A few facts about Gallery

8 views
Skip to first unread message

Rich Chandler - WA Resident

unread,
Apr 4, 2002, 4:56:00 PM4/4/02
to
So I'm at NorWesCon, and I'm talking with Elf, and he mentions that there's some
new thread about Gallery on a.f.f. Now you may recall that when I quit furry
fandom (February 13th, 2001), I unsubscribed from a.f.f (Although with everyone
and his brother forwarding messages to me from the resulting thread, I might as
well have still been reading it). But on a whim, I decided to see what kind of
slander was being bandied about.

First off. I don't know who Martin Skunk is, or why he's stirring things up.
But it's always amusing to see how people are willing to leap to amazing
conclusions without looking at the data. Even the people reading the actual
page missed one critical piece of data. On the main page, the link leading to
what.html says "Added 2/20/97". If it had been updated it would have said
"Updated" and another date, like the other links.

So to the fellow who said it was "OBVIOUSLY about the MTV thing", you're wrong.
And trying to attribute my reasoning to a single event so that you can
derisively dismiss it is no way to change someone's opinion. Actually that text
was written around the time there was talk of the "Anthro Fandom" split. It
never occurred to me to update it.

In any case, it's not like it's anything new. In a version of the Gallery rules
dating back to 1991, there is a passage that is still there. "The Editor notes
that Gallery has had a history of containing a high proportion of
anthropomorphic art, and would like to emphasize that this is NOT a requirement."

Gallery is about ART, and it happens to be about art that I like because I'm the
editor, and I choose the artists. I happen to like a lot of anthropomorphic
art. I also happen to like adult art, and comics, and bondage, and all kinds of
other things. The overriding criteria is that it has to be GOOD. Some people
might not agree with my opinion about what good is, they're welcome to go buy
some other 'zine.

Frankly, what I've realized was that I wasn't the one who left the fandom, the
fandom left me. In spite of Karl's definition, there are too many people who
prefer the "Humpty Dumpty" definition instead, and majority rules (And the
majority has voted to tolerate the most grotesque of minorities hanging their
hats on Furry Fandom). Furry includes too many things that defame the members
of the fandom, even those who don't subscribe to those things, for anyone who
gives a damn about his reputation outside of the fandom to remain associated.

The only thing the MTV special accomplished was that it made me even more
reluctant to admit to being an EX-furry. At NorWesCon I got a few negative
comments based on it. Frankly, everywhere you look now there are derisive
references to furries. Maybe some of you look to the image of Trekkies and hold
out hope for the future. But you have to be willing to do what the trekkies
did. THEY CLEANED UP THEIR ACT!

Karl's cute little remark trying to compare me to Gurley and Castro.... You
have one barely admirable trait, real skill at the ability to twist words.
You're better at it that James Carville. If I "Loved to complain about the
fandom" I would have stuck around to keep playing your word games. The fact is,
I got SICK of complaining about the fandom. I got tired to trying to care about
the fandom and getting rebuffed. It's like a friend with self-destructive
tendencies who refuses all attempts at help. Eventually you have to give up.
And I did.

It's good to know that some people base their arguments on the idea that Gallery
is a good thing that gave the fandom a good name. It's just too bad that the
fandom seems to do a much better job of retaining the things that give it a bad
name while all the good things go away. It's been going on for years. But hey,
you have nobody to blame but yourselves. I mean really, you CAN blame the good
people for leaving, and that's what you choose to do, but it really would be
better to blame the things that made them feel they had to leave. Oh, but for
too many of you that would mean blaming yourselves, and we can't have that now,
can we? If I have made Furry Fandom poorer by my leaving... well tough shit.
You made me stop caring, and you didn't make the effort to make yourselves
better than me. I tried to make things better and you fought me every step of
the way. Well, you won. I left. Enjoy the fruits of your victory. Just quit
whining that they're bitter.

To Onyx Dreamer. No, I DID care about the fandom. I wasted 15 years of my life
trying to build it up and contribute to it. I started by running a Furry BBS. I
blazed the trail for improved art show handling, I set the standard for 'zine
publishing, and I have always dealt with my artists and subscribers openly,
honestly and straightforwardly. (I have NO idea what Timmy is talking about,
unless it's a certain artist who has since gone WAY off his rocker and is
imagining slights where none exist. Which never stopped him from cashing the
checks in any case). That's 15 years of my life, of the prime of my life, that
I'm not going to get back. I mean, for all I know I'd have a family and kids
now if I hadn't been caught up in the fandom... It might be too late for that
now, eh? All of the good times I've had have been overwhelmed with regrets.

Allen Kitchen got it right. "If you aren't having fun, then why are you hanging
around?" I stopped having fun a long time ago in the fandom, and back in 2001,
I finally realized that despite my best efforts, things weren't going to improve
to my satisfaction, and I left. I took my 'zine with me, since it's MINE not
the fandom's. It's still good. Hell, it's still getting BETTER, and I have fun
doing it. (Recently someone started a rumor that since I was involved so
heavily with BattleBots now that I was going to cease publication. This is
false. It would really suck to quit now, considering I just ordered another
three year supply of the special tape I use on the binding). What I'm doing now
is spending my time and effort on the things that DO give me joy, and with the
people who appreciate me.

Frankly, circulation IS down a little from its peak. Partly because of the
economy, partly because I'm not doing conventions, so I'm down to my core of
dedicated subscribers, instead of the folks who subscribe once and run out of
money, but the 'zine is still profitable to the artists (I've never taken a
penny from the sales of the book). To anyone reading this, there are still
plenty of back issues and you can subscribe at any time. I have to update the
site, but Issue #44 is just about to ship. This issue we've got Matt Harpold
joining up, as well as the return of John Boulton and Diana Vick.

I'd like to say thank you for the folks who stuck up for me, and a big Fuck You
to the ones who decided to "Stretch the truth" to put it kindly, or rather, lied
outright to grind their own little axes. Shame on you.

Oh, that's right, you have no shame.

ilr

unread,
Apr 4, 2002, 5:44:31 PM4/4/02
to

"Rich Chandler - WA Resident" <rcha...@kendra.com> wrote in message news:3CACCBE0...@kendra.com...

Didn't even notice how big it got :\
Though your point about "Having Fun" seems somewhat contrived.
If you still like Antro/Fur/BlahFoo-Whatever Art, than it sounds
to me like you're still having fun with "Furry". You're not really
an Ex-Memeber of anything, you're just changing a few words here
and there, and not ranting about the damned lifestylers on AFF
anymore, not like that was ever fun in the first place or made you
more of a specific member of anything for that matter. Put things
in perspective. :)

What was up with that Thread anyway?
Made me wonder what all the fuss is over labels. I really don't get
it, then again I hardly ever use the same name for the same thing twice
in one sitting. Well, call it whatever ya want to people, just don't
start inbreeding, K?

-Ilr


AJL

unread,
Apr 4, 2002, 5:22:21 PM4/4/02
to
Stick to your guns... Do what you know is right. Your post was
refreshing and good to hear.

And you better hope that your next 'bot doesn't have to go up against
Peter Glaskgowski's... I saw his plans and video of his tests at FC, and
it looks awesome. ;)

Be well,

--Darrel.

Martin Skunk

unread,
Apr 4, 2002, 5:23:40 PM4/4/02
to
"ilr" <i...@CHILLIESriflenet.net> wrote in message
news:a8ij97$1ve$1...@raccoon.fur.com...

>
> "Rich Chandler - WA Resident" <rcha...@kendra.com> wrote in message
news:3CACCBE0...@kendra.com...
>
> Didn't even notice how big it got :\
> Though your point about "Having Fun" seems somewhat contrived.
> If you still like Antro/Fur/BlahFoo-Whatever Art, than it sounds
> to me like you're still having fun with "Furry".

This is a problem of definitions. While "furry" means for you
"anthropomorphic art", for Rich it means a certain collective of people, a
culture, well, a certain organization.

I don't pretend to say that one definition is better than other, I
just want to say they're different. Let's just say he doesn't feel in the
furry collective anymore.

Mind you, he isn't the only one that makes a difference between
furry and anthro. He's not the first one, and he probably won't be the last
one, neither.

---Martin Skunk


Blackberry

unread,
Apr 4, 2002, 5:15:43 PM4/4/02
to
On Thu, 04 Apr 2002 13:56:00 -0800, Rich wrote:
>
>[...]

>Frankly, what I've realized was that I wasn't the one who left the fandom, the
>fandom left me. In spite of Karl's definition, there are too many people who
>prefer the "Humpty Dumpty" definition instead, and majority rules (And the
>majority has voted to tolerate the most grotesque of minorities hanging their
>hats on Furry Fandom). Furry includes too many things that defame the members
>of the fandom, even those who don't subscribe to those things, for anyone who
>gives a damn about his reputation outside of the fandom to remain associated.
>[...]

So, we should "kick out" people from the fandom who we don't like? Who decides
who it is that "we" like and don't like? How do you "kick out" someone from a
fandom? Do you monitor their access to all media and deny them any
fandom-related content? Do you publicly denounce them with banners and
full-page newspaper ads?

And why is it you (or mhirtes) that says who is to be liked and disliked?

>The only thing the MTV special accomplished was that it made me even more
>reluctant to admit to being an EX-furry. At NorWesCon I got a few negative
>comments based on it. Frankly, everywhere you look now there are derisive
>references to furries. Maybe some of you look to the image of Trekkies and hold
>out hope for the future. But you have to be willing to do what the trekkies
>did. THEY CLEANED UP THEIR ACT!

It's not the fault of "furry fandom" that MTV and Rick Castro broadcast
something. It's not even the fault of the participants, since they were misled
and blatantly lied to. It *may* be the fault of certain people that (a) they
are furry fans and (b) they offend you, but I'd say it's just as much your fault
for being offended.

Case in point: Since I have as much right to exist as you do, if I offend you,
who is "right" and who is "wrong"?

>I mean really, you CAN blame the good
>people for leaving, and that's what you choose to do, but it really would be
>better to blame the things that made them feel they had to leave. Oh, but for
>too many of you that would mean blaming yourselves, and we can't have that now,
>can we? If I have made Furry Fandom poorer by my leaving... well tough shit.
>You made me stop caring, and you didn't make the effort to make yourselves
>better than me. I tried to make things better and you fought me every step of
>the way. Well, you won. I left. Enjoy the fruits of your victory. Just quit
>whining that they're bitter.

Of course they can be blamed. "Oh, one individual took one of my pictures,
modified it slightly, and called it their own, so I'm turning off a switch in my
brain and am no longer interested in anthropomorphic animals in any way." The
initial art theft is an invasive act, but whose choice was it to react that way?

>[...] All of the good times I've had have been overwhelmed with regrets.

Again, it's your choice to regret, unless you've lost control over your
emotions.

>[...]


>Frankly, circulation IS down a little from its peak. Partly because of the
>economy, partly because I'm not doing conventions, so I'm down to my core of
>dedicated subscribers, instead of the folks who subscribe once and run out of
>money, but the 'zine is still profitable to the artists (I've never taken a
>penny from the sales of the book). To anyone reading this, there are still
>plenty of back issues and you can subscribe at any time. I have to update the
>site, but Issue #44 is just about to ship. This issue we've got Matt Harpold

>joining up, as well as the return of John Boulton and Diana Vick. [...]

If anything, I think this whole issue can only *raise* awareness of Gallery,
especially since there is an influx of twentysomethings into furry fandom every
year or so.

--------------------
"Death needs time for what it kills to grow in, for Ah Pook's
sweet sake, you stupid, vulgar, greedy, ugly American death-sucker."
-- William S. Burroughs, "Ah Pook the Destroyer"

Brian Graeme

unread,
Apr 4, 2002, 6:24:27 PM4/4/02
to
On a similar but different theme, I'm thinking of starting a BitChar-G
(micro RC car) racing league... Not too difficult or expensive to get into
as a hobby, and your race track can take up a space as small as a coffee
table... Remarkably customizable as well, allowing for four different micro
motor types, three tire types, four ssteering stabilizer types, and can run
on up to four seperate frequencies... Add to that the possibilities of
custom paint jobs with clear body shell replacements, and the fact that a
lot of the race depends on the speed you can recharge your cars in the pits,
makes for a fairly competative gaming environment...

Thinking of three competitions, ultra custom work (cars that actually either
can outperform each other due to technical tweaks or custom body work), mini
gran prix racing, and "sumo", a lightweight form of demolition derby where
the goal is to push your opponent out of a ring (Type GS-2 1.0 high torque
motors recommended for that extra oomph)...


"AJL" <grap...@ajlvideo.com> wrote in message
news:3CACD21D...@ajlvideo.com...

Rich Chandler - WA Resident

unread,
Apr 4, 2002, 7:34:50 PM4/4/02
to
Blackberry wrote:
> So, we should "kick out" people from the fandom who we don't like?
> Who decides who it is that "we" like and don't like?

Oh no. I'm not going to get into that argument again, no matter how many words
you put into my mouth. Frankly, I don't give a shit WHAT you do. It's YOUR
fandom now. I've washed my hands of it. Do what you like.

By the way, you already HAVE been kicking people out of the fandom. You already
know how to do it. You've been doing it for years. There's no need to lay down
the law or to tell someone "That's it, you're out." You do it subtly, by making
them want to leave. You make them feel unwelcome, uncomfortable, unappreciated,
and even unsafe.

The only problem is, now you're bitching that they took the hint and left.

I'm not even going to respond to the rest of the passive/aggressive blame the
victim crap in your post. That's EXACTLY the kind of thinking that has gotten
Furry Fandom where it is today. You folks have made the decisions about whom
you want to have stay and whom you want have leave, so the state of the fandom
is on your heads. Live with it.

--
In a world of pacifists, the first man with a butter knife can become King.

Rich Chandler - WA Resident

unread,
Apr 4, 2002, 7:36:07 PM4/4/02
to
AJL wrote:
> And you better hope that your next 'bot doesn't have to go up against
> Peter Glaskgowski's... I saw his plans and video of his tests at FC, and
> it looks awesome. ;)

We're in different weight classes. I'm far more likely to get totally destroyed
by something like Toro, The Judge, or Son of Whyachi. And frankly, that would
be an honor.

Rich Chandler - WA Resident

unread,
Apr 4, 2002, 7:41:47 PM4/4/02
to
ilr wrote:
> Didn't even notice how big it got :\
> Though your point about "Having Fun" seems somewhat contrived.
> If you still like Antro/Fur/BlahFoo-Whatever Art, than it sounds
> to me like you're still having fun with "Furry".

I've been referring to Furry Fandom. My one main interest is art. Furry fandom
as it is now constituted seems to be about a hell of a lot of other things that
are not connected to art. In fact, art has been denigrated as some sort of
adjunct to the other activities, (Art:Furry::Playboy:Sex - paraphrasing someone
on Sex2K). I don't need to be in Furry Fandom to appreciate art, so I'm out.

There's nothing wrong with people in Furry Fandom appreciating my 'zine, just
like they can love Disney, even though in some circles in the fandom, that name
is spat out like an epithet. Of course, my book isn't exactly Disney, but
hopefully I got my point across.

Rich Chandler - WA Resident

unread,
Apr 4, 2002, 7:45:11 PM4/4/02
to
Okay folks. It's been fun. Nice to see that you're all still in exactly the
same ruts you were two years ago. But I've moved on. I've got a 'zine to ship,
and a robot to repair, and a lot of other, better things to do than play with you.

Maybe I'll visit again in a year or two. But until then, it's unsubscribe time.

Toodles.

Cerulean

unread,
Apr 4, 2002, 8:44:53 PM4/4/02
to
Quoth Rich Chandler:

>Maybe I'll visit again in a year or two.

Please don't bother. It will be better for all of us.

--
___vvz /( Cerulean = Kevin Pease http://cerulean.st/
<__,` Z / ( DC2.~D GmAL~W-R+++Ac~J+S+Fr++IH$M-V+++Cbl,spu
`~~~) )Z) ( FDDmp4adwsA+++$C+D+HM+P-RT+++WZSm#
/ (7 ( 77epueJ - ,,iS37q33M awos +o6 I,,

Brian Graeme

unread,
Apr 4, 2002, 9:18:50 PM4/4/02
to
Ummm, you're sounding just like me there Rich, and as you and others have
said, that is a *baaaad* thing...


"Rich Chandler - WA Resident" <rcha...@kendra.com> wrote in message

news:3CACF373...@kendra.com...

ilr

unread,
Apr 4, 2002, 10:23:50 PM4/4/02
to

"Rich Chandler - WA Resident" <rcha...@kendra.com> wrote in message news:3CACF2A7...@kendra.com...

> ilr wrote:
> > Didn't even notice how big it got :\
> > Though your point about "Having Fun" seems somewhat contrived.
> > If you still like Antro/Fur/BlahFoo-Whatever Art, than it sounds
> > to me like you're still having fun with "Furry".
>
> I've been referring to Furry Fandom. My one main interest is art. Furry fandom
> as it is now constituted seems to be about a hell of a lot of other things that
> are not connected to art. In fact, art has been denigrated as some sort of
> adjunct to the other activities, (Art:Furry::Playboy:Sex - paraphrasing someone
> on Sex2K). I don't need to be in Furry Fandom to appreciate art, so I'm out.
>
Yeah, I know :(
Compared to you, I just got here, even so, the one thing I care about, art, is getting
left behind a little more each day. But, you're still helping artists, so I wish
you much luck in the future, no matter what definition we might give that future.
-Ilr


Karl Xydexx Jorgensen

unread,
Apr 4, 2002, 11:05:32 PM4/4/02
to
Rich Chandler - WA Resident wrote:
>I'd like to say thank you for the folks who stuck up for me, and a big
>Fuck You to the ones who decided to "Stretch the truth" to put it
>kindly, or rather, lied outright to grind their own little axes.

Hi Rich,

It's nice to know you're using your time constructively and building Battlebots
these days. Some days I even miss seeing you on AFF... until I think about all
the outright lies you told about me over the years that you never never never
never never apologized for.

Then I don't miss you much at all.

So PKB on ya.

--
_________________________________________________
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen / Xydexx Squeakypony, KSC
Anthrofurry Infocenter:
http://www.xydexx.com/anthrofurry

Karl Xydexx Jorgensen

unread,
Apr 4, 2002, 11:35:16 PM4/4/02
to
Rich Chandler - WA Resident wrote:
>By the way, you already HAVE been kicking people out of the fandom. You
>already know how to do it. You've been doing it for years. There's no
>need to lay down the law or to tell someone "That's it, you're out."
>You do it subtly, by making them want to leave. You make them feel
>unwelcome, uncomfortable, unappreciated, and even unsafe.
>
>The only problem is, now you're bitching that they took the hint and
>left.

Sounds like you're just upset because you got a taste of your own medicine.
You got back exactly the same stuff you dished out for so long. After all your
efforts to drive those you deemed undesirable out, it eventually ended up
backfiring.

Pretty ironic, huh?


>You folks have made the decisions about whom you want to have stay and
>whom you want have leave, so the state of the fandom is on your heads.

ObFurry: Your post reminds me of an Aesop's fable. You know... the one about
the fox and the grapes...

Dr. Cat

unread,
Apr 5, 2002, 2:12:00 AM4/5/02
to
Rich Chandler - WA Resident <rcha...@kendra.com> wrote:
: I've been referring to Furry Fandom. My one main interest is art. Furry fandom

: as it is now constituted seems to be about a hell of a lot of other things that
: are not connected to art.

Coulda fooled me. There seems to me to be a much higher percentage of people
who draw and show their art to others in furry fandom than there is in any
other fandom. From amateurish to expert and everywhere in-between. The art
shows at furry cons seem to do much more in sales than you see at sf/fantasy
cons with comparable attendance figures. Writers often complain, and with
some justification, that they're often overlooked in the fandom because
people give most of the attention, praise, money, etc. to the artists.
There's tons of websites by different furry artists, even a few web archives
crammed full of subsections by different artists. Dealer's rooms offer
plenty of prints, portfolios, zines, and comics loaded with furry art.
And a bit of furry sculpture or handmade plushies, people doing art in
sketchbooks, on fan's badges, or selling furry art refrigerator magnets.

Yes, furry fandom is about a lot of other things - writing, costuming,
occasionally music, getting together socially with other fans, animation,
roleplaying, etc. etc. But there's nothing wrong with that, and it doesn't
change the fact that art is one of the most prominent parts of the fandom.
It should be more than prominent enough for someone who is primarily
interested in the art to feel like their interest is adequately covered
in the fandom. To leave for other reasons - hey go right ahead if you want.
To claim "the percentage of the fandom that was about art wasn't high enough
for me" when art could be argued to be the largest single component of all
the sub-interests in the fandom... That's just silly. I don't demand that
a fandom be 90% about stuffing bananas in your ears, or 70%, or even 51%!
If I get a fandom that's 30% about stuffing bananas in your ears, and 70%
about other stuff, hey that's more than enough banana-related activity to
keep me entertained and keep me from having to fill my time by griping
about what all the other fans are doing.

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

(Disclaimer: Even if 17% of it is about trying to stuff pomegranates in your
ears, which let's face facts, is just WRONG and disgusting besides.)

Baloo Ursidae

unread,
Apr 5, 2002, 3:50:05 AM4/5/02
to
Rich Chandler - WA Resident <rcha...@kendra.com> wrote:
> So I'm at NorWesCon, and I'm talking with Elf, and he mentions that there's some
> new thread about Gallery on a.f.f. Now you may recall that when I quit furry
> fandom (February 13th, 2001), I unsubscribed from a.f.f (Although with everyone

Did I see you at Conifur in late October, 2001, or am I confusing you
with someone else?

--
Baloo

M. Mitchell Marmel

unread,
Apr 5, 2002, 4:57:49 AM4/5/02
to
Brian Graeme wrote:
>
> On a similar but different theme, I'm thinking of starting a BitChar-G
> (micro RC car) racing league... Not too difficult or expensive to get into
> as a hobby, and your race track can take up a space as small as a coffee
> table...

First I've heard of this. Tell me more; you intrigue me...

-MMM-

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

Baloo Ursidae

unread,
Apr 5, 2002, 5:34:50 AM4/5/02
to
Rich Chandler - WA Resident <rcha...@kendra.com> wrote:

> the law or to tell someone "That's it, you're out." You do it subtly, by making
> them want to leave. You make them feel unwelcome, uncomfortable, unappreciated,
> and even unsafe.

If that were true, Oregon would still have a population of around 3.5
million, and California would have that many more people still.

--
Baloo

Brian Graeme

unread,
Apr 5, 2002, 6:58:30 AM4/5/02
to
Well, here's a review of the BitChar-G to give you an idea of the vehicle:
http://www.the-gadgeteer.com/bitchar-g-review.html ... If you have any well
rounded hobby/RC shops nearby, they may carry it... A Google search for
either +"bitchar g"+"price" or +"bit char g"+"price" (sometimes people
seperate the bit from the char-g in the name, even though the box clearly
shows the words as one) will bring up online retailers carrying various
models/styles/parts (there's even a Mario and Yoshi model *shudder*)...

http://www.toysnjoys.com/bitcharg.html
http://shop.store.yahoo.com/matrixcollectibles/rcbitcharg.html
http://www.cosmogames.com/colbcg.asp?catid=14
http://matrixcollectibles.site.yahoo.net/bitcharg.html

Of course, the funny part is, if one reads it the wrong way, the name reads
like 'Bitch Arg'...

"M. Mitchell Marmel" <marm...@drexel.edu> wrote in message
news:3CAD746F...@drexel.edu...

Sven Tegethoff

unread,
Apr 5, 2002, 7:05:14 AM4/5/02
to
Rich Chandler - WA Resident <rcha...@kendra.com> wrote:

> Frankly, what I've realized was that I wasn't the one who left the fandom, the
> fandom left me.

Oh come on. The Fandom STARTED with people like Ken Sample who drew
Macrophile Furry Spooge in the middle-eighties, Tygger producing art
with titles like "A hare up the ass", Wolf Kidd flooding usenet with
stuff that's bizarre even by today's standards, and Doug Winger has
been around for more than a decade, either. In the early days, I
rememver roughtly 50% of all new additions on velar being spooge,
and the only Furry Convention in existance back then did have a
pet auction with openly sexual offers, and an openly sexual adult variety
show.

This was all like, 7-10 years ago.

Today, Conventions like "Further Confusion" are entirely family-
friendly. The spooge content on big archives like velar has gone down
below 10%.

What has changes is not the content, it's the perception. Suddenly,
because the furry fandom is now getting public attention, people
are forced to stand up for what they are. And for so many, in
today's times of war, propaganda and fake patriotism, confomance is
just so much more important than honesty.

It's not the fandom that has left you. It's your self-confidence.

Not being a heterosexual christian family father paining the white
picket fences around the front lawn and considers animals either
a pest or raw material for hamburgers and (and not an inspiration for
art) CAN be inconvenient sometimes.

Having ANY unusual interest is.

> references to furries. Maybe some of you look to the image of Trekkies and hold
> out hope for the future. But you have to be willing to do what the trekkies
> did. THEY CLEANED UP THEIR ACT!

By what? By writing better incest porn slash stories about wesley
crusher and gordie laforge?

Trekkies didn't clean up their act. They were lucky that Star Trek
was marketed so well that it became so popular that you could no longer
call them weirdos without inevitably also hitting some of your best
friends.

> I got SICK of complaining about the fandom.

Then stop doing it, for heaven's sake.

> It's good to know that some people base their arguments on the idea that
> Gallery is a good thing that gave the fandom a good name.

I used to consider Gallery one of the most important publications.
It's a huge loss.

> I mean really, you CAN blame the good people for leaving, and that's
> what you choose to do, but it really would be better to blame the
> things that made them feel they had to leave.

What? Like the inability to accept that a rapidly growing community
goes through phases of instability, and that the only way to keep
it from falling apart is *supporting* it instead of blaming it on
THE BAD GUYS(tm)?

Furry Fandom is like a stockmarket, just that furries aren't trading
money, but creativity.

Now, what's going to raise the value of furry shares ... selling all your
stock? Certainly not.

What you did was to decide that the furry fandom was no longer
profitable for you. (Still speaking in terms of my above analogy,
not in terms of money.)

We need more people that care about the community, not just their
personal savings.

Sometimes, preserving something precious means reparing stuff others
broke.

You've "quit fandom". Nobody can blame you any longer for stuff
that happens in the fandom.

I'm rather blaming you for the stuff that does NOT happen any longer.
Or, at least, to put it less offensively, feeling very sorry for it.

> What I'm doing now
> is spending my time and effort on the things that DO give me joy,
> and with the people who appreciate me.

You've always been appreciated. You just failed to see the proportion
of the group appreciating you against those who didn't. It's a thing that
happened to me too when I became one of the most well-known furries in
Europe. (I'm the one running Eurofurence. Nobody knows me here in a.f.f., but
at least 75% of the European fandom knows my name. It's like a curse.).

I had to make the same experience:

There may be a thousand people who appreciate you, and 5 who bitch about
you just because they're jealous or plain idiots. And still it seems
like the whole world is against you. Get over it. It's not that way.

(The biggest mistake is, to think that a.f.f. is equivalent to
"the furry fandom").

We're currently planning a special promotional table at Eurofurence 8
in August, where Eurofurence itself acts as a dealer for american
publications with anthropomorphic content that would otherwise
not be able to find a distributor in Europe because of the high import
costs. If you would be interested in taking part, I'd be happy to send
you some more details on how this is supposed to work.

I am very sure your work will be appreciated.

yours,

Cheetah

Blackberry

unread,
Apr 5, 2002, 10:17:28 AM4/5/02
to
On Thu, 04 Apr 2002 16:34:50 -0800, Rich wrote:
>
>Blackberry wrote:
>> So, we should "kick out" people from the fandom who we don't like?
>> Who decides who it is that "we" like and don't like?
>
>Oh no. I'm not going to get into that argument again, no matter how many words
>you put into my mouth. Frankly, I don't give a shit WHAT you do. It's YOUR
>fandom now. I've washed my hands of it. Do what you like.

You posted publicly. If you didn't want a response, you shouldn't have posted
it in an argumentative forum. Which words did I put into your mouth? You're
the one who advocated getting rid of people who didn't belong. I asked whose
sense of who belongs and who doesn't was the most valid one to use.

>By the way, you already HAVE been kicking people out of the fandom. You already
>know how to do it. You've been doing it for years. There's no need to lay down
>the law or to tell someone "That's it, you're out." You do it subtly, by making
>them want to leave. You make them feel unwelcome, uncomfortable, unappreciated,
>and even unsafe.
>
>The only problem is, now you're bitching that they took the hint and left.

Wait... so first, "we" drove you out of the fandom by allowing in other people
that you don't like... then "we" drove you out of the fandom by deliberately
forcing you out... which is it?

>I'm not even going to respond to the rest of the passive/aggressive blame the
>victim crap in your post. That's EXACTLY the kind of thinking that has gotten
>Furry Fandom where it is today. You folks have made the decisions about whom
>you want to have stay and whom you want have leave, so the state of the fandom
>is on your heads. Live with it.

I haven't made any such decisions. Everyone is welcome to be a fan of whatever
they like, especially people with whom I disagree.

Have some people deliberately driven specific other people away? Sure, it
happens in every grouping of humans. Pick a grouping and I bet you'll find some
assholes -- even in the Burned Furs (gasp!). If that fact means that furry
fandom is bad or a waste or that every furry fan is an asshole, then that means
that every grouping of humans is bad or a waste or that every human is an
asshole.

If you want to let a *few* rotten people spoil your fun, that's entirely *your*
choice. I choose to not let them have that kind of control over my life and my
mind, and that's *my* choice.

Blackberry

unread,
Apr 5, 2002, 10:21:15 AM4/5/02
to
On Thu, 04 Apr 2002 16:41:47 -0800, Rich wrote:
>
>[...] Furry fandom

>as it is now constituted seems to be about a hell of a lot of other things that
>are not connected to art. [...]

Sounds good to me. If it were only about art appreciation, it seems like it
would be pretty boring. Now that it's about social gatherings, costumes, music,
dancing, video games, totemic philosophy, intelligent and unintelligent debate,
and charity fundraising, it can attract a lot more people who can share in it.

Dr. Cat

unread,
Apr 5, 2002, 11:02:34 AM4/5/02
to
Rich Chandler - WA Resident <rcha...@kendra.com> wrote:
: Maybe some of you look to the image of Trekkies and hold

: out hope for the future. But you have to be willing to do what the trekkies
: did. THEY CLEANED UP THEIR ACT!

I thought most of the general public considered trekkies (or trekkers) to be
geeky nerd live-in-mom's-basement types to this very day. And think somewhat
the same way of sci-fi fans, comic book or gaming fans, or almost any kind of
hardcore fan. And while they might think that a little less so than they did
20 years ago, given that a large percentage of the public knows that Star Trek
and Star Trek fandom exist, and that a pretty small percentage of the public
knows that furry fandom exists, I think the overal magnitude of furry fandom's
"bad reputation" is still smaller.

Mind you, while the average random guy out there might turn out to have a
negative stereotype about star trek fans, sci-fi fans, or even furries -
most of the time it's way too mild a negative to even matter. It's something
he probably rarely thinks about except when for some reason the subject comes
up, and isn't going to do anything about it when it does except make some
negative remarks. Same as a sports fan might say that a rival team sucks,
the fans of that team suck, that certain other sports suck, or that YOU suck
for disagreeing with them on any of the above. Dejected sports fans don't
whine "too many people hate our team/sport/city/whatever, you can't enjoy
being a fan of it any more". They just deal with it and get over it or tell
that guy he sucks right back.

Fandom people can be so whiny. If you don't want people to say you're weird
and geeky, either don't have a weird and geeky hobby, or have one but just
talk to other people that have the same hobby about it and not people who
aren't into it. I don't talk about how much I like videogames to people who
are uninterested, let alone those who think that videogames are geeky, bad
for you, or whatever. Why would I, and why would I care what they think
either?

Furry fans are so whiny. If one of the biggest whiners left - we're better
off. He felt his whining was some kind of attempt to benefit the fandom,
but ultimately it stayed like it was and continued to grow and thrive -
only it had that much more whining in it, which was somewhat unpleasant.

: I got SICK of complaining about the fandom. I got tired to trying to care about


: the fandom and getting rebuffed. It's like a friend with self-destructive
: tendencies who refuses all attempts at help. Eventually you have to give up.
: And I did.

Grown at a very healthy pace, many more cons, more attendance at most of those
cons every single year, tons of fans and artists having a good time every
day online, at local gatherings all over the place for movies, fursuit bowling,
etc. etc. This fandom didn't "self-destroy" and it's not desperately in need
of help because some people outside it insult it, make fun of it, or
stereotype it in negative ways. All those things happen to the SCA, trekkies,
anime fans, etc. etc. and they still have fun too.

: It's good to know that some people base their arguments on the idea that Gallery


: is a good thing that gave the fandom a good name. It's just too bad that the
: fandom seems to do a much better job of retaining the things that give it a bad
: name while all the good things go away.

All the good things go away - like Anthrocon, Further Confusion, VCL, Yerf,
Furrlough, Terrie Smith, Dark Natasha, FurryMUCK, Furnation, Chris Goodwin,
fur.* newsgroups, local furry mailing lists, http://www.kyoht.com/ etc. etc.
Hey sure, I'll admit some good things have gone away, and some bad ones like
alt.fan.furry have stuck around... But hey we do ok overall. You are doing
what is known as "exaggerating". Oh, and Ben Bruin left, as did Hangdog, so
we can count our blessings there.

: It's been going on for years. But hey,


: you have nobody to blame but yourselves. I mean really, you CAN blame the good
: people for leaving, and that's what you choose to do, but it really would be
: better to blame the things that made them feel they had to leave. Oh, but for
: too many of you that would mean blaming yourselves, and we can't have that now,
: can we?

Every fandom has people leaving. They have a slang term for it in SF fandom,
it's called "gafiating" (for Getting Away From It All). I don't blame them,
or myself, or other people in the fandom - I just expect a certain amount of
it as "normal". We do seem to be getting new good people in faster than we
lose old good people, so what's the problem? I guess if you're so caught up
in the "good old days" that the loss of one of the "old timers who were there
from the start" counts for more to you than the gain of two or three or even
five new people, you could get pretty upset. Me, I don't remember seeing
Heather Bruton at furry cons back in the early 90s, and I see her and her
excellent artwork at them now, and I think we're doing ok. Even if it
seems like all the other furry artists are getting infected with this idea
of drawing Anubis now. :X)

: If I have made Furry Fandom poorer by my leaving... well tough shit.

: You made me stop caring, and you didn't make the effort to make yourselves
: better than me. I tried to make things better and you fought me every step of
: the way. Well, you won. I left. Enjoy the fruits of your victory. Just quit
: whining that they're bitter.

You're quite welcome to stay or go as far as I'm concerned, whichever YOU
prefer. Certainly wouldn't anyone to be in or out of the fandom based on
whether it suits MY preferences better as opposed to their own.

I do think the furry fandom is better off for having less of the ineffective
and pointless complaining, ranting, arguing, flaming, and whining about stuff
you didn't like. But you leaving was hardly necessary to bring about that
benefit - you could have stayed and simply not done that any more.

The fruits of that leaving "bitter"? Hardly so. The whining from your
direction has pretty much stopped, the Gallery issues continue to be
available to just about any furry fan that wants them. Just as I don't
see a problem with furry fandom having "gotten worse for years and we
won't blame ourselves" because it's actually been getting better for
years, likewise I don't see the fandom as having suffered so terribly
from your departure. Whenever Gallery finally ceases publication, be
that soon or be it 50 years from now, that will be a loss for the
fandom - but one of modest size that it will have no troubles dealing
with, and one more to be marked with a joyous wake and a bit of surprise
that it lasted so much longer than most zines, not "whining that it's
bitter fruit". Times change, things and people come and go, fandoms
move on.

: To Onyx Dreamer. No, I DID care about the fandom. I wasted 15 years of my life


: trying to build it up and contribute to it.

[snip]
: Allen Kitchen got it right. "If you aren't having fun, then why are you hanging


: around?" I stopped having fun a long time ago in the fandom, and

[snip]
: It's still good. Hell, it's still getting BETTER, and I have fun
: doing it.

I wouldn't say the 15 years was totally wasted. If you stopped having fun at
some point, then you were presumably having fun before. And you say you're
having fun with Gallery now, which is also possible because of those years
you spent developing the zine. And despite your denial about furry fandom
having become "built up", it is built up a lot more than it was 15 years ago,
so any efforts to do so are hardly a complete waste either.

And there's all the pleasure all the pleasure you've brought to countless fans
with various weird fetishes who you brought the opportunity to look at
drawings of same while they were, um, you know, sticking bananas in their
ears. You my be proud or disgusted depending on your particular morals and
tastes about such matters, but certainly it had an effect of some kind.

: Shame on you.

: Oh, that's right, you have no shame.

If I need be ashamed of myself for having any unusual personal tastes,
particularly as regards to sex (which American society finds to be an
area ripe with opportunities for shame) - I would think the publisher
of a zine loaded with furry bondage drawings (and sometimes far more
extreme fetishes, in the past) might qualify for shame on the same
grounds. At least I keep my personal tastes and activities pretty
private, not publishing erotica for fanboys to stick bananas in their
ears to, publishing editorials that mention my own kinks, present
negative stereotypes about male bisexuals, and complain publically
about it being impossible to find a girlfriend in the fandom because
the few present were all taken already. (Something I think I disproved
last year when my furry sweetheart and I got engaged - maybe the reason
I managed what you couldn't is because being cheerful and positive is
more attractive to people than the Sir Whines-a-lot image you projected
towards the fandom during your last years in it?) I also never reacted
to people moving over to alt.lifestyle.furry to discuss non-fandom
discussions in peace by following them over there and flaming and arguing
about them there.

Who exactly is it that has no shame, again? I don't think it's me.

I am a little sad for my hobby though, that not everyone in it can just
kick back and enjoy it without worrying that some tiny minority of people
outside the hobby dislike it or stereotype it to some extent. Such is
true of most hobbies I imagine, not worth getting your tail in a knot
over. Anyway enjoy the Battlebots. Maybe you can work out some of the
built up frustration there by pretending that the rival bots are "furry
smut-peddlers who ruined the fandom's reputation by making everyone think
it's all about sex".

Um, I mean the BAD furry pornographers only of course. Not the good
"erotica publishers". It's like "bad commies" and "good commies". I'm
sure if the US could tell the difference during the cold war, then anyone
can! :X)

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

(Disclaimer: Yes, I should probably let sleeping dogs lie and not pick on
him yet again after he's gone. But for all his contributions, the man did
do more whining and yelling about "how bad the fandom's gotten" than most,
contributing a lot to keeping alt.fan.furry the flamepit that it's been
for over a decade. If he's going to pop back in for a moment and say yet
again "furry fandom has been ruined and it just isn't good enough to have
fun in no more and it ain't as good as it used to be", then I'm going to
say, yet again, the fandom is doing fine in spite of its small, small
problems, it's bigger and better than ever, and Yes, Virginia, it is good
enough to have fun in. As with anything so large and varied, what you
get out of it depends in part on what tastes, expectations, and needs you
bring to it, what parts of it and what people you spend your time with
and which parts and people you avoid (or just don't happen across). I'm
sure that being an erotic zine publisher makes it a lot easier to burn
out on the fandom, by bringing some of the more unpleasant indviduals out
of the woodwork and making them want to talk to you or even try to demand
things from you. Part of the cross one chooses to bear by publishing such
a thing, I suppose. Doesn't justify making claims that the fandom isn't
good enough for everyone else in it either, though. Most people in it are
enjoying it just fine.)

Blackberry

unread,
Apr 5, 2002, 10:46:19 AM4/5/02
to

I was there too, and I'm pretty sure I saw him in the little clique of Bandit,
Brian Graeme, Mitch Beiro, et al. May have been someone else though.

Blackberry

unread,
Apr 5, 2002, 10:29:41 AM4/5/02
to
On Thu, 04 Apr 2002 16:45:11 -0800, Rich wrote:
>
>Okay folks. It's been fun. Nice to see that you're all still in exactly the
>same ruts you were two years ago. But I've moved on. I've got a 'zine to ship,
>and a robot to repair, and a lot of other, better things to do than play with
>you.
>
>Maybe I'll visit again in a year or two. But until then, it's unsubscribe time.
>
>Toodles.

I'm sorry, but if you post an obviously reasoned long-winded rant with blatant
attacks, then say "I'm not going to debate you about this", then complain when
people do and leave the newsgroup rather than attempt to intelligently respond
or defend your position... well, I have formed opinions based on that and others
may do the same.

ilr

unread,
Apr 5, 2002, 1:29:35 PM4/5/02
to
You're post was so ill-concieved, I don't even know where to begin.

...Oh yeah I do, Pomagranites are Round, you shoulda said Cucmber
or StarFruit or someting, heh.

-Ilr, never happy with a lousy70%


Shockwave

unread,
Apr 5, 2002, 1:27:36 PM4/5/02
to
Rich Chandler - WA Resident <rcha...@kendra.com> wrote in message news:<3CACCBE0...@kendra.com>...

>
> To Onyx Dreamer. No, I DID care about the fandom. I wasted 15 years of my life

> trying to build it up and contribute to it. I started by running a Furry BBS. I
> blazed the trail for improved art show handling, I set the standard for 'zine
> publishing, and I have always dealt with my artists and subscribers openly,
> honestly and straightforwardly. (I have NO idea what Timmy is talking about,
> unless it's a certain artist who has since gone WAY off his rocker and is
> imagining slights where none exist. Which never stopped him from cashing the
> checks in any case). That's 15 years of my life, of the prime of my life, that
> I'm not going to get back. I mean, for all I know I'd have a family and kids
> now if I hadn't been caught up in the fandom... It might be too late for that
> now, eh? All of the good times I've had have been overwhelmed with regrets.

Very interesting. And finally, after all these years and so much
bitter venom and bile, we get to the heart of the matter.

You blame being in the fandom for your state of existance. You think
the fandom is responsible for your lack of a life and your lack of a
family. You are bitter for the time you have "wasted."

Bull.

I have a wife and kids. I know lots of furs who are married and have
kids. Jim Groat has been around as long as you, and HE has a wife and
kid! You are making the fandom your scapegoat, just like you always
do. "I didn't leave the fandom; it left me." Sorry, but it was you
who left the fandom. You got your nose out of joint about a few bad
apples so you threw out the entire barrel. If the Vatican can't keep
its house squeaky clean, then what the hell do you expect from us?!

Rather than admit that your obstinant and abrasive personality is the
likely cause of all your problems, you put the blame on entire groups
of people, most of whom you know nothing about. It is you, sir, who
is the source of your unhappiness; not your belonging to a loosely
coupled group of people who are having fun drawing and writing and
building costumes. If you are lonely then it is up to you to take
action to correct it. It is not our collective fault that you feel
unappreciated. Leaving furry isn't going to fix things, either. If
you don't believe me now, then you will believe me in 10 years when
you are making the same wailing cry about SF fandom and its problems
that you now make about furry. (Have you read any new Spock/Kirk
fanfic at Norwestcon? Cleaned up their act, indeed...)

And a quick word of advice - robotics is a VERY lonely hobby (not to
mention damned expensive.) There are fewer available women in
robotics than there are in furry, and they don't come by the garage to
visit, you can take my word on that.

Enjoy the rest of your convention though. Everyone should get out of
the house now and then.

Allen Kitchen (shockwave)
http://www.blkbox.com/~osprey/

Majik: Oregonian, not American

unread,
Apr 5, 2002, 4:31:41 PM4/5/02
to
Welcome back! You make some excellent, valid points. Gallery was among the
first shipment of furry material I purchased from Mailbox Books back in '95.
I enjoyed it a lot! It was large and filled with bold artistic statements.

It's aparent that some people are an integral part of furry fandom, like
myself. Some are not. Perhaps you are not. Being a furry doesn't mean you
have to participate in flameage. You can be a furry on your own without
anyone's consent. The alure of attention for my lifestyle is apealing to
me, but it doesn't seem to apeal to you. You seem to be honest and noble,
and your words are well placed and structured.

If furry fandom isn't a part of your life anymore, please go away. If
you're here to be a prick, please do not do so. That's my job.

-Majik "Angry Twink" Fox
www.foxcub.net

"Rich Chandler - WA Resident" <rcha...@kendra.com> wrote in message
news:3CACCBE0...@kendra.com...

> So I'm at NorWesCon, and I'm talking with Elf, and he mentions that
there's some
> new thread about Gallery on a.f.f. Now you may recall that when I quit
furry
> fandom (February 13th, 2001), I unsubscribed from a.f.f (Although with
everyone

> and his brother forwarding messages to me from the resulting thread, I
might as
> well have still been reading it). But on a whim, I decided to see what
kind of
> slander was being bandied about.
>
> First off. I don't know who Martin Skunk is, or why he's stirring things
up.
> But it's always amusing to see how people are willing to leap to amazing
> conclusions without looking at the data. Even the people reading the
actual
> page missed one critical piece of data. On the main page, the link
leading to
> what.html says "Added 2/20/97". If it had been updated it would have said
> "Updated" and another date, like the other links.
>
> So to the fellow who said it was "OBVIOUSLY about the MTV thing", you're
wrong.
> And trying to attribute my reasoning to a single event so that you can
> derisively dismiss it is no way to change someone's opinion. Actually
that text
> was written around the time there was talk of the "Anthro Fandom" split.
It
> never occurred to me to update it.
>
> In any case, it's not like it's anything new. In a version of the Gallery
rules
> dating back to 1991, there is a passage that is still there. "The Editor
notes
> that Gallery has had a history of containing a high proportion of
> anthropomorphic art, and would like to emphasize that this is NOT a
requirement."
>
> Gallery is about ART, and it happens to be about art that I like because
I'm the
> editor, and I choose the artists. I happen to like a lot of
anthropomorphic
> art. I also happen to like adult art, and comics, and bondage, and all
kinds of
> other things. The overriding criteria is that it has to be GOOD. Some
people
> might not agree with my opinion about what good is, they're welcome to go
buy
> some other 'zine.


>
> Frankly, what I've realized was that I wasn't the one who left the fandom,
the

> fandom left me. In spite of Karl's definition, there are too many people
who
> prefer the "Humpty Dumpty" definition instead, and majority rules (And the
> majority has voted to tolerate the most grotesque of minorities hanging
their
> hats on Furry Fandom). Furry includes too many things that defame the
members
> of the fandom, even those who don't subscribe to those things, for anyone
who
> gives a damn about his reputation outside of the fandom to remain
associated.
>

> The only thing the MTV special accomplished was that it made me even more
> reluctant to admit to being an EX-furry. At NorWesCon I got a few
negative
> comments based on it. Frankly, everywhere you look now there are derisive

> references to furries. Maybe some of you look to the image of Trekkies


and hold
> out hope for the future. But you have to be willing to do what the
trekkies
> did. THEY CLEANED UP THEIR ACT!
>

> Karl's cute little remark trying to compare me to Gurley and Castro....
You
> have one barely admirable trait, real skill at the ability to twist words.
> You're better at it that James Carville. If I "Loved to complain about
the
> fandom" I would have stuck around to keep playing your word games. The
fact is,


> I got SICK of complaining about the fandom. I got tired to trying to care
about
> the fandom and getting rebuffed. It's like a friend with self-destructive
> tendencies who refuses all attempts at help. Eventually you have to give
up.
> And I did.
>

> It's good to know that some people base their arguments on the idea that
Gallery
> is a good thing that gave the fandom a good name. It's just too bad that
the
> fandom seems to do a much better job of retaining the things that give it
a bad

> name while all the good things go away. It's been going on for years.


But hey,
> you have nobody to blame but yourselves. I mean really, you CAN blame the
good
> people for leaving, and that's what you choose to do, but it really would
be
> better to blame the things that made them feel they had to leave. Oh, but
for
> too many of you that would mean blaming yourselves, and we can't have that
now,

> can we? If I have made Furry Fandom poorer by my leaving... well tough


shit.
> You made me stop caring, and you didn't make the effort to make yourselves
> better than me. I tried to make things better and you fought me every
step of
> the way. Well, you won. I left. Enjoy the fruits of your victory. Just
quit
> whining that they're bitter.
>

> To Onyx Dreamer. No, I DID care about the fandom. I wasted 15 years of
my life
> trying to build it up and contribute to it. I started by running a Furry
BBS. I
> blazed the trail for improved art show handling, I set the standard for
'zine
> publishing, and I have always dealt with my artists and subscribers
openly,
> honestly and straightforwardly. (I have NO idea what Timmy is talking
about,
> unless it's a certain artist who has since gone WAY off his rocker and is
> imagining slights where none exist. Which never stopped him from cashing
the
> checks in any case). That's 15 years of my life, of the prime of my life,
that
> I'm not going to get back. I mean, for all I know I'd have a family and
kids
> now if I hadn't been caught up in the fandom... It might be too late for
that
> now, eh? All of the good times I've had have been overwhelmed with
regrets.
>

> Allen Kitchen got it right. "If you aren't having fun, then why are you
hanging

> around?" I stopped having fun a long time ago in the fandom, and back in
2001,
> I finally realized that despite my best efforts, things weren't going to
improve
> to my satisfaction, and I left. I took my 'zine with me, since it's MINE
not
> the fandom's. It's still good. Hell, it's still getting BETTER, and I
have fun
> doing it. (Recently someone started a rumor that since I was involved so
> heavily with BattleBots now that I was going to cease publication. This
is
> false. It would really suck to quit now, considering I just ordered
another
> three year supply of the special tape I use on the binding). What I'm


doing now
> is spending my time and effort on the things that DO give me joy, and with
the
> people who appreciate me.
>

> Frankly, circulation IS down a little from its peak. Partly because of
the
> economy, partly because I'm not doing conventions, so I'm down to my core
of
> dedicated subscribers, instead of the folks who subscribe once and run out
of
> money, but the 'zine is still profitable to the artists (I've never taken
a
> penny from the sales of the book). To anyone reading this, there are
still
> plenty of back issues and you can subscribe at any time. I have to update
the
> site, but Issue #44 is just about to ship. This issue we've got Matt
Harpold
> joining up, as well as the return of John Boulton and Diana Vick.
>

> I'd like to say thank you for the folks who stuck up for me, and a big
Fuck You
> to the ones who decided to "Stretch the truth" to put it kindly, or
rather, lied

> outright to grind their own little axes. Shame on you.

mhirtes

unread,
Apr 5, 2002, 7:56:11 PM4/5/02
to

Blackberry wrote:
>
> On Thu, 04 Apr 2002 16:41:47 -0800, Rich wrote:
> >
> >[...] Furry fandom
> >as it is now constituted seems to be about a hell of a lot of other things that
> >are not connected to art. [...]
>
> Sounds good to me. If it were only about art appreciation,

....it wouldn't be as fucked up as it is now.

mhirtes

unread,
Apr 5, 2002, 7:58:16 PM4/5/02
to
Dingleberry? We already know that you're one of the twisted little
nutjobs that are responsible for making such a mess out of furry fandom,
so stfu already and stop proving it.

Blackberry

unread,
Apr 5, 2002, 9:40:08 PM4/5/02
to

I enjoy being a fan of anthropomorphic animals. If you don't, that's your
choice.

Blackberry

unread,
Apr 5, 2002, 9:41:13 PM4/5/02
to

Really? What did I do to mess it up?

Cerulean

unread,
Apr 5, 2002, 10:39:07 PM4/5/02
to
Rich maintains:

>Frankly, what I've realized was that I wasn't the one who left the fandom, the
>fandom left me.

Could we figure out how we managed this, and leave Mike Hirtes as
well? I'm sick to the teeth of his mindless yapping.

mhirtes

unread,
Apr 6, 2002, 12:03:30 AM4/6/02
to

Cerulean wrote:
>
> Rich maintains:
>
> >Frankly, what I've realized was that I wasn't the one who left the fandom, the
> >fandom left me.
>
> Could we figure out how we managed this, and leave Mike Hirtes as
> well? I'm sick to the teeth of his mindless yapping.


Please, DO! I want you freaks and militant tards as far from me as you
can get. Hope a Space Shuttle ond get off the planet too. That would
make me happier.

Allen Kitchen

unread,
Apr 6, 2002, 10:36:16 AM4/6/02
to

Cerulean wrote:
>
> Rich maintains:
>
> >Frankly, what I've realized was that I wasn't the one who left the fandom, the
> >fandom left me.
>
> Could we figure out how we managed this, and leave Mike Hirtes as
> well? I'm sick to the teeth of his mindless yapping.

Hahahahhaha! Let me know when you find out. Maybe it works on
bitchy wives as well :)

"Dear, my car is out of gas."
"So ride your broom..."
I don't remember much after that.

M. Mitchell Marmel

unread,
Apr 6, 2002, 10:46:17 AM4/6/02
to
Blackberry wrote:

> >> Sounds good to me. If it were only about art appreciation,
> >
> >....it wouldn't be as fucked up as it is now.
>
> I enjoy being a fan of anthropomorphic animals. If you don't, that's your
> choice.

(little light goes on) AHA! I THOUGHT I recognized the writing and
debate style. This is a Xydexx sockpuppet we're dealing with.

You are the leakiest twink. Goodbye! (plonk)

Baloo Ursidae

unread,
Apr 6, 2002, 11:07:36 AM4/6/02
to
M. Mitchell Marmel <marm...@drexel.edu> wrote:

> (little light goes on) AHA! I THOUGHT I recognized the writing and
> debate style. This is a Xydexx sockpuppet we're dealing with.

Actually, he's not. I've met Blackberry and can vouch for his
existance.

> You are the leakiest twink. Goodbye! (plonk)

Heh, you're not supposed to killfile a voice of reason.

--
Baloo

ferret

unread,
Apr 6, 2002, 1:34:54 PM4/6/02
to
Rich Chandler - WA Resident wrote:


>
> on Sex2K). I don't need to be in Furry Fandom to appreciate art, so I'm out.
>

One really doesn't have to part of any fan group to enjoy whatever it is that the
fan group has as it's focus. The point of being in a fan group is presumably to
sociallize with others sharing a similar interest or interests and having a good
time while doing so. It stopped being a good time for you so you decided you didn't
want to be part of the group anymore. That's fine as far as I'm concerned. I only
wish it had dawned on you a lot sooner than it did that arguing and bitching all
the time wasn't all that much fun. Then you'd have either stopped doing so or left
sooner either of which would have been a lot more pleasant than what did happen.


Blackberry

unread,
Apr 6, 2002, 12:07:04 PM4/6/02
to
On Sat, 06 Apr 2002 10:46:17 -0500, "M. wrote:
>
>Blackberry wrote:
>
>> >> Sounds good to me. If it were only about art appreciation,
>> >
>> >....it wouldn't be as fucked up as it is now.
>>
>> I enjoy being a fan of anthropomorphic animals. If you don't, that's your
>> choice.
>
>(little light goes on) AHA! I THOUGHT I recognized the writing and
>debate style. This is a Xydexx sockpuppet we're dealing with.
>
>You are the leakiest twink. Goodbye! (plonk)

What the hell are you on about now? I don't care if you plonk me, I'll still
respond to your messages, especially when you name me *and* say something that
makes no sense. I've seen the name Xydexx around, but I don't know the
individual.

I still claim that people who leave "the fandom" are doing so by choice. Prove
that they are forced out at gunpoint if you disagree.

Blackberry

unread,
Apr 6, 2002, 12:11:18 PM4/6/02
to
On Sat, 6 Apr 2002 16:07:36 +0000 (UTC), Baloo wrote:
>
>M. Mitchell Marmel <marm...@drexel.edu> wrote:
>
>> (little light goes on) AHA! I THOUGHT I recognized the writing and
>> debate style. This is a Xydexx sockpuppet we're dealing with.
>
>Actually, he's not. I've met Blackberry and can vouch for his
>existance.

Hey, thanks! I was hoping *all* of you weren't delusions, or I'd have to do
some serious self-analysis to figure out why my brain invents mhirtes.

>> You are the leakiest twink. Goodbye! (plonk)
>
>Heh, you're not supposed to killfile a voice of reason.

It's always really bizarre people who killfile me. I kind of treat it like a
badge of honor now that I can keep up my argument against trolls so consistently
that they have no choice but to eliminate me from their little world rather than
actually try to respond to the points.

mhirtes

unread,
Apr 6, 2002, 4:32:43 PM4/6/02
to

"M. Mitchell Marmel" wrote:
>
> Blackberry wrote:
>
> > >> Sounds good to me. If it were only about art appreciation,
> > >
> > >....it wouldn't be as fucked up as it is now.
> >
> > I enjoy being a fan of anthropomorphic animals. If you don't, that's your
> > choice.
>
> (little light goes on) AHA! I THOUGHT I recognized the writing and
> debate style. This is a Xydexx sockpuppet we're dealing with.
>
> You are the leakiest twink. Goodbye! (plonk)
>
> -MMM-


AGGH! NO FOOKIN' WONDER!

That DOES explain a lot. Thanks Mitch.

thetal...@mailandnews.com

unread,
Apr 6, 2002, 6:57:38 PM4/6/02
to
In article <10181092...@ursine.dyndns.org>, Baloo Ursidae
<ba...@ursine.dyndns.org> wrote:

> M. Mitchell Marmel <marm...@drexel.edu> wrote:
>
> > (little light goes on) AHA! I THOUGHT I recognized the writing and
> > debate style. This is a Xydexx sockpuppet we're dealing with.
>
> Actually, he's not. I've met Blackberry and can vouch for his

> existence.

As can I. I did con badges for both Xydexx and Blackberry for Anthrocon
1999. They both paid me cash and I met both of them.

http://www.yerf.com/wylfrich/bbbadge.jpg
http://www.yerf.com/wylfrich/xydxbadg.jpg


>
> > You are the leakiest twink. Goodbye! (plonk)
>
> Heh, you're not supposed to killfile a voice of reason.

--
The preceding message may not be mimeographed or dittoed without
the express written permission of the author.

M. Mitchell Marmel

unread,
Apr 6, 2002, 9:09:06 PM4/6/02
to
thetal...@mailandnews.com wrote:

> As can I. I did con badges for both Xydexx and Blackberry for Anthrocon
> 1999. They both paid me cash and I met both of them.

I owe Blackberry an apology for calling him a Xydexx, then.

Not even Osama Bin Laden deserves to be called a Xydexx.

He's still plonked, though. :D

-MMM-

--
============================================================================
M. Mitchell Marmel \ Scattered, smothered, covered, chunked,

Drexel University Dept. of Mat. Eng. \ whipped, beaten, chained and pierced.
Fibrous Materials Research Center \ *THE BEST HASHBROWNS IN THE WORLD!*
http://fmrc.coe.drexel.edu \ marm...@drexel.edu
============================================================================
TaliVisions: http://www.pages.drexel.edu/grad/marmelmm/Talivisions/index.html
ICQ # 58305217

Gabriel Gentile

unread,
Apr 6, 2002, 11:55:04 PM4/6/02
to

> I still claim that people who leave "the fandom" are doing so by choice.
> Prove
> that they are forced out at gunpoint if you disagree.

Errr, it's not exactly a GUN that's been pointed at them.

Baloo Ursidae

unread,
Apr 7, 2002, 12:18:24 AM4/7/02
to
M. Mitchell Marmel <marm...@drexel.edu> wrote:

> I owe Blackberry an apology for calling him a Xydexx, then.
>
> Not even Osama Bin Laden deserves to be called a Xydexx.

Wow. Consistancy issues.

Blackberry: Sticks his ground and argues rationally on the points.
UBL: Terrorist that offs 5000+ people and has his cronies hijack
airliners because he doesn't get his way.

So how is it you even consider calling Blackberry something you wouldn't
even call UBL?

No offense to Xydexx.

--
Baloo

Karl Xydexx Jorgensen

unread,
Apr 7, 2002, 12:57:58 AM4/7/02
to
Baloo Ursidae wrote:
>No offense to Xydexx.

Not a problem... MMM has been wrong before.

I'm sure this won't be the last time.

(Hey, at least he's consistent. -:)

--
_________________________________________________
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen / Xydexx Squeakypony, KSC
Anthrofurry Infocenter:
http://www.xydexx.com/anthrofurry

Baloo Ursidae

unread,
Apr 7, 2002, 5:30:25 AM4/7/02
to
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen <xydexx_sq...@lxyxcxoxs.com> wrote:

> (Hey, at least he's consistent. -:)

Heh. I think MMM would be a more conservative version of me if MMM
would back off or admit he's wrong every once in a while. But then
again, conservatives don't tend to be very prudent when it comes to
arguing an issue...

--
Baloo

Paul R. Bennett

unread,
Apr 7, 2002, 6:26:50 PM4/7/02
to
Garbriel
You have inspired me. You are right, it AIN't a gun being pointed at them.
Well, the assorted coneheads as passes for Furry's on-line intelligensia can
deal with this mess.
I have decided to do a re-write of my "Dancers" stories. More at like the
initial story had been written, after hearing the horror stories from
artists about fans who had, shall we say, "intimate thoughts" about their
charactors.
Shudder
It ain't gonna be posted or on a web page for unrestricted public view. I,
at least, have very strict notions about what is made publicly accesible.
But it is gonna be nasty. Depend on it.
Which solves another problem. I have been in writers block for near on four
months from dealing with having to clean up my Da's estate and all the cost
and grief involved. And thank you very much Alt. Fan. Furry, and cleverly
inserted banannas... For providing me that little extra fillup to break
through the block. Enjoy!
Oh, but it really is not that bad.... Doing other stories as well. I am
working on what might be called "Coyotes in Space", about the first voyage
to Mars. Its about courage and heart and love. And a smokejumper story
about a wolfmorph ex commando and a raging forest fire.
Paul
(Grumpy, growly, griefing old soul)

Gabriel Gentile <spook...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:B8D52D87.13C39%spook...@earthlink.net...

Karl Xydexx Jorgensen

unread,
Apr 8, 2002, 1:29:22 AM4/8/02
to
Paul R. Bennett wrote:
>But it is gonna be nasty. Depend on it.

Sure. Just don't be surprised when (not if) it gets treated the same as any
other nasty thing that's come along before it. You get what you give.

Tlalocelotl Tlatoani

unread,
Apr 8, 2002, 1:33:26 AM4/8/02
to
I dealt with Blackberry on a flamewar a few months(?) ago. Blackberry's
a sane individual.

TT

Blackberry

unread,
Apr 8, 2002, 10:10:42 AM4/8/02
to
On Mon, 08 Apr 2002 05:33:26 GMT, Tlalocelotl wrote:
>
> I dealt with Blackberry on a flamewar a few months(?) ago. Blackberry's
>a sane individual.

Um... thanks. =:)

Charles Melville

unread,
Apr 9, 2002, 12:15:12 AM4/9/02
to

Baloo Ursidae wrote:

> Rich Chandler - WA Resident <rcha...@kendra.com> wrote:
> > So I'm at NorWesCon, and I'm talking with Elf, and he mentions that there's some
> > new thread about Gallery on a.f.f. Now you may recall that when I quit furry
> > fandom (February 13th, 2001), I unsubscribed from a.f.f (Although with everyone
>

> Did I see you at Conifur in late October, 2001, or am I confusing you
> with someone else?

You are likely thinking of someone else. To my knowledge, Rich didn't come to
Conifur. He had resigned his post as Art Show Director at the same time he'd
unsubscribed here and quit the fandom, and turned everything over to his successor.

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


Charles Melville

unread,
Apr 9, 2002, 12:40:50 AM4/9/02
to

Sven Tegethoff wrote:

> Rich Chandler - WA Resident <rcha...@kendra.com> wrote:
>

> > Frankly, what I've realized was that I wasn't the one who left the fandom, the
> > fandom left me.
>

> Oh come on. The Fandom STARTED with people like Ken Sample who drew
> Macrophile Furry Spooge in the middle-eighties,

Wrong. Ken had already been drawing furry art for many years -before- his Macro
period (since the mid-seventies, in fact), and while there was a good deal of pin-up
style art, no spooge (so far as I know; that came later).

> Tygger producing art with titles like "A hare up the ass", Wolf Kidd flooding usenet
> with
> stuff that's bizarre even by today's standards, and Doug Winger has
> been around for more than a decade, either.

Doug's work was far more restrained back then; no herms or whamdoodles or other
strange things. And while there was always some adult work or more adult-oriented
influences at work, the average flow of furry work was not as sex-obsessed as it
became in later years.

> In the early days, I
> rememver roughtly 50% of all new additions on velar being spooge,

In the early days, there -was- no Velar. We had BBS boards. We predated the
Internet.

> and the only Furry Convention in existance back then did have a
> pet auction with openly sexual offers, and an openly sexual adult variety
> show.

Which was -not- part of the convention. That was a private affair, outside of the
convention schedule. (And you don't think there wasn't any hue-and-cry over that,
even as it was?)

> This was all like, 7-10 years ago.

As noted above, not all of your recollections are quite correct, certainly not
within the time frame you give.

>
>
> Today, Conventions like "Further Confusion" are entirely family-
> friendly. The spooge content on big archives like velar has gone down
> below 10%.
>
> What has changes is not the content, it's the perception. Suddenly,
> because the furry fandom is now getting public attention, people
> are forced to stand up for what they are. And for so many, in
> today's times of war, propaganda and fake patriotism, confomance is
> just so much more important than honesty.

That's not entirely true. There has been discussion and argument over these
matters for most of the ten years that I've been checking into AFF. The perception
hasn't changed at all, nor has the problem. It's only that more people are becoming
aware of the risks now that we -are- finally getting more and more noticed by the
mainstream media.

> It's not the fandom that has left you. It's your self-confidence.
>
> Not being a heterosexual christian family father paining the white
> picket fences around the front lawn and considers animals either
> a pest or raw material for hamburgers and (and not an inspiration for
> art) CAN be inconvenient sometimes.
>
> Having ANY unusual interest is.

Talk about making scapegoats... In other words, any attempt to keep the fandom
from self-indulgent excesses is a narrow-minded conformity? Interesting
point-of-view. One that verges on being an apologist for said indulgences.

> > references to furries. Maybe some of you look to the image of Trekkies and hold
> > out hope for the future. But you have to be willing to do what the trekkies
> > did. THEY CLEANED UP THEIR ACT!
>

> By what? By writing better incest porn slash stories about wesley
> crusher and gordie laforge?
>
> Trekkies didn't clean up their act. They were lucky that Star Trek
> was marketed so well that it became so popular that you could no longer
> call them weirdos without inevitably also hitting some of your best
> friends.

That's putting the cart before the horse, isn't it? ST was already popular
-before- it was mass-marketed; that was how it was revived after it had been dead and
moribund for almost a decade.

> > I got SICK of complaining about the fandom.
>

> Then stop doing it, for heaven's sake.

He had. He was only here because someone decided to revive an old statement of
his made years ago.

> > It's good to know that some people base their arguments on the idea that
> > Gallery is a good thing that gave the fandom a good name.
>

> I used to consider Gallery one of the most important publications.
> It's a huge loss.

Why? It's still there and still doing what it's been doing for a dozen years or
so, even with the tighter editorial control. If you really think it's changed, then
that's -your- perception.

> > I mean really, you CAN blame the good people for leaving, and that's
> > what you choose to do, but it really would be better to blame the
> > things that made them feel they had to leave.
>

> What? Like the inability to accept that a rapidly growing community
> goes through phases of instability, and that the only way to keep
> it from falling apart is *supporting* it instead of blaming it on
> THE BAD GUYS(tm)?

Sure. I agree with Rich on this point. If a baseball team picks up a football
and decides to play football, then it's no longer a baseball team. If those in the
fandom are no longer following the same interests but have supplanted them with
interests that were not part of the fandom's original intention, and are abhorrent to
those who were there at the beginning, then it is no longer the same fandom with the
same interests, but a changeling left on your doorstep. Why should we accept or
support something that has little or nothing to do with what we were originally a part
of, especially if that something is now offensive in nature to us?

> Furry Fandom is like a stockmarket, just that furries aren't trading
> money, but creativity.
>
> Now, what's going to raise the value of furry shares ... selling all your
> stock? Certainly not.
>
> What you did was to decide that the furry fandom was no longer
> profitable for you. (Still speaking in terms of my above analogy,
> not in terms of money.)
>
> We need more people that care about the community, not just their
> personal savings.
>
> Sometimes, preserving something precious means reparing stuff others
> broke.

Or to clean house. Kick out the dead weight and the leeches, like any struggling
business would (to continue with your analogy). Go through massive layoffs, and
resturcture the company to get back to its roots.

Charles Melville

unread,
Apr 9, 2002, 12:46:10 AM4/9/02
to

Blackberry wrote:

> On Thu, 04 Apr 2002 16:34:50 -0800, Rich wrote:
> >
> >Blackberry wrote:
> >> So, we should "kick out" people from the fandom who we don't like?
> >> Who decides who it is that "we" like and don't like?
> >
> >Oh no. I'm not going to get into that argument again, no matter how many words
> >you put into my mouth. Frankly, I don't give a shit WHAT you do. It's YOUR
> >fandom now. I've washed my hands of it. Do what you like.
>
> You posted publicly. If you didn't want a response, you shouldn't have posted
> it in an argumentative forum.

I believe Rich's post would be what is generally referred to as a rhetorical
remark. No response was required.

> >By the way, you already HAVE been kicking people out of the fandom. You already
> >know how to do it. You've been doing it for years. There's no need to lay down
> >the law or to tell someone "That's it, you're out." You do it subtly, by making
> >them want to leave. You make them feel unwelcome, uncomfortable, unappreciated,
> >and even unsafe.
> >
> >The only problem is, now you're bitching that they took the hint and left.
>
> Wait... so first, "we" drove you out of the fandom by allowing in other people
> that you don't like... then "we" drove you out of the fandom by deliberately
> forcing you out... which is it?

It's the same thing. By allowing in people whose interest was marginal and
questionable at best, you made him and others uncomfortable and unwelcome enough to
leave. (I didn't think that really needed explaining.)

Charles Melville

unread,
Apr 9, 2002, 12:59:20 AM4/9/02
to

Blackberry wrote:

> On Thu, 04 Apr 2002 16:41:47 -0800, Rich wrote:
> >
> >[...] Furry fandom
> >as it is now constituted seems to be about a hell of a lot of other things that
> >are not connected to art. [...]
>

> Sounds good to me. If it were only about art appreciation, it seems like it
> would be pretty boring. Now that it's about social gatherings, costumes, music,
> dancing, video games, totemic philosophy, intelligent and unintelligent debate,
> and charity fundraising, it can attract a lot more people who can share in it.

How are they sharing in it if they aren't doing anything that is even related to
it?

Furry lit and art is what brought furry fandom together, and is what it was all
about. The other stuff? Costumes and music fall under the definition, no problem.
Social gatherings is what a con is all about, and folks play video games there. And
charity fundraising is done through the con. No big deal; people are people. But
philosophy is an outside interest(1), and debate just happens anyhow; neither of
these have anything to do specifically with furry fandom, especially if the debates
fall -outside- of the interests of furry fandom. The fandom is -not- about
gatherings; gatherings are what we do as a part of getting -involved- in the
fandom. -Any- fandom. We gather to show off art and stories, and to see what the
others are doing with -their- work.

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

(1) So far as I've been able to discern, Furry doesn't -have- or embrace a
philosophy. Seriously: what -is- the Furry philosophy? "Every person should have a
tail?" I can't even see that Furry has a vision of any kind. We used to get
excited about creating stories and art, and seeing what others did; our 'vision' was
to tell modern-day animal fables -- so much as we -had- any vision. Nowadays, our
vision is a little clouded.

Karl Xydexx Jorgensen

unread,
Apr 9, 2002, 1:46:06 AM4/9/02
to
Charles Melville wrote:
>It's the same thing. By allowing in people whose interest was
>marginal and questionable at best, you made him and others
>uncomfortable and unwelcome enough to leave.

Considering he had been trying to make folks with a legitimate interest in
anthropomorphics feel uncomfortable and unwelcome for years, he's not really in
a position to complain about feeling uncomfortable and unwelcome.

Neither are you, for that matter.

Karl Xydexx Jorgensen

unread,
Apr 9, 2002, 1:48:22 AM4/9/02