Vanity, thy name is fur!
Matthew High
What's the big deal? It's only a magazine article. Ya'll are reacting like
someone just ran over your cat or something equally heinous.
Just put it in perspective, and you will realize how idiotic it is to get
worked up over this triviality.
(However, I am getting quite a chuckle out of some of the wild-eyed responses
from some of the touchie-feelies in this newsgroup. So I guess the article was
good for something, at least. Hee hee!)
----------
"Matt! Come into the light" "No! I like the darkness!"
Distributor/Retailer Liaison Radio Comix http://www.radiocomix.com
Promotion/Sales Cold Cut Distribution http://www.coldcut.com
Bruce
"Matthew High" <matt...@aol.comPINKMEAT> wrote in message
news:20010209032157...@ng-ft1.aol.com...
> Oh jeez, what a bunch of oversensitive freaks. Can't take a bit of
criticism.
>
> What's the big deal? It's only a magazine article. Ya'll are reacting
like
> someone just ran over your cat or something equally heinous.
>
> Just put it in perspective, and you will realize how idiotic it is to get
> worked up over this triviality.
>
> (However, I am getting quite a chuckle out of some of the wild-eyed
responses
> from some of the touchie-feelies in this newsgroup. So I guess the
article was
> good for something, at least. Hee hee!)
>
Well, you would say that since your professional circle includes Radio
Comix.
However, I had an employee working with me/for me at my last job and he got
wind of my "hobby" - from a very tame poster I had up from inside of an
Antarctic comic as I recall. He looked at me really strange at that
juncture; and my pointing out the positive aspects of the fandom did not
seem to change his comments or opinion.
And just when I thought he had gotten over it, he would make some oddball
comment months down the road. He really had a hard time reporting his work
efforts, progress to someone who he now apparently considered "a weirdo".
So I guess each individual's mileage will vary depending on their particular
cultural setting - "yes"? :)
Cybskunk
criticism.
>
> What's the big deal? It's only a magazine article. Ya'll are reacting
like
> someone just ran over your cat or something equally heinous.
Vanity Fair may be a tabloid, but it is a slick tabloid with circulation &
sales measured in the MILLIONS, and distribution to pretty much every
supermarket magazine rack and newsstand in the country. (Don't you wish a
furry publication could rack up those sales figures and widespread
distribution? They sure as hell don't have to distribute through Diamond...)
This includes the supermarket magazine racks and newsstands of:
* Your boss (pointy-haired or not.) By the way, are you in a profession where
you work with or around children?
* The editor at the publishing house who has life-or-death power over any
anthropomorphic stories/novels you may be trying to get professionally
published...
* Any Kyle's Mom looking to start a new Menace-to-Our-Children crusade...
* The hotel management (or their pointy-haired big bosses) where Confurence or
AnthroCon or Conifur is negotiating for a place for next year's con...
* Those booksellers/distributors who might stock _Whisper of Wings_, which
just last week received rave reviews and a recommend from a major online
reviewer associated with the Library of Congress, and is probably the *best*
original fantasy novel since Tolkien. (But, as the Terrie Smith cover picture
shows, it is definitely "Furry!", just like Fox Wolfie Galen, Ostrich, Bushy
Cat, and all those skunkfuckers who got their 15 minutes of fame in Vanity
Fair. Sorry, Paul Kidd, but now you might as well be stepping out behind a
tree going "Want some candy, little girl?" while the publishers and
distributors stay "safe" with more Tolkien Knockoffs -- Elves, Dwarves, Magic
Swords, Dark Lords, etc...)
* The non-fans who have had a soft spot for anthropomorphics since their
childhood (like me), and who might have joined the fandom and enjoyed it if
they'd been introduced to it as something else than a sexual kink. (However,
now Fox-Wolfie, Ostrich, and the others can remain Big Fish in a little pond of
cum instead of being little fish in the ocean of a large, respectable,
mainstreamed genre...)
While all this is going on:
* Damage control is becoming the top priority of the con committees, sapping
time & energy they would otherwise use to bring you better cons.
* One of our Vanity Fair spokesfurries was wailing on the net "When are they
sending me my free copies? They Promised!" Others of the same species were
gloating "We're famous! We're famous!"
* Squee Rat was gloating "I told you so!" on one newsgroup. (Remember the
intro to "Burned Fur Manifesto"? -- "To the outside world, 'Furry' means
'Pervert'?")
* On one thread in this newsgroup, skunkfuckers were rejoicing that this means
the end of those Burned Furs. (Anyone heard about "killing the messenger who
brings bad news"? Or all those ancient Jewish prophets who got snuffed for
telling the king the warnings he needed to hear instead of what he wanted to
hear?)
Now ya know why I joined the Burned Furs,
Ken
Matthew High
>&
>sales measured in the MILLIONS, and distribution to pretty much every
>supermarket magazine rack and newsstand in the country. (Don't you wish
>a
FYI, its circulation is probably a lot smaller than you think. Probably
measured in the tens of thousands (there are only a handful of magazines with
distribution in the seven digits - pubs like TV Guide, Readers Digest, and
People). Even such well-known magazines like Time or Newsweek barely break a
hundred thousand. (For a detailed listing of magazine circulation figures, I
recommend getting your hands on a recent copy of Magazine and Bookseller
Magazine - very enlightening).
Anyway, the rest of your screed is irrelevant - it all boils down to "who
cares". Big yawn.
Atara
<20010212003552...@ng-ft1.aol.com>:
>Probably measured in the tens of thousands (there are only a handful of
>magazines with distribution in the seven digits - pubs like TV Guide,
>Readers Digest, and People). Even such well-known magazines like Time
>or Newsweek barely break a hundred thousand. (For a detailed listing
>of magazine circulation figures, I recommend getting your hands on a
>recent copy of Magazine and Bookseller Magazine - very enlightening).
According to the 1998 ed. of Writer's Market, Vanity Fair has a circulation of
1,200,000.
TV Guide: 13,000,000
Reader's Digest: 15,000,000
People: 2,284,000
Time: 4,096,000
Newsweek: 3,180,00
Just FYI.
--
Atara
"I've got a pantheon of animals
in a pagan soul..." -Rush
http://www.FurNation.com/Atara/
Matthew High
>measured in the tens of thousands (there are only a handful of magazines
>with
>distribution in the seven digits - pubs like TV Guide, Readers Digest, and
>People). Even such well-known magazines like Time or Newsweek barely break a
>hundred thousand. (For a detailed listing of magazine circulation figures,
>I recommend getting your hands on a recent copy of Magazine and Bookseller
>Magazine - very enlightening).
Oops. I gotta correct myself. Vanity Fair actually does rank up in the top
100 of magazines. In 1999, it had an average circulation of 1.058 million per
issue. So my estimate was waaaaaay off. Sorry.
But I still have to say a big "so what?" to it all. Geez.
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
> Anyway, the rest of your screed is irrelevant - it all boils down to
> "who cares". Big yawn.
Okay, so maybe only a couple hundred thousand people have been told we're all
pathetic, humanity hating, plushie fucking, homosexual losers instead of over
a million. It can't be a good thing no matter how you look at it. The only
real debate is the extent of it being a bad thing. And the increased level of
heat on this nesgroups is one indisputable negative effect.
--
"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.
D C
Actually, I've been to a total of 2 furry events. Sadly, what they wrote is
partly the truth. My advice is to not be so touchy on the subject of how others
view you. People will think what they want anyway.
~Llothcat
Bruce
"Richard Chandler - WA Resident" <mau...@kendra.com> wrote in message
news:010211233...@mauser.at.kendra.com...
> In article <20010212003552...@ng-ft1.aol.com>,
> matt...@aol.comPINKMEAT (Matthew High) writes:
> > Anyway, the rest of your screed is irrelevant - it all boils down to
> > "who cares". Big yawn.
>
> Okay, so maybe only a couple hundred thousand people have been told we're
all
> pathetic, humanity hating, plushie fucking, homosexual losers instead of
over
> a million.
>
Now Rich, read all of Matthew's posts. With his last post he admits he was
in error and that approximately one million Vanity Fair readers have been
informed that we are all "pathetic, humanity hating, plushie fucking
losers".
So now that you were correct to begin with don't you feel much better? :)
Matthew High
>all
>pathetic, humanity hating, plushie fucking, homosexual losers instead of
>over
>a million. It can't be a good thing no matter how you look at it. The
>only
>real debate is the extent of it being a bad thing. And the increased level
>of
>heat on this nesgroups is one indisputable negative effect.
Awww, poor baby. Want me to kiss it and make it feel better?
Sheesh. Grow up and grow some thicker skin.
Dark Ren
D C <llot...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Actually, I've been to a total of 2 furry events. Sadly, what they
wrote is
> partly the truth. My advice is to not be so touchy on the subject of
how others
> view you. People will think what they want anyway.
Last time I heard, half truths were still more or less lying. And that
is what that article amounts to in my opinion.
--
I see the ghosts of navigators but they are lost
As they sail into the setting sun they'll count the cost
As their skeletons accusing emerge from the sea
The sirens of the rocks they beckon me
Ghost of the Navigator : Iron Maiden
Under Construction - Sins of the Past MUX
http://riftsmux.dhs.org/~sins/
Dark Ren -
http://www.deja.com/my/pb.xp?member_name=darkren
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Timothy Fay
FAIR for the "increased heat" in this newsgroup (even without your
"bullet to the head" comments)?
Richard Chandler - WA Resident wrote:
>
> Okay, so maybe only a couple hundred thousand people have been told
> we're all pathetic, humanity hating, plushie fucking, homosexual
> losers instead of over a million. It can't be a good thing no
> matter how you look at it. The only real debate is the extent of
> it being a bad thing. And the increased level of
> heat on this nesgroups is one indisputable negative effect.
--
http://www.umn.edu/~fayxx001
"Hey, ho -- let's go!" -Ramones
Banner
Pot, kettle, Black! :-)
-Banner :-D
M. Mitchell Marmel
> So, even though it's too late, and I'm practically banned, I will say that
> I am very sorry from my part in all of this. Believe me, I am suffering the
> consequences far worse than most people can imagine. I can deal with my own
> suffering over this, but the worst part is in trying to find a way to undo
> the damage that could be done to others who might still be affected by the
> article. I have no money or the means to sue them. I am welcome to
> suggestions on ways to reduce the effect of this as much as possible. I
> accept responsibility for my part in this and won't be sleeping nights
> until I can help to undo some of it.
Speaking solely for myself, I appreciate that you took the time to post,
your honesty and your willingness to accept responsibility.
Bravo.
-MMM-
Bruce
<ga...@velocity.net> wrote in message
news:ohsj8tct7uq9im7d2...@4ax.com...
>
> I rarely ever post here, though I've downloaded and read this group for
the
> past five years. What I am about to say probably won't help much for most
> people, but it is the truth.
>
> I absolutely do not agree with how the Vanity Fair article turned out. It
> is There are things in there that I did not say, and many other things
that
> are twisted. They conveniently omitted the several times that I
> specifically said that my plushophilia has nothing to do with the furry
> fandom as practiced by most other people. They made me look like I go
> around screwing 'size compatible creatures' and all sorts of other stuff.
> Many of the things in the article simply aren't true.
>
<snip>
>
> Between now and then, I am going to be spending a great deal of time
> discouraging reporters from even thinking about filming at the con.
They've
> already asked and I tell them that they are unlikely to find anyone who
> will let them gather footage that is likely to be misused.
>
> So, even though it's too late, and I'm practically banned, I will say that
> I am very sorry from my part in all of this.
>
>
> I am sorry.
>
> FoxWolfie Galen
Wow! One of those rare "I am sorry" posts on AFF! I am duly impressed!
Okay, I believe him. He was foolish enough to let a writer "use" him to his
own evil purposes. I am not surprised at all by this. Makes me feel
better.
Seems like there are several lessons here for me to ponder on....
Bruce
"M. Mitchell Marmel" <marm...@drexel.edu> wrote in message
news:3A89F5E1...@drexel.edu...
>
> Speaking solely for myself, I appreciate that you took the time to post,
> your honesty and your willingness to accept responsibility.
>
> Bravo.
>
> -MMM-
Yeah. Gutsy thing for him to do. Toss me in with the MMM perspective.
Kiala Dreamstalker
Agreed. Everyone does something they regret. This post won't wash your
hands of the situation. But I think it does state that you atleast
acknowledge your errors, which is more than most can claim, including
myself.
My view on the subject is that you should hold off on registering for AC
just yet. There's no telling how quickly people will cool down about
this, if ever.. Though, if you do decide to show up at AC, you'll get no
harshness from me.
-Kiala
=====-===-==-=--=-----.---.--.-..-..... ... .. . . . |
|.#.#.###.|Kiala Raven Dreamstalker |"For centuries, we were|
|.#.#..#..|ki...@lycanthrope.net | the watchers. Now we |
|.##...#..|www.dreamchaos.org |awake -- and your world|
|.#.#..#..|Author, Mage, Theri |can never go back." |
|.#.#.###.| ICQ: 17611893 | IRC: Kiala | -Dennis Redwing |
|------------------- Member of FurBuy.com ---------------------|
| . . . .. ... .....-..-.--.---.-----=--=-==-===-=====
Kyle L. Webb
<ga...@velocity.net> wrote in message
news:ohsj8tct7uq9im7d2...@4ax.com...
> I rarely ever post here, though I've downloaded and read this group for
the
> past five years. What I am about to say probably won't help much for most
> people, but it is the truth.
I think it helps a good deal. It may not change what happened, or what some
think of you, but this post does credit to you. I think it will definitely
raise people's opinions of you, as it has mine. I thank you for it, and wish
you well in dealing with what has to be a personal maelstrom for you.
Kyle L. Webb
Hartree Fox on yiffnet
Furplay
ga...@velocity.net wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> I am sorry.
>
> FoxWolfie Galen
Okay, I stand corrected about Galen not apologising. have'nt seen
anything by Ostrich yet tho.
If VF really DID phuck up everything that you said, perhaps you of all
people should write a letter to VF telling them all this. Perhaps the
publisher was "had" as much as you were about the sincerity and
truthfulness of this reporter hack.
If they can publish it in a following issue, it might help correct the
hideously unbalanced view the mundanes have on furry fandom (and perhaps
may even make VF want to demand a return of the money they sent to the
hack for his untrue "story").
I'd say that you should have someone with legal experience take a look
at it. there may be some stuff in there they could find as "actionable".
--
"It sure would be a lot easier if this were a dictatorship, so long as I
was the dictator." -- GW Bush 12/18/00
"One Divided Nation, Under Bush. Intolerable. Without Liberty, And Just
Ass for All"
Xydexx Squeakypony, KSC
Foxwolfie Galen wrote:
>I absolutely do not agree with how the Vanity Fair article turned out.
>It is There are things in there that I did not say, and many other
>things that are twisted. They conveniently omitted the several times
>that I specifically said that my plushophilia has nothing to do with the
>furry fandom as practiced by most other people.
If it's any consolation, I've noticed you've gone out of your way
to disassociate plushophilia from furry fandom in the past. I can certainly
sympathize. You are to be credited for putting the effort into being
responsible about it.
>I am sorry.
It is unfortunate when these things happen, but they do happen. You and I
have never really talked much, but I'm sure had you known what Vanity Fair's
actual intentions were, you wouldn't have agreed to be interviewed.
Thank you for your honesty.
--
_________________________________________________
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen / Xydexx Squeakypony, KSC
Flamewars: The only winning move is not to play.
http://www.xydexx.com/anthrofurry
Michael Campbell
ga...@velocity.net wrote:
> I rarely ever post here, though I've downloaded and read this group for the
> past five years. What I am about to say probably won't help much for most
> people, but it is the truth.
(snip)
At least you have the stones to come out and admit that you made a mistake. You
have my respect for that.
Doodles
[post snipped]
>I am sorry.
>
>FoxWolfie Galen
Well, I'll be the first to admit I was _very_ upset with you after seeing
what happened in that article, but I'm sorry if anything I've said has upset
you in return.
It's too late this time, but we're all going to have to consider this a BIG
lesson in dealing with mass media...
Timothy Fay
people from conventions over this article. The fault is *clearly*
with VANITY FAIR, for deliberately misrepresenting the people they
interviewed.
Joe Strike -- aren't there any journalistic Boards of Ethics there
in New York? We have one here at the University of Minnesota, but
I think this might be outside their scope.
ga...@velocity.net wrote:
>
> I rarely ever post here, though I've downloaded and read this group for the
> past five years. What I am about to say probably won't help much for most
> people, but it is the truth.
>
> I absolutely do not agree with how the Vanity Fair article turned out. It
> is There are things in there that I did not say, and many other things that
> are twisted. They conveniently omitted the several times that I
> specifically said that my plushophilia has nothing to do with the furry
> fandom as practiced by most other people. They made me look like I go
> around screwing 'size compatible creatures' and all sorts of other stuff.
> Many of the things in the article simply aren't true.
>
> My only mention of furry fandom was to say that even though I attended one
> or two cons a year that I didn't really participate in the furry fandom. I
> went out of my way to make sure that was understood. I was led to believe
> that the article was not about furry fandom, but about plushophilia
> instead. Not only did THEY connect it with furry fandom, but they also
> mis-represented plushophilia in more ways than I could've imagined.
>
> Up until this time, I trusted the media to at least attempt to get it
> right. Now, I have nothing but dis-respect and loathing for the media. I
> originally was interviewed for this article at about the time I was
> interviewed for one that appeared in salon.com. Even though I had no major
> objections with that one, I was not overly pleased with the results. For
> the last couple months I was trying to minimize the impact of the VF
> article that I feared I could not stop. I had them promise that my picture
> and name would not be in it, but the used both against my wishes. I
> emphasized that my opinions were not that of other plushophiles, other
> furries or other fursuiters. They took what I said and made it sound as if
> I was speaking for everyone. In addition, they made what I said to be far
> more extreme and distasteful than ever, while attributing this to an entire
> convention full of furries that I never even attended!
>
> I certainly take responsibility for those words that I said, but most of
> those aren't even in the article at all. I made a very bad mistake in
> thinking I could trust the media. A few people warned me that they would
> only make me look bad. I was willing to take that risk for myself. What I
> never imagined was that they would attempt to connect it with the entire
> group of furry against my wishes that they did not.
>
> I want to make it very clear to everyone. I am totally disgusted by what
> has happened. I have absolutely no plans or desires to talk to any
> reporters ever again. I have been contacted several times since this
> article came out and I have refused all attempts at interviews. I have also
> told all of them that the article is full of things that are false and that
> they should not attempt to seek interviews with any furries, plushophiles
> or fursuiters in the future, especially if they plan of lumping them all
> together into some sort or orgiastic freak show.
>
> It's partly my fault that this article happened. I couldn't stop it after
> the interview was over. They went on to interview others, some of which
> might have brought the furry fandom into it, but at that point, it was
> beyond my control.
>
> > "That's what I wouldn't mind being in real life," Fox Wolfie Galen said
> > of the Meeko, which may be the most popular stuffed animal among the
> > plushophiles. Between this one's legs was a little opening, a tear in
> > the seam.
>
> This quote from the article is simply not true. That happens to be my 28"
> Kashmir Meeko puppet. He is not modified in any way! The part about me
> wanting to be an anthro raccoon in real life was accurate, but the rest
> isn't.
>
> > In high school, he said, he experimented with bestiality. "Usually
> > German sheapherds, Labrador retrievers, size-comparable things," he
> > said.
>
> This quote from the article has been twisted enough to make it look pretty
> bad. Besides it being in regards to some fantasy stuff, I also said that it
> has little to do with plushophilia or furry. Funny how things can be
> twisted so much.
>
> > He started his own Web site. There you can see sexually explicit photos
> > from furry conventions, doctored cartoon stills, and his short stories.
>
> Where are the sexually explicit photos on my site? I will admit to having a
> private site that has some stuff, but no one has ever seen it without
> specifically asking me for the URL. My public site is barely more than PG
> rated.
>
> So, I am reading here that I am as good as banned from AC this year. This
> is in spite of the fact that I never did anything even remotely wrong at a
> con. I've never been one of those rumored people who has sex in a public
> area, shoves modified plushies in people's faces, or any number of other
> inappropriate behaviors. I normally go mostly unnoticed at cons. I go to
> attend the masquerade and to spend time among friends that I don't often
> see. That's exactly all I would do if I attended this year.
>
> Between now and then, I am going to be spending a great deal of time
> discouraging reporters from even thinking about filming at the con. They've
> already asked and I tell them that they are unlikely to find anyone who
> will let them gather footage that is likely to be misused.
>
> So, even though it's too late, and I'm practically banned, I will say that
> I am very sorry from my part in all of this. Believe me, I am suffering the
> consequences far worse than most people can imagine. I can deal with my own
> suffering over this, but the worst part is in trying to find a way to undo
> the damage that could be done to others who might still be affected by the
> article. I have no money or the means to sue them. I am welcome to
> suggestions on ways to reduce the effect of this as much as possible. I
> accept responsibility for my part in this and won't be sleeping nights
> until I can help to undo some of it.
>
> If anyone feels the need to flame me or talk to me about this, I can answer
> faster by email, and it would spare the group from seeing more of this
> topic. I am not likely to post much here again, since I don't really feel
> that my presence here is appreciated by most furries.
>
> I am sorry.
>
> FoxWolfie Galen
--
Banner
ga...@velocity.net wrote:
> <snipped explaination of being raped by the reporter basically>
>
> I am sorry.
>
> FoxWolfie Galen
I accept your apology myself, and retract my call for people to consider banning
you.
If you got that agreement in writing, I don't think you'd have any trouble finding
a lawyer.
Contact your local legal aid, it's free.
-Banner
Alan Kennedy
As many have said, atleast you had the courage to come out and post an
apology. I know the feeling of being 'used' so, I see where you are coming
from and I know how it is to have your words twisted.
Anyways, I want to apologize for my 'guff' towards you in my posts, as I'm
sorry for anything I said.
Like I said, your courage to post and admit what you did is a great thing.
As someone else pointed out, we've yet to hear anything from Ostrich, and my
words of harshness will STIL remain till he posts something similar.
Best of luck sorting this situation out.
--
Alan Kennedy [TriGem Olandarinse]
EMAIL : tri...@REMOVEGIBBERISH.hotmail.com
YAHOO : goldanthrowolf & trigem_olandarinse
WWW : http://www.furnation.com/trigem
ICQ : 8781052
AUCTIONS :
http://furrybid.transform.to/cgi-bin/auction.pl?justdisp&Trigem_olandarinse