Friends at CF7
FitchDonS
On 21 Jun 1996, in <4qf0gr$m...@news1.ni.net>, Brian Henderson
wrote:
>ru...@netcom.com (Rufus Albright) wrote:
<bigsnip>
>>Quick quiz question, Richard- in what way does this desire to
>>mind other people's business for them differ from the recent
>>attempt via the CDA to do much the same thing to the Internet?
>>If you had restricted yourself to polite attempts to change
>>other people's minds, I would not be asking this, but you seem
>>to be open to using coercive force to do so. Thus,my question.
>
>It's called self control, Rufus. Perhaps you've heard of it. We
>have rules and laws in society to keep people from injuring
>others and causing damage, etc. We are proposing to set some
>very general standards of conduct, not unlike those that people
>are bound by every day of their lives, in an attempt to salvage
>whatever vestiges of respect and honor furry fandom has left. We
>are not about to censor anything, we are seeking balance, a
>balance that has been far too long missing in furry fandom.
Ummm... It's my understanding that the most basic societal
"general standards of conduct" are codified as "laws" -- and that,
in general, anything that's illegal outside the hotel is illegal
inside the hotel. The paragraph quoted above seems to imply that
a wish to establish & enforce more strict standards upon the
members of Confurences. I'd suggest that this seems unlikely to
be effective or sucessful unless a very large majority of the
Members first agree rather precisely upon what those standards
should be... and perhaps how far they're willing to go to
"enforce" them. The first step to achieve this would, I suppose,
be to publish a List of these New Standards, and circulate it by
mail as well on the InterNet, in order that it reach as many as
possible of the (c. 1,000?) fans who might attend ConFurences.
It rather looks to me as though there _is_ a balance -- it's just
a balance some people don't like, and wish to change to a
different balance. I don't much care for the present one myself,
but not being an Artist, I can't create works that would help
change it, nor am I likely to be able to do much to persuade
people to change... and most of the Artists (and other fans) I
know are Strongly Resistant to anything stronger than persuasion.
In another Posting (<4qf0gi$m...@news1.ni.net>), Brian Henderson
also wrote:
<bigsnip>
>The problem as I see it is that I wonder if there are enough
>people who are willing to take a stand and FORCE CF to change. I
>think most of us know that it won't change without being dragged
>kicking and screaming and there are some vested interests out
>there who will fight it every step of the way. Can we get enough
>people who will get involved in CF, but only contingent on
>internal changes?
There would seem to be a number of ways a Change could be forced:
A group might call for a boycott of CF... in which case they would
probably be expected to produce a convention themselves, to
provide a substitute for it.
A group might start up a competing Convention (preferably, imho,
on some other date), which only The Good Guys (whoever they might
be) would be allowed (or invited) to attend.
Disaffected People might cause so much Trouble at Confurences that
the people who now produce them would cease to do so. Perhaps
whatever takes their place (if anything does) would be "better".
I rather doubt, however, that the people responsible for such a
drastic change in the status quo would feel comfortable in any
large gathering of Furries in the future.
A comparatively small number of people could mount a campaign so
devisive as to Plunge All of Furry Fandom into War, and probably
cause the collapse of ConFurences as they now exist. Again,
whatever takes their place, if anything, might _possibly_ be
"better, and a lot of enmity would be generated.
I don't find any of those alternatives at all attractive.
My guess is that a comparatively small number of people on various
"sides" will yell and jump around and wave their arms a lot as
they engage in extreme rhetoric, and most Furries will decide that
it's all pretty silly and go on very much as they have been going,
putting up with the things that annoy them, and concentrating on
the aspects they like.
Don Fitch
+++++++++++
Richard J. Bartrop
On 25 Jun 1996, FitchDonS wrote:
>
> There would seem to be a number of ways a Change could be forced:
>
> A group might call for a boycott of CF... in which case they would
> probably be expected to produce a convention themselves, to
> provide a substitute for it.
People have been saying, "if you don't like it, don't go". As far as
creating an alternative, all you people who are bothered by the current
state of affairs, are you bothered enough to do something about it?
> A group might start up a competing Convention (preferably, imho,
> on some other date), which only The Good Guys (whoever they might
> be) would be allowed (or invited) to attend.
I have trouble seeing the down side to this one. It's a big
continent, and not everyone can afford a trip to CF or CFE. Speaking as
as artist, I would welcome another outlet to sell furry art. Some poeple
may not like a more general audience con, and may not want to come, but
there are people who don't like and don't go to CF. Anthropomorphics cover a
diverse range of interests, perhaps too diverse to be contained within a
single convention.
Here's the real question: Do people want a furry con with a more general
focus, minus the elements that people seem to dislike with the existing
ones? Some won't want to go, and that is their right. Not everyone is
enthusiastic about Star Trek, or soap operas, but there are enough
people who are to support conventions dedicated to them. Why do
ConFurence, when someone is already doing it?
More importantly, anyone out there feel up to organizing one?
Richard Bartrop
Artist (images at http://www.compusmart.ab.ca/droth/wcflshow.html)
Grey on FurryMUCK, TigerMUCK, SPR.
Scott Alan Malcomson
FitchDonS (fitc...@aol.com) wrote:
: Ummm... It's my understanding that the most basic societal
: in general, anything that's illegal outside the hotel is illegal
: inside the hotel.
Let me put it this way:
Farting isn't against the law. Even LOUD farting. However, blowing gas
in a crowded hallway (although perhaps enjoyable to the person engaging
in such activity) is rather rude and unacceptable behavior. Particularly
if they trail the stench for about fifty yards, grinning all the way.
Many people who engage in public misconduct at CF do it for the
thrill of "freaking the mundanes", to include their fellow congoers. Some
seem to feel that the only way to take pride in their chosen lifestyle is
to lock mustaches with their lover in a hallway and suck tonsil as people
walk past with their eyes politely averted.
We're none of us children...but some act like it, and then have
the nerve to scream and holler "bigotry" when their antics aren't
considered "acceptable" behavior by people who know that displays of raw
sexual affection are best relegated to private quarters.
---LCD
Scott Alan Malcomson
: hors...@indirect.com (Scott Alan Malcomson) wrote:
: > Farting isn't against the law. Even LOUD farting. However, blowing gas
: > in such activity) is rather rude and unacceptable behavior. Particularly
: > if they trail the stench for about fifty yards, grinning all the way.
: This sounds more like what I saw at Duckon than at CF7! It wasn't the
: furries who were being bad in this way, but some of the general sci-fi fans
: that were there.
It was an allegory, not an accusation, in any event. Sorry if I didn't
clarify that.
[notes about public Frenching]
: This, I will admit, does happen among some furries. This does not mean that
: they are doing it just to squick the mundanes. Some might, but that is the
: exception rather than the rule.
Precisely. And the people talking about putting some brakes on the lewd
stuff are talking about these sorts of exceptions. No one is claiming
that such behavior is the rule. But, like fanboys who give the fandom as
a whole a bad rap, it's something that must be addressed in some sort of
reasonable manner.
: Most of the public displays are done quietly
: without drawing attention to it. We see hetero couples doing this all the
: time and noone seems to care. As soon as a same-sex couple does it, is it
: all of the sudden for the wrong reason then? I don't think so! I do it as a
: display of affection, much as a hug would be. :)
I don't recall any hetero couples getting hot and heavy in the halls, but
if they did they'd get no absolution simply for being straight. The quiet
and unobtrusive displays of affection, no one cares about but the two
whom it's between (which is as it should be), whether straight *or* gay.
---LCD
FarStar Station
: On 26 Jun 1996 11:20:38 GMT, hors...@indirect.com (Scott Alan Malcomson)
: wrote:
: > Many people who engage in public misconduct at CF do it for the
: > seem to feel that the only way to take pride in their chosen lifestyle is
: > to lock mustaches with their lover in a hallway and suck tonsil as people
: > walk past with their eyes politely averted.
: they are doing it just to squick the mundanes. Some might, but that is the
: without drawing attention to it. We see hetero couples doing this all the
: time and noone seems to care. As soon as a same-sex couple does it, is it
: all of the sudden for the wrong reason then? I don't think so! I do it as a
: display of affection, much as a hug would be. :)
No one seems to care??
I think that's exactly the point! Tolerance is great, but just because
you see one person getting away with something, be it a five-finger
discount or tongue wreastling, doesn't mean you have the right to do it,
too!
Very annoyed at these people who think that their idealls should be
mine...
Crissa
--
sgc...@teleport.COM Public Access User --- Not affiliated with Teleport
I am only but one... Which one I can never be sure, but definitely me.
Contents Copyright 1996 - Stacey Ann Croft
http://www.teleport.com/~sgc201 <no adspace avail> :)
Brian Henderson
>On 21 Jun 1996, in <4qf0gr$m...@news1.ni.net>, Brian Henderson wrote:
>>It's called self control, Rufus. Perhaps you've heard of it. We
>>have rules and laws in society to keep people from injuring
>>others and causing damage, etc. We are proposing to set some
>>very general standards of conduct, not unlike those that people
>>are bound by every day of their lives, in an attempt to salvage
>>whatever vestiges of respect and honor furry fandom has left. We
>>are not about to censor anything, we are seeking balance, a
>>balance that has been far too long missing in furry fandom.
>Ummm... It's my understanding that the most basic societal
>"general standards of conduct" are codified as "laws" -- and that,
>in general, anything that's illegal outside the hotel is illegal
>inside the hotel.
You are absolutely right, they are still illegal and I think that
anything that is illegal outside the hotel should certainly be
prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law if it happens inside the
hotel. This includes the infamous 'dixie cup' nudes and people
screwing in the halls, both of which I heard (but did not see)
happened at CF7. CF members have also caused damage to the hotels we
have been at (I seem to remember someone urinating in the hallways ON
PURPOSE at one of the early CFs).
>The paragraph quoted above seems to imply that
>a wish to establish & enforce more strict standards upon the
>members of Confurences.
Restrictive standards? What is wrong with demanding a modicum of
self-control from attendees? Any retail store can demand a minimum
dress code from people who shop there, why can't CF do the same?
>I'd suggest that this seems unlikely to
>be effective or sucessful unless a very large majority of the
>Members first agree rather precisely upon what those standards
>should be... and perhaps how far they're willing to go to
>"enforce" them.
The standards are no more and largely less restrictive than anything
they would have to deal with in real life. Why do some people think
that they can go to CF, act like an animal, offend people for the
simple pleasure of offending them, and all the other attendees have to
put up with their antics for the sake of 'tolerance'. Furry fandom is
a lot more tolerant than any other fandom, but I'd like to see some of
these things tried at SDCC next week and have them see how long they
stay in the convention.
>In another Posting (<4qf0gi$m...@news1.ni.net>), Brian Henderson also wrote:
>>The problem as I see it is that I wonder if there are enough
>>people who are willing to take a stand and FORCE CF to change. I
>>think most of us know that it won't change without being dragged
>>kicking and screaming and there are some vested interests out
>>there who will fight it every step of the way. Can we get enough
>>people who will get involved in CF, but only contingent on
>>internal changes?
>There would seem to be a number of ways a Change could be forced:
I dislike even having to call for CF to be forced but it has become
obvious to a great number of people that it won't change unless it is
dragged, kicking and screaming.
>A group might call for a boycott of CF... in which case they would
>probably be expected to produce a convention themselves, to
>provide a substitute for it.
CFE doesn't have nearly the same problems that CF does. Granted, CFE
is only one year old. I've run plenty of conventions in the past and
been on the concom of several dozen and I have NEVER seen the kind of
abuses that I do at CF.
>A group might start up a competing Convention (preferably, imho,
>on some other date), which only The Good Guys (whoever they might
>be) would be allowed (or invited) to attend.
Anyone who would like to attend (should another convention be put
together) would certainly be able to do so so long as they followed a
few societal standards of good taste.
>I don't find any of those alternatives at all attractive.
Then why suggest them? Better alternatives have certainly been
suggested and are being implemented. Without a LARGE amount of help,
CF dies and when a lot of the people who have kept CF running all
these years start demanding changes contingent on their continued
work, it is a bloodless coup.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++==========================================
+ Brian Henderson == Internet: BHen...@microsys.net ==
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++== Cephus on Furrymuck ==
+ Furry Fan, Babylon 5, == and Furtoonia ==
+ MST3K, Atheist, Skeptic, ==========================================
+ Sliders, RPG Gamer, INWO, == I'm not saying what I'm thinking, so ==
+ Herpetophile, Gargoyles == I don't think anyone agrees with me! ==
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++==========================================
+ Alternate Gargoyles Universe Mailing List Archive: ==
+========http://www.microsys.net/personal/bhend/agu.htm/===============
Scott Alan Malcomson
: On 28 Jun 1996 22:35:25 GMT, sgc...@teleport.com (FarStar Station) wrote:
: > No one seems to care??
: Look through your newsgroup logs. You will see that almost all of the
: complaints are directed at homosexual displays of affection and no one seems
: to complain about heteros doing the same things.
This is primarily because you almost never *see* heteros doing the same
things. I have NEVER seen hetero couples at the four CFs I have attended
wearing bedroom outfits or bondage gear while wandering the main halls,
but I *have* seen this on occasion from homosexual couples. Now while I
may have missed the heteros acting up here and there, the homosexuals who
do this almost invariably feel a need to do it *publically*, as though
determined to have their lifestyle accepted by all and sundry and
joke-you-if-you-can't-take-a-f***.
This, mind you, at a convention where kids attend and wander
about in the midst of ball gags, handcuffs, leash-'n-collar and the
occasional Frenching. The reaction given by most people who do this kind
of stuff when someone tells them that their behavior has resulted in
So-and-So bailing out of the fandom --- for whatever reason, be it
personal disgust or a desire to keep their children away from what they
see as perverts --- is almost invariably "furfandom's better off without
such anally-retentive types".
That's just plain *bad manners*.
: There is a huge diference between stealing and kissing someone.
There is a huge difference between liplocking in public and doing so in
private, too. Though I myself might like to show affection towards
certain people I like in furfandom, I know that it isn't JUST those
people I like who I have to consider.
: share a common desire between two people. Sure, it isn't always appropriate
: in public situations to be deep kissing someone, but the most public areas I
: see it in are off in corners or in some of the halls.
Everyone who goes to ConFurence has a room *somewhere*. Even if a hallway
isn't "as public" as, say, the Dealer's Room, that doesn't make it
"private", nor does it make it someone's personal space that everyone
else is suddenly supposed to ignore. My eyes and ears aren't selectively
blind and deaf, even if sometimes that might be best for all concerned.
: Banning any questionable activities would be forcing your ideals on others.
"Forcing ideals" is one thing. "Common civility" is quite another. There
is absolutely no one and nothing forcing someone into publically sexual
displays: you have a room to go to if you want for that sort of thing.
Heteros almost invariably know that even *their* affection for each other
is unsettling to many if done in public, so THEY go find a room when they
want to cuddle prolongedly. Why should someone with different sexual
tastes be given preferential treatment?
---LCD
Ysengrin Werewolf
couldn't. Not everything is quoted for bandwidth, but I don't think
what's left is misleading.
On Fri, 28 Jun 1996 22:14:16 GMT, BHen...@kirk.microsys.net (Brian
Henderson) wrote:
>CF members have also caused damage to the hotels we
>have been at (I seem to remember someone urinating in the hallways ON
>PURPOSE at one of the early CFs).
I remember someone being accused by hotel security of purposefully
urinating in a hallway back at CF1. I think it was a case of hotel
security freaking out and trying to eject a guest that they didn't
care for rather than an actual event; I don't know for sure because I
was on the edge of the fallout and it really was (and is) none of my
business. The accused party has been back to other Confurences.
I've been to non-furry cons where crystal chandeliers were ripped out
of the ceiling, elevators were filled with burning newspaper, and
guests were urinating off of balconies onto pedestrians. The two CF's
I've been to were much quieter than that. Granted, all the destruction
is the exception rather than the rule at other cons.
At CF6 I was exuberantly jumping up and down in costume in one of the
hotel elevators around midnight; I did it for one trip from 3rd floor
to the ground floor. Within ten minutes I was discreetly and politely
told by three different con staffers to not do it again. I wasn't at
CF7, but I'd say that security was on top of things at CF6.
<bit on standards snipped - I'm not even sure *what* the standards
being discussed are anymore, or even if there was agreement on them>
>The standards are no more and largely less restrictive than anything
>they would have to deal with in real life. Why do some people think
>that they can go to CF, act like an animal, . . .
That's a strange comment to make in this newsgroup (alt.fan.furry). I
will not drag up the human/animal behavior discussion, but I for one
would hope that I could show more of my furry persona while on
vacation to a furry con. <gryn>
> . . . offend people for the
>simple pleasure of offending them, and all the other attendees have to
>put up with their antics for the sake of 'tolerance'.
If the intent is to deliberately offend, I have very little tolerance
for it in *any* setting. I think very few of the "antics" mentioned -
such as wearing collars - were intended to offend, or even to shock.
If I don't care for something on the program, I simply don't go to it
(I've yet to see any of the cabarets). If there isn't enough things
(programs, stuff in the dealer's room, and/or friends) at a con that I
want to see, I simply don't go to it.
Barring disaster, I will be at CF8. I will also be there whether the
spooge is there or not, although I would be more comfortable if the
spooge was more discreetly presented.
>I dislike even having to call for CF to be forced but it has become
>obvious to a great number of people that it won't change unless it is
>dragged, kicking and screaming.
Why should it be *forced* to change? If you don't like what goes on/is
available at CF, start your own con with your own standards. If there
are enough like-minded furries out there, you'll have a successful
convention going. If you don't like the image that CF gives to furry
fandom, get out there and show the non-furry fans what *you* feel
furry fandom is like. The Dallas Brawl folks have shown a very PG
image to Texas science fiction/fantasy conventions, for example.
>CFE doesn't have nearly the same problems that CF does. Granted, CFE
>is only one year old. I've run plenty of conventions in the past and
>been on the concom of several dozen and I have NEVER seen the kind of
>abuses that I do at CF.
CF seems to be very disorganized at times, much more so than any other
con I've been to. That's a different discussion, entirely.
--
Ysengrin Werewolf (AKA Silvermane), Verdun Manor Pack
http://www.webcom.com/verdun/verdun.html
Richard Chandler
In article <4r2igd$7...@news.erie.net>,
Kenneth Poland <ga...@moose.erie.net> wrote:
>Banning any questionable activities would be forcing your ideals on others.
You make it sound like this is a bad thing. It's the same idea behind
laws, culture, and manners.
>It would be nice if everyone respected each other, but it is unlikely to
>happen with everyone in any large group. We must be tolerant of the
>differences in others because they are not likely to change for the few
>people that want them to.
This is exactly the attitude that has gotten us INTO this fix. And if
this thread is any indication it's not only a few who desire change.
Yes, it would be nice if everyone respected one another. So, to ask the
question someone else asked - How do you do something about it? You're
saying we should just tolerate it. I say this is wrong. If you're not
considerate, you don't get tolerence. Give and take, get it?
Okay, so what are the right ways to be intolerant? Complain to the people
being inconsiderate. If that doesn't work, complain to con security (Keep
the problem internal to the Con). Failing that, Hotel Security, or even
the police.
Of course, you should gauge your response on how appropriate it is. It's
probably inappropriate to go as far as Con Security over someone who is
just smelly. On the other hand, if you catch someone lifting prints from
a dealer's table (I had $40 worth of Gallery stolen at CF5), it's
perfectly appropriate to go as far as the police.
--
On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog... but they can tell right
off the bat if you're an idiot! -- Me
http://www.teleport.com/~mauser/ Gallery Web Page
"Yeah, I've got ADD, wanna make something of.... oooh, cool. Look!"
Ysengrin Werewolf
After re-reading what I'd posted, i wanted to clairify one thing.
On Sun, 30 Jun 1996 08:24:36 GMT, ysen...@iadfw.net (Ysengrin
Werewolf) wrote:
>Barring disaster, I will be at CF8. I will also be there whether the
>spooge is there or not, although I would be more comfortable if the
>spooge was more discreetly presented.
Actually, there was very little that wasn't fairly discreet - in
public areas, at least.
__
Furry Code 1.1
FCw/Cwh A+ B+/ C+>++ H+/++ P++/+++ M? Z+ Sm+
RLTH/E cdnw+++$ d++ f+++/++++ i++ a+ e+ h++ p+++ sm+
Brian Henderson
ga...@moose.erie.net (Kenneth Poland) wrote:
>On 28 Jun 1996 22:35:25 GMT, sgc...@teleport.com (FarStar Station) wrote:
>> No one seems to care??
>Look through your newsgroup logs. You will see that almost all of the
>complaints are directed at homosexual displays of affection and no one seems
>to complain about heteros doing the same things.
No, most people aren't objecting to homosexual kissing, they are
objecting to two people (of any sex) humping each other in the halls.
That is unacceptable for ANY two people to do in a public place. I've
certainly seen both homosexual and heterosexuals cross the line. Just
for the record, it doesn't bother me at all to see two homosexuals
kiss, hold hands or whatever.
Tim Gadd
ga...@moose.erie.net (Kenneth Poland) wrote:
>On 30 Jun 1996 02:19:30 GMT, hors...@indirect.com (Scott Alan Malcomson)
>wrote:
>> This is primarily because you almost never *see* heteros doing the same
>> things. I have NEVER seen hetero couples at the four CFs I have attended
>> wearing bedroom outfits or bondage gear while wandering the main halls,
>> but I *have* seen this on occasion from homosexual couples. Now while I
>> may have missed the heteros acting up here and there, the homosexuals who
>> do this almost invariably feel a need to do it *publically*, as though
>> determined to have their lifestyle accepted by all and sundry and
>> joke-you-if-you-can't-take-a-f***.
>> Everyone who goes to ConFurence has a room *somewhere*. Even if a hallway
>> isn't "as public" as, say, the Dealer's Room, that doesn't make it
>> "private", nor does it make it someone's personal space that everyone
>> else is suddenly supposed to ignore.
>If you can come up with a solution to the problem that doesn't interfere
>with the freedom of most of the con goers, then I would be all for it.
Well.... I was watching John Waters' "Multiple Maniacs", tonight, and
Mistress Divine's travelling 'Cavalcade of Perversions' had a special
tent where middle-class, conservative hetero couples could go to be
offended by watching a gay couple tongue-kissing. "These are *real
queers!*", enthused the host!
Just a thought :)
The scary thing is, someone's going to take this seriously...
--
Tim Gadd
(tjg...@southcom.com.au)
'My pink half of the drainpipe,
I may paint it blue
My pink half of the drainpipe
Keeps me safe from you'
Viv Stanshall
Dr. Cat
> This is primarily because you almost never *see* heteros doing the same
> things. I have NEVER seen hetero couples at the four CFs I have attended
> wearing bedroom outfits or bondage gear while wandering the main halls,
> but I *have* seen this on occasion from homosexual couples. Now while I
> may have missed the heteros acting up here and there, the homosexuals who
> do this almost invariably feel a need to do it *publically*, as though
> determined to have their lifestyle accepted by all and sundry and
> joke-you-if-you-can't-take-a-f***.
Geez, if you're going to stereotype heterosexuals one way, and
homosexuals another, shouldn't you state which way you stereotype bisexuals
on this matter? I think some bisexuals might get offended at being left out.
Actually at the first Confurence I went to, I recall about half a dozen
people walking around in bondage gear. To my knowledge, two were
bisexual, two were heterosexual, one I think was gay but I'm not sure,
and one I think was hetero but I'm not sure. So I think there's room for
some sort of stereotype about whether bisexuals do public bondage
displays more or less often than gays or straights, they're clearly
involved in the issue in some way. :X)
Three were in fursuits and three weren't, so it's a dead heat there.
Just for anyone who's keeping score at home. Or as the brits might say
"scoring at home".
I have no anecdotal evidence about how many people do or do not wear
fursuits while scoring at home. Well, except for whether or not I do,
but I'm not telling. :XP
***********************************************************************
Dr. Cat / Dragon's Eye Productions ** Now available for Windows!
******************************************** ftp.eden.com pub/dspire
Dragonspires is a graphic mud for PCs. ** http://www.eden.com/~cat
***********************************************************************
wol...@netcom.com
In article <4r82c1$8...@nadine.teleport.com>,
Richard Chandler <mau...@teleport.com> wrote:
>In article <4r2igd$7...@news.erie.net>,
>Kenneth Poland <ga...@moose.erie.net> wrote:
>>Banning any questionable activities would be forcing your ideals on others.
>
>You make it sound like this is a bad thing. It's the same idea behind
>laws, culture, and manners.
Boy, I didn't realize the idea of law, culture and manners was the banning
of questionable activities. (That IS what you just said, isn't it?)
When it must be done, it should be something reviled, something we loathe
doing but must for the health of individuals or society... Not something
to jump on and embrace like you seem so willing to do.
A better way, one or two people in history might have casually mentioned,
is to discourage such 'questionable activities' that you seem eager to
ban entirely. I hate to bring this up, but the CDA is a good example
of banning questionable acitivies.
>
>>It would be nice if everyone respected each other, but it is unlikely to
>>happen with everyone in any large group. We must be tolerant of the
>>differences in others because they are not likely to change for the few
>>people that want them to.
>
>This is exactly the attitude that has gotten us INTO this fix. And if
>this thread is any indication it's not only a few who desire change.
Ah yes, back to Rich's private bugaboo - Tolerance. It's what causes all
this hell, he cries! This ridiculous embracing of lifestyles within our
fandom! It must be stopped!
Actually, if this thread is any indication, the world isn't a perfect
place and people should be aware of that. That's all I see Rich, nothing
special about our little piece of it as you seem to believe.
>
>Yes, it would be nice if everyone respected one another. So, to ask the
>question someone else asked - How do you do something about it? You're
>saying we should just tolerate it. I say this is wrong. If you're not
>considerate, you don't get tolerence. Give and take, get it?
'Just' tolerate it? Did I say fuck you already? Oh yeah, I did.
You're sounding more and more like the the general from Dr. Strangelove.
"You can't let that commie bastard in here! He'll see the big board! He'll
see EVERYTHING!" while clutching up your furry art. Rich, very little
is accomp[lished with INtolerance. You're trying to use this as some sort
of rallying point, some line that must not be crossed. You figure that
if anyone violates your little rules of 'consideration' they deserve to
be... What? Drummed out of the fandom? Publicly ridiculed? What
punishment is harsh enough for someone who dares to defy your fandom?
>
>Okay, so what are the right ways to be intolerant? Complain to the people
>being inconsiderate. If that doesn't work, complain to con security (Keep
>the problem internal to the Con). Failing that, Hotel Security, or even
>the police.
Yeah! Kick their ass! Mess 'em up! Make 'em pay!
>
>Of course, you should gauge your response on how appropriate it is. It's
>probably inappropriate to go as far as Con Security over someone who is
>just smelly. On the other hand, if you catch someone lifting prints from
>a dealer's table (I had $40 worth of Gallery stolen at CF5), it's
>perfectly appropriate to go as far as the police.
What the fuck are you going on about here? You start out talking about
people being inconsiderate, but use theft as an example of being
it? Rich, lifting prints is a little bit more than
inconsiderate, it's against the law. Not just a grey law either, like
being loud in the hotel after dark, but theft. I don't think you need to
rally the troops around your flag if that's the sort of thing in the fandom
you're trying to stop. One, because no one 'tolerates' it, and two, because
I wouldn't say that sort of problem is rampant in furrydom.
(Please folks, spare us anecdotal evidence of theft occuring at ConFURence.
I'm aware it has happened, but I don't think anyone will claim sticky
fingers is a problem only in our fandom.)
I think I'm starting to see some of what you're problem is Rich... You seem
to think fandom isbeing overrun with small special-interest groups, albeit
loud and boisterous ones, who need to be reigned in. You seem to be under
the impression they run rampant at the only fandom you really seem
interested in, conventions, while the rest of the poor souls there stand
meekly by.
Is this really your view of the fandom? If it is, it sounds just once again
like you sitting in your little tower with all your perceived real furries,
under seige for the legions of morons below threatening to topple your little
version of Furry Fandom. And it still makes you sound like an idiot.
Brian
--
| wol...@netcom.com * General mischief engineer * PFT Founder |
Bill Fortier
c...@eden.com (Dr. Cat) wrote:
>I have no anecdotal evidence about how many people do or do not wear
>fursuits while scoring at home. Well, except for whether or not I do,
>but I'm not telling. :XP
Didn't Monty Python cover this in the sketch, "The Mouse Problem"?
Herman Miller
In article <4rhogo$p...@wizard.pn.com>, wfor...@pictac.com says...
I knew there was something I was forgetting. I originally intended for one
of the mice on my Mizarian Mice page to be holding a sign with a blue ribbon
on it, which said "Repeal Anti-Mouse Laws Now!"
--
new & improved home page! +----------<http://www.io.com/~hmiller/>----------
|"You have passed a law that will get less respect
Thryomanes (Herman Miller)| than the 55 m.p.h. speed limit dead bang in the
(hmi...@io.com) | middle of the First Amendment." - Steve Russell
Richard Chandler
In article <wolfieDt...@netcom.com>, <wol...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Boy, I didn't realize the idea of law, culture and manners was the banning
>of questionable activities. (That IS what you just said, isn't it?)
Yup, sure is. Like we have a law against something called "Conspiracy"
when sometimes the people in the Conspiracy haven't even gotten to
comitting the actual crime they were considering. Insider Trading is a
questionable activity, and we have laws against that.
>A better way, one or two people in history might have casually mentioned,
>is to discourage such 'questionable activities' that you seem eager to
>ban entirely. I hate to bring this up, but the CDA is a good example
>of banning questionable acitivies.
Now where did I say ban? I guess you're still so insensed that I gored
your ox that you still can't read straight. Remember, all I asked for was
"...a little consideration, a little common sense, and a little class."
And as I said previously, the first course of action is to tell the person
being offensive that they are being offensive. This sounds like
discouraging an activity to me. Doesn't it to you? Or is this your
definition of a ban?
>Actually, if this thread is any indication, the world isn't a perfect
>place and people should be aware of that. That's all I see Rich, nothing
>special about our little piece of it as you seem to believe.
No, there isn't anything special about Furry Fandom, but it sure would be
nice if there were!
>'Just' tolerate it? Did I say fuck you already? Oh yeah, I did.
No thanks, Cinnamon. I've heard how big your - Reputation - is. It would
probably do me damage.
>You're sounding more and more like the the general from Dr. Strangelove.
>"You can't let that commie bastard in here! He'll see the big board! He'll
>see EVERYTHING!" while clutching up your furry art. Rich, very little
>is accomp[lished with INtolerance. You're trying to use this as some sort
>of rallying point, some line that must not be crossed. You figure that
>if anyone violates your little rules of 'consideration' they deserve to
>be... What? Drummed out of the fandom? Publicly ridiculed? What
>punishment is harsh enough for someone who dares to defy your fandom?
Depends on what they do, doesn't it?
>>Of course, you should gauge your response on how appropriate it is. It's
>>probably inappropriate to go as far as Con Security over someone who is
>>just smelly. On the other hand, if you catch someone lifting prints from
>>a dealer's table (I had $40 worth of Gallery stolen at CF5), it's
>>perfectly appropriate to go as far as the police.
>
>What the fuck are you going on about here? You start out talking about
>people being inconsiderate, but use theft as an example of being
>it?
I'd say that stealing stuff is pretty inconsiderate. The person obviously
put his own need ("I must have those books!") above those of others (The
artists get paid out of the proceeds). But I was illustrating a spectrum
here. I'm surprised that such an obvious thing was beyond your grasp.
>(Please folks, spare us anecdotal evidence of theft occuring at ConFURence.
>I'm aware it has happened, but I don't think anyone will claim sticky
>fingers is a problem only in our fandom.)
Just because it happens everywhere is no reason to put up with it.
>I think I'm starting to see some of what you're problem is Rich... You seem
>to think fandom is being overrun with small special-interest groups, albeit
>loud and boisterous ones, who need to be reigned in. You seem to be under
>the impression they run rampant at the only fandom you really seem
>interested in, conventions, while the rest of the poor souls there stand
>meekly by.
No, they leave. And their loss diminishes us. All this talk about
diversity is merely self-interested bullshit. People in this thread keep
calling me intolerant, but they're the ones saying "If you don't like it,
leave."
But an interesting thing happens. People keep having to distort my
position in order to turn it into something they can easily knock down.
I'm not saying pack off all the Gay furries, or kick out any furry with a
modem or a character on Furrymuck. I pointed out certain things that
certain people DO that is detrimental to the fandom (as has been AMPLY
demonstrated by the people with professional contacts), and I ask that
they change their BEHAVIOR.
And people still think I'm talking about banning things. Sheesh!
>And it still makes you sound like an idiot.
You are still a hypocrite.
c.groark
In article <4rlfte$v...@news.erie.net>,
Kenneth Poland <ga...@moose.erie.net> wrote:
> (Much trimmed)
>
>You don't need to ban things to make the furry cons a miserable experience
>for everyone. Just take away their rights to express their lifestyles
>instead.
>
All right, let me put two cents in here: I doubt that my opinion's worth
even that much.
As far as I know, exhibitionism is a crime, regardless of the genders of
the participants. Also, the Con Committee signs a contract with the hotel
for the use of their space. In every con I've ever attended, the hotel
retains the right to shut down a convention for "cause," which is a
deliberately vaguely worded concept, I admit.
I've been at an SF con where we were raided by the SWAT team. The hotel
would have thrown us out if the con hadn't been ending and tearing down at
the time. Another con had assholes running around pulling the fire
alarms. If the con involved had done anything to protect these morons,
the con would have been tossed then and there.
Will Rogers said it best many years ago: "Your right to swing your fist
ends where my nose begins." If your behavior might shut down the con,
don't do it. It's that simple. Just because you're "at the con" doesn't
mean that everyone at the hotel is. Very few cons rent every room at the
hotel, which means that mundanes may wander by from time to time.
"What are those two people doing, daddy?"
"Oh... My... GOD!!!"
(Followed by a dash to the front desk, a hurried call to the police, a
dual arrest.)
Impossible? Don't bet on it. Criminal activity is criminal activity,
regardless of the circumstances. Bestiality is a crime in California and
other states. Just because it's legal back home doesn't mean it will be
legal elsewhere. Just because the con doesn't mind or tolerates your
behavior doesn't mean everybody will.
Am I saying that the con should put limits on public displays? Yes, I am.
Those limits are the legal limits of the jurisdiction the con hotel is in.
If the con does not set out those limits clearly, they are cruising for
disaster. Not merely for themselves and their own con, but for other cons
as well.
Hotels share information, you know. If a con gets shut down at one hotel,
that hotel will tell others to avoid that con. Laxity in informing the
con members of what the laws are in areas that cons often push the limits;
well, that's suicidal, both for their con and, possibly, the fandom in
general.
Flame me if you wish, but that's the way it really is.
Charlie
Brian Henderson
ga...@moose.erie.net (Kenneth Poland) wrote:
>On 6 Jul 1996 06:50:21 GMT, mau...@teleport.com (Richard Chandler) wrote:
>> No, they leave. And their loss diminishes us. All this talk about
>> diversity is merely self-interested bullshit. People in this thread keep
>> calling me intolerant, but they're the ones saying "If you don't like it,
>> leave."
>Well, if you don't like something, I suppose you would rather stay and
>endure it rather than leaving. I have no problem with that. If you want to
>be masochistic that's your right. Most masochists don't constantly complain
>about what they choose to do though. You choose to come to furry cons that
>happen to be a certain way, then you complain because they won't conform to
>your standards. Why should the majority stop having fun just to satisfy you
>and a few other people?
Hate to break it to you but most of us were here first. You're
treading on OUR fandom and we certainly have a right to take it back
from those we consider unworthy. Rich is absolutely right, these
calls for tolerance are a complete double standard. You want everyone
to have tolerance of you but you are not willing to be tolerant of
anyone else.
We can all see right through you.
>> But an interesting thing happens. People keep having to distort my
>> position in order to turn it into something they can easily knock down.
>> I'm not saying pack off all the Gay furries, or kick out any furry with a
>> modem or a character on Furrymuck.
>No. You didn't say to pack up all gay furries, but you are trying to tell
>them that they can't be themselves, that they can't act as they do in RL
>among their friends and that they can't dress or wear collars or other
>things that they normally wear sometimes even to work. You might as well be
>kicking them out.
Not at all, you're shooting down strawmen again. We're not saying
anything even remotely of the sort. What we are saying however is
that you CANNOT act like a pack of apes run wild, doing whatever you
want and screw anyone who disapproves. That is *EXACTLY* what you are
proposing and sorry... society doesn't work like that.
If you cannot do it on Main Street, you cannot do it in public areas
of ConFurence.
>> I pointed out certain things that
>> certain people DO that is detrimental to the fandom (as has been AMPLY
>> demonstrated by the people with professional contacts), and I ask that
>> they change their BEHAVIOR.
>For every person that has been detrimentally affected, there are probably 50
>who can say the opposite. At least one of those that has been affected
>professionally can only blame it on making a wrong choice and not on
>anything at the furry cons. Sometimes you just have to know people better
>before showing them adult material.
But you don't understand that *YOU* are *KILLING* furry fandom! You
don't see it because you're so overwhelmed in your own little world
that you can't comprehend that what other people think matters. What
do you do when people who are upset with the CF cabaret (which *IS*
illegal in many areas, BTW) decides to call the police? What do you
do when people start bringing economic and political pressure down on
any hotel that might have anything to do with us? You're killing CF
and you can't even see it.
>> And people still think I'm talking about banning things. Sheesh!
>You don't need to ban things to make the furry cons a miserable experience
>for everyone. Just take away their rights to express their lifestyles
>instead.
Just like you're doing. Or don't the rights of anyone but you and
those who enjoy your perversions count?
Brian Henderson
ga...@moose.erie.net (Kenneth Poland) wrote:
>On 1 Jul 1996 08:30:57 GMT, mau...@teleport.com (Richard Chandler) wrote:
>> You make it sound like this is a bad thing. It's the same idea behind
>> laws, culture, and manners.
>So you think it would be ok for us to force our ideals on others as long as
>their activities were questionable? So how many cultures are we going to
>force to become just like us? How many people should we throw in jail
>because they have bad manners and belch loudly in a restaurant? Do you
>really think your ideals are better than those you want to force them on? If
>so, why? In my opinion, it is a very bad thing when we can start interfering
>with the freedoms and rights of others just because we don't care for what
>they do.
Yup, it is perfectly ok. That's what laws are. Or do you think it's
horrible for us to force our ideal on those mass murderers, just
because their activities are questionable? No one is suggesting harsh
punishment for a lack of social graces, so far as I know, no one has
proposed hanging people who don't have the sense to bathe every now
and then by their thumbs, but we most certainly are suggesting that
those who act maliciously or without consideration of others must be
corrected. The ultimate correction, one that should be reserved only
for the worst offenders, should be banishment from the convention.
>> This is exactly the attitude that has gotten us INTO this fix. And if
>> this thread is any indication it's not only a few who desire change.
>I only see a few people in this thread and only about half of them seem to
>want change.
Funny, I see a lot more than a 'few' and I certainly see more than a
'few' who have no net access or who do not read a.f.f who do find the
activities, both at conventions and online, of many fur fans to be
offensive. When you get people who really don't want anything to do
with furry fandom because of the way some furries act, there is most
certainly a problem that must be dealt with.
>I agree that you generally don't get tolerance if you are not considerate.
>Most of these people who you claim to be inconsiderate are not aware that
>they are causing anyone any problems. It isn't as if most of them are
>purposely trying to disgust anyone. They are just acting as they normally
>do. I know that's how I act. I hug and kiss as much here as at any con,
>given the right opportunities. Most people aren't putting on some kind of
>act. They are just being themselves, having fun and hurting no one.
And how do these people live in normal society? Do they have jobs?
Anyone who acted like I've seen some people act, anyone who behaved as
they behave at ConFurence, wouldn't have a chance in the world at a
real job, simply because no employer is that stupid.
No, the people who parade around ConFurence in the nude most certainly
are not 'acting as they normally do.'
Dave Bryant
In article <4rlfte$v...@news.erie.net>,
Kenneth Poland <ga...@moose.erie.net> wrote:
>
>Well, if you don't like something, I suppose you would rather stay and
>endure it rather than leaving. I have no problem with that. If you want to
>be masochistic that's your right. Most masochists don't constantly complain
>about what they choose to do though. You choose to come to furry cons that
>happen to be a certain way, then you complain because they won't conform to
>your standards. Why should the majority stop having fun just to satisfy you
>and a few other people?
I, for one, thought the idea was to encourage furrydom to _grow_, not
_shrink_. When more people leave than join, a group shrinks, right? I
think the point here was that by "encouraging" people to leave,
diminishing furrydom's size, diversity (in the true sense: a wide
variety of tastes and personalities), and vitality, no favor is done to it.
>For every person that has been detrimentally affected, there are probably 50
>who can say the opposite. At least one of those that has been affected
>professionally can only blame it on making a wrong choice and not on
>anything at the furry cons. Sometimes you just have to know people better
>before showing them adult material.
I dunno I'd agree with the fifty-to-one ratio, frankly. But that's
neither here nor there. But actually, your point about knowing people
better before exposing them to adult material is _exactly_ one of the
things the other side of this debate is calling for!
Dave Bryant, Art Director, _Yarf!_
p...@netcom.com, p...@snowmeow.com
Cupertino, California, United States
Jeff Mancebo
Brian Henderson (BHen...@kirk.microsys.net) wrote:
: Hate to break it to you but most of us were here first. You're
: treading on OUR fandom and we certainly have a right to take it back
: from those we consider unworthy. Rich is absolutely right, these
: calls for tolerance are a complete double standard. You want everyone
: to have tolerance of you but you are not willing to be tolerant of
: anyone else.
boojum cocks his head, "As near as I can tell those who enjoy spooge
and blatent sex are not being at all intolerant of those who don't like
it. Inconsiderate perhaps, but not intolerant. The ones who they ARE
intolerant of are those who demand that furry in general decide to
ostracise them."
: Not at all, you're shooting down strawmen again. We're not saying
: anything even remotely of the sort. What we are saying however is
: that you CANNOT act like a pack of apes run wild, doing whatever you
: want and screw anyone who disapproves. That is *EXACTLY* what you are
: proposing and sorry... society doesn't work like that.
boojum smiles, "And again, no one is saying people should be able to
do things in public area's of a con that they can not to in public in
general. However, kissing in public IS legal in california the last time
I checked."
: But you don't understand that *YOU* are *KILLING* furry fandom! You
: don't see it because you're so overwhelmed in your own little world
: that you can't comprehend that what other people think matters. What
: do you do when people who are upset with the CF cabaret (which *IS*
: illegal in many areas, BTW) decides to call the police? What do you
: do when people start bringing economic and political pressure down on
: any hotel that might have anything to do with us? You're killing CF
: and you can't even see it.
boojum sighs, "In your opinion those who enjoy erotic material are
killing furry fandom. I disagree. Every year furry fandom becomes bigger
and bigger. In my opinion this is definitly a healthy fandom. The
Cabaret is NOT ilegal where it is being held, and that is what is
important about it. No one forces someone else to attend the cabaret. To
date no one has called the police or put any preasure on the hotels we
attend. You statement that those who like erotica are killing furry
fandom are unsubstantiated by the evidence you are giving us."
: >You don't need to ban things to make the furry cons a miserable experience
: >for everyone. Just take away their rights to express their lifestyles
: >instead.
: Just like you're doing. Or don't the rights of anyone but you and
: those who enjoy your perversions count?
boojum smiles, "You are drawing upon the emotions of your readers
here. Perversions? Many don't agree with you that what is going on ARE
perversions. Alot depends on where the people in question are from. If
it is not ilegal they have a RIGHT to do it at the con, even if it IS
ilegal in another place. We are not talking about another place, we are
talking about where the con is being held. Do they have an obligation to
be considerate of those around them? Yes. If they are not considerate
people will react accordingly. But what many here are asking for is to
punish everyone in a large section of fandom and exclude them on the
ground that some of them are inconsiderate. Much as saying that I know
some Star Trek fans who do not bathe, therefor Star Trek fans are not
welcome at Confurance."
He bounces gently up and down. "I like some blatent spooge. I like
some furry erotica. I like some cartoons. I am bisexual and am attracted
to both males and females. I have never danced around nude at ConFurance.
I have never done naughty things in public at confurance. I have never
broken any laws at Confurance. Yet many here are saying that I am not
welcome at ConFurance and that they want to keep some of the things i LIKE
at Confurance away."
He wiggles his nose, "You don't punish those who are doing you no
harm. And as I said, I disagree that those who like erotica and spooge
are killing Furry Fandom."
boojum the brown bunny
D.J. Green
In article <4rr0ag$j...@news.erie.net>,
Kenneth Poland <ga...@moose.erie.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 8 Jul 1996 02:54:25 GMT, p...@netcom.com (Dave Bryant) wrote:
>Who is encouraging people to leave? I am only saying that if someone really
>doesn't like the way it is, that they might want to start their own. Right
>now, those who are unsatisfied what to enforce unrealistic rules or to
>censor what goes on.
Which unrealistic rules are these? "Try to keep some of the more blatant
erotica out of the forefront so that people who are bothered by it can more
easily ignore it"? "Have some respect for people who are more easily
disturbed than you"? "Be considerate of other's feelings"? I've seen
exactly one person calling for banning or censorship of anything, and, to
be honest, I don't know of many people on the newsfroup who take him very
seriously..
--
Flash! Saran Wrap factory on 10th Street explodes! Film at 11.
Karl W. Meyer
Brian Henderson (BHen...@kirk.microsys.net) wrote:
: Hate to break it to you but most of us were here first. You're
: treading on OUR fandom and we certainly have a right to take it back
: from those we consider unworthy. Rich is absolutely right, these
: calls for tolerance are a complete double standard. You want everyone
: to have tolerance of you but you are not willing to be tolerant of
: anyone else.
Doesn't matter if you were here first actually. You don't "own" the
fandom. If I choose to wear a collar, carry a plushie around, hug and/or
kiss my friends in public at CF (or anywhere else for that matter), then
I'm not hurting anybody. If you have a problem with any of thoise things
then yes indeed I will be more than happy to point you elsewhere where you
won't have to see it. I don't engage in sex in public and would find it
just as distasteful and offensive as you would. A gentle nudge to those
doing so to go find a room wouldn't be out of line.
: But you don't understand that *YOU* are *KILLING* furry fandom! You
: don't see it because you're so overwhelmed in your own little world
: that you can't comprehend that what other people think matters. What
: do you do when people who are upset with the CF cabaret (which *IS*
: illegal in many areas, BTW) decides to call the police? What do you
: do when people start bringing economic and political pressure down on
: any hotel that might have anything to do with us? You're killing CF
: and you can't even see it.
As far as I know the Cabaret is legal where it is being held. I don't care
for that sort of thing and thus don't go to that particular activity. I
don't go to the art auction either as far as that goes but there are a
large number who like both and I don't have have a problem with that. As
far as what other people think, I find it really doesn't matter all that
much because most people a) aren't all that good at thinking and b)don't
act on what they think. For the most part I've found a much greater
percentage of people who are creative thinkers and who do lots of neat
things in the fandom than out. I'll stick with them even if it means being
labled as wierd by the masses.
: Just like you're doing. Or don't the rights of anyone but you and
: those who enjoy your perversions count?
Sure they count. Feel free to engage in your own perversions all you want.
If it's something that wouldn't be legal on the street I'd hope you'd do
it in a room somewhere though just like most of the people you're ranting
at do. You also have the right to make your feelings heard just as those
of us who disagree have the right to do the same. If you want the right to
dictate that everyone must share your views and never do anything in your
sight that might offend you then no you don't have that right.
Allen Petlock
Jeff Mancebo wrote:
> boojum smiles, "You are drawing upon the emotions of your readers
> here. Perversions? Many don't agree with you that what is going on ARE
> perversions. Alot depends on where the people in question are from. If
> it is not ilegal they have a RIGHT to do it at the con, even if it IS
> ilegal in another place. We are not talking about another place, we are
> talking about where the con is being held. Do they have an obligation to
> be considerate of those around them? Yes. If they are not considerate
> people will react accordingly. But what many here are asking for is to
> punish everyone in a large section of fandom and exclude them on the
> ground that some of them are inconsiderate. Much as saying that I know
> some Star Trek fans who do not bathe, therefor Star Trek fans are not
> welcome at Confurance."
Discussions have hit a boiling point with the current topic of
'tolerance'. Lets think about this for a moment. Tolerate what? Tolerate
the people who want to openly express their affections? Tolerate the
people who want to not be offended by values that make them
uncomfortable? You can't have both. If one or the other is decided upon,
then you force the opposing side to just bear it. The second someone
suggests taking measures, the other side starts complaining about
infringment of rights.
Lets think about this a moment too. What are rights? There are
certain rights that are undenyable, at least in the US, such as freedom
of speech, or the right to live. On the other end there are things that
are by no means a right, such as killing another. Then, somewhere in the
middle, you get into a moral dead mans land. Does the person have the
right to make love to someone? Yes, in certain locations, under certain
conditions, the most general being consentual and private. It is illegal
to have sex in a public place. As a general rule, it is impolite to make
out in a public place. It is legal and fine to kiss in a public place,
however. All this varies to certain degrees depending on where in the
world you are and local culture.
What I just stated is the general guidelines in Chicago, Illinois
and Tampa, Florida. I lived in the former, and currently live in the
latter. In both places, authorities would be called if I were to have
sex with someone in a public area. If I were to go into a common
restaurant and crawl all over someone making out while groping, tounge
wrestling and whatever else, I would get worried, disgusted, and/or
uncomfortable looks from those around my table. I might even be asked to
leave by the waiter or manager. I wouldn't even be allowed in if I was
wearing speedos or a threadbare leather outfit. There are no written
laws that make it illegal, just common concensus that it's rude. But if
someone has a problem with me kissing a loved one in an airport terminal
before I head out, then I would say that lies on an individual level.
People kiss each other goodbye all the time in those places. Long
kisses, short kisses, and everything in between.
What am I trying to get at? It seems that the people advocating
'tolerance' want people to respect the unseen 'rules' that govern the
world outside the con, inside the con. I personally have not been to
Orange County, California. If it isn't acceptable to grope and fondle in
any restaurant in that area, judging by local standards, it shouldn't be
acceptable to do so in the public places of the con, such as a lobby or
hallway*. I don't see what people's gripe is with that. Also from what I
understand, the Caberet and slave auction are behind closed doors, and
could be considered a private area with no minors allowed+. I don't see
what people's gripe is with that, either.
-Allen
Footnotes:
*If anyone wishes to argue this point with me, I'll be perfectly happy
to. As long as they go into a common restaurant and make out while
noting the reactions of others around them. They also should explain why
they think showing in-depth affections to others is less enjoyable if
it's done in a private place.
+If anyone wishes to argue this point with me, I'll be perfectly happy
to. Just as long as you point out how you were forced to be exposed to
it. If this is an erotica argument, read my 'State of the Fandom'
message first.
Che Fox
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
You go Crim! *giggle*
Che
- --
"You forgot Uranus." "Goooooooooodnight everybody!" -- Yakko and Wakko
Ben Gertzfield <http://www.imsa.edu/~wilwonka> Finger me for my public PGP key.
See me on FurryMUCK, as Che, and EFNet and YiffNet IRC as Che_Fox.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6
Comment: http://www.c2.org/~bryce/Niche.html 'BAP' Easy-PGP v1.1b2
iQBVAwUBMeJiKPTlx5Rynzi5AQFLzQIAoQoMjcTABTusItSSB3PAi2pYazrMiQXV
L7zR69XSC4r5jUd0qSXks8Od49Q9s9tk+MURGVpjug0szuiXltx1kw==
=54s0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
c.groark
In article <4rqveb$j...@news.erie.net>,
Kenneth Poland <ga...@moose.erie.net> wrote:
> (cgroark wrote)
>> Impossible? Don't bet on it. Criminal activity is criminal activity,
>> regardless of the circumstances. Bestiality is a crime in California and
>> other states. Just because it's legal back home doesn't mean it will be
>> legal elsewhere. Just because the con doesn't mind or tolerates your
>> behavior doesn't mean everybody will.
>
>is giong to be crazy enough to risk doing it at a con full of a thousand
>people! Even if they did, it certainly wouldn't be public. But, if a
>zoophile comes to the con there is no reason he shouldn't be turned away. He
>would have the right to socialize with his friends as everyone else was.
>
My apologies for this one piece of my prior post. I did not mean to imply
that bestiality WAS occurring at CF. My comment was ONLY intended to give an
example of an activity that is criminal at one location, but not
everywhere. I certainly did not intend to (nor do I wish to) start that
argument again!
My entire point, which I took up far too much bandwidth to make, was
simply watch what you're doing. If it could get you arrested, don't do
it. It could also shut down the con (and piss off about a thousand other
furries.)
Charlie
Ron Orr
Brian Henderson <BHen...@kirk.microsys.net> wrote:
> ga...@moose.erie.net (Kenneth Poland) wrote:
>
> >... Why should the majority stop having fun just to satisfy you
> >and a few other people?
>
> Hate to break it to you but most of us were here first.
Been a while since I heard _that_ one. Had something to do with,
let me see...I think it was something about 'minorities moving into
white neighbourhoods'? Funny how this attitude surfaces whenever people
feel threatened.
> ... You're
> treading on OUR fandom and we certainly have a right to take it back
> from those we consider unworthy.
"OUR?" "We?" When did you file for ownership? Did you lock up
the international rights? And where in the incorporation papers does it
state that judging someone's 'worth' is within your purview, never mind
your abilities?
I thank whatever gods and goddesses there may be that yours is a
minority opinion, no matter how loud you shout it.
Ron
Archie Bunker lives...
Sven Tegethoff
(This was originally posted on the plush mailing list, but I'd like to
discuss that here as well... and I would be very happy if anybody who
replies would send me a copy of his public reply by email, since one of my
newsfeed's hobbies is to swallow every second article on alt.fan.furry...
and those that arrive are ususally over 6 days old. :( )
Hello everyfurry!
I think we shouldn't overestimate the impact of Rich's Editorial in
Gallery, and the resulting flamewar an a.f.f.
Here's my opinion about the argument:
First of all, I've read Rich's Editorial. And I must admit, he has some
good points in there. But on the other hand, he kinda burns the house to
roast the pig... and put it all a little bit too drastically. It has become
some sort of tradition in gallery to rant about recent events in the
editorial, but this time he had better thought twice before choosing his
words, since he hit a very weak spot in all of us furries, plushophiles
(who are definately a subset of furry fandom) and others.
(I met richard at CF7 and we chatted quite a lot, and he made a very
sensible and friendly impression on me. I'm sure he didn't plan to do this
flamewar, and to let this discussion grow to this extend, but now that it's
started, he's beyond the point of no return.)
Now, flaming on a.f.f. is far from uncommon. As a sad-but-true fact, it
seems to be the usual way things run on a.f.f.
Then have a look, how many people contribute to this flamewar. I've
discovered, that there's a rather small group of people who seem to engage
in every flamewar they can get into, and with very few exceptions, the
furryfandomantispooge thread is run by these people once again.
But how many people are in the fandom that do not participate ? There are
thousands. And it's very likely they don't all think alike :-)
There were always people who were feeling offended by X-Rated furry
artwork, plushieness or public display of homosexuality, and all the rest
that people have objected about. This thread only gives them the
opportunity to support their "ideals", which they already had since
eternity.
There's one point I must agree to: We have to watch the fandom's
reputation, to prevent making complete fools of ourselves in the eyes of
everybody else. Fandom is growing, and it's no longer the undergroundish
thing it once was.
In furry fandom, sexuality always has played one of the most important
roles. It has never been the base, but when fatasizing about
anthropomorphic characters, fantasizing about their sexuality only seems to
be a logical step for me.
From my experiences at CF7, I can't say that spooge was the majority.
Let's look at the last two points:
So furry erotica is (or at least was) a natural part of the idea (not the
idea itself, but a part of it). Now, what's the problem ? It's simple:
Outsiders don't know about that. In the "outside world" sexuality is banned
to bedrooms and porn shops.
So it does not matter how little spooge you have on a con or anywhere else:
It will always be the first thing, people will look at, since it's
something really extraordinary for them.
And since the first impression is what counts, they will judge the whole
fandom by it. And this is completely wrong.
Of course nobody wants to have a bad reputation, and so many people think,
this problem could be solved by banning furry erotica to strictly
restricted areas, or avoid any display of alternative lifestyle, short:
Make furry fandom like "mundanes-covered-with-hair fandom".
(And looking at Rich's Editorial, he was _not_ one of those! )
But I think that's oversimplifying the problem. Generally we have to
conflicts to solve:
a) The conflict between furries and "outsiders"
I think it's rather a problem how the so-called "mundanes" are introduced
into what we call furry fandom. Many furfans are so involved with the
fandom, that they don't realize how strange their behaviour, artwork and
fantasies might seem to someone who has never heard about it.
They're so excited about their freshly discovered fandom, that they can't
help pushing everything furry they can find under their non-furry-friend's
noses, and then being disappoited when being neglected.
They don't realize that you have to grow into furriness all by your own
interest, and that trying to deliberately push someone into it will only
result in giving them the classical "those skunkfuckers" attitude, or even
attrack people who aren't interested in the fandom itself (because they
don't even know that fandom is, because the only thing they've seen were
some of a friend's comics) , but who're just on the hunt for kinky jack-off
material.
b) The confluct between different subgenres
This reminds me of the old furries/zoophiles desaster last year. Again, the
problem can be outlined very simple: Furry fandom is a metagenre, which
means that it's a link between a whole bunch of different subgenres.
Which means, that there are people with pretty different interestsm which
won't always go together well:
Some people are into A, some others are into B, but both groups are into C.
Now being seen on a C-Convention will let the A-People inevitable be
associated with B, and the B-People with A.
(replace c with "furryness", and a/b with any combination of plushieness,
spooge, non-spooge, fursuits .... etc.)
This problem can be solved very simply by keeping one's eyes open, judging
the people around oneself, and not doing anything that may offend them.
Most of the time, that's pretty easy to tell. The more extreme your
personal preferences are to the average, the more careful you have to be.
Unfortunately, some fur fanatics also seem to be socially disabled... (no,
I don't have anybody specific in mind with this article) and _thats_
what's causing all the trouble.
And that's _all_ what causes it.
And no ban of any kind of artwork or display of lifestyle will do any
good, since it won't change the minds of those who do not care....
CIAO, ____/|
____ |____ ____ ____ |__ ____ |____ @ius.gun.de | Radjah on \ o.O|
(_____| )(___/_(___/_|____(____|| ) @softgold.com | FurryMuck =(_)=
U
"This is where silence runs it course / And sadness wipes it eyes upon us /
We fall from a structure built on troubled minds / My world becomes iron
and grows as cold as winter." (Anne Clark)
D. A. Graf
Brian Henderson <BHen...@kirk.microsys.net> wrote:
: While I personally haven't seen it, I have heard stories that this
: kind of thing does happen at CF. At CF7, there was the nude Dixie cup
: incident, an incident that cost a rather prominent furry professional
: a considerable amount of work because his boss saw it. I've also
: heard it reported that people were having sex in the halls. Again, I
: haven't seen it with my own eyes, but it is just that type of thing
: that people object to the most strongly.
About the Dixie cup...I found out from a reliable person that it was
actually a g-string for a man done up to look like a sheathe. Apparently
from the angle Jim Groat saw it at the caberet it looked like a Dixie cup.
I've been quietly tracking this particular story down to find the truth
of what is fast becoming an urban legend and have found its a case of
"telephone". I'm sure y'all know how that game is played, ne? *smiles*
As for the sex in the lobby, all I have found in the truth of that matter
is the words of one person whom I've yet to believe she is lying to me.
I do intend to talk to her about it a bit more, though.
[net.snip for net.offering]
: We're not talking about other cons, we're talking about ConFurence. I
: don't care if every other convention is having virgin sacrifices, that
: doesn't make it ok for us to do the same. We need to run our
: conventions in such a manner that the fandom grows and is shown to
: others in a good light. If that means that we control our activities,
: we'd better be open to doing that.
Before I head off, I'd like to say I agree with that. I also know many
other dealers at CF do too. I have a feeling that CF8 may well be the
start of a change for the better.
--Tygger
--
******************************************************************************
gr...@primenet.com http://www.av.qnet.com/~canuss/tygger
ftp://svansmoj.ctrl-c.liu.se/furry/images/artists/tygger
******************************************************************************
"Masquerade! Paper faces on parade...."
Full cast of Phantom of the Opera, Act II, Scene I, Andrew Lloyd Webber