The Burned Fur Manifesto : Counterpoint

23 views
Skip to first unread message

Jobe

unread,
Dec 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/18/98
to
I have to say it, I'm quite glad someone grew up the balls to put out the
words that I'm sure that alot of furs wanted to say. Of course I'm talking
about your manifesto. Although it could have been done in a
more..well..professional manner. Because of the way some of it is written,
it could pass off as just 'words of a elitist or hate monger'. Besides
that, it holds much substance, and is justified.

There are faults in it though, and I'll try to give my thoughts on them
here.

First off, I think you need to deal with the point of 'What defines someone
as being a furry?' I have never seen rules set in stone to answer this
question, so the arguement can be made that the lenghts an indivual person
goes is up to them. Now, I don't condone nor agree with the acts of a
plushophile or a zoophile; nor do I wish to be associated with them. But
still, under general terms, they could fall under the general label as
'furry'. There are furry characteristics in each of these practices, they
are just taken to an extreme that neither you or I agree with.

But does that make them wrong? Well, it's a touchy subject. What is morally
wrong to one, is a strong belief to another. Think of it in the terms of
the 'acceptence' of homosexuality. There are some who can't live with the
idea because it is so morally wrong for them; and on the flipside, to some
it is their way of life.

Simply put: Do I think that the acts of a plushophile or a zoophile are
morally wrong, an act of low self-worth, and desparate? Yes, totally. But
do I have the right to crucify them for it? No, I don't. A simple example
would be Hitler to the Jews.

Now, as to your comment about 'Trekkies' and 'X-Philes' about calling
followers of the furry-fandom "Skunk-Fuckers". Well, I believe that's just
the opinion of the uninformed. The outsider passing judgement on an
insider. I can say, without a doubt, if you take all the plushophiles and
zoophiles in the fandom and group them up, they are still a weak minority.
So a comment like "Skunk-Fucker" wouldn't bother me, because I know that
the furry fandom encompasses much more.

Now I'll try to deal with the idea of 'life-stylers'. I think this is the
most grey area in the fandom. What determines a 'life-styler'? Is it as
something as answering the phone with a 'meow', or is it living, eating,
drinking, breathing and sleeping only furry? Again, there are no set rules,
it's all up to the person. Is it someone who walks around town in a
fursuit, or someone who just likes the artwork and stories? This all can be
debated, and each has a strong case.

Although I can't offer any light as to what is a life-styler, I can make
the same arguement for them. I can't find fault with a life-styler, so long
as their actions don't fall under those of a plushophile or a zoophile. I
believe that if the fandom was in the public light, that the furry
lifestyle would be well on it's way to the list of 'alternate-lifestyles'.
It's just they way another person chooses to live their life, and you would
be wrong finding fault with that.

I think it is this age that we live that is the underlying culprit here. In
the age of social diversity, and accepting all, many questionable ideas
have surfaced, and now we have to deal with them. Do I like being in the
same circle as a plushophile or zoophile? No, but they are there and I have
to deal with it. They're not going anywhere, and an attempt to rout them
from the fandom would be wrong, those are their beliefs and they have a
right to them.

The only solution I can see is for someone out there to set the "Furry
Fandom Commandments" so that everyone will know what a true furry is, but
that will never happen, because a true furry is different to every
individual.

Now, I know sure your first response to this is going to be: "Arium, your a
weak bleeding heart, politically correct libral!" Please try to defend your
case in a more professional manner. These are my opinions, and you have
yours. I respect that. All I ask is that you respect, not agree with, mine.

Arium
 

Arium

unread,
Dec 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/18/98
to
Allow me to retort:
>First you said you've "never seen rules set in stone" and now you're
>talking about "general terms".  Exactly who set these terms?  Are they
>just consensus?  If they are, then that could be the problem.  Squee
>expressed what she thinks 'furry' is, and a lot of folks agreed with
>her.  Those are the facts.
No one set the terms, that's why I express them a in general. Like, in general, apples are red. What I express is not as fact, but as a generalization. Now, I haven't read anywhere about Squee becoming the herald on furiness. Maybe those who agree with her defination of furry, also agree entirely with the manifesto?
>Yeah, pretty much.  And the Burned Fur movement has never been about
>trying to do something about, or with, anyone.  The people who think
>the movement is some kind of witch-hunt are mistaken.  It's as simple
>as that.
That's not the impression I got from reading the entire Burned Fur site, all it guestbook posts, and some of the posts to this newsgroup.

>Exactly.  Nor does anyone.  But how does expressing one's opinion
>qualify as crucifixtion?

No, it does not, but it seems illogical to form a group just to express opinions. I stated that with the assumed intent of action. If the Burned Furs don't intend to act, then I withdraw, because you are intitled to your opinion.
>Nowhere in Squee's manifesto does she talk about physically harming
>anyone.  And comparing her to Hitler is just plain wrong.  Hitler was
>a fuckhead.  He was the Uber-Fuckhead.  If all he ever did was bitch
>about how he hated Jews, well, big deal.  But the split-second
>they.started rounding up non-Aryans, that's when we all knew it was
>time to drop the hammer on that motherfucker.
I didn't mean physical harm. What I was getting at was the hatred Hitler expressed for those who did not share his beliefs or fit into the square hole of his opinion on what a human being should be. And I'm not comparing Squee to Hitler. I no nothing of the fur on a personal level. I compare the manifesto's ideas to something that of Hitler-esque.
>Maybe it's wrong to want to educate the uninformed.  I dunno.  All I
>know is that there are those who want to, and I'm willing to help
>them.
As am I.
>Lifestylers have every right to do what they do, but if others want to
>dislike it, then that's their right, also.  A lot of lifestylers
>complained because of what Squee said about them in the manifesto, but
>what I want to know is why they would let it bother them so easily.
>If they're truly secure in the way they choose to live, should it have
>even fazed them?  Bottom line is, Squee has as much right to rant
>about their chosen way of life as they have to live it.
[snip]

Again, written with the assumption of action on Burned Fur's behalf. But If all the group is for is to express opinion, then let Squee rant until her throat is hoarse.

>Exactly.  And that's what the Burned Fur movement is.  A group of
>individuals who happen to share similar ideas about what furry is.
>Ignore people like Xydexx, who wouldn't care if you just agreed with
>their way of thinking without doing any thinking of your own.  Get all
>the facts for yourself.  In fact, I still think Karl's only reason for
>attacking the Burned Fur movement is that it gives him a great excuse
>to indirectly attack Eric Blumrich.  Karl is too occupied with his own
>personal vendetta to be concerned about anything else, so he's really
>the last person you want to ask about anything.
I want to clarify something. I am impartial to this 'movement', as some call it. As you can probably tell, I am all for people having and expressing their own opinions. It is where those people unjustly act upon the antagonists to their opinions that I get insulted. If Burned Fur is a group that share it's opinions and had no intent to maliciously act, then more power to you, I hope everything works out well.

Arium

Pat Fossey

unread,
Dec 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/18/98
to

Clint Forrester wrote in message <367dce14...@enews.newsguy.com>...

<snip>

This is my newsgroup now. Get lost.

Florian

unread,
Dec 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/18/98
to
Jobe wrote:
>
<snip>

Yeah, people are uninformed, misinformed, and biased; and nobody seems
to have authority to 'set in stone' the definitions of things like
furry. What else is new.

As for value judgments, just remember the quote:

"One man's theology is another man's belly laugh."
[Robert Heinlein, "Notebooks of Lazarus Long"]

The issue won't be solved. My only interest is what the next 'clean up
the fandom' group will be called, since the BFs are too reactionary to
gain acceptance.

Xydexx Squeakypony

unread,
Dec 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/19/98
to
Do you have any idea how much stuff I've been getting done offline by not
replying to this kinda flamebait? I've been getting journal entries done,
drawing some artwork, updating my resume, scanning in pictures, doing my
laundry, exploring abandoned steel mills, making plans to get together with
friends and go see Centralia, balancing my checkbook, creating QuakeII
levels, taking bubble baths, drinking tea, and generally being cute and
squeaky and enjoying life.

Still haven't gotten my holiday shopping done, though. I usually don't start
until around the 23rd, so there's still time. -:)


Clint Forrester wrote:

> Yeah, pretty much. And the Burned Fur movement has never been about
> trying to do something about, or with, anyone. The people who think
> the movement is some kind of witch-hunt are mistaken.

Funny, I remember reading a message from one of your own members that said it
was pretty much all about how y'all "wanna kick all the degenerates out", and
how y'all intended to accomplish that goal "by increasing our numbers and
heightening our volume- always at their expense..."

It must've been my imagination, huh?

I will again reiterate my long-standing belief that scapegoating and
infighting have never been necessary, nor successful, in improving furry
fandom's image.

The sooner the Burned Fur movement learns to accept that, the sooner you will
be able to start directing their efforts towards a more productive goal, like
helping make this a fandom everyone can enjoy.


> Ignore people like Xydexx, who

(...thinks furry fandom is about anthropomorphic animals.)


> In fact, I still think Karl's only reason for
> attacking the Burned Fur movement is that it gives him a great excuse
> to indirectly attack Eric Blumrich. Karl is too occupied with his own
> personal vendetta to be concerned about anything else, so he's really
> the last person you want to ask about anything.

Yah, right. Vendetta. Uh-huh.

I think you should ask me about my boycott of Mu Press.

While you're at it, feel free to ask me about my journal entries, drawing
artwork, my resume, scanning in pictures, my laundry, exploring abandoned
steel mills, the Centralia mine fire, balancing my checkbook, creating
QuakeII levels, taking bubble baths, drinking tea, holiday shopping, and all
those other things that keep me occupied so I don't really have time to be
concerned about your personal vendetta against me.

And who knows, maybe then you just might realize I can be a pretty nice guy
when people aren't threatening to put my head through a wall when they see me
at a furry con.

____________________________________________________________
Xydexx Squeakypony
Xydexx's Anthrofurry Homepage
http://www.smart.net/~xydexx/anthrofurry/homepage.htm

Jim Doolittle

unread,
Dec 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/19/98
to
In article <367c2229...@enews.newsguy.com>, vide...@mindspring.com
(Clint Forrester) wrote:

> We're not trying to "clean up" the fandom. I don't know where you're
> getting your information from. And gaining acceptance isn't
> important. If we can make people think a little more, we've done our
> job. We're too damn hard-headed to give up because a few people think
> we're doomed to fail.


Umm. If you're not trying to clean up the fandom, then what are you trying
to do? Most of what I've seen out of BF has been you folks trying to
villify Xydexx and people who carry plush animals around at cons. I'm
perplexed.


-Jim

--------------------------------------------------------
| Jim Doolittle Fuzzy Logic E-Zine |
| dool...@uiuc.edu http://betterbox.net/~gimli |
--------------------------------------------------------

David Formosa

unread,
Dec 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/19/98
to
In article <367c2229...@enews.newsguy.com>, Clint Forrester wrote:

[...]

>We're not trying to "clean up" the fandom. I don't know where you're
>getting your information from.

From the staments of principals thread

]It should go beyond "we wanna kick all the degenerates out", (even though
]that's pretty much what it's all about...)

-- fka...@my-dejanews.com

http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=417193269

and

]AND BEING THAT: These groups engage in behavior and activities that would be
]considered by non-members of anthropomorphic fandom (and indeed, many members
]of anthropomorphic fandom) as socially embarrasing, having dubious moral and
]legal status, [...]

]IT IS PROPOSED THAT:

]An organization be created that stands in opposition against these groups that
]have given anthropomorphic fandom a bad image. [...]

]1) WE SHALL institute
]ourselves as a monkeywrench in the gears of mainstream fandom not to destroy
]it but to improve it. [...]

]2) WE STRONGLY DISCOURAGE the support of acts such as bestiality,
]plushophilia, fursuit sex and other things seen as ?wrong? by non-fandom
]individuals (known by fans as ?mundanes?). We are also strongly opposed to
]the creation of art that depicts these acts

-- tig...@execpc.com

http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=417587081


>And gaining acceptance isn't important.

Then what is the point? If your idears are not going to be accepted,
then why advocate them?

[...]

>But here's what I'd really like to know. People keep calling BF "just
>another group", implying that there have been those who have come
>before us. So exactly who *were* these groups?

There was the "Antro not fandom" group, the "Clean up the fandom"
group, and there have been meany unoffical groups without names.

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


David Formosa

unread,
Dec 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/19/98
to
In article <368041fb...@enews.newsguy.com>, Clint Forrester wrote:
>On Sat, 19 Dec 1998 01:05:54 -0500, Xydexx Squeakypony
><xyd...@NOSPAMEVER.my-dejanews.com> wrote:
[...]

>>Funny, I remember reading a message from one of your own members that said it
>>was pretty much all about how y'all "wanna kick all the degenerates out", and
>>how y'all intended to accomplish that goal "by increasing our numbers and
>>heightening our volume- always at their expense..."
>>
>>It must've been my imagination, huh?
>

>No, that was Eric. I like the guy too, but you seem obsessed with
>him.
>
>Especially cute is how you take anything you like out of context and
>use it any way that you please.

Even in the full context his statement is quite damming.

> Not every one of his personal
>opinions necessarily reflects the opinions of the entire group.

Of cause not, but what do you Burnt Furs realy beleave in. Without
some definitive stemtent the staments of indivigials is all that we
have to go on.

[...]

>>I will again reiterate my long-standing belief that scapegoating and
>>infighting have never been necessary, nor successful, in improving furry
>>fandom's image.
>

>...says the guy who started one of the worst flame wars alt.fan.furry
>has ever seen.

I beleave the holder of that honour is Joel Fur. However Xydexx
didn't start this one, Squee started this flame war. If you realy
wish to assign blame it was the person who made the "Arn't there any
local woodland animas" crack.

Why dosn't the burnt fur movement gang up on *him*?

[...]

>>I think you should ask me about my boycott of Mu Press.
>

>What boycott?

Don't you know the history of this argument? In one of the pervious
rounds of this arguements Xydexx published a list of things to do to
imporve the fandom. Things like "Create art that you like" and "Don't
bye from people who you think are dammiging the fandom". This was
understood by some people to be that Xydexx was advacting the boycott
of Mu Press.

[...]

><snip other things Karl does when he's not trolling alt.fan.furry>

Karl is not trolling alt.fan.furry, you see he beleaves in what he
says. If anything Karl is a kook.

[...]

David Formosa

unread,
Dec 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/19/98
to
In article <368a8f0d...@enews.newsguy.com>, Clint Forrester wrote:
>On 19 Dec 1998 10:32:41 GMT, dfor...@zeta.org.au (David Formosa)
>wrote:

>
>>In article <367c2229...@enews.newsguy.com>, Clint Forrester wrote:
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>>We're not trying to "clean up" the fandom. I don't know where you're
>>>getting your information from.
>>
>>From the staments of principals thread
>>
>>]It should go beyond "we wanna kick all the degenerates out", (even though
>>]that's pretty much what it's all about...)
>>
>>-- fka...@my-dejanews.com
>
>You're making the same mistake Karl did. One person's opinions do not
>necessarily reflect the opinions of the entire group.

However it gives the impression that some part of your orginisation
does wish to "clean up." the fandom.

[...]

>You didn't have to go back into DejaNews just for that. It's all more
>or less summed up in the mission statement on the homepage. But
>exactly what are you getting at?

That attempting to elminate or push to the far outer fringes
"bestiality, plushophilia, fursuit sex" could be seen as an attempt


to clean up the fandom.

A statement such as "While we acknolige the right of all people
(including bestialitiests, plushophilies and fursuit sexes) to enjoy
furry art we wish to be dissasated with such activeties" would have
been less clean up the fandomish.

[...]

>>Then what is the point? If your idears are not going to be accepted,
>>then why advocate them?
>

>If people choose to accept these ideas, fine. But more importantly,
>we want to make them think.

I think it doese matter to you, otherwise why would you get upset?
You state that Karl trolled you, but trolls can work only where people care
about there beliefs. If you where hear to mearly make us think, and
didn't beleave that what you where advocating was worthy of accptence
then any attack would flow like warter off a platypus' back.

> These are people who have expressed their
>thoughts and ideas and have a right to be understood and respected,
>regardless of whether or not anyone accepts it.

Oh cause, but does this right extend to plushiephiles?

Victry "Vixy" Hyzenthlay

unread,
Dec 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/19/98
to
Clint Forrester wrote in message <367dce14...@enews.newsguy.com>...
>Lifestylers have every right to do what they do, but if others want to
>dislike it, then that's their right, also. A lot of lifestylers
>complained because of what Squee said about them in the manifesto, but
>what I want to know is why they would let it bother them so easily.

Alright, I've listened to the blatherings of the ignorant for too long.
It is time for some education here. Pay attention all you burned furvs, Clint,
and *especially* BlumReich and Squee Wretch. First, a few facts about
Lifestylers...

They (Lifestylers) have their own newsgroup, Alt.Lifestyle.Furry (ALF).
They organized this out of dislike for the way the Fandom was shaping. Sound
familiar?

ALF has its own charter and FAQ and averages more posts per day than AFF
(save during huge flamewars in AFF). Surprising isn't it? And they are civil
and enjoyable and... on topic. I was rather stunned at first to discover that
Furry Lifestyle has more active participants online than Furry Fandom.

The majority of pure Lifestylers don't even look at AFF much less
participate.

The majority of objections to Squee Wretch's mindless musings about
Lifestylers have been here, by FANS.

On ALF, there has been virtually nothing discussed about the BFs and their
BS, or BlumReich or anyone who objects so vehemently to Lifestylers.

My conclusion... Lifestylers don't care about BlumReich, Sqee Wretch, and
those who think they do. BFs need to get off their pedistal. They just aren't
that important to the Lifestylers, who don't appear to be phased by the meager
few who spew hate their direction. Almost like the hatemongers are beneath
them... far, far beneath them... at the seventh level of AFF, a new low they
have carved into the fandom, for themselves.

Now if anyone wants to check with the Lifestylers, it's called
'Alt.Lifestyle.Furry' and it's available through the FUR.* news servers as
well. Just go talk to them yourself. I invite Burned Furvs to go there and
discuss their differences. Though mind the ALF FAQ. THEY at least had the
foresight to set up some guidelines for civility in their group.

Now in contrast to Lifestylers, Fans DO care. The VASTS majority of
objections have happened here, in the fandom's forum, by furry fans. So draw
your own conclusion.

>
>If they're truly secure in the way they choose to live, should it have
>even fazed them?

In light of the above facts, that is a really dumb question *now*. ;)

>
>Bottom line is, Squee has as much right to rant
>about their chosen way of life as they have to live it.

Yes, she does. And the Fans have as much right to object when she turns
her rant into an organized witchhunt, setting ablaze the things she does not
like in the Fandom with no regard for others, with BlumReich, hood-on-head, at
the lead of her charge. What should they have expected?
--
================================================================
Victry 'love long and perspire; Vixy' Hyzenthlay
Technofox, personal Vixen, furry Fan AND Lifestyler. "YIP!"
_____________________
/ \
| Vivacious Vixen II | _
)""""\___ |- - - - - - - - - - - -| |_\____
)----| |\-| Home of Techno Tails |-/| | |\
)____|___|=============================| """|_)
`----' \|http://members.xoom.com/Vixy |/"""""
"""|"""""""/"""""\"""""""|"""
Victry{nospam}@- `=++++=" "=++++=' -@{remove}juno;com
FCF/Wc3admrwA>++C->+Dm+H-M++++P++R+T+++W+>+++Z++Sf++RLE$acn++d++e++f++h+iwf+j*-
p+sf++
Please post any response to this newsgroup. Thanks.


Victry "Vixy" Hyzenthlay

unread,
Dec 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/19/98
to
Clint Forrester wrote in message <367bd3c1...@enews.newsguy.com>...
>On Sat, 19 Dec 1998 08:12:29 -0600, "Victry \"Vixy\" Hyzenthlay"
><n...@na.na> wrote:
>
>Yep, and folks there were pitching a fit after Squee put the Manifesto
>on her webpage. A trip over to DejaNews can confirm that.

Yes, a trip to Dejanews verified that a thread about the web page started
and the ALFers had their say and then it degenerated into light hearted
frivolity very quickly, turning away from the subject of flame, to more
important Lifestyle matters before the end of November, in fact, and it has not
been a serious discussion since. Unlike here where BFs have carved a new low
for AFF. Of course it also revealed that two major trolls, Richie Chandlir and
Charles Melvile, could not resist the fuel and went to ALF to *try* to get
things flaming, which they failed at. I never said that there was NO
discussion of it at all, just very little. Did you even read the post before
you replied?

>
>The most immediate objections to the manifesto were made on ALF, by
>lifestylers. I can go back into DejaNews and pull out quite a few
>very angry posts from ALF written about Squee and the Manifesto.

As I said... what DID they expect... was *about* Lifestylers. I never
said there was *no* discussion there at all. But the keyword in your statement
is 'few'. Now get over yourself and the BFs. They don't measure up to
anything to the Lifestylers.

>
>> On ALF, there has been virtually nothing discussed about the BFs and
their
>>BS, or BlumReich or anyone who objects so vehemently to Lifestylers.
>

>Incorrect. Once again, a trip back to the DejaNews archives can
>confirm that what you say is not true.

Ahhhhhh, theres where I said it. Now read it and understand it. Oh, and
if you only read the subjects of the posts, you will be badly misquoting
numbers... again. Check the content of the posts in those threads and find out
for yourself where the flames cease. You will be surprised.

>
>> My conclusion... Lifestylers don't care about BlumReich, Sqee Wretch,
and
>>those who think they do.
>

>Seeing as I've already busted holes in your supporting arguments...

You missed the mark miserably. My statements still holds true. Go back
to Dejanews and READ the articles.

>
>> Now if anyone wants to check with the Lifestylers, it's called
>>'Alt.Lifestyle.Furry' and it's available through the FUR.* news servers as
>>well. Just go talk to them yourself. I invite Burned Furvs to go there and
>>discuss their differences.
>

>Fat chance. They pitched a four-alarm hissy fit over a damn web page.
>I doubt anyone would want to go near them now.


Don't be afraid. If you are civil they will be civil. I thought you BFs
were all for *standing up* for the Fandom, hmmmm? ;)

>
>> Though mind the ALF FAQ. THEY at least had the foresight to set up some
guidelines for >>civility in their group.

>
>Too bad they only seem to follow them when it's convenient.

Like I said, if YOU are civil, THEY will be civil. See how it actually
*works*? ;)

>
>> Now in contrast to Lifestylers, Fans DO care. The VASTS majority of
>>objections have happened here, in the fandom's forum, by furry fans.
>

>Moot point. I'm talking about what went down in ALF, not AFF.


>
>>So draw your own conclusion.
>

>I'll probably have to, seeing as yours is invalid and useless.

Again, mine are correct, yours are drawn from ignorance.

>
>>>If they're truly secure in the way they choose to live, should it have
>>>even fazed them?
>>
>> In light of the above facts, that is a really dumb question *now*. ;)
>

>Your "facts" were incorrect. My original question still stands.


And now YOUR facts are wrong, *again*, and your original question is still
'really dumb'. :)

Look, if you don't even go to ALF, you certainly can't stand here and make
statements of fact about them. Now go back and study your lessons, child, and
try again later.


--
================================================================
Victry 'love long and perspire; Vixy' Hyzenthlay

Technofox and personal Vixen. "YIP!"


_____________________
/ \
| Vivacious Vixen II | _
)""""\___ |- - - - - - - - - - - -| |_\____
)----| |\-| Home of Techno Tails |-/| | |\
)____|___|=============================| """|_)
`----' \|http://members.xoom.com/Vixy |/"""""
"""|"""""""/"""""\"""""""|"""

Victry{nospam}@- `=++++=" "=++++=' -@{remove}usa;net

Florian

unread,
Dec 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/19/98
to
Clint Forrester wrote:

>
> On Fri, 18 Dec 1998 21:48:09 -0600, Florian
> <e_raschk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >The issue won't be solved. My only interest is what the next 'clean up
> >the fandom' group will be called, since the BFs are too reactionary to
> >gain acceptance.
>
> We're not trying to "clean up" the fandom. I don't know where you're
> getting your information from. And gaining acceptance isn't
> important. If we can make people think a little more, we've done our
> job. We're too damn hard-headed to give up because a few people think
> we're doomed to fail.
>
> But here's what I'd really like to know. People keep calling BF "just
> another group", implying that there have been those who have come
> before us. So exactly who *were* these groups? Someone fill me in,
> please.


Perhaps I wasn't clear. I should have said that he gave the issue some
thought, he agrees with parts of it, has concerns about other parts of
it, and that to me it's just another speach, because most people can
form a long opinion on it.

I do agree with parts of it.

My concern used to be minor: wasting time targeting vegans and such,
while not touching the spooge side.

The behaviour of the most vocal BFs, including you, made my concerns a
bit less than minor.

Your post has the faint reek of bait. You should know the answers to
your questions, and I won't go into it. Enough people seem too willing
to take on your posts already.

These threads suck. Everyone must be posting badly for the side that
they are really opposed to.

David Formosa

unread,
Dec 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/20/98
to
In article <368a2c89...@enews.newsguy.com>, Clint Forrester wrote:
>On Sat, 19 Dec 1998 16:50:12 -0600, "Victry \"Vixy\" Hyzenthlay"

><n...@na.na> wrote:
>
>>Clint Forrester wrote in message <367bd3c1...@enews.newsguy.com>...
>>>On Sat, 19 Dec 1998 08:12:29 -0600, "Victry \"Vixy\" Hyzenthlay"
>>><n...@na.na> wrote:
>>
>>Yes, a trip to Dejanews verified that a thread about the web page started
>>and the ALFers had their say and then it degenerated into light hearted
>>frivolity very quickly, turning away from the subject of flame
>
>That's only because the ALFers took the flames to e-mail to protect
>the newsgroup's image. More on that later in this post.

Given that email is private, how could you tell? In addtion takeing
flames to email is good net mannors, why should we disturb the peace
and harmony of our comminity?

[...]

>>Of course it also revealed that two major trolls, Richie Chandlir and
>>Charles Melvile,
>

>Oo! Another code word:
>
>"major troll" = anyone who doesn't agree with the opinions held by the
>regular posters on ALF.

Major troll people who post delbitly to disturb a newsgroup, Mr
Chandlir confessed that he was doing this.

[...]

>Okay, more on this subject. The flames *didn't* cease. They just
>stopped appearing on Usenet. Angry ALFers weren't done flaming Squee,
>not by a longshot. They still wanted to flame her, but they knew
>keeping it on ALF would kill the newsgroup's "happy" image. Their
>solution: take the flames to e-mail.

You know this is a quite interesting arguement. It takes the classic
"Lurkers support me in email" and inverts it. In any argument the
main thing in convinving people is everdence, however as email is
private there is no way you can prove that your point is true.

[...]

>Now, on a side-note, since we were talking about threads, I would just
>like to say that my all-time favorite Usenet thread would have to be
>the "Eggshell and Four Dead / Where's My Pinecone, Thad?" thread,

Mine would have to be "The longest tread ever."
[...]

>> Like I said, if YOU are civil, THEY will be civil.
>

>Is that what it says in the FAQ?

No but it has been a long standing tradtion.

>>See how it actually *works*? ;)
>

>Yep. "Maintain ALF's image at all costs." And "Flaming is only wrong
>if it's seen by others."

As I pointed out above such an arguement given that it is based on an
undtestable premise is invalid.

[...]

>> Look, if you don't even go to ALF, you certainly can't stand here and make
>>statements of fact about them.
>

>Too late. Already have.

Ok give quoteations to back up your point.

Dr. Cat

unread,
Dec 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/20/98
to
Florian (e_raschk...@hotmail.com) wrote:
: Your post has the faint reek of bait. You should know the answers to

: your questions, and I won't go into it. Enough people seem too willing
: to take on your posts already.

: These threads suck. Everyone must be posting badly for the side that
: they are really opposed to.

I certainly can't agree with either side in the Vixy/Clint Forrester
argument, they've both convinced me to avoid their "side".

I guess maybe they enjoy arguing with each other though. :X)

(Say, do you think they could do that in email though?)

*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
Dr. Cat / Dragon's Eye Productions || Free alpha test:
*-------------------------------------------** http://www.bga.com/furcadia
Furcadia - a new graphic mud for PCs! || Let your imagination soar!
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*

(Disclaimer: They are just trying to preserve alt.fan.furry's misleading
"nasty flaming angry place" reputation, while they and many other a.f.f.
members hide all the happy-happy-nice-nice conversation in private email
to fool everyone. (And they'd have gotten away with it, too, if it
hadn't been for those meddling kids!))

David Formosa

unread,
Dec 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/20/98
to
In article <3686151d...@enews.newsguy.com>, Clint Forrester wrote:
>On 19 Dec 1998 12:55:39 GMT, dfor...@zeta.org.au (David Formosa)
>wrote:

[...]

>>>...says the guy who started one of the worst flame wars alt.fan.furry
>>>has ever seen.
>>
>>I beleave the holder of that honour is Joel Fur. However Xydexx
>>didn't start this one, Squee started this flame war.
>

>Without posting a single message to Usenet?

Yes. The same why some other publications have triggered flame wars
in the past. However as AFF flame was have gone this is no where neer
the worst.

[...]

> That's an incredibly ignorant thing for you to say.

Ignorant? That is a courious thing to say, what fact do you think I
haven't been infomred about? On the assumption that you where correct
I resureced to find the first post with the word burned fur in it.

There was a breaf thread about it on ALF about 1998/10/08 which died
out on 1998/10/11. Now as far as I can tell the war on AFF started
some time around 1998/10/12 from someone called "Moo Duck". Xydexx's
first post was on 1998/11/30 almost two months after the flam war started.

>And don't even try to tell me that her manifesto is somehow to blame.
>This is Usenet. Everyone is responsible for their own actions here.

So you can't hold Xydexx responsible for the flam war, as he only
posted his side.

[...]

>> If you realy wish to assign blame it was the person who made the "Arn't there any
>>local woodland animas" crack.
>>
>>Why dosn't the burnt fur movement gang up on *him*?
>

>Because he already apologized to her for the remark.

So the problem has been solved hasn't it? The guilty party has
confessed and applogiesed and all is right with the world.

[...]

>>Karl is not trolling alt.fan.furry
>
>Neither is Pat Fossey. *snicker*

Pat is a troll he posts to gain attention, Xydexx posts because he
beleaves in what he posts, there is a diffrence.

>> If anything Karl is a kook.
>

>He's more of a kook wanna-be, actually. If he really wants to be a
>true kook, he might want to start studying John Grubor's old stuff on
>DejaNews.

I know John Grubor, and dispite his odd views he is not too much of a
bad person.

Richard Chandler - WA Resident

unread,
Dec 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/20/98
to
In article <slrn77ou4b....@godzilla.zeta.org.au>,
dfor...@zeta.org.au (David Formosa) writes:
> >"major troll" = anyone who doesn't agree with the opinions held by
> >the regular posters on ALF.
>
> Major troll people who post deliberately to disturb a newsgroup, Mr
> Chandlir confessed that he was doing this.

It wasn't what I set out to do. But after a while, I realized that people
were treating me the way a.f.f treats Karl. I figured the newsgroup deserved
me.

And in spite of the "Rules", I was flamed and insulted and talked down quite
thoroughly, from the outset, as a first, knee-jerk reaction. Only one or two
people attempted to engage me calmly and thoughtfully, and they got thoughtful
and calm responses. Those who reacted like wet cats had the gargantuan holes
in their arguments and their contra-FAQ behavior pointed out to them.


--
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.


Victry "Vixy" Hyzenthlay

unread,
Dec 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/20/98
to
Richard Chandler - WA Resident wrote in message
<981220003...@mauser.at.kendra.com>...

>And in spite of the "Rules", I was flamed and insulted and talked down quite
>thoroughly, from the outset, as a first, knee-jerk reaction.

That is your version of what happened, but an entire newsgroup disagrees
with you, Richy. Would it be meaningful to call you a liar, or should we let
the readers judge for themselves? ;)

As for Flint, his argument has gone to the level of BFs, with his double
standards (Squee and her Burned Freaks can rant about Lifestylers, it's hers
and their right, but oh the shame of Lifestylers for being upset about public
condemnation, or I, for voicing my dismay with BFs) and trying to tell everyone
that a phantom thread exists in Email. (Of course if he can show an entire
rant-thread's worth of Email then I'll gladly believe THAT part. ;)

GothTiger

unread,
Dec 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/20/98
to

David Formosa wrote:

> > Not every one of his personal
> >opinions necessarily reflects the opinions of the entire group.
>
> Of cause not, but what do you Burnt Furs realy beleave in. Without
> some definitive stemtent the staments of indivigials is all that we
> have to go on.
>

The Burned Fur movement's Mission statement:
http://members.aol.com/burnedfur/statement.htm


Jim Doolittle

unread,
Dec 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/20/98
to
In article <368448c4....@enews.newsguy.com>,
vide...@mindspring.com (Clint Forrester) wrote:

> Not to hear Tim Skirvin tell it.
>
> <http://killfile.org/dungeon/why/grubor.html>


Wow. Someone invoked Tim Skirvin's name on a.f.f.

I wonder if he'd be amused by this. Brendan?


-Jim, who actually knows Tim in person.

Xydexx Squeakypony

unread,
Dec 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/20/98
to
Clint Forrester wrote:
[flamage snipped]


Mr. Forrester:

Once again, it has been very educational talking to you.

I will once again reiterate my long-standing belief that scapegoating and infighting have never been necessary,


nor successful, in improving furry fandom's image.

The sooner the Burned Fur movement learns to accept that, the sooner you will be able to start directing their


efforts towards a more productive goal, like helping make this a fandom everyone can enjoy.

Regards,

Rev. Xydexx Squeakypony, K.S.C., T.D.S.F.A.
Former Ambassador To Furry Fandom

[ICQ: 7569393]


Xydexx Squeakypony

unread,
Dec 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/20/98
to
The More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same Dept.:

Clint Forrester wrote:

> Forget Karl. He proved that he was incapable of showing respect for
> anybody he disagrees with, especially when they're associated with
> someone that he despises as much as Blumrich.

Uh-huh. Right.

Tell me, is threatening to put my head through a wall if you see me at a con
your way of showing respect? Somehow I doubt Miss Manners would approve.

Here's some cut & paste justice for ya. Let's take a look at what _really_
makes Xydexx "the Walking Cum-Stain" such a threat:

* He doesn't have sex in public with animals/plushies/furry fans
at cons.
* He doesn't act like an obnoxious fanboy and pester the
artists at cons.
* He doesn't wander around in the same clothes for three days
without taking a shower.
* He doesn't say furry fandom is about anything other
than anthropomorphics.

In other words, he doesn't do any of the outrageous and horrible behavior that
people like to complain about. And THAT is what makes him such a threat; it
blasts a big gaping hole through the "drooling fanboy" stereotype. It blurs the
line between "Us" and "Them". And that's bad, they say, because Xydexx has to
be for "Us" or against "Us". But they don't want Xydexx to be one of "Us", so
they'd better make sure everyone knows he's one of "Them".

And so they start saying things like "Xydexx just wants attention", or "Xydexx
deliberately obscures what he really stands for", or "Xydexx thinks furry fandom
is about inflatable animals"[1]. And they say it all without a single shred of
evidence to back up their claims. They figure if they tell enough lies quick
enough, they might be able to dupe people into killfiling Xydexx, and hopefully
nobody will pay attention to the Big Threat to their "Us vs. Them" dichotomy.
There's just one thing wrong with their plan.........

Some people like to think for themselves.

I wonder, Mr. Forrester, if this wall you're trying to build in fandom is going
to end up being your prison instead of your fortress.

_______________________________________________________________
Rev. Xydexx Squeakypony, K.S.C. [ICQ: 7569393]
Check out what Clint Forrester hates so much:

[1] Or sometimes, they say Xydexx is "incapable of showing
respect for anybody he disagrees with", which might be
believable if it wasn't for the fact that when Xydexx
was a sysop of a free-speech-oriented BBS, and he
had the power to delete posts he didn't agree with, he
left them alone. That's the great part about actions
speaking louder than words... while the Burned Furs SAY
they encourage aesthetic, cultural and philosophical
diversity, Xydexx actually DOES it. -:)


Xydexx Squeakypony

unread,
Dec 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/20/98
to
Clint Forrester wrote:

> On 1998/12/01, Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci posted the simple question:
> "what is "burned fur"?" The next day, Karl replied to that post with
> allegations that BF was acting like a hate group, and a lot of whining
> about free speech and double standards, all because I wouldn't let him
> troll the BF newsgroup. That's recognized by most of Usenet as Kook
> behavior.
>
> Karl's first sentence of his first reply in that thread?
>
> from <742925$ka0$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>:
> "The short answer: The furry equivalent of www.godhatesfags.com"

Note the Burned Fur Movement hasn't done very much to change my opinion.

____________________________________________________________
Xydexx "Fuckhead" Squeakypony [ICQ: 7569393]

Hangdog

unread,
Dec 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/20/98
to
> On Sun, 20 Dec 1998 06:55:58 -0600, "Victry \"Vixy\" Hyzenthlay"
> <n...@na.na> wrote:
>
> >Squee and her Burned Freaks can rant about Lifestylers,

"Burned Freaks." :oD Hey, I *like* that--I really *do!* Burned
Freaks and Burned Fur--it's like what happened when Scooby and
Shaggy were freebasing in the back of the van, and they hit a bump
and...FWOOMP! Instant Richard Pryor/Michael Jackson
impersonations!!! :oD :oD

(What--you don't remember that episode?...)

--Hangdog
Burned Fur *and* Burned Freak :o)


Hangdog

unread,
Dec 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/20/98
to
Victry \"Vixy\" Hyzenthlay wrote:

> Richard Chandler - WA Resident wrote in message
> <981220003...@mauser.at.kendra.com>...
> >And in spite of the "Rules", I was flamed and insulted and talked down quite
> >thoroughly, from the outset, as a first, knee-jerk reaction.
>
> That is your version of what happened, but an entire newsgroup disagrees
> with you, Richy. Would it be meaningful to call you a liar, or should we let
> the readers judge for themselves? ;)

One reader's judgement:

I lurked in ALF to follow that thread. Richard is right, and you are wrong.

--Hangdog


Richard Chandler - WA Resident

unread,
Dec 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/20/98
to
In article <slrn77r8ie....@godzilla.zeta.org.au>,
dfor...@zeta.org.au (David Formosa) writes:
> I'm just helping. To me the perverts and the crazes have always been
> the *good* part of the fandom, its the people like Squees frend who
> are the real problem.

It depends. How does she look in leather?
:-)

Richard Chandler - WA Resident

unread,
Dec 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/20/98
to
In article <367DC053...@NOSPAMEVER.my-dejanews.com>, Xydexx Squeakypony
<xyd...@NOSPAMEVER.my-dejanews.com> writes:
> Here's some cut & paste justice for ya. Let's take a look at what _
> really_ makes Xydexx "the Walking Cum-Stain" such a threat:
>
> * He doesn't have sex in public with animals/plushies/furry fans
> at cons.
> * He doesn't act like an obnoxious fanboy and pester the
> artists at cons.
> * He doesn't wander around in the same clothes for three days
> without taking a shower.
> * He doesn't say furry fandom is about anything other
> than anthropomorphics.
>
> In other words, he doesn't do any of the outrageous and horrible
> behavior that people like to complain about. And THAT is what makes
> him such a threat;

Actually, the thing that makes you disliked is that you refuse to repudiate
those who do those four things, and yet, claim that anyone who says you are
therefore supporting them is also wrong.

You always say we should work together, but you never say to do what. That's
because you do nothing. Check that. Among the few things you have done is
perpetrate a hoax on the newsgroup, starting a flamewar. Most trolls don't
bother to fake up a web page to get folks going.

You wanna work together on something? How about taking a side for once,
rather than stirring the pot and obscuring your neutrality.

xyd...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Dec 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/21/98
to
David Formosa wrote:
> Karl is not trolling alt.fan.furry, you see he beleaves in what he
> says. If anything Karl is a kook.


Yeah, but at least I'm a nice kook. -:)


-------


Rev. Xydexx Squeakypony, K.S.C., T.D.S.F.A.

[ICQ: 7569393]

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

xyd...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Dec 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/21/98
to
Perspective Is A Wonderful Thing Dept.:

So the other day, someone actually bothered to read some of the flamewar, and
commented on the flames that were being directed at me.

"Actually," I explained, "aside from a loud minority on a.f.f., I don't really
get flak from anyone."

"Anyone except for the Burned Furs, Rich Chandler, and all those guys."

"Yeah," I smiled, "like I said, a loud minority..."

David Formosa

unread,
Dec 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/21/98
to
In article <36813413....@enews.newsguy.com>, Clint Forrester wrote:

[...]

>Quit changing your story. Who cares that they flamed her? She was
>expecting it. What's lame is that they wanted people to think it
>didn't bother them enough to flame her. That's why they took it to
>e-mail.

No thay took it to email because flaming is against the rules on ALF.

[...]

> Squee fowarded a few of the especially nasty ones to me.
>(Kimba? FW Galen? Matt Squirrel? I'm lookin' in your direction,
>guys. That's your cue to deny it.)

You know forwarding email is increadably rude.

> But actually, she's told me that
>the vast majority of e-mail she's received about the manifesto has
>been in support of it.

"Lurkers support me in email"?

[...]

>Besides, at that time, BF didn't exist yet. It was just Squee and the
>manifesto. ALF must haved placed a great deal of value on her
>opinions to get so upset about them.

Personaly I was just ammused that she could be so wrong about so much.

[...]

>I've just learned that my grandfather passed away at home in his sleep
>last night. He was 75, father of two children, and the closest thing
>to a father that I've had since I was three years old.

I know this isn't going to count for much, and maby you will not even
beleave me but I offer my sympathies over your loss.

David Formosa

unread,
Dec 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/21/98
to
In article <368448c4....@enews.newsguy.com>, Clint Forrester wrote:
>Figures. I try to leave and I end up having to deal with more of
>this. Let's get it over with.

I'm not ofrcing you to stay.

>On 20 Dec 1998 06:47:35 GMT, dfor...@zeta.org.au (David Formosa)
>wrote:
>


>>There was a breaf thread about it on ALF about 1998/10/08 which died
>>out on 1998/10/11.
>

>Right around the time the flames switched to e-mail.

A basicly unprovable hyptosis.

[...]

>>The guilty party has
>>confessed and applogiesed and all is right with the world.
>

>Stop looking for a "guilty party". That's supposed to be Burned Fur's
>job, remember? *snicker*

I'm just helping. To me the perverts and the crazes have always been
the *good* part of the fandom, its the people like Squees frend who
are the real problem.

>>Pat is a troll he posts to gain attention
>
>No, he posts to be a pain in the ass.

And thats how he gainst attention.

J.M.L.

unread,
Dec 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/21/98
to
David Formosa (dfor...@zeta.org.au) wrote:
: > Squee fowarded a few of the especially nasty ones to me.

: >(Kimba? FW Galen? Matt Squirrel? I'm lookin' in your direction,
: >guys. That's your cue to deny it.)

: You know forwarding email is increadably rude.

But flaming someone in their personal e-mail box is perfectly alright,
of course.

--
http://www.play.com -- Bride of the son of the curse of the Video Toaster.

David Formosa

unread,
Dec 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/21/98
to
In article <91421946...@rodelo.cyberverse.com>, J.M.L. wrote:
>David Formosa (dfor...@zeta.org.au) wrote:

[...]

>: You know forwarding email is increadably rude.
>
> But flaming someone in their personal e-mail box is perfectly alright,
>of course.

Yes, its a long held usenet tradtion. Think of it as a form of harm
minimalisation rather then a whole newsgroup worth of people being
pissed off, you only get one person pissed off.

Think about how much nicer this newsgroup would be if everone took
there flames to email.

Sakura5285

unread,
Dec 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/21/98
to
[un-LURK!]

Hi Xydexx! Hi a.f.f!!

In the midst of all the flaming that's been going on, I'd just like to say one
thing, Xydexx. You and Clint both seem like nice enough guys, but I think you
might have missed an important point here, and it could save you and others a
lot of headaches. Forrester said in a previous post that any problems between
the two of you have nothing to do with furry fandom or Burned Furs. It's
obvious that you and Clint agree on a lot of things about the fandom. The
problem, as I see it, is that you just don't like each other.

Just my two cents,
Sakura

[re-LURK!]

David Formosa

unread,
Dec 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/21/98
to
In article <981220225...@mauser.at.kendra.com>, Richard Chandler

- WA Resident wrote:
>In article <slrn77r8ie....@godzilla.zeta.org.au>,
>dfor...@zeta.org.au (David Formosa) writes:
>> I'm just helping. To me the perverts and the crazes have always been
>> the *good* part of the fandom, its the people like Squees frend who
>> are the real problem.
>
>It depends. How does she look in leather?

I said fandom not femdom.

