Confurence/lifestylers

15 views
Skip to first unread message

AJL

unread,
Apr 9, 2001, 1:37:05 PM4/9/01
to
Wow, from rant to misquoting out of context in less than 60 minutes.
That must be a record.

I am not against lifestyles... I am against people claiming that the
lifestlye is the only thing about the fandom or that it's the only
reason people go to the conventions.

I *am* against people actually fucking their pets, though. That's just
wrong no matter how you try to spin it. If you are going to avoid
ConFurence because of that, then good!

Drawing it.... fantasizing about it... those are completely different
things. Some people like that stuff, so be it. Actually *doing* it is
(quite literally) a crime.

And Foxwolfie Galen deserves to be slapped for CONTINUING to blab to the
press about his plush-fucking fetish and making all of fandom look
bad... then he cries to the masses on AFF that he doesn't want to give
them permission to use his likeness anymore, or lying about the fact
that he is turning the press requests down, when I KNOW that he is not.
How do I know this? Because I am one of the people they try to contact
for a counterpoint, that's why.

If you are going to avoid ConFurence because your paranoid little mind
thinks that this convention has content or attendees that are any
different than Anthrocon or Further Confusion, then you're simply going
to miss out on a good convention.

...and your twisted out of context quotes are worse than the crap the VF
article did.

--Darrel.

Ben_Raccoon

unread,
Apr 10, 2001, 2:17:08 AM4/10/01
to
"Kimba W. Lion" <kimba...@www.com> wrote:
> Sarcasm tags wouldn't be sufficient; I retract my former statement.

Could those have been taken any more out of context? O.o

--


For a brief time I was here; and for a brief time I mattered. - Harlan
Ellison.

Shameless website plug. :) http://www.furnation.com/ben_raccoon/

AJL

unread,
Apr 9, 2001, 2:21:53 PM4/9/01
to
Tim Gadd wrote:
>
> Someone should start a con called Burnedfurence, state that lifestylers
> aren't welcome, and get Eric Blumrich to do the con book cover with a
> picture of a plushophile being shot in the head. That way only the right
> kind of people would attend, and as there'd probably be about 17 of them,
> they could each be assigned a security person to check they weren't talking
> to the press about how they liked cartoons when they were a kid.

Like you said, it might have 17 people in attendance (probably less)...
they'd all give eachother the secret handshake, and then proceed to out
eachother for not agreeing with themselves.

Note: I have not been associated with Burned Fur for a long time...
except by the idiots who want to make that claim to hurt ConFurence's
reputation, or just to make their own voice louder.

I am not a Burned Fur.

...and ConFurence has *NEVER* indicated that lifestylers are not
welcome... In fact, in the quote you grabbed at the beginning of this
thread, I was stating that both lifestylers and fans (which includes
those who consider themselves both) are present at ConFurence, and they
always will be:

Tim Gadd wrote:
>
> In March on ALF, Darrel Exline, co-chair and director of Confurence wrote:
>
> >ConFurence covers the fandom aspects of being furry... but you can't
> >have a social gathering without involving the lifestyle aspects. The
> >event is organized around the fandom, and the attendees create the
> >lifestyle.
> >
> >This is as it always has been, and will continue to be even under my
> >direction.
>

Kimba W. Lion

unread,
Apr 9, 2001, 2:56:35 PM4/9/01
to
AJL <grap...@ajlvideo.com> wrote:

>Wow, from rant to misquoting out of context in less than 60 minutes.

I see time is warped in the Exline POV as well...

>I am against people claiming that the
>lifestlye is the only thing about the fandom or that it's the only
>reason people go to the conventions.

And where exactly has this happened?

>I *am* against people actually fucking their pets, though. That's just
>wrong no matter how you try to spin it. If you are going to avoid
>ConFurence because of that, then good!

Nice debating technique there. To quote you, You're full of shit.

>And Foxwolfie Galen deserves to be slapped for CONTINUING to blab to the
>press about his plush-fucking fetish and making all of fandom look
>bad... then he cries to the masses on AFF that he doesn't want to give
>them permission to use his likeness anymore, or lying about the fact
>that he is turning the press requests down, when I KNOW that he is not.
>How do I know this? Because I am one of the people they try to contact
>for a counterpoint, that's why.

All you know is what the press have told you. After apparently having
established that the press is not to be trusted, I don't know why you trust
them on this matter.

>If you are going to avoid ConFurence because your paranoid little mind
>thinks that this convention has content or attendees that are any
>different than Anthrocon or Further Confusion

I don't see you running either Anthrocon or Further Confusion.

>...and your twisted out of context quotes are worse than the crap the VF
>article did.

Twisted? Pray tell how they got twisted during a simple cut and paste
operation. And what context would you prefer: all of your repeated
suggestions of illegal actions to take Vanity Fair magazines out of
circulation? Did you want me to include this comment you made to Foxwolfie:
>Cry all you want... you dug your own latrine, now shit in it.

The fact is, Mr. Exline, that ConFurence has been a major source of
anti-lifestyler crap through the years and your words, which are on public
display, any one who wants the full context is quite free to see for
themselves, are not doing one little thing to help its reputation. Your
public conduct is seriously disturbing, given your position of control.

Kimba

Kimba W. Lion

unread,
Apr 9, 2001, 2:56:59 PM4/9/01
to
"Ben_Raccoon" <Ben_R...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:

>Could those have been taken any more out of context? O.o

Let's hear your idea of the context then.

Kimba

Ben_Raccoon

unread,
Apr 10, 2001, 3:15:40 AM4/10/01
to
"Kimba W. Lion" <kimba...@aol.com> wrote

> Let's hear your idea of the context then.
>
> Kimba
>
>

Well, let's see. The 'you're full of shit' was a quick and rather pissy rant
about FWG constantly commenting that he was being misrepresented and turning
down reporters left and right. Yet, 'researchers from the Sally Jesse
Raphael show are looking for counterpoint guests to be on the show with
FoxWolfie' (more or less direct quote)

The suggestions for sneaking the VF magazines off the shelf and/or defacing
them was more a case of sarcastic humor than any direct attack on FoxWolfie.
It was made in the area of the thread regarding another angry ready letter.

Therefore, those two posts are completely unrelated, and the way you set
them up, out of context. Not only that, but they were in AFF, and IIRC, I've
seen regulars get rather peevish when topics from over there came over here.

"Darrel L. Exline" <dar...@confurence.net> wrote in message
news:3AD0D234...@confurence.net...
> DishRoom1 wrote:
> > OK, this make me angry..... after reading this post I just wrote an
upset
> > e-mail to Vanity Fair to defend true furridom agressively a while ago.
>
> And VF thinks "Kool, another angry reader... our circulation will go up!"
>
> > I suggest that there should be rallies for people to boycott buying
thier
> > magazines. There should also be demonstations outside the VF
headquarters with
> > signs like: "Furry is about comics, no kooky sex."
>
> How about if someone in every community went into their local supermarket
and
> defaced the Vanity Fair magazines on the shelf, or hid them between the
display
> cases where they won't be seen by shoppers... showing up only when the
stock-boy
> does his inventory? The store would return the unsold copies to the
publisher's
> distributors when the next months' issues come out to replace them, and
then
> make a smaller re-order the following month. oh wait... no... you can't
do
> that, because it would be illegal.

"AJL" <grap...@ajlvideo.com> wrote in message
news:3AD1E4EB...@ajlvideo.com...
> FoxWolfie Galen wrote:
> > I've been getting 5 to 10 emails a week from reporters requesting
> > interviews. Most of the requests seem to be from European countries or
for
> > appearing on TV. I've been telling them all that I'm not interested, if
I
>
> You are full of shit, Foxwolfie Galen.
>
> If you haven't been cooperating, then why did your interview with Fetish
> Magazine appear in the recent issue (I was shown the issue in question
> by a friend because they mentioned ConFurence)
>
> And why are researchers from the Sally Jesse Raphael show looking for
> counterpoint guests to be on the show with you?

Kimba W. Lion

unread,
Apr 9, 2001, 3:23:31 PM4/9/01
to
"Ben_Raccoon" <Ben_R...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:

>Well, let's see. The 'you're full of shit' was a quick and rather pissy rant

Wonderful conduct for the head of a con, no?

>Yet, 'researchers from the Sally Jesse
>Raphael show are looking for counterpoint guests to be on the show with
>FoxWolfie' (more or less direct quote)

A direct quote from Mr. Exline, no?

I suppose no one could imagine a scenario like, maybe
"we can't get Foxwolfie, but if we tell Exline we did, that'll change
Foxwolfie's mind"? Or has the press jumped from being untrustworthy to
trustworthy? Face it, you don't know the truth.

>The suggestions for sneaking the VF magazines off the shelf and/or defacing
>them was more a case of sarcastic humor than any direct attack on FoxWolfie.

Maybe once. Not when it's done repeatedly.

>Therefore, those two posts are completely unrelated

I didn't realize my style of quoting did not make that clear. Excuse me for
trying to look at a bigger picture than any one post.

>Not only that, but they were in AFF, and IIRC, I've
>seen regulars get rather peevish when topics from over there came over here.

If you're going to start thwacking people now, you'll never get home.

Kimba

Kimba W. Lion

unread,
Apr 9, 2001, 3:25:15 PM4/9/01
to
Kimba W. Lion <kimba...@aol.com> wrote:

>If you're going to start thwacking people now, you'll never get home.

That's a joke; a (possibly obscure) reference. I do that.

Kimba

AJL

unread,
Apr 9, 2001, 4:09:07 PM4/9/01
to
Tim Gadd wrote:
> >I am not against lifestyles... I am against people claiming that the
> >lifestlye is the only thing about the fandom or that it's the only
> >reason people go to the conventions.
>
> So why don't you have a rule that says 'People mustn't talk to the press
> about lifestyle issues in such a way as to suggest that they're the only
> reason that people go to cons' (despite the fact that they are the only
> reason a good many people go to cons: never let the truth get in the way of
> a good whinge), instead of stating that no-one's allowed to talk to any
> uninvited press about anything? Man, if I went to your conference, I'd find


Ok, here it is in a nutshell for those too brain-deprived to have
figured it out on their own:

When the press wants to do a story about furry lifestyles, they ONLY
want to make it include shock-value aspects to increase their readership
/ Audience. If they aren't looking for a lifestyle story, they may
still want to include it if it is mentioned, and then their story will
be turned into a shock-value one by the editor.

If the press wants to do a story about comic books, or japanese
animation, or mascot-style costuming, or make-up art techniques, then
they are mor than welcome to attend ConFurence. If they mention
lifestyles and fetishes, they're out.

THIS DOES NOT mean that I am against lifestyles. I only want to keep
the tabloid press out of the picture.

I spend every waking second when I am not at my day job working on the
business of The ConFurence Group (and, like now, I sometimes steal a few
minutes away from work, too). I have two cats who I love dearly (as
pets, not as sex objects!), I contribute over $1000 per year to the
Zoological Society of San Diego. I host furry meets and gatherings at
my apartment and around San Diego. I'm the only person in this fandom
who is the chair of TWO furry conventions (both ConFurence and
CritterConDiego) and am on the staff of a third one (ZonieCon). Every
single wall in my two-bedroom apartment is covered with Polar Bear
images or other furry art, or used to hold the two-tier hammock with all
my stuffed animals (mostly polar bears, none of which are "modified" or
ever will be). I operate ConFurence at a loss because I make enough
money to afford to do so, and it makes for an easier-going convention
atmosphere when it's overbudgeted instead of operating on a
shoestring... and you know what? I enjoy doing it.

... If that's not having a furry lifestyle, I don't know what is.

And if it sounds sometimes like I've gone off the deep end, its because
I have no fucking patience anymore for the twits who strive to slander
my name.

In the last Four months, I've lost my mother to a car wreck, a close
friend (McMoo) to cancer, and 80% of my investments are in tech stocks
so you know where they're sitting right now... And now I have to put up
with whining twits accusing me of being something I'm not, just because
they like to hear the sound of their own voice.

Yeah, nothing like a little stress to make someone lose their patience.

--Darrel.

AJL

unread,
Apr 9, 2001, 4:23:12 PM4/9/01
to
"Kimba W. Lion" wrote:
>
> AJL <grap...@ajlvideo.com> wrote:
>
> >Wow, from rant to misquoting out of context in less than 60 minutes.
>
> I see time is warped in the Exline POV as well...

Let's see... my Rant against Galen on A.F.F. was posted at 9:35am
Pacific Time, and your reply quoting a line out of context from that
rant was at 1:41pm Eastern Time (which is 10:41 Pacific)... that was
defintely less than 60 minutes.

You obviously have a really big hair up your ass making you want to lie
about me... or you simply don't pay attention and are living in a
hoplessly tiny bubble with rose-tinted glasses. Either way, your
opinion doesn't matter to me, other than to set things straight for the
other people who are reading this.

--Darrel.

Kimba W. Lion

unread,
Apr 9, 2001, 4:42:34 PM4/9/01
to

>In the last Four months, I've lost my mother to a car wreck, a close
>friend (McMoo) to cancer...

I will retreat to a neutral corner and hope you will accept my sincere
condolences on your tragic losses. That's an incredibly severe one-two
punch.

I realize you probably don't want any advice from me, but I hope there is
someone in your organization who can take on some of the stress of public
and press relations. It would do you good at a time like this.

Kimba

Relee

unread,
Apr 9, 2001, 4:52:31 PM4/9/01
to
AJL <grap...@ajlvideo.com> wrote:

>"Kimba W. Lion" wrote:

>You obviously have a really big hair up your ass making you want to lie
>about me... or you simply don't pay attention and are living in a
>hoplessly tiny bubble with rose-tinted glasses. Either way, your
>opinion doesn't matter to me, other than to set things straight for the
>other people who are reading this.

Would you mind not having this argument on ALF? I think perhaps you
posted it to the wrong newsgroup, or mixed up your emails.
--
Relee lacks the colours to decribe her imagination.
.
Homepage - www.geocities.com/fizbanus
ICQ - 26927574

Kimba W. Lion

unread,
Apr 9, 2001, 4:49:33 PM4/9/01
to
AJL <grap...@ajlvideo.com> wrote:

>Let's see... my Rant against Galen on A.F.F. was posted at 9:35am
>Pacific Time, and your reply quoting a line out of context from that
>rant was at 1:41pm Eastern Time (which is 10:41 Pacific)... that was
>defintely less than 60 minutes.

Actually it's 66 minutes, but my comment was based on the idea that the
"rant" you referred to was my own earlier post. My mistake.

Kimba

Rainbow 'Roo

unread,
Apr 9, 2001, 7:24:49 PM4/9/01
to

I recently attended a small get together at Darrel's place not but a
week or two ago. I arrived a bit late, due to his location being a
bit far from mine, but I'm a 'roo who's always happy to be around
other furs, when possible. I wore my not so little 'roo tail while I
was there, and a number of movies were watched, including The Last
Unicorn..a movie I had been wanting to see for a long time. Darrel
was a fine host, and I'm sure neither he nor anyone there had anything
against me because I was wearing a tail, roleplay a char that is a
different gender from my own, or other lifestyle aspects. His house
seemed quite 'furry', if he doesn't mind my saying so...much moreso
then my room, ..though I've only _just_ recently became involved in
furriness outside of mucking since October, so give me a bit of a
chance.. ^.^ It was a pleasure being there, as short as my stay was
unfortunately. True, Darrel may be a bit stern with his posts..but
I'm quite sure if you were to get to know him - you would consider him
a nice fur as well. I'm quite a lifestyler myself... I like to do
'rooish things, chrf in a silly fashion when I talk to my furry
friends on the phone. I have quite a few plushies who I love
platonically, though I have nothing against folks who like plushies in
other ways, mind you. I'm a bit of a shy one, so I was a bit
flustered for a little while at the gather...but other then that.. I
felt completely comfortable being around him and his friends and other
furs. Remember furs..we all have hearts behind the digital screen.
O=)
-Rainbow 'Roo

ICQ the 'roo!: 93127116

cat

unread,
Apr 9, 2001, 7:56:25 PM4/9/01
to
On Mon, 09 Apr 2001 20:09:07 GMT, AJL <grap...@ajlvideo.com> purred:


>When the press wants to do a story about furry lifestyles, they ONLY
>want to make it include shock-value aspects to increase their readership
>/ Audience. If they aren't looking for a lifestyle story, they may
>still want to include it if it is mentioned, and then their story will
>be turned into a shock-value one by the editor.
>
>If the press wants to do a story about comic books, or japanese
>animation, or mascot-style costuming, or make-up art techniques, then
>they are mor than welcome to attend ConFurence. If they mention
>lifestyles and fetishes, they're out.

All too often the "Press" (which once meant actually reporting
truth, not journalizing opinion) will twist anything to get a
sensational story. I saw an item in a Gannet owned paper telling of a
berserk student who shot 3 people. they did mention this was an off
duty cop, attending classes in law who defended himself against 3
individuals who were trying to kill him in revenge for his arrest of
one of their friends. The cop had a mandated and fully legal firearm,
the crooks where illegally armed. Self defense, right? the Police
oversight commission and internal affairs thought so (one of the
"victims" had recently been released after serving time for his 5th
attempted murder (criminal assault 1st degree) conviction and the
other 2 had only slightly less striking records) But that was not how
the paper saw it. cop defends self against crooks does not sell the
papers that student shoots 3 innocents does.
Let a company restructure in an attempt to stay in business
and the story will focus only on the 2 people who were laid off and
make it sound like hundreds have been victimized in the name of
profits.
Let someone state they have a close friend and the paper will
make it a romance.
Let someone speak on an unconventional religion and they will
be made into the new Jim Jones.
Simply, ANY story can, and all too often will, be used as a
sensational lead. all it takes is a couple of quotes out of context
and they're off. Heaven help any group is the media finds an extremist
or just odd member that can be made to look insane or dangerous and
they will be p[ainted as the return of Hitler, Jeffery Dahmer, and the
Marquis de Sade, all rolled into one.
When any interest that is not shared by the editors (and often
even those they do share) it will me mocked, sensationalized and
vitrified. I have seen the press paint as absurd or threatening, model
railroaders, car collectors, animal rescue crews, and (as we
constantly see) Internet users. there is no solution or protection.
the first amendment gives them the right to print what they choose,
without regard to the facts. If they want to do a job on furry fans,
they will do so, regardless of who they talk to or what is said. the
article is already written before the interview, all that the
interview does is give someone a chance to be misquoted or to stick
their foot in their mouth. Pro or anti lifestyle doesn't matter, all
that counts is to get the most sensational story to sell the most
papers/magazines or get the highest ratings. the truth matters not one
whit. Too bad, the truth can be far more entertaining and enlightening
than twisted opinions of the writer.

cat

Harry T. Bear

unread,
Apr 9, 2001, 8:40:48 PM4/9/01
to
In article <3AD21A31...@ajlvideo.com>, AJL <grap...@ajlvideo.com>
writes:

>Let's see... my Rant against Galen on A.F.F. was posted at 9:35am
>Pacific Time, and your reply quoting a line out of context from that
>rant was at 1:41pm Eastern Time (which is 10:41 Pacific)... that was
>defintely less than 60 minutes.

66 actually.

Since I don't visit the furry BBQ I didn't see your "Rant against Galen", but I
wonder why you would bother. Maybe because kicking someone vulnerable and
easily hurt around helps ease the pain perhaps? Or having someone "off the
reservation", as you seem to define it, requires sending in the cavalry to put
down such an outrageous violation of "the rules of good order"? No matter why
really, that's sad.

I really thought better of you Darrel. As I did in other areas -----

>You obviously have a really big hair up your ass making you want to lie
>about me...

The same might be said of the way you've been carrying on here about us:
Implications that Lifestylers are but a vile pack of animal abusers; they rape
their house pets.
Implications that Lifestylers have lots of plushies with holes in them to rape
between sessions with the house pets.

You say you aren't with the BFs, but you certainly are overly familiar with
their cant and rant, chapter and verse.

>...or you simply don't pay attention and are living in a


>hoplessly tiny bubble with rose-tinted glasses.

Better there than wherever you're living right now, alas. Darrel, you've told
us about what kind of hell you've been through lately, and having been through
much the same myself I understand the misery, but does that give you license to
come here and insult, defame and demean everyone the way you have? Kicking
potential friends around and seemingly trying to get them to _not_ attend your
Con is totally counterproductive. Unless that's the point, and if so then you
have succeeded at least a little bit

I always rather thought I was at least a bit of a friend, but now I see you
don't think so. I've never been to Burbank, and I guess that fact will remain
as it is.

>Either way, your opinion doesn't matter to me,---

A strange comment indeed, else why would you bother to make such a big thing of
it?

>-- other than to set things straight for the other people who are reading
this.

If so, you certainly have done that, but hardly in the way you think you have.

It was fun once upon a time; best of luck, be well - 'bye Darrel.

Harry Bear,
who certainly would not even _think_ of soiling CF with his disgusting
perverted presence.

"Fundamentally, the marksman aims at himself."
- Zen In The Art Of Archery

Darrel L. Exline

unread,
Apr 9, 2001, 9:27:26 PM4/9/01
to
"Harry T. Bear" wrote:
>
> In article <3AD21A31...@ajlvideo.com>, AJL <grap...@ajlvideo.com>
> writes:
>
> >Let's see... my Rant against Galen on A.F.F. was posted at 9:35am
> >Pacific Time, and your reply quoting a line out of context from that
> >rant was at 1:41pm Eastern Time (which is 10:41 Pacific)... that was
> >defintely less than 60 minutes.
>
> 66 actually.

Ok, so I did the math too quickly. I had cancelled that post right after I
wrote it, but it got out too fast...

> Since I don't visit the furry BBQ I didn't see your "Rant against Galen", but I
> wonder why you would bother.

That post (which on this mesasge area was quoted completely out of context) was
a direct reply to Foxwolfie Galen crying about how he doesn't want the press to
use his image anymore and how he turns them all down for interviews... but I
happen to know that last part is a lie because I have first-hand knowledge of
shows and magazine articles that he *did* grant interviews with... and so I
called him on it.

> The same might be said of the way you've been carrying on here about us:
> Implications that Lifestylers are but a vile pack of animal abusers; they rape
> their house pets.

I'm sorry... where did I say that? It certainly wasn't intended to be implied
in any of my posts... the one place where I mentioned it was to state that the
only thing I can't tolerate is people who boink their pets... I did not intend
to imply that lifestylers are in that category...

In fact, in that same message, I give examples of why I also consider myself to
have a furry lifestyle.

> You say you aren't with the BFs, but you certainly are overly familiar with
> their cant and rant, chapter and verse.

Conicidence? Or is it just a narrow interpretation of the facts that you choose
to see?

> Better there than wherever you're living right now, alas. Darrel, you've told
> us about what kind of hell you've been through lately, and having been through
> much the same myself I understand the misery, but does that give you license to
> come here and insult, defame and demean everyone the way you have? Kicking
> potential friends around and seemingly trying to get them to _not_ attend your
> Con is totally counterproductive. Unless that's the point, and if so then you
> have succeeded at least a little bit

No, but being attacked online, being the victim of character assasination
(intended or simply misguided rumor-mongering) is a DAMN good reason to step up
and speak out in my own defense! I didn't start this thread... I spoke up here
to put a stop to the lies.

> I always rather thought I was at least a bit of a friend, but now I see you
> don't think so. I've never been to Burbank, and I guess that fact will remain
> as it is.

I always considered you to be one of the sane ones. Why else would I let Nova
Magazine include you in their interview last year? Your hug E. Bear character
and your pamphlet on giving hugs has done more for helping people understand and
live with lifestylers than anything else has... Hug E. Bear has been a valuable
addition to the social aspects of ConFurence... which I stated are
lifestlye-based.

The Panels and structure of a convention are about the fandom, the social
aspects of being at the con represent the lifestyle. The two are separate
concepts, but are tightly linked... symbiotic in a lot of respects.

> >-- other than to set things straight for the other people who are reading
> this.
>
> If so, you certainly have done that, but hardly in the way you think you have.

Again, you definitely misunderstood the point, and have completely
misinterpreted my intentions.

You are certainly welcome to attend CF12 if you wish...

[You may hug me]

--
Darrel L. Exline -- Director, "The ConFurence Group"
http://confurence.net dar...@confurence.net
The ConFurence Group, PO Box 84721, San Diego, CA 92138-4721
619-523-9814 (Voice/Fax)
! ConFurence 12: April 19 to April 22, 2001, Burbank Hilton !
! Pre-registration form: http://confurence.net/pre-reg.pdf !

Allen Kitchen

unread,
Apr 9, 2001, 10:44:33 PM4/9/01
to

AJL <grap...@ajlvideo.com> wrote in message
news:3AD216E3...@ajlvideo.com...

> Tim Gadd wrote:
> Ok, here it is in a nutshell for those too brain-deprived to have
> figured it out on their own:

Both of you!! If you cannot speak civilly and within the charter of this
newsgroup,
take your little slapfest to email. I'm too tired and too pissed off to
deal with either
of your crap tonight so take it outside.

Allen Kitchen (shockwave, tired old greymuzzle.)


Wabbit Californicus

unread,
Apr 9, 2001, 11:00:37 PM4/9/01
to
Darryl: for someone who has stated that he has distanced himself from the
BF's, you sure do sound like a booster to me.

I attended the convention last year, and was very dissapointed by it -- and
that's allowing for the goof ups that happen with *any* change in
directorships. I'm not going, but not because I'm afraid of any attendee's
opinion of me or my lifestyle. I'm not interested in being bored for three
days strait. By the same token, I *do* like to protect myself from overt
hostility when I can -- The 3 overtly anti-lifestyle venders didn't help,
nor did the almost-hysterical vender-room security person (the short one
with the long hair).

We didn't assume that this was a lifestyle-only con, which was refreshing;
but by the same token, we don't expect to spend good money to have our
lifestyle assailed by vendors and other attendees.

May I suggest that you take a hard look at your stance; furhaps that would
explain to you why your attendance is bleeding rapidly away to FC and AC.

--
Wabbit Californicus, supporting the right to arm bears
#3 and proud of it! ICQ: 110459319
http://www.chameleon.net/wabbit/index.html
fur code:FLHhs3sw A- C D++ H+++ M- P++ R T++ W- Z Sf+++ RLAT a+ cdn++++ d?
e+ f+
h+++ iwf+ j p++ sf+++ (v 1.3)
yiff code 2.5: F bi P 7 Z *Dogs * 7 T *all_ * 7 S 7 V *all_ * 8 H 8 WIXXX Do
Lc
Rl Sm Sw Vy Lr Mg Rm Tn Av Cd Ex Op Sp Te

Wabbit Californicus

unread,
Apr 9, 2001, 11:11:37 PM4/9/01
to
> Darrel L. Exline, Director, The ConFurence Group <grap...@ajlvideo.com>
wrote:

> >You are full of shit, Foxwolfie Galen.
> "Darrel L. Exline" <dar...@confurence.net> wrote:

> >How about if someone in every community went into their local supermarket
and
> >defaced the Vanity Fair magazines on the shelf, or hid them between the
display
> >cases where they won't be seen by shoppers... showing up only when the
stock-boy
> >does his inventory?


Ok, granted -- we all have differing opinions on the VF article, some good
and some bad. But deliberately attacking Foxwolfie is against the ALF FAQ
and Charter -- both here and in this paragraph, also supplied by Darryl:

And Foxwolfie Galen deserves to be slapped for CONTINUING to blab to the
press about his plush-fucking fetish and making all of fandom look
bad... then he cries to the masses on AFF that he doesn't want to give
them permission to use his likeness anymore, or lying about the fact
that he is turning the press requests down, when I KNOW that he is not.
How do I know this? Because I am one of the people they try to contact
for a counterpoint, that's why.


This should not have been posted to ALF -- stating that physical violence of
*any* kind towards Foxwolfie is against the charter. You do have every
right to hold your own opinions on his behaviors towards the press -- if you
wish to be angry about it, so be it. But please refrain from further
postings of violence of any kind towards Foxwolfie.

Posting an urging of violence of any kind towards anyone is a violation of
state and federal law.

Besides, to the best of anyone (elses) knowledge (especially mine, as I talk
with this fur regularly), he *has* refused further communications with the
press, and regrets having talked with VF to begin with, as they twisted his
words out of proportion.

Furhaps the press merely contacts you for counterpoint because they are
merely trying to get quotes from ANYone -- any good reporter chases down
every lead he or she can.

Wabbit Californicus

unread,
Apr 9, 2001, 11:35:46 PM4/9/01
to
I will let Harry Bear thrash and hash out the rest of the arguments here, as
I and others have stated their (and my) case quite clearly.

I just wanted to point out here that Harry Bear and Hugg E. Bear are two
entirely different fursons -- both of whom are good fursons to have on your
side.

Darryl, furhaps a rest for yourself would be in order -- you have quite a
few things on your plate to take care of as it is...

Darrel L. Exline

unread,
Apr 10, 2001, 12:08:03 AM4/10/01
to
Wabbit Californicus wrote:
> This should not have been posted to ALF -- stating that physical violence of
> *any* kind towards Foxwolfie is against the charter. You do have every
> right to hold your own opinions on his behaviors towards the press -- if you
> wish to be angry about it, so be it. But please refrain from further
> postings of violence of any kind towards Foxwolfie.

I was referring to a verbal (written in this case), not a physical slap. And as
long as poeple twist my words, on this newsgroup or any other, I will reply to
defend myself.

I was not threatening physical violence.

And I did *not* post the first (highly out-of-context) quote that you referenced
above on this newsgroup. Kimba W. Lion brought them over here.

Baloo Ursidae

unread,
Apr 9, 2001, 11:45:39 PM4/9/01
to
Ben_Raccoon <Ben_R...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:

> Therefore, those two posts are completely unrelated, and the way you set
> them up, out of context. Not only that, but they were in AFF, and IIRC, I've
> seen regulars get rather peevish when topics from over there came over here.

Yes, we do, so go toss this back into AFF where it belongs.

--
Baloo

Baloo Ursidae

unread,
Apr 9, 2001, 11:42:22 PM4/9/01
to
Kimba W. Lion <kimba...@www.com> wrote:

> Sarcasm tags wouldn't be sufficient; I retract my former statement.

Cancels or supercedes work well for changing your mind.

--
Baloo

Ben_Raccoon

unread,
Apr 10, 2001, 2:38:05 PM4/10/01
to
"Kimba W. Lion" <kimba...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Wonderful conduct for the head of a con, no?

Would you blame him for being stressed?

> >Yet, 'researchers from the Sally Jesse
> >Raphael show are looking for counterpoint guests to be on the show with
> >FoxWolfie' (more or less direct quote)
>
> A direct quote from Mr. Exline, no?

Yeah.

> I suppose no one could imagine a scenario like, maybe
> "we can't get Foxwolfie, but if we tell Exline we did, that'll change
> Foxwolfie's mind"? Or has the press jumped from being untrustworthy to
> trustworthy? Face it, you don't know the truth.

That sounds like a fairly unlikely scenario.

> Maybe once. Not when it's done repeatedly.

Or maybe he's trying for the whole subliminal message deal.

> I didn't realize my style of quoting did not make that clear. Excuse me
for
> trying to look at a bigger picture than any one post.

I understand that. However, you also didn't make it clear that the quotes
were almost completely unrelated. And were still out of context.

> If you're going to start thwacking people now, you'll never get home.

You're right, it is an obscure joke. (headscratches?)

Kimba W. Lion

unread,
Apr 10, 2001, 7:56:53 AM4/10/01
to
Baloo Ursidae <ba...@ursine.dyndns.org> wrote:

You're wrong, at least as far as the majority of news servers are
concerned. Cancels are useless these days. So are supercedes.
You can't even nuke anything out of existence at the present time.

Besides, after 5 years and many thousands of posts, I think I know what I'm
doing.

Kimba

Kimba W. Lion

unread,
Apr 10, 2001, 9:54:33 AM4/10/01
to
"Ben_Raccoon" <Ben_R...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:

>"Kimba W. Lion" <kimba...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> Wonderful conduct for the head of a con, no?
>
>Would you blame him for being stressed?

In the context of what I said to Mr. Exline before you made your post, your
question has been answered.

>> I suppose no one could imagine a scenario like, maybe
>> "we can't get Foxwolfie, but if we tell Exline we did, that'll change
>> Foxwolfie's mind"? Or has the press jumped from being untrustworthy to
>> trustworthy? Face it, you don't know the truth.
>
>That sounds like a fairly unlikely scenario.

I know. The press are only untrustworthy when it's convenient for them to
be considered so.

Kimba

Harry T. Bear

unread,
Apr 10, 2001, 7:47:00 PM4/10/01
to
In article <9atv5m$m6v$1...@raccoon.fur.com>, "Wabbit Californicus"
<wab...@jps.net> writes:

>I will let Harry Bear thrash and hash out the rest of the arguments here, as
>I and others have stated their (and my) case quite clearly.

Well I'll _try_. Alas, my pathetic news server has supplied only this
(Wabbit's) response to the original post. No original, no other responses,
zilch. :(

>I just wanted to point out here that Harry Bear and Hugg E. Bear are two
>entirely different fursons -- both of whom are good fursons to have on your
>side.

Why thank you, but Hugg E. Bear is a whole lot cooler and a whole lot better
looking than I am.

>Darryl, furhaps a rest for yourself would be in order -- you have quite a
>few things on your plate to take care of as it is...

Indeed he does. I'll get a copy of his original post, and then respond to it
in email. This matter has gone far enough ongroup, and we've all had way too
much ugly stuff lately anyway.

Harry Bear,
who gets all the troll scat but too little of the good stuff.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages