A combined reply to Xydexx

154 views
Skip to first unread message

Richard Chandler

unread,
Dec 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/26/97
to

Distribution: world

> It never ceases to amaze me that no matter how much people say
> bad behavior at cons offends them and gives us a bad reputation, they
> see nothing wrong with showcasing it here, where it can do exactly
> the same thing.
>
> (Heck, I should just put that in my .sig file and save myself the
> trouble....)

See no evil eh?

> I am looking forward to buying an issue of Gallery from Rich Chandler.
>

Tell you what, buy a copy of #26, that's the one with the often-ignored second
editorial, the followup to Mass Graves entitled Pedestals, which talks about
good things in the fandom

> Richard Chandler wrote:
> > What should be done? Not complaining about them doesn't seem to me
> > to be an effective plan.
>
> As I mentioned in my earlier reply: Complaining is fine if
> you're complaining to the person responsible or someone in a position
> to do something about it. Does this person you're complaining about
> read alt.fan.furry? No? Well, congratulations, then, you have
> the dubious honor of adding to the rare occasions of bad press
> furry fandom gets online.

Well, "the person resposible" is not neccessarily who you might think it is.
The original thread involed Mark Merlino. Some believe he is behind the
increase in bad behavior at CF, since he runs it and has done little to stop
it (And some believe he's encouraged the presence of those who are behaving
badly). Perhaps your paragraph above is referring to the individuals who
actually engaged in the observed bad behavior. Certainly nobody can deny that
they bear responsibility for their actions.

But the true audience is any furry fan who attends ConFurence. We are ALL
responsible for what happens in our presence. As the old expression goes "All
it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.". If you are a
furry fan, one of your responsibilities to the community of furry fans is to
protect it. That includes stopping people from doing things that damage the
public image of the fandom. (And I don't consider mentioning things here to
be in that category if it helps stop it from recurring. As I said, find me a
better forum and I'll use it). We can either be like the New Yorkers who
turned up the TV volume while Kitty Genovese was being murdered outside their
windows, or we can be like the folks who organize a neighborhood watch. I
think it should be obvious which alternative is better.

I did my part. When the girl with the whip started up, I immediately walked
up to her and said "How about a little public Decorum?" She and her
companions stomped off, but I'd rather have her upset than to upset the woman
at the registration desk, who would talk about what a screwed up bunch these
furries are. (What if one day she had advanced in her career and was a
manager at a hotel that would be perfect for ConFurence? This would be bad.)

(there's also an issue of Consent. When you conduct an S&M scene in a public
space, you are involving all of the people who witness it in the scene.
Properly, you should have their consent before starting, which is implied at a
BDSM party, but NOT in a hotel lobby).

> Here's a riddle: How will complaining about someone's behavior make
> them stop if they aren't around to read your complaints?

Because someone else will learn that it's wrong and be in a position to stop
it next time.

> Well, you say, we have to point out this bad behavior so let other
> people know it's inappropriate. After all, every other post on
> this newsgroup is someone bragging about how they're going to
> stick bananas in their ears in the lobby and there's nothing anyone can
> do about it, right? I mean, those are the kind of people who show up
> to Confurence
> --- or at least, the only ones who seem to get the most attention.

You know, I can't say I recall seeing a post on a.f.f where someone bragged
they were going to shoot a load of semen in the elevator, but it happened.
Same for the girl with the whip. Your facitious comment has been noted, along
with how seriously you consider things that are bad for the fandom's image.

Here's a riddle for you: How many posts on a.f.f would there be about somone
spurting on the wall of the elevator if such things didn't happen at CF?

> Which brings us right back to the crux of the whole enchilada; if
> you don't like the media focusing on these people, perhaps you
> should re-evaluate your reasons for doing so and what, really,
> will focusing on them accomplish?
>
> Cui bono, to whose benefit, is this information? How will telling
> people like _me_ that this behavior is unacceptable make a
> difference, when I don't do it in the first place?

See above. Now that you know, you can help nip problems in the bud. If you
are a responsible fan as interested as you claim to be in the positive image
of furry fandom. I'm not asking you to stand in for Security, or go
patrolling. But if you're in the right place at the right time, a few words
or a call for Con Security can go a long way.

> I read your post briefly during lunch hour, and on my way up the
> Beltway this question popped into my mind: Does Rich Chandler ever
> enjoy himself at furry conventions?
>
> Just thought I'd ask, y'know... it may be that Black Dot On A
> White Background thing again, but I was trying to think all day
> of something nice you've said about furry conventions in the past,
> and couldn't. I'm sure you must've had at least a halfway-decent
> time, because otherwise you wouldn't keep going back, right? At
> least that's the way it works for me. So why is it I can't recall
> any time you've talked about the people you've met at a furry
> convention without it being someone who has offended or upset you in
> some way? Do you enjoy cons at all, Rich?

(you repeated yourself). I used to have a lot more fun at CF than I have
lately. It used to be that when I hung out with my friends there, we had lots
of fun discussions, but now it's all about the various assaults on their
sensibilities. I go for what mainly turns out to be business reasons.
ConFurence is still the biggest opportunity to sell copies of Gallery, sign up
new subscribers, and solicit new artists. Now I don't make a cent on the
book, and I have to pay my own way to get there, but the snipped reasons I
gave are the other incentives for me to go, to see friends, buy lots of furry
art and pubs, and have fun. Still, I owe it to all the artists who do profit
from Gallery, and all the fans who want to get it to make my best effort to be
there.

> Granted, I have no figures either. I can, however, make an educated
> guess that since numerous furry webpages have links to alt.fan.furry,
> and that this would be the obvious choice of newsgroup for people to
> read if they were interested in furry fandom, that it would seem likely
> --- even highly probable --- that this would be among the first points
> of contact for people online who are discovering furry fandom.

Uh huh. And I wonder, is it still a few easy clicks from your furry Fandom
welcome page to the page where you describe the best way to seduce you online
in your admittedly unusual sexual obsession for being inflated - particularly
to the snuff-fantasy like extent of bursting? I've been in Furry Fandom for
over ten years now, and that is one of the most bizarre and incomprehensible
perversions I've ever encountered.

> Remember, while not everyone discovers furry fandom online, not
> everyone discovers it through conventions or comics, either.
> (I discovered furry fandom via Furrymuck, not via a convention or
> comics.) If you're worried about the sort of impression someone
> sticking bananas in their ears in the lobby is going to make on
> newbies, I'm sure you can also relate to the impression one might
> come away with after reading this newsgroup and seeing a dozen or so
> posts about it.