:D

J.M.L.

unread,
Dec 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/21/98
to
David Formosa (dfor...@zeta.org.au) wrote:

: Think about how much nicer this newsgroup would be if everone took
: there flames to email.

Now I remember why I stopped reading this bloody newgroup.

Victry "Vixy" Hyzenthlay

unread,
Dec 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/21/98
to
Oh this whole thing just keeps getting better... :b

Richard Chandler - WA Resident wrote in message
<981220230...@mauser.at.kendra.com>...


>Actually, the thing that makes you disliked is that you refuse to repudiate
>those who do those four things, and yet, claim that anyone who says you are
>therefore supporting them is also wrong.

So HERE we have the jist of your menu for a better fandom. We all must be
an enemy of your enemy, else we ARE your enemy. And the Burned Freaks say they
will make things so uncomfortable for whomever they decide they don't like
here, that they will know and feel they are unwelcome in the Fandom. That
won't float here, I'm afraid. The Fans will determine how the fandom evolves.
Not a hate group, not an obnoxious, over inflated 'zine publisher, not a
muck-obsessed troll,... the Fans.

>
>You always say we should work together, but you never say to do what.

You always say we should work to separate, tear down, divide, hate and
alienate, but never how to improve. What Xydex advocates is FAR more positive
and helpful and he leaves it up to the individual to decide what they will work
together on. Is there anything positive you have to add? I would really love
to hear something positive out of you.

>
>That's because you do nothing. Check that. Among the few things you have
done
>is perpetrate a hoax on the newsgroup, starting a flamewar. Most trolls don't
>bother to fake up a web page to get folks going.

A Hoax huh? You are pissed because you were suckered by Xydex? Let me
give YOU some advice... same as I gave the BFs... get over it. You are telling
Fans to hate other Fans. Who is the worse troll?

>
>You wanna work together on something? How about taking a side for once,
>rather than stirring the pot and obscuring your neutrality.

How about NOT. How about letting the Fandom evolve instead of trying to
mutilate it and remold it into what YOU like?

Final note, Richy... I know you think of yourself as better than many just
because you publish a 'Zine (A 'Zine with nothing but pictures no less... so
much for stimulating the mind.), well think again. LOTS of furs here do that.
They are good, contributing fans too. You, however, are negating any good you
do with the things you try (keyword: try) to advocate. You, Squee Wretch and
the BFs, their supporters, BlumReich, Mental Millam, all know you won't get us
to hate one another so why are you trying so hard? We are a happily doomed
fandom. So give it a rest

Victry "Vixy" Hyzenthlay

unread,
Dec 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/21/98
to
Hangdog wrote in message <367DD4F8...@pdq.net>...

>Victry \"Vixy\" Hyzenthlay wrote:
>
>> Richard Chandler - WA Resident wrote in message
>> <981220003...@mauser.at.kendra.com>...
>> >And in spite of the "Rules", I was flamed and insulted and talked down
quite
>> >thoroughly, from the outset, as a first, knee-jerk reaction.
>>
>> That is your version of what happened, but an entire newsgroup
disagrees
>> with you, Richy
>
>One reader's judgement:
>
>I lurked in ALF to follow that thread. Richard is right, and you are wrong.


Yeeeeeesss... but that is expected of you. You also support "hate thy
fellow fan because he has a plushy collection" as well.

Soooo that's one reader against an entire newsgroup so far. ;)

Donald E. Sanders

unread,
Dec 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/21/98
to
In article <981220230...@mauser.at.kendra.com>, mau...@kendra.com
says...

> In article <367DC053...@NOSPAMEVER.my-dejanews.com>, Xydexx Squeakypony
> <xyd...@NOSPAMEVER.my-dejanews.com> writes:
> > Here's some cut & paste justice for ya. Let's take a look at what _
> > really_ makes Xydexx "the Walking Cum-Stain" such a threat:
> >
> > * He doesn't have sex in public with animals/plushies/furry fans
> > at cons.
> > * He doesn't act like an obnoxious fanboy and pester the
> > artists at cons.
> > * He doesn't wander around in the same clothes for three days
> > without taking a shower.
> > * He doesn't say furry fandom is about anything other
> > than anthropomorphics.
> >
> > In other words, he doesn't do any of the outrageous and horrible
> > behavior that people like to complain about. And THAT is what makes
> > him such a threat;
>
> Actually, the thing that makes you disliked is that you refuse to repudiate
> those who do those four things, and yet, claim that anyone who says you are
> therefore supporting them is also wrong.

Which makes me wonder, If Xydexx is not all those things mentioned above,
why single him out. Also, am I to believe that anyone who supports them
for whatever reason would be disliked??? So if someone out of the blue
says, "Hey, lay off the weirdos, it's not nice to treat them like dirt!"
Then that person would instantly become the object of hate and loathing
that seems to be present here?

>
> You always say we should work together, but you never say to do what. That's

> because you do nothing. Check that. Among the few things you have done is
> perpetrate a hoax on the newsgroup, starting a flamewar. Most trolls don't
> bother to fake up a web page to get folks going.

I guess that means the average fan who don't do art, or write stories, or
organize cons, or edit and publish furry material should be place in the
same category. Perpetrate a hoax? more like a little prank that got
under everyone's skin, heck, I was mad for a few moments before I noticed
it was a prank, you know, yuck yuck, the jokes on me. I guess some folks
are more thin skinned than others. I have since forgiven him for that
prank, but seeing it come up again, means two things to me, some folks
just can't take a joke, and some folks don't know the meaning of
forgiving. As for faked up webpages, I have seen several so far, two
that I will not mention due to the fact that it's very mention will start
up yet another flamewar, and heavens knows, I don't want to do that!
Yep, it is very easy to be a troll when the rules are written by
everyone.

>
> You wanna work together on something? How about taking a side for once,
> rather than stirring the pot and obscuring your neutrality.
>

I would do something to improve the fandom, but heck, I am just a common
man, I don't know where to start. Now if you begin to offer ideas, then
it will make me wonder if you do come up with such ideas, then why don't
you set them going yourself? Of course, seeing that some folks out there
feel they contribute to the fandom more than others, it would not be my
place as a common man and a fan to suggest such thing, just to sit back
and enjoy this freaky bumpy ride.

--

When one barks at shadows, one expects to wake the sleepers.
A simple chow

Don Sanders

Dsan Tsan on #furry of Yiffnet
Artist at Roll Yer Own Graphics
http://www.dreamscape.com/dsand101/dsan.htm
(my furry page) Email dsan...@future.dreamscape.com

Pat Fossey

unread,
Dec 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/21/98
to

Victry "Vixy" Hyzenthlay wrote in message
<75la19$gqh$1...@crucigera.fysh.org>...


<snip>

Your trolling skills are most impressive. Where did you learn them? Were
you in alt.aol-sucks last year?

Pat Fossey

unread,
Dec 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/21/98
to

David Formosa wrote in message ...

>Think about how much nicer this newsgroup would be if everone took
>there flames to email.


The traffic would drop to zero. Everyone would be too busy flaming each
other in e-mail to post anything. HTH

Sakura5285

unread,
Dec 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/21/98
to
Victry \"Vixy\" Hyzenthlay wrote:
>Hangdog wrote in >message <367DD4F8...@pdq.net>..
>.
>>Victry \"Vixy\" Hyzenthlay wrote:
>>
>>
>>One reader's judgement:
>>
>>I lurked in ALF to follow that thread. Richard is right, and you are wrong.
>
>
> Yeeeeeesss... but that is expected of you. You also support "hate thy
>fellow fan because he has a plushy collection" as well.
>
> Soooo that's one reader against an entire newsgroup >so far. ;)


Well /gee/, Vixy...I don't know /who/ to believe, you or Hangdog. Maybe I
should take a step back and look at the facts.

Virtually all of Hangdog's posts have been polite, intelligent, and fun to
read.

All /you've/ done is insult people, call them names, and bitch at them.

Wow, I think I know who *I'm* more willing to believe (hint: not you). I think
ALF needs to find a better spokesperson.

Okay, that's enough sarcasm for one day. :)

Sakura =^_^=

StukaFox

unread,
Dec 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/21/98
to
Xydexx Squeakypony <xyd...@NOSPAMEVER.my-dejanews.com> wrote:

: Here's some cut & paste justice for ya. Let's take a look at what _really_
: makes Xydexx "the Walking Cum-Stain" such a threat:


Karl,

Do you think Furry should tolerate sexual predators in its ranks?

StukaFox

Cadfan ap Morgan

unread,
Dec 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/21/98
to
Victry \"Vixy\" Hyzenthlay wrote:

> Hangdog wrote in message <367DD4F8...@pdq.net>...
> >Victry \"Vixy\" Hyzenthlay wrote:
> >
> >> Richard Chandler - WA Resident wrote in message
> >> <981220003...@mauser.at.kendra.com>...
> >> >And in spite of the "Rules", I was flamed and insulted and talked down

> >>>quitethoroughly, from the outset, as a first, knee-jerk reaction.


> >>
> >> That is your version of what happened, but an entire newsgroup
> >>disagrees with you, Richy
> >

> >One reader's judgement:
> >
> >I lurked in ALF to follow that thread. Richard is right, and you are wrong.
>
> Yeeeeeesss... but that is expected of you.

Actually, I wasn't a Burned Fur at that point. If anything, I tended to side with
the Lifestylers. But your treatment of Chandler showed me that all ALF's talk of
universal tolerance and acceptance did not apply to people who disagreed with you
(By "your treatment" I mean both yours personally, and that of a number of
other ALF regulars). That, and the general tone of hysterical self-pity prevalent
in
ALF during that incident, really, really turned me off of that NG--though *not* off
of the
lifestylers per se, as some of them (who don't post much, or at all, to ALF) have
proven
quite fair-minded and courteous in both this NG and private e-mail

So you lost a potential supporter because of your behavior. As one of your
regulars
said "Does that make you feel good about yourselves?"

> You also support "hate thy fellow fan because he has a plushy collection" as well

*Shrug* Ask Lontra whether that's true.

> Soooo that's one reader against an entire newsgroup so far. ;)

Yes, I've noticed that you and many other (though not all) ALFers tend to discount
the opinions of those who don't already agree with you.
It must make for a comfortable life ;o)

> ================================================================
> Victry 'Vixy' Hyzenthlay

ObPython: "Mind if we call yer 'Bruce?' Less confusin'"

--Hangdog


David Formosa

unread,
Dec 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/21/98
to
In article <367ea628$0$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com>, StukaFox wrote:

[...]

> Do you think Furry should tolerate sexual predators in its ranks?

Hey stop picking on the voreaphiles.

Hangdog

unread,
Dec 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/21/98
to
David Formosa wrote:

> In article <367ea628$0$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com>, StukaFox wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > Do you think Furry should tolerate sexual predators in its ranks?
>
> Hey stop picking on the voreaphiles.
>

Oh, just eat me...NO! WAIT!! I DIDN'T MEAN*chomp!*gulp!*

;o)

--Hangdog


David Formosa

unread,
Dec 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/21/98
to
In article <367EB206...@pdq.net>, Cadfan ap Morgan wrote:

[...]

> But your treatment of Chandler showed me that all ALF's talk of
>universal tolerance and acceptance did not apply to people who
>disagreed with you

It wasn't the fact that he disagreed with us, it was the fact that he
attacked people on the basisus of there lifestyies. Tolerance and
acceptance are not a right thay are a gift given in exchane for
acceptance and tolerance.

He wasn't there to talk about the inflence of furry on his lifestyle
he was by his own conffession there to make us feel like battered
wives.

Tatter_D

unread,
Dec 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/21/98
to
>Actually, the thing that makes you disliked is that you refuse to repudiate
>those who do those four things, and yet, claim that anyone who says you are
>therefore supporting them is also wrong.
>
>You always say we should work together, but you never say to do what. That's
>because you do nothing. Check that. Among the few things you have done is
>perpetrate a hoax on the newsgroup, starting a flamewar. Most trolls don't
>bother to fake up a web page to get folks going.
>
>You wanna work together on something? How about taking a side for once,
>rather than stirring the pot and obscuring your neutrality.

Hahaha... you'd like that, wouldn't you?

People have been trying to force me to choose sides IRL for years, using
various jingoistic phrases like "You're either with us, or against us!" and
"Fence-sitters like you be the first ones up against the wall when the
(race/religious/political) war begins!" Actually, it's been borne out by
history that it's the fence sitters who are the only ones to survive after the
fanatics of both sides have slaughtered one another.

"Blessed be the meek, for they shall inherit the Earth..."

"Who am I? Just your God. Stirring the pot and breaking up the hardened lumps
by grinding them against one another, against the sides of the bowl, or against
my Spoon of Devastation. I hope this soup turns out well, I'd hate to have to
start all over again."


Pat Fossey

unread,
Dec 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/21/98
to

Tatter_D wrote in message <75mha0$utm$1...@camel29.mindspring.com>...

And you sir, are a troll of the highest order!

Pat Fossey

unread,
Dec 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/21/98
to
Made you look.

Donald E. Sanders

unread,
Dec 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/21/98
to
In article <367ea628$0$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com>,
stuk...@shell9.ba.best.com says...

> Xydexx Squeakypony <xyd...@NOSPAMEVER.my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>
> : Here's some cut & paste justice for ya. Let's take a look at what _really_
> : makes Xydexx "the Walking Cum-Stain" such a threat:
>
>
> Karl,
>
> Do you think Furry should tolerate sexual predators in its ranks?
>
> StukaFox
>
Ok, now I am peaked! Would you please explain to me what you mean by
Sexual Predators in our ranks??? It is time for you to submit proof!

--

Tatter_D

unread,
Dec 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/21/98
to
In article <MPG.10e7f76dd...@news.fysh.org>, Noo...@my.email.com
says...

>I would do something to improve the fandom, but heck, I am just a common
>man, I don't know where to start. Now if you begin to offer ideas, then
>it will make me wonder if you do come up with such ideas, then why don't
>you set them going yourself? Of course, seeing that some folks out there
>feel they contribute to the fandom more than others, it would not be my
>place as a common man and a fan to suggest such thing, just to sit back
>and enjoy this freaky bumpy ride.

"The best thing you, or anyone else, can do, is set a good example. It takes a
long time to produce any results, and you almost certainly won't notice any
immediate effects outside of your personal circle of friends and family in your
own lifetime, unless you somehow become famous... but it is the only way to
make any kind of permenant change in the world. You would be surprised just
how many people a good example can influence, even if its power is weak at
first."


GENTILEBRO

unread,
Dec 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/21/98
to
>(What--you don't remember that episode?...)

Oh yeah! I remember that one. It's also the one where we learned what Daphne
and Fred were REALLY doing for those 10 minutes they spent off-screen!

Gabriel Gentile
Having a berry delicious kind of day
DiscoC...@hotmail.com

Victry "Vixy" Hyzenthlay

unread,
Dec 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/21/98
to
Cadfan ap Morgan (AKA Hangdog) wrote in message <367EB206...@pdq.net>...

>Actually, I wasn't a Burned Fur at that point. If anything, I tended to side
with
>the Lifestylers. But your treatment of Chandler showed me that all ALF's talk

of
>universal tolerance and acceptance did not apply to people who disagreed with
you
>(By "your treatment" I mean both yours personally, and that of a number of
>other ALF regulars).

I suppose you noticed too that Richy started off there by breaking the
rules of ALF posting laid out in the FAQ, personally attacking Xydex, calling
him a coward and accusing him of sending a fake reply Email address when the
truth was that Xydex' Email server was down and he had even posted that fact on
the newsgroup where Richy didn't bother to read. No, I dind't think so. I
wonder just how much you really read besides what Richy wrote? Then when
confronted with the FAQ guidelines, Richy stated he would not abide by the
posting guidelines laid out in the FAQ. So you think he deserved the
protection of the FAQ while he would not give others the same courtesy? Your
fur is starting to smolder. After that, Richy started to preach how Furry
Lifestylers should change to help Furry Fandom, but he had no base for his
sermon and would not debate it. All he would do was argue in a great circle
with symantics and obscurity and his entire reasoning boiled down to "just do
it because I said so." After MANY grew frustrated with his refusal to be
reasonable, he finally admitted he was there only to troll. My, how your fur
is burning. Now is there anything YOU care to add to the account?

>
>That, and the general tone of hysterical self-pity prevalent
>in ALF during that incident, really, really turned me off of that NG--though
*not*
>off of the lifestylers per se, as some of them (who don't post much, or at
all, to
>ALF) have proven quite fair-minded and courteous in both this NG and private
e-mail


Methinks you have a vivid imagination... or at least a pension for...
what's that new word you discovered... hyperbole? You definately have a
pension for drawing your own meanings out of the writings of others. Exactly
like your group imagines so much wrong with Furry Fandom that it is not really
there. But you are willing to burn it down so you can remake it.

>
>So you lost a potential supporter because of your behavior. As one of your
>regulars said "Does that make you feel good about yourselves?"

I am sooo saddened and I am sure everyone in ALF is too. Give me a break.
If you support Richy so blindly, you definately don't have a place where people
are still counted as individuals. After all, Squee led you by the nose right
up to BlumReich's bunker. Try thinking for yourself for a change. BTW, ALF is
not my group. I do not speak for them. I speak for myself, as a Furry Fan AND
a Furry Lifestyler, together... not seperate. Live with it.

>
>> You also support "hate thy fellow fan because he has a plushy collection" as
well
>
>*Shrug* Ask Lontra whether that's true.

Alright, then I'll go ask BlumReich also, whom you support so adamantly.

>
>Yes, I've noticed that you and many other (though not all) ALFers tend to
discount
>the opinions of those who don't already agree with you.

Not really. I simply discount the opinions of those who say they want to
tear appart the Fandom. That's all. You should really try to excercise your
personal thinking instead of following the smell of smoke.

Pat Fossey

unread,
Dec 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/21/98
to

Victry "Vixy" Hyzenthlay wrote in message
<75ml05$icu$1...@crucigera.fysh.org>...
>
<snip>

And you sir, are a troll!!

Richard Chandler - WA Resident

unread,
Dec 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/21/98
to
(Donald E. Sanders) writes:
> Which makes me wonder, If Xydexx is not all those things mentioned
> above, why single him out.

Because he so vocally says nothing. He gets people tangled up in his empty
rhetoric, and then turns the dabate from its proper subject into a debate
about what it is he did or didn't say. It's like getting Clinton to define
"Furry".

> I guess that means the average fan who don't do art, or write stories,
> or organize cons, or edit and publish furry material should be place
> in the same category.

I've said before that Fans are important as well, for their support of (or for
the financially unable, their desire to support) the artform, for their
advocacy, and for the new fans their enthusiasm brings to the fandom.

The question is the quality of the new fans someone brings to the fandom.
It's better to bring in someone who likes anthropomorphic art and stories and
movies and such, than someone whose only interest is meeting 'zoos and their
pets.

> I would do something to improve the fandom, but heck, I am just a
> common man, I don't know where to start. Now if you begin to offer
> ideas, then it will make me wonder if you do come up with such ideas,
> then why don't you set them going yourself? Of course, seeing that
> some folks out there feel they contribute to the fandom more than
> others, it would not be my place as a common man and a fan to suggest
> such thing, just to sit back and enjoy this freaky bumpy ride.

One way to improve a neighborhood is to kick out the gangs and the drug
dealers. In some cases, tolerance is destructive.

If you want to contribute, and contribute in a positive way, find more folks
who would love to read Furrlough, and turn them on to 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.


Dr. Cat

unread,
Dec 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/22/98
to
Cadfan ap Morgan (peter....@pdq.net) wrote:
: So you lost a potential supporter because of your behavior. As one of your

: regulars said "Does that make you feel good about yourselves?"

I see a potential contradiction here... It can't be, 'cause Hangdog is
the "polite Burned Fur" so he must be correct. Must be a problem with
my brain to think otherwise. I'll fix it by altering my brain to shift
to a different perspective.

Ah, me am Bizarro Dr. Cat, and me am understand Hangdog now because it
am as clear as mud is! If alt dot live-sty dot purry am chase away
potenshul supporter like Hangdog because am rude, this am bad thing.
(Bizzaro Cat like bad things). But if Burnt Purrs chase away potenshul
supporter like Allen Kitchen or Tim Fay because of Eric Blumrich am rude,
then this am good thing. Becauz Hangdog say "Am deliberate strategy to
stir up debate, get attenshun for cause, and show other side for what
they really am!" By Bizarro logic, if those things am less important
than get supporter, be good to give up more important thing to get less
important thing. Man who do least important things on Bizarro world am
get to be Bizarro President!

*shakes head to clear it* Wow, that Bizarro thinking sure takes a lot
out of a guy. Hangdog, if you can explain to all the non-Bizarros why
you think being deliberately rude to the point of losing potential
supporters is bad strategy for alt.lifestyle.furry, but good strategy
for Eric Blumrich and Squeerat, I'd like to hear your reasoning.

If you won't answer... Well hey, I think at least you have the powerful
Bizarro lobby all sewed up already. :X)

*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
Dr. Cat / Dragon's Eye Productions || Free alpha test:
*-------------------------------------------** http://www.bga.com/furcadia
Furcadia - a new graphic mud for PCs! || Let your imagination soar!
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*

(Thought for the day: Anyone who thinks Xydexx never works actively
towards improving furry fandom probably doesn't remember the Furry
Fandom Welcome Wagon page. I miss the Furry Fandom Welcome Wagon page.
And how could you call that page anything BUT trying to work towards
improving the fandom? Not one of his regular detractors ever said
there was anything wrong with that page at all, they mostly just didn't
mention it. So probably even they thought it was ok, if they thought
otherwise I'm sure they would have ragged on it publically.)

(Public challenge: Since it was the presence of lots of people ragging on
him in public that motivated Xydexx to shut down the Welcome Wagon page,
I'd bet if some of them, or even one of them, were to ask him to bring it
back, he just might. So I hereby challenge Rich Chandler to either ask
Xydexx publically to bring back the Furry Fandom Welcome Page - an action
which would seemingly fit with his claims of wanting to improve the fandom
and could be done in a single sentence in under a minute of his time...
Or else explain to us why his asking Xydexx to do it would not be good for
the fandom, or why he doesn't want to bother taking 30 seconds to attempt
to benefit the fandom in that small way. Say, did I mention that I miss
the Furry Fandom Welcome Page? I hereby ask Xydexx to bring it back
myself, whether anyone else misses it or not. Bring it back, Xydexx!)

Donald E. Sanders

unread,
Dec 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/22/98
to
In article <981221201...@mauser.at.kendra.com>, mau...@kendra.com
says...

> In article <MPG.10e7f76dd...@news.fysh.org>, Noo...@my.email.com
> (Donald E. Sanders) writes:
> > Which makes me wonder, If Xydexx is not all those things mentioned
> > above, why single him out.
>
> Because he so vocally says nothing. He gets people tangled up in his empty
> rhetoric, and then turns the dabate from its proper subject into a debate
> about what it is he did or didn't say. It's like getting Clinton to define
> "Furry".

I may not be keen on the proper forms of debating, but so far, I have
seen point and counterpoints raised in this issue. call me dense but I
don't really see how Xydexx is straying from that. As for his saying
what he say and didn't say, well, I call it defending one's self. I
would be mistaken if that is wrong.

>
> > I guess that means the average fan who don't do art, or write stories,
> > or organize cons, or edit and publish furry material should be place
> > in the same category.
>
> I've said before that Fans are important as well, for their support of (or for
> the financially unable, their desire to support) the artform, for their
> advocacy, and for the new fans their enthusiasm brings to the fandom.
>
> The question is the quality of the new fans someone brings to the fandom.
> It's better to bring in someone who likes anthropomorphic art and stories and
> movies and such, than someone whose only interest is meeting 'zoos and their
> pets.

Strange. The subject mentioned in that last line was subline and so
small in the past. In the span of about two years, it suddenly made it's
way to the forefront of the fandom. Of course my observation (and as
usual I will be wrong about this), is that what was a small segment who
was unhappy about it shoved it up to the forefront and began to make as
much noise as possible to make everyone notice. What I think? If this
tactic was used to point out problems in trains being on time, or the
homeless, quite a few folks would be quite annoyed because they would
naturally not want to hear it. (Chances are what I just said would be
used as a defense for those who are complaining)

>
> > I would do something to improve the fandom, but heck, I am just a
> > common man, I don't know where to start. Now if you begin to offer
> > ideas, then it will make me wonder if you do come up with such ideas,
> > then why don't you set them going yourself? Of course, seeing that
> > some folks out there feel they contribute to the fandom more than
> > others, it would not be my place as a common man and a fan to suggest
> > such thing, just to sit back and enjoy this freaky bumpy ride.
>
> One way to improve a neighborhood is to kick out the gangs and the drug
> dealers. In some cases, tolerance is destructive.

Having dealt with Urban living, I have found that those who want to kick
out the gangs and the drug dealers, tend to make a wide sweep and in turn
kick out those who had nothing to do with such activities. I can see the
point that tolerance of the Zoos could be destructive! note I said could
be!!! There is a difference between somebody talking about dipping you
in hot oil and actually doing the deed. As for the so-called others,
such as Plushphiles, funny, I consider them harmless, tolerance of them
don't seem destructive. I would go into more examples, but seeing that
there are folks out there that even if someone presents rock hard proof
that such activities are harmless, they would none the less, not waver
from their opinions.

>
> If you want to contribute, and contribute in a positive way, find more folks
> who would love to read Furrlough, and turn them on to it.

Well, that is one way to contribute in a positive way, but then again,
that is one suggestion that benefits those who produce Furrlong. (Yep,
I'm about to take some heat for that comment) Help a person build a
fursuit?? well that is dandy too but too many folks out there may think
that such fursuit may be used for something unsavory like Sex! Organize
a con?? What a great Idea! oh wait, that might attract some riffraff
bent on destroying the fandom by tossing in their own little ideas! Hmm,
coming up with positive ways is quite hard is it? Not so hard if you are
of the same mind set as those who would want to clean up the fandom. By
now many folks would think my solution is to just sweep the problem under
the rug and hope the large lump don't show. That would be my bad but
then again, I would be exercising free will, something I hope never runs
out of the fandom.

Donald E. Sanders

unread,
Dec 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/22/98
to
In article <75mi23$utm$2...@camel29.mindspring.com>, n...@spam.please says...> says...

>
> >I would do something to improve the fandom, but heck, I am just a common
> >man, I don't know where to start. Now if you begin to offer ideas, then
> >it will make me wonder if you do come up with such ideas, then why don't
> >you set them going yourself? Of course, seeing that some folks out there
> >feel they contribute to the fandom more than others, it would not be my
> >place as a common man and a fan to suggest such thing, just to sit back
> >and enjoy this freaky bumpy ride.
>
> "The best thing you, or anyone else, can do, is set a good example. It takes a
> long time to produce any results, and you almost certainly won't notice any
> immediate effects outside of your personal circle of friends and family in your
> own lifetime, unless you somehow become famous... but it is the only way to
> make any kind of permenant change in the world. You would be surprised just
> how many people a good example can influence, even if its power is weak at
> first."
>
>
I guess tolerance at even a small level is not a good example.

Farlo

unread,
Dec 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/22/98