Burned Fur - My what an ugly face you have

28 views
Skip to first unread message

Brian McGroarty

unread,
Apr 4, 1999, 4:00:00 AM4/4/99
to
I was talking with some of my friends on TimeScape (mserv1.wizvax.net 6300)
about where Furrydom was going. It had started off on their railing on an
alleged pedophile who had made himself pet to an adolescent tramp. I saw a
log of the whole event at http://www.radiks.net/~spencer/whitestripe.html
and just kind of went - "Gah. Strike up another win for Dragonoix."

We chatted this up a bit, and eventually Burned Fur came up. Now, I've been
wanting to know exactly what Burned Fur is, and what it stands for for some
time now. For many, the first exposure to Burned Fur they had was when the
allegations were running hot and strong that Burned Fur was responsible for
the pornography crackdown at Confurence this year. Somebody had called the
regional alcohol bureau and indicated that pornography would be present at
the event, which was in a hotel where alcohol was being served, which
apparently violates a local ordinance.

From the group, I finally got a pointer to what seems to be an authoritative
page on Burned Fur, this at http://members.tripod.com/~burnedfur. After
reviewing the group's manifesto, the mission statement, and many of the
messages in which the group is discussed, I'm genuinely scared. The group
claims over and over not to be a hate group. And yet, at the same time,
there seems to be little planning or structure to the movement. About all
that holds the group together is a common dislike for many aspects of the
fandom. And the degree or extent of this, or the aims of the group, are
terribly unclear.

The group talks about wanting to "throw a monkey wrench into the fandom."
The exact meaning of this is unclear. The group focuses against "acts such
as bestiality, plushophilia, fursuit sex and other things seen as 'wrong' by
non-fandom individuals." This could easily be construed to include
homosexuality, BDSM play, the collection of pornography, cybersex, wearing
tails, wearing ears, attending conventions, collecting comics, meeting
people over the internet, role play, any number of other things. Where is
the line drawn? What exactly is this monkey wrench that the group hopes to
throw, and what's the target?

The Ku Klux Klan focuses on trying to abstract Negroes from our society. The
group is similarly unfocussed - some members hope to kill Negroes, some hope
to export them, some want to reinstate slavery. Some believe Indians and
Hispanics are included. Some even don't like members of non-Protestant
religions. There isn't a forward goal, and the Klan's official line is that
they want to preserve white heritage, and that they don't condone acts
against other races. The only thing that formally ties the group together is
a dislike, and the wish that the group should grow. This is the definition
of a hate group, and until Burned Fur learns to define itself better, this
is what Burned Fur is as well.

This is the feedback I left on the Burned Fur site:

"Burned Fur" is a terrible name for this movement. The name and the angry
in-your-face logos share the same motif as many hate groups. Hell, the
silhouette of the fur with the hammer looks pretty much like some of the
Stalin era communist government propaganda. That's certainly the wrong first
impression to make.

What I see of your goals doesn't jibe with your image. I understand the
group is largely (entirely?) motivated by the indignation of its members.
But the feelings motivating you should not be confused with the goal. This
image is the WRONG recruiting tool, as anger and hatred are the worst
possible images to associate with your "distilled fandom."

Okay. This points to calling for established goals. Where ARE you going? How
far have you gotten? If you can't actively quantify the movement's success,
it's probably because you don't have a destination in mind. Without that,
you're nothing but a little social clique running on feelings and individual
interpretations.

Who are you trying to reach? What is the base message for each group you
want to reach? How are you reaching these groups?

What are you trying to eliminate? Where are you trying to eliminate it
from - fandom or just 'burned fur approved' fandom?

What are you trying to create? What specifically are you encouraging? By
what means?

Again - there is NO room for vagary in enumerating the movement's goals in
any of the above areas.

Who are your leaders - who speaks for you? Like it or not, you're not going
to get far without officers. You need people capable of orchestrating the
group when it needs to be called to action. You need definitive approval or
rejection for actions such as the one which lead to the CF fiasco. Whether
or not it was BF that did this has apparently NOT been established and it
isn't important to my point, which is that you should have had someone who
could say "we did/did not condone this action." And you need a mature and
amicable face for the group when dealing with media and Furrydom PR.

Right now, everyone's seeing a crowd with torches. Change the name. Define
your image and your goals. Tell us you're leading us to a nicer future and
give us a reason to believe it.

For now, I'm a furry, not a burned fur.


J.M.L.

unread,
Apr 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/5/99
to
Analogizing BF to the KKK is an insult to the truely oppresed
everywhere. Actually, that was the spirit behind Godwin's law, since
supposed attrocities real or imagined by most folks on the net (and
especially in this case) come absolutely nowhere close! So you can't
enjoy dirty pics of funny animals anymore. Boo-hoo. Here's a quarter.
Call someone who gives a damn.

Frankly I kind of enjoyed myself this time around. CF10 was a lot more
tame. It needed more variety though. I'm certainly willing to give it a
chance.

--
-- "Happiness is a deaf wolf".
http://ciips.ee.uwa.edu.au/~hutch/hal/HAL/Talk.phtml

Farlo

unread,
Apr 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/5/99
to
"Brian McGroarty" wrote:

> Right now, everyone's seeing a crowd with torches. Change the name.
Define
> your image and your goals. Tell us you're leading us to a nicer future
and
> give us a reason to believe it.
>
> For now, I'm a furry, not a burned fur.

Brian touches on many of the issues that I have with the Burned Fur
movement.

Farlo
Urban Fey Dragon
http://www.dejanews.com/~furculture

Brian McGroarty

unread,
Apr 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/5/99
to
Analogizing BF to the KKK is a tool for illustrating exactly what the
problem is here. You missed the point entirely - please reread the original
posting.

I don't give a damn if I can buy porn at CF or if I have to find it online
and via mail order. I do however give a damn as to whether I or my friends
are going to be the next ones stepped on by BF, or by people who believe
they're acting in the vaguely defined spirit of BF.

If there's to be a growing group with the goal of eliminating things from
the fandom, I want those things enumerated now. If the group has the goal of
removing or disowning things, I WANT THESE THINGS LISTED UP FRONT. And I
want leadership and accountability in the group aiming to do this so the
group is held in check in case it ever starts reaching too far. Otherwise we
see splinter factions acting on their own even when their opinion dissents
from the movement as a whole.

Otherwise, I'm going after dragons and large furs on the MUCKs, as I don't
like those. And I'm going after furs who lean against trees and sigh. And
I'm going after furs with bad grammar. And I'm going after people who play
humans and faeries. And I'm going after quadrupeds played as plantigrades
rather than digitigrades. I'll go after MUCKers with 3 line+ wixxxes. I'll
go after furs who page out of the blue. I'll go after anything that doesn't
fit MY idea of furrydom, and I'll call myself a Burned Fur.

And I won't tell you what I mean by "go after" either. Burned Fur doesn't.
The mission statement just says "IT IS PROPOSED THAT WE SHALL institute
ourselves as a monkey wrench in the gears of mainstream fandom" and makes
vague comments about how "WE STRONGLY DISCOURAGE." Maybe I'm just speaking
out against individual furs. Maybe I'm contacting their family or their
employer if they connect from work. Maybe I'm placing their RL name on a
public list. Maybe I'm interfering with their ability to connect to their
news or e-mail.

There's certainly a LOT left open to individual interpretation right now.

Snowfox
http://www.mcs.net/~snowfox


J.M.L. <coy...@brionne.cyberverse.com> wrote in message
news:92328375...@rodelo.cyberverse.com...

Reto Roth

unread,
Apr 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/5/99
to J.M.L.

J.M.L. schrieb:

> Analogizing BF to the KKK is an insult to the truely oppresed
> everywhere. Actually, that was the spirit behind Godwin's law, since
> supposed attrocities real or imagined by most folks on the net (and
> especially in this case) come absolutely nowhere close! So you can't
> enjoy dirty pics of funny animals anymore. Boo-hoo. Here's a quarter.
> Call someone who gives a damn.

Doesn´t it cost 35c??


Farlo

unread,
Apr 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/5/99
to
"Reto Roth" Aba...@swix.ch wrote in <37085C54...@swix.ch>:

>J.M.L. schrieb:


> Boo-hoo. Here's a quarter.
>> Call someone who gives a damn.
>
>Doesn´t it cost 35c??

Yes. Like many BFs, he is short some cents.
(A pun! Yes, indeedy!)

Mark Atwood

unread,
Apr 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/5/99
to
coy...@brionne.cyberverse.com (J.M.L.) writes:

> Analogizing BF to the KKK is an insult to the truely oppresed
> everywhere.

I don't know, in the purely online arena the analogy holds well, in
that the BF site has the same graphic design, layout, and incoherert
"we dont like this" content as a "real" hate site.

A pale echo, but real anyway.

--
Mark Atwood | But that's the way of the puritans - mind like a steel trap:
m...@pobox.com | you take the bait, and it snaps shut in its deathgrip.
| -- Rich Grise <rich...@entheosengineering.com>

J.M.L.

unread,
Apr 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/5/99
to
Brian McGroarty (br...@pobox.com) wrote:
: Analogizing BF to the KKK is a tool for illustrating exactly what the

: problem is here. You missed the point entirely - please reread the original
: posting.

Well whatever you say. I suppose it is in some broad general sense.
You're making a mountain out of molehill though. That's rather paranoid.

: I don't give a damn if I can buy porn at CF or if I have to find it online


: and via mail order. I do however give a damn as to whether I or my friends
: are going to be the next ones stepped on by BF, or by people who believe
: they're acting in the vaguely defined spirit of BF.

So let me try to understand here. Since a few folks all bent out of
shape over the way things have been going go about with their guerillia
tactics to try and turn everything into as tither, then they obviously
must be speaking for the entire group?

I want to be clear that that's what I'm hearing. The reason is that I
know a lot of you who like read, write and lurk here certainly don't think
that way about yourselves. If that's what you're thinking here then
that's rather hypocritical.

: If there's to be a growing group with the goal of eliminating things from


: the fandom, I want those things enumerated now. If the group has the goal of
: removing or disowning things, I WANT THESE THINGS LISTED UP FRONT. And I
: want leadership and accountability in the group aiming to do this so the
: group is held in check in case it ever starts reaching too far. Otherwise we
: see splinter factions acting on their own even when their opinion dissents
: from the movement as a whole.

Beats me what other people want. I'd just be happy if people would
stop violating copyright laws and actually learn how to draw for a change.
The rest is just nitpicking.

: Otherwise, I'm going after dragons and large furs on the MUCKs, as I don't


: like those. And I'm going after furs who lean against trees and sigh. And
: I'm going after furs with bad grammar. And I'm going after people who play
: humans and faeries. And I'm going after quadrupeds played as plantigrades
: rather than digitigrades. I'll go after MUCKers with 3 line+ wixxxes. I'll
: go after furs who page out of the blue. I'll go after anything that doesn't
: fit MY idea of furrydom, and I'll call myself a Burned Fur.

Right. A stereotypical Burned Fur, as opposed to a stereotypical Fur,
who goes around pretending they're a dragon while extolling the virtues of
it being their totem animal. Or who go about hugging everything in sight
and can't stand anything politically incorrect, with regards to
themselves, that is. Or who spend a great deal of time and energy
creating a perfect character to role play with, only to use it as a sex
toy three weeks later. Who can't stand the mere fact that there are
people out there who think they're taking themselves way too seriously and
ought to chill out perhaps, but won't because that doesn't fit into THEIR
idea of furrydom.
There, do you feel better now? We can continue spewing drivel all week
like this, unless you actually want to talk in a more constructive manner.

: And I won't tell you what I mean by "go after" either. Burned Fur doesn't.


: The mission statement just says "IT IS PROPOSED THAT WE SHALL institute
: ourselves as a monkey wrench in the gears of mainstream fandom" and makes
: vague comments about how "WE STRONGLY DISCOURAGE." Maybe I'm just speaking
: out against individual furs. Maybe I'm contacting their family or their
: employer if they connect from work. Maybe I'm placing their RL name on a
: public list. Maybe I'm interfering with their ability to connect to their
: news or e-mail.

A bunch of people get fed up with all this silliness and decide to say
what's on their mind, and what's the first thing you do? Cry foul. I'm
sure glad everyone here's so open minded that they actually read before
they jump to conclusions. Thank God for that. Who knows how many flame
wars were averted?
The ones doing the subversive things are doing it on their own, even if
you don't believe that. Yes, I'm sorry to shock you like this, but those
so-called Burned Furs aren't some think-alike collective. As much as
you'd like to dehumanize them until they're a pack of vicious monsters.
Yes, some of them have done the exact same thing to you in return. Well,
they say you're all pedophiles or losers or wankers or wannabes. Of
course, that's not true, right? Right? So then, your first analogy of
'hate group' is flawed not only in magnitude, but also in direction. It's
more like a holy war, if you want to keep that same pompous magnitude,
that is. Don't tell me you're all innocent little lambs who've never
tried to hack into BF sites in retaliation, or come here in support of you
all while remaining anonymous, spewing out bile against 'those bad evil
meanies!'. Or, that's a different story, right? That's something else
again.

: There's certainly a LOT left open to individual interpretation right now.

Maybe they're planning on killing your firstborn male children. I'd
watch out if I were you.

J.M.L.

unread,
Apr 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/5/99
to
Mark Atwood (m...@pobox.com) wrote:
: coy...@brionne.cyberverse.com (J.M.L.) writes:

: > Analogizing BF to the KKK is an insult to the truely oppresed
: > everywhere.

: I don't know, in the purely online arena the analogy holds well, in
: that the BF site has the same graphic design, layout, and incoherert
: "we dont like this" content as a "real" hate site.

: A pale echo, but real anyway.

I'm often amazed at the sheer stupidity on both sides of this issue.
Furs can't laugh at themselves for some reason, and lack any sort of sense
of humor. Don't get me wrong, some of them are real smart asses, but only
to supposed outsiders. Burned Furs can sure ramble on and on and on ad
nauseum about what they don't like but then they don't get off their asses
and actually try to accomplish any real change. It's bloody annoying.

If you think what they're doing is hate then you've never experienced
real hate, I'd say.

Lemu...@hotmail.com

unread,
Apr 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/5/99
to
In article <vcUN2.372$Dz5.1...@elnws01.ce.mediaone.net>,
"Brian McGroarty" <br...@pobox.com> wrote:

{big a'snippins}

> We chatted this up a bit, and eventually Burned Fur came up. Now, I've been
> wanting to know exactly what Burned Fur is, and what it stands for for some
> time now. For many, the first exposure to Burned Fur they had was when the
> allegations were running hot and strong that Burned Fur was responsible for
> the pornography crackdown at Confurence this year.

Hot & strong like my men & my coffee? Hmmm. This Constant Reader missed out
on that. As I recall, only a couple folks were under that
impression...hee...one of whom would be Jurann, King of the Freezing Furs,
who I don't even recall having seen post here. If *that's* where you're
getting your information, you'd do best to look somewhere less nutty.

> Somebody had called the
> regional alcohol bureau and indicated that pornography would be present at
> the event, which was in a hotel where alcohol was being served, which
> apparently violates a local ordinance.

Funny, I heard that someone filled out a response form on the hotel's
website, making references not only to pornography, but also to pedophilia,
bestiality, & Furnation, & that upon looking further, the hotel determined
that the outright sale of pornography would be at odds with the stipulations
in their resort license. Feel free to correct me if I am in error. I know
someone will.

> From the group, I finally got a pointer to what seems to be an authoritative
> page on Burned Fur, this at http://members.tripod.com/~burnedfur. After
> reviewing the group's manifesto, the mission statement, and many of the
> messages in which the group is discussed, I'm genuinely scared.

Scared? Of what?

> The group
> claims over and over not to be a hate group. And yet, at the same time,
> there seems to be little planning or structure to the movement. About all
> that holds the group together is a common dislike for many aspects of the
> fandom. And the degree or extent of this, or the aims of the group, are
> terribly unclear.

Only those "aspects" of the fandom that are not relevant to anthropomorphics.
& "hate"? No. I do not hate. I have better things to do with my emotional
investments than get all het up over furry, ferchrissakes.

> The group talks about wanting to "throw a monkey wrench into the fandom."
> The exact meaning of this is unclear. The group focuses against "acts such
> as bestiality, plushophilia, fursuit sex and other things seen as 'wrong' by
> non-fandom individuals." This could easily be construed to include
> homosexuality, BDSM play, the collection of pornography, cybersex, wearing
> tails, wearing ears, attending conventions, collecting comics, meeting
> people over the internet, role play, any number of other things. Where is
> the line drawn? What exactly is this monkey wrench that the group hopes to
> throw, and what's the target?

...Are you sure you did your reading before you did your writing? I don't
think you did. These other issues to which you allude have been addressed
before, many times. "easily be construed" seems like at best gross ignorance
& paranoia & at worst, trolling. The short version is, do what you want. But
don't attribute what you're doing (bestiality, plushophilia, fursuit sex) to
furry fandom.

> The Ku Klux Klan focuses on trying to abstract Negroes from our society. The
> group is similarly unfocussed - some members hope to kill Negroes, some hope
> to export them, some want to reinstate slavery.

Someone catch me up, please. I was under the impression that "Negroes"
predates "colored folks" which predates "black folks" which predates "african
americans". Maybe I'm wrong. Anyway, this is a ridiculous comparison you're
making. Is Miss Manners also secretly a serial killer who targets the
socially inept?

{snip}

> This is the feedback I left on the Burned Fur site:

It's so nice you said it twice! I'll just say it once. (until the next goober
comes along, at least).

> "Burned Fur" is a terrible name for this movement.

Furry is a terrible name for a fandom. Why would I want to call myself a
furry *anything*? It implies hirsute things. I am not hirsute. I have no
desire to be so. Hairy women do not tend to conform to my personal standard
of beauty. Your mileage may vary.

> The name and the angry
> in-your-face logos share the same motif as many hate groups. Hell, the
> silhouette of the fur with the hammer looks pretty much like some of the
> Stalin era communist government propaganda. That's certainly the wrong first
> impression to make.

That there rap music sounds so damn ugly, don't it? Why do they sound so
angry? Don't they know more people would listen to em if they played happy
music like them there Spice Girls?

> What I see of your goals doesn't jibe with your image. I understand the
> group is largely (entirely?) motivated by the indignation of its members.

You know, I think moreso it's motivated by an appreciation of anthropomorphic
material. & our image? Oh, isn't our image that of the Big Scary Bad Guys?
Personally, I think the use of Burned Fur's imagery in that context is quite
amusing.

> But the feelings motivating you should not be confused with the goal. This
> image is the WRONG recruiting tool, as anger and hatred are the worst
> possible images to associate with your "distilled fandom."

In regards to recruitment, you know what I've heard most about Burned Fur?
Even moreso than the responses which you echo? I've heard, "Oh yeah, Burned
Fur. Heh. I'd never associate myself with furrydom in the first place, that
whole scene is too far gone & I don't want anything to do with it. I just
like funny animals, that's all."

> Okay. This points to calling for established goals. Where ARE you going? How
> far have you gotten? If you can't actively quantify the movement's success,
> it's probably because you don't have a destination in mind. Without that,
> you're nothing but a little social clique running on feelings and individual
> interpretations.

"First you have to admit that you have a problem & you want to change it."

You know what furry's biggest hurdle is? Admitting that something stinks in
Denmark. & it stinks to high heaven. Burned Fur's not the problem: it's a
symptom. Objective 1, as I see it, is addressing this fact. Some guy on a
British TV show determined that Confurence, Furry's oldest con, is basically
a plushophile orgy. How did this happen? How did he end up at the CF site
instead of Ebay (where you can buy plushies) or FAO Schwartz, or
realdoll.com, or whatever? Goodness knows there *should* have been lots more
relevant things to find...but no, here it is laid at furry's doorstep once
again, because some twerp finds a group of people who like talking-animal
stuff & decides to make this talking-animal fandom the coming-out party for
his fuzzy acrylic dildo.

Now, detractors have suggested that Burned Fur is making the situation worse
by bandying around certain buzzwords like bestiality, zoophilia,
plushophilia, & such. Strangely, this only seems to come up when someone
Unpopular on whatever forum happens to utter these magical words. Apparently
these are The Loves That Dare Not Speak Their Names On Newsgroups, but it's
okay to post flyers at furry conventions for meetings of enthusiasts of these
practices. Go figure. Some people suggest that well, you can't stop people of
likeminded interests from getting together at cons to discuss their
predilections. This is true. But, you know, I've never seen those magical P
& Z words before I found furry fandom...& I'm not entirely a recluse. I get
around some. But I had to find furry before I found out what P's & Z's stood
for. Never saw a P or a Z flyer at an antique car show, or an art festival,
or a flea market, or a coffeehouse, or a music store, or a comic shop. Don't
even see a lot of P or Z words in personal ads, where you see all kinds of
funny words sometimes. Go figure.

> Who are you trying to reach? What is the base message for each group you
> want to reach? How are you reaching these groups?

It's a wake-up call, as I see it...seems to be working rather well, too, eh?

> What are you trying to eliminate? Where are you trying to eliminate it
> from - fandom or just 'burned fur approved' fandom?

This is all addressed in the documents which you supposedly read.

> What are you trying to create? What specifically are you encouraging? By
> what means?

A fandom based on appreciation of anthropomorphic characters, last I
checked...why is that so difficult to understand? One would try to encourage
this by supporting anthropomorphic writers, artists, & enthusiasts, taking
part in fandom-based endeavors, & so on. Basic furry-type stuff. If we
weren't doing *anything*, we'd throw up our hands & leave in frustrated
disgust.

> Again - there is NO room for vagary in enumerating the movement's goals in
> any of the above areas.

I will endeavor to keep my capricious nature in check. Sheesh.

> Who are your leaders - who speaks for you? Like it or not, you're not going
> to get far without officers.

What, this is a club, now? I was only *joking* about the secret decoder
rings, really. You don't have to *do* anything to be a burned fur, except
relate...goodness knows I've seen the banner on lots of pages of people who
*I've* never met, & I'm generally a reg in the newsgroup, board, & chats. Are
there officers of the Non-Aligned Furs? What are their actions & goals
&cetera? Are there officers & leaders of Furry Lifestylers? Are you posting
worried missives to their newsgroups comparing them to Jehovah's Witnesses?
How about those suspicious-looking funny animal enthusiasts? What are THEY up
to?

> You need people capable of orchestrating the
> group when it needs to be called to action.

LOL...action like what? Defensive measures against all the surly furries who
tell us about their handguns?

> You need definitive approval or
> rejection for actions such as the one which lead to the CF fiasco.

Why? Do all furry fans need to agree on their opinion of it too, because they
are all furry fans? Do we have to have an official opinion on the price of tea
in China as well?

> Whether
> or not it was BF that did this has apparently NOT been established and it
> isn't important to my point, which is that you should have had someone who
> could say "we did/did not condone this action."

Various Burned Furs have expressed their various opinions on the matter. Why
*would* Burned Fur condone it? As has been said time & again, Burned Fur takes
no position on spooge. If Burned Fur goes anti-spooge, I will take my leave of
it.

> And you need a mature and
> amicable face for the group when dealing with media and Furrydom PR.

See, this is the thing. We know how to behave in public. That's why people who
*don't*know how to behave get on our nerves so much. Understand?

> Right now, everyone's seeing a crowd with torches. Change the name. Define
> your image and your goals. Tell us you're leading us to a nicer future and
> give us a reason to believe it.

People will see what they want to see, whatever the name is. Burned Furs are
what they are & the name suits them. If you relate, you relate. If you don't,
you don't. All this mad chatter of homophobia & censorship & KKK & Nazis
displays to me a low level of maturity, lack of empathy & common sense, a
deliberate detachment from reality & perspective, & a great degree of
self-importance & self-centeredness. Maybe furrydom ought to change this
image. I don't know if I like what I see. Maybe it ought to start by changing
its name, 'Furry' being such an unsavory word. I'm not here because I found a
group of wonderful people who finally made me feel like I had a family. I'm
not here because I prefer an imaginary world to a real one. I'm not here
because I prefer the furry character I play with to my actual RL self. I'm
not here because I feel that my choice of sexual activity is more tolerated
within this enclave. I'm not here to be a big fish in a small pond.

I'm just here because I like anthropomorphics. How about you?

--Ezuli
http://www.skunked.com/ezuli
"Ceci n'est pas une lemur." --Not Magritte

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

IonOtter

unread,
Apr 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/5/99
to
Aloha, all!

Brian McGroarty wrote:

*MEGA-SNIP*


>> For now, I'm a furry, not a burned fur.

Excellent post, Mr. McGroarty. You have some very valid points, and I too would
like to see a definitive statement of purpose from these well-intentioned but
misguided people.

However, I humbly beg your forgiveness in applying a KILL tag to this thread, as
I do with ALL Burned Fur threads. If you wish to reply to my posting in such a
way as for me to see it, I'm afraid you'll have to email me. <:)

Aloha!
=============O <==[IonOtter, LogOut]

Farlo

unread,
Apr 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/5/99
to
Will somebody see that JML gets his medication before he posts again?

Farlo

unread,
Apr 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/5/99
to
"" Lemu...@hotmail.com wrote:

>pedophilia,
>bestiality,

Oh, goody! More Burned Fur references to PEDOPHILIA and BEASTIALITY.

>Burned Fur is making the situation worse
>by bandying around certain buzzwords like bestiality, zoophilia,
>plushophilia, & such.

Wow - even *more* Burned Fur references to BESTIALITY ZOOPHILIA
PLUSHOPHILIA - it's their FAVORITE topic! Lemurzuli just can't say it
enough.

Why is that? <- Rhetorical question

Cerulean

unread,
Apr 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/5/99
to
Quoth Farlo:

>Will somebody see that JML gets his medication before he posts again?

I submit, Farlo, in regard to your many various cheap cracks of this
nature, that you are Not Helping.

There is great deal of difference between arguing one's position and
playing "the dozens." I am also concerned with your fixation on the
idea that all sloppy thinking and/or belligerence is caused by either
an excess or lack of drugs.

--
___vvz /( Cerulean * http://www.cerulean.st/
<__,` Z / ( DC.D/? fs+h++ Gm CB^P a$m++d+++l*g-e!i
`~~~) )Z) ( FDDmp4adwsA+++$C+D+HM+P-RT+++WZSm#
/ (7 ( aueJ) Ja!seJj 'Jp - ,,'a!>oo) e a^eH,,

Brian McGroarty

unread,
Apr 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/5/99
to

J.M.L. <coy...@brionne.cyberverse.com> wrote in message
news:92330644...@rodelo.cyberverse.com...

Yeh - the fandom's always been easily thrown into a panic. I remember a
decade ago when it was "the end of the fandom" because two of Steve
Gallacci's pictures ("family" and "furtub") had made it onto a public BBS
and later one of the So Much Shareware BBS CD-ROMs. I've weathered a lot of
this, and I've generally laughed in private and tried to offer a calming
hand.

I see Burned Fur as different, as it -is- structured largely as a hate
group, and its goals and methods are unclear. Yes, Ezuli, I've read more
than an hour's worth of material. Have I read each of the thousands of
messages in the DejaNews conference and tracked down all material elsewhere?
No. I've read quite a few which puts me well up the curve on BF reading, but
even those posts are irrelevant as they regard personal interpretation,
whereas the two documents up front are the closest the group offers to a
common stance. Until the manifesto and mission statement reflect
differently, I don't back down on my points.

It's also worth stating that the reason I harp on Burned Fur isn't out of a
dislike for the group. More, it's becuase I WOULD like to see many things
dissociated from the fandom I enjoy. I've been a fur since before the days
of MUCKs, alt.fan.furry, Distant Suns and FurNet echos. And I've seen what I
perceive as a steady decline in the furry culture in my time with the
fandom.

I'd like to log onto a MUCK or visit a con and not have some things paraded
in front of me, and there are definitely those I -definitely- don't want
associated with me, my friends or the places I hang out.

And if I could see a straightforward plan and a common stance on what is and
isn't okay, or if Burned Fur would take the approach of owning a new name
and introducing specific elements rather than starting with Furrydom and
eliminating aspects, I'd be hopping in line and trying my best to help it
along.

Mff.

Nuff for today.

Snowfox
http://www.mcs.net/~snowfox


ba...@ursine.dyndns.org

unread,
Apr 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/5/99
to
Reto Roth <Aba...@swix.ch> wrote:


> J.M.L. schrieb:

>> enjoy dirty pics of funny animals anymore. Boo-hoo. Here's a quarter.


>> Call someone who gives a damn.

> Doesn't it cost 35c??

Only if you use GTE, USWest or a COCOT (Coin operated customer owned
telephone, the ones that have some telephone company you've never heard of
listed on them, with a phone book from Bell or GTE).

When I visited Los Angeles (ineptly named, IMHO), I made local phone calls
on the phones there from 10c (Fox Fone) to 25c (Antelope Valley Payphone
System (A COCOT)).

--
Baloo Ursidae

Mark Loggins

unread,
Apr 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/5/99
to
Hmmm... I've been around watching furries for a while now. They seem to have
their own vocabulary. Like when a furry says 'toleration' he really means
'apathetic acceptance' Now it seems they're defining 'hate' as 'disagreeing
with me'. I've seen that at work before. You disagree with someone about,
say, pokemon on a furry IRC channel and you will get banned from that
channel. If you say you like the color blue over the color red and a furry
disagrees with you, you hate him. See, furries take everything so
personally. All the BFs want to do is get the sick elements in the fandom
out of the public eye. What's wrong with that? Do they sell Hustler next to
People on the magazine rack? According to furry 'logic,' a sex shop should
be in the mall between The Gap and Banana Repulic. It's ridiculous.
Fetishes, pornography and all the associated crap do have a place. It's in
the back room. If you wanna buy, fine. But it. Do whatever you want to in
the privacy of your own homes. I don't care. I just don't want to see it. I
don't want to know you fuck you dog, horse or plushy. Don't tell me about
it. You know what scares me? Some little child searching for zoology stuff
on the web running up on zoophilia crap. That would be horrible. And because
I feel that way. Because I think zoophilia is wrong and if you must do it,
you should do it in private along with all the other kinky crap, I am a hate
monger, too, right?
--Random

Farlo

unread,
Apr 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/6/99
to
"Cerulean" wrote:

>Quoth Farlo:
>
>>Will somebody see that JML gets his medication before he posts again?
>
>I submit, Farlo, in regard to your many various cheap cracks of this
>nature, that you are Not Helping.

There's a plan to what I'm doing, but you are almost correct.
I like to hand certain people enough rope to hang themselves.
It's help, of a sort (the wrong sort, true). >:)

>There is great deal of difference between arguing one's position and
>playing "the dozens."

There is no point in arguing my position with some of these people.
Therefore, I hand them more rope.

What they do with such a line is up to them.

>I am also concerned with your fixation on the
>idea that all sloppy thinking and/or belligerence is caused by either
>an excess or lack of drugs.

Well, one pill makes you smaller, and one pill makes you tall.
Pills are like ideas, and the medication that certain people need
is in amounts I won't supply.

J.M.L.

unread,
Apr 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/6/99
to
Dennis Lee Bieber (wulf...@dm.net) wrote:
: On Mon, 05 Apr 1999 09:54:08 GMT, coy...@brionne.cyberverse.com (J.M.L.)
: (J.M.L.) left the following spoor in alt.fan.furry:

: >
: > So let me try to understand here. Since a few folks all bent out of


: > shape over the way things have been going go about with their guerillia
: > tactics to try and turn everything into as tither, then they obviously
: > must be speaking for the entire group?

: >
: Of course!

: Looks like the shoe may be on the other foot.

: Many of the apparent members of the BF movement (and I've done
: my best to NOT keep track of the membership) have often declared that
: the words/actions of certain individuals paints the entire fandom a
: disreputable color.

Of course, I've never seriously thought that. A lot of degenerates
around here though love shoving words in other people's mouths and then
gloating like sons of bitches. Yawn. What's next?

: This is the same charge, but made against the BF group -- a few
: individuals say/do such-and-such, therefore the entire group must be
: that way.

: To denounce the charge on one side fairly means you must
: denounce it on the other too. If not, then logic is ignored in favor of
: an emotional bias.

Well you realize of course I'm saying that both sides are doing this,
right? A lot of Furries are emotionally biased against anything one of
'them' says, even if it really doesn't apply to them. Ditto that for some
Burned Furs. Of course you can't say one bad thing about one side without
that side thinking you're pandering to the other side. Oh, I just love
how that works.

You think if I handed you all guns we could get this over with in one
moment? No, you can't point them at me.

Wanderer

unread,
Apr 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/6/99
to
J.M.L. wrote in message <92330644...@rodelo.cyberverse.com>...

(snip)

>
> I'm often amazed at the sheer stupidity on both sides of this issue.
>Furs can't laugh at themselves for some reason, and lack any sort of sense
>of humor.

(snip)

Sir, I laugh at myself regularly, every time I make an obvious mistake,
goof, flub, etc. I laugh at myself bitterly, on occasion, when "my dreams
fall apart at the seams". And I laugh at a lot of jokes.

Pardon, love ... but if Burned Fur is a joke, it's a dratted poor one.
'Tain't funny.

Yours truly,

The light-hearted-usually,

Wanderer**wand...@ticnet.com
Where am I going?I don't quite know.
What does it matter where people go?
Down to the woods where the bluebells grow.
Anywhere! Anywhere! *I*don't know!

Liberte

unread,
Apr 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/6/99
to
In article <vcUN2.372$Dz5.1...@elnws01.ce.mediaone.net>, "Brian
McGroarty" <br...@pobox.com> wrote:


> The Ku Klux Klan focuses on trying to abstract Negroes from our society. The
> group is similarly unfocussed - some members hope to kill Negroes, some hope
> to export them, some want to reinstate slavery. Some believe Indians and
> Hispanics are included. Some even don't like members of non-Protestant
> religions. There isn't a forward goal, and the Klan's official line is that
> they want to preserve white heritage, and that they don't condone acts
> against other races. The only thing that formally ties the group together is
> a dislike, and the wish that the group should grow. This is the definition
> of a hate group, and until Burned Fur learns to define itself better, this
> is what Burned Fur is as well.

> "Burned Fur" is a terrible name for this movement.


I don't suppose it matters to you that the person who wrote the initial
Burned Fur Manifesto is a young black woman, does it? You should think
twice before you go comparing the Burned Furs with the Ku Klux Klan or
other actual "hate groups." Don't insult the memory of true victims who've
suffered actual injustice, torture, and death by comparing them to the
"oppressed" dog-fuckers and plushie-boinkers.

Did you actually take the time to READ the BF Manifesto? I think not.

BTW, the Burned Furs are NOT against gays or spooge art either. Please
stop trying to connect the legitimate battle for gay rights/equality with
some idiots who want to make fools of themselves by wearing tails or
yabbering about how much they like to "poking" their pets and Meeko dolls.


Mark Atwood

unread,
Apr 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/6/99
to
libe...@dejanews.com (Liberte) writes:
>
> I don't suppose it matters to you that the person who wrote the initial
> Burned Fur Manifesto is a young black woman, does it? You should think
> twice before you go comparing the Burned Furs with the Ku Klux Klan or
> other actual "hate groups."

It makes no difference what the age, race, ethnicity, gender,
sexuality, accent or upbringing someone in these forums is. BF is a
negative group, with no constructive proposal or affermative agenda,
defining itself only by who it is not (and not very clearly at that
either).

> Don't insult the memory of true victims who've suffered actual
> injustice, torture, and death by comparing them to the "oppressed"
> dog-fuckers and plushie-boinkers.

The fact that that magnitude is different does not mean the comparison
is different. The observed similarities still stand, depite your
attempt to hose around some liberal guilt.

> Did you actually take the time to READ the BF Manifesto? I think not.

I did.

--
Mark Atwood | There is no spoon.
m...@pobox.com |

Cerulean

unread,
Apr 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/6/99
to
Quoth Liberte:

>I don't suppose it matters to you that the person who wrote the initial
>Burned Fur Manifesto is a young black woman, does it?

Are you saying it should? Think carefully about this one.

>You should think
>twice before you go comparing the Burned Furs with the Ku Klux Klan or

>other actual "hate groups." Don't insult the memory of true victims who've


>suffered actual injustice, torture, and death by comparing them to the
>"oppressed" dog-fuckers and plushie-boinkers.

I think the idea is to curb the antagonism _before_ it actually gets
to the "injustice, torture and death" stage this time.

>Did you actually take the time to READ the BF Manifesto? I think not.

If you had actually taken the time to read Mr. McGroarty's post, you
wouldn't doubt that he had. You might also have seen his point, which
is that no matter what the "official" charter is, the followers of the
Burned Fur movement can misinterpret it just as much as anyone else.
It has no membership roster, therefore anybody who calls himself a
Burned Fur is one, and can claim to be acting on behalf of the group
no matter what they are doing. We have seen examples of people who
called for anti-porn action, terrorist tactics, and yes, even anti-gay
crusades _in_the_name_of_Burned_Fur,_ and you can't with any
credibility say they aren't Burned Furs unless you have some formal
mechanism for deciding who's in the clubhouse.

>BTW, the Burned Furs are NOT against gays or spooge art either. Please
>stop trying to connect the legitimate battle for gay rights/equality with
>some idiots who want to make fools of themselves by wearing tails or
>yabbering about how much they like to "poking" their pets and Meeko dolls.

I'd bet if I searched hard enough through current newspapers, I could
find a similar statement in which the legitimate battle for gay rights
is given the second half instead, probably illustrated with an equally
absurd caricature having to do with black leather shorts and seducing
little boys. You can't expect an argument to appear rational with such
heavily weighted words.

Once upon a time, most people thought the concept of "sexism" was an
absurd extension of the concept of racism. In fact, William Safire is
still alive today, isn't he?

The fact of the matter is that all people have rights, no matter what
names you call them. By using pejorative names like "plushie-boinker"
you try to advance the perception that they don't count as people.

If your response to that is that they can boink plushies if they want
but they give up their right to be seen in the fandom as soon as they
let anyone know about it, well, I have to bring up the sexuality
comparison again and hope you actually see what I mean. "Don't ask,
don't tell" quickly becomes "Hope nobody finds out or you're busted,"
and it's an unrealistic thing to expect.

StukaFox

unread,
Apr 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/6/99
to
Cerulean <kevin...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

: I think the idea is to curb the antagonism _before_ it actually gets


: to the "injustice, torture and death" stage this time.


I hate to tell you this, but the antagonism against people who
believe what BF's believe has been on-going for some time now.
What you're seeing now is called backlash. Be careful -- it
can come back VERY strong.

If you piss on people as individuals, don't be suprised if they
band and come back at you. I think BF is a perfect example of
this.

StukaFox
--

GREAT EMPTY THREATS OF THE USENET #109:


"When I'm finished in nanau, I'm gonna pay the newsgroups you frequent
a visit. You aren't going to like it."

Tim "Wanky the Wanker" Thorn
specia...@hell-flame-wars.org


Elf Sternberg

unread,
Apr 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/6/99
to
In article <libertee-ya0240800...@news.supernews.com>
libe...@dejanews.com (Liberte) writes:

>I don't suppose it matters to you that the person who wrote the initial
>Burned Fur Manifesto is a young black woman, does it?

Argumentum ad lazarum; the fallacious notion that because
she's a member of a nominal oppressed minority she cannot engage in
oppression herself. Of course she can. The hated are perfectly
capable of hating right back.

>I think not.

Too true.

>BTW, the Burned Furs are NOT against gays or spooge art either. Please
>stop trying to connect the legitimate battle for gay rights/equality with
>some idiots who want to make fools of themselves by wearing tails or
>yabbering about how much they like to "poking" their pets and Meeko dolls.

In short, they're interested in supressing a legitimate form
of furry fandom. And yes, it's legit whether you like it or not. I'm
not fond of it; I think people who wear tails in RL public
(i.e. outside of con spaces) get what they deserve.

If you don't like it, LEAVE. Make your own space. But don't
complain that the spaces you used to like aren't for you anymore.
That's life.

Elf

--
Elf M. Sternberg, rational romantic mystic cynical idealist
If you're so smart, why aren't you naked?
A.A 1493 http://www.halcyon.com/elf/

StukaFox

unread,
Apr 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/6/99
to
Elf Sternberg <e...@halcyon.com> wrote:

: If you don't like it, LEAVE.

No, if you don't like it, FIX IT!

Constructive is best, right?

Mark Loggins

unread,
Apr 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/6/99
to
----------
In article <7edvmd$2ej$1...@brokaw.wa.com>, e...@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
wrote:

<snippage>

> In short, they're interested in supressing a legitimate form
> of furry fandom. And yes, it's legit whether you like it or not. I'm
> not fond of it; I think people who wear tails in RL public
> (i.e. outside of con spaces) get what they deserve.

Having sexual relations with housepets, livestock and plushies is a legit
form of furry fandom? The hell...?

> If you don't like it, LEAVE. Make your own space. But don't
> complain that the spaces you used to like aren't for you anymore.
> That's life.

Why does it always boil down to that? 'I like the status quo, so just leave
if you don't, ya big meanie!'. Feh! An argument befitting the person who
wrote 'One night on Thundara,' indeed.

> Elf

--Random

Chris Johnson

unread,
Apr 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/6/99
to
In article <libertee-ya0240800...@news.supernews.com>,

libe...@dejanews.com (Liberte) wrote:
> I don't suppose it matters to you that the person who wrote the initial
> Burned Fur Manifesto is a young black woman, does it? You should think

> twice before you go comparing the Burned Furs with the Ku Klux Klan or
> other actual "hate groups."

What difference does that make? She doesn't _act_ like a 'victim'. She
acts like a person, and there is no reason not to hold her responsible for
her actions, beliefs, whatever. Own what you do.

Seriously- that's _so_ irrelevant.


Jinx_tigr
(aka Chris Johnson)

Richard de Wylfin

unread,
Apr 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/6/99
to
> BTW, the Burned Furs are NOT against gays or spooge art either. Please
> stop trying to connect the legitimate battle for gay rights/equality with
> some idiots who want to make fools of themselves by wearing tails or
> yabbering about how much they like to "poking" their pets and Meeko dolls.

Why are you lumping together something as innocuous as wearing a tail with
z**philia? Try making sense once in a while, and see what a difference it
makes.


David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)

unread,
Apr 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/6/99
to
On Mon, 05 Apr 1999 19:38:28 -0400, Mark Loggins <sph...@crl.com> wrote:

> All the BFs want to do is get the sick elements in the fandom
>out of the public eye. What's wrong with that?

Whats wrong with that is the so called sick elements don't regard
themselfs as sick.

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

S.J.Laitila

unread,
Apr 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/6/99
to
>Will somebody see that JML gets his medication before he posts again?


Ahem...

<honk>

J.M.L.

unread,
Apr 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/7/99
to
Mark Atwood (m...@pobox.com) wrote:
: libe...@dejanews.com (Liberte) writes:
: >
: > I don't suppose it matters to you that the person who wrote the initial

: > Burned Fur Manifesto is a young black woman, does it? You should think
: > twice before you go comparing the Burned Furs with the Ku Klux Klan or
: > other actual "hate groups."

: It makes no difference what the age, race, ethnicity, gender,


: sexuality, accent or upbringing someone in these forums is. BF is a
: negative group, with no constructive proposal or affermative agenda,
: defining itself only by who it is not (and not very clearly at that
: either).

You know you could have just said, 'no it doesn't matter to me at all'.
Would have amounted to the same thing.

: > Don't insult the memory of true victims who've suffered actual


: > injustice, torture, and death by comparing them to the "oppressed"
: > dog-fuckers and plushie-boinkers.

: The fact that that magnitude is different does not mean the comparison


: is different. The observed similarities still stand, depite your
: attempt to hose around some liberal guilt.

If y'all start marching around, holding hands and singing 'We Shall
Overcome' I'll mail you a pipebomb.

That's a joke, son! You missed it.

J.M.L.

unread,
Apr 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/7/99
to
Elf Sternberg (e...@halcyon.com) wrote:
: If you don't like it, LEAVE. Make your own space. But don't

: complain that the spaces you used to like aren't for you anymore.
: That's life.

It's what I've been trying to tell a number of folks for a while now.
Unfortunately many people got this notion that it's their fandom and the
other side is the aggressor. Like, Jesus Christ man, why would anyone
really care that much about a stupid fandom like this? You must have
no real problems if you have to dwell on this stuff.

On the other hands, there have been very real tales about some folks
who've dug themselves too deep in this crap, and subsequantly find
themselves unable to get legitimate work in the entertainment feild
because of it. Of course if they had used some common sense early in
their 'carreers' they might have avoided all of that trouble. That's what
you get for drawing Fifi and Minerva spooge with shameless blatantcy.
Shame on you. Unless you're an anarchist. Then I salute you.

America's too hung up on sex. Furries are way too loose. And this
thread is a violation of Godwin's law. You shouldn't be feeding it. Er,
like I just did.

Victry "Vixy" Hyzenthlay

unread,
Apr 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/7/99
to
Lemu...@hotmail.com wrote in message <7ea8rr$heh$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...

>In article <vcUN2.372$Dz5.1...@elnws01.ce.mediaone.net>,
>"Brian McGroarty" <br...@pobox.com> wrote:
>{big a'snippins}
>> . . . About all that holds the group together is a

>>common dislike for many aspects of the fandom. And the degree
>>or extent of this, or the aims of the group, are terribly unclear.
>
>Only those "aspects" of the fandom that are not relevant to
>anthropomorphics.

Correction: Only those "aspects" of the fandom that *burned-
furs* consider not relevant. However, BFs are no more representive
of the fandom than EB is of artists.

They are just a meager pawful out of the entire Furry Fandom.
Not BF fandom, not Furry Artist's fandom, not AFF fandom, but
Furry Fandom. And Furry Fandom definately belongs to the fans.
This past CF X has shown, if not proven very distinctly, that what
the Fans want, they get. Regardless of anyone trying to influence
the Fandom or its events.

Right now, BFs are only a small group and only a pawful of
them actually argue the things that we have seen here since they
started in September last year. Their extreme claims of corruption
in the fandom are vague and baseless, reading more like rants than
facts. I guess "clique" would best describe them. If they can
convince the entire fandom to listen to them, more power to 'em.
However, the fans still think quite differently and are still
happily enjoying Furry Fandom regardless of BF doomsaying. After
all, it's STILL just a pastime. ;)

>I'm just here because I like anthropomorphics. How about you?

I'm here because I'm a vixen at heart. AND I like to write
about it. :)
=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+=====
Victry 'love long and perspire; Vixy' Hyzenthlay
Technofox and personal Vixen. "YIP!"
Furry Fan with a Furry Lifestyle... AND a life! ;>
_____________________
/ \ _
)""""\___ |- - - - - - - - - - - -| |_\____
)----| |\-| Vivacious Vixen II |-/| | |\
)____|___|=============================| """|_)
`----' \|http://members.Xoom.com/Vixy |/"""""
"""|"""""""/"""""\"""""""|"""
Victry{nospam}@- `=++++=" "=++++=' -@{remove}juno;com
Please post any response to this newsgroup. Thanks.

Dr. Cat

unread,
Apr 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/7/99
to
Richard de Wylfin (dwy...@usa.net) wrote:
: Why are you lumping together something as innocuous as wearing a tail with

: z**philia? Try making sense once in a while, and see what a difference it
: makes.

Well maybe some places, but not round hereabouts it don't. We don't much
coton to them slick big city fellers coming around hyar and making sense.
We ain't got no use for sense around these parts and we don't like it.

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

(Disclaimer: We sure like "nonsense" tho.)

StukaFox

unread,
Apr 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/7/99
to
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) <dfor...@zeta.org.au> wrote:

: On Mon, 05 Apr 1999 19:38:28 -0400, Mark Loggins <sph...@crl.com> wrote:

:> All the BFs want to do is get the sick elements in the fandom
:>out of the public eye. What's wrong with that?

: Whats wrong with that is the so called sick elements don't regard
: themselfs as sick.


Thanks for my new .sig file!


StukaFox
After I ditch Wanky the Wanker

Xydexx Squeakypony

unread,
Apr 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/7/99
to
Dr. Cat wrote:
> We ain't got no use for sense around these parts and we don't like it.

Today's interesting bit of trivia:

You can sing The Meatball Song to the tune of the "Chariots of Fire" theme.

On top of spaghetti
All covered with cheese
I lost my poor meatball
When somebody sneezed

Try it. It works. And now you'll never be able to watch Chariots Of Fire
again without having that song go through your head. Don't blame me... it's
my friend Kurt's fault. He's the one who pointed it out. I'm just the
messenger, y'know.

Gawd, I love being a menace to the fandom. I'm like a big squeaky
navigational hazard.

______________________________________________________________________
Xydexx Squeakypony, doesn't like Burned Toast [ICQ: 7569393]
Xydexx's Anthrofurry Homepage:
http://www.smart.net/~xydexx/anthrofurry/homepage.htm

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

Xydexx Squeakypony

unread,
Apr 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/7/99
to
Mark Loggins wrote [WRT Would Furries Eat Oatmeal]:

> Why does it always boil down to that?

Obviously it's been cooking too long. Don't feel bad, though, I don't think
I made oatmeal right the first time either. All I can suggest is that you
follow the directions next time.

Yanno, Gawd has a Holy Catapult with your name written on it, and he's asked
me to use it. I don't think the others will mind.

Step right in. It'll be fun. Trust me.

______________________________________________________________________
Xydexx Squeakypony, who doesn't really like oatmeal anyway

Farlo

unread,
Apr 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/7/99
to
"S.J.Laitila" s...@saunalahti.com wrote in <7efs7n$c7l$2...@tron.sci.fi>:

>>Will somebody see that JML gets his medication before he posts again?
>
>Ahem...
>
><honk>

I believe that I've just had my nose beeped...

Ack! =)

Xydexx Squeakypony

unread,
Apr 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/7/99
to
Wanderer wrote:
> Sir, I laugh at myself regularly, every time I make an obvious mistake,
> goof, flub, etc. I laugh at myself bitterly, on occasion, when "my dreams
> fall apart at the seams". And I laugh at a lot of jokes.

This newsgroup gets way too serious sometimes. I think someone needs to come
fill the newsgroup with oatmeal. I think filling the newsgroup with oatmeal
would do wonders for some people. I think we need more poodles that explode
when you pet them. I think we need exploding poodles in oatmeal, yes.

I think every Friday should be Exploding Poodles In Oatmeal Day on AFF,
because it's really hard to flame someone when they're covered in oatmeal and
exploded poodle pieces. I don't think we should use real poodles, though.
They should be stuffed poodles, or even better, poodles made out of spam or
carved out of cheese.

They should also be obscenely cute, so people like Jim Groat will join in on
the carnage. I think that would be fun.

______________________________________________________________________
Xydexx Squeakypony, out of his cage again [ICQ: 7569393]

Kai Robinson

unread,
Apr 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/7/99
to
Farlo wrote in message <8DA15E2...@news.fysh.org>...

>"S.J.Laitila" s...@saunalahti.com wrote in <7efs7n$c7l$2...@tron.sci.fi>:
>
>>>Will somebody see that JML gets his medication before he posts again?
>>
>>Ahem...
>>
>><honk>
>
>I believe that I've just had my nose beeped...
>
>Ack! =)

Yay! I've started a trend!


-KaiRo


Xydexx Squeakypony

unread,
Apr 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/7/99
to
J.M.L. wrote:
> You know you could have just said, 'no it doesn't matter to me at all'.
> Would have amounted to the same thing.

Frankly I'm surprised nobody has created a Burned Furbies page yet. Someone
should decorate one with leftover Easter candy and set it aflame. I'd
suggest using jelly beans, since they burn extremely well. Get a small
catapult and launch a few flaming Furbies into a busy highway and watch the
fun start. I mean, if something like the Hampster Dance page can dozens of
hits, just think of how many hits a car windshield will get. Rush hour will
never be the same, I tell ya.

> That's a joke, son! You missed it.

I don't think Furbies are a real threat unless they start devouring homes
like those Cabbage Patch Kids started doing a few years back. Entire
neighborhoods wiped clear off the map. I think furry fandom has more to fear
from the likes of Izzy the Olympic Mascot and Barney. The good news is in a
few million years Barney will be motor oil.

Oh and if you see Mer'rark, don't forget to say Matt Henry says hi.

______________________________________________________________________
Xydexx "Oatmeal Is Not Appropriate Business Attire" Squeakypony

Xydexx Squeakypony

unread,
Apr 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/7/99
to
StukaFox wrote:
> What you're seeing now is called backwash. Be careful -- it

> can come back VERY strong.

Ew. That's disgusting. And when a Pervert Superstar like myself says
something is disgusting, that says a lot.

I think backwash can be especially nasty if it's full of oatmeal or bits of
exploded poodle. No, really, I'm serious. As though anyone takes me
seriously, right? Heh. If there's one thing everyone can agree on, it's
that a mouthful of oatmeal backwash isn't very appetizing.

> "When I'm finished in nanau, I'm gonna pay the newsgroups you frequent
> a visit. You aren't going to like it."

I've never been to Nanau, but I hear it's lovely this time of year. We should
have a furry convention there sometime. I hear the Nanau Heights Hilton is a
pretty decent sized hotel (built on the site of the old one that sank into the
ground after the last oatmeal storm). It's convenient to a major airport and
rail station, too. Maybe we can talk Darrell Exline into having CF11 there.

______________________________________________________________________
Xydexx Squeakypony, doesn't like backwash one bit... [ICQ: 7569393]

Elf Sternberg

unread,
Apr 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/7/99
to
In article <370a8c5e$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com>
StukaFox <stuk...@shell9.ba.best.com> writes:

>Elf Sternberg <e...@halcyon.com> wrote:

>: If you don't like it, LEAVE.

> No, if you don't like it, FIX IT!
> Constructive is best, right?

Depends on the construction. Personally, there are some
"constructions" that were better off being demolished; take the Berlin
Wall for example. Your "constructive" issue is a nice and touchy-
feely claim, but it doesn't work in reality, where we have two groups
of people laying claim to "furry fandom" and their positions are
mutually exclusive. The Burned Furs have the manifesto on their side;
the others have an "ignorance is bliss and we're gonna show up anyway
'cause we have nothing to lose if we do" attitude on theirs. Each
wants the other to shut up and go away.

"Constructive" sometimes means leaving and constructing your
own space somewhere else. That may be the only alternative left at
this point. There doesn't seem to be much that can dissuade the tail-
wearers, their money's as green as anyone's, and unless Furry fandom
wants to stop taking it and listen only to the BF folks they're both
gonna continue this ridiculous battle until the sun goes cold.

Mark Loggins

unread,
Apr 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/7/99
to
----------
In article <7ecssv$5c5$2...@phaedrus.zeta.org.au>, dfor...@zeta.org.au (David

Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)) wrote:


> Whats wrong with that is the so called sick elements don't regard
> themselfs as sick.

NAMBLA says man-boy love is healthy and good. Does that justify pedophilia?
--Random

Lost Number

unread,
Apr 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/7/99
to
Xydexx Squeakypony <xyd...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
news:7eg3b2$cba$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com...

> This newsgroup gets way too serious sometimes. I think someone needs to
come
> fill the newsgroup with oatmeal. I think filling the newsgroup with
oatmeal
> would do wonders for some people.

Noooo! I _hate_ oatmeal!

> I think we need more poodles that explode
> when you pet them.

This I can live with.

> I think we need exploding poodles in oatmeal, yes.

Well, if it's ugly oatmeal, okay.


*Muke!
--
FDTc2af A C- D H++ M+ P++ R T+ W Z- Sm-
RLA/CT a- clmn+++ d-- e+ f+++ h-- i++ j+ p sm
ICQ: 1936556 http://mc11a.southern.edu/


Lost Number

unread,
Apr 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/7/99
to
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) <dfor...@zeta.org.au> wrote in message
news:7ecssv$5c5$2...@phaedrus.zeta.org.au...

> On Mon, 05 Apr 1999 19:38:28 -0400, Mark Loggins <sph...@crl.com> wrote:
>
> > All the BFs want to do is get the sick elements in the fandom
> >out of the public eye. What's wrong with that?
>
> Whats wrong with that is the so called sick elements don't regard
> themselfs as sick.

<wild applause>

*Muke, who can name many 'normal' things once thought 'sick' by
outsiders.

Darrel L. Exline

unread,
Apr 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/7/99
to
Brian McGroarty wrote:
>
> Analogizing BF to the KKK is a tool for illustrating exactly what the
> problem is here. You missed the point entirely - please reread the original
> posting.
>
> I don't give a damn if I can buy porn at CF or if I have to find it online
> and via mail order. I do however give a damn as to whether I or my friends
> are going to be the next ones stepped on by BF, or by people who believe
> they're acting in the vaguely defined spirit of BF.

I think you missed two key points: First, the problems at CF10 had NOTHING to
do with burned furs, although all all the "armchair quarterbacks" out there said
that it was.

Second, the Burned Furs are NOT a terrorist or *hate* organization. In fact, I
can only find radical Anti-burned furs (like those who call themselves the
"Soaked Furs") who are stating that the Burned Furs are doing anything against
other furs.

There were many burned furs at ConFurence. they didn't wear buttons, they
didn't preach... they bought the art they liked, and ignored what they didn't
like. On the other hand, the "Soaked Furs" wore buttons, took every opportunity
to talk bad about the Burned Fur Movement... on several occasions blamed the
Burned Furs for trying to destroy confurence...

From these facts, which one of the above groups would you call a *hate* group?
Which one was spreading lies? Which one was "in your face" and vocal to the
point of minimizing your fun?

The burned furs are merely an opinion group. You can ignore their opinion
simply by not visiting their websites.

--
Darrel L. Exline, darrelx(a)home.com, http://www.polarden.org
a.k.a. Jym_Chago, "Your friendly neighborhood Polar Bear"
--> "ConFurence 11" Director and Co-chair, Spring 2000 <--

Darrel L. Exline

unread,
Apr 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/7/99
to
Farlo wrote:
>
> Will somebody see that JML gets his medication before he posts again?
>
> Farlo
> Urban Fey Dragon
> http://www.dejanews.com/~furculture

I think that for a 3am posting, he was quite coherent.

Cerulean

unread,
Apr 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/7/99
to
Quoth Xydexx Squeakypony:

>This newsgroup gets way too serious sometimes. I think someone needs to come
>fill the newsgroup with oatmeal. I think filling the newsgroup with oatmeal
>would do wonders for some people.

"Question 1: How much Jell-O do you think it would take to completely
fill the White House?" -- Millie

--
___vvz /( Cerulean * http://www.cerulean.st/
<__,` Z / ( DC.D/? fs+h++ Gm CB^P a$m++d+++l*g-e!i
`~~~) )Z) ( FDDmp4adwsA+++$C+D+HM+P-RT+++WZSm#
/ (7 ( aueJ) Ja!seJj 'Jp - ,,'a!>oo) e a^eH,,

Darrel L. Exline

unread,
Apr 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/7/99
to
Xydexx Squeakypony wrote:
> I think every Friday should be Exploding Poodles In Oatmeal Day on AFF,
> because it's really hard to flame someone when they're covered in oatmeal and
> exploded poodle pieces. I don't think we should use real poodles, though.
> They should be stuffed poodles, or even better, poodles made out of spam or
> carved out of cheese.
>
> They should also be obscenely cute, so people like Jim Groat will join in on
> the carnage. I think that would be fun.

Cna I start planning the first annual Oatmeal-stuffed Poodle-ball game for CF11,
hosted by none other than Jim Groat. :)

--
Darrel L. Exline, darrelx(a)home.com, http://www.polarden.org
a.k.a. Jym_Chago, "Your friendly neighborhood Polar Bear"
--> "ConFurence 11" Director and Co-chair, Spring 2000 <--

"The operative word for CF11 will be "Discretion". This is *not* to be
mistaken for censorship or oppression."

Darrel L. Exline

unread,
Apr 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/7/99
to
Mark Loggins wrote:
> All the BFs want to do is get the sick elements in the fandom
> out of the public eye. What's wrong with that? Do they sell Hustler next to
> People on the magazine rack? According to furry 'logic,' a sex shop should
> be in the mall between The Gap and Banana Repulic. It's ridiculous.

I think you've hit the nail on the head.

---

Michael Campbell

unread,
Apr 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/7/99
to


> If you don't like it, LEAVE. Make your own space. But don't
> complain that the spaces you used to like aren't for you anymore.
> That's life.

Leave? Me? Why should I leave a scene I feel has some problems and want to fix?
Because you say so?

Who died and made you king? Because that's what "If you don't like it, leave"
means. It means that you are more important than I am, and if my opinion
differs from yours that I, being less important than you, are wrong, should
leave, and stop polluting YOUR scene. Like I asked before, who made you furry
king of the universe?

Furry fandom is not about YOU, and it's not about ME, it's about US. It's well
past time more folks started realizing this. This "Furry is about doing
whatever you want and not caring what others think" attitude is what is slowly
killing this fandom.

GothTiger (tig...@execpc.com)

Darrel L. Exline

unread,
Apr 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/7/99
to
Brian McGroarty wrote:
> Right now, everyone's seeing a crowd with torches. Change the name. Define
> your image and your goals. Tell us you're leading us to a nicer future and
> give us a reason to believe it.

Burned Furs are not the ones *with* the torches... they are the ones who are
tired of being burned, hence the name. It's appropriate.

--

Farry

unread,
Apr 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/7/99
to
On Wed, 07 Apr 1999 19:22:52 GMT, "Darrel L. Exline"
<dar...@home.com> wrote:

>...


>The burned furs are merely an opinion group. You can ignore their opinion
>simply by not visiting their websites.

Now that sounds good! But is that now the majority BF viewpoint?

In BF's first few months, the number of its members that bought into
the "keep on flaming" strategy was sufficient to damage BF's image
seriously and maybe permanently. They alienated people, including
myself, who should have been BF supporters. Just look at the size of
the anti-BF backlash - those "Soaked Furs" and the like.

So is BF changing? Or do they still believe "in your face" is best?

Anyway, best of luck with CF11.

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

Elf Sternberg

unread,
Apr 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/7/99
to
In article <7eftl3$1...@newsops.execpc.com>
Michael Campbell <tig...@execpc.com> writes:

>> If you don't like it, LEAVE. Make your own space. But don't
>> complain that the spaces you used to like aren't for you anymore.
>> That's life.

>Who died and made you king? Because that's what "If you don't like it, leave"


>means. It means that you are more important than I am, and if my opinion
>differs from yours that I, being less important than you, are wrong, should
>leave, and stop polluting YOUR scene. Like I asked before, who made you furry
>king of the universe?
>
>Furry fandom is not about YOU, and it's not about ME, it's about US.

BULLSHIT!

Furry fandom is a meaningless term bandied about by people who
desperately want it to mean something. It has no real definition; the
entire point of this little flamewar is that there are two groups of
people who want to set the definition of "furry" in stone and then use
that stone to bash the other group until they finally fall down and
whimper, "Okay, we won't come play in your sandbox anymore." It's
nonsense.

And no, I'm not "king." If *I* don't like it and I can't see
a compromise that suits, *I* leave. This has gone on long enough; the
end of negotiations are long overdue and if either of these groups had
any moral authority they would have swayed the rest of us. It's that
simple. It is about you, you know; it's about whether or not you feel
the fandom is worth it. This isn't something that one risks life and
limb for; it's not food, water, air, or sex. It's just words and
pictures. And if you don't like them you leave them behind.

I haven't left because both groups are about as effective as
mosquitos in a Siberian winter, although both make as much noise and
are as annoying as those same bugs is a Siberian summer. I like a lot
of what comes out of "furry fandom." I like good art and I like good
writing, but it's telling that the best Furry stuff isn't coming from
people who associate with the fandom at all.

>It's well past time more folks started realizing this. This "Furry is
>about doing whatever you want and not caring what others think"
>attitude is what is slowly killing this fandom.

Good. If it dies, it dies. What takes its place (for there
will be something to take its place; it's a niche that needs filling,
and an itch that needs scratching) might learn from the mistakes of
the past and be a better fit for those who wander in.

Brian McGroarty

unread,
Apr 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/7/99
to
Darrel L. Exline <dar...@home.com> wrote in message
news:370BBBC2...@home.com...

> Brian McGroarty wrote:
> > Right now, everyone's seeing a crowd with torches. Change the name.
Define
> > your image and your goals. Tell us you're leading us to a nicer future
and
> > give us a reason to believe it.
>
> Burned Furs are not the ones *with* the torches... they are the ones who
are
> tired of being burned, hence the name. It's appropriate.


I didn't SAY they're the ones with torches. I said everyone's /seeing/ a
crowd with torches. And until the image gets a makeover and the goals
are -clearly defined-, they'll continue to be seen that way.


Richard de Wylfin

unread,
Apr 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/7/99
to
In article <7eftl3$1...@newsops.execpc.com>, Michael Campbell
<tig...@execpc.com> wrote:

> > If you don't like it, LEAVE. Make your own space. But don't
> > complain that the spaces you used to like aren't for you anymore.
> > That's life.
>

> Leave? Me? Why should I leave a scene I feel has some problems and want
to fix?
> Because you say so?
>

> Who died and made you king? Because that's what "If you don't like it, leave"
> means. It means that you are more important than I am, and if my opinion
> differs from yours that I, being less important than you, are wrong, should
> leave, and stop polluting YOUR scene. Like I asked before, who made you furry
> king of the universe?

Elf isn't ordering anyone around; on the contrary, he's reminding you it's
*your* decision, *your* life to command and choose what to do with it.
*You* have the choice to leave or to stay. So do the rest of us.

> Furry fandom is not about YOU, and it's not about ME, it's about US.

Duh. . . I thought "us" was "you and me."

If not, who am us, anyway?

"This land is made of mountains
This land is made of mud
This land has lots of everything
For me and Elmer Fudd. . ."


Fender

unread,
Apr 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/7/99