Brunching Shuttlecocks on Furry Fandom
bdy...@network.boxmail.com
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
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
> 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
> 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
> 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
--> Loved that line. :)
Bahumat, laughing heartily
Jim Doolittle
> 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
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
>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
> 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
> 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
> 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
>
> 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.
>
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
> 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
> 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
>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
> 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
>> 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
>pathetic.
OOH! OOH!! could you post it here pretty please???
meg
Leslie_R
>
> 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
> (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
Meglique wrote:
Eric's already done that; look for the post titled AN OPEN LETTER.
Chuck Melville
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
-- 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
> 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
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
> 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
>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
>(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
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
>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
>
> Color me amused. =)
>
> [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
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
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
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
> *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