A sugestion conventions regarding interviews.

12 views
Skip to first unread message

Banner

unread,
Feb 9, 2001, 10:21:35 PM2/9/01
to

Okay,
Here is a very simple sugestion for how the fandom can police itself:
Ban Ostrich and Galen from -ALL- furry cons from here forward.
Furthermore, ban ANYONE who gives an interview with the press
wherein the go on about thier sexual habits and how their sexual habits
relate to furry, and how furry is a sexual fandom, Cons are dens of
sexual activity, etc.

This would send out a clear message that:
a) These people are not part of the fandom.
b) These people do not speak for the fandom
c) We do not want these people in the fandom

It would have the side effect of silencing people who have no clue
as to when to keep their mouths shut when talking to reporters
out of fear they'd never be able to attend a convention and do
those things behind closed doors, that they do with the other
small minority of fans who go to these cons for that purpose.

That or it'd keep them out of the cons, and therefore out of
the spotlight of the news media which comes to the con.

Well there it is, the chance to clean up the Fandom of at
least the more obnoxious clue-less twits. I leave it now in
the hands of the Con Committees to think about if such
an idea is worth while or not.

-Banner

PS: I personally don't care what people do as long as it doesn't
hurt me or anyone else (unless of course they consent to it).
However these people, by casting the 'light' they do on furry
fandom do hurt me. The fact that they are trying to say that
everyone else is into their particular perversions shows that
they are not very comfortable with thier own kinks themselves.

FromTheDes...@stukafox.com

unread,
Feb 9, 2001, 10:54:35 PM2/9/01
to
Banner <ban...@snowcloude.com> wrote:


> Here is a very simple sugestion for how the fandom can police itself:
> Ban Ostrich and Galen from -ALL- furry cons from here forward.



There's no legal way to do this, and to make the attempt
would open the door to a fairly serious lawsuit against
the Con organizers and the hotel.

As much as I'd love to, trust me . . .



StukaFox
--
The most important question of 2001 will be 'Why aren't you fucking FURIOUS?'

Alan Kennedy

unread,
Feb 9, 2001, 10:54:36 PM2/9/01
to
Banner <ban...@snowcloude.com> wrote in message

You know, I was just talking about somthing akin to this with my SO on FM a
little while ago.

> Okay,
> Here is a very simple sugestion for how the fandom can police itself:
> Ban Ostrich and Galen from -ALL- furry cons from here forward.
> Furthermore, ban ANYONE who gives an interview with the press
> wherein the go on about thier sexual habits and how their sexual habits
> relate to furry, and how furry is a sexual fandom, Cons are dens of
> sexual activity, etc.

I wouldn't go so far as to 'ban' them, because technically they didn't do
anything 'wrong'. Thats all the 'support' Ostrich and Galen are getting
from me. I would hower ban them, or any other fur, who makes it a point to
go bantering off to the press about the anatomically correct way to boink
meeko. Etc and how you said it.

> This would send out a clear message that:
> a) These people are not part of the fandom.
> b) These people do not speak for the fandom
> c) We do not want these people in the fandom

We all know that, you, me, and thousands of other furry hobyiest out there.
The problem is, is that Joe Football with the 3 second attention spand
doesnt. He's gonna read whats already in print, and see the first bits of
'sexual devian't and not think twice. He's gonna laugh, chuckle, say
'freak's and move on. :P Its a hard lot, but its the truth.

Takes two bad apples to spoil the whole crop.

> It would have the side effect of silencing people who have no clue
> as to when to keep their mouths shut when talking to reporters
> out of fear they'd never be able to attend a convention and do
> those things behind closed doors, that they do with the other
> small minority of fans who go to these cons for that purpose.
>
> That or it'd keep them out of the cons, and therefore out of
> the spotlight of the news media which comes to the con.

One of my other brilliant, ableit to hopeful to imagine ideals, was to
perhaps have a small committe of furs who everyone can agree upon, or are
well liked within the fandom to randomly search out the net on their free
time, or something, and get together and do a concensus of 'objectionable'
furry sites.

Get some people to kindly get into contact with these peopel claiming to be
'furry' when there would be perhpas like less then 1% of anything
discrimantly furry up on their site, and say,

"Hey, we know you migh be furry, but you don't particually have the 'core
ideals' at heart. Would it perhaps possible for you to put a disclaimer or
something up on your site along the lines of

"What you see or read on this page does not represent the hobby of FURRY as
a whole. Theare STRICTLY my ideals and thoughs, not the majority at large."

It is sort of along the lines of what some of the BF members have watned to
do int he past, but definatly at much reduced frition level. I've talked to
a few furs on teh mucks who ARE gonna modify theirs sites and do a little
bit of restructurign to keep some of the 'kink' crap off the beaten path of
their websites.

As you say at the bottom of your post, I agree to let whomever do whatever,
I just don't want to read about it, or see pictures plastered up on th net
about it.

Ick.

> Well there it is, the chance to clean up the Fandom of at
> least the more obnoxious clue-less twits. I leave it now in
> the hands of the Con Committees to think about if such
> an idea is worth while or not.
>
> -Banner

For as MUCH as I'd LOVE to instigate it, I would love to see a major bout of
mandatory L.A.R.T. sessions at cons.

[ Loser Attitude Readustment Tool - usually of a smack to the head or large
capacity baseball bat ]

Still, I'd think a good network of friendly advice to the extent of , "Hey,
I don't think you should be saying that here. XXX might find that
offensive, or I'm not sure that many people would enjoy you saying XXX in
public" Or perhaps a way to watch out for the 'sleezy reporter types and
make sure that 'targets of sleeze' are kept away from such reporters.

There are a MULTITUDE of ways of handling this. The problem is TRUELY
getting it into motion. If had the means, funds, I have the gumption to set
forth such actions. :P I've been leader of many things, and helping to get
a bit of cluefullness within the ranks of furry would definatly be a great
challange, for me, and for all.

> PS: I personally don't care what people do as long as it doesn't
> hurt me or anyone else (unless of course they consent to it).
> However these people, by casting the 'light' they do on furry
> fandom do hurt me. The fact that they are trying to say that
> everyone else is into their particular perversions shows that
> they are not very comfortable with thier own kinks themselves.

Well, being 'uncomfortable' about something, then plastering it all over the
net are two totally differnt things. In my experience of being a
net-veteran of 9 years its more like 'Hey, find me! I want to talk to you!'
the lazy way.

I'll be honest and say I used to do crap like that ages ago. Back in '96 I
think it was, or '95, I got fired from my job because of a rather risqué
website I had up about certain aspects of my life.

My moronicy had lead me to my employers main off the next day with some
friends, not thinking. The employer walked up to me and my friends, grabbed
me and drug me [forcibly] back to his office, brought the website up and
proceeded to give me verbal dialect that even Hangdog would blush at.