It depends on if those posts are condemning it, or defending it. Hmmm, who
is defending it here? Why, you are, by telling us not to attack it.

> The issue here is more of the disproportionate amount of bandwidth
> devoted to the small percentage of bad behavior that goes on at
> furry conventions.
>
> One concrete example out of what, 1200+ attendees, over a four day
> period?

There was more than one example. But the question is, how many insect parts
and rat feces are acceptable in your Cheerios? The government has an
allowance, but you hope that General Mills has a much higher standard. We
need a higher standard for behavior at CF. You'll have to admit, if there are
no incidents at CF, there will only be posts on a.f.f praising it. Hmmm,
isn't that kind of like what happened after AAC?

> > I say that is essential that as many furry fans as possible be
> > informed of what is considered bad behaviour so they know what not to
> > do.
>
> That's all well and good, and I'm not saying you don't mean well, but
> how many people have you seen posting to alt.fan.furry saying
> they're going to stick bananas in their ears in the lobby at CF9?
> I haven't seen very many, personally.

(You're repeating yourself again). Nobody announces that they plan to spoo on
the walls of the elevator or conduct a whipping in the lobby, they just do it.
Why? I don't know. They SHOULD know better.

> Now, I'm sure you're on the edge of your seat waiting for me to give
> you the magic answer that will solve all of fandom's problems,
> right? Well, I hate to break the news to you, but I'm not responsible
> for other people's behavior.

You are, if though your inaction you allow it to continue.

> First off, bear in mind that I'm not on CF Staff, and ultimately, _
> they_ are the ones who are in a position to change things in terms of
> CF Policy & Guidelines, not me. If I were looking for a place to
> direct my complaints [if I had any] about CF, they'd be the first ones
> to know about them.

As others have said, they've shirked their responsibility in this matter.

> I think the obvious course of action is to either tell the individual
> who is behaving badly, or complain to someone who can do something
> about it.

<bing!> Very good. Youv'e finally arrived at the point. So, I assume the
next CF, when you see some couple going well beyond the bounds of a simple hug
and kiss hello, and getting into the realm of a full-blown back-seat of the
drive-in groping session, you too can say "Say, why don't you go someplace
more private for that?" (Note I said nothing about the gender of the folks
involved.)

> Now, I didn't want to mention this last point, because I don't want
> this to take a turn for the Stupid and turn into even more bickering,
> but I'll mention it solely for the purpose of full disclosure so there
> are no surprises: I had a wonderful time at Albany AnthroCon. Yes,
> I know, I say that about all the furry conventions I go to, because
> I honestly do enjoy myself. However, I had such a wonderful time that
> I would also add that I was _impressed_ with Albany AnthroCon.
> So impressed that I'd even say it's raised my expectations a bit
> higher... but that's all I care to say at this point. You'll have to
> wait until after CF9 if you want me to elaborate.

I hope that the competition of all these other conventions that have sprung
out of people's dissatisfaction with the way things have been done at CF will
indeed "Raise the bar". I hope CF can rise to the challenge and become the
Convention we all can be proud of.

> > Oh, and to inject one bit of personal opinion. I think that the
> > people who only go to CF for reasons that don't have any connections
> > to anthropomorphic art, stories, costuming or music or appreciation
> > of same are the RL equivalent of those who get on FurryMuck, not
> > because they are interested in furries, but because they read in
> > Wired that a lot of TS goes on there. I refer to them not as fans,
> > but as Camp Followers. And if they aren't really Furry fans,
> > then they're fair game to pick on.
>
> Okay, I'll have to take your word for that. If that's the case,
> I'd prolly even agree with you there. People who aren't furry fans or
> (as mentioned in a recent InFurNation,) "friends of relations of
> Furry Fans who can at least tolerate the idea enough to have a good
> time", really don't have any business attending a furry convention.

My question about the statement of the con is "Why is Furry fandom portrayed
as something that friends and relations have to "Tolerate"?" Tolerate is such
a belittling word. I never want to be "tolerated" I'd prefer to be Accepted,
or Understood, or even better Envied. :-)

> I'd also be the first to point out, however, that just because someone
> is wearing a collar, it doesn't necessarily therefore follow that
> they aren't a furry fan.

Never said that it does. And as Others have pointed out, Collars can be quite
the fashion sgtatement. I have even made some very impressive looking collars
for friends of mine. Although I think a cheap nylon dog collar from the pet
asile at the supermarket is a little cheesy looking, and having a leash
hanging from it dangling nearly to the floor is simply goofy, as well as an
accident waiting to happen.


--
On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog... but they can tell right
off the bat if you're an idiot! -- Me
http://www.teleport.com/~mauser/ Gallery Web Page
"Yeah, I've got ADD, wanna make something of.... oooh, cool. Look!"


Karl Meyer

unread,
Dec 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/27/97
to

Richard Chandler <mau...@claris.com> wrote:
: (there's also an issue of Consent. When you conduct an S&M scene in a public
: space, you are involving all of the people who witness it in the scene.
: Properly, you should have their consent before starting, which is implied at a
: BDSM party, but NOT in a hotel lobby).

I can certainly agree with that. Given the apparent number of furs into
this activity, perhaps somebody should arrange a private party of that
nature. That would be both fun and probably help keep said activity out of
places where it doesn't really belong such as hotel lobbies.

: > Now, I'm sure you're on the edge of your seat waiting for me to give

: > you the magic answer that will solve all of fandom's problems,
: > right? Well, I hate to break the news to you, but I'm not responsible
: > for other people's behavior.

: You are, if though your inaction you allow it to continue.

Wrong. The responsibility for the bad behavior still falls soley on the
ones doing it. While it would be admirable for furs not on con staff or
security to get involved and do what you suggest, they are not under any
particular duty to do so. In fact I'd say the best course would be to
contact somebody on con staff who's duty it would be to take care of the
problem.

: <bing!> Very good. Youv'e finally arrived at the point. So, I assume the

: next CF, when you see some couple going well beyond the bounds of a simple hug
: and kiss hello, and getting into the realm of a full-blown back-seat of the
: drive-in groping session, you too can say "Say, why don't you go someplace
: more private for that?" (Note I said nothing about the gender of the folks
: involved.)

Maybe or maybe not. Depends on the circumstances.

: I hope that the competition of all these other conventions that have sprung

: out of people's dissatisfaction with the way things have been done at CF will
: indeed "Raise the bar". I hope CF can rise to the challenge and become the
: Convention we all can be proud of.

I doubt that dissatisfaction with CF has been the primary motivation for
any of the new furry cons. I will say that I feel some of them have been
run in a more professional and organized manner but that's beside the
point. Making out other cons as existing only to spite CF is hardly fair
to the ones running them and undermines the amount of work that goes into
doing so.

: My question about the statement of the con is "Why is Furry fandom portrayed

: as something that friends and relations have to "Tolerate"?" Tolerate is such
: a belittling word. I never want to be "tolerated" I'd prefer to be Accepted,
: or Understood, or even better Envied. :-)

Some have to take what they can get.


Rainshadow

unread,
Dec 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/27/97
to

In article <971226170...@marble.claris.com>, mau...@claris.com (Richard Chandler) writes:

> it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.". If you are a
> furry fan, one of your responsibilities to the community of furry fans is to
> protect it. That includes stopping people from doing things that damage the
> public image of the fandom. (And I don't consider mentioning things here to

Any time the issue of furry fandom's reputation is raised in ths forum, it
is almost always alleged to be bad and getting worse. Often, the individuals
voicing such negative opinions go further and diagnose the problem, in this
case, laying the blame for this allegedly worsening reputation at the feet
of those who are less than reserved in their inhibitions towards public
displays of sexual activity. In the past, fursuiters, plushophiles, gays,
spoogehounds, the BDSM crowd, the lifestyleists, the MUCKers, and the openly
sexually affectionate as well have all have been scapegoated here at one time
or another in the seasonal Crusade(s) to Improve Our Image(tm).

I am willing to concede that when one talks about furry fandom's reputation
_within_ the fandom, these folks (of which I am one) cause problems because
their words/actions/very existence appears to offend some other subset
of furry fandom. However, when the offended parties attempt to rally the
undecided in ostracizing the offenders-of-the-month, they often like
to assert that these groups are hurting our reputation _outside_ of
the fandom as well.

I think that assertion is bunk.

As I have demonstrated before, the fandom's reputation amongst those not within
it is either a) nonexistent, b) limited to some subset of the sf/fantasy
fanddoms, or c) limited to (allegedly) some subset of the animation industry.
Amongst the sf/fantasy bunch, we are known quite negatively as "skunkfuckers",
and amongst the animation types, we are (apparently) alleged to be perverts
for some vague reason which is not clearly stated, but which seems to be
generated in response to their viewing of furry art in general and furry
erotica in specific.

In all of the tales I have heard concerning the birth of the "skunkfucker"
moniker, and in all of the posts I have read describing our reputation
amongst the animation industry, _never_ once have I heard someone claim
convincingly that this foul reputation was earned by our collective public
conduct at cons, or our alleged sexual deviances, our propensity towards
stuffed animals or collars or tails, or fursuiting or _any_ of the interests
traditionally blamed for it... except for one, the one which noone ever seems
to mention, the one which is implicit in the language of the "skunkfucker"
label.

It is the allegation that we are all bestialists of some stripe, based on
the fact that we like to draw, and look at, creatures which have attractive
human physiques as their base forms.

Folks, if we have a bad rep in the animation industry or the sf/fantasy
fandom, it is _not_ because these folks have a thing against ball gags
and collars, or against openly gay displays of affection, or against
people who want to be animals. It is because they look at furry art and
decide that what we really want is to screw the neighbor's pooch.

We all know in our hearts that this is not the case, so what remains is
convincing others of it...

And convincing the insecure among us that maybe a great deal of their angst
and venom which they vent here has at its core a sense of guilt and
uncertainty that what we really are are bestialists in denial.

***

So the next time you ask yourself why it is that the fandom's reputation
is so rotten, first seperate our internal reputation from our external
one, 'cause they are not the same. Then, when contemplating the external one,
try to imagine why the simple connection made when you take animalistic
accents and add them to anatomically correct human figures would make an
outsider think that we're hopeless, demented perverts.

Then think of ways of convincing them otherwise.

Folks, it is the art that makes people slap us with these labels
and gloss us with these negative reputations, nothing more, nothing less.

Accept it, get past it, and help others to get past it too.

-Rain'

--
Sometimes life is like an x86 processor... one needs to go into
protected mode every once in a while to keep from crashing... ;)

(ude.dscu.liamoib@tarknapd)

Dr. Cat

unread,
Dec 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/27/97
to

Richard Chandler (mau...@claris.com) wrote:
: > Here's a riddle: How will complaining about someone's behavior make
: > them stop if they aren't around to read your complaints?

: Because someone else will learn that it's wrong and be in a position to stop
: it next time.

I posted a rather lengthy and rambling analysis of this line of reasoning
last friday, and it does occur to me to wonder for a moment whether Mr.
Chandler agrees or disagrees with that analysis, or purrhaps agrees with
some parts and disagrees with others. However, given the whimsical nature
of Usenet it's entirely possible that the post hasn't reached the news
server he uses yet, or that it won't ever. Or that he has that particular
thread killfiled now for being such a generally annoying thread, or that
he felt I was just joking around and there was no point in formulating an
opinion of any kind on what I said, or that he hasn't had the time (or
maybe not the interest) to read ALL the new posts in a.f.f. this week but
has responded to the subset of posts he did browse through, or who knows
what else.

All in all I think this arguing business is just way too much work for me.
Asking Mr. Chandler which of those cases might be true, or whether it's
some other one that he could inform me about, that would require me to type
in probably an entire sentence to ask, or maybe even two. And as you can
see from the incredible brevity of this post and most of my others I'm
just not cat enough to be equal to such a task. And besides, it doesn't
stop there, he might well choose to *reply* to my inquiry, making me feel
obligated to expend more time and energy to actually *read* his answer!
And depending what it is, I might feel like I should type in another
sentence or more in reply to what he said - maybe even up into the
range of multiple paragraphs!

No, no, I'm just not ready for that level of comittment. I'm not even
sure how to spell comittment, or commitment, or whatever the heck the
right spelling is, so how can I handle having one? This whole "talking
to other people" thing in general is way too much work, can lead to THEM
choosing to talk to YOU when THEY want it, and generally interrupting
one's time for solitary activities like watching rented videotapes and
playing through long and complex scenarios in computer strategy games
whilst huddled over a glowing screen in a dark room by oneself,
surrounded by junk food, comic books, and stuffed animals. Oh, and
reading comic books.

So here's what I'm going to do, because I know most of you have NO
interest in knowing such details of my life but maybe two or three of
you do and so I'm going to inflict this information on all of you even
if I'm wrong and there aren't even two or three that wanna read it
but actually just totally zero people. 'cause that's how Usenet works!
I am going to assume, in blissful ignorance of the actual facts of the
matter, that Rich Chandler did in fact read my earlier post detailing
the chain of assumptions required in order to believe this "if you
post about problems here it'll help stop people from doing those things
at future cons" theory, and that upon reading it, he decided that I was
in fact correct that all of those assumptions are required in order to
believe that theory, but that he didn't have any problem with that
because he already believed each and every single one of those assumptions
to be correct. And further, he felt that my reasoning was so obvious
and self-evident and like that there that he really felt no need to
comment on it in any way and just went on to reply to stuff Xydexx said
instead.

I don't know what the odds are of my totally baseless set of assumptions
about Mr. Chandler's thinking being actually correct. As opposed to,
like, being totally wrong or something. But upon consideration, it
seems to me that the consequences to me if my assumptions about what
he thinks are wrong and yet I go ahead and choose to assume them anyway...
Those consquences are so incredibly small there's just hardly any risk
at all in making them anyway. So I'm going to make those assumptions,
as I've already said, to both save time and give me the self-satisfied
feeling of thinking others believe me to be right. And then I'm going
to go work on adding cool features to the Furcadia server code some more
and play Toonstruck (which by the way has a bunch of furry cartoon critters
in it and I spotted the name of a well known furry artist and animator in
the game credits) and other fun stuff.

If anyone was hoping for a higher level of participation in this discussion
from me personally, my apologies, but I mean like "As if!" and "Not!" and
other trendy, hip phrases for "I don't think so, I mean come on, get a
clue dude, nobody wanted me to anyway".

So ok I love you bye bye.

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

(Disclaimer: If you've actually read this far, you probably are almost as
desperate for entertainment as I am. I'd suggest you turn off your computer
immediately, acquire some furry comics (or other furry materials in your
personally preferred formats, potentially including but by no means limited
to: novels, fanzines, portfolios, prints, videotapes, computer games, and
stuffed animals) and try to relax. Or go see Mouse Hunt, because I heard
I think they have an animal in the movie and I hear a lot of people hear
like animals so maybe if you're one of them you might have fun.)

(Note: The author takes no responsibility if you go to buy a really cool
stuffed animal in order to help you try to relax but then he ends up
being right there and buying it 3 seconds before you were going to so
you don't get to have it. Them's the breaks, pal. However if YOU get
it 3 seconds before him, he expects you to take full responsibility!
(Whether you will or not is another matter, but he does expect you to.))

Xydexx the Inflatable Unicorn

unread,
Dec 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/28/97
to

[Ahhhh... there's nothing like coming back from the holidays to find a
great big post from Richard Chandler on AFF to keep me busy....]

Richard Chandler wrote:
> Tell you what, buy a copy of #26, that's the one with the often-ignored second
> editorial, the followup to Mass Graves entitled Pedestals, which talks about
> good things in the fandom

Yes, okay... I stand corrected, you have actually said some nice things
about furry fandom in the past. (Just none of them on a.f.f., right?)

[WRT complaining to the person responsible:]


> Well, "the person resposible" is not neccessarily who you might think it is.
> The original thread involed Mark Merlino. Some believe he is behind the
> increase in bad behavior at CF, since he runs it and has done little to stop
> it (And some believe he's encouraged the presence of those who are behaving
> badly).

Okay. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. I'm not Mark Merlino, nor am I
acquainted with him closely enough [actually, I don't know if I've ever
met him, or if I did, I don't remember it...] to comment either way on
that.

> Perhaps your paragraph above is referring to the individuals who
> actually engaged in the observed bad behavior. Certainly nobody can deny that
> they bear responsibility for their actions.

Agreed, and yes, I am referring to the individuals who actually engaged
in the bad behavior.

> But the true audience is any furry fan who attends ConFurence. We are ALL
> responsible for what happens in our presence. As the old expression goes "All
> it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.". If you are a
> furry fan, one of your responsibilities to the community of furry fans is to
> protect it. That includes stopping people from doing things that damage the
> public image of the fandom.

Okay, I'll agree with that part. However:

> (And I don't consider mentioning things here to be in that category if it
> helps stop it from recurring. As I said, find me a better forum and I'll
> use it).

Here I disagree, because there is no evidence that this helps stop it
from recurring. There _is_ evidence that it turns people off and gives
people the wrong impression about CF, which is what you're supposedly
trying to avoid to begin with.

> I did my part. When the girl with the whip started up, I immediately walked
> up to her and said "How about a little public Decorum?" She and her
> companions stomped off, but I'd rather have her upset than to upset the woman
> at the registration desk, who would talk about what a screwed up bunch these
> furries are.

Okay, good for you. (Personally, I'd be more concerned with her missing
and accidentally hitting someone in the eye or something...)

> > Here's a riddle: How will complaining about someone's behavior make
> > them stop if they aren't around to read your complaints?
>
> Because someone else will learn that it's wrong and be in a position to stop
> it next time.

But the person you're complaining about will not.



> You know, I can't say I recall seeing a post on a.f.f where someone bragged
> they were going to shoot a load of semen in the elevator, but it happened.

> Same for the girl with the whip. Your facetious comment has been noted, along


> with how seriously you consider things that are bad for the fandom's image.

Y'know, every time the elevator incident [reportedly on the same day and
time as the Ice Cream Social] gets mentioned, I often wonder how on
earth someone determined that it was spooge... was it by taste, perhaps?

Anyway, if there aren't people on a.f.f. bragging about how they're
going to spooge all over the elevator --- why are you acting like there
are?

I agree these things _are_ bad for fandom's image --- I just don't agree
that posting things that _are_ bad for fandom's image all over a.f.f.
_isn't_.



> Here's a riddle for you: How many posts on a.f.f would there be about somone
> spurting on the wall of the elevator if such things didn't happen at CF?

I'm not saying they didn't happen. I'm saying I didn't see them, and
wouldn't have even known about it if someone hadn't mentioned it here.
In fact, I'm sure _lots_ of people wouldn't have known about it if it
hadn't been mentioned.

> See above. Now that you know, you can help nip problems in the bud. If you
> are a responsible fan as interested as you claim to be in the positive image
> of furry fandom. I'm not asking you to stand in for Security, or go
> patrolling. But if you're in the right place at the right time, a few words
> or a call for Con Security can go a long way.

I must admit, my first priority at furry conventions is to have a good
time, Rich -- not to play Morality Militia. But okay, I understand
you're not asking me to do that. And yes, I agree if I'm in the right
place at the right time, I can do something. You may even be shocked to
learn that I _have_ helped alert Con Security when problems arose (and
it was for something far more serious than something sticky in the
elevator).

> I used to have a lot more fun at CF than I have lately.

Okay. Just wondering.

> > Granted, I have no figures either. I can, however, make an educated
> > guess that since numerous furry webpages have links to alt.fan.furry,
> > and that this would be the obvious choice of newsgroup for people to
> > read if they were interested in furry fandom, that it would seem likely
> > --- even highly probable --- that this would be among the first points
> > of contact for people online who are discovering furry fandom.

> Uh huh. And I wonder, is it still a few easy clicks from your furry Fandom
> welcome page to the page where you describe the best way to seduce you online
> in your admittedly unusual sexual obsession for being inflated - particularly
> to the snuff-fantasy like extent of bursting? I've been in Furry Fandom for
> over ten years now, and that is one of the most bizarre and incomprehensible
> perversions I've ever encountered.

Flattery will get you nowhere, Richard. -;)

Your judgemental observations have been noted, however, and I believe
your concerns should certainly be addressed in the interest of full
disclosure, since an open dialogue will benefit everyone. Besides, I've
got nothing to hide... except my boycott of Mu Press.

First off, you didn't notice the Furry Fandom Welcome Wagon [FFWW] is
titled "Xydexx's Anthrofurry Homepage" [XAH] now. Judging from your
reply, you haven't looked at it recently and don't _really_ know what's
there. I mean, you wouldn't be asking if you did, right? I'm sure that
was just an oversight, though.

To my credit, the page you described was not part of FFWW [nor XAH], nor
was there even a direct link to it on the FFWW [XAH] pages. The only
way to get to that page was to follow a link aptly titled "So You Want
To Boink Xydexx?" which was on a page devoted to information about my
online character, _not_ a page about furry fandom.

Sure, you might argue that a link that clearly says "So You Want To
Boink Xydexx?" somehow means "Click Here To Go To Squeaky Clean Furry
Archives", but the fact remains that there was no deception on my part,
and I think people are responsible for their own actions, and that
includes clicking on whatever links they click on. If someone clicks on
a link that says it'll bring them to detailed information about my
character's sexual habits... hey, I can only assume that's what they
_want_ to read.

But to answer your question: No, it's not a few easy clicks to that
page anymore.

On the other hand, it's a few easy clicks from YOUR _Gallery_ webpage to
pictures of anthropomorphic wolves engaging in group sex, watersports,
sodomy, hermaphrodites, macrophilia, "The Unofficial Guide to Great
Cybersex", and A VERITABLE BANQUET of deviance and fornication that
makes _my_ "bizarre and incomprehensible perversions" look like a tea
party with my grandmother and Rev. Donald Wildmon.

Not that _I'm_ offended by any of it, mind you. I just think people in
glass houses shouldn't be throwing stones. Hoohah!

> > If you're worried about the sort of impression someone
> > sticking bananas in their ears in the lobby is going to make on
> > newbies, I'm sure you can also relate to the impression one might
> > come away with after reading this newsgroup and seeing a dozen or so
> > posts about it.
>
> It depends on if those posts are condemning it, or defending it.

No, Rich, it doesn't. Bad image is bad image. Newbies reading this
kinda stuff on a.f.f. aren't going to get a good impression, especially
when it's pretty much the _only_ example of con behavior they have to
formulate an impression on in the first place. (I'd _almost_ be willing
to say the additional exposure would attract _more_ of the same...)

I mean, you gotta admit, when you see thirty or so posts about an
incident --- which when it happened took maybe five minutes of a
four-day con --- do you really expect people _NOT_ to think they won't
be able to walk around the hotel without tripping over someone in BDSM
gear or getting whipped or slipping on banana peels someone left in the
elevator?

You don't like it when the media focuses on stuff that gives us a bad
image, right?

Well, how is what you're doing _here_ any different?

> Hmmm, who is defending it here? Why, you are, by telling us not to attack it.

Now don't _you_ start with the "Xydexx supports bondage" routine. [And
actually, whether or not I like to get tied up isn't the issue.] I
already said I didn't support people getting whipped in the lobby, and
frankly I got enough misguided accusations from Mr. Calbeck. Surely,
you're not so desperate that you have to resort to stooping to his
level?



> > One concrete example out of what, 1200+ attendees, over a four day
> > period?
>
> There was more than one example. But the question is, how many insect parts
> and rat feces are acceptable in your Cheerios? The government has an
> allowance, but you hope that General Mills has a much higher standard.

The number of incidents and examples is irrelevant. Again, the issue
here is the disproportionate amount of bandwidth devoted to the small
percentage of bad behavior that goes on at furry conventions. (In
direct contrast to the small amount of bandwidth devoted to the large
percentage of good behavior, one might note.)

> We need a higher standard for behavior at CF. You'll have to admit, if there are
> no incidents at CF, there will only be posts on a.f.f praising it. Hmmm,
> isn't that kind of like what happened after AAC?

AAC, as I've said before, was very impressive. However, I'd rather not
make any further comparisons with CF until _after_ the convention.



> (You're repeating yourself again). Nobody announces that they plan to spoo on
> the walls of the elevator or conduct a whipping in the lobby, they just do it.

Gee... maybe it's because they don't read alt.fan.furry?

Gosh, that'd be a real shocker, huh? Furry fans who _aren't_ online. I
know, it's hard to imagine, but I hear they really do exist.

[WRT I'm not responsible for other people's behavior...]

> You are, if though your inaction you allow it to continue.

No, Richard, I'm not responsible for anyone but myself. That doesn't
mean I won't be pragmatic if the need arises [and indeed I have been],
but the bottom line is the only way you're getting me to assume
responsibility for something someone _else_ did is if they're my
Personal Slave. [Which shouldn't be interpreted as meaning I actually
_have_ an entourage of Personal Slaves, or that if I do, that I'm
bringing them to CF...]

And although I don't support BDSM in public, I must admit, I _still_
like the idea of tying up your ball-gag-and-harness friends in big pink
ribbons and bringing them to my room. See? I'm not unreasonable, I'm
delightfully deviant.

I'm also JUST KIDDING...


**** DISCLAIMER ****
DO -NOT- bring people in BDSM gear to my room at CF9.
I -WON'T- KNOW what to do with them.
It will only CONFUSE me, because I'm
NOT into that kinda stuff.


[Well, um... not really, at least...]

> As others have said, they've shirked their responsibility in this matter.

And as they've said, they are working on it. Granted, my expectations
are a little higher after AAC, but I'm still willing to at least give CF
Staff the benefit of the doubt when they say that they're working on it.

> > I think the obvious course of action is to either tell the individual
> > who is behaving badly, or complain to someone who can do something
> > about it.
>
> <bing!> Very good. Youv'e finally arrived at the point. So, I assume the
> next CF, when you see some couple going well beyond the bounds of a simple hug
> and kiss hello, and getting into the realm of a full-blown back-seat of the
> drive-in groping session, you too can say "Say, why don't you go someplace
> more private for that?" (Note I said nothing about the gender of the folks
> involved.)

Hey! I thought you said I didn't have to play Morality Militia? I'm
there to have a good time, remember? Don't worry, though... if I see
anything like that, I'll just lean over and say something like "Richard
Chandler wants to join in."

That's a surefire way to kill _any_ romantic mood.

I'm JUST _KIDDING_! Jeez, don't take everything so seriously! I've
been working on this response for like 3 hours now, what did you expect
me to say?? -:)

> I hope that the competition of all these other conventions that have sprung
> out of people's dissatisfaction with the way things have been done at CF will
> indeed "Raise the bar". I hope CF can rise to the challenge and become the
> Convention we all can be proud of.

That's what I like about you, Rich... you're so subtle. -:)



> My question about the statement of the con is "Why is Furry fandom portrayed
> as something that friends and relations have to "Tolerate"?" Tolerate is such
> a belittling word. I never want to be "tolerated" I'd prefer to be Accepted,
> or Understood, or even better Envied. :-)

Okay, agreed.

> > I'd also be the first to point out, however, that just because someone
> > is wearing a collar, it doesn't necessarily therefore follow that
> > they aren't a furry fan.
>
> Never said that it does. And as Others have pointed out, Collars can be quite

> the fashion statement.

I agree. Yes, I've got a collar. A really nice looking black one with
lots of spikes, that just emanates this aura of "hey, look, I'm wearing
a collar". I wear it around the apartment sometimes. I don't recall
ever wearing it at a furry convention... not that I _mind_ people
wearing collars at furry conventions.

It's not a BDSM thing. I just think they're cool looking.

____________________________________________________________
Rev. Xydexx Squeakypony, K.S.C. - Ambassador to Furry Fandom
Xydexx's Anthrofurry Homepage "I am PONY, hear
http://www.smart.net/~xydexx/welcome.htm me SQUEAK."

Artax

unread,
Dec 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/28/97
to

Xydexx the Inflatable Unicorn wrote:
> > You know, I can't say I recall seeing a post on a.f.f where someone
bragged
> > they were going to shoot a load of semen in the elevator, but it
happened.
> > Same for the girl with the whip. Your facetious comment has been
noted, along
> > with how seriously you consider things that are bad for the fandom's
image.
>
> Y'know, every time the elevator incident [reportedly on the same day and
> time as the Ice Cream Social] gets mentioned, I often wonder how on
> earth someone determined that it was spooge... was it by taste, perhaps?

Just for the record, there were two different semen
in elevator incidents reported at CF8. Scott Shannon
and I found a puddle on the floor of one of the
elevators on Thursday evening shortly after we
returned from Disneyland, and Ed Kline reported
finding a smear on the wall of the elevator on
Saturday evening. The latter must have been a
seperate incident because the puddle Scott and I found
would have dried out by Saturday, even if it had found
some way to spread from the floor to the wall.

As to how I know it was semen: The smell of it filled
the elevator. (At least to my nose. I have a very
acute sense of smell.) I detected it immediately upon
stepping into the elevator. It took a few moments for
it to register with me what I was smelling, since it's
not a smell I am accustomed to encountering in public
places. Once it did I started looking around to find
the source, afraid I might find myself standing in it.
If I remember correctly Scott spotted it first, and
pointed it out to me.


ac.c | Artax
a b o | (Brad Austin)
r a m |
tax@ | Oceanside, CA USA


Richard Chandler

unread,
Dec 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/28/97
to

Lots of snippage below. Why? It's a corollary to Usenet Nod Syndrome.
Things people like and agree with just get nodded at and not discussed. Which
in a way explains why so much bandwidth gets burned up on a few really bad
incidents at CF, and not so much about the nice things that happened.

In article <34A61E...@anthrofurry.aol.com>, Xydexx the Inflatable Unicorn

<xyd...@anthrofurry.aol.com> writes:
> Yes, okay... I stand corrected, you have actually said some nice
> things about furry fandom in the past. (Just none of them on
> a.f.f., right?)

I've been kinda busy. Writing nice things like my three November Con Reports
in Gallery #31 takes priority. They've gotta be exclusive there first.
(Three Cons in one month, no wonder #31 isn't shipping until tomorrow)



> > But the true audience is any furry fan who attends ConFurence. We
> > are ALL responsible for what happens in our presence. As the
> > old expression goes "All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men
> > to do nothing.". If you are a furry fan, one of your
> > responsibilities to the community of furry fans is to protect it.
> > That includes stopping people from doing things that damage the
> > public image of the fandom.
>
> Okay, I'll agree with that part. However:

Couldn't snip that part. I think it's important enough to be repeated..



> Y'know, every time the elevator incident [reportedly on the same day
> and time as the Ice Cream Social] gets mentioned, I often wonder how
> on earth someone determined that it was spooge... was it by taste,
> perhaps?

By having to clean it off the Suit Jacket of a guest of theirs who came by the
convention to talk business with them....

> > Uh huh. And I wonder, is it still a few easy clicks from your
> > furry Fandom welcome page to the page where you describe the best way
> > to seduce you online in your admittedly unusual sexual obsession
> > for being inflated - particularly to the snuff-fantasy like extent
> > of bursting? I've been in Furry Fandom for over ten years now, and
> > that is one of the most bizarre and incomprehensible perversions
> > I've ever encountered.
>
> Flattery will get you nowhere, Richard. -;)
>

> Your judgmental observations have been noted, however, and I believe

> your concerns should certainly be addressed in the interest of
> full disclosure, since an open dialogue will benefit everyone.
> Besides, I've got nothing to hide... except my boycott of Mu Press.
>
> First off, you didn't notice the Furry Fandom Welcome Wagon [FFWW]
> is titled "Xydexx's Anthrofurry Homepage" [XAH] now. Judging from
> your reply, you haven't looked at it recently and don't _really_
> know what's there. I mean, you wouldn't be asking if you did, right?
> I'm sure that was just an oversight, though.
>
> To my credit, the page you described was not part of FFWW [nor XAH],
> nor was there even a direct link to it on the FFWW [XAH] pages. The
> only way to get to that page was to follow a link aptly titled "So
> You Want To Boink Xydexx?" which was on a page devoted to
> information about my online character, _not_ a page about furry fandom.

Seeing it once was enough, but if you've made changes to make it less
accessible, fine. If you've arranged your pages so that they are like
floating rooms on Furry, unlinked, even better.




> On the other hand, it's a few easy clicks from YOUR _Gallery_ webpage
> to pictures of anthropomorphic wolves engaging in group sex,
> watersports, sodomy, hermaphrodites, macrophilia, "The Unofficial Guide
> to Great Cybersex", and A VERITABLE BANQUET of deviance and
> fornication that makes _my_ "bizarre and incomprehensible
> perversions" look like a tea party with my grandmother and Rev.
> Donald Wildmon.
>
> Not that _I'm_ offended by any of it, mind you. I just think people
> in glass houses shouldn't be throwing stones. Hoohah!

Really? Is this some web-based version of the "Seven Degrees of Kevin Bacon"
game, like where you find the shortest route from the White House page to some
XXX porn page? I'm sure none of these pages are ones I've directly linked to,
and CERTAINLY none of them are pages that *I* put up on *MY* ISP. I do have
links to the pages of the various artists in Gallery (Which is what I assume
you followed, since the Conifur Page couldn't be it.) but I have no control
over what they put up.

Well, there IS a murky picture of a dressmaker's dummy wearing a leather
corset-dress made by Azzlo of Japan.

> I mean, you gotta admit, when you see thirty or so posts about an
> incident --- which when it happened took maybe five minutes of a
> four-day con --- do you really expect people _NOT_ to think they won't
> be able to walk around the hotel without tripping over someone in
> BDSM gear or getting whipped or slipping on banana peels someone left
> in the elevator?

In another vein, if it weren't for you arguing, (and maybe a little bit of Dr.
Cat (Whose prose is so purple and whose verbosity is virtually unmatched,
which makes his stuff so hard to read I usually don't)) there might not have
been 30 posts. So much of the thread was based on replies to you, that if you
were to delete every thread which branched off of one of your replies, "An
Appeal to Mark Merlino" would have had maybe 12 messages. It takes two to
tango (Three to Limbo!), and you share some of the blame for perpetuating the
thread.

<snip the "If yer not for us, yer agin' us!" bit>

Well, if you're not on the side supporting the aural-bananna-inserters, and
you're not on the same side as me, arguing against them, then you really don't
have a place in the debate at all. So you oughtn't be participating so
vigorously in the thread. Since you're a non-combatant, I'll just have to
ignore you on this thread henceforth. And if there's nobody else saying that
it is perfectly okay to go around wearing nothing but body paint and Banana
Palm fronds and whacking one-another in the lobby with banana peels, which I
don't think I've seen, then I declare the debate over. I won. Whoopee.

> [WRT I'm not responsible for other people's behavior...]
> > You are, if though your inaction you allow it to continue.
>
> No, Richard, I'm not responsible for anyone but myself. That doesn't
> mean I won't be pragmatic if the need arises [and indeed I have been],
> but the bottom line is the only way you're getting me to
> assume responsibility for something someone _else_ did is if they're
> my Personal Slave.

At a minimum, everyone is responsible for nothing but their own actions. But
if you want to be a part of something bigger, then you do take on additional
duties. In some countries, to be considered a good citizen, you have a duty
to serve a year or two in the armed forces, and maybe give your life for it in
time of war. If you decide to have a family, you have a duty to support and
raise your children. My opinion is that if you want to be a part of a Fandom
it becomes your duty to promote and improve it.

Running Gallery and now the ConiFur art show are two of the things that I do
in order to promote and improve the fandom.

> > As others have said, they've shirked their responsibility in this
> > matter.
>
> And as they've said, they are working on it. Granted, my expectations
> are a little higher after AAC, but I'm still willing to at least give
> CF Staff the benefit of the doubt when they say that they're working on
> it.

It remains to be seen. Frankly, I hope so.

> That's what I like about you, Rich... you're so subtle. -:)

Mike Hammer is my idol. :-) Or maybe Russ Post.....

Allen Kitchen

unread,
Dec 29, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/29/97
to


Karl Meyer <fer...@enteract.com> wrote in article
<6826mq$r...@eve.enteract.com>...

> I doubt that dissatisfaction with CF has been the primary motivation for
> any of the new furry cons. I will say that I feel some of them have been
> run in a more professional and organized manner but that's beside the
> point. Making out other cons as existing only to spite CF is hardly fair
> to the ones running them and undermines the amount of work that goes into
> doing so.

Agreed, Karl. It takes much work, effort, money, and time for me to attend
Confurence. I won't go into the hell my wife has made over this trip.
Having
a regional gathering place that is closer and easier to get to is a
wonderful
idea. I have nothing against CF (I am attending after all) but would like
to
be able to have a con a bit closer to home so I can attend more often.

After CF9, I likely won't be able to reach California again till CF12. And

the family will probably come along as well.

Here's hoping for Memphis Mephit Meet! :) As in Hoping I can go this
year.

Allen Kitchen
all...@blkbox.com
http://www.blkbox.com/~osprey/

Xydexx the Inflatable Unicorn

unread,
Dec 29, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/29/97
to

Richard Chandler wrote:
[WRT "So You Want To Boink Xydexx?"...]

> Seeing it once was enough, but if you've made changes to make it less
> accessible, fine. If you've arranged your pages so that they are like
> floating rooms on Furry, unlinked, even better.

My personal Furry page is being renovated and has a new URL,
http://www.smart.net/~xydexx/furry.htm . The old pages are probably
still on the server, but don't quote me on that, because I might've rm'd
them when I did some housecleaning...

[WRT links from Gallery homepage to a banquet of deviance...]

> Really? Is this some web-based version of the "Seven Degrees of Kevin Bacon"
> game, like where you find the shortest route from the White House page to some
> XXX porn page? I'm sure none of these pages are ones I've directly linked to,
> and CERTAINLY none of them are pages that *I* put up on *MY* ISP. I do have
> links to the pages of the various artists in Gallery (Which is what I assume
> you followed, since the Conifur Page couldn't be it.) but I have no control
> over what they put up.

Actually, I followed a link from your Links page to the Furry Resource
Guide or something. Sure, you can say your webpage isn't linked
directly to any of those pages --- but I'd be quick to point out that
there was no direct link from FFWW [XAH] to "So You Want To Boink
Xydexx?" either. Heck, I could probably even get there from _your_ page
if I tried.

And while it may have been a page that I put up on my ISP, one might
note that _who_ put up the page and _where_ it's located aren't the
issue. You're not arguing that _I_ shouldn't have put up the page.
You're not arguing that the page shouldn't be on my _ISP_. You're
objecting to the content of the page.

(Which is fine, I'm not saying you don't have a right to complain about
it...)

But while I don't mind the criticism, I should point out that the only
real difference between the old FFWW page and your Gallery page is that
it would only take a few more mouseclicks to get to "So You Want To
Boink Xydexx?" from yours.

Houses. Glass. Stones.

> In another vein, if it weren't for you arguing, (and maybe a little bit of Dr.
> Cat (Whose prose is so purple and whose verbosity is virtually unmatched,
> which makes his stuff so hard to read I usually don't)) there might not have
> been 30 posts.

Guilty as charged. I'll be first to admit I'm an active participant in
all of this. However, I can just as easily say if people weren't
posting about it in the first place, there wouldn't be messages for me
to reply to. You're right, it takes two to tango --- but if you think
it's okay for other people to post, then it's just as okay for me to
reply.

> Well, if you're not on the side supporting the aural-bananna-inserters

That wouldn't be aural sex, would it?

Just asking. -;)

Anyway...

> Well, if you're not on the side supporting the aural-bananna-inserters, and
> you're not on the same side as me, arguing against them, then you really don't
> have a place in the debate at all.

There's an old Discordian saying: There are five sides to every
argument. Just because I don't necessarily agree or disagree with you
doesn't mean I don't have a place in the debate. I've got a right to
voice my opinions and push my Secret Agenda To Take Over The Fandom just
like everyone else here.

> At a minimum, everyone is responsible for nothing but their own actions. But
> if you want to be a part of something bigger, then you do take on additional
> duties.

Okay, fine, I'll agree with that as long as I still get to keep my title
as Ambassador to Furry Fandom. (Which, BTW, doesn't mean that I'm
hogging that title all to myself... I just kept seeing all these
messages about how "we're _all_ ambassadors to furry fandom" and
concluded that if I'm going to hold such a lofty position, I might as
well flaunt it. I think people have a right to declare themselves
whatever they want, and if they wanna be Ambassador to Furry Fandom too,
I'm not gonna complain.) -:)

> Running Gallery and now the ConiFur art show are two of the things that I do
> in order to promote and improve the fandom.

Well I don't run a zine [I know, calling Gallery a zine is like calling
the phone book a paperback novel...] but I do try to attend cons as a
sponsor and help out in little ways when I can.

[WRT CF Staff improving things for CF9...]


> It remains to be seen. Frankly, I hope so.

I hope so too. Bottom line is we won't know until CF9.

the Saprophyte

unread,
Dec 30, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/30/97
to

Scott Shannon wrote:

>
> Artax wrote:
>
> >Just for the record, there were two different semen
> >in elevator incidents reported at CF8.
>
(snip)

> > The latter must have been a
> >seperate incident because the puddle Scott and I found
> >would have dried out by Saturday, even if it had found
> >some way to spread from the floor to the wall.
> >

> *chuckle* Well, this just goes to show how two people can see exactly
> the same thing, yet come to completely different conclusions about what
> they actually perceived. I still think that too many laws of physiology
> and physics would have to be violated in order for the semen scenario
> to be affirmed. Yes, we both did think it was spooge initially, but the
> more I thought about it, it just didn't seem possible that it could
> have been, for the reasons I gave in my previous post.
>
> -=SS=-


That means there must have been a second shooter on the spoogey wall...
("ooo, Thats right baby,back and to the left,back...and to the left...")
:)

Naturally, I wasn't there,but there could have been any number of arcane
explanations to account for the quantity. Traveling artificial
inseminator perhaps. Can gentlefur Artax's nose distinguesh between
human and non-human seman?
The whole thing is weirdly reminiscent of the incident in which
someone, from an elevator I believe, actually threw a cup of warm vomit
in Harlan Ellison's Face at a major Sci-Fi con.
_warm_ vomit. Think about it. 'Course maybe it was an amoeba morph with
a very good fursuit.
(there, by the gods, I'll inject a little humor into this flamewar if I
have to strap you all down to do it. Oh...wait...bad choice of words...)
Just a post script to this thread: Has it occured to any one that the
AATMM thread alone could have made Alt.sex.furry a viable newsgroup
again? Some topics do have a place to go without a call for a new group.
Besides, Flamewars beat spam any day.

The Saprophyte

Dr. Cat

unread,
Dec 30, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/30/97
to

Richard Chandler (mau...@claris.com) wrote:
: (and maybe a little bit of Dr. Cat (Whose prose is so purple and whose verbosity

: is virtually unmatched, which makes his stuff so hard to read I usually don't))

Gosh, I really will never know whether Rich Chandler agrees or disagrees
with my analysis of the "this will help prevent future bad behavior by
other people" line of reasoning.

Oh well. I guess I did the right thing when I decided to make a totally
unsupported assumption about whether he agrees with me or not, like I said
earlier I was gonna. Even though I think I mighta guess wrong. Well as
long as he never tells me what he thinks, I'll never know I'm wrong about
his opinion - and ignorance is bliss, right?

Wheeee, I'm so happy! Time to go work some more on Furcadia code now.

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

(Disclaimer: Purple is my favorite color, but that was probably just a lucky
guess on Rich Chandler's part.)


Artax

unread,
Dec 30, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/30/97
to

the Saprophyte wrote:
> That means there must have been a second shooter on the spoogey wall...
> ("ooo, Thats right baby,back and to the left,back...and to the left...")
> :)

Not necessarily a second shooter, just a second shot. It could have
been the same person both times. (Perhaps he just as a thing for
elvators.)

> Can gentlefur Artax's nose distinguesh between
> human and non-human seman?

I don't know. I've never smelled non-human semen.

Dwight Dutton

unread,
Dec 30, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/30/97
to

Sounds like someone played too many games of "Dig Dug"

http://www.huzzah.com/
http://www.reenactor.net/mail

Xydexx Squeakypony

unread,
Jan 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/2/98
to

Dwight Dutton wrote:
>Sounds like someone played too many games of "Dig Dug"

Guilty, as charged. -:)

__________________________________________________________________
Rev. Xydexx Squeakypony, K.S.C. - Xydexx's Anthrofurry Homepage
http://www.smart.net/~xydexx/welcome.htm

cal...@goodnet.com

unread,
Jan 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/2/98
to

xyd...@neverspam.aol.com wrote:
> Dwight Dutton wrote:
> >Sounds like someone played too many games of "Dig Dug"

> Guilty, as charged. -:)

Ditto on dat dere. -:D

"But Pygar issa so KYOOOOOT!" -;>

-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages