Gallery #25 ships

84 views
Skip to first unread message

Richard Chandler

unread,
Jun 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/14/96
to

I meant to post this right away, but at least I have now. Last Friday
Gallery #25 went out in the mail. It is 262 pages, with works by 31
different artists. The cover price is $16, although subscribers naturally
get a discount.

Ed Zolna should have his 85 copies any day now.

The artists in this issue are:
Alex Schlarmann, Alyn Gryphon, Andrew Murphy-Mee, Cataroo, Chris Whelan,
Dean L. Norton, Diana Vick, Frank Gembeck Jr, Herb Bresky, Jack Cavanaugh,
Jim Groat, John Boulton, John Tatman, JW Kennedy, Kathy Marschall, Ken
Fletcher, Larry Dixon, M. Poomah de Alarcon, Mark Davis, Mike Capriola,
Mike Raabe, Polecat, Robert Kirkpatrick, Roy D. Pounds II, Sandi
Wilkinson, Sky Rigdon, Steve Corbett, Taral Wayne, Terrie Smith, Tom
Millorn, and Tygger.

This issue also features a scathing editorial about everything I think is
wrong in the Fandom, which I was hoping would be really controversial, but
the only feedback I've been getting is "Yeah, those things have been
bugging me too, but I never put them into words like that." so far.

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

wol...@netcom.com

unread,
Jun 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/15/96
to

In article <4pr1cl$7...@nadine.teleport.com>,


--
| wol...@netcom.com * General mischief engineer * PFT Founder |

wol...@netcom.com

unread,
Jun 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/15/96
to

In article <4pr1cl$7...@nadine.teleport.com>,
Richard Chandler <mau...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
>I meant to post this right away, but at least I have now. Last Friday
>Gallery #25 went out in the mail. It is 262 pages, with works by 31
>different artists. The cover price is $16, although subscribers naturally
>get a discount.
>

[snip]

>
>This issue also features a scathing editorial about everything I think is
>wrong in the Fandom, which I was hoping would be really controversial, but
>the only feedback I've been getting is "Yeah, those things have been
>bugging me too, but I never put them into words like that." so far.

Funny. Everyone I've spoken to who's read it just thinks you're a
fucking idiot, me included. I can't find anyone who thinks you have
two brain cells to rub together after getting a glance at your
soapbox, er, fanzine.

And you wanted a Hugo. Hee!

Brian

Steve Gattuso

unread,
Jun 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/15/96
to

wol...@netcom.com wrote:

> Funny. Everyone I've spoken to who's read it just thinks you're a
> fucking idiot, me included. I can't find anyone who thinks you have
> two brain cells to rub together after getting a glance at your
> soapbox, er, fanzine.

Then let me go on record as saying that in many ways, Rich didn't
go far enough. And that responses like yours are a lot closer to the
sort of obtuse banality I expected to see about the editorial.
And just when the hell does publishing a fanzine make it illegal
to state an opinion, you schmuck? After the huge battle over the CDA,
you'd think some of you would get a clue as to what the 1st Amendment is
all about.


> And you wanted a Hugo. Hee!

And you wanted to be a real wolf, instead of the yapping,
bitchy poodle you are.

Tygger

unread,
Jun 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/15/96
to

wol...@netcom.com wrote:

: Funny. Everyone I've spoken to who's read it just thinks you're a
: fucking idiot, me included. I can't find anyone who thinks you have
: two brain cells to rub together after getting a glance at your
: soapbox, er, fanzine.

: And you wanted a Hugo. Hee!

Interesting. I've heard the opposite, and as for the editorial, well,
I and others have been addressing some of the points Rich made here in
the ng. This was BEFORE Gallery shipped.

Not meaning to start a flame war, and I'm not meaning to come across as a
flame, just giving a bit of what I know.

Just goes to show how one article can be interpreted differently by
different people. *grins*


--Tygger


--

****************************************************************************
tyg...@netcom.com http://www.av.qnet.com/~canuss/tygger
****************************************************************************
"Place your clothes and weapons where you can find them in the dark."

Lazarus Long, The Notebooks of Lazarus Long, Robert A. Heinlein

wol...@netcom.com

unread,
Jun 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/15/96
to

In article <tyggerDt...@netcom.com>, Tygger <tyg...@netcom.com> wrote:
>wol...@netcom.com wrote:
>
>: Funny. Everyone I've spoken to who's read it just thinks you're a
>: fucking idiot, me included. I can't find anyone who thinks you have
>: two brain cells to rub together after getting a glance at your
>: soapbox, er, fanzine.
>
>: And you wanted a Hugo. Hee!
>
>Interesting. I've heard the opposite, and as for the editorial, well,
>I and others have been addressing some of the points Rich made here in
>the ng. This was BEFORE Gallery shipped.
>
>Not meaning to start a flame war, and I'm not meaning to come across as a
>flame, just giving a bit of what I know.
>
>Just goes to show how one article can be interpreted differently by
>different people. *grins*
>
>
>--Tygger
>

I would venture to say that in the editorial he draws a handful of
pretty accurate conclusions that everyone already knows, and a whole
boatload of whacked-out, fucked-up, insane lunatic conclusions. This
also seems to be the attitude of just about everyone I've spoken to
who've read the article, but then I guess some people in the world really
do think that 'wanting to give and not receive' anal sex means lack
of commitment, that no one in the Furry community has died of AIDS,
and that intolerance is the road to freedom. I've never read such
blatant, arrogant megalomanical ramblings in my life except by groups
like the Christian Coalition and PETA.

Just goes to show how one moron can be interpreted different ways by
different people. Not that this is a thinly veiled comment on you, Tygger,
just that what some might see as Rich trying to be helpful others see as
sociopolitical masturbation.

Mark Phaedrus

unread,
Jun 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/16/96
to

In article <wolfieDt...@netcom.com>, <wol...@netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <4pr1cl$7...@nadine.teleport.com>,
>Richard Chandler <mau...@teleport.com> wrote:
>>This issue also features a scathing editorial about everything I think is
>>wrong in the Fandom, which I was hoping would be really controversial, but
>>the only feedback I've been getting is "Yeah, those things have been
>>bugging me too, but I never put them into words like that." so far.

>Funny. Everyone I've spoken to who's read it just thinks you're a


>fucking idiot, me included. I can't find anyone who thinks you have
>two brain cells to rub together after getting a glance at your
>soapbox, er, fanzine.

I haven't read the editorial in question, so I can't comment on that
(other than to say "if you're going to complain about something, it would be
nice if you mentioned at least one specific thing you're complaining about").
But after you just reposted Mr. Chandler's entire message with no new text
whatsoever (in article <wolfieDt...@netcom.com> in this thread), you
might have reconsidered whether this was the best time to launch into
insults concerning intelligence... :-)
--
## Macintosh developer with 3+ years commercial experience; hire me... ##
## Please see <URL:http://www.halcyon.com/phaedrus/resume.html>. ##
If you're interested in books/stories with transformation themes, please
try <URL:http://www.halcyon.com/phaedrus/translist/translist.html>.

Timothy D Fay

unread,
Jun 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/16/96
to

Richard Chandler (mau...@teleport.com) wrote:

>This issue also features a scathing editorial about everything I think is
>wrong in the Fandom, which I was hoping would be really controversial, but
>the only feedback I've been getting is "Yeah, those things have been
>bugging me too, but I never put them into words like that." so far.

I thought it was a fine editorial, Richard. (If such a comment from me
doesn't destroy your credibility, it should at least cause you to remember
your last three meals :) ). I thought quote from Eric Blumrich was
especially powerful, and I think you should reprint it here in a.f.f.

--
Reply to: fayx...@maroon.tc.umn.edu

-- http://www.umn.edu/nlhome/m279/fayxx001 --

"My mental facilities are TWICE what yours are -- you pea brain!"
-Percival McLeach


++++ Stop the execution of Mumia Abu-Jamal! ++++
++++ if you agree copy these 3 sentences in your own sig ++++
++++ more info: http://www.xs4all.nl/~tank/spg-l/sigaction.htm ++++


Roz Gibson

unread,
Jun 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/17/96
to

In article <4q087d$5...@epx.cis.umn.edu>,
fayx...@maroon.tc.umn.edu says...

>
>Richard Chandler (mau...@teleport.com) wrote:
>
>>This issue also features a scathing editorial about
everything I think is
>>wrong in the Fandom, which I was hoping would be really
controversial, but
>>the only feedback I've been getting is "Yeah, those things
have been
>>bugging me too, but I never put them into words like that."
so far.
>
>I thought it was a fine editorial, Richard. (If such a
comment from me
>doesn't destroy your credibility, it should at least cause you
to remember
>your last three meals :) ). I thought quote from Eric
Blumrich was
>especially powerful, and I think you should reprint it here in
a.f.f.


Or better yet, read every disgruntled thing Eric has to say in
HUZZAH! He has an esspecially turgid account of his arrest and
imprisonment in rural Tennessee in the current issue (#22).
BTW, I basically agree with most of what Chandler said. I
deal with the dog collar and leash crowd by ignoring them.
They no more represent mainstream furry fandom than "femenazis"
represent women or career criminals represent blacks. They are
a very visible minority, and it falls upon us to educate fandom
at large and potential new furries that there's a lot more
things to furry fandom than men being led around on leashes.


Timothy D Fay

unread,
Jun 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/17/96
to

Timothy D Fay (fayx...@maroon.tc.umn.edu) wrote:

>...I thought quote from Eric Blumrich was


>especially powerful, and I think you should reprint it here in a.f.f.

That's bad phrasing on my part. What I meant to say is that you should
reprint your entire editorial here in a.f.f.

Mitchell Marmel

unread,
Jun 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/17/96
to

>Funny. Everyone I've spoken to who's read it just thinks you're a
>fucking idiot, me included. I can't find anyone who thinks you have
>two brain cells to rub together after getting a glance at your
>soapbox, er, fanzine.
>

>And you wanted a Hugo. Hee!

I'll be durned. It IS possible to type without opposable thumbs!

-MMM-

M. Mitchell Marmel

unread,
Jun 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/17/96
to

In article <31C342...@primenet.com>, Steve Gattuso
<Pdoo...@primenet.com> wrote:
>
> wol...@netcom.com wrote:

(drivel deleted)

> > And you wanted a Hugo. Hee!
>

> And you wanted to be a real wolf, instead of the yapping,
> bitchy poodle you are.

Poodle's too good for 'im. Small pomeranian.

============================================================================
M. Mitchell Marmel \ Scattered, smothered, covered, chunked,
Drexel University \ whipped, beaten, chained and pierced.
Department of Materials Engineering \ *THE BEST HASHBROWNS IN THE WORLD!*
Fibrous Materials Research Laboratory\ marm...@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu
============================================================================

Gary Burke

unread,
Jun 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/17/96
to

In article <4q4k2g$f...@news.interlog.com>, <and...@interlog.com> wrote:

>>Richard Chandler wrote:
>>This issue also features a scathing editorial about everything I think
>>is wrong in the Fandom, which I was hoping would be really
>>controversial, but the only feedback I've been getting is "Yeah, those
>>things have been bugging me too, but I never put them into words like
>>that." so far.
>
>
> Ah.. let me change that for you.
>
> Furry fandom is a social club, not a Cult of the Artist. It's not
>defined by `true believer' furries who dedicate themselves to
>furthering some primal furry agenda with their creativity or
>patronage. It's defined by everyone who calls themselves a furry fan.
>There are a lot of people saying they are fans and as a result there
>are many different approaches to enjoying being furry. The internet,
>conventions, fanzines, prozines and all the other ways that furries
>interact with one another are vital parts of the fandom.
> _All_ of these diverse ideas are valid and have to be, not just
>tolerated, but accepted. It's selfish and patronizing to insist that
>people enjoy fandom your way or not at all. That doesn't mean we
>can't debate our just plain argue about our opinions, as long as folks
>avoid confusing their feelings with being some kind of higher belief.
>That they are a voice for the `one true way' that is more valid than
>anyone else's ideas.


I concur 100%. I also read the editorial in Gallery and was struck by
the subtext that only artists and people who buy lots of art are valid
furry fans, that those who just hang out on furrymuck, like furries,
and go to cons to meet their friends in RL are 'dilettantes' who should
be expunged from the fandom. "Take back our fandom" is how you worded
it Rich, if I'm not mistaken, along with a general attitude that we've
been too tolerant of these dog-collar wearing, T-or-D playing faggots
who could all use a good kick in the ass. (Jim Groat's con report had a
similar tone, although I've come to expect that from him)

You singled out gay furries for special attention, and I'm sorry, claiming
you can't be homophobic because you're bisexual just doesn't cut it.
Plenty of GAY people are homophobic, it just means they hate themselves.
(I'm not saying you do, I'm just saying that bisexuality does not mean you
can't be phobic/bigoted towards openly gay people.) There are a lot of
gay artists, fans, fanboys, writers, whatever. A lot of them are from
Furrymuck and I have seen how the open, tolerant atmosphere of furry
fandom as a whole and furrymuck in particular has helped a lot of people
to come to grips with their sexuality, and find love and acceptance. To
a lot of people that has been a godsend. I think going back to the guns-
and-vixens atmosphere of furry fandom that was here when I started (at
least among the group I started with) would be an immense loss.

As for our reputations in other fandoms, I could give a rat's ass what
some Trekkies think of furry. Anime has a FAR worse reputation for
being sex-obsessed but that hasn't stopped it from gaining massmarket
wide acceptance in recent months/years. (Sailor Moon?) We have our own
cons, our own APAs, etc. etc. and do not have to ride on the coattails
of other fandoms. If some con decides not to allow furry art in the art
show, it's their loss. Furry parties can still be held at the most
furryphobic of cons, you just hold you head high and ignore the Capt. Kirk
geeks.

"Taking Back The Fandom"

I suppose, somehow, Rich, Major Matt, and the rest could marshal the
forces, gather your weapons, put on your best berets and fatigues and
arrange a putsch at CF8 -- line up the collar and leash crowd (code:
those decadent queerboys) and run them out of the Atrium Marquis on a
rail. There'd be no spooge in the art show, and the businessmen and
christian revivalists staying at the same hotel wouldn't see anything to
offend their delicate sensibilities. It'd be Disney in the video room
and the dealers room would be back issues of Furrlough and Albedo for as
far as the eye could see. No dancing in the cabaret or Purple Nurple
Live, I guess we could have a wholesome filksing instead. We could show
each other our automatic rifles and surplus hand grenades.. but none of
those snuggling fanboys, God that's disgusting. Oh
wait,there'd still be topless vixens - some sexual artwork is more equal than
others. Sounds like a fun con..


Gary "Reservations still available" Burke


--
gary burke------------------------------------------------------------------
"I just got one thing to say: you better WORK IT!"

wol...@netcom.com

unread,
Jun 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/17/96
to

In article <31C342...@primenet.com>,
Steve Gattuso <Pdoo...@primenet.com> wrote:
>wol...@netcom.com wrote:
>
>> Funny. Everyone I've spoken to who's read it just thinks you're a
>> fucking idiot, me included. I can't find anyone who thinks you have
>> two brain cells to rub together after getting a glance at your
>> soapbox, er, fanzine.
>
> Then let me go on record as saying that in many ways, Rich didn't
>go far enough. And that responses like yours are a lot closer to the
>sort of obtuse banality I expected to see about the editorial.

If you think he didn't go far enough, than I don't really consider you
to agree with me then.

> And just when the hell does publishing a fanzine make it illegal
>to state an opinion, you schmuck? After the huge battle over the CDA,
>you'd think some of you would get a clue as to what the 1st Amendment is
>all about.

What the fuck are you talking about? Who said it was illegal or should be?
Are you reading someone else's post or just too busy making personal
attacks on me to even read what I'm saying? (For the record, yes I would
consider my comments towards Rich to be personal attacks in some ways,
but I wouldn't claim he said or suggested things he didn't. This guy
seems unable to read and understand what I'm saying.)

For any others who may be as clue-deficient as this guy, while the
first amendment gives Rich the right to say what he wants for the most
part, it also give me the right to say I think he's wrong. Is that
OK Steve or should I type more slowly for you?

>
>> And you wanted a Hugo. Hee!
>
> And you wanted to be a real wolf, instead of the yapping,
>bitchy poodle you are.


Uhhh.... Ok. Whatever. You're making very little sense you know.

Tygger

unread,
Jun 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/17/96
to

Timothy D Fay (fayx...@maroon.tc.umn.edu) wrote:

: I thought it was a fine editorial, Richard. (If such a comment from me


: doesn't destroy your credibility, it should at least cause you to remember

: your last three meals :) ). I thought quote from Eric Blumrich was


: especially powerful, and I think you should reprint it here in a.f.f.

*nods* Heck, much of what he mentioned has been kicked around online
here and is being booted about myself as well right now on 2 threads.

I agree, upload the editorial here Rich. I'm quite curious a to the
other responses.

and...@interlog.com

unread,
Jun 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/18/96
to

>Richard Chandler wrote:
>This issue also features a scathing editorial about everything I think
>is wrong in the Fandom, which I was hoping would be really
>controversial, but the only feedback I've been getting is "Yeah, those
>things have been bugging me too, but I never put them into words like
>that." so far.


Ah.. let me change that for you.

Furry fandom is a social club, not a Cult of the Artist. It's not
defined by `true believer' furries who dedicate themselves to
furthering some primal furry agenda with their creativity or
patronage. It's defined by everyone who calls themselves a furry fan.
There are a lot of people saying they are fans and as a result there
are many different approaches to enjoying being furry. The internet,
conventions, fanzines, prozines and all the other ways that furries
interact with one another are vital parts of the fandom.
_All_ of these diverse ideas are valid and have to be, not just
tolerated, but accepted. It's selfish and patronizing to insist that
people enjoy fandom your way or not at all. That doesn't mean we
can't debate our just plain argue about our opinions, as long as folks
avoid confusing their feelings with being some kind of higher belief.
That they are a voice for the `one true way' that is more valid than
anyone else's ideas.

That's exactly how your editorial in issue #25 reads. You are an
`old guard' furry fan bitching about the current fandom and
desperately wanting the good old days back.. by any means possible.
This alone doesn't bother me, as I've grown use to hearing the same
pointless rhetoric from many furs who have been in the fandom for a
relatively long time. And you are, of course, welcome to voice your
opinions.. tho I think you are being unprofessional to do so in your
`zine. That's another issue. What I resent is your using Gallery as
a means to further your personal agenda under the guise of it's being
_the_ Furry Agenda. You are misguided if you believe that your
feelings are more than just your feelings. A few other people might
agree with you, but this doesn't mean you can ignore any of the people
in the fandom who disagree with you.

For example; I strongly disagree with your agenda to de-evolve the
fandom into something that would fit into your narrow ideas.
Especially by means of some form of `ethnic cleansing.' The diversity
of people, artwork and social expression in the fandom is what makes
if worthwhile to me. It keeps it alive and interesting. I disagree
so much with you that I don't want to support your means of promoting
your agenda.. once again I'm thinking of not publishing my artwork in
Gallery any more. I know I'm not the only artist having these
thoughts.
The cons outweigh the pros and there are other, less polit-icky,
`zines out there. However I've met and made friends with several
wonderful people because of Gallery and it does give many fans a
chance to see my work. So I'm not sure what to do. Either way I want
to make the decision soon because I dislike how much stress this is
putting on me.

-- Andrew Murphy-Mee --


Brian Harris

unread,
Jun 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/18/96
to

wol...@netcom.com wrote:
: In article <4pr1cl$7...@nadine.teleport.com>,
: Richard Chandler <mau...@teleport.com> wrote:

: Funny. Everyone I've spoken to who's read it just thinks you're a


: fucking idiot, me included. I can't find anyone who thinks you have
: two brain cells to rub together after getting a glance at your
: soapbox, er, fanzine.

WTF? Why is he a "fucking idiot" if he airs his own personal opinion in a
magazine that he owns and publishes? Do you call everyone who has an
opinion vastly differing from yours a "fucking idiot"? Even if their
ideas seem strange to you?

I'm an "older" user of Furry, having been around a long time, too. I
think some things should go back to the way they were, too. Am I a
"fucking idiot", too now? Because I feel that way? Do you base your
choices of reading material on the publisher's beliefs? Does it matter if
he writes a little essay on it in the beginning of the book, even if the
rest of the book has nothing more to do with it? Why call him names here
when you could be writing your intelligent counter-essay to him for
Gallery?

Unless Rich's editorial is as childish as your response, I think he's
certainly shown he's one step above your ranting. No, I haven't read it
yet, but I sure doubt that even if he rants and raves about how everyone
is a fool and brain-dead, that I wouldn't take it as personally as your
retort.

As for further comments in other followups about not buying Gallery
because of what Rich believes, this would be a truly illiterate world if
people only read material by writers and artists who felt the exact
goddamn way that you do. This, right here, is what keeps people from
saying what they think today.

I'm going to keep buying Gallery no matter what he says. He has to say
something a lot worse before I quit reading Gallery because of his
opinion.

- Rigel


Richard Chandler

unread,
Jun 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/18/96
to

In article <wolfieDt...@netcom.com>, <wol...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Funny. Everyone I've spoken to who's read it just thinks you're a
>fucking idiot, me included. I can't find anyone who thinks you have
>two brain cells to rub together after getting a glance at your
>soapbox, er, fanzine.

I know you can do better than that.

In my editorial, I flamed the following sorts of scum:
- Scam artists.
- Mercenaries who don't care about the fandom, they just wanna make money
from it.
- Dilletantes, or specifically, people who came to furry fandom through
the net, but who aren't interested in Furryness so much as it's just a
crowd to hang with.
- People who used the fandom as some sort of stepping stone for promoting
their own, wholly unrelated agenda.
- In particular, those who in the past set the tone trying to turn it
into their own private sexual playground.
- and as an example, I slammed the "Dr. Pepper file".
- People who are more interested in seeing their own wet dreams
transcribed to paper by artists, rather than checking out what visions the
artists have come up with by themselves.
- And I pointed out how this customer-driven situation has become toxic
to anyone who has a serious interest in a professional art career.
- And finaly, people who are attracted to Furry Fandom not because of the
critters, but because they hear about the "horrible" reputation of it
being some kind of sexual free-for all, and join up in order to get laid
(And specifically by men, since women are pretty rare at CF).

Please, pick any one of these categories of people I've slighted, and
explain to me rationally and logically, and without insults, how much
their presence benefits the fandom.

Richard Chandler

unread,
Jun 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/18/96
to

In article <4q4k2g$f...@news.interlog.com>, <and...@interlog.com> wrote:
> Furry fandom is a social club, not a Cult of the Artist. It's not
>defined by `true believer' furries who dedicate themselves to
>furthering some primal furry agenda with their creativity or
>patronage. It's defined by everyone who calls themselves a furry fan.
>There are a lot of people saying they are fans and as a result there
>are many different approaches to enjoying being furry. The internet,
>conventions, fanzines, prozines and all the other ways that furries
>interact with one another are vital parts of the fandom.

I have a problem with that definition. It's the same problem that
manifested itself a long time ago in science fiction fandom. Sometime in
the 60's or 70's, people who had been in the fandom a long time started to
realize that there were a lot of people coming to the conventions simply
because they liked going to conventions. Many of them didn't even READ
Science Fiction.

If the fandom consists of simply anyone who calls themselves a Furry, then
what's so special about being a furry? Am I really all that far off base
by wanting anyone who claims to be a fan of furries to actually have a
sincere interest in the meta-genre?

Sure, the conventions and zines are all the ways people interact, but the
very raison d'etre is because they are interested in anthropomorphic
characters in some way shape or form.

> _All_ of these diverse ideas are valid and have to be, not just
>tolerated, but accepted. It's selfish and patronizing to insist that
>people enjoy fandom your way or not at all. That doesn't mean we
>can't debate our just plain argue about our opinions, as long as folks
>avoid confusing their feelings with being some kind of higher belief.
>That they are a voice for the `one true way' that is more valid than
>anyone else's ideas.

You know, right on the front page of every copy of Gallery is a little
disclaimer that says that "Any editorial comments are strictly the
responsibility of their author, and do not reflect on the opinions or
views of anyone else involved in this publication". This applies
especially to me. I have some pretty strong opinions on things, and I'll
be damned if I'm gonna hold 'em back. I did once, and I damn near choked
on it. And I did it for you, if you recall. I'm the one who smoothed out
the feelings of some people who objected to some of the things you put in
Gallery. You should grant me the same courtesy.

> That's exactly how your editorial in issue #25 reads. You are an
>`old guard' furry fan bitching about the current fandom and
>desperately wanting the good old days back.. by any means possible.

Then you misread me. The "good old days" are what brought us to this
sorry state. I don't long for the days when people traded cruddy fifteenth
generation Ken Sample Xeroxes like Anime fans used to do with tapes.
Where one's status in the fandom was determined by how many binders full
of art you had. Some things have gotten a lot better (and I'm going to be
writing the flip side of this editorial for #26).

>This alone doesn't bother me, as I've grown use to hearing the same
>pointless rhetoric from many furs who have been in the fandom for a
>relatively long time. And you are, of course, welcome to voice your
>opinions.. tho I think you are being unprofessional to do so in your
>`zine. That's another issue. What I resent is your using Gallery as
>a means to further your personal agenda under the guise of it's being
>_the_ Furry Agenda. You are misguided if you believe that your
>feelings are more than just your feelings. A few other people might
>agree with you, but this doesn't mean you can ignore any of the people
>in the fandom who disagree with you.

You'll note I'm not. Hell, the main reason I commented on the lack of
comment was in hopes to draw some out. I think you're granting my words a
little more power than they have, but on the other hand, I AM the editor
and publisher, and if for some reason I decided to take my ball and go
home, there wouldn't be a damned thing anyone could do to stop me. (Of
course,the daunting task of writing half a box worth of checks would be a
strong incentive to keep the book going instead).

As for being unprofessional. FIJAGDH. This isn't my job. I don't depend
on it for a living. Hell, I don't even make any money on it. I merely
spend 60 or 70 hours of my life on it every quarter. It's a labor of
love. I love what the fandom has the potential to be, and it makes me
heartsick to see people dragging it down.

> For example; I strongly disagree with your agenda to de-evolve the
>fandom into something that would fit into your narrow ideas.
>Especially by means of some form of `ethnic cleansing.' The diversity
>of people, artwork and social expression in the fandom is what makes
>if worthwhile to me. It keeps it alive and interesting. I disagree
>so much with you that I don't want to support your means of promoting
>your agenda.. once again I'm thinking of not publishing my artwork in
>Gallery any more. I know I'm not the only artist having these
>thoughts.

"Ethnic Cleansing" Why not just call me Hitler and get the argument over
with? The whole Mass Graves thing was a metaphor. I'm sure that when
Dave Bryant was taking the Six Shallow Graves poll, he wasn't planning a
hitlist.

Hell, there's nothing I can do to stop you from taking your ball and going
home either. But if you go, you're letting me win. On the other hand,
you can take that same list I gave Wolfie, and tell me which ones you
really think ought to stay to make Furry Fandom a better place than it is.

> The cons outweigh the pros and there are other, less polit-icky,
>`zines out there. However I've met and made friends with several
>wonderful people because of Gallery and it does give many fans a
>chance to see my work. So I'm not sure what to do. Either way I want
>to make the decision soon because I dislike how much stress this is
>putting on me.

There are a bunch of people in Gallery who hate each-other's guts, believe
it or not, but for the good of the book, they deal with it. And it's
perfectly okay for you to hate me if you want. I have never kicked anyone
out of Gallery, and it will be a sad day if I ever do, so that's one thing
you needn't worry about. Say what you want. Savage me up and down in
your next trib if you feel it's necessary, or turn the other cheek. It's
your option.

Personally, I think you ought to at least stick around for "Pedestals".
You may find that I'm not quite so evil or small-minded after all.

Richard Chandler

unread,
Jun 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/18/96
to

In article <4q52ng$b...@zot.io.org>, Gary Burke <ga...@zot.io.org> wrote:
>I concur 100%. I also read the editorial in Gallery and was struck by
>the subtext that only artists and people who buy lots of art are valid
>furry fans, that those who just hang out on furrymuck, like furries,
>and go to cons to meet their friends in RL are 'dilettantes' who should
>be expunged from the fandom. "Take back our fandom" is how you worded
>it Rich, if I'm not mistaken, along with a general attitude that we've
>been too tolerant of these dog-collar wearing, T-or-D playing faggots
>who could all use a good kick in the ass. (Jim Groat's con report had a
>similar tone, although I've come to expect that from him)

There are lots of ways to contribute to the fandom. I don't quite see how
playing truth or dare is one of them. What does it have to do with funny
animals?

Yeah, perhaps there was a subtext there that the main focus at a
convention is creation or consumption, that might be a valid criticism if
I had left out any mention of participation. But I didn't. Even just
sitting in on a panel discussion and asking the right question constitutes
furthering the fandom. But the people I complained about don't even do
that.


>You singled out gay furries for special attention, and I'm sorry, claiming
>you can't be homophobic because you're bisexual just doesn't cut it.
>Plenty of GAY people are homophobic, it just means they hate themselves.
>(I'm not saying you do, I'm just saying that bisexuality does not mean you
>can't be phobic/bigoted towards openly gay people.) There are a lot of
>gay artists, fans, fanboys, writers, whatever. A lot of them are from
>Furrymuck and I have seen how the open, tolerant atmosphere of furry
>fandom as a whole and furrymuck in particular has helped a lot of people
>to come to grips with their sexuality, and find love and acceptance. To
>a lot of people that has been a godsend. I think going back to the guns-
>and-vixens atmosphere of furry fandom that was here when I started (at
>least among the group I started with) would be an immense loss.

Hmmm, the subtext I'm picking up here is that we should be tolerant of gay
furries, but there's something wrong with vixens and guns. Maybe you
should have that plank in your eye taken care of before you start poking
after the speck in mine.

I could say something about "Since when is it the responsibility of the
people who happen to like Beatrix Potter and Disney films to provide an
environment where young gay men can come to grips with their sexuality? I
mean, shouldn't they turn to the gay community for that? They have a lot
more experience with that sort of thing." But frankly, that's not the
problem I have. Anything that keeps a young gay male from offing himself
is a good thing. The problem is that they've been abusing everyone else.
There's nothing wrong with gay furries. There IS something wrong with
reckless, abusive, and rude gay furries. Whether it's needless
psychodrama, willful ignorace of safe sex practices, or simple lack of
grace and common decency, what these young people are getting from furry
fandom lacks one of the things they desperately need. Discipline (Self or
otherwise). Behaviour that would be damn close to the edge at a pride
march is way over it at a convention. I only ask two things of them: A
little common courtesy, and that if they don't have a sincere interest in
anthropomorphics, they stay home.

>As for our reputations in other fandoms, I could give a rat's ass what
>some Trekkies think of furry. Anime has a FAR worse reputation for
>being sex-obsessed but that hasn't stopped it from gaining massmarket
>wide acceptance in recent months/years. (Sailor Moon?) We have our own
>cons, our own APAs, etc. etc. and do not have to ride on the coattails
>of other fandoms. If some con decides not to allow furry art in the art
>show, it's their loss. Furry parties can still be held at the most
>furryphobic of cons, you just hold you head high and ignore the Capt. Kirk
>geeks.

The problem is, what if it's not just an isolated con? What happens when
loathing of Furry Fandom is widespread? This isn't a what if. Right now,
if you want a job in animation, you'd better take all your furriness and
stuff it deep in the closet and hope nobody digs it out. (Try asking Dave
Kuhn about Furry stuff.) When Warner Brothers slams tiny toon fandom in
a nationally broadcast evening special, then you know that this fandom has
accumulated some powerful enemies.

At SDCC, why is it that the furry panels are always scheduled late at
night, when the other publishers are having their parties? And why do the
panels end up with titles like "How can you find IT under all that fur?"
SDCC is the largest comics media con in the world, and every single person
in attendence gets a program book where the only mention of anything furry
has ridicule written all over it. Hold your head up? Sure. Once you've
bent your shoulders down against the sand. "What image problem?"

It seems that some people LIKE furry fandom to be the cesspit it's
becoming. They like to wallow in their own filth. They are having their
fun, and don't care how much it stinks up things for everyone else. As
long as they get their jollies, the rest of us can go to hell. I want the
future to be better than things are now.

[I deleted the long rant that shows that you can be just as intolerant as
you accuse me of being]

Richard J. Bartrop

unread,
Jun 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/18/96
to


On 17 Jun 1996, Gary Burke wrote:

> As for our reputations in other fandoms, I could give a rat's ass what
> some Trekkies think of furry.

That's very nice for you, but some of do have ties in other fandoms.
I've been involved with Science Fiction Fandom for many years, and know
many people there, people who's opinions I respect, and it bothers me that
furfandom is getting such an unfortunate reputation. Its one thing to be
thought of as a little odd, its quite another to have people recoil in
disgust, as one furfan related here not too long ago


> "Taking Back The Fandom"
> > I suppose, somehow, Rich, Major Matt, and the rest could marshal the
> forces, gather your weapons, put on your best berets and fatigues and
> arrange a putsch at CF8 -- line up the collar and leash crowd (code:
> those decadent queerboys) and run them out of the Atrium Marquis on a
> rail. There'd be no spooge in the art show, and the businessmen and
> christian revivalists staying at the same hotel wouldn't see anything to
> offend their delicate sensibilities. It'd be Disney in the video room
> and the dealers room would be back issues of Furrlough and Albedo for as
> far as the eye could see. No dancing in the cabaret or Purple Nurple
> Live, I guess we could have a wholesome filksing instead. We could show
> each other our automatic rifles and surplus hand grenades.. but none of
> those snuggling fanboys, God that's disgusting. Oh
> wait,there'd still be topless vixens - some sexual artwork is more equal than
> others. Sounds like a fun con..

Sounds good to me ;)

Richard Bartrop
Grey on FurryMUCK

Gary Burke

unread,
Jun 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/18/96
to

In article <4q5q2p$d...@nadine.teleport.com>,

Richard Chandler <mau...@teleport.com> wrote:
>In article <4q52ng$b...@zot.io.org>, Gary Burke <ga...@zot.io.org> wrote:
>>I concur 100%. I also read the editorial in Gallery and was struck by
>>the subtext that only artists and people who buy lots of art are valid
>>furry fans, that those who just hang out on furrymuck, like furries,
>>and go to cons to meet their friends in RL are 'dilettantes' who should
>
>There are lots of ways to contribute to the fandom. I don't quite see how
>playing truth or dare is one of them. What does it have to do with funny
>animals?

Furry fandom is a social club, basically. Not everybody sketches. Truth
or Dare is a good icebreaker at gatherings to get people to try to talk to
each other in RL, which is something that a lot of furries sometimes have
trouble with, usually talking in snailmail letters or on the computer.
It's connection to funny animals is tangential at best, but it generally
goes on in private or semiprivate room parties anyhow and isn't really a
specified con activity. (Unlike, say, the pet auction, which people just
do because it's fun).

>Yeah, perhaps there was a subtext there that the main focus at a
>convention is creation or consumption, that might be a valid criticism if
>I had left out any mention of participation. But I didn't. Even just
>sitting in on a panel discussion and asking the right question constitutes
>furthering the fandom. But the people I complained about don't even do
>that.

Possibly, but I don't see 'the fandom' as being this seperate entity from
the people that comprise it, an entity that must be appeased. Everyone
has a different way of liking furries, and more often than not if they
have come all the way to a con they probably have at least some regard
for funny animals -- seeing someone running around in say, a collar, ears,
short-shorts and a bunny tail doesn't mean they're at the con just to get
laid and have no interest in furries, they just have a different way of
expressing themselves - and they are in some way participating.

>>gay artists, fans, fanboys, writers, whatever. A lot of them are from
>>Furrymuck and I have seen how the open, tolerant atmosphere of furry
>>fandom as a whole and furrymuck in particular has helped a lot of people
>>to come to grips with their sexuality, and find love and acceptance. To
>>a lot of people that has been a godsend. I think going back to the guns-
>>and-vixens atmosphere of furry fandom that was here when I started (at
>>least among the group I started with) would be an immense loss.
>
>Hmmm, the subtext I'm picking up here is that we should be tolerant of gay
>furries, but there's something wrong with vixens and guns. Maybe you
>should have that plank in your eye taken care of before you start poking
>after the speck in mine.

Not quite. Because, there are still guns and vixens in the fandom - and
I'm not saying we should eliminate them. I am just glad it's not ALL guns
and vixens.

>I could say something about "Since when is it the responsibility of the
>people who happen to like Beatrix Potter and Disney films to provide an
>environment where young gay men can come to grips with their sexuality? I
>mean, shouldn't they turn to the gay community for that? They have a lot
>more experience with that sort of thing." But frankly, that's not the

The problem is the mainstream gay community is very appearance-oriented
and sadly, not all that accepting to a lot of people who don't fit either
the 'pretty boy' or 'bear' molds. I think that is a definite problem but
i'm glad there's furry to pick up SOME of the slack.

>problem I have. Anything that keeps a young gay male from offing himself
>is a good thing. The problem is that they've been abusing everyone else.
>There's nothing wrong with gay furries. There IS something wrong with
>reckless, abusive, and rude gay furries. Whether it's needless
>psychodrama, willful ignorace of safe sex practices, or simple lack of
>grace and common decency, what these young people are getting from furry
>fandom lacks one of the things they desperately need. Discipline (Self or
>otherwise). Behaviour that would be damn close to the edge at a pride
>march is way over it at a convention. I only ask two things of them: A
>little common courtesy, and that if they don't have a sincere interest in
>anthropomorphics, they stay home.

Those I can agree with, actually. The psychodrama and ignorance of safe
sex actually, is something most people went through in junior high. But
now you get a large number of furries, who are gay or bisexual, and quite
frequently not that experienced relationship-wise, going through the same
things their straight friends experienced on the class trip to Washington
in Grade 8. Of course it is intense. Unfortunately it kinda goes with
the territory. Yes, MAYBE some people could tone it down a notch.
But everyone's definition of a 'notch' varies, and some people's notches
are all the way out of the fandom. Whose notch do you use?

>>As for our reputations in other fandoms, I could give a rat's ass what
>>some Trekkies think of furry. Anime has a FAR worse reputation for
>

>The problem is, what if it's not just an isolated con? What happens when
>loathing of Furry Fandom is widespread? This isn't a what if. Right now,
>if you want a job in animation, you'd better take all your furriness and
>stuff it deep in the closet and hope nobody digs it out. (Try asking Dave
>Kuhn about Furry stuff.) When Warner Brothers slams tiny toon fandom in
>a nationally broadcast evening special, then you know that this fandom has
>accumulated some powerful enemies.

First of all, Disney/warners would be upset about ANY spooge, furry or
not. PG furry stuff I can't see being a problem. And I'd be willing to
bet that it isn't the presense of spooge but anthropomorphics themselves
that are the target of ridicule. Even if it was squeaky-clean it would
still be thought of as 'childish' by narrow minded SF fans. Warners was
slamming nerdy, obsessive fans who make Tiny Toons the focus of their
whole lives, which is not an unworthy target for slamming IMHO.
The people at my job, where I write for a television show (the
anti-gravity room segment on furries was my idea) were exposed to the best
and the worst of furry fandom. They saw 'Albedo' and 'Omaha', i mentioned
that there was harder-core spooge, the camera crew at the con saw the
kinkiest of the artwork, and all I got were a few joking comments, which
I answered with jokes of my own. People EXPECT some kind of sexual
artwork, they didn't treat me like I had the plague, because I was
careful to put it in context. It was regarded as, at worst, kinda geeky,
but not grounds for incarceration.

>At SDCC, why is it that the furry panels are always scheduled late at
>night, when the other publishers are having their parties? And why do the
>panels end up with titles like "How can you find IT under all that fur?"
>SDCC is the largest comics media con in the world, and every single person
>in attendence gets a program book where the only mention of anything furry
>has ridicule written all over it. Hold your head up? Sure. Once you've
>bent your shoulders down against the sand. "What image problem?"

I know that there's some comics fans who slag on furries, or anime fans
who slag on furries, or whatever. Do we wring our hands and mold our
fandom to suit their interests in the hopes they won't slag us? Even
if we did I still think they'd have snarky comments to make, because
that's human nature. I think a better approach is to slag back, in good
fun, and thus continue the great circle of life. They're just RIBBING
more often than not, I wish people wouldn't take it so seriously. If
the person bears a serious chip on their shoulder against furry and is in
a position of power at a con I don't think altering our own con (which
said chip-holder wouldn't be near anyways) is going to help any.
You don't have to justify your like of furries to anyone. If they really
hate you for it, it's their own problem.

>It seems that some people LIKE furry fandom to be the cesspit it's
>becoming. They like to wallow in their own filth. They are having their
>fun, and don't care how much it stinks up things for everyone else. As
>long as they get their jollies, the rest of us can go to hell.

You're not wrong. The scam artists, etc. you mentioned are definitely in
that category. I just disagreed with some of your categorizations and
blanket statements.

> I want the
>future to be better than things are now.

You're not alone Rich! I started Animus with just that goal in mind.
To provide an alternative - without killing what's already here.
(yeah, ok, so it's been slow developing, I've been busy with RL, but
it's still very much alive) Animus might well produce erotica, but
it'll have something to it BESIDES sex - some sort of artistic statement.
I believe the promotion of agendas is a fundamental reason for art
and should be encouraged rather than quashed. A 'message' of some kind
seperates art from illustration IMO. Illustration is all well and good,
and entertaining, and can take you away to other worlds, and even evoke
emotions.. but when it does all that PLUS delivers a message about us,
we humans, on this planet at this time, that the artist feels is
important, then it becomes true art. I have seen tons of illustration,
often of excellent quality, but very little art. My biggest hope for
the future is that there'll be more of it - and that takes agendas and
plenty of them. Whether I agree with the agenda or not is immaterial -
in fact disagreeing strongly with something is healthier than a steady
diet of orthodoxy. (it's why I watch Rush Limbaugh) In any case, that
would have to be my biggest beef with your editorial. That in the name
of anthropomorphics, we should tone down the fandom until it is a
monochromatic world view that won't offend, but won't produce any
art either, just lots and lots of illustrations.

>[I deleted the long rant that shows that you can be just as intolerant as
>you accuse me of being]

For that I apologize, I was in a mood to spout off, and that's just what
happened. I'm sure you know how that feels :)

Look, I'm not out to make any enemies, but I happen to think there's some
things about modern furry fandom that are good, and necessary, and might
offend or disgust some people, but that's what makes them so important.
By treating tolerance as a weakness, we lose our diversity which is our
main strength, regardless of what bigots think.

and...@interlog.com

unread,
Jun 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/19/96
to

mau...@teleport.com (Richard Chandler) wrote:
>If the fandom consists of simply anyone who calls themselves a Furry, then
>what's so special about being a furry? Am I really all that far off base
>by wanting anyone who claims to be a fan of furries to actually have a
>sincere interest in the meta-genre?
No.. but how do you define 'sincere interest?'

It's true that for furry fandom to be unique it must have barriers..
something that says, "Furry Fandom starts and ends here." But how do
you define where that barrier is? Especially when a lot of people
have differing definitions all ready?

My main problem with your editorial is that you seem to want to define
the fandom in way that will exclude people who's interest in things
furry are differant from your own. If a fur enjoys playing a
character on FurryMuck and getting together at furry cons to meet and
perhapse have sex with the people s/he has met online; who are you to
say they aren't allowed to?

I've rarely bought (or sold) artwork at conventions and I've never
attended a SIG. (Tho I regret having missed ones on things artistic..
I can never keep the con sechedual straight.) Does that make me a
non-contributor? I suppose because I draw and publish my artwork I do
contribute to a certain degree.. but what if I didn't know how to
draw? If a fur shows up a a con, has a great time him/herself and
helps their furry friends enjoy themselves, I think they've
contributed in the most valuable way possible.. by making others furs
happy.

>Then you misread me. The "good old days" are what brought us to this
>sorry state.

I don't really see that the fandom is in a 'sorry state.' There are
things about it that I also think could be better, and some of them I
agree with you about...

'Ghosting' cons is definatly not to be tollerated, it's grossly unfair
to the people paying for the con.. both the ones running it and the
folks who have paid their way.

I also dislike the reputation the fandom seems to have in professional
circles.. but I see that more as a problem on their end. True,
erotica is hardly professional.. but fandoms aren't supposed to be
professional. That's the whole point. It's a chance to get away from
work-a-day life. It can become a problem when people don't keep their
private furry lives out of their professional lives. For example I
wouldn't put an erotic furry picture up at my desk any more than I'd
put up a photo spread from a gay porn magazine. And nude furries do
-not- cavort through my professional portfolio. I'll admit to some
concern regarding how being a furry fan might affect my career as an
animator.. but my being furry doesn't affect my skills as an artist
and will not show up 'on the job' so it's really none of my employer's
bussiness as long as I maintain a professional demeanor at work.
(Depending on the contract of course.. some studios have a clause of
exclusivity which would forbid me from selling my artwork to anyone
but them. That doesn't cover giving it away however.)

Sex at cons doesn't concern me as long as it' s kept private. If
someone does something in public that upsets me then it's either time
to let them know that they're going to far, or to move on if I'm the
one at fault. (I have to admit that I find straight couples necking
pretty gross. But that's my problem and I won't inflict it on other
people.) If someone get's upset or beligerant about it'd surely be a
case for hotel security, non? That people might, out of ignorance
alone I hope, engage in unsafe sex at cons also upsets me. I don't
want my friends dying on me.. and don't want to catch anything nasty
either. Which is why I will be distributing a free guide to safer sex
at CFE2 (with beautiful yiffy artwork donated by several prominant
furry artists.. including your's truely *grin*) and hopefully it will
be available at future cons. Maybe it will help.

>on it. And I did it for you, if you recall. I'm the one who smoothed out
>the feelings of some people who objected to some of the things you put in
>Gallery. You should grant me the same courtesy.

No one has ever told me that talking in Gallery about my dislike of
weaponry is inflammatory. Perhapse I was a little out of hand in
saying that owning a gun is an act of violence.. clarifying that this
is simply how I feel on the issue was probably called for. For that I
appologize.. and will in Gallery as well if anyone takes offence. The
only reason I boach that topic at all is when someone else brings it
up.. I feel it's important that there be a counter point so things
don't seem overly biased. That aside, you may recall that I once gave
you advice that helped you avoid publishing a potentially damaging
editorial. I do care about Gallery and what happens in it.. which is
why this editorial upset me so much. If I didn't care I'd have either
ignored it or just quit out of hand, non?

Instead here we are, talking about it. :)

> Hell, the main reason I commented on the lack of
>comment was in hopes to draw some out.

Sorry.. I'd've been in touch sooner but it takes an extra week before
I get my copy.

>As for being unprofessional. FIJAGDH. This isn't my job. I don't depend
>on it for a living. Hell, I don't even make any money on it.

Umm.. I don't understand FIJAGDH and I think Gallery is a professional
'zine; it's sold to the public and the contributors are making money
off of it. And upon reflection I've realized that it's your
inflammatory writing style that I'm objecting to when I called you
unprofessional. But that's a valid stylistic choice.

>"Ethnic Cleansing" Why not just call me Hitler and get the argument over
>with?

The thought of calling your agenda 'fascist' did occour to me. But
that sounded pretty silly and would be sure to end the conversation.

>The whole Mass Graves thing was a metaphor.

You said the whole thing was a 'half joke.' I'm not sure how you go
halfsies on things like executing people. Again.. inflammatory
writing that shoves glass under my skin. To me it's like telling
jokes about the Holocoust.. it really pisses me off that such an
insanely horrible thing should be treated as a joke. Especially when
me and/or my friends are the butt of it.

>Hell, there's nothing I can do to stop you from taking your ball and going
>home either. But if you go, you're letting me win.

That's one of the reasons I'm still here. Like I said.. I'd hate for
there to only be one point of view expressed; especially when I have a
fairly differant point of view.

>On the other hand,
>you can take that same list I gave Wolfie, and tell me which ones you
>really think ought to stay to make Furry Fandom a better place than it is.

I had a quick glance at it. My main concern here is how you would
suggest we go about determinging who the 'good' furries are and who
the 'bad' ones are.. and how to deal with them. So far you've only
come up with mass executions.. and we both know now what I think of
that.

>There are a bunch of people in Gallery who hate each-other's guts, believe
>it or not, but for the good of the book, they deal with it. And it's
>perfectly okay for you to hate me if you want.

Really? *wuf* I'd never noticed.. but then I tend to miss that kinda
thing. I have to admit to disliking one or two members as well.. but
certainly I don't hate them.. and I don't hate you. I'm only
concerned about the opinions you are expressing and worried that you
(and maybe other people) might belive them to be a good agenda to use
to modify the fandom. Yes.. I know I'm lending a bit too much weight
to your ideas, that almost certianly nothing will change. But at
least by voicing my concerns I'll help make sure that nothing changes
for what I think is the worse.

Such vainity, eh? Thinking that my words have any power.

>I have never kicked anyone
>out of Gallery, and it will be a sad day if I ever do, so that's one thing
>you needn't worry about. Say what you want. Savage me up and down in
>your next trib if you feel it's necessary, or turn the other cheek. It's
>your option.

Okay. I'll most certainly have something about it in my next trib.
Tho hopefully with our discussions here it will be more constructive
than merely complaining that you're full of it. *giggle*

Yeah.. I'm staying. :)

>Personally, I think you ought to at least stick around for "Pedestals".
>You may find that I'm not quite so evil or small-minded after all.

I'm looking forward to it.. tho I wish you had published it alongside
your tirade. It's a hell of a long wait between issues.

- Andrew Murphy-Mee -

Herman Miller

unread,
Jun 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/19/96
to

In article <4q5ku6$a...@nadine.teleport.com>, mau...@teleport.com says...

>
>In my editorial, I flamed the following sorts of scum:

> - Dilletantes, or specifically, people who came to furry fandom through

>the net, but who aren't interested in Furryness so much as it's just a
>crowd to hang with.

And what's wrong with that? It's not like we're some secret society with
passwords, hand signals, and such. If furry fandom isn't open to anyone who
wants to participate, even to the minimal extent of just hanging out with
furries, that's part of the problem. Did I miss the "Lurkers Not Welcome"
sign on my way into the newsgroup?

> - People who used the fandom as some sort of stepping stone for promoting
>their own, wholly unrelated agenda.
> - In particular, those who in the past set the tone trying to turn it
> into their own private sexual playground.
> - and as an example, I slammed the "Dr. Pepper file".

But "Dr. Pepper" wasn't even furry! Besides, the exaggerated account of the
prevalence of furry sexuality is only one part of a file that is otherwise
fairly perceptive, from a non-furry-fan.

No doubt there are some (many?) who enjoy furry sexual role-playing. Is it
wrong to call their interest "furry"? What about someone whose primary
interest in furry topics is children's literature? They're all interested
in furry topics, but some furry fans are simply more specialized than
others.

--
new & improved home page! +----------<http://www.io.com/~hmiller/>----------
|"You have passed a law that will get less respect
Thryomanes (Herman Miller)| than the 55 m.p.h. speed limit dead bang in the
(hmi...@io.com) | middle of the First Amendment." - Steve Russell


FarStar Station

unread,
Jun 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/19/96
to

Ack, too much to quote!

Gary Burke (ga...@zot.io.org) wrote:
: I concur 100%. I also read the editorial in Gallery and was struck by


: the subtext that only artists and people who buy lots of art are valid
: furry fans, that those who just hang out on furrymuck, like furries,
: and go to cons to meet their friends in RL are 'dilettantes' who should
: be expunged from the fandom. "Take back our fandom" is how you worded
: it Rich, if I'm not mistaken, along with a general attitude that we've
: been too tolerant of these dog-collar wearing, T-or-D playing faggots
: who could all use a good kick in the ass. (Jim Groat's con report had a
: similar tone, although I've come to expect that from him)

Now, I also pointed out to Rich (in live coversation this last week) that
I thought his editorial sorta left out people who don't buy much, etc.

Mostly because that part sorta includes me, poor as I am.

Now, he told me that's not what he meant (didn't think it was).

I think there is a problem with the words, not his message - they can be
interpreted in being broader than he meant. It's hard to seperate the
bums from the window shoppers and the poor in this case...

It's Rich's mag, so he gets to use it as he wants. I really think he has
a good point here: We need to get together and create a positive
atmosphere for more than just sex.

Why does the Caberet need to be sex-oriented? Why were people not
behaving themselves at the con? I don't know, myself. And it's this kind
of stuff that bugs me.

Rich has good reason to give a care about what the rest of the world
thinks of 'us'. He's certainly not homophobic, nor did he single them out
except for due cause. My 'gay' friends throught of furry as a 'gay'
fandom, I found out. Tolerant, yes. Homosexual only, no.

Why can't you give a care what other people think?
I'm not asking that you base your opinions on theirs, I'm asking for a bit
of consideration for others...

Thanks
Crissa

--
sgc...@teleport.COM Public Access User --- Not affiliated with Teleport
I am only but one... Which one I can never be sure, but definitely me.
Contents Copyright 1996 - Stacey Ann Croft
http://www.teleport.com/~sgc201 <no adspace avail> :)

Sean Lyon Castro

unread,
Jun 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/19/96
to

Richard Chandler (mau...@teleport.com) wrote:

: This issue also features a scathing editorial about everything I think is
: wrong in the Fandom, which I was hoping would be really controversial, but
: the only feedback I've been getting is "Yeah, those things have been
: bugging me too, but I never put them into words like that." so far.

On Rich Chandler and Gallery #25...

It took me a little while to respond to your editorial mostly because I was
in absolute shock that you wrote it in the first place. I have rarely if
ever seen so much arrogant opinionated rambling presented as some sort of
state of the union address for any group or community, let alone Furry. So
it took me some time to put together a response that I felt properly
addressed your statements.

I'd like to start off with a comment to those who I have spoken to about the
article who say, "He makes some good points, but..." I don't take exception
with the entire article any more than anyone I've spoken to about it does.
However, that does not excuse your actions. The end doesn't justify the
means, and your attempts to guise your vitriolic opinions of members of
Furry Fandom as helpful comments on what Furry needs to fix itself (Your
quaint little 'Shallow Grave' comments - Could you have put it any more
inappropriately?) doesn't excuse the content.

As an analogy, during the 1950's Senator McCarthy and his crew had some very
noble goals (Protection of America's security) and some very real enemies
(Communism). However, this did not excuse him labelling American citizens as
subversive to our way of life, or his attacks on individuals who were
innocent people who also happened to associate with communists. Similarly,
just because there're things wrong with Furry doesn't mean it's right for
you to single out groups you see as subversive to 'True Furry' culture and
brand members of those groups as detrimental to fandom. It's a form of
bigotry, pure and simple.

I'll respond in the common Internet-style of quotation and response. I'll
keep the quotations of your editorial mercifully brief, partially for
brevity and partially because in just about all of your points you have a
few choice statements that speak volumes about you and I take the most
exception to.

Gay Furries

"Particularly those, because a lot of these fellows are much more inclined
to give than to receive, which some in the mainstream gay community might
consider a failure to commit, that by not taking the receptive end, one is
merely substituting a butt for a vagina."

What in heaven's name are you talking about here, Rich? First of all, who
are you to call into question ANYBODY'S sexuality, furry or otherwise? What
kind of arrogant ass are you to think you have the slightest right to
comment on someone's 'true gayness' or for that matter true heterosexuality.
Then you take it even further to the statement above, linking the desire to
'give' rather than receive anal sex as some sort of commitment issue? I
wasn't aware you were a sexual psychologist.

I can't figure out exactly what you think is wrong here... You ramble about
people who aren't really gay, young men who ARE gay attracted to the fandom
('Scuse me, but I don't exactly see our little corner of the world as being
young attractive male surplussed. Perhaps I'm just missing it.) You speak so
nebulously it's difficult to figure out anything except that you seem really
down on males having sex with males. Unless they're motives are pure and
they're seasoned gay sex participants, that is.

Oh, and you can be gay and still be bigoted. In fact, I think your comments
in this section are perhaps the best evidence of that I've yet to see.

Safe sex

"A lot of those people who come to Furry Fandom in search of a sexual
free-for-all and unfortunately finding it..."

"Yeah, maybe I haven't heard about any Furries dying from AIDS yet, but you
out there who are doing this should get it though your thick skulls there's
a hell of a lot of other nasty things out there to get, and your illusory
veil of protection has already been penetrated by hepatits."

Ah, here's Rich the safe-sex martyr. All us poor moronic fools killing
ourselves and we need daddy Rich to teach us about safer sex. Thank you,
Rich, but last time I checked whether to be safe or unsafe was still a
personal choice up to the individual. If you want to be helpful, instead of
arrogant, you could list the names of safer-sex promoting organizations. But
you don't, you just explain to us all how stupid we all are. You'd rather
just sound like the voice of reason among turkeys. Is it frightening that
people are engaging in unsafe sex? Absolutely. But instead of soapboxing
and waxing didactic about it you could have tried something constructive.

Furry's a big comminuty, Rich. I've known people who've gotten STD's from
both inside and outside the fandom. It's sexual life in America, and even
safe sex won't protect you from some of them.

Oh, and some Furries HAVE died of complications arising from AIDS, and you
both do a terrible disservice to their memories AND show your ignorance in
one fell swoop. Congratulations.

Net Furries

"Maybe it isn't [wonderful]. Being on the Internet has made it a lot
easier for people to find Furry Fandom. Perhaps too easy."

"Frankly, with some of the trends I've been observing, it's [the net] been
poisoning us."

"But if they aren't dedicated people, are the numbers amplifying us, or
diluting us?"

"Even more aggravating are the ones who refuse to become educated because
they don't care. They have no interest in the history of fandom the've
chosen to become involed in or what it's about."

(Not a real quote below)
'Why, when I was a kid, I had to walk 10 miles just to look at a Lance Rund
picture! We didn't have these NET CONNECTIONS, we didn't have these
CONVENTIONS, and we LIKED IT!'

So net furries are ruining the fandom? Nevermind that it's linked fans and
artists from across the entire planet into a unified culture. Nevermind
that people who never would have even heard of the fandom let alone joined
it have been able to participate in a meaningful fashion. No, all the net's
done is brought legions of sex-commission begging fools who have nothing to
contribute to the fandom. Once again I'm shocked by your incredible
stupidity, in thinking that MORE members joining the fandom and more people
participating somehow 'taints' it.

So what if they think the net is all there is? Who cares? Before the net,
all furry was was a bunch of people talking on BBS's and in person. Before
that, it was an even smaller group, some of them artists and some of them
fans (Probably in the same ratio!) and many of them just as obnoxious as the
current make-up, all only talking in person.. You have no idea how much you
sound like a crotchety old man complaining about how all these newfangled
gadgets are messing up our society. The good old days weren't always good,
Rich, and electronic culture has brought us much more rich, deep culture
than we could have ever had without it.

And why do these people need to become educated anyway? Do they need to have
some sort of respect for people like you, the 'first furries'? I'm sorry, I
don't know the history of Star Trek fandom and I'll bet most people in it
don't either, and don't care to. It's not slight to the fandom or to them -
Why is it such a big deal to you?

Sex Commissions

"I agree, the whole genre is capable of so much, but what has happened
is that the cart is now before the horse."

"Instead of artists drawing what their muses tell them, and selling it to
those who share their vision, we have this ever growing mob of consumers..."

By the way Rich, in the one sentence above you managed to fit in seven
commas and 10 lines of text. I didn't quote the whole thing because it
would've taken me so long. Sheesh!

On this I have two things to say.

The first being, once again, who cares if the majority of Furries want
sexual stuff? I've seen the titty-bunnies in your house, and they have just
as redeeming art value as anything else. I can't say I'm entirely pleased
with people who want ONLY sexual stuff, but I'm not willing to list them as
the top six things wrong with fandom. You really don't present anything in
your article as to WHY these people cause so many problems, except to
blather about them getting commissions and then feeling like they own the
artist, or something. Well, I've known quite a few artists and that's a
pretty damn rare problem, despite what you seem to think.

Second, people don't HAVE to do sexual art. No one's making them, and it's
not always what's in demand. If your art's good enough, no one really gives
a fig if it's titty-bunnies or not. Baron Engel, John Nunnemacher, and Ruben
Avila are all extremely good examples of artists in our community who do
fantastic art without ever 'having' to do sexual stuff. Some of them and
others may choose to on occassion, but I don't see mr. Engel having any
problem gaining respect as one of the best artists in our community without
a single 'wanna buttfuck' shot.

You seem to think there's this incredible pressure on artists to draw sex. I
think there IS pressure, but I'd say there's also a pressure on them to draw
furry stuff as well. So what? They draw what they want. One of us being an
artist, we have discussed this a few times and feel, basically, that we have
no idea to whom you are referring to when you talk about burnout and people
who think they own either of us after buying some work. I'm sure this HAS
happened to folks, but this doesn't make it a rampant issue, certainly not
the one you seem to think it.

Broad Agendas

"Furry Fandom is a fandom concerning anthropomorphics. It is not a fandom
conerning [many things on Rich's personal hit list deleted]... It's just for
people who like comics, art, stories, or films involving critters. That's
all, really.

Well, roll up the tents and go home, Martha. Rich has spoken, the case is
ended. If he says that's all that Furry fandom is, it's true, so we might as
well just stop talking about anything else.

You go on for quite awhile here about all these 'agendas' in furrydom, when
as Mr. Mee so correctly pointed out, what you go on about is an agenda of
your own! (Although to you of course yours is the right one.) How can you
be so blind to your own arrogance? I very rarely listen to someone say that
the way to further a culture is to trim bits of it they find objectionable.
At least, not since the Jim Crow laws were repealed. You claim to know what
Fandom's 'about', and list anyone not subscribing that ideal as... What?

In fact, here is where one can find your most wild accusations and attacks.
Everyone from sexual deviants to money-grubbing slime are targets of your
commentary, to put a kind term on it. You pretty much manage to blame all of
furry's ills on the vast majority of it's population, with you an apparently
a few stalwart others trying to stem this tide of
[sexuality/greediness/apathy/tolerance] that threatens to undermine the
fandom. (Along with those durn buttfuckers) You don't make as many specific
comments here, but your broad generalizations manage to encompass quite a
huge number of people as being problem-causers. They taint YOUR fandom, they
advocate ideals YOU find distasteful, so of COURSE they're damaging to the
community - How could they not be, you think they are, so it must be true.

You also manage to get your little bestiality digs in there before the
section's over. I know this is also one of your little personal vendettas,
and one I'd guess you just want to make sure you pick on. Frankly, Rich,
Furry Fandom may not BE about any of those things you mention, but that
doesn't mean that people in the fandom aren't also fans of it. You mistake
participating members as a broad agenda... Or do you think these people are
honestly trying to subvert fandom to their evil ways. (Wow, that McCarthy
analogy just keeps getting better and better...)

Your total lack of humility exceeds anything I've seen before. You're so
sure that you're right, so sure that if this fat was trimmed we'd be a
utopian community, you completely ignore the fact that diversity is what
makes things stable and strong, what makes them attractive to new members.
Which brings us right into...

Erotic Art

"Nobody wants to be right on the border. Cheescake has become a dying art
form, because nobody wants to risk the middle ground..."

Uh, what? Huh? I've seen more cheescake than hard erotica in every
Confurance art show I've been to. Do you even look at you own fanzine? Most
of it's cheescake fer chrissakes!

Tolerance

"So how did things get into this sorry state? One word, tolerance, explains
it all. It's one of those offshoot of political correctness that came along
with all those broad agenda folks."

My final specific comments I don't even know how to formulate. You manage to
boil all these 'problems' down to one thing, and to you I send a hearty
fuck-you. You blame tolerance for the problems in Furrydom? You blame
tolerance for the ills in our society too, it would seem, since you label it
broadly as a PC term applying to {what he said}. I'm not even going to try
to refute this. People who see tolerance as a problem are just as screwed up
as you, and those who don't don't need additional comments to butress their
opinions.

Intolerance comes awfully close to bigotry, once again you loudly brag your
open-mindedness while your opinions don't support it. Label me a PC
broad-agenda furry if you want, but for all your claiming it's not it's
still prejudice you're advocating. You're doing the equivalent of a
neighborhood doing a "Take back the streets!" program by advocating tossing
out the minorities since they're the ones causing the problem.

In closing, Rich, you're an ignorant, cynical, yes intolerant individual who
feels it necessary to use his artistic fanzine as a mouthpiece for his
ridiculous opinions. If your readers were interested in your rambling
opinions I'm sure you could post them to Usenet - The vast majority of your
readers I'd venture to guess don't give a fig what you think is wrong with
the fandom. (In fact, those drooling gay sex-commission buying, buttfucking,
net furries are probably just looking for the next sexual piece in your
'zine - Which there's certainly no shortage of. I suppose you just have to
'tolerate' those artists who insist on submitting such subversive smut.) But
even if they did, and even if your editorial was the right and appropriate
forum for you to spew your beliefs, you're still way, way off the mark.

In fact, I think one of those graves is just about overflowing with your
hateful and ridiculous assertions. We'll have to figure out a way to fit
tolerance into the other five.

[Lyon]
I ask that you consider this formal notification that I will no longer be
contributing to your fanzine and I wish my subscription to it immediately
canelled. Any outstanding balance is yours to keep. I'm not interested in
a refund check.

This letter is a joint message from both Cinnamon and Lyon. Although the
pronouns are in most cases 'I' it is a cooperatively written open letter
to Rich.

Cinnamon and Lyon

AP's Matt

unread,
Jun 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/19/96
to

In article <4q087d$5...@epx.cis.umn.edu> Timothy D Fay,

fayx...@maroon.tc.umn.edu writes:
>I thought it was a fine editorial, Richard. (If such a comment from me
>doesn't destroy your credibility, it should at least cause you to remember
>your last three meals :) ). I thought quote from Eric Blumrich was
>especially powerful, and I think you should reprint it here in a.f.f.

And just to throw in my two cents, I agree with about 95% of what Rich
says in his editorial as well (and the couple of people I know who
read it agree wholeheartedly as well.) You really hit the nail on the
head, Rich - and boy do you hit it hard.

Best,
- mlh

Robert B. Kirkpatrick

unread,
Jun 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/19/96
to

and...@interlog.com wrote:

: Furry fandom is a social club, not a Cult of the Artist. It's not


: defined by `true believer' furries who dedicate themselves to
: furthering some primal furry agenda with their creativity or
: patronage. It's defined by everyone who calls themselves a furry fan.

While, I dont dissagree with your assertion that anyone who calls themself
a furryfan is a furryfan, and that furrydom is largely a social animal.
The fact is that all furry fans I know of are also fans of work done by
artist, writers, animators, and any number of other creative types. Fans
would do well to acknowledge this and do what they can to support an
enviroment that will encourage creators to stay and develope there
craft, without fear of being caught in the rut that furry artist find
themselves in now.( mainly that employers, whom seem like the logical
destination for creators, seem to have a poor opinion of furrydom, or
maybe they just dont want to be associated with what it is now.

: There are a lot of people saying they are fans and as a result there


: are many different approaches to enjoying being furry. The internet,
: conventions, fanzines, prozines and all the other ways that furries
: interact with one another are vital parts of the fandom.

: _All_ of these diverse ideas are valid and have to be, not just
: tolerated, but accepted.

Sorry, but I researve the right to determine what I will tolerate, and
accept. I dont think "furry fan" is defined as anyone who accepts all of
everything called "furry", nor do I think they should support anything
that goes countered to thier principles, and beliefs.

: It's selfish and patronizing to insist that


: people enjoy fandom your way or not at all. That doesn't mean we
: can't debate our just plain argue about our opinions, as long as folks
: avoid confusing their feelings with being some kind of higher belief.
: That they are a voice for the `one true way' that is more valid than
: anyone else's ideas.

So we can "talk" about whats wrong with furrydom, just so long as noone
takes action to change it? Or make it better, friendlier, and more
inclusive?

Somehow I think we all need to take actions that support our own beliefs,
principles, and feeling. The freemarket will decide what happens to the
sub-groups that call them-selves furry, and thats exactly the way it
should be.

Robert


Robert B. Kirkpatrick

unread,
Jun 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/19/96
to

Gary Burke (ga...@zot.io.org) wrote:
: There'd be no spooge in the art show, and the businessmen and
: christian revivalists staying at the same hotel wouldn't see anything to
: offend their delicate sensibilities. It'd be Disney in the video room
: and the dealers room would be back issues of Furrlough and Albedo for as
: far as the eye could see. Sounds like a fun con..

Better yet, Disney would be proud to have a table there, right across from
the Warner Brothers table. Moms and Dads could bring their kids, and their
money. Wow, and with the increased revenues and exposure we could have
thousands of furries, and creators that dont move on and try to hide every
connection they ever made with furrydom. The furry-industries hand in
hand with the furry fandom, yeah just imagine the potential.

Yeah that does sound like a fun con to me.:)

Robert


D.P.Cannon

unread,
Jun 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/19/96
to

and...@interlog.com wrote:
>

Furry fandom is a social club, not a Cult of the Artist. It's not
>defined by `true believer' furries who dedicate themselves to
>furthering some primal furry agenda with their creativity or

>patronage.It's defined by everyone who calls themselves a furry fan.

That leaves a rather amorphous, ill-defined fandom, one with too
many fringe agendas having little to do with the genre as an enter-
tainment form.

>There are a lot of people saying they are fans and as a result there
>are many different approaches to enjoying being furry. The internet,
>conventions, fanzines, prozines and all the other ways that furries
>interact with one another are vital parts of the fandom.

That's the entertainment aspect, and communication within the genre
interest.

> _All_ of these diverse ideas are valid and have to be, not just

>tolerated, but accepted. It's selfish and patronizing to insist that


>people enjoy fandom your way or not at all. That doesn't mean we
>can't debate our just plain argue about our opinions, as long as folks
>avoid confusing their feelings with being some kind of higher belief.
>That they are a voice for the `one true way' that is more valid than
>anyone else's ideas.

Where does that leave us when a few bad apples spoil the barrel for
our reputation as a valid entertainment genre? I fail to see where
people using the fandom as a place to discover theier sexuality, and
use it as a place for support of such, or the display of such lifestyle
in public forums like cons where the uinitiated are frightened away,
because it wasn't what they thought it would be about. Lack of taste,
self-restraint, and consideration to possible newbies is scaring away
new interest, and the fandom is turning into a pointless freakshow.

> For example; I strongly disagree with your agenda to de-evolve the
>fandom into something that would fit into your narrow ideas.
>Especially by means of some form of `ethnic cleansing.' The diversity
>of people, artwork and social expression in the fandom is what makes
>if worthwhile to me.

The some aspects of the social expression could stay behind closed
dorrs, though.

I know I'm not the only artist having these
>thoughts.

> The cons outweigh the pros and there are other, less polit-icky,
>`zines out there. However I've met and made friends with several
>wonderful people because of Gallery and it does give many fans a
>chance to see my work. So I'm not sure what to do. Either way I want
>to make the decision soon because I dislike how much stress this is
>putting on me.

Then bug out. I think Gallery has all the pointless pinup artists
it needs, anyway.

D.P. Cannon


Matthew Philip Clark

unread,
Jun 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/19/96
to

In article <4q896q$q...@nadine.teleport.com>, ly...@teleport.com (Sean Lyon
Castro) wrote:

> Net Furries
>
> "Maybe it isn't [wonderful]. Being on the Internet has made it a lot
> easier for people to find Furry Fandom. Perhaps too easy."
>
> "Frankly, with some of the trends I've been observing, it's [the net] been
> poisoning us."
>
> "But if they aren't dedicated people, are the numbers amplifying us, or
> diluting us?"
>

> So net furries are ruining the fandom? Nevermind that it's linked fans and
> artists from across the entire planet into a unified culture. Nevermind
> that people who never would have even heard of the fandom let alone joined
> it have been able to participate in a meaningful fashion. No, all the net's
> done is brought legions of sex-commission begging fools who have nothing to
> contribute to the fandom. Once again I'm shocked by your incredible
> stupidity, in thinking that MORE members joining the fandom and more people
> participating somehow 'taints' it.

(nothing personal.. but)
I happen to agree with Sean here. If it wasn't for the internet we
wouldn't have a lot of the good fans we have now. The entire internet
isn't full of scumbags. When I was extreamly fortunate to find a copy of
Xanadu at Half Price Books, and I wanted to find more. I didn't even know
that there was more. If it wasn't for accedentally stumbling into this
newsgroup, I'd have never figured out there was more, and I'd probibly
stopped buy comic books by now. Here in Dead Jesus, Texas(1) it's hard to
find a comic book store that carries anything but Marvel, DC, and Image.

Note:
(1) Dead Jesus, Texas: A kinda dirogatory nick name for Corpus Christi,
Texas... heard it from my friend GizmoDuck, who lived here for about a
year...

> "Even more aggravating are the ones who refuse to become educated because
> they don't care. They have no interest in the history of fandom the've
> chosen to become involed in or what it's about."

You run into this type of person everywhere. Simple fact is they
exist, and we've got to live with them.

> Broad Agendas
>
> "Furry Fandom is a fandom concerning anthropomorphics. It is not a fandom
> conerning [many things on Rich's personal hit list deleted]... It's just for
> people who like comics, art, stories, or films involving critters. That's
> all, really.
>
> Well, roll up the tents and go home, Martha. Rich has spoken, the case is
> ended. If he says that's all that Furry fandom is, it's true, so we might as
> well just stop talking about anything else.

(still nothing personal... but...)
Well, here I happen to agree with Rich. The fandom (contrary to some
people's beliefs) *IS* just about stories, art, films, etc, involving
anthropomorphic characters. But, that is still fairly broad. I reins in
a lot of things, and with that people.
If I know anything about human nature I know that people have a hard
time leaving all thier agendas out of the other things they do. They in
turn bring that to furry fandom, and taint it, and THAT is what I think
Rich is refuring to.

--
+-----------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Matthew Philip Clark | NiN / Magic / RPG / Furry / |
| aka Rabbit / Ranma / Usagi | B5 / Anime / Computer Phreak! |
+-----------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Sysop DiSaSteR ArEa BBS | Send Comments/Flames/etc to: |
| ANTiCAUG, BLiTZ, THS | mpc5...@kestrel.tamucc.edu |
| (512) xXx-XxXx | us...@cdsbbs.com |
|================================================================

Who has literally read just about everything on Avatar, and
happens to think that geneticly engineered furries wouldn't
be to bad of an idea, as long as SOME ethics (and common
sense) are used...

Scott Whitmore

unread,
Jun 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/19/96
to

Genesis Cook here, swiping Scott Whitmore's account once again! :)

I'm one of the people who stands in agreement with Rich's editorial. The
wording is quite harsh yes... but advanced diseases require very strong
medicine.

Do I feel that all NC-17 artwork should be banned from furry fandom? No.

Do I feel that all homosexuals or bisexuals should be banned? No.

I think that like rich, and many of us who have to deal with the variety
of people in this fandom every time we attend a con, we just feel that
people should just learn a little respect, consideration, and understanding.

I am in the fandom to be with other artists. I'm not here to get laid,
to buy all the masturbation material I can find, to stroke my ego, nor
even to make money. I'm here to share my art with other artists, to
learn from them, and just generally share what I like to draw and why I
like it.

I draw furries because they're fun... I don't fantasize about having sex
with my characters. I don't view my characters as sexual beings even. I
really love the variety of expression you can get out of an animal
character, ruffled fur, bared fangs and teeth, flattened ears, puffed out
whiskers, narrowed eyes; and that is why I draw them.

So... I've tried to make an effort to let people know... I don't draw
erotica. I'm not offended by it, but I don't draw it myself. I feel
uncomfortable doing so... I always have, I always will. but I respect
talent. the complete and total mastery of anatomy and body poses that
Ken Sample and Jermey Kidd posess. the lively and energetic characters
of andrew Murphy Mee. Turning your nose at good art just because of the
subject matter if an act of intolerance in itself.

Yet... every con I hear....

"Hey! I bought that picture of Amber you drew for CF6, it's hanging in
my bathroom in a nice glass frame so it won't get spooge all over it when
I..."

"why don;t you draw erotica? you stuck up or something?"

"Can you draw me a picture of a naked vixen getting tortured by a wolf?
Oh.. you don't draw spooge? Well.. what about a just a naked vixen?
What? you don't even draw nudes? Well... how about a naked vixen.. but
make it funny! no? Well, can't you just make an exception just this
once? No? Pleeeese!!!!!"

So... are these examples of a healthy tolerant and understanding fandom?
One that accepts erotica.. but respects an artist's rights to not draw it?

Is it supposed to be some kind of compliment when someone comes up to you
and tells you that they want to have sex with one of your characters...
or lets you know that they use a bit of artwork they bought off of you as
masturbation material? ESPECIALLY when that wasn't the intent of the
picture at all?

We'll.. go over what Rich said here...

Richard Chandler (mau...@teleport.com) wrote:

: In my editorial, I flamed the following sorts of scum:
: - Scam artists.

Do you think it's right for someone to come up to artists and writers,
promise them lots and lots of money if they just give out free art to
them? Do you think that those people should go unpunished when dozens of
artists are never paid what they're promised?

: - Mercenaries who don't care about the fandom, they just wanna make money
: from it.

I've seen these types. they're rude to artists because they view them as
"competetion" they view fans as something no better than livestock with
money they want. The artwork they sell is usualy boring, ugly, and
heartless. Artwork drawn for the sole purpose of making money tends to
be that way. Am I wrong in wanting to get these carpetbaggers out?

: - Dilletantes, or specifically, people who came to furry fandom through

: the net, but who aren't interested in Furryness so much as it's just a
: crowd to hang with.

It's not much to ask for someone in the fandom to at least be interested
in furry art, is it? Not even for purchase even... but simply have some
kind of interest other than the partners they meet there? why on earth
would someone waste their time to go to a furcon when they never step
foot in the dealers room or the artshow.. and rarely even leave their
hotel room? should these people even call themselves "furries"?

: - People who used the fandom as some sort of stepping stone for promoting

: their own, wholly unrelated agenda.

"Furry fandom is about homosexuality" "Furry fandom is about Zoophilia"
"furry fandom is about plushies" "Furry fandom is about foxes"

An example, I like gryphons. nothing would make me happier than to see
people... everyone draw them! Is furry fandom about Gryphons?

Should I go about with my little black book and demand that every artist
draw gryphons for me? Should I tell all my friends that Furry fandom is all
about gryphons? should I spend hours and hours talking about gryphons to
peole with absolutely no interest in them? what if someone doesn't like
gryphons? should I label him as intolerant if he asks me to not talk
about them to him?

: - In particular, those who in the past set the tone trying to turn it

: into their own private sexual playground.

Rich spoke about how tolerance of certain people may have led to the the
problems with the fandom that are spoken about in the fandom.

My first CF was CF5 in 1994. I was only 19 then, a little southern
baptist girl raised in the south who rarely even left my home city much
less the state... I won't say that CF was one big fuckfest. far from
it... I had fun! but... I also had someone try and grab my rear, a
total stranger. Found myself in a big long conbversation about
beasieality, and got to see three men making out by the pool. It made me
VERY nervous. I almost didn't return.

It seems to me that this behavior is not only accepted... it's EXPECTED
in certain ways. Many women in the fandom have told me that men have
come up to them while they were with their boyfriends/fiances/husbands
and asked them if they were interested in having sex. claiming that
their SO's would probably not mind "sharing".

Is it wrong to ask that certain types of behavior be kept among those
that it doesn't offend? Here's an example....

My boyfriend is in the fandom. He's currently studying to become a
priest. When he gets ordained should be be allowed to go to CF? Would
people be so accepting as to let him stand out by the pool and preach
sermons? Or would folks rather he kept to himself?

Obviously banning him would be an act of intolerance. He lovews the
fandom as much as anybody else. But he also shouldn't (and he won't) go
about pushing his theology on people that don't want to hear it.

: - And I pointed out how this customer-driven situation has become toxic

: to anyone who has a serious interest in a professional art career.

This is more true than you think. If you're a prominent name in the
fandom... just forget aout ever getting a job at warner brothers or disney.

It just suprises me...

Something I love doing, drawing furries. this might keep me from ever
becoming a professional animator.

I'm automatically expected to draw spooge artwork just because my
characters are furries.

And some people think that I'm automatically going to have sex with them
because I'm in this fandom. they find nothing wrong with propositioning
me next to my boyfriend, staring at by breasts for ten minutes, and
making grabs at me when I walk by. all because I'm a furfan.

Now, don't get me wrong. It's not hopeless... and I'm far from miserable
in this fandom. But furry fandom is not a sexual thing for me. It's an
art thing. It's a cartooning thing. And when I'm told that I'm in the
wrong because sex has nothing to do with my reasons for being in the
fandom... um.. well... don't YOU feel that something's amiss?

-Genesis Eve Cook

Bryan Chaney

unread,
Jun 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/19/96
to

On 18 Jun 1996, Richard Chandler wrote:

[buzz]


> The problem is, what if it's not just an isolated con? What happens when
> loathing of Furry Fandom is widespread? This isn't a what if. Right now,
> if you want a job in animation, you'd better take all your furriness and
> stuff it deep in the closet and hope nobody digs it out. (Try asking Dave
> Kuhn about Furry stuff.) When Warner Brothers slams tiny toon fandom in
> a nationally broadcast evening special, then you know that this fandom has
> accumulated some powerful enemies.

I think, like many of the issues being discussed here, is a matter of
perspective. I know for a fact that there are people within WBA that are
sympathetic to furry and animation fandom. For example, Winger's
balles01.gif was distrubited. Some liked it, some said it was disgusting.
A similiar case could be made for the Animaniacs short "Please Please
Pleese Get a Life Foundation", which lampooned the people over at
alt.tv.animaniacs It was shown at a private screening for some fans, and
the producer prefaced the showing by saying he wasn't sure how we would
take it. Needless to say, we liked it. Why, because, for us, it was a
acknowledgement that we were part of the popular culture, and as such just
as much as a target as everything else.
While this is simply ancilliary to the larger debate, namely how
is furs in general percieved, it does show that we are not universally
reviled. Mr. Chandler has, at least in the post presented here, pointed
out some things that give us a "bad name". But I think that the larger
question, really is the people that don't go to the cons. Frankly, I
never have gone to a con, and my financial situation is such that I'm
doing good to pick up a furry comic title. There is too much of a
preception that we are somehow a group that enjoy beastiality, which ain't
necessarily so. Part of that may in fact be because erotica is so much in
the forefront. How to accomplish this? I don't have a clue....

[snip]


> It seems that some people LIKE furry fandom to be the cesspit it's
> becoming. They like to wallow in their own filth. They are having their
> fun, and don't care how much it stinks up things for everyone else. As
> long as they get their jollies, the rest of us can go to hell. I want the
> future to be better than things are now.

good luck, but one thing we *don't* need is flame wars. that doesn't do a
bit of good. besides, I think the people you are aiming at would not be
reading this and other articles. take it to the cons as I feel that is
where you really need to do your targeting

peace out,
"Wilford" Bryan "Wolf" Chaney wbw...@u.washington.edu
http://weber.u.washington.edu/~wbwolf
"Say...what kind of crazy wolf are you anyways?" Minerva Mink, Animaniacs
"Some of my best friends are Warner Brothers" - Groucho Marx
A! JW22 YW++i^ WK+ DT+++i!^ PI+ BR+ SL+++r!:'^ SK+ RI+: MM+!/0^ KK---
Wilford++i P++ I++ Ddpfaw Tow2 $+++d Vr+j++t++ IV! E59b Ee30 TBrain245


Mark Atwood

unread,
Jun 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/19/96
to

In article <4q8u5o$f...@ari.ari.net>,
Robert B. Kirkpatrick <il...@ari.net> wrote:
>Gary Burke (ga...@zot.io.org) wrote:
>: There'd be no spooge in the art show, and the businessmen and
>: christian revivalists staying at the same hotel wouldn't see anything to
>: offend their delicate sensibilities. It'd be Disney in the video room
>: and the dealers room would be back issues of Furrlough and Albedo for as
>: far as the eye could see. Sounds like a fun con..
>
>Better yet, Disney would be proud to have a table there, right across from
>the Warner Brothers table. Moms and Dads could bring their kids, and their
>money. Wow, and with the increased revenues and exposure we could have
>thousands of furries, and creators that dont move on and try to hide every
>connection they ever made with furrydom. The furry-industries hand in
>hand with the furry fandom, yeah just imagine the potential.

All of it approved, corporate and "safe". Sounds worse than a Creation
Con. Spare me.

Watts Martin

unread,
Jun 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/19/96
to

In article <4q7vfj$6...@anarchy.io.com>, Herman Miller wrote:
>No doubt there are some (many?) who enjoy furry sexual role-playing. Is it
>wrong to call their interest "furry"? What about someone whose primary
>interest in furry topics is children's literature? They're all interested
>in furry topics, but some furry fans are simply more specialized than
>others.

I think the complaint isn't with the "specialization," it's with the
presentation of the specialization as the sum of the whole. And yes, this
does happen. Chris Grant (the writer of "Empires") was told by several
folks that if he wasn't interested in the spooge, he wasn't a real furry. I
have been told flat-out that "almost everyone in furrydom is gay or
bisexual," by one of the organizers of ConFurence. This may have been true
in his initial group, but it contradicts my experience, and it furthermore
suggests that he has an interest in furrydom that isn't particularly related
to furries.


Peter Torkelson

unread,
Jun 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/19/96
to wf...@fur.com

I said I was not going to write this rant. I guess I was wrong. I am
sometimes. If you respond to this, please cc: wf...@fur.com. My
newsfeed is somewhat flakey and loses messages.

Tygger wrote:
>
> wol...@netcom.com wrote:
>
> : Funny. Everyone I've spoken to who's read it just thinks you're a


> : fucking idiot, me included. I can't find anyone who thinks you have
> : two brain cells to rub together after getting a glance at your
> : soapbox, er, fanzine.
>

> : And you wanted a Hugo. Hee!
>
> Interesting. I've heard the opposite, and as for the editorial, well,
> I and others have been addressing some of the points Rich made here in
> the ng. This was BEFORE Gallery shipped.

Well, you didn't hear it from me. I cancled my subscription yesterday to
Gallery becuse I refuse to let my money help print such insane, hateful
redoric as was put in #25.

I'm very tired of net-furs being portrayed as the evil that ruined the old
boys club. Too big! Too much! Worthless people! I'll not have that message
any more.

I'd not be in this fandom if it were not for the networks, bluntly, and I
don't praticularly think of myself as worthless. I also don't measure
people's worth by how much they contribue to Cause X. You can have an
interest in anthro stuff with out giving to the Cause. Welcome to reality.
SOme people prefer to put their time and effort into other meaningful
things, like the first admendment, gay rights, etc.

I tried to talk to him online about being specific with his overly broad
generalizations, and the only thing that he could say was "I saw someone
giving someone a handjob in the lobby once, and they ignored people
telling them to get a room". Well, thats what ConFurence security is for.
It's hardly the first time a SI-FI con has had problems with public
sexual displays. Look at OryCon and NorWescon. (for example, in the glass
elevators at NorWescon, one year, a couple decided to have sex about
five stories up. Another year a lady attended the con until security
caught her shaven and painted in gold paint. Took people a while to relize
it was not a tight outfit.)

And don't even think of telling me "but our reputation". I'm sick and tired
of hearing that crap too. Of course our reputation sucks, we are the new
fandom on the block. You don't think every new fandom does not go through
this? The sex crazed anime weenies? The geeky trekkies? Every faction group
through all of history has been abused this way. Cope. How about the way
the Gay community treats Bisexuals? They WANT to pick on us. The insane
and overblown statments they make about our cons and lifestyles ought to
prove they are looking for a fight.

And some furs seem stupid enough to give it to them.

As furry fandom grows bigger, the rest of the "fannish" comunity will
learn to cope with us. And until then we need to learn to cope with them.

_WE_ define who this fandom is. Not people looking in at it and getting
confused, scared, jelous, whatever. Not other fans looking for something
to gossip about. _WE_ do. It's our fandom, not theirs. And we should not
live by their beck and call.

So, my message?

Stop looking out, and start looking in. If there are problems in fandom,
fine, lets deal with them. But lets make sure they are problems for us,
not for some mistical "them".

Becuse thats all I'm hearing "so and so said this about furries".

Well, (to thumb a nose at the CDA), who gives a fuck?

Watts Martin

unread,
Jun 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/19/96
to

In article <4q8u5o$f...@ari.ari.net>, Robert B. Kirkpatrick wrote:
>Gary Burke (ga...@zot.io.org) wrote:
>: There'd be no spooge in the art show, and the businessmen and
>: christian revivalists staying at the same hotel wouldn't see anything to
>: offend their delicate sensibilities. It'd be Disney in the video room
>: and the dealers room would be back issues of Furrlough and Albedo for as
>: far as the eye could see. Sounds like a fun con..
>
>Better yet, Disney would be proud to have a table there, right across from
>the Warner Brothers table. Moms and Dads could bring their kids, and their
>money. Wow, and with the increased revenues and exposure we could have
>thousands of furries, and creators that dont move on and try to hide every
>connection they ever made with furrydom. The furry-industries hand in
>hand with the furry fandom, yeah just imagine the potential.
>
>Yeah that does sound like a fun con to me.:)

I'm glad someone else has thought about this. I was beginning to think I
was just crazy.

People can take issue with Rich's tone if they want to, but concentrating on
that begs his point -- and with all due respect to Lyon and Company,
suggesting that Rich keep his opinions to himself only proves one or two of
those points. The kind of "tolerance" that furry fandom has developed is a
severely limited form: there is no tolerance at all for criticism, little
tolerance for different viewpoints, and an indifference that borders on
intolerance for people whose tastes are seen as "conservative."

A cursory amount of logical thinking should tell anyone that "The Lion
King," not "Genus," represents the largest potential segment of furry fans.
I define furry fan as "someone who has at least a casual interest in funny
animals and anthropomorphics"; most of the people complaining about Rich
having a narrow view of what furry fans are really have a much narrower one
than I do -- or I suspect than Rich does. However, since I've become
increasingly open in asserting that the general, G/PG-rated material should
be presented as mainstream furry stuff and the erotica and various fetish
offshoots be kept out of the public eye, only shown to those who are
interested in it, I'm going to be identified by some as being with the
neo-Nazi group by those who evidently think the reverse makes more sense.


Gary Burke

unread,
Jun 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/19/96
to

In article <4q9ql4$o...@magic.amni.com>,

Mark Atwood <ma...@isp.homestar.net> wrote:
>In article <4q8u5o$f...@ari.ari.net>,
>Robert B. Kirkpatrick <il...@ari.net> wrote:
>>Gary Burke (ga...@zot.io.org) wrote:
>>: There'd be no spooge in the art show, and the businessmen and
>>: christian revivalists staying at the same hotel wouldn't see anything to
>>: offend their delicate sensibilities. It'd be Disney in the video room
>>: and the dealers room would be back issues of Furrlough and Albedo for as
>>: far as the eye could see. Sounds like a fun con..
>>
>>Better yet, Disney would be proud to have a table there, right across from
>>the Warner Brothers table. Moms and Dads could bring their kids, and their
>>money. Wow, and with the increased revenues and exposure we could have
>>thousands of furries, and creators that dont move on and try to hide every
>>connection they ever made with furrydom. The furry-industries hand in
>>hand with the furry fandom, yeah just imagine the potential.
>
>All of it approved, corporate and "safe". Sounds worse than a Creation
>Con. Spare me.

It'd be a nightmare to have a CF like that. If I want overpriced cartoon
merchandise I'll go to the Disney or WB stores in every mall in the
country. If Disney or WB were dealers at the con they wouldn't just be
happy with tables, they would RUN the con, including NAILING any fanart
in the art show or fanfic in the dealers' room with lawsuits. Stuff like
jim Groat's mighty martian power rangers shirts would be immediately
removed. Since amateur fan drawings of cartoon-like characters would be
considered competition, they would do everything in their power to either
buy up big chunks of the dealers' room or dissuade other dealers from
selling stuff, by carefully jigging the registration and rules. The only
dealers that MIGHT survive would be Antarctic Press (IF they got rid of
Genus entirely), White Wolf Games (maybe), and a couple other big
companies. The price of dealers tables would triple or quadruple - small
change for the Mouse, but out of the league of most of us.

No Ed Zolna, no individual artists (because, if Disney is
going to be at a con, it is going to become a con purely for the benefit
of the Disney corporation) In fact I'd be really surprised if they'd allow
amateur art in the artshow at all (once again, the auctions, etc. funnel
money out that in the eyes of Disney would be better spent on expensive
Aladdin cels)

Disney already runs a con, year round, that is huge, and families bring
their kids to it all the time. It's called Disneyland. If you want to
go there, GO. Have fun. It's great. But PLEASE don't think that having
Disney officially at Confurence would enhance Confurence - it would
obliterate it completely. I hardly think Warner Brothers would do any
better. They have no conception of 'fandoms' -- they want your money.


Gary "Let's go to HunchbaCon!" Burke

gr...@primenet.com

unread,
Jun 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/19/96
to

JJPierce <jjpi...@aol.com> wrote:
: Hello, all. Just de-lurking to put in my two cents' worth....

: Having read through the posts about Mr. Chandler's latest editorial on all
: the negative aspects of furry fandom, I have one question to pose: If we,
: as a community of fans *and* artists alike, truly want to curtail the
: worst aspects of furry fandom, HOW should we accomplish this? It's all
: well and good to rail against real and/or perceived problems, but what to
: actually DO about them?

First be willing to see that if so many are/have been complaining about
this, then there IS a problem. Second, find a solution. Third, ACT on it.

From what I and others have seen/heard, steps 1 and 2 have been reached
many times. It's that tricky 3rd step which seems to be the sticky area.

: Since several of the negative comments dwell on unruly behavior at
: Confurence or other conventions with furry elements, perhaps that is where
: it should begin. Have the convention organizers lay down the law in terms
: of what behavior is and is not appropriate in public areas, and set
: suitable punishments for infractions. That's well within their
: perogatives, IMHO, since they're the ones who put in all the blood, toil,
: tears, sweat, and money to make furry cons happen in the first place.
: Such rules might make a few con-goers a bit unhappy, but they might also
: make the convention itself a more pleasant and less stressful experience
: for all concerned. Note that this is all in reference to *public*
: behavior -- what folks do in *private* is, and should remain, their own
: business (again, IMHO).

*nods* YES. I agree. I commented on this several times in past posts
in a couple of recent threads, but I have to wonder if they got eaten.

There's 2 ways to do this: con com enforces a policy, or we police
ourselves. I have spoken to the Security heads for CF8 and have been
assured that excessive behaviour will be watched out for and taken care
of. No, this does NOT mean gestapo prowling but just keeping an eye out
for those who just aren't following common sense. and being EXCESSIVE.

Personally, I think a bit of BOTH of those options should be done. I'll
get to that below.

: To this end, perhaps a DO/DO NOT list similar to what's been bounced
: around on the "Con, manners, and fanboys" thread should be included as a
: loose-leaf insert in the CF and CFE program books? It wouldn't cost that
: much more to add, and it might head off some problems before they start.
: I know I would have benefited from such a list when I went to my first
: SF/comics conventions! (Although I'm getting better at it...I hope! <G>)

Good idea, and one I've been bouncing around with a few. As for who's
going to write it, why not have it be the Security heads as they're the
ones who must enforce them?

: I'd really like to hear other people's opinions about the *mechanics* of
: changing furry fandom for the better, while still respecting the inherent
: right of both fans and artists to explore what "furry" means to them, in
: their own ways....

Courtesy, understanding, tolerance hand in hand with consideration and
vice versa. Think about what ripples you'll make with you actions where
you are. If you're not sure, then don't do it. These may sound like
rather tight fisted and anal suggestions, but not really. However, YMMV. :)

--Tygger

--
******************************************************************************
graf@primenet http://www.av.qnet.com/~canuss/tygger
******************************************************************************
"Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite."

Wanderer

unread,
Jun 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/19/96
to


> ur...@netcom.com (Scott Whitmore) wrote in article
(snip)
> Richard Chandler (mau...@teleport.com) wrote:
(snip again)


> : - And I pointed out how this customer-driven situation has become
toxic
> : to anyone who has a serious interest in a professional art career.
>
> This is more true than you think. If you're a prominent name in the
> fandom... just forget aout ever getting a job at warner brothers or
disney.

On the other hand, so long as you can draw other things too, there's
always a chance with one of the smaller companies. Fur instance, in one
episode of "Skysurfer Strikeforce", a couple of old-style furries put in
an appearance, and were reasonably well drawn. I'm not saying they're up
to the standards I've seen on some webpages, but they were about as well
drawn as the early TV eps of "Felix the Cat".:)

Yours observantly,

The perspicacious,

Wanderer

wand...@why.net
wand...@whytel.com


and...@interlog.com

unread,
Jun 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/20/96
to

"D.P.Cannon" <eye...@sos.net> wrote:
> That leaves a rather amorphous, ill-defined fandom, one with too
>many fringe agendas having little to do with the genre as an enter-
>tainment form.
What's 'too little?' If I have an interest outside the fandom and I
find someone else in the fandom who shares it, then that becomes
something we share as part of our experience of the fandom.

War and hetrosexuality have as little to do with furry fandom as
homosexuality and sexual fetishes. But through furry these 'other'
interests find expression. If it were not for outside interests being
expressed via furry it would be boring! What would be the point?
Furry art and stories would devolve into bland, vapid poses of furry
critters. (Which, based on the final statement you made in your post,
is something you want to avoid.)

With no message the media becomes empty and meaningless. You can see
this in any artshow where technically expert works with little or no
meaning are passed over for simplisitic works that heavily communicate
an idea. It's the ideas that interestes people in them.. not
technical finesse.

Art is about communication, communication is about ideas and ideas
-are- personal agendas. Agendas are -vital- to the existance of the
fandom.

> Where does that leave us when a few bad apples spoil the barrel for
>our reputation as a valid entertainment genre?

It leaves us facing the responsablity of -telling- those apples that
they are causing a problem -when- they are causing a problem. It
leaves us with the responsability of having to justify our
identification of their activity as a problem. It leaves us having to
relate to one another as human being, not pests to be squashed under
foot.

>Lack of taste,
>self-restraint, and consideration to possible newbies is scaring away
>new interest, and the fandom is turning into a pointless freakshow.

That very much depends on your point of view. What's 'freak-show' to
one person is completely normal to another. If some straight newbie
get's grossed out by seeing me snuggling and kissing another male in
public does that mean I am a 'bad' furry and have to stop.. or that
they need to grow a little?

> The some aspects of the social expression could stay behind closed
>dorrs, though.

Agreed. Nudity and copulation certainly shouldn't be tolerated in
public.. I also have a problem with 'mock' sex acts, but that's a more
(excuse the pun) sticky issue where things like dirty dancing are
involved.

> Then bug out. I think Gallery has all the pointless pinup artists
>it needs, anyway.

I'm trying to get away from doing sexual and pin up stuff. The fact
that I'm not in furry for the money (I wont do commissions or
sketchbooks) is helping me in this since I don't have any economic
pressure to keep doing it. You might be able to fault me for my past
if it's not to your tastes, but don't write me off. I am learning and
becoming capable of more.


- Andrew Murphy-Mee-

and...@interlog.com

unread,
Jun 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/20/96
to

mpc5...@kestrel.tamucc.edu (Matthew Philip Clark) wrote:
>(still nothing personal... but...)
> Well, here I happen to agree with Rich. The fandom (contrary to some
>people's beliefs) *IS* just about stories, art, films, etc, involving
>anthropomorphic characters. But, that is still fairly broad. I reins in
>a lot of things, and with that people.
> If I know anything about human nature I know that people have a hard
>time leaving all thier agendas out of the other things they do. They in
>turn bring that to furry fandom, and taint it, and THAT is what I think
>Rich is refuring to.
But what are those stories, art, films, etc. going to be about if no
one dares to voice an idea? You are reducing things to the media and
saying that a media devoid of messages (or agendas if you will) is a
good thing. I don't agree. At all.


The problem I see here is that the fandom is about two things; 'furry'
stories, art and films created by professional artists for public
consumption -and- it's about furry stories, art and films created by
the fans for consumption within the fandom.

The former -must- be appealing to a very broad range of people and
thus that media can only communicate ideas that the majority of people
find inoffensive.. or if they do contain potentially offensive ideas
they have to take the edge off of it by making it into a joke. This
is a purely economic decision.. keep in mind that most professionally
created furry products are made for a consumer market of children and
their parents.

In the latter there is a LOT more freedom to use the media to express
ideas and feelings that would never find expression if the work was
being done for a mass market. This is a good thing. I've no desire
to see the same kind of pablum at furry cons that you can find
everywhere else already.

It's a question of preferring either a fandom that is only about the
non-offensive works created by professionals -or- having a fandom
where there is a freedom to express ideas that other people might find
offensive. I'll choose the latter every time, even knowing that it
-will- offend some people.


-Andrew Murphy-Mee -

and...@interlog.com

unread,
Jun 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/20/96
to

and...@interlog.com wrote:

>"D.P.Cannon" <eye...@sos.net> wrote:
>> Then bug out. I think Gallery has all the pointless pinup artists
>>it needs, anyway.
>I'm trying to get away from doing sexual and pin up stuff. The fact
>that I'm not in furry for the money (I wont do commissions or
>sketchbooks) is helping me in this since I don't have any economic
>pressure to keep doing it. You might be able to fault me for my past
>if it's not to your tastes, but don't write me off. I am learning and
>becoming capable of more.
I know it's lame to reply to my own message, but after posting I
thought of two other things that are important enough to me to warrent
this.

a) I do enjoy doing 'pin up' art and people enjoy seeing it.. what's
the problem? I am capable of doing something more involved and I
intend to, but I don't think that means I have to give up doing single
pose artwork.

b) First you say you want a fandom with no agendas and then you
accuse me of drawing art that has no agendas. I'd have thought you'd
prefer it that way.

Thank you and sweet dreams. :)


- Andrew Murphy-Mee -

Matt Henry

unread,
Jun 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/20/96
to

Gary Burke (ga...@zot.io.org) wrote:
:
:
: I concur 100%. I also read the editorial in Gallery and was struck by
: the subtext that only artists and people who buy lots of art are valid
: furry fans, that those who just hang out on furrymuck, like furries,
: and go to cons to meet their friends in RL are 'dilettantes' who should
: be expunged from the fandom. "Take back our fandom" is how you worded
: it Rich, if I'm not mistaken, along with a general attitude that we've
: been too tolerant of these dog-collar wearing, T-or-D playing faggots
: who could all use a good kick in the ass. (Jim Groat's con report had a
: similar tone, although I've come to expect that from him)

There's a difference between tolerance, and letting someone walk all
over your sensibilities-- ESPECIALLY in the gay furry block. Tolerance is
a nice thing. It's something we ALL need to show for eachother, as I'm
sure you'll agree, furrydom is a very "Venn Diagram" group, featuring a
plethora of overlaps, all involving furries. To tolerate someone, based
on an overlap group, is one thing. However, there are those who willingly
violate any semblance of public respect, and hide behind this shield of
"tolerance," expecting behavior that would NEVER be accepted in public
will be expected at a furry event.
Although furry's a big fandom, it's also a fandom of limited space,
when a convention comes around. It's at times like that, when people HAVE
to show respect and tolerance for the general public. My rule of thumb,
when it comes to gay matters (myself being a gay male) is that if it's not
acceptable in public, it's not acceptable at a furrycon. My list of
acceptable things, you ask?
hugging
a quick kiss
holding hands
casual physical contact (leaning against someone, or contact along
those lines)
Things on my list of unacceptable things in public areas?
Deep, or heavy kissing
petting, or fondling through the clothes
giving or recieving a hand job in a public area (a friend of mine is
involved in con on goings, and confirmed that report)

Come on, Gary, think. What heterosexual activities really irk you?
Do you like having those activities rubbed in your face?

:
: You singled out gay furries for special attention, and I'm sorry, claiming

: you can't be homophobic because you're bisexual just doesn't cut it.
: Plenty of GAY people are homophobic, it just means they hate themselves.
: (I'm not saying you do, I'm just saying that bisexuality does not mean you
: can't be phobic/bigoted towards openly gay people.)

Low, Gary. Real low. I'm really getting sick and tired of seeing
gays toss this "self-loathing/gay homophobe" bullshit around. It's a
classic technique used to cause the target to question their self-image,
and get shamed into silence. Contrary to the opinions of the gays who
dominate public image, and try casting it as this wonderful sexual utopia
of pretty boys, promiscouous sex, and equality for all, self-loathing is
an act IMPOSSIBLE by an openly gay or bisexual male. Self-loathing, or
dealing with internalized homophobia, is something dealt with while in the
coming out process. Chances are, if a male is ready to sleep with
another, the internalized homophobia has been dealt with, or else the
internalized homophobia would kick in, and prevent sex from happening.
However, you need to keep in mind that not all gay people conduct
themselves in the same way. Myself, for example, I RARELY get pegged for
being gay. It's not because I'm gay, mind you. I can name several people
within furrydom, among other places, who can attest to that fact. It is,
on the other hand, because I don't act Gay (note the capitalization). I
don't buy into the stereotypical image, I don't buy into the stereotypical
behavior, I don't buy into the stereotypical *anything* with regards to
being gay. It's simply a part of the whole, in my total mosiac. There
are others who go for the "bear" think, the "twink" thing, the club scene,
the bath scene, the leather scene, the bodybuilder scene..... The ONLY
gay symbol I acknowledge, is the rainbow, because it's supposed to have a
meaning (though many small-minded gay men and women out there have
forgotten that meaning, and instead think of it as the fashion accessory
that goes with anything). It represents the diversity of the community.
With that rant aside, I think there is a certain personality type in
furrydom that drew the fire in the Gallery editorial. In Gallery #20, he
talks about being fondled by two men as he spoke to another artist. Can
we agree that such behavior is obnoxious?
A little tolerance for those who prefer the gay community to conduct
itself with a little more dignity is onder. Or, maybe you just forgot
that you just spent the previous paragraph preaching the virtues of
tolerance for others.

: There are a lot of gay artists, fans, fanboys, writers, whatever.

I happen to fall into several of those categories. I'm also a gay
publisher (fanzine, and comic book slated for the fall, around CFE), and a
gay graduate student, planning a thesis on gay studies/gay-themed issues.
Yet, even I'm becoming uncomfortable with some of the things going on
in fandom. I'm not a prude, I'm not a homophobic nazi, bent on expelling
every friend of Dorothy from CF or the fandom. However, I am concerned as
being labled as "obnoxious," just because a few people think that
Confurence is the Castro District (and have already come to, and have
become comfortable with, realization that there will probably be some who
boycott Ten Furcent, to somehow punish me for expressing my feelings,
aside from the zine) All it takes is one person, to label a group he/she
is a part of by their behaviors.


: A lot of them are from

: Furrymuck and I have seen how the open, tolerant atmosphere of furry
: fandom as a whole and furrymuck in particular has helped a lot of people
: to come to grips with their sexuality, and find love and acceptance. To
: a lot of people that has been a godsend.

I know that. I've helped two of them on Furry, and one on Foothills,
a non-furry talker.

Unfortunately, the problem lies in the fact that many gays make first
contact with the fandom via furrymuck. As a result, due to what they see
there, they think that what's acceptable in the Purple Nurple is (a topic
you and I have gone around the bend several times on) acceptable at a con,
simply by virtue of the fact that "it's a furry con, and we do this on
Furrymuck all the time." I have NO problem to such activities. But,
they, like any activity have a time and place. More to come on that topic
later.

:
: As for our reputations in other fandoms, I could give a rat's ass what

: some Trekkies think of furry. Anime has a FAR worse reputation for

: being sex-obsessed but that hasn't stopped it from gaining massmarket


: wide acceptance in recent months/years. (Sailor Moon?) We have our own
: cons, our own APAs, etc. etc. and do not have to ride on the coattails
: of other fandoms. If some con decides not to allow furry art in the art
: show, it's their loss. Furry parties can still be held at the most
: furryphobic of cons, you just hold you head high and ignore the Capt. Kirk
: geeks.

Some of are crossover furries, Gary. Myself, I'm planning on leaning
into the anime crowd with my comic. As a writer and publisher, it DOES
matter to me, if my work will be accepted seriously, and not ridiculed as
"skunkfucker shit."
Furrydom might not be a cult of the artist and writer, however
without artists and writers producing work, fandom has little to thrive
upon, save 10th generation copies of art, and the same story that appeared
in this, this, this, and that fanzine. If furrydom wants to see new
talent coming out and producing, it has to be a safe fandom to work in.
It's already been mentioned that furry is the kiss of death in the
animation industry. If people think that getting the Scarlet F will
possibly prevent their dream job at Disney or Warner Brothers, they won't
do furry stuff.
And, with regard to anime/trek/ sca/comic/gaming fandoms having
oodles of sex as well. You're absolutely right. BUT, people don't care
if their shit stinks, only if the shit of others stinks. As a result,
they're quick to overlook the copy of "X-Gen" or the Sailor Moon/ Saint
Seiya orgy illo, but will be equally quick to go after your copy of
"genus."

:
: "Taking Back The Fandom"


:
: I suppose, somehow, Rich, Major Matt, and the rest could marshal the
: forces, gather your weapons, put on your best berets and fatigues and
: arrange a putsch at CF8 -- line up the collar and leash crowd (code:
: those decadent queerboys) and run them out of the Atrium Marquis on a
: rail.

First off, Major Matt (as far as I know) didn't even come up in the
editorial. I've found him and "the rest," knowing damned well to
whom you're referring, to be very decent and civil, knowing that
I'm gay even. No shooting, no abuse. I suspect you could gerner
a few lessons in "tolerance" (that *is* what you were preaching
at the beginning, right?) from them. Honestly, keep your attacks on Rich,
if you're going to attack anyone.

: There'd be no spooge in the art show, and the businessmen and
: christian revivalists staying at the same hotel wouldn't see anything to
: offend their delicate sensibilities. It'd be Disney in the video room
: and the dealers room would be back issues of Furrlough and Albedo for as

: far as the eye could see. No dancing in the cabaret or Purple Nurple

: Live, I guess we could have a wholesome filksing instead. We could show
: each other our automatic rifles and surplus hand grenades.. but none of
: those snuggling fanboys,

No, the spooge would be in the NC-17 section, the cabaret would be in
a closed room, my copies of Ten Furcent, as well as portfolios, would be
closed, but sitting on the table available for browsing *if someone wants
to look at them.*
It's a simple matter of RESPECT and tolerance (and I don't mean the
usual "you have to tolerate me, but fuck tolerating anything you might
find offensive" concept of it) Something I think EVERYONE in fandom could
use a good lesson on. Gays, straights, gun furries, spooge furries,
no-spooge furries.....

Herman Miller

unread,
Jun 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/20/96
to

In article <4qab0n$6...@news.interlog.com>, and...@interlog.com says...

>
>It's a question of preferring either a fandom that is only about the
>non-offensive works created by professionals -or- having a fandom
>where there is a freedom to express ideas that other people might find
>offensive. I'll choose the latter every time, even knowing that it
>-will- offend some people.
>
>
>-Andrew Murphy-Mee -

It's true that much of the best art _is_ art that offends some people. One
of my favorite pieces of music is Stravinsky's _Rite of Spring_, which was
considered extremely offensive at its first performance. One of my favorite
non-furry artists is Magritte; some of his works are effective specifically
because of their offensiveness.

I think part of the problem with most mainstream furries is the common
assumption that talking animals are for kids. Every once in a while, an
innovative artist or writer will use furries in an adult setting, like the
dialogues in _Gödel, Escher, Bach_, or representing the ordeal of the Jews
in Nazi Germany in _Maus_, but the fact that they're talking animals is
secondary. Even so, I still enjoy many mainstream furry works.

I've certainly seen furry art that offends me, but it's a risk I don't mind
taking. I'm sure that lots of people are offended by the pictures that I
appreciate.

JJPierce

unread,
Jun 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/20/96
to

Hello, all. Just de-lurking to put in my two cents' worth....

Having read through the posts about Mr. Chandler's latest editorial on all
the negative aspects of furry fandom, I have one question to pose: If we,
as a community of fans *and* artists alike, truly want to curtail the
worst aspects of furry fandom, HOW should we accomplish this? It's all
well and good to rail against real and/or perceived problems, but what to
actually DO about them?

Since several of the negative comments dwell on unruly behavior at


Confurence or other conventions with furry elements, perhaps that is where
it should begin. Have the convention organizers lay down the law in terms
of what behavior is and is not appropriate in public areas, and set
suitable punishments for infractions. That's well within their
perogatives, IMHO, since they're the ones who put in all the blood, toil,
tears, sweat, and money to make furry cons happen in the first place.
Such rules might make a few con-goers a bit unhappy, but they might also
make the convention itself a more pleasant and less stressful experience
for all concerned. Note that this is all in reference to *public*
behavior -- what folks do in *private* is, and should remain, their own
business (again, IMHO).

To this end, perhaps a DO/DO NOT list similar to what's been bounced


around on the "Con, manners, and fanboys" thread should be included as a
loose-leaf insert in the CF and CFE program books? It wouldn't cost that
much more to add, and it might head off some problems before they start.
I know I would have benefited from such a list when I went to my first
SF/comics conventions! (Although I'm getting better at it...I hope! <G>)

I'd really like to hear other people's opinions about the *mechanics* of


changing furry fandom for the better, while still respecting the inherent
right of both fans and artists to explore what "furry" means to them, in
their own ways....

******************************************************************
Jeff Pierce, University of North Texas
"Proud to be Anthropomorpic-American!"
"Join AOL's furry fans at the private chat room
'Flying Tiger Saloon', Mondays at 8PM Central!"
******************************************************************

Robert B. Kirkpatrick

unread,
Jun 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/20/96
to

JJPierce (jjpi...@aol.com) wrote:
: Having read through the posts about Mr. Chandler's latest editorial on all


: the negative aspects of furry fandom, I have one question to pose: If we,
: as a community of fans *and* artists alike, truly want to curtail the
: worst aspects of furry fandom, HOW should we accomplish this? It's all
: well and good to rail against real and/or perceived problems, but what to
: actually DO about them?

: I'd really like to hear other people's opinions about the *mechanics* of


: changing furry fandom for the better, while still respecting the inherent
: right of both fans and artists to explore what "furry" means to them, in
: their own ways....

Ok lets explore that:
1) Furry Fans - can support only furry creators that maintain a
level of decency. That would make creators get off the fence. How many
times do you hear creators whine about the pornography they create? If the
general furry fan buy from someone who occassionally dabbles in
pornography to please an ,albeit loud, sub-group of furrydom They support
that genre. We who believe that furrydom is grander than pornography must
support creators that do to.
2) Furry Creators - Need to quit making excuses and get off the
fence on this issue. They need to insist on working "clean", and they need
to support publications that support that level of work.

note : This is where Rich's article reaches an empasse. He supports
pornography by publishing it, despite his high and admirable ideals. In
the publication market, he has become the "adult room at the art show"
that he argued against.

3) Event organizers - General Furrydom needs a safe place. A
convention that doesnt allow the pornographers. They already have 2+ , now
the rest of us need a place.

Thats what we can do, and we dont restrict the freedom of those who wish
to make pornography. We cant become involved in its eradication, we need
to focus on nurturing the parts of fandom we love.

Remember the Dolphins,
Robert

Stormwind

unread,
Jun 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/20/96
to

Genesis Cook writes:
>I think that like rich, and many of us who have to deal with the variety
>of people in this fandom every time we attend a con, we just feel that
>people should just learn a little respect, consideration, and understanding.

as with anywhere else in america, fandoms
aside, you will be hard pressed to find
large groups of people that understand
the concepts of "respect, consideration
and understanding". i can think of one
group that repeatedly surprises me in their
grasp of these concepts, but it only brushes
against furry fandom.

>I am in the fandom to be with other artists. I'm not here to get laid,
>to buy all the masturbation material I can find, to stroke my ego, nor
>even to make money. I'm here to share my art with other artists, to
>learn from them, and just generally share what I like to draw and why I
>like it.

and i'm in the fandom because i enjoy
drawing furries, i enjoy finding other
artists' drawings of furries (the truly
well-done ones), and because i've found
a couple of neat people through the
fandom. books, too.

>I draw furries because they're fun... I don't fantasize about having sex
>with my characters. I don't view my characters as sexual beings even.

i've drawn furries in playful or sexual
poses, but rarely (i have enough trouble
getting the body dimensions the way i want
them without the sexual poses)...when i do,
i do it for fun as well, or as a special
birthday present for someone.

>"Hey! I bought that picture of Amber you drew for CF6, it's hanging in
>my bathroom in a nice glass frame so it won't get spooge all over it when
>I..."
>
>"why don;t you draw erotica? you stuck up or something?"
>
>"Can you draw me a picture of a naked vixen getting tortured by a wolf?
>Oh.. you don't draw spooge? Well.. what about a just a naked vixen?
>What? you don't even draw nudes? Well... how about a naked vixen.. but
>make it funny! no? Well, can't you just make an exception just this
>once? No? Pleeeese!!!!!"
>
>So... are these examples of a healthy tolerant and understanding fandom?
>One that accepts erotica.. but respects an artist's rights to not draw it?

no, these are example of clueless cretins.
telling them politely that you don't do
spooge won't work. you have to take a stern
motherish tone. "look, i'm very pleased you
like the drawing of amber, and i'm delighted
you had it framed, but it's rude and and an
insult to tell me how often you barf/spit/sneeze
or perform other bodily functions on it. you
DID use acid-free paper, right?", "i don't
want to draw erotica. jane doe over there
does erotica; go look at her table", "NO.".

i don't suffer fools gladly myself. if you're
polite to me, i'll be polite back. if you
act like a cretin, you are likely to discover
just how sharp my tongue is today. i've been
known to put up signage to that effect. in
fact, putting up signage as to what the artist
will/won't do and their time limitation has
always struck me as a good idea.

it's always true that a person's work speaks
for itself. if you're polite to the people
who really count, who really matter; if you
make an effort to educate the philistines,
you always run the risk of the rabble labeling
you as being ungrateful and hard to work with.
but the people who really matter *know they're
wrong*, and will keep coming back, while the
rabble will stay away. intelligent people
will find out for themselves.

>Is it supposed to be some kind of compliment when someone comes up to you
>and tells you that they want to have sex with one of your characters...
>or lets you know that they use a bit of artwork they bought off of you as
>masturbation material? ESPECIALLY when that wasn't the intent of the
>picture at all?

*they* seem to think it is, but these people
are basically clueless. they don't understand
why artists draw; they don't understand that
frequently when they say these things they
offend the artist. some of them do this on
purpose to get a rise; these people are cretins
and deserve to be treated as such. treating
them with politeness is a waste of your time,
and drains your politeness reserve for the
other fans.

>Do you think it's right for someone to come up to artists and writers,
>promise them lots and lots of money if they just give out free art to
>them? Do you think that those people should go unpunished when dozens of
>artists are never paid what they're promised?

how is this different from the net."make money fast".
scam? there's a sucker born every minute.
artists, like photographers, need to have contracts
written up beforehand and get them signed.

>It's not much to ask for someone in the fandom to at least be interested
>in furry art, is it? Not even for purchase even... but simply have some
>kind of interest other than the partners they meet there? why on earth
>would someone waste their time to go to a furcon when they never step
>foot in the dealers room or the artshow.. and rarely even leave their
>hotel room? should these people even call themselves "furries"?

you're aware that this isn't just at
furcons, that this is rampant in other
cons? let's take baycon. i used to attend
a lot of baycons until about ten years
ago. the dealer's room turned into a
room full of junk. the artshow was
ok, but i spent a lot of time hanging
out with friends that i never saw anywhere
else, checking out the movie rooms,
and just seeing and being seen.

does this mean i'm not a s/f fan? ha.
i buy *piles* of sf/fantasy/horror books
every year. over half my collection is
in storage because i've run out of room
in my current house. what it means is
that i value people more than paper, and
that i won't waste my time if i feel the
room is full of junky stuff that i don't
want to waste my money on.

>"Furry fandom is about homosexuality" "Furry fandom is about Zoophilia"
>"furry fandom is about plushies" "Furry fandom is about foxes"
>
>An example, I like gryphons. nothing would make me happier than to see
>people... everyone draw them! Is furry fandom about Gryphons?

whrf, i'd like to find more gryphon
art myself. i'm having a hard time
drawing them, and would love some models.

>Should I go about with my little black book and demand that every artist
>draw gryphons for me?

there's two ways to do this: say, "i'm a
collector of gryphons, but if you don't
feel like drawing one, that's okay too",
or ranting about how all you want is
a gryphon drawn. the former allows you
to state your preferences but leaves the
artist's options open. the latter is
nearly guaranteed to peeve the artist.
it's something called "tact", and sadly
the fans that need it the most don't even
know what it means.

>Should I tell all my friends that Furry fandom is all
>about gryphons? should I spend hours and hours talking about gryphons to
>peole with absolutely no interest in them? what if someone doesn't like
>gryphons? should I label him as intolerant if he asks me to not talk
>about them to him?

you could do any of these, and you'd be
wrong (to a certain extent); it then
becomes an exercise for the other person
to figure out how right/wrong you were and
check it out for themselves. if they're
not already intrigued, it's questionable
whether a broader definition of furrydom
would intrigue them enough to check it
out.

>It seems to me that this behavior is not only accepted... it's EXPECTED
>in certain ways. Many women in the fandom have told me that men have
>come up to them while they were with their boyfriends/fiances/husbands
>and asked them if they were interested in having sex. claiming that
>their SO's would probably not mind "sharing".

maybe it's just me and my height, but
i've never had this problem at any con
i've gone to. i've had people express
interest, but carefully back off after
i explained i was spoken for. i've NEVER
had anyone claim my SO wouldn't mind if
I was "shared"...and this is a particular
topic that would be guaranteed to earn
the idiot who suggested it at least a
15 minute rant that would leave him sans
ears.

>And some people think that I'm automatically going to have sex with them
>because I'm in this fandom. they find nothing wrong with propositioning
>me next to my boyfriend, staring at by breasts for ten minutes, and
>making grabs at me when I walk by. all because I'm a furfan.

er, no. i certainly wouldn't do this
to you. i'd say it's all because there
is a certain percentage of furfans who
are complete ****oles, rather than because
you are a furfan.

furthermore, anyone who automatically
expects other furfans to be into
promiscuous sex have got their heads up
their collective furry butts. this is
an excellent way to *die*. there's got
to be at least the normal ratio of weirdos
in the furfan set...the type you NEVER
want to trust...not to mention the diseases.

my basic rule of thumb is, if i haven't
known you long enough to know if i can
trust you, forget it. that's my comfort
level. furthermore, if i'm in a committed
relationship, or fluid-bonded, or whatever,
i'd appreciate it if you'd respect that
as well.

>And when I'm told that I'm in the
>wrong because sex has nothing to do with my reasons for being in the
>fandom... um.. well... don't YOU feel that something's amiss?

it sounds like it's the work of a small
but vocal minority. i was hesitant at
first to meet other furs in person, having
heard a variety of stories, but finally
agreed to meet someone whom i judge to be
possibly THE best roleplayer on furry.
i also met two of his friends. they
reminded me of the average sci/fi fan,
and while showing me their artwork that
they'd drawn, had carefully removed all
the spooge art so as not to offend me.

certainly not all furfans are as pushy
as chandler claims...and if the more
quiet and shy ones sat up and proposed
some kind of middle ground, perhaps we
could fix the problem to everyone's
satisfaction.

--
stormwind

hell's amazon
lord of the frozen realm

Dwight J. Dutton

unread,
Jun 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/20/96
to

In article <4q7iv9$l...@news.interlog.com>, and...@interlog.com says...
>
>mau...@teleport.com (Richard Chandler) wrote:

>>As for being unprofessional. FIJAGDH. This isn't my job. I don't depend
>>on it for a living. Hell, I don't even make any money on it.


>Umm.. I don't understand FIJAGDH
>
> - Andrew Murphy-Mee -

This appears to be a variation on FIJASOI, or Fandom Is Just A Source Of Income.

I'm guessing this one means Fandom Is Just A God Damned Headache. Taken in context, even
if this is an incorrect guess, it seems to fit.
It also appears to be true....


Timothy D Fay

unread,
Jun 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/20/96
to

Robert B. Kirkpatrick (il...@ari.net) wrote:

>Somehow I think we all need to take actions that support our own beliefs,
>principles, and feeling. The freemarket will decide what happens to the
>sub-groups that call them-selves furry, and thats exactly the way it
>should be.

Unfortunately, life (and beliefs) doesn't always work according to the
rules of Keynesian economics.