Brunching Shuttlecocks on Furry Fandom

35 views
Skip to first unread message

bdy...@network.boxmail.com

unread,
Oct 26, 2000, 12:17:42 PM10/26/00
to
At the risk of throwing fuel onto a fire that never dies:

http://www.brunching.com/features/furries.html

It equates furrydom with sex, but please read a few other features before
you blow your top (I recommend "Choose Your Own Damn Pokemon Adventure",
Good or Bad?, or foreign snack food ratings). It also mentions the Burned
Furs, though probably not in a way they'd like.

I'd disappointed, as I thought it was going to rate different kinds of
fur. ("Leopard: striking for a night out on the town. B Otter: you'll
float, but you'll have to put those stupid plastic covers on all your
furniture. C")
--
Brian Dysart | The RNG giveth, and the RNG taketh away.
bdy...@network.boxmail.com | "...and eight for the fruit bat."
www.rahul.net/bdysart/ | <*> Code Code block: C---

ilr

unread,
Oct 26, 2000, 1:49:17 PM10/26/00
to
Am I the only one who enjoyed this article?

Now let's all over-analyze it like the furry-obsessed victims
of alienation that we are =)
-Ilr

<bdy...@network.boxmail.com> wrote in message news:8t9lf6$6e$1...@samba.rahul.net...

Camarogeddon

unread,
Oct 26, 2000, 2:24:20 PM10/26/00
to

> Am I the only one who enjoyed this article?

Definitely not. It's satiric, and i like it.
To be honest, i laughed out loud :)

> Now let's all over-analyze it like the furry-obsessed victims
> of alienation that we are =)

The results from earlier discussions tells me there are some persons here
who doesn't know what the word satire means..
or at least they don't understand it.


--
-Camarogeddon

remove "killthespammers" to mail me

Doodles

unread,
Oct 26, 2000, 2:50:59 PM10/26/00
to
ilr wrote:

> Am I the only one who enjoyed this article?

Nope, I was amused as all heck.

> Now let's all over-analyze it like the furry-obsessed victims
> of alienation that we are =)

Gotcha. [Over-analysis gears engaged] =};-3

I just enjoyed the proof of what a lot of folks have said all along. The Burned Furs
are the fandom's equivalent of the ex-gay movement, and the shreiks from their quarter
have only drawn mundane attention to the sexual aspects that exist in Furry, not
blocked them. Like the orators and religious types who would rail about the evils of
Rock and Roll during the 50's, they've served to help bring more folks into the fandom
than ever, and made those outside it view Furry with a specific eye for the parts they
have tried to cover up.

Thanks, guys! =};-3

stickily yours,
Unca Spooge

Richard Chandler - WA Resident

unread,
Oct 26, 2000, 4:00:36 PM10/26/00
to
In article <8t9lf6$6e$1...@samba.rahul.net>, bdy...@network.boxmail.com writes:
> At the risk of throwing fuel onto a fire that never dies:
>
> http://www.brunching.com/features/furries.html
>
> It equates furrydom with sex, but please read a few other features
> before you blow your top (I recommend "Choose Your Own Damn
> Pokemon Adventure", Good or Bad?, or foreign snack food ratings). It
> also mentions the Burned Furs, though probably not in a way they'd like.

Mentions? It's about them. The argument is summed up as "If Furries weren't
deviant perverts, there wouldn't be a group trying to say they weren't." Or,
read another way, "The existence of the Burned Furs proves that Furries are
deviants." Which to me seems to be putting the cart before the horse.

Personally, I had a lot more fun with the Goth Quote Generator.
http://www.brunching.com/toys/toy-gothquotex.html


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

Bahumat

unread,
Oct 26, 2000, 6:12:10 PM10/26/00
to
"And the otter lady is probably more fun at the sushi bar. "

--> Loved that line. :)

Bahumat, laughing heartily

Jim Doolittle

unread,
Oct 26, 2000, 7:36:43 PM10/26/00
to
In article <8t9nc7$oaf$1...@raccoon.fur.com>, "ilr" <i...@rof.net> wrote:

> Am I the only one who enjoyed this article?
>
> Now let's all over-analyze it like the furry-obsessed victims
> of alienation that we are =)
> -Ilr


I dunno. I thought it was pretty funny. :)


-Jim

--
Jim Doolittle CornWuff Press
dool...@tbcnet.com http://www.cornwuff.com
Art Show Director, Midwest FurFest
http://www.furfest.org

Moonshadow

unread,
Oct 26, 2000, 9:16:03 PM10/26/00
to
Eh, that wasn't as bad as it could have been. I don't like furry-smearing
very much but it actually got a few chuckles out of me, especially the otter
lady comment. Not the funniest that they have done though.

Personally, I wouldn't have linked to Furnation, but they weren't exactly
promoting furry. :-) Nothing wrong with Furnation - there's good stuff
there - but I wouldn't send people there for a first furry experience. The
Brunching UBB message board has some rather squicked-sounding messages, but
that's understandable considering the presentation. Ah well.

--
- Moonshadow
Fur Code:
FCW3 A-- C D H M P+ R+ T++ W-- Z Sm++ RLMA a20 cln++ d e f- h iw+ j* p- sm
ICQ# 15528523
Email is spam-protected. Switch 'com' and 'hotmail' to send.


Atara

unread,
Oct 26, 2000, 9:41:59 PM10/26/00
to
bdy...@network.boxmail.com wrote in <8t9lf6$6e$1...@samba.rahul.net>:

>At the risk of throwing fuel onto a fire that never dies:
>
>http://www.brunching.com/features/furries.html

Color me amused. =)

And again it only renforces the notion that it isn't the
[plushophiles/lifestylers/evil furry fan type of the week] that squick
people... it's the omnipresent spooge.

--
Atara
"I've got a pantheon of animals
in a pagan soul..." -Rush
http://www.FurNation.com/Atara/

Hangdog

unread,
Oct 26, 2000, 10:09:07 PM10/26/00
to
Moonshadow wrote:

> Eh, that wasn't as bad as it could have been. I don't like furry-smearing
> very much but it actually got a few chuckles out of me, especially the otter
> lady comment. Not the funniest that they have done though.

I kinda gotta wonder why the Brunching Shuttlecocks would suddenly decide to
stop kidding for a moment and be serious...about *furry fandom*.

> Personally, I wouldn't have linked to Furnation

Why not?

> but they weren't exactly
> promoting furry. :-) Nothing wrong with Furnation - there's good stuff
> there - but I wouldn't send people there for a first furry experience.

Why not?

> The
> Brunching UBB message board has some rather squicked-sounding messages, but
> that's understandable considering the presentation. Ah well.

Actually, ther presentation was sympathetic, as far as I could tell.

--HD, BF, etc.

Hangdog

unread,
Oct 26, 2000, 10:16:39 PM10/26/00
to
bdy...@network.boxmail.com wrote:

> At the risk of throwing fuel onto a fire that never dies:
>
> http://www.brunching.com/features/furries.html
>
> It equates furrydom with sex, but please read a few other features before
> you blow your top (I recommend "Choose Your Own Damn Pokemon Adventure",
> Good or Bad?, or foreign snack food ratings). It also mentions the Burned
> Furs, though probably not in a way they'd like.

*shrug* It's about what I'd expect of someone who'd given the fandom a
once-over lightly. Heck, it was *my* opinion until Burned Fur's opposition
started showing its true colors.

The person who made the most convincing argument for me to join Burned Fur was
Xydexx, right here on aff.

--Hangdog, Burned Fur.

Hangdog

unread,
Oct 26, 2000, 10:21:01 PM10/26/00
to
Doodles wrote:

> ilr wrote:
>
> > Am I the only one who enjoyed this article?
>
> Nope, I was amused as all heck.
>
> > Now let's all over-analyze it like the furry-obsessed victims
> > of alienation that we are =)
>
> Gotcha. [Over-analysis gears engaged] =};-3
>
> I just enjoyed the proof of what a lot of folks have said all along. The Burned Furs
> are the fandom's equivalent of the ex-gay movement,

Once again, you raise the old lie about Burned Fur being anti-gay.

> and the shreiks from their quarter
> have only drawn mundane attention to the sexual aspects that exist in Furry, not
> blocked them.

Shoot the messenger. *sigh*

> Like the orators and religious types who would rail about the evils of
> Rock and Roll during the 50's, they've served to help bring more folks into the fandom
> than ever, and made those outside it view Furry with a specific eye for the parts they
> have tried to cover up.

"Those darned Burned Furs! All they do is draw unwanted attention to those parts of the
fandom that I think are alright anyway!"

> Thanks, guys! =};-3

Oh, don't thank us yet. We have lots more to do :o)

--Hangdog, Burned Fur

Leslie_R

unread,
Oct 26, 2000, 11:44:28 PM10/26/00
to
Hangdog wrote:
>
> Doodles wrote:
>
> > ilr wrote:
> >
> > > Am I the only one who enjoyed this article?
> >
> > Nope, I was amused as all heck.
> >
> > > Now let's all over-analyze it like the furry-obsessed victims
> > > of alienation that we are =)
> >
> > Gotcha. [Over-analysis gears engaged] =};-3
> >
> > I just enjoyed the proof of what a lot of folks have said all along. The Burned Furs
> > are the fandom's equivalent of the ex-gay movement,
>
> Once again, you raise the old lie about Burned Fur being anti-gay.
>
uh, no.. he seems to me to be makeing a rough analogy about a large
group and a dissafected splinter-group lashing out at it's parent
group.. or soemthing


> > and the shreiks from their quarter
> > have only drawn mundane attention to the sexual aspects that exist in Furry, not
> > blocked them.
>
> Shoot the messenger. *sigh*

who's doing the shooting and who's the message being delevered to?

>
> > Like the orators and religious types who would rail about the evils of
> > Rock and Roll during the 50's, they've served to help bring more folks into the fandom
> > than ever, and made those outside it view Furry with a specific eye for the parts they
> > have tried to cover up.
>
> "Those darned Burned Furs! All they do is draw unwanted attention to those parts of the
> fandom that I think are alright anyway!"

well, don't you?


>
> > Thanks, guys! =};-3
>
> Oh, don't thank us yet. We have lots more to do :o)

oh? like what?
>
> --Hangdog, Burned Fur

Leslie, lightly sautee'ed fur

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

Hangdog

unread,
Oct 26, 2000, 11:46:24 PM10/26/00
to
fer...@enteract.com wrote:

> Hangdog <peter....@pdq.net> wrote:
> : "Those darned Burned Furs! All they do is draw unwanted attention to those parts of the


> : fandom that I think are alright anyway!"
>
> :> Thanks, guys! =};-3
>
> : Oh, don't thank us yet. We have lots more to do :o)
>

> Oh come on. The BF haven't actually done anything other than run their
> mouths since the Heifer Hop at AC

Well, you've got me there: since we're burdened with things like good jobs, higher education,
real-life relationships and interesting hobbies, we can't devote the time to the fandom that
you can.

But, even with those constraints, we still seem to be important enough to you to make you
angry. Thanks. We'll keep up the good work :o)

--Hangdog, Burned Fur

Rust

unread,
Oct 26, 2000, 11:57:54 PM10/26/00
to
Leslie_R wrote:

> Leslie, lightly sautee'ed fur

With onion? Secret ingredient for everything, sauteed onion. Soups,
spaghetti sauce, ice cream...

Well, okay, maybe not the spaghetti sauce.

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

Remove ".netspam" from my address to reply

Cerulean

unread,
Oct 27, 2000, 12:07:47 AM10/27/00
to
Quoth ilr:

>Am I the only one who enjoyed this article?

No, I thought it was good. Not earth-shattering in humor value, but
good. Moreover, I thought it portrayed furry fandom in a positive
light, albeit a positive light which will not reach the sort of reader
who thinks Orgasms are Bad.

Even better, Eric Blumrich's letter of complaint was hilariously
pathetic. Prepare to be shocked, Fitz, one of the people you poked fun
at wants to tell you you're not funny. It's just too bad it's not
Seanbaby that Eric is shaking his fist at, _then_ we'd see some
major-league high-caliber mockery.

--
___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 ( hjjnp - ,,77ej +snw shep awos +y6!u H)e3 o+uI,,

Hangdog

unread,
Oct 27, 2000, 12:20:26 AM10/27/00
to
Leslie_R wrote:

> Hangdog wrote:
> >
> > Doodles wrote:
> >
> > > ilr wrote:
> > >
> > > > Am I the only one who enjoyed this article?
> > >
> > > Nope, I was amused as all heck.
> > >
> > > > Now let's all over-analyze it like the furry-obsessed victims
> > > > of alienation that we are =)
> > >
> > > Gotcha. [Over-analysis gears engaged] =};-3
> > >
> > > I just enjoyed the proof of what a lot of folks have said all along. The Burned Furs
> > > are the fandom's equivalent of the ex-gay movement,
> >
> > Once again, you raise the old lie about Burned Fur being anti-gay.
> >
> uh, no.. he seems to me to be makeing a rough analogy about a large
> group and a dissafected splinter-group lashing out at it's parent
> group.. or soemthing

Rough indeed: even you seem to be having trouble understanding what he meant--and you agree
with him! :o)

>
>
> > > and the shreiks from their quarter
> > > have only drawn mundane attention to the sexual aspects that exist in Furry, not
> > > blocked them.
> >
> > Shoot the messenger. *sigh*
>
> who's doing the shooting and who's the message being delevered to?

Burned Fur is delivering the message to the fandom that Something Is Wrong. We get "shot" by
folks like "Doodles" who believe that the only thing wrong is that we're saying something's
wrong.

> > > Like the orators and religious types who would rail about the evils of
> > > Rock and Roll during the 50's, they've served to help bring more folks into the fandom
> > > than ever, and made those outside it view Furry with a specific eye for the parts they
> > > have tried to cover up.
> >
> > "Those darned Burned Furs! All they do is draw unwanted attention to those parts of the
> > fandom that I think are alright anyway!"
>
> well, don't you?

If he think they're alright, why does he object that we draw attention to them?

(As an aside, I've noticed an interesting thing about furries: they're well up on debaters
tricks and fine shades of meaning when it comes to defending their own arguments, but are
completely unable to comprehend simple logic when confronted with opposing arguments)

> > > Thanks, guys! =};-3
> >
> > Oh, don't thank us yet. We have lots more to do :o)
>
> oh? like what?

That would be telling, now, wouldn't it? :o)

Cerulean

unread,
Oct 27, 2000, 12:18:11 AM10/27/00
to
Quoth Hangdog:

>> I just enjoyed the proof of what a lot of folks have said all along. The Burned Furs
>> are the fandom's equivalent of the ex-gay movement,
>
>Once again, you raise the old lie about Burned Fur being anti-gay.

Once again, Hangdog doesn't know how to read.

I tried using the Schorn Speed-Reading Method on the same paragraph,
and I managed to pick up "enjoyed proof" and concluded you are drunk.

Meglique

unread,
Oct 27, 2000, 12:48:46 AM10/27/00
to
>Even better, Eric Blumrich's letter of complaint was hilariously
>pathetic.

OOH! OOH!! could you post it here pretty please???
meg

Leslie_R

unread,
Oct 27, 2000, 1:41:08 AM10/27/00
to
Hangdog wrote:
>
> Leslie_R wrote:
>
> > Hangdog wrote:
> > >
> > > Doodles wrote:
> > >
> > > > ilr wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Am I the only one who enjoyed this article?
> > > >
> > > > Nope, I was amused as all heck.
> > > >
> > > > > Now let's all over-analyze it like the furry-obsessed victims
> > > > > of alienation that we are =)
> > > >
> > > > Gotcha. [Over-analysis gears engaged] =};-3
> > > >
> > > > I just enjoyed the proof of what a lot of folks have said all along. The Burned Furs
> > > > are the fandom's equivalent of the ex-gay movement,
> > >
> > > Once again, you raise the old lie about Burned Fur being anti-gay.
> > >
> > uh, no.. he seems to me to be makeing a rough analogy about a large
> > group and a dissafected splinter-group lashing out at it's parent
> > group.. or soemthing
>
> Rough indeed: even you seem to be having trouble understanding what he meant--and you agree
> with him! :o)

no,i don't.. analogies are observations comparing two disimilar things
that seem to have something in common, here the analogy would be the
relatoinship between Homosexuals at large and the ex-gays compared to
the relationship between fanom at large and the VFs.. and not with
anyone's views on sexuality


>
> >
> >
> > > > and the shreiks from their quarter
> > > > have only drawn mundane attention to the sexual aspects that exist in Furry, not
> > > > blocked them.
> > >
> > > Shoot the messenger. *sigh*
> >
> > who's doing the shooting and who's the message being delevered to?
>
> Burned Fur is delivering the message to the fandom that Something Is Wrong. We get "shot" by
> folks like "Doodles" who believe that the only thing wrong is that we're saying something's
> wrong.
>

what is wrong?

> > > > Like the orators and religious types who would rail about the evils of
> > > > Rock and Roll during the 50's, they've served to help bring more folks into the fandom
> > > > than ever, and made those outside it view Furry with a specific eye for the parts they
> > > > have tried to cover up.
> > >
> > > "Those darned Burned Furs! All they do is draw unwanted attention to those parts of the
> > > fandom that I think are alright anyway!"
> >
> > well, don't you?
>
> If he think they're alright, why does he object that we draw attention to them?

i think having a barbecue would be laright, but if one of the poeple i
invited was a vegetarian and i didn't know about it until then i
wouldn't mind him not eating any of the burgers or hot-dogs i cooked,
but i would take exception to him walkiing out on the front lawn and
shouting at passers-by "they're cooking MEAT here!"


>
> (As an aside, I've noticed an interesting thing about furries: they're well up on debaters
> tricks and fine shades of meaning when it comes to defending their own arguments, but are
> completely unable to comprehend simple logic when confronted with opposing arguments)
>

pot? i'd like you to meet kettle

> > > > Thanks, guys! =};-3
> > >
> > > Oh, don't thank us yet. We have lots more to do :o)
> >
> > oh? like what?
>
> That would be telling, now, wouldn't it? :o)

by hook or by crook eh Number 2? -;>

Leslie

ilr

unread,
Oct 27, 2000, 5:27:37 AM10/27/00
to
>
> (As an aside, I've noticed an interesting thing about furries: they're well up on debaters
> tricks and fine shades of meaning when it comes to defending their own arguments, but are
> completely unable to comprehend simple logic when confronted with opposing arguments)
>

I'm not really here to join any this squabble, I'm just wondering what this statement
means. Im sure you're not tripping over your own intentions, it's just the words that
struck me funny. First there's:

** furries: they're well up on debaters tricks and fine shades of **

This could be interpreted like, "they're learn-ed and talented in rationalizing ...
(Like "PKB" for example)

** meaning when it comes to defending their own arguments **

..their vices which fly in the face of the opposing ideals."

** but are completely unable to comprehend simple logic **

"But the basics escape them...

** when confronted with opposing arguments **

...whenever they are challenged by the ideals that they developed their
whole defensive repetoir' against.


To me, you're our GwBush. And I don't mean that as an insult as I'm
voting for the guy by voting for Nader. I just wanted to point out that
you make some advanced logical conclusions that slip past the rest
of us or just skip some steps in explanation while getting there. But I'm just
a kid, seeing it with my "new eyes" is about the only thing I can do. I
lack the experience to know how it should be done right. So if you could
clarify it or delineate it a little slower or broader, it would help Me atleast.
-Ilr


Chuck Melville

unread,
Oct 27, 2000, 6:52:17 AM10/27/00
to

Meglique wrote:

Eric's already done that; look for the post titled AN OPEN LETTER.

Chuck Melville

unread,
Oct 27, 2000, 6:56:59 AM10/27/00
to

Hangdog wrote:

> Leslie_R wrote:
>
>
> >
> > who's doing the shooting and who's the message being delevered to?
>
> Burned Fur is delivering the message to the fandom that Something Is Wrong. We get "shot" by
> folks like "Doodles" who believe that the only thing wrong is that we're saying something's
> wrong.
>

I might be mistaken, but I don't recall Doodles saying anything of the like; in fact, I
rather suspect he's simply tired of -both- sides of the argument. Lay the statement where it
really belongs, such as with Xxydex who -has- said exactly that.

Chuck Melville

unread,
Oct 27, 2000, 7:00:18 AM10/27/00
to
My only observation here is that the reaction reminds me somewhat of the fallout from SKUNK
-- except now the shoe is on a different foot. What it -really- boils down to is that you can
gore any old Sacred Ox you want, so long as it's not -my- Sacred Ox.

Xydexx Squeakypony, KSC

unread,
Oct 27, 2000, 9:48:57 AM10/27/00
to
Chuck Melville wrote:
> I might be mistaken, but I don't recall Doodles saying anything
> of the like; in fact, I rather suspect he's simply tired of -both-
> sides of the argument.

Like myself and the rest of the fandom.

> Lay the statement where it really belongs,
> such as with Xxydex who -has- said exactly that.

No, I haven't. But it wouldn't be the first time you've made stuff
about me, would it?

(Ask me about my boycott of Mu Press.)

--
_________________________________________________
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen / Xydexx Squeakypony, KSC
Sign the petition to keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Farlo

unread,
Oct 27, 2000, 10:14:00 AM10/27/00
to
Take care with what you agree!

Due to the seriousness of the this issue please clarify:

Do you mean that Xydexx has, in the past, said that "the only thing wrong
is that the BF say something is wrong"? He may have!

****OR****

Do you mean that you agree with hangdog that the BF "get shot"?

Maybe you forgot that at least two Burned Furs have made threats of
physical violence and "joke" about putting a bullet in the back of the
heads of others? A BF wrote here that he was going to slam Xydexx into a
wall if he ever saw him at con.

Violence is not ever an acceptable tool for public debate, and I would just
like it clarified, okay? Pretty AR of me, I'll admit, but violence is a
serious topic.

Thanks,

Farlo

Chuck Melville wrote:


--

Farlo
Urban fey dragon

Do not stand in my way -
I will walk around you.

m>^_^<m

Farlo

unread,
Oct 27, 2000, 10:28:52 AM10/27/00
to
Chuck Melville wrote:

> What it -really- boils down to is that you can
>gore any old Sacred Ox you want, so long as it's not -my- Sacred Ox.

Heehee ... out of context, this is a great phrase.
I am from Southern California, where NIMBY originated.

Not In My Back Yard.

Farlo

unread,
Oct 27, 2000, 10:35:45 AM10/27/00
to
Farlo wrote:

>Do you mean that Xydexx has, in the past, said that "the only thing wrong
>is that the BF say something is wrong"? He may have!

Xydexx says that he has not, so I retract my statement.

MechaSquirrel

unread,
Oct 27, 2000, 10:58:15 AM10/27/00
to
Hangdog wrote:
>(As an aside, I've noticed an interesting thing about furries:
>they're well up on debaters tricks and fine shades of meaning when it
>comes to defending their own arguments, but are completely unable to
>comprehend simple logic when confronted with opposing arguments)

...

MechaSquirrel

--
I'm not saying a word...

Dave Huang

unread,
Oct 27, 2000, 11:01:53 AM10/27/00
to
In article <m83ivska9242dggnl...@4ax.com>,
Dennis Lee Bieber <wulf...@dm.net> wrote:
> All I see is a reference the BF, as a group, filling a role SIMILAR
>to that of the "ex-gay" group (though I've not quite figured out what
>"ex-gay" represents... a group of former gay individuals who now denounce
>that aspect of their lives?)

The "ex-gay" movement attempts to change gays into straights through
various forms of therapy. Many people are rather skeptical of whether
that's even possible though, and recently, the prominent chairman of
one of the conversion groups was spotted in a gay bar
<http://www.planetout.com/pno/people/features/2000/06/exgay/>

The movie "But I'm a Cheerleader" <http://www.butimacheerleader.com/>
spoofs the movement, and <http://www.bettybowers.com/bashpaulk.html>
is rather amusing too :)
--
Name: Dave Huang | Mammal, mammal / their names are called /
INet: kh...@bga.com | they raise a paw / the bat, the cat /
FurryMUCK: Dahan | dolphin and dog / koala bear and hog -- TMBG
Dahan: Hani G Y+C 24 Y++ L+++ W- C++ T++ A+ E+ S++ V++ F- Q+++ P+ B+ PA+ PL++

Dave Huang

unread,
Oct 27, 2000, 11:06:30 AM10/27/00
to
In article <8t9nc7$oaf$1...@raccoon.fur.com>, ilr <i...@rof.net> wrote:
>Am I the only one who enjoyed this article?

Nah, I liked it too :) It wasn't as funny as some of their other stuff
though...

Timothy Fay

unread,
Oct 27, 2000, 2:49:23 PM10/27/00
to
Atara wrote:
>
> Color me amused. =)
>
> And again it only reinforces the notion that it isn't the

> [plushophiles/lifestylers/evil furry fan type of the week] that
> squick people... it's the omnipresent spooge.

And that's what doomed the so-called "Burned Furs" almost from
the start, i.e., their inability to deal with this inherent
contradiction: The BFs want to rid "furry" fandom of its
"negative" elements, yet the one thing that does the most
damage to the fandom's rep is the preponderance of "adult"
material (I hesitate to call this stuff "adult," since most
of it is ridiculously juvenile -- just pick up a copy of
GALLERY and you'll see).

I'll probably have more to say about this to Mr. Blumrich in
another post...

--
http://www.umn.edu/~fayxx001

"Hey, ho -- let's go!" -Ramones

Brian O'connell

unread,
Oct 27, 2000, 3:55:50 PM10/27/00
to
Started in California, observed in Washington with a near fanatical
zeal... Oh the stories I could tell you about this place...

It's so bad at times, I'm surprised I haven't seen billboards from the
John Birch Society here (though I have seen them in CA)...

"Farlo" <hall...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:8FDA4CE20...@news.fysh.org...

Brian O'connell

unread,
Oct 27, 2000, 4:15:17 PM10/27/00
to
This is something which I have commented on many MANY times... To put an
analogy to it (and risk invoking Godwin's law), it's similar to how Germany
was operating in 1930... Their economy was in a shambles, so they used Jews
as a scapegoat... When it came down that they were attacking a singular
target and not making a significant impact, they went against other
"impurities" which could potentially cause a similar problem, ie:
defectives, homosexuals, gypsies, foreigners, etc etc etc... They were
attempting to address a problem by blaming one percieved cause, and took to
torching the rest when the singular source was found to be irellevant... And
the BF's are exactly like this... They attack anyone who questions them...
They pick a group to blame for furry fandom's "rep"... If anyone points out
that they're wrong to do so, then they attack them again... The classic "If
you aren't a part of the solution, you're a part of the problem" mentality
that we saw oh so often in Nazi Germany, McArthey America, the Bush and
Clinton Administrations, etc...

When it comes to the BF's, they claim to want to kick the perverts out
of the fandom... They go after specific groups, but that's like trying to
off, well, cockroaches... How do you get rid of roaches? Poison? Wrong...
You remove their source of food, ie: The very thing that attracts them in
the first place... How do you get rid of perverts? By yelling at them til
they go away? Not bloody likely... By removing the things that attract them,
ie: erotica, spooge, porn, what have you? Of course you do... And the BF's
can deny this until they're blue in the face, but I always knew this was one
of their chief goals... And will always challenge them...

Hell, it's normal for people to like erotica, but when anyone obsesses
on it, it very shortly becomes abnormal... And in that case, a good deal of
the BF's are exactly the same kinds of people they're trying to remove...
Abnormal obsessives who are so mentally off kilter, that they'll consider
even a nude silhouette outline as being obscene... Because it's how their
minds' eye sees it... I've had artwork that showed not a single naughty bit,
for example, and had it labeled by some non BF's as pornographic, for
example... Just a casual cheesecake shot, akin to perhaps the level of some
of Vargas' cleaner material...

As I keep explaining to these guys, and it takes the Holland Tunnel from
one ear to the next, we're (allegedly) adults who are into talking bunnies
and what have you... We ARE ALREADY freaks in the publics' minds... It
doesn't matter if you draw nothing but 'G' rated material for the rest of
your life, it doesn't matter if you draw nothing but 'XXX' material for the
rest of your life... Unless you're doing it as a job for Hallmark or any
other artistic profession, you will be... Now repeat after me: A FREAK...

Which is how the general public views anyone who isn't a fan of good ol'
fashioned sports, or at least whatever's being hyped on the WB... You're
going to be considered as abnormal by them... You are fighting the status
quo... You aren't doing something that's generally sanctioned by the media
or by a corporation... Hell, technically, the folks churning out endless
Pokemon knockoffs on Velar would be considered more normal than anyone else
in this fandom, if you took an example of their work and showed it to a
member of the general public...

"Senator, this is an ink blot, they're all ink blots... When you look at
them, what you see is what you imagine"

"Well, you call this an ink blot, but I call it sweaty naked glistening
writhing boys! It's all naked sweaty glistening boys! This is pornography
sir, and I won't approve your arts grant!!!" -MadTV excerpt (not verbatim)

invisicat

unread,
Oct 27, 2000, 4:47:33 PM10/27/00
to
furball1_(furball-one)_hates_s...@uswest.net (Brian O'connell) wrote
in <8tcnra$lo8$1...@velox.critter.net>:


<snipped Godwin hyperbole>

And now class, this is a perfect example of a straw man. Please stand clear
as Mr. Oconnell applies the petrol and lights it up.

Thankyou.

invisi(Safety first)cat

Bahumat

unread,
Oct 27, 2000, 6:13:20 PM10/27/00
to
Hangdog wrote:

> *shrug* It's about what I'd expect of someone who'd given the fandom a
> once-over lightly. Heck, it was *my* opinion until Burned Fur's opposition started showing its true colors.

I'm surprised there's any true colors to be seen, after all that
tar-brushing from both sides. -_-;

Bahumat

Richard Chandler - WA Resident

unread,
Oct 27, 2000, 6:59:45 PM10/27/00
to
In article <8FDA404BA...@news.fysh.org>, hall...@worldnet.att.net
(Farlo) writes:
> Farlo wrote:
>
> >Do you mean that Xydexx has, in the past, said that "the only thing
> >wrong is that the BF say something is wrong"? He may have!
>
> Xydexx says that he has not, so I retract my statement.

No, you don't have to, Xydexx is lying, in a rather Clintonian way, since he's
probably going by the EXACT wording of the statement, rather than the
meaning.. But then, that's typical, because what he REALLY wants is to turn
this thread into an argument about what he did or didn't say. It makes him
feel important. And when he gets tired of it, he'll say that he's got much
better things to do.

It's the same thing he's been doing for years. Anyone who bothered to read
the old flames will recall that he HAS said that people complaining about the
fandom's problems are the ones responsible for there being an image problem,
or words to that effect. However, I promised not to bring up posts from
before July, so I'm not going to dig through the remnants of DejaNews to find
it.


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

Richard Chandler - WA Resident

unread,
Oct 27, 2000, 7:04:37 PM10/27/00
to
In article <39F9CE...@tc.umn.edu>, Timothy Fay <

fayxx001@delete..this..tc.umn.edu> writes:
> just pick up a copy of GALLERY and you'll see

Have you ever? I'd stack up the adult content of any given issue of Gallery
agains tthe adult content of any other Furry 'zine and we would see a big
difference in the quality and maturity of the material.

I also disagree that a connection to adult material is more damaging than a
connection to sexual dysfunction like Bestiality.

Leslie_R

unread,
Oct 27, 2000, 8:36:00 PM10/27/00
to
Richard Chandler - WA Resident wrote:
>
> In article <39F9CE...@tc.umn.edu>, Timothy Fay <
> fayxx001@delete..this..tc.umn.edu> writes:
> > just pick up a copy of GALLERY and you'll see
>
> Have you ever? I'd stack up the adult content of any given issue of Gallery
> agains tthe adult content of any other Furry 'zine and we would see a big
> difference in the quality and maturity of the material.
>
> I also disagree that a connection to adult material is more damaging than a
> connection to sexual dysfunction like Bestiality.
>
dude, it's been said before but hat the heck i'll say it again.. people
on the outside of the fandom are in general gonna see non-humans
depected in adult situations and decide that that's "Just plain
strange"(tm) with or without some nut showing pictures of his
four-legged-wife at a con or something to that effect

-Leslie

Xydexx Squeakypony, KSC

unread,
Oct 27, 2000, 8:58:28 PM10/27/00
to
Farlo the Cool Feydragon wrote:

> Farlo the Neato Feydragon wrote:
> >Do you mean that Xydexx has, in the past, said that "the only thing
> >wrong is that the BF say something is wrong"? He may have!
>
> Xydexx says that he has not, so I retract my statement.

Thanks, Farlo. I'm glad to see there's still some folks on this
newsgroup who don't like to see misinformation spread.

I didn't really want to get involved in this argument, and
frankly have been trying to avoid it, because I know folks on
alt.fan.furry are sick of hearing about Burned Fur. I've noticed a lot
of folks are ignoring this thread anyway, because most of us have
learned that these little arguments aren't responsible for the
improvements we've seen in the fandom over the years.

Still, I might as well take the opportunity to clarify my position for
the benefit of the few folks who actually will read this, that way if
anyone wants to argue with me about it they can argue about what my
position actually _is_, and not what someone _says_ my position is. I
know some folks get tired of me saying the same thing over and over, but
sometimes it's the only way to get the point across. Besides, I hate to
see misinformation spread.

My apologies in advance to the readers of alt.fan.furry for adding to
this thread; if it's any consolation I---unlike some people---know you
don't want to hear about this anymore.

Anyway...

My position, once again, is that if people are going to complain, they
should complain to someone in a position to do something about it.

My position is frequently (deliberately, I suspect) misinterpreted as
"don't complain" or "don't point out the fandom's problems." The fact
remains, I've never said people shouldn't complain about the fandom's
problems.

Again, for clarification, because I know there's some folks out there in
the state of Washington who still haven't gotten it after five years of
my repeating it and probably still wouldn't be able to get this very,
very, very, very, very, very simple point through their skulls if one
tattooed it to their foreheads in 144-point Arial Black lettering: It's
not pointing out the problems of the fandom that I'm taking issue with,
it's the method by which it's being accomplished.

Burned Fur is a group that's (supposedly) tired of people thinking
anthropomorphics fandom is being overrun by sexually dysfunctional,
socially stunted and creatively bankrupt hacks and pervs... and think
the solution to this problem is to tell everyone as loudly as possible
that anthropomorphics fandom is being overrun by sexually dysfunctional,
socially stunted and creatively bankrupt hacks and pervs.

In other words, Burned Fur is no better than Loaded, Portal of Evil, The
Daily Show, or Rich Chandler. Not like I really needed to point it out;
most folks have already figured out improving the fandom was never one
of Burned Fur's goals. The Tantrum Heard 'Round The World was just
that---a tantrum---and given Peter Schorn's recent attempts to team up
with AWFR, Meowers, Portal Of Evil, and just about every other troll he
can find, I'm sure we'll see a lot more of the same in the future.

On the other side of the coin, there's folks like me who believe in
improving the fandom by positive methods such as supporting the things
we like and setting a good example. We're pretty quiet, because we
spend our time doing things behind the scenes helping the fandom instead
of yelling and screaming in Soul-Sucking Arguments To Nowhere on
alt.fan.furry.

Which brings me to this my last little observation. I don't want to
disappoint the few people who are reading this, so I'll tell you a
little bit about the better things I've been doing with my time, and
what I'd much rather be doing than get involved in this.

Last weekend, I went out to see Legend of Drunken Master. It was a
pretty cool movie, starring Jackie Chan. It was one of his older films,
but entertaining nonetheless. I also went out bike riding, because
these are cool autumn days and the leaves are changing, and took the
opportunity to explore the sprawling ruins of Forest Glen Seminary. I
saw a fox running down the road on my way there, and a few deer lurking
around among the vacant buildings.

The weekend before that, I was up in New York, hiking on Breakneck
Mountain, which overlooks the Hudson River in the Hudson Highlands. I
also went to explore the basement of King's College, which was abandoned
in 1994 when it went bankrupt, and got plenty of pictures for my modern
ruins page. I spent some time with my family and had a pretty good
time.

Y'know, every time I've come back from these weekend adventures of mine,
I've checked in on AFF to see that Rich Chandler apparently spent his
weekend frothing and raving around on AFF, each time more than the next,
about the same stuff he was frothing and raving about five or more years
ago. And I'd read what he posted, and have these images of poor Rich
Chandler, decades from now, hunched over his keyboard and typing
furiously away on alt.fan.furry on his Courageous And Valiant Uphill
Battle To Save The Fandom From Whatever Damned Thing He's Deluded
Himself Into Thinking Threatens It.

*trumpets blare*

And I'd think about replying, but instead I'd just sort of shake my
head. I think I can say with confidence I got the better end of the
deal.

As I've said before, I've got better things to do.

So does everyone else.[1]

--
_________________________________________________
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen / Xydexx Squeakypony, KSC
Sign the petition to keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html

[1] Well, except the people on Planet Chandler...

I'd be on the edge of my seat waiting to see
if any of this sank in, but y'see, there's
this walking tour tomorrow morning at Forest
Glen Seminary that I want to go to, and I'm
not sure what else I'm going this weekend,
but I'm sure it'll be a lot more interesting
than anything Rich Chandler has planned.

Seeya!

David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)

unread,
Oct 27, 2000, 9:34:37 PM10/27/00
to
On Thu, 26 Oct 2000 21:21:01 -0500, Hangdog <peter....@pdq.net> wrote:
>Doodles wrote:

[...]

>> I just enjoyed the proof of what a lot of folks have said all
>> along. The Burned Furs are the fandom's equivalent of the ex-gay
>> movement,
>
>Once again, you raise the old lie about Burned Fur being anti-gay.

No, he is drawring an anology.

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

David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)

unread,
Oct 27, 2000, 9:36:58 PM10/27/00
to
On Fri, 27 Oct 2000 04:07:47 GMT, Cerulean <ma...@cerulean.st> wrote:
>Quoth ilr:

>
>>Am I the only one who enjoyed this article?
>
>No, I thought it was good.

It was a good artical IMHO.

Farlo

unread,
Oct 27, 2000, 9:38:46 PM10/27/00
to
Bahumat wrote:

>I'm surprised there's any true colors to be seen, after all that
>tar-brushing from both sides. -_-;

What's that? Don't you *like* the smell of tar?

As a kid I used to love the stuff ... 'specially when it was soft.

Richard Chandler - WA Resident

unread,
Oct 27, 2000, 11:12:16 PM10/27/00
to
In article <8td8bi$lg8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Xydexx Squeakypony, KSC <xydexx@my-

deja.com> writes:
> My position, once again, is that if people are going to complain,
> they should complain to someone in a position to do something about it.
>
> My position is frequently (deliberately, I suspect) misinterpreted
> as "don't complain" or "don't point out the fandom's problems." The
> fact remains, I've never said people shouldn't complain about the
> fandom's problems.

The problem there is that "Complain to the people who can do something about
it" combined with your and others' arguments that there is no central
authority in furry fandom, boils down to "Take your complaints to someone who
doesn't exist."

Or perhaps you mean that one should only complain to those individuals who
cause the problem. The problem with this, to take one example, is that nobody
has been able to identify Zoophile 1 through Zoophile 3 who mouthed off to the
reporter from Loaded. Again, the result is "Complain to nobody" which means
"Shut up."

But, to complain publicly on a Forum like a.f.f, there's SOME chance that the
people being complained about will hear the complaints and understand that
they have hurt and offended other people and damaged the fandom. It's like
sticking up a lost and found notice. You're not sure if the message will
connect, but it's better than doing nothing.

> Burned Fur is a group that's (supposedly) tired of people
> thinking anthropomorphics fandom is being overrun by
> sexually dysfunctional, socially stunted and creatively bankrupt hacks
> and pervs... and think the solution to this problem is to tell everyone
> as loudly as possible that anthropomorphics fandom is being overrun
> by sexually dysfunctional, socially stunted and creatively bankrupt
> hacks and pervs.

Yanno, the first part is right, but the second part is wrong. But you can
only see what's happening on a.f.f, and not what's going on behind the scenes,
which is the idea.

miertam(at)aa.net

unread,
Oct 28, 2000, 1:50:36 AM10/28/00
to
On 27 Oct 2000 15:01:53 GMT, kh...@bga.com (Dave Huang) wrote:

>In article <m83ivska9242dggnl...@4ax.com>,
>Dennis Lee Bieber <wulf...@dm.net> wrote:
>> All I see is a reference the BF, as a group, filling a role SIMILAR
>>to that of the "ex-gay" group (though I've not quite figured out what
>>"ex-gay" represents... a group of former gay individuals who now denounce
>>that aspect of their lives?)
>
>The "ex-gay" movement attempts to change gays into straights through
>various forms of therapy. Many people are rather skeptical of whether
>that's even possible though, and recently, the prominent chairman of
>one of the conversion groups was spotted in a gay bar
><http://www.planetout.com/pno/people/features/2000/06/exgay/>
>

It's called brainwashing, not therapy. From what I have heard about the process
it involves some fairly draconian (my apologies to all scalies) treatments for
about a year to a year and a half, including physical/mental torturer, sleep
depravation, and starvation diets. and of course all of it is "legal" because
some judge declared the gays in question to be mentally incompetent and put them
in the custody of their gay-hateing relatives. :P:P


>The movie "But I'm a Cheerleader" <http://www.butimacheerleader.com/>
>spoofs the movement, and <http://www.bettybowers.com/bashpaulk.html>
>is rather amusing too :)

------------------------------------------
Mier'Tam

The most important thing about magic is how you don't use it.
Esk

Wonder Enis Gheen Wonder
Simon Stevin

Kyle L. Webb

unread,
Oct 28, 2000, 1:59:06 AM10/28/00
to

"Hangdog" <peter....@pdq.net> wrote in message
news:0FFE0ADED6CC1AD5.86DB5DD3...@lp.airnews.net...
> fer...@enteract.com wrote:
>
> > Oh come on. The BF haven't actually done anything other than run their
> > mouths since the Heifer Hop at AC
>
> Well, you've got me there: since we're burdened with things like good
jobs, higher education,
> real-life relationships and interesting hobbies, we can't devote the time
to the fandom that
> you can.

You know, you keep saying that, but I've seen fairly little evidence of it
compared to the rest of the fandom. I know a lot of the ALF denizens, and a
higher rate of them have advanced degrees, high paying computer or other
technical jobs and spouses than the BFs I've met. (I'll omit the interesting
hobbies cause what defines an interesting hobby can be debated. I do know
quite a number of hams, musicians, Medieval re-enactors, and such among the
ALFers. I'd consider those 'interesting' hobbies.)
I think the clothes on your emperor are a bit breezy.

Kyle L. Webb
Hartree Fox on yiffnet

Brian O'connell

unread,
Oct 28, 2000, 3:44:25 AM10/28/00
to
Thanks for demonstrating exactly what I said about the BF's...

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt kids...:)

"invisicat" <nee...@neerner.com> wrote in message
news:8FDAA3DD5...@209.125.35.22...

Timothy Fay

unread,
Oct 28, 2000, 7:32:24 AM10/28/00
to
Richard Chandler - WA Resident wrote:
>
> In article <39F9CE...@tc.umn.edu>, Timothy Fay <
> fayxx001@delete..this..tc.umn.edu> writes:
> > just pick up a copy of GALLERY and you'll see
>
> Have you ever? I'd stack up the adult content of any given issue of Gallery
> agains tthe adult content of any other Furry 'zine and we would see a big
> difference in the quality and maturity of the material.

No, Richard -- no one in Minneapolis ever buys GALLERY, so I never
get to see it. I'm just making this all up as I go along.

...But assuming that I'm not, then I can say without reservation
quality and maturity are mostly absent from the so-called "adult"
material I've seen in GALLERY. What I've seen are mostly banal
pin-ups with a juvenile fixation on certain parts of the anatomy.
Why people waste their talents on this trash is beyond me (other
than this stuff $ells). A pity, too, because most of the non-
"spooge" in GALLERY is fairly well done. The problem is, that's
not what is likely to attract the attention of the casual reader.

Oddly enough, one of your members tried for quite a while to get
me to join your APA. I'd tell you who it was, but the irony might
cause your head to explode.



> I also disagree that a connection to adult material is more
> damaging than a connection to sexual dysfunction like Bestiality.

That's just splitting hairs. Most non-furries -- the outsiders whose
opinion of furry fandom concerns some people so much -- usually
don't make any distinction between animal and semi-animal ("furry").
Any "adult" material involving furries is likely to be viewed as
deviant, at best, like Atara said earlier in this thread.

--
http://www.umn.edu/~fayxx001

"Bowl a strike, not a spare -- revolution everywhere!" -RABL motto

Richard Chandler - WA Resident

unread,
Oct 28, 2000, 3:34:39 PM10/28/00
to
In article <39FAB9...@tc.umn.edu>, Timothy Fay <fayx...@tc.umn.edu>
writes:

> Richard Chandler - WA Resident wrote:
> > Have you ever? I'd stack up the adult content of any given issue
> > of Gallery against the adult content of any other Furry 'zine and
> > we would see a big difference in the quality and maturity of
> > the material.
>
> No, Richard -- no one in Minneapolis ever buys GALLERY, so I never get
> to see it. I'm just making this all up as I go along.
>
> ....But assuming that I'm not, then I can say without reservation
> quality and maturity are mostly absent from the so-called "adult"
> material I've seen in GALLERY. What I've seen are mostly banal
> pin-ups with a juvenile fixation on certain parts of the anatomy.

But, to go back to the question you skipped, is it better or worse than the
"Juvenile Erotica" of other Furry 'zines that have erotica? Actually, given
your attitude toward erotica, I'm not entirely sure you're qualified to judge
the levels of quality in erotica.



> Oddly enough, one of your members tried for quite a while to get me
> to join your APA. I'd tell you who it was, but the irony might cause
> your head to explode.

Frankly, It wouldn't matter to me who it was, you would likely be a very poor
fit in Gallery.

And you know, looking over the reader survey, not one of the respondants
listed your name under the artists they wished me to try to recruit.

> > I also disagree that a connection to adult material is more
> > damaging than a connection to sexual dysfunction like Bestiality.
>
> That's just splitting hairs. Most non-furries -- the outsiders
> whose opinion of furry fandom concerns some people so much --
> usually don't make any distinction between animal and semi-animal
> ("furry").
> Any "adult" material involving furries is likely to be viewed as
> deviant, at best, like Atara said earlier in this thread.

So then, would you agree to the statement that the Burned Furs do not go far
enough, since they are not opposed to erotica? Are your views then more in
line with those of Ben Bruin?

Timothy Fay

unread,
Oct 29, 2000, 6:21:14 AM10/29/00
to
Richard Chandler - WA Resident wrote:
>
> But, to go back to the question you skipped, is it better or worse
> than the "Juvenile Erotica" of other Furry 'zines that have erotica?

"Better" or "worse" is immaterial. It probably would not make a
difference to the casual, outside observer. As I and others have
said, *any* sort of "adult" artwork -- "better," "worse," or
in-between -- involving characters with animal-like characteristics
will probably be regarded as "deviant" by a large percentage of
those observers.

And while there is some material in GALLERY I like (I'd mention
examples, if I wasn't afraid it would be the Kiss of Death for
those artists :) ), it is definitely not on my list of things I
would show to someone with no prior contact with "furry" fandom.

> Actually, given
> your attitude toward erotica, I'm not entirely sure you're qualified
> to judge the levels of quality in erotica.

That's like saying becase I'm not a fly, I'm not qualified to judge
the levels of quality in refuse.

...Okay, I'll buy that. :)

> Timothy Fay wrote:
> > Oddly enough, one of your members tried for quite a while to get me
> > to join your APA. I'd tell you who it was, but the irony might
> > cause your head to explode.
>
> Frankly, It wouldn't matter to me who it was, you would likely be a
> very poor fit in Gallery.

Agreed, and that is one of the reasons why I never followed up on
the suggestion (another is that I simply don't have the time to
contribute to more than one APA these days, and I'm already in
ROWR-BRAZZLE).



> And you know, looking over the reader survey, not one of the
> respondants
> listed your name under the artists they wished me to try to recruit.

Don't believe everything you read. :)

Timothy Fay

unread,
Oct 29, 2000, 7:06:27 AM10/29/00
to
Richard Chandler - WA Resident wrote:
>
> But, to go back to the question you skipped, is it better or worse
> than the "Juvenile Erotica" of other Furry 'zines that have erotica?

"Better" or "worse" is immaterial. It probably would not make a


difference to the casual, outside observer. As I and others have
said, *any* sort of "adult" artwork -- "better," "worse," or
in-between -- involving characters with animal-like characteristics
will probably be regarded as "deviant" by a large percentage of
those observers.

And while there is some material in GALLERY I like (I'd mention
examples, if I wasn't afraid it would be the Kiss of Death for
those artists :) ), it is definitely not on my list of things I
would show to someone with no prior contact with "furry" fandom.

> So then, would you agree to the statement that the Burned Furs do

> not go far enough, since they are not opposed to erotica? Are your
> views then more in line with those of Ben Bruin?

I'm not sure what Mr. Bruin's views are, so I can't say. I share
many of the Burned Furs' stated concerns (except the part about
the vegetarians :) ), but I strongly disagree with their tactics.

> Actually, given
> your attitude toward erotica, I'm not entirely sure you're qualified
> to judge the levels of quality in erotica.

That's like saying becase I'm not a fly, I'm not qualified to judge
the levels of quality in garbage.

...Okay, I'll buy that. :)

But I'll also add that "levels of quality in erotica," apart from
being a bloody oxymoron, is irrelevant. It is not the quality or
content of some types of furry "adult" material that is bad for
the fandom's reputation, but the fact that it exists and is so
seemingly pervasive.

> Timothy Fay wrote:
> > Oddly enough, one of your members tried for quite a while to get me
> > to join your APA. I'd tell you who it was, but the irony might
> > cause your head to explode.
>
> Frankly, It wouldn't matter to me who it was, you would likely be a
> very poor fit in Gallery.

Agreed, and that is one of the reasons why I never followed up on
the suggestion (lack of time was another).



> And you know, looking over the reader survey, not one of the
> respondants
> listed your name under the artists they wished me to try to recruit.

Don't believe everything you read. :)

--

Hangdog

unread,
Oct 31, 2000, 9:59:15 PM10/31/00
to
"Kyle L. Webb" wrote:

Actually, I was referring only to ferret @interact.com

What made you think I was referring to *you?*

--Hangdog ;o)


Jim Doolittle

unread,
Oct 31, 2000, 10:40:00 PM10/31/00
to
In article
<D2052B0A33ACC5DD.1A563FEA...@lp.airnews.net>,
Hangdog <peter....@pdq.net> wrote:


> Actually, I was referring only to ferret @interact.com
>
> What made you think I was referring to *you?*


Well, you blanket-generalize everyone else...


-Jim, who happens to know said ferret...he's married, has a job, and is
a very well-adjusted human being.


Oh, except for the fact that he disagrees with Hangdog. Can't have that.

--
Jim Doolittle CornWuff Press
dool...@tbcnet.com http://www.cornwuff.com
Art Show Director, Midwest FurFest
http://www.furfest.org

Hangdog

unread,
Oct 31, 2000, 10:55:11 PM10/31/00
to
Jim Doolittle wrote:

> In article
> <D2052B0A33ACC5DD.1A563FEA...@lp.airnews.net>,
> Hangdog <peter....@pdq.net> wrote:
>
> > Actually, I was referring only to ferret @interact.com
> >
> > What made you think I was referring to *you?*
>
> Well, you blanket-generalize everyone else...

Must...not...comment on...irony...MUST...NOT...

> -Jim, who happens to know said ferret...he's married, has a job, and is
> a very well-adjusted human being.

*shrug* Bully for him, then. I'd've thought he'd understand a little bit
better about life getting in the way. But perhaps it's all a question of
priorities...

> Oh, except for the fact that he disagrees with Hangdog. Can't have that.

"O! I am slayne!"

--Shakespere, _Hamlet_

Kyle L. Webb

unread,
Nov 1, 2000, 9:30:01 PM11/1/00
to

"Hangdog" <peter....@pdq.net> wrote in message
news:D2052B0A33ACC5DD.1A563FEA...@lp.airnews.net...

>
> Actually, I was referring only to ferret @interact.com

Who has a wife, a job and some neat hobbies. I've never asked him how much
college he attended. but he seems bright and well educated. Maybe I'll ask
him when I see him this weekend. He does seem to accomplish a lot of good
things both in and out of furry, and seems to be quite a busy sort. Your
implication that he's a loser with no life is pretty far from reality.

>
> What made you think I was referring to *you?*

I didn't.

You've made this as a general statement about those opposed to you in the
past (for example in the intro to the BF message board.), implying that the
BFs have more of a "real life" than others. I see little evidence it has
much relationship to reality. It does seem to be a handy rationalization
though.

Bahumat

unread,
Nov 2, 2000, 1:15:18 AM11/2/00
to
Hangdog wrote:

> Oh, don't thank us yet. We have lots more to do :o)
>

Like saving my fandom. Oh, wait...

Bahumat

Doug Winger

unread,
Nov 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/4/00
to
In article <8u2o90$ho6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Ben Bruin
<lonely...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> In article <8t9lf6$6e$1...@samba.rahul.net>,
> bdy...@network.boxmail.com wrote:
> > At the risk of throwing fuel onto a fire that never dies:
> >
> > http://www.brunching.com/features/furries.html
> >
> > It equates furrydom with sex <snip>It also mentions the Burned
> > Furs, though probably not in a way they'd like.
>
> Pretty much. For those who weren't paying attention, though-- and for
> the majority who are functionally incapable of adding two and two
> without getting seventeen--- *it wasn't the Burned Furs that drew their
> attention.* The mention they give to the Burned Furs boils down to
> "These guys say it *isn't* a pervert farm. Shyeah, right." It's more an
> implicit condemnation of Burned Fur's too-little, too-late attempt to
> salvage the fandom's nasty reputation.
> Basic math, people:
> Thousands personal sites.
> Hundreds of personal archives with porn.
> Hundreds more "furry erotic stories" that would make Larry Flynt
> upchuck.
> God-only-knows how many FAQs proclaiming the affinity between Furry
> Fandom, bestiality, plushophilia, polyamory, sex kinks, and
> WiccaPagaNewAgeBullshiTotemism.
> Versus
> 1 site complaining about it.
> Who do you think they saw first?
> And furthermore, I'd bet cold hard cash that they found a link to the
> Burned Furs on some "Freezing Furs/FurPride" hissyfit page... after
> wading thru the porno, werewolf, vore, and bestiality support-group
> links.
>
> Now that all the fandom's dirty laundry is rapidly whirling thru
> neighborhood on the wind for all the world to see, I'd just like to
> say....
>
> HI, MANAWOLF, XYDEXX, DOUG WINGER, AND COMPANY. ***THANKS SO MUCH FOR
> THE FRICKING P.R. WORK.***
>

I can't speak for the rest, but you're welcome.

And your math needs work, m'man, or at least your reading comprehension.
While he did give nodding mention to the 'sexual deviates' you go on about, he
editorially shrugged, winked, and so much as said, "To each their own." Sushi,
anyone?

Go back and re-read that article, and note well who came in first on his
scorn meter and who he wrote upon in the greatest detail. It seems to me that
you weren't the one paying attention.


- Doug, Busily Destroying Ben's Fandom Since '94


p.s. Apologies to the rest, and even Ben, but I'm feeling snappish. This
latest misinterpretation of reality is yet more evidence that few here
actually manage to read things are they're written, but somehow can manage to
add in something that _nobody else sees written there_. No doubt, they're
using their keen extrasensory perception to accertain the _real_ truth behind
what's being written, even though it's been cleverly been left out to mislead
folks. They then use that certain knowledge in an attempt to bash their
"opponents" [read: people they don't like] over the head with, displaying a
degree of zeal nowadays only seen at some SCA tournaments. That I could live
with, but it's the complete and utter lack of any discernible sense of humor
shown that really annoys me.

Ben Bruin

unread,
Nov 4, 2000, 11:38:56 PM11/4/00
to

---
"What was that popping noise?"
"A paradigm shifting without a clutch."
Dilbert

Al Goldman

unread,
Nov 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/5/00
to
In article <8u2o90$ho6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Ben Bruin <lonely...@hotmail.com>
writes:

<snip>

Ben, we've been discussing the Brunching Shuttlecocks article
for more than a week. Jumping in at the end of a thread and
throwing a hissy fit won't help.

If you had bothered to read AFF for the last week or two you
would know, for example, why I feel all external press exposure
can't hurt the fandom. Then you may have been able to post
something interesting in contrast to my comments.

Instead, you just walk in here and throw shit all over the place.

Newbie Rule - read a group for a week or two before posting.

Expert Rule - read a group for a week or two before posting,
even if you know what the group is about, so you don't
make a foolish, flaming idiot of yourself by rehashing old
business.

Al Goldman



Laws are sand, Customs are rock. Laws can be evaded and punishment excaped, but
an openly transgressed custom brings sure punishement.

- Mark Twain

Wanderer

unread,
Nov 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/5/00
to
Ben Bruin wrote in message <8u2o90$ho6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...

>In article <8t9lf6$6e$1...@samba.rahul.net>,
> bdy...@network.boxmail.com wrote:
>> At the risk of throwing fuel onto a fire that never dies:
>>
>> http://www.brunching.com/features/furries.html
>>
>> It equates furrydom with sex <snip>It also mentions the Burned
>> Furs, though probably not in a way they'd like.
>
>Pretty much. For those who weren't paying attention, though-- and for
>the majority who are functionally incapable of adding two and two
>without getting seventeen--- *it wasn't the Burned Furs that drew their
>attention.* The mention they give to the Burned Furs boils down to
>"These guys say it *isn't* a pervert farm. Shyeah, right." It's more an
>implicit condemnation of Burned Fur's too-little, too-late attempt to
>salvage the fandom's nasty reputation.

Um, sorry, love, but that's not what I get from:

"Enter the "Burned Furs," a splinter Furry group made up of people who have
an obsession with fuzzy tiger head people but who are tired of being thought
of as abnormal. Their stance is that it's perfectly okay to spend eight
weeks and five hundred dollars on a homemade badger suit so that you can
wear it in public, but if you have sex in it you're just weird. It's like a
Trek fan saying "Well, sure, I'm fluent in Klingon, but that guy used it for
his wedding ceremony! Let's all mock him!" "

To draw a different version of the same parallel, they see the Burned Furs
as saying, "Yeah, maybe I spent hundreds of thousands of dollars recreating
Captain Kirk's quarters on the original Enterprise, but *that* guy actually
has *sex* on the bed! *He's* weird, while *I* am simply someone who
appreciates a classic work of television."

Worse:

"The very fact that the Burned Furs had to organize makes one doubt their
proposition that Furryfolk aren't primarily in it for the eros. Nobody's had
to form a group to convince people that concert pianists aren't sexual
deviants. If I came across an organization arguing that people who sell
produce at Farmer's Markets aren't all actually f___ing their vegetables,
I'd certainly start examining my broccoflower more closely before cooking
it."

(Please pardon my censoring of the Germanic word in the above. One never
knows where young furs may lurk ... )

Basically, "If this isn't true, then why do they need to form an
organization telling people it isn't true? Sounds like the Flat Earth
Society to me."

And again I say, I have no idea where you find people with who Furrydom has
developed a reputation. Unless I specifically mention "Bugs Bunny", I can't
get a spark of recognition in my not-so-little corner of Texas.

Yours wolfishly,

The virginal,

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!

Xydexx Squeakypony, KSC

unread,
Nov 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/6/00
to
Ben Bruin wrote:
> HI, MANAWOLF, XYDEXX, DOUG WINGER, AND COMPANY.
> ***THANKS SO MUCH FOR THE FRICKING P.R. WORK.***


Awww. You're so sexy when you say thank you, Ben.


*lots of ponykisses*


--
_________________________________________________
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen / Xydexx Squeakypony, KSC
Sign the petition to keep Deja's archive alive!