galen's plushie site becomes today's "Cruel Site of the Day"
furplay
Ross Sauer
>Thanks galen........NOT!!
>
>http://www.velocity.net/~galen/psexfaq.html
Yeesh.
Ross Sauer
pa...@bytehead.com
furplay
Farlo wrote:
>
> furplay wrote:
>
> >Thanks galen........NOT!!
> >
> >http://www.velocity.net/~galen/psexfaq.html
>
> So what? Furplay, why bring this here?
>
> --
> Farlo
> Urban fey dragon
> "Worship my magic space monkey or he'll napalm you."
>
> "Yes, my e-mail address is valid. It just doesn't look valid."
Just to show yet another example of some git trying to associate furry
fandom with plusho/beasto-philia.
ilr
> > So what? Furplay, why bring this here?
> >
>
>
> fandom with plusho/beasto-philia.
Since when? Usually the only time you post something here, it's a
URL to a Groatish mauling of a Furby or some other stuffed animal
most deserving of such violent buffoonery.
Or does an S.P.H. count as a Groatish mauling? :D
--- i l r
Farlo
>Thanks galen........NOT!!
>
>http://www.velocity.net/~galen/psexfaq.html
So what? Furplay, why bring this here?
--
Farlo
>Farlo wrote:
>> So what? Furplay, why bring this here?
>
>Just to show yet another example of some git trying to associate furry
>fandom with plusho/beasto-philia.
He doesn't mention "furry fandom" anywhere on that page.
Thank YOU for making the association by BRINGING IT HERE.
Farlo
>I presume then
>that the article I just replied to would be deleted under the rules of
>the proposed moderated group?
Yes.
furplay
Tim Gadd wrote:
>
> On Wed, 27 Oct 1999 17:50:43 -0500, furplay <fur...@novia.net> wrote:
>
> >Thanks galen........NOT!!
> >
> >http://www.velocity.net/~galen/psexfaq.html
>
> This is the FAQ for the usenet group alt.sex.plushies. It doesn't
> appear to mention furry fandom, or even furries.
To quote from the site: "Related areas include the alt.fan.furry,
alt.fan.furry.muck and alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.furry newsgroups."
In other words, furry fandom is related to plushie fandom (& vice-versa)
by using newsgroups like AFF as resources for plushophiacs.
furplay
Farlo wrote:
>
> Tim Gadd wrote:
>
> >I presume then
> >that the article I just replied to would be deleted under the rules of
> >the proposed moderated group?
>
> Yes.
>
So much for the 1st Ammendment (and now gives me good reason to vote
against a "moderated" group).
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen
> Just to show yet another example of some git trying to associate furry
> fandom with plusho/beasto-philia.
Um, you do realize the URL you gave DOESN'T MENTION THE WORD "FURRY"
EVEN ONCE, right?
Okay, just checking. Indeed, it's important for folks to be aware that
furry fandom's image is so fragile that the careless act of NOT
MENTIONING IT will tarnish it to such an extent that nobody will ever
ever ever want to be associated with it ever again. I shudder to think
what would've happened if the page didn't mention bananas. We'd never
recover from that, I think.
On the other hand, I did find a FAQ on the site that says the vast
majority of furries are NOT into bestiality. It also said a furry was a
character who has attributes of both animal and human, most commonly
represented as anthropomorphic characters such as the Animaniacs or
Disney's Robin Hood... and so on and so on.
In summary, it's actually a pretty cool page, and I added it to my
bookmarks. Thanks for pointing it out. -:)
--
Xydexx Squeakypony [ICQ: 7569393]
I may be a freak, but at least I'm a happy freak.
S q u e a k y p o n y l a n d :
http://www.smart.net/~xydexx/lifestyle/homepage.htm
Tehrasha Darkon
In future, try getting the link right.
The link you post does not contain the lines you quoted.
The page which DOES include your quoted material,
also contains....
-----------------------------------
Are Plushophiles or Furries into bestiality?
From my experience, I'd say that the vast majority of us are not
into bestiality. As with any group of people, there are various interests
and activities that can be found. Some people undoubtedly do get into this
practice; however, this does not reflect what the majority of plushophiles
or furries are into. True plushophilia has little to do with bestiality,
and most bestialists probably would not care to settle for a *just* a
plushie. With a very few exceptions, we are separate groups of people.
Most of us plushophiles are quite content to stick with our much loved
plushies.
------------------------------------
The page defines furries, plushies, plushophiles and fursuits.
The 'Related ares of interest' are for the whole page, not just
the plush section. It also never implies any 'vice-versa'. All
associations are pointed one way.
Furplay needs to start reading the lines themselves before
reading between them.
And as for his cries of 'So much for the First Ammendment'...
I think he better go read that ammendment and discover it has
no relavance in this case.
--Teh (straight, married, and furry)
--
My mailbox is NOT an advertisement medium. Tehrasha Darkon
My address is NOT for sale, lease or rent. dar...@netins.net
Send me spam, lose your account. Get it? TINLC-1372
Cerulean
>So much for the 1st Ammendment (and now gives me good reason to vote
>against a "moderated" group).
One good thing about this unmoderated group is it gives me the ability
to LAUGH IN YOUR FACE! BUAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!
"It's my First Amendment right to make everybody listen to everything
I say in the interest of STAMPING OUT all the BAD things I read on the
WORLD WIDE WEB!"
Oooooo, that's just too good. If I used killfiles, I'd be missing gems
like this. Don't worry, when (if) the moderated group starts up,
alt.fan.furry will still be here as a public forum for every pinheaded
thing you want to write!
--
___vvz /( Cerulean = Kevin Pease http://cerulean.st/
<__,` Z / ( DC2.~D GmAL~W-R+++Ac~J+S+Fr++IH$M-V+++Cbl,spu
`~~~) )Z) ( FDDmp4adwsA+++$C+D+HM+P-RT+++WZSm#
/ (7 ( ,,'umo+ s!y+ u! sa6e^es jo y)unq,,
Akai
> furplay wrote:
>
> >Farlo wrote:
> >> So what? Furplay, why bring this here?
> >
> >Just to show yet another example of some git trying to associate furry
> >fandom with plusho/beasto-philia.
>
> He doesn't mention "furry fandom" anywhere on that page.
> Thank YOU for making the association by BRINGING IT HERE.
>
> --
> Farlo
> Urban fey dragon
> "Worship my magic space monkey or he'll napalm you."
>
> "Yes, my e-mail address is valid. It just doesn't look valid."
Kinda reminds me of the scene in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" where
some villagers cart a would-be witch into the public square, cheering for
her to be burned.
--
-Akai
"A wise man's question contains half the answer."
--Ibn Gabirol
Forrest
furplay <fur...@novia.net> wrote in message
news:3817E44A...@novia.net...
>So much for the 1st Ammendment (and now gives me good reason to vote
>against a "moderated" group).
1) The First Amendment does not apply
2) the existence of a moderated AFF would affect your capacity to post to
AFF not at all
Forrest
Tim Gadd :
>Your proposal stated that posts referring to paraphilias
>would be regarded as off-topic, and would be deleted.
Technically, off-topic posts would not be explicitly deleted; simply left
unapproved.
>I presume then that the article I just replied to would be deleted
>under the rules of the proposed moderated group?
Were I a moderator I would not have explicitly approved it. I'm not sure
who if anyone would explicitly approve it; plushies are frequently not
anthropomorphic, are certainly not fictional (a necessary characteristic of
a "furry") and in any case are addressed by several other NGs.
M. Mitchell Marmel
> I have a question for the authors of the proposed new moderated
> newsgroup. Your proposal stated that posts referring to paraphilias
> would be regarded as off-topic, and would be deleted. I presume then
> that the article I just replied to would be deleted under the rules of
> the proposed moderated group?
In a New York minute. At least if I was a moderator...
--
============================================================================
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 Center \ marm...@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu
============================================================================
TaliVisions Homepage: http://www.pages.drexel.edu/grad/marmelmm/Talivisions/index.html
Forrest
furplay <fur...@novia.net> wrote :
>In other words, furry fandom is related to plushie fandom (& vice-versa)
>by using newsgroups like AFF as resources for plushophiacs.
I've never noticed p-philes using AFF as a resource; any p-phile attempting
to do so should be redirected to the four newsgroups devoted to that topic.
That said, "furry" is a hopelessly damaged term; I've abandoned it. Until a
better word comes along, I'm calling myself a mugwump. (Merriam-Webster
says it's obsolete, so I'm taking it over unilaterally.)
Peter da Silva
>I have a question for the authors of the proposed new moderated
>newsgroup. Your proposal stated that posts referring to paraphilias
>would be regarded as off-topic, and would be deleted.
Actually, it wouldn't have been posted in the first place.
--
This is The Reverend Peter da Silva's Boring Sig File - there are no references
to Wolves, Kibo, Discordianism, or The Church of the Subgenius in this document
Executive Vice President, Corporate Communications, Entropy Gradient Reversals.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
>
>
>Farlo wrote:
>>
>> furplay wrote:
>>
>> >Thanks galen........NOT!!
>> >
>> >http://www.velocity.net/~galen/psexfaq.html
>>
>
>Just to show yet another example of some git trying to associate furry
>fandom with plusho/beasto-philia.
[dformosa]$ lynx -dump http://www.velocity.net/~galen/psexfaq.html |
grep furry |wc
0 0 0
For thouse who can't read unix, that means that there is zero
menations of the word furry in the document. So, the only person who
is doing the association is you.
--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
http://www.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
>>
>> >I presume then
>> >that the article I just replied to would be deleted under the rules of
>> >the proposed moderated group?
>>
>
>So much for the 1st Ammendment (and now gives me good reason to vote
>against a "moderated" group).
The first ammendment only covers actions by the govement. Infact it
would be a violation of the 1st ammendment for the us govement to prevent
the moderated newsgroup from comming into existence.
Ostrich! <)
>
> Were I a moderator I would not have explicitly approved it. I'm not sure
> who if anyone would explicitly approve it; plushies are frequently not
> anthropomorphic, are certainly not fictional (a necessary characteristic of
> a "furry") and in any case are addressed by several other NGs.
>
they're real objects, just as plushies are. Like plushies, they often
depict fictional characters, but the characters aren't always furry.
I'd say it's a pretty good bet in fact that a higher percentage of
plushies than of comic books are furry. The same criticism can be
made of conventions, stories, movies, etc. All real, and only a tiny
percentage furry. I'm pretty sure that there are other NGs too for
movies, literature, etc.
-Ostrich! <") http://www.furnation.com/ostrich
All G-rated! Now enhanced with Little Pony content!
Kai Robinson
"The following text contains descriptions of erotic acts
with plush stuffed animals ('plushies').
If you are a minor, or if you believe you may be offended
by descriptions of eroticism with plush stuffed animals,
please stop reading this text now."
From the home pages:
"This page may contain resources for Plushophiles, Zootaphiles, Toonophiles,
Furries, Texturephiles, etc. Some of the links have to do with one's
sexuality and may lead to pictures or text that some viewers may find
objectionable. If you are unconfortable with any of this, please hit the
BACK button on your browser now."
What part of that didn't you understand?
---------------------------------___-----------------------
Kai Robinson "._`-. (\-.
all-purpose ferret '-.`;.--.___/ _`>
`"( ) , )
ka...@iquest.net \\----\-\
-------------------------------------------""----"""-------
Cathead232
>vote against a "moderated" group).
>
Mike, it really suprises me that YOU, as one so sensative to persecution, would
do this. This site was in NO way assosiated with furrydom, yet you drag it here
in hopes we'd go after this guy. Why? I could spend the time to go through the
net & cherry pick a bag full of peculiar fetish sites (y'know, like foot
fetishists or freak who like harem girls), & post them here for all to see. To
what end? So we can sit around & reassure each other how much cooler we are
than them? I think I've made my distaste for this sort of thing among the BF's
evident, but that YOU would do it!
Oh, never mind...
Shon Howell
"When confronted, he comic artist will puff his resume to 3 times it's actual
size in order to seem more imposing..."
FURTOPIA- Just shut-up & draw...
Harris O'Malley
>
>
>Farlo wrote:
>>
>> Tim Gadd wrote:
>>
>> >I presume then
>> >that the article I just replied to would be deleted under the rules of
>> >the proposed moderated group?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>
>
>So much for the 1st Ammendment (and now gives me good reason to vote
>against a "moderated" group).
It's worth pointing out that the 1st Amendment only applies to
Americans. This is the Internet. It is not regulated by the American
federal government. The 1st Amendment doesn't apply here.
Brian Sutton
this really going to be a daily post or are you going to wuss out?
Be careful though, Stukafox may come after you for stealing his shtick.
Brian Sutton
" Because I REALLY care about your happiness..."
Visit my website @ http://members.xoom.com/HJGpage/
for deals on Furry art & comics
zoomer
On Thu, 28 Oct 1999 11:19:53 +0000, Forrest wrote (in message
<7v9bih$mq7$1...@crucigera.fysh.org>):
along those lines, how about sharpening the definitions of the .newsgroups
themselves? what topics are should be addressed and such. like rooms of a
house, if you don't like smokers, go to the non-smoking room... or flaming, as
the case might be.
how about something like...
alt.lifestyle.furry.plushophile
alt.lifestyle.furry.zoophile
alt.lifestyle.furry.toonaphile
alt.fan.furry.comics
alt.fan.furry.cartoons_tv
etc.
this does not break up the integrity of the fandom, but it does allow for
forums to be conducted without the extra hassles of upsetting someone who does
not share your views and then turns their disagreement into an attack against
the fandom.
if i am repeating someone's argument, i apologize, but obviously this issue is
bigger than most.
zoomer, toc
diespa...@best.com
: Be careful though, Stukafox may come after you for stealing his shtick.
"If this is anyone but Milton Berle, you're stealing my act!"
-- Krusty the Clown
post...@my-deja.com
"Forrest" <bct...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> That said, "furry" is a hopelessly damaged term; I've abandoned it.
Until a
> better word comes along, I'm calling myself a mugwump.
(Merriam-Webster
> says it's obsolete, so I'm taking it over unilaterally.)
Errk. Watch the David Cronenberg film "Naked Lunch" (on an empty stomach
if possible) and tell me again if you really mean that... *shudder*
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Hangdog
> Kinda reminds me of the scene in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" where
> some villagers cart a would-be witch into the public square, cheering for
> her to be burned.
And after they try her, and find out she really *does* weigh the same as a
duck, she mutters "It's a fair cop..."
--Hangdog: so geeky, the other geeks notice.
ilr
about the Columbine shooting.
furplay
Brian Sutton wrote:
>
> Just a little too quiet for you huh Mike? Well its put up or shut up time, is
> this really going to be a daily post or are you going to wuss out?
> Be careful though, Stukafox may come after you for stealing his shtick.
>
>
> Brian Sutton
> " Because I REALLY care about your happiness..."
>
Hi Shon.
furplay
ilr wrote:
>
> This is just like that time he got in that big argument with everyone
> about the Columbine shooting.
Who's arguing? Not I. I'm pretty much moving on after I make this post.
Forrest
Ostrich! <") <ost...@fysh.org> wrote :
>I have to take issue with this point. Comics book aren't fictional -
>they're real objects, just as plushies are. Like plushies, they often
>depict fictional characters, but the characters aren't always furry.
Comics, books, movies, et c. are story vehicles, while a plushie is a
thing-in-itself. Having thoroughly read, say, Howard the Duck #3*, I have
made it internal, and having made it internal can do without the physical
object. Up until one could purchase a copy of a movie, a film buff would
substantially =have= to make do with intangibles. On the other hand, if
someone took away the Opus the Penguin plushie I got at Sea World in
1986...well, I'd have no Opus plushie, and I can't keep a memory on top of
my monitor. Come to notice it, I don't seem to have that Opus any more, so
I'll switch to this squirrel plushie I got for Christmas 1997.
Comparing a plushie to a non-story-vehicle, like a furry art print, is a
more ambiguous case; a Sabrina stuffie would count as [furry], but my
squirrel plushie wouldn't. However, both of them would be on-topic for
alt.fan.plushies, which would therefore be a more appropriate forum.
___
* Howard the Duck is a definitive character of mugwump fandom. He's not
furry, nor is he a funny animal except when he wants to be.
Forrest
Cathead232 <cathe...@aol.com> wrote :
>This site was in NO way assosiated with furrydom
It does backlink to a main page that links to both furry and nonfurry
oriented subjects/sites; some of the latter are of the variety that Burned
Fur doesn't like having "furry" linked to.
Putting furry and potentially squicky links on the same page is a practice
that I wish didn't happen no matter whether it's Squee Rat or Galen doing
it.
Elf Sternberg
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) <dfor...@zeta.org.au> wrote:
>[dformosa]$ lynx -dump http://www.velocity.net/~galen/psexfaq.html |
>grep furry |wc
> 0 0 0
Just to be pedantic, David, but shouldn't that have been:
% lynx -dump http://www.velocity.net/~galen/psexfaq.html | grep -i furry | wc -l
0
You need the -i there to make it case insensitive, just in case a ''Furry'' was
slipped in there. And I prefer the '-l' switch-- I just wanna know how many times the word
happens, not how many characters there are in the lines in which it appears and so on.
It's still zero, though.
Elf
rune....@worldnet.att.mil
>
> furplay wrote:
>
> >Farlo wrote:
> >
> >Just to show yet another example of some git trying to associate furry
> >fandom with plusho/beasto-philia.
>
> Thank YOU for making the association by BRINGING IT HERE.
Try looking at the rest of the site:
http://www.velocity.net/~galen/index.html
Yes, a newcomer _could_ be confused...
rune....@worldnet.att.mil
>
> On Wed, 27 Oct 1999 17:50:43 -0500, furplay <fur...@novia.net> wrote:
>
> >Thanks galen........NOT!!
> >
> >http://www.velocity.net/~galen/psexfaq.html
>
> appear to mention furry fandom, or even furries. It wasn't written by
> Galen, and I seem to remember that the person who did write it didn't
> consider himself a furry, and went to special efforts to make certain
> that there were no references in it to furries or to furry fandom. So
> what does that page contain? Sexually related material about a
> particular fetish/paraphilia. As the publisher of x-rated furry zines,
> I would have thought you were in the proverbial glass house in this
> regard.
>
> I have a question for the authors of the proposed new moderated
> newsgroup. Your proposal stated that posts referring to paraphilias
> that the article I just replied to would be deleted under the rules of
> after all, almost invariably expressions of moral outrage such as the
> one above.
How about: http://www.velocity.net/~galen/index.html
That is the actual home page for the site. Yes, it does mention "furry"
and, yes again, newcomers and outsiders could make unwanted connections.
This is not the same as saying the site is evil, perverted, etc. but
perhaps such connections DO need to be discussed.
I realize that there are many here who would like to see such topics
banned from all public talk but by doing so they are only ensuring that
the discussion remain out in the unmoderated and therefore flammable
newsgroups.
rune....@worldnet.att.mil
>
> Tim Gadd :
>
> >Your proposal stated that posts referring to paraphilias
> >would be regarded as off-topic, and would be deleted.
>
> unapproved.
>
> >under the rules of the proposed moderated group?
>
> who if anyone would explicitly approve it; plushies are frequently not
> anthropomorphic, are certainly not fictional (a necessary characteristic of
> a "furry") and in any case are addressed by several other NGs.
A plush toy is not an object unto itself. It represents something. An
animal. A cartoon character. A mascot. An imaginary creature.
Why can sculptures not be considered "furry"? The Omaha statue is not
furry because I am not holding it only in my mind? Should costumes be
declared "Non-furry" because the people in them are not just imagining
that they have fur? A painting of an anthro creature becomes "non-furry"
the minute it is created and therefore off-topic?
The new group is going to be a damn empty place with all these
off-topic...
rune....@worldnet.att.mil
>
> Just a little too quiet for you huh Mike? Well its put up or shut up time, is
> this really going to be a daily post or are you going to wuss out?
> Be careful though, Stukafox may come after you for stealing his shtick.
So what's your beef? Can't stand that he's right?
>
>
> Brian Sutton
> " Because I REALLY care about your happiness..."
Do you know how phony it sounds every time this is posted with something
like your flame?
rune....@worldnet.att.mil
>
> furplay <fur...@novia.net> wrote :
>
> >In other words, furry fandom is related to plushie fandom (& vice-versa)
> >by using newsgroups like AFF as resources for plushophiacs.
>
> I've never noticed p-philes using AFF as a resource; any p-phile attempting
> to do so should be redirected to the four newsgroups devoted to that topic.
>
No matter what Star Trek fen wish to call themselves the outside world
still calls them "Trekkies". When they see someone in a ST costume or
with a piece of ST merchandise they're automatically "Trekkies" to the
rest of the planet. Won't anthro, funny-animal, et al, stuff still be
called "furry" by the rest of the world even if a new name is tried?
> Until a
> better word comes along, I'm calling myself a mugwump. (Merriam-Webster
> says it's obsolete, so I'm taking it over unilaterally.)
M-W is wrong. They were probably right in the 50's but the term has come
back like many other formerly obsolete ones in the last couple of
decades.
Cathead232
>
Wrong Mike, it was Briano cracking you...f'real
Forrest
<post...@my-deja.com> wrote :
>Errk. Watch the David Cronenberg film "Naked Lunch" (on an empty stomach
>if possible) and tell me again if you really mean that... *shudder*
"I have always been a mugwump." -- Mark Twain
Cronenberg's absconded with my word? or Burroughs? That bum!
Forrest
<rune....@worldnet.att.mil> wrote :
>No matter what Star Trek fen wish to call themselves the outside world
>still calls them "Trekkies". When they see someone in a ST costume or
>with a piece of ST merchandise they're automatically "Trekkies" to the
>rest of the planet. Won't anthro, funny-animal, et al, stuff still be
>called "furry" by the rest of the world even if a new name is tried?
That Trekker=Trekkie is an identicality of perception I've pointed out (it
didn't make any difference, though).
"Furry" is a different case; the word is generally used only by those who
identify themselves as furry fans, and to the extent that it =has= been used
by outsiders -- on MTV, in Loaded, on Eurotrash -- it has not been as a word
descriptive of mainstream characters like Pogo, Howard the Duck or
Warner/Disney/etc funny-animal products. (What it has been used to
mean...well, the record speaks for itself, unfortunately.)
So I'm a mugwump*. If anyone asks -- and they'll have to, since
"mugwump" is pretty non-obvious in its meaning -- I'm free to specify
exactly what I'm =not= interested in, as well as what I am.
(* in the mainstream political sense also, just like Clemens, so that's
handy)
Akai
The wonders of science are truly astounding, but would anyone else really have
known that the "witch" was there if she hadn't been dragged out into the open?
It's probably been said before in other ways but it seems that the witch
hunters are causing more trouble than the witches.
--
-Akai
"A wise man's question contains half the answer."
--Ibn Gabirol
rune....@worldnet.att.mil
>
> "Furry" is a different case; the word is generally used only by those who
> identify themselves as furry fans, and to the extent that it =has= been used
> by outsiders -- on MTV, in Loaded, on Eurotrash -- it has not been as a word
> descriptive of mainstream characters like Pogo, Howard the Duck or
> Warner/Disney/etc funny-animal products. (What it has been used to
> mean...well, the record speaks for itself, unfortunately.)
The term "furry" is not limited to the confines of this fandom. It is
widely used to describe people perceived to be in this fandom by those
not in it, especially in the SF and comic fandoms. And not in a kind way
for the most part, either.
Since the name/genie is out of the bottle I don't see any way to get it
back in. Be perceived as a "furry" and you will be labeled as such.
Unless a new name accompanies a markedly noticable different form of the
fandom it will be lumped in with the old when people want to dump on it.
Just as animation and anime will forever be "cartoons" to those who do
not care for them mugwumps (or any other adopted term) will be "furries"
to others.
I could point to the b/z problem for a parallel but I won't.
Or did I?
Forrest
<rune....@worldnet.att.mil> wrote :
>The term "furry" is not limited to the confines of this fandom. It is
>widely used to describe people perceived to be in this fandom by those
>not in it, especially in the SF and comic fandoms. And not in a kind way
>for the most part, either.
Every once in a while I do a Dejanews and Alta Vista search to see if
anyone's talking about "furry" who isn't a fan, and generally the answer is
no.
That when it is used, it's probably not complimentary...well, that was one
of my points...
>Just as animation and anime will forever be "cartoons" to those who do
>not care for them mugwumps (or any other adopted term) will be "furries"
>to others.
If they start referring to Pokemon collectors, Pogophiles, HTD fans, Pooh
collectors, etc., as Furries, I'll have no choice but to concede this point.
Forrest
Tim Gadd <not_a...@addressatall.com> wrote :
> That all seems reasonable, but I think it would be a strange situation
> if the on-topicness criteria for the newsgroup came down to a matter
> of metaphysics.
Everything comes down to metaphysics! I took philosophy*, I know these
things. :)
(* And haven't been able to give a simple yes/no answer since.)
Bahumat
links on the same page of a website means they are interconnected, is
another day I tell yet another person to get bent.
Bahumat
Tim Gadd wrote:
>
> On Thu, 28 Oct 1999 17:11:44 -0400, rune....@worldnet.att.mil wrote:
>
> >> I have a question for the authors of the proposed new moderated
> >> newsgroup. Your proposal stated that posts referring to paraphilias
> >> would be regarded as off-topic, and would be deleted. I presume then
> >> that the article I just replied to would be deleted under the rules of
> >> the proposed moderated group? Articles which mention such topics are,
> >> after all, almost invariably expressions of moral outrage such as the
> >> one above.
> >
> >How about: http://www.velocity.net/~galen/index.html
> >
> >That is the actual home page for the site. Yes, it does mention "furry"
> >and, yes again, newcomers and outsiders could make unwanted connections.
> >
> >This is not the same as saying the site is evil, perverted, etc. but
> >perhaps such connections DO need to be discussed.
>
> Well you probably know what my view on that is: if someone wants to
> say "I am interested in x' and "I am also interested in y' on their
> homepage, they have every right to do so. That 'x' and/or 'y' are
> scandalised merely by being mentioned on the same webpage as each
> other, is a non-issue. People have the freedom to associate with more
> than one group or to have more than one interest, and associating with
> a group - especially one as informal and nebulous as a media fandom -
> does not automatically imply some responsibility to uphold the beliefs
> or values of anyone else in that group, or even the majority of that
> group. Furry fandom needs to get over the idea that posting to
> alt.fan.furry or turning up to furry cons, results in some sort of
> moral obligation to surrender one's freedom of association in the
> interests of the fandom, or to surrender the right to disclose what
> one's associations are.
>
> --
> Tim Gadd | fluke .com.au
> Hobart, Tasmania | @southcom
>
> Homepage: http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Coffeehouse/1161/
>
> 'We see the moon but cannot remember its meaning.'
>
> - Edward Brathwaite
--
In waking state, I dream; -- but in dreaming, I AWAKEN! -- Bahumat
"Rhetoric may be empty or loaded. However, unlike a firearm, it's when
it's empty that it's at it's most dangerous." -- Doug Winger
ilr
Forrest <bct...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:7vclv9$g91$3...@crucigera.fysh.org...
>
> <rune....@worldnet.att.mil> wrote :
>
> >The term "furry" is not limited to the confines of this fandom. It is
> >widely used to describe people perceived to be in this fandom by those
> >not in it, especially in the SF and comic fandoms. And not in a kind way
> >for the most part, either.
>
> Every once in a while I do a Dejanews and Alta Vista search to see if
> anyone's talking about "furry" who isn't a fan, and generally the answer is
> no.
>
Videos of women with "more hair" than usual. The worst part
was their actual inclusion of pictures of the unshaven subjects.
Armpit hair, breast hair, and everything else.
Yeeccchh!
--- i l r
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
writes:
> Every once in a while I do a Dejanews and Alta Vista search to see
> if anyone's talking about "furry" who isn't a fan, and generally
> the answer is no.
The world is not the net.
There's no reason for someone on sci.astronomy to post ragging on Furries,
even if he does think of them as get-a-lifers. But if you went around asking
posters on sci.astronomy, who knows what the opinion is of those who have
opinions? Experience is that anyone who knows enough about Furries to know
what they are, the majority of them have neutral to negative opinions.
--
The greatest tragedy is that the same species that achieved space flight,
a cure for polio, and the transistor, is also featured nightly on COPS.
-- Richard Chandler
Spammer Warning: Washington State Law now provides civil penalties for UCE.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
[...]
> Just to be pedantic, David, but shouldn't that have been:
>
>% lynx -dump http://www.velocity.net/~galen/psexfaq.html | grep -i
>furry | wc -l
> 0
>
> You need the -i there to make it case insensitive, just in
>case a ''Furry'' was slipped in there.
True enought. But it makes no diffrence there is no meantion of
furryness on that page.
--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
http://www.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
<not_a...@addressatall.com> wrote:
[...]
>I have a question for the authors of the proposed new moderated
>newsgroup. Your proposal stated that posts referring to paraphilias
>would be regarded as off-topic,
This is the intent of the rules and how they should operate.
Muke Tever
I always find it odd that people are only allowed to show *one*
interest on the Internet. ...No, that's just among furries. Furry
fandom is a very jealous creature. It automatically assumes
everything you do will in some way be related to it.
Suppose that I like ASCII art and anagrams. Few reasonable people
will expect me to link these interests, limiting myself to forming
ASCII pictures that are anagrams of each other, or limiting myself to
*just* one, or the other.... Now, suppose that I like furries and
ASCII art. Apparently, this means that I'm trying to 'link' them
together, even if I haven't made a vixenized rendition of "Meriday in
the Morning". (Yet.)
No, that's probably not right either. Just a random half-thought.
Here is a reverse conundrum: People are brought to both furry and
the "things that are specifically _not_ furry" for the same reasons.
That is... they came linked to begin with. I don't know that I'd
care much about 'furry' at all if I didn't have a non-human identity.
In ALF they use phrases like 'a part of my furriness' to describe
things like that. "The lifestyle" isn't furry fandom, but it can
bring people to it, because it's similar to begin with. Toonophilia
isn't furry fandom, but it can bring people to it, because it's
similar to begin with. The [z/b word] isn't furry fandom, but it can
bring people to it, because it's similar to begin with.
Of course it's not *very* similar, and to the separatists it is (or
they'd like it to be) _very_ dissimilar, but they're much closer to
furry fandom than, say, nuclear physics...
Hooboy, I'm not making sense, am I...
*Muke!
--
"Multiple choice is not always the right answer."
"They have forgotten. Just because it can be done
does not mean that it should be done..."
ICQ:1936556 AIM:MukeTurtle http://i.am/muke
Forrest
Richard Chandler - WA Resident <mau...@kendra.com> wrote :
> > Every once in a while I do a Dejanews and Alta Vista search to see
> > if anyone's talking about "furry" who isn't a fan, and generally
> > the answer is no.
>
> The world is not the net.
Indeed. The net is however a sample of the world, and a sample whose
members do not refrain from making their dislikes known even on unrelated
forums.
As SAG has observed, "furry" is still obscure.
>Experience is that anyone who knows enough about Furries to know
>what they are, the majority of them have neutral to negative opinions.
I think I already noted that the word has acquired negative
connotations...which is why I've abandoned it.
Forrest
Muke Tever <realv...@bigfoot.com> wrote :
>>Putting furry and potentially squicky links on the same page is a
>>practice that I wish didn't happen no matter whether it's Squee Rat
>>or Galen doing it.
>
>I always find it odd that people are only allowed to show *one*
>interest on the Internet.
I didn't know they were.
>Now, suppose that I like furries and
>ASCII art. Apparently, this means that I'm trying to 'link' them
>together, even if I haven't made a vixenized rendition of "Meriday in
>the Morning". (Yet.)
It does? Not that I can tell.
Humans do, however, jump to conclusions. Humans are often not logical.
I therefore wish folks wouldn't put furry links and potentially squicky
links on the same page.
If the first two furry-fan home pages a person hits are Squee Rat's and
Galen's, well, that's going to color that person's perceptions rather
differently than if he had hit G. Raymond Eddy's and Scotty Arsenault's.
First impressions, etc.
Forrest
Tim Gadd <not_a...@addressatall.com> wrote :
> On 30 Oct 1999 01:55:36 GMT, dfor...@zeta.org.au (David Formosa (aka
> ? the Platypus)) wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 28 Oct 1999 16:01:12 +1000, Tim Gadd
> ><not_a...@addressatall.com> wrote:
> >
> >[...]
> >
> >>I have a question for the authors of the proposed new moderated
> >>newsgroup. Your proposal stated that posts referring to paraphilias
> >>would be regarded as off-topic,
> >
> >This is the intent of the rules and how they should operate.
>
> This would exclude, then, anything mentioning furry erotica, or
> anything along the lines of a cartoon character being sexy? I don't
> see how that's any less paraphillic. I'm not saying 'don't have the
> rule'; it's just that I'm not entirely sure what it means. A
> paraphilia is defined in my dictionary, in part as any "sexual urge
> involving nonhuman objects", which would apply, I presume, to
> everything in the universe other than humans (would a foot fetish be
> a paraphilia? A foot isn't a non-human object. Maybe it depends on
> whose foot) Would a story which features sexual content be off-topic,
> even if that content boiled down to a few pages out of half a million
> words, as in Greg Howell's novels? I'm just trying to understand what
> this rule will actually be used to prohibit.
The complete phrase was apparently "real-life paraphilias", which has a
slightly different aim and would I guess not include furry erotica.
Nonetheless, simpler/more direct wording is preferable.
The two ingredients that I recommend for the exclusions portion of the
charter:
1. No personal attacks. There are other venues.
2. No non-anthrofurry topics (e.g. z/b and similar sexual activities
involving only non-fictional entities). There are other venues.
I still think these two cover pretty much everything necessary.
Substantive content rarely leads to problems. Phrasing does.
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
writes:
> Richard Chandler - WA Resident <mau...@kendra.com> wrote :
> > > Every once in a while I do a Dejanews and Alta Vista search to see
> > > if anyone's talking about "furry" who isn't a fan, and generally
> > > the answer is no.
> >
> > The world is not the net.
>
> Indeed. The net is however a sample of the world, and a sample
> whose members do not refrain from making their dislikes known even
> on unrelated forums.
With the exception of ALT, most posters on the newsgroups are well behaved and
stay on topic. I haven't seen much in the way of flames on rec.metalworking,
for example, even though it gets hundreds of messages a day. (Even when
someone tried to start an anti-homosexual thread, it died down pretty
quickly). It's intersting how you cut out this sentence:
> > There's no reason for someone on sci.astronomy to post ragging
> > on Furries, even if he does think of them as get-a-lifers. But if
> > you went around asking posters on sci.astronomy, who knows what
> > the opinion is of those who have opinions?
... since it would clearly not support your position that the absence of anti-
furry flames on a wide variety of other newsgroups means that negative
opinions do not exist.
> As SAG has observed, "furry" is still obscure.
Hey, why don't you try the same search process on Tim McVeigh. I bet you
won't find a lot of threads anywhere about him. Yet he is widely known, and
widely reviled. I think a failure of that search would invalidate your
premise.
> >Experience is that anyone who knows enough about Furries to know
> >what they are, the majority of them have neutral to negative opinions.
>
> I think I already noted that the word has acquired negative
> connotations...which is why I've abandoned it.
I won't until there is a viable alternative. I tried hopping on the "Anthro"
bandwagon, and it didn't take.
In the meantime, the only sensible course of action is to try to reform it.
Indeed, without reform, it won't matter how many times we change the term, the
problems will taint the new one.
Forrest
Richard Chandler - WA Resident <mau...@kendra.com> wrote :
[RC notes that I didn't quote a message segment:]
> > > There's no reason for someone on sci.astronomy to post ragging
> > > on Furries, even if he does think of them as get-a-lifers. But if
> > > you went around asking posters on sci.astronomy, who knows what
> > > the opinion is of those who have opinions?
>
>... since it would clearly not support your position that the absence of
anti-
>furry flames on a wide variety of other newsgroups means that negative
>opinions do not exist.
That is not my position. My statement was that the word is generally not
used by people who are not fans, and the samples I have examined indicate
precisely that.
> > As SAG has observed, "furry" is still obscure.
>
> Hey, why don't you try the same search process on Tim McVeigh. I bet you
> won't find a lot of threads anywhere about him.
Okay:
# A DejaNews search of the comp.* hierarchy -- certainly not designed for
discussion of that gentleman [you should pardon the expression] -- reveals
64 hits: 29 hits on "Tim McVeigh", plus 35 additional on "Timothy McVeigh".
Message titles feature words/phrases like "guns", "colorado teens", etc.
# A DejaNews search of the comp.* hierarchy reveals 0 hits on "furry fan", 0
hits on "furry fans"...whoa! 29 hits on "furry fandom" -- each and every one
caused by Stukafox's .sigline.
>> I think I already noted that the word has acquired negative
>> connotations...which is why I've abandoned it.
>
>I won't until there is a viable alternative. I tried hopping on the
>"Anthro" bandwagon, and it didn't take.
If you are implying that "furry" -is- viable, I am of the opposite opinion,
though that opinion is based on the evidence and therefore subject to
change.
>In the meantime, the only sensible course of action is to try to reform it.
>Indeed, without reform, it won't matter how many times we change the term,
the
>problems will taint the new one.
The old song says: accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative.
Well, it is in practice impossible to force anyone to stop using the word
"furry" to describe their activities, regardless of how much those
activities offend. It IS possible to harrass those "problematic" people
such that they become all the more attached to that word, and determined
never to give it up; this has happened. ("You're just hurting yourselves by
trying to kill the furry community. You will never kill the community. JUST
GIVE IT UP!!" -- posted to the BF guestbook by an anti-BF.)
And it is in practice impossible to get rid of the "problem people" --
except within limited circumstances: if you're running a convention, you
have a certain number of controls available to control attendee behavior.
Why this possibility for genuine action so rarely gets mentioned is
something I do not understand.
Since it is therefore in practice impossible to eliminate the negative
(although you might be able to get some lawbreakers put away for a while),
there is only one course of action open: to accentuate the positive. Which
is what Rosales and Gallacci and many many others do: they just keep
drawing.
A simple declaration of opposition to certain practices, such as I have
made, says all that can usefully be said; debates, manifestos, attacks, and
arguments will not redeem "furry".
Actions can.
[4]
Muke Tever
>>what they are, the majority of them have neutral to negative
>>opinions.
>
>connotations...which is why I've abandoned it.
That doesn't make any sense. If all the people with 'positive
connotations' abandon the word, *of course* it'll get a worse
perspective-- as the odds are higher that someone's first impression
will be with the 'negative connotations'.
You want to improve the impression, Take Up The Word! Be active,
share it, go *out* with what you're doing right.
Don't be ashamed of it, because by all the best arguments 'furry' by
itself has nothing to it to be ashamed of; only the 'added
ingredients' do that.
Don't limit 'furry' to the community that calls itself that. 'Furry'
is obscure because furry thinks of itself as a culture or community,
instead of a genre or a medium. When you see a spade, call it a
spade! None of this wishy-washy 'I like anthropomorphic animals but
I'm not a furry fan' business I've seen.
Am I making sense here? Furry can't be saved by attacking it or
abandoning it, but by doing it, doing it right, and showing that it
can be done!
There, I've run out of exclamation marks for the night.
Forrest
Muke Tever <realv...@bigfoot.com> wrote :
>>I think I already noted that the word has acquired negative
>>connotations...which is why I've abandoned it.
>
>That doesn't make any sense. If all the people with 'positive
>connotations' abandon the word, *of course* it'll get a worse
>perspective-- as the odds are higher that someone's first impression
>will be with the 'negative connotations'.
I used a variation on that argument when I was trying to get moderates to
join me in Burned Fur. It's true, but it didn't do any good.
Dr. Cat
: That is the actual home page for the site. Yes, it does mention "furry"
: and, yes again, newcomers and outsiders could make unwanted connections.
:
: This is not the same as saying the site is evil, perverted, etc. but
: perhaps such connections DO need to be discussed.
If you feel such associations are a problem, though, what's really the
most effective way to address that problem? By sending a polite email
to the owner of the homepage in question, asking them to modify their page
and explaining why? Or having some squeaky inflatable horse and some
erotica zine publisher argue a bunch on here about whether the page is a
big problem or not, even if the guy that made the web page isn't here
listening to the argument?
Seems obvious to me, if someone's really interested in DOING something
about the potential problem, the only course that's likely to have much
effect on the web page is to ask the page owner whether he'd be willing to
change it. Talking about it on groups like a.f.f. or the BF message
boards is, I think, an activity that's more for the purpose of letting the
angry people blow off steam and/or comiserate with other people who feel
likewise, rather than an activity that's aimed at actually solving anything.
If you do elect to take the sensible course, and ask Galen to remove or at
least try to minimize the potential connection between furry fandom and
"squicky material" as someone called it, I hope you'll also make an
identical request of Squeerat. Just for the sake of not seeming
hypocritical and all. :X)
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
Dr. Cat / Dragon's Eye Productions || Free alpha test:
*-------------------------------------------** http://www.bga.com/furcadia
Furcadia - a new graphic mud for PCs! || Let your imagination soar!
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
(Disclaimer: Of course either or both of them might say "no" when asked to
change their web pages. In which case we can't do much of anything about
it, really. 'cept for trying to not spend a lot of time publicizing their
pages by endless complaining about them.)
Dr. Cat
: The two ingredients that I recommend for the exclusions portion of the
: charter:
: 1. No personal attacks. There are other venues.
: 2. No non-anthrofurry topics (e.g. z/b and similar sexual activities
: involving only non-fictional entities). There are other venues.
"no non-anthrofurry topics" is much too broad. And I think all the talk
about "some plush are anthro and some aren't" and comparisons to comics,
movies, etc. is silly.
Animals are definitely not anthrofurries in any way, shape or form. But
they've often been talked about here and nobody seems to mind. So has
food, whether it was eaten at a furry con, or in a "gasp" totally non-furry
setting. Also travel, television, toys, anything going on in the lives of
the regulars that they want to talk to each other about. Fandom is a
social thingamabob for people with a common interest (furries) to gather
and talk in. Not "talk about furries only ever", but "talk about whatever
they're in the mood to talk about, which will often be furry stuff but not
always."
Stuffed animals are just as appropriate a topic for discussion as animals,
or the weather, or anything else non-offensive. I think your rule two
should be more along the lines of "no paraphilias" as other people have
discussed, rather than "no non-anthrofurry topics". That's much too broad.
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
Dr. Cat / Dragon's Eye Productions || Free alpha test:
*-------------------------------------------** http://www.bga.com/furcadia
Furcadia - a new graphic mud for PCs! || Let your imagination soar!
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
(Disclaimer: If you meet a stuffed animal on the road, kill him.)
Brian Sutton
problem child, Steve Martin. I'm hard pressed to think of a more reviled
person in the fandom, Groat and his crowd constantly dogged this guy but he
never left. My sources tell me that he's too busy to hit the shows like he
used to.
Go see the web site.
Brian Sutton
" Because I REALLY care about your happiness..."
Visit my website @ http://members.xoom.com/HJGpage/
for deals on Furry art & comics
J.M.L.
: Don't limit 'furry' to the community that calls itself that. 'Furry'
: is obscure because furry thinks of itself as a culture or community,
: instead of a genre or a medium. When you see a spade, call it a
: spade! None of this wishy-washy 'I like anthropomorphic animals but
: I'm not a furry fan' business I've seen.
Well, I watch Star Trek on occassion, but I certainly ain't no Trekker.
I don't go gaa-gaa over 7-of-9, or have arguments over warp field
statistics or whatever. By the same token, I don't want Disney's Maid
Marian to be my girlfriend, nor do I have an inner vixen or dragon or
whatever I need to express to the world at large. Ergo, I ain't no Furry
either.
--
-- "Happiness is a deaf wolf".
http://ciips.ee.uwa.edu.au/~hutch/hal/HAL/Talk.phtml
M. Mitchell Marmel
> Personally I'm quite happy to listen to any of the regulars here tell
> whatever interesting stuff might have been going on in their lives
> later, whether it's furry or non-furry, and to skip over the post
> without complaint if it sounds uninteresting once I start reading
> through it.
http://hsb.baylor.edu/html/easley/mercedes/listrules.html
Perhaps a bit more genteel than desired, but a good stepping off point:
Mercedes E-Mail Discussion List Rules
1. Discussion is not limited to MB vehicles although that is the primary
list topic. If a member has a new born, is fired, is sick, goes on vacation,
reads a poem or just had a wonderful foggy drive to work, we would all like
to know about it. We, the initial subscribers are caring friends who
have a
common bond, and we hope to establish that bond with future list members,
too.
2. Only subscribers to the list can post. This eliminates any form of spam
or individuals who may send messages to the list which do not conform to the
rules.
3. The list is a closed list. That is, subscribers have to be approved by
us. Also, we can unsubscribe members at any time for any abuses of other
members of the list. There is no rule such as "3 strikes and you're
out." If
one list member abuses another list member, they are removed from the list
permanently.
4. No flaming of any kind. This does not mean kidding around with others,
which is encouraged. The quick flip of a one liner here and there provides
regular members a great laugh. The repart* of the past was one of the best
parts of other lists in which we have been participants. In essence, we're
friends on this list with a common denominator being MB automobiles
5. No profanity. This includes such things as "fillers" (e.g., fil***s,
using the previous word as an example) which convey the intended word.
6. Fraudulent, harassing or obscene messages and/or materials are not to be
sent to the list.
7. No digest replies. As is the case with virtually every other list in
which we've been subscribers, a "reply-able" digest ends up causing
discontinuity in the on-going discussions. Many times, the whole digest is
sent with a reply; plus, digest replies in an archive unnecessarily limit
the user's "searchability." Consequently, replies to messages within a
digest are unacceptable. Though we will provide a digest for
subscribers, we
strongly recommend a regular subscription to the list. Further, we recommend
the use of filters for subscribers on the list. Most e-mail programs now
provide these in their programs and their use will permit the user to better
manage messages from this list by sorting them into a folder for later
viewing.
8. Clear subject lines. A frustrating part of being a member of an e-mail
list is being enticed to read a message based on the attractiveness of its
subject line, only to be disappointed when you find that the message now
(through several responses) has nothing to do with the subject line.
9. Finally, the "family" filter. We want list members to be able to show
messages from this list to anybody. Our desire is that your spouse,
daughter, son, mother, or father will be able to read any of the messages
from this list and not be embarrassed at the content. The mores and ethics
of life are quite well understood by most people. Resultingly, most of the
information above is redundant to most potential subscribers to this list.
We hope to have one of the best "electronic coffee rooms" of individuals on
the Internet, united by a common denominator (Mercedes-Benz automobiles) and
bonded together by mutual respect. Need some tech info? Pose a question to
our list or check the archive. Need a giggle? Then drop in, have a cup, read
a few and back to work.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Image]
©1998
Richard Easley, Waco, Texas and Stu Ritter, Denver, Colorado.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
============================================================================
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 Center \ marm...@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu
============================================================================
TaliVisions Homepage: http://www.pages.drexel.edu/grad/marmelmm/Talivisions/index.html
Muke
> Muke Tever (realv...@bigfoot.com) wrote:
> : Don't limit 'furry' to the community that calls itself that. 'Furry'
> : is obscure because furry thinks of itself as a culture or community,
> : instead of a genre or a medium. When you see a spade, call it a
> : spade! None of this wishy-washy 'I like anthropomorphic animals but
> : I'm not a furry fan' business I've seen.
>
> Well, I watch Star Trek on occassion, but I certainly ain't no
> Trekker. I don't go gaa-gaa over 7-of-9, or have arguments over warp
> field statistics or whatever.
Star Trek is a noun. Furry is an adjective.
NOUNS ADJECTIVES
===== ==========
"Star Trek" Anime
"Pokemon" Furry
"The Lion King" Science Fiction
Britney Spears Country/Western
Sure I'm a Star Trek fan. But I don't like it because it's Star Trek,
I like it because of what's _in_ it. When they try to make that noun
into an adjective--think TNG, DS9, Voyager, etc--that doesn't always
work. Yeah, I like TNG, even better than TOS, not because it's Star
Trek, but because of who's in it and how it works. No amount of "Star-
Trekness" can redeem DS9 for me.
Star Trek isn't a vehicle, it's a destination. (The vehicle is sci-fi,
which I'm not particularly a fan of.)
Furry _is_ a vehicle--delivery via the means of "animals that are
people too". And I'm a fan of that idea. I like anthropomorphics. I
don't care how terrible your story is, if you've got a furry in it,
that's cool. And if your story's great to begin with, even better.
FFVII was great, but it was even better in my opinion because of
Nanaki. I had more examples but the phone rang and derailed my train
of thought. Am I making sense? (No, I'm probably not. But this came
into my head earlier today and I thought I should say it.)
What I think I'm trying to say here is that's two different kinds of
fandoms, one ("nouns") based on concrete characters or settings and the
other ("adjectives") based on an abstract genre or concept or idea, and
you're comparing apples and oranges. Of course, I guess it all depends
on your motivation.
> By the same token, I don't want Disney's Maid Marian to be my
> girlfriend, nor do I have an inner vixen or dragon or whatever I need
> to express to the world at large. Ergo, I ain't no Furry either.
Well, I don't even know what Disney's Maid Marian looks like, and I'm
still a furry fan. If you're not a furry fan, I wonder if
alt.fan.furry is the right newsgroup to be reading?
BTW, "Inner vixens or dragons or whatever" aren't part of furry fandom,
so that argument doesn't apply.
*Muke!
(what am I talking about? I've been too angry this week to think
straight.)
--
Muke, turtle. http://i.am/muke ICQ: 1936556
"An idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it."
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Dr. Cat
: Dr. Cat <c...@bga.com> wrote :
: >I think your rule two
: >should be more along the lines of "no paraphilias" as other people have
: >discussed, rather than "no non-anthrofurry topics".
: As has been noted, paraphilias would include everything nonhuman, fictional
: or otherwise...thereby eliminating discussion of, for example, Omaha the Cat
: Dancer. I thought the banning of legitimate, generally-accepted-as-"furry"
: content would be too broad a restriction, hence my statement 2. If you
: disagree, that's fine; do you?
I don't know if the textbook definition of "paraphilia" would really
cover "liking furry pinup and/or spooge art". I never took any psych
classes in college even, so I'm no expert. But even if it did, I don't
think the answer is to switch to an alternative that ALSO would exclude
a lot of valid discussion about non-anthro animals, food, graphics
software, somebody's new van, or whatever else people want to chat
about. The solution would be to replace the word "paraphilia" with a
more detailed and specific explanation of what types of sexual
discussion were unacceptable.
I'd prefer if some way could be found to cover all the unacceptable
things with a generalized description, a litmus test, rather than
explicitly listing each and every "squicky subject". First of all,
it prevents people wanting to find out what the place is like from
reading a bunch of icky stuff and getting a bad taste in their mouth.
Second, if somebody comes along a few years later who's into some new
weird thing like lining their walls, floor and ceiling with hedgehogs
and rolling around naked in there, the moderators could exclude it based
on the specified principles, rather than facing the inevitable "Your
rules say you exclude those other things but not my thing so you have to
let it in."
: Regarding your other points: moderators make judgement calls; that's what
: they're for. A certain amount of off-topic discussion is to be expected and
: I can't imagine the innocuous going unpassed by everyone.
Probably, but there's no point having a rule written into the charter
that says none of it is supposed to be allowed through, and then having
the moderators let all of it through, knowing the rule is poorly written
and doesn't reflect the desires of the people in the group. If the
desire is that talking about animals or restaurants or your latest
surgery is ok, as long as you don't talk about some icky squicky sex
practice, then the rules should say talking about off-topic stuff is ok
as long as it's not icky sex stuff. Not "You can't talk about anything
off-topic here *wink wink*".
Personally I'm quite happy to listen to any of the regulars here tell
whatever interesting stuff might have been going on in their lives
later, whether it's furry or non-furry, and to skip over the post
without complaint if it sounds uninteresting once I start reading
through it. It's probably interesting to someone else, even if only to
their friends here, so I wouldn't want the rules saying "Generic
socializing is not what you're supposed to do here".
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
Dr. Cat / Dragon's Eye Productions || Free alpha test:
*-------------------------------------------** http://www.bga.com/furcadia
Furcadia - a new graphic mud for PCs! || Let your imagination soar!
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
(Disclaimer: No hedgehogs were harmed during the making of this post.)
Random
wrote:
> Just to show yet another example of some git trying to associate furry
> fandom with plusho/beasto-philia.
Heh.. Trying? They've more than accomplished that. They've defined
furry as it. That's what furry means now.
--Random
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
>coy...@brionne.cyberverse.com (J.M.L.) wrote:
[...]
>> Well, I watch Star Trek on occassion, but I certainly ain't no
>> Trekker. I don't go gaa-gaa over 7-of-9, or have arguments over warp
>> field statistics or whatever.
>
>Star Trek is a noun. Furry is an adjective.
>
> NOUNS ADJECTIVES
> ===== ==========
> "Star Trek" Anime
> "Pokemon" Furry
> "The Lion King" Science Fiction
> Britney Spears Country/Western
>
>Sure I'm a Star Trek fan. But I don't like it because it's Star
> Trek,
It depends on how you use it. I am a Star Trek fan. Star treck is
being used as an adjective to modify the noun fan. Like wise
Muke Tever
>being used as an adjective to modify the noun fan.
Actually I think it depends on the grammar.
I suppose when I say 'adjective' and 'noun' what I mean is that
'noun' translates to 'fan of <object>' and
'adjective' translates to 'fan of <idea>'.
My lousy English.