Daily Dose of FACT

2 views
Skip to first unread message

furplay

unread,
Jun 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/22/00
to
Folks, we can argue back and forth all we want, but the facts still
remain as they are.

"Plushies" and "zoophiles" have duct-taped themselves onto the more
legit genre known as "furry fandom". Whether it happened all on it's own
or they had been deliberately recruited into the fandom by the
manipulations of a now former head of a furry convention's ultimate
motive of turning said con into a circus of sexual alternatives is still
up for debate.

By their guilty consciences, these two NON-furry groups INSIST that what
they do is perfectly normal behavior. Because of this, they have no
qualms whatsoever in announcing to anyone who will listen about their
"lifestyle". Unfortunately, the most often group that bothers to pay
attention to this have been the media.

Because of their association with the more legit group of "furries", who
have NO interest in boinking a shetland pony (be it real or made of
cloth), the whole of furry fandom has been soiled with this stigma. In
the eyes of anyone on the "outside" who may have heard the tales, EVERY
furry is now a potential horse-fucker/doll-screwer/general loser.

Because of this, the whole of the furry genre's hope for growth
potential becomes stunted. Some people now actually have to HIDE their
interest in furry for fear that they will be branded as some sort of
deviant, or in the very least have their employment status put into
jeopardy (the case may be true or not, but the fact remains that there
ARE some people who live with this fear of being "found out"). All this
because of the stigma that a relative minority has caused by their
boorish, selfish behavior.

Because of this, it becomes all the more difficult to promote furry
titles because of the stigma. Yes, titles still are being produced, but
how many more could there have been if the phrase "skunk-fucker" was
never invented?

Because of this, there has become a group of people who feel there is a
need to take an active resistance to this before the words "furry
fandom" starts to sound as respectful as "NAMBLA" or "Manson Family".
Some have accused them of being intolerant brownshirts, but these
accusations seem to come mainly from the very deviants that have been
wanting to turn furry fandom into a freak show in the first place. I
personally have yet to see Eric Blumrich setting fire to stacks of
books, or Squee Rat leading teams of goons to turn over the tables of
dealers selling furry erotica.

Some have even decided that if you have no problem with seeing furry
erotica, then you must also wholeheartedly embrace every sick-ass thing
there is out there, lest you be accused of hypocrisy. This is like
demanding the person who has a navel ring to support the idea of
self-castration & amputations.

So now we see "lifestylers" on one side, and "Burned Furs" on the other,
throwing bricks at each other, all to the sheer delight of the media who
reports to everyone how dysfuctional and fragmented we really are.

Now were are at the point that if someone makes a post about furry
fandom in the media, the first thing that pops into our minds isn't
"Cool! Free publicity!", but "Swell! What did they call us NOW?".

This BS just HAS to cease!

Here's the facts:

"Lifestylers", "Plushophiles", and "Zoophiliacs". You are NOT "furry".
Your claims of being a "furry" is a defamation of the term. You do NOT
represent "furry fandom" in the slightest, and any claims you have
made/will make to the media about your connections to "furry fandom" is
a bald-faced LIE! You are screwed up deviants in ANY fandom, and your
trying to legitimise yourselves by infiltrating a genre like furry
fandom will NOT succeed in the long run. People should NOT have to be
ashamed of calling themselves a "furry" because you dolts have made it
into a dirty word. This is OUR playground, and WE WANT IT BACK!

Fender

unread,
Jun 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/22/00
to
> By their guilty consciences, these two NON-furry groups INSIST that what
> they do is perfectly normal behavior. Because of this, they have no
> qualms whatsoever in announcing to anyone who will listen about their
> "lifestyle". Unfortunately, the most often group that bothers to pay
> attention to this have been the media.
>
> Because of their association with the more legit group of "furries", who
> have NO interest in boinking a shetland pony (be it real or made of
> cloth), the whole of furry fandom has been soiled with this stigma. In
> the eyes of anyone on the "outside" who may have heard the tales, EVERY
> furry is now a potential horse-fucker/doll-screwer/general loser.

The problem I have with what you're saying is that you are overlooking a
rather salient point. You are not making a distinction between a zoophile
or plushie who claims to be "furry" BECAUSE they are a zoophile or plushie,
and those who have legitimate furry interests IN ADDITION to zoophilia
and/or plushophilia. In the first case, I agree with you. In the second,
I'm less inclined to agree.

Personally I don't care one whit who knows that I'm a furry (I am not a
zoophile or plushie). I've made no secret of it and no one has ever made a
negative statement about it, and if they did I'd either ignore it or try to
explain it, depending upon who made the comment.

I suggest, also, that you be more careful about using qualifiers. "A more
legit group of furries" is a rather damaging thing to say, nor have I
granted you the right to define what is legitimate in the furry fandom, and
what is not, on my behalf. And I'm not saying this about you alone: No one
in this fandom, which has no charter, no elected officials, no centralized
administration, and no headquarters whatsoever, has any business telling me
what is right or wrong, or what constitutes a "legitimate" furry interest.
You can express an opinion, or your likes and dislikes, but these do not
constitute a charter for the fandom and I am in no way obligated to agree
with you. And those are facts, as far as I am concerned.

--Fender
who is not singling-out furplay

furplay

unread,
Jun 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/22/00
to

Ostrich wrote:
>
> Am I missing something here?

Yeah. A life.

Forrest

unread,
Jun 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/22/00
to
And yet no one has actually taken a scientifically/statistically valid survey
of outsiders' reactions to conventional furry spooge to determine whether
there is, or is not, a consistent -inference- upon the part of said outsiders,
based -solely on that material-, that such stuff is z/b in nature.

furplay

unread,
Jun 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/22/00
to


Gee, I guess we need to hire Gallup to run a poll. "Do you think that
having people who screw horses in your group are detrimental to that
group's credibility?".

Rust

unread,
Jun 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/22/00
to
furplay wrote:
>
> Folks, we can argue back and forth all we want, but the facts still
> remain as they are.

I'd shoot this down for the utter canard it's based on, but it won't
change anything one iota.

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

Remove ".netspam" from my address to reply

furplay

unread,
Jun 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/22/00
to

Richard de Wylfin wrote:

> Fender, Forrest, and Ostrich: please don't try to reason with furplay.
> He's a Usenet Kook First Class.


Oh, am I now? For what? For daring to speak my mind? if that be the
case, BbBbBbBbBbBbBbBbbbbbbB...............

furplay

unread,
Jun 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/22/00
to

Kory Anders wrote:

> Will you also have them ask if furries have stopped beating their
> wives yet?


Well, we already know that plushies and zoophiles HAVE NO wives to begin with.

Xydexx Squeakypony

unread,
Jun 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/22/00
to
Duncan da Husky wrote:

> Richard de Wylfin wrote:
> >Fender, Forrest, and Ostrich: please don't try to reason with furplay.
> >He's a Usenet Kook First Class.
>
> <Xydexx>
> Have I mentioned that I'm really looking forward to rec.arts.furry?
> </Xydexx>
>
> -Duncan da Husky, who is.

Y'know what we need? T-shirts. The "Last Official Flamewar of
Alt.Fan.Furry" T-shirts. Yep. And souvenir mugs. And plush toys. Get
'em while they're HOT! -:)

--
_________________________________________________
Xydexx Squeakypony, who is praying to the Goddess
that rec.arts.furry won't be anything like AFF,
and we'll talk about anthropomorphics instead.

Ostrich

unread,
Jun 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/23/00
to
furplay <fur...@novia.net> wrote:
>
>[plush isn't related at all to furry]

Can you offer a coherent explanation of why depicting a fantasy
animal in 2D media is 'furry art', but depicting one in soft sculpture
(plush) isn't? Both are often done with salacious intent, especially
in this fandom. The only functional difference that I can see between
a modified plush and a pornographic picture is that one can actually
interact with the toy. Am I missing something here?
--
-Ostrich! <") http://www.furnation.com/ostrich

Richard de Wylfin

unread,
Jun 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/23/00
to

> Ostrich wrote:
> >
> > Am I missing something here?
>

> Yeah. A life.

Fender, Forrest, and Ostrich: please don't try to reason with furplay.
He's a Usenet Kook First Class.

^ ^
o-o
+
richard de wylfin http://i.am/a.furry.fox

Kory Anders

unread,
Jun 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/23/00
to

Duncan da Husky

unread,
Jun 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/23/00
to
Richard de Wylfin wrote:
>Fender, Forrest, and Ostrich: please don't try to reason with furplay.
>He's a Usenet Kook First Class.

<Xydexx>


Have I mentioned that I'm really looking forward to rec.arts.furry?
</Xydexx>

-Duncan da Husky, who is.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Brady dun...@uncia.com http://www.technomancer.com/~duncan
Furry: Duncan da Husky SCA: Duncan MacKinnon of Tobermory
"Rhetorical subtlety doesn't work on people with the perceptive
powers of an eggplant." - Spencer Sun

Ostrich

unread,
Jun 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/23/00
to
Xydexx Squeakypony <xyd...@my-airhosedeja.com> wrote:
>
> The "Last Official Flamewar of
> Alt.Fan.Furry"
>
I'm having my fun while I may. These days won't come again :)

And Furplay's not really a bad sort. Except that he never did
answer my question on alt.tasteless about Marie Antionette...

Artist

unread,
Jun 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/23/00
to
>>Can you offer a coherent explanation of why depicting a fantasy
animal in 2D media is 'furry art', but depicting one in soft sculpture
>>(plush) isn't?

Pretty simple actualy. The 2D media is in many cases and anthro while a
plushie is in many cases depicts an animal.

Dr. Cat

unread,
Jun 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/23/00
to
furplay <fur...@novia.net> wrote:

: Richard de Wylfin wrote:
:> Fender, Forrest, and Ostrich: please don't try to reason with furplay.
:> He's a Usenet Kook First Class.

: BbBbBbBbBbBbBbBbbbbbbB...............

Ya know, I don't think my absence around here has probably been any kind
of problem. When the kooks label themselves that clearly they're pretty
easy for the calm sensible people to recognize and ignore. :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: In my own mind, I'm having chocolatey desserts right now!)

MechaSquirrel

unread,
Jun 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/23/00
to
*yawn*


MechaSquirrel

Forrest

unread,
Jun 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/23/00
to
Somewhere, fur...@NOSPAMDAMMIT.novia.net wrote:
>
>
>Forrest wrote:
>>
>> And yet no one has actually taken a scientifically/statistically valid survey
>> of outsiders' reactions to conventional furry spooge to determine whether
>> there is, or is not, a consistent -inference- upon the part of said
> outsiders,
>> based -solely on that material-, that such stuff is z/b in nature.
>
>
>Gee, I guess we need to hire Gallup to run a poll.

Or at least ask around (on alt.sci.math.statistics.prediction maybe?) to find
out how to run a proper poll.

Because until the numbers are in -- and statistically valid numbers at that --
there are only opinions, not facts.


--
Camptown ladies sing this song, doo dah, doo dah...

Marc L.

unread,
Jun 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/23/00
to

furplay wrote:
>
> Folks, we can argue back and forth all we want, but the facts still
> remain as they are.

<clip>

My two cents; liking and collecting stuffed animals is one thing. It's
perfectly legitimate. God knows there are horribly expensive and rare
teddy-bears out there.

I own one, it does not make me a plushophile or lifestyler. It just
makes me a collector.

I am a furry fan, not a deviant. I go to cons to see art being displayed
and made by talented individuals, not to have sexual release.

If that makes me a burned fur, fine.

I've met Squee, and Blumrich (but not as often). As you said neither are
the 'evil' some paint them to be. All they are is opinionated and not
afraid of speaking their minds. Personally, I like people like that.
Why? Because I'm not known for keeping silent either.

Marc, aka Greylocks.

See you all at Anthrocon.

Ostrich

unread,
Jun 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/23/00
to
Artist <mell...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Pretty simple actualy. The 2D media is in many cases and anthro while a
> plushie is in many cases depicts an animal.
>
A lot of plush depicts anthropomorphized animals, though.
Gund made a very nice "Land Before Time" set back in 1988,
which is what got me started collecting plush. I've got a neat
"Princess Atta", and a couple generic anthro plush, including
a chubby little hedgehog dressed in a suit who's one of my
favourites. There's also the 'Pooh' characters, and almost any
Teddy Bear ever made. When you get right down to it, the
majority of plush are anthropomorphized to some degree or
another. There's realistic non-anthro plush out there, but
frankly it's harder to find than the anthropomorphized 'cute'
plush. I've spent enough time shopping for the stuff :)

Farlo

unread,
Jun 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/23/00
to
Marc L. wrote:

>I am a furry fan, not a deviant. I go to cons to see art being displayed
>and made by talented individuals, not to have sexual release.
>
>If that makes me a burned fur, fine.

Marc, I go to cons to see art being displayed and made by talented

individuals, not to have sexual release.

Nobody will ever confuse ME with being a burned fur.

--

Farlo
Urban fey dragon

m>^_^<m

Artist

unread,
Jun 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/23/00
to
>>A lot of plush depicts anthropomorphized animals, though.
Gund made a very nice "Land Before Time" set back in 1988,
which is what got me started collecting plush. I've got a neat
"Princess Atta", and a couple generic anthro plush, including
a chubby little hedgehog dressed in a suit who's one of my
favourites. There's also the 'Pooh' characters, and almost any
Teddy Bear ever made. When you get right down to it, the
majority of plush are anthropomorphized to some degree or
another. There's realistic non-anthro plush out there, but
frankly it's harder to find than the anthropomorphized 'cute'
>>plush. I've spent enough time shopping for the stuff :)

I believe you, but you do have to shop around. Its not as if
you can walk into walmart and buy that kind of stuff ( totaly anthro
plush ). I also
firmly believe there is an conflict of 'intent'. Pooh ( mister Sanders) of
whom I am a big fan was meant as a toy for little kids. As well as the land
before time ones ( I had a couple ). I quite agree that most plush are
anthropomophized to one extent or another. Its obvious. :)

My point is this; Most plush are meant as childrens toys. Or to be collected
as such.
Its like the .mp3 format... .mp3's became associated
with piracy
becuase of the the people that use it that way, not
becuase the
formats creater got up one day and said: "Hmm. I am
gonna make
the next best way to break the law". :)


H. Riesen

unread,
Jun 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/23/00
to
Not to nit-pick (well maybe a little...) I think it can be argued that the
idea of "Furry" encompasses animals who are non-anthropomorphic in *shape*
but still bear human thought and reasoning. For example, most Disney
characters. It seems generally accepted that Simba and Balto *are* "furry"
despite their lack of human shape, so I don't agree with Artist's reasoning
that plush aren't furry because they depict four-legged animals.

I'd tend to agree with Ostrich's statement that they are 3D versions of our
favorite characters. (But not the interactivity part, sorry ;)

Trying for coherency early in the AM,
Aury

Artist wrote in message <9vM45.3480$Bc.8...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com>...

Rust

unread,
Jun 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/23/00
to
Dr. Cat wrote:

> (Disclaimer: In my own mind, I'm having chocolatey desserts right now!)

Hey, that's not a disclaimer, that's a taunt! Urr... sort of? Say, can
you or can you not taunt someone with something that exists only within
your own personal reality?

ANTIcarrot.

unread,
Jun 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/23/00
to

furplay wrote in message <39527FA9...@novia.net>...


>By their guilty consciences, these two NON-furry groups INSIST that what
>they do is perfectly normal behavior. Because of this, they have no
>qualms whatsoever in announcing to anyone who will listen about their
>"lifestyle". Unfortunately, the most often group that bothers to pay
>attention to this have been the media.

As opposed to homo-perverts who claim what they do is perfectly normal
behaviour?!
I'm not a zoophile, but I am interested in animal rights. I'm far more
concerned by whether the animal is actually suffering than whether society
approves of the activity it's involved in. Horse racing is legal, as is
killing horses for their meat. Both cause great suffering and death.
Compaired to this, giving one an orgasm seems comparatively harmless . . .
As for plushiephiles, who are they hurting? There's no hgarm in it,
except to encite intollerant people like you who detract from the genuine
furry stuff.

>"Lifestylers", "Plushophiles", and "Zoophiliacs". You are NOT "furry".
>Your claims of being a "furry" is a defamation of the term. You do NOT
>represent "furry fandom" in the slightest, and any claims you have
>made/will make to the media about your connections to "furry fandom" is
>a bald-faced LIE!

You're missing your own point
furry is to do with the mixing of animal and human traits. As such
Lifestylers, plushiephiles, zoophiles and furry fandom are aspects of furry,
with no one group holding sway over the subject or deciding what the subject
actually is. Some groups are more main stream than others, but that's no
excuse for picking on minorities.
Despite the coryness of the phrase, there is strength in unity. Furrydom
will survive whether we hate each other or not, but it will be stronger if
we don't.

ANTIcarrot.


Elf Sternberg

unread,
Jun 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/23/00
to
In article <39527FA9...@novia.net>
furplay <fur...@novia.net> writes:

>This is OUR playground, and WE WANT IT BACK!

*Sigh* Fortunately, most of us are more interested than
playing than listening to either side expound.

Elf

--
Elf M. Sternberg, rational romantic mystical cynical idealist
http://www.halcyon.com/elf/

He's a serial killer. He's a clear. John Travola IS
American Psychlo

Leslie_Rashana

unread,
Jun 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/23/00
to

you know.. ther are times when i start thinking all the people who
consider themselves burned furs and/or have been confused with or been
accused of being a burned fur by thier words or actoins need to get
together and compare notes.. sometimes it's like the definition of
"burned fur" is as slippery as the definition of "furry"

--Leslie


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

Weyfour WWWWolf (Urpo Lankinen)

unread,
Jun 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/23/00
to
On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 16:05:49 -0500, furplay <fur...@novia.net> wrote:

>Folks, we can argue back and forth all we want, but the facts still
>remain as they are.

(snip)

"Remember kids", goes the Old Advice to the Newbies, "If the subject
line has some word or many words in CAPITAL LETTERS, it's ofter not
what it reads. Like, '$$$$EASY MONEY$$$$' should just read '$$$$Mail
fraud$$$$'.

"The rationale, of course," the Advice further proclaims, "is that
mostly excited or angered people use capital letters in subjects; And
intelligence capabilities of the people often drop drastically when
they get too excited or start waving guns around."

::WWWWolf *yawns* with extreme cruelty displayed therein at the
original poster::

One more quote would be neede here... Thus spake the Master Usenetter:
"Time for you to leave."

--
$_='%?&%[=&+=?%=[%&+&%[*?]&=&~[;&+&{=?[?&%&[&{[%&^=?=[&%&]=?%~&~[?&+&~YiFF!
=[=~| Weyfour WWWWolf (aka. Urpo Lankinen), a lupine technomancer |=?*_=}?]
%}&};| ICQ:4291042 | www...@iki.fi | http://www.iki.fi/wwwwolf/ |&;&=~?]';
tr/?~=*;%&[{}]+_^ (),.:@\/\n0-9!|a-zA-Z/0-9acde/d; $_=pack("H*",$_); print;

Cerulean

unread,
Jun 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/23/00
to
Quoth Rust:

>Dr. Cat wrote:
>
>> (Disclaimer: In my own mind, I'm having chocolatey desserts right now!)
>
>Hey, that's not a disclaimer, that's a taunt! Urr... sort of? Say, can
>you or can you not taunt someone with something that exists only within
>your own personal reality?

People's ability to each have one's own personal reality is supposedly
responsible for toppling a subculture into ruin. To be a dragon in
one's own mind is to send dozens of selfish whiners into paroxysms of
rage, screaming "get off of MY playground!" Thus, taunting is a piece
of cake. With fudge icing, chocolate crunchies, and marshmallows.

--
___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 ( uos7aN a>!W - ,,'poo6 hue auo ou op sjJnwS,,

furplay

unread,
Jun 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/23/00
to

Elf Sternberg wrote:
>
> In article <39527FA9...@novia.net>
> furplay <fur...@novia.net> writes:
>
> >This is OUR playground, and WE WANT IT BACK!
>
> *Sigh* Fortunately, most of us are more interested than
> playing than listening to either side expound.
>
> Elf


True, but the lifestylers keep hogging up the proverbial swingset and
jungle jim, and I don't even want to THINK about what the zoophiles &
plushies are doing with the rocking horses. <g>

Rust

unread,
Jun 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/23/00
to
Cerulean wrote:
>
> Quoth Rust:
>
> >Dr. Cat wrote:
> >
> >> (Disclaimer: In my own mind, I'm having chocolatey desserts right now!)
> >
> >Hey, that's not a disclaimer, that's a taunt! Urr... sort of? Say, can
> >you or can you not taunt someone with something that exists only within
> >your own personal reality?
>
> People's ability to each have one's own personal reality is supposedly
> responsible for toppling a subculture into ruin. To be a dragon in
> one's own mind is to send dozens of selfish whiners into paroxysms of
> rage, screaming "get off of MY playground!" Thus, taunting is a piece
> of cake. With fudge icing, chocolate crunchies, and marshmallows.

Aw, no no no, don't do dat! I actually posted something that didn't
resemble a flame!

Urr... well... It didn't resemble one intentionally. I meant it
innocently, anyways. But I guess it does strike at part of the 'issue',
doesn't it?

Rust

unread,
Jun 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/23/00
to
Leslie_Rashana wrote:

> you know.. ther are times when i start thinking all the people who
> consider themselves burned furs and/or have been confused with or been
> accused of being a burned fur by thier words or actoins need to get
> together and compare notes.. sometimes it's like the definition of
> "burned fur" is as slippery as the definition of "furry"

I sorta had the notion that a Burned Fur was someone who, by their own
choice, associated themselves with the Burned Furs. Not unlike the way
I call myself a lifestyler (a dangerous name, I gather, but it describes
me in a neater package than "furry who takes the subculture to spiritual
and personal levels").

Rust

unread,
Jun 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/23/00
to
furplay wrote:

> True, but the lifestylers keep hogging up the proverbial swingset and
> jungle jim, and I don't even want to THINK about what the zoophiles &
> plushies are doing with the rocking horses. <g>

Uh... you want to de-metaphorize those "swingsets" and "jungle gyms" for
us unintellectual types? I wasn't aware that there was anything to
"hog".

J. Ferris

unread,
Jun 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/23/00
to
H. Riesen wrote:

> Not to nit-pick (well maybe a little...) I think it can be argued that the
> idea of "Furry" encompasses animals who are non-anthropomorphic in *shape*
> but still bear human thought and reasoning. For example, most Disney
> characters. It seems generally accepted that Simba and Balto *are* "furry"
> despite their lack of human shape, so I don't agree with Artist's reasoning
> that plush aren't furry because they depict four-legged animals.
>
> I'd tend to agree with Ostrich's statement that they are 3D versions of our
> favorite characters. (But not the interactivity part, sorry ;)
>
> Trying for coherency early in the AM,
> Aury

To paraphrase Webster:

To anthropormize something is to give human characteristics to animate or
inanimate objects.

So yes, four footed animals that have human thought are indeed anthropomorphic.

Artist

unread,
Jun 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/24/00
to
>>Not to nit-pick (well maybe a little...) I think it can be argued that the
idea of "Furry" encompasses animals who are non-anthropomorphic in *shape*
>>but still bear human thought and reasoning.

Agreed

<schmucks opinion>

And I think that so long as the raging debate over 'what' furry, and its
various offshoots encompases comes to an end, there will be no peace.

Or to put it another way... Untill the laws exist, they cannot be enforced.

Dr. Cat

unread,
Jun 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/24/00
to
Elf Sternberg <e...@halcyon.com> wrote:
: *Sigh* Fortunately, most of us are more interested than

: playing than listening to either side expound.

Playing is good.

*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
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, that's obvious, but it just needed to be said anyway.)

Dr. Cat

unread,
Jun 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/24/00
to
Rust <othr...@bmts.com.netspam> wrote:
: Uh... you want to de-metaphorize those "swingsets" and "jungle gyms" for

: us unintellectual types? I wasn't aware that there was anything to
: "hog".

You can't be blamed for not knowing. But anyway, there's actually very
limited space for furry fans in most of their preferred activities. Yes,
there's probably less than a hundred thousand active fans, in a nation
with over two hundred MILLION people. But unfortunately our
hobby/lifestyle/whatever involves specific venues with very limited
capacity.

1) The Internet. It's actually grown to the point where there's only room
for about eight more people. If the weirdo perverts keep hogging those
spots then starting pretty soon some of the more worthy furry fans who
keep the bananas OUT of their ears won't be able to log on.

2) Furry Cons. These are already past capacity, and regularly turn away
hundreds of furry fans at the door who didn't pre-register early enough.
If only the crowbar fetishists would just leave, that'd open up enough
hotel rooms and seats in the con panels and stuff that all the legitimate
fans could get in!

3) Newsgroups. These have a strict quota of how many words can be posted
to them per month, and when some ranting lunatic uses up half of them the
rest of the people here don't get to say everything that's on their minds
before the letters and numbers run out. (There's a seperate quota for
punctuation symbols too which can run out a lot sooner sometimes

There are other things too but that is enough examples I think
I hope you enjoyed my informative post

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

Disclaimer Ok I am lying there is room for fifty more people on the
internet Dont tell everyone though or a bunch of wrestling fans or
coin collectors will get on and use it and there wont be room for more
furry fans which we so desperately need and richly deserve because
everybody knows a small hobby sucks and hobbies are only fun once you get
a million other people involved right so ok


Rust

unread,
Jun 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/24/00
to
Dr. Cat wrote:

<snip>

> There are other things too but that is enough examples I think
> I hope you enjoyed my informative post

Immensely.

furplay

unread,
Jun 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/24/00
to

Baloo Ursidae wrote:


>
> Leslie_Rashana <tro...@atoka.net> wrote:
>
> > you know.. ther are times when i start thinking all the people who
> > consider themselves burned furs and/or have been confused with or been
> > accused of being a burned fur by thier words or actoins need to get
> > together and compare notes.. sometimes it's like the definition of
> > "burned fur" is as slippery as the definition of "furry"
>

> Heh, which one was synonymous with Usenet Kook again? 8:o)
>
> --
> Baloo


Oh, this is a roll-your-eyes event if there ever was one.

Screw your dog and be seen as "normal" here.

Stand up and say "HEY YOU! STOP SCREWING THAT DOG!", and YOU get called
the "kook".

Farlo

unread,
Jun 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/24/00
to
furplay wrote:

>Stand up and say "HEY YOU! STOP SCREWING THAT DOG!",

Try this in public. I dare you.
Stand up and shout THAT out at
some random passers-by.

>and YOU get called
>the "kook".

You sure would.

furplay

unread,
Jun 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/24/00
to

Farlo wrote:
>
> furplay wrote:
>
> >Stand up and say "HEY YOU! STOP SCREWING THAT DOG!",
>
> Try this in public. I dare you.
> Stand up and shout THAT out at
> some random passers-by.
>


Well, I would if I saw them screwing a dog in public.

Rust

unread,
Jun 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/24/00
to

And anybody who did that, I would have to agree, has some serious
attention issues. The same could be argued for, "HEY, YOU TWO! STOP
SCREWING IN THAT FOUNTAIN!"

Where another persons life stops affecting other people is where it
stops being the business of the public, and ceases to be a valid target
for judgement.

Farlo

unread,
Jun 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/25/00
to
furplay wrote:
>Well, I would if I saw them screwing a dog in public.

Is it any different to yell it here on AFF,
with no Zoos anywhere to be seen?

Xydexx Squeakypony

unread,
Jun 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/25/00
to
Farlo wrote:
> Is it any different to yell it here on AFF,
> with no Zoos anywhere to be seen?

We can't be silent
cuz they might be giants
and what are we gonna do unless they are

-:)

--
_________________________________________________
Xydexx Squeakypony http://www.xydexx.com
"If we're going to be damned, let's be damned for
who we really are."---Jean-Luc Picard, Star Trek

Farlo

unread,
Jun 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/25/00
to
Xydexx Squeakypony wrote:

>Farlo wrote:
>> Is it any different to yell it here on AFF,
>> with no Zoos anywhere to be seen?
>
>We can't be silent
>cuz they might be giants
>and what are we gonna do unless they are
>
>-:)

This is a "They might be giants" reference?

=:)

Xydexx Squeakypony

unread,
Jun 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/25/00
to
Farlo wrote:

> Xydexx Squeakypony wrote:
> >We can't be silent
> >cuz they might be giants
> >and what are we gonna do unless they are
>
> This is a "They might be giants" reference?

*grins*

You a TMBG fan?

Cerulean

unread,
Jun 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/25/00
to
Quoth Rust:

>Cerulean wrote:
>> Quoth Rust:
>> >Dr. Cat wrote:
>> >
>> >> (Disclaimer: In my own mind, I'm having chocolatey desserts right now!)
>> >
>> >Hey, that's not a disclaimer, that's a taunt! Urr... sort of? Say, can
>> >you or can you not taunt someone with something that exists only within
>> >your own personal reality?
>>
>> People's ability to each have one's own personal reality is supposedly
>> responsible for toppling a subculture into ruin. To be a dragon in
>> one's own mind is to send dozens of selfish whiners into paroxysms of
>> rage, screaming "get off of MY playground!" Thus, taunting is a piece
>> of cake. With fudge icing, chocolate crunchies, and marshmallows.
>
>Aw, no no no, don't do dat! I actually posted something that didn't
>resemble a flame!
>
>Urr... well... It didn't resemble one intentionally. I meant it
>innocently, anyways. But I guess it does strike at part of the 'issue',
>doesn't it?

Yeah. My apologies for bringing it back toward the unpleasant "issue";
my mind makes connections. At least I returned to the subject of
chocolatey desserts at the end. Everybody think about chocolate. Mmmm.

Farlo

unread,
Jun 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/25/00
to
Xydexx Squeakypony wrote:

>*grins*
>
>You a TMBG fan?

"Ana Ng" and "Dr. Worm" ... er, yes, at least those two songs.

David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)

unread,
Jun 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/25/00
to
On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 15:47:12 -0500, furplay <fur...@novia.net> wrote:

[...]

>True, but the lifestylers keep hogging up the proverbial swingset and
>jungle jim, and I don't even want to THINK about what the zoophiles &
>plushies are doing with the rocking horses. <g>

Given that there is no limmitation on the number of possable swingsets
and jungle jims why is there a problem. I feel like its more a case
of "Your diffrent looking I'm not going to play with you ewwww girl
germs."

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

Artist

unread,
Jun 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/26/00
to
>>Sounds like a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation to me.

Most of life sounds like that to me... So I would have to agree with you. :)

Elf Sternberg

unread,
Jun 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/26/00
to
In article <slrn8lcpkt....@dformosa.zeta.org.au>
dfor...@zeta.org.au (David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)) writes:

>On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 15:47:12 -0500, furplay <fur...@novia.net> wrote:

>>True, but the lifestylers keep hogging up the proverbial swingset and
>>jungle jim, and I don't even want to THINK about what the zoophiles &
>>plushies are doing with the rocking horses. <g>

>Given that there is no limmitation on the number of possable swingsets
>and jungle jims why is there a problem. I feel like its more a case
>of "Your diffrent looking I'm not going to play with you ewwww girl
>germs."

That's it, David, I think you've hit it right on the head.
Furplay and the Burned Furs are afraid of catching cooties.

Furplay

unread,
Jun 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/26/00
to

Elf Sternberg wrote:
>
> In article <slrn8lcpkt....@dformosa.zeta.org.au>
> dfor...@zeta.org.au (David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)) writes:
>
> >On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 15:47:12 -0500, furplay <fur...@novia.net> wrote:
>
> >>True, but the lifestylers keep hogging up the proverbial swingset and
> >>jungle jim, and I don't even want to THINK about what the zoophiles &
> >>plushies are doing with the rocking horses. <g>
>
> >Given that there is no limmitation on the number of possable swingsets
> >and jungle jims why is there a problem. I feel like its more a case
> >of "Your diffrent looking I'm not going to play with you ewwww girl
> >germs."
>
> That's it, David, I think you've hit it right on the head.
> Furplay and the Burned Furs are afraid of catching cooties.


Catching SOMEthing indeed, but it's a lot scarier than "cooties".

Leslie_Rashana

unread,
Jun 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/26/00
to

oooohh, the dreaded plushozooitess, "Help! i suddenly have an urge to
mate with a stuffed Bullwinkle the moose doll, somebody get me a shot of
penicillin and a motivational cassette tape!"

--Leslie
-;>

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

Elf Sternberg

unread,
Jun 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/27/00
to
In article <3957FE89...@novia.net>
Furplay <fur...@novia.net> writes:

>Elf Sternberg wrote:

>> That's it, David, I think you've hit it right on the head.
>> Furplay and the Burned Furs are afraid of catching cooties.

>Catching SOMEthing indeed, but it's a lot scarier than "cooties".

Given that to "catch something," furplay, you must actually
engage in certain (ahem) activities, I can only say that if you have a
problem with compulsively engaging in these (ahem) activities, I
suggest you get help.

Actually, I suggest you get help anyway.

Elf

--
Elf M. Sternberg, rational romantic mystical cynical idealist
http://www.halcyon.com/elf/

"The purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure pure
reasoning, and inhibit clarity. With a little pratice, writing can
be an intimidating and impenetrable fog!" - Bill Watterson's Calvin.

Furplay

unread,
Jun 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/27/00
to

Elf Sternberg wrote:
>
> In article <3957FE89...@novia.net>
> Furplay <fur...@novia.net> writes:
>
> >Elf Sternberg wrote:
>
> >> That's it, David, I think you've hit it right on the head.
> >> Furplay and the Burned Furs are afraid of catching cooties.
>
> >Catching SOMEthing indeed, but it's a lot scarier than "cooties".
>
> Given that to "catch something," furplay, you must actually
> engage in certain (ahem) activities, I can only say that if you have a
> problem with compulsively engaging in these (ahem) activities, I
> suggest you get help.
>

Sorry, but you won't see ME appearing with a horse on Springer. :)

BTW, better have someone look at your throat. You seem to have a
congestion problem there. Have you been drinking a lot of milk (or some
"other fluids")?


"There ought to be limits to freedom." -- GW Bush commenting about the
parody site at http://www.gwbush.com

Dr. Cat

unread,
Jun 30, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/30/00
to
furplay <fur...@novia.net> wrote:
: Farlo wrote:
:>
:> furplay wrote:
:>
:> >Stand up and say "HEY YOU! STOP SCREWING THAT DOG!",
:>
:> Try this in public. I dare you.
:> Stand up and shout THAT out at
:> some random passers-by.
:>
: Well, I would if I saw them screwing a dog in public.

You know, I'd be willing to bet good money that you've never seen
anyone actually doing that to a dog in public. Or in your presence
at all, even in private. I'd suspect that holds true for most of
the other people that complain about this in alt.fan.furry, or more
likely for ALL of them.

So what's all this anti-screwing-yelling for, again? If you can
only justify it when there's some actual screwing to stop, and
you've not been present at any, stop yelling it already. Or be
branded a kook just like Farlo said.

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

(Disclaimer: Actually it's too late. Furplay has already been branded
a kook by many people. Join today and get your free membership card
and secret decoder ring!)

tearlach

unread,
Jul 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/1/00
to
well said !


* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!


tearlach

unread,
Jul 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/1/00
to
I have found that most people who ingage in public sex are merely
screaming " Look at Me ! " Whilst I feel that " Screwing " a live
animal is no better then a pedafilic act against a child.

Farlo

unread,
Jul 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/1/00
to
tearlach wrote:

> I have found that most people who ingage in public sex are merely
>screaming " Look at Me ! " Whilst I feel that " Screwing " a live
>animal is no better then a pedafilic act against a child.

If a tree falls in the forest,
and crushes a Usenet sock puppet,
does anyone care?

Furplay

unread,
Jul 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/1/00
to

tearlach wrote:
>
> I have found that most people who ingage in public sex are merely
> screaming " Look at Me ! " Whilst I feel that " Screwing " a live
> animal is no better then a pedafilic act against a child.
>

Damn straight! These guys remind me of those dolts in NAMBLA, who think
there's nothing wrong with having sex with children who have'nt even had
the chance to reach puberty yet ("Sex before eight or else it's too
late!" is a motto of theirs).

Or, as one nauseating zoophile of renoun has said, "Horses can't talk
and sheep don't sue".

--

Rust

unread,
Jul 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/1/00
to
tearlach wrote:
>
> I have found that most people who ingage in public sex are merely
> screaming " Look at Me ! " Whilst I feel that " Screwing " a live
> animal is no better then a pedafilic act against a child.

Wow, you don't think much of non-human animals, do you?

Rust

unread,
Jul 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/1/00
to
Furplay wrote:

> Or, as one nauseating zoophile of renoun has said, "Horses can't talk
> and sheep don't sue".

Gee, another individual who doesn't know the difference between
zoophilia and beastiality. Not that it surprises me, in this case.

Rust

unread,
Jul 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/1/00
to
fer...@enteract.com wrote:
>
> Rust <othr...@bmts.com.netspam> wrote:

> : Furplay wrote:
>
> :> Or, as one nauseating zoophile of renoun has said, "Horses can't talk
> :> and sheep don't sue".
>
> : Gee, another individual who doesn't know the difference between
> : zoophilia and beastiality. Not that it surprises me, in this case.
>
> Gee, another individual who doesn't realize that no matter what you call
> it, it's not on topic for a newsgroup about furry fandom.

I'm not the one who brought it up, now am I? I'd be perfectly happy to
leave zoophilia, plushophilia, lifestyle, etc out of the NG, if certain
others let their stupid crusade drop.

Furplay

unread,
Jul 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/1/00
to

Rust wrote:
>
> Furplay wrote:
>
> > Or, as one nauseating zoophile of renoun has said, "Horses can't talk
> > and sheep don't sue".
>
> Gee, another individual who doesn't know the difference between
> zoophilia and beastiality. Not that it surprises me, in this case.
>


Like, there's actually a dif? Do tell.