For about five minutes I put up with his insults, then calmly but firmly
looked at him and said, "Shut up, why don't you go back to own country and
let us American's earn our own money" Just one of the phrases that stays in
my head.

Well, he didn't take too kindly to this and proceeded to knock the wind out
of me. We struggled a bit, and then my brother kicked the door open, got
the guy of me. The police arrived shortly afterwards.

All in all, basically the 'alternative' lifestyle that I had was being
blatantly ranted about from this pissed off employer to my brother, friend,
and some random customers. I was fucking mortified that this guy could HATE
me so much to do a thing. What surprised me the most was that the fact that
the cop came back into the office where I was catching my breath, grinned
sheepishly at me and asked if I, yes I wanted to press charges against him.
I was flabbergasted then said 'No" Cop nodded and told me that the BEST
thing that the both of us could do were to never cross paths again and I
remove the offensive material from the web.

Well, my brother and friend were just silent to me the whole 30min ride
home, not a peep. Then, I got home, ripped the webpage down, cleaned my PC
BLANK and burned about 20cds of stuff, from warez to porn. I think called
my mother home from work, and confided in my parents JUST what I was, just
so that they'd not hear it from rumors or some other various spew source.

Surprisingly enough they sorta had it figured out, but weren't quite sure.
They didn't care, as long as NOT in their house. I agreed, then stayed in
my basement for nearly a month, as the guy whom which I had blows with was a
local business owner who was a sleaze and was into he local drug cartel :P

Lets just say that little incident made we wisen up to the ideals of putting
shit up on the web for the world to see. Once you got through an
experience, it changes you dramatically. You learn that you can't be hunky
dory happy and think the world is innocent and happy crap.

Its a sad sack of shit, but I think if several other furs were to go through
this type of experience, they'd get their perspectives straightened out a
bit.

Okay, that's my RANT on why I got a beef with the fucktards in furry who
want to make a total ass out of all with their twinky wink type webpages of
freaky kinks.

Now, if you want to tell me I DON'T have a reason to bitch about such crap,
then let me put you through the SAME hell I went through that day.


--
Alan Kennedy [TriGem Olandarinse]

EMAIL : tri...@REMOVEGIBBERISH.hotmail.com
YAHOO : goldanthrowolf & trigem_olandarinse
WWW : http://www.furnation.com/trigem
ICQ : 8781052

"Out of 300 million americans, only about 50million have any smarts what so
ever, and out of that 300 million less then 1milion make this the most
POWERFUL country in the world. Somewhere, their hasta be alien influence
for those odds. I swear.

Too Damn Funny! http://www.satan2000.com/christians/whysuck.htm

AUCTIONS :
http://furrybid.transform.to/cgi-bin/auction.pl?justdisp&Trigem_olandarinse

ilr

unread,
Feb 9, 2001, 11:01:33 PM2/9/01
to

Banner <ban...@snowcloude.com> wrote in message news:3A84B3BF...@snowcloude.com...
>

I really would like to say I give this one my full support.
I don't believe in prejudice against anyone for their sexual
preferences. BUT I AM ALL FOR the instantaneous behavioral
modification of STOOPIDT PPL! This isn't about our freedom
of expression and sex partners, it's about business ethics...Most
Tabloids are condescending and NEED stupid blathermouths
to make their money off of. No stupid blathermouths, no greedy
Tabloid whores at the convention either. Simple mathematics actually

-Ilr


Alan Kennedy

unread,
Feb 9, 2001, 11:05:15 PM2/9/01
to
You know I know my eyes REALLY sucks, but this article proves that Outlook
Express has got to have the most moronic spell checker on the planet. I ran
it TWICE and I still read it back adn found like 20 spelling errors.

Fucking Microsoft can make a GREAT game like Mecwarrior 4, but can't make a
lousy ass Email program.

Oi...

http://aevans.netsitepro.com/cement.png

Is the way I feel sometimes about Microsoft products.

Alan Kennedy

unread,
Feb 9, 2001, 11:20:28 PM2/9/01
to
ilr <i...@rof.net> wrote in message news:962ee8$rg0$1...@raccoon.fur.com...

> I really would like to say I give this one my full support.
> I don't believe in prejudice against anyone for their sexual
> preferences. BUT I AM ALL FOR the instantaneous behavioral
> modification of STOOPIDT PPL! This isn't about our freedom
> of expression and sex partners, it's about business ethics...Most
> Tabloids are condescending and NEED stupid blathermouths
> to make their money off of. No stupid blathermouths, no greedy
> Tabloid whores at the convention either. Simple mathematics actually
>
> -Ilr

PPtthhhbbss...

You took my 9k post and turned it into basically a couple lines.

Heh.. I feel overachieved now :P

Chuck Melville

unread,
Feb 9, 2001, 11:02:24 PM2/9/01
to

Banner wrote:

> Okay,
> Here is a very simple sugestion for how the fandom can police itself:
> Ban Ostrich and Galen from -ALL- furry cons from here forward.
> Furthermore, ban ANYONE who gives an interview with the press
> wherein the go on about thier sexual habits and how their sexual habits
> relate to furry, and how furry is a sexual fandom, Cons are dens of
> sexual activity, etc.
>
> This would send out a clear message that:
> a) These people are not part of the fandom.
> b) These people do not speak for the fandom
> c) We do not want these people in the fandom

I'm opposed to this on many counts.

First, you're not going to manage to convince enough people here to go
along with this, and I sincerely doubt it will be taken up by -all- the
furry cons.

Secondly, they weren't the only persons interviewed, even though they
were the ones primarily -used- in the article; little unfair to punish
them because they were the only ones quoted, and not very helpful to
punish the others for being interviewed especially if -their- input was
actually more helpful.

Thirdly, and more personally, I really -don't- like the idea that I
belong to a fandom that feels as though it -has- something to hide and
must skulk about everytime the press come around. While I'm not going to
go around initiating contact with the Fourth Estate, neither am I about to
turn tail and run, and I certainly won't adhere to this policy if it's put
in effect.

--
-Chuck Melville-
http://www.zipcon.net/~cpam/

online graphic novel: FELICIA: THE SORCERESS' APPRENTICE
http://www.zipcon.net/~cpam/felicia/felicia.html

weekly comic strip: STARS 'n' STRIPES
http://www.zipcon.net/~cpam/starsstripe/sns.html


Bart: Wow, a former president living right across the street.
Homer: Oh, why did he have to move in on _my_ territory? Look at him.
Thinks just because he led the free world, he can act like a big shot!
Stupid President... why couldn't he just stay in his own state?
Lisa: Actually, this _is_ one of the nine states where Mr. Bush claims
residency, Dad. I wouldn't have voted for him, but it's nice to have a
celebrity in the neighborhood.
Homer: Wait a minute... if _Lisa_ didn't vote for him... and _I_ didn't
vote for him --
Marge: You didn't vote for anybody.
Homer: I voted for Prell to go back to the old glass bottle. After that,
I became deeply cynical.
-- A rare glimpse of Homer, member of the electorate, "Two Bad
Neighbors"

Alan Kennedy

unread,
Feb 9, 2001, 11:31:58 PM2/9/01
to
Chuck Melville <cp...@zipcon.com> wrote in message


> Thirdly, and more personally, I really -don't- like the idea that I
> belong to a fandom that feels as though it -has- something to hide and
> must skulk about everytime the press come around. While I'm not going to
> go around initiating contact with the Fourth Estate, neither am I about to
> turn tail and run, and I certainly won't adhere to this policy if it's put
> in effect.
>
> --
> -Chuck Melville-

Apparently you've never heard of discretion?

Chuck Melville

unread,
Feb 9, 2001, 11:51:33 PM2/9/01
to

Alan Kennedy wrote:

> Chuck Melville <cp...@zipcon.com> wrote in message
>
> > Thirdly, and more personally, I really -don't- like the idea that I
> > belong to a fandom that feels as though it -has- something to hide and
> > must skulk about everytime the press come around. While I'm not going to
> > go around initiating contact with the Fourth Estate, neither am I about to
> > turn tail and run, and I certainly won't adhere to this policy if it's put
> > in effect.
> >
> > --
> > -Chuck Melville-
>
> Apparently you've never heard of discretion?
>

Discretion is one thing.

Not speaking to the press at all is hiding, and it implies we have
something to be ashamed of.

Richard Chandler - WA Resident

unread,
Feb 9, 2001, 11:49:48 PM2/9/01
to
In article <962e1r$1hqb$1...@velox.critter.net>,
FromTheDes...@StukaFox.Com writes:
> There's no legal way to do this, and to make the attempt would
> open the door to a fairly serious lawsuit against the
> Con organizers and the hotel.

The SCA has a rule regarding the revocation of Membership by the executive
board that has entirely stood up to legal challenge. It is the perfect right
of a private organization to control who is a member of it. Conventions are
private organizations, and therefore have the right to control who has a
membership. If the Supreme Court says the Boy Scouts can do it, then by all
means, Furry Conventions can do it too.

And if someone DOES decide to sue, then I will be the first to put money up
for the convention's legal defense, and I invite others to join me in this
pledge.


--
"if Marylin Manson has more of an influence on a kid than the kid's parents
do, then maybe the parents need to look at how they're raising their kids."
-- Charlie Clouser, Keyboardist, Nine Inch Nails.
Spammer Warning: Washington State Law now provides civil penalties for UCE.

Richard Chandler - WA Resident

unread,
Feb 9, 2001, 11:52:36 PM2/9/01
to
In article <962ee8$rg0$1...@raccoon.fur.com>, "ilr" <i...@rof.net> writes:
> Tabloids are condescending and NEED stupid blathermouths to make
> their money off of. No stupid blathermouths, no greedy Tabloid whores
> at the convention either. Simple mathematics actually

And what really shows stupidity is that neither Ostrich nor Galen even held
out for their 30 peices of silver.

Richard Chandler - WA Resident

unread,
Feb 9, 2001, 11:52:58 PM2/9/01
to
In article <962ep8$s0a$1...@raccoon.fur.com>, "Alan Kennedy" <tri...@hotmail.com>
writes:

> Fucking Microsoft can make a GREAT game like Mecwarrior 4, but can't
> make a lousy ass Email program.

Microsoft BOUGHT Mechwarrior.

Bruce

unread,
Feb 9, 2001, 11:54:07 PM2/9/01
to

"Chuck Melville" <cp...@zipcon.com> wrote in message
news:3A84C8CB...@zipcon.com...

>
>
> Discretion is one thing.
>
> Not speaking to the press at all is hiding, and it implies we have
> something to be ashamed of.
>
> -Chuck Melville-


I politely disagree.

In my case it implies I don't trust the press to do their job at "fair
reporting". It does imply I trust the press (journalists, actually) to run
straight towards the nearest buck held out to them by some scandal-raking
publication.

Dark Ren

unread,
Feb 10, 2001, 12:07:58 AM2/10/01
to
In article <3A84B3BF...@snowcloude.com>,

ban...@removethis.snowcloude.com wrote:
>
> Okay,
> Here is a very simple sugestion for how the fandom can police
itself:
> Ban Ostrich and Galen from -ALL- furry cons from here forward.
> Furthermore, ban ANYONE who gives an interview with the press
> wherein the go on about thier sexual habits and how their sexual
habits
> relate to furry, and how furry is a sexual fandom, Cons are dens
of
> sexual activity, etc.

Such draconian tactics won't fly.

> This would send out a clear message that:
> a) These people are not part of the fandom.
> b) These people do not speak for the fandom
> c) We do not want these people in the fandom
>
> It would have the side effect of silencing people who have no
clue
> as to when to keep their mouths shut when talking to reporters
> out of fear they'd never be able to attend a convention and do
> those things behind closed doors, that they do with the other
> small minority of fans who go to these cons for that purpose.

Actually, I think it would make them all the more vocal.

> That or it'd keep them out of the cons, and therefore out of
> the spotlight of the news media which comes to the con.

If it ever happened. Of course, galen wasn't at the Con.. he was
interviewd at home.

> Well there it is, the chance to clean up the Fandom of at
> least the more obnoxious clue-less twits. I leave it now in
> the hands of the Con Committees to think about if such
> an idea is worth while or not.

Really, that would be a bad idea. First, I don't even thing Con staff
would go for it. If they do, all manner of descrimination drek could
get tossed into the air and the resulting din might just draw even
more scrutiny.

--
I see the ghosts of navigators but they are lost
As they sail into the setting sun they'll count the cost
As their skeletons accusing emerge from the sea
The sirens of the rocks they beckon me
Ghost of the Navigator : Iron Maiden

Under Construction - Sins of the Past MUX
http://riftsmux.dhs.org/~sins/

Dark Ren -
http://www.deja.com/my/pb.xp?member_name=darkren


Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/

ilr

unread,
Feb 10, 2001, 12:31:13 AM2/10/01
to

Richard Chandler - WA Resident <mau...@kendra.com> wrote in message
news:010209205...@mauser.at.kendra.com...

> In article <962ep8$s0a$1...@raccoon.fur.com>, "Alan Kennedy" <tri...@hotmail.com>
> writes:
> > Fucking Microsoft can make a GREAT game like Mecwarrior 4, but can't
> > make a lousy ass Email program.
>
> Microsoft BOUGHT Mechwarrior.
>
Technically, Microsoft made Mechwarrior 3, which was stiff, boring,
and completely without play-balance. FASA meanwhile was working
on Mechwarrior 4 the whole time, and us Mech' heads knew all
along that Mech 3 was just a speedbump in the road on the way
to the TRUE sequel to Mechwarrior 2.

-Ilr, "okay, yeah, I'm, a friggin dork too".


FromTheDes...@stukafox.com

unread,
Feb 10, 2001, 12:46:40 AM2/10/01
to
Richard Chandler - WA Resident <mau...@kendra.com> wrote:


> The SCA has a rule regarding the revocation of Membership by the executive
> board that has entirely stood up to legal challenge. It is the perfect right
> of a private organization to control who is a member of it. Conventions are
> private organizations, and therefore have the right to control who has a
> membership. If the Supreme Court says the Boy Scouts can do it, then by all
> means, Furry Conventions can do it too.


1/2 correct: you can ban a person from membership ('tho God help
you if they can legally prove discrimination based on race or
creed), but you can't extend that bannishment to public places
simply because banning group is in attendance.

The SCA can keep people out of events held on private land simply
because there's right-of-passage laws on private land. The Boy
Scouts can say 'You can't wear the uniform', but not 'You can't
camp at Donner Campground on the weekend of Feb 14'.

A convention COULD go to the hotel management and say 'Would you
please have XYZ forcibly removed on sight?', but you better have
a stellar reason for doing so (ie, a restraining order) lest the
hotel start wondering what you're up to.


> And if someone DOES decide to sue, then I will be the first to put money up
> for the convention's legal defense, and I invite others to join me in this
> pledge.

Ever been sued? It's NOT fun. You're putting up money, and the
defendant will be putting their ass on the line, financially,
emotionally, and professionally. It's a nice offer, but all
the money in the world isn't worth being the end recipiant of
a lawsuit. There's a reason people are quick to settle out of court:
even a small lawsuit can quickly burn through tens of grand. And
if you lose? Oh, Christ -- kiss your financial ass good-bye.

It's a nice fantasty, but it's not good for anyone involved.

FromTheDes...@stukafox.com

unread,
Feb 10, 2001, 12:59:47 AM2/10/01
to
Richard Chandler - WA Resident <mau...@kendra.com> wrote:

> And what really shows stupidity is that neither Ostrich nor Galen even held
> out for their 30 peices of silver.

True story:

I wanted to work for the National Enquirer after I got out of
college. Why? They pay BANK! $70,000 to start in an industry
where a well-paid reporter makes less than $40,000. Get a story
'above the fold' (there's no 'folds' in tabs, so it means the
front story) and it can be worth a cool mil to you. Anyway,
Fleet Street was laying off at that time, and all the Brits were
flooding Lantana, so no job.

The NEXT offer I got . . .

Alan Kennedy

unread,
Feb 10, 2001, 1:54:12 AM2/10/01
to
ilr <i...@rof.net> wrote in message news:962jmc$4s9$1...@raccoon.fur.com...

> Technically, Microsoft made Mechwarrior 3, which was stiff, boring,
> and completely without play-balance. FASA meanwhile was working
> on Mechwarrior 4 the whole time, and us Mech' heads knew all
> along that Mech 3 was just a speedbump in the road on the way
> to the TRUE sequel to Mechwarrior 2.
>
> -Ilr, "okay, yeah, I'm, a friggin dork too".
>

I thought 1 was still the best. Hehe.. I still got it on CD, though I can't
get into it because of the lame ass intro screen where you gotta find a word
on a page, deal. Arrg..

No one carries cracks for it either.

If anyone wants a copy I can arange to send them one.


--
Alan Kennedy [TriGem Olandarinse]

EMAIL : tri...@REMOVEGIBBERISH.hotmail.com
YAHOO : goldanthrowolf & trigem_olandarinse
WWW : http://www.furnation.com/trigem
ICQ : 8781052


AUCTIONS :
http://furrybid.transform.to/cgi-bin/auction.pl?justdisp&Trigem_olandarinse

Alan Kennedy

unread,
Feb 10, 2001, 1:57:10 AM2/10/01
to
Richard Chandler - WA Resident <mau...@kendra.com> wrote in message

> And what really shows stupidity is that neither Ostrich nor Galen even
held
> out for their 30 peices of silver.
>

I just can't wait for when Ostrich has the balls to decide to come out into
the furry public again, as it were.

Alan Kennedy

unread,
Feb 10, 2001, 2:00:15 AM2/10/01
to
Chuck Melville <cp...@zipcon.com>

> Not speaking to the press at all is hiding, and it implies we have
> something to be ashamed of.
>
> --
> -Chuck Melville-

The prob being Chuck is that regardless, there are times when NOT talking to
the press is the ONY way to elivate the hassle of problems. Such as it is
now.

I'd NOT talk tot he press, as I'd probably just be as bad as Ostrich for all
the BAD things I could say about all the idiots in furry. Making fun or a
mockery of someone is JUST as good as pointing out the freaks.


--
Alan Kennedy [TriGem Olandarinse]

EMAIL : tri...@REMOVEGIBBERISH.hotmail.com
YAHOO : goldanthrowolf & trigem_olandarinse
WWW : http://www.furnation.com/trigem
ICQ : 8781052

AUCTIONS :
http://furrybid.transform.to/cgi-bin/auction.pl?justdisp&Trigem_olandarinse

ilr

unread,
Feb 10, 2001, 3:09:17 AM2/10/01
to

Baloo Ursidae <ba...@ursine.dyndns.org> wrote in message news:scm269...@ursine.dyndns.org...

> ilr <i...@rof.net> wrote:
>
> > preferences. BUT I AM ALL FOR the instantaneous behavioral
> > modification of STOOPIDT PPL! This isn't about our freedom
> ^^^
> Start with yourself and stop using AOL abbeviations.
>
Ooooooh, you really showed Me who was boss :P

It's called characterization Einstein.
-Ilr


M. Mitchell Marmel

unread,
Feb 10, 2001, 7:09:56 AM2/10/01
to

Banner wrote:

> Well there it is, the chance to clean up the Fandom of at
> least the more obnoxious clue-less twits. I leave it now in
> the hands of the Con Committees to think about if such
> an idea is worth while or not.

It's certainly worth considering, and would drive the message of the need
for individual reponsibility for their actions home...

> PS: I personally don't care what people do as long as it doesn't
> hurt me or anyone else (unless of course they consent to it).
> However these people, by casting the 'light' they do on furry
> fandom do hurt me. The fact that they are trying to say that
> everyone else is into their particular perversions shows that
> they are not very comfortable with thier own kinks themselves.

Well put!

-MMM-


Jarad

unread,
Feb 10, 2001, 6:37:02 AM2/10/01
to

<FromTheDes...@StukaFox.Com> wrote in message
news:962kk0$1o9k$1...@velox.critter.net...

> Richard Chandler - WA Resident <mau...@kendra.com> wrote:
>
>
> > The SCA has a rule regarding the revocation of Membership by the
executive
> > board that has entirely stood up to legal challenge. It is the perfect
right
> > of a private organization to control who is a member of it. Conventions
are
> > private organizations, and therefore have the right to control who has a
> > membership. If the Supreme Court says the Boy Scouts can do it, then by
all
> > means, Furry Conventions can do it too.
>
>
> 1/2 correct: you can ban a person from membership ('tho God help
> you if they can legally prove discrimination based on race or
> creed), but you can't extend that bannishment to public places
> simply because banning group is in attendance.

I don't know about the US, but in the UK any land owned or rented (such as
the hotel grounds and/or rooms rented by the con) are private land.
Therefore, the owners can legally through you out and/or refuse to serve you
without reason.

If you couldn't do this, then it would be perfectly legal for the general
public to wander in and out of your home, and locking the door would become
a criminal offense.

A hotel is *not* a public place. A public place would be a state owned park
or such, not ground and buildings that belongs to a company and is being
rented out to another.

--
Jarad


Dale Farmer

unread,
Feb 10, 2001, 12:01:29 PM2/10/01
to

FromTheDes...@StukaFox.Com wrote:

Another convention I was involved with was sued because we excluded
a person because of a repeated pattern of stalking, intimidation, and
attempted sexual assault. He sued us, it cost the club over $20K in
legal fees. At the first actual hearing, we moved for summary judgment
and the judge dismissed his lawsuit with prejudice. This was the
fast and relatively painless path over what was a pretty much open and
shut case. It took over two years and $20K from the clubs bank
account.
Banning people for talking to the press treads dangerously close to
1st amendment grounds, and would not be dismissed at the first hearing.
Unless you have about $40K, preferably more, sitting in a bank account
or on deposit with a law firm, I would not advise this course.

--Dale

Dale Farmer

unread,
Feb 10, 2001, 12:14:07 PM2/10/01
to

Jarad wrote:

Hotels inhabit a strange and shifty area of the law in regards to whether an
area
in the hotel are a public place or a private place. The laws differ from state
to
state, and from city to city. Not to mention country to country. But the
question
usually settles down to a couple of key questions. Did the person have a key
to
a room in the hotel legitimately? Did the person have a membership or ticket to

the event being held at the venue, or any other event at the venue? Did the
person
have any kind of employee, contractor, or other relationship with the hotel or
event?
Any of these will give enough ambiguity to the situation that the case will drag
on
for a longish time. If you were able to get an exclusive booking for every
rentable
space in the building, then your case is stronger. But be prepared for an ugly
legal
battle if they decide to push it.

--Dale


Farlo

unread,
Feb 10, 2001, 2:17:22 PM2/10/01
to
Banner wrote:

>Okay,
>Here is a very simple sugestion for how the fandom can police itself:
>Ban Ostrich and Galen from -ALL- furry cons from here forward.

Get lost.

--

Farlo
Urban fey dragon

m>^_^<m

Farlo

unread,
Feb 10, 2001, 2:44:32 PM2/10/01
to
Farlo wrote:

>Banner wrote:
>
>>Okay,
>>Here is a very simple sugestion for how the fandom can police itself:
>>Ban Ostrich and Galen from -ALL- furry cons from here forward.
>
>Get lost.

Addendum:
What is your real name and e-mail?
Some con organizers should know whom you are.

Galen, Ostrich - my e-mail is open if ya wanna chat.

Richard Chandler - WA Resident

unread,
Feb 10, 2001, 3:45:45 PM2/10/01
to
In article <3A84C8CB...@zipcon.com>, Chuck Melville <cp...@zipcon.com>
writes:

> Not speaking to the press at all is hiding, and it implies we
> have something to be ashamed of.

Not at all Chuck. Not talking to the press is like not talking to the guy in
the alleyway who says he can sell you a 5-CD changer for $30.

The only way avoiding the press indicates you have something to be ashamed of
is if the Press were some ultimate paragon of truth and honesty. And it
ain't.

Richard Chandler - WA Resident

unread,
Feb 10, 2001, 3:49:57 PM2/10/01
to
In article <962kk0$1o9k$1...@velox.critter.net>,
FromTheDes...@StukaFox.Com writes:
> A convention COULD go to the hotel management and say 'Would you
> please have XYZ forcibly removed on sight?', but you better have
> a stellar reason for doing so (ie, a restraining order) lest
> the hotel start wondering what you're up to.

The Valley Forge Hilton agreed with AnthroCon in banning Kevin Duane from the
premises. There's plenty of precident. A hotel is NOT a public space in the
same sense as say, a Bus stop. The Hotel reserves the right to not serve
anyone. I think Cons should too.

Richard Chandler - WA Resident

unread,
Feb 10, 2001, 3:55:45 PM2/10/01
to
In article <9044738FD...@news.fysh.org>, hall...@worldnet.att.net
(Farlo) writes:
> Banner wrote:
>
> >Okay,
> >Here is a very simple sugestion for how the fandom can police itself:
> >Ban Ostrich and Galen from -ALL- furry cons from here forward.
>
> Get lost.

Considering Farlo seems to have his contradiction Filter permanently engaged
(You can say the sky is Blue and he'll instantly follow up that it's taupe) I
guess we can count this as a ringing endorsement of the idea, and I agree.


But, I don't think either one is likely to come because I'm pretty sure
neither of them would have a good time, since everyone hates them now, except
Farlo.

Richard Chandler - WA Resident

unread,
Feb 10, 2001, 3:58:21 PM2/10/01
to
In article <90447497E...@news.fysh.org>, hall...@worldnet.att.net
(Farlo) writes:
> Galen, Ostrich - my e-mail is open if ya wanna chat.

Heh, and I posted my last message BEFORE I read this.

Farlo, I've always know you to be an a.l.f troll when you come to a.f.f, but
it's now obvious that your main purpose is a lame attempt to undermine and
damage the fandom. I don't know why you hate the fandom so much, but it's not
important really, we all just feel the same way towards you.

ilr

unread,
Feb 10, 2001, 9:45:49 PM2/10/01
to

Chuck Melville <cp...@zipcon.com> wrote in message news:3A84C8CB...@zipcon.com...

>
> Discretion is one thing.
>
> Not speaking to the press at all is hiding, and it implies we have
> something to be ashamed of.
>
If we wanted to hide, we'd have a secret hand-shake so no "Mundanes"
could get into the con and we'd put anyone who talked to the mundanes
or the press on the gallows simply for talking to them.
This is actually a punishment, it gives the offenders the chance to
talk, but if they're too stupid or flamboyant to hide what they should
be hiding from the press, IE:{stuff that isn't the rest of America's
business, the Rest of the their readers business, and even the rest
of the Fandom's business} they'll get what's comin' to 'em. This
would be IMHO a method of natural-selection for getting our best
Spokespeople. Anyone who talked to the press, but wasn't featured
negatively, would obviously be the desired configuration, so-to-speak.

I would be strongly against a !don't_ask_don't_tell! policy too, but
I only see this as set of personal consequences for the people who don't
have their act together, which would all be up to the interpretation of the
Con's "high-council" anyway. Sounds very democratic to me atleast.
-Ilr


Farlo

unread,
Feb 10, 2001, 10:12:33 PM2/10/01
to
Baloo Ursidae wrote:

>Ever thought of checking headers? Not *that* hard to figure things
>out. Banner's a nice guy.

Will he withdraw his call for a ban on Galen and Ostrich?

Farlo

unread,
Feb 10, 2001, 10:26:55 PM2/10/01
to
Baloo Ursidae wrote:

>Ever thought of checking headers? Not *that* hard to figure things
>out. Banner's a nice guy.

Message-ID: <3A84B3BF...@snowcloude.com>

I wonder if it's legit. Does it really matter?
Banner is not someone that I know, except for
his CALL FOR A BAN on two harmless furries.

What am I suppossed to think about him?

Banner

unread,
Feb 11, 2001, 3:21:07 AM2/11/01
to

Farlo wrote:

>
> Message-ID: <3A84B3BF...@snowcloude.com>
>
> I wonder if it's legit. Does it really matter?
> Banner is not someone that I know, except for
> his CALL FOR A BAN on two harmless furries.
>
> What am I suppossed to think about him?
>

And what am I supposed to think about you?
Other then you're a troll? I sent you an email message
and I have yet to receive a response with your RL name,
address, etc.

After all if you're gonna ask for mine you should have the
curtesy to supply yours first.

And as for Galen and Ostrich, well I don't suffer fools
gladly. And they are not 'Two harmless furs' they have
both done a lot of harm here, because they did not have
the curtesy and manners to keep their sexual preferences
to themselves, or at least not join it to a fandom that is not
about sex.

-Banner

Michael Campbell

unread,
Feb 11, 2001, 3:32:12 AM2/11/01
to

Farlo wrote:

> I wonder if it's legit. Does it really matter?
> Banner is not someone that I know, except for
> his CALL FOR A BAN on two harmless furries.

I'm sorry, but I would hardly call Ostrich and Foxwulfie 'harmless'

Farlo

unread,
Feb 11, 2001, 1:11:17 PM2/11/01
to
Banner wrote:

>And what am I supposed to think about you?

Your opinion of me is of no consequence.

I am offended by your call for a ban on
two people, and you have done nothing to
raise my opinion of you.

>I sent you an email message
>and I have yet to receive a response with your RL name,
>address, etc.

You respond to questions with questions.
My question was genuine, yours is suspect.

Banner

unread,
Feb 11, 2001, 2:27:01 PM2/11/01
to

Farlo wrote:

Mine is suspect? Gee if that's not a strawman, what is?
Or are you just afraid of backing up your talk with actions?
Anyways I'm done with arguing with you, you're just another
16 year old on daddy's computer.

-Banner

FromTheDes...@stukafox.com

unread,
Feb 11, 2001, 2:45:18 PM2/11/01
to

Farlo wrote:

> Your opinion of me is of no consequence.

"When I am King,
You will be first against the wall;
With your opinion
which is of no consequence at all . . ."


-- Radiohead, Paranoid Android
(OK Computer)

Farlo

unread,
Feb 11, 2001, 6:21:31 PM2/11/01
to
Banner wrote:

>Mine is suspect? Gee if that's not a strawman, what is?

Do some reading on the subject. Education is good for you.

>Or are you just afraid of backing up your talk with actions?

I am.

Farlo

unread,
Feb 11, 2001, 6:23:31 PM2/11/01
to
Stukafoxie, Lord of the Flies, wrote:

>"When I am King,
> You will be first against the wall;
> With your opinion
> which is of no consequence at all . . ."

When I am king, there is no need for a wall.

Dr. Cat

unread,
Feb 12, 2001, 2:31:54 PM2/12/01
to
Banner <ban...@snowcloude.com> wrote:

: Here is a very simple sugestion for how the fandom can police itself:


: Ban Ostrich and Galen from -ALL- furry cons from here forward.

Well, I guess now we know why he's called "Banner".

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

(Disclaimer: Hey, somebody had to say it. You KNOW you were thinking it.)

M. Mitchell Marmel

unread,
Feb 12, 2001, 4:47:36 PM2/12/01
to
Banner wrote:
>
> Okay,

> Here is a very simple sugestion for how the fandom can police itself:
> Ban Ostrich and Galen from -ALL- furry cons from here forward.
> Furthermore, ban ANYONE who gives an interview with the press
> wherein the go on about thier sexual habits and how their sexual habits
> relate to furry, and how furry is a sexual fandom, Cons are dens of
> sexual activity, etc.
>
> This would send out a clear message that:
> a) These people are not part of the fandom.
> b) These people do not speak for the fandom
> c) We do not want these people in the fandom
>
(snip)

>
> Well there it is, the chance to clean up the Fandom of at
> least the more obnoxious clue-less twits. I leave it now in
> the hands of the Con Committees to think about if such
> an idea is worth while or not.

FWIW, although there will be no official announcement to this effect,
word from Very High Sources in Anthrocon is that, although Galen and
Ostrich will not be banned outright, they will be getting letters
strongly advising them not to show up, and, should they be so
ill-advised as to show up, Security will not, quote, 'babysit them for
the weekend', end quote.

The Very High Sources speculated about the possibility that there will
be those attending Anthrocon who may want to have a word or two with
them about the Vanity Fair article.

Speaking as a member of Anthrocon security, I would prefer that all
potential troublemakers stay FAR away. It makes my job much easier.

-MMM-

boojum

unread,
Feb 12, 2001, 4:55:36 PM2/12/01
to
boojum grins and says, "I have a GOOD suggestion about interviews about
Furries... this is my opinion and does not relate in any way to a conventions
idea however. My idea is for EVERY fur to give as many interviews as they
can! If you don't then a reporter WILL find someone to give an interview and it
may well not be an interview you like."

He bounces a bit. "The basic truth is that you can not silence someone who
is saying something you don't like. You can only counter with your view. If
you don't like the interviews you see in the papers and magazines, then you
should seek out reporters at conventions and talk with them. Show them your
point of view, show them what furry means to you. I suspect this is the only
way to counter bad reports. It won't help in the case where someone is looking
for some new bit of sleaze to boost sales, but it WILL help where actual
journalists are involved."

boojum the brown bunny


Rainbow

unread,
Feb 12, 2001, 5:56:35 PM2/12/01
to

Violence is not the solution to anything, including recent events
mentioned above. It's very understandable that a number of folks
might have a dislike for the folks who spoke in the magazine - which
is fine. It shouldn't be a justification for violence, however. I'm
sure the last thing that people would want to remember AnthroCon - or
_any_ con for - is violence and/or a number of furs being hostile
towards anyone. I'm looking very forward to AnthroCon.. if all goes
well.. I'll have a fursuit ready for it. It'll either be my second or
third con, depending on whether or not I attend one prior to it. I've
heard a lot of good things about AnthroCon. Angry at a couple of
individuals? Channel your frustration into positive outlets. Gopher
for the con...guide friends around who need spotters for fursuiting.
Looking forward to making new friends at the 'con..possibly a few from
here. *Chrf*
-Rainbow 'Roo

ICQ the 'Roo: 93127116


Freija: Sir Fratley? I don't think I can live on my
own...not without you.

Fratley: You're going to be fine...trust your
strength...and have faith in your destiny. Once I
complete my journey around the world, I will return to
Burmecia.

Freija: Promise me, one more time, that you will
return.

Fratley: I promise...

Bruce

unread,
Feb 12, 2001, 6:22:19 PM2/12/01
to

"M. Mitchell Marmel" <marm...@drexel.edu> wrote in message
news:3A8859CF...@drexel.edu...

>
> FWIW, although there will be no official announcement to this effect,
> word from Very High Sources in Anthrocon is that, although Galen and
> Ostrich will not be banned outright, they will be getting letters
> strongly advising them not to show up, and, should they be so
> ill-advised as to show up, Security will not, quote, 'babysit them for
> the weekend', end quote.
>
> The Very High Sources speculated about the possibility that there will
> be those attending Anthrocon who may want to have a word or two with
> them about the Vanity Fair article.
>
> Speaking as a member of Anthrocon security, I would prefer that all
> potential troublemakers stay FAR away. It makes my job much easier.
>
> -MMM-

This is all fine and well - warnings and the such.

But wasn't Anthrocon the convention where an incident was manufactured as
having happened out of thin air? An actual assault was claimed? But when
investigated it turned out that factually it was a much more minor affair?

In fact I think such is now being claimed for FC2001 over on A.L.F. One
individual was challenging folks on A.L.F. to come up with facts rather than
lurid rumors.

There are some folks in this fandom that are, ummm, not the most stable
people I have ever encountered so even without physical violence I think
Anthrocon should beef up security and have folks keep an eye peeled. Maybe
security should even jot down notes on incidents for reference back to in
the weeks following. Whether it be a case of name-calling, shouting, or
jostling in a mostly empty hallway.

Just a thought.


Furplay

unread,
Feb 12, 2001, 7:13:10 PM2/12/01
to

"M. Mitchell Marmel" wrote:
>
>
> FWIW, although there will be no official announcement to this effect,
> word from Very High Sources in Anthrocon is that, although Galen and
> Ostrich will not be banned outright, they will be getting letters
> strongly advising them not to show up, and, should they be so
> ill-advised as to show up, Security will not, quote, 'babysit them for
> the weekend', end quote.
>
> The Very High Sources speculated about the possibility that there will
> be those attending Anthrocon who may want to have a word or two with
> them about the Vanity Fair article.
>
> Speaking as a member of Anthrocon security, I would prefer that all
> potential troublemakers stay FAR away. It makes my job much easier.
>
> -MMM-


As much as I loathe to see it happen, one must admit. These two guys
have brought it upon themselves in spades, and I doubt a weekend's
membership would cover the cost of a 24/7 armed escort for these guys.

Let's face it. Reading the part about the way Galen "made a pass" at the
reporter made my floor crack from the velocity of my jaw slamming into
it. I mean, what WAS he thinking (or to put it in a more descriptive
way, *WAS* he thinking at all)!?

The NEXT time some "journalist" wants to make a paycheck off of
portraying furrydom as a dark freak show of the soul, PLEASE post it up
here on AFF to APB everyone that there's another hack at large. That way
everyone can either clam up and deprive the dink of any innuendo or
direct them to a fur with some stability in them (I nominate Mike Curtis
or Rich Chandler. Anyone second the motion?).

--
"It sure would be a lot easier if this were a dictatorship, so long as I
was the dictator." -- GW Bush 12/18/00

"One Divided Nation, Under Bush. Intolerable. Without Liberty, And Just
Ass for All"

Don Sanders

unread,
Feb 12, 2001, 7:22:48 PM2/12/01
to
I missed Banner's orginal post on this, but I
guess I can tag my .02 cents into this.

Ok, I agree, although it goes against my nature,
Ban Ostrich and Galen from AC and MFM. Why the
change of heart? Because I have come to realize
it is better to go with the mob than against it.

I'm done.

--
Don Sanders.

RoadKill Fur (Sun baked sorta but not burned!)
Email dsan...@future.dreamscape.com

Smart Ass

unread,
Feb 12, 2001, 7:58:42 PM2/12/01
to
In article <3A8859CF...@drexel.edu>, M. Mitchell Marmel
<marm...@drexel.edu> wrote:

> FWIW, although there will be no official announcement to this effect,
> word from Very High Sources in Anthrocon is that, although Galen and
> Ostrich will not be banned outright, they will be getting letters
> strongly advising them not to show up, and, should they be so
> ill-advised as to show up, Security will not, quote, 'babysit them for
> the weekend', end quote.


Plushiephiles and lifestylers need not apply, but all fans of spooge
and furry sex art are WELCOME! especially furs who like pert li'l
mousetitties and nekkid vixens! I suppose that the Macrophiles and
Microphiles would be welcome, too.

Kyle L. Webb

unread,
Feb 12, 2001, 8:39:43 PM2/12/01
to

Smart Ass wrote:
>
> Plushiephiles and lifestylers need not apply, but all fans of spooge
> and furry sex art are WELCOME! especially furs who like pert li'l
> mousetitties and nekkid vixens! I suppose that the Macrophiles and
> Microphiles would be welcome, too.

No, people whose presence may ignite lingering anger and has the
potential to cause problems for a con because of strong words or actions
taken against them are a security concern. It's not just this particular
situation. There are always smoldering disagreements between people and
they can come out at cons.
You think that's not realistic? Just add a little alcohol on the part of
someone to lubricate things a bit.
Others may not reach the same conclusion on what a con should do, or
what positions it should take, but you can bet that any con security
staff worth its salt will be thinking about issues like this.

Kyle L. Webb
Hartree Fox on yiffnet

ilr

unread,
Feb 12, 2001, 9:06:49 PM2/12/01
to

Furplay <mhi...@radiks.net> wrote in message news:3A887C16...@radiks.net...

> The NEXT time some "journalist" wants to make a paycheck off of
> portraying furrydom as a dark freak show of the soul, PLEASE post it up
> here on AFF to APB everyone that there's another hack at large. That way
> everyone can either clam up and deprive the dink of any innuendo or
> direct them to a fur with some stability in them (I nominate Mike Curtis
> or Rich Chandler. Anyone second the motion?).
>
Hell, Ill second it.
-Ilr


M. Mitchell Marmel

unread,
Feb 12, 2001, 9:13:39 PM2/12/01
to

Mathue wrote:

> Mitch probably has better info than I do, but as I recall from posts
> in the group:
>
> In two Ac's there have been goings on claimed, however, whether it
> was a supposed assault (1) or someone going around with Blumrichs SS
> number (2) _neither_ of them got brought to security. And as such, they
> should be regarded in that light. :) Frankly, I expect the security
> staff at AC have better things to do than chase after 'after the fact'
> rumors.

Yup. And I would like to repeat: Incidents like this MUST be reported to
Security AS SOON as they happen if you want something done about it.

-MMM-


Don Sanders

unread,
Feb 12, 2001, 9:36:20 PM2/12/01
to
In article <v81a69...@ursine.dyndns.org>,
ba...@ursine.dyndns.org says...

> Don Sanders <noo...@myemail.com> wrote:
> > I missed Banner's orginal post on this, but I
> > guess I can tag my .02 cents into this.
>
> Wow! .02 cents...$0.0002! 8:o)
>
Ok then, two copper US cents, two pennies.
nah, forget it.

Farlo

unread,
Feb 13, 2001, 12:09:33 AM2/13/01
to
boojum wrote:

> He bounces a bit. "The basic truth is that you can not silence
> someone who
>is saying something you don't like.

Welcome back, bunny! =)

Basic truths do not stop nasty people from trying - and I found banner's
suggestion very offensive on many levels. Censorship, deciding what is
best for us without asking, general nastiness ... what is wrong with some
people?

Anyway, I am tired. 'Nite all.

Farlo

unread,
Feb 13, 2001, 12:15:44 AM2/13/01
to
M. Mitchell Marmel wrote:

>Speaking as a member of Anthrocon security, I would prefer that all
>potential troublemakers stay FAR away. It makes my job much easier.

YOU??? Anthrocon SECURITY?
Ewwwww.

Farlo

unread,
Feb 13, 2001, 12:22:48 AM2/13/01
to
Don Sanders wrote:

>Ok, I agree, although it goes against my nature,
>Ban Ostrich and Galen from AC and MFM. Why the
>change of heart? Because I have come to realize
>it is better to go with the mob than against it.

I shall never give up ...
If these two be sacrificed, whom else?

Kiala Dreamstalker

unread,
Feb 13, 2001, 12:26:26 AM2/13/01
to
Bruce wrote:
> In fact I think such is now being claimed for FC2001 over on A.L.F. One
> individual was challenging folks on A.L.F. to come up with facts rather than
> lurid rumors.

Hmm, well having been at FC2001 I will say this:
Now, provided, I do NOT have all the details on this and very well could
be wrong, if I am I apologize ahead of time. If people have, more
accurate info, please, fill me in, I'm curious too ^_^ But anyway.. I do
know that saturday night, me and several furs (mostly from AFD, though
not strictly so) were outside the hotel chatting and noticed two police
vehicles at the con. I don't know any more on what happened, and there
WERE people besides con attendees in the hotel, so it very well could
have been completely unrelated to FC.

*shrug* this is just what I saw..

I will also say, having attended/staffed previous cons, FC appeared to
be the smoothest running con to date.. Good job guys =>

-Kiala, who's never missed a FC yet ^_^

=====-===-==-=--=-----.---.--.-..-..... ... .. . . . |
|.#.#.###.|Kiala Raven Dreamstalker |"For centuries, we were|
|.#.#..#..|ki...@lycanthrope.net | the watchers. Now we |
|.##...#..|www.dreamchaos.org |awake -- and your world|
|.#.#..#..|Author, Mage, Theri |can never go back." |
|.#.#.###.| ICQ: 17611893 | IRC: Kiala | -Dennis Redwing |
|------------------- Member of FurBuy.com ---------------------|
| . . . .. ... .....-..-.--.---.-----=--=-==-===-=====

Farlo

unread,
Feb 13, 2001, 12:28:45 AM2/13/01
to
Kyle L. Webb wrote:

>No, people whose presence may ignite lingering anger and has the
>potential to cause problems for a con because of strong words or actions
>taken against them are a security concern.

THIS cowardice is cause for a ban?

Let's call it what it is ... you must feel that security at the con is
simply inadequate for the safety of the patrons. With MMM on the staff, I
suppose that there is some rational for that, but banning people for having
an opinion is wrong.

Kiala Dreamstalker

unread,
Feb 13, 2001, 12:33:45 AM2/13/01
to
Smart Ass wrote:
> Plushiephiles and lifestylers need not apply, but all fans of spooge
> and furry sex art are WELCOME! especially furs who like pert li'l
> mousetitties and nekkid vixens! I suppose that the Macrophiles and
> Microphiles would be welcome, too.

Hmm.. Just out of raw curiosity, what DOES everyone classify a
lifestyler?

-Kiala, curious dragon

Banner

unread,
Feb 13, 2001, 1:24:26 AM2/13/01
to

Farlo wrote:

>
> Basic truths do not stop nasty people from trying - and I found banner's
> suggestion very offensive on many levels. Censorship, deciding what is
> best for us without asking, general nastiness ... what is wrong with some
> people?
>

I never advocated Censorship, these people can say all they want. I merely
proposed that perhaps we should distance ourselves from these people,
seeing as how they are dragging us down, with thier bad behavior and lack
of decency towards the rest of us. Telling people that if they insult us
publically
that we won't let them come to the fandom's convention doesn't stop them
from saying whatever they want to say. It's thier right to be a total
inconsiderate
boob. And it's our right to kick them out for it too.

Freedom of speech works both ways you know.

-Banner


Bruce

unread,
Feb 13, 2001, 1:43:38 AM2/13/01
to

"Farlo" <hall...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:9046D7F9B...@news.fysh.org...

>
> Basic truths do not stop nasty people from trying - and I found banner's
> suggestion very offensive on many levels. Censorship, deciding what is
> best for us without asking, general nastiness ... what is wrong with some
> people?
>
> Anyway, I am tired. 'Nite all.
>
> Farlo


" deciding what is best for us without asking ... what is wrong with some
people? "

Your words, not mine. And "generally nastiness" would be how some of my
relatives would refer to what the people in the VF Article were up to - but
I recognize that is not how you meant it.

This entire topic, the whole bleeding thing, apparently got started because
a few "fans" decided it was BEST FOR THE FANDOM to talk to the writer about
what THEY personally were up to WITHOUT checking around with senior con
staff.

But perhaps I am being judgmental. Can anyone inform me please if, in
addition to the con staff knowing the writer was coming to the con and
attempting to prepare (a good first step) those FEW individuals MOST QUOTED
in the VF Article took the trouble to illicit from con managment how to
paint "the fandom" in a good light (a second step that would also have been
very nice)?

Anyway, Mr. Farlo, the fact that you are so ticked at "deciding what is best
for us without asking" - can you now understand the anger some of your
fellow AFF posters are feeling via your own words? It really does not hurt
that much to stand in the other individual's shoes for a bit and feel their
pain. I mean, I understand where you are coming from; but I can certainly
also understand what those who began this topic are feeling too.

Bruce

unread,
Feb 13, 2001, 1:49:44 AM2/13/01
</