"It's just a harmless bit of role-playing"

35 views
Skip to first unread message

diespa...@best.com

unread,
Feb 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/26/00
to

_"It's only harlmess roleplaying, so what's the problem."_

I hear that a lot when I talked about The Treehouse of the Sacred Moon
and its impact on the whole of furry.

_"What's the big deal? They're not molesting real kids."_

Both these statements ignore the fact that there's real people playing
out these fantasies of child molestation, and they're real people with
real problems.

Sexual attraction to adult is a normal expression of sexuality. Even rape
fantasies are considered normal, within reason.

However, once you start viewing children as objects of sexual desire, you've
crossed a major psychological threshold.

If you're role-playing the sexual molestating of a child online for sexual
gratification, you've taken an omninous step: you've shown you view children
as sexual objects, and have taken steps towards fantasy fullfillment of this
desire. There isn't a therapist in the world who would view someone who is
acting out rape fantasies against children on-line as healthy or normal.

It is critical to understand that these people are not harmless role-players,
they are people who're actively pursuing pedophillic fantasies. That it's
online is no less harmfull: these people attend cons, these people live in
neighborhoods, these people come in contact with REAL children. The people who
says "It's harmless roleplay" ignore these facts.

Simple question: Would you leave your kid alone for a few hours with one
of these people? Do you know ANY parent who would knowingly leave their
child alone with someone who is acting out child molestation fantasies
online?

Furry ignores this danger at very high risk to its members and its reputation.
The real world sees NO justification for sex with children. If furry becomes
associated with this activity, furry can kiss the cons goodbye. Furry artists
who are openly "furry" can kiss their careers goodbye. The stain of child
molestation is indelible to the highest degree and it spreads like oil on
water. There is no greater object of revulsion that the child molestor and
any group viewed as being associated with this acitivity is a group that's
viewed with hate.

I'd rather not be associated with a group that shares NAMBLA's reputation.

--


"By and large, furry fandom is, uh, Bi and large . . . "

-- Eric Blumrich

TriGem Olandarinse

unread,
Feb 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/26/00
to
I'm only commenting on ths because you actually bring up some good points....

diespa...@best.com wrote:

> _"It's only harlmess roleplaying, so what's the problem."_
>
> I hear that a lot when I talked about The Treehouse of the Sacred Moon
> and its impact on the whole of furry.
>
> _"What's the big deal? They're not molesting real kids."_
>
> Both these statements ignore the fact that there's real people playing
> out these fantasies of child molestation, and they're real people with
> real problems.

Not always.. remember.. the majority of furries "ARE" grown adults playing as
fuzzy critters running around on on-line commuties saying, yiff, yerf, yarf..
etc.. talking about this and that 'furry'.. your not out of the water either
Stuka.. you play a fox on FurryMUCK, so no escaping that there.

> Sexual attraction to adult is a normal expression of sexuality. Even rape
> fantasies are considered normal, within reason.

There was actually a study done on rape, now in my oppinion and I'm sure as
everyone else's that rapes is horrendous in our society today, but RAPE may be a
'evolutionary' kickback, as it were, that if a male can not pass on his seed he
will force that up on a women to do so. I'm not advocating this at all, but it
makes ALOT more sense then saying that he is just a perver.. etc.. whatever.. lets
move on.

> However, once you start viewing children as objects of sexual desire, you've
> crossed a major psychological threshold.

Granted.

> If you're role-playing the sexual molestating of a child online for sexual
> gratification, you've taken an omninous step: you've shown you view children
> as sexual objects, and have taken steps towards fantasy fullfillment of this
> desire. There isn't a therapist in the world who would view someone who is
> acting out rape fantasies against children on-line as healthy or normal.

Eh.. well, would you rather they do it in a FANTASY online, or in the real world?
If someone is going to bust a nut and whack off to it infrot of their screen,
whats the harm? let them be sick demented perverts infront of a screen and have
to explain the stains to their frinds and relatives. If someone harbors those
thoughs, ideals, let them, but WHEN, and ONLY when they take those outside the
bounds of 'fake fantisy' and their own mind, then be it a problem. When things
are done, that is when it should be threat or problems as said.

To be candidly honest, I've had the thoughts go through my mind as well,
wondering, but I realize that 1) being a fucked kid myself, I wouldn't want that
to happen to a kid, 2) unless the kid was 'GENUINELY" getting something from it,
whats the point? 3) I always thought kids would be a lame fuck. *shrug*

To continue..

> It is critical to understand that these people are not harmless role-players,
> they are people who're actively pursuing pedophillic fantasies. That it's
> online is no less harmfull: these people attend cons, these people live in
> neighborhoods, these people come in contact with REAL children. The people who
> says "It's harmless roleplay" ignore these facts.

Yes.. but the majority of people I talk to have had 'these thoughts' go through
their mind. The fascination, without a doubut in men, is to find a young, virle
host too whom which they pass their seed onto for procreation. It is a
fundemential 'root' characterist in humans as well as animals. Remember Mike, we
ARE animals as well, just with a bigger cranium, thumb and alot more testosterone
then our wild cousins. Anyways.. as I said before, IF you keep it all 'virtual'
and 'non-realistic' what is the point? If you cross the line and go overoard, that
is what should be the problem. besides.. pop culture, media, entertainment make a
specticle of 'glitzing' the younger generations, and making them 'stand' out as
beaming sexual objects. You see young girls of pre teen and even teen stature
with these annoying 'hearts' on their shirts over their tits.. what are you going
to do? You look at the heart becaus it catches your eye, thus, your drawn to their
tits.. etc.. so. your looking at an underage girls boobs.. for shame. A big
factor in the development of 'adult' like characteristcis in childeren and teens,
espcically girls, who have the 'cannon hooters' is a simple product called milk.
Yes.. milk. Milk contains growth hormones that are NOT filtered out of the
process from the cows, and get drunk by millions of kids today. Tell me why 10
years ago that kids were of a 'normal' build? Now.. you have boys wearing atheltic
cups that elephants would be jealous of, and girls in the 'D' cup range before
their sweet 16?

Moving on..

> Simple question: Would you leave your kid alone for a few hours with one
> of these people? Do you know ANY parent who would knowingly leave their
> child alone with someone who is acting out child molestation fantasies
> online?

No.. common sense dictates that.

Although.. there is ENOUGH press and light about what DOES happen to those who do
offend when they do, so the temption may be there, but they know the consquences
of such actions.


> Furry ignores this danger at very high risk to its members and its reputation.
> The real world sees NO justification for sex with children. If furry becomes
> associated with this activity, furry can kiss the cons goodbye. Furry artists
> who are openly "furry" can kiss their careers goodbye. The stain of child
> molestation is indelible to the highest degree and it spreads like oil on
> water. There is no greater object of revulsion that the child molestor and
> any group viewed as being associated with this acitivity is a group that's
> viewed with hate.

Simpley stated, yes. I also remember your 'crusade' along side old Mark prior
about your 'anti-b3@sty' campaign a while back. Do you constantly shift yourself
into the 'zealot topic' of the month, or do you do this for shits and giggles?

People know.. people care. Howver, your 'interaction' serves NO help to problem
that is being taking care of slowly, methodically in the shadows to 'help' the
image, not rip it up like you are recklessly doing.

Consider this.. do you think by OPENLY pointing fingers that it is helping furry
ANY at atll, or let thigns sort out and work their way out in the shadows, and get
taken care of like the duitfull assasin stalking their prey? Openly berating and
individual(s) only serves to add fuel to the fire of the race to see who can 'fuck
up furry' the quickest.

MIke.. You're not a stupid man, nor are you uncaring. you just have a righteously
fucked up way of thinking that you are helping.

You are not.


> I'd rather not be associated with a group that shares NAMBLA's reputation.

Only in your own mind, as I would HATE to think that. If so.. correct me, but I
thought furries were plush humping z00phil3s an the like, not child molestors.. or
did you come up wiht some new evidance to support this. Or, as I said earlier, is
this your personal montly capaign to weed furry of the wretched elements it
contains?

Use your head Mike, not your voice. It gets you WAY further in life, then mouthly
spouting off nonsense. You only look like a fool, and a moron.

> --
>
> "By and large, furry fandom is, uh, Bi and large . . . "
>
> -- Eric Blumrich

Yes.. I actulaly have to agree with that for once.. and also, that dipshit, Eric,
has put a mis-read quoute up on his site once more, as I had checked it a while
back, even spelling my name wrong. No wonder he is consideried to be such an ass,
then again, as some people are, they like that type of publiciity.

I wonder.. who REALY is to blame..

The perverts.. or the finger pointers.. or those who don't give a fuck..

It takes 3 licks to get to the center, but I doubt anyone wants to know what it
tastes like.


--
´¯`·.|¸¸.·´|_._<Idendtifcation>
´¯`·.|¸¸.·´|_._TriGem Olandarinse, Thé £ùPhrªnítÉ
´¯`·.|¸¸.·´|_._AKA: Alan Kennedy, ICQ: 8781052
´¯`·.|¸¸.·´|_._WWW: http://www.furnation.com/trigem
´¯`·.|¸¸.·´|_._E-MAIL: trigem(at)hotmail.com - text
´¯`·.|¸¸.·´|_._E-MAIL: trigem(at)ohiohills.com - binaries
^spam trap^ - If you don't like it, tough :P

ANTIcarrot.

unread,
Feb 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/26/00
to
Er, what has this got to do with furry? I've never heard of 'The Treehouse
of the Sacred Moon' or any kiddy-sex roleplaying. This is nothing to do with
furrydom. The only way it would be is if idiots like you raise the subject.

ANTIcarrot.

diespa...@best.com wrote in message
<38b81b51$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com>...


>
>_"It's only harlmess roleplaying, so what's the problem."_
>
>I hear that a lot when I talked about The Treehouse of the Sacred Moon
>and its impact on the whole of furry.
>
>_"What's the big deal? They're not molesting real kids."_
>
>Both these statements ignore the fact that there's real people playing
>out these fantasies of child molestation, and they're real people with
>real problems.
>

>Sexual attraction to adult is a normal expression of sexuality. Even rape
>fantasies are considered normal, within reason.
>

>However, once you start viewing children as objects of sexual desire,
you've
>crossed a major psychological threshold.
>

>If you're role-playing the sexual molestating of a child online for sexual
>gratification, you've taken an omninous step: you've shown you view
children
>as sexual objects, and have taken steps towards fantasy fullfillment of
this
>desire. There isn't a therapist in the world who would view someone who is
>acting out rape fantasies against children on-line as healthy or normal.
>

>It is critical to understand that these people are not harmless
role-players,
>they are people who're actively pursuing pedophillic fantasies. That it's
>online is no less harmfull: these people attend cons, these people live in
>neighborhoods, these people come in contact with REAL children. The people
who
>says "It's harmless roleplay" ignore these facts.
>

>Simple question: Would you leave your kid alone for a few hours with one
>of these people? Do you know ANY parent who would knowingly leave their
>child alone with someone who is acting out child molestation fantasies
>online?
>

>Furry ignores this danger at very high risk to its members and its
reputation.
>The real world sees NO justification for sex with children. If furry
becomes
>associated with this activity, furry can kiss the cons goodbye. Furry
artists
>who are openly "furry" can kiss their careers goodbye. The stain of child
>molestation is indelible to the highest degree and it spreads like oil on
>water. There is no greater object of revulsion that the child molestor and
>any group viewed as being associated with this acitivity is a group that's
>viewed with hate.
>

>I'd rather not be associated with a group that shares NAMBLA's reputation.
>
>
>

TriGem Olandarinse

unread,
Feb 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/26/00
to
"ANTIcarrot." wrote:

> Er, what has this got to do with furry? I've never heard of 'The Treehouse
> of the Sacred Moon' or any kiddy-sex roleplaying. This is nothing to do with
> furrydom. The only way it would be is if idiots like you raise the subject.
>
> ANTIcarrot.

StukaFox, Mike Bebee is a finger pointer of the WORSE kind. He is the type of
person that furry has to fear. He has a genuine concern, grated, but is screwed
in the head about how he thinks it should be done.

Simplly, this guy the BF's tossed out on the sidewalk ,and amazingly, the
scientologists have his nickname in their blacklist software.. imagine that. :)

diespa...@best.com

unread,
Feb 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/26/00
to
ANTIcarrot. <dante.f...@virgin.net> wrote:
: Er, what has this got to do with furry? I've never heard of 'The Treehouse
: of the Sacred Moon' or any kiddy-sex roleplaying. This is nothing to do with
: furrydom. The only way it would be is if idiots like you raise the subject.

: ANTIcarrot.

Treehouse of the Sacred Moon is part of Tapestries, which is part
of furry.

Flames are unappreciated here, so please don't try to start flamewars
with personal attacks like the one above. The fact that you haven't
heard of it doesn't make me an idiot.

Richard Chandler - WA Resident

unread,
Feb 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/26/00
to
One dangerous assumption being made here is that those who start with fantasy
will stop with fantasy. True, some do. Some sublimate the desires by role-
playing with adults (A practice I find disturbing), but some DO go on to
commit these atrocities in reality, and there's no way to tell who will, and
who won't, but giving any of them any form of encouragement and support is
lending encouragement and support to those who may well indeed become child
molesters. The encouragement and support they should get is towards getting
treatment and therapy, not towards acting out their fantasies and self-
acceptance of them.

Kliebold and Harris fantasized about their massacre for over a year before
they did it, and nobody tried to stop them when they gave off obvious signs
that something was wrong (Like making a frigging FILM about it!). As far as
I'm concerned, engaging in the sort of role-playing that suppoedly goes on at
this treehouse is a warning sign. These people need therapists, not
apologists.


--
The greatest tragedy is that the same species that achieved space flight,
a cure for polio, and the transistor, is also featured nightly on COPS.
-- Richard Chandler
Spammer Warning: Washington State Law now provides civil penalties for UCE.


TriGem Olandarinse

unread,
Feb 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/26/00
to
diespa...@best.com wrote:

> Treehouse of the Sacred Moon is part of Tapestries, which is part
> of furry.
>
> Flames are unappreciated here, so please don't try to start flamewars
> with personal attacks like the one above. The fact that you haven't
> heard of it doesn't make me an idiot.

Pot Kettle Black?

You constantly screw with my head MIke. One minute I think your all sane and the
like, then the next you sound like you hade a frontal lobotomy. You only
contributed, as well as I, to this by replying. Proves my point you just WANT to
get something going yourself.

Jeremy

unread,
Feb 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/26/00
to

Uhhh...

I think some poeple do that shit jsut to joke around and get attention. I
personnally think that by doing all this posting and stuff you are giving them
that attention. Replying to the posts and arguing with people distracts from the
bordom around me so i think they might be doing the same thing. Trying to
entertain themselves even thoough it is sick. I dont know if i am right and dont
care just my insight. But some poeple doing this are having harmless fun just
joking around not taking it seriously. I doubt all of them really have fantasies
about children. But i bet a good few of them do day dream about children in real
life. All I have to say to them is shame on you they are innocent little children
who dont understand that type of thing and having thoughts like that brings you
all the much closer to hurting those innocent children.
Seek some form of help that will get rid of these thoughts. I do not mean
actually go out and molest those kids to the pervs who would think that would
help. See a shrink or a preist <but be very careful of which preist he might give
you more bad ideas :) >.When i say innocent i mean ignorant to the facts and to
the real world.

Skytech

unread,
Feb 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/26/00
to
<diespa...@best.com> wrote in message

>
> Furry ignores this danger at very high risk to its members and its
reputation.
> The real world sees NO justification for sex with children. If furry
becomes
> associated with this activity, furry can kiss the cons goodbye. Furry
artists
> who are openly "furry" can kiss their careers goodbye. The stain of child
> molestation is indelible to the highest degree and it spreads like oil on
> water. There is no greater object of revulsion that the child molestor and
> any group viewed as being associated with this acitivity is a group that's
> viewed with hate.
>

While we're on this subject, it wasn't mentioned above but when are you no
longer consitered a child?

News programs *love* describing people in their late teens and even early
twenties as 'children'! This is, of course, in association with child
molestation or exploitation. So what the cut off age or does it vary with
the situation?

I am not being flippant. Read or watch the news! When I was at those ages, I
would have been insulted being labeled a child and used to promote someone's
agenda.
--
Skytech


diespa...@best.com

unread,
Feb 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/27/00
to
Skytech <sky...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

: While we're on this subject, it wasn't mentioned above but when are you no
: longer consitered a child?

Skytech,

In this case, I'm refering to pre-puberty, pre-teen.

FoxLord

unread,
Feb 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/27/00
to
>: While we're on this subject, it wasn't mentioned above but when are you no
>: longer consitered a child?
>
>
>

Well If Memory serves me correctly, it is anyone older then 18, I believe.
over 18 you are considered an Adult and can be tried and convicted as one.
anyone younger then 18 is a Minor. and still considered a "Child"

Al Goldman

unread,
Feb 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/27/00
to
Hi All,

All this stuff with the Treehouse is old news. Why was it not shut down the
last time Stukafox complained?

Al Goldman

Richard Chandler - WA Resident

unread,
Feb 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/27/00
to
In article <slrn8bhup4....@dformosa.zeta.org.au>,
dfor...@zeta.org.au (David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)) writes:
> Because Stukafox doesn't run the fandom.

Because he was shouted down by a horde of apologists who were saying "It's
just role-playing, it doesn't mean anything", and "If we pick on him, who's
the next sexual minority to get attacked." Maybe now that true colors are
manifesting, we can look forward to logs and the database on Tapestries being
supoenaed while they investigate this guy. Maybe it takes things like that
for people to learn their lessons.

Skytech

unread,
Feb 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/27/00
to
Tim Gadd <not_a...@addressatall.com> wrote in message

> On 26 Feb 2000 18:28:33 GMT, diespa...@best.com wrote:
>
> >
> >_"It's only harlmess roleplaying, so what's the problem."_
> >
> >I hear that a lot when I talked about The Treehouse of the Sacred Moon
> >and its impact on the whole of furry.
>
> I'm not suprised. I've never bloody heard of it. That's how big an
> impact it's had.
>

Also raises paw.

Never heard about this til now. If it's so bad, I'm amazed some
sensationalist scandal sheet or other media source hasn't discovered it.
--
Skytech

^^
<@@>
./

Skytech

unread,
Feb 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/27/00
to
Richard de Wylfin <thetal...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message
>
> No offense, Skytech, but what are you talking about?
>

It was brought up that 'children' are being exploited in furry circles,
vitually or otherwise.

I have experienced numerous newsstories in which older teens and young
adults have been labeled 'children' in association with sexuality cases.
This seems common when certain anti-sexuality groups need to pad numbers and
enflame the folks.

I wanted to have more information concerning *this* situation.

David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)

unread,
Feb 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/28/00
to
On Sun, 27 Feb 2000 17:45:13 -0800, Richard Chandler - WA Resident
<mau...@kendra.com> wrote:
>In article <slrn8bhup4....@dformosa.zeta.org.au>,
>dfor...@zeta.org.au (David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)) writes:

[...]

>> Because Stukafox doesn't run the fandom.
>
>Because he was shouted down by a horde of apologists who were saying "It's
>just role-playing, it doesn't mean anything", and "If we pick on him, who's
>the next sexual minority to get attacked." Maybe now that true colors are
>manifesting,

Given that the event looks like it was some sort of frame up I don't
think "true colors" are an appropiate stament.


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

diespa...@best.com

unread,
Feb 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/28/00
to
Skytech <sky...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

: Never heard about this til now. If it's so bad, I'm amazed some


: sensationalist scandal sheet or other media source hasn't discovered it.


Skytech,

You're hearing about it now because a scandal sheet HASN'T heard
about it.

There's already been one case of predatory sexual behavior against
a minor requiring legal intervention on a MU*. The hobby, as a whole,
dodged a bullet when the family involved did NOT go to the press
with the story. Only the lawyers, and the few people involved,
know all the details.

Imagine the sheer level of hell that will break loose if some kid,
especially some kid of a family not associated with this hobby,
gets molested a con. Now imagine how that hell will be amplified
when legal authorties find out that there was a place where the
type of behavior was practiced and encouraged.

The ramifications on the MU* scene would be serious. At minimum,
there'd be a chilling effect as wiz-staffs suddenly found themselves
under the spotlight. Remember, if you're under investigation for
sex crimes against children, that information is public record.
Even if you're fully exonorated, you're still on record as being
under investigation for sex crimes against children. Given the
eroding privacy of the Internet Age, do you want to have to explain
to a potential employer the circumstances surrounding the
investigation and your part in it? Do you think you'll even get a
chance to explain?

There's no activity that the public holds a lower opinion of than
sex crimes against children. Even the suggestion of it has ruined
lives. Yet here's furry providing a pedophile's paradise, complete
with people who will defend the behavior. Here's people arguing
that a hobby for people interested in anthropomorphic animals should
be a proxy for children for the delight of child molestors. Here's
a place that openly and proudly says 'Come on in and pretend to
molest children! It's okay -- you're amoung friends here! Open
24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and totally free!'

Peter Torkelson has the power to change this. To this date, he's taken
no stand other than to remove people from Tapestries who've
complained, thereby voiding the "common-carrier" status of the MU*.

God help us all if that shit ever hits the fan.
that go on in the Treehouse.

Alan Kennedy

unread,
Feb 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/28/00
to
diespa...@best.com wrote:

> Skytech,
>
> You're hearing about it now because a scandal sheet HASN'T heard
> about it.
>
> There's already been one case of predatory sexual behavior against
> a minor requiring legal intervention on a MU*. The hobby, as a whole,
> dodged a bullet when the family involved did NOT go to the press
> with the story. Only the lawyers, and the few people involved,
> know all the details.

Briefly eloborate.. no name.. just some details.. to prove to us your not blowing
it our wazzo again.

> Imagine the sheer level of hell that will break loose if some kid,
> especially some kid of a family not associated with this hobby,
> gets molested a con. Now imagine how that hell will be amplified
> when legal authorties find out that there was a place where the
> type of behavior was practiced and encouraged.

Kids at adult oriented cons.. yah.. theres a bright idea to begin with.

> The ramifications on the MU* scene would be serious. At minimum,
> there'd be a chilling effect as wiz-staffs suddenly found themselves
> under the spotlight. Remember, if you're under investigation for
> sex crimes against children, that information is public record.
> Even if you're fully exonorated, you're still on record as being
> under investigation for sex crimes against children. Given the
> eroding privacy of the Internet Age, do you want to have to explain
> to a potential employer the circumstances surrounding the
> investigation and your part in it? Do you think you'll even get a
> chance to explain?

Remember.. BOTH mucks have a AUP that describes briefly that whatever their users
do, its not their fault.

> There's no activity that the public holds a lower opinion of than
> sex crimes against children. Even the suggestion of it has ruined
> lives. Yet here's furry providing a pedophile's paradise, complete
> with people who will defend the behavior. Here's people arguing
> that a hobby for people interested in anthropomorphic animals should
> be a proxy for children for the delight of child molestors. Here's
> a place that openly and proudly says 'Come on in and pretend to
> molest children! It's okay -- you're amoung friends here! Open
> 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and totally free!'

YOU have issues, no problems, if that is all you see.

> Peter Torkelson has the power to change this. To this date, he's taken
> no stand other than to remove people from Tapestries who've
> complained, thereby voiding the "common-carrier" status of the MU*.
>
> God help us all if that shit ever hits the fan.
> that go on in the Treehouse.

Good.. why the hell don't you inform Jerry Fallwell?

--
´¯`·.|¸¸.·´|_._Alan Kennedy, ICQ: 8781052
´¯`·.|¸¸.·´|_._AKA:TriGem Olandarinse, Thé £ùPhrªnítÉ


´¯`·.|¸¸.·´|_._WWW: http://www.furnation.com/trigem
´¯`·.|¸¸.·´|_._E-MAIL: trigem(at)hotmail.com - text
´¯`·.|¸¸.·´|_._E-MAIL: trigem(at)ohiohills.com - binaries

´¯`·.|¸¸.·´|_._And don't forget, Be a responsible human,
´¯`·.|¸¸.·´|_._Have your child spayed or neutered!

Charles Melville

unread,
Feb 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/28/00
to Alan Kennedy

Alan Kennedy wrote:

> diespa...@best.com wrote:
>
> > Imagine the sheer level of hell that will break loose if some kid,
> > especially some kid of a family not associated with this hobby,
> > gets molested a con. Now imagine how that hell will be amplified
> > when legal authorties find out that there was a place where the
> > type of behavior was practiced and encouraged.
>
> Kids at adult oriented cons.. yah.. theres a bright idea to begin with.

Let's point out that fur cons are -not- adult-only cons, and that there -have-
been participants who have brought their kids with them. Not many, but there have
been a few.


diespa...@best.com

unread,
Feb 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/28/00
to
Charles Melville <cp...@zipcon.com> wrote:

: Let's point out that fur cons are -not- adult-only cons, and that there -have-
:een participants who have brought their kids with them. Not many, but there have
:been a few.


Also, cons are held at hotels, which are public establishments. Even
FC, with its record turnout, did not fill the entire hotel.

Chris Johnson

unread,
Feb 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/28/00
to
In article <38b81b51$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com>, diespa...@best.com wrote:
> Sexual attraction to adult is a normal expression of sexuality. Even rape
> fantasies are considered normal, within reason.

Why?

I have no problem with even much more perverse fantasies, but I like to
think they are firmly within a context of 'this is perverse'.

What about rape should be considered normal? I would prefer to consider
it one of the most perverse acts a person could commit. It is a crime.
People can fantasize about what they like, but if you start prohibiting
'perverse' fantasies, the next thing is to call everything else 'normal'
and then you get the word 'rape' associated with the word 'normal' which I
feel is wrong.

Perverse fantasies are perverse fantasies. Rather than trying to
distinguish between 'good' and 'bad' perverse fantasies, allow them all
and keep them all firmly identified as fantasies.


Jinx_tigr
(aka Chris Johnson)

Chris Johnson

unread,
Feb 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/28/00
to
In article <20000227024447...@nso-ff.aol.com>,

allan...@aol.comNARF (Al Goldman) wrote:
> Hi All,
> All this stuff with the Treehouse is old news. Why was it not shut down the
> last time Stukafox complained?

Ironically, the (rather unpleasant) tendency towards 'shrink-wrap'
software licensing, the UCITA and all the new legislation designed to
totally exempt software publishers from any responsibility for what they
do... seems to have a side effect here. Basically, I think there is a lot
of justification for suggesting that if Taps or FM or whatever has a
written disclaimer of responsibility, that this disclaimer increasingly
has _teeth_ to it.
You can write software and provide a small-print license allowing you
to totally hose somebody and it's binding- an unprecedented ignoring of
consumer-protection laws. I see no reason to think internet access
services would be any different. Again, it's a case of 'you read the
license agreement didn't you? You have no recourse'. This time, all that's
needed is something somewhere saying 'minors may not use this muck' or 'by
logging on you waive any right to get litigous' or a sign on the Treehouse
door saying 'if you object to this or are a minor you're not allowed in'.
At that point it becomes an issue of 'is a click-wrap license legally
binding?'.
The fact that it's unethical and an abuse of consumer rights is beside
the point. Today, 'click here' licenses can permit _anything_, even
liberties beyond what you'll typically find off the Net. I think you
people trying to fight the Treehouse are powerless, frankly.
I don't understand that stuff anyway. Not my kind of kink.


Jinx_tigr
(aka Chris Johnson)

Crassus D.

unread,
Feb 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/28/00
to
> _"It's only harlmess roleplaying, so what's the problem."_
>
> I hear that a lot when I talked about The Treehouse of the Sacred Moon
> and its impact on the whole of furry.

"Secret Moon".. not "Sacred".. the moon is made of cheese, we all know that.

> _"What's the big deal? They're not molesting real kids."_
>
> Both these statements ignore the fact that there's real people playing
> out these fantasies of child molestation, and they're real people with
> real problems.

Excuse me..? I do not molest children. Fake, real or otherwise. Get that
through your thick neo-nazi brain this very moment before reading on.

> Sexual attraction to adult is a normal expression of sexuality. Even rape
> fantasies are considered normal, within reason.

Wait.. you're saying you condone rape fantasies? So you're saying it's ok to
jerk off to thinking of rape someone as long as they fit into your own age
bracket? Double-standards galore, here.. :)

> However, once you start viewing children as objects of sexual desire,
you've
> crossed a major psychological threshold.

No, you're wrong. It crosses a SOCIOLOGICAL threshold. You're confusing the
two. Crossing a sociological norm (threshold) and delving into either the
negative or positive ends in the spectrum of the given norm puts yourself
into a position to be labelled and outcasted as a deviant until the social
norm is again put back into balance... What you're talking about has nothing
to do with psychology, Mike.

> If you're role-playing the sexual molestating of a child online for sexual
> gratification, you've taken an omninous step: you've shown you view
children
> as sexual objects, and have taken steps towards fantasy fullfillment of
this
> desire. There isn't a therapist in the world who would view someone who is
> acting out rape fantasies against children on-line as healthy or normal.

I do not roleplay molestation. Period. Anyone who even begins to try getting
near my young character in a non-consentual manner will get a lotta
growling, teeth-baring and maybe a certain extremity gnawed off if they keep
it up.

...And there you go again with the rape thing. You said yourself just a few
lines up that you consider adult rape fantasies normal? Within reason? With
what kind of reasoning is rape good? Run that by me again. Rape is rape. I
don't care what the age of the victim is. It shouldn't matter the age of the
person who's getting raped. It's bad. (No offense to the NC people reading
this..)

> It is critical to understand that these people are not harmless
role-players,
> they are people who're actively pursuing pedophillic fantasies.

I do? That's news to me.

> That it's
> online is no less harmfull: these people attend cons, these people live in
> neighborhoods, these people come in contact with REAL children.

Oh by the way.. what you're doing at this point is attempting to label and
outcast people. That's a very dangerous thing, Mike. Why? Like I said in my
original reply to someone else long ago:

"You're dealing with the people you know. You're dealing with loved ones,
colleagues, family & friends, bosses, teachers, artists, the guy on the
corner selling fruit next to frickin' Oscar the Grouch's trash can.

"You're dealing with yourself. Leave us out of it."

> Simple question: Would you leave your kid alone for a few hours with one
> of these people? Do you know ANY parent who would knowingly leave their
> child alone with someone who is acting out child molestation fantasies
> online?

No, I wouldn't. You're forgetting you're dealing with normal people, here. I
have a little brother that I love dearly, and I will protect him from any
person who would threaten his well-being. Like you...

Tell me, Mike.. were you abused as a child? Were you ever yelled at or
beaten or raped or told that you were a bad person growing up? What caused
you to gain such hatred for people? I sense much anger in you... and you
remember what Yoda said about anger. Yeah, we all do. :)

> Furry ignores this danger at very high risk to its members and its
reputation.
> The real world sees NO justification for sex with children. If furry
becomes
> associated with this activity, furry can kiss the cons goodbye. Furry
artists
> who are openly "furry" can kiss their careers goodbye. The stain of child
> molestation is indelible to the highest degree and it spreads like oil on
> water. There is no greater object of revulsion that the child molestor and
> any group viewed as being associated with this acitivity is a group that's
> viewed with hate.

"You humans are the disease... and we... are the cure." -- Agent Smith

Question..... if you're so worried about mainstream society catching an
earful about all the 'evil scum' that lurk within the dark social corners of
the furry fandom, why are you working closer to bring it to the surface? To
scrape it away, and gather it all up into a dustpan, to be thrown out into
the garbage? The problem is, things don't work so cleanly, Mike. While you
take out all the pervs out of the fandom, you're liable to take along more
than you bargain for. You dig into the innocent. Soon you end up with
nothing more than just a shell of hate, intoleration, and witchunts. Seems
to me, if anyone were to end up destroying the fandom, it would be the loud
ones like yourself.

You create hate, Mike. You create it to make yourself look better, when in
reality all you're doing is make yourself look more like the village idiot.
It's interesting, though.. you're sadistic and masochistic at the same time.
The only term I can think of to describe that is "lost soul"...

"We hate hate. Hate it." -- The psychiatrist guy on Get Smart.

> I'd rather not be associated with a group that shares NAMBLA's reputation.

Neither would I, seeing as how I'm an open furry. You keep seeming to forget
you're dealing with everyday people beyond your screen. You seem to like
making us all out to be pawns on a chessboard.

Tell me, Mike, as you seem to have an agenda of wiping all us outcasts out
of the fandom with or without the help of the Burned Furs... what personal
gain are you aiming for in your persue of a "cleaner fandom"? After all,
that's all you're worried about.. personal gain; making sure *you're* safe.
Forget the rest of us.. as long as you have your little 'comfort area'. Then
you'll move onto something bigger and better, and you'll keep on doing this
until the day you die. And what good would you have accomplished? Your own
satisfaction, maybe. Meanwhile everyone else that looks on at your grave
will say to themselves, "good ridence"... Do you really want it to end that
way? I really, really pity you.

--Crassus

Crassus D.

unread,
Feb 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/28/00
to
> There's already been one case of predatory sexual behavior against
> a minor requiring legal intervention on a MU*. The hobby, as a whole,
> dodged a bullet when the family involved did NOT go to the press
> with the story. Only the lawyers, and the few people involved,
> know all the details.

Mike.. Minors are not allowed on Tapestries. Remember? You're comparing
apples with oranges again.

I won't bother commenting on the rest of your post, as it's all an attempt
to inject fear into your readers. Every villain injected fear into their,
including hitler.

--Crassus

Crassus D.

unread,
Feb 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/28/00
to
"Crassus D." <cra...@lionking.org> wrote in message
news:89eumv$hdn$1...@raccoon.fur.com...

... followers ...

> including hitler.
>
> --Crassus
>
>

Crassus D.

unread,
Feb 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/28/00
to
> All this stuff with the Treehouse is old news. Why was it not shut
down the
> last time Stukafox complained?

Why wasn't *what* shut down? The thread or the Treehouse?

The Treehouse is not breaking any rule or law of this country... what would
be the grounds of shutting the area down?

--Crassus

Richard Chandler - WA Resident

unread,
Feb 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/28/00
to
In article <slrn8bk098....@dformosa.zeta.org.au>,
dfor...@zeta.org.au (David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)) writes:
> >Because he was shouted down by a horde of apologists who were
> >saying "It's just role-playing, it doesn't mean anything", and "If
> >we pick on him, who's the next sexual minority to get attacked."
> >Maybe now that true colors are manifesting,
>
> Given that the event looks like it was some sort of frame up I don't
> think "true colors" are an appropiate stament.

Whups, almost forgot, you were one of those apologists, weren't you?
And what should people speculate about your motives, based on your domain
name?

Richard Chandler - WA Resident

unread,
Feb 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/28/00
to
In article <89epc5$guj$1...@raccoon.fur.com>, "Crassus D." <cra...@lionking.org>
writes:

> Excuse me..? I do not molest children. Fake, real or otherwise. Get
> that through your thick neo-nazi brain this very moment before reading
> on.

Can you vouch for every other player who uses your... facilities?

> > Sexual attraction to adult is a normal expression of sexuality.
> > Even rape fantasies are considered normal, within reason.
>
> Wait.. you're saying you condone rape fantasies? So you're saying it's
> ok to jerk off to thinking of rape someone as long as they fit into
> your own age bracket? Double-standards galore, here.. :)

I think he's talking about the fantasies some women have of _being_ raped.
Although, they are cogent enough to know that the fantasy and the reality are
very, very different. The less politically charged term is "Ravishment
Fantasies."

> No, you're wrong. It crosses a SOCIOLOGICAL threshold. You're
> confusing the two. Crossing a sociological norm (threshold) and
> delving into either the negative or positive ends in the spectrum of
> the given norm puts yourself into a position to be labelled and
> outcasted as a deviant until the social norm is again put back
> into balance... What you're talking about has nothing to do
> with psychology, Mike.

Translation, Child sex is only wrong because society thinks it's wrong.
You're expecting that the "Social Norm" will be "Balanced" when child sex is
accepted.

In other words, you think there's nothing wrong with it, that the problem is
with society. This is delusional. This is, in fact, and damn near perfect
definition of Sociopathic.

> I do not roleplay molestation. Period. Anyone who even begins to
> try getting near my young character in a non-consentual manner will get
> a lotta growling, teeth-baring and maybe a certain extremity gnawed off
> if they keep it up.

Sort of an oral sex rape/revenge fantasy thing going there, eh? I'm sure you
can find someone on Taps who will do that scene with you too.

In any case, you're an enabler for those who DO want to engage in that
behavior.

> Oh by the way.. what you're doing at this point is attempting to label
> and outcast people. That's a very dangerous thing, Mike. Why?

Dangerous? Only if it's incorrect. This just means that people shouldn't
call you a child molester, because you haven't been convicted of that crime.
But you engage in, or at a minimum enable, pedophilic activities.

> "You humans are the disease... and we... are the cure." --
> Agent Smith

Really gotta question the wisdom of this quote.

> Question..... if you're so worried about mainstream society catching
> an earful about all the 'evil scum' that lurk within the dark
> social corners of the furry fandom, why are you working closer to bring
> it to the surface? To scrape it away, and gather it all up into a
> dustpan, to be thrown out into the garbage? The problem is, things
> don't work so cleanly, Mike. While you take out all the pervs out of
> the fandom, you're liable to take along more than you bargain for. You
> dig into the innocent. Soon you end up with nothing more than just a
> shell of hate, intoleration, and witchunts. Seems to me, if anyone were
> to end up destroying the fandom, it would be the loud ones like
> yourself.

That's really low. You're saying that we have to tolerate whatever scum
decides to inflict itself on the Fandom because that scum, unreliable source
that it is, insists that if we try to cut it out, we'll harm innocents. You
know, they have to take out good tissue when they remove a cancerous tumor. I
don't really see that as harmful.

When you said this, all I can think of is a bank robber scooping up an
innocent baby from a stroller and holding a gun to it's head, using it as a
shield. "You can't get me, copper, without killing the kid, so you'd better
let me get away!"

Crassus Destanion

unread,
Feb 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/28/00
to
> Can you vouch for every other player who uses your... facilities?

No more than you could if you were in my situation. I just create rooms for
people to link themselves to. :)

> I think he's talking about the fantasies some women have of _being_ raped.
> Although, they are cogent enough to know that the fantasy and the reality
are
> very, very different. The less politically charged term is "Ravishment
> Fantasies."

I'll let him reply.

> Translation, Child sex is only wrong because society thinks it's wrong.
> You're expecting that the "Social Norm" will be "Balanced" when child sex
is
> accepted.

Either that or the outcasts are rooted out and tossed away with, returning
the norm to its stablity. Usually the latter happens.. whenever what you
mentioned DOES occur (although very unlikely), it's usually really bloody.
Most wars are fought because of changes like this.

> In other words, you think there's nothing wrong with it, that the problem
is
> with society. This is delusional. This is, in fact, and damn near
perfect
> definition of Sociopathic.

I'm not speaking for myself. You're putting words in my mouth. I'm just
quoting from my old Sociology book.. :) Interesting how I made such a
general statement and you automatically applied it to me.

> > I do not roleplay molestation. Period. Anyone who even begins to
> > try getting near my young character in a non-consentual manner will get
> > a lotta growling, teeth-baring and maybe a certain extremity gnawed off
> > if they keep it up.
>

> Sort of an oral sex rape/revenge fantasy thing going there, eh? I'm sure
you
> can find someone on Taps who will do that scene with you too.

Nahh, not really. My character just doesn't put up with stuff like that.
Makes for good roleplay. Young OR old.. It doesn't matter though, because
either way, you'd twist it around to make me look bad... if I *accepted* the
NC scene, you or someone else would call me a sick masochist.. so whatever.
:)

> In any case, you're an enabler for those who DO want to engage in that
> behavior.

Enabler how? I don't endorse it.

> > Oh by the way.. what you're doing at this point is attempting to label
> > and outcast people. That's a very dangerous thing, Mike. Why?
>

> Dangerous? Only if it's incorrect. This just means that people shouldn't
> call you a child molester, because you haven't been convicted of that
crime.
> But you engage in, or at a minimum enable, pedophilic activities.

No, it's dangerous because once you point the finger at someone, you end up
putting yourself into a subjective position. When you say, "This guy is
perverse", you're taking your own values into your own hands, evaluating the
yea/nea of the situation, etc... meanwhile, others tend to take your own
values into play, and usually, the values of the accuser aren't any better
than the accusee.. everyone's gotta dark secret. Btw, again, you're assuming
that I wanna molest children.. what gives you that impression?

>
> > "You humans are the disease... and we... are the cure." --
> > Agent Smith
>

> Really gotta question the wisdom of this quote.

Exactly my point. Agent Smith was viewing his own exsistance as what his
programming led him to believe, and mingling with what he had become. He's
dependant on humans' existance.. without the humans, he had no purpose... at
the same time, his own narrow views blinded him from seeing that very fact.

> > Question..... if you're so worried about mainstream society catching
> > an earful about all the 'evil scum' that lurk within the dark
> > social corners of the furry fandom, why are you working closer to bring
> > it to the surface? To scrape it away, and gather it all up into a
> > dustpan, to be thrown out into the garbage? The problem is, things
> > don't work so cleanly, Mike. While you take out all the pervs out of
> > the fandom, you're liable to take along more than you bargain for. You
> > dig into the innocent. Soon you end up with nothing more than just a
> > shell of hate, intoleration, and witchunts. Seems to me, if anyone were
> > to end up destroying the fandom, it would be the loud ones like
> > yourself.
>

> That's really low. You're saying that we have to tolerate whatever scum
> decides to inflict itself on the Fandom because that scum, unreliable
source
> that it is, insists that if we try to cut it out, we'll harm innocents.
You
> know, they have to take out good tissue when they remove a cancerous
tumor. I
> don't really see that as harmful.

No, I'm not saying you have to tolerate me, even though that'd be really
cool. I could get on with my life. What I'm saying is if Mike or whoever
keep going the path they're taking, it's going to end up as a witchhunt.

Btw, toleration never did anyone harm. Seems like this world could learn to
tolerate differences a little more. Most of the furries that people like
Beebe are persecuting are some of the most tolerant, pacifist people I've
ever known. What's worse? A little ageplay or a bunch of hate?

> When you said this, all I can think of is a bank robber scooping up an
> innocent baby from a stroller and holding a gun to it's head, using it as
a
> shield. "You can't get me, copper, without killing the kid, so you'd
better
> let me get away!"

No, I wouldn't do that. You just said that innocent bystanders are
expendable. You'd open fire with your uzi, killing the kid, the parents, the
people in line. As long as the robber is dead, huh?

--Crassus

Dave Huang

unread,
Feb 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/29/00
to
In article <000228203...@mauser.at.kendra.com>,

Richard Chandler - WA Resident <mau...@kendra.com> wrote:
>And what should people speculate about your motives, based on your domain
>name?

That he uses an Australian ISP named after a Greek letter, which has
absolutely nothing to do with animals? cf. http://www.zeta.org.au/
--
Name: Dave Huang | Mammal, mammal / their names are called /
INet: kh...@bga.com | they raise a paw / the bat, the cat /
FurryMUCK: Dahan | dolphin and dog / koala bear and hog -- TMBG
Dahan: Hani G Y+C 24 Y++ L+++ W- C++ T++ A+ E+ S++ V++ F- Q+++ P+ B+ PA+ PL++

David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)

unread,
Feb 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/29/00
to
On Mon, 28 Feb 2000 20:38:49 -0800, Richard Chandler - WA Resident
<mau...@kendra.com> wrote:
>In article <slrn8bk098....@dformosa.zeta.org.au>,
>dfor...@zeta.org.au (David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)) writes:

[...]

>> Given that the event looks like it was some sort of frame up I don't
>> think "true colors" are an appropiate stament.
>
>Whups, almost forgot, you were one of those apologists, weren't you?

Yes lable anyone who dissagries with you an apologists then you don't
have to respond to there arugements.

>And what should people speculate about your motives, based on your domain
>name?

I wonder what you would have speculated when the ISP was called
"Kralizec" (its name was changed because no one could spell its
name). The name was a massive co-incedence.

Kai

unread,
Feb 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/29/00
to
Crassus Destanion <cra...@lionking.org> wrote in message
news:89fobo$j85$1...@raccoon.fur.com...

> What's worse? A little ageplay or a bunch of hate?

I vote for neither. How about a milkshake and some light brooding angst?

Alan Kennedy

unread,
Feb 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/29/00
to
Kai wrote:

> Crassus Destanion <cra...@lionking.org> wrote in message
> news:89fobo$j85$1...@raccoon.fur.com...
>

> > What's worse? A little ageplay or a bunch of hate?
>

> I vote for neither. How about a milkshake and some light brooding angst?

I love you.. you love me.. we are a happy familly...

WHACK WHACK WHACK...

Got you you purple bastard!!

Sorry.. its all good though :)

Crassus Destanion

unread,
Feb 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/29/00
to

Kai <ka...@iquest.net> wrote in message news:89gk0e$lgu$1...@raccoon.fur.com...

> Crassus Destanion <cra...@lionking.org> wrote in message
> news:89fobo$j85$1...@raccoon.fur.com...
>
> > What's worse? A little ageplay or a bunch of hate?
>
> I vote for neither. How about a milkshake and some light brooding angst?

Hehe... you had to say 'milkshake', didn't you. ;)

--
--Crassus D.

Furry Information Resource
http://www.furryinfo.org/

Kai

unread,
Feb 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/29/00
to
Crassus Destanion <cra...@lionking.org> wrote in message
news:89gsob$m57$1...@raccoon.fur.com...

>
> Kai <ka...@iquest.net> wrote in message
news:89gk0e$lgu$1...@raccoon.fur.com...
> > Crassus Destanion <cra...@lionking.org> wrote in message
> > news:89fobo$j85$1...@raccoon.fur.com...
> >
> > > What's worse? A little ageplay or a bunch of hate?
> >
> > I vote for neither. How about a milkshake and some light brooding
angst?
>
> Hehe... you had to say 'milkshake', didn't you. ;)

I loves me some milkshakes....mmmm :9


post...@my-deja.com

unread,
Mar 3, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/3/00
to

> > >Because he was shouted down by a horde of apologists who were
> > >saying "It's just role-playing, it doesn't mean anything", and "If
> > >we pick on him, who's the next sexual minority to get attacked."
> > >Maybe now that true colors are manifesting,
> >
> > Given that the event looks like it was some sort of frame up I don't
> > think "true colors" are an appropiate stament.
>
> Whups, almost forgot, you were one of those apologists, weren't you?
> And what should people speculate about your motives, based on your
domain
> name?

*chuckle* Wow, Richard. What an incredibly damning observation,
especially considering that zeta.org.au is a perfectly respectable,
vanilla ISP. Thank god the poor guy wasn't at world.std.com--with
that kind of logic you'd claim he had the pox. :P Show some humility for
once, apologize to the poor monotreme.


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

Richard Chandler - WA Resident

unread,
Mar 3, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/3/00
to
In article <89ov4q$q81$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, post...@my-deja.com writes:
> *chuckle* Wow, Richard. What an incredibly damning observation,
> especially considering that zeta.org.au is a perfectly
> respectable, vanilla ISP. Thank god the poor guy wasn't at
> world.std.com--with that kind of logic you'd claim he had the pox. :P
> Show some humility for once, apologize to the poor monotreme.

Well, It's merely a parallel between his expressed interests and his ISP. I
apologize to his ISP for damning by them with the association with their
clientele.

Interestingly, I also got a similar message from yet another anonymous coward
using a freebie account. It sounds like a case of Sock Puppetry, except that
it's spelled better, so it couldn't be.

Alan Kennedy

unread,
Mar 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/4/00
to
Richard Chandler - WA Resident wrote:

> Well, It's merely a parallel between his expressed interests and his ISP. I
> apologize to his ISP for damning by them with the association with their
> clientele.
>
> Interestingly, I also got a similar message from yet another anonymous coward
> using a freebie account. It sounds like a case of Sock Puppetry, except that
> it's spelled better, so it couldn't be.

You know Rich, sometimes you make incredible statments of shere brilliance, then
other complete and utter Random and Stukafox type posts.

Anyone ever tell you that you are in dire need of a serious LART upside the head?

Just figured I'd pass that on :)

diespa...@best.com

unread,
Mar 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/4/00
to
Chris Johnson <chr...@airwindows.com> wrote:

: What about rape should be considered normal? I would prefer to consider


: it one of the most perverse acts a person could commit.

Chris,

Being raped by a faceless man is a common female fantasy. IF you
would like a cite, I'll go look for one, but as far as I know,
this is one of those "in common knowledge" thing.

M. Beebe
--


"By and large, furry fandom is, uh, Bi and large . . . "

-- Eric Blumrich

diespa...@best.com

unread,
Mar 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/4/00
to
Crassus D. <cra...@lionking.org> wrote:

: Excuse me..? I do not molest children. Fake, real or otherwise. Get that


: through your thick neo-nazi brain this very moment before reading on.


Are you saying, then, that you do NOT engage in sexual activity
using your character in the Treehouse? I'm quite willing to prove
you wrong. You've been watched for some time now.

BTW: If being against pedophiles is "neo-nazi", you might want
to order up about 265 million arm-bands for the people of the
US.

: No, you're wrong. It crosses a SOCIOLOGICAL threshold. You're confusing the


: two. Crossing a sociological norm (threshold) and delving into either the
: negative or positive ends in the spectrum of the given norm puts yourself
: into a position to be labelled and outcasted as a deviant until the social
: norm is again put back into balance... What you're talking about has nothing
: to do with psychology, Mike.


No, Crassus: fantasies about raping children are recognized as a
sign of mental illness. Don't believe me? Go tell a therapist
your fantasies.

: Oh by the way.. what you're doing at this point is attempting to label and


: outcast people. That's a very dangerous thing, Mike. Why? Like I said in my
: original reply to someone else long ago:

: "You're dealing with the people you know. You're dealing with loved ones,
: colleagues, family & friends, bosses, teachers, artists, the guy on the
: corner selling fruit next to frickin' Oscar the Grouch's trash can.

: "You're dealing with yourself. Leave us out of it."

No, Crassus, I'm dealing with you; I don't have fantasies about
molesting children: you do.

diespa...@best.com

unread,
Mar 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/4/00
to
Crassus Destanion <cra...@lionking.org> wrote:

:> Can you vouch for every other player who uses your... facilities?

: No more than you could if you were in my situation. I just create rooms for
: people to link themselves to. :)


You're lying again, Crassus.

You do far more than just "create rooms".

Why don't you tell people about your little art project, the
one you offer on the bulletin board in The Treehouse. The one
where you'll draw characters in "yiffy" situations.

You've lied about your activities since the day they were uncovered,
and you continue to lie now.


: Nahh, not really. My character just doesn't put up with stuff like that.


: Makes for good roleplay. Young OR old..

Didn't you just say you don't enact sex scenes with children?

: Enabler how? I don't endorse it.


Again, you lie:

Your first posts here were in defense of the activities done on
the Treehouse. You're endorser and public defender of the Treehouse
pedophiles.

: No, it's dangerous because once you point the finger at someone, you end up


: putting yourself into a subjective position. When you say, "This guy is
: perverse", you're taking your own values into your own hands, evaluating the
: yea/nea of the situation, etc... meanwhile, others tend to take your own
: values into play, and usually, the values of the accuser aren't any better
: than the accusee.. everyone's gotta dark secret. Btw, again, you're assuming
: that I wanna molest children.. what gives you that impression?


NICE try at deflection, but it doesn't work:

Pedophilia is not "subjective", despite the deseperate attempts of
your fellow traveller NAMBLA at making child molestation
seem like "just another lifestyle choice".

Pedophilia is a mental illness and the most hated activity there is.
IF you think your illness is somehow just a datapoint on a spectrum
of values, you damn well need to get a gauge on how the world at
large views your vile activities.

And what gives someone the impression you want to molest children?
The fact you're activiley engaging in those fantasies on-line,
that you're rabidly defending those fantasies as somehow normal,
and that you're running a place where others who have the same
fantasies can meet and exchange information.

Face it, Crassus, Treehouse is a one-stop pedophile paradise.


: No, I'm not saying you have to tolerate me, even though that'd be really


: cool. I could get on with my life.

Then leave, and take your sickness with you. You're not wanted
here. You're nothing but harm to Furry. Leave.


: What's worse? A little ageplay or a bunch of hate?


That you feel "hate" is wrong does not make "ageplay" right.

diespa...@best.com

unread,
Mar 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/4/00
to
Crassus D. <cra...@lionking.org> wrote:
:> There's already been one case of predatory sexual behavior against

:> a minor requiring legal intervention on a MU*. The hobby, as a whole,
:> dodged a bullet when the family involved did NOT go to the press
:> with the story. Only the lawyers, and the few people involved,
:> know all the details.

: Mike.. Minors are not allowed on Tapestries. Remember? You're comparing
: apples with oranges again.


Uh, Crassus, I've never claimed they were, 'tho there's no way
of knowing if someone is a minor or not because no one actively
checks the honesty of claims.


: I won't bother commenting on the rest of your post, as it's all an attempt


: to inject fear into your readers. Every villain injected fear into their,

: including hitler.

No doubt you won't, as it's totally damning of what goes on in the
Treehouse.

Peter Schorn

unread,
Mar 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/4/00
to
diespa...@best.com wrote:

> Chris Johnson <chr...@airwindows.com> wrote:
>
> : What about rape should be considered normal? I would prefer to consider
> : it one of the most perverse acts a person could commit.
>

> Being raped by a faceless man is a common female fantasy. IF you
> would like a cite, I'll go look for one, but as far as I know,
> this is one of those "in common knowledge" thing.

<impertinence>

"Sorry to leave you so early, gentlemen, but I have a date with my wife
to play 'The Hun and the Nun'...and tonight, *I* get to be the Hun!"

--John the Mad Celt

</impertinence>


Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages