The Vanity Fair article does not represent me.

16 views
Skip to first unread message

Xydexx Squeakypony, KSC

unread,
Feb 8, 2001, 7:40:59 PM2/8/01
to
I must admit, I've gotten a bit jaded about these articles, because every time
it's happened in the past it's been used as an excuse for a lot of scapegoating
and generalizations. Back in 1995, I suggested the best way to deal with the
problem was for furry fans to work together to improve furry fandom's image. It
seemed logical that folks who shared a common interest would be able---perhaps
even happy---to set aside their differences and help promote the genre.

Unfortunately, other folks didn't see it that way. The flamewars and bickering
increased, and folks spent more and more time infighting with each other when
they should've been fighting negative media attention.

How much more will it take before people figure out that fighting amongst
ourselves is never going to improve furry fandom?

I see a lot of folks saying the Vanity Fair article makes them look bad. Sorry
if I step on a few toes here, but the only way Vanity Fair makes you look bad
is if you let it make you look bad. I think people who cop out and say "I'm not
a furry" are in no position to complain about furry fandom's image.

If you think the Vanity Fair article accurately portrayed you, then you have no
reason to complain.

If you don't think so, feel free to use these eight magic words:


"The Vanity Fair article does not represent me."


It may be twice as many words as "I'm not a furry", but at least it benefits
the fandom.

Everyone in furry fandom has the power to make a difference how we are viewed
by the public. In my opinion, the folks who use this article as an excuse to
rail about how awful furry fandom is are no better than the reporter who wrote
the article.

The longtime Usenet trolls who are using the Vanity Fair article as an excuse
to engage in schadenfreuden---to point and laugh at the fandom---are having a
field day seeing this newsgroup turn into a flame pit.

Not mentioning any names, mind you, but choose one. (It's _easy_.)

I have been telling my friends, family, and co-workers about furry fandom about
furry fandom for the past seven years now with no problems. I'm going to
continue telling my friends, family, and co-workers about furry fandom, because
I see no reason whatsoever to stop setting a good example and expressing my
viewpoint.

In the end, furry fandom is what you make of it. You don't change furry
fandom's image by distancing yourself from it. You change furry fandom's image
by showing people the media was wrong.

The Vanity Fair article does not represent me.

Still Furry and Proud,

Xydexx

--
_________________________________________________
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen / Xydexx Squeakypony, KSC
The Vanity Fair article does not represent me.
http://www.xydexx.com/anthrofurry

FromTheDes...@stukafox.com

unread,
Feb 8, 2001, 8:40:38 PM2/8/01
to
Xydexx Squeakypony, KSC <xyd...@besmartdontspam.net> wrote:


> The longtime Usenet trolls who are using the Vanity Fair article as an excuse
> to engage in schadenfreuden---to point and laugh at the fandom---are having a
> field day seeing this newsgroup turn into a flame pit.
>
> Not mentioning any names, mind you, but choose one. (It's _easy_.)

Karl,

Flame-trolling again, are we?

StukaFox
--
The most important question of 2001 will be 'Why aren't you fucking FURIOUS?'

Rainbow

unread,
Feb 8, 2001, 10:57:36 PM2/8/01
to
On 9 Feb 2001 00:40:59 GMT, xyd...@BEsmartDONTSPAM.net (Xydexx
Squeakypony, KSC) wrote:


Well said Xydexx. If folks let it get to them..it will. Even though
I'm relatively new to the 'fandom' versus furrymucks...I plan on doing
whatever I can that is _positive_ to help the fandom. Gophering for
cons, education to friends and hotel folks on what we're about, and
who knows what else in the future. I hope this event inspires a good
deal of folks to do what they can to always make the fandom/cons/what
have you a better place to be..
-Rainbow 'Roo


Freija: Sir Fratley? I don't think I can live on my
own...not without you.

Fratley: You're going to be fine...trust your
strength...and have faith in your destiny. Once I
complete my journey around the world, I will return to
Burmecia.

Freija: Promise me, one more time, that you will
return.

Fratley: I promise...

Richard Chandler - WA Resident

unread,
Feb 9, 2001, 2:09:49 AM2/9/01
to
In article <Xns9042C418Dx...@209.125.35.22>,
xyd...@BEsmartDONTSPAM.net (Xydexx Squeakypony, KSC) writes:
> I must admit, I've gotten a bit jaded about these articles, because
> every time it's happened in the past it's been used as an excuse for a
> lot of scapegoating and generalizations. Back in 1995, I suggested
> the best way to deal with the problem was for furry fans to work
> together to improve furry fandom's image. It seemed logical that folks
> who shared a common interest would be able---perhaps even happy---to
> set aside their differences and help promote the genre.

But when pressed for examples, He never had one single thing to offer beyond
"Stop talking about the problems. Stop fighting." [1]

> Unfortunately, other folks didn't see it that way. The flamewars
> and bickering increased, and folks spent more and more time
> infighting with each other when they should've been fighting
> negative media attention.

And how, pray tell, should we do that? Can we work together and form a Furry
Narn Bat Squad to beat the shit out of people who tell the world about their
masturbatory practices involving plush toys to all and sundry?

How DO you fight negative media attention? How do you stop it from happening?

> I see a lot of folks saying the Vanity Fair article makes them look
> bad. Sorry if I step on a few toes here, but the only way Vanity
> Fair makes you look bad is if you let it make you look bad.

Thit is beyond stupid Karl. I can't believe you wrote that. So, if you know
how to NOT let that article make us look bad, please elucidate. A nice step
by step process that we can follow that will work even in the face of handing
somone that article to read, and once they finish, saying "And I'm a furry."
What would you do to turn that situation around?

Oh, I see. "The Vanity Fair article does not represent me." That may diffuse
PERSONAL effects from the article, but it doesn't salvage the image of Furry.
It's akin to abandoning a sinking ship like a Rat.

Funny, isn't that actually what the Burned Furs have as one of their main
goals? They want to say "I'm not with them" when referring to the freaks.
Congratulations Karl, you are eligible to be an honorary Burned Fur.
---

[1] This could also be where I point out that this is Karl yet again turning
the thread into talking about himself and what he said, and what fools we all
were for not listening to him. Isn't that another thing I predicted before?
When the thread finally winds down he'll be telling us he has better things to
do.


--
"if Marylin Manson has more of an influence on a kid than the kid's parents
do, then maybe the parents need to look at how they're raising their kids."
-- Charlie Clouser, Keyboardist, Nine Inch Nails.
Spammer Warning: Washington State Law now provides civil penalties for UCE.

Richard Chandler - WA Resident

unread,
Feb 9, 2001, 2:13:15 AM2/9/01
to
In article <3a836943...@news-server.socal.rr.com>, no...@none.com
(Rainbow) writes:
> Well said Xydexx. If folks let it get to them..it will.

Ah, the naive have a certain wisdom about them. Why don't we ALL follow their
sweet, innocent example when it comes to these NASTY articles that make all
furries sound like sexually and socially disfunctional retards. Ready
everyone? Just place your fingers firmly into your ears and sing along with
me. "LALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALA"

And skip merrily too. Isn't this fun?

Rainbow

unread,
Feb 9, 2001, 2:58:54 AM2/9/01
to
On Thu, 8 Feb 2001 23:13:15 -0800, mau...@kendra.com (Richard
Chandler - WA Resident) wrote:

>In article <3a836943...@news-server.socal.rr.com>, no...@none.com
>(Rainbow) writes:
>> Well said Xydexx. If folks let it get to them..it will.
>
>Ah, the naive have a certain wisdom about them. Why don't we ALL follow their
>sweet, innocent example when it comes to these NASTY articles that make all
>furries sound like sexually and socially disfunctional retards. Ready
>everyone? Just place your fingers firmly into your ears and sing along with
>me. "LALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALA"
>
>And skip merrily too. Isn't this fun?
>
>

You're so filled with anger and hatred that you feel the need to
ridicule me and mock me for how I desire to react to the entire
situation - which is peacefully - without anger or hostility, and
although I condone positive response to all of this, such as
suggestive/helpful feedback to the editors of the magazine, or
advocating for furs to help bring some hopefully more positive
factions of the fandom to light to those that don't know of it as a
rule - I certainly don't understand the need for such hostility and
anger that you and a few others seem to possess. Does being angry
make you happy? Do you seriously feel that reacting as you do will
somehow have a profound effect on the fandom, whereas actual
constructive thoughts, suggestions, and actions won't? If that's the
case, then so be it. Even if all of the so-called horrible elements
of the fandom were gone - and let us say that all the fandom was
about.....comic book collecting of furry anthropomorphic subject
matter..I'm sure it would only be a matter of time before the press
would make a mockery of that as well by depicting to the world an age
group ranging from the young to the wisened who have nothing better to
do then sit around and read comics - when they should be conforming to
the brainwashed sort of lifestyle that media and advertising enforce
upon us on a daily basis. Taking furryness at its core - do you
seriously expect the world..people in general - to have an
understanding or acceptance over it? Tolerance just doesn't seem to
be a common trait among people. Trekkies are ridiculed for their
innocently enough love and praise that they have over a tv
series/show.

It disheartens me to see the maturity factor or lackof within your
note, but perhaps it's just the emotion flared within you, so I won't
fault you horribly so acting so aggressively in this manner. Perhaps
some people will see furry related issues/subjects/people as sexual
dysfunctionate retards, but attacking furs for their benevolent views,
such as mine, will not make things better for your 'reputation.'
Humans as a whole just have that sort of inane desire to want to have
something to point at/laugh at/make fun of. Perhaps it's because of
their/our own insecurities, and doing this somehow takes the heat off
of their/our own insecurities and fears. Good luck to you on coping
with your aggressions...I sincerely do hope that things ease up for
you..
-Rainbow 'Roo


ICQ tha 'Roo: 93127116

Bruce

unread,
Feb 9, 2001, 3:06:22 AM2/9/01
to

"Richard Chandler - WA Resident" <mau...@kendra.com> wrote in message
news:010208231...@mauser.at.kendra.com...

> In article <3a836943...@news-server.socal.rr.com>, no...@none.com
> (Rainbow) writes:
> > Well said Xydexx. If folks let it get to them..it will.
>
> Ah, the naive have a certain wisdom about them. Why don't we ALL follow
their
> sweet, innocent example when it comes to these NASTY articles that make
all
> furries sound like sexually and socially disfunctional retards. Ready
> everyone? Just place your fingers firmly into your ears and sing along
with
> me. "LALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALA"
>
> And skip merrily too. Isn't this fun?
>


Rich.

You already told us you were going to be sitting this one out - I am correct
in what I read a day or so ago, am I not? :)

Darmon C. Thornton

unread,
Feb 9, 2001, 7:14:29 AM2/9/01
to

"Rainbow" <no...@none.com> wrote in message
news:3a839d89...@news-server.socal.rr.com...

> You're so filled with anger and hatred that you feel the need to
> ridicule me and mock me for how I desire to react to the entire
> situation

Rich didn't mock you. He told it like it is.

Yes, he is angry. And so am I.

You will learn in due time as I and others have that when it comes to this
fucked-up fandom, Tolerance = Blind Assent For Whatever The Perverts Who
Don't Give A Fuck Who They Hurt Want To Do.

The only reason the Trekkers are higly regarded than "furries" is that there
were people in Star Trek fandom who had the balls to smack down the twinks
who got out of line when Trek fandom started.

You are young and naive right now, but trust me, you will come to grips with
what I just said when your values become challenged and the People Who Do
Not Care will either twist your arm into sucking on their dicks in quiet
agreement, if not joining in whatever dreck this fandom has become a
sounding board for. You will either be branded as a "nyce", "tolerant" fur
or a goose-stepping Nazi, depending upon your reaction.

Boy, was I ever so fucking wrong.

I spent so much time being quiet and trying to reason with the unreasonable,
that all it garnered was two assholes dragging me and the rest of those who
cared more about this hobby than you will ever know through the gutter for
the umpteenth time.

I'll be damned if I allow it to happen again, while I still have irons in
the fire.

No more Mr. Nyce Guy.

--Dar Thornton, Absolutely 100% Not Furry

ilr

unread,
Feb 9, 2001, 8:08:21 AM2/9/01
to

Darmon C. Thornton <dctho...@lvcm.com> wrote in message news:960n17$tqv$1...@raccoon.fur.com...

>
> "Rainbow" <no...@none.com> wrote in message
> news:3a839d89...@news-server.socal.rr.com...
>
> > You're so filled with anger and hatred that you feel the need to
> > ridicule me and mock me for how I desire to react to the entire
> > situation
>
> Rich didn't mock you. He told it like it is.
>
Yeah he did mock, he defined mockery, that was straight up shit-mouth.
-Ilr


Rainbow

unread,
Feb 9, 2001, 8:18:34 AM2/9/01
to
On Fri, 9 Feb 2001 04:14:29 -0800, "Darmon C. Thornton"
<dctho...@lvcm.com> wrote:

>
>"Rainbow" <no...@none.com> wrote in message
>news:3a839d89...@news-server.socal.rr.com...
>
>> You're so filled with anger and hatred that you feel the need to
>> ridicule me and mock me for how I desire to react to the entire
>> situation
>
>Rich didn't mock you. He told it like it is.
>

Now, I never expressed the desire to simply plug my ears over the
whole mess - I just desire to react to it in a different way. I'm not
necessarily for certain aspects that can be found within the fandom
being brought to light by the media - behind closed doors and all
that..but as I've said..I'm sure the media would have found a back
door in sooner or later.

>Yes, he is angry. And so am I.
>
>You will learn in due time as I and others have that when it comes to this
>fucked-up fandom, Tolerance = Blind Assent For Whatever The Perverts Who
>Don't Give A Fuck Who They Hurt Want To Do.
>
>The only reason the Trekkers are higly regarded than "furries" is that there
>were people in Star Trek fandom who had the balls to smack down the twinks
>who got out of line when Trek fandom started.
>

What sort of twinkish stuff are you referring to, as far as ST is
concerned? If there had been events that occurred that the media
would have lept on - I've never heard of any of it myself.


>You are young and naive right now, but trust me, you will come to grips with
>what I just said when your values become challenged and the People Who Do
>Not Care will either twist your arm into sucking on their dicks in quiet
>agreement, if not joining in whatever dreck this fandom has become a
>sounding board for. You will either be branded as a "nyce", "tolerant" fur
>or a goose-stepping Nazi, depending upon your reaction.
>

Young and Naieve? Alright.. I won't argue, perhaps I am. People have
their values challenged all the time. Folks make a wall around
themselves with the values that they've come to hold so dear. The
scariest thing, perhaps, for a person, is the deconstruction of a set
of values that they've held to be true or theirs for so long. Anyone
can have values - but I often wonder if everyone has the strength
within them to challenge their own views and values. I can
understand that your values must be challenged or have been challenged
often in the past perhaps, due to the ignorance of some when it comes
to furry related issues, and I can understand your anger in this topic
- though unleashing your anger on others, IMO, is really not the
answer. I don't view you or anyone in here as a Nazi, Meglomaniac, or
what have you. I hate lables.. I really do. I consider each person
an individual, with life experiences that have shaped them to feel the
way they do about topics and discussions here. Granted I've just sort
of slipped into the whole fandom thing - so maybe there will be
unpleasant experiences for me in the future..you may be quite
right..though honestly, I don't see myself as the type to releash
hostilities on others in the hopes of making it better. There will be
ways hopefully for me, despite how infitessimal, that I might be able
to embark upon to better the fandom for myself, and for others who
share my views. As for the above used metaphor..it's a bit odd in my
case...having been alone all my life.. I really don't see myself as
someone really going near that realm - and metaphorically.. Why is
this sort of language and thought used so much if there is a desire
to get rid of that sort of look for furriness. Granted, you or
others may have been exposed to it a lot - I would certainly try to
not further the 'dirty' or 'problem' areas that the fandom has when
conversing with others, if I should ever discover/decide that it is a
horribly bad problem area.

You can discuss this with me..I'm willing to talk it out, and hear
your POV's...and I'll probably be quite willing to accept them..


>Boy, was I ever so fucking wrong.
>
>I spent so much time being quiet and trying to reason with the unreasonable,
>that all it garnered was two assholes dragging me and the rest of those who
>cared more about this hobby than you will ever know through the gutter for
>the umpteenth time.
>

That kind of strikes me. I really do believe you, and it really does
upset me to see stuff/events happen to you at such extrodinairy
lengths to make you this upset. I really wish I could help out
somehow.


>I'll be damned if I allow it to happen again, while I still have irons in
>the fire.
>
>No more Mr. Nyce Guy.
>
>--Dar Thornton, Absolutely 100% Not Furry
>
>

Alright..I can respect your views and your decision to have strong
emotions on the issue. I have pretty strong emotions towards the
whole thing too, even if it may not seem so in my notes or how I
react. If I didn't - I wouldn't be replying to a number of these
'heated' notes thrown my way. I dislike reading those sorts of notes
which seem to relish the chance of nitpicking or offering heated
comments at me ...but I understand other folks have their reasons and
life experiences for seeing things the way they do, and I don't
necessarily consider them wrong to be upset or what have you. It's my
choice to be a bit tolerant, yeah, and it may end up hurting me. That
will just have to be something I'll live with.

Forrest

unread,
Feb 9, 2001, 5:38:50 PM2/9/01
to
Somewhere, "Darmon C. Thornton" <dctho...@lvcm.com> wrote:

>The only reason the Trekkers are higly regarded than "furries" is that there
>were people in Star Trek fandom who had the balls to smack down the twinks
>who got out of line when Trek fandom started.

Names?
Actions?

Xydexx Squeakypony, KSC

unread,
Feb 9, 2001, 9:47:06 PM2/9/01
to
Rainbow wrote:
>Well said Xydexx. If folks let it get to them..it will. Even though
>I'm relatively new to the 'fandom' versus furrymucks...I plan on doing
>whatever I can that is _positive_ to help the fandom. Gophering for
>cons, education to friends and hotel folks on what we're about, and
>who knows what else in the future. I hope this event inspires a good
>deal of folks to do what they can to always make the fandom/cons/what
>have you a better place to be..

Good to hear it! And yes, hopefully everyone will use this as an opportunity
to do what they can to improve things.

Karl Xydexx Jorgensen

unread,
Feb 10, 2001, 12:04:53 AM2/10/01
to
Richard Chandler - WA Resident wrote:
[snippety-snip-krang-bonk]

> [1] This could also be where I point out that this is Karl yet again turning
> the thread into talking about himself and what he said, and what fools we all
> were for not listening to him. Isn't that another thing I predicted before?

No.

This will be the point where I show you I was the one who started this
thread, so I can't be "turning it into" anything. You need to read more
carefully and pay more attention and flame a lot lot lot lot less.

This will be the point where I show you that you have a big problem with
me talking myself, yet have no reservations whatsoever about you talking
about me. The big difference is that I talk about things I do believe
and have done, and you talk about things I don't believe and haven't
done.

This will be the point where I show you've been yelling and frothing and
raving at me since 1995 about how wrong I am, and yet still keep asking
questions as to HOW and WHY. I'm not sure how you can say I'm wrong
when you keep saying you don't understand, but that's not my problem.

This will be the point where I show you don't speak for everyone else,
so stop pretending just because I disagree with you means I disagree
with everyone else. It's very dishonest of you.

> When the thread finally winds down he'll be telling us he has better things to
> do.

This will be the point where I tell you to stop wasting my time.

I Have Better Things To Do.

http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=686712931&fmt=text

Just because _you_ don't understand doesn't mean _I'm_ wrong.

--
_________________________________________________
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen / Xydexx Squeakypony, KSC

Anthrofurry Infocenter:
http://www.xydexx.com/anthrofurry

Richard Chandler - WA Resident

unread,
Feb 10, 2001, 12:42:30 AM2/10/01
to
In article <9608ga$5b1$1...@raccoon.fur.com>, "Bruce" <

notnice...@spambegone.net> writes:
> You already told us you were going to be sitting this one out - I
> am correct in what I read a day or so ago, am I not? :)

That was before I read the article. And before I read that UTTER stupidity of
these nitwits who insist that the article doesn't portray all of fandom as
"Zeta Males", and that it's really unimportant that this utterly unbalanced
portrayal of this fandom, being shows to a million people will not have any
negative effect at all on the fandom.

Well, I'll tell them right now. There IS a negative effect on the fandom, and
it has nothing to do with the outside image.

Karl insists that the only thing that really hurts the fandom is all the
flaming.
The article is causing flaming.
Therefore, the article is hurting the fandom.

Plushophilia is one of the major features of the article.
The article is causing flaming.
Therefore, Plushophilia is damaging to the fandom.

We could go on with this, but I hope it's clear enough.

Richard Chandler - WA Resident

unread,
Feb 10, 2001, 12:48:51 AM2/10/01
to

Yes, I was mocking him. I probably should have put <singsong voice> tags
around it.

But you'd better believe I'm filled with anger and hatred. And most of it is
directed at the blatant stupidity of seeing my fandom shit upon as harshly as
it was in that article, with the eager and glad assistance of Ostrich and
Galen, and being told "Oh, don't let it bother you and it won't affect you"
puts me right over the edge.

Mocking is getting off really lightly.

I'm in a mood right now where if that were told to me in person, I'd deliver
the speaker a swift kick in the balls and tell him "It only affects you if you
let it."

Richard Chandler - WA Resident

unread,
Feb 10, 2001, 12:57:30 AM2/10/01
to
In article <3a83e786...@news-server.socal.rr.com>, no...@none.com
(Rainbow) writes:
> I'm sure the media would have found a back door in sooner or later.

That's NO excuse for opening the door wide and inviting them in, giving them a
guided tour, making sure they get good photos of all the sickest aspects.

> What sort of twinkish stuff are you referring to, as far as ST
> is concerned? If there had been events that occurred that the media
> would have lept on - I've never heard of any of it myself.

Remeber the twink who went to Jury Duty in her Trek Uniform, and talked all
about it to the press about how Justice would be different under Federation
Ideals? (Of course, she had problems with Current jurisprudence and was
thrown out of the Jury Pool for disclosing aspects of the case to the Press).

We've argued for better behavior, we've pleaded for better behavior, we've
discussed the behavior issue for nigh on a decade, and it only gets worse. I
can only think that if changes are not made soon, there will be violence.
probably not from me, I'm not the sort to make a pre-meditated attack on
someone, but I'm convinced that unless those who keep fighting against the
idea of better behavior decide to start acting with consideration for others,
someone is gonna get the shit kicked out of him. And it might not even be the
right person, but someone chosen symbolicly, or because they were an easy
target.

rune....@worldnet.att.net

unread,
Feb 10, 2001, 2:03:09 AM2/10/01
to
"Xydexx Squeakypony, KSC" wrote:
>
> Rainbow wrote:
> >Well said Xydexx. If folks let it get to them..it will. Even though
> >I'm relatively new to the 'fandom' versus furrymucks...I plan on doing
> >whatever I can that is _positive_ to help the fandom. Gophering for
> >cons, education to friends and hotel folks on what we're about, and
> >who knows what else in the future. I hope this event inspires a good
> >deal of folks to do what they can to always make the fandom/cons/what
> >have you a better place to be..
>
> Good to hear it! And yes, hopefully everyone will use this as an opportunity
> to do what they can to improve things.

Like what? Run around hotel lobbies dressed in rubber with plushies on
their dicks singing about how they are an animal trapped in the wrong
body and anyone who thinks otherwise is a bigot?

Get real. This mess was caused by people doing exactly what you want:
not fighting the decay of the fandom into a hellhole full of the most
depraved activities.

As long as everyone pretends it's all nice and friendly the perversion
level will grow.

What shall we accept next? Ritual slaughter? Mutilation? Stock trailers
in the parking lot? Water sports? All part of furry, of course. Where is
the line, Karl?

> _________________________________________________
> Karl Xydexx Jorgensen / Xydexx Squeakypony, KSC
> The Vanity Fair article does not represent me.

It is you. Deal with it.

Rainbow

unread,
Feb 10, 2001, 2:34:30 AM2/10/01
to
On Sat, 10 Feb 2001 07:03:09 GMT, rune....@worldnet.att.net wrote:

>"Xydexx Squeakypony, KSC" wrote:
>>
>> Rainbow wrote:
>> >Well said Xydexx. If folks let it get to them..it will. Even though
>> >I'm relatively new to the 'fandom' versus furrymucks...I plan on doing
>> >whatever I can that is _positive_ to help the fandom. Gophering for
>> >cons, education to friends and hotel folks on what we're about, and
>> >who knows what else in the future. I hope this event inspires a good
>> >deal of folks to do what they can to always make the fandom/cons/what
>> >have you a better place to be..
>>
>> Good to hear it! And yes, hopefully everyone will use this as an opportunity
>> to do what they can to improve things.
>
>Like what? Run around hotel lobbies dressed in rubber with plushies on
>their dicks singing about how they are an animal trapped in the wrong
>body and anyone who thinks otherwise is a bigot?
>
>Get real. This mess was caused by people doing exactly what you want:
>not fighting the decay of the fandom into a hellhole full of the most
>depraved activities.
>
>As long as everyone pretends it's all nice and friendly the perversion
>level will grow.
>
>What shall we accept next? Ritual slaughter? Mutilation? Stock trailers
>in the parking lot? Water sports? All part of furry, of course. Where is
>the line, Karl?

In response to your statements regarding my earlier post..

No - Just as I am trying to do with myself - I advocate participating
in a 'con to the fullest extent. Help out by supporting the staff and
thanking them for doing what they do. Do what you can to get active
with the part of the fandom that you enjoy most. Understand that I am
not against you nor anyone else protesting, I am just opposed to the
use of opposition through violence, hatred, etc.. If you want to make
an organization within the fandom that states what you are into and
what you aren't - I will fully support such a notion, as long as your
oganization/group/gathering can exist without having a violent outlook
on other areas of the fandom. To this date, I have never seen people
dressed in rubber with plushies on their genitals while wandering
around the 'con floor - again, a very dirty and sexual metaphor used
when it is commonly agreed upon by many that one of the problems with
the fandom is that there is too much sexuality associated with it.

If people continue to react with violence and hatred towards these
issues, I think it will only be bound to further problems for each
side. Opposition/difference of values is acceptable, I only wish that
furs would be able to have their differences without reacting
violently towards one another, be it at conventions, email, newsgroups
like this one, and just life in general.
-Rainbow 'Roo

ICQ the 'Roo?: 93127116

Bruce

unread,
Feb 10, 2001, 2:56:53 AM2/10/01
to

"Richard Chandler - WA Resident" <mau...@kendra.com> wrote in message
news:010209214...@mauser.at.kendra.com...

>
> That was before I read the article. And before I read that UTTER
stupidity of
> these nitwits who insist that the article doesn't portray all of fandom as
> "Zeta Males", and that it's really unimportant that this utterly
unbalanced
> portrayal of this fandom, being shows to a million people will not have
any
> negative effect at all on the fandom.
>
> Well, I'll tell them right now. There IS a negative effect on the fandom,
and
> it has nothing to do with the outside image.
>
> We could go on with this, but I hope it's clear enough.
>


Well, yours is one of the few publications I subscribe to - so I don't want
the editor having a cardiac over the VF article. That would impact me
negatively. :)

Xydexx Squeakypony, KSC

unread,
Feb 10, 2001, 12:31:05 PM2/10/01
to
Rainbow wrote:
>If people continue to react with violence and hatred towards these
>issues, I think it will only be bound to further problems for each
>side. Opposition/difference of values is acceptable, I only wish that
>furs would be able to have their differences without reacting
>violently towards one another, be it at conventions, email, newsgroups
>like this one, and just life in general.

All the flamewars have accomplished are a lot of bad feelings on all sides.

A lot of people get on edge when this happens, but we've been through worse. I
try to be optimistic. I'm hoping people use this as an opportunity to work
together so something good comes out of this eventually.

United we stand, divided we fall, as the saying goes.

--
_________________________________________________
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen / Xydexx Squeakypony, KSC
Flamewars: The only winning move is not to play.
http://www.xydexx.com/anthrofurry

Richard Chandler - WA Resident

unread,
Feb 10, 2001, 4:33:13 PM2/10/01
to
In article <962saj$j1h$1...@raccoon.fur.com>, "Bruce" <

notnice...@spambegone.net> writes:
> Well, yours is one of the few publications I subscribe to - so I
> don't want the editor having a cardiac over the VF article. That
> would impact me negatively. :)

Well, I tell you, when I finished reading it, I was starting to seriously
consider closing up shop. However, being a rational person, I decided not to
for a number of reasons. Not only because there are literally hundreds of
people dependant on me, but that I believe all of those folks are on the same
side of the issue as me and are just as appalled.

(There were practical considerations as well, like what the hell am I going to
do with over a thousand dollars worth of inventory. :-) And the fact that I
don't know anyone I would trust to take over the Conifur Art Show who is
stupid enough to take it on. :-) )

But I did come to the decision that the day one of these articles _directly_
affects me is the day I quit.

Richard Chandler - WA Resident

unread,
Feb 10, 2001, 4:36:14 PM2/10/01
to
In article <Xns904486B4Bx...@209.125.35.22>,
xyd...@BEsmartDONTSPAM.net (Xydexx Squeakypony, KSC) writes:
> A lot of people get on edge when this happens, but we've been
> through worse. I try to be optimistic. I'm hoping people use this as
> an opportunity to work together so something good comes out of
> this eventually.

Anny suggestions on what this "something good" will take the form of? Or are
you still on the track of offering warm, fuzzy thoughts with no practical
value. All of the "solutions" youve come up with in the past are about as
effective as treating cancer with morphine. So please, ow wise one, give us
the benefit of your optimism. Tell us what "good things" you see in the
future coming out of this?

Bruce

unread,
Feb 10, 2001, 7:44:03 PM2/10/01
to

"Richard Chandler - WA Resident" <mau...@kendra.com> wrote in message
news:010210133...@mauser.at.kendra.com...

>
> (There were practical considerations as well, like what the hell am I
going to
> do with over a thousand dollars worth of inventory. :-) And the fact
that I
> don't know anyone I would trust to take over the Conifur Art Show who is
> stupid enough to take it on. :-) )
>
> But I did come to the decision that the day one of these articles
_directly_
> affects me is the day I quit.


Your convention efforts/reputation at cons/con attendence/posting to this
board are much more likely to affect you than publishing an art magazine.
Sure, someone with direct influence in your life might disagree with one
contribution and state "that's not art" - but museums suffer this problem
too from the odd exhibit they host now and again. It would be most
difficult for a critic to dismiss the entire contents of a particular issue
as being non-art oriented.

Keep up on the magazine. It may hit a speed bump once or twice a decade,
but museums don't give up and neither should you; only quit if quality
contributions drop below six or eight.

That is my advice - take it as you will.


Folks knock a.f.f. because it provides little useful input for their lives.
Well, I think this discussion has been good this time around. I know I am
cheered. The "fandom" has been growing, to where now I think it might grow
out of being just a "fandom" with "conventions".

I recall the timeline is such that "furry" only just started getting
seriously organized two decades ago. At the time of CF6 everyone poo-poohed
the chance of success for a regional con's survival (and at that time we
were right). CF for better or worse was the only show in town - and boy was
CF8 "worse". Now regional cons are appearing year after year all over the
place.

But cons have their flaws and I think the next decade will see the growth of
more private "societies" or "chapters" in limited areas of the country.
Such will be choice for folks who are more interested in fellowship and the
creative aspects, rather than discovering anthropomorphics for the first
time or in having sexual adventures.

Cons will continue to exist and grow, but regional gatherings like Tai-Pan
(they don't consider themselves furry, that is actually part of my point)
with a more formal structure and by-laws will begin to spring up - if only
as a process for establishing formal guidelines for dealing with individuals
who insist on ruining the experience for everyone else.

Such is my prediction for the next twenty years growth of the "fandom".


M. Mitchell Marmel

unread,
Feb 10, 2001, 10:30:09 PM2/10/01
to

Bruce wrote:

> Keep up on the magazine. It may hit a speed bump once or twice a decade,
> but museums don't give up and neither should you; only quit if quality
> contributions drop below six or eight.
>
>

What he said.

> Cons will continue to exist and grow, but regional gatherings like Tai-Pan
> (they don't consider themselves furry, that is actually part of my point)
> with a more formal structure and by-laws will begin to spring up - if only
> as a process for establishing formal guidelines for dealing with individuals
> who insist on ruining the experience for everyone else.
>
> Such is my prediction for the next twenty years growth of the "fandom".

Sounds like a good direction to me...

-MMM-


Cybskunk

unread,
Feb 11, 2001, 11:08:57 AM2/11/01
to
Yes it does. You are a "Furry". Those skunkfuckers who got their 15 minutes
of fame in Vanity Fair bragged about being "Furry!"

1) You = Furry
2) Those Vanity Fair hentai = Furry (they said so themselves, before millions!)
3) Therefore: You = Skunkfucker

Enjoy!

By the way, do you work with or around children?

Timothy Fay

unread,
Feb 11, 2001, 3:01:21 PM2/11/01
to
Richard Chandler - WA Resident wrote:
>
> I'm in a mood right now where if that were told to me in person,
> I'd deliver the speaker a swift kick in the balls and tell him "It
> only affects you if you let it."

"It only affects you if you let it."

There, I said it. I'd say it to your face, but I'm afraid your ugly
mug is about 1000 miles away right now. Are you going to deliver
that swift kick the next time you see me? Frankly, I think you're
just bellowing hot air again. But if you ever do that -- to me or
to anyone else -- I'll make sure you're arrested, and that'll be one
less violent perv plaguing furry fandom.

You can disagree with as much as you like and you can say just
about anything you like. But you simply cannot go around making
these childish threats of violence. Again, to quote that ex-BF:
"This is how _normal_ furs are supposed to behave?"

--
http://www.umn.edu/~fayxx001

"Bowl a strike, not a spare -- revolution everywhere!" -RABL motto

Richard Chandler - WA Resident

unread,
Feb 11, 2001, 3:55:31 PM2/11/01
to
In article <3A86EF...@tc.umn.edu>, Timothy Fay <

fayxx001@delete..this..tc.umn.edu> writes:
> There, I said it. I'd say it to your face, but I'm afraid your ugly
> mug is about 1000 miles away right now. Are you going to deliver
> that swift kick the next time you see me?

Are you brave enough to ACTUALLY say it to my face? There's very little risk
when you've got a thousand miles of distance protecting you. I fully expect
you to be brave behind the screen. You always are. Maybe that's why you're
so polite in person. Frankly, I think you're just bellowing hot air.

Of course, by the time you actualy get a chance, it's likely my anger will
have subsided.

But I'll save your post, just in case.

invisi

unread,
Feb 11, 2001, 4:20:12 PM2/11/01
to
fayxx001@delete..this..tc.umn.edu (Timothy Fay) wrote in
<3A86EF...@tc.umn.edu>:


> Again, to quote that ex-BF:
>"This is how _normal_ furs are supposed to behave?"

Misquoted and out of context.

Seeing as how I am the one who said it.

What I said was in reference to a verbal sparing match between three folks
on another ng.

As follows:

>(Wow, so this is how the self-acclaimed "normal" folks in this fandom
>behave. Nifty.)

Be so kind as to not use my words in some unrelated pissing match you've
got going on here? Thanks.

Regards,

invisi

Bruce

unread,
Feb 11, 2001, 5:10:49 PM2/11/01
to

"Richard Chandler - WA Resident" <mau...@kendra.com> wrote in message
news:010211125...@mauser.at.kendra.com...

> In article <3A86EF...@tc.umn.edu>, Timothy Fay <
> fayxx001@delete..this..tc.umn.edu> writes:
> > There, I said it. I'd say it to your face, but I'm afraid your ugly
> > mug is about 1000 miles away right now. Are you going to deliver
> > that swift kick the next time you see me?
>
> Are you brave enough to ACTUALLY say it to my face? There's very little
risk
> when you've got a thousand miles of distance protecting you. I fully
expect
> you to be brave behind the screen. You always are. Maybe that's why
you're
> so polite in person. Frankly, I think you're just bellowing hot air.
>
> Of course, by the time you actualy get a chance, it's likely my anger will
> have subsided.
>
> But I'll save your post, just in case.
>

I think I have met both of you and you seem like nice fellows in person, why
don't you just give it up?

Not doing anybody any good; least of all either of you.


Timothy Fay

unread,
Feb 11, 2001, 8:23:29 PM2/11/01
to
I think it is a fair question, whether or not you actually asked it
(though I think I paraphrased it closely enough).

We have a furry who thinks the best way to deal with Vanity Fair is
to "put a bullet in the back of the reporter's head" (that's also
paraphrased; if you want the *exact* quote you'll have to look it
up), and who wants to kick people for disagreeing with him on a
philosophical question. How do you think that VF reporter would
react if he read that (and who's to say he hasn't)? What kind of
impression would those comments give to a non-furry fan? If not you,
then I will ask: Is this how _normal_ furs are supposed to behave?

Xydexx Squeakypony, KSC

unread,
Feb 12, 2001, 1:16:19 AM2/12/01
to
Cybskunk wrote:
>Yes it does.

No, it doesn't.

I represent myself, thankyouverymuch.

Vanity Fair does not speak for me.

You, like Vanity Fair, are entitled to your opinion. I will be sure give it
the attention it deserves.

--
_________________________________________________
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen / Xydexx Squeakypony, KSC

The Vanity Fair article does not represent me.

http://www.xydexx.com/anthrofurry

Michael Campbell

unread,
Feb 12, 2001, 4:55:45 AM2/12/01
to

"Xydexx Squeakypony, KSC" wrote:

> Cybskunk wrote:
> >Yes it does.
>
> No, it doesn't.

Sorry Karl. You take a label, you take on all the baggage that the label has
attached to it.

Xydexx Squeakypony, KSC

unread,
Feb 12, 2001, 8:07:38 PM2/12/01
to
Michael Campbell wrote:
>Sorry Karl. You take a label, you take on all the baggage that the label
>has attached to it.

Thanks for the offer, Mike, but I'll decline. I've been using the label
without the baggage for the past seven years with no problem.


So I must be doing something right. -:)

Michael Campbell

unread,
Feb 13, 2001, 3:42:44 PM2/13/01
to

"Xydexx Squeakypony, KSC" wrote:

> Michael Campbell wrote:
> >Sorry Karl. You take a label, you take on all the baggage that the label
> >has attached to it.
>
> Thanks for the offer, Mike, but I'll decline. I've been using the label
> without the baggage for the past seven years with no problem.

No, you've just lightened your load by adding on to everyone else's.


Xydexx Squeakypony, KSC

unread,
Feb 13, 2001, 7:14:01 PM2/13/01
to
Michael Campbell wrote:
>Xydexx Squeakypony, KSC wrote:
>> Thanks for the offer, Mike, but I'll decline. I've been using the
>> label without the baggage for the past seven years with no problem.
>
>No, you've just lightened your load by adding on to everyone else's.

You are, as always, entitled to your opinion.

--
_________________________________________________
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen / Xydexx Squeakypony, KSC

Furry fandom. Love it or change it.
http://www.xydexx.com/anthrofurry

David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)

unread,
Feb 13, 2001, 9:13:20 PM2/13/01
to
On Tue, 13 Feb 2001 14:42:44 -0600, Michael Campbell
<mecamp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>"Xydexx Squeakypony, KSC" wrote:

[...]

>> Thanks for the offer, Mike, but I'll decline. I've been using the label
>> without the baggage for the past seven years with no problem.
>
>No, you've just lightened your load by adding on to everyone else's.

I thourt he lightened his load by filling it with helium.


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

Xydexx Squeakypony, KSC

unread,
Feb 13, 2001, 9:21:33 PM2/13/01
to
aka ? the Platypus) wrote:

Michael Campbell wrote:
>>No, you've just lightened your load by adding on to everyone else's.
>
>I thourt he lightened his load by filling it with helium.

Heh. I should've seen that one coming... -:)

--
_________________________________________________
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen / Xydexx Squeakypony, KSC

Brian Henderson

unread,
Feb 16, 2001, 8:06:15 PM2/16/01
to
On Fri, 9 Feb 2001 04:14:29 -0800, "Darmon C. Thornton"
<dctho...@lvcm.com> wrote:

>Yes, he is angry. And so am I.

As am I, and as well you should be.

>You will learn in due time as I and others have that when it comes to this
>fucked-up fandom, Tolerance = Blind Assent For Whatever The Perverts Who
>Don't Give A Fuck Who They Hurt Want To Do.

Amazingly enough, there are those of us around who remember when furry
fandom wasn't a sewer. Anyone remember when the whole purpose of a
furry con wasn't to go screw 500 of your closeset friends? When there
was such a thing as tact, dealer's rooms were kid friendly and
sexually explicit titles were kept *BEHIND* the table, not in the
middle of it?

>The only reason the Trekkers are higly regarded than "furries" is that there
>were people in Star Trek fandom who had the balls to smack down the twinks
>who got out of line when Trek fandom started.

That's true. It didn't mean there wasn't a place for the slash
writers and all the rest, but that place wasn't center stage by any
means.

-Brian

Brian Henderson

unread,
Feb 16, 2001, 8:09:31 PM2/16/01
to
On Sat, 10 Feb 2001 07:03:09 GMT, rune....@worldnet.att.net wrote:

>Like what? Run around hotel lobbies dressed in rubber with plushies on
>their dicks singing about how they are an animal trapped in the wrong
>body and anyone who thinks otherwise is a bigot?

You know something, I had just that image in my mind earlier. That's
great Rune. ;)

-Brian

Xydexx Squeakypony, KSC

unread,
Feb 18, 2001, 9:03:17 PM2/18/01
to
Brian Henderson wrote:
>Anyone remember when the whole purpose of a furry con
>wasn't to go screw 500 of your closest friends?

Yep. The funny thing is, it still isn't.

--
_________________________________________________
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen / Xydexx Squeakypony, KSC

But you knew that already...
http://www.xydexx.com/anthrofurry

Kay Shapero

unread,
Feb 19, 2001, 6:45:40 PM2/19/01
to

Xydexx Squeakypony, KSC <xyd...@BEsmartDONTSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:Xns904CDC052x...@209.125.35.22...

> Brian Henderson wrote:
> >Anyone remember when the whole purpose of a furry con
> >wasn't to go screw 500 of your closest friends?
>
> Yep. The funny thing is, it still isn't.
>

I'm fifty. I don't have sex with anybody oither than my husband and never
have. I have a daughter, now 15, who has been raised around fandom and has
attended every ConFurence but zero, without ever encountering the squicky
things that get reported as having happened at the con. I've only seen
*one* of them myself (some twit passing through the lobby, and later the con
suite, wearing bondage gear). I not only enjoy the convention, I have been
involved on staff as Den Mother for years.

I sing filksongs at the con (yes, clean ones). I look at artwork at the con
(yes clean artwork). I look through the dealer's room and ocasionally buy
things like Ninja Highschool or whatever Mel. White's brought this year. I
attend panels at the con discussing things of interest like the relationship
of dinosaurs to birds, or the Copyright panel which Glen Wooten, Mel. White
and others usually have. I attend the Reptile SIG and serve as convention
liason with the Reptile And Amphibian Rescue society, who do a presentation
with live reptiles every year (except for CF 10 because it was too far to
bring them.) And thanks to being surrounded by artists who were friendly
and helpful (and NOT in a predatory way), my daughter has learned a lot
about artwork, and also about self confidence, and the security that comes
with having a society of peers who *like* you (this last also from the
LASFS, and filk fandom). As a result she's doing far better getting along
with her fellows at high school than I ever did, and interacts with adults
quite well too.

Danged straight there's far more to a convention than looking around to get
laid (which, btw, is why some folks attend SF conventions... or any other
sort of conventions.)

There's a saying - if you gaze into the abyss long enough, the abyss gazes
back into you. And the more you look for something the more likely you are
to find it.. and possibly not other things that you would be better off
seeing. There's a wellknown pose that results in seeing nothing but
excrement, after all, and it's wisest not to assume it. It's certainly no
way to get fresh air.

Brian, if you really feel that way, meet me at the next ConFurence, and I'll
show you some things that may make you feel better. Come to the Reptile
sig! Take a look at the NON adult art show (still most of it). Come
filksinging with me. Go visit Mel. White's table in the dealer's room. If
we have one, and you're so inclined, come to the prayer meeting I'm trying
to arrange with some of my fellow Christian furries. Remind yourself why
you got involved in the fandom in the first place.

Xydexx Squeakypony, KSC

unread,
Feb 19, 2001, 8:28:58 PM2/19/01
to
Kay Shapero wrote:
>There's a saying - if you gaze into the abyss long enough, the abyss
>gazes back into you. And the more you look for something the more
>likely you are to find it.. and possibly not other things that you would
>be better off seeing.

"What we see depends mainly on what we look for."

Or, as I like to put it, "if you hang around with people who say furry fandom
sucks all the time, you'll eventually start to believe it's true."

There was a movie called Pi a few years back. It was about a mathematician
named Max, who was searching for patterns in the stock market numbers and ended
up finding more than he bargained for. At one point, Max's computer spits out a
216-digit number before it fries itself, and Max thinks he's found the answer
to Life, the Universe, and Everything, so he runs to ask his old professor what
the number means. The professor tells him it's a dead end, that once Max starts
obsessing over the number 216 he will find it everywhere, to the point of
excluding everything else.

Then Max tells the professor that's utter bullshit, and there's a secret cabal
of lifestylers who control the world and think they're better furry fans
because they have Nutella, and he's going to expose them all because He's
Always Right even though people point out how stubborn he's being. Then he
ends up wasting years of his life railing against lifestylers to show everyone
how devoted he is to the fandom and protecting it from whatever he's deluded
himself into believing threatens it. Eventually he lost his sense of
perspective completely and posted a message to alt.fan.furry saying there's
very few people left in the fandom worthy of respect, and he's alone in a
village filled with barbarians, and he doesn't want to be around when the
Hiroshima Cluehammer brings about The End Of The World As We Know It, and so on
and so on.

(This is all on the extremely rare Director's Cut by the way... you won't find
it on the one in the video store.)

It's a tragic movie, because if Max had only taken a step back and gotten some
perspective he would've realized things really weren't as bad as he made them
out to be, and the people he was screaming and yelling at weren't that bad
either. Instead, he created his own hell and got bogged down in it so much
that he actually started to believe the stuff he said.

Oh well.

FWIW, I hope he's devoting his newfound free time to doing woodworking or
something that makes him happy.



--
_________________________________________________
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen / Xydexx Squeakypony, KSC

Patrick McKinnion

unread,
Feb 20, 2001, 1:57:40 AM2/20/01
to
In article <jdjr8tk98sjona6hg...@4ax.com>, Brian
Henderson <cep...@ev1.net> wrote:

> Amazingly enough, there are those of us around who remember when furry
> fandom wasn't a sewer. Anyone remember when the whole purpose of a
> furry con wasn't to go screw 500 of your closeset friends?

Funny, any of the CF's I've been to, my main reason was to go see
friends, and otherwise socialize. Getting yiffed was never a purpose
or a plan. Only obcense thing I do is blow an obcense amount of
money in the dealer's room. :-)

Besides, I'm quite picky about who I play with in that matter. And
my lady and mate likes me that picky, thankyouverymuch.

My plans for this CF is working vet staff, socializing, and spending
time with friends. Screwing 500 of my closest friends wouldn't be
doable under those circumstances, and I don't go to cons to get my ashes
hauled. Besides, I can count the women I would even consider playing
with on the fingers of one hand.

- Patrick McKinnion

--
"Coming soon from Steve Jackson Games - GURPS: Iron Chef!"
----------------------------
(http://home.earthlink.net/~patmck) ICQ# 5527565

Brian Henderson

unread,
Feb 20, 2001, 3:58:06 PM2/20/01
to
On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 23:45:40 GMT, "Kay Shapero"
<kaysh...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>Danged straight there's far more to a convention than looking around to get
>laid (which, btw, is why some folks attend SF conventions... or any other
>sort of conventions.)

There are bad apples at any convention. I think it's a matter of
percentages more than anything. I haven't seen any of the crap at SF
conventions that I routinely saw at CF.

>Brian, if you really feel that way, meet me at the next ConFurence, and I'll
>show you some things that may make you feel better. Come to the Reptile
>sig! Take a look at the NON adult art show (still most of it). Come
>filksinging with me. Go visit Mel. White's table in the dealer's room. If
>we have one, and you're so inclined, come to the prayer meeting I'm trying
>to arrange with some of my fellow Christian furries. Remind yourself why
>you got involved in the fandom in the first place.

I got involved because I liked the atmosphere and the people. The
atmosphere has changed and the people have mostly moved on. I will
always have some friends in the fandom, but by and large, the people
that I still keep in contact with are those like me, who have largely
left the fandom because they are disgusted with it, people who enjoy
anthropomorphics on their own because the organized aspects simply
aren't enjoyable anymore.

For all the good things and good people remaining, there are a dozen
bad things and bad people involved.

-Brian

Sarenthalanos

unread,
Feb 22, 2001, 6:54:29 AM2/22/01
to

<FromTheDrec...@StukaFox.Com> wrote in message
news:95vhqm$1ojh$1...@velox.critter.net...

> Karl,
>
> Flame-trolling again, are we?

I'm glad you can recognize what you're doing to some extent.

Acknowledgment of one's actions is the first step.


Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages