
fetish *wasn't* necessary? Yeah, I suppose you're right, maybe I
should've answered the dozen or so questions she asked me. After all,
you're the one who says I shouldn't try to be a spokesman for furry
fandom, right?

Trouble is, I wanted to talk about the inflatable clydesdale, *not*
furry fandom.

> And I find it really funny, because such a short time ago you were BRAGGING
> about your "Two Year Relationship with a Journalist" as if it put you in some
> position of authority and as if you were somehow doing the fandom a favor.

I'd like to know where you're getting this "two year relationship" quote
from, because Dejanews maven that I am, I can't seem to find it.

> You wanna know the full amount of our conversation about you? Well, it was
> the sentence above, and her response:
>
> "I do get suspicious when people are too eager to show how wild they are.
> And yes, I've talked to Xydexx, and he seems to be full of "hot air" (heh
> heh)."
>
> This was amid more generalized conversation about "Attention-seeking freaks".

Attention-seeking freaks who cancel interviews obviously aren't very
attention-seeking; people who decline more interviews than they give
obviously aren't very eager to show how wild they are.

Folks who actually know me know that I *don't* like being in the
spotlight. I suspect her response had more to do with the fact that you
suggested my inflatable fetish was an "elaborate prank" than the result
of anything I told her.

Cerulean

unread,
May 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/10/00
to
Quoth Allen Kitchen:

>Anyone want to see Rich and Xydexx enter the ring? :)

Other people might enjoy seeing a unicorn's ear get bitten off, but I
have no desire to.

Then again, the idea also evokes the memory of the boxing match
between Snoopy and Lucy. Xydexx hopping around with a boxing glove on
his nose, dodging every desperate angry swipe...

--
___vvz /( Cerulean = Kevin Pease http://cerulean.st/
<__,` Z / ( DC2.~D GmAL~W-R+++Ac~J+S+Fr++IH$M-V+++Cbl,spu
`~~~) )Z) ( FDDmp4adwsA+++$C+D+HM+P-RT+++WZSm#
/ (7 ( uosuyof ++eW - ,,7nnZ h7uO 's,huuaP ou s! aJayL,,

Cerulean

unread,
May 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/10/00
to
Quoth Xydexx Squeakypony:

>Richard Chandler wrote:
>> "And from your mention of Inflatables, I would guess you've talked to Karl
>> "Xydexx" Jorgenson, who professes that interest mainly to piss everyone else
>> off. I think it's an elaborate prank he plays on members of the press
>> especially."
>

>In other words, you *lied* to her.

Now now, a correction. Just because something is false does not make
it a lie. Rich obviously believes what he said; it seems his world
view would collapse if he didn't.

(Bell rings)

Rich has won this argument in letter, and Xydexx has won it in spirit.
Rich has succeeded in proving that _technically_ he did not explicitly
in words link Xydexx's fetish to furry fandom all by himself. He
merely set up the circumstances in which this so-called "journalist"
could make her own assumptions. However, in revealing what he actually
said, Rich has made himself look even more like a frothing, nasty,
manipulative zealot, for everyone to see, and Xydexx clearly still
holds the moral high ground.

It is my opinion that this argument is all over but for the needless
repetition still to come. You may each claim your victory and go home.

--
___vvz /( Cerulean = Kevin Pease http://cerulean.st/
<__,` Z / ( DC2.~D GmAL~W-R+++Ac~J+S+Fr++IH$M-V+++Cbl,spu
`~~~) )Z) ( FDDmp4adwsA+++$C+D+HM+P-RT+++WZSm#

/ (7 ( ,,'6u!uaddeH aq +oN 77!m uo!+n7o^aJ ayL,,

Xydexx Squeakypony

unread,
May 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/10/00
to
Allen Kitchen wrote:
> Anyone want to see Rich and Xydexx enter the ring?

<BRER SQUEAKYPONY>
"Please, please don't throw me in that briar patch!"
</BRER SQUEAKYPONY>

Rich Chandler and I are like an old married couple, and have this weird
love/hate relationship and will no doubt be bickering like this for
years to come, so everyone might as well just get used to it.

Ratman

unread,
May 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/10/00
to
Seriously though, it should be a standard event at cons. :)
Just beat the crap out of each other, it doesn't matter who wins, it's
just to let it all out and we'd be not so mad at each other
afterwards. It's right on the tip of everyone's muzzle, we just gave
it a name. :)


On 10 May 2000 06:35:49 GMT, readsi...@bottomofpost.com (Michael
McGee) wrote:

> Sometimes, I disturb myself.
>

Xydexx Squeakypony

unread,
May 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/10/00
to
Cerulean wrote:
>Xydexx clearly still holds the moral high ground.

"Hey, I can see my house from here!" -:)

--
_________________________________________________
Xydexx Squeakypony, who is enjoying the view...

Michael McGee

unread,
May 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/10/00
to
ely...@wolfenet.com (Elynne) wrote in
<Pine.OSF.3.95.100051...@gonzo.wolfenet.com>:


>
>*gigglegigglesnortgigglegigglesnerkgiggle*
>
>You disturb me, too... but you also make me giggle lots. :) :)
>
>-- Elynne, who *really* wants to see Fight Club
>

Hey, don't look to me to give away the ending - I was really, really
surprised to find out that Edward Norton's dad was Tyler Durden and Marla was a
ghost. :)


--
-Michael McGee
Email: agentmcgee @ ohmss dot com (edited to prevent spam)

"The Supreme Court defines pornography as anything that does not have
artistic merit, and causes sexual thoughts. Hmmmmm... sounds like every
commercial on television, doesn't it?" - The late, great Bill Hicks

Message has been deleted

Richard Chandler - WA Resident

unread,
May 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/10/00
to
In article <8fbom7$q7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Xydexx Squeakypony <xydexx@my-

deja.com> writes:
> Richard Chandler wrote:
> > Nah, Truth is more boring than fiction, since the truth is, I
> > didn't connect your weird-ass fetishes to Furry fandom at all.
>
> Let's see:
>
> Ms. Gates talks to Xydexx about the inflatable clydesdale project.
> Ms. Gates talks to Rich Chandler about furry fandom.
> Rich Chandler "warns" Ms. Gates about Xydexx.
> Ms. Gates asks Xydexx a dozen or so questions about furry fandom's
> connection to the inflatable fetish.
> Xydexx cancels the interview with Ms. Gates.
>
> I dunno, sounds like a pretty open and shut case to me.

Not until you provide the DATE she asked you the Furry fandom questions. And
of course, you prove that there was not a single reference to Furry Fandom on
any of your web pages that she might also have picked up on about you.

And you know, I NEVER mentioned a word about inflatable Unicorn characters to
her, so she had to have gotten that from somewhere else. I wonder where....

> > As for fiction, I thought you "Cancelled" the interview, so how could
> > I be responsible for "furry fandom being mentioned in an interview
> > about inflatable clydesdales"?
>
> Because she was interviewing me about the inflatable clydesdale
> project, and that's all I told her about. *I* never mentioned
> furry fandom once.
>
> You've already confessed to "warning" her about me when you should
> have just kept your big trap shut.

Notice the subtle change in the accusation folks. Karl says "*I* never
mentioned furry fandom once." Well guess what, neither did I in connection to
him. I only connected him to his Inflatable fetish, which he was ALREADY
discussing. I didn't tell her anything she didn't already know. She
obviously ALREADY was of the opinion that you were just another attention
seeker.

> > If you're going to blame me for something, Karl, blame me for
> > something I actually did, rather than something out of your
> > little persecution fantasies.
>
> They're not fantasies, considering you've admitted you "warned" her
> about me. Then again, you've always had a long history of distorting
> the truth to make me look bad. Your comments to Ms. Gates are just
> the latest example. The irony here is after all the times I've told
> you to stop blaming me for things I never did, you not once extended
> that courtesy.

So, you're not going to apologize for all the false accusations you've made
that I convinced Ms. Gates to ask you about Furry Fandom?

I didn't warn her about anything other than the fact that you like to puff
yourself up, a conclusion she'd already reached.

> So now that *you're* the one being called on the carpet for your
> own actions, you expect me to let you deny responsibility for them?
>
> No, Rich. You're not getting away with it. Not this time. Like you
> said, it doesn't matter how many old ladies you help across the street
> if you burn down one orphanage.

Getting away with what? I openly admitted my exact words to Ms. Gates. I'm
hiding nothing. I fully confess to ownership of every thing I said. But I
will not take your accusations that I said things that I did not. You can lie
about me all you like Karl, but the truth will always win. I never said a
word to her that could connect you to Furry Fandom.

But you're doing your typical selective memory thing. You blame me for
getting Ms. Gates to ask you about Furries. I prove that I did no such thing.
You've accused me about it numerous times since the book came out, but it's a
false accusation. Now you're still trying to intimate that I somehow did
something wrong, but you're trying to be non-specific about it because the
base accusation has been proven to be entirely in your paranoid little
imagination.

Richard Chandler - WA Resident

unread,
May 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/10/00
to
In article <8fbsii$4sv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Xydexx Squeakypony <xydexx@my-

deja.com> writes:
> Richard Chandler wrote:
> > "And from your mention of Inflatables, I would guess you've talked
> > to Karl "Xydexx" Jorgenson, who professes that interest mainly to
> > piss everyone else off. I think it's an elaborate prank he plays
> > on members of the press especially."
>
> In other words, you *lied* to her.

No, I told her my OPINION of you. It wouldn't be the first time you've pulled
a publicity prank in order to puff yourself up. Need we bring up that whole
elaborate Peek TV charade again?

> > As you can see, I made NO CONNECTION WHATSOEVER to Furry Fandom.
>
> I see you talked to her about furry fandom and mentioned I
> allegedly profess my inflatable fetish to "piss everyone else
> off", despite the fact that I'd said repeatedly my inflatable fetish
> has nothing to do with furry fandom. Some defender of the fandom you
> are. Feh.

Karl, you're REALLY losing it here. I didn't even USE the word furry in that
message where I mentioned you. I also talked to her about people I knew who
were into Gianteses, and Ponygirl stuff. I don't see how you can possibly go
from what I said, connecting you and inflatables (which she already knew) to
somehow combining that with the fact that I also discussed Furry fandom with
her as some kind of connection.

That is, unless you want to go back on the logic you've maintained for so long
that one can have completely seperate interests that are not associated, and
instead take the position that if someone talks to someone about Furry, it
automatically connects everything they do to Furry. Or does that only apply
to me and not thee?

> > She had already located you LONG before then.
> > You did your own publicity up to that point.
>
> Yep, and when I was doing my own publicity SHE NEVER MENTIONED
> FURRY FANDOM ONCE.

Dates man. If you've going to assert causation, you're gonna have to prove it
chronologically. And then you're going to have to prove that I connected you
to Furry fandom, when I have already given evidence to the contrary.

Let me repeat:


"And from your mention of Inflatables, I would guess you've talked to Karl
"Xydexx" Jorgenson, who professes that interest mainly to piss everyone else
off. I think it's an elaborate prank he plays on members of the press
especially."

Please show me where I mentioned Furry Fandom in those two sentences. I bet
you can't find it.

Maybe you should seek professional help for these paranoid delusions you have.
Do you ever wake up in the middle of the night in a cold sweat screaming my
name?

> > But you know, I'm sure it wouldn't have been all that hard for her
> > to use her Fetish Map to connect your big rubber inflatable fuck-toy
> > and Plushophiles, which could then connect to Furries.
>
> Gee, would that be the same big rubber inflatable fuck-toy you
> claimed there was no physical evidence of? It's an "elaborate
> prank", right?

Could still be. You didn't produce it for me. I have no proof you produced
it for her. It could easily be another fake website from you, and a lot of
empty talk to a reporter. You WERE, after all, giving her an interview about
the thing. YOU told her you had or were working on one, so you can't blame me
for that.

> > I mean, Come on, you're a person who role-plays an animal
> > character online (admittedly a strange one), so you fit right in
> > with her criteria for Furries.
>
> Except she wasn't interviewing me about Furries, and *I* never brought
> the subject up.

Where did she learn that you play an inflatable unicorn character on
Furrymuck? It wasn't from me. Maybe it was your website. How DID she
discover you in the first place? She submitted her book about a year ago, and
two years before that.... That would be around the time you still had
instructions about how to seduce you on FurryMuck on your web page.

> > You are a Furry fan, right? Is it a mischaracterization to describe
> > you as a Furry fan?
>
> Irrelevant. She wasn't interviewing me about furry fandom. At least,
> not until you decided to open your big mouth and "warn" her about me.

More paranoid delusions. I warned her that you were among the attention
seekers, something she already knew from talking to you. I didn't say a
single word to her about you or furry fandom, not even in a general sense.

And you still haved provided the date she asked you about furries.

> > I didn't connect you to
> > anything but what she'd already connected you to, and apparently,
> > she'd already come to the conclusion that you were an
> > attention-seeking freak, all your protestations to the opposite
> > are belied by your actions.
>
> An attention-seeking freak who cancels interviews obviously isn't
> very attention-seeking.

You made your choice. Don't blame me for it. I didn't cause her to ask you
those questions. But now look at all the attention you're getting for whining
about it.

> > > That's okay, I'll take the credit for damage control, since I'm
> > > the one who told her my inflatable fetish had nothing to do with
> > > furry fandom.
> >
> > Except nobody ever said that it DID have anything to do with it. So
> > you did nothing necessary.
>
> Telling Ms. Gates furry fandom has nothing to do with my inflatable
> fetish *wasn't* necessary? Yeah, I suppose you're right, maybe
> I should've answered the dozen or so questions she asked me. After
> all, you're the one who says I shouldn't try to be a spokesman for
> furry fandom, right?
>
> Trouble is, I wanted to talk about the inflatable clydesdale, *not*
> furry fandom.

Yeah, and we only want the press to cover the good things about Furry fandom.
The advantage about being interviewed in e-mail is you can pick which
questions you want to answer, and the level of detail. I answered 30-40 of
her questions, and none of that was used in the book, but the information
about the fandom I gave her was used heavily.

> > You wanna know the full amount of our conversation about you? Well,
> > it was the sentence above, and her response:
> >
> > "I do get suspicious when people are too eager to show how wild they
> > are. And yes, I've talked to Xydexx, and he seems to be full of "hot
> > air" (heh heh)."
> >
> > This was amid more generalized conversation about
> > "Attention-seeking freaks".
>
> Attention-seeking freaks who cancel interviews obviously aren't
> very attention-seeking; people who decline more interviews than they
> give obviously aren't very eager to show how wild they are.

You only turned it down because you couldn't dictate the terms you were being
interviewed under. Don't blame anyone but yourself.

> Folks who actually know me know that I *don't* like being in the
> spotlight. I suspect her response had more to do with the fact that
> you suggested my inflatable fetish was an "elaborate prank" than
> the result of anything I told her.

Chronology is key here, son.

And false modesty is VERY obvious. Anyone who has watched you on this group
knows what a self-serving egotist you are.

Richard Chandler - WA Resident

unread,
May 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/10/00
to
In article <8fcr3h$8um$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Xydexx Squeakypony <xydexx@my-

deja.com> writes:
> Cerulean wrote:
> >Xydexx clearly still holds the moral high ground.
>
> "Hey, I can see my house from here!" -:)

The joke goes "Peter... I can see your house from here." But if you're not
alluding to the old joke, then allow me to suggest that you not take the
martyr allusions TOO far. The crown of thorns might pop your head. :-)

Xydexx Squeakypony

unread,
May 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/11/00
to
Richard Chandler wrote:

> Xydexx Squeakypony writes:
> > Let's see:
> >
> > Ms. Gates talks to Xydexx about the inflatable clydesdale project.
> > Ms. Gates talks to Rich Chandler about furry fandom.
> > Rich Chandler "warns" Ms. Gates about Xydexx.
> > Ms. Gates asks Xydexx a dozen or so questions about furry fandom's
> > connection to the inflatable fetish.
> > Xydexx cancels the interview with Ms. Gates.
> >
> > I dunno, sounds like a pretty open and shut case to me.
>
> Not until you provide the DATE she asked you the Furry fandom questions. And
> of course, you prove that there was not a single reference to Furry Fandom on
> any of your web pages that she might also have picked up on about you.

I'm not as interested in what she found on my webpages than I am of what
made her decide to go looking in the first place. As I said, I was
talking to her for two years about the inflatable clydesdale and furry
fandom was never brought up. Even if my webpages were somehow
responsible for her questions, I think she would've mentioned it a long
time ago.

> And you know, I NEVER mentioned a word about inflatable Unicorn characters to
> her, so she had to have gotten that from somewhere else. I wonder where....

I wondered where too, because I never mentioned inflatable unicorn
characters to her either. IIRC, she mentioned a "vinyl inflatable
unicorn" in her article. While it'd be nice to think that's a tip of
the hat to me, the fact of the matter is that Xydexx is made of rubber
latex, NOT vinyl. In fact, every description of Xydexx I've put forth
specifically says he's rubber latex. If you want, you can check out the
Xydexx FAQ at:
http://www.xydexx.com/anthrofurry/xydexx.htm

Further, considering I'm not the only person who has an inflatable
unicorn for a character (I can think of at least three other folks who
do), I wouldn't be surprised if it was someone else.

> > You've already confessed to "warning" her about me when you should
> > have just kept your big trap shut.
>
> Notice the subtle change in the accusation folks. Karl says "*I* never
> mentioned furry fandom once." Well guess what, neither did I in connection to
> him. I only connected him to his Inflatable fetish, which he was ALREADY
> discussing.

I'll give you two scenarios, and folks can decide for themselves which
one sounds more likely:

Ms. Gates contacts Xydexx to discuss the inflatable clydesdale project.
For two years, neither one says anything about furry fandom. Then, FOR
NO REASON WHATSOEVER, Ms. Gates starts asking Xydexx questions about
furry fandom's connection to the inflatable fetish...

...or...

Ms. Gates contacts Xydexx to discuss the inflatable clydesdale project.
For two years, neither one says anything about furry fandom. Rich
Chandler warns Ms. Gates that Xydexx only talks about his inflatable
fetish to "piss everyone off", and Ms. Gates does a little web surfing
to see where these pissed off people are... and guess what? SHE FINDS
THEM! They're on this newsgroup called alt.fan.furry, and thanks to the
power of Dejanews which archives things for years and years and years,
she's able to find all those pissed off people who are yelling things at
Xydexx like...

"YOU are forging a link between boinking inflatable
animals and Furry fandom." ---Rich Chandler

...and so Ms. Gates, having done a little websurfing and having found
all these pissed off people Rich Chandler was talking about, starts
asking Xydexx questions about furry fandom's connection to the
inflatable fetish.

Hey, Rich... remember how I always tried to warn you going on crusades
against fetishes on alt.fan.furry was a Bad Idea?


****** THIS IS WHY!! ******


> I didn't tell her anything she didn't already know.

How do you know what she did and didn't know?

She never asked whether anyone was "pissed off" about my fetish to me,
so I'm sure she didn't know that.

> I didn't warn her about anything other than the fact that you like to puff
> yourself up, a conclusion she'd already reached.

Let's look at the facts, shall we?

FACT: You told her I only mentioned my fetish to "piss everyone off".
(Who did you mean by "everyone"? Other inflatophiles?)

FACT: She only said I was full of hot air _after_ your claim that the
inflatable clydesdale project was a "prank".

FACT: I didn't say anything to her about furry fandom in the two years I
was talking to her.


If you've got some other explanation as to what prompted her to suddenly
start asking me questions about furry fandom, I'd love to hear it.


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

Xydexx Squeakypony

unread,
May 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/11/00
to
Richard Chandler wrote:

> Xydexx Squeakypony writes:
> > Richard Chandler wrote:
> > > "And from your mention of Inflatables, I would guess you've talked
> > > to Karl "Xydexx" Jorgenson, who professes that interest mainly to
> > > piss everyone else off. I think it's an elaborate prank he plays
> > > on members of the press especially."
> >
> > In other words, you *lied* to her.
>
> No, I told her my OPINION of you. It wouldn't be the first time you've pulled
> a publicity prank in order to puff yourself up. Need we bring up that whole
> elaborate Peek TV charade again?

Peek TV was thrown together in one evening, and I did a half-assed job
of it, so I doubt that qualifies as "elaborate". And the whole point of
Peek TV was to poke fun at folks like you who have this distorted
impression that I'm giving furry fandom a bad reputation.

MYTH: Xydexx gives interviews that portray furry fandom badly.
REALITY: Xydexx hasn't done a single interview about furry fandom.

> Karl, you're REALLY losing it here. I didn't even USE the word furry in that
> message where I mentioned you.

Nope. You said I only mention my inflatable fetish to "piss everyone
off". Who did you mean by "everyone"? Other inflatophiles?

> Dates man. If you've going to assert causation, you're gonna have to prove it
> chronologically. And then you're going to have to prove that I connected you
> to Furry fandom, when I have already given evidence to the contrary.

"YOU are forging a link between boinking inflatable


animals and Furry fandom. ---Rich Chandler

Well, you did say Ms. Gates was looking for connections. Maybe she did
a better job than you give her credit for. Dejanews *is* available to
anyone, after all.

> Maybe you should seek professional help for these paranoid delusions you have.

It's not paranoia when they're really out to get you. You yourself
admitted you were talking to Ms. Gates about me behind my back.

If you've got another explanation, then let's hear it... because right
now the connection being made by someone who *was* talking to Ms. Gates
about furry fandom sounds a lot more plausible than someone who *wasn't*
talking to her about it.

> > Gee, would that be the same big rubber inflatable fuck-toy you
> > claimed there was no physical evidence of? It's an "elaborate
> > prank", right?
>
> Could still be.

HAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAHAHAA! Hoo boy, that's a good one. -:)

Sorry Rich, I may have a working knowledge of Photoshop, but I'm nowhere
near good enough to doctor photographs... which is what I'd have to do
if I wanted to fake the dozen or so pictures of the inflatable
clydesdale in various stages of construction which have been posted on
the web.

Like this one, for example:
http://www.xydexx.com/inflatable/cly03252000.jpg

Feh. Lack of physical evidence, my squeaky little ass.

> Where did she learn that you play an inflatable unicorn character on
> Furrymuck?

How do you know she was referring to me when she didn't mention me by
name, there's at least three other inflatable unicorns on Furrymuck, and
Xydexx isn't made out of vinyl?

> How DID she discover you in the first place?

The Inflatable Animal Fetish Page. My furry pages don't have any
information on the inflatable clydesdale project.

> More paranoid delusions. I warned her that you were among the attention
> seekers, something she already knew from talking to you.

Your comments to her that I was an "attention-seeker" would certainly
explain why she wouldn't answer me when I asked what prompted all the
questions about furry fandom.

I mean, I looked back in the previous reply I had sent her to double-
check in case I had let something slip. Know what I found? Nothing.
Nada. Zip. Nothing at all to connect me to furry fandom. Her questions
came totally out-of-the-blue.

Since it wasn't something I said, then what made her suddenly decide to
ask me about furry fandom?

And why didn't she tell me why she suddenly decided to ask about furry
fandom?

Can you think of a reason why someone wouldn't answer that question?

I can think of a few.

> I didn't say a single word to her about you or
> furry fandom, not even in a general sense.

I see. Can you tell me where I might find these people I'm "pissing
off", if you deny they're in furry fandom?

> You made your choice.

I made my choice to talk to her about the inflatable clydesdale project,
and I made my choice to stop talking to her when she brought up furry
fandom.

I have no regrets. I'm confident I did the right thing in both cases.

> I didn't cause her to ask you those questions.

If you've got another explanation, I'd like to hear it.

> > Attention-seeking freaks who cancel interviews obviously aren't
> > very attention-seeking; people who decline more interviews than they
> > give obviously aren't very eager to show how wild they are.
>
> You only turned it down because you couldn't dictate the terms you were being
> interviewed under.

You are not an authority on why I do what I do. I turned it down
because I wanted to talk about the inflatable clydesdale project, not
furry fandom.

Richard Chandler - WA Resident

unread,
May 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/11/00
to
In article <8fet7u$i4c$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Xydexx Squeakypony <xydexx@my-

deja.com> writes:
> Richard Chandler wrote:
> > Xydexx Squeakypony writes:
> > Karl, you're REALLY losing it here. I didn't even USE the word furry
> > in that message where I mentioned you.
>
> Nope. You said I only mention my inflatable fetish to "piss everyone
> off". Who did you mean by "everyone"? Other inflatophiles?

You know, I never did elaborate on that. I guess it's up to the reader to
ASSUME who I meant. I think "Everyone who knows him" is a good set.

But you're veering off the point. You assert that I somehow linked you to
Furry fandom. I proved that I did not. You're trying to maintain my guilt
after the charge has been successfully defended against.

SO WHAT if I said you talk about your fetish in order to piss folks off? THAT
has not one thing to do with Furry Fandom.

> > Dates man. If you've going to assert causation, you're gonna have
> > to prove it chronologically. And then you're going to have to
> > prove that I connected you to Furry fandom, when I have already
> > given evidence to the contrary.
>
> "YOU are forging a link between boinking inflatable
> animals and Furry fandom. ---Rich Chandler

Ahem. Date? Oh, but that would require hitting Deja News. But you know, the
last time you were accusing someone of outing you to the same reporter, it was
Scott Malcomson you were assigning the blame to. And then you were making
some excuse about how the reporter coudn't possibly be doing a web search on
your name, only on Inflatables. Which, in light of the length of time you'd
been talking with her, is wrong. She knew you before Scott ranted about you,
so it's entirely possible she did a search on your name, and found all kinds
of posts about Furry Fandom with your name on them.

> Well, you did say Ms. Gates was looking for connections. Maybe she did
> a better job than you give her credit for. Dejanews *is* available
> to anyone, after all.
>
> > Maybe you should seek professional help for these paranoid delusions
> > you have.
>
> It's not paranoia when they're really out to get you. You
> yourself admitted you were talking to Ms. Gates about me behind my back.

You're paranoid. First you blame Scott, now you blame me. Who are you going
to blame next for Ms. Gates finding out that you're a furry? The CIA?

> If you've got another explanation, then let's hear it... because right
> now the connection being made by someone who *was* talking to Ms.
> Gates about furry fandom sounds a lot more plausible than someone
> who *wasn't* talking to her about it.

Well, here's an explanation YOU posited.
Message-ID: <38C0C022...@inflatable.pony.factory>
> Remember when the reporter who was interviewing me about the
> inf1atable c1ydesdale project suddenly asked me about the connection
> to furry fandom a week after Scott Malcomson's tirade about it on AFF?

The nice thing is, THIS gives me a date. In fact, this gives me a date BEFORE
I mentioned you to Ms. Gates. I suggest you take a look at that article, and
see just how much you have changed your tune about this whole Reporter thing.

I've now cut TWO legs out from under you. First, I never mentioned Furry in
connection with you to Ms. Gates, and second, she asked you about Furries
BEFORE I mentioned you to her.

Drop the accusation pony boy, it don't fly.

> Sorry Rich, I may have a working knowledge of Photoshop, but I'm
> nowhere near good enough to doctor photographs... which is what I'd
> have to do if I wanted to fake the dozen or so pictures of the
> inflatable clydesdale in various stages of construction which have
> been posted on the web.
>
> Like this one, for example:
> http://www.xydexx.com/inflatable/cly03252000.jpg
>
> Feh. Lack of physical evidence, my squeaky little ass.

Okay, so there IS concrete proof that you're one sick fuck. And a horrible
sculptor.

> > Where did she learn that you play an inflatable unicorn character
> > on Furrymuck?
>
> How do you know she was referring to me when she didn't mention me by
> name, there's at least three other inflatable unicorns on Furrymuck,
> and Xydexx isn't made out of vinyl?

How many of those others were talking to her about her book? Fact, she knows
you play an inflatable Unicorn Character on FurryMuck. Fact, she knows that
FurryMuck is associated with Furry Fandom. Pretty easy for her to make the
connection between you and Furries without any outside intervention.

> > How DID she discover you in the first place?
>
> The Inflatable Animal Fetish Page. My furry pages don't have
> any information on the inflatable clydesdale project.

And of course, that's NO WAY a semi-web-literate user could possibly navigate
from one of those pages to any of your pages that mention furries.... Not
even by truncating URLs, right?

> > More paranoid delusions. I warned her that you were among the
> > attention seekers, something she already knew from talking to you.
>
> Your comments to her that I was an "attention-seeker" would
> certainly explain why she wouldn't answer me when I asked what
> prompted all the questions about furry fandom.

BZZT. We have now established that she asked you those questions BEFORE I
mentioned you to her. Sometime in February of 1999, right?

But if you want to be extra sure. When is the exact date stamp on the mail
you got from her asking about Furries? (And no faking, because we know when
the rant of Malcomson's was that you were blaming before was, and we know that
the questions came about a week after.)

> I mean, I looked back in the previous reply I had sent her to
> double- check in case I had let something slip. Know what I
> found? Nothing.
> Nada. Zip. Nothing at all to connect me to furry fandom. Her
> questions came totally out-of-the-blue.

Ah, good, so you have the mail on file. It should be easy for you to find the
date.

> Since it wasn't something I said, then what made her suddenly decide
> to ask me about furry fandom?

I dunno, but it couldn't have been me.

> And why didn't she tell me why she suddenly decided to ask about
> furry fandom?
>
> Can you think of a reason why someone wouldn't answer that question?
>
> I can think of a few.

I can't answer that. She's the only one who can. Maybe she already decided
you were just an attention seeking freak and not worth the effort. Especially
when you got all paranoid on her when she asked about furries, like it was
your secret shame or something.

> > I didn't say a single word to her about you or furry fandom, not even
> > in a general sense.
>
> I see. Can you tell me where I might find these people I'm "pissing
> off", if you deny they're in furry fandom?

Never said they weren't. But I didn't say to her that they were.

> > You made your choice.
>
> I made my choice to talk to her about the inflatable clydesdale
> project, and I made my choice to stop talking to her when she brought
> up furry fandom.
>
> I have no regrets. I'm confident I did the right thing in both cases.

Sure, but you're not happy about it. You'd rather blame me or Scott for
"forcing your hand" than fully accepting your own choices.

> > I didn't cause her to ask you those questions.
>
> If you've got another explanation, I'd like to hear it.

She's smart, and she is web-literate. You're really easy to find. You think
she's going to just take people's word for things when she has the great tool
for checking back facts on people? After all, it was by a web search that she
found you in the first place.

> > > Attention-seeking freaks who cancel interviews obviously aren't
> > > very attention-seeking; people who decline more interviews than
> > > they give obviously aren't very eager to show how wild they are.
> >
> > You only turned it down because you couldn't dictate the terms you
> > were being interviewed under.
>
> You are not an authority on why I do what I do. I turned it down
> because I wanted to talk about the inflatable clydesdale project,
> not furry fandom.

That sounds an awful lot like what I said. You couldn't dictate the terms of
the interview, i.e. "we talk about my fetish project and not furries", so you
cancelled the interview. But I've come to expect doubletalk from you.

William Earl Haskell

unread,
May 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/11/00
to
Xydexx Squeakypony wrote:

> Allen Kitchen wrote:
> > Anyone want to see Rich and Xydexx enter the ring?
>
> <BRER SQUEAKYPONY>
> "Please, please don't throw me in that briar patch!"
> </BRER SQUEAKYPONY>
>
> Rich Chandler and I are like an old married couple, and have this weird
> love/hate relationship and will no doubt be bickering like this for
> years to come, so everyone might as well just get used to it.

Y'know, for the longest time I was convinced that y'all were actually one
person pretending to be two people - after all, I'd never seen the two of
you in the same room at the same time. I have since abandoned this theory
for one essentially the same as given above.

Now, whenever I come upon a thread consisting of Xydexx/Rich Chandler posts
I always bypass it, considering it to be a private conversation ;)


Richard Chandler - WA Resident

unread,
May 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/11/00
to
In article <8fepr6$dvk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Xydexx Squeakypony <xydexx@my-

deja.com> writes:
> Richard Chandler wrote:
> > Xydexx Squeakypony writes:
> > > Let's see:
> > >
> > > Ms. Gates talks to Xydexx about the inflatable clydesdale project.
> > > Ms. Gates talks to Rich Chandler about furry fandom.
> > > Rich Chandler "warns" Ms. Gates about Xydexx.
> > > Ms. Gates asks Xydexx a dozen or so questions about furry
> > > fandom's connection to the inflatable fetish.
> > > Xydexx cancels the interview with Ms. Gates.
> > >
> > > I dunno, sounds like a pretty open and shut case to me.
> >
> > Not until you provide the DATE she asked you the Furry fandom
> > questions. And of course, you prove that there was not a
> > single reference to Furry Fandom on any of your web pages that she
> > might also have picked up on about you.
>
> I'm not as interested in what she found on my webpages than I am of
> what made her decide to go looking in the first place. As I said, I
> was talking to her for two years about the inflatable clydesdale and
> furry fandom was never brought up. Even if my webpages were
> somehow responsible for her questions, I think she would've mentioned it
> a long time ago.

As far as I can tell, her research into fandoms came at the tail end of her
book. That would explain why she only got in contact with me 3-4 months
before the thing was sent to the publisher.

But as for what made her go looking. Hell, she FOUND YOU by doing a web
search. It only stands to reason that she'd do a web search on you. She
probably did one on me. I think that's how she found everyone she
interviewed.

> > And you know, I NEVER mentioned a word about inflatable
> > Unicorn characters to her, so she had to have gotten that from
> > somewhere else. I wonder where....
>
> I wondered where too, because I never mentioned inflatable
> unicorn characters to her either. IIRC, she mentioned a "vinyl
> inflatable unicorn" in her article. While it'd be nice to think that's
> a tip of the hat to me, the fact of the matter is that Xydexx is made
> of rubber latex, NOT vinyl. In fact, every description of Xydexx I've
> put forth specifically says he's rubber latex. If you want, you can
> check out the Xydexx FAQ at:
> http://www.xydexx.com/anthrofurry/xydexx.htm

Which a web search on you would turn up....

> Further, considering I'm not the only person who has an inflatable
> unicorn for a character (I can think of at least three other folks who
> do), I wouldn't be surprised if it was someone else.

Was she interviewing any of those folks?

> > > You've already confessed to "warning" her about me when you
> > > should have just kept your big trap shut.
> >
> > Notice the subtle change in the accusation folks. Karl says "*I*
> > never mentioned furry fandom once." Well guess what, neither did I
> > in connection to him. I only connected him to his Inflatable
> > fetish, which he was ALREADY discussing.
>
> I'll give you two scenarios, and folks can decide for themselves which
> one sounds more likely:
>
> Ms. Gates contacts Xydexx to discuss the inflatable clydesdale project.
> For two years, neither one says anything about furry fandom. Then, FOR
> NO REASON WHATSOEVER, Ms. Gates starts asking Xydexx questions about
> furry fandom's connection to the inflatable fetish...
>

> ....or...

>
> Ms. Gates contacts Xydexx to discuss the inflatable clydesdale project.
> For two years, neither one says anything about furry fandom. Rich
> Chandler warns Ms. Gates that Xydexx only talks about his

> inflatable fetish to "piss everyone off", and Ms. Gates does a little

> web surfing to see where these pissed off people are... and guess
> what? SHE FINDS THEM! They're on this newsgroup called
> alt.fan.furry, and thanks to the power of Dejanews which archives
> things for years and years and years, she's able to find all those
> pissed off people who are yelling things at Xydexx like...
>

> "YOU are forging a link between boinking inflatable
> animals and Furry fandom." ---Rich Chandler
>

> ....and so Ms. Gates, having done a little websurfing and having found

> all these pissed off people Rich Chandler was talking about, starts
> asking Xydexx questions about furry fandom's connection to the
> inflatable fetish.
>
> Hey, Rich... remember how I always tried to warn you going on
> crusades against fetishes on alt.fan.furry was a Bad Idea?
>
>
> ****** THIS IS WHY!! ******

Nice little paranoid theory. But we've already figured out that she asked you
about furries a long time before I mentioned you to her.

I'd say neither of your scenarios is correct.

> > I didn't tell her anything she didn't already know.
>
> How do you know what she did and didn't know?
>
> She never asked whether anyone was "pissed off" about my fetish to me,
> so I'm sure she didn't know that.

She couldn't know anything about you that you didn't explicitly tell her, eh?
<snort>. You can't have it both ways, either she found your spoor all over
the web and Deja News, or she didn't. And somehow (Although I doubt she used
Deja News) I don't think you were successful at giving her the mushroom
treatment.

> > I didn't warn her about anything other than the fact that you like
> > to puff yourself up, a conclusion she'd already reached.
>
> Let's look at the facts, shall we?
>

> FACT: You told her I only mentioned my fetish to "piss everyone off".
> (Who did you mean by "everyone"? Other inflatophiles?)

Doesn't matter. I didn't elaborate on it.

> FACT: She only said I was full of hot air _after_ your claim that
> the inflatable clydesdale project was a "prank".

She stated it in the past tense, and expressed her opinion as established.

> FACT: I didn't say anything to her about furry fandom in the two years
> I was talking to her.

Fact, Neither did it.

Fact, she asked you about Furry fandom BEFORE I mentioned you to her.

Therefore: I could not have been the cause of her asking you about Furry
Fandom.



> If you've got some other explanation as to what prompted her to
> suddenly start asking me questions about furry fandom, I'd love to hear
> it.

She started researching Furry Fandom In January of 1999. She already knew
you, so she turned to you as one of her established sources that she already
knew liked animal characters, and sent her pre-prepared list of questions,
probably identical to the ones she sent me. Which she sent me on February
19th, and February 23rd.

Are any of those dates familiar? They seem to be about a week or two after
the posts of Scott's you were ranting about. MAYBE there's no conspiracy
whatsoever. She thought you were a Furry, and when she finally decided to add
furries and Plushies to the book, she hit everyone she could think of with her
40 questions.

How's that for a possible scenario? Seems a lot more probable than your
paranoid conspiracy theories.

If this sounds probable to you, then I shall expect an apology from you.
I shall also expect you to disappoint me.

Meglique

unread,
May 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/12/00
to
LOL!!!
ya know, I am glad to see someone else got this movie
meg

Xydexx Squeakypony

unread,
May 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/12/00
to
William Earl Haskell wrote:
> Y'know, for the longest time I was convinced that y'all were actually one
> person pretending to be two people - after all, I'd never seen the two of
> you in the same room at the same time.

Hey, ya never know... Rich Chandler might just be another one of those
elaborate pranks I'm so notorious for. -:)

> Now, whenever I come upon a thread consisting of Xydexx/Rich Chandler posts
> I always bypass it, considering it to be a private conversation ;)

*nodnods*

A wise choice. Maybe I should try that sometime.

--
_________________________________________________
Xydexx the Fatalistic Squeakypony

M. Mitchell Marmel

unread,
May 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/12/00
to
Xydexx Squeakypony wrote:

> Hey, ya never know... Rich Chandler might just be another one of those
> elaborate pranks I'm so notorious for. -:)

"I have met Rich Chandler, I know Rich Chandler, and you, sir, are no
Rich Chandler."

:D


--
============================================================================
M. Mitchell Marmel \ Scattered, smothered, covered, chunked,
Drexel University \ whipped, beaten, chained and pierced.
Department of Materials Engineering \ *THE BEST HASHBROWNS IN THE WORLD!*

Fibrous Materials Research Center \ marm...@drexel.edu
============================================================================
TaliVisions: http://www.pages.drexel.edu/grad/marmelmm/Talivisions/index.html

Xydexx Squeakypony

unread,
May 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/12/00
to
MMM wrote:
> "I have met Rich Chandler, I know Rich Chandler, and you, sir, are no
> Rich Chandler."

(To the tune of "My Name Is Not Merv Griffin"...)

o/~ My name is not Rich Chandler...
My name is not Rich Chandler...
My name is not Rich Chandler...
My real name is Karl. o/~

*does silly pony dance*

-:)

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

Richard Chandler - WA Resident

unread,
May 15, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/15/00
to
In article <000511202...@mauser.at.kendra.com>, mau...@kendra.com

You know, the more I think about this, the more probable this scenario sounds.
Which is probably why Karl, in typical a.l.f style, decided not to reply when
the facts got in the way. The standard seems to be, "Never admit you are
wrong, just snip out those inconvenient bits and reply obliquely to the things
you can still debate, and ignore the rest."

> If this sounds probable to you, then I shall expect an apology from you.
> I shall also expect you to disappoint me.

And as I predicted, silence from the normally squeaky pony.

Richard Chandler - WA Resident

unread,
May 16, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/16/00
to
In article <8fqrcu$1t6e$1...@news.enteract.com>, spam-...@pobox.com writes:
> Richard Chandler - WA Resident <mau...@kendra.com> wrote:
>
> : And as I predicted, silence from the normally squeaky pony.
>
> Good, you win. Now you can shut up about it. Then we all could win too

Tisk. Somebody needs to learn to use the N key. Or maybe even the K key if
it upsets him this much.

I don't give three eighths of a shit what your opinion is. I just want Karl
to admit that his little conspiracy theory that I somehow ruined his chance to
expound upon the wonders of his home-made rubber fucktoy by revealing to
Catherine Gates that he was <gasp> a Furry Fan as well, was in fact, a total
fantasy, just as it was when he previously blamed Scott Malcomson for the same
"crime".

I'd love to see him apologize, but I don't expect someone with such an
"inflated" ego to do so, just as he has never admitted to any of his other
mistakes. So *I* get the satisfaction of rubbing his nose in it, and petulant
would-be anonymous (as far as I'm concerned) newsgroup nannies like you merely
give me yet another chance to do so.

You can pretend to step into my argument with Karl as if you were some kind of
self-appointed referee, but I don't recognize you or your "authority", so piss
off.

Xydexx Squeakypony

unread,
May 16, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/16/00
to
Richard Chandler wrote:
[something nobody else really reads anyway]


See my reply in email.

M. Mitchell Marmel

unread,
May 16, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/16/00
to
Xydexx Squeakypony wrote:

> See my reply in email.

Game, set and match to Rich.

Xydexx Squeakypony

unread,
May 16, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/16/00
to
MMM wrote:
> Game, set and match to Rich.

Eh? I wasn't aware anyone was keeping score.

In fact, I thought folks were so sick of the ongoing tennis match
between myself and Rich that they didn't want it cluttering up AFF. Is
there some reason you think I shouldn't bring it to email?

Do you think perhaps I need to apologize to Rich for things I haven't
done?

Do you think Rich actually _deserves_ an apology from me?

I certainly don't. Not at this juncture. Nope.

I'd like to see Rich apologize for once. I'd like him to show me that
he's actually capable of extending some of the courtesy he demands from
everyone else, because I'm tired of apologizing to him and having him
confuse my kindness with weakness. I'm tired of giving him second
chances. I'm tired of his constant attempts to portray me as something
I'm not. Most of all, I'm tired of him using this newsgroup as a bully
pulpit for his personal vendettas.

I've got no trouble admitting my mistakes---as long as they're mistakes
I've actually made. Now it's Rich's turn to admit his.

The ball, as they say, is in his court.

Xydexx Squeakypony

unread,
May 16, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/16/00
to

Move along, folks. Ain't nothing else to see here.

Richard Chandler - WA Resident

unread,
May 16, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/16/00
to
In article <8fs2q3$mmk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Xydexx Squeakypony <xydexx@my-

deja.com> writes:
> MMM wrote:
> > Game, set and match to Rich.
>
> Eh? I wasn't aware anyone was keeping score.
>
> In fact, I thought folks were so sick of the ongoing tennis match
> between myself and Rich that they didn't want it cluttering up AFF.
> Is there some reason you think I shouldn't bring it to email?
>
> Do you think perhaps I need to apologize to Rich for things I haven't
> done?

Nah, I only want you to apologize for the things you HAVE done. You accused
me of "outing" you as a Furry Fan (horrors!) to Catherine Gates when a simple
chronology of events, AND the contents of the mail prove that I did not.

And I want you to apologize to Scott Malcomson for accusing him of the same
thing.

> Do you think Rich actually _deserves_ an apology from me?

If you did it, and you know you did, and you know you were wrong, then yes.
An honorable man would. I'd even apologize to Kevin Duane if it turned out
that something I'd said to/about him was wrong.

> I certainly don't. Not at this juncture. Nope.
>
> I'd like to see Rich apologize for once. I'd like him to show me
> that he's actually capable of extending some of the courtesy he
> demands from everyone else, because I'm tired of apologizing to him
> and having him confuse my kindness with weakness. I'm tired of giving
> him second chances. I'm tired of his constant attempts to portray me
> as something I'm not. Most of all, I'm tired of him using this
> newsgroup as a bully pulpit for his personal vendettas.
>
> I've got no trouble admitting my mistakes---as long as they're
> mistakes I've actually made. Now it's Rich's turn to admit his.
>
> The ball, as they say, is in his court.

You know, it's really funny that you'd duck this in this manner. I have you
dead to rights on the facts, and now you want to portray me as the villian.
And all these vague charges.... You've certainly seen me apologize, I've even
apologized to folks on a.l.f in the middle of a flame war.

If you have some specific event in mind, and you can prove you were right
(factually, not just opinions) then fine, we can work something out. But
right now, you have a couple of accusations to retract.

But you know, I can think of one thing. I'm sorry I accused you of making up
the whole Inflatable Clydesdale thing as a stunt. It's clear that you are
actually working on the thing, so I was wrong on that.

Chuck Melville

unread,
May 16, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/16/00
to

Xydexx Squeakypony wrote:

> MMM wrote:
> > Game, set and match to Rich.
>
> Eh? I wasn't aware anyone was keeping score.
>
> In fact, I thought folks were so sick of the ongoing tennis match
> between myself and Rich that they didn't want it cluttering up AFF.

No, several of us were following along, watching and waiting to see
what developed.

> Move along, folks. Ain't nothing else to see here.

Nah. I'll stick around. Somehow, I doubt this is over; there's
bound to be more.


-Chuck Melville-


Xydexx Squeakypony

unread,
May 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/17/00
to
Richard Chandler wrote:
> Nah, I only want you to apologize for the things you HAVE done. You accused
> me of "outing" you as a Furry Fan (horrors!) to Catherine Gates when a simple
> chronology of events, AND the contents of the mail prove that I did not.

Based on the information I had at the time, it seemed like the only
logical conclusion. It has been made clear since then that Ms. Gates
was asking the questions to other fetishists besides me. Obviously, I
was wrong in saying you were responsible for it, and I apologize for my
misguided criticism.

> And I want you to apologize to Scott Malcomson for accusing him of the same
> thing.

Since Ms. Gates asked me about furry fandom a week or so after his posts
to alt.fan.furry, you can understand how I made that assumption. It
was, however, a mistake to blame him for that, so I apologize for my
error.

(Speaking of Scott Malcomson and apologies... I'd like an apology from
him for accusing me of supporting people getting whipped in the lobby
when I've said quite clearly on numerous occasions that I do not.)

> And all these vague charges.... You've certainly seen me apologize, I've even
> apologized to folks on a.l.f in the middle of a flame war.

You've seen me apologize too, so you can't really claim I've "never
admitted" to any of my other mistakes.

> But you know, I can think of one thing. I'm sorry I accused you of making up
> the whole Inflatable Clydesdale thing as a stunt. It's clear that you are
> actually working on the thing, so I was wrong on that.

It would've been nice if you had admitted you were wrong instead of
calling me a "sick fuck" and a "horrible sculptor", but I suppose you're
entitled to your opinion.

I don't _like_ arguing with you, Rich. It sucks up my time that I could
be using for other things. I'm sure you could probably be doing other
things too.

Frankly, I think this newsgroup is much nicer to read when folks act
like they enjoy something in common.

Richard Chandler - WA Resident

unread,
May 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/17/00
to
Apology accepted. Let's put this whole ugly chapter of our "ongoing debate"
behind us and not bring it up again.

Here's a suggestion. How about from now on, we pledge that no argument will
contain a reference to anything said on this newsgroup that can't be found on
a Deja News search limited to posts AFTER 7/1/2000. And we can advance that
date annually. (Nothing that that date is in the future, explicitly at this
point).

Sound like a good idea?

Xydexx Squeakypony

unread,
May 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/18/00
to
Richard Chandler - WA Resident wrote:
> Here's a suggestion. How about from now on, we pledge that no argument will
> contain a reference to anything said on this newsgroup that can't be found on
> a Deja News search limited to posts AFTER 7/1/2000.

The double-negative is confusing me. Please clarify.

Richard Chandler - WA Resident

unread,
May 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/18/00
to
In article <39237315.B2DBB069@giant_vat_of_nutella.com>, Xydexx Squeakypony <

xydexx@giant_vat_of_nutella.com> writes:
> Richard Chandler - WA Resident wrote:
> > Here's a suggestion. How about from now on, we pledge that no
> > argument will contain a reference to anything said on this
> > newsgroup that can't be found on a Deja News search limited to
> > posts AFTER 7/1/2000.
>
> The double-negative is confusing me. Please clarify.

It ain't no double negative! :-)

If you set the earliest date on a Deja News search to 7/1/2000, then all kinds
of things can't be found. Any of those things that can't be found by such a
search are off limits for any future arguments.

Or, in other words, from now on, we can only argue about things that get
posted after July 1st, and we can't mention anything that was posted before
then.

Sound like a plan?

Xydexx Squeakypony

unread,
May 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/18/00
to
Richard Chandler wrote:
> If you set the earliest date on a Deja News search to 7/1/2000, then all kinds
> of things can't be found. Any of those things that can't be found by such a
> search are off limits for any future arguments.
>
> Or, in other words, from now on, we can only argue about things that get
> posted after July 1st, and we can't mention anything that was posted before
> then.
>
> Sound like a plan?

Sounds good to me. I'm willing to give it a try if you are.

--
_________________________________________________
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

Richard Chandler - WA Resident

unread,
May 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/18/00
to
In article <8g11aa$92l$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Xydexx Squeakypony <xydexx@my-

deja.com> writes:
> Richard Chandler wrote:
> > If you set the earliest date on a Deja News search to 7/1/2000, then
> > all kinds of things can't be found. Any of those things that can't
> > be found by such a search are off limits for any future arguments.
> >
> > Or, in other words, from now on, we can only argue about things that
> > get posted after July 1st, and we can't mention anything that was
> > posted before then.
> >
> > Sound like a plan?
>
> Sounds good to me. I'm willing to give it a try if you are.

Should be really interesting.... If we can find something to talk about. :-)

Xydexx Squeakypony

unread,
May 19, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/19/00