An Open Letter to Brunching
fka...@my-deja.com
Once again, the fandom, and more importantly, Burned Fur is
maligned by another two-bit devil's advocate- this time, one on a
widely-known and widely-viewed (yet hardly funny- give me Joe Cartoon,
or "Behind the Music that Sucks" any day over this tepid stream of easy-
chair humor.)
And, once again, I am prompted to stick my neck out and answer our
critic on a one-o-one basis. In the following letter, you w3ill notice
that I don't attack the conclusions the colunmist (for lack of a better
term) makes- I level my criticism upon the methods of yet another wanna-
be Andy Rooney who has abandoned all that is respectable in the field
of critical thought (but then again, such things are passe on the
internet..)
Dear L. Fitzgerald Sjöberg
I am writing in referrence to the article that you wrote for the
Brunching Shuttlecock website at:
http://www.brunching.com/features/furries.html
I'm Eric Blumrich, the sysop of the Burned Fur Webring, and, many
would argue, co-founder of the movement known as "Burned Fur." I could
make further introductions, citing how I don't fit your descriptions as
outlined in your article, but I haven't the time, nor the inclination-
it's obvious your mind has already been made up...
I must say- your rhetorical style is quite unique- It took me all
of two minutes to see how you arrived at your position
as "professional cynic."
You start out by making an absurd generalization:
"we take a look at Furry Fans, which is a term for people who
take an interest in anthropomorphic animal people and the ways you can
touch them.
And then, to give yourself the air of moderation and analytical
respectibility, you immediately qualify your statement with an
offhanded, self-depricating aside:
"Now, already I'm being unfair here, because technically speaking you
don't have to actually want to have intimate relations with Disney's
Robin Hood to qualify as a Furry Fan. "
And here's when your little ruse comes into play: first, you make
an endearing jibe at your subject, then to prove to the world at large
that you aren't so heavy handed, say that your previous statement
was "unfair." Then, having assuaged your guilt at least in the
readers' eyes), you immediately proceed to produce a torrent of
statements every bit as generalized and exaggerated as the first.
It's quite clever- but hypocritical. Then again, as stated
before, you make your thirty pieces of silver for producing three or
four paragraphs from time to time pouring scorn upon whatever you set
your eyes upon on a given day- I can't blame you for keeping the money
rolling in, but I can subject you to a moment's scrutiny to see how you
arrived at your conclusions- and find them wanting.
Thank God for the internet- everyone's a critic... In ages long
past, those critics without an audience were left with little resort
than ranting on streetcorners or living a life of self-contained anger
and hatred, to be meted out in the vein of Dahmer, Ramirez, and
Panzram. Now, we have the internet, and folks like you are free to
vent your spleen to an audience limited only by whatever particular
cult phenomenon you latch onto. In your case, it's Brunching- but I
digress...
I know you're pretty much settled into your position as yet
another on the internet's innumerable muckrakers- and whatever reknown
you've gotten for your erronious logic will certainly feed you to
further heights of your chosen profession (I'm sure this letter is
stroking your ego quite well, right now). I know that, so settled,
there's nothing I can do to make you see the error of your statements
and your anti-logic, but these errors were so egregious that I was
moved to write this letter. Take it or leave it for what it's worth...
Eric Blumrich
__________________________
Now- a personal statement: I consider the self-imposed sanction
on political posting via AFF by active mebers of BF, as well as BF
supporters, to be null and void. This is our fandom, and we are
entitled to use all venues available to us for communications and
dissemination of ideas/positions/concepts.
If this brings about bickering, so be it- maybe in the course of
conflict, the problems facing our fandom that have resulted in the
column mentioned above might be avoided in the future. If BF has one
fault, it's that we've been TOO kind- I propose that this must end.
If ya wanna make an omlette, ya gotta break some eggs- and I
propose that the first eggs be broken here.
-T'ieh Pi Pu Kai!
--
Buchanan 2000
Nader 2000!
MAKE YOUR VOTE COUNT!!!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
ilr
> Kan Pei, all...
*twitch*
Atara
[snip]
satire (n.) the use of irony, ridicule, etc. in writing.
serious (adj.) 1. grave; solemn. 2. in earnest. 3. weighty; critical.
The Brunching feature was one, but not the other. It's a shame that not
everyone sees the difference.
--
Atara
"I've got a pantheon of animals
in a pagan soul..." -Rush
http://www.FurNation.com/Atara/
Austin Dern
Your editorial page is filled with bias
and opinions, featuring gross generalizations and
glib summaries where otherwise your paper manages
competent and fair reporting. Please correct
this oversight at once, and also stop printing
letters to the editor from really stupid people.
Thank you.
Austin Dern
muck.spindizzy.org 7072
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Fay
First off, your call to arms for BF supporters is at best an
empty threat. Adding flames to a.f.f. is sorta like tossing a
gallon of gas into an active volcano -- not likely to make much
of a difference. Besides, most of the rats have already left
your sinking ship.
I dislike many of the same aspects of "furry" fandom as you.
But I see no point in this insane, puritannical campaign of yours.
All you've done is to cause endless arguments, with no discernable
success in achieving your stated goals (goals that include, among
other things, ridding us of the threat of rampant vegetarianism --
I guess we can all sleep easier, now).
You keep talking about wanting to improve furry fandom. Here's a
clue for you, Eric: YOU ARE NOT HELPING.
At this point, if you really want help I suggest you go away and
infect some other fandom. And take your fellow BFs Peter "Corndog"
and Scott "Militias Ain't Racist" Malcontent with you.
--
http://www.umn.edu/~fayxx001
"Hey, ho -- let's go!" -Ramones
invisicat
<39F9D3...@tc.umn.edu>:
>You just don't get it, do you, Eric?
No most of us don't 'get it'. The 'it' being the need to rape animals/pets or
boink piss soaked plushies. Those interests have no place within our fandom.
This fandom is about and has always been about anthropomorphic art and media,
not a means to validate every sick twisted little fetish to come down the pipe.
>First off, your call to arms for BF supporters is at best an
>empty threat. Adding flames to a.f.f. is sorta like tossing a
>gallon of gas into an active volcano -- not likely to make much
>of a difference. Besides, most of the rats have already left
>your sinking ship.
Not that you'd be in any position to determine this. We're around and well and
working behind the scenes. But thanks for your concern. *smirks*
>I dislike many of the same aspects of "furry" fandom as you.
>But I see no point in this insane, puritannical campaign of yours.
>All you've done is to cause endless arguments, with no discernable
>success in achieving your stated goals (goals that include, among
>other things, ridding us of the threat of rampant vegetarianism --
>I guess we can all sleep easier, now).
The quality of art is improving within the fandom. Work in most of the major
cons/meets have produced codes of conduct. Bestialist/zoos are less apt to
spout off their bile before thinking twice about public scrutiny. A clear line
between those who support the claim that the fandom is somehow about their
fetish of the week and the truth that the fandom is simply about art, has been
drawn. Things within the fandom are shaping up rather nicely. There is much
more to be done and through public and private projects within as well as
outside of BF things _are_ improving.
>At this point, if you really want help I suggest you go away..."
Ah, the age old cry. Sorry to disappoint, we aren't going anywhere.
invisicat
Burnedfur
Smart Ass
> Dear L. Fitzgerald Sjöberg
>
> blahblahblahblah
Dear Editor,
Mew mew mew mew mew mew mew mew mew mew mew mew mew mew mew mew
mew mew mew mew mew mew mew mew mew mew mew mew mew mew mew.
HEE HAW! and MERRY CHRISTMAS!
invisicat
>It's still a good thing nonetheless.
What role BF and it's membership played in that, is really up to the
indivual members to discern. But we seem to agree none the less.
invisicat
Burnedfur
Al Goldman
> Now- a personal statement: I consider the self-imposed sanction
>on political posting via AFF by active mebers of BF, as well as BF
>supporters, to be null and void.
I thought the whole idea of the posting ban was that it was ineffective and the
BF's had better plans for improving the fandom which could not be implemented
while wasting time on AFF.
A few months ago, Stukafox was complaining about a certain furry muck with a
certain area that he claimed was pandering to ped-o-files. I said, in effect,
gather evidence and have them shut down or quit complaining and live with fact
that adults role-play strange but legal activities.
Absolutely nothing happened. This was a golden opertuninity for Stukafox and/or
the BF's to make a truly positive contribution to the fandom. With the posting
ban lifted even less will be accomplished by the BF's as the level of flames
increases.
Al Goldman
Laws are sand, Customs are rock. Laws can be evaded and punishment excaped, but
an openly transgressed custom brings sure punishement.
- Mark Twain
Jim Doolittle
[uhh, yeah]
Eric....it was a humor piece. Laugh, and go on.
> --
> Buchanan 2000
*twitch*
> Nader 2000!
Nader's cool, but the Green Party platform isn't for me.
> MAKE YOUR VOTE COUNT!!!
Ventura in 2004.
-Jim
--
Jim Doolittle CornWuff Press
dool...@tbcnet.com http://www.cornwuff.com
Art Show Director, Midwest FurFest
http://www.furfest.org
Doug Winger
<ba...@ursine.dyndns.org> wrote:
> Austin Dern <aus...@spindizzy.org> wrote:
> > To the Editor:
>
> > Your editorial page is filled with bias
> > and opinions, featuring gross generalizations and
> > glib summaries where otherwise your paper manages
> > competent and fair reporting. Please correct
> > this oversight at once, and also stop printing
> > letters to the editor from really stupid people.
> > Thank you.
>
> OK, The Brunching Shuttlecocks is *NOT* a news site. It doesn't claim to
> be. Hell, The Onion gives better news coverage than Brunching.
That loud roaring sound going by just out of reach overhead was called humor.
- Doug
Al Goldman
<not_a...@addysodontreplytoit.com> writes:
>Do you think
>that it was some pleasant environemnt where anthropomorphism was
>discussed in an aesthetic, non-libidonous way, and that somehow all
>these perverts found this squeaky-clean content so attractive they
>decided to hitch their wagon to it?
True. In The Erotic Art of Reed Waller, he talks of an early fight over adult
art in furry fandom. The offensive story was in Vootie #5, back in 1977.
This never was a fandom free of adult material. Latecommers wishing it was are
in for a shock, but if they accept that fact and move on theyll find tons of
clean stuff to suit there tastes.
Doodles
> If that were true there wouldn;t be phrases like 'erotic art' , nor a museum of
> erotic art in Madrid (which has also featured work by at least one furry artist,
> FWIW)
*blink*
GET ME THAT TICKET ON IBERIAN AIRWAYS! =};-3
Unca Spooge, vamos a Espania!
Kyle L. Webb
<fka...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8tas21$mpe$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Letter deleted
>
> Now- a personal statement: I consider the self-imposed sanction
> on political posting via AFF by active mebers of BF, as well as BF
> supporters, to be null and void. This is our fandom, and we are
> entitled to use all venues available to us for communications and
> dissemination of ideas/positions/concepts.
> If this brings about bickering, so be it- maybe in the course of
> conflict, the problems facing our fandom that have resulted in the
> column mentioned above might be avoided in the future. If BF has one
> fault, it's that we've been TOO kind- I propose that this must end.
> If ya wanna make an omlette, ya gotta break some eggs- and I
> propose that the first eggs be broken here.
Excellent! Glad to see you back Eric. Your posts have been the most
effective I've seen in showing what's wrong with the burned fur movement and
alienating members of the general fandom. Perhaps you can do as well here as
you did on Yiffnet with the furpride matter. I look forward to it.
Kyle L. Webb
Hartree Fox on yiffnet
(Aside: This went to the wrong destination the first time I posted it.
Apologies.)
invisicat
<ru76OdHsol4ZhI...@4ax.com>:
>Apologies if some of this is repeated in another thread below. I wrote
>this article, posted it, cancelled it, incorporated it into another
>one, then decided to repost the original after all. This is, I submit,
>'part of' the way I think.
Quite alright. No harm in getting your collective ducks in a row.
>
>>No most of us don't 'get it'. The 'it' being the need to rape
>>animals/pets or boink piss soaked plushies. Those interests have no
>>place within our fandom.
>
>As a matter of interest, where exactly within your fandom are these
>interests at the moment? In fact, how do you tell whether something as
>abstract as 'an interest' is 'part of' something. This seems more and
>more a straw man to me. I'm guessing there's one webpage out there
>somewhere than mentions piss-soaked plushies, and it probably has a
>reference to furry fandom on the same site. And it's probably been
>there for five year, and will probably be there in another five,
>despite all the millions of bytes of angst which have been exchanged
>on the subject here.
A straw man? Really? There is little I can say to this except having seen
'furry' pages dedicated to such. (I'm not going to do your research for you
as I am certain you are more than capable of such yourself.) Some have,
over the years vanished of course. More so now after the BF movement came
on the scene. See, this is the problem, those new to the fandom and those
outside the fandom but already acquainted with it see these pages and come
to the conclusion that this 'must' be what the furry fandom is about, some
of the worst pages make the claim that their <select a fetish> _is_ what
the fandom is about in order to be a 'true furry'. Some now have tried to
seperated their fetishes from the fandom at large. This to me, hardly
indicates a straw man arguement since these pages do exist. But then you're
entitled to your opinion.
( Kudos to Karl, aka. Xydexx for making a seperate page for his fetish
page. That very act is not only encouraging but is exactly the kind of
action which improves the fandom's image.)
> FWIW I find that particular fetish extremely distasteful myself - but
I'm happy we agree. However it does affect the fandom at large when after a
person is finished with their fun and then makes a page dedicated to it and
heavly linked to the fandom. (Or worst).
I noticed you ignored the part about animal rape under the guise of z
oophillia however. Any particular reason on your part for over looking such
a distasteful, harmful and illegal activity being linked to the fandom by
numerous individuals? This is another reason for the need of BF. For some
people to stand up and simply state that "This is _wrong_ and has _no_
place in the fandom and is _not_ what the fandom is about."
>>This fandom is about and has always been about anthropomorphic art and
>>media, not a means to validate every sick twisted little fetish to come
>>down the pipe.
>
>Why would being part of furry fandom 'validate' anything?
Because they gain the implicit consent of all those within the fandom whom
do not speak out against such things as bestiality. I can only assume that
it gives them a sense of what they are doing is accepted and hence
perfectly fine and normal as opposed to what it is, just plain _wrong_.
>This edenic vision of furry fandom is ridiculous. Go look at Furbid.
>The Yiffy category usually has more in it than the other categories
>put together. The p[lush category had 2 items in it last time I
>looked. Furry fandom _is_ very largely to do with sex, in the form of
>sexual depictions of anthropomorphic beings. Pretending otherwise is
>absurd, and blaming it all on some fringe groups who have
>'infilitrated' this previously respectable enclave is just daft. Why
>do you think furry fandom has the make-up that it does? Do you think
>that it was some pleasant environemnt where anthropomorphism was
>discussed in an aesthetic, non-libidonous way, and that somehow all
>these perverts found this squeaky-clean content so attractive they
>decided to hitch their wagon to it?
Edenic? Well if the truth is that, then yes. What is or is not on furbid is
not the issue. Nor is the amount of 'yiffy/erotic' art. The fact is BF has
never been against erotic art, that is simply another one of those rumors
which people banter about. Raping a animal or eating horse fecal matter in
order to gain sexual stimulus, is however not only not dealing with art
(erotic or otherwise) but has no place in the fandom. There was a
'infiliration' as you put it however. It started (and you'll of course
forgive me if I botch the spelling of his name) with M. Merlino and CF.
When he decided to advertise CF (note: CF has long since cleaned up it's
act and is running a rather decent con these days) in areas completely
unrelated to the fandom. Drawing the presence of those who were completely
uninterested in anthropomorphic art or media. This in turn snowballed, but
thankfully as I've stated before in my previous post things are improving
and with hard work and time will continue improve.
>>The quality of art is improving within the fandom. Work in most of the
>>major cons/meets have produced codes of conduct. Bestialist/zoos are
>>less apt to spout off their bile before thinking twice about public
>>scrutiny. A clear line between those who support the claim that the
>>fandom is somehow about their fetish of the week and the truth that the
>>fandom is simply about art, has been drawn.
>
>This is plain bullshit.
Cursing...tsk, tsk. So much for a polite dialog.
Please, tell me would you? What exactly is "plain bullsh*t"?
Is this the "bullsh*t"?
1) The quality of art is improving, one need only to visit yerf.com to see
that, the bar there has been raised and so has the quailty of art produced.
or is this the "bullsh*t"?
2)Codes of conduct having been adopted by most major cons/meets.
No wait, I've got it. This is the "bullsh*t" right?
3) Bestialist/zoos are less apt to spout off their bile before thinking
twice about public scrutiny.
Oh, how silly of me, this is the "bullsh*t" isn't it?
The fandom _is_ improving.
>There is no such clear line, and never has
>been, and people pushing the two positions you're proposing don't even
>exist in meaningful numbers.
The clear line is Burnedfur as well as numerous others who find those 'two'
acts distasteful. As to the rest, they exist in significant enough numbers,
though seemingly (thankfully) decreasing or at the very least being more
considerate to the rest of the fandom.
>And surely no-one in their right mind could claim that being 'about art'
>excludes the possibility of having any particular content, including
>sexual fetishes.
No, but there is however a place for sexual fetishes. It's in the bedroom
or more to the point in private. It is not however in public or con lobbys
as it has been in the past. But again this is a area that has already shown
marked improvement. It is highly unlikely that a con attendee will be
forced to confront the likes of a fellow attendee dressed only in a dixie
cup cod piece. As I said before, on many levels the fandom is looking up.
:)
>...nor a museum of erotic art in Madrid (which has also
>featured work by at least one furry artist, FWIW)
Good for him/her. There are professional artist within the fandom, working
very hard at what they do. More power to them I say. :)
Regards,
invisicat
Burnedfur
mike...@my-deja.com
Jim Doolittle <dool...@tbcnet.com> wrote:
> In article <8tas21$mpe$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, fka...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> [uhh, yeah]
>
> Eric....it was a humor piece. Laugh, and go on.
Jim, I suggest you actually go and read the whole Shuttlecock article.
That 'humor piece'only insulted just about every one of us, that's all.
ilr
>
> Jim, I suggest you actually go and read the whole Shuttlecock article.
> That 'humor piece'only insulted just about every one of us, that's all.
>
Hmm, well personally...
I kinda like interesting perverted things to do online. It's much better than
doing interesting perverted thing in school or at the bus stop.
I kinda like thinking about touching Anthropomorphic animal people. Why not?
They'd be so soft and fun to pet. They could even tell ya if you're doing it right.
I kinda thought the Klingon joke was a pretty funny parallel.
I kinda thought the Farmers Market joke was damn funny too.
And I'd really prefer taking the otter lady out to lunch instead of the super-model
because super-models don't eat food because it ruins their girlish bean-pole figure.
And just about every one of us has the same chances of getting a date with the model.
Maybe if "just about every one of us" were Burned Furs, then We'd all have been
insulted. And this seems bizarre to me that Burned Furs would be so gun-ho to clean
up the fandom in their own way to prepare it for more mundanes, but when a mundane
criticizes them for their method, Blumrich sends the mundane guy hatemail???
It sounds like the only thing that Burned Fur is championing anymore is Burned Fur.
-Ilr
Doodles
[A big letter to the Brunching Shuttlecocks]
The Brunching Shuttlecocks reply:
27 October 2000
Name: Some Random Person With a Browser
Subject Your Recent Article
Dear Brunching Shuttlecocks,
I have always enjoyed your hilarious skewering of various aspects of
society, but
that all changed recently when you made fun of something I like. How could
you
mock a group of people that I, personally, belong to? Furthermore, your
article
contained numerous inaccuracies. It was almost as if you were engaging in
comedic exaggeration in order to make a satirical point. In the future,
please limit
your barbs to things I don't care for, or if you must address subjects I
enjoy,
please make sure that such articles contain no humor.
Thank you,
A Disgruntled Reader
This isn't an actual letter, but it captures the jist
of a certain class of
mail we get, so we figured we'd just get it out there
in case anyone
wanted to copy and paste.
So you see, folks? They _do_ respond to complaints! =};-3
Brian O'connell
<snippola>
Fing! Fang! Foom!
Okay, fuck it, this political garbage has overloaded my ability to cope with
any side of the argument... So I present to you, "The Apathetic Furs"...
Yes, you too can say "Fuck it all" with the best of them... Join together
under the banner of anarchistic apathy, to say "Fuck you, and fuck them,
stop ruining MY fun!"...
We now return you to your regularly scheduled wailing and gnashing of
teeth...;)
Jim Doolittle
> In article <doolittl-48988D...@news.tbcnet.com>,
> Jim Doolittle <dool...@tbcnet.com> wrote:
> > In article <8tas21$mpe$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, fka...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > [uhh, yeah]
> >
> > Eric....it was a humor piece. Laugh, and go on.
>
>
> Jim, I suggest you actually go and read the whole Shuttlecock article.
> That 'humor piece'only insulted just about every one of us, that's all.
Hey, if you can't laugh at yourself...
ilr
> Subject Your Recent Article
> Dear Brunching Shuttlecocks,
>
> I have always enjoyed your hilarious skewering of various aspects of
> society, but
> that all changed recently when you made fun of something I like. How could
> you
> mock a group of people that I, personally, belong to? Furthermore, your
> article
> contained numerous inaccuracies. It was almost as if you were engaging in
> comedic exaggeration in order to make a satirical point. In the future,
> please limit
> your barbs to things I don't care for, or if you must address subjects I
> enjoy,
> please make sure that such articles contain no humor.
>
> Thank you,
> A Disgruntled Reader
>
P.S. ...Now if you had doctored up a photo of a Death-Camp prisoner fucking
a stuffed animal and being executed at the same time above a mass-grave,
you might have compensated for your lame easy-chair satire with a much more
respectable flavor of satirical humor.
Al Goldman
http://kobus.rat.org/~blumrich/plush.html
Give Eric credit - the prisoner is not "fucking" the plushie.
I will always be thankful Blumrich posted this picture. It kept my thoughts of
joining the BF's alive for about 45 minuets.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
<mike...@my-deja.com> wrote:
[...]
>Jim, I suggest you actually go and read the whole Shuttlecock article.
>That 'humor piece'only insulted just about every one of us, that's all.
I read the Shuttlecock article, I wasn't insulted, on the other hand
I do have a sence of humor.
--
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.
miertam(at)aa.net
>
>http://kobus.rat.org/~blumrich/plush.html
>
>Give Eric credit - the prisoner is not "fucking" the plushie.
>
>I will always be thankful Blumrich posted this picture. It kept my thoughts of
>
>joining the BF's alive for about 45 minuets.
>
>Al Goldman
Thanks for the URL when people ask me what the burned fur are about I can send
them there now. :)
------------------------------------------
Mier'Tam
The most important thing about magic is how you don't use it.
Esk
Wonder Enis Gheen Wonder
Simon Stevin
ilr
> Give Eric credit - the prisoner is not "fucking" the plushie.
>
Really? Not even a lap-dance? You must have X-ray vision then.
Al Goldman
Al Said:
>> Give Eric credit - the prisoner is not "fucking" the plushie.
>Really? Not even a lap-dance? You must have X-ray vision then.
Given the prisoner's surrounding, I think "performance anxiety"
might be a problem :-(
ilr
Hangdog
> At this point, if you really want help I suggest you go away and
> infect some other fandom. And take your fellow BFs Peter "Corndog"
> and Scott "Militias Ain't Racist" Malcontent with you.
Haw!!! Fay, you're a hoot, you know that? :oD
--Hangdog, now with camo overalls & deer rifle.
Hangdog
Hey Fatdikety!
So you've done--precisely what?
Sat around on Kobus's private MUCK and bitched like you did when I was
wasting time there?
Maybe you'd've done more if you could've squeezed out your front door.
Whatever.
Kobus nuked his C: drive yet? He might wanna.
Cheers!
--Hangdog
Matthew W. Miller
>fka...@my-deja.com wrote in <8tas21$mpe$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>:
>[snip]
>satire (n.) the use of irony, ridicule, etc. in writing.
>serious (adj.) 1. grave; solemn. 2. in earnest. 3. weighty; critical.
>The Brunching feature was one, but not the other.
Oh, it was critical, all right.
Matthew W. Miller
<ba...@ursine.dyndns.org> wrote:>I hope that was satirical and I missed it...
Just about the whole *point* of satire is to be critical, and to point
out the problems or follies of a subject by exaggeration (see any issue
of _Mad_ magazine) or sarcasm (go to Project Gutenberg and look up Mark
Twain), or other things that I can't remember this late at night.
The problem is that many people react extremely poorly to
criticism (try reading the newsgroups on news.yerf.com for examples of
this) and either say "It's not *my* problem, it's *their* fault!" (the
Burned Fur syndrome) or "Oh, that's not really a problem" (which many
people do here on a.f.f).
"So are *you* part of the problem, O Long-Winded One?" calls back
the audience. By propagating this thread further? Yes.
--
Matthew W. Miller -- mwmi...@columbus.rr.com