Treehouse on Tapestries

48 views
Skip to first unread message

Furrygirlie

unread,
Oct 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/13/99
to
This is Lori'anne. I started up the Treehouse on taps. I heard thru the
grapevine that someone (specifically Ben Bruin) had nasty things to say
about Me and my treehouse.

Just a few things i would like to say about this.

First off, i understand how my treehouse deals with 'mature subject matter'
which is 'of a questionable' and for some disgusting material. This is one
of the main reasons that the treehouse was invented. So that furs and
friends who did not like the subjects i deal with, did not have to
see/hear/deal with it.

Second off, I have never, to my memory, posted to this newsgroup, nor has
anyone else posted about my treehouse to the best of my knowledge. And, i
have a feeling, that once this, or any replies to it are delt with, i shall
never post about this again. So i'm not quite sure why my treehouse was
brought up in the first place, not can i find the original post. I would
just like to know why, if what i, or my friend do, in no way affects you,
why would you care to begin with?

Thank You
Lori'anne


diespa...@best.com

unread,
Oct 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/13/99
to
Furrygirlie <furry...@hotmail.com> wrote:


: First off, i understand how my treehouse deals with 'mature subject matter'


: which is 'of a questionable' and for some disgusting material. This is one
: of the main reasons that the treehouse was invented. So that furs and
: friends who did not like the subjects i deal with, did not have to
: see/hear/deal with it.


You are fucking cancer.

Die.

You, and all your sick child molesting friends.

Die.

I hope they lock ALL of you away somewhere and that death comes
to you in the form of a sharpend screwdriver weilded by some
psychopath who got his start at the hands of someone like you.

Die.

Die.

Die.

Fucking child-molestor scum.

Die.

I wish it was legal to terminate things like you.

Die.

Things like you should be shot in the stomach and kicked into a
shallow grave to die alone and afraid in the night.

Die.

Die.

Painfully, slowly, afraid.

Die.

Your life is of absolutely no worth. Your existance was a mistake
of the universe. Better than you was aborted in a back alley
today.

Die.

Suicide, homocide, genocide -- any of them work.

Die.

Swim out in the ocean without looking back. Draw a knife across
your wrists without flinching. Swallow Dran-O without vomitting

Just ... fucking ... die.


Love,

Mike Beebe


Dragonoix

unread,
Oct 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/13/99
to

<diespa...@best.com> wrote in message
news:38050884$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com...

Oh my,what a lovefest we have going here folks. Who would bet that the
mighty morphin' moron just want to have hot sweaty sex with Lori'anne?

Dragonoix- Advocate for truth, justice and the pursuit of a good yiff.

Hangdog

unread,
Oct 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/13/99
to
Thank you for stating your position, "Furrygirlie."

Now let me state mine:

If your fantasies involve sex with underage partners, you need no tolerance or
understanding from me or anyone else.

What you need is psychiatric help. Get some. *Now*.

And if you ever even *try* to act out your fantasies, I hope you are
immediately arrested and put in jail for a very, very long time.

End of correspondance with "Furrygirlie."

--Hangdog, Burned Fur


Hangdog

unread,
Oct 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/13/99
to
Dragonoix wrote:

> <diespa...@best.com> wrote in message
> news:38050884$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com...
> > Furrygirlie <furry...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > : First off, i understand how my treehouse deals with 'mature subject
> matter'
> > : which is 'of a questionable' and for some disgusting material. This is
> one
> > : of the main reasons that the treehouse was invented. So that furs and
> > : friends who did not like the subjects i deal with, did not have to
> > : see/hear/deal with it.
> >

> > Die.
> >
> > You, and all your sick child molesting friends.
> >
> > Die.
>

> Oh my,what a lovefest we have going here folks. Who would bet that the
> mighty morphin' moron just want to have hot sweaty sex with Lori'anne?
>
> Dragonoix- Advocate for truth, justice and the pursuit of a good yiff.

...even with underage partners, Dragonoix?

--Hangdog, Burned Fur.

Hangdog

unread,
Oct 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/13/99
to
Todd Knarr wrote:

> In alt.fan.furry <38052E30...@pdq.net> Hangdog <peter....@pdq.net> wrote:
> > ...even with underage partners, Dragonoix?
>

> Problem, Hangdog: you can't get _on_ Tapestries without certifying that
> you are a legal adult. So please explain to me how someone over 18 is
> underage?

I understand that none of the people involved are actually underage, which is why
we've bothered arguing instead of simply tracing "Furrygirlie" and trying our utmost
to get him arrested.

However, all pedophiles start off fantasizing about the act before they commit it. I
wonder how many "age-players" in "Furrygirlie's" Treehouse will end up acting out? It
would certainly seem a good way to attract those with a greater chance of becoming
child molesters than the average MUCKer.

Given the extremely questionable nature of what they do, I wonder, is it a good idea
to get all huffy in their defense?

And come to that, why *is* Dragonoix defending "Furrygirlie?"

Why are you?

--Hangdog


Dragonoix

unread,
Oct 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/13/99
to

Hangdog <peter....@pdq.net> wrote in message
news:3805324F...@pdq.net...

Ummm.. I wasn't defending Lori'anne a bit. If you read 'her' post in
response to mine, you see that 'she' tore into me as well. I was making fun
of the mighty morphin' moron's post. I haven't that many use of the word die
since I toured a metal casting company =)
Besides its very silly to get so worked up about it since its basically ado
about nothing. Just file a complaint with the sysop of geocities and be done
with it. Sheesh..

rune....@worldnet.att.mil

unread,
Oct 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/13/99
to
diespa...@best.com wrote:
>
> Furrygirlie <furry...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> : First off, i understand how my treehouse deals with 'mature subject matter'
> : which is 'of a questionable' and for some disgusting material. This is one
> : of the main reasons that the treehouse was invented. So that furs and
> : friends who did not like the subjects i deal with, did not have to
> : see/hear/deal with it.
>
> You are fucking cancer.

>
> Die.
>
> You, and all your sick child molesting friends.
>
> Die.
>

Don't hold back, Stuka. Tell us how you _really_ feel.

Hangdog

unread,
Oct 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/13/99
to
Farlo wrote:

> Furrygirlie wrote:
>
> >This is Lori'anne. I started up the Treehouse on taps. I heard thru the
> >grapevine that someone (specifically Ben Bruin) had nasty things to say
> >about Me and my treehouse.
>

> Welcome to AFF and don't worry about "Old Ben".

Hi Farlo. Glad I took you out of my killfile long enough to find out you
were a pedo-symp.

If not worse.

--Hangdog


Furrygirlie

unread,
Oct 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/14/99
to

Dragonoix <drag...@kuonoji.zzn.com> wrote in message
news:7u351m$dfd$1...@raccoon.fur.com...

>
> <diespa...@best.com> wrote in message
> news:38050884$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com...
> Oh my,what a lovefest we have going here folks. Who would bet that the
> mighty morphin' moron just want to have hot sweaty sex with Lori'anne?
>
> Dragonoix- Advocate for truth, justice and the pursuit of a good yiff.
>

Heheh.. I read these replies.. and you know what?
I don't give a fuck..

I have read so much mail like this.. for this character and other's i have..

Have any of you losers ever heard of a little thing called ROLE PLAYING?

You know.. it's that thing you do where you play something that you could
never be in real life.. act out your wildest nightmares and such?

And ya know what? I'm not the only one who roleplays fantasies like this..
You'd be surprised.. but in the last month i've gotten the names of nearly
1/3 of the average population of taps who play children..
We're talking close to a hundred people.

And who says that having a child character on taps means molesting
children???

I wanna know what rules states that by having a character on there you MUST
indulge in sexual activities.. To tell you the truth? 95% of the kind of
things i see as a ageplayer are things like Doctor and such..
Innocent children, exploring their bodies.

So.. there for.. what you all are saying is.. that if you, when you were a
child, played doctor with a childhood friend.. then you instantly became a
sick fuck?

If any of you think that i sit around at home dreaming up ways of capturing
children and molesting them.. i want you all to go to hell.

And i am posting this reply and then not checking the list again..
so if any of you want to reply to it.. feel free.. you will be talking to a
wall.

Good bye..
Lori'anne

>

diespa...@best.com

unread,
Oct 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/14/99
to
Furrygirlie <furry...@hotmail.com> wrote:


: Good bye..
: Lori'anne


Fuck you.

Die.

Todd Knarr

unread,
Oct 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/14/99
to
In alt.fan.furry <38052E30...@pdq.net> Hangdog <peter....@pdq.net> wrote:
> ...even with underage partners, Dragonoix?

Problem, Hangdog: you can't get _on_ Tapestries without certifying that
you are a legal adult. So please explain to me how someone over 18 is
underage?

--
If I employed software developers and they gave me something like this,
I'd shoot them.
-- Abby Franquemont

Farlo

unread,
Oct 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/14/99
to
Furrygirlie wrote:

>This is Lori'anne. I started up the Treehouse on taps. I heard thru the
>grapevine that someone (specifically Ben Bruin) had nasty things to say
>about Me and my treehouse.

Heck, I'm still unconvinced that you and Ben are seperate individuals. I
guess that Erik Mouse isn't alone anymore ... =)

Welcome to AFF and don't worry about "Old Ben".

--
Farlo
Urban fey dragon
"Worship my magic space monkey or he'll napalm you."

"Yes, my e-mail address is valid. It just doesn't look valid."

Todd Knarr

unread,
Oct 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/14/99
to
In alt.fan.furry <3805324F...@pdq.net> Hangdog <peter....@pdq.net> wrote:
> I understand that none of the people involved are actually underage, which is why
> we've bothered arguing instead of simply tracing "Furrygirlie" and trying our utmost
> to get him arrested.

So you admit no underage people are involved. So why did you bring up a
straw man?

> However, all pedophiles start off fantasizing about the act before they commit it. I
> wonder how many "age-players" in "Furrygirlie's" Treehouse will end up acting out? It
> would certainly seem a good way to attract those with a greater chance of becoming
> child molesters than the average MUCKer.

Problem is, that assumes that age-play leads to child molestation. From what
I've seen of the stats, almost all child molestors are _not_ interested in
adults playing children. That invalidates the "slippery slope" argument
you're trying to make here, and your whole argument falls apart.

> Given the extremely questionable nature of what they do, I wonder, is it a good idea
> to get all huffy in their defense?

Simple: I have _extreme_ objections to thought police in any form. If
someone does something for real, nail them. If they never do it for real,
what they fantasize about and role-play without actually doing it is
simply not relevant. After all, how do we know _you_ don't fantasize
about similar things? We can't read your mind, and we obviously can't
take your word for it because you'd always answer "No" regardless of
what the real answer was. I _don't_ wanna go there, thank you. Way
too much potential for abuse. I'll stick to what people actualy do,
not what I think they might be thinking.

Hangdog

unread,
Oct 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/14/99
to
Todd Knarr wrote:

> In alt.fan.furry <3805324F...@pdq.net> Hangdog <peter....@pdq.net> wrote:
> > I understand that none of the people involved are actually underage, which is why
> > we've bothered arguing instead of simply tracing "Furrygirlie" and trying our utmost
> > to get him arrested.
>
> So you admit no underage people are involved. So why did you bring up a
> straw man?

"Hyar on RedNekMUK, we have us a whole passel o'fun at our weekly 'Cyber-Lynchings.' Yep,
we get some ol' boy t' play like he's colored, then we chase him through the swamps 'til we
ketch 'im, then we whup on 'im some an' then we string 'im up!

"O'course, 'tain't nuthin' but whatchyecall 'virtchool re-AL-ity,' an' heck, none of us is
even colored!

"So that means we're not actchooly *racists.*"

--Hangdog


Victry 'Vixy' Hyzenthlay

unread,
Oct 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/14/99
to
Hangdog <peter....@pdq.net> wrote in message
news:38054D90...@pdq.net...

> Hi Farlo. Glad I took you out of my killfile long enough to find out you
> were a pedo-symp.

Another genrealization just because someone won't agree with you?
Hmmm... who do we know that resorts to personal attacks when someone
counters their point or rebukes their behavior?... Well just color him
'Random'. ;)
=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+=====
- Victry 'love long and perspire; Vixy' Hyzenthlay -
Technofox and personal Vixen. "YIP!"
Furry Fan with a Furry Lifestyle... AND a life! ;>
_____________________
/ \ _
)""""\___ |- - - - - - - - - - - -| |_\____
)----| |\-| Vivacious Vixen II |-/| | |\
)____|___|=============================| """|_)
`----' \|http://members.Xoom.com/Vixy |/"""""
"""|"""""""/"""""\"""""""|"""
Victry{no-spam}@- `=++++=" "=++++=' -@{remove}juno;com
Please post any response to this newsgroup. Thanks.


Random

unread,
Oct 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/14/99
to
In article <38050884$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com>, <diespa...@best.com>
wrote:

Well said. Couldn't have expressed it any better.
--Random

Random

unread,
Oct 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/14/99
to
In article <7u351m$dfd$1...@raccoon.fur.com>, Dragonoix
<drag...@kuonoji.zzn.com> wrote:

> Oh my,what a lovefest we have going here folks. Who would bet that the
> mighty morphin' moron just want to have hot sweaty sex with Lori'anne?

What about hos post was vague or in the least bit unclear? You really
are retarded, aren't you?
--Random

Random

unread,
Oct 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/14/99
to
In article <Dq9N3.9$q82...@news1.rdc1.mb.home.com>, Furrygirlie
<furry...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Heheh.. I read these replies.. and you know what?
> I don't give a fuck..

You didn't care so much you felt a need to respond when you said you
weren't gonna to defend your sick activies on Taps.



> I have read so much mail like this.. for this character and other's i have..

I'll bet you have.



> Have any of you losers ever heard of a little thing called ROLE PLAYING?

Yes. And what you do isn't role playing.



> You know.. it's that thing you do where you play something that you could
> never be in real life.. act out your wildest nightmares and such?

That's not role playing. It's called 'sceneing'.



> And ya know what? I'm not the only one who roleplays fantasies like this..
> You'd be surprised.. but in the last month i've gotten the names of nearly
> 1/3 of the average population of taps who play children..
> We're talking close to a hundred people.

When Beebe said 'all your child molesting friends' I suspect he meant
those people.



> And who says that having a child character on taps means molesting
> children???

Well, let's see. Taps is the all furry ts muck and no one under 18 is
allowed there for that very reason. Gee, I would how anyone could think
that.



> I wanna know what rules states that by having a character on there you MUST
> indulge in sexual activities.. To tell you the truth? 95% of the kind of
> things i see as a ageplayer are things like Doctor and such..
> Innocent children, exploring their bodies.

And that's not sex? Uh..



> So.. there for.. what you all are saying is.. that if you, when you were a
> child, played doctor with a childhood friend.. then you instantly became a
> sick fuck?

When you're a little child, no. It's normal. But when you're an adult
pretending to be a little child on a muck it's a whole other story.



> If any of you think that i sit around at home dreaming up ways of capturing
> children and molesting them.. i want you all to go to hell.

Most likely.

> And i am posting this reply and then not checking the list again..
> so if any of you want to reply to it.. feel free.. you will be talking to a
> wall.

Didn't you say that before?
--Random

Hangdog

unread,
Oct 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/14/99
to
Victry 'Vixy' Hyzenthlay wrote:

> Hangdog <peter....@pdq.net> wrote in message
> news:38054D90...@pdq.net...
> > Hi Farlo. Glad I took you out of my killfile long enough to find out you
> > were a pedo-symp.
>
> Another genrealization just because someone won't agree with you?
> Hmmm... who do we know that resorts to personal attacks when someone
> counters their point or rebukes their behavior?... Well just color him

Vixy.


Random

unread,
Oct 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/14/99
to
In article <7u3b5g$rk0$2...@news.xmission.com>, Todd Knarr
<tkn...@xmission.com> wrote:

> Problem, Hangdog: you can't get _on_ Tapestries without certifying that
> you are a legal adult. So please explain to me how someone over 18 is
> underage?

And of course no one under 18 has ever lied about their age to get on
taps.
--Random

Random

unread,
Oct 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/14/99
to
In article <7u3nnn$3f1$1...@news.xmission.com>, Todd Knarr
<tkn...@xmission.com> wrote:

> Problem is, that assumes that age-play leads to child molestation. From what
> I've seen of the stats, almost all child molestors are _not_ interested in
> adults playing children. That invalidates the "slippery slope" argument
> you're trying to make here, and your whole argument falls apart.

Why does it? You assume when someone goes down a slippery slope that
they would want to go back up? You think someone who goes from pot to
coke to crack would want to smoke pot again?
--Random

Victry 'Vixy' Hyzenthlay

unread,
Oct 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/14/99
to

Hangdog <peter....@pdq.net> wrote in message
news:3805698C...@pdq.net...

> Todd Knarr wrote:
>
> > In alt.fan.furry <3805324F...@pdq.net> Hangdog
<peter....@pdq.net> wrote:
> > > I understand that none of the people involved are actually underage,
which is why
> > > we've bothered arguing instead of simply tracing "Furrygirlie" and
trying our utmost
> > > to get him arrested.
> >
> > So you admit no underage people are involved. So why did you bring up a
> > straw man?
>
> "Hyar on RedNekMUK, we have us a whole passel o'fun at our weekly . . .

While possibly in reality...

"Well, Enic, time to close up the ol' copy shop."

"Isn't it a little early though, Earl?"

"Heck no, Enic! Lookit what I found here in our runs today... see?
It's a picshure of a nekid kid. That's peedo-philea, ya know."

"It's jus' a drawin' of one 'o them two-legged nekid animals, Earl."

"Enic, you are as dense as that copy machine. Can't you tell when
somethin' is highly im-mor-ral? Go git some rope from the shed while I
round up th' boys. And don't ferget yer 'special' T-shirt. This fool left
us an address where we can contact her, yep. An' we're a gonna be makin a
house call tonight! Hiyuck huck."

About an hour later...

"Ain' this lynch justice just so much fun, Enic? Aeyuck yuck!"

"Well, Earl, I don't rightly know fer sure. I mean shouldn' we a
waited till she done somethin 'really' wrong
firUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK!
GGGGGGAAAAAAAAACCCCCCKKKKK GGGGGGGGAAAAAAGGGGGG
GGGGGGUUUUUURRRRRGGGGGGLLLLLLEEEE!"

"That's it boys. Make sure good ol' Enic's hangin' even with th' firs'
one! WOOOOOOOO WEEEEE!... who'd a thunk this'd be a DOUBLE hangin tonight?"

>
> --Hangdog

We know. ;>

Random

unread,
Oct 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/14/99
to
In article <7u3q9l$ej2$1...@raccoon.fur.com>, Victry 'Vixy' Hyzenthlay
<victryNO-SPAM&@REMOVEjuno.com> wrote:

> Another genrealization just because someone won't agree with you?
> Hmmm... who do we know that resorts to personal attacks when someone
> counters their point or rebukes their behavior?... Well just color him

> 'Random'. ;)

Kneejerk furry reaction or is Vixy acually a pedophile? You make the
call!
--Random

Hangdog

unread,
Oct 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/14/99
to
Victry 'Vixy' Hyzenthlay wrote:

> Hangdog <peter....@pdq.net> wrote in message
> news:3805698C...@pdq.net...
> > Todd Knarr wrote:
> >
> > > In alt.fan.furry <3805324F...@pdq.net> Hangdog
> <peter....@pdq.net> wrote:
> > > > I understand that none of the people involved are actually underage,
> which is why
> > > > we've bothered arguing instead of simply tracing "Furrygirlie" and
> trying our utmost
> > > > to get him arrested.
> > >
> > > So you admit no underage people are involved. So why did you bring up a
> > > straw man?
> >
> > "Hyar on RedNekMUK, we have us a whole passel o'fun at our weekly . . .
>
> While possibly in reality...

<snip>
While a candid demonstration of your inability to write in dialect, your post
leaves one question unanswered:

If people who speak like racists and think like racists and fantasize about
committing racists act--yet committ no actual crimes--are still racists...

Then why are people who speak like pedophiles and think like pedophiles and
fantasize about committing pedophilic acts--yet stop short of doing so--not
pedophiles?

Granted, both have the right to think and speak and fantasize as they wish, so
long as their *acts* remain within bounds.

But what they think and say and dream, in both these cases, makes them scum.

As are their apologists.

--Hangdog


Todd Knarr

unread,
Oct 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/14/99
to
In alt.fan.furry <3805698C...@pdq.net> Hangdog <peter....@pdq.net> wrote:
> "Hyar on RedNekMUK, we have us a whole passel o'fun at our weekly 'Cyber-Lynchings.' Yep,
> we get some ol' boy t' play like he's colored, then we chase him through the swamps 'til we
> ketch 'im, then we whup on 'im some an' then we string 'im up!

You know, this would be silly except for one small little problem. I
_know_ someone who fantasizes about this. The only problem is that he's
black and fantasizes about being the one being chased. And whipped, but
then I already know he's a masochist so no suprise there. Are you
saying _he_ should be locked up for having that fantasy?

And as I said before, how do I know that _you_ don't have exactly this
same fantasy? I can't read your mind, and I can't trust your word, so
how do I decide whether to lock you up or not? If you can't solve that
one, you've painted yourself into a corner.

Hangdog

unread,
Oct 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/14/99
to
Random wrote:

No, I don't think s/he is an actual pedophile: just an apologist for them.

Still, I hope her job has nothing to do with children.

--Hangdog

Victry 'Vixy' Hyzenthlay

unread,
Oct 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/14/99
to

Hangdog <peter....@pdq.net> wrote in message
news:38057E0C...@pdq.net...

> <snip>
> While a candid demonstration of your inability to write in dialect, your
post
> leaves one question unanswered:

You picked it up easilly enough. Was there any reason to be more
eloquent for your benefit?

>
> If people who speak like racists and think like racists and fantasize
about
> committing racists act--yet committ no actual crimes--are still racists...
>
> Then why are people who speak like pedophiles and think like pedophiles
and
> fantasize about committing pedophilic acts--yet stop short of doing
so--not
> pedophiles?
>
> Granted, both have the right to think and speak and fantasize as they
wish, so
> long as their *acts* remain within bounds.
>
> But what they think and say and dream, in both these cases, makes them
scum.
>
> As are their apologists.

With that argument, you've just equated yourself, and Ben Bruin, to the
author of the 'treehouse'. And by that argument, you two are as wrong as
she for wanting action taken against her for no crime done. And then you
are worse, for suggesting that anyone who does not share your radical,
extremism is equally vile as she. So what will you do now? Track down me
and Farlo and report our nonconforming behavior? Get a report on us and
post it to an open forum? Check yourself next time, Hangdog. Your
fanaticism is showing.

Hangdog

unread,
Oct 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/14/99
to
Todd Knarr wrote:

> In alt.fan.furry <3805698C...@pdq.net> Hangdog <peter....@pdq.net> wrote:
> > "Hyar on RedNekMUK, we have us a whole passel o'fun at our weekly 'Cyber-Lynchings.' Yep,
> > we get some ol' boy t' play like he's colored, then we chase him through the swamps 'til we
> > ketch 'im, then we whup on 'im some an' then we string 'im up!
>
> You know, this would be silly except for one small little problem. I
> _know_ someone who fantasizes about this. The only problem is that he's
> black and fantasizes about being the one being chased. And whipped, but
> then I already know he's a masochist so no suprise there. Are you
> saying _he_ should be locked up for having that fantasy?

No. He should, however, seek help. *Immediately*

But that's a side issue--as we both know. The real issue is this:

Would this person still be your friend if he wanted to do this *to* a black person--and was
*white?*

> And as I said before, how do I know that _you_ don't have exactly this
> same fantasy? I can't read your mind, and I can't trust your word, so
> how do I decide whether to lock you up or not?

Well, if I were to go about saying publicly "Gee, I'd like to lynch a black man, only it's
illegal," I should expect to be shunned and reviled. I should expect to lose my friends, my
job, and quite possibly my family's welcome. I wouldn't and shouldn't go to jail for it--but I
would become social outcast. And that would be right.

I should expect the same treatment too if I were to go about saying publicly "Gee, I'd like to
have sex with children, only it's ilillegal." I would be a pariah everywhere.

Everywhere, that is, but on Tapestries MUCK.

> If you can't solve that one, you've painted yourself into a corner.

II don't think someone who needs to have it explained to him that fantasies about child sex are a
sign of trouble, should crow over his own cleverness.

--Hangdog

Victry 'Vixy' Hyzenthlay

unread,
Oct 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/14/99
to

Random <sph...@crl.com> wrote in message
news:141019990226360020%sph...@crl.com...

Well for once we agree. That's about as well as you tend
to rationalize any of your arguments. Maybe a little better. ;)

Hangdog

unread,
Oct 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/14/99
to
Victry 'Vixy' Hyzenthlay wrote:

> With that argument, you've just equated yourself, and Ben Bruin, to the

> author of the 'treehouse'.And by that argument, you two are as wrong as she


> for wanting action taken against her for no crime done.

In other words, you're saying that people who think pederasty is *bad* are
morally equal to people who like to think about doing it. Incredible.

Vixy, you are one sick little drag queen. (And no, I'm not saying you're sick
*because* you're a drag queen).

> And then you are worse, for suggesting that anyone who does not share your
> radical,
> extremism

"Pedophilia is bad." = Radical extremism?

> is equally vile as she. So what will you do now? Track down me
> and Farlo and report our nonconforming behavior?

I think finding out your real name would not be a bad idea at this point. You're
a furry fan, you might go to furry conventions Some people do bring their
children to furry conventions, and I think they might like to know if someone
there has expressed strong sympathies for pedophilia. It would let them know
who to keep your children away from.

Bear in mind, this isn't calling the police. It isn't reporting you for a
crime. But you've expressed pedophilic sympathies in public and I think you
ought to be held accountable for that--just as if you'd expressed sympathy for
people who lynch blacks or blow up federal buildings

> Get a report on us and post it to an open forum?

Oh no: I'd never want you to know what I know about you.

> Check yourself next time, Hangdog. Your fanaticism is showing.

Vixy, it hasn't even *begun*.

--Hangdog


ilr

unread,
Oct 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/14/99
to

Hangdog <peter....@pdq.net> wrote in message news:3805698C...@pdq.net...

> Todd Knarr wrote:
>
> > In alt.fan.furry <3805324F...@pdq.net> Hangdog <peter....@pdq.net> wrote:
> > > I understand that none of the people involved are actually underage, which is why
> > > we've bothered arguing instead of simply tracing "Furrygirlie" and trying our utmost
> > > to get him arrested.
> >
> > So you admit no underage people are involved. So why did you bring up a
> > straw man?
>
> "Hyar on RedNekMUK, we have us a whole passel o'fun at our weekly 'Cyber-Lynchings.' Yep,
> we get some ol' boy t' play like he's colored, then we chase him through the swamps 'til we
> ketch 'im, then we whup on 'im some an' then we string 'im up!
>
> "O'course, 'tain't nuthin' but whatchyecall 'virtchool re-AL-ity,' an' heck, none of us is
> even colored!
>
> "So that means we're not actchooly *racists.*"
>
> --Hangdog
>
The only difference between the players in the "Treehouse" and Michael
Jackson, is that Michael Jackson has Millions of Dollars and can afford the
real thing. Any statement that starts with:
"It's just roleplaying" = "It's an affordable alternative" && "it's the next best thing"
(And as someone with his own secrets, I say this without prejudice)
That said, I'll leave the actual morals of the acts, and the degree to which
they're tolerated, up to the Majority.


But I must say that this whole thread, and both sides of the argument have
really tested my limits of tolerance. This is precisely the type of thread I
would want cancelled and referred to another NG it were started in a moderated
area. For once, I'm actually excited about the coming prospect of Quality Control.


--- i l r
(An ironic commercial came on while typing this, an Intel P3
commercial with the slogan "Can't do it I.R.L.? Do it on the web")


Victry 'Vixy' Hyzenthlay

unread,
Oct 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/14/99
to
Hangdog <peter....@pdq.net> wrote in message
news:38058649...@pdq.net...

> Victry 'Vixy' Hyzenthlay wrote:
>
>> With that argument, you've just equated yourself, and Ben Bruin, to
the
>> author of the 'treehouse'.And by that argument, you two are as wrong as
she
>> for wanting action taken against her for no crime done.
>
> In other words, you're saying that people who think pederasty is *bad* are
> morally equal to people who like to think about doing it. Incredible.

Oh you are a piece of work. Let me re-quote what you left out...
'And by that argument, you two are as wrong as she for wanting action taken
against her for no crime done.'

What is so difficult to understand about that? Where do I even mention
'pederasty'? The fact that you two want to string her up when there is no
crime comitted is my objection. Your extreme behavior and fanaticism is my
objection. Trying to equate anyone who suggests you are a wrong to someone
who actually 'does' perform illegal activity is my objection. Of course you
see what you want to see. You've proven time and time again how 'right' you
are when you make assumptions. Yet you continue to post like you are
infallible and all the times you have been proven wrong in the past are
irrelevant. I reiterate... you ARE a piece of work.

>
> Vixy, you are one sick little drag queen. (And no, I'm not saying you're
sick
> *because* you're a drag queen).

Niiiicccee... Random. Keep it up and pretty soon no one will be able to
tell you two apart.

>
>> And then you are worse, for suggesting that anyone who does not share
your
>> radical,
>> extremism
>
> "Pedophilia is bad." = Radical extremism?

"Trying to suggest a person with just a tastefully nude drawing of a
furry girl on their web site is comiting pedophilia" = Radical extremism.

>
>> is equally vile as she. So what will you do now? Track down me
>> and Farlo and report our nonconforming behavior?
>
> I think finding out your real name would not be a bad idea at this point.
You're
> a furry fan, you might go to furry conventions Some people do bring their
> children to furry conventions, and I think they might like to know if
someone
> there has expressed strong sympathies for pedophilia. It would let them
know
> who to keep your children away from.

As I stated above, I never said anything about 'pederasty'. It's
amazing how dense you can be sometimes. Tygger knows.

>
> Bear in mind, this isn't calling the police. It isn't reporting you for a
> crime. But you've expressed pedophilic sympathies in public and I think
you
> ought to be held accountable for that--just as if you'd expressed sympathy
for
> people who lynch blacks or blow up federal buildings

Good goddess. Now you are Stukafox. Unstable as well as fanatical. I
don't agree with you, so now you will try to take me down offline if you
can. Folks, here is a superb example of why you should NOT reaveal your
real name openly on the Internet. Such a fine representative of Burned
Furs. Stalkers can come in all forms and will use any reason to track you
down.

>> Get a report on us and post it to an open forum?
>
> Oh no: I'd never want you to know what I know about you.
>
>> Check yourself next time, Hangdog. Your fanaticism is showing.
>
> Vixy, it hasn't even *begun*.

Why do I feel this is true? Why do I feel that you *are* sick enough
to hurt people just because they oppose you? All your vehement efforts to
guide the generation of the new newsgroup has some deeper motive doesn't it?
Well I just hope people start to see you for what you really are, soon.

Forrest

unread,
Oct 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/14/99
to

Victry 'Vixy' Hyzenthlay :

>The fact that you two want to string her up when there is no
>crime comitted is my objection.

Technically Hangdog doesn't. He's acknowledged there's a difference between
thought and action; he just thinks the thoughts alone are highly disturbing
and I can't contest that point.

Me...? I said it should be referred to law enforcement. That's what
investigators are for.

Has any objector actually done this? If not, why not? I could do it if you
want.

Peter da Silva

unread,
Oct 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/14/99
to
In article <3805698C...@pdq.net>, Hangdog <peter....@pdq.net> wrote:
>"Hyar on RedNekMUK, we have us a whole passel o'fun at our weekly 'Cyber-Lynchings.' Yep,
>we get some ol' boy t' play like he's colored, then we chase him through the swamps 'til we
>ketch 'im, then we whup on 'im some an' then we string 'im up!

s/rednekmuk/predatormuck/
s/colored/a herbivore/
s/string him up/eat him/

I suppose the folks playing "Laser Tag" or "Paintball" are all potential
murderers. I fucked up my GPA and dropped out because I got too involved
in The Assassination Game. That makes me a killer?

I'm easily quicked by the lengths that some folks go with their virtual
lynchings and virtual rape and the like, and I'd be easily convinced that
some percentage of these are in fact people capable of doing the same
thing in real life.

But 100%? No way.

In summation, though, I'd like to suggest that the "P" word be added to the
forbidden topics on the new group... or perhaps any reference to any real-life
paraphilia's or rumored real life paraphilias be off topic?

That might be a little too much, but look at this thread...

--
This is The Reverend Peter da Silva's Boring Sig File - there are no references
to Wolves, Kibo, Discordianism, or The Church of the Subgenius in this document

Executive Vice President, Corporate Communications, Entropy Gradient Reversals.

Peter da Silva

unread,
Oct 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/14/99
to
In article <141019990240310293%sph...@crl.com>, Random <sph...@crl.com> wrote:
>Why does it? You assume when someone goes down a slippery slope that
>they would want to go back up? You think someone who goes from pot to
>coke to crack would want to smoke pot again?

Bad analogy warning: you have absolutely no idea about how people who use
drugs actually behave. No, I don't do drugs, but I've known plenty of people
who've been into heroin and amphetamines and acid and coke. And not one of
them I'm still in even sporadic contact with does anything stronger than pot.

So yes, they would. The slope's not very slippery at all. Gambling's a much
bigger problem. And that's legal.

diespa...@best.com

unread,
Oct 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/14/99
to
Peter da Silva <pe...@taronga.com> wrote:


: In summation, though, I'd like to suggest that the "P" word be added to the


: forbidden topics on the new group... or perhaps any reference to any real-life
: paraphilia's or rumored real life paraphilias be off topic?


Peter da Silva:

Making sure the problem of child molesting in furry get swept
under the rug.

Can you say "Fellow Traveller"?

I'll bet you can.

diespa...@best.com

unread,
Oct 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/14/99
to
Farlo <spam...@pacbell.net> wrote:
: Furrygirlie wrote:

:>This is Lori'anne. I started up the Treehouse on taps. I heard thru the
:>grapevine that someone (specifically Ben Bruin) had nasty things to say
:>about Me and my treehouse.

: Heck, I'm still unconvinced that you and Ben are seperate individuals. I
: guess that Erik Mouse isn't alone anymore ... =)

: Welcome to AFF and don't worry about "Old Ben".

Just it suprise ANYONE that Farlo comes out defending a child
molestor?


Forrest

unread,
Oct 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/14/99
to

Peter da Silva <pe...@taronga.com> wrote :
>In summation, though, I'd like to suggest that the "P" word be added to the
>forbidden topics on the new group... or perhaps any reference to any
>real-life paraphilia's or rumored real life paraphilias be off topic?

Since the old AFF will continue to exist for those inclined to argue about
such things -- AFFP too, for those that get it -- I have no objection to
this restriction.

Random

unread,
Oct 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/14/99
to
In article <7u3vuo$epk$1...@raccoon.fur.com>, Victry 'Vixy' Hyzenthlay
<victryNO-SPAM&@REMOVEjuno.com> wrote:

> radical, extremism

It's radical and extreme to speak out again pedophile? Uh. It's your
mindset that allowed the great evils of the world to exist. Sane and
rational people don't standby and let anyone even talk about molesting
kids. Wanna test that? Go chat about it in some public place and see
what happens.
--Random

Random

unread,
Oct 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/14/99
to
In article <7u40ga$eq1$1...@raccoon.fur.com>, Victry 'Vixy' Hyzenthlay
<victryNO-SPAM&@REMOVEjuno.com> wrote:

> Well for once we agree. That's about as well as you tend
> to rationalize any of your arguments. Maybe a little better. ;)

Rationalize my arguments? Are you really this stupid or it is an act to
troll here? I kinda hope it's an act otherwise, I suspect you'd drown
in the first rainstorm you were caught out in.
--Random

Random

unread,
Oct 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/14/99
to
In article <7u43sh$etr$1...@raccoon.fur.com>, Victry 'Vixy' Hyzenthlay
<victryNO-SPAM&@REMOVEjuno.com> wrote:

> Hangdog <peter....@pdq.net> wrote in message
> news:38058649...@pdq.net...
> > Victry 'Vixy' Hyzenthlay wrote:
> >
> >> With that argument, you've just equated yourself, and Ben Bruin, to
> the
> >> author of the 'treehouse'.And by that argument, you two are as wrong as
> she
> >> for wanting action taken against her for no crime done.
> >
> > In other words, you're saying that people who think pederasty is *bad* are
> > morally equal to people who like to think about doing it. Incredible.
>
> Oh you are a piece of work. Let me re-quote what you left out...
> 'And by that argument, you two are as wrong as she for wanting action taken
> against her for no crime done.'

Not crime has been done YET. But it'll come.

> What is so difficult to understand about that? Where do I even mention
> 'pederasty'? The fact that you two want to string her up when there is no
> crime comitted is my objection. Your extreme behavior and fanaticism is my
> objection. Trying to equate anyone who suggests you are a wrong to someone
> who actually 'does' perform illegal activity is my objection. Of course you
> see what you want to see. You've proven time and time again how 'right' you
> are when you make assumptions. Yet you continue to post like you are
> infallible and all the times you have been proven wrong in the past are
> irrelevant. I reiterate... you ARE a piece of work.

My god, you're a complete idiot. You're typify furry apathy! You know
that people consider you a sicko for the disgusting things you do with
animals and such, so you think that anyone else who's called sicko is
the same as yourself which leaves you compelled to defend them as you
would yourself. Hence you taking up for this sick little pedophile.
It's sad, but expected of you. You can't help yourself. If people were
attacking John Gacy for killing boys, you'd be defending him just the
same since he was a sicko, too.



> >
> > Vixy, you are one sick little drag queen. (And no, I'm not saying you're
> sick
> > *because* you're a drag queen).
>
> Niiiicccee... Random. Keep it up and pretty soon no one will be able to
> tell you two apart.

If anyone can't tell me and Hangdog apart they will be as stupid as I
think you are.

> >
> >> And then you are worse, for suggesting that anyone who does not share
> your
> >> radical,
> >> extremism
> >
> > "Pedophilia is bad." = Radical extremism?
>
> "Trying to suggest a person with just a tastefully nude drawing of a
> furry girl on their web site is comiting pedophilia" = Radical extremism.

Uh, idiot? How can a naked furry anything be a 'tasteful nude'. It's
just SPOOGE. Geez! That's what this is all about though. Vixy the furry
twit putting out for the furries in their defense. Hey, Stalin was a
furry. Why don't you defend his treatment of his people with his
purges?



> >
> >> is equally vile as she. So what will you do now? Track down me
> >> and Farlo and report our nonconforming behavior?
> >
> > I think finding out your real name would not be a bad idea at this point.
> You're
> > a furry fan, you might go to furry conventions Some people do bring their
> > children to furry conventions, and I think they might like to know if
> someone
> > there has expressed strong sympathies for pedophilia. It would let them
> know
> > who to keep your children away from.
>
> As I stated above, I never said anything about 'pederasty'. It's
> amazing how dense you can be sometimes. Tygger knows.

PKB time. Whoohoo!

> >
> > Bear in mind, this isn't calling the police. It isn't reporting you for a
> > crime. But you've expressed pedophilic sympathies in public and I think
> you
> > ought to be held accountable for that--just as if you'd expressed sympathy
> for
> > people who lynch blacks or blow up federal buildings
>
> Good goddess. Now you are Stukafox. Unstable as well as fanatical. I
> don't agree with you, so now you will try to take me down offline if you
> can. Folks, here is a superb example of why you should NOT reaveal your
> real name openly on the Internet. Such a fine representative of Burned
> Furs. Stalkers can come in all forms and will use any reason to track you
> down.

You breath with your mouth open, don't you, Vixy? Geez. How stupid can
you possibly be? But at least if you keep jumping to these wild
accusation, you'll wind up breaking your chicken neck.



> >> Get a report on us and post it to an open forum?
> >
> > Oh no: I'd never want you to know what I know about you.
> >
> >> Check yourself next time, Hangdog. Your fanaticism is showing.
> >
> > Vixy, it hasn't even *begun*.
>
> Why do I feel this is true? Why do I feel that you *are* sick enough
> to hurt people just because they oppose you? All your vehement efforts to
> guide the generation of the new newsgroup has some deeper motive doesn't it?
> Well I just hope people start to see you for what you really are, soon.

Wow! With all this long jumping, you should try out for the 2000
Olympics!
--Random

Peter da Silva

unread,
Oct 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/14/99
to
In article <3805f220$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com>, <diespa...@best.com> wrote:
> Can you say "Fellow Traveller"?

No, I'm allergic to McCarthyisms. They make me break out in hives.

Random

unread,
Oct 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/14/99
to
In article <7u4jrd$7...@bonkers.taronga.com>, Peter da Silva
<pe...@taronga.com> wrote:

> Bad analogy warning: you have absolutely no idea about how people who use
> drugs actually behave. No, I don't do drugs, but I've known plenty of people
> who've been into heroin and amphetamines and acid and coke. And not one of
> them I'm still in even sporadic contact with does anything stronger than pot.

How do you know I don't, mm? And just because you, wannabe dictator of
furry on USENET, knows some people who use crack yet still hit the
bong, why does that make it a universal truth? You keep this up and
your ego will be as big as Gallacci's and you'll be declaring yourself
overlord of the fandom.

> So yes, they would. The slope's not very slippery at all. Gambling's a much
> bigger problem. And that's legal.

Yes, but pedophile is much, much worse. And it is a slippery slope.
It's not far to go from liking to pretend to molest a child and really
doing it. Once the act is done in the mind, it will be done in the
flesh. Just human nature.
--Random

diespa...@best.com

unread,
Oct 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/14/99
to
Peter da Silva <pe...@taronga.com> wrote:
: In article <3805f220$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com>, <diespa...@best.com> wrote:
:> Can you say "Fellow Traveller"?

: No, I'm allergic to McCarthyisms. They make me break out in hives.

Opposing child molestation isn't McCarthyism anymore than opposing
racism.

I notice that you're very anxious that talk about the sexual
predators that now infest furry not be posted to the new newsgroup.

Why is this?

What are you trying to hide?


Hangdog

unread,
Oct 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/14/99
to
Random wrote:

> In article <380582FF...@pdq.net>, Hangdog <peter....@pdq.net>


> wrote:
>
> > I should expect the same treatment too if I were to go about saying publicly
> > "Gee, I'd like to
> > have sex with children, only it's ilillegal." I would be a pariah everywhere.
>

> That is exactly what would happen. Don't believe it? Do it! Announce
> yourself as a pedophile and see what becomes of your life.

Random, I'm guessing your post is in agreement, but your snippage might leave people
confused as to what I really said or advocated. Here is a fuller quote:

> Well, if I were to go about saying publicly "Gee, I'd like to lynch a black man, only it's
> illegal," I should expect to be shunned and reviled. I should expect to lose my friends, my
> job, and quite possibly my family's welcome. I wouldn't and shouldn't go to jail for it--but I

> would become a social outcast. And that would be right.


>
> I should expect the same treatment too if I were to go about saying publicly "Gee, I'd like to

> have sex with children, only it's illegal." I would be a pariah everywhere.


>
> Everywhere, that is, but on Tapestries MUCK.
>

Let me make it even clearer: I detest and revile both pedophilia and racism in all
forms. Those whose thought it infects should seek psychological help; those who
commit racist or pedophilic crimes should be locked up in a very small cell for a
very, very long time.

--Hangdog

Hangdog

unread,
Oct 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/14/99
to
diespa...@best.com wrote:

Actually, yes, it surprises me.

I'd pegged Farlo and Vixy for twits, but I didn't think they had any
sympathies with the kind of monstrous evil we're discussing here.

*sigh* It's as if Franz Kafka wrote an episode of "This Old House:" Bob Vila
goes to fix a few spots of dry rot--and find termites.

But that's a bad analogy. Termites only ruin houses. Not homes. :o(

--Hangdog

Hangdog

unread,
Oct 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/14/99
to
Victry 'Vixy' Hyzenthlay wrote:

> Hangdog <peter....@pdq.net> wrote in message
> news:38058649...@pdq.net...

>


> > "Pedophilia is bad." = Radical extremism?
>
> "Trying to suggest a person with just a tastefully nude drawing of a
> furry girl on their web site is comiting pedophilia" = Radical extremism.

But we're not talking about a tasteful nude. We're talking about:

http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Exhibit/6410/

Which has been explicitly linked to an "age-play" room on Tapestries MUCK by a)
a Tapestries MUCK Wiz and B) the room's creator and b) the room's creator.

> >
> > Bear in mind, this isn't calling the police. It isn't reporting you for a
> > crime. But you've expressed pedophilic sympathies in public and I think
> you
> > ought to be held accountable for that--just as if you'd expressed sympathy
> for
> > people who lynch blacks or blow up federal buildings
>
> Good goddess. Now you are Stukafox. Unstable as well as fanatical. I
> don't agree with you, so now you will try to take me down offline if you
> can. Folks, here is a superb example of why you should NOT reaveal your
> real name openly on the Internet. Such a fine representative of Burned
> Furs. Stalkers can come in all forms and will use any reason to track you
> down.

Vixy, I don't want to have *any* closer contact with you than I already have on
this newsgroup, believe me. Knowing your tolerance for pedophiles, I choose to
keep as far away from you as possible. I just want others to have the same
knowledge, so they can have the same choice.

It is not illegal to shun.

--Hangdog


Matthew Milam

unread,
Oct 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/14/99
to

Furrygirlie wrote in message ...

>This is Lori'anne. I started up the Treehouse on taps. I heard thru the
>grapevine that someone (specifically Ben Bruin) had nasty things to say
>about Me and my treehouse.
>
>Just a few things i would like to say about this.
>


And I have a question? How come I don't see a sea of hate mail for being
off-topic?

Matthew Milam
mmi...@interlync.com

Michael Yust

unread,
Oct 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/14/99
to
On Thu, 14 Oct 1999 14:36:36 -0400, Random <sph...@crl.com> wrote:

>Yes, but pedophile is much, much worse. And it is a slippery slope.
>It's not far to go from liking to pretend to molest a child and really
>doing it. Once the act is done in the mind, it will be done in the
>flesh. Just human nature.
>--Random

So if we are all sitting here thinking about hearing you scream in
terror as we hunt you down. Finally hearing your pitiful cries for
mercy and help as we beat you with sticks with rusty nails in them. We
are going to do it??? I seriously think NOT, and if you do every
impulse that travels through your head and just call it "human nature"
then I have serious doubts about your version of humanity.
Mier'Tam

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

Wonder Enis Gheen Wonder
Simon Stevin

Michael Yust

unread,
Oct 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/14/99
to
On Thu, 14 Oct 1999 02:15:12 -0500, Hangdog <peter....@pdq.net>
wrote:

>
>I should expect the same treatment too if I were to go about saying publicly "Gee, I'd like to
>have sex with children, only it's ilillegal." I would be a pariah everywhere.
>

>Everywhere, that is, but on Tapestries MUCK.

But that's NOT what they are saying it is more along the lines of "I
would like to have sex with a consenting adult dressed up as a child"
Age play is not illegal, pedophilia is and they are NOT the same
thing. just ask your D.A.

Sex between two consenting adults of the opposite gender, no matter
how they are dressed, is legal even in Texas and Georgia.

John Van Stry

unread,
Oct 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/14/99
to

Gee, lots of threats here now, even for those who are trying to
give out some clues.

I don't engage in teh whole age play thing, but I have some friends
who do. So out of curiosity, I have looked into it. The type
of age play that goes on, is not the kind of thing that would
lead to pedophilia. That's like saying the people who are
engaging in Vor play are going to become cannibals.

Really now hangdog, use some brains here (if that's not asking
too much). Rape isn't about sex, neither is pedophilia. It's
about control and pain and hurting people. The people who are
engaging in age play aren't looking for children to do it with,
they're looking for adults to do it with. (And by it, I mean
engage in their games, not sex). Alot of what I've seen go on
in this venue isn't sexual at all.


Now I don't make any real cliams to understand why some folks
out there engage in this type of thing, maybe they're trying
to work thru issues in their past, or maybe they want to try and
reclaim some lost innocence. But starting a witch hunt because
they engage in things you don't like is rather narrow minded
if they aren't doing anything wrong. And I'm sure you engage
in some things that quite a few people here would find sick,
but which again, aren't 'wrong' either.

-Banner


In article <3805324F...@pdq.net>, Hangdog <peter....@pdq.net> wrote:
>Todd Knarr wrote:
>

>> In alt.fan.furry <38052E30...@pdq.net> Hangdog
><peter....@pdq.net> wrote:
>> > ...even with underage partners, Dragonoix?
>>
>> Problem, Hangdog: you can't get _on_ Tapestries without certifying that
>> you are a legal adult. So please explain to me how someone over 18 is
>> underage?


>
>I understand that none of the people involved are actually underage,
>which is why
>we've bothered arguing instead of simply tracing "Furrygirlie" and
>trying our utmost
>to get him arrested.
>

>However, all pedophiles start off fantasizing about the act before they
>commit it. I
>wonder how many "age-players" in "Furrygirlie's" Treehouse will end up
>acting out? It
>would certainly seem a good way to attract those with a greater chance
>of becoming
>child molesters than the average MUCKer.
>
>Given the extremely questionable nature of what they do, I wonder, is it
>a good idea
>to get all huffy in their defense?
>
>And come to that, why *is* Dragonoix defending "Furrygirlie?"
>
>Why are you?
>
>--Hangdog
>

John North

unread,
Oct 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/14/99
to
Random wrote:

> Yes, but pedophile is much, much worse. And it is a slippery slope.
> It's not far to go from liking to pretend to molest a child and really
> doing it. Once the act is done in the mind, it will be done in the
> flesh. Just human nature.
> --Random

Criminal profiling suggests that there is a progression in some cases
of pedos, as well as in a lot of other crimes. The perpetrators
fantasize about activities, such as child molestation, but at some point
simply fantasizing fails to provide enough stimulation for their
desires. Then they move on to sublimating, perhaps through child pr0n,
hanging out in parks to interact with kids, etc. Eventually all their
means of sublimation also fails to provide enough stimulation and they
ultimately move on to perpetration of the actual crime. This is, of
course, a very rough breakdown, and is not always the case with people-
not all potential perps try and sublimate, not all ever get past
fantasizing. It's been my observation that the opposition to people
role-playing acts like child molestation on mucks like Tapestries and
FurryMUCK comes from this idea that the role-playing of such an act
represents a desire to perform such acts in real life. The very purpose
of a muck's existance for some people is to sublimate desires they
either cannot or presently will not fulfill in real life. As stated,
not everyone who role-plays an act on a muck is necessarily doomed to
replicate that act in real life, but when dealing with an issue like
child molestation and pedophilia, the fact that someone is role-playing
such an act does suggest, in most cases, an interest in such an act, and
there is natural apprehension that you're dealing with a situation where
a person may someday ultimately commit the crime they are role playing.
Now, there are a few defenses, given the nature of role-playing. For
many, it's like acting. You play a thief in D&D, because you like to
act out being a shifty character. It doesn't mean you will ever go hold
up a convenience store. A lot of people, role playing or not, play the
"what if" game, wondering if you could get away with holding up the bank
you're standing in line in. It's the primal part of all humans, but
most never act on it. However, when dealing with an issue as serious as
child molestation, which is typically considered as being related to
psychological disorders, the desire to role play such an act is usually
seen as indicating an unnatural and unhealthy interest in committing
such an act, and the role playing is viewed as one step along the path
of a potentially troubled psyche which may someday manifest itself in
the physical committing of an act of child molestation. The natural
response is best expressed by Barney from the Andy Griffith Show when
he'd say, "Nip it in the bud!"
There's also the difference between pedophiles and age players, it
seems. If memory serves me correct, the age players are not the people
that want to molest children, but want to pretend they're the children
being molested- like the folks on Jerry Springer that come on staged
dressed in diapers. This may be pretty fucked in the head, but doesn't
necessarily reflect a child molestor. If someone is role playing an
interest in pedophilia and child molestation on the muck, however, it
will likely than not reflect the player has a genuine interest in such
things, as most people will not role play an act they consider so
reviling in real life.

Peter da Silva

unread,
Oct 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/14/99
to
In article <38063211$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com>, <diespa...@best.com> wrote:
>Peter da Silva <pe...@taronga.com> wrote:
>: In article <3805f220$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com>, <diespa...@best.com> wrote:
>:> Can you say "Fellow Traveller"?

>: No, I'm allergic to McCarthyisms. They make me break out in hives.

> Opposing child molestation isn't McCarthyism anymore than opposing
> racism.

Maybe not, but the term "Fellow Traveller" definitely is.

> I notice that you're very anxious that talk about the sexual
> predators that now infest furry not be posted to the new newsgroup.

> Why is this?

The growing flame war over the subject would be one reason.

> What are you trying to hide?

Ah, there it is.

Now implying that someone is a pedophile because they're opposed to the turn
the discussion is taking... I said that while some percentage of the people
who play underage characters on some muck are likely potential pedophiles,
that percentage isn't 100%... that is definitely McCarthyism of the blackest
hue.

As for hiding, there will remain an unmoderated group for you to carry on
your discussion.

And on one final note, the original message that started this thread would
also have been off-topic under this proposed rule.

Hangdog

unread,
Oct 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/14/99
to
Michael Yust wrote:

> On Thu, 14 Oct 1999 02:15:12 -0500, Hangdog <peter....@pdq.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >I should expect the same treatment too if I were to go about saying publicly "Gee, I'd like to
> >have sex with children, only it's ilillegal." I would be a pariah everywhere.
> >
> >Everywhere, that is, but on Tapestries MUCK.
>
> But that's NOT what they are saying it is more along the lines of "I
> would like to have sex with a consenting adult dressed up as a child"

Oh! Well, what an obvious distinction! How silly of me to think that such activity would attract
a greater-than-normal share of potential pedophiles.

*Not*

> Age play is not illegal, pedophilia is and they are NOT the same
> thing. just ask your D.A.

Actually, my D. A. is Johnny B. Holmes, who's sent more murderers to death row than any other D.A.
in the country <EG>. You'll excuse me if I don't waste his time with such a ridiculous question:
he has more important matters at hand. You're welcome to seek his opinion yourself, though: it
might give you a much-needed reality check.

> Sex between two consenting adults of the opposite gender, no matter
> how they are dressed, is legal even in Texas and Georgia.

You were last seen trying to turn a debate about bestiality into a debate about gay sex. Now
you're trying to turn a debate about pedophilia into a debate about straight sex.

Nice try.

--Hangdog


diespa...@best.com

unread,
Oct 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/14/99
to
Peter da Silva <pe...@taronga.com> wrote:

: And on one final note, the original message that started this thread would


: also have been off-topic under this proposed rule.


Of course it would have. God forbid people be made aware of what's
being done to their hobby by the growing population of sexual
deviants who've attached themselves.

But, you're right, there'll be an unmoderated newsgroup for
this kind of thing.

diespa...@best.com

unread,
Oct 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/14/99
to
Michael Yust <Mie...@aa.net> wrote:
: On Thu, 14 Oct 1999 14:36:36 -0400, Random <sph...@crl.com> wrote:


: So if we are all sitting here thinking about hearing you scream in


: terror as we hunt you down. Finally hearing your pitiful cries for
: mercy and help as we beat you with sticks with rusty nails in them. We
: are going to do it??? I seriously think NOT, and if you do every
: impulse that travels through your head and just call it "human nature"
: then I have serious doubts about your version of humanity.

Revenge fantasies are normal, most people have them, few follow
up.

Having fantasies about sex with children is an underlying sign
of serious mental illness. The fact that you've crossed that
line in RP means you've already justified your actions in your
own mind. It means you DO have some sexual desire for children.
At that point, you become a hazard to society because you've
travelled 9/10th's the way to actually molesting the child. You've
already shown the desire, you've already acted out your fantasy
in an person-to-person contact, you've already found other Fellow
Travellers, and you've already shown a disregard for the laws
and mores of society.

You are a cocked gun. The question is how much pull on the trigger
is needed to make you go off.

There's nothing "harmless" about acting out your child-sex fantasies.
In fact, it makes you that much more dangerous because it means
you've taken one more step between the act of merely fantasicing
about molesting children and actually comitting the act.


diespa...@best.com

unread,
Oct 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/14/99
to
John Van Stry <jvan...@nyx.nyx.net> wrote:


: So out of curiosity, I have looked into it. The type


: of age play that goes on, is not the kind of thing that would
: lead to pedophilia.

Oh? And how do you know this?

Random

unread,
Oct 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/14/99
to
In article <38063383...@pdq.net>, Hangdog <peter....@pdq.net>
wrote:

> Let me make it even clearer: I detest and revile both pedophilia and racism
> in all
> forms. Those whose thought it infects should seek psychological help; those
> who
> commit racist or pedophilic crimes should be locked up in a very small cell
> for a
> very, very long time.

Actually, that was a bit of an oopsie and I cancelled that post. Please
ignore it, Hangdog.
--Random

Hangdog

unread,
Oct 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/14/99
to
Random wrote:

Will do. Thank you.

--HD

Random

unread,
Oct 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/14/99
to
In article <3808326e....@news.aa.net>, Michael Yust
<Mie...@aa.net> wrote:

> So if we are all sitting here thinking about hearing you scream in
> terror as we hunt you down. Finally hearing your pitiful cries for
> mercy and help as we beat you with sticks with rusty nails in them. We
> are going to do it??? I seriously think NOT, and if you do every
> impulse that travels through your head and just call it "human nature"
> then I have serious doubts about your version of humanity.

Poor thing. Well, allow me to clarify for you and the other dimwits out
there. What you describe is anger. It goes and it comes. Pedophilia and
an illness. Once it's started, it never goes away. There is no cure for
it and grows. Go do some research on it and anger. I'm sure even you
will be able to grasp the differences.
--Random

Random

unread,
Oct 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/14/